Capital punishment - it's good to be the king redux

Some time ago, I wrote about how a court arrives at it's decisions should not be overlooked simply because one happens to agree with a particular ruling.

There really is no Constitutional support for activist judges. One may like the current results and think, "It's good to be the king". However, such thinking doesn't rise above the level of an entertaining comedy and is beneath serious political though. If Dred Scott doesn't prove the point, then Kelo should make it clear that such a benevolent despotism can very easily turn against society. (It's good to be the king)

I've seen this mistake again, in discussions over the Supreme Court decision that declared capital punishment for violently raping a child was unconstitutional. Perhaps some may begin to understand the point being made, if it comes from a constitutional scholar, one that is not considered conservative and who is also not that enthusiastic about the death penalty. From Laurence H. Tribe:

Emphasizing the evolving character of what constitutes an "unusual" if not an unduly "cruel" punishment, the court rested its condemnation of executing the rapists of children largely on what it described as a trend away from the use of death to punish such crimes both here and abroad.

But there was a problem with the court's understanding of the basic facts. It failed to take into account — because nobody involved in the case had noticed — that in 2006 no less an authority than Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act, had prescribed capital punishment as a penalty available for the rape of a child by someone in the military.

Defenders of the court's decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana would have it ignore that embarrassing wrinkle by treating the military as a parallel universe that simply does not intersect civilian justice on the plane of constitutional principle. But a court searching for universal principles of justice in the name of the Eighth Amendment would be hard pressed to accept that view of the military/civilian distinction. Particularly when the court's division tracks the usual liberal/conservative divide, its credibility depends on both candor and correctness when it comes to the factual predicates of its rulings. (source, thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy)

Be sure to read the entire post at The Volokh Conspiracy, as well as the link there, for further discussion and consideration of one of the arguments Tribe makes.

The court not only missed the fact mentioned, the majority also ignored that society had moved away from capital punishment because an earlier court decision had declared it unconstitutional. That having been overturned, states reinstated the death penalty. This would indicate that society was moving towards capital punishment, rather than away from it as claimed by the majority.

Distorting the facts helps hide that the personal morality of the judges was the justification, but that doesn't change the fact that their job is not to institute their personal moral code as the law of the land.

For those who resist such an idea, because the rulings, more often than not, go in a direction they like, let's consider a judge who held the moral values of Fred Phelps. If judges are allowed to ignore the constitution and the actual facts in society, and replace legislative lawmaking with their own morals, what would stop someone like Phelps if they were a judge? The Constitution is no defense, that's already been tossed aside, in essence killed by the phrase "living document".

---

Filed under: Politics -- News -- Culture -- Crime

Trackposted to: Perri Nelson's Website, Political Byline, third world county, Allie is Wired, DragonLady's World, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, , The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, , and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Capital punishment -- Crime -- Supreme Court

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Finally! Democrats are being listened to regarding Iraq

There's been much frustration for those who believed Democrats when they campaigned that they would pull us out of Iraq, as soon as possible, and then voted accordingly in the last congressional election. The lack of success on that "promise" could only be more irritating now that Barack Obama has started to modify his position held during the primary race, though that appears to still be in flux, depending on who he's talking to at the time. So, there must be cheering in some quarters, if not at least a sigh of relief, at some of the latest news coming out of Iraq. As introduced by Ed Morrissey at HotAir (read it all):

Iraqi intelligence says that al-Qaeda in Iraq’s leadership has taken a powder.  The main leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, has taken several of his top commanders and fled to Afghanistan or Pakistan, leaving behind an organization in chaos. [...] (AQI bugging out of Iraq)

Oh, my bad, it is Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) that may be ending that war in defeat, rather than U.S. forces. Unfortunately, I don't think Democrats can run on the campaign slogan of, "AQI is following the strategy of defeat we recommended for the United States, vote for us!"

I'm sure The Obama, who knows no limits to spin and distortion, may find a way. But is that really something honorable Democrats want to brag about?

Ludacris could not be reached for comment.

