Shots Across The Bow

A few quick hits...

and then I'm outta here.

• Bill Clinton suggested the other day that it might be a good thing if we amended the 22 amendment and allowed Presidents to serve more than two terms. He said he didn't have himself in mind when he suggested it.

  He didn't have sex with Monica Lewinski either.

• SARS has returned to Canada, with a significant new outbreak in Toronto and smaller one in British Columbia. Meanwhile, the US hasn't reported any new cases, and no fatalities.

  Anybody still want to model our health care system after theirs?

• Florida residents are hopping mad over new graduation requirements which force kids to actually pass a test in order to graduate from high school. Approximately 10% of high school seniors failed the test, despite having 6 tries at it.

  The whole "confusing ballot" deal begins to make a lot more sense now.

• Congress is hard at work at crafting a plan to end internet gambling. They want to move the crap games back into the dark alleys where they belong.

  The Vegas line is 7-2 against the ban ever happening.

• The Dow has closed up for the last three months, it's strongest showing in two years. The economy is growing faster than predicted. Consaumer confidence is up. Unemployment is holding at right around 6%.

  Dems better hope it's NOT about the economy, stupid.

• Israel has agreed in principle to a Palestinian State, and Prime Minister Abbas has agreed to shut down the militant factions.

  Of course, Arafat will never let that happen, as long as he has a breath in his body. HINT!

• Carol Mosely-Braun is having trouble raising money to support her bid for the Presidency.

  If slavery reparations don't kick in soon, she's history.

• This week, the Tennessee Legislature killed a ban on giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

  Giving illegal aliens official US ID cards. Why does that seem to be a bad idea right now?

• President Bush signed a new tax cut, raising the child tax credit, reducing the marriage penalty, cutting taxes on investment, and lowering all marginal rates, allowing everyone to keep more of what they earn, and encouraging investment. He also signed legislation extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks for those struggling in the slow economy.

  That heartless bastard.

That's it for now. See ya on the other side.

Like I don't drive enough during the week

I commute an hour and a half each way 5 days a week (actually 6 days here lately), but is that enough for the road jumkie in me?

Nope, not hardly.

I'm driving to Indiana and back tomorrow so my son can spend the week with his grandparents.

Obviously, I won't be blogging much, but think of the stories I'll have to tell when I get back!

Volunteer Tailgate Party

The next VTP will be hosted by yours truly, and will be publishe on Thursday, June 5. Please have all entries submitted by Midnight Wed, June 4. If you don't have a blog, but want to be included, send me your post in an email, and I'll format it and add it to the party. After all, we do strive to be inclusive here in the RTB.

What a week!

And it really started over the holiday weekend, but more about that in a minute.

First my host's server's server, or something like that, went down, and kept me off the site. I have to tell you that Wednesday's posts were brilliant, filled with razor sharp analysis, brilliant wit, and a dollop of humor. Unfortunately, none of them got posted, so today you're stuck with the standard drivel.

My deepest apologies.

Yesterday, I put in 13 hours at work, fighting incompetence, laziness, and an inefficient bureaucracy to do a 3 hour job that's been in the planning for 2 weeks. Only on the day of the job, it seemed to catch everyone by surprise.

Next time, I'm going to do no planning or prep work. Why bother?

Tomorrow, I'm driving to Indiana to take one of the kids to see their grandparents for a week. They like visiting up there; it's like summer camp without the bad food and chiggers.

Sometimes life accelerates; this is one of those times.

The Matrix is Reloaded

Unfortunately with blanks.

Because some things never change. And some things do.

This is what the Wachowski brothers attempt to pass off as meaningful dialogue. We know it's suppoesed to be meaningful, because like most of the other drivel spouted endlessly in this movie, it's with all the affected gravity of adolescents minds trying to impress themselves with their own brilliance.

Yeah, it's got "bullet-time", and slow motion wire-fu, and really cool sunglasses, and all the stuff we'd never seen before the first movie.

It's also got an interminable car chase scene that makes up for it's lack of originality with an utter lack of excitement, a mish-mash of sub plots and characters that are never explored, much less developed, and a story that tties to do too much, while attempting to do very little. (This ambiguity stuff is contagious...)

The first movie was very cool eye candy. The Wachowskis created a visual style that had not been seen before, but has since been ripped off by movies from Charlies Angels to Shrek. In Matrix Reloaded, the Wachowskis give us more of the same, without anything new. This is a common problem for franchises that rely heavily on special effects. Some choose to go with bigger effects, sometimes sacrificing the story to do so. Others stay with the same level of effects, and concentrate on telling a story to keep interest high. The Wachowskis chose to go the plot route, with limited success.

Let's face it; if you want to make a movie to explore deep philosophical and intellectual topics, Keanu Reeves is probably not the best choice for your lead actor. On the other hand, Lawrence Fishburne is magnificently annoying as the portentious Morpheus, leading the field as this year's candidate for the James Earl Jones Excellence in Diction Award. It's actually a relief to find that most of the films other characters find him to be just as annoying as we do. As for Trinity, as a love interest, she makes a great hacker.

Character quibbles aside, the plot rips off better movies at every turn. Neo surrounded by Zionists begging him to save their loved ones is a dark echo of a similar scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but where Harrison Ford manages to convey compassion and concern, Reeves can only muster his habitual confusion and depression. The Wise Elder counselling the Young Savior is a staple of every action film ever made, and here feels like a formality, rather than an homage.

The action sequences are ruined because there is no drama. When Neo fights a thousand Agent Smiths, he gets hit a few times, but never hurt, and eventually just flies away. I was left wondering why he didn't just dive in and blow up the Smiths like in the first movie, instead of engaging in hand to hand combat. Nobody ever gets gets hurt, nor do they ever really appear to be in danger of getting hurt; well, except for a few thousand of the humans Neo is supposed to be saving, but they really don't count, which is a problem that lies at the heart of the movie.

At heart, The Matrix is an elitist vision of the future. The only players that matter are the machines and the people of Zion. All the masses of humanity, trapped in their cocoons, are treated as worthless or as enemies. Machines and humans alike kill hundreds indiscriminately. From the machines point of view, this would be a terrible squandering of a valuable resource, and should be even more repugnant to the humans. But apparently, only those specially chosen to have their minds freed are worthy of any consideration.

