Mandy

Welcome again to my entry for the Mystery Topic Challenge. For those of you who haven’t been by the Blog Ninjas, or MTC site, go check it out. There are a some very good bloggers who participate in both of those sites. Once again, it is time for a Mystery Topic Challenge. This challenge is:

We all have things we’ve never revealed about ourselves on our blog, things our readers wouldn’t know about us but might be interested to know as it gives them a better insight into who we are. Here’s your chance!

Tell us about something that you’ve never written about on your blog before.

This was a tough one to do for me. I racked my brain for some insight that you might be interested in that could also help explain my views on this site. Some tidbit of information that would give you a great “Aha!” moment the next time you read my thoughts on freedom, taxes, and the President. I was really at a loss on how to answer this challenge, so I did what I always do when I am out of ideas, I clear my mind, and I picture…

…a bar. At first the bar looks like any other bar you might stumble into. When you first walk in, you hear the constant and shifting hum of a number of conversations all happening at the same time. Some of the languages you recognize, some you would swear you have never heard before. Glasses clink as the bartender hands out more refreshments, and a light melody is playing near the stage at the front of the bar. A spot light is on the lone microphone. You’re in luck! It looks like its karaoke night!

The crowd grows quiet. A man has broken himself from the crowd and approaches the stage. You can feel the excitement pick up a beat or two. This is a rare treat! This particular guy is always in the bar, but rarely ever graces the stage. From behind you, you hear the rustle of the owner of the bar as he gets more attentive. Two people sitting near the front start to sweat. They know this tall, dark, brooding guy in a dark trench coat doesn’t want to be on the stage. But someone’s life depends on this song. Slowly the man, a very dangerous looking man, approaches the microphone. The vampire (because that is what the man is) starts off very tentatively, “I remember all my life, raining down as cold as ice…” Those in the bar (human and demon alike) who haven’t heard Angel sing before are sorely disappointed. As the song continues, and the music ramps up (“…I never realized how happy you made me, oh Mandy…”), Lorne, approaches the bar. The owner (demon?) addresses the crowd and gets Angel off the stage. Now that Lorne has seen Angel sing, he can tell Angel the information he needs…

For those of you who don’t recognize it, this is a scene from Angel. Not just any scene, but a scene where the hero (a centuries old vampire with a soul) has to reveal himself to a crowd in order to get some information to save a life. He does it by singing his favorite song.

I am a big Joss Whedon fan (creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, and Serenity). I am also a pretty big David Boreanaz fan (who can currently be seen in Bones), and I like the music of Barry Manilow (I really have no idea what he is up to now).

Sometimes we need to have a minute or two to ourselves to clear our heads, or to hear the tuning fork that guides our lives. Whenever that happens, I go to You Tube and do a search for “Angel sings Mandy”. It always helps me.

Now that I have entered my submission, and need a good place to hide for some time, go see all of the submissions at the Mystery Topic Challenge blog. Vote on your favorite, and then cruise around the site to see what other great bloggers are hanging out there. There are links below for each of the contestants in this challenge. Enjoy.

Jayne d'Arcy


MooPig


Andy D

Habeas Corpus (Part Two)

In my last post, I began describing potential consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumedine v. Bush. This is the case where the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants held on foreign soil are guaranteed habeas corpus rights. These same rights are denied to military service members and illegal immigrants. Today, I wish to illustrate two more problems with this decision, or unintended consequences and I wish to offer my humble solutions to fix this decision.

I spent some time in my last post talking about the precedent of the Supreme Court. Previous courts have held that the writ of habeas corpus doesn’t apply to enemy combatants captured in a time of war. This court has disregarded precedent of previous Supreme Courts, and its own decision in 2006. If the court is willing to throw out precedent, does this open the way to a Roe v. Wade challenge? The only reason most people give to leave that decision alone is because it has become law of the land, and is now legal precedent. The Supreme Court has shown it is willing to ignore precedent and Roe v. Wade defenders should be worried.

This decision also infringes on the constitutional separation of powers. Our system is designed to give the other branches of government the ability to reign in a branch that abuses its powers. The President created a system for dealing with enemy combatants, the Supreme Court said that system was wrong and needed to be fixed with the help of Congress. The President worked with Congress and Congress passed laws on how prisoners would have their cases reviewed at Guantanamo. The two branches of government elected by the people worked together to find a solution. This doesn’t sound like the rouge actions of one branch. The Supreme Court has decided that it can rule the other branches of government wrong. Five un-elected justices decided they could determine war time policy better than the elected representatives of the people.

How do we fix this? Believe it or not, there are a number of ways. Here are my solutions, from band aid fix to serious fix. The more deliberate the solution, the harder it would be. My first solution is the easiest to do. Congress can now pass laws that detail how court proceedings for foreign combatants are to be carried out. For example, Congress could say that in cases involving enemy combatants, the combatant has no right to review classified information or to interview the soldiers that captured them.

Secondly, Congress could legislate what court (or courts) might have jurisdiction over trials involving enemy combatants challenging their designation. If only one or two courts had jurisdiction, only a handful of judges would need to be trained on dealing with military cases in time of war. Perhaps Congress would decide that these cases can only be tried by FISA courts.

Finally, and my personal favorite, Congress has the ability to change the number of Supreme Court justices. The U. S. Constitution does not spell out the size of the Supreme Court. We have nine justices now, we have had ten in the past, and the original court was set up with six. Congress could pass the Judicial Reconciliation Act of 2008 (named by me) and double the size of the court. 18 justices cuts the amount of power any one judge wields in half. This would be tough to do (it would literally require an act of congress) but would send a clear message to the court, and would reign in some of the more “activist” members.

