tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14502154385727729072024-03-12T17:58:13.786-07:00Red Amidst the BlueA Conservative Gal's CommentaryMadelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-51133100766368407832008-03-19T17:44:00.000-07:002008-03-19T18:07:50.806-07:00Women in Combat: A Bad Idea?<a href="http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060421/060421_soldiers_hmed_8p.hmedium.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060421/060421_soldiers_hmed_8p.hmedium.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><div>An <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/19/women.veterans/index.html?iref=mpstoryview">article today</a> details the high number of women who have returned from Iraq and are now suffering from various mental health problems, usually Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). According to the article, there are more women than ever witnessing direct combat. Even though they are not directly in combat, these women soldiers are often right near the fighting in Iraq.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Although I think that these women are extremely brave and I am very grateful to them for volunteering to serve for our country, I have doubts about whether allowing women to be so close to combat is a good idea. It seems that there is a much higher rate of PTSD among women who have served in a war than men. Also, according to this article, many women have also been sexually harassed while in Iraq. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Thus, is it really worth the risks involved to allow women to be so close to direct combat? In an ideal world, any women who wanted to serve in combat would be able to do so. However, in the real world there are many pratical considerations that would seem to point to the conclusion that it is a wiser decision not to allow women to serve so close to the actual fighting. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Some of the problems that arise from allowing women to be in positions close to combat are:</div><br /><ol><br /><li>Women are naturally not as strong as men. This is a simple fact. Thus, woman are less able to defend themselves in a combat situtation.</li><br /><li>Women seem to have more trouble dealing with the emotional effects of being in a war zone. I'm not saying this to degrade women; rather, I am simply trying to point out that women are generally not well-suited to be in a war zone. </li><br /><li>Putting women and men together in close contact in a war zone seems to cause tension and problems. Although sexual harassment is certainly not a good thing, perhaps the best solution is to just keep women out of war zones.</li></ol><br /><p>Just like I think we should keep women out of war zones because of the problems that can occur when women are allowed to be close to or in direct combat, I also think that we should be carefully screening male soldiers in order to weed out the ones who are at a high risk for suffering from mental health issues related to the trauma of being in combat.</p><br /><p>Again, I am not saying any of this to in any way disparage the service of women in the military. I have the utmost respect for the women who were brave enough to fight for our country. However, I feel that the best decision for the military is to keep women out of war zones.</p><p><span style="font-size:78%;">Image taken from</span> <a href="http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060421/060421_soldiers_hmed_8p.hmedium.jpg"><span style="font-size:78%;">http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060421/060421_soldiers_hmed_8p.hmedium.jpg</span></a></p>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-46061481961676393322008-03-19T17:04:00.000-07:002008-03-19T17:28:49.223-07:00Returning Power to State Governments: Part Two<a href="http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/images/Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/images/Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>What does the Constitution say about Congress' power?</div><div> </div><br />First, there is the issue of implicit versus explicit powers. Explicit powers are powers actually written in the Constitution. Implicit powers are powers that are not expressly stated in the Constitution.<br /><br />So, what are some examples of explicit powers given to Congress in the Constitution?<br /><ol><li>The power to borrow money</li><li>The power to coin money</li><li>The power to "raise and support" both an army and navy</li><li>The power to declare war</li><li>The power to regulate trade with foreign nations</li></ol><p>Congress' implicit powers come specifically from the "elastic clause" which states that Congress has the power to "<a name="A1Sec8Cl18"><em>To</em></a><em> make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof</em>." </p><p>Basically, this clause makes an allowance for powers that might be necessary for Congress to have but that were not included by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. An example of Congress using the elastic clause would be Congress' power to raise and support an air force. Obviously, there were no airplanes back when the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, but one could reasonably assume that an air force would be a necessity in this day and age in order to protect and defend the nation. Thus, Congress has the <em>implied</em> power to raise and support an air force.