The above makes the movie sound horrible, and it wasn't. It's a decent movie, but I was disappointed because it utterly failed to recreate the magic of the original. The second movie in a trilogy is the most difficult to make, simply because it has to function as a bridge between the first and the last, while functioning on its own. The Empire Strikes Back
is a movie which successfully fulfilled both roles, resulting in what I believe to be the best of the Star Wars movies so far. The Two Towers also succeeds, setting up the events of The Return of the King, while telling its own story. In Matrix Reloaded, the two functions work against each other. The expositional material needed to set up Revolutions kills any momentum Reloaded tries to build. With the exposition dealt with, there is a good chance that Revolutions will close the franchise on a strong note.

Grade: 6 of 10

TN DMCA is dead for now

One of the more amusing things I noticed last week is that a couple of conservatives, supposedly slaves to corporate interests, came out against the TN cable bill, because it gave big corporations way to much power over how we choose to view information in our homes.

We must have lost our playbooks.

On the other hand, we had liberals, who by default view anyu corporate sponsored legislation as inherently evil, arguing that the legislation in question wasn't all that bad, and that we could trust the big corporations not to take advantage of the "sloppy" wording.

They must be ice skating in hell right now...

I lied

Just checked in at Bubba's who doesn't see what the fuss over the Mini DCMA in Tennessee is all about.

Here is the house version of the bill, HB457.

A quick walk through the bill shows several troubling areas. The bill refers to "unlawful communications devices" repeatedly, but doesn't define them until section (c) 8.

(8) "Unlawful communication device" means any communication device
that is capable, or has been altered, modified, programmed or reprogrammed
alone or in conjunction with another device or other equipment so as to be
capable of acquiring or facilitating the acquisition of any electronic serial number,
mobile identification number, personal identification number or any
communication service without the consent of the communication service
provider.

Let's think about what this actually says. Any device that can connect to a communication services without the consent of the service is unlawful. That includes everything folks! Can a VCR acquire a cable signal without the consent of the transmitter. You betcha! It would be unlawful under this definition. Same for a Tivo. Heck, it's the same for a home theater sound system. Don't believe me? Let's look at the definition again, clarified a bit.

"Unlawful communication device" means any communication device
that is capable, or has been altered, modified, programmed or reprogrammed
alone or in conjunction with another device or other equipment so as to be
capable of acquiring or facilitating the acquisition of any electronic serial number,
mobile identification number, personal identification number or any
communication service without the consent of the communication service
provider.

Remove the extraneous verbiage, and it is clear that the bill outlaws any communications equipment that the cable company wants to declare unlawful.

That's a problem.

Now take a look at section e 2:

A violation of this section involving five (5) or more unlawful
communication or access devices is a Class D felony.

Count your VCR's Home Stereos, and TV's. Got more than 5? Then you too could be a class D felon.

But you actually have to do something wrong to get charged, right?

Let's check out section (f):

In any criminal prosecution or civil action under this section, any of the
following shall create an inference that the defendant intended to violate this section:
(1) The presence of an unauthorized connection of any kind between the
defendant's property and any network, system or facility owned or operated by a
communication service provider; or
(2) The presence on the defendant's property, or in the defendant's
possession or control, of any communication device which is connected in such a
manner as would permit the unauthorized receipt, interception, acquisition,
decryption, transmission or re-transmission of a communication service; or
(3) The defendant's possession of five (5) or more unlawful
communication or access devices for any purpose prohibited by this section.

Section 1 tells you that any unauthorized connection of any kind creates an inference of intent to violate the law. Run a splitter and a second cable line to the back bedroom, and you're a criminal. If you have 5 TV's or VCR's, you could be a felon. Section 2 tells you that if you do something with the signal that the provider doesn't like, say, use Tivo instead of their proprietary recorder, you're a criminal. Section 3 tells you that if you have 5 TV's and a VCR, you could be a criminal.

Basically, this bill as written allows your service provider to tell you what you can hook up to their cable, and what you can do with the signal. The wording of the bill allows them to declare basically any home electronic device as unlawful, a fact which brought out the CEA to oppose the bill. The bill also allows the cable company to define exactly which types of connections are authorized, and back up those determinations with the force of law.

Now I don't know about you, but I really don't trust my cable company with that much power. I still remember the bad old days when we had to rent a set top box from them, when they wanted to charge a separate fee for each room, when you had no choice of cable companies, and the only other options were rabbit ears or a big C band satelitte dish. This legislation seeks to drive us back to those bad old days.

For more info, go to the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network.

Last post for the week

I'm headed for Massachusetts to pick up my son and bring him home from college. On the way back, we plan to sing through NYC, Philadelphia and Washington DC. I'll rejoin y'all Monday, so take care.

Season Finales

Ok, time to lighten up a bit. I've been watching the season ending episodes of a few shows over the last couple of weeks, and now it's time to pass out the reviews.

First up is Ed Well, my worst fears were realized. Y'all might remember back at midseason, when I was irritated by the plot decision to split up Ed and Carol.

It turns out it was all just a plot device to keep us watching until the end of season sweeps. Now a perfectly good character (Frankie) has been introduced and discarded, in a blatantly manipulative attempt to keep us watching. Sorry, but I just don't buy it anymore.

Which is sad, because when the writers aren't acting like a bunch of lazy hacks, they can really come up with some powerful television. The episode featuring Eli's (Darryl Mitchell) return to the restaurant he lost after the accident which paralyzed him was moving without being mawkish or manipulative. The final scene, showing Eli getting dressed for the day is simply one of the greatest acts of bravery captured on film. Ed has the writers to live up to that standard. It's too bad they decide to lay down so often.

Next is CSI. OK, is it just me, or did Jorja Fox look all discombobulated in the last episode? Even before the explosion, I mean. That, plus the way she was dressed led me to expect some kind of major announcement during the finale, like, "Grissom, I'm pregnant with your baby!" Instead, we get Grissom going to the hospital for surgery on his ear, accompanied by Catherine who just found out that her father is a casino boss and a murderer. Not a happy day for Catherine. And no Sarah story! This show is at it's strongest when it concentrates on the weekly episodes. Their attempts to draw story arcs are flat, and unconvincing.

Next up is ER. John Carter goes to war, where he gets to act heroic, disgusted, bemused, terrified, and world weary.
Yawn.

The Alias season ender was a slam bang episode, complete with all the double crosses, suspence and action Alias fans have come to expect. Then they had to end it with a clinker like that? After one of the better chick fights ever put on film, Syd collapses on the floor in her room, anly to wake up some undisclosed time later in Hong Kong. A distressed Vaughn tells her she's been missing for 2 years.

