Guns and Clubs

by The Windjammer

I have pored over some of the crime data which the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have poured out and have now reached a conclusion.

Guns in and of themselves aren’t any more deadly than clubs, knives, ropes, duct tape, plastic bags, scalpels, knotted pillow cases, hatchets, hammers, automobiles and sundry other implements used in doing away with the one you love or the one someone else might accidently love.

None of the above nor any other implement exerts a whole awful lot of influence on the commission of violent crime when you get down to the nitty-gritty and not a single weapon of any kind has ever caused an intentional homicide, regardless of its category.

A club, according to the book by which I try to pattern my life (I hate to come right out and say "Bible’ because that might lead to legal problems with the weak-kneed among us), caused a twenty-five percent reduction in the reported total population at the time. I’m not even sure that it was a club which Cain used to do in his brother, but someone else suggested that was the weapon of mass destruction of that day and time. No sawed-off shotgun has ever had such a disastrous effect on such a large percentage of the population as that sawed-off shillelagh.

The obvious argument will be that guns are readily obtainable, which makes them the weapon of choice for some nut who believes he/she has the exclusive right to do someone else in. That much is somewhat true.

I have talked with law enforcement personnel in at least one country other than my own which has restrictive gun laws. Those people have told me, without exception, that violent crime in their bailiwicks has become more violent since such laws went into effect. They agree that if a person is bent on mayhem, he will use whatever weapon is at hand. The victim is just as dead from a thumb and forefinger wrapped tightly around a throat as he/she would be if shot with a .44 magnum. The process takes a little longer and is usually accompanied by a furious desperate struggle. You can substitute any method for the thumb and finger and the results come out the same.

The gist of the conclusion is that only people kill people.

We have guns here in the Mountain State, most of them by far being sporting firearms, and some of us inherited the genes which allow us to instinctively use them for the purpose for which the manufacturers intended. I even tried to teach my wife and daughters how to use them properly. I also reached the conclusion that I’m not much of a teacher.

I took my wife and older daughter to the top of Cheat for grouse hunting one beautiful fall day. My daughter proved my point when she spotted an inbound pheasant (that’s what we oldsters call grouse here) and said, "There comes a big bird, Dad. Shoot him!"

My wife liked squirrel gravy on her hot breakfast biscuits and the only way I know to get squirrel gravy is to shoot the primary ingredient, hopefully without getting too much of that environmentally-unsafe foreign matter (which can knock the enamel off an unsuspecting tooth faster than you can spell ‘squirrel") scattered through the meat. If she wanted gravy, she would have to earn it.

She has an eye problem, not with keeping them open, but with keeping one of them shut. She shoots cross-handed. When the gun went bang, the squirrel dropped like a rock. It was my wife who was bleeding. The little shotgun did what any good shotgun would do and busted her lip when it got in the way of the recoil. She still carries the scar, but it didn’t stop her from liking squirrel gravy.

I no longer do what I started when I was barely eight–hunt the meat that went on the table. Age took care of what the antis have tried for decades to accomplish. The age had a little help from a broken back and the various infirmities which often accompany the condition.

I have sold my hunting guns and given my bows (3) and arrows to unsuspecting relatives who I know will never use them in a fashion of which I would not approve.

All of which only goes to prove that guns have their proper place and use.

Taking them by over-regulation or prohibition will not solve the crime problem. Crime, violent or otherwise, is always committed by criminals. If not before the dastardly deed, then certainly during and after.

You go, John!

From NewsMax:

Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics of President Bush as evidence that he committed impeachable crimes by falsifying evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," Kerry said, referring to the Downing Street Memo in an interview with Massachusetts' Standard Times newspaper.

"I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," the top Democrat added.

Unsuccessful in trying to unseat George W. Bush in the election, John Kerry now hopes to unseat Mr. Bush by mounting a “stunning” effort to impeach the President. In order to justify this attack, the self-consumed Senator from Massachusetts ignores facts that would stop most people in their tracks. Legions of people in high places believed as George Bush did, that Iraq had WMD, including John Kerry himself, along with prominent Democrats Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos, former Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Robert Byrd, unsuccessful Democratic Presidential hopeful Wesley Clark, former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Rockefeller, and Henry Waxman, as well as Ex-UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. All of them said so in at least one public statement each, and some of them in multiple public statements. Furthermore, the United Nations, and the leaders of many European countries including Monsieur Jacques Chirac, also thought Iraq had WMD. But why let those facts get in the way of a good lynching? What’s a little hypocrisy among enemies?