<br /></p><p>Congress has used this "elastic clause" to justify various expansions of its power. But there is another clause in the Constitution that Congress has been frequently abusing in recent years in order to take more power for itself. This clause is known as the <em>interstate commerce clause</em>.</p><p>The interstate commerce clause is what gives Congress the explicit power to regulate trade between states and between nations. But, Congress has expanded the definition of interstate commerce to include everything from education to the regulation of drugs. </p><p>But how does Congress explain why education and drug regulation are issues of interstate commerce? Congress often uses as justification the assumption that anything that crosses state lines is interstate commerce. Thus, because a public university in one state might enroll students that are from out-of-state, Congress can make rules about public universities. A famous example is when Congress ordered a university in the South to desegregate. </p><p>As for drug regulation, Congress argues that because drugs might be trafficked across state lines, drug regulation is a federal issue via the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.</p><p>Obviously, these are overly simplified examples. But the gist of the matter is that over the past 200 years or so, Congress and the federal government in general have been stretching their powers to include more and more things that have absolutely no sane Constitutional justification. </p><p>Tomorrow: What do we do about this situation?</p><p>Picture taken from: <a href="http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/images/">http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/images/</a></p><p>Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.jpg</p>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-91388567858197941442008-03-18T12:29:00.000-07:002008-03-18T13:22:26.160-07:00Returning Power to State GovernmentsPart One: A Brief History of the States' Rights Movement<br /><br />This is the first part of a three-part series that I will be doing on returning power to state governments. <br /><br />What’s the history of the states’ rights movement?<br /><ul><li>There has been conflict ever since the United States was founded back in the eighteenth century about how the federal and state governments should share power and who should be supreme. Two main parties were in play at this time: Federalists, who wanted to give the federal government much more power than the state governments, and anti-Federalists – also known as constructionists – who wanted to make sure that states retained as much power as possible.</li><li>The court case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) set a very important precedent for the battle between state and federal rights. In this case, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, decreed that federal laws take precedence over state laws and that if there is a conflict between federal and state laws, that federal laws are the ones that are supreme. </li><li>Later, as tension between the North and South began building as the Civil War loomed, states’ rights took center stage once again. This time, the South wanted the power to allow slavery and to disregard any federal laws or court rulings that said otherwise. When the South did not get what it wanted, it seceded. </li><li>During the twentieth century, the term states’ rights was often used by politicians and citizens alike who supported segregation and discrimination based on race. The term “states’ rights” was often used as the euphemism for government-sponsored discrimination. Thus, this term still has a negative connotation in the minds of many Americans today.</li><li>This is a summary of <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0846562.html">this article.</a></li></ul><p> </p><p>How did the federal government gain so much power?</p><ul><li>The ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland opened the floodgates as the federal government began taking more and more power for itself. As <a href="http://www.blogger.com/(http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0830864.html)">this </a>source says, McCulloch v. Maryland “became the legal cornerstone of subsequent expansions of federal power.”</li><li>Congress has used both the “elastic” clause and the interstate commerce clause to justify its involvement in issues concerning education, crime, and everything in between.<br /></li></ul><p>Tomorrow: Part Two – What does the Constitution Actually Say about State vs. Federal Power?</p>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-2804272539080336372008-03-16T20:43:00.000-07:002008-03-16T20:59:57.497-07:00Major Supreme Court Case Coming on TuesdayOn Tuesday, March 18, the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338282,00.html">Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments</a> for the D.C. handgun ban case. This ruling could have serious implications for gun restrictions throughout the United States.<br /><br />Basically, what the case boils down to is whether the Second Amendment and its declaration of the citizenry's right to bear arms applies to all citizens or whether the founding fathers meant for this right to be applied only to militias. Vice President Dick Cheney and many other House Representatives and U.S. Senators, including John McCain and even some Democrats, sent an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court asking the Court to uphold the D.C. Appeals Court ruling (this ruling held that the D.C. ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment and thus is unconstitutional).