Columbine

There’s no dispute that the Columbine killings were a tragedy.  I am disturbed, however, that I’ve seen far more Columbine coverage today than I saw yesterday about the Oklahoma City bombing. 

Just an observation…

Grand Opening Madness

I have few cardinal rules about discount shopping:

1.  I don’t shop the day after Thanksgiving
2.  I don’t shop the super sales
3.  I don’t do grand openings

This morning, I broke Rule 3, and was horribly reminded of why Rules 1-3 are in place.

A couple days ago, I received a flyer in the mail advertising the grand opening of our new Oshman’s.  Normally, this ad would have gone straight into the trashcan with all the others, but I spotted a Ruger 10/22 in their ad for $99 (normally about $250).  So I figured, why not go check it out?  I knew better.

When I arrived at the store, the line at the gun counter was about 50+ people long, all with their ATF Form 4473s in their hands.  As there were only 30 guns available, I did a quick about face to exit the store, and ran into another line.  This one was for the regular checkout, and I felt sorry for those folks.  The line had to be at least 100+ people long, and most were buying small crap like tennis balls and golf balls.  Forget that - unless I’m getting a hell of a deal on a big-ticket item, there no way I’m standing in that line.

So I guess Rule 3 is back in effect.

Modern art

Portraits are back in style.

A nude painting of Monty Python star Terry Jones is one of several works to be unveiled in the Royal Society of Portrait Painters annual exhibition.

And here it is:

Read the rest

Decline of Western Civilization

I heard a commercial on the radio earlier this week that underlined the decline in our culture.  Sadly, I don’t remember the name of the company, so I can’t offer you a link. 

The company was offering people cash if they have a pending personal injury lawsuit.  According to the ad, the company would review your case and offer you money “to spend on anything you want.”  If you win the case, the company gets paid back with interest (no rate given).  If you lose your case, the money is yours to keep.

We have gotten to a point in our litigious society where it is not only profitable for a company to provide this service because of the high likelihood of a settlement or win of any personal injury claim, but where it has become socially acceptable to offer this service in the first place.

Passionate Populace

Dean Esmay points out this Gallup poll that shows that 11% of Americans have seen Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ and two-thirds plan to see it.

I think that these numbers go a ways toward proving a theory that I have about this movie.  I think that its blockbuster numbers are deceiving because they are different than other blockbusters.  With movies like Star Wars, Lord of The Rings, or The Matrix, a good amount of the revenue came from repeat customers.  I know people who went and saw those movies a dozen times in the theater.  I think The Passion doesn’t have very many repeat customers.  I suspect that the vast majority of people will see it once in the theater, and then buy it for their collection when it comes out on DVD.  What this means is that although the revenue for the movie is as great as other blockbusters, a great many more people have actually, and will actually, see the movie.

It’s just a theory.  If I’m right, then The Passion will see astronomical sales when it comes out on DVD.

Bias?

On Good Morning America this morning, they did a story on the newly discovered Iraqi spy.  They mentioned that she is the second cousin of Andrew Card, but failed to mention that she was a press secretary for Senator Carol Mosley Braun.  The spy was also a press secretary for then Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who is now a senator.

An oversight bordering on incompetence?  Or intentional omission?  You be the judge.

Truer Words Were Never Spoken

From The Corner.

“Great post on Harlingen today… I couldn’t agree with you more on Hispanic assimilation. I’m from Houston and have seen a tremendous influx in Hispanic immigrants in my 35 years of life. I think it’s been great for the city. I anticipate that Texas will be majority Hispanic in my lifetime. I’m white and not worried about this at all. Hispanics in Texas believe in traditional American values far more than white Northeasterners.”

Emphasis mine.

New Words

Here’s a few new words out there that I like:

frienemy (FREN.uh.mee) n. A friend who acts like an enemy; a fair-weather or untrustworthy friend.

cankle n. A thick ankle, particularly one that appears to be a continuation of the calf.

truckonaut (TRUK.oh.nawt) n. A person who uses a modified truck or car as a boat. ?adj.

vasectomy zoning (vas.EK.tuh.mee zoh.ning) n. Zoning laws and other restrictions that aim to keep children out of an area or neighborhood.

chofa (CHOH.fuh) n. A settee that combines the look of a chair with the comfort of a sofa.

mucus trooper (MYOO.kus troo.pur) n. An employee with a cold or the flu who insists on showing up for work.

dead-cat bounce - noun [from the facetious notion that even a dead cat would bounce slightly if dropped from a sufficient height] (1985) : a brief and insignificant recovery (as of stock prices) after a steep decline

freegan noun [C] a person who consumes food that has been thrown away, especially someone who wants to protect the environment by reducing waste

paraskevidekatriaphobia (also friggatriskaidekaphobia) noun [U]
the irrational fear of Friday the 13th

sheeple noun [plural] people who are easily persuaded and tend to follow what other people do

Passion

I know that many of you are sick of hearing about Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.  I just want to make note of this review of the movie in the USA Today.  In it, the author says this:

Previewing it for possible family viewing, I hoped to see a lot of the passions from the life of Jesus Christ. Things I was taught as a kid in Sunday school that he preached and practiced. Like tolerance, not judging others, not throwing stones, turning the other cheek.

