Day Of Infamy

Sixty-five years ago today, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. That event shocked the nation just as events nearly sixty years later would.

I recently read a book titled, "Day of Infamy". Author Walter Lord pieces together the events of that day through interviews and documentation, as well as tours of the Harbor, air fields, and surrounding areas.

Lord's work has the feel of reading a work of fiction. He starts with the story of Army Nurse Monica Carter and her fiancé, 2nd Lt. Barney Benning watching the launches take men back to the warships anchored in the harbor.

We learn why all the battleships are in port at the same time. The battleships were "too valuable to maneuver alone without carrier protection" and the USS Enterprise was taking Marine fighters to reinforce Wake Island from what was believed to be an impending Japanese attack.

As we start relaxing with this nice, easy flowing story, and with our characters Nurse Carter and Lt. Benning, we read:

"Somebody suggested calling Lieutenant Bill Silvester, a friend of them all who this particular evening was dining eight miles away in downtown Honolulu. Monica called him, playfully scolded him for deserting his buddies -- the kind of call that has been placed thousands of times by young people late in the evening, and memorable this time only because it was the last night Bill Silvester would be alive."

Suddenly, we are jerked across time to the reality behind the words. This is a story in the sense that it is the story of real people on a real day in history making real decisions with real life and death consequences.

The reality of the three sailors on the USS West Virginia "hopelessly trapped in the pump room" where "they cling to life until the day before Christmas Eve". The reality of the 32 survivors pulled from the USS Oklahoma's upturned hull. The spreading rumor that a Japanese invasion was imminent. The reality of the sailors on the Japanese midget subs.

I recommend this book. This is an enthralling book, which breathes life into a moment of history, which needs to be remembered by all of us, even as the generation that lived it slowly passes away.

For all those who have defended this country and the cause of freedom, whether in the past or currently, to you I say,

"Thank you"

In the Face of Death: 9/11 Remembrance

We can all remember where we were when we first heard.

I had gotten up late for work and decided to log on to check my fantasy football score based on the results from Monday Night Football the night before.

A plane had hit the World Trade Center said the headline that accompanied a picture showing black smoke pouring out of the top third of the building. Immediately the thought that a small airplane had accidently flown into the Trade Center entered my mind. I gave it no further thought, bypassing the article, and moving onto my "important" stuff - fantasy football.

On the way to work, the radio reported that the second tower had been hit by another plane. In that moment the realization swept over me. The odds are far too great that two small planes would accidently hit these buildings. This wasn't just some tragic accident. This was an intentional act of great evil.

Of course, the horror became even worse as the towers collapsed. I suppose the lucky victims were the ones who were killed instantly in the fireballs that engulfed them. They didn't have to deal with being trapped and knowing they were going to die. Or to make a decision that it was better to jump to your death than to burn to death.

Of course, they also didn't have time to say goodbye to their loved ones. I'm not sure how I would fair if placed in that situation. One minute you are going about your daily tasks. The next, to know you are moments from death.

From the calls for which we have records, it appears that the moment brought these unfortunate souls clarity about what is truly important. It's not fantasy football. It's relationships. It's about those whom we love.

In the midst of the most evil hatred imaginable, hatred that was being done to their very person, these individuals taught us a lesson in what's important.

In the face of death, they showed us what life is about.

My Son's 11th Birthday

My son Alex turned 11 years old today. I look at him not quite believing in the length of time that is left in our wake. How fast it has gone. I am reminded of the oldies song "Turn Around" which talks of the quickness with which our children grow up:

Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four
Turn around and you're a young girl going out of my door

The song speaks of a little girl but it also applies to little boys. Alex is not so little anymore. He is growing into a fine young man. I am grateful and proud of that fact.

And while I miss the joy of his younger years, these have been the most rewarding and, yes, fun.

Happy Birthday, Alex.

Love,

Dad

Planned Parenthood - Predatory Fanatics

David Crary, Associated Press Reporter, filed an August 20, 2006 article about a nationwide push by anti-abortion activists to expand their foothold in heavily black and Hispanic inner cities.

My favorite part of the story, Anti-Abortion Activists Eye Inner Cities: Anti-Abortion Activists Aim Expansion Drive at Urban Blacks and Hispanics is the quote from a Planned Parenthood chapter president:

"Critics contend that pregnancy centers routinely mislead women seeking neutral advice on their options. A report in July from congressional Democrats said center counselors often overstate the medical risks posed by abortion.

Skeptics also argue that the same white conservatives supporting urban anti-abortion initiatives oppose other social policies that might help minority single mothers and their children.