<br /><br />Another important aspect of the case is whether or not the Constitution can be applied to D.C. According to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338282,00.html">this</a> Fox News article: <em>"The city’s second argument is that the Second Amendment does not apply to District-specific legislation. It is a curious argument, at least politically, for a government keen on seeking equal representation in Congress." </em><br /><br />I also wrote about the D.C. Appeals Court ruling <a href="http://redamidsttheblue.blogspot.com/2007/03/dc-and-handguns.html">here.</a>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-48716291349030720852008-03-15T18:30:00.000-07:002008-03-15T19:33:21.644-07:00The Disaster Known as the War on DrugsAccording to <a href="http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/fy09budget.pdf">this Drug Control Funding Table </a>from the White House Drug Policy website, the United States spent 13.844 billion dollars in 2007 on drug control. This figure does not include what individual states spent on drug control activities. This figure also doesn't include the indirect costs induced in 2007 due to the "War on Drugs." These indirect costs include the burden on the judicial system due to the arrests, trials, and incarcerations of drug offenders and the reduced efficiency of the national economy as people spend increased time trying to avoid being caught rather than contributing to the economy.<br /><br />So, why should we legalize drugs?<br /><ol><li>The costs of trying to enforce a prohibition on drugs far outweigh the costs. As evidenced by the failure of the alcohol prohibition, trying to legislate controlled substances does not significantly reduce the behavior, it only drives the behavior underground.</li><li>Government should be punishing crimes, not trying to punish the supposed source of the crime. </li><li>There is an inconsistency when alcohol - a substance that has plenty of potential for abuse - is legal, while other drugs, such as marijuana, which is not chemically addicting, are illegal. Alcohol and controlled substances such as marijuana can be used without causing people to commit serious crimes. Again, we should be punishing the crimes, not trying to punish what "experts" deem to be the source of those crimes.</li><li>Our prisons and jails are already overcrowded. We should be using prison space to house criminals who pose a serious danger to society - criminals such as murderers, rapists, and child molesters - rather than guarding people who do not pose a violent risk to society. By the same token, we should avoid incarcerating so-called white collar criminals because white collar criminals do not pose a violent risk to society. Rather, we should be using heavy fines and other such penalties to punish nonviolent offenders.</li><li>Making certain drugs illegal only drives up the cost of those drugs. It is a basic principle of supply and demand; by constricting the supply of drugs, while the demand doesn't significantly change leads to an increased price. Then, because of the increased price, there is increased appeal in manufacturing and selling drugs due to the potential for increased profits. The stakes go up and thus drug dealers/manufacturers are willing to resort to violence in order to protect their business.</li></ol><p>What are the caveats?</p><ol><li>It is essential to regulate the manufacturing of drugs such as methamphetamine. Certain drugs, such as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">meth</span>, must be very carefully manufactured in order to reduce the risk of deadly explosions. Amateurs should not be allowed to manufacture <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">meth</span> in their homes due to the very high risk that a serious chemical contamination of an entire neighborhood could occur.</li><li>It is also extremely important that employers still be allowed to discriminate based on drug use. Drug users must understand that just because their drug use is legal does not mean that they are guaranteed protection under discrimination laws. Drug use still poses serious risks and employers should be allowed to refuse to hire a drug user based on an assessment that the costs of hiring a drug user outweigh the benefits of doing so. </li></ol><p>Legalizing drug use would not only save federal and state governments billions of dollars, it would also reduce the burden that is currently placed on our judicial system. More effort could be put into keeping violent offenders off the streets. Although I am most definitely not advocating drug use as a good choice, I believe that it is not worth the economic costs for the government to attempt to severely curtail drug use.</p>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-6533194827737651542008-03-12T20:00:00.001-07:002008-12-08T13:52:50.238-08:00Great Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkFPi26vR5Z_DwAa6Y7J47vCRlYYqqtT-71ubDdioWLFwtazbkUyel1Kll_G6ghDOHWoKM4RuW-tCkkKegHpRMxF7F0-sLNOyAktyDP5AuLuSPwbAvBC6xX_B_oZ2OreHx4zeDtL2WgO8/s1600-h/ca0312dd.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5177056116513583810" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkFPi26vR5Z_DwAa6Y7J47vCRlYYqqtT-71ubDdioWLFwtazbkUyel1Kll_G6ghDOHWoKM4RuW-tCkkKegHpRMxF7F0-sLNOyAktyDP5AuLuSPwbAvBC6xX_B_oZ2OreHx4zeDtL2WgO8/s320/ca0312dd.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div>I just love this cartoon I found today on the <a href="http://www.townhall.com/funnies/2008/03/12/6">Townhall</a> website. It so perfectly details my thoughts - and I would guess many other conservatives' thoughts - on the race between Hillary and Obama.