Penn State recently decided to take a bold step to end music piracy on its campus.  Instead of enforcing the rules by blocking downloads, tracking the use of its own network, or punishing offenders, Penn State has decided to allow Penn State students to download all they want from the new legal version of Napster.  The school is paying Roxio, which owns Napster, an undisclosed fee.  So the way to stop illegal music downloads is to simply make it legal, and the school will absorb the cost.

Is it just me, or does this sound like an eery echo of the plan to eliminate illegal immigration not by increasing border control, tracking down illegal immigrants or punishing offenders, but by simply declaring illegal immigration... legal?  The problem with that scenario is, the government would absorb the cost... and the government is us. So what does this teach the Penn State students or immigrants about following our rules and obeying our laws?  Not too much, I'm thinking.

The proposed Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act (BSIIA) would basically function as an amnesty for, as stated in section 4, almost any alien who entered the country illegally before 1 August 2003.  It would grant them the status of "non-immigrant alien" as long as they haven't been convicted of any felonies, and either have a job, or are the spouse or child of anyone with a job.  It's pretty much a cold slap in the face of all the legal immigrants who've ever entered the country by filling out the proper forms, obeying the laws, following the rules, and becoming law-abiding citizens.  It sends a clear message: there is no criminal act we cannot ignore.  The most shocking thing about it is that it was proposed by Senator John McCain (R-Az), a man not normally known for endorsing either criminal acts or Liberal ideas.

We can further reduce the number of criminals in this country overnight by simply declaring their crimes legal!  If only we'd declared shoplifting legal, for instance, we wouldn't have been subjected to months of riveting footage of Winona Ryder sitting in a courtroom while talking heads and pundits discussed her outfits.  We can declare murder legal, and never have to hear about Scott Peterson again... it won't matter who killed his wife and son.  And as soon as rape is declared legal, Kobe Bryant can go back to shooting hoops without fear of being accused of anything... or having entire web pages devoted to his trial coverage.

What is the point of even having laws if, when people disobey them, you simply change those laws to accomodate them?  And don't tell me that illegal immigration is a "victimless" crime... every taxpaying American is a victim.

Well, it's taken more than two and a half years, but the Republicans in the Senate are FINALLY going to force the Democrats to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.  Since Judge Miguel Estrada was nominated by President Bush to the US Court of appeals in May 2001, the Democrats have been opposing the President and subverting the Constitution by filibustering Estrada and many other nominations... blocking them from even coming to a vote by continuously holding the Senate floor and speaking. Speaking?  They haven't even done THAT!  They merely stated their intention to filibuster, and then went on to other business... which supposedly can not be conducted while a filibuster is in effect!  Miguel Estrada finally withdrew his name from consideration, but the others -- Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl and William Pryor -- are grimly sticking it out. Today, the Republicans are going to make the Democrats filibuster for real if they want to continue to block votes on these nominees.

Filibustering is not mentioned in the Constitution -- it's merely a rule of the Senate that no votes can be taken while a member is holding the floor, and it takes 60 votes for "cloture"... to silence him or her.  However, the very idea of filibustering a President's judicial nominee is a violation of the Constitution, which states:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
- Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2

Where not otherwise specified, "advice and consent" of the Senate means a simple majority vote, 51 to 49.  When the Republicans merely threatened to filibuster some of Clinton's judicial nominees, the outrage was palpable.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.' An up or down vote, that is all we ask.
- Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), Congressional Record, 10/5/1999

I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination...
- Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), Congressional Record, 10/5/1999

I have stated over and over again... that I would object to and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported.
- Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Congressional Record, 6/18/98

Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee... But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.
- Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Congressional Record, 10/22/1997

What's tragic is that these two staunch opponents of judicial filibusters are now leading the filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees because they feel the judges might interfere with Roe v. Wade... the 1973 Supreme Court case that decided that somewhere hidden in the Constitution is the right for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies. The Left is SO AFRAID that Roe v. Wade could be overturned that they've made it the ultimate litmus test for pretty much any political office for the last 30 years, even when the holder of the office in question couldn't possibly affect the federal law.

Last month, Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa) wrote me in response to my email on this very subject to say, "You may be interested to know that on May 9, 2003, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee introduced S.Res. 138, a resolution that would amend Senate Rule XXII relating to the consideration of presidential nominees. Under this resolution, cloture on nominations could not be filed until a nomination has been pending on the Senate floor for 12 hours. The first cloture vote would require 60 votes to break a filibuster. Then, for each subsequent cloture motion filed, the number of votes required to end the filibuster would gradually decrease until only a simple majority would be required. This new rule would only apply to nominations."  The problem with this resolution is that if filibustered (as it's SURE to be), it will require 67 instead of 60 votes for cloture (since it changes the rules of the Senate).