Sen. Kerry isn’t alone in this crusade to add to the Democrats’ efforts to tear the country apart over Iraq, however. He has the assistance of no less an authority on Iraq than Ralph Nader, who wrote in an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe, "It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step."

What exactly Mr. Kerry hopes to achieve from this grandstanding is a little unclear. It is almost beyond the realm of fantasy that this will get much traction, except from the nutty fringe of the Left in the U.S. and their fellow travelers in Europe. It is difficult to imagine many Americans falling for this foolishness. Perhaps he thinks that Mr. Bush will drop everything else to focus on defending himself from this charge. I wouldn’t bet on it, Senator.

Both Sen. Kerry and Mr. Nader latched onto the Downing Street Memo, which was first reported on May 1 by the London Times, and was drafted by a foreign policy aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Ostensibly, the memo is based on minutes of a meeting in July 2002 where Blair allegedly admitted that the Bush administration "fixed" Iraq intelligence to manufacture a rationale for war. Do you suppose Mr. Bush would have confided such a thing to Mr. Blair, even if it were true? Even so, the memo contains no quotes from either Bush or Blair, and presents little or no evidence implicating Bush in a WMD cover-up.

Call me crazy, but I have to believe that the Democrats are once again shooting themselves in the foot with this charade. Howard Dean continues to embarrass the Party with his ill-advised off-the-cuff insults of Republicans and the President. And now John Kerry, of all people, wants to be the chairman of the “let’s hang Bush” committee.

Methinks this entire fiasco has the distinct odor of sour grapes.

The Family

In our family our son thinks his younger sister is a dork and she thinks he is mean. Typical teenagers, they bicker quite a bit. Sometimes they are at each other, day and night. It’s enough to drive adults crazy. Mom and I find fault with them, too, as do all parents with their kids during these trying years. We understand the meaning of the phrase “parenting is not for the meek.”

The kids sometimes get rather brutal with each other. Their criticisms are harsh, unforgiving, lacking understanding, blameful and sometimes outright cruel. You wonder if there is any affection between them at all.

Yet despite their differences, her dork-ness and his mean-ness, and their disagreements and their harsh judgment of each other, when someone outside the family harasses or does something hurtful to one of them, the other rises to the defense. When brother’s girlfriend treats him badly, suddenly younger sister is irritated at the girlfriend. When someone ticks off sis, big brother is ready to take the jerk down a peg. It’s the natural way of families to disagree amongst themselves, but to band together when attacked from the outside.

Here in the U.S., we find the “family members” – Republicans and Democrats and other factions - behaving like families do, criticizing each other, belittling each other. This “inter-family” bickering is the way to make things better. The big difference between what happens in a real family and what is happening in the “American family” is that when the attacks come from outside, the opposition takes sides not with their countrymen, their family, but with the outsiders, joining in the accusations and ready to believe the worst of their brothers and sisters, instead of defending their fellow Americans.

There is all manner of dancing and dodging, and stuttering and stammering in a vain effort to justify this absence of national loyalty. It’s easy enough to try to excuse this behavior with the rationale that “this is wrong and we must oppose it.” But even the best explanations and excuses do not change the fact that there is a lack of national loyalty.

On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, President Bush said that at that moment we were not Democrats or Republicans, we were Americans. I have no doubt that Mr. Bush sincerely believed that at the time. I have no doubt that every sensible American also believed that.

But that wonderful togetherness brought on by those cowardly, murderous fanatics was a fleeting moment.

Part of our family now believes that their brethren lied about the reasons for going into Iraq, just as the outsiders in Europe and elsewhere have charged.

They blame the administration and the military for “abuses” of enemy combatants, who are the relatives of the terrorist bastards who hijacked planes and killed thousands of innocent Americans.

The opposition is armed and ready to accept as truth any blame fired at the U.S from outside. They are ready to accuse and to blame, just like the outsiders. They may believe what they wish. And, while they have the right to say so, they ought to give some thought to what joining with the critics outside the family does to their family, their country.

The people of the United States elected the President and Vice President. They won their positions. They are part of the family.

Among members of the opposition where is the sentiment FOR America, FOR their brothers and sisters, FOR their family members? Where is the loyalty for one’s country? Where is the outrage at those who now attack the United States? Why will the opposition not defend the honor of their own country against outsiders, and work quietly and effectively within the family to correct what they believe is wrong?

If our brothers and sisters side with the outsiders who attack us, if they take sides against their own family, their own country, isn’t that the definition of “anti-American?”