</div></div>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-71766723481621304832008-03-12T11:48:00.001-07:002008-03-12T12:04:53.940-07:00Why Hate Crime Laws are a Bad IdeaAn article on CNN's website today details how a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/12/reporter.attacked.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText">black reporter was attacked by a white family</a>. The reporter was doing a segment on the story of an elderly man who was allegedly killed by his grandson. The reporter being there and filming a segment incited family members to react violently.<br /><br />CNN tries to make it sound like a hate crime by stating that the family "yelled racial slurs" and also by pointing out that another crew that was filming the attack, a crew that happened to be white, was not attacked.<br /><br />But even a cursory review of the facts in this case call into serious question any allegations of a hate crime. I suspect that the family would have also reacted violently towards a white reporter had the white reporter been the one on their street filming. Just because the family yelled racial slurs also does not mean the attack was racially motivated. In their fury, the family was probably simply looking for any easy insult that they could throw at the reporter. Also, they were probably too busy attacking the reporter to even go after the crew filming the actual attack.<br /><br />But, if this had taken place in a state with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime">hate crime laws,</a> the family members could very well have been charged with a hate crime in addition to the assault charges. Hate crime laws provide harsher penalties for crimes that appear to be motivated due to factors like a person's race.<br /><br />But, as has been said before, correlation does not equal causation. Just because a perpetrator happens to be white and the victim happens to be black and a few racial slurs were yelled in the process does not mean that the crime was racially motivated. Having hate crime statutes makes it far too easy to attach the hate crime label to any crime that involves a minority victim. <br /><br />Also, as a rule, I think that we should be focusing on punishing the actual crime, not trying to punish the motives behind the crime. Trying to punish motives delves into murky territory as it is very difficult to conclusively prove what a person's mindset is.<br /><br />Luckily, however, this crime took place in South Carolina, where there are no hate crime laws. So, the attackers are being held on the charges that they should be held for: assault and battery.Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-35564574235574148742008-03-11T21:15:00.000-07:002008-03-11T21:37:27.379-07:00Rent Control<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/forcedout/">This article</a> published recently in the <em>Washington Post,</em> complains about how landlords in Washington, D.C. are using a vacancy exemption to circumvent D.C.'s laws which put ridiculous amounts of power in tenants' hands. <br />Key Facts:<br /><ol><li>In 1980, D.C. in its infinite wisdom decided that it would be brilliant to enact a law that gave tenants the right to decide whether they wanted their buildings to be converted into condos. Also, the law gave tenants the right to purchase the building. </li><li>Obviously, landlods were not pleased with this new law as it greatly interfered with the free market process and their ability to make a profit.</li><li>Thus, landlords began using an exemption in the law: if a building is vacant, then the laws enacted in 1980 don't apply. So, landlords employed various tactics in trying to force tenants to move out so that buildings in the hot D.C. real estate market could be converted into condos.</li><li>Tactics used included allowing buildings to become dilapidated and run-down, turning off tenants' water and electricity, etc.</li><li>The landlords have been successful in using this exemption; thus, the bleeding-heart liberals are having a fit.</li></ol><p>What did the lawmakers think would happen when they came up with this ridiculous law? There are so many problems with this law that it would take a long time to list them. But, what it all boils down to is that government should not be telling property owners what they can and cannot do with their land and buildings. Part of a free-market system is allowing the market to function on its own, without the government stepping in and trying to make everything "fair." </p><p>Why do people think that they have a God-given right to live in a building? If you don't own the building, then why should you get to decide what happens to it? </p><p>The law and policy reek of socialism. It's too bad that the councilmen in D.C. won't wake up and face the facts; trying to put more restrictions on landlords will only drive landlords away from D.C. and will decrease the quality of housing in D.C. Why should landlords work to improve their properties if they won't be financially rewarded for it? </p>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-62132773091349123382008-03-10T10:00:00.000-07:002008-03-10T10:16:51.466-07:00Good News About the Iraq WarAccording to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/02/foreman.raw.politics/index.html">this CNN article</a>, the Iraq war is moving in a new, positive direction. The author of the article states that the the number of deaths of U.S. soldiers has dropped from 150 a month to 50 a month. Also, the author says that the Al-Qaeda insurgency is losing its strength. These positive signs all point to one conclusion, the author says, that the Iraq war might gain support and thus the presumed Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, has a chance at winning the presidency even though he supports the Iraq war.