---

Filed under: News -- Iraq -- Politics

Trackposted to: Perri Nelson's Website, Political Byline, third world county, Allie is Wired, DragonLady's World, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, , The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, , and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Iraq -- Democrats -- AQI -- Al Qaeda

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Capital punishment and stupid Christians

It's hardly surprising that there would be controversy regarding the recent Supreme Court 5-4 Kennedy v. Louisiana ruling that capital punishment could not be used for someone who violently raped a child, while still allowing it for other matters, including treason. While Christians can disagree about whether or not a government should be allowed to use capital punishment, it would help if they kept their arguments reasonable, rather than simply call names.

By this I mean, when someone says they believe the Bible allows for this punishment, a reasonable response from a fellow Christian is not to say only stupid people think the Bible says that. If one is going to so inartfully express their notion that the Bible doesn't support capital punishment, they would do well to explain and support their underlying position, rather than merely act so stupid themselves, by merely calling names. The lack of intellectual engagement is only displayed more clearly if they refuse to do so because they think the Bible does support the death penalty and yet they choose to reject that and deflect from their hypocrisy by childish rhetoric.

It obviously does nothing to support the idea that they actually thought deeply or can discuss this matter honestly, when they also imply that the other person can't possibly have the experiences they've claimed or be directly knowledgeable about the violence and aftermath that others have suffered. Irrational response squad groupies descend to the tactic of calling theists liars quite quickly, in my experience. Why should we think better of Christians when they choose to do the same to other Christians?

Some people also tend to say that when someone explains they support the death penalty for violently raping a child, because they've seen the aftermath of those who were molested or raped, that such is merely an emotional appeal. That would be nearly arguing that having any feeling automatically negates any argument. In fact, noting the damage crime causes and/or that a victim continues to suffer throughout their life, is a necessary component when determining what punishments are necessary and appropriate for many crimes and even civil cases. That one has strong feelings when considering the victim's suffering, indicates they are still human and capable of understanding the hurt others can feel when traumatized. Miscategorizing and denigrating that says nothing positive about the level of humanity of those stooping to such tactics.

As I noted, Christians can have reasonable disagreements about the matter. But those who argue in this fashion indicate they care more for their view and the applause they will receive from others in their choir, or even from those outside the faith, then they do for maintaining unity in the body of Christ.

---

Filed under: Christianity -- Religion -- Politics -- Crime -- Culture

Trackposted to: Perri Nelson's Website, Political Byline, third world county, Allie is Wired, DragonLady's World, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, , The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, , and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: capital punishment -- christianity

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

He means his ears are bigger - right?

Seriously, what else could it be? Because Barack Obama, who transcends race and is the only hope to bring us all together in racial harmony, would never, ever play the race card, right?

“What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’” (source, thanks to HotAir)

Be sure to follow the link to the TNR story at that HotAir post. I might be wrong about Barack Obama meaning his ears, because before the above, we have this:

“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? (source)

I suppose the one good result of this would be that if Barack Obama loses, and also does not get 100% of the black vote (115% in Chicago), he would have finally proved that black people can also be racist. Maybe he does transcend the racial divide after all.

I hope Jeremiah Wright can forgive me for this post, which only exists because I'm white and Barack Obama has big ears.

---

Filed under: Politics

Trackposted to: Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Allie is Wired, third world county, Political Byline, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama -- politics -- Campaign 2008 -- Democrat -- race

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

A tale of a speech and a mustache

And lo, a cry went forth across the land. Never before had such words of eloquence been spoken. Indeed, if one dared, hope could be felt more tangibly than ever thought possible. Redemption for all, healing and change would soon wash over the world and challenge all who clung bitterly to their opposition. Not only one nation, but all of the world's population would benefit from the one who gave sound to such words, who dared to visit other lands, while vying for leadership of only one. Truly, one to rule them all. This symbol of all the world's hopes and dreams smiling down upon us all, not afraid to tell us to do more, to come together as one.

But then John Bolton's mustache spoke.

Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved “that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because “the world stood as one.” The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator’s own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik — “eastern politics,” a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance — continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative. (source, thanks to Michelle Malkin)

Be sure to read all of what the mustache has to say. It would seem that Barack Obama has as much a grasp or respect for history as does Pat Buchanan. I agree with Michelle Malkin, it would be a good thing if Ambassador John Bolton were part of a McCain administration. In fact, McCain at some point should announce that, as it would generate some excitement among conservatives, along with the added entertainment of watching a number of heads explode.

We can only hope at this point, but at least this is hoping for something specific, with known qualities, rather than just repeating the word ad nauseam.

I apologize for this racist post, that did nothing to help Michelle Obama's children.

---

Filed under: Politics

Trackposted to: Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Allie is Wired, third world county, Political Byline, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Berlin wall -- Barack Obama -- John Bolton -- Cold War -- campaign 2008 -- politics

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

They say laughter is the best medicine

So oft repeated, without question, yet has the cliché status of that statement hidden a pernicious effect? Perhaps some will laugh at even the notion that such is possible. Just such a reaction that helps illustrate what will be discussed and examined on this subject. The negative aspect being considered is a lack of thought as to whether or not something should be laughed at, and along with that, justifying behavior because someone, at minimum the one committing the act, happened to think it was funny at the moment.

For some, the coarseness of some comedians would be an example that comes to mind. Unfortunately, other situations can readily be found, some with horrible results, others, while perhaps not destroying a life, at the very least, demonstrating a joy in cruelty that says nothing good about that individual or those agreeing with the supposed hilarity of the matter.

The most devastating example, that also includes obvious cruelty in the action, would be the so-called adult who used the Internet to emotionally torment a teenage girl, who subsequently committed suicide. Clearly, the intent of the "adult" here was not to kill the girl. Yet, it was certainly not love, caring and nurturing support that was intended either. Revenge and the idea that this was just the Internet were no doubt major contributions. But is it inconceivable that "did it for the lulz" was also on this individual's mind? Caught up in this particular example is the idea that it's just the Internet, that all is a joke therein, or should be taken that way. So engrained is that idea, that some while expressing sorrow for what happened, then nearly blamed the victim because she took what was done to her so seriously. I wonder, does moving such actions to a digital medium with graphics make it any different from receiving the same by a telephone call? Granted, much of life consists of how we choose to respond to what is thrust upon us. But this does not, nor should it, remove or lessen the responsibility of those choosing to burden others with harmful words and actions, even if they find it funny or the context they choose to work their mischief in, happens to be one they consider a joke. If their stated intent does not automatically insulate them from all moral responsibility, why should their method of delivery do so?

There are other examples that fall rather far short of literally pushing someone over the edge and into suicide, however, the cruelty of the perpetrator is still not removed nor hidden by their laughter. What else is one to think of someone who breaks into a private online discussion group and then spreads the link around to others, anonymously? It goes far beyond breaking into a little clique; the group contained very personal discussions and information, because it was private. That privacy being compromised, the group was deleted to prevent the personal matters from being revealed to those who had no business seeing such things. Or what of the individual who made a cruel comment to someone who had been molested as a child and justified it by saying they did it for the lulz?

No doubt, the individuals acting in such a manner probably laughed quite a bit at what they were doing and the drama they created. Their facial expression was no doubt somewhat similar to a chimpanzee baring its teeth and throwing its head back in apparent mimicry of human laughter. The difference being that the monkey is actually showing aggression and should one respond in kind, even with only innocent laughter, the situation could escalate. On second thought, it really is not so different and indicates that such aggressive people have yet to really evolve much above our simian cousins.

Fortunately, many are not so cruel and they would never do such things. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't laugh or type lol, and in doing so, encourage such behavior and perhaps show that they merely lack the twisted courage to follow through with what they've implied by saying such is funny. But laughter and joking are sometimes just how one responds to being shocked, even by tragedy. This is understandable, but hopefully we remain inwardly reflective enough to know this and avoid falling prey to when laughter distorts us, rather than being the help and healing that it can be. Unfortunately, this may require that we not express our initial temptation to laugh, because the other person would take that as approval and encouragement. A possible objection may be phrased as, why should we take up an additional responsibility because someone else chooses to be less responsible? Well, isn't that what responsible, mature people actually do? If we shrink back from that by inaction, don't we only contribute to and help spread the problem?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. (Edmund Burke)

Laughter, the ability to express the feelings of joy and happiness, is a wonderful experience; however, it also tends to not be questioned seriously that emotions and feelings should not completely overrule rational thought. And no, radical womyns literature that portrays rational thought as only a feature of the patriarchal hegemony, and therefore bad, are not serious thoughts. But with laughter, the added enjoyment makes it easier to set our rational thinking aside. How is this any different than, "if it feels good do it"? It doesn't take long to consider if this or that should feel good, or that even if it does, it should still be rejected. Of course that self-reflection takes discipline and a recognition of personal responsibility, both of which could result in additional time and effort being expended, especially at the beginning of trying to make such habitual. Unfortunately, self-discipline and accepting personal responsibility may be in dwindling supply among humanity, as they are just not very convenient. However, as much as convenience is sought after these days, many can still complain about what they perceive as shortsightedness of this or that government expenditure or policy, due to the long-term results that are expected, but that are ignored for the transitory but convenient effects claimed in the near-term. How is living only for the moment and the feel good experience of the now and not thinking about how that makes us into who we become, substantially different?

Despite all these negative possibilities, laughter truly can be the best medicine, but with any medication, care must be taken in its use. We often only think about too little being a problem, but too much and/or at the wrong time, can be also be harmful. By all means, let us continue to laugh and do so with full enjoyment, but let us also not be tempted to think that we may never be using this so improperly as to hurt not only ourselves, but also others. Some might only laugh at this suggestion, but in doing so, they may be indicating that few medicines are now able to help fix the disease that is their soul. There truly is a time for laughter; sadly, their chosen state is a time for sorrow.

---

Filed under: Culture

Trackposted to: Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Maggie's Notebook, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Allie is Wired, third world county, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: internet -- culture -- morals -- personal responsibility -- laughter

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

OTA Open Trackback 07.28.08

As the lovely Samantha Burns says:

Please use this space to trackback your best, main page articles (I just require a link to this article, as always). Also, if you have something to discuss, it is welcomed here as well.

ADVICE: Trackback main blog page articles to showcase your work (and it will help to attract readers).

Yep, I was in a plagiarizing mood ;-) Nevertheless, it's a good way to draw more attention to your blog, so trackback away :-) I'll have one of these each Monday, because, well, I hate Mondays ;-p

Please refrain from using international accent marks in your post URL. The inline trackback script will fail if those are used.

Do NOT link your open trackback post here. Use Linkfest Haven instead.



More trackback partys, open posts and linkfests can be found at:

Filed under: OpenTrackback

^{Disclaimer: trackbacks do not necessarily represent the opinions or standards of Mark My Words}

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

One bad apple, so let's punish the entire class

Apparently a particular journalist has never experienced the injustice that such knee-jerk reactions entail. Or, not having the courage to confront the real problem directly, and lacking support from a culture that may not have the stones to do so either, decides to just take a swing at a much larger group with a silly idea.

While recognizing that radical elements in Islam have an alarming sway on a percentage of Muslims and are not assimilating well into British or western cultures, the author veers off course rather abruptly with this (thanks to Lucianne.com):

Religion is as long as a piece of string; true faith lies in the heart of the believer and is rarely susceptible to argument. Clearly, for lots of Muslims Islam is not a doctrine of gentleness, tolerance, sexual equality, forgiveness, democracy and all the rest. For countless others it clearly is.

What follows inescapably from this is that religious people and their views should not be officially recognised in groups.

Inescapably? I'm wondering if that word means something different in the UK, like say, "by ignorant leaps and bounds of foolishness".

Religion should not be allowed a public space or public representation. This is hard for those of us who used to love the muddled Anglican compromise; it means the disestablishment of our national church – if it doesn’t self-destruct first.

Let's put aside the notion of a national church, as the author obviously goes much further than simply detaching that from government.

The challenge of other, fiercer and more divisive convictions has forced the issue; multiculturalism has been subversive. There must be no more religious schools – personally I would leave those that exist alone.

I would say this means that personally, the author doesn't have the guts to follow through with the implications of her foolish idea.

There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.

So-called religious community leaders, or umbrella groups of religious bodies, must of course be free to associate as they like in private, in a free country, but publicly they must be ignored. Publicly they must not teach or promote illegal prejudices. Forced into the private sphere, denied the oxygen of publicity, power and influence, highly politicised religious groups will wither on the vine. Perhaps, in that wonderful phrase of Yeats, they might even wither into truth.

It's unfortunate that recognizing problems with multi-culturalism and how that allows radical elements to grow, results in this nearly hysterical rant against all religion. One has to wonder if the author would see how foolish this were if one replaced the word religion with the term world view. World views are not always susceptible to argument, after all. What does the author propose to prevent the state from determining which world view is acceptable?

Pardon me, but I'm not impressed that the ramparts against such a condition would consist of this journalist's personal desire not to go that far. Even worse, the reply might be, it's ok, as long as my world view is not being suppressed.

Western culture has enough problems, without extreme reactions to extremism and punishing an entire class of world views because one is having serious trouble with a minority of one particular group within that class. I suppose dealing with this particular bully, instead of punishing the entire class, might take a bit more effort and intellectual work. Judging from her proposal, "To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups", Minette Marrin is not capable of either.

---

Filed under: Culture -- Religion -- Politics -- Islamofascism

Trackposted to: Rosemary's Thoughts, Maggie's Notebook, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, , Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Islam -- Church of England -- extremism -- religion -- Minette Marrin -- UK

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Sincerity vs political calculation

While it is expected that a politician will make decisions based, at times, on mere political expediency, there are moments when such calculations are no better than working an abacus with your eyes closed and after a drunken frat party. If only Barack Obama had that as an excuse and also didn't have another political candidate whose actions can be looked at for comparison.

In a previous post I noted how Barack Obama canceled a visit to see wounded American soldiers while he was in Germany. There has been some further discussion about that matter with various responses from Obama's campaign.

One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition, “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit." [...] (source)

Thanks to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air who writes:

This makes the decision track very clear.  Obama and his team set up the visits to military installations before going overseas.  After seeing how the media got excluded in Iraq and Afghanistan, they decided it wasn’t worth traveling to Ramstein and Landstuhl to visit the severely wounded troops because they couldn’t bring the campaign and get the photo ops they wanted.  Instead, Obama went shopping in Berlin. [...]

As noted, this amounts to nothing more than it being less than politically rewarding, therefore Obama decided not to do it, despite the Obama campaign attempt to spin it.

[...] "Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go,'' Gration said.

But the Pentagon said that wasn't true, that Obama was more than welcome to come, it was just that he couldn't bring the media or campaign staff. [...] (source)

A bit of background to that spin:

[...] Pentagon officials say Gration was the campaign's point of contact at Landstuhl in arranging Obama's visit and "got torqued" when he was told he would not be permitted to join Obama. It was Gration who later suggested to reporters that the Pentagon short-circuited Obama's visit. [...] (source, thanks to DrewM at Ace of Spades HQ for this and the above)

So it's either self-centered priorities, or Barack Obama is so incapable of independent thought, he simply accepts the advice to reject this visit from one of his campaign's military advisors, who apparently was auditioning for the role of most irritating diva in politics.

Bad enough, but then John McCain has to go and visit someone that won't produce much votes and is guaranteed not to be attended to in person by several news anchors.

[...] So here’s John McCain, who “hates gooks,” going out of his way to visit the head of state and most visible spokesman of the Tibetans. He’d already spoken out in support of them (as had Obama, to be fair.) The visit wouldn’t get a lot of press coverage, really, and the number of new Buddhist votes he was going to get from the visit — literally dozens, no doubt — weren’t going to make a really big difference.