Well, perhaps after the 2004 elections it might be possible to get enough votes to prevent this partisan hijacking of the Constitution from happening again.  Very few Democrats will cross the aisle to side with the Republicans on ANY issue while a Presidential race is underway.  Please write your Senators and urge them to support Senate Resolution 138, so we can avoid this kind of mess in the future.

I've never been in a war.

I've never had to crawl on my belly through underbrush while being shot at, hide in a trench in the dark while explosions went off around me, or been ordered to keep going when I've got nothing left to give.  I've never had to watch my friends and comrades die horribly and suddenly, killed by a faceless enemy for reasons I don't understand, in a foreign land.  I've never had to kill a man before he killed me.

Instead, I can live anywhere I choose, take any job I know how to do, or go to school anywhere I want to learn how to do something new.  I can own a car or house.  I can collect things.  I can waste my money.  I can goof off if I choose, or I can work hard to get ahead.  I can start my own business.  I can plan for the future. I can make these kinds of choices every single day.  I'm FREE.

None of this is due to any special ability or effort or skill on my part.  I didn't do anything to deserve it.  I didn't purchase it.  I owe my freedom to people I don't even know who put their lives in jeopardy every day to make sure I can stay safe and secure at home.  They don't know me, either. 

Some of them have died for me. 

How the hell do you say 'thank you' for something like THAT?

Who does the ACLU represent? What do the letters stand for?  They claim they stand for "American Civil Liberties Union", but I doubt it... at least the "American" part.  The latest outrage from these defenders of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association, an organisation to which I'm not going to provide a link) is to defend terrorists.  That's right, the ACLU is angrily insisting that the al-Qaeda terrorists and Taliban members detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should be given all the rights of the American citizens they've killed and tried to kill.  The ACLU seems to think that they should be treated as common criminals with citizens' rights, instead of foreign war criminals or terrorists. 

These secret detentions exemplify the dramatic erosion of constitutional rights under the Bush administration. Individuals have been denied access to an attorney and held without being charged of a crime. Among other things, the government has classified detainees as "enemy combatants," and in doing so has tried to justify holding a person indefinitely or having his or her case heard by a military tribunal, where due process rights are significantly curtailed, rather than by a civilian judge and jury.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13079&c=207

Constitutional rights for foreign nationals who take up arms our people? Whose side is the ACLU on?  I tried to find the place in the Constitution where it says that foreigners who have sworn to carry out our destruction are accorded the right to have a criminal trial as if they were merely caught shoplifting.  I couldn't find it.  You won't be able to, either.  How can the Bush administration be causing a "dramatic erosion" of that which never existed?

Today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case which will allow them to decide whether terrorists "may contest their captivity in American courts".  Surely this must be a joke.  If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the terrorists, and even one terrorist is freed by their decision, it will be one too many.

The last time we dealt with something like this, captured enemy combatants were dealt with in the Nuremburg Trials.  First, certain Nazi organisations were examined by the International Military Tribunal -- America, Great Britain, France and Russia -- and indicted as criminal organisations.  Then prisoners of war were tried to determine the extent of their involvement with the criminal organisations: the SS, the Gestapo, and the Corps of the Nazi Party Political Leaders.  All of this was carried out not in civilian courts, and not by granting the prisoners the same rights as American citizens.  The trials were held by the military, and their outcome was swift and fair.

While awaiting trial, the Nazi prisoners were held in far worse and restrictive conditions than the Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners are in now.  Thousands of personal lawyers were not retained at government expense, however, nor were tens of thousands of people called away from their jobs to serve on juries.  None of them had a chance of escaping justice due to technicalities or lawyers' tricks.  Most importantly, the trials were held when the war was OVER.  I think the Nuremburg model is the one we should follow when dealing with the Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

Earlier this year, an email was circulating around the internet regarding Sears and how they were standing by their employees who were called to duty in Iraq.  Perhaps you saw it... perhaps you've since forgotten.  The email generally said the following:

Fwd: Good News !!!!!! SHOP AT SEARS
I assume you have all seen the reports about how Sears is treating its reservist employees who are called up? By law, they are required to hold their jobs open and available, but nothing more. Usually, people take a big pay cut and lose benefits as a result of being called up...
Sears is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and maintaining all benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all called up reservist employees for up to two years. I submit that Sears is an exemplary corporate citizen and should be recognized for its contribution.
I suggest we all shop at Sears, and be sure to find a manager to tell them why we are there so the company gets the positive reinforcement it well deserves.
Pass it on.

A friend of mine, not certain whether this was true (or whether it was still in effect), sent the following email to Sears today:

Is there any truth to this email? I am ex military and was in the national guard. I would love to forward this on but want to know if there is any truth to it before I do so. Thanks in advance.
Keith

Their reply was short, but to the point:

Thank you for contacting Sears.
The information is factual. We appreciate your positive feedback. Sears regards service to our country as one of greatest sacrifices our young men and women can make. We are happy to do our part to lessen the burden they bear at this time.
Bill Thorn
Sears Customer Care
webcenter@sears.com
1-800-349-4358

He then recieved a follow-up email that, though it contains more information, is a little more personal:

According to an organisation called Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, Sears is not alone in going above and beyond in their support of our troops.  Their website contains a page called "Outstanding Employers" which lists companies who are doing more than the law requires for their employees who've been called to duty. The list can be found at http://www.esgr.org/employers/outstandingEmployers.asp.

I know that Sears and the other companies on that list are getting my business when I do my Christmas shopping this year.  But how does one "support" companies like DH Griffin (a wrecking company)? Have someone's house torn down for Christmas, maybe?

Err... What's Ted Kennedy's address, again?

Situation: you are a US Army Lieutenant Colonel at war.  Your unit recently came under attack, and captured one of the men responsible for planning it.  The same reliable informant that helped you capture him tells you that another attack has already been planned which may take the lives of some of your men. The prisoner helped plan it, and knows all the details... but he's not telling.  The men under your command are in danger.  Their lives are your responsibility.  More than that, they're your men... practically family.  Question: how far will you go to get the information from your prisoner that you need to save the lives of your men?

Lt. Colonel Allen B. West, an artillery batallion commander with the 4th Infantry Division, had the answer... but it required him to make an incredible personal sacrifice.  Colonel West knew that he was within weeks of making the twenty-year mark that would allow him to retire.  He knew that the much higher retirement pay he would attain then would ensure the treatment his wife (a cancer survivor) needs.  He knew that the rules did not allow him to threaten his prisoner with physical harm.  But he also knew that the lives of his men were his to save... or lose.  He knew that there was no time to waste. 

Knowing all of this, Lieutenant Colonel West deliberately chose to put his career and retirement benefits on the line to preserve the lives of the men under his command, an act of self-sacrifice few men and women would commit.

He fired his pistol twice into a barrel to scare the prisoner into giving up his information. He did this so the lives of American soldiers would be saved. He did it so that he would not have to bury a man the next day.  Then, Lt. Col. West immediately reported his actions to his superior officer.

Col. West said the detainee then provided the names of two accomplices and told of another planned sniper attack the next day.
"I have never denied what happened and have always been brutally honest," said Col. West. "I accept responsibility for the episode, but my intent was to scare this individual and keep my soldiers out of a potential ambush. There were no further attacks from that town. We further apprehended two other conspirators (a third fled town) and found out one of the conspirators was the father of a man we had detained for his Saddam Fedeyeen affiliation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031030-113114-2964r.htm

As a result of his actions, Colonel West was ordered to retire immediately -- forfeiting all his accumulated benefits -- or face a court martial and possible sentence of eight years.  He offered to retire at a lower rank, so he could retain some benefits, but the offer was refused by the bureaucracy.

I honestly believe this is the sort of instance in which the Commander-in-Chief himself needs to step in and allow Colonel West to retire without losing his benefits.  Anyone who wishes to can call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 to make a comment, or email the President's staff at president@whitehouse.gov.  Tell 'em I sent you.

The importance of the Senate Intelligence Committee requires that its members be not merely bipartisan, but completely apartisan regarding its business.  The safety and security of not only all American citizens, but of all our soldiers in the field rest upon the Committee's ability to oversee the CIA and intelligence-gathering operations in such a way as to put all politics aside, keeping the security of the nation foremost in the minds of its members.  Serving on the Committee is, to put it bluntly, a duty that should never be tainted by the stink of partisan politics.

Well, it stinks now.

FOX news recently acquired a copy of a memo from Vice Chairman of the Committee Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va), apparently meant for the other Democrats on the Committee.  The full text of the memo can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102258,00.html.  At first, Rockefeller claimed it was written by a staffer, then later revealed it was written at his direction.  Not only has he not denounced its contents, neither have the other Democrats.  Any of them. (Except Zell Miller (D-Ga), who said, "Heads should roll".)  This memo clearly shows the existence of a Democratic plot to use the power of the Senate Intelligence Committee as a political tool to undermine the credibility of the President and Commander-in-Chief while American troops are fighting a war.

It reveals a plan to push Republicans into revealing as much as possible about how the CIA's intelligence was used to form the conclusion that war in Iraq was necessary.  Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. 

Following that, the Democrats plan to insert their pre-written conclusions about the necessity for the war into any reports the Committee as a whole may issue.  Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. 

After that, they plan to force the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Administration starting with the "dubious motives and methods" that they themseves will have exaggerated the reports (by including their pre-written additions) to show.  Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission. 

Their plan is to do this next year, timed in such a way as to cause the most damage to President Bush's re-election campaign.  We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time -- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year... We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.

To the Democrats thus entrusted with the lives and safety of Americans at home and abroad, nothing is more important than finding a way to use their public trust to attack President Bush.  Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq.

The memo even clearly reveals that this foul strategy has already been followed.  Remember the big investigation into the Iraq-Niger uranium deal?  The FBI investigation was initiated by Jay Rockefeller, supposedly to "allay concerns" that the US government was involved in the forgery of the documents the British bought from Italian intelligence.  Now we know the true reason why... it was part of the overall Democrat campaign to undermine President Bush's credibility.  For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman...

If we don't see Rockefeller stepping down from his position on the Committee -- if not resigning from the Senate altogether -- within a week, then we'll know the Democrats still plan to use whatever they can to attack the President's credibility in any way they can.  The important questions are: how can we insure the impartiality of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the future... and how do we make certain that our CIA and FBI are not being used as tools of partisan politics? 

Last night, I was "invited" to take part in a UCLA study.  Not personally, of course.  Someone posted a repeat message to multiple threads on RightWingNews that said:

Hello
I'm a researcher in the Dept. of Anthropology at UCLA. I have recently put up a web-based research study that surveys vaious aspects of political opinion and personality. I would appreciate it if I could get anyone using this listserv to participate in the study. Up until now, I have primarily had left-leaning university students as participants in the study, and would like to have broader views represented in the study. If you have a few minutes, I would appreciate if you would take the survey.

Well, I'm always interested in advancing the cause of science, so I followed the link supplied by the poster and found a survey at UCLA all right, but not exactly what I'd call "balanced"!  After answering a question about how strongly I valued my self-identity as "an American" (very strongly), I was presented with a list of statements and asked to answer whether I agreed or disagree with each, and how strongly.  And what statements they were!!  They are all variants on the following:

Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.

It would be best for everyone if the proper authorities censored magazines so that people could not get their hands on trashy and disgusting material.

There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.

This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group's traditional place in society.

The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just loud mouths showing off their ignorance.

Once our government gives us the go ahead, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.

Have you ever heard of such an obviously biased "study" as this?  Raise your hands, anyone who can't see that they're attempting to correlate one's self-identity as an "American" with strong religious beliefs coupled with strong agreement with those wildly biased statements.  I certainly hope that none of MY tax dollars went to fund this travesty of scholarly inquiry. 

If you manage to hold your disgust in all the way to the end of the questionnaire (I'm a man of fortitude), you're rewarded with... a banana! No, with their position paper on the theory they're attempting to prove. It starts out:

"Terror management theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynski and Solomon, 1986; Greenberg, Solomon and Pyszczynski, 1997) seeks to explain the well-known tendency for people to defend their deeply held beliefs and ideological commitments (e.g., Festinger 1957; Lerner 1980)."

Well, according to CavalierX, 2003, Conservatives defend their deeply held beliefs and ideological commitments because they MAKE SENSE. But that means nothing to people who arrive at their beliefs through sheer emotionalism, especially those driven by guilt and hatred. And especially those to whom NO belief is deeply held except self-loathing and fear of anyone too different from one's self... so much so that Liberals will CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS rather than be considered different from the rest.

As our primary hypothesis for this experiment, we predicted that participants scoring high on authoritarianism would be likely to respond to fitness-reducing threats by increasing their pro-American bias in evaluating pro and anti-American authors when compared to a control group.  We also predicted that those participants scoring low on authoritarianism would not show increased pro-American bias, and may even show decreased bias when compared to controls, as this would be consistent with their ingroup ideology of tolerance towards others with dissimilar views.

Permit me to translate.  "Pro-American equals religious fanatic equals right-wing authoritarianism, while anti-American equals religious tolerance equals sweet multiculturalism."  And they made certain that their hypothesis would be corroborated by weighting the questions like Luca Brasi going down to sleep with the fishes.  What else could one expect from the Liberal elitist mob at UCLA?