<br /><br />This article is great news; finally, the American public might get behind this war and vote for a presidential candidate who will lead us to victory. This war is winnable and if we as Americans can show renewed support and vigor for this war, then we could possibly end up drastically changing the political landscape of the Middle East for the better.<br /><br />As a side note, has anyone else found it irritating and hypocritical that the same liberals who are so vocal about wanting to stop genocide in Darfur seem to care very little that Saddam Hussein <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3320293.stm">committed genocide in Iraq</a> against the Kurds in 1988? What about the very real possibility that if we pulled out of Iraq right now and allowed an extremist dictatorship to again take charge that there would be even more violence against minority groups? Are the liberals saying that Iraqi lives are less valuable than the lives of those in live in Darfur?Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-55282451467036752142007-08-07T17:18:00.000-07:002007-08-07T17:38:43.280-07:00News Tidbits<ul><li>Schwarzenegger's <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292415,00.html">video game law</a> - which makes it illegal to sell certain "violent video games" to minors without parental permission in California - has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court. I am not sure what I think about this. On one hand, I think it is good to empower parents to make decisions about what video games their children can purchase. On the other hand, I don't like when politicians meddle in the morality arena.</li><li>Sen. Graham (R - S.C.) is facing <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/07/graham-poses-with-clintonobamaosama-sign/">plenty of criticism</a> after he took a picture of himself with a sign stating: "Obama, Osama, and Chelsea's moma [sic] say cut and run." Commentators on CNN's website accuse Graham of being a "racist," and a "loser." Personally I think the sign is funny and true; most Democrats are unwilling to commit the troops and effort necessary to win the war in Iraq. I am sure that Osama Bin Laden would be delighted if one of the "defeatist" Democrats wins in '08.</li><li><a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/07/clinton-in-the-crosshairs/">Edwards says</a>, "When I am president, we’re going to tell the lobbyists and the big corporations they work for that their time is over, this game is over. We’re going to stop the rigging of this system. We’re going to put an end to this.” (source: CNN.com) Yeah right, because Edwards has absolutely no connections to lobbyists and big corporation; Edwards represents the true American with his expensive haircuts.</li><li><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292311,00.html">Romney thinks</a> he is at the same point on the political spectrum as Reagan was. Now that's just insulting to Reagan's memory.</li></ul><p> </p>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-3059216952891106652007-08-06T05:25:00.000-07:002007-08-06T05:44:46.245-07:00Why the Iraq War Was a Good IdeaWhile there have been many difficulties and challenges with the Iraq war, I still firmly believe that the war was the right move for our country.<br /><br /><ol><li>The Middle East is a hotbed for Western-hating terrorists. Many of the governments in the Middle East do very little to control the terrorists in their own countries. By invading Iraq, the U.S. took a chance at trying to create a democracy in the Middle East, thus disrupting the balance of power in the Middle East. If the democracy in Iraq is successful over the long term, it could have huge implications for other Middle Eastern countries. Iraq could be an example for these other countries.</li><li>Saddaam Hussein was a terrible dictator who wanted to develop nuclear weapons. Even if at the time of the invasion there were no WMD, there was a risk that he would develop WMD in the future. Hussein treated the U.N. resolutions as jokes; further action had to be taken against him.</li></ol><p>As far as I can see it, opponents of the war have several main complaints:</p><ul><li><em>Iraq was not involved in 9/11. </em>Even if Iraq was not a part of 9/11, it doesn't negate the other threats that Iraq posed to the safety of our nation.</li><li><em>Bush misled the country in order to secure the votes in favor of the invasion. </em>I think that Bush should have been more forthright in his explanation of why he wanted to go to war. I think that he saw the WMD as a good reason to present; I don't think that he lied about the evidence of WMD. However, Bush should have presented all of his reasons for going to war.</li><li><em>The Iraq war has cost too many American lives. </em>It is a tragedy whenever one of our brave soldiers is killed; however, wars cannot be fought without some bloodshed. Few wars are quick (the quick wars I think of are the Spanish-American War and Operation Desert Storm). I think that Americans must be patient and not pull out as soon as the going gets rough.