But except for a few brief flashbacks on the life of Jesus, the two-hour-and-six-minute film is devoted to the day of his death. Interminable and boundless beatings leading to the crucifixion. Blood and gore galore.

Considering that the author claims to have regularly attended Sunday school, I find his utter ignorance stunning.  The movie is called “The Passion” because it’s about The Passion!  It’s not about Jesus’ teachings or ministry.  It’s about the sufferings of Jesus in the period following the Last Supper and including the Crucifixion, which is what the Passion is. 

It would be like the reviewer attending a movie called The Exodus and complaining that there was too much about Moses and not enough about Abraham.  They’re in the same book aren’t they? 

People seem to be having a hard time understanding that Gibson’s movie is about a very specific and limited portion of the Bible.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Perhaps Gibson will make another movie about the rest of Jesus’ life, but this one is about the events immediately leading up to and including his death.  That’s it.  If you go see the movie, that’s what you’ll see.  Don’t be surprised by it.

Tolerance

Paragraphs like this are why I read Walter E. Williams’ columns.

It’s my personal preference that people be able to conduct their lives in any manner they please. Tolerance doesn’t require approval, only non-interference. Tolerance also doesn’t require recognition of what one might call himself. A man and a man might call themselves married, but I’m not obliged to recognize it as such anymore than my calling myself the King of Siam should require that you recognize me as such.

Sign me up.

Conflict of Interest

Things that make you say, hmmmmmm…..

A friend of mine made a simple and obvious comment the other day, the kind that makes you smack your head because you didn’t phrase it that way automatically: “There is an inherent conflict of interest when the credential showing completion of an education is granted by the institution responsible for providing the education.”

The man’s got a point.

It’s Spreading

The blogosphere is spreading.

The Pew Internet and American Life Project found that about 44 percent of the country’s Internet users have created content for others to enjoy online.

[...]

While only 2 percent of U.S. Internet users said they had created “blogs,” or online diaries, 11 percent said they read the blogs of others.

The telling this is not so much the numbers about blogs, but that the Pew study actually asked the question.

When SUVs Attack!

Once again, the media loves to personify the SUV.

A sport utility vehicle hit a man on an interstate highway Sunday and dragged his body—apparently lodged in the suspension (search)—81/2 miles to the driver’s home, police said.

Josuel Galdino, 25, of Lorton, was charged with manslaughter (search), driving while intoxicated and felony hit-and-run (search) after calling police to report a man’s body was caught in the front-end suspension of his SUV.

Say it with me folks, “SUVs don’t kill people.  Drunk bastards behind the wheels of SUVs kill people.”

It’s really not that hard.

Women in Football

I couldn’t agree more with this column.

There is a connection between the increasing disrespect shown to women in our society and an ultra-feminist ideology that pushes teenage girls to play a brutal contact sport with teenage boys.

[...]

To do that safely, she has to practice hitting and being hit. For a boy to play football with a girl, the boy must become habituated to hitting girls.

That is not merely un-American, but uncivilized. There are many endeavors where men and women rightfully compete on the same playing field (I’d pick Margaret Thatcher to run Great Britain over Tony Blair any day), but the football field is not one of them. American schools should ban girls from playing football, and do it now.

Read the whole thing.

Amending the Constitution Regarding Gay Marriage

In the comments of an old post of mine from last November regarding gay marriage, Ellen asks whether or not I support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  I thought it would be worth putting into another post.  The short answer is “yes.”  Here’s the long answer:

I find nothing in the U.S. constitution that either supports or bans gay marriage.  It doesn’t say anything about marriage whatsoever.  That being the case, I do not believe that marriage is a federal issue.  I do believe that marriage is a state issue.  Apparently, generations of Americans agree with me because marriage has always been a state issue.  However, in the recent battle over gay marriage, the federal government is being involved precisely because of the tactics being employed by the proponents of gay marriage. 

There are two tactics of the proponents of gay marriage that necessitate involvement by the federal layer of government.  The first tactic is that involved is the very proper tactic of the supporters getting individual states to recognize gay marriage.  I do believe that this is a right a proper tactic for them to be using.  The problem arises when we consider Article 4, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  It starts out, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”  Commonly known as the “full faith and credit” clause, this section of the Constitution has been interpreted to mean that every state must recognize the judicial proceedings of all of the other states.  So if Vermont marries a couple of gay folks, every other state must also recognize them as married.  This section of the Constitution makes perfect sense.  It would be chaos if things like child support, criminal warrants, etc. could be thwarted by the affected party moving to another state.

We saw this law in action years ago regarding divorce.  At the time, almost all of the states had very stringent requirements for divorce.  Then Nevada started allowing “no fault” divorces.  A couple would travel to Reno, get their quickie divorce, and then go home.  Their home states were forced to recognize their divorces as fully legal.  So, people essentially used Article 4, Section 1 to bypass their own state law. 

Given that gay marriage still enjoys very little support in America, there is tremendous resistance to allowing gay marriages to be recognized in Wisconsin, for example, just because the people of Massachusetts have decided that gay marriage is all fine and dandy.  The people of Wisconsin feel disