Today, Barack Obama gave a speech while in Independence, MO.  The speech (of which I caught only about 15 minutes while at my father’s house), dealt with the subject of patriotism.

As with most of Sen. Obama’s speeches, it was well written and well delivered, if a bit empty of substance.  But it was a fine speech, on love of country, sacrifice and service.  Nothing new (or newsworthy), but nothing wrong with it either .  However, while Sen. Obama was delivering this speech,

… urging supporters not to devalue the military service of rival John McCain, a former Obama adviser and top Democratic voice on foreign policy argued Monday that the former POW’s isolation during the Vietnam War has hobbled the Arizona senator’s capacity as a war-time leader.

“Sadly, Sen. McCain was not available during those times, and I say that with all due respect to him” said Rand Beers. “I think that the notion that the members of the Senate who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam have a very different view of Vietnam  and the cost that you described than John McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war.”

“So I think,” he continued, “to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world.”

McCain spent five years in captivity as a POW in North Vietnam.

Okay, that’s outside of enough.  I’m getting pretty tired of the Democrat’s attacks on Sen. McCain’s military service.  Remember Jay Rockfeller’s remark that

“McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”

And then there was yesterday’s verbal garbage from Gen. Wesley Clark on “Face the Nation”:

After saying, “I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war,” he added that these experiences in no way qualify McCain to be president in his view:

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron,” Clark said.

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Look, I’m not a McCain fan — he’s not the candidate I voted for in the primaries — but c’mon.  Sen. McCain is not campaigning on the fact that he spent nearly 6 years as a POW in Vietnam.  (And handled himself courageously and honorably under brutal, inhuman conditions.  For example, his response when — shortly before his release — he was asked if he wanted to thank a North Vietnamese doctor who purportedly treated him in the Hanoi Hilton.  “Tell the son-of-a-bitch I said hello,” McCain retorted, “because I haven’t seen him in five-and-a-half years.”  Now that’s a brave man.)

Oh, and Gen. Clark, before pointing out Sen. McCain’s lack of executive experience (for having been in the US Congress for 26 years, which, depending on your view of Congress, may or may not be a good thing), remember that Sen. Obama’s experience consists of two-thirds of a term as U.S. senator, one term as a state senator, a couple of years as a ‘community organizer’ and being president of the Harvard Law Review.

Most of us have a natural human curiosity and fascination with the past.  We want to know more about it, to understand it, and even experience it.  This is what drives archaeologists to uncover the remnants of our past.

Unfortunately, whenever history is deemed inconvenient, history gets rewritten, and often destroyed, sometimes with a bulldozer.

Mao’s cultural revolution destroyed huge amounts of China’s (and the world’s) priceless cultural artifacts. Hitler sought to take German culture down with him. The Soviets destroyed many Russian artifacts, banned books, and tried to replace Russian culture with the new Soviet realism.  Savonarola tossed paintings of Botticelli into bonfires.  The destruction of the Library at Alexandria.  The depressing list goes on and on, continuing even into the present.

The government of Iran is systematically destroying pre-Islamic historical sites in attempt to scrub Iranian culture, values and sense of national identity of anything that is non-Islamic.

The Islamist zealots ruling Iran for the past 30 years have undertaken a systematic campaign of endangering and destroying the cultural sites of pre-Islamic Iran, ignoring the numerous petitions and pleas of the Iranian people.

For one, blatantly rejecting the repeated appeals of individuals and organizations such as the International Committee to Save the Archeological Sites of Pasargad, the Islamic Republic proceeded with the construction of the Sivand Dam which went into operation on April 2007 by the order of the ruling Islamists’ point man, President Ahmadinejad.

What many experts have warned and feared has already come to pass. The inevitable elevation of humidity from the Sivand Dam has given rise to massive invasion of Cyrus the Great Mausoleum by lichen and fungi. Cracks have started to appear on the stonework of tomb of King Cyrus, humanity’s first author of the charter of human rights.

The list of numerous sites being damaged, destroyed, drowned under dams is heartbreaking.   Read the whole article (and the articles it links to) and mourn for what the world is losing in a country controlled by a bunch of religious bigots.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is back and was re-introduced earlier this week in the Senate.
The language is, as always, pretty straight-forward:

Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’

Regardless of whether you think homosexuals should be able to marry — I don’t, but that’s not the point — at the federal level, I wonder if this is a dead issue.  I don’t see any way this amendment will pass.  So the issue left up to the states, and virtually all the states have addressed the issue in their state constitutions, either permitting it or forbidding it as their residents saw fit.

I see too many unintended consequences to a constitutional amendment, given the Supreme Court’s tendency of legislating from the bench.   (”Evolving standards” anyone?)

On the other hand, I see too many problems arising from differing standards from state-to-state.  If a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts and then moves to another state, does the State B have to recognize the marriage?  Or if the couple moves to State B and then wants to divorce.  Etc. etc. etc.

As you can see, I don’t really have a good answer as to whether this should be done at the federal or state level.  What I do know is that having the amendment sponsored by (among others) Larry “Widestance” Craig and David “Visits Hookers” Vitter is not helping any.

Apparently, we’re stuck with oil for energy production, because alternative forms (like solar) isn’t acceptable to a bunch of bureaucrats and environmentalists.

Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. …

But the decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating. …

Alex Daue, an outreach coordinator for the Wilderness Society, an environmental conservation group, praised the government for assessing the implications of large-scale solar development.

Argggghhhhhhh… these people drive me nuts. There is the relentless mantra of ‘alternative energy, alternative energy’ but then when someone tries to do something about it, suddenly it’s not enough. I’m beginning to wonder if environmentalists would rather there were no people.

And for your amusement, here is Sen. Obama’s take on energy.

So because a solution may not have an immediate effect, we shouldn’t try it at all? Apparently, we’re all supposed to sit in the dark, or cold, or heat, and just shut up and suffer. That would be us middle Americans, because you can be darn sure it won’t be the wealthy sitting there with us.

Oh goody.

A massive foreclosure rescue bill cleared a key Senate test Tuesday by an overwhelming margin, with Democrats and Republicans both eager to claim election-year credit for helping hard-pressed homeowners.

The mortgage aid plan would let the Federal Housing Administration back $300 billion in new, cheaper home loans for an estimated 400,000 distressed borrowers who otherwise would be considered too financially risky to qualify for government-insured, fixed-rate loans.

$300 billion - i.e. $1000 from every man, woman, and child in America — going to bail out people who can’t pay their mortgages.   And the checks for the mortgage bailout go directly to the banks that irresponsibly lent money to risky borrowers. That’s why Countrywide Financial and Bank of America have pushed so hard for this program. And since it is a voluntary program, the banks get to choose which loans they’ll pawn off on the  taxpayer. As a result, banks will keep the loans that have the best chance of being paid back, while the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) is forced to guarantee the riskiest borrowers.

So, let’s recap, shall we.  If you were responsible–if you didn’t buy a home you couldn’t afford, if you bought a smaller home or (as I did) a home further out, so that you could make the payments, if you stayed in your apartment for another year while you saved up for a down payment: Congress will take your money and subsidize the home purchases of people who chose to be irresponsible.

And if you want to move up to a nicer house, or even buy a house for the first time (as my son hopes to do in the next year or so), fat chance, because part of the purpose of government spending this $300 billion is to jack up home prices.

Having come across several pictures from my family with notes like “my grandmother” or “Old Auntie’s daughter” (and without names, try matching up “my grandmother” without knowing where the photo came from!) this struck me as humorous (via Photo Detective):

It’s a great example of how good intentioned labeling can go so very wrong.  Below all the identications the woman who numbered each person added a note: “I numbered these all so you would know who all of them were.”

“no.1 Is my feller
“    2 Nans feller
“    3 Papa
“   4 Nan
“    5 me
“   6 Mamma
“   7 Mrs. Ashcroft (a neighbor)
“   8 Miss Smith (the school teacher)
“   9 is Miss Smiths feller
“   10 Lucile
“   11 Pleasant
“   12 Mabel “

Okay, so maybe I have a bit of an odd sense of humor…

As anyone who knows me or has read anything I’ve written, it’s pretty obvious that I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases.  (Frankly, death is too good for a rapist — let him rot in jail, preferably doing hard labor, for the rest of his life.)

So while I agree with the outcome of today’s Supreme Court ruling in the Kennedy v. Louisiana case, the decision is horrible.  Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion — that executing child rapists constitutes a “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment — is lame.  (Yeah, that’s a legal term!)  The opinion is can be found here (in PDF form).

Why do I consider this lame?

A review of the authorities informed by contemporary norms, including the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, demonstrates a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.

Hmmmm… let’s see if I understand this.  Since most states do not permit the death penalty for child rape, that makes the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment and against the 8th Amendment.  So if a bunch of states suddenly decided that child rape should be punishable by execution (even though under this case, it’s now unconstitutional) would the Court change its mind?

This approach is ridiculous.  The opinion recognizes that values and morals can change, as reflected in the laws passed by the states. But even if society changed in the other direction (the pendulum swings back and forth, not just further and further in one direction), the state laws that the Court would use as evidence of the change can’t be passed because the Court ruled that they are unconstitutional.  What the Court has done (again) is usurp the legislative power of the states, on the flimsiest of reasons.

In reaching our conclusion we find significant the number of executions that would be allowed under respondent’s approach . . . But under respondent’s approach, the 36 States that permit the death penalty could sentence to death all persons convicted of raping a child less than 12 years of age. This could not be reconciled with our evolving standards of decency and the necessity to constrain the use of the death penalty.”  (emphasis added)

Odd, isn’t it,  how “evolving standards of decency” always work for convicted felons facing the death penalty but never for innocent unborn children facing abortion.

At a meeting in Chicago this morning with a dozen governors, Sen. Obama displayed a new seal/coat of arms/something or other:

If you look closely, above the eagle’s head are the words “Vero Possumus,” roughly translated “Yes we can.”  (I’d have said it’s something along the lines of “Truly, it is possible for us” but “yes we can” is close enough.)
(H/T Ace of Spades)

There are a lot of people up in arms (hahahahaha) because of the distinct resemblance to the Presidential Seal.  Me?  Nope.  The first thing I thought of was this:

If you’ve never seen an episode of “The Red-Green Show” you’re missing out. Red Green and his geeky nephew Harold hang out at the Possum Lodge (Canada) offering advice via a series of comedic sketches. (One of my favorite segments is Handyman Corner, where Red completes off-the-wall projects, most of which involve the Handyman’s Secret Weapon - duct tape.) At the end of each episode, they go downstairs for the Possum Lodge meeting, which opens with the man’s prayer: “I’m a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.” It’s laugh out loud funny, and since it ran from 1991 to 2006 there are loads of episodes to watch.

Here’s a snippet:

 
“If it ain’t broke, you’re not trying.”

From March (though I just stumbled across it today):

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will make available up to $2.4 million to 12 cities across the country selected as Solar America Cities, chosen for their commitment and comprehensive approach to the deployment of solar technologies and the development of sustainable solar infrastructures. …

Cities designated as Solar America Cities, which will each receive $200,000 from DOE to integrate a variety of solar energy technologies throughout the city, include: Denver, CO; Houston, TX; Knoxville, TN; Milwaukee, WI; Minneapolis & St. Paul, MN; Orlando, FL; Philadelphia, PA; Sacramento, CA; San Antonio, TX; San Jose, CA; Santa Rosa, CA; and Seattle, WA.

I’m all for alternative energy sources.  Solar is a good possibility - electricity is produced whenever the sun is shining, but more is produced when sunlight is intense (like on a clear sunny day) and direct (when the sun’s rays are perpendicular to the solar cells).  However, one of the biggest drawbacks to using solar energy is its unreliability: the sun’s rays are not constant, and the power cannot be stored.

But didn’t the DOE think about the fact that Seattle gets an average of 58 sunny days per year. I suppose the city is planning on using some sort of hybrid technology, that can run either on solar (for 58 days) or traditional energy sources (for the other 307), but isn’t that kind of cheating to get the Solar City designation?

I always thought the Reduce-Reuse-Recycle slogan made a lot of sense - it’s much easier to do, more affordable, and seems to help preserve our environment better than doing renovations to put in solar panels, CFL bulbs, etc.

Case in point, from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research:

In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. …

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Yikes! He uses 40% more energy in a month than the average American household does in a year. After jetting around the world, winning a Noble Peace Prize and an Oscar and making more than $100 million preaching about what we all need to do in the fight against global warming, it turns out that Al Gore is unable to practice what he preaches.

Either so-called green solutions don’t work, or Al Gore is really saying that I must reduce my energy consumption so he can increase his.