"These predatory fanatics don't lift a finger to help the children who are born unwanted and unplanned," said Jatrice Martel Gaiter, head of the Washington-area Planned Parenthood chapter.

"In these centers of deception, they leave young parents at best with a box of Pampers and a prayer," she said. "They leave people even more vulnerable than when they walked through the door, without any information about how to avoid a future unintended pregnancy."

Predatory fanatics? And what is Planned Parenthood’s solution for helping children who are unwanted? To kill them. Problem solved.

Actually, it is Planned Parenthood, founded by Margaret Sanger who championed eugenics as a way of racial cleansing, who preys on the most innocent, defenseless, and vulnerable members of the human community; the unborn child.

If we can kill unwanted children then can we also kill any child if they are no longer wanted? Where was Planned Parenthood when Andrea Yates no longer wanted her children? Their mouths runneth over with: “She’s a victim.” “Her husband should have known.” “She suffers from post-partum syndrome.”

Yates aborted her children. The only difference is that Yates’ act was done in full view of the world rather than hidden in a darkened womb.

Gaiter also errs about the centers leaving “young parents at best with a box of Pampers and a prayer”. The volunteers show these women (and very often young teens) love; someone who cares. This may be the first time in that woman’s life she has actually received that.

But even more, the centers provide training and support for the parents to take responsibility for their actions, how to give love to another, and the confidence that they can persevere. Yes, even at great personal sacrifice.

In short, the pregnancy centers help these women develop character and integrity in their own lives. And they do so without ever asking the woman for money.

What help do these women receive after they leave the sterile confines of a Planned Parenthood clinic? The offer of a quick fix. The siren call to act only with oneself in view. To be selfish not selfless.

In short, Planned Parenthood offers these women the chance to continue in the way that brought them to this crisis in the first place. That character and responsibility are not important. Just show up at their door for future
unintended pregnancies and Planned Parenthood will solve all your problems.

Just make sure you bring the money.

Morally Equating Good and Evil

An actual post from an online discussion titled, "HOW TO piss off every living NEOCON":

You claim that "they want to kill us," yet you are exactly the same as they are,
because you want to kill them. You are EXACTLY the same as they are, you just
attach a different name to it because it makes you feel like you're not a
terrorist, but you are. You are morally equivalent to all the terrorists - you
are superior to no one.

This is a striking comment. This poster sees no difference between those who kill innocents on purpose to further their evil and those who kill innocents accidently to stop evil. Another poster responded with some of the acts the terrorists have committed such as intentionally targeting civilians, recruiting suicide bombers, planting bombs on babies, hacking off innocents heads, the Breslan school massacre, Bali night club, Bombay, Spain train and London subway bombings, etc. To which a third poster wrote:

"How many innocent Iraqi and Lebanese children have been killed by "collateral
damage" from bombing? Do you not suppose that the Iraqi and Lebanese civilian
population view this as an indiscriminate act of terrorism? The US and British
fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo during WWII, which killed thousands of
innocent civilians, were acts of direct terrorism used to intimidate the general
population in hopes that they would not continue to support the military. Hd we
lost the war, the architects of those attacks would have no doubt been placed on
trial as war criminals. If the american revolutionaries had been able to blow up
parliament and kill King George, would that have been an act of terrorism?
Terrorism is not unique to muslims and eastern nations. A definition of it
depends entirely on where you are sitting at the moment.

Of course, this poster ignores facts like "How many innocent Iraqi and Lebanese children have been used as human shields by the terrorists."

The first and third posters have conceded that they are unable to make moral distinctions about good and evil. And yet they attack Bush as being evil because he invaded Iraq (they always seem to leave out with the blessings of Congress and the UN) and civilians are being killed. And they never use the same language for the terrorists.

So the ones who perpetuate evil and intentionally kill innocents are defended while those who try to protect as many innocents as possible while stopping the evil are considered the truly evil people.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute writes an interesting article, "What Would Jesus Bomb?" at The Christian Post.

Whitehead writes:

In a twisted play on the popular refrain "WWJD?"—What Would Jesus Do?—some anti-war activists have begun asking "What Would Jesus Bomb?" It is a question for which President Bush, a self-avowed Christian, seems to have no answer, at least if one were to judge by his authorization of bombing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and his silence over Israel’s latest military actions in Lebanon.

Yet most of the people I polled, a mixture of Christians and non-Christians, do not suffer the same confusion. "What or who would Jesus bomb?" they were asked. Their answers never varied: "Jesus would not bomb or kill anyone."