Like Roe v. Wade, in the court has imposed its own views of how the law should be written, and not how it actually is written. The Supreme Courts job isn’t to create new rights. The Supreme Court is to rule on standing laws. The Supreme Court failed last week. I hope Congress and the President can clean up the courts mess.

Habeas Corpus (Part One)

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants held at the U. S. base at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their status in Federal court. The 5 – 4 decision has been hotly debated. The decision of Boumedine v. Bush grants writ of habeas corpus to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in a time of war. These combatants are not U. S. citizens and most have never set foot in the United States. The decision also ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional. This is largely being reported as a defeat for President Bush. I believe it is much more ominous than that, and you might not realize why.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, and this decision is no different. In order to understand the future problems with this decision, we need to examine its past. After 9/11, the Justice Department believed the Supreme Court would stand by precedent and not apply constitutional rights to enemy combatants held outside the United States in a time of war. Turns out, the Supreme Court isn’t really worried about precedent. Remeber this, we're going to revisit it later.

In the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, the Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals set up by President Bush were not in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. However, the court also ruled that if the President wanted to proceed with trials in Guantanamo Bay, the President should get Congress to pass laws with direction for how the cases are going to be handled. This is exactly what Congress did.

As John Yoo wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “[u]ntil Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the U. S. to use our courts to challenge his detention.” He goes on to say:

In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U. S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S.

What does this decision mean? Being a fan of the "Law of Unintended Consequences", I thought I would speculate on some of the possible outcomes of this decision. One outcome I have heard debated in a number of sources is: What do U. S. forces do with people captured on the battlefield? Many believe the U. S. Military is now going to have to collect evidence, and mirandize enemy combatants. Imagine this, a soldier is fighting for his life, bullets are flying, and he see’s someone come around the corner with a Soviet RPG. Does he have to read this person their Miranda rights before deciding to fire or not?

Others believe our forces will simply not capture terrorist on the battlefield. They argue it will be more effective to simply kill the bad-guys where they find them. I don’t think this is very accurate. Our soldiers are warriors and have behaved honorably in combat. I believe it is much more likely that they will simply turn any captured enemy combatants over to the police and secret police of the country they are in. If we capture an Iranian officer in Iraq, we turn him over to the Iraqi Army and ask to sit in on the interrogation. If this happens, does the combatant receive better treatment in Iraq than he would have received in G’itmo?

What if we capture Osama bin Laden? Sen. Obama has said he believes that the terrorist should stand trial. For those of you old enough to remember the O.J. trials, imagine a similar fiasco with the mastermind of 9/11 at its center. Do you believe the bin Laden fortune and the money of the clerics in Saudi Arabia can afford a good attorney? Democrats and Liberals are always big on our international image. Imagine how we look if Osama is found not guilty in one of our own courts. Perhaps he could even stand trial in a court in New York.

I will leave you with that mental picture until tomorrow. Come back tomorrow for a few more problems with this decision, and my humble recommendations for how to fix it.

Quick Notes – Great President, Drill Here, and the Political Machine

It has been about three weeks since the last issue of "Quick Notes". A lot has happened in that time, and there is a lot happening today. Without further ado, here are your Quick Notes:

"W" the Great President. Ann Coulter wrote a very strong defense of President Bush last week. She argues that future generations will look at President George W. Bush as a Great President. Her best reason: no attack on U. S. soil from Al-Queda since Sept. 11^th. As Ms. Coulter points out, how many people would have thought on Sept. 12^th that we could go seven years without another attack from Al-Q here? I remember quite clearly people on TV and around the water cooler saying that it wasn't a question of if, but only a question of when. Everyone was certain we would be hit again, and many thought it would be a matter of days, perhaps a month. Instead, we are in 2008, and still no Al-Q attack here.

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. American Solutions is running an online petition to get Congress to allow more oil exploration in the United States. I don't believe any serious effort can be made to reduce oil and gas prices without more domestic exploration. As of this writing, the petition is at 1,034,451 signatures. Their original goal was 1,000,000 signatures. Having passed that, they are shooting for 4,000,000. Go sign the petition, and get your bumper sticker.

Political Machine. I want to end this Quick Notes with something fun. Stardock software has created a game called "Political Machine". In the game you select a candidate for President and run their campaign. The 2004 version was very detailed and considered one of the best political simulators available. I tried the 2004 version once and had to have the newest one. The game is cheap ($19.95) and is very well done. You can choose from an existing candidate (like Obama or McCain) or create your own (maybe Rush Limbaugh for President). If you are a political junkie, you will love this game.

Book Review: Moment of Truth in Iraq

Michael Yon is perhaps the most respected reporter in Iraq. He is a former Green Beret so he knows what it is to be a soldier, and knows how soldiers think. He has also been embedded with troops in Iraq more than any other reporter, so he also knows what it is like to be a journalist in a war zone. Anyone who wants an honest and accurate assessment of the War in Iraq must read his book Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope

Michael Yon has become famous for his blog posts and dispatches from the front lines of Iraq. In this book, he draws on some of his dispatches and photos and adds to it a comparison of how Iraq looked when he first embedded with troops versus his most recent "deployment". Far from being a cheerleader for the Bush administration, Mr. Yon points out many of our errors in the early phases of the war. He notes that if Al-Queda had made more of a few of our mistakes, we would have had no chance to win the war. Mr. Yon doesn't subscribe to the view of today's left wing either. He points out that we have come far, and are winning the war now. It isn't won, but it can be.