Beg pardon? Two years? There was absolutely no lead up to this, so it hit like a sack of wet cement, and was equally enjoyable. Had they ended the episode with Syd unconscious on the floor, Francie shot over in the corner, and Will slowly bleeding to death in the bathtb, that would have been enough of a cliffhanger for anyone. But no, they pushed a little too far, and had to throw in a missing 2 years.

Well, they might be able to pull it off, but it'll take a much better effort than this season's cliffhanger resolution.

Now we come to the best of the bunch, the season finale that actually exceeded expectations. The Dead Zone

In the novel by Stephen King, Johnny Smith dies while attempting to assassinate Gregg Stillson, a presidential candidate who will lead the world to destruction. Johnny dies in the attempt, refusing to shoot Stillson, who shields himself with a small child. This ends Stillson's political career, allowing Johnny to die peacefully, knowing that the world is safe from the future represented by Stillson.

While this works for a one shot movie, it kind of limits the span of a continuing series. The show's writer's came up with a creative way to resolve the technical problem while remaining faithful to both the novel and the series, and they chose to use the season finale to do it.

In the series, writers added the character of Bruce, Johny's physical therapist and later friend. In this episode, Bruce goes home for his father's funeral, and begins to wonder if he should have stayed home. Through contact with Johnny, he has a vision of an alternative reality, where he and Johnny never met. In this reality, events play out similarly to the original novel; Johnny is killed attempting to assassinate Stillson. However, Stillson isn't hurt politically either, and we are left to assume that he goes on to drag the world into destruction. Johnny and Bruce emerge from the vision, leaving Bruce to realize that Johnny needs him. The series is now free to move in a direction different from King's novel, while still remaining within the spirit of the original.

This episode also deftly changes the dynamics of the storyline in a profound way. In the novel, Johnny and Stillson were the antagonists, fighting over the fate of the world. In the series, Stillson and Bruce are now the antagonists, fighting over the soul of Johnny Smith, which will determine the fate of the world. The writers played up this shift by giving Bruce and Stillson mirrored upbringings. Both were raised around religion, but where Bruce's father was genuine in his piety, Stillson's father used religion as a con game. They are the two sides of humanity, the angelic and the monstrous, and Johnny is in between, like all of us.

What makes the episode special is that the resolution of the continuing plot issues is incidental to this story. (Writer's of Ed, pay attention!) Through the vision, Bruce deals with paternal expectations, religious faith, accepting his place in the world, and making a final peace with his father. Instead of hammering us over the head with manipulative plot devices, the writers gave us a well crafted story of loss and redemption, while also creating a new direction for the series. Truly well done.

A Dangerous Idea

The end justifies the means.

Has there ever been a slipperier, nastier, more pernicious concept in the history of thought? No matter how many times its essential fallacy is revealed, it keeps creeping back into our minds. It's seductive; it let's us do whatever it takes to win, and we're all genetically programmed to be winners.

Nowhere is this more evident than in politics. We believe in our ideals; we believe in them so strongly that they become part of how we see ourselves, part of who we are. We don't say we are 'members' of a liberal, conservative, or libertarian group; we say we 'are' liberals, conservatives, or libertarians. We take any challenge to our ideologies as a personal challenge, which invokes our will to win.

The end justifies the means.

Conservatives are familiar with the principle. It's practiced by some of the more extreme elements of the party, but we'll get back to that in a minute. Lately, that belief has surfaced in a particularly noxious form among some liberals, not among the extreme elements, but right in the mainstream.

Which isn't too surprising actually, since the left has always been fond of civil disobedience to draw attention to their causes, and what is civil disobedience if not the ends justifying the means? We break a law in service to what we see as a higher purpose or cause. The lesser wrong is committed to prevent a greater wrong from continuing.

We had another example of this just last week in Texas. 59 dems walked out of the legislature to bust the quorum, risking arrest, to prevent the republican majority from passing their redistricting plan. Many dems, maybe even most, applauded their actions, saying that the illegitimate action was warranted in order to stave off a worse threat, republican redistricting.

The end justifies the means.

Now we hear from Gary Kamiya, editor of salon.com.

Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people. But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative -- four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere?

Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world. It is based on the belief that every apparent good will turn into its opposite. If this is true, then it would be better for bad things to happen to Bush.

Do you recognize our little friend hiding in there?

"But," you say, "wishing for bad things to happen isn't the same as doing bad things."

Let's think about that for a minute. Isn't the difference between wanting something to happen and causing it to happen merely a matter of conviction? If you truly believe your action will bring about a more positive outcome, aren't you ethically bound to act? Sure you are! It's an easy call when the action called for is positive. It's when the action is negative that things get tricky. How bad are we willing to go to get a better outcome?

The end justifies the means.

So what's so wrong with that? Why is it such a bad thing? Surely there are times when the end result is so important that almost any means are justified, right?

I know a group of people who feel just that way. Everyday, they are faced with a horror so deep, they're willing to do almost anything to try and stop it.They march; they picket; they hold sit-ins; they lobby congress; they mount ad campaigns. They do everything within their power to fight the good fight.

Some of them go a little further, though. Their convictions are stronger than average, compelling them to take stronger actions. They vandalize the locations where the activities occur; they sabotage equipment; they harrass and intimidate practitioners; sometimes, they even kill them. Of course, you know by now the group I'm talking about.

When asked why they do these awful things, usually as they're led away in handcuffs, they simply say, "I had to stop it somehow. I had to do whatever I could, whatever it took."

And that's where using the end to justify the means leads us, with the same certainty as the sun rising in the east. That's the problem with the argument; there's no ending point. There's no place to say, "We go this far, and no further." The exact same argument civil rights protesters used during sit-ins can be used by an eco-terrorist spiking trees, or a anti-abortionist blowing up a clinic, and it is logically the same in each case.

Now I'm not saying that Mr. Kamiya is going to run out and start actively working to make things worse, in some attempt to keep President Bush from getting re-elected. Nor am I saying that most dems want things to get worse, just to keep Bush from getting re-elected. What I am saying is that the thoughts he is entertaining, hoping to gain something from the misfortune of others are nothing more than another version of ends justifying means.

It has to be recognized for what it is and rooted out, before the libs find that the extremists have taken over the party.

This is good news. Really!

The largest Shi'ite protest yet took place in Baghdad today.

Up to 10,000 people gathered in front of a Sunni Muslim mosque in Baghdad's northern district of Azimiyah, then marched across a bridge on the Tigris River to the nearby Kadhamiya quarter, home to one of the holiest Shiite shrines in Iraq.

It appeared to be the largest protest against the U.S. occupation since the war ended.