When pressed to explain, the responses ranged from "Jesus would have shown compassion rather than killing anyone" to "God is love" to "Jesus was always looking to love his enemies"—and so on.

On the surface this seems like an unanswerable challenge but, in fact, this objection to the war is faulty.

• The challenge refers to Jesus in his first incarnation where he would use the physical to point to a transcendent truth.
• He modeled the Kingdom of Heaven as an individual not a government official. This may be an argument against Christians going to war but it's not an argument against war.
• They exclude the Jesus of Matthew 25:31-46 where He sends the wicked to "eternal punishment".
• Christianity says Jesus is God. The same God of Love who directed the Israelites numerous times to go to war and kill everyone of their enemies.

Those using this challenge, invoke Jesus as Lamb while ignoring Jesus as Lion.
The article quotes Bonhoffer as evidence for the author's position:

"Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its plea for the weak."

Bonhoffer was executed because he tried to kill Hitler. So "who would Jesus assassinate?" Bonhoffer saw killing Hitler as a chance to save lives.

Lastly, "Who Would Jesus Bomb" during WWII or was trying (and eventually) saving the world from the evil and destruction of facism wrong? After all, if God is love and wouldn't kill anyone then He would have had to let Hitler (or any evil) continue unabated.

A Sunday Morning with Thee, Anger

Shortly after I commented on al-Zarqawi going out with a bang, I submitted "It's Beautiful" to The Columbian's Opinion page. Sunday morning, June 25th, The Columbian printed my letter. To summarize,

I compared Rene Belloq opening the Ark of the Covenant at the end of the Raiders of the Lost Ark and finding the beautiful being that transforms into something horrible that consumes and destroys him. I compared that to al-Zarqawi expecting to find the 70 beautiful virgins as a reward for the evil he committed. Then I speculated that upon seeing those beautiful virgins they morphed into "Holy and Righteous God that judges in perfect justice."

At 8 am (Sunday morning, mind you), my wife received a phone call (I was in Seattle) from an Allen:

Allen: Is Larry there?

wife: May I take a message?

Allen: Well, is Larry there?

wife: May I ask who's calling?

Allen: This is Alan?

wife: Oh, you mean Larry's friend Allen?

Allen: Can I speak to him?

wife: (at this point, wife realizes this isn't Larry's friend Allen) I'm sorry. He's not available?

Allen: You tell, Larry, that my God is not a Nazi! ... Larry's going to have to kneel before God someday. ...

wife: (hangs up)

A couple of things struck me about this call:

1) This person must have been really, really, really angry with me to call at 8 am on a Sunday morning! I guess Allen needed to release his anger before attending church service.

2) This person must have been really, really, really angry with me to yell at my wife when he found out I wasn't available.

3) Whose God was I calling a Nazi?!? al-Zarqawi's God? The one who rewards those who behead and blow up innocent people? People who don't agree with him? Let's see didn't the Nazis kill lots of innocent people? Even after rereading my post of published letter, I honestly don't see where Allen was comming from. Unless, of course, he worships al-Zarqawi's God. The one that sanctions terror against the innocent.

4) It takes an act of true courage to take your anger out on the wife of the person with whom you disagree. Especially when she had nothing to do with the letter. But Allen must have felt better since he hasn't called back.

5) Yes, someday, I will expect to kneel before God, a "Holy and Righteous God that judges in perfect justice" the crimes for which I am guilty. That is why I kneel before the cross of Jesus Christ. He has come to me, a capital criminal, and offered me a pardon for my crimes. So that on that fateful day the beautiful entity will morph NOT into a horrible creature that consumes me but intoHis even more beautiful, loving, compassionate presence.

Wanted - Pharmacists Without Moral Conscience

As reported in the July 22 Columbian, Pharmacy board reconsiders "refuse and refer" stance, the Washington state pharmacy board is re-evaluating, under pressure from the Governor, their policy "that allowed pharmacists to refuse filling a prescription if they have personal objections."

In their July 25 editorial, In Our View - Change of Heart?, The Columbian editorial board concluded:

"the solution is simple: Make druggists fill prescriptions. Pharmacists know the nature of the work when they enter the profession. If they don't like some aspects of connecting physicians and patients to legal drugs, then they should find other work and let nonpartisan, apolitical pharmacists do the work that the public needs and expects."

My friend and mentor, Jerome Wernow, is Executive Director of the Northwest Center for Bioethics responded to the editorial board:

I read your paper's editorial on the 'incorrect' decision of the WSBP regarding the pharmacist's right to opt out of dispensing abortifacients should they find it morally repugnant. This has been a prerogative of the profession in the US since the Church Amendment of 1973, the APHA ethical standard since 1998, and in the history of the profession an option since the Hippocratic Code 400 BCE, and that is long before NARAL imposed their will to power on an honorable profession. I wonder if the confusion isn't really caused by abortion advocates who desire to drive anyone out of their health care profession who defy their politically created structures.

Dr. Leo Alexander warned of such intolerance in his classic 1949 New England Journal of Medicine addressing his findings in the Nuremburg trials. The article is well worth reading even if you do not agree with my dissent against your position.

As a bioethicist and pharmacist, I question your understanding of the ethical issues and the facts regarding Plan B contraception. Would you or one of your editors would be open tod iscussing the issue face to face for the purpose of presenting adifferent point of view about the history, professional standards of pharmacy practice, and politic surrounding conscience clauses?

Professionally,
Jerome R. Wernow Ph.D., R.Ph.
Executive Director
Northwest Center for Bioethics

As of this writing, the Columbian editorial board has not responded to Dr. Wernow's invitation.

State Supreme Court upholds Washington polygamy ban

The Washington State Supreme Court today upheld the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Media reports continue to call this a ban on gay marriage. See the following headlines:
The New York Times, "Washington Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage"
The Columbian (Vancouver, WA), "State Supreme Court upholds Washington gay marriage ban"

Of course, since DOMA says marriage is between a man and a woman, polygamy is also banned. But, of course, most same-sex advocates as well as the media have no problem discriminating against those relationships. So in the interest of equality here are some excerpts from the article*, “State Supreme Court upholds Washington polygamy ban”:

====
“For her part, the governor offered support for extending marriage-like civil rights and protections to [polygamists], saying the current arrangement amounts to discrimination.”
====
“The [polygamists] who sued to overturn the [DOMA] law were dismayed at the ruling, but some said there would still be a push for polygamy marriage rights in the Legislature.”
====
“Justice Mary Fairhurst said the majority improperly bowed to public opinion by upholding the [polygamy] ban. ‘Unfortunately, the (majority) are willing to turn a blind eye to DOMA's discrimination because a popular majority still favors that discrimination,’ Fairhurst wrote.”
====
King County Executive Ron Sims, who helped foster one of the original lawsuits by [polygamists] seeking to marry in Seattle, said his next step would be to push for civil unions.
====
[Fifty] states have laws banning [polygamy] or limiting marriage to between a man and a woman.

*Excerpts based on The Columbian article linked above. Only the names [of gay marriage replaced with polygamy] have been changed. Only the credibility of the media and same-sex marriage advocates have been harmed in the making of these excerpts.

and this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.'

Michael Medved has an excellent column in today's USA Today titled "Faith and nationalism: Indivisible in America".

Medved reminds us that many of our country's most patriotic songs, such as The Star Spangled Banner (1814), America, The Beautiful (1913)*, God Bless America (1938)*, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, My Country, 'Tis of Thee (1831)*, "inconveniently and conspicuously mention God and his special blessings for America".

These songs mention God, not in passing, but in reverence of who He is and the blessings that He has bestowed upon this country. In other words, these songs reflect the Judeo-Christian pillars upon which this country was built.

Medved goes on to say:

"Defenders of secularism might argue that we will enjoy a brighter, better future by severing the associations between faith and nationalism, but they shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize the past — or to suggest that they're returning us to an era of absolute church-state separation that never existed. " (emphasis mine)

*Site includes MIDI sequencing of the hymn.

Truth is Bizarro-er than Fiction

Yesterday's Bizarro comic strip takes an unwarranted and intolerant shot at the Boys Scout.

The one panel comic shows a news commentator reading a news item:

"Scientists announced today irrefutable proof that sexual orientation is genetic. The Boy Scouts announced today the exclusion of kids with good grades in science."

First, there has never ever been a study that has shown sexual orientation is genetic. I encourage anyone that believes otherwise to produce a study that has. Not a media headline or a reporter filed story but an actual study. Not a single study has drawn such a conclusion. In fact, sometimes the studies explicitly state NOT to draw that conclusion. That does not stop those that need the genetic evidence to support their agenda to use those studies as propaganda.

Second, if "irrefutable proof" of a genetic cause for sexual orientation were determined does one actually think the Boy Scouts would bar "kids with good grades in science"? Just because the Boy Scouts organization says homosexuality does not aligned with their leadership values?

