News Tidbits

• Schwarzenegger's video game law - 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.
• Sen. Graham (R - S.C.) is facing plenty of criticism 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.
• Edwards says, "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.
• Romney thinks he is at the same point on the political spectrum as Reagan was. Now that's just insulting to Reagan's memory.

Why the Iraq War Was a Good Idea

While 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

As far as I can see it, opponents of the war have several main complaints:

• Iraq was not involved in 9/11. 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.
• Bush misled the country in order to secure the votes in favor of the invasion. 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.
• The Iraq war has cost too many American lives. 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.
• The Iraq war strategy has been disastrous; too many mistakes have been made. 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.

Republican Sins

Am 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.

• 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.
• 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.

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?

This Week's Liberal Follies

• Congressional Democrats are under fire 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?
• 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...
• Barack Obama managed to offend 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.
• 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?
• Barack Obama also denounced the use of nuclear weapons to combat terrorism.

Can anyone add to this list?

Why Liberals are Bad for America

There are so many reasons why liberal Democrats are the wrong group to be in charge of Congress.

1. Liberals feel a need to constantly bash the United States.
2. Liberals focus more on vilifying the Republican 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)
3. Liberals want to dump astronomical amounts of money into various social welfare programs that are ineffective and particularly susceptible to fraud, abuse and corruption.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Liberals are intent on being politically correct - never saying anything against minorities - while saying things that are very offensive to Christians and conservatives.

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?

Revival of the "Fairness Doctrine"

Once again, Congressional Democrats are trying to reenact the "Fairness Doctrine." 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.

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.

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.

When The Levees Broke

This 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

DC and Handguns

Finally, 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.

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.

Link to CNN article about court decision

Giuliani: 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?

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. Link to CNN.com article about Giuliani