The Debate…

30.September.2004 at 22:46 (+0000) by Robin S.

Again, better bloggers than I have covered and will cover this, so I’m really just wasting space. Still, it’s my space to waste, right?

Links:
Captain’s Quarters Blog
Instapundit (Not just one post, so there’s no permalink)
Vodkapundit
Shape of Days

In general, I think it was pretty even. Bush hit a lot of home runs, and Kerry swung and missed a lot… for me. However, if you were leaning toward Kerry to begin with, I’m sure it seemed the other way around.

With Dad supporting Kerry and me leaning toward Bush, and our habits of talking a little more loudly than necessary when at home, I should’ve realized that watching the debate here wasn’t a great idea. We got yelled at to be quiet at least once, and I think I heard grumblings from the other room throughtout most of the debate, honestly.

I KNOW I got yelled at when Kerry made a comment about “the last man to die for a mistake,” and then said that Iraq wasn’t a mistake… when he’d just said it was not three minutes before.

Quote from Captain’s Quarters (Post):

“8:30 – ‘Last man to die for a mistake’ — Kerry now says that it’s not a mistake. It’s a mistake, it’s not a mistake — which is it? I mean, HE JUST GOT DONE SAYING THAT INVADING IRAQ IS A MISTAKE! Sheesh! …”

My favorite line of the entire night, though, was the “nuanced” response about Kerry’s promise to have the troops out in 6 months. “I never said I’d have our troops home in six months. What I said was that, with my plan, we would start pulling troops home in six months.” You never said… but you said… HUH?!

Basically, the debates were more of the same, with neither candidate falling on their face too badly. Kerry flip-flopped a few times, and Bush missed a few chances to really pound on him, but he did well. I would really have liked to have had Badnarik included in these debates (and possibly Nader, too). I like Badnarik, from what I’ve seen of his stances, except for the war, and that’s the big one this election season, so I’m going to stick by Bush barring some big shift.
——–

Lots of randomness.

30.September.2004 at 11:53 (+0000) by Robin S.

I’ve heard it said (and I want to attribute this to Peter David, though I have no idea if he said it at all, much less if he said it at all, much less if he were the first to say it…) that the only real way to fight free speech is with more of it. That is, if someone says something horribly racist and hate filled, the response should not be to have government silence that person, but for other, right-minded (correct-right, not conservative-right, though the two do coincide sometimes) people to speak up as well.

This article, from CrushKerry.com (found through Instapundit), says the same thing, while covering the specific issue of “Rathergate.”

I’m sorry if this offends

30.September.2004 at 11:06 (+0000) by Robin S.

I’m sorry if this offends someone who believes that it’s not right to take the morals of our culture and judge another, but there should never, ever, ever be a situation in which someone sues to be beaten “only” once a week.

The next time NOW or some similar organization complains about sexism in America, remind them how far we’ve come.

(I don’t know where I found this link, or I’d give credit. Sorry.)
——–

Getting off to a slow (re)start…

27.September.2004 at 20:19 (+0000) by Robin S.

I know I haven’t been writing much of late. This is partially due to the fact that I’ve been playing video games a lot (Fable and Magic Online, mostly), and partly due to the fact that so many other bloggers say most of what I want to say far more eloquently than I could ever dream of. (See also: The Ornery American — not a blog, but worth the read.)

Still, even if my posts only consist of a list of links to much better bloggers’ work, I hope to get more stuff posted soon, and to pick up a more frequent posting schedule soon.

From a link at (I think) The Smallest Minority, I found this story about a young man who was standing up for his political views when a teacher was shoving the left wing stance down his throat. Given that I’ve been hearing that similar tactics are happening at our local high school, I’m starting to wish (just a little) that I was back in high school. I think I could easily make Sangamon Taylor look like a downright likeable guy. I don’t ask that schools completely ignore politics, but if they’re going to allow ONE side to be blatantly partisan in these institutions that influence the minds of the United States’ young people, then I expect that they should allow equal time to the other side.

Finally, I realize that most of my readers aren’t even from this country, much less this state (In fact, I’d wager that there’s only one from this state — Hi, mom), but I still found this look at West Virginia as a swing state interesting. It sums up exactly why I have so much trouble understanding that so many West Virginians are Democrats — most people I know are so socially conservative that it seems almost ludicrous to hear them talk about the “money-grubbing” Republicans.
——–

Illegalizing Christianity

07.September.2004 at 18:19 (+0000) by Robin S.

I received a forwarded e-mail today that seems to have originated with the American Family Association, with the subject “It could soon be illegal to preach against homosexuality!”. Because of a “please forward this e-mail to at least one friend” message at the end of the e-mail, I’m including the entirity of the e-mail’s text (though I’ve cut headers and snipped off the “unsubscribe” messages at the bottom, which were forwarded along with the text). I’ve also e-mailed the AFA to inform them that I was quoting this e-mail. If they request that I remove it, I will do so willingly.

There is a “hate crimes” bill that has already passed the U.S. Senate. The House will soon vote on the bill. If the bill passes, the ultimate result could be that it is a federal crime to publicly criticize the homosexual lifestyle. It is urgent that you contact your Representative today to oppose this dangerous “hate crimes” amendment that could lay the groundwork for persecution of Christians.

Can’t happen, you say. In Canada, one cannot publicly criticize homosexuality. Because of a “hate crimes” law that includes sexual orientation, even the quoting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality can be illegal.

Because of “hate crimes” legislation in Sweden a pastor was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he said homosexuality is wrong.

The Kennedy-Smith “hate crimes” bill will give protected status to the homosexual lifestyle. http://gsmith.senate.gov/press/2004/05-19-04.htm

Laws in civilized nations have always been designed to punish conduct, not thought. But wrong thoughts are the sole aim of Kennedy-Smith. The Kennedy-Smith bill does nothing to aid in fighting crime.

The Kennedy-Smith amendment – The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act – recently passed the Senate and the House will be voting to accept the Senate language any day now.

To contact your Representative through the capitol switchboard, dial 202-224-3121. For the direct number to your Representative, go to http://www.protectmarriagerally.com/ushouse.asp#ushouse

It is important you call today! Ask him or her to oppose The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act or any other federal “hate crimes” bill.

Please forward this alert to all of your friends and family members.

Sincerely,
Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this email to at least one friend.

This e-mail caught my interest for two reasons. First, I’m a Christian, and therefore directly affected by any law that would infringe on the practice of that religion. Second, even if such a law were directed at someone I strongly disagreed with, I would feel compelled to oppose it. (You know how it goes — if you don’t stand up when they’re coming after other people, then there’s no one left to stand with you when they come for you.)

The first thing I do when I get an e-mail like this is to investigate the truth of what I’m being told. The e-mail references a Swedish case (discussed here), but it’s important to note that Sweden isn’t the United States. Is it completely unfeasible that such things could happen here? No. Indeed, if we drop our guard, it becomes increasingly likely that such things will happen.

The law being proposed (S 2400) (If the link doesn’t work, search for S 2400; it shouldn’t be hard to find the version that passed in the senate) is actually a rather large bill that, largely, has nothing to do with the items discussed in the e-mail above, but rather defense funding (at least, that’s what it seemed to be on my brief skim). Instead, an amendment was added (according to some reports, it was added by Senator Kennedy, but I can’t verify that using the Thomas page) that covers hate crimes (Link). In addition, there are amendments covering Firefighter assistance and “Protecting children from violent programming”.

That said, the problem isn’t in this proposed law (though it is a problem, it’s merely a symptom of several other issues). First, we need to stop this nonsense about stamping completely unrelated amendments to laws. It’s a dishonest tactic, and while I understand it’s one that’s been used for years by politicians, it’s almost as disgusting as the concept of Ghost Voting (though not quite — I may write a post on that sometime soon).

Second, the very idea of a hate crime is anathema to me. If one man kills another, I don’t really give a flip whether he was killed because his skin was a different color, or he chose to get his sexual kicks in a certain way. I want his killer found and punished. As Larry Elder (who is black) says in The Ten Things You Can’t Say In America, “If I’m standing at an ATM machine, and a Ku Klux Klansman hits me in the back of the head with a brick, the operative word is not ‘Klansman.’ It is ‘brick.’”

Third, even if I accepted the idea of a hate crime, these laws are rarely (if ever) enforced the way they’re written. The law as written would make an attack on a Christian just as illegal as an attack on a homosexual. However, observations on the way that past “hate crime” laws were enforced will show that, even when blatant racism is involved, hate crimes are most often prosecuted as such when the victims belong to a minority group, and prosecuted as “regular” crimes when victims belong to a majority group. Ronald Taylor‘s conviction is not the rule, but the exception. Why should some crime victims be given special consideration simply because of the color of their skin? Isn’t that what people like Martin Luther King, Jr. fought against?!

After doing some research on this law, I decided that, while the reasoning smacks a bit of demagogy, the portion of the law being discussed in this message should be opposed. It’s not going to be outlawing the Christian preacher’s right to speak out against homosexuality (which is different from speaking out against homosexuals), but it is trampling on our rights in various ways, and would likely do the opposite of its claimed goal, by placing yet another wedge between different groups.
——–