Perhaps Bizarro comic author Dan Piraro could use these ideas in the future:

- ridicule the NAACP for refusing to allow KKK members as NAACP leaders.
- ridicule the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for not allowing their leadership to consist of persons that do not hold HRC values.
- ridicule the HRC for twisting scientific studies for the purposes of their own agenda. For example:

"Scientists announced today irrefutable proof that sexual orientation is NOT genetic. The Human Rights Campaign announced today the intolerance and bigotry of kids with good grades in science."

That would be closer to the truth. In this case, truth is more Bizarro than fiction.

House Rejects Amendment Banning Polygamy

- USA Today: "House rejects measure on polygamist marriage"
- New York Times: "House G.O.P. Lacks Votes for Amendment Banning Polygamy"
- Seattle Times: "House rejects polygamy ban"
- The Columbian (Vancouver, WA): "House rejects proposed constitutional ban on polygamist marriage", page A2

Of course, the preceding headlines were never published. Instead, these paper's headlines read:

- USA Today: "House rejects measure on same-sex marriage"
- New York Times: "House G.O.P. Lacks Votes for Amendment Banning Gay Marriage"
- Seattle Times: "House rejects gay-marriage ban"
- The Columbian (Vancouver, WA): "House rejects proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage", page A2

The Federal Marriage Amendment (House Resolution 56) reads as follows:

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a
man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor
state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the
legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

If marriage is limited to a man and a woman then polygamy and plural marriages (polyamory) would also be excluded. So why do the headlines not state that. Because most same-sex marriage advocates have no problems banning polygamy and polyamory. That discrimination is perfectly fine with them.

So they create headlines that try to paint a particular group as being targeted; as victims. In fact, Rep. Barney Frank said proponents of the amendment are motivated by “a dislike of those of us who are gay and lesbian.”

If that is true then proponents must also be motivated by a dislike of polygamists and polyamourists.

Of course, Rep. Frank and all those who cry for marriage equality don't actually care about marriage equality. They care about elevating homosexual relationships to the same level as heterosexual relationships.

The phrase "Marriage equality" is just an appealing sound bite designed to draw the masses to their side without actually revealing the true objective of same-sex marriage advocates. Or for that matter, revealing the bigotry in their own hearts.

Bombay bombing

Anyone that denies the pure evil of the ideology the world is facing received another punch in their collective guts in light of yesterday's Bombay train bombings which has killed 200 so far. I've spoken to this before in "The Time That Is Given to Us" including relaying Dennis Prager's observations of what faces the survivors.

While no one has yet claimed responsibility and the investigation is just starting, the Indian government suspects the perpetrators are Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, a Kashmiri militant group. According to the article, however, "former senior intelligence official, Ajit Doval, said the blasts were too sophisticated for the Kashmiri groups to have carried out on their own." Doval continues:

"This is the work of groups which are targeting India as a whole and are not Kashmir specific and are pursuing the larger jihadi agenda," said Doval, who maintains strong contacts in the intelligence community. "They are targeting countries and societies, particularly democratic ones, which they consider to be the antithesis of their version of Islam." (emphasis mine)

That is what we are fighting. Those that want to destroy those "they consider to be the antithesis of their version of Islam". New York, Washington D.C., London, Bali, Madrid, Bombay, Afganistan, and Iraq not to mention targeted individuals like Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh (who was killed for denouncing Islamist oppression of women), and Muslim riots over their dislike of cartoon dipictions of Mohammed are evidences of the radical ideology we face. Thankfully, most Muslims do not hold to that radicalism.

For the ones who do, civilization has only two options before us. We can fight this ideology and crush it. Or we can forgo freedom for their "version of Islam". Democracy or Sharia law. Freedom or tyranny.

I pray that India will be strengthened in their time of trial, that the survivors and their families will find comfort, that those who are filled with fear from these attacks would find peace, and resolve to the good people of this earth to stand against this evil.

Barak Obama and Universal Values

Democrat U.S. Senator Barak Obama wrote an interesting piece in today's USA Today titled "Politicians need not abandon religion". Obama writes:

it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.

Obama identifies something that few at his level in the Democrat party will publicly state about our history, about personal morality, and about the definition of law.

While this is true, Obama makes another pertinent observation along with an example:

... democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.

If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Obama touches on a very important principle in the first part of his assessment but his example of application fails to heed his own implications. Universal values depend on certain absolutes being in place to which we are all subject regardless of whether everyone holds to those values or not.

Martin Luther King recognized this in the fight for civil rights. He unashamedly pointed to the objective standard of the value and dignity of man (regardless of skin). This standard King reminded us existed not because any human being recognized it but because "Our Hebraic-Christian tradition refers to this inherent dignity of man in the Biblical term image of God."

King then went on to say:

This idea of the dignity and worth of human personality is expressed eloquently and unequivocably in the Declaration of Independence. "All men,” it says, "are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Never has a sociopolitical document proclaimed more profoundly and eloquently the sacredness of human personality. ["The Ethical Demands For Integration"]

King's and the Founder's biblical worldview adhered to a "universal" (i.e. objective) truth regardless of what other's - religious or not - held. This is the point that must be true for Obama's foundational premise to be valid. If there is a God who created all of us and the world in which we live then there is a design to that creation; certain truths that exist even if not one human being recognizes or adheres to those truths.

This is why King's civil rights movement made progress. It recognized a truth about the way the world is designed and appealed to it even to the point of using religious language because the only way the truth makes sense is by pointing back to God.

King knew that it is the God of the Hebraic-Christian tradition which gives us value. Not the color of our skin, not our ethnicity, and not whether we are inside or outside the womb.

Legislating from the Bench

This week the top courts in New York and Georgia ruled that laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are constitional under their states' Constitutions. I've linked the stories:
N.Y. Top Court Rules Against Gay Marriage & Ga. Top Court Reinstates Gay Marriage Ban

I've commented on this issue extensively in published editorials ("Homosexual marriage goes against natural law", "Same-sex marriage forces society to approve of homosexuality", and "Opposing same-sex unions isn't bigotry") and in responding to particular questions so I will just respond to the dissenting judge's comments in the NY court:

In a dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye said the court failed to uphold its responsibility to correct inequalities when it decided to simply leave the issue to lawmakers.

Kaye noted that a number of bills allowing same-sex marriage have been introduced in the Legislature over the past several years, but none has ever made it out of committee.

"It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation," she wrote. "The court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

The purpose of the judiciary is not to fix society. It is not to "correct inequalities." That's the role of the legislature, the elected representatives who pass laws. The purpose of the judiciary is to render judgment based upon the Constitution they took an oath to uphold. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The judge reveals that she neither respects her oath or the Constitution of the State of New York.

Independent Indifference Day

I attended the Independence Day parade in Ridgefield, WA yesterday. This parade has become an annual occurrence for my family. It is a small town parade (plenty of tractors, the Mustang club, politicians, town little league teams, even two F-15 fighter jets doing a fly-over). It is a fun experience of small town American celebrating its patriotism.

Yet, one thing bothered me.

As the Honor Guard presenting the colors passed us, maybe half the people that lined each side of the street actually stood in honor of our national symbol. Most people were clapping (even the ones siting). But very few actually stood at attention. I noticed the same thing the year before.

Growing up, whenever we watched a sporting event (or anything) where the National Anthem was played, us kids were required to stand. We were to show respect to the flag at all times.

I don't know why people didn't stand. Laziness, apathy, indifference, ambivalence? Maybe they weren't taught how to respect the flag; the symbol of our liberty. The symbol of those who died so that we could have a day off to sit on the side of a street with indifference as the Stars and Stripes passed by.

America the Beautiful

Today marks the 230th anniversary of the founding of these united States. One of the most beautiful songs acknowledging this country's blessings is America the Beautiful. The contemplative nature of the words combined with the melody make a truly inspiration experience.

Have a Happy and Contemplative Independence Day:

America the Beautiful
Words by Katharine Lee Bates,
Melody by Samuel Ward

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!

O beautiful for pilgrims feet,
Whose stem impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man's avail
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!

Good Quote to the Fringe?

This post comes from a Columbian Discussion Forum:

Just reading a book and was happy to see that my thoughts follow a person that was wiser than I will ever be.

Max Born - 1954 Nobel winner

"The belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all the evil that is in the world."

The poster then states:

"This statment was made about knowledge but I think it speaks truthfully to beliefs in general."

On the surface this sounds very wise. However, taken as posted, this comment is self-refuting. The claim of "the belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all the evil that is in the world" is itself a truth claim.

If it is true that there cannot be only one truth then Born's statement is false because he is claiming his belief as the only truth.

If there can be a single truth then Born's statement is also false because he claims that there cannot be only one truth.

Either way, Born's makes a false claim of truth which he himself is in possession of thereby committing the "deepest root of all the evil that is in the world."

UPDATED: 6/27/2006 to correct the spelling of Max Born's name.

Honoring the Wrong War in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

Comment read into the Congressional Record - Senate, June 21, 2006, S6261 by Senator John Kerry:

When I heard those two guys were captured, my heart sank because I immediately envisioned the worst. The worst happened. I thought about them throughout that time period, until they were found. I was not surprised that they were brutalized in the most horrific, disgraceful way, and may I add-and I know the Senator knows this-in ways that contravene every law of warfare. But I believe we have a better chance of honoring what they went there for and what all of our soldiers have died for, given something for, if we adopt a policy of reality.

"Honoring what they went there for"?!? Does the Senator want to honor them for going to "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time", the label he applied to the war during the 2004 Presidential campaign? After all, Kerry wants to go back to a the time where terrorists were just a nuisance; the nuisance of flying planes into skyscrapers, the nuisance of the U.S.S. Cole, the nuisance of the Beslan massacres, the nuisance of innocents like Nicolas Berg being beheaded simply because they want to help the Iraqis, the nuisance of Iraqi school buses and elderly homes being blown up.

Senator Kerry's rhetoric reveals his lack of moral clarity, courage, and credibility on this issue.

A dozen boys and a soldier were chosen

John Laird had an very good article in the June 18 Columbian titled, "A dozen boys and a soldier were chosen"*. Laird contrasts his Little League coaching experience this year with that of Sgt. Brian Radke, a local soldier who was critcally injured on Oct 5 of 2005. The picture he paints provides a glimpse of what is important in life, courage, sacrifice, and the existence of that which is greater than ourselves.

Six 11-year-old rookies weren't sure what would happen at their first meeting of the Hazel Dell Cardinals ... "Look at me and listen carefully," I announced. "I want you to focus on just three words: You were chosen."

"You're here because the coaches chose you. At the tryouts, we watched the way you arrived, the way you talked to your parents, the way you stood in line and the way you acted around your friends.

"We chose you for more reasons than just baseball. So you can be sure that this is where you belong."

Laird explained of his team's struggles and his challenge to them:

"As long as you have BR-USA embroidered on the side of your baseball caps, I will never allow you to feel sorry for yourselves. Get your chins up. There's no pouting in baseball."

As the story unfolds, you realize that BR-USA on their caps and their baseball season was dedicated to Sgt. Brian Radke:

... for the first time in 15 years of coaching, I saw 12 boys play for someone other than just themselves. I saw a dozen clumsy knuckleheads rally around five initials that stood for one soldier.
Oct. 5 in Baghdad is why the boys of BR-USA stopped feeling sorry for themselves while playing a silly game.

Laird continued:

Most baseball caps have a fairly short shelf life. After a year or two, they're gone. But I know a dozen boys who'll keep their BR-USA caps for many years to come, maybe for the rest of their lives. They'll do this not because of baseball, but because they'll need a reminder whenever they start to feel sorry for themselves.

Sgt. Brian Radke came home, and he heard three words from Hazel Dell Little League folks about their 2006 season: You were chosen.

*Article is available on The Columbian web site for four weeks.

Being Wired Is All The (Road) Rage

It appears that those who engage in road rage should have society's sympathy rather than our judgement and punishment. The London Telegraph reported June 6 that "Road rage drivers are mentally ill, not thugs":

Road rage and other violent outbursts are caused by "intermittent explosive disorder", a condition which could affect up to 16 million Americans.

Dr Emil Coccaro, chairman of psychiatry at the University of Chicago's medical school and the report's co-author, said: "People think it's bad behaviour and that you just need an attitude adjustment, but what they don't know ... is that there's a biology and cognitive science to this."

So road rage isn't bad behavior after all. People cannot choose to control their anger. It's not their fault, they're just born that way. If that's the case, then what right does society have to judge that behavior? Isn't that discriminatory? Morality need now apply.

After all, it's only biology.

Nature, the Homophobe

How does same-sex marriage detract or threaten the institution of heterosexual marriage?

LR: We can also ask how does polygamy or plural marriages "detract or threaten the institution of same-sex marriage?" Yet, most same-sex marriage advocates have no problem banning those types of relationships. To be intellectually consistent, those relationships (and others) would need to be part of the institution, which would effectively eliminate any meaningful meaning to marriage. In other words, marriage would no longer exist.

Second, marriage throughout history has always been recognized as an opposite-sex relationship in recognition of our nature as human beings. Marriage brings together opposite genders into a complementary union. (See Designed for Sex).

Same-sex marriage advocates reject this appeal to nature but point to "loving, consenting adults" in same-sex relationships. Where do they get the notion of loving? Of consenting? Of adults? These concepts also go to our very nature as human beings.

