Stones Cry Out

Memory fades? In the evening interview (I didn’t catch it) of Mrs Palin was asked about the Bush doctrine.

Gibson’s description—“The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us,” wasn’t a good description of even the preemption element of the Bush doctrine (and his claim that the preemption element was enunciated in September of 02 is also incorrect), though Palin’s answer suggested she didn’t quite agree with Bush on the question of imminence.

My impression was that the Bush doctrine was essentially that if a country chooses to actively support terrorism, it abrogates the moral right to exist, that is that any other nation may in good conscience attack it. The reasoning behind this is that terrorism, when illegal in nation states is little more than a criminal annoyance. If however, a nation decides to harbor and support terror … those numbers and capabilities grow by orders of magnitude and in our modern world become a threat to our lives and liberty.

Am I wrong in my recollection? Mr Gibson certainly is wrong.

It is beyond axiomatic that the solution to our dependence on fossil fuels is not to be found solely in tapping additional sources of fossil fuels. Nonetheless, it is also apparent that the solution, which will necessarily be multi-faceted and involve a fair amount of societal change, will not happen in the short run (i.e. next ten years). Accordingly, it seems that tapping additional sources to buy time to bridge to the long-term solution makes sense. It makes sense from an economic perspective, as energy costs are a supply side item, and lower supply costs are a boon to the economy, as well as from a national security perspective, money to the Middle East, or Venezuala, funds those who would rather see this nation perish. So, I join the many who say “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less!“

From CNN:

Concerns about an impending terrorist strike are at the lowest point on record since the attacks on September 11, 2001, and only about one in ten Americans say that terrorism is the most important issue in deciding their vote for president, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

Seven years after the attacks of September 11, just 30 percent of Americans said they thought an attack on American soil is likely sometime over the next several weeks — a number that’s down 11 points since last year at that time and down 30 points since the first anniversary of 9/11. Only 14 percent of Americans say an impending terrorist attack is likely in their community.

To quote the Anchoress:  I blame Bush.

One prominent Canadian OB/GYN says “Yes.”  Problem is, he finds that worrisome. 

Sarah and Todd Palin’s decision to complete her recent pregnancy, despite advance notice that their baby Trig had Down syndrome, is hailed by many in the pro-life movement as walking the walk as well as talking the talk.

But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions.

Published reports in Canada say about 9 out of 10 women given a diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate the pregnancy through abortion.

Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa, worries that Palin’s now renowned decision may cause abortions in Canada to decline as other women there and elsewhere opt to follow suit.

He says not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of Down babies, who have developmental delays, some physical difficulties and often a shortened lifespan.

Well, we can’t have role models diminishing that 90% figure one little bit, can we?  I just find it completely appalling that this sort of “concern” is expressed, let alone by a leading OB/GYN.

Read the rest of this entry

We’ve hit this topic before on SCO, but Danny Carlton pointed me to a Clinton forum where folks are speaking out as to why they’re going to vote McCain.

He especially notes this post, wherein a socially liberal woman lists all her reasons for supporting the McCain/Palin ticket.  Yes, it’s mostly over Palin, but not just because she’s a woman.

I have always voted Democrat, I was a strong Hillary supporter, I am pro-choice, socially liberal, pro GLBT and I am so proud to be supporting the McCain/Palin ticket!

I plan to send in $$ when I can to the McCain campaign. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am the McCain choose Palin as his running mate. I love the fact that she is considered a reformer, has tackled corruption in high places, has Executive experience, a watchdog for our tax dollars, a woman who is comfortable doing stuff with her hands and isn’t afraid to take the lead! We have been given a present from above. It can’t get any better!!

This may not completely clear up how many women may be making the switch to the GOP for this election, but it does help answer some of the “Why?” questions.

This is a picture I took when we visited New York City in, I believe, 2004.  We were visiting my wife’s sister’s family in Queens, and I took the kids on a whirlwind tour of the city, including the completely excavated Ground Zero.  My two oldest still remember when their aunt, a few years earlier, had taken them to the top of the towers that had occupied what was now this pit.  But what was left in this pit was now a symbol of hope.

God was there that day 7 years ago, and every day, for people who wish to cling to Him.  He has never promised a trouble-free life.  What He has promised is Himself and His strength to get through each day that He knows is coming our way, and that all things work together for good to those who follow Him.

For thousands of families, this is always a difficult day.  In many events around the country, the names of those who died will be read.  Pray for the names you don’t hear; the spouses, children, families and friends behind those who were killed that day.

• Memory, it’s been 7 years.
• Positive words for Mrs Palin, if you want some balance.
• The message I take from this is not what’s intended. Less college and more professional schooling is the answer not “better colleges”. Too many kids treat college as 4 years of partying away from home … market is reflecting that.
• The Christian Carnival is up.
• Facts about pigs, many of which I didn’t know before reading.
• One college, making a difference in some lives. Fireman too?
• Two campaigns and some kids.

Many of you have probably seen this Obituary from the Washington Post, as reprinted in National Review Online’s Corner. If not, read it, especially if you’re a father.

More commentary at this post in the Corner. Pray for this family, especially the son. I know he has close remaining family but I cannot help wondering what he’s going to do with his dad gone.

I love finding new-to-me words in everyday writing. Today’s word is psephology, as in the study of elections. Example: Keith Olberman is to psephology as Ptolemy was to astronomy. Many thanks to Jonah Goldberg for improving my vocabulary.

From this link:

An article in the Legal Times discusses the impact that Sarah Palin and Joe Biden would have on judicial picks if elected vice president. For those who question the potential influence of a VP on judicial selection, the Legal Times notes that “Gore was a strong voice … in pushing the nominations of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.” The article concludes that

“Palin … is thought to be an assurance that Sen. John McCain will make good on his promise to nominate more judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito Jr.”