</li><li><em>The Iraq war strategy has been disastrous; too many mistakes have been made. </em>No war can be perfect; in any war there are mistakes that will be made. Sometimes these mistakes are extremely costly; this doesn't mean that the war itself is a failure, only that changes must be made to the strategy. With the troop surge, I believe that the Iraq war is turning a corner and that we will prevail.</li></ul>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-69553650218929583162007-08-05T05:23:00.000-07:002007-08-05T05:31:39.152-07:00Republican SinsAm I the only person who has been somewhat disappointed with the Republican party in the past year or so? I feel like the party is splitting at the seams, and if it is not careful, we could experience huge losses in '08.<br /><br /><ul><li>Why do so many Republicans break Reagan's 11th commandment: Thou shalt not criticize another Republican? I understand that many Republicans are trying to distance themselves form Bush, but the more the Republican party splinters, the more it looks like the Democrats, and the more likely we are to lose big in '08.</li><li>Why have there been so many scandals in recent years? I am in some ways glad that the Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress in '06 because the Republicans seemed to be getting a bit too cocky after having controlled both houses of Congress for so long. From Tom Delay's ethics issues to Mark Foley's disgusting behavior, the Republicans in Congress seem to need a wake-up call. At least it seems now that Congressional Republicans are trying harder to keep free of scandals.</li></ul><p>I firmly believe that the Republicans can win the '08 presidential election - with Thompson as the candidate - and can take back seats in both houses of Congress. However, to do so, Republicans need to stop the in-fighting and focus on weeding out the bad apples in the party. What do you think? Do the Republicans have any hope in '08?</p>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-28441940882382319722007-08-04T16:19:00.000-07:002007-08-04T16:44:34.599-07:00This Week's Liberal Follies<ul><li>Congressional Democrats are <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292036,00.html">under fire</a> for questionable voting methods in the House. Now the matter will be looked at by the House Ethics Committee - which is controlled by Democrats. How likely are the HEC Democrats to condemn their colleagues?</li><li>John Edwards scathingly criticized other presidential candidates for accepting money from Rupert Murdoch's corporation and then stated that he (Edwards) would never accept money from Murdoch. Of course then it came out that Edwards had received money for a book deal from one of Murdoch's corporations. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...</li><li>Barack Obama managed to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291982,00.html">offend</a> Pakistanis by saying that if elected president he would withdraw troops from Iraq and attack Pakistan if the Pakistanis did not effectively fight terror in their own country. I thought Obama was more politically savvy than to say something like that.</li><li>Some Democrats are complaining that the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis was the fault of Republicans because Republicans refused to devote enough funds to maintaing roads. How crass is it to turn a tagedy into a partisan name-calling bash?</li><li>Barack Obama also <a href="http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2007/08/02/obama_nukes_not_on_the_table">denounced</a> the use of nuclear weapons to combat terrorism.</li></ul><p>Can anyone add to this list?</p>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-85841004193819955742007-08-03T07:20:00.000-07:002007-08-03T07:39:58.932-07:00Why Liberals are Bad for AmericaThere are so many reasons why liberal Democrats are the wrong group to be in charge of <a href="http://www.house.gov/">Congress</a>.<br /><br /><ol><li>Liberals feel a need to constantly bash the United States.</li><li>Liberals focus more on vilifying the <a href="http://www.gop.com/">Republican</a> party than accomplishing anything else.(case in point - the relentless Congressional investigations of various Republican actions, such as the firing of several U.S. attorneys)</li><li>Liberals want to dump astronomical amounts of money into various social welfare programs that are ineffective and particularly susceptible to fraud, abuse and corruption.</li><li>Liberals cannot seem to wrap their heads around the idea that the entire Social Security program, as well as Medicare, is headed for bankruptcy and places an unfair burden on the younger, working generation. </li><li>Liberals seem to subscribe to the idea that more taxes - especially more taxes for the wealthy - is economically beneficial to the country. In other words, liberals believe in taxing heavily people for being economically productive.</li><li>Liberals are intent on being politically correct - never saying anything against minorities - while saying things that are very offensive to Christians and conservatives.</li></ol><p>And this is only a short list off the top of my head. Do you all have any more reasons why liberals should not be in charge? Or do any liberals want to rebut these charges?</p><p> </p>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-2792456536846933332007-08-03T06:50:00.000-07:002007-08-03T07:19:25.047-07:00Revival of the "Fairness Doctrine"Once again, Congressional Democrats are trying to reenact the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine">"Fairness Doctrine."