"What we are calling for is an interim government that represents all segments of Iraqi society," said Ali Salman, an activist

Why is this good?

Well, first, this wouldn't have happened with Hussein in charge; the Shi'a's would never been allowed to assemble and march, and any who dared try would be dead.

Or worse.

But there's more good news.

The noisy but peaceful protest appeared to be well-organized. Organizers sprayed participants with water to cool them off and formed human chains around the crowd to ensure that the marchers stayed in line and no violence occurred.

At one point, the crowd swelled to about 10,000 people, but many participants soon wandered off, and were replaced by fresh batches of demonstrators. At the end of the march, about 5,000 gathered near the shrine of Musa al-Kazim, a much revered 9th-century Shiite saint.

A peaceful demonstration, urging the formation of a broad based, inclusive government, orchestrated by the majority religious group. That's freedom in action, folks, and democracy beginning to flourish.

Yes, there's still grave risks ahead. There are a million ways that things could go wrong. But changing from riots where people are shooting to peaceful demonstrations is one heck of a step in the right direction.

My bad!

Howard Owens just pointed out that I don't have an e-mail address posted. I guess it got lost when I moved from Blogspot to Hosting Matters. Not to worry, I've fixed the omission. Feel free to send you slings and arrows my way. I answer it all in the manner it's received.

Lucid Dreaming

Have you ever been asleep and dreaming and knew that you were dreaming? If you have, you've experienced lucid dreaming. Now there are some that ascribe all kinds of magical or supernatural effects to it, but it seems to me it is just an altered state of consciousness, where the brain is functioning on a more primitive level.

I've experienced it fairly often, starting from when I was a kid. I used to have the typical nightmares of falling, or showing up at school nekkid, or missing final exams. One night, I dreamed I was riding in a car that was in an accident and crashed off the edge of cliff. I had been hanging onto the door when we crashed, and had ripped it away from the car when we ent over the edge, so I was still clutching the door as I hurtled down towards the rocks below. When I'd been falling for about an hour and a half, I realized that I must be dreaming, and decided to use the door as a wing, and change the falling to flying. That was my first lucid dream.

I still get that falling dream occasionally, but, whether I recognize the dream or not, I always convert falling to flying.

Now as a single parent, I have constant worries. Are my kids OK? Do I have enough money? Did I pay all the bills? Did I pick them all up from school? And on and on. It's not surprising that these fears sometimes leak into the funhouse mirrors of my dreams, where they can get magnified all out of proportion. Whenever I find myself in some desperate situation that looks hopeless, I ask myself if I'm dreaming. A good thumbrule is if you have to ask, you probably are, so the answer has always been yes. Once I know I'm dreaming, I simply change a couple of parameters and let the dream continue, without all the anxiety.

I've never practiced this, or tried to develop the skill, but it has been a very useful tool for relieving stress on the way to a good night's sleep.

There is another benefit though, one which really happened for the first time last night.

When I'm dreaming, a lot of times I act as a movie director. The Wachowski Brothers only wish they could make the movies I see. Everybody has dreams like that, but they usually lose focus part way through, during the transition from one REM period to another. When I'm in a lucid dream, during that transition time I put together the script for the next phase. On a good night, I can make a sequence last the night.

It isn't as conscious and controlling as I make it sound, more a matter of keeping the story moving along, keeping the focus where it needs to be, although on a couple of occasions that I can remember, I've had to do rewrites, since the story took a turn I didn't like.

Hey, it is MY dream after all!

Here's the bad part. Since I don't really practice remembering the dreams, when I wake up in the morning, I remember that I had a great dream, and maybe a fragment or two of the story, but the details slip away in the time it takes me to stumble from the bed to the bathroom.

Except for last night. I was in the middle of one of these stories, then realized I was dreaming, and started paying closer attention. While maintaining the air that anything is possible that is the hallmark of dreams, the framework was fairly consistant with reality. This time, when the segment ended, I decided to wake up, and wrote down the details of my dream. As I did, I realized that it would make a great framework for a novel in the vein of Voltaire's Candide or Dicken's A Christmas Carol. There's a great little bit with God, who looks and sounds like Mel Brooks, and a couple of cool twists in the story. It's not startlingly original; after all, there are only so many stories, and they've all been told a jillion times, but there's something about it that grabs me.

Now I have to write the darn thing.

Am I being too picky?

Or is there something wrong when the ice cream delivery guy is wearing a T-shirt from a strip bar?

Just one of the things I saw as I was making my rounds today.

Funny Cide 2 for 2

Wouldn't it be funny if a gelding was the first winner of the Triple Crown in 25 years?

Just out of curiousity,

now that dems in texas have legitimized the tactics of the minority party walking out to bust a quorum, when reps use the same tactic, will those who supported the dems be as sympathetic?

I won't hold my breath on that one...

Not a good day yesterday.

I don't know what bug bit me, but it certainly kicked my butt.

Nausea, headache, fever, and dizzy spells. I walked around in a daze for most of the day

I'm a little better today, but still don't dare move too quickly. As a result, bloggage will be light, unless something really grabs my attention.

Well, it might NOT be the economy after all

Take a look at this AP story as found on KnoxNews.com

The Labor Department reported that new applications for jobless benefits fell by a seasonally adjusted 13,000 to 417,000 last week, the third straight week of declines. Analysts were expecting claims to rise.

Separately, the department said wholesale prices plunged by a record 1.9 percent in April, compared to a 1.5 percent gain in the previous month.

Jobless benefits fall for three weeks in a row, and inflation is still in a coma.

The stock market has gained about 1200 points over the last two months in a slow, steady growth pattern that should establish new resistance levels. Both the 50and 200 day moving averages are trending upward, and the index is trading well above them.

There are some mixe indicators, like a slowly declining manufacturing sector, but even there, the overall outlook is bright. The worst appears to have passed, although analysts still caustion against over exuberance.

Based on the indicators, if the dems key on the economy and jobs in 2004, they're going to have a very hard time making gains at the polls.

I've been slandered!

I've talked about mulit-culturalism here and in comments sections for quite awhile, railing against its fallacies and misperceptions. Now, from my good friend Bubba, I find out that multi-culturalism is codespeak for integration. (follow the link and check out the comments)

I'm a racist!

And I didn't even know it...

Of course, Bubba's definition is just a little off. In fact, he's got it completely backwards. Multi-culturalism is not integration, but a newer, more palatable version of segregation that liberals can embrace without feeling guilty.