Let the rationalizations begin.

The French Rejection

The French rejected the EU constitution at something just short of 55 percent, which, curiously, is nearly the same proportion as Americans rejected John Kerry last November.

The proposed constitution is hundreds upon hundreds of pages long, and would put so much of the lives of Europeans under someone else’s control that the French just couldn’t abide it. The U.S. Constitution, by contrast, is only a handful of pages.

Even the French people, who appreciate the easy living under the socialist French government that provides them six-week vacations and 35-hour workweeks prefer freedom to the “slavery” of the proposed charter. The French are more like Americans than they know, or likely wish to be. Freedom everywhere, once it is introduced, is a powerful notion that people want to maintain. We see that in Afghanistan and Iraq. And now we see it in France.

As much as I dislike Jacques Chirac, he did one thing I’ll give him credit for: He put the approval of the proposed constitution up to the people. In doing so he learned a nasty but valuable lesson: The people see things differently than do the politicians. Most of the rest of the EU that has already approved the constitution has had their parliaments give the approval, not the people. It is a near certainly the remaining EU members will not leave such a serious decision to the people, now that the French have so dramatically rejected the proposal. I’d be willing to bet that the next time the issue comes up in France, if it does come up again, it will be a matter for French politicians to decide, not the French people.

What does this dazzling loss portend for the EU? London's Daily Telegraph had this to say: "It is hard to think of a graver crisis of legitimacy for the EU. If even France, Europe's most loyal daughter, wants no more of the racket, then surely the time has come to go back to the drawing board. If Europe's leaders had an ounce — a gram, rather — of decency, they would accept the verdict and change direction. For this constitution did not merely propose some new extensions of EU power; it restated the entire acquis communautaire: the accumulated pile of EU jurisdiction."

“Back to the drawing board” is good advice, but the smart money is on the arrogance of the European elites who both don’t understand the meaning of the word “no” as shouted by France last week, and also think they know best what is good for everyone.

Democrats misrepresent abortion data

Prominent Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean have publicly stated over the last few months that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

Talking to a group of family-planning providers in New York Sen. Clinton tried to compare the abortion rate under Mr. Bush with the rates under hubby Bill, alleging that rates are higher now than then. She cited three states where rates are higher, and left the clear impression that the experience of those three states was representative of the nation as a whole. In fact, the national average is lower now than under Mr. Clinton.

Defeated Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said on NBC’s Meet the Press back in January, “and do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have” implemented. That statement went unchallenged by moderator Tim Russert. Like Sen. Clinton's statement, it is also untrue.

Just last week Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said on Meet the Press, “You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President?” Again Tim Russert failed to challenge the statement, or even question Mr. Dean on it, leaving viewers to believe the 25 percent figure was accurate. It is a gross misstatement.

According to the respected Alan Guttmacher Institute, a 20-year decline in abortion rates has continued since Mr. Bush took office, and unlike Clinton, Kerry and Dean, Guttmacher has the data to back it up. Actually, not long after Mr. Clinton took office there was a pause in the rate of decline for about a year, after which the decline has continued steadily.

The bad data picked up by the three amigos and grossly exaggerated by Mr. Dean came from an article published in the Houston Chronicle, which apparently did not fact-check the data. Obviously, neither did Clinton, Kerry or Dean.

One marvels at the spectacle of Howard Dean. The term “loose cannon” may actually have been created just for him, but it fails to adequately describe his lack of passion for the truth. As for Ms. Clinton and Mr. Kerry, well, what more needs to be said?

Two points need to be made here. First, it is certainly positive for society that abortions are decreasing. Even if you buy into the rationalization that abortion is something other than the killing of a future person, it is difficult to argue that doing less of it is a bad thing. And the fact that Democrats, the champions of abortion rights, use high abortion figures as criticism is a step in the right direction, even if they only use it for short-term political gains.

And second, the press is once again guilty of failing to do its job. Publishing incorrect data on any subject and taking the word of any political party ­as gospel without checking out its claims are just irresponsible. But that is nothing new for the mainstream media, whose recent history is something akin to Swiss cheese.

France deals the European Union a blow

By a 10- point margin, French voters turned thumbs down on the proposed constitution for the European Union. Questions linger as to whether this is a death blow, or merely a bump in the road to formalizing European unity. In other discussions I have predicted difficulties in tying this collaboration up in a neat bow, given the diverse nature of the members. Yesterday's vote confirms that.