We recognize love as filling a necessary human need for relationship. We do not violate the will (consent) of human beings. For example, it is wrong to own humans but not pets. And we recognize that adults will (generally speaking) have more wisdom to handle the powerful bonds (both emotionally and sexually) of the marital relationship. Animals instinctively mate when their bodies are ready but human maturity is more than just physical maturation.

So same-sex marriage advocates pick and choose which parts of nature to which they will appeal; accepting only the parts that will benefit their cause. Intellectual consistency demands that if appeals to nature are illegitimate and discriminatory than all appeals to nature should be dropped. Or explain why only parts of nature must be appealed to. Same-sex marriage advocates do neither.

In fact, marriage as a union between "two" people is equally discriminatory. Two finds its meaning in our nature as sexual beings. That is, two people coming together in a sexual union. That is the concept of couple (aka coupling). While multiple ways exist to engage in a sexual union, only one is the way nature made the sexual organs to function and that is through opposite-sex sexual unions. Sans appeals to nature, "two" becomes an arbitrary number to exclude relationships (like polygamy and polyamory) with which same-sex marriage advocates are uncomfortable.

Same-sex marriage doesn't just threaten marriage; it threatens the very way we view ourselves as human beings. If you have a problem with that then take it up with nature, the true homophobe.

FLAG DAY 2006

From the Federalist 06-24 Chronicle (6/14/2006):

On 14 June 1777, the Marine Committee of the Continental Congress adopted a resolution, which gave birth to our National Flag. The resolution read: "Resolved that the Flag of the United States be made of 13 stripes, alternate red and white, that the union be 13 stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation."

General George Washington explained: "We take the stars from heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing liberty."

Today, our Flag is a beacon for liberty, a symbol of hope for all people who "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Our flag flies over a national government, which, at its foundation, was predicated on the premise that it be concerned with what can be done FOR its citizens, not on what can be done TO its citizens.

Is Forcing Your Views On Others Wrong?

A lesson in clear thinking from an exchange in an online thread between a friend of mine and a person identified as Tiggr:

Tiggr: I think everyone is missing the real point of all this. Forcing your opinions and beliefs on anyone else is wrong. That is the crux of it all. Everything else is just posturing and rhetoric.

DGG: I think that Tiggr is missing the point too. The statement that "everyone is missing the real point" is a self-defeating statement because, if true, then Tiggr is missing the point too.

Further, the statement that "forcing your opinions and beliefs on anyone else is wrong" is interesting because every statute or regulation enacted by a governmental entity is a means of forcing one's or society's beliefs on someone else. Forbidding murder is one method of forcing a belief against murder on everyone else in society. Thus, that can't be the point! The question cannot be whether or not we are forcing our beliefs on everyone else, but whether or not the belief is a legitmate one. What Tiggr must mean, then, is that only those beliefs held by Tiggr are appropriately forced on everyone else. Otherwise, the comment is nonsensical.

One should deal with the issues and not engage in personal attacks or self-defeating statements.

"It's Beautiful!"

Spoiler alert: for newly arrived interstellar aliens who have not yet picked up the DVD.
Towards the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Rene Belloq has captured the Ark of the Covenant (and Indiana Jones and Marion) and opens it to see what treasures therein lie. Magnificent spirits emerge swooping around the cave until one immensely beautiful spirit hovers before Belloq.

"It's beautiful!" he exclaims in sheer delight at the vision until a moment later it morphs into a unimaginable horrible creature which engulfs and destroys him as he screams in agony and excruciating pain.

I wonder if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, upon passing from this life, saw a vision of 70 virgins, beautiful beyond description, welcoming him with open arms. "They're beautiful!" he exclaims in sheer delight at the magnificent vision only to be bewildered as they merge into one virgin and then aghast as the one virgin morphs into the Holy and Righteous God that judges in perfect justice.

I wonder if Zarqawi thinks all the evil he perpetuated during the wisp of his life is now worth his eternal screams of agony and the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Zarqawi now knows true terror.

Return to the Planet of the Blogs

Due to many of things such as work (no response from the Gates Foundation yet on my request for them to underwrite my living expenses), family, tasks and issues which required my attention, and - yes - sometimes just because, I have not blogged for awhile.

I know some in the blogosphere live and breathe this stuff. Good for them. But while I like to write and think that the last 11 months have reinforced there are many things much more important than whether or not I write. I may miss it (and I did) but, for me, this is not the be-all of my existence.

While I may or may not post each day, my hope is that when I do that I might, in some small meaningful way, be able to add something to the issues of our day.

I can just hear all those who don't like my views very much: "Damn you! Damn your views all to hell!"
(My apologies to Charleton Heston)