Multiculturalism is predicated on the assumption that all cultures have equal worth, are morally equivalent, and due equal respect.

That this is a false proposition is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, and is left as an exercise for the student.

The assumption leads directly to the proposition that any dominant culture (a concept which invalidates the premise itself, but consistency is not a strong point with these folks) must take steps to ensure that other cultures flourish within them, keeping their own customs and traditions and values alive and intact.

As America was growing, we had the image of the melting pot, where different races and cultures blended together to form a uniquely American culture. For example, African music begat the American Blues; Celtic music begat bluegrass and folk; bluegrass and folk married the blues and produced Country. Jazz came along and knocked up the Blues to produce Rock and Roll. Traditions blended, and something new and unique was formed. American culture evolved the same way. In a process paralleling biological evolution, the American culture evolved, taking the best from its component cultures to form a unique identity superior to al of them. The whole was indeed greater than the sum of its parts.

Today, we have the paradigm of the American Stew. Cultures remain separate, rather than crosspollinating and producing something unique, they cling to their past, keeping their old traditions alive, head of new American traditions. It's not enough to be American anymore; you're Irish-American, or African-American, or Hispanic-American, or Asian-American. Where you came from is now just as important, possibly more important, than where you are. Now the whole is merely the sum of its parts.

Remember the old "Separate, but equal" paradigm? That's multi-culturalism in a nutshell. It is the mind set which proclaims itself color blind, yet allows affirmative action, diversity quotas, and preferential hiring based on race. It is the mind set that tells us that only the majority culture can be racists, since they are the ones with the power. It is the mind set that says all races are equal, but some need more than others.

Maintaining all these separate cultures in close contact with other cultures who's values may be antithetical results in a cacophany of rituals and traditions which hinder any sense of national unity. Instead of a Rock and Roll band jamming together, we get a symphony with each section playing a different tune with a conductor who's lost the score. Cohesion is lost, and with it any sense of national identity or unity. We all become members of special interest groups, fighting for our piece of the pie, instead of working to make the pie bigger.

New CBS Poll

Bubba is crowing about the results of a new CBS poll which he claims shows that the 2004 election is in the bag for the democrats, barring some "manufactured" events, as long as they run on the economy and jobs. I took a look at the numbers myself, and found that Bubba may have overstated the case a bit.

Let's look at some of the results from the poll

• 67% approve of the job Bush is doing, including 41% of the Dems and 65% of the independents.You've lost the independents and haven't rallied your base. Hard to win that way

• 40% rate the economy as the most important problem. 60% rated everything else as more important. The economy works well to energize your base, but won't grab many independents.

• Approval of Bush's handling of the economy is 43%, indicating a weakness.However, this number is skewed by dems, who gave a 74% disapproval rating. Looks like some ground to be gained here, except that the approval ratings indicate that the dems have already gotten all the support they're going to get from this issue.
  
• Congress gets bad marks across the board.It's hard to see how this will play out. Are people reacting to republican actions or democratic obstructions? Based on the 2002 elections, I would have to say the numbers favor the latter, but we won't know for sure until the 2004 elections.
  
• Is the economy getting better or worse? Most (49%) say it is staying the same, with the remainder evenly split between improving or declining.Interestingly, even dems show 59% believing the economy is staying the same or improving, and independents polled 67% staying the same or improving, again making it difficult to see how dems can gain much ground on this issue. The trend is also positive, with a 3% gain fro people believing the economy is improving.
  
• Is Bush Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative? In something of a surprise, reps saw Bush as more conservative than did dems, 20% of whom saw Bush as a liberal.Proof that dope does cause brain damage
  
• Does Bush care about the problems of people like you? 67% said Some or A lot, including 62% of the independents.A non starter for the dems. A solid majority feel Bush is connected to their concerns.
  
• How much of the economy is the result of Bush's policies? 62% said the economy had little or nothing to do with Bush's policies.The dems were in a virtual deadlock 49% saying a lot, 48% saying little or nothing. Again, it will be difficult to get any significant gains here.
  
• q 14 and 15 reveal an interesting dichotomy. While only 41% think the economy is the same or better than 2 years ago, 71% say that they are the same or better than they were 2 years ago. 58% of people believe the economy is worse today, even though only 29% say they are worse off. This difference indicates the success the dems have had in getting out their message, regardless of it's lack of factual basis.
  
• Does Bush favor the rich? 54% say yes, down from 58% in January. Class envy, the old standby. Here is one issue where the dems may find some traction.
  
• will a new tax cut help or hurt the economy? 41% say it will help, 33% say no effect.with 74% saying it will be good or at least do no damage, it will be hard to make this a major dem campaign issue.
  
• Does big business have too much influence? 57% too much, 29% too little or just right.Here's another issue for the dems to ride, with 60% of independents aggreeing with them.
  
• Has Bush made progress on the economy? 50% say some or a lot. 48% say not much or none. Independents are split on this one, so there may be a little ground to gain for the dems. But not much given the earlier responses.
  

I could go on, but the pattern is clear. On economic issues, independents seem to track the majority fairly closely, taking a position between the dems and the reps. Additionally, on those economic issues, dems show a sharp division in their evaluation of the President's performance. Disapproval within democrats seems to cluster at around 40-45%, indicating a small core of deeply partisan democrats, surrounded by a slightly larger number of more moderate democrats. In order for the dems to solidify their base and win the election, they have to sway the moderates to their side, as well as pick up a significant number of independents.

Based on the issues ranked as most important, that won't be an easy task. Independents stayed within a few points of the majority on most of the economic issues, indicating that any split will slightly favor the reps. In any case, there won't be a huge advantage gained by the dems. In the second most important issue, terrorism and home defense, independents side solidly with reps. Dems wont get much play on that issue.

Issues where the dems are strong are traditional liberal issues like healthcare, education, welfare, and medicare. These are the issues where independents poll with dems, and represent the best chance for dems to win in 2004.

Timing is the key

Police in Italy broke up a plan to sell babies for their organs.

ITALIAN police have arrested four Ukrainians believed to be part of an international crime ring in which women gave birth to babies in order to sell their organs.

In co-ordinated raids in two Italian cities, they arrested a man and three women. One was the mother of a baby born just days ago. The gang had attempted to sell the baby to undercover officers for 50,000 (£35,844).

Obciously, selling a baby for it's organs is unthinkable. However, doing the same to a fetus is just good science. All these guys had to do was get the doctor to perform a D&E aka 'partial birth abortion', then harvest the organs.

Then everything would have been cool.