</a> This law would force all broadcasters, including those on the radio, to give partisan commentators "equal" time on air. In other words, if a conservative Republican has air time to expound on his views, then a liberal must be given the same amount of time to rebut those Republican views.<br /><br />It seems that the Democrats are simply sore that pretty much all attempts at establishing a successful liberal radio network have failed miserably. (remember Air America?) Also the right-leaning Fox News Channel has more viewers on average than both CNN and MSNBC. The Democrats are simply having a temper tantrum because they have not been able to effectively fight back through commentary programs against those "right-wingers." So, once again, instead of solving the problem themselves, the Democrats are calling on the government to bail them out. <br /><br />This behavior is indicative of the epidemic that affects a good portion of the country - this notion that the government is a parent and therefore should continually provide for its "children" (the American people) via handouts such as welfare.Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-28867267018901643812007-05-27T12:59:00.000-07:002007-05-27T13:15:40.298-07:00When The Levees BrokeThis is a movie directed by Spike Lee; he interviews countless people regarding Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The movie has four acts; I watched Acts 3 and 4.<br /><br />The people interviewed in this movie were very angry- and perhaps rightly so. They experienced a tremendous national disaster that devastated their homes and families. However, I take issue with some of the complaints that they have. <br /><br />For example, one woman went on and on about having to go through so many steps to prove that she owned her house. Since most of the documentation that she had was destroyed in the hurricane, she had to go to the clerk of court to get proof that she had owned her house, she had to get old utility bills showing that she had paid for utilities for the house, etc. As much as this must be immensely frustrating for her, it is necessary. There are so many people who used Hurricane Katrina as an opportunity to defraud many victims and the government. If the government did not take such steps as listed above to ensure that the rightful owners got their property back, there would be an outrage in the media.<br /><br />I think that the disaster a whole simply proves the conservative point that the private sector is the group best served to deal with providing social services and relief to disadvantaged people. The United States government, simply by its nature, is so large - and the bureaucracy so bulky and inefficient - that it is almost a given that the government's response to the disaster was slow and cumbersome. The government almost always acts slowly in issues of social services.<br /><br />I also take issue with the complaints in the movie that so much money was going to Iraq. The reason the response was slow was that government by its own nature struggles to do things efficiently. Our government has had many difficulties in Iraq; it is not as if the government has had no trouble dealing with social concerns in Iraq. <br /><br />Also, many New Orleans residents commented on the fact that the city would not be the same without black people and their culture. My question is: if a white person had stated that white people were an integral part of New Orleans and that a city without white people would be an abomination, wouldn't there be a social backlash with calls of racism? Does this not once again demonstrate the double standard in our society for what black people can say versus what white people can say?Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-10700662073912801222007-03-10T04:58:00.000-08:002007-03-10T05:07:46.320-08:00DC and HandgunsFinally, DC's dreadful handgun ban has been delcared unconstitutional. To me, it seems so clear that the Second Amendment to the Constitution supports private ownership of guns, including handguns. <br /><br />DC's attempt to reduce crime with this ban has most definitely not been successful. The ban started in 1976. Since then, crime in Washington has continued at ridiculous levels - I wouldn't drive down the streets in Anacostia by myself. If the US Supreme Court takes the case, it seems fairly likely that the court would uphold this decision. Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts could all be counted on to uphold the decision. Kennedy would be the swing vote, but he usually leans to the conservative side.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/09/gun.ban.ruling/index.html">Link to CNN article about court decision</a>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1450215438572772907.post-27084597495957047842007-02-15T08:40:00.000-08:002007-02-15T08:57:20.648-08:00Giuliani: The Ideal GOP Candidate?Unfortunately, the GOP is suffering from a bad public image at the moment. But could former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani turn the tide in favor of the elephants in 2008?<br /><br />I highly doubt it: as many other conservatives before me have stated, could Giuliani really win the Republicn nomination? To win the nomination, Giuliani would have to find favor with the large evangelical proportion of the Republican party; this seems unlikely given Giuliani's decididly liberal social views. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/14/giuliani.lkl/index.html">Link to CNN.com article about Giuliani</a>Madelinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13481662388397942488noreply@blogger.com0