Government contributes to our problems

When I first started on this piece, the news had just broken that convicted sex offenders can get Viagra paid for by our government. I wanted to express my disgust for this situation, the utter stupidity of which is obvious to even the dim-witted. Since everyone realized that right away, even the mainstream media, saying that it is stupid at this point is, well, stupid.

However, upon thinking about how this ridiculous situation evolved, I was led rather circuitously to the conspicuous reality of just how much our government does that is contrary to common sense, and not at all what was intended by those wise gentlemen who wrote our Constitution more than 200 years ago.

Had we been sensible enough to not fiddle with that document and just live by it, had we been wise enough to stand against the efforts of judges to create and impose through judicial command laws and policies the people would never have agreed to through proper legislative channels, there would be no mechanism of government that could pay for Viagra for convicted sex offenders.

But, of course, we haven’t been sensible or wise in following the guidelines set forth for us, and we are immeasurably the worse for it. The government has grown into a largely inept, gargantuan bureaucracy with its fingers in nearly every facet of our lives. Maybe I’ll make a list later on.

In school I learned that the Framers were good men, smart men, unselfish men, who made sacrifices to establish this nation. More recently, though, I’ve come to question just how smart those guys really were. You would expect really smart people capable of developing a governing document that would last more than a mere 150 or so years before people were able to distort and dismantle it the way we have. Maybe they were unable to imagine that Americans could become selfish, self-centered and narcissistic and would forget that a thriving and enduring nation requires sacrifice and commitment from its members. I’ll bet they never dreamed of the possibility that the concept “if it feels good, do it” would become more important to Americans than pledging allegiance to their nation.

The Framers understood that it is not the responsibility of, nor is it desirable for government to provide sustenance for civilian citizens. The government’s duty to its citizens is to provide a framework under which they can use their brains, skills and initiative to make of themselves as much as they can. Some will necessarily do better than others.

We cannot successfully legislate that all of us become equal. I am a better writer than Jim. Jim is a better musician than I. No law or public policy can make him a better writer or me a better musician. Each of us has the opportunity to make ourselves better at whatever we choose to be better at, and that is all we can expect. The rest is up to us, individually and collectively, through our own initiative and good will.

Attempting to legislate equality will tear the nation apart, as we are now witnessing. The socialist tendencies that nations like France are now abandoning because they have failed and are dragging the country down are still on the upswing in the US. If we can learn anything useful from France, it is that.

Unfortunately, the liberal/progressive ideology seems not to recognize its failures, but sees more socialism as the answer.

Soft-headed on crime

It must first be said that some debts to society cannot be paid; there is no way to right certain wrongs. Sentencing someone to years in prison or even putting them to death does not repair the damage to society or to individuals of certain crimes. No matter what society does to some criminals for their anti-social behavior, the criminal act is not made right by the sentence the criminal receives. The mindless murder of an innocent victim is one of them.

The murderer has taken the life of a person who has done nothing to deserve it, yet goes on living, while the victim is gone, likely in a terrifying and brutal way. The victim will never be able to know the joy of a full life, of a long-term relationship with a husband or wife, or children, or his family and friends. The victim’s family and friends are deprived of the relationship with that person for years to come. The injustice and unfairness of this situation is palpable, it is enormous, and it cannot be reconciled.

The injustice is compounded, furthermore, when the criminal is brought to justice, for unlike his victim the murderer is fairly judged before sentence is passed, and he has numerous and substantial constitutional protections to make certain he is not unfairly treated. In America the guilty are considered innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. Their victims have no such rights or procedures; the murderer is judge and jury.

Worse yet, and contrary to reason, in many states the sub-human being who has willfully taken the life of an innocent person has his own life protected by law. It is considered cruel and unusual for society to exact on a murderer the penalty the murderer has exacted from his victim. Society is thus condemned to keep him alive at taxpayer cost for decades, despite his horrendously anti-social and brutal behavior. Despite the pain and agony his victim and their family and friends suffered because of his evil act, the murderer gets to live, has to live. Living in prison may not be a bed of roses (or it may not be so bad), but it is nonetheless a bed, food, shelter … and life.

All too often after serving his time, the murderer is returned to society to live the life he chooses, good or bad. Most often, the life he chooses is a bad one, given that prison does not rehabilitate, and that these vile creatures may be beyond rehabilitation. He has the opportunity to marry or resume a previous relationship, have children or continue with his family, and draw breath for as long as he lives thereafter. The murderer gets all the things he has brutally and senselessly denied his victim(s).

What is the solution? There is no way to right the wrong, as previously stated. Yet one of two things ought to occur for every murder of an innocent person. 1) The murderer ought to be painfully put to death after a relatively short time, and during the waiting period his life ought to be hell on Earth. 2) The murderer ought to spend the rest of his life living in horrid conditions, given only the bare necessities of life. Perhaps he ought to be incarcerated on an abandoned prison island with other scum like him, to kill or be killed, perhaps then having some sense of the horrors to which he subjected his victim to.

Is this justice? It is as close as we can come to it.

A parting shot: PC and silliness reign supreme

Just before leaving I have to add comment about what I think is the silliest bunch of nothing currently being discussed.

While I agree that the United States is and ought to be far more humane in its treatment of prisoners than your average nation of murderous barbarians, the idea that we ought to be held up to the standards of the Geneva Conventions where terrorists are concerned is absurd. The terrorists are outside the bounds of the Conventions for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they are not the army of a particular nation. Other equally compelling circumstances also strengthen this position.

That the "atrocities" of Abu Grhaib are really serious breaches of human behavior is ridiculous. They are minor infractions deserving our concern and our effort to prevent them from occuring, but they do not deserve more.

Now, this latest tempest in a teapot over photographs of Saddam Hussein in his undies and in a robe is laughable. Yes, it is a terrible thing to show this ugly thug in his briefs, but only because it offends the eye, not because it causes him any emotional distress.

The United States has no obligation to treat people who were caught trying to kill Americans with any respect or concern whatsoever, except to the extent that by doing so we might get some useful information from them. We owe them only continued existence with the basics: food and shelter.

Period.

I realize some of the more "sensitive" readers will recoil in horror from this statement, and I apologise for shocking your misplaced compassion.

I invite your comments, and we can continue this dialogue when I am again able to post.

Montego Bay

We are bound for paradise for a few days, as I had said before.

I'm going to try to post while we're there, but I may be distracted.

I will be back May 30.

Thanks for continuing to visit and support Observations.

Taking a little time off

I'm headed south on vacation until May 29, soI don't know how much time I'll have to post to the site, and I'm really not sure whether I can connect where I'm going, so there may not be any activity here on Observations until the following week.

I hope to be able to get something posted occasionally, just so I don't have withdrawal symptoms.

I guess we'll see.

Who do you trust?

The name of a former game show hosted for several years by Johnny Carson finds its way as the title of a post on Observations because of a perplexing situation facing air travelers.

My wife and I are about to venture south next week, celebrating our 25^th anniversary in Montego Bay, Jamaica. We are looking forward to this trip. We both need some time away, and this is a pretty special observance, most would agree. We haven’t had more than a couple of days away for just the two of us for … well, a long time.

Watching The O’Reilly Factor tonight gives me reason for concern, however. In a segment of the show host Bill O'Reilly informed me and other viewers that it is not uncommon for items to “disappear” from luggage checked in at the airline you’re traveling on. Transportation Safety Administration regulations forbid passengers from locking their luggage, because locked luggage cannot be searched, and that is a problem for those seeking to protect passengers from innocent travelers like me and the missus. Thieves, however, can enter unlocked luggage, and that’s where trouble begins.

As it turns out the airlines apparently will reimburse only a small amount for “lost” items, assuming you can prove it was actually “lost.” Trying to get your money out of the federal government is, well, a federal case.

The major problem with items being stolen, however, is apparently not from personnel working for airline companies; it is from personnel working for the Transportation Safety Administration. The message from Bill: Don’t check anything valuable; carry it on.

Having heard this frightening message, I have begun researching what I can and cannot take on vacation with me, what I can take in my carry-on and what I can’t take, and what can and cannot be checked through in luggage.

For example, I like a good cigar occasionally. I can take cigars with me, but I can’t take my lighter. Well, actually I can take the lighter, but it ain't easy, and it ain't sensible. I can, oddly enough, take up to four packs of certain types of matches in my carry-on, so long as they are not “strike anywhere” matches, meaning “safety” matches. The TSA tells us the following:

*All lighters are prohibited as carry-on items. Lighters without fuel are permitted in checked baggage, but lighters with fuel are prohibited. If you are uncertain as to whether your lighter is prohibited, please refrain from bringing it to the airport.

** Up to 4 books of safety (non-strike anywhere) matches are permitted as carry-on items, but all matches are prohibited in checked baggage.

To read the entire list, go here.

Okay.

However, elsewhere we are informed that lighter fluid is not permitted either in checked luggage or in carry-on luggage. So, it’s fine if you pack your lighter, empty of fuel, in your checked baggage, but you may not take fuel for your lighter to fill it when you reach your destination. Presumably you can buy lighter fluid when you reach your destination, but you may not bring home with you that lighter fluid that you did not use while on your trip, and you had better be sure the lighter is empty, totally empty, before checking your luggage for the return trip.

I suppose that, as a law-abiding, taxpaying American citizen who is not a terrorist, I should applaud the efforts of our government to thwart efforts of those who are terrorists to hijack or blow up airplanes. And I do.

I just wish we non-terrorists would not be put through this inane BS in the process.

The Media Hall of Shame

CBS News and now Newsweek magazine in the space of several months have duped the public in the name of honest journalism. Poor and slanted reporting happens everyday, but the magnitude of these recent disintegration of responsibility and public trust is enormous.

What is worse, if anything can be worse than the abandonment of one’s solemn duty, is that both CBS News and Newsweek have tried to rationalize their failures in a hopeless and unsuccessful attempt to save face. Newsweek said something to the effect of “Well, there were some mistakes in the story, but it has not been proved that someone somewhere, sometime, somehow didn’t flush the Koran down a toilet, so we are standing by our story.” Dan Rather said essentially the same thing about CBS’s fallacious story on George Bush’s imagined dereliction of duty in the National Guard.

You don’t have to be a media bigwig to know certain basic procedures about covering important events. Among them is that you always – always – double-source your information when your first source wishes to remain anonymous. In the absence of confirmation, the journalist ought to assume his source is wrong. To do otherwise is negligent. In the case of CBS News’ irresponsible reporting, a presidential election hung in the balance.

Newsweek’s reckless reporting poured gasoline on the flames of fundamentalist, fanatical Islamic fascists just looking for an excuse to commit murder and mayhem, and more than a dozen people died.

Dishonorable gaffes in reporting like these feed the growing feeling that the mainstream media has an agenda. In the case of both the shameful CBS News/Rathergate debacle and the more recent colossally deadly Newsweek blunder, it is difficult to fend off charges that the media is anti-George Bush and anti-war. The notion that these eager newshounds are poised on the edge of their keyboards waiting for an opportunity to slam Bush and /or the Iraq war is a compelling one. How else can anyone explain why these supposedly honorable media organizations ran stories that were so disgracefully and contemptibly wrong?

The mainstream media seems incapable of learning from their mistakes. Is this arrogance? Hubris? Complacency?

Yes to all.

Women have abortions for "lifestyle reasons"

The following appears on The Drudge Report:

A dramatic rise in repeat abortions has reinforced fears that women are increasingly having terminations for lifestyle reasons. One in three abortions is now carried out on women who have had at least one before, London's Daily Mail reports on Monday.

Figures from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service suggest that women who become pregnant at university or at the start of their careers see abortion as a means of delaying motherhood. Women between 20 and 24 have taken over from teenagers as the largest age group to have terminations, while only one in 100 abortions is carried out solely because of a medical risk to the baby.

It was revealed that one woman from London had six abortions in just 12 months!

Campaigners warned that the emotional and physical risks of abortion were being 'swept under the carpet.' The procedure can make it more difficult for women to ever start a family and many later suffer depression.

Researchers said the trend could be reversed if more support was available for mothers trying to juggle careers and families.

The new figures from the BPAS, Britain's leading abortion provider, reveal that 181,582 terminations were carried out in England and Wales in 2003, a 3.2 per cent increase on the previous year and a 15 per cent rise since 1993.

Among these some 57,241 - 32 per cent - were on women who had already undergone a termination at least once. This is almost a third higher than the 1993 figure.

Many of us who know the U.S. Constitution does not provide a "woman's right to choose" to kill her fetus for whatever reason she deems appropriate said at the time that ruling was made that it was a thinly veiled effort to relieve men and women of the responsibility for their actions.

We believed that someday abortion would plainly be shown to be a convenience, and nothing more.

It appears that that day has arrived.

Lt. Pantano not guilty of murder

Marine Corps 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano, who shot to death two Iraqi insurgents a year ago during a raid on an insurgent hideout in the "Triangle of Death," and faced murder charges for his actions, has been cleared of charges, according to Bill O’Reilly tonight.

This is wonderful news. To convict this brave Marine for defending himself and his fellow Marines would have been a travesty. We cannot allow America’s enemies, neither those within our borders nor those outside them, to put our military personnel on trial for doing their job.