Oh, there's the money issue; we're still a little parochial when it comes to profiting from, shall we say, morally questionable activities. It seems that those acts are only OK if we don't profit from them.

After all, profit is the real evil, right?

As well as the four arrests, police said they were investigating several Italians who had expressed interest in buying the baby for its organs and said they believed other babies may already have been sold by the gang.

"Already been sold..."

The three women said they came to Italy originally to work as prostitutes. Police said the women appeared to have entered the scheme voluntarily.

I'm speechless...

Breaking News!

Jayson Blair has landed on his feet after being fired from the New York Times for plagiarism, making up quotes, and assorted other journalistic no-nos. His transgressions caught the eye of none other than Michael Moore, who hired him to write the script of Moore's next big documentary, Farenheit 911. Moore said:

With his journalistic talents and storytelling ability, he'll fit right in here with the rest of us. After all, it's the story behind the facts that matters, and Jayson has a knack for ignoring the facts to get to that story, and that's just what I need for my documentaries.

Hey, it could be true....

My illusions have been shattered....

I watched the finale of Survivor last night. Did anybody else catch the blooper?
After the two hour episode, they had the live revelation of the winner, supposedly unknown up to that point.

Yeah, right.

The suspence must have been unbearable, because the guy responsible for running the character generator flashed the words, "Jenna's Family" on the screen minutes before the vote tally was announced. At the time, the screen was not showing her family, it was showing the members of the jury.

Timing is so important on a live TV event.

The illusion is shattered; CBS knows who won long before the live telecast. So much for all the suckers who bet on the outcome.

Speaking of the outcome, the best player lost. So did Matt. The weepy whiny wench won.

Religion in Schools

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

This doesn't mean freedom from religion, no matter how much some would like to think so. Religious thought and expression was central to the lives of most of the signatories of the Constitution, and it is unimaginable that they sought to exclude religious expression from public life.

However, they did exclude it from government. The Constitution is one of the most carefully written contracts in history. Each word is there for a reason; by the same token, if a word isn't there, it is also for a reason. Although acting from the inspiration of religious beliefs, the Convention developed a document fully grounded in secular language. While the Declaration of Independence refers to a "Creator" as the basis for our rights, the Constitution does not, instead acting as a directory for the strictly limited ways that government could interfere with those rights.

However, the First Amendment continues to say:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

a phrase lost fairly frequently in today's more secular society. It clearly indicates that public life was not expected to be free from religious expression or conduct. Far from trying to exclude religious expression from daily life, by it's placement in the First Amendment, the framers showed that they considered freedom of religious expression to be just as vital as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. The two clauses, anti-establishment and free exercise, have two very different goals and result in a tenuous balancing act for state and federal governments, as demonstrated by the controversy surrounding President Bush's faith-based initiatives.

Now, these two clauses are on a collision course. In a lawsuit filed in February, Greg and Sarajane Tracy are accusing the Union County Board of Education and Horace Maynard Middle School of sponsoring religious field trips to a local revival held during school hours. Additionally, the suit claims that India Tracy, their daughter, was subjected to harassment by students and faculty at Horace Maynard, and physical abuse from other students, and that the harassment was based on her religion.

The Tracy's are Pagans, and India was marked for harassment for not attending the revival, and refusing to play the Virgin Mary in the school play. A summary of the facts can be found here

According to an article in the News-Sentinel, the Union County BOE is denying the charges, and will contest the suit.

But Knoxville attorney John Duffy, who is representing the school board, wrote in the answer that "India was not subjected to harassment which deprived her of access to educational opportunities" and that school officials acted reasonably to protect her.

His strategy appears two fold. First, he's claiming that the harassment was not motivated by India's religion, but by the fact that she was perceived as different. Second, he's claiming that any accommodation that the school made for the revival was carried out in the spirit of the second clause, "free exercise of religion."

"Private religious organizations sponsor and conduct a religious event known as the Crusade," the answer reads. Parents are permitted to remove their children from school to attend the services, which last about two hours for three days.

"Such is a reasonable accommodation for parents and their children to exercise religious beliefs, which is not limited to a particular religious sect or denomination," the document reads.

The first strategy is flawed in a couple of areas. First, it was India's religion that made her look different in the first place, making it a proximate cause of the abuse. Second, the harassment claimed in the suit goes beyond taunting and assaults by other students. India was harassed by teachers and administrators at the school as well. That cannot be charged off as "Kids will be kids."

It is the second strategy which is much more intriguing, and could turn a little case in East Tennessee into one with national implications. Can a school system, or any other state or federal body, accommodate religious activities, in keeping with the free expression clause, without violating the anti-establishment clause? Second, even if it is permissible for a school to accommodate a religious activity, did Horace Maynard Middle School or the Union County school board go too far with their support of the revival?

I don't see where the school system is compelled to accommodate any religious activities, unless those activities are integral to the practice of that religion. Attending a revival is not integral to any religion. Additionally, there are revivals held during non-school hours, therefore not accommodating this particular revival would not constitute a restriction of free exercise.

I'm annoyed

Yeah, I know, big deal.

Here's the thing:

Quite frankly, I'm a bit tired of being told to "put down my talking points", or being told I get my marching orders from Rush, or any of the other dozens of ways liberals tell me that because I hold conservative ideas, I'm incapable of independent thought. Let me clue y'all in to something:

• The GOP did not convince me not to support the Dixie Chicks, nor did talk radio or free Republic, or any other conservative group.
  
• I think Alec Baldwin is an idiot, not because Rush said so, but because Baldwin proves it every time he opens his mouth.
  
• I like the idea of keeping as much of the money that I earn as possible because by God, I earned it!
  
• I believe in a limited government because that's what the Constitution says we should have. If you want to change it, change the Constitution.
  
• I believe the goverment should stay out of my bedroom. (Unless the gov't is represented by an attractive female. Then we'll talk.)
  
• I believe that civil marriages between any number or combination of consenting adults should legal. (Although I can't think of a worse hell than two wives. Unless it's two mothers-in-law. On the other hand, a wife and a few concubines might work...Hey, it's in the Bible!)
  
• I believe one of the few roles allocated to the federal government is to provide a strong defense, and that sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
  
• I believe that taxes are too high, and that government subsidies (welfare)are creating a sense of entitlement, one which saps our self reliance, weakening us as a nation and as people.
  
• I believe that I know what's best for my kids, not some unappointed gov't bureaucrat enamored with the latest child raising theories dreamed up by a childless bachelor and his spinster colleague.
  
• I believe in the legalization of drugs. You want to burn out brain cells, more power to you. Just don't expect me to pay for your rehab through taxes.
  
• I believe in helping those who need it, for as long as they need it. However, the best way to do that is not through a federal program but locally, through charities. You oppose faith based initiatives? Fine, cut taxes proportionate to the spending on social welfare programs and let America take care of her own. We will rise to the challenge, and certainly do a better job than the Fed has done.

I believe these things not because Karl Rove issued a memo, but from almost 40 years (Jeebus, I'm getting old!) of watching the world and seeing how it works. As a result of that time and effort, I take personally any suggestion, explicit or implicit, which suggests that conservatives act like lemmings, blindly following the leader of the moment. It simply isn't true, not of me, or most other conservatives.

A milestone

This post is number 1002 for Shots Across the Bow. More than some, less than others, and it's been fun so far. Who knows what the next thousand posts has in store? I hope you stick around to find out.

A man's home is his castle; he just can't defend it.

Not in England, anyway.

Tony Martin was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 5 years in prison for killing two burglars who broke into his home. He was denied parole yesterday by the Parole Board, who made it clear that burglars deserved to be protected from homeowners attempting to defend themselves and their homes.

So, if a guy breaks into your house, let him take whatever he wants. Help him load up the truck as well. After all, if he strains his back moving your big screen TV, he might sue you for negligence.

And win.

A little good news

The Senate dropped efforts to make the Patriot Act permanent, although they did expand the government's ability to investigate potential terrorists.

A little something for both sides, and a good deal for the US resident, who can look forward to the end of the Patriot Act in 2005.

Train derailers stolen

Here's a little piece of hard information:

Devices that could be used by terrorists to derail trains are being stolen from rail facilities around the country, the FBI warned today.

Nine derailers, which are normally used to get jumped trains back on track, have been stolen recently, sources said, citing the FBI's weekly intelligence bulletin.

Could a mass derailing be the next terrorist plan? It fits the MO. Simultaneous attacks, mass civilian casualties, fairly easy to achieve, brute force over brains.

depending on which trains they target, the secondary effects could be davastating as well. Imagine hazardou waste spilling out all over a neighborhood.

Here's another nightmare for you. Supposed that the trains targetted for derailling are pre-loaded with anthrax spores, or other biological agents. Instant dispersal with guaranteed cross contamination and spread of the agent.

Not a pretty picture.

Ending gridlock in the Senate

The Washigton times is reporting that Sen Bill Frist will introduce a plan to end the filibuster against 2 judicial nominees:

Currently, 60 votes are required to break a filibuster, which is also called invoking cloture. The resolution, co-sponsored by several senators, will require 60 votes only in the first attempt at invoking cloture. In each attempt after that, the vote requirement will drop by three until it reaches a simple majority of 51 votes.
This rule change will apply only to executive nominations, not legislative business.

This is a hard one to call. A filibuster is one of the few tools which allow the minority party to retain some power in Congress, and nowhere is that more important than in making lifetime judicial appointments. A simple majority vote can determine the judicial balance for the next 20 years or so, with a ripple effect reaching even further.

On the other hand, the Constitution specifies that a simple majority is all that is required for confirmation. By holding up the process through filibuster, the dems are circumventing the Constitution, albeit legally.

To make matters more interesting, the rule change was introuced by a Democrat, Zell Miller of Georgia, and was based on a proposal by two more Democrats, Joe Leiberman and Tom Harkin. Of course, Lieberman and Harkin introduced the idea when the reps were in the minority and blocking democratic judicial nominees.

Applying my acid test to the idea, "Do I want the other side to have this power when the tables are turned?" I feel uneasy. Which is more important, filling judicial vacancies, or maintaining the integrity of the filibuster?

Unlike some of you, I kinda like gridlock. The more those yahoos argue and bicker with each other, the less chance they have of doing something that limits my freedom. Unfortunately, there are some things that have to get done, and judicial appointments is one of them.

In the end, it comes down to getting the job done. Both parties have demonstrated over the last 16 years or so that they will do anything to frustrate the other, not always out of conviction, but often out of spite. Moderates on both sides are forced by their party leadership to toe the line, resulting in bitter partisan battles without hope of compromise.

Is this "nuclear option" a reasonable solution? Perhaps not, but in a time when reason has deserted the Senate, maybe unreasonable measures are the only solution.

You gotta be kidding me!

Here's a lulu of a lawsuit for you. 14 mexicans died in the desert while trying to sneak into the US. Their families are now suing the US gov't for $42 million dollars for making it too hard and dangerous to sneak into the US.

The lawsuit claims federal border policy forced the immigrants to enter through a treacherous desert area southwest of Tucson known to have little water and that Humane Borders was refused permission to place a water station "in the exact area" where the crossers died.

As far as I know, Border guards don't force anybody to cross the border. Call me crazy, but I think their job is to keep people from crossing the border.

Here's an ironic twist:

Robin Hoover, president of Humane Borders, said his group had filed for permission to set up the water station two months before the deadly desert crossing attempt. The filing was rejected, Hoover said, because of concerns for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn antelope.

What's a good leftie to do? Endanger the antelope or coddle the illegal immigrant? Decisions, decisions.

At the end of the article, we get this reality check:

In April, Joel Viveros-Flores, a former foreman at Vazquez Harvesting, was sentenced in U.S. District Court in Phoenix to 18 months in prison.

His boss, Francisco Vazquez-Torres, the owner of Vazquez Harvesting, was sentenced on April 4 to 6 1/2 years in prison and fined $125,000.

Jesus Lopez Ramos, one of the guides for the illegal border crossers, was sentenced to 16 years in prison in February 2002.

Vasquez Harvesting, a Florida based labor company, was trying to bring these folks in. There's your liability; they're the ones that should be facing a lawsuit for wrongful death. Of course, they probably don't have $42 million in assets, so the lawyers decide to sue the gov't instead. Greed trumps justice every time.

DNA database expansion

If you want to smack Bush around, try doing it when it matters. Here's a good place to start:

A Bush administration plan to expand federal DNA databases by compelling virtually anyone arrested to give up their genetic code has sparked debate between supporters who say it will solve more cases and critics who insist it is too intrusive.

Notice that it says "arrested", not "convicted." Basically, a busted tail light could get you into a DNA database. Heck, an accusation of loud partying could do the same.

Do you want a national database containing the DNA of every US resident?

I don't.

Talk about an invasion of privacy, not to mention the destruction of the whole, innocent until proven guilty thing.

You want to fight about something, fight about this. It's like I told Bubba, you waste all your energy and outrage on dubious claims of personal flaws and you miss the 2x4 that's going to smack you right between the eyes.

President Bush's Military record

It seems we get to go through that all over again, since he committed the unpardonable sin of flying on a jet to the USS Lincoln. Well, Bill Hobbs has a complete rundown on all the details squashing that particular story here .

Actually, I should have said virtually complete. Jo, over at democratic veteran.com believes there's another problem, one which should have gotten Bush court martialled. And what offense might that be?

He missed his flight physical!

Oh, the shame!

Well, this claim has no more truth than any of the others running around out there. Let's just examine it, shall we?

First, check out this document,which states that Bush was suspended from flight status for failing to get his physical in Aug of 1972.

Ok, sounds pretty bad, right?

Well, before we order up the firing squad, let's look at this document, an eval written in May of 1972.

Hmmm...Bush was fulfilling his time requirement in a non flight status at the time he missed his flight physical.

Sounds OK to me. Why maintain a flight physical if you aren't in a flying status?

As for Jo's further contention that this merits a courtmartial under Art. 92, any vet knows that missing a physical, unlesws there are extenuating circumstances, like it prevents you from carrying out your assigned duties, wouldn't even get you NJP, much less a court martial.

Once again, all sizzle, but no steak...

A SARS comparison

I went through the WHO data on SARS, compiled since March 17. I pulled the data into two charts. The first chart shows the total number of cases, daily number of new cases, cumulative deaths, and cumulative recoveries for the world, except for China.

This next chart shows the same stats for China alone.

As you can see, there are some marked differences. For example, in China, despite a skyrocketing number of new cases, the death rate seems to be fairly constant, something which doesn't match the profile of the world at large. Also note that the Chinese recovery rate, particularly in the early stages of rporting, is almost triple that of the world at large.

These two facts alone are enough to tell me that China is not reporting true numbers on the extent of the epidemic. Also note that while the number of new cases in the world has dropped off to an average of 25 cases per day, China still sees over 100 cases per day, with occasional blasts of 400 or more, when news from a rural area comes in.

In short, while the world as a whole has gotten SARS under control, China has not come close. That much is clear even with the flawed data the Chinese are supplying.

More hypocrisy from the left...

Some democrats are accusing President Bush of grandstanding by holding his speech on the USS Lincoln.

"To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech," said West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd (search) on the Senate floor Tuesday. "I do question the motives of a deskbound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech."

Hmmm. I seem to recall another President doing a similar bit of grandstanding, kneeling contemplatively on Omaha beach on the 50th anniversary of the landings. As I recall, he truly was a "deskbound president", who did not serve in the military, and in fact lead protests against it during his days at Oxford.

Did Sen Byrd question his motives, or is his doubt reserved only for republicans?

Folks, it's politics. It's all about the photo op. It's also about good theater, and Bush flying out to the carrier was good theater, just as Clinton biting back tears on Omaha Beach was good theater.

But, we do have to consider the source in this case. Sen. Byrd has long been known as a man of intemperate outbursts, and opinions which, to be charitible, vary from the mainstream. A few examples:

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

March, 2001

"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

1946

"[I'll never fight] with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Note: the last two quotes came several years after Sen Byrd claims to have left the Klan.

Yep, he's certainly a man I'd turn to if in search of a moral compass.

More on SARS

As I wrote about earlier, the more we learn, the worse it gets. Yesterday, it was an article published in the British medical journal Lancet, which estimated a mortality rate of 20% for SARS patients.

Today, the World Health Organization has estimated a mortality rate of 14-15% of all victims.

That average is elevated by very high mortality (55%) among the elderly, but even among the young and healthy, the mortality rate is 6% for ages 24-44. For comparison, flu/pnuemonia deaths in the US are about .024% for all age groups.

As for China, the number of cases reported continues to grow, with 159 new cases reported as of yesterday. The pace does not appear to be slowing, since the previous day saw 138 new cases. The scary part is that we have little or no information about what is going on in the rural areas of China.

What gall!

Just when you think you've seen it all, along comes something to really let you know just how stupid some people are.

The Dixie Chicks played Knoxville last night in front of about 18,000 fans. I'm sure they sold souvenirs, T-shirts, CD's, posters, and all kinds of crap to the crowd, lining their wallets with lots of the green stuff. They're all millionaires several times over.

But some insist that they're still victims of one of the most repressive regimes on the planet, the Bush Administration.

One T-shirt sold at the concert illustrates the moral idiocy of some on the left.

The T-shirt said "Free Natalie!"

Now come on! A sold out concert tour, millions in royalties from 2 platinum albums, singing in front of thousands of adoring fans nightly, and she has the gall to cry about repression?

I don't think so!

Ask the folks in the Soviet era gulags what repression is. Ask Nelson Mandela about repression. Ask the Polish jews in the Warsaw ghettos. Ask Muslims living in Milosevic's Bosnia. Ask the Kurds in northern Iraq. Then tell them that Natalie is their sister in repression.

You might want to duck quickly, unless you enjoy getting slapped in the face.

In this one image the absolute arrogance of the left is laid bare for the world to see. The backlash against the Dixie Chicks has been rendered morally equivalent to the 2 decades Mandela spent imprisoned for speaking out against apartheid.

And you know what? I don't care if it was a joke. It's a sick joke, and an insult to everyone who has suffered under real oppression, which by the way excludes every American citizen, regardless of race, creed, nationality, or sex.

Yes, we have our problems, but systematic repression of the rights of a citizen based solely on their political beliefs is not one of them, regardless of what natalie and her friends think.

Parent or State...Who decides what's best?

Here's a case similar to the one we got so exercised about a few days ago over at bubba's.

There's a sick little girl in Michigan who's deathly ill with a brain tumor. Her parents have decided against surgery.

Now prosecutors have taken the Hoques to court to force them to go ahead with the surgery, in a case that revisits the question of who should decide what is best for the child when it comes to life-saving medical treatment.

But there's a difference in this case. The parents did not decline treatment based on religion.

Two pediatric neurosurgeons told the couple there was a 70 percent to 80 percent chance that their daughter would emerge either dead or with severe complications. If Noshin survived the initial surgery, she would then have to undergo chemotherapy and follow-up operations to have any chance at living, said the couple's lawyer, Charles Cooper.

So the parents decided to try a different path, homeopathic medicine. The state has disagreed, and is now seeking to force surgery on the child.

And that's where we go when we invade a parent's right to raise their child. First, the state overrules the parent'