Fireside Chats on Iraq? Why Not?

Senator John Warner recently made a very interesting suggestion. He wants President Bush to give the American public frequent updates about how the War in Iraq is going; as he noted this would be very similar to FDR's 'fireside chats' during World War II. But would this really be a good idea? The honest answer is yes. What does the President have to lose?

It seems that people want to hear what he has to say, or at least need to, since they are begining to become more unsure and unsupportive of the War by the day. Furthermore, it would provide an antidote to all the biased mainstream media coverage in Iraq these days. Instead of stories focusing on the bad, Bush would be able to focus on the positive, and give the American Public a new perspective on the War that they don't get from CBS. In fact, a 'fireside chat' type deal would play to Bush's strengths by enabling him to be more personable and casual with ordinary folks. Indeed, the perception of Bush as the 'average guy' has always proved to be an advantage for him, and this would be a great opportunity to play that card.

Part of what FDR was so good at during his Presidency was creating the right P.R image, a task at which the Bush administration has failed miserably this past year. 'Chatting' with the electorate about what is going on in Iraq would be a great opportunity to re-create the image. And quite honestly, how could it possibly hurt the President? The media can't spin the War any worse than they already have, his support for the War won't diminish any farther, and his P.R image can't really get much worse.

George Patton once said that success is a measure of how high you bounce when you hit the bottom. Mr President, you've hit the bottom, and maybe this 'chat' idea will get the bounce going.

The Real International Virus

Not that I was worried about the bird flu anyways, but another story I saw today showed me what the true international viral infection is: Trial Lawyers armed with bogus cases. In Australia, lawyers are currently arguing a case before the High Court to get a 24-year-old disabled woman compensation for 'lifelong suffering'. Yes, that's right, a 24 year old female, who was born blind and deaf with rubella is suing, with the help of her mother, the doctor who misdiagnosed the rubella in her Mother's first trimester 25 years ago. The woman, Alexia Harrington, is suing saying that her Mother, Olga, would have aborted her had she known that the child was going to be retarded. And as one final note, the family says that the trial is not about money, but that it is about getting compensation for a "rubella afflicted life".

Okay, there are, oh so many ways in which this case has problems, but I will try to deal mainly with one. However, I will say it is quite odd that a mother is helping her 24-year-old daughter sue for not being aborted. It must be an Australian form of a Mother-Daughter relationship too complex for a simple American like me to understand. Of course, this brings up the whole issue of abortion itself, but that requires it own full post at a later date.

First of all, why in the world did these people wait for 24 YEARS to do this. Surely the mother knew from birthday number one that her baby was disabled and was going to require intensive, costly care. If not, then perhaps the mother should be checked for some form of 'Reality Comprehension' Syndrome. Unfourtunately, I think it is much more likely that this mother, and her daughter, suffer from the 'Trial Lawyer sees a potentially good money-making case' Syndrome. It is dispicable that these lawyers are using this mother and her handicapped daughter for some sort of publicity, money-making stunt.

Oh, and please don't say that the lawyers are doing it for the poor, rubella-struck woman's good. If she was truly so unhappy with her life that she wishes to have never been born, there are plenty of ways to solve that; a shotgun or small handgun might provide a quick and easy solution. Secondly, if this is for the money, why does the Doctor have to pay off hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) in damages? Blaming your local Obstetrician for an unfourtunate act of God, doesn't do you much good. And to be honest, his mistaken diagnosis doesn't merit the amount of money the case will be for, especially when you consider that the actual woman of the prosecution will only get maybe half of the money, and her lawyer the rest.

Furthurmore, the question of whether or not a child may be disabled isn't quite black and white. Many times a Doctor will indicate to the parents that there is a high probability of a child being physically or mentally retarded, and the child turns out just fine. The point being, a diagnosis of retardation made in the first trimester of pregnancy is hardly as concrete as, say, the Laws of Gravity, making it extremely difficult to fault the Doctor for 24 years of 'pain and suffering'. The simple fact is that disability is something that comes at the fault of no, one, particular human being, so it is quite childish of this family to blame all this on the Doctor.