What it was, what it appeared to be, was an actual sincere visit to the leader of a people who, if they aren’t suffering genocide, are certainly enduring the next best thing. Offering support to people who just wanted to live their own lives. [...] (source, thanks to Glenn Reynolds)

Perhaps the more knee-jerk Obamatons/trolls out there will see this as proof of how poor a candidate McCain is, in comparison to the oh so crafty, sort of black guy, racial reconciliation avatar, slayer of Hillary Clinton, knight in shining armor, vapors inducing candidate they support. McCain just isn't smart enough/too old to play politics very well and their candidate is obviously superior in that regard.

Hey, if they want to elevate political calculation above sincerity, that's fine with me. After all, their candidate, Barack Obama, is doing a pretty good job of it himself.

---

Filed under: Politics -- News

Trackposted to: Rosemary's Thoughts, Maggie's Notebook, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, , Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama -- election 2008 -- campaign 2008 -- politics -- John McCAin -- Dalai Lama -- Tibet

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

This would not be an apples to apples comparison

But it does give an indication of Barack Obama's priorities.

On the one hand, the adoration of thousands of Germans, during a campaign inspirational speech. On the other, wounded American soldiers.

Apparently Obama has the time for one, but not the other.

SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has canceled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. "Barack Obama will not be coming to us," a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. "I don't know why." Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.

[...]

NRO - The Campaign Spot

Be sure to read the entire post at NRO and the updates therein. I agree that scheduling mistakes can occur, but such is not the case here.

The first time I ran across this, I actually figured it was just an "oops" and would be corrected soon. Obama and his campaign staff couldn't be this foolish was my thinking at the time. Unfortunately, it now appears to be another insight into what Barack Obama considers to be important. Perhaps he should remember that German citizens can't vote but American soldiers can and will.

---

Filed Under: Politics -- News

Trackposted to: Rosemary's Thoughts, Maggie's Notebook, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, , The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama -- Election 2008 -- Campaign 2008 -- politics

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Let us reason together

Or is that not allowed when it involves Barack Obama? That question of course is not directed at all Obama supporters. I know some who are willing to discuss the mistakes and perhaps even their disagreements with the candidate they currently support. Perhaps even some can agree that occasionally elections come down to choosing between a douche and turd sandwich as memorably portrayed by South Park. So, I'm curious, why do such people continue to support the junior Senator as he aims for the highest office in this country?

It used to be that one could easily point out serious disagreements on many issues between the apparent party candidates. But now it seems arguable that Obama has shifted rather dramatically on issues regarding troop withdrawal from Iraq, FISA legislation, NAFTA, abortion and gun rights, to name a few that come to mind easily.

For those who can actually have reasonable discussions about politics and who support Obama, are there no concerns at all regarding Obama's changes as he prepares for the general election fight? Is it that easy to take every explanation or rationalization from the candidate and his more rabid supporters for these apparent reversals?

I know there are some people who can explain their position reasonably. By that, I mean, without expressing hatred for the current occupant of the oval office or considering those who still support the war in Iraq as being morally deficient or too stupid to be capable of being held morally responsible. I've actually experienced such a discussion, so it's not just wishful thinking.

I suppose I might have a chance at preventing Obamatons/trolls from replying if I mention that George Bush is still president because Al Gore actually lost the election and John Kerry was a flip flopper who rarely mentioned serving in Vietnam. From what I've seen of some, that might be enough to cause rapid expansion beyond their skulls capacity and greatly inhibit the ability to type.

So, what is it that keeps you reasonable people supporting Obama? I can understand that we disagree on core values, that's life and that we can talk, rather than resort to violence is one of the great things about America. But are you confident Obama really hasn't changed or that he isn't playing uninformed people for fools with his latest policy statements? Has anyone changed their mind recently and decided they can't support Barack Obama and honestly will vote for McCain or not vote all?

Is reasonable discussion possible?

---

Filed Under: Politics

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Maggie's Notebook, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, , The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama -- Election 2008 -- Campaign 2008 -- politics

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions