Just when I thought there wasn’t anything worthwhile happening in that “second-Vietnam” we call Iraq – those anti-American, anti-democracy, ungrateful Iraqis go and write something like this (I pray the sarcasm wasn’t lost on that):
Please pay careful attention to Article One – for all those concerned that the new Iraq is worse than the old one governed by a single ruthless dictator who got his jollies off gassing Kurds and throwing newspaper publishers off buildings.
The Draft of the Iraq Constitution (thier first in case you are counting)
PREAMBLE
We the sons of Mesopotamia, land of the (messengers), prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilization and the creators of the alphabet, the cradle of arithmetic: on our land, the first law put in place by mankind was written; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down; on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed, the philosophers and the scientists theorized and the writers and poets created.
Recognizing God's right upon us; obeying the call of our nation and our citizens; responding to the call of our religious and national leaders (and our national forces and politicians) and the insistence of our great religious authorities and our leaders and our reformers, we went by the millions for the first time in our history to the ballot box, men and women, young and old, on Jan. 30, 2005, remembering the pains of the despotic band's sectarian oppression; inspired by the suffering of Iraq's martyrs -- Sunni and Shiite, Arab, Kurd and Turkomen, and the remaining brethren in all communities -- inspired by the injustice against the holy cities (and the south) in the popular uprising and (burnt with the sorrows of the mass graves, the marches and Dujail and others); recalling the agonies of the national oppression in the massacres of Halabja, Barzan, Anfal and against the Faili Kurds; inspired by the tragedies of the Turkomen in Bashir, and as in other parts of Iraq, (the people of the western region have suffered from the liquidation of its leaders, symbols, tribal leaders and displacing its intellectuals, so we worked hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder) to create a new Iraq, Iraq of the future, without sectarianism, racial strife, regionalism, discrimination and (elimination).
Terrorism and "takfir" (Editors Note: takfir means to declare someone an infidel) did not divert us from moving forward to build a nation of law. Sectarianism and racism did not stop us from marching together to strengthen our national unity, set ways to peacefully transfer power, adopt a manner to fairly distribute wealth and give equal opportunity to all.
We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined -- men and women, old and young -- to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism.
We are the people of Iraq, who in all our forms and groupings undertake to establish our union freely and by choice, to learn yesterday's lessons for tomorrow, and to write down this permanent constitution from the high values and ideals of the heavenly messages and the developments of science and human civilization, and to adhere to this constitution, which shall preserve for Iraq its free union of people, land and sovereignty.
CHAPTER ONE: BASIC PRINCIPLES
Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.
Monday, August 29, 2005
"Support our Troops"?
I have generally been in a pretty laid back mood lately. Things are going well at work. My boys are healthy (if not well-behaved…oh, the terrible two’s), and my wife is learning to cook! So, although there has been a lot to talk about in the current events section this past week or so, nothing has really risen to the level of blog-worthy for me. Until this…
There is something sickeningly hypocritical about claiming to “support the troops” while protesting the troops outside the hospital where they are recovering from their wounds. But yet, that is what each of these protestors say when interviewed, they do in fact “support the troops” - But they hold up sings that say “Maimed for lies” and “Die for Halliburton”. I would be interested in knowing what type of “support” the troops get from those posters.
Its not that I am the final arbiter of what is appropriate anti-war speech and what isn’t. But it seems to me that there are ample ways to get across you anti-war sentiment without disparaging the President or more importantly the troops. I don’t see anything wrong with “Bring our Troops Home” or “Give Peace a Chance”. After all, who doesn’t want the troops home in a time of peace?
It was good to see some counter-protests this weekend. I hope we get more of these around the country as the closet conservatives/closet patriots come out from their hiding and make their voices of support heard. We complain about the media’s constant coverage of the wacky left’s protests, all the while we sit at home and keep quiet. Lets not keep quiet anymore and at least see where that road leads us.
There is something sickeningly hypocritical about claiming to “support the troops” while protesting the troops outside the hospital where they are recovering from their wounds. But yet, that is what each of these protestors say when interviewed, they do in fact “support the troops” - But they hold up sings that say “Maimed for lies” and “Die for Halliburton”. I would be interested in knowing what type of “support” the troops get from those posters.
Its not that I am the final arbiter of what is appropriate anti-war speech and what isn’t. But it seems to me that there are ample ways to get across you anti-war sentiment without disparaging the President or more importantly the troops. I don’t see anything wrong with “Bring our Troops Home” or “Give Peace a Chance”. After all, who doesn’t want the troops home in a time of peace?
It was good to see some counter-protests this weekend. I hope we get more of these around the country as the closet conservatives/closet patriots come out from their hiding and make their voices of support heard. We complain about the media’s constant coverage of the wacky left’s protests, all the while we sit at home and keep quiet. Lets not keep quiet anymore and at least see where that road leads us.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Great American Debate Ground Rules
Ground Rules for the Great American Debate:
1. Please come to the debate with an opinion (any opinion)
2. Fence sitting is frowned upon. Remember, this is a friendly debate, not a love-in
3. You cannot summarily dismiss information provided by an opponent based simply on the author or source of that information. Example: A conservative shouldn’t refuse to believe Al Franken when he says that President Bush lost more jobs than Hoover – until said conservative is able to pull the actual government data showing how big of a liar Al Franken really is.
4. Name-calling is frowned upon and profanity is not allowed. Names like “idiot” and “moron” should not be used until your opponent has clearly earned this label. You can’t earn a label like “moron” just because your opinion is different. Your opinion has to be based on a verifiable lie or misstatement, or your opinion is completely void of higher thinking – beyond say a 7th grade level.
5. If at the end of the debate, you can’t go have a beverage with your opponent and talk about something other than the debate topic, you have failed at the Great American Debate and lose your debating privileges for a month.
6. You do not have to have served in the military to have an opinion on military topics. Just like I am not on welfare, but I can have an opinion on welfare policies in this country. If previous life experiences were a determining factor for entry into the debate, the debate would be waged by only a small group of people depending on the topic. I didn’t serve in the military, but I am an educated person who is as current as any civilian can be on our foreign policy, I think I should have my opinion heard. Just like you may have never worked a day in your life, but you still get to tell us how our tax money should be spent. I wouldn’t tell you to “go get a job first”, and then come tell me about how the city/state/federal govt. should spend tax money. You don’t call me a “chicken-hawk” when I try to express an opinion on the war. Besides, whenever you use a word that was created by an extreme group or individual, you show the world that you are only good are reciting copy points (chicken-hawk vs femi-nazi).
These are not hard rules to follow. Yet, too many people think they already know it all and look down with contempt on those with different opinions. If you believe in something, but don’t have any facts, just say so. Some things can be a matter of faith or a gut feeling. Murder trials can be won without a body. Just don’t act like you have all the answers when your opponent questions your stance.
1. Please come to the debate with an opinion (any opinion)
2. Fence sitting is frowned upon. Remember, this is a friendly debate, not a love-in
3. You cannot summarily dismiss information provided by an opponent based simply on the author or source of that information. Example: A conservative shouldn’t refuse to believe Al Franken when he says that President Bush lost more jobs than Hoover – until said conservative is able to pull the actual government data showing how big of a liar Al Franken really is.
4. Name-calling is frowned upon and profanity is not allowed. Names like “idiot” and “moron” should not be used until your opponent has clearly earned this label. You can’t earn a label like “moron” just because your opinion is different. Your opinion has to be based on a verifiable lie or misstatement, or your opinion is completely void of higher thinking – beyond say a 7th grade level.
5. If at the end of the debate, you can’t go have a beverage with your opponent and talk about something other than the debate topic, you have failed at the Great American Debate and lose your debating privileges for a month.
6. You do not have to have served in the military to have an opinion on military topics. Just like I am not on welfare, but I can have an opinion on welfare policies in this country. If previous life experiences were a determining factor for entry into the debate, the debate would be waged by only a small group of people depending on the topic. I didn’t serve in the military, but I am an educated person who is as current as any civilian can be on our foreign policy, I think I should have my opinion heard. Just like you may have never worked a day in your life, but you still get to tell us how our tax money should be spent. I wouldn’t tell you to “go get a job first”, and then come tell me about how the city/state/federal govt. should spend tax money. You don’t call me a “chicken-hawk” when I try to express an opinion on the war. Besides, whenever you use a word that was created by an extreme group or individual, you show the world that you are only good are reciting copy points (chicken-hawk vs femi-nazi).
These are not hard rules to follow. Yet, too many people think they already know it all and look down with contempt on those with different opinions. If you believe in something, but don’t have any facts, just say so. Some things can be a matter of faith or a gut feeling. Murder trials can be won without a body. Just don’t act like you have all the answers when your opponent questions your stance.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Local story
This morning I had a surprise edition to my morning reading material on my lawn. Evidentially, the Allen American Statesman decided to throw some free copies in our neighborhood. I didn’t have time to read much of it this morning, but one story featured something that I found amusing. The story was about a string of robberies where the thief was making off with lots of guns, among other things. The police offer/chief (not sure) said something along the lines of “that is why people need to lock their guns in safes…” Then the very next line talked about how the robber made off with guns, jewelry and SAFES!
So I suppose, you can lock you gun in your safe, in which case if someone breaks in at night, you wont have time to get to and if someone breaks in during the day, they will likely cart off your entire safe…either way, you cant win.
I think I will continue to keep mine within reach. That’s not to say those of us with little kids around shouldn’t take EVERY precaution against them getting their hands on it. Parents should always err on the side of their children’s safety versus their desire to be armed against the unlikely event of a home invasion.
So I suppose, you can lock you gun in your safe, in which case if someone breaks in at night, you wont have time to get to and if someone breaks in during the day, they will likely cart off your entire safe…either way, you cant win.
I think I will continue to keep mine within reach. That’s not to say those of us with little kids around shouldn’t take EVERY precaution against them getting their hands on it. Parents should always err on the side of their children’s safety versus their desire to be armed against the unlikely event of a home invasion.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Air America goes to court
The whole Air American turn Enron scandle is very intersting. I just wish I could read about it in the Dallas Morning News on my way in to work.....
Anyways, there are a couple of people doing some real investigative work on this issue - so there is nothing original that I can add to this. Check out the work of Michelle Malkin and Radio Equalizer via Powerlineblog.
Anyways, there are a couple of people doing some real investigative work on this issue - so there is nothing original that I can add to this. Check out the work of Michelle Malkin and Radio Equalizer via Powerlineblog.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Able Danger, Unable Commission
Folks, this should make your blood boil. Some of you newspaper junkies and current events junkies may have come across the recent story about the elite super secret, 8 member, military spy unit - Able Danger. You would have to be a newspaper junkie, because thus far, this has been buried deep, deep within the pages of the major news outlets.
It turns out that military intelligence knew about Mohammed Atta and three other highjackers a year before 9/11. Unfortunately ("Uunfortunate" is an understatement given the severity of what was to follow), the military was not allowed to share their knowledge with law enforcement. And why is that?
In 1995 top deputy to then-Attorney General Janet Reno, Jamie Gorelick, issued an order creating a "wall" that prevented intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law enforcement (Note: liberals should be familiar with "wall" terminology although in this case, this wall costs people their life, as opposed the supposed religion "wall" that strips people of their right to freely practice their religion). So strict was this "wall" that the branch of the FBI that deals with terrorism could not share their information with the branch of the FBI that deals with domestic issues - as an example.
The frustrating part of the story is that the 9/11Commission staffers (including the afore mentioned Gorelick) first denied knowing about the military spy unit Able Danger, but later admitted that they were indeed briefed on it, twice. How convenient that they commission failed to mention this in their 1,000 page report (certainly not for lack of space).
And as Deborah Orin of the NY Post points out here, Gorelick was warned about this order way back in 1995 by another Clinton appointee, US Attorney Mary Jo White, who headed up terror probes such as the prosecution of the first WTC bombing. White warned that this "wall" could lead to a loss of life, but Reno and Gorelick refused to budge. I'm guessing on the grounds that if the military spies told the domestic spies that someone was planning on flying planes into the WTC, that this would have somehow violated their civil rights. Can't have the military getting involved in civilian affairs and such.
If Gorelick would have been made to testify during the 9/11 Commission as some senators wanted, this would have all come out back then. Instead, the Commission went forward with their report, putting the majority of the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration, while all along they knew that the Clinton administration, by way of the Attorney General's office "wall" memo - played a significant role in the failure of the "intelligence community" to stop the attacks.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) sums it up nicely, "The commission's refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissions."
You can bet that there will be more to come on this.
It turns out that military intelligence knew about Mohammed Atta and three other highjackers a year before 9/11. Unfortunately ("Uunfortunate" is an understatement given the severity of what was to follow), the military was not allowed to share their knowledge with law enforcement. And why is that?
In 1995 top deputy to then-Attorney General Janet Reno, Jamie Gorelick, issued an order creating a "wall" that prevented intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law enforcement (Note: liberals should be familiar with "wall" terminology although in this case, this wall costs people their life, as opposed the supposed religion "wall" that strips people of their right to freely practice their religion). So strict was this "wall" that the branch of the FBI that deals with terrorism could not share their information with the branch of the FBI that deals with domestic issues - as an example.
The frustrating part of the story is that the 9/11Commission staffers (including the afore mentioned Gorelick) first denied knowing about the military spy unit Able Danger, but later admitted that they were indeed briefed on it, twice. How convenient that they commission failed to mention this in their 1,000 page report (certainly not for lack of space).
And as Deborah Orin of the NY Post points out here, Gorelick was warned about this order way back in 1995 by another Clinton appointee, US Attorney Mary Jo White, who headed up terror probes such as the prosecution of the first WTC bombing. White warned that this "wall" could lead to a loss of life, but Reno and Gorelick refused to budge. I'm guessing on the grounds that if the military spies told the domestic spies that someone was planning on flying planes into the WTC, that this would have somehow violated their civil rights. Can't have the military getting involved in civilian affairs and such.
If Gorelick would have been made to testify during the 9/11 Commission as some senators wanted, this would have all come out back then. Instead, the Commission went forward with their report, putting the majority of the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration, while all along they knew that the Clinton administration, by way of the Attorney General's office "wall" memo - played a significant role in the failure of the "intelligence community" to stop the attacks.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) sums it up nicely, "The commission's refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissions."
You can bet that there will be more to come on this.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Lancaster Tigers Football
My high school alma matter is in the news this week. And it should come as no surprise that it is negative news. In fact, the only positive news comes in the spring when the boys and girls track team is winning state for the hundredth time in a row or when the boys basketball team is making another run at the elusive state tournament (even less likely now that the greatness of Joe Rushing is gone).
Instead, this news is about that Constitutional Right to play football. While I haven’t heard anyone frame it this way, in a roundabout way that is the case being made.
In order to understand the issues here lets agree on some facts: (1) Mr. Jackson had admitted to police in writing that he was involved in the armed robbery, and that he fired a shot at the fleeing defender (fortunately his aim is not as good as his receiving ability). (2) He has already contacted the family of the victim and said he was sorry. So all those claiming that the police are twisting his original statement around (you know, the statement where he confessed), Mr. Jackson is out there further proving his guilt by apologizing – I’m sure his attorney wasn’t too thrilled about that.
So, with those two pieces being known, it is beyond me how any school board would allow this type of individual to remain in school (as opposed to an alternative school), much less participate in football. His supporters say that he has a "right" to play until he has been found guilty. Uh, no. You have a right to keep and bear arms, or a right to not be locked away without a conviction. But you dont have a right to participate in extracurricular sports when you rob someone at gunpoint, and then shoot at them while they flee.
As bad as Kenny Rogers acted, at least he didnt go around saying he has a "right" to play baseball because he was not "convicted of assault" - yet. If Mr. Jackson had a "right" to play football, why didnt they bring suit against his former high school when they told him to get lost? I'll tell you why - they found a school district who was willing to put their reputation on the line (what little positive reputation is left) for the chance to win a few more ball games this year.
Chew on this, Lancaster was also in the news last week for suspending hundreds of students who didn’t complete their reading assignment over the summer (I'm not completely against this idea - but then they bowed to pressure and are giving the students more time to complete). Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in suspending students for not completing a summer reading assignment, but letting an admitted armed robber play football?
Note to Lancaster administration: The old saying that all publicity is good publicity doesnt really apply. Do something positive for a change, and maybe we will forget about your "lack of judgment" in this case.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Sidewalk rage
Do you ever get road rage when you’re walking? It happens to me all the time. Partly because I tend to be a fast walker, but mostly because some people are completely oblivious to what is around them. Today, for example, I was walking through the tunnel (Dallas has an underground tunnel system linking the lobbies of several office buildings together – lots of restaurants) after grabbing a sandwich to take back upstairs. This is during the noon hour when there are lots of people in the tunnel – usually not a problem as everyone is walking at a pace that lets you know they are headed somewhere particular and need to arrive at that place relatively soon.
But then, I came up to a group of 3 women, in the middle of the tunnel walking like they were on hour one of their 3-hour lunch break. They were in the middle of the “lane” and left me no room to pass along the right, and I couldn’t pass along the left, as that was the oncoming traffic. So I “tailgate” for a few seconds thinking they would get the picture – you know, speed up or compress into single file, or move over! No such luck. Finally, a break appeared in the oncoming traffic, so I downshifted for better acceleration and began to pass. Then, and just like on the highway, as soon as I barely cleared them I cut them off by moving back in my lane about a step in front of them! That will teach ‘em! Of course, just like on the highway, I ran the chance that one of them would have shot me the finger or pulled a gun out on me, but that didn’t happen. Plus, at this point, we were just outside of the Starbucks, and there is ALWAYS a police officer at Starbucks – waiting to catch the real criminals (those that use all of the half & half without having someone fill it back up).
My only regret is that I didn’t tap on the breaks just after reclaiming my rightful spot in front of the slowpokes.
But then, I came up to a group of 3 women, in the middle of the tunnel walking like they were on hour one of their 3-hour lunch break. They were in the middle of the “lane” and left me no room to pass along the right, and I couldn’t pass along the left, as that was the oncoming traffic. So I “tailgate” for a few seconds thinking they would get the picture – you know, speed up or compress into single file, or move over! No such luck. Finally, a break appeared in the oncoming traffic, so I downshifted for better acceleration and began to pass. Then, and just like on the highway, as soon as I barely cleared them I cut them off by moving back in my lane about a step in front of them! That will teach ‘em! Of course, just like on the highway, I ran the chance that one of them would have shot me the finger or pulled a gun out on me, but that didn’t happen. Plus, at this point, we were just outside of the Starbucks, and there is ALWAYS a police officer at Starbucks – waiting to catch the real criminals (those that use all of the half & half without having someone fill it back up).
My only regret is that I didn’t tap on the breaks just after reclaiming my rightful spot in front of the slowpokes.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Dispatches from Mosul
Michael Yon is required reading for me every time he issues a new “report”. Yon is the author of Danger Close and former Green Beret. I have not read his book yet, but I understand it is a first hand account of his hardships growing up and his time in the military. But, what I really like about Mike is his reporting out of Iraq. Mike is stationed with the 1-24th Infantry Regiment (Deuce Four) of the 25th Infantry Division near Mosul. He provides extremely detailed accounts of what is going on in that region. According to his website, “Michael Yon is an independent, informed observer chronicling the monumentally important events in the efforts to stabilize Iraq. His dispatches have the benefit of his life experiences without drawbacks based on deadlines or demands of marketplace. The cost of these dispatches is borne solely by Michael.”
I mention all of this to bring attention to his recent dispatches titled “Battle of Mosul”. It is a multi-part dispatch and is a long read, but well worth it. It is not a sugarcoated account of life in this area. There is very little politics involved – just the truth about what our soldiers go through and the progress that they are making to secure that region. The progress part is what you will not find in the MSM. In between feelings of hatred toward the enemy after reading about their efforts to use hospitals and schools for attacks, and sadness for the SEAL heroes who recently died, you come away with a deep patriotic feeling, knowing that are men and women in the military are second to none – at least I do. I hope you take the time to read some of Michael Yon’s work, I think you will like it.
I mention all of this to bring attention to his recent dispatches titled “Battle of Mosul”. It is a multi-part dispatch and is a long read, but well worth it. It is not a sugarcoated account of life in this area. There is very little politics involved – just the truth about what our soldiers go through and the progress that they are making to secure that region. The progress part is what you will not find in the MSM. In between feelings of hatred toward the enemy after reading about their efforts to use hospitals and schools for attacks, and sadness for the SEAL heroes who recently died, you come away with a deep patriotic feeling, knowing that are men and women in the military are second to none – at least I do. I hope you take the time to read some of Michael Yon’s work, I think you will like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)