Michael Yon is obviously a fan of today's soldier. However, he doesn't allow that to cloud his judgment. He notes the failures and successes of our troops, their commanders, and their Iraqi counterparts. Anyone reading this book with a preconceived notion of how the Iraq war has gone is likely to have their beliefs called into question. I was no exception. As much as I believe we went to war for very valid reasons, and that we have tried to do our best, I cannot escape the fact that we have made great mistakes in Iraq. Anyone who doesn't question their views on Iraq after reading this book hasn't really paid attention to the book.

At some time in the future, the War in Iraq will be taught in history classes. We are at the point where we can make that story a success or a failure, the choice is ours. Whatever we decide, future generations will start their study of the war with Moment of Truth in Iraq.

Democrats and Oil Just Don't Mix.

It would be hard for anyone alive not to know that gas prices are at an all time high. I would bet a gallon of gas that gas prices are going to factor big in the election this year. Everyone running for election or re-election this year is going to have to address the price of oil.

So, what do we do about the price of gas? To solve any problem, we must first find what may be the cause or causes of said problem. If the Republicans have any brains, they will make the argument that gas prices are directly the result of a Democratic Congress. Don't believe me? Sit back and prepare to be dazzled.

I did a little homework (something most members of Congress and the Senate fail to do). The price of a gallon of gas on January 22, 2001 was $1.46 per gallon. On June 9th, 2008, the price of a gallon of gas is $3.98. Today, most people are placing the average price of gas around $4.00 or $4.05 per gallon. It would be easy to look at this and say, "Well, we have two oil men in the White House, it must be their fault!" Of course, one would think that oil men would understand perfectly well how oil prices work. But lets dig a little deeper (no oil pun intended).

Over the course of the Bush Administration, the price has gone up 63% over seven years! That translates into 9% per year! Before my Democratic fans get outraged, I have more numbers to share. The price of gas on January 23, 2006 was $2.31 per gallon. That translates into an increase of $1.67 since Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Reid, and the Democratic Congress took over. Again, on a per year basis, Pelosi and Reid can claim credit for a 21% increase per year in gas prices! And, worse still, if we give Bush credit for all the gas increase before the Democratic Congress, he gets 86 cents over 5 years. I think Pelosi and Reid still win.

Some of you out there might think I am skewing numbers to my own benefit. Let me end with a question based on what the Democrats want to do, and what most Republicans want to do.

Question 1 (Democratic Plan). Many Democrats are in favor of a "wind fall profit tax" on oil companies. What do you think this would do to the price of a gallon of gas?

Question 2 (Republican Plan). Most Republicans are in favor of domestic drilling. If Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Clinton had a press conference tomorrow and said they would remove all obstacles to domestic exploration of oil, what do you think would happen to the price of a gallon of gas?

Baby Survives Abortion

Sometimes Life will survive no matter what man does. Some things are just meant to be. If God wants something to happen, it will happen. You probably agree with at least one of those statements. A recent story proves these points.

Jodie Percival and her fiancée got pregnant last year. This was Mrs. Percival's second pregnancy. Her first ended in the death of the baby 20 minutes after it was born. Their first son, Thane, died because of a genetic condition which caused cysts to grow on his kidneys. Mrs. Percival was on the pill because she did not want a second pregnancy. When she got pregnant anyway, her fiancée and she decided they couldn't deal with the loss of a second child, so Mrs. Percival decided to have an abortion.

She had the procedure performed when she was eight weeks pregnant. However, at nineteen weeks, she felt a flutter in her stomach and went to the doctor. She was then informed that her baby was still alive. She says that she was angry at first. She had decided to have the abortion performed and she felt the hospital had let her down. The hospital apologized, but said that in very rare cases, a baby terminated at eight weeks can survive the procedure.

Her second son, Lewis, was born in November, and has only one functioning kidney. He was born with the same condition that killed his brother, and that Mrs. Percival was afraid he might get. However, Lewis apparently decided that if he was going to survive the pill and an attempted abortion, he wasn't going to let a little thing like a kidney problem stop him. As of the news stories that broke this week, both Lewis and his mom are doing fine.

Doctors say that Lewis will require an operation, but that he should be able to lead a normal life. Whether you believe in God, Karma, or just nature, it would seem that some times, man doesn't know best.

No More Funding for Planned Parenthood

Michelle Malkin has an article today about Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (commonly referred to as simply Planned Parenthood) has a number of roles in today's world. They are most widely known for their defense of abortion rights. In Michelle's article today, she, "…turns the spotlight on the nefarious business practices of the government-funded, billion-dollar Planned Parenthood empire." Michelle argues that if Congress is going to interrogate the practices of other industries like oil, tobacco, banking, (and I would add baseball), when are they going to look at Planned Parenthood?

Before reading the article, I had no idea that Planned Parenthood received taxpayer funding. Michelle has looked at the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and found they, "… had a total income of $1.02 billion – with reported profits of nearly $115 million,"{emphasis mine}. One third of the entire budget for Planned Parenthood is provided in the form of State and Federal grants and contracts. That is $336 million of taxpayer funds going to a group that encourages and helps provide abortions.

Michelle's article is very disturbing in its implications. Why are taxpayer funds being used to fund abortions? Why at this level? After reading Michelle's article, I wondered why Planned Parenthood was getting one red cent of tax payer money? According to the Planned Parenthood website, the group pursues a number of activities. Those activities include: providing reproductive healthcare for men, women, and teens (with affordable products according to the website); providing "honest sexuality and relationship information in the classroom" for "young people"; and "leading the reproductive health and rights movement". The last activity is a very nice way of saying "fighting for abortions".

Many Americans disagree with Planned Parenthoods take on these issues, and disagree with their means. Should those Americans be forced to help fund Planned Parenthood? Shouldn't Planned Parenthood justify their need for hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money when they have a total income of over one billion dollars with over a million dollars in profits? They claim on their site that more than 400 celebrities volunteer with different Planned Parenthood boards. Perhaps that is a better source of funding than tax money.

Michelle Malkins article today covers some of the horror stories associated with Planned Parenthood. Some of them are very tragic. If Planned Parenthood believes in abortion rights and wishes to defend them, more power to them. I don't think the tax payers should be providing them with $300 + million to do it with.

Quick Notes - Political Friends Turns 200

This post is the 200^th post on this site. I feel the website, my readers, and I have come a long way over the last 199 posts. I created this blog with the intent to provide a spot that people could discuss politics and solutions without the conversation breaking down into name calling. For the most part, I feel that I have done that. Some of the comments on my posts have taken the discussion in directions I never thought of. With all of this in mind, I present to you a "lessons learned from 199 posts" done in the Quick Notes format.

Global Warming. I never stop being amazed at how heated some of the comments are when I talk about global warming. I saw Charles Krauthammer on Fox News this week call himself an "agnostic on global warming". I think I am probably closer to a "global warming atheist", but I like his term for it. Anytime I write about global warming, I am guaranteed to get some very heated and passionate comments.

Obama. More recently, I have gotten some very passionate responses when I write about Obama. Obama appears to be the Democratic nominee, so I will probably be writing about him a lot between now and November.

Book Reviews. Some of the controls I have plugged into this site give me a lot of feedback. For example, I can see how many people are on my site in a given day, how long the average reader is here, and what sites they are coming from. What has surprised me is that my most heavily read posts are Book Reviews. I am glad, because I really enjoy writing about them, but I need to figure out a way to get more people to comment on them. My most heavily read post on this site is my book review of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.

Your Comments. I have also learned to be very thankful for my readers comments. You never really know when you write something what people are going to think about it. Some of the posts I have made in here I expected lots of comments on and got none. Others, I didn't expect any comments from, and got more than I could handle. So I am always excited to see what my readers think of each of my posts.

Thanks for the continued support. Now, let's go do another 200.

Book Review: Strategery

Rarely do you pick up a book that has quotes on the back by Rush Limbaugh, James Carvel, and Brit Hume. For Rush Limbaugh and James Carvel to agree on the same thing means one of two things. Either (a) there is a coming apocalypse, or (b) they are telling the truth. All three of the men on the back of this book were impressed with Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media by Bill Sammon.

Strategery is the third in Sammon's series of books on President George W. Bush. I haven't read the other two, but liked this one enough that I have already bought one of the others, will probably read the missing one, and I am hoping there is a forth one.

Strategery is an inside look at George Bush's Presidency during the re-election campaign against John Kerry in 2004, and his presidency in 2005. While doing research for this review, I found numerous sources that say something along the lines of ,"No other journalist has interviewed President Bush more." This shows through in the book. During each significant event, Mr. Sammon tells us what President Bush and his staff were thinking in their own words. He covers an assault on Karl Rove's house by protestors, "memogate", the Swift Boat Veterans attacks on Kerry, Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq War, and other challenges Bush faced during this time period.

I really enjoyed the historical perspective Mr. Sammon puts on these recent event. For example, few of us remember the sequence of events after Hurricane Katrina made landfall. Could there have been a better response to the Hurricane? Definitely. Was it President Bush's fault that the devastation of New Orleans reached the level it did? No.

It was also interesting reading this book with the current Presidential campaigns underway. I was reminded that some of the items that became "issues" during the 2004 election were not of the candidates choosing. It made me wonder what we might see this season.

While I don't agree with everything President Bush has done, I do believe future generations will judge is Presidency favorably. Will it be the greatest? Probably not. Will it be the worse? No. However Strategery gives us a good point to begin a real and honest assessment of Bush's presidency.

My Interview, Part II

This is a continuation of an interview by me, of me. I started this interview as a way to answer some questions that have been posed to me from a number of posts. It didn't feel appropriate to answer them then, so I decided to create a time to answer them. My interview series is that creation. I hope you enjoy…

We took a small break while Andy grabbed us fresh coffee. I learned that one of Andy's vices is an addiction to coffee. Who knew?

Interviewer: Let's break from definitions for a few minutes. One of your readers asked, "The underprivileged and minorities have the right to be outraged by a political system that doesn't truly represent them since the majority of elected officials are privileged wealthy white men." Would you agree with this?

Andy: I don't think so. Where I live, I have a wealthy (compared to me) black man who is my representative in the U.S. Congress. He doesn't represent my views not because he is black, but because he is a Blue Dog Democrat. I don't think a person has to be from my same background to represent me. That would be a bit of a narrow viewpoint. I believe it is racist to think a Black man can't represent me. Similarly, I think it is racist to think a white man can't represent underprivileged people or minorities. An elected official has to try to view issues from his constituent's viewpoints. I think many do a good job of it, and some don't. I don't think it has anything to do with what race the representative is.

Interviewer: So you don't think minorities should be upset with their representation in government?

Andy: Look at the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a woman, a black man, a Jewish man, and the son of an Italian immigrant in addition to the white men on the court. I think that is a diverse group of people. Our current presidential front runners are a white woman, a black man, and an older white man. While there are a lot of well off white people in government, if we were ruled by elite white men, surely John Edwards would be well on his way to the presidency. Instead, he bowed out some time ago.

Interviewer: Another question we received for you surrounded Rev. Wright…

Andy: Uh-oh.

Interviewer: What do you mean by that?

Andy: I am starting to look at him the same way Obama does, he is becoming more and more trouble for me. Many of Obama's supporters can't stand the fact that Obama might have someone around him that has some very bad ideas. If the Ayers family gets much more coverage, those Obama supporters might really be upset.

Interviewer: Well, I leave the discussions surrounding those three to you. Anyway, the question was about Rev. Wright, and the reader wrote, "A wise person is not an infallible person…

Andy: … I would agree with that…

Interviewer: …Should you castigate a trusted advisor because you disagree with them on one or more key points? " The reader pointed to examples of Rev. Wright encouraging his congregation to get tested for AIDS and wanted to know if you thought the congregation should dismiss this advice out of hand because of Rev. Wrights more controversial remarks.

Andy: The short answer is no, you don't throw an advisor under the bus simply because you disagree with them on a point. I think most people, and the reader who asked this question, would agree with me on this point. But this begs to other questions: Since Obama threw Wright under the bus, was he a trusted advisor? And secondly, should Wrights congregation ignore this advice.

Interviewer: What are your thoughts on those questions?

Andy: Well, to the first, I take Obama at his word on this point. Obama had noted numerous times how important Wright was to him. He called him his mentor; he was the individual that brought Obama to the Christian faith. Wright was definitely important to Obama. But I think Obama threw Wright out because it was the political thing to do. Obama is a politician first and foremost, no matter how much he would like to be perceived as above politics.

Secondly, I think Wrights flock considers him a trusted advisor. I also think many of them would agree with Wright's "controversial remarks" as you called them. Because of that, they would see no reason from Wright to avoid getting tested.

And on that note, we will end this portion of the interview. There are still more questions to answer, so look for another installment of the interview. Feel free to throw any other questions you would like to see answered in as well.

Quick Notes -- Issues for November

Don't worry; another segment of my interview will be coming up soon. Between now and then, I wanted to hit on what I think the issues in November are likely to be. It is still too early to tell which of the three candidates are going to be our next President. However, if we can guess what issues are being discussed in November, we might get some insight towards who might be ahead right now, no matter what the polls tells us.

Iraq and the War on Terror. This is McCain's number one issue. It is also the number one issue for a significant number of voters on both sides of the aisle. We have had a number of victories in Iraq and Afghanistan on the military and the political fronts. If this keeps up, McCain may be able to hang his hat on that. If there is another terrorist strike in the U.S., there is no telling what the voters will do. On the other hand, if things in Iraq take a nose dive for a few months during the summer, Obama or Clinton may be able to use the War in Iraq as their number one issue.

The Economy. No matter what you think about our current economy, you can bet candidates from both parties will be talking about it. If the Republicans can do a good job talking about the negatives of ethanol, and the need for more oil production here in the United States, this could be a good issue for Republicans. However, they have to couple it with real answers, and it will be a tough sale. People will look for leadership, and if the Republicans don't talk about solutions, you can bet the Democrats will get big points from the economy.

Gay Marriage. California may have given an issue to the Republicans that the Democrats wanted to see left alone till after November. Many conservatives and centrist aren't comfortable redefining marriage. The California Supreme court has done that, and there are groups trying to get a California Constitutional amendment on the ballot for November. I expect Democrats and Republicans are going to have to explain to voters how they feel on gay marriage.

The Second Amendment. Like gay marriage, this is usually a thorny issue for Democrats. The last few elections, Democrats have tried to avoid talking about gun laws. In 2004, Kerry even went looking for a hunting license. The U. S. Supreme Court is hearing a case involving a D.C. handgun ban. This could keep the Second Amendment debate going on until well into 2009.

This list is by no means an exhaustive one. I have also only highlighted issues I think might benefit McCain, if he handles them correctly. What issues do you think might have an impact on the November election? Are you a "single issue voter"? If so, what is your issue?

As an aside, I have added a link to allow my readers to buy their own authentic Political Friends t shirt. I think they are the wave of the future, and if enough people buy them, I might be able to afford a real journalist for my next interview.

I Interview the Writer Behind Political Friends

I have been asked to answer a few questions on here from some of my readers. I thought an interview might be the best format for this. I also thought it might be fun. However, with the limited budget available to me ($0.00), I had to do the interview myself. Here is the first in a multi-part series where I try to answer questions that were asked of me that had nothing to do with the post at the time. Enjoy.

I arrived at Andy's house one evening to begin our interview. Andy invited me into his office where he had been playing Kingdom of Loathing before I arrived. We sat in comfortable chairs, drinking coffee while we discussed some of the questions his readers had asked.

Interviewer: First, thanks for taking the time to have me here today. I am looking forward to your responses to the reader submitted questions.

Andy: Your welcome. I am glad for the opportunity. I am very excited to discuss the issues my readers find interesting. I created this site to discuss politics in a civil forum. Too many sites like this degenerate into name calling and insults. I have tried to avoid that with Political Friends.

Interviewer: I think most of your readers would agree that you have avoided it. But onto the questions. First, how would you define "Anger" and "Hatred"?

Andy: I think both of these words are thrown around to easily sometimes. "Anger" is an emotion that can be brought out in someone, but is usually a stronger than just being "mad". For example, if someone cuts me off in traffic, that usually gets me pretty mad. A few seconds later, the feeling has passed or I might not even think of it any more.

Anger is feeling that you might get if you have been seriously wronged by someone. For example, if a co-worker stabbed you in the back at work, you are probably going to go past the "mad" stage and into the "anger" stage.

Hatred is an ugly feeling that is in an entire realm past anger. There are abstract concepts I might hate, and actions I might hate, but I can't think of any individual I hate. My faith teaches me that to hate is wrong. I can't off the top of my head come up with a person I hate. This may be a terrible definition, but perhaps my readers can come up with a better one.

Interviewer: Fair enough. While we are on definitions, how would you define a "patriot"?

Andy: I think many people think of different things when they think of patriots. If someone asks for a definition of a patriot, I think they are really looking for two other definitions: patriotic, and unpatriotic.

I think it is easy to describe patriotic: a soldier in the field fighting for his country or an athlete representing his country in the Olympics. For the most part, whenever you put the nations interest ahead of your own, you are a patriot. I like to think that I am patriotic because I try to teach my daughter and others about the history of our great nation. I try to convince people who believe our nation is no better than any other nation that they are wrong. I wouldn't call myself a patriot though.

Since 9/11, many people have used the term unpatriotic. I think in some cases it was used appropriately, and in some in wasn't. It isn't "unpatriotic" to question your country's actions, or the motives or actions of its leaders. It isn't "unpatriotic" to argue against your nation using military force. These are all arguments that fair and sane people with the best of intentions can disagree on.

However, I dont' think it is patriotic to attack the motives of our soldiers wholesale for political reasons. I don't think it is patriotic to blame the worlds problems on the feet of your country. I don't think it is patriotic to try to weaken your nation. I don't think it is patriotic to put the interests of foreign powers ahead of your nations. It's one thing to argue that getting into a war or a military engagement is a bad idea. It is quite another to try and weaken you nation once it is engaged in that war.

Being a patriot doesn't mean blindly accepting whatever your country does. However, when you repeatedly accuse your nation of atrocities, one after the other, you should expect your patriotism to be questioned. But what I really don't understand is why it is so important to people. If you truly believe you are doing the right thing, then why do you care what label people put on you? I believe I am right on the vast majority of issues I talk about on Political Friends. Many people call me names and criticize me for it. That doesn't change or impact my opinion of what I think is right.

The rest of the interview to be continued soon....as always, I welcome your comments and suggestions, thoughts and ideas.

Book Review: What’s So Great about Christianity

If you walk into any book store and browse the newest books, you are likely to see a book attacking religion in general or Christianity specifically. A market has sprung up around such books as The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, or Letter to a Christian Nation. Dinesh D'Souza has written a very good rebuttal to these books. The first thing I noticed when I picked up What's So Great About Christianity is the lack of a question mark in the title. The Title isn't a question, it is a defense. In this very well written book, D'Souza attacks many of the common myths professional atheists use to attack Christianity. He doesn't use scripture to refute their claims, but history, science, and reason.

What's So Great About Christianity is divided into a number of sections. Each section is roughly three chapters long. Some of the sections include: Christianity and the West, Christianity and Science, The Argument for Design, and Christianity and Morality. D'Souza analyzes many of the attacks against Christianity using noted atheist such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens to explain the atheist viewpoint. He then tears apart the atheist claim piece by piece.

What's So Great About Christianity is a very serious defense of a key element of Western Culture. D'Souza states, "Many of the best things about our world are the result of Christianity, and some of the worst things are the result of its absence, or of moving away from it." This is a very bold statement and by the end of the book, it is one that is hard to argue against. Whether you are a believer or not, it is hard not to acknowledge Christianities part in shaping our world for the better after you read this book.

I would encourage both Christians and non-Christians to read this book. D'Souza's asks unbelievers to not, "…read this book merely as an intellectual exercise," for in a very real way, your life may depend on the questions in this book. Instead, put serious thought into it. If you are undecided, D'Souza points out that death will eventually force a choice on you. "Death forces upon you a choice that you cannot escape…when you die all abstentions are counted as 'no' votes," says D'Souza.

I have read very good books about religion before. I think this one is a step above most of them. I would challenge any of my readers who think Christianity is the root of many of today's problems. I would ask you to go into your local bookseller and read a random chapter of What's So Great About Christianity. You might be surprised, and you might find yourself asking questions you haven't asked before.

Cyclone Nargis

Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar (or Burma) on May 3rd. As of the posting of this blog, the military government of Myanmar has allowed one U.S. aid plane to land, and has confiscated two U.N. aid shipments. With relief organizations forecasting the death toll to exceed 100,000 people, the government of Myanmar has yet to issue a single visa to any relief workers. The government has asked foreign countries to send aid, but not people. Many organizations and governments don't want to blindly turn over supplies for fear these supplies will never reach the people who have been hurt by the cyclone. I have seen quotes in news articles from people in Myanmar saying the government doesn't care about it's people, only its hold on the country.

The Danish Red Cross is one of the only relief groups to be allowed into the nation so far. They are reporting that many of the dead are still floating in the water around the villages. If people with the knowledge to deal with this kind of devastation aren't allowed in soon, things could go from tragic to catastrophic. The UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian affairs says, "If we do not act now, and if we do not act fast, more lives will be lost." To make matters worse, the region is expected to get more rain in the coming days. With this in mind, I offer my humble solution:

Operation Merciful Python

As drastic times call for drastic measures, I offer what may be the only hope for ten's of thousands of people still holding on in Myanmar. This solution requires fast action on the part of the U. S. government, and a true re-ordering of priorities for the military government of Myanmar.

Phase I would begin with an immediate televised speech by President Bush. During his speech, the message would also be delivered to China with instructions to pass it along to their contacts in Myanmar. The message is simple: The Myanmar government has 72 hours to allow humanitarian relief in the form of aid and workers into Myanmars worst regions, or the U. S. will get the relief in by force. The President would immediately mobilize the Marine Expeditionary Force on ready status to steam towards Myanmar.

Phase II would be implemented 72 hours later. If the government was still refusing relief workers access, the Marine Expeditionary Force could create an entry point in Rangoon. By controlling this city, U.S. forces could establish a safe haven for refugees and relief workers. Supported by the Marines and an appropriate carrier battle group, this force should be able to withstand anything the Myanmar government could throw its way.

Phase III would be implemented within 3 days of the establishment the U.S. controlled city of Rangoon. The military would set up a democratic government within Rangoon, and hold free elections to govern the U.S. occupied territories. As the villages are rebuilt, and as the clean up continues, more local governments could be elected until we have replaced the military government of Myanmar with the Democratic government of Burma.

I recognize this is a bold and unheard of solution for a humanitarian crisis. However, it does three things. First, it gets aid to the victims in Myanmar who may otherwise die. Second, it replaces a military government that has no concern for its citizens with a democratic government. Finally, it gives other regimes something to think about if they don't want to allow aid from the U.S. or the U.N. to reach their citizens in times of crisis.

Pigford Claims Remedy Act

Like any political junkie, I spend a substantial amount of time each day reading political commentary, and the "hot" news items of the day. Some of the best articles I like to clip and file away for others to read, or I may hold onto them for background information for a future blog post. When the stars are perfectly aligned, I come across an article that makes me take immediate action. I found one such article today by Ms. Jennifer Rubin entitled "Farmer Reparations". After reading Ms. Rubin's article, I started digging into the topic, and contacted my Representative and both Senators.

The Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007 (HR 899 and 3073 and S 515) is designed, "To provide a mechanism for the determination on the merits of the claims of claimants who met the class criteria in a civil action relating to racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture but who were denied that determination." These bills in short are designed to extend the claims process from discrimination suits brought against the Department of Agriculture in the 1990's. To date, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has paid out almost $1 Billion for, "…alleged racial discrimination by local offices administering farm loans under the Farm Service Agency." If the USDA discriminated against a number of people, and those people are owed money, then the government should have to pay up. However, Ms. Rubbin points out that many people associated with the cases believe that a large number of the claims that have been brought forward are fraudulent.

The original case was brought forth by three black farmers in 1997 (Pigford v. Glickman) alleging that the USDA had discriminated against them and other farmers by denying loan applications to African-American farmers. In 1999, a consent decree was issued settling the lawsuit and setting up a process where those individuals who felt they had been discriminated against could file a claim. According to Ms. Rubbin, in 1997 there were an estimated 18,500 African-American farmers (remember this number) and of those, it was estimated that some 2500 to 5000 farmers were discriminated against. However, a lawyers dream was laid out in the settlement, with, "…only a simple affidavit signed by someone who alleged he had applied for a loan or merely that he had 'attempted to own or lease farm land,' $50,000 (tax free no less) would be paid out." The USDA began notifying people who might be involved, including a $500,000 TV ad campaign to get the word to African-American farmers. Meetings were held in local communities explaining how African-American farmers could file claim.

There is an Office of the Monitor website where anyone can get the latest details of the settlement. As of April 28^th, the total payout is over $750,000,000 in cash with almost $ 1 Billion total in "relief". I told you to remember the fact that there were an estimated 18,500 African-American Farmers in 1997. The Monitor's website shows over 22,000 claims have been approved. Ms. Rubbin points out that there have been almost 96,000 total claims!

Simply put, the Pigford decision has become a great money making tool for scam artists, lawyers, and unscrupulous advocacy groups. The original deadlines have now played out and some Representatives and Senators want to extend this deadline and allow more claims. Already the U.S. government has paid out $1 Billion dollars. Isn't it time to put this behind us?

Obama’s High Water Mark?

Reverend Jeremiah Wright was back in the news this weekend and Senator Barack Obama has found himself in a position he doesn't want to be in. On Monday he again defended the Reverend (he claims before he actually saw the comments). Then on Tuesday, he disowned Reverend Wright in very strong, personal language. I think this "break" with Reverend Wright has revealed the real Obama.

Many supporters early in the campaign labeled Obama as a candidate above politics, a candidate of "change". I was very critical of Obama's speech in Philadelphia. One quote from the speech regarding Obama's pastor of 20 years now really stands out. From an ABC News transcript:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me…but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street…"

I think this quote is an important insight into Sen. Obama. The focus at the time was how Sen. Obama was throwing his grandmother under the bus. How Obama was equating a few remarks made in the privacy of his grandmother's home, to the hateful rhetoric spewed from the pulpit at Obama's church in front of one of the largest congregations in Chicago. However, at the time, it was also a sign that Obama was willing to sacrifice his grandmother, the woman who loved and sacrificed so much for him, in order to win a few primaries.

Now, with Rev. Wright taking center stage this weekend, and Obama disowning him on Tuesday, the comments take on a new meaning. Obama could no more, "…disown him than [he could] the black community." How should supporters and critics view these two statements? I think the answer is very simple: Obama is a typical politician.He is not the messiah his supporters have made him out to be. He is a politician of the ilk we see in Washington and in movies. He is a politician willing to say anything and sacrifice anyone to get what he wants. Reverend Wright's comments this weekend were no different than the ones Obama was responding to in Philadelphia. However, the comments continue to plague the Obama campaign, and with Rev. Wright on the national stage, it became easy to disown him.

Sen. Obama should have said what he said on Tuesday back in Philadelphia. However, he didn't. Instead he has revealed himself as the power hungry politician his critics have accused him of being. Make no mistake; Reverend Wright will continue to be associated with Obama into the Democratic Convention in Colorado. If Obama is lucky enough to win the nomination, Reverend Wright will follow him all the way to Election Day. The Super delegates know this. They also know which of their candidates has won the big states and which hasn't. Will Reverend Wright give the Super delegates enough cover to nominate Hillary Clinton? Only time will tell.

A Bit of Historical Perspective

Without a good understanding of history, it is very difficult to understand the context of today's events. Those who don't study the past are doomed to repeat it. We have all seen or read statements like the last two. Bill Bennett is fond of pointing out how short the history of the United States is. Many of the events we think of as "history" were witnessed by our own relatives who weren't too distantly removed from us.

I truly enjoy studying history. On one level, I see history as a story with characters that really lived. On another level, history can help frame debates and ideas in today's world. There are many, many lessons to be learned from the wise people who lived on this planet before us.

I just finished Joseph Ellis' Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. The book was very enjoyable, and I will probably write a book review on this site for anyone interested in it. However, one passage I came across deserved its own space. Looking at the political climate of today, it is easy to believe that we are at a low point. There is an unpopular President in Office, the Iraq war is unpopular, none of the current Presidential candidates are that appealing, the U.S. Congress seems happy to do absolutely nothing, and there are those who believe we are destroying the planet simply because man exists. However, put in it's perspective, things could always be worse:

…[John] Adams inherited a supercharged political atmosphere every bit as ominous and intractable as the tangle on the international scene. It was a truly unprecedented situation in several senses: His vice president was in fact the leader of the opposition party; his cabinet was loyal to the memory of [out-going President] Washington… political parties were congealing into doctrinaire ideological camps, but neither side possessed the verbal or mental capacity to regard the other as anything but treasonable; and finally, the core conviction of the entire experiment in republican government – namely, that all domestic and foreign policies derived their authority from public opinion – conferred a novel level of influence to the press, which had yet to develop any established rules of conduct or standards for distinguishing rumors from reliable reporting. It was a recipe for political chaos that even the indomitable Washington would have been hard pressed to control. No one else, including Adams, stood much of a chance at all.

To recap, John Adams took office with a vice president who was in charge of the other party, Adams followed the most popular president in history, the two party system was just developing and considered the other party their sworn enemy, and the press had no standards at all. During his Presidency, Adams would have to avoid war with a major European power with all of the rest of this going on.

Things have changed (except for the press), and I would argue mostly for the better. I don't believe we should ignore the events of the day, but I do believe we should keep history in mind when discussing issues like "the housing crisis" or "the credit crisis". Things may seem bad, but they could always be worse…

The World is Just Awesome

I don't believe I have ever written an entire blog post about an add campaign before. However, the new campaign by Discovery Channel deserves the attention.

I am a fan of many of the shows on the Discovery Channel. I will watch almost anything with Mike Rowe on it, and really, who doesn't like "Shark Week"? The Discovery Channel is running a new add called "Musical Mashes: Boom De Ah Da!". The add features cuts of many of their most popular shows, with the lyrics being song by the "hosts" of the shows. I almost tear up every time I see the host of "Future Weapons", Richard "Mack" Machowicz, fire a grenade launcher while singing the chorus.

The add ends with the tagline: The World is Just Awesome. As sappy and mushy as it may sound, the World really is just that: Awesome. I don't want to inject any politics into this one. Click on the link above, view the TV spot, and really think about just how incredible and awesome this planet is! While you do that, know that just like the guys from "Deadliest Catch", I am ready to break into song!

And the Winner Is....

Political Friends was announced as the winner of the latest Mystery Topic Challenge! I was very excited and surprised. There were some very good entries and I am honored to have mine picked as the winner. Thanks to those of you who voted for me, and those of you who put up with me writing about something other than politics on here.


However, winning does have it's disadvantages. As the winner of this challenge, I am required to name the next topic to post about. I am going to draft my readers for this. What suggestion can you come up with for the next challenge? It can be silly, serious, political or not. Do you have a question you love to ask people? Have you seen a good Miss Universe question? Is there something you have always wanted me to write on, but I have never tackled?


Leave me your questions. If there is one I really like, I will use your topic for our challenge. If I don't use it, but I think it is interesting (or other readers like it), I may make it the topic of one of my posts. Try to keep it clean, but anything else is open. Thanks ahead of time for your suggestions.