We agree:

“McCain’s choice of Palin, a social conservative, shut down criticism from [CFJ’s Curt] Levey and others. ‘McCain is a moderate, and she’s more of a movement conservative,’ Levey says. ‘If she has any effect on his judicial picks, I think it’ll be a positive one.'”

The article notes that, while Palin has less of a record than Biden on judicial selection – as Judiciary chairman, he led the fight to defeat Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas – Palin

“already has had more impact on the Alaska judiciary than her predecessor. Since taking office in December 2006, Palin has seated more than a dozen judges, including a state Supreme Court justice and a state court of appeals judge, the first appellate appointments in the state in more than a decade.”

Palin’s questions when interviewing potential nominees for the Alaska bench give assurance that she understands two of the most important principles of judicial selection: 1) select nominees who believe in judicial modesty and restraint, and 2) impose no litmus tests (both principles can be found in the judges section of the GOP’s 2008 platform). The Legal Times reports that

“[Andy] Harrington, executive director of Alaska Legal Services Corp., interviewed with Palin in November 2007, days after the state Supreme Court issued a ruling striking down a law that required girls less than 17 years old and younger to get permission from their parents before receiving an abortion. … Harrington anticipated a question about the ruling. But Palin never asked about the case or any other, Harrington says. … At one point, she asked him to define an activist judge. … Another judicial candidate who interviewed with Palin this year says Palin asked questions about work history, background, and basic judicial philosophy. ‘Some of my colleagues say the Constitution is a living, breathing document. What do you think?’ Palin asked.”

RASMUSSEN SURVEY

Of course, some liberal judges and commentators claim that it is they who believe in judicial restraint. And perhaps a few of them do. But for those who doubt which side of the political spectrum most consistently supports the rule of law, the results of a Rasmussen survey this month should dispel those doubts. The survey found that McCain supporters overwhelming believe – by an 82% to 11% margin – that “the Supreme Court [should] make decisions based on what’s written in the Constitution and legal precedents,” rather than “be guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice.” Obama supporters, on the other hand, believe the converse by a 49% to 29% margin.

Some time ago, I suggested an alternative debating format, which would certainly make for a more interesting (and informative) evening. The format would go something like this:

moderator: The next topic will be educational reform. Mr Obama you are to begin. Please explain briefly Mr McCain’s position on what needs to be done to improve our educational system. You have three minutes, which will alternate with one minute corrections from Mr McCain until you are both satisfied.

[The two exchange]

moderator: Now, Mr Obama that you established an understanding of Mr McCain’s stand, you have 3 minutes to rebut that position.

Then … they reverse and Mr McCain explains Mr Obama’s position until Mr Obama is satisfied he has successfully explained it. And Mr McCain gets a short rebuttal of that.

And then of course, they move on the the next topic.

What this avoids of course is the endless arguments we so often find, where one side rebuts a position not held by the other and vice versa. It also means that at least two people (the candidates themselves) and perhaps several in the audience as well will finally come to understand the arguments and motivations of the otehr side instead of just demonizing a caricature of the same said position.

“If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less.”
General Eric Shinseki, retired Chief of Staff, U. S. Army

“Change” is the new black. Senator Obama has made change the cornerstone of his campaign, promising that he is running “to offer this country change that we can believe in.” Senator McCain of late is also promising change from the same old Washington politics. (Senator Obama, unsurprisingly, has taken some umbrage that Senator McCain, who is a member of the party that has (somewhat) been in control the past eight year, has appropriated the banner of change.)

Here’s my problem: It’s not the change that either candidate intends that matters. It’s the change that is going to befall this country in the next four years that matters. Look, the pace of change in our lives is unlike ever before: the ubiquitous threat of terrorism, more countries joining the nuclear club, information proliferation, emerging economic competition, outsourced jobs. The list goes on forever. Read the rest of this entry

Dan asked for a few examples from the text. Find them below the fold. Read the rest of this entry

For 8 years, liberals have accused George W. Bush of “shredding the Constitution”.  But as Rasmussen Reports notes, Obama supporters don’t even seem to take the Constitution seriously.

OK, civics question:  The job of the Supreme Court is to … what?  What is their primary purpose?  Wikipedia tells us that, while the Court’s purpose was a bit hazy during the early years of our country, it finally congealed.

Initially, during the tenures of Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.

That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1836), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the “general” government) and the states. In Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.

The Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of the cases, and the laws involved with them, which are brought before them.  That’s their job.  But then, if you don’t know that, or consider the Constitution to be two-century-old Silly Putty, that may alter your perception.

Which takes us back to Rasmussen, where, for starters, the overall numbers seem passable, but not what I would have hoped.

Most American voters (60%) agrees and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice.

But take a closer look, and you’ll note that one’s perception of the Constitution alters your vote.

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

The better your grade in social studies, or the better you know how the US government was intended to work, the more you’re likely to vote Republican.  If you think that, in order to change the laws, you just need to change the courts, you’re both badly mistaken from a civics point of view (that’s for the legislature) and likely to misuse the system (e.g. gaining same-sex marriage by judicial fiat rather than legislation). 

And you’re most likely a liberal.

• What the pig/lipstick kerfuffle misses.
• Answers to 20 questions apparently posed for Ms Palin.
• Ms Paglia and Mr Gingrich on the same page … how often does that happen?
• On Mr Wonmug.
• One moderate returns to the fence.
• Mr Obama and one of his bills.
• On Mr Rushdie’s new novel.