The investigating officer, Lt. Col. Mark E. Winn, recommended that Lt. Pantano face administration punishment for firing too many rounds at the two men, a far less serious charge. However, given the dangerous circumstances under which Lt. Pantano acted, even that criticism must be questioned.

In any event, this is good news.

A good trip

Well, the trip to Northern Virginia to see the new grandkid was a pretty good trip. The kid is great, his mom is doing fine, we got to see both of the older daughters and all but one of the six grandkids, as well as a few other folks. Actually a lot of other folks.

Anyway, it's good to be back.

I've got a pile of work to do this week, and we'll be celebrating our 25th wedding aniversary next week in Jamaica, so things will be kind of crazy.

I have posted a new piece on Reflections for those who are interested.

A brief respite, and then back to work

These last few weeks have been a whirlwind that has kept me from being as attentive as I want to be with the site, and I have not been able to post as regularly as I'd like.

Now, we are going to visit daughter #2 who has recently given birth to grandchild #6, who is grandson #2, and will be away for a couple of days. (I hope that wasn't too confusing.)

Please check back on Monday, for I will surely have been able to post something meaningful by then.

Until then, please put all your liberal/Left opinions aside, as they are clearly wrong, and tend toward the Right in your thinking. When I get back, I'll answer all your questions (grin).

Let him die

As federal and state judges heard arguments Wednesday on last-minute attempts to prevent New England's first execution in 45 years, serial killer Michael Ross told those same courts he is ready to die.

The 45 year-old murderer was sentenced to death for killing four young women in eastern Connecticut in the early 1980s and has confessed to four other murders in Connecticut and New York. Last year, he decided to end his appeals and accept his death sentence.

He was hours away from being put to death in January, when his attorney, incredibly under pressure from a federal judge, asked for a new hearing to examine his competency.

One appeal claimed that Ross' execution amounts to state-assisted suicide and would have such a negative effect on suicidal prisoners that a "suicide contagion" would result among the state's inmates. "These prisoners will try to kill themselves in the hours, days and weeks following Michael's death," the suit states.

The Connecticut Attorney General dismissed the notion the execution amounted to a state-assisted suicide because Ross decided to forgo his appeals. He vowed to fight the suit.

Then things got really silly. One attorney argues that Ross has been coerced into deciding to die by his own narcissism and the harsh conditions of living on death row. "Saying he is competent is not the same as saying he's capable," the attorney said.

An attorney interviewed on Fox News this morning made the statement that because Ross has been on death row for so long, he has been in a condition of sensory deprivation, and thus is not capable of knowing whether or not he wants to die.

So, if I understand this correctly, someone who kills eight innocent women is tried, convicted and sentenced to death for his crimes, and because of the lengthy process of mandatory appeals and such that we have for condemned criminals, that that process renders the criminal of being emotionally/psychologically unfit to die?

All of that notwithstanding, Michael Ross deserves the death penalty. He earned it, and the jury and judge agreed that it was appropriate. Society has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep this subhuman creature alive for well over 20 years.

Enough is enough.

Ol’ Cwydie Ain’t Workin’ In No Coal Mine

by The Windjammer

There was a family in the little village where we lived in which there were three fully adult sons. I never heard of any of them actually doing any muscle building exercises more strenuous than lifting a fork full of food or raising a brown bottle, and those activities rarely put their hands above their heads. They all received monthly checks which burned their pockets until they could get to their favorite store. The three of them kept after a neighbor to ‘get them a job.’

Har heard that the B&O was looking for day laborers to do track work, so he loaded the three in the back of his home made truck and headed for 12^th Street where the work was in progress. That was back in WW II when all the regular workers were busy somewhere else. They were hired on the spot to shovel ballast. The foreman told them to ‘grab one of those shovels and get up there in the car and start throwing gravel on the track bed.’ The oldest one replied, "To H--- with that! That sounds like work. The Old Man started that years ago and never did get over it." The three took off running across the railroad bridge and raced up the hill toward home. Har had to drive back alone and when he pulled into his parking spot the three were already sitting on their front porch watching him park.

A friend who was, before he retired, an official in one or more of our coal companies which operated locally told me that another coal company had four mines ready to open but could not do so. It wasn’t the environmentalists throwing road blocks this time. They couldn’t get workers, even when the rookies could get $17 to $18 dollars an hour and experienced technicians were being paid far more--and that was without assessments for union dues.

That reminded me of another character whose given name was Clyde, but Clyde couldn’t talk plain. When he talked of himself, he used the third person and referred to himself as Ol’ Cwyde or, more frequently, as Ol’ Cwydie.. The circumstances were a bit different, but with a little journalistic freedom, the story can be applied to the mining problem.

Clyde was one of those unfortunate individuals who had at least five problems, each compounded by the others. One of those problems was not the fact that he was as healthy as a bull and almost twice as strong. Clyde’s problems were that he warn’t too well-versed in book larnin’; cigarettes; whiskey (and an occasional beer); wild, wild women; and, last but certainly not least, a welfare check that just wasn’t big enough to support all his other vices at the same time. Clyde’s time, too, was back during that same slight period of manpower shortage.

As he told it, "Ol’ Cwydie went over to the Unemployment Office and they tol’ me I had to git a job. I ast them what they had for me to do an’ they tol’ me they had a job up at Katherine #3 for a trackman. They tol’ me it was workin’ underground an’ I tol’ them, ‘Ol’ Cwydie ain’t workin’ in no damned coal mine’."

I’m not sure that I blame Ol’ Clyde.

Katherine #3 was where I worked before I went to the Navy.

When I came back, I didn’t go back. I went to work where I could make some gravy money--in a grocery store.

The rest is history.

But one of the reasons for Clyde and the three brothers refusing to work may be a part of the reason for the dilemma of our mines and factories today.

Let the voting begin

It is not a misapplication of the term “arena” to apply it to the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. More games are played there than at any two athletic venues in the world. A game currently under way in the Senate stadium is the judicial nomination contest.

Some of us take sides with Republicans who want to move forward on the nomination process, while others side with Democrats who want to delay the process.

This flap comes down to a simple disagreement that has existed for decades, which is that each party has its own idea about the kind of person who should sit on the federal bench. When the Democrats are in power, the nominations favor activists who view the Constitution as a collection of broad principles and concepts that allow judges to draw on personal beliefs and values when forming their opinions on cases. When the Republicans are in power, the nominations tend to be of originalists who strictly interpret the language of the Constitution, and who believe judges should not overturn the will of legislative majorities unless a constitutional right has been or would be violated.

The device of choice for Democrats in delaying voting on federal judicial nominations is the filibuster. Essentially, a filibuster is a tactic of delaying action on a bill by talking long enough to wear down the majority in order to win concessions or force withdrawal of the bill. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes. Theoretically, filibusters can go on indefinitely, until enough votes are mustered, or one side gives in.

A group that cannot muster enough votes to defeat a bill by vote normally employs the tactic. Filibustering is possible in the U.S. Senate because Senate rules allow unlimited debate on a bill. A group or a single member may carry out a filibuster, and the speech need not be related to the bill under discussion. Calling for a vote to limit debate (cloture)—which requires 60 votes, the votes of three-fifths of the entire membership, in the U.S. Senate—or holding around-the-clock sessions to tire the speakers are measures used to defeat filibusters.

The Democrats threaten to use the filibuster not to defeat a bill as it has traditionally been used, but to delay action on judicial nominations, for which the filibuster has never been used. It was utilized one time to block the nomination of a sitting Justice to the Chief Justice position.

Normally, nominations are passed out of committee and voted on by the full Senate. A simple majority of 51 in favor is all that is required to confirm a nominee. If Democrats employ a filibuster, the nomination cannot be voted on unless 60 Senators vote to end the filibuster, effectively placing a higher standard on the nominee under consideration than has ever been placed on a nominee to a federal judgeship before. A nominee may have 59 senators who think he or she ought to be confirmed, a substantial majority, and certainly well beyond the normal standard, yet that nominee will not be confirmed because ending the filibuster requires 60 votes. Some believe this is unfair. I am one of them.

Republicans threaten to change Senate rules, which as the majority party they have the right and power to do, so that the filibuster may not be utilized to avoid voting on judicial nominees. Democrats cried “foul,” touting the filibuster as a valued legislative tool that is employed by both parties, which is true.

My own opinion is that Democrats ought to drop their opposition and give each nominee an open vote like other judicial nominees throughout the history of the United States. Let senators vote up or down on each nominee. If they are confirmed, fine. If not, that’s fine, too. That is the constitutional process. That is the right thing to do.

The next time the Democrats are in power, they can nominate activists to the bench to counter whatever perceived imbalance may have occurred during this period of Republican dominance.

Short of the Democrats giving up their imposition of what amounts to a super-majority requirement to confirm these nominees, Republicans need to do whatever is required to get these nominees before the full Senate so that the Senate can do its duty.