What is really sad about this case is that it so closely resembles malpractice cases here in the US. Trial Lawyers here seem unable to comprehend that, 99% of the time a doctor has as much to do with the disabilities of a child as they do with the eye color of the child. They are unable to understand that Down's Syndrome, the subject of more than a few cases here in the U.S.A, is actually a genetic disorder, or that that rubella is a microscopic virus, not an full-grown, human Obstetrician.

Which is why it's time for the Trial Lawyers of the world to stop spreading their 'virus' around the world, because Obstetricians really need a break. They would prefer to spend their week in the ER, not the courtroom. And for the sake of women all over the world, let's hope that they stay in buisness instead of retiring from rising malpractice insurance premiums. Better yet, let's hope we find a vaccine for the highly contagious 'bogus lawsuit' virus.

Is Zarqawi's Gig Up?

Today in Amman, Jordanians hit the streets in full force, armed with a fierce protest. But there was something unusual about this one. It did not contain the typical anti-semetic hate, or even the anti-Americanism; rather, it was filled with ire directed at Iraq's terrorist leader Musab al-Zarqawi. The novelty of the situation paints an intriguing picture.

First and foremost, it's good to see Muslims finally standing up to al-Zarqawi and his ruthless gang of terrorists. The fury with which they protested is, hopefully, a sign that ordinary Muslims and Arabs are not going to stand for this kind of crap anymore. They appear to have grown weary of Zarqawi taking out his frustrations with America primarily on Iraqi and other Arabic peoples (innocent civilians at that). They are finally coming to see that Musab's Machiavellian-like tactics don't achieve a 'just' or, if I may say so, an 'Allah-happy' end.

However, the response of these Jordanians demonstrates something else that is far more important to American citizens. In the Muslim world, al-Zarqawi is loosing support. His numbers dwindle, and the vanishing of popular support is spelling out his eventual defeat. This is in stark contrast to the 'quagmire' that was described by Liberal sages not to long ago. One of the chief components of this 'quagmire' was the fact that the people there would never support us. That our actions fueld the terrorists, and strengthend not just their numbers but their popular support as well.

Yet, as the War in Iraq continues, we are informed by men on the ground that the terrorists' numbers are shrinking; and now we are seeing that the Muslim public is begining to view them in a not-so positive light. Indeed, now it appears that the Terrorists' actions, and not our's, are the ones provoking a sour attitude amongst the Arabs. In fact, Zarqawi was so dimayed he felt the need to personally explain what exactly his bombers were doing the other day at the Hyatt. That Zarqawi is now having to come out and depict the 'holiness' behind his murders simply does not bode well for his organization.

Most importantly for al-Zarqawi, the continuation of this type of public outcry will force him to change his tactics. Recently, his men have begun to include more civilian targets in their attacks, in an attempt to create a sense of anti-war sensationalism with the media. The massive backfire that this has created in Jordan today should cause much concern in Zaqawi's rat-hole tonight. And of course this begs the question: is a massive public 'Death to Zarqawi' cry the begining of the end for al-Qaeda Iraq?

I'd have to say that the answer is most definitely 'Yes'.

Muslims Get Taste of 'Down Under' Jails

Just in case you didn't notice, or were watching CNN complain about the lack of French compassion instead, something absolutely astounding happened today in Australia. 16 Muslim men, 7 from Sydney and 9 from Melbourne were arrested for plotting a terror attack. As it turns out, these men were apparently plotting a 9/11 type attack (at least in magnitude) in Melbourne. According to authorities, they had bombs made and ready for use, and were operating a 'mini-factory', of sorts, that they were using to produce more. Additionally, these terrorists are under the leadership of Abu Bakr, a man who is well noted in Australia for his extreme devotion to jihad and Osama bin Laden.

The fact that this plot has not only been discovered, but stopped, speaks volumes to the anti-terror forces in Australia. A great deal of praise and credit is owed to Australian authorities and police forces for their superb work in uncovering this plot. It is victories like these that demonstrate to us that the War on Terror is indeed winable; and that also help add to the sense of desperation that our enemies are rapidly begining feel.

Since late 2001, Australia and Prime Minister John Howard have been perhaps the strongest American allies besides Tony Blair and Britian. The fact that they can put a halt to this type of terror plot speaks highly of thier ability to be brilliant allies in the War on Terror. Furthermore, with the current debacle in France, it is extremely comforting to see a country that can actually deal with, and solve, its own problems. So kudos to John Howard and his government, and here's to many more succesful 'outings' of al-Qaeda plots, where ever they so happen to be.

The Not-So 'Gai Paris'

It seems that everyone's favorite Socialist Nation is again being put in the hot seat by its Muslim immigrants. For 10 days now, specific suburbs of Paris have been rocked by violent uprisings of young Muslim men. Cars have been blown apart, hundreds have been arrested, and buildings have been burned. On top of all this, the French government has demonstrated utter ineptitude in its attempts to halt the violence. Unfourtunately for France, it isn't just the current problem of curtailing the violence that the French Government faces. It is much deeper than that.

The root of the problem is, of course, France's abominable immigration policy. Muslims stream in daily, undocumented and unchecked. Many of the people involved in the Paris rioting aren't even French citizens, merely illegals who have no place being in France in the first place. And of course this problem is caused by another, much bigger, problem: socialism.

The immigrants come in the first place because they are assured of free health care, and the possibility of making large sums simply from welfare checks. However, the world is a rather imperfect place and so unlike the Frecnh citizens, these Muslims dont get the sums of cash. They get unemployment instead. Another side effect of the French governemnt's socialist policies and economy is an ever skyrocketing 12% unemployment rate. Furthurmore, as would be expected, this rate most affects poor men and women in France; such as Muslim immigrants.

Additionally, the current problem the French are having stems from their beloved 'multiculturalist' attitude. France is so afraid to come off as anti-muslim, racist, or, worse yet, oppressive. In doing so they have placed Muslims above the law. As is apparent in Paris these days, Muslims dont think they have to comply with the law. The reason for this is simply that Muslims have been given preferential treatment for so long in France, they think it will never end. France is afraid to say that certain radical Islamic ideals are unacceptable, because the French don't want to insult anyone, unless they live on the other side of the Atlantic.

The French need to grow up, or at least develop some guts. My only hope is that this rioting will expose certain glaring defficiencies in the French system, and spark change. Immigration is something that the French had better do something about fast, or they may quickly become Francistan. As for socialism, the Frecnh economy has been stagnant for months now, and if Chirac and all the other monsieurs in Paris don't make changes fast, the French may find themselves in a Great Depression-like state.

France is a wonderful country, and they make the best 'vin rouge' in the world; but the people in the suburbs of France's most famous city are in serious need of authoritarian aid right now. And I, for one, sure as hell hope they dont have to call 'Team America' to come save their asses again.

To Filibuster, Or Not to Filibuster?

With the recent nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the Democrats in the Senate are facing a decisively uphill battle. Clearly, parts of the Democratic Party do not like Alito, he has already been called a wingnut, an idealogue, and perhaps most telling 'Scalito' or 'Scalia-lite'. The A.C.L.U, N.O.W, and the other big name liberal organizations are, after recovering from their convulsion fits, probably preparing to launch a full scale war against the confirmation of Judge Alito.

Unfourtunately, the likelyhood of this doing any good is virtually non-existant. The harder they fight the bigger and more impressive the victory is for the Republicans. And the Republicans will win this one, make no mistake. They have that 55-45 advantage in the Senate, and it looks like the gang of 14 is not going to butt in and screw around. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the semi-Republican from my home state, has already said the "filibuster will not stand", and it appears the other 6 RINO's are falling in step with him. In other words, all the Republicans will likely be voting to confirm Alito, and could very well invoke the 'nuclear option' if the Democrats try to use the filibuster. Furthurmore, it appears as though the 'gang of 14' Democrats, such as Sen Mark Pryor, do not seem to consider this an 'extraordinary circumstance' and thus have shown little intrest in a filibuster.

So the bottom line is this: Democrats just need to let this nomination happen, because bickering and fighting only hurts them. Bush now has his base strongly behind him, and the plan is apparently to win a nice victory and then launch into a new part of the agenda. For instance, the high tide from an Alito confirmation would be a great launching pad for, say, Social Security reform. So the Democrats may want to save their ammo for later fights.

But now that I think about it, Karl Rove probably has an extra plan ready, just in case the Democrats don't take his bait......

Great Americanism

So, I have decided to post on an issue that may seem pretty irrelevant. This past summer, much ado was made about Discovery Channel's list of 'the Greatest Americans'. Of course, I made up my own list, and recent events have again sparked my interest in the topic. Thus, I have decided to post, complete with ever-so-brief statements of reasoning, my list of the 10 Greatest Americans. Here goes:

1. George Washington - The bottom line is that without this guy, I'd be a Brit.
2. Abe Lincoln - He could be here simply for his role in the Civil War, but his work on behalf of Civil Rights is, in the very least, noteable.
3. James Madison - His work on the Constitution was unmatched, but he saved his true genius for the Federalist Papers.
4. Thomas Jefferson - The Declaration of Independence is the masterpiece of this remarkable man's many achievments.
5. Ronald Reagan - They still say he didn't win the Cold War. Oh well, he never cared much for what they had to say anyways.
6. Benjamin Franklin - The original American statesman. And who wouldn't love a man that said beer was the proof God loves us all?
7. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - 4 words "I have a Dream....."
8. Gen. George S. Patton Jr. - If you're shaking your head at this one, please, just ask any Nazi.
9. James Watson - the structure of the DNA molecule was the greatest scientific discovery in American History.
10. Franklin Delano Roosevelt - despite the 'New Deal', he was the face of the Greatest Generation, and it takes some kind of leader to whip the Japs and Nazis at the same time.

Now, feel free to leave a list of your own, and to comment on mine. Anyone is fair game, from politicians to writers to artists, but please, try not to make a list of your 10 favorite relatives..... :-p

Children of Former Slaves

Well, you probably knew that this was coming at some point. As a Conservative in college, I was bound to encounter the issue of Affirmative Action at some point. It is something that is distinctly unavoidable in a University setting.

Before I go any further, I just want to make one point, I am specifically dealing with public institutions here, not private ones. While Affirmative Action may still be a wrong and terrible way to select students, private Universities or colleges, like all other private entities in this country, have a right to select students in any manner they so choose.

The first question I always have with Affirmative Action is this, why is race even an issue in college admissions? Why is that section, the one were you 'check the ethnicity that best applies,' even on any college application? A person's race has nothing to do with whether they are worthy of a spot in a Universities incoming Freshman class, their credentials are what matter. And it is quite odd that many Blacks see Affirmative Action as a continuation of the Civil Rights movement. Last I checked Dr Martin Luther King Jr's 'Dream' was to have his children judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." In other words, a person's race should have nothing to do with the type of person they are, or the qualities they possess which make them worthy or unworthy of college admissions. Yet, admissions officers still consider a person's race an important part of their character. Dr King would seem to disagree.

Another argument that is made for Affirmative Action goes something like this: minorities have been an oppressed bunch for years and now is our time to make it up to them. First of all wrongfully rejecting a white student in favor of a less qualified black or Hispanic one is a racist action, thus making it as morally reprehensible as other forms of racial discrimination. Furthermore, admitting the grandchild of a former slave, does not atone for some other dead white man's past sins towards minorities. Both the slave and slave master are dead, it is time to move on. Thus we have a classic scenario where we are compensating for one wrong by performing another; two wrongs to make it right. Unfortunately, as you have hopefully been told, two wrongs don't make a right. Additionally, this notion that two wrongs make a right is not just contrary to a good piece of advice that Momma gave you, its also a logical fallacy. Indeed, the fact that your ancestors were wronged does not mean you are entitled to anything. As Mark Twain once said "The world owes you nothing. It was here first."

Another argument that is frequently made is that Blacks and Hispanics often come from disadvantaged or poor school districts, and thus may need help getting into school because they just haven’t had the proper education. First of all, underlying this argument is a hard truth: the students haven't had the training, and don't have the credentials to get in, and thus shouldn't. Secondly, the problem of a poor school district is not solved by giving those students unique advantages in college admissions; it is solved by bettering the school district. College or university admissions has nothing to do with the actual problem. So you see, in this way Affirmative Action actually hurts the minorities, because instead of solving the problem they have with poor public high schools, A.A simply offers a solution by saying 'we know you've had a bad education, but we'll correct the problem'. Even if this does seem an appropriate solution to you, how do you deal with the students in these districts who don't go to college, and never plan too? Do they just miss out?

The final thing I will say is that Affirmative Action is the most detrimental to the people that it is intended to help. Why should a black man, who is perfectly capable of getting accepted at say, Harvard, be forced to walk around knowing that people will wonder if he really earned his spot in Harvard, or if it was just handed to him? I thought Blacks wanted to eliminate ignorant stereotypes, such as that they are a stupider race, and that they are lazy and incapable of putting forth the effort necessary to get into college? Affirmative Action does just the opposite, it tells blacks that they can't get in on their own, and that they need special assistance to get in. And this is simply false and inaccurate.

Illegal Immigration

Once again the the 'maverickness' of John McCain is upon us. McCain, along with Sen. Ted Kennedy, has proposed a bill that allows illegal immigrants to gain American citizenship. I find it quite amusing that Senator McCain wants to reward these Mexicans for breaking the law. We can't deport illegal immigrants because that wouldn't be "workable." Furthurmore, he says we cant expect "employers to be (immigration) officers."

As seems to be so often the case these days, Sen. McCain errs. There is a much better way to solve the problem of illegal immigration. What we need to do is crack down on buisnesses who hire illegals. Enforce stiff penalties for companies that hire aliens, so that they won't do so. You are probably thinking, I know, that 'we need someone to mow our grass since we don't want to do it,' but the honest answer is, we have thousands of Mexicans willing to legally immigrate to take the place of illegals. There is no shortage of wannabe grass mowers.

If buisnesses stop hiring illegals and hire legals, it does essentiallly nothing to change their bottom line, Mexican labor is cheap even if the Mexicans are legal citizens. And what the buisnesses do lose, the country gains. We get rid of undocumented people in this country, we can begin taxing all workers, and not have illegals free-loading on our school system.

And here's the great thing, if we can force companies to hire legals as opposed to illegals, we wont have to deport all of the aliens, many will simply leave. Now of course when we do find illegals we have to arrest them, and send them to jail or deport them, it's called the law, and not even illegals are exempt from it. However, the idea is that if you eliminate their job opportunities by penalizing the employers, and you arrest the ones who try to free-load on schools and other such things, they will have no reason to stay here and will simply go back home, and hopefully try to come back legally.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't allow immigration, or that Mexicans should be banned from coming to the U.S, I'm just asking that when they do come, they sign the guest book.

Iraqi Progress

Now that the ratification vote for the Iraqi Constitution is complete, I must say it was a wonderful thing to see. According to FOX news "no fewer than 61%" of the population voted on whether to utilize this new Constitution. In the last election here in the USA, perhaps the most heated and intense contest we have ever had, only 42% of our population turned out.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, it is amazing to see all these people go out and vote, as they try to make Representative Government work over there. To see the way in which both men and women flashed their dyed fingers after casting their vote said something about the folks over in Iraq. It shows us that they, perhaps more so than most Americans, are not only commited to the long-term goals of Democracy, but that they are appreciative of this opportunity to start over and to try and make Iraq a succesful counrty, without Hussein. It also shows us that Iraqis are clearly willing to participate in this type of government, and this sort of involvement will be a key to Democracy's potential success.

Many people have, justifiably, asked 'what is success in Iraq?' For me, having Iraqis vote on a Constitution with which to govern themselves is certainly a part of 'success'. Another part, is when they adopt a Constitution, whether it be this one or the next, and put that government into action. Another component is when they can defend their people from terrorists and protect their borders, especially the Iranian one. And if I may be so bold, another indication of success will be when they can enter into the world petrolium market and begin to collect a national revenue through Oil Sales (hopefully most of which will be to the US).

Despite what many believe, there is real hope in Iraq for success; and the greatest manifestation of that hope is these people, who went, un-bombed I might add, to vote for their potential Constitution.

Teenage Responsibility

There is an article on the front page of the New York Times today that is painful to read. Mainly because it reflects one of the most unfourtunate trends in our Country: a growing lack of responsibility. Specifically, this article deals with life sentences for teenagers. We are told of the 2,200 people serving sentences of life without parole for crimes commited as minors. The article points out that only 4 other countries in the world have people serving similar sentences. And of course it points to the recent Supreme Court decision in Roper vs. Simmons that abolished the Death Penalty for minors.

Most of the article's pitty is spent on Ms. Rebecca Falon who is serving her sentence for participating in a murder at the age of 15. She "faults her choice of friends" for what she has done. But what the Times tries so desperately to ignore is the actual crime itself: murder. As The young girl indicated she made a 'choice' and is now suffering the consequences. Murder is a terrible thing, and perhaps the crime most deserving of its punishment. Criminals, regardless of their age, must be held responsible for their actions. That's why we have laws in the first place, so that people can't go around harming others without fear of consequences.

Many say teenagers are absolved from this responsibility because they are so young and can so easily be impressed or molded into following a certain criminal ideology. All the more reason to punish them as strictly as everyone else. If we let them know that they will be held every bit as responsible for murder as a 45 year old, then maybe they will understand the reprecussions of certain 'choices' they face in their young lives a bit better.

Some may say that teenagers have their whole lives ahead, and should be allowed to attone for, or 'come clean', about murders they commit. They just need a little time to think about their crime, and then once we have taught them a lesson they can re-intigrate into society and go make better choices. But what about the innocent victim who no longer has the capacity to make choices or attone for anything, because he or she is dead? Why should teenagers be held to lesser standards than adults? The punishment should fit the crime, even if you feel you have made amends in less time than the punishment requires.

And ultimately, as I said, this comes down to responsibility. Americans today are less willing, not only to take responsibility for their own actions, but to force others to take responsibility for their's. However, even the naivete of youth does not excuse one from responsibility for one's actions. This much should be clear.

Jean Paul Sartre once wrote that "Hell is other people," and part of what he meant by this is the fact that others serve as a constant reminder not only to one's actions, but to the responsibility one has for those actions. And this reminder is hell; because we so often would love to simply ignore our deeds and not have to claim them as our own. But we must. And we especially must in the case of henious crimes such as murder. Because the Rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" cannot belong to someone who differs the responsibility of those Rights to someone else.

Health Coverage

It seems that whenever you talk with a typical person, they will gladly tell you that they are for better 'health care' in the United States. They point to the Socialist European countries, like Germany, France and the Netherlands and comment on what excellent 'health care' they have. Indeed, Democratic candidates in the United States (and some Republican ones as well) win votes by promising better 'health care' to constituents.

But this represents a misunderstanding of basic terms. What these people mean is that they will get better Health Coverage for their constituents. Germany and France have some of the best Health Coverage in the world; Health Care is a different story. Health Coverage implies how many people are insured, or can financially afford to receive medical treatment; whereas Health Care is the actual service being provided by Doctors, Nurses and Hospitals. Improved Health Care means a improved quality of the services provided by Doctors, improved Health Coverage means more people have access to the services, regardless of the quality.

While socialist nations can clearly boast of the greatest Health Coverage in the world, as a direct result they also posses some of the worst Health Care amongst all the industrialized nations. The counrty with the best Health Care in the world is the counrty that spends the most time training its Doctors. The country with the best Health Care in the world is the counrty that only lets qualified individuals provide medical services. The country with the best Health Care is the country where, in the vast majority of cases, Doctors get the diagnoses and surgeries right the first time. And most importantly the country with the best Health Care is the country that can provid Health Services on demand to those who need them most, when they need them the most. The country with the best Health Care in the world is the United States.

Sure they have better Health Coverage in Canada, but they also have to wait 12 weeks just to get an MRI. Sure German Physicians have cheaper costs than American Physicians, but their surgeons haven't had 12 years of intensive, pre-job training. And sure France can get all of their citizens to the Doctor, but it takes them so long that thousands died of a heat stroke a few years back, just because they had to wait to get in a hospital when they really needed (fairly basic) treatment. (American Hospitals would have been sued out of buisness if that had happened here.)

So the bottom line is this: Quality Health Care is much more important than Health Coverage because quite frankly, without good Care, Coverage means nothing.

Supreme Court

I have to be honest. I was dissappointed when George W Bush nominated John Roberts to be the next Chief Justice. Not that I don't like Roberts; but I would have loved to have seen Chief Justice Scalia. Don't you just like the ring that has to it? I mean, a man with the full confidence of Ronald Reagan, and who has proven, over the years, to understand the law as it was meant to be, would clearly make an excellent leader for the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, I am excited about Roberts' selection, and I am happy to see that he will soon be confirmed, minus the typical hoopla that the Democratic Party likes to create for these types of situations. I think that he will be an excellent Cheif Justice for many years to come. In fact, I expect him to be straight from the William Rehnquist mold. For starters, there is the fact that he clerked for Rehnquist, and thus, perhaps much of his Judicial Philsophy will have been influenced by the late Chief Justice. Also, his work for the preservation of States Rights' during the Reagan Administration is worthy of note. This is perhaps one of the most important indications that he will run a court similar to that of his predecessor.

As for the many allegations against him, none seem to really have any validity. Many seem to think he will revert back to 1950's style anti - Civil Rights notions. However, the only way this would happen is if he turns out to be a Liberal Justice. If you are still naive enough to think that Republicans are the racist Party, you may not get that joke. As for N.O.W and other liberal organizations that are afraid he will overturn Roe vs. Wade, I sincerely hope that their worst fears come true.

Intrestingly enough, a few on the Right are concerned that Roberts will be the next David Souter. (Ann Coulter being one of the most noteworthy) After more than enough suprises on SCOTUS and other Court nominees, their concerns are not to be overloked. However, I believe it is in the interest of these few to trust President Bush's judgement, more so than that of his father, and to realize that this is an incredibly intelligent man with a great respect for the law and an understanding of its History. It is highly unlikely that he will become another Souter.

The bottom line for me is this: I expect good things out of C.J. John Roberts and expect to see him as a respectable legal prescence for many years to come.

Two Issues from Katrina

Now that the process of rebuilding has begun in New Orleans, two of the most prevalent things in the media are the massive price tag of the Congressional rebuilding effort and of course, the effect it has had on President Bush's poll numbers. To me they are really two separate issues so I will deal with them as such.

First, to rebuild the City of New Orleans the Bush Administration has proposed $200 billion worth of total aid, in the form of a whole variety of things. To be perfectly honest this amount is not only too much, but too soon. Quickly following the disaster House Speaker Dennis Hastert caught a lot of flack for saying that "it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars rebuilding a city that’s seven feet underwater," but there is value in his comments. While certainly it would be almost impossible to not rebuild New Orleans, as it is a city steeped in history and the residence of some 1.2 million people, it is plausible to ask if the entire city is indeed safe for human living.

Should we really let people live in all parts of the city? Are there places, further below sea level than others, that simply are to high-risk to live in? These are answers that I don't have (and that apparently no one does) but that need to be answered before we just send people back in to rebuild. We have to make sure that where those New Oleanders are living is a safe place for them to live, one that can be protected by the levees and other means. And we especially need to answer these sorts of questions BEFORE we spend $200 billion.

As for the actual amount, I do not claim to be the one who knows if this is truly an appropriate amount of cash to overcome the tragedy on the Gulf Coast. Although I must say, by the looks of it, the sum appears to be quite large and excessive. Prior to Katrina, the most costly Hurricane was Andrew, which devastated Southeastern Florida in 1992. That cost $25 billion. Certainly Katrina will be much more than that, perhaps even two or three times as much; but surely not 8 times as much. In fact, at landfall, Andrew was a stronger Hurricane (cat. 5 vs cat. 4) and it hit a more densely populated area. While New Orleans was much more vulnerable, it seems clear to me that Katrina should not cost an astronomical amount more than Andrew did.

Now, the second issue: Bush's poll numbers. CNN.com reported that on September 10th Bush's approval rating dipped to a new low of 39%. This simply makes me laugh. First of all, they don't matter AT ALL, because Bush is not going to be reelected, and in all likelihood will retire after he leaves the White House. Clearly he has a responsibility to the country as President, but he is not doing anything illegal, or anything worthy of a rebellion. Furthermore, just because some Conservative Congressmen disagree with Bush on this issue doesn't mean they will hold hands with Ted Kennedy all the way to an impeachment trial.

Second, if you really trust poll numbers then I can perhaps negotiate a deal to sell you a mountain house in the Florida Keys. Seriously, polls typically include about a five percent more Democrats than Republicans. Furthermore, they don't tend to be accurate. At the end of October 2004, a few days prior to the election Bush's approval rating, and the expected percent of votes he would get in the election, was 45%. In case you missed it that number was off by 6%.

Third, while many Conservatives disagree with Bush on this issue of rebuilding New Orleans, that doesn't mean they don't like him overall. I disagree with Bush on this issue, and on others, such as immigration, but I still think that between his handling of the War on Terror and his efforts to create a remarkable economy, he has been a good President. Mark you he is no Reagan or Lincoln, but still not bad. Indeed, come to think of it, during his first term, Lincoln's approval rate wasn't so great either, half the country hated him so much they seceded from the Union ;-)

Diplomacy at Mis-work

In light of the new 'agreement' with North Korea, the New York Times has taken to criticizing the Bush Administration for not being diplomatic and resorting to "name-calling" and other "confrontational tactics" in past negotiations with North Korea. They presume the President will be shocked that "Diplomacy..[works] after all." But perhaps the most telling line is when they become almost nostalgic that the Bush administration "has rediscovered the safeguards and rewards of peaceful international diplomacy in general and this vital treaty in particular."

First and foremost, I will believe the 'treaty' when I see it in action. Not when they say they've disarmed or not when UN inspectors say they have disarmed; when American Military experts are allowed into North Korea and give the okay, that is when I will believe what is coming out of Pyongyang. In fact they have already requested an Atomic Energy Reactor. I assume they want to use this for 'energy reasons' just like Iran. So before the New York Times gives Condi Rice and Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill accolades for "serious negotiation" lets see what we 'seriously' get from it.

As for Bush's past "confrontational tactics," let's just say Serious Dictators never listen to 'Serious Diplomacy'. In fact, I distinctly remember serious attempts at diplomacy in 1938, treaties, in fact, that resulted in "Peace in [thier] Time." (Not to mention one of the Greatest Fools ever to be British PM.) Besides, scare tactics work more often than not; and we're looking for results here, not a good grade in International Manners class.

Furthurmore, its not like President Bush doesn't try diplomacy, he did on more than one occasion with Saddam, he just doesn't try it absurdly. When diplomacy accomplishes the proper end, it is the best and preferred option. However, this is often not the case, and President Bush has, quite frankly, exhibited a very good understanding of this, as he seems to know when to give up on dimplomacy and resort to Force.

To be perfectly frank, "the importance of international agreements" is absolutely none if there is no force or threat in place to back them up. And thats what We're here for. That what Bush, or more specifically The United States, does in this world: We keep the peace. Bush's beefing up of National Security and War on Terror are not his "discounting" of International Treaties, they're his strengthening of them. Fighting for Peace and stability is not a new drill in this great Country.
So in the future, after this current North Korea agreement falls through, when Bush resorts to 'threatening' tactics, remember, he's doing it for the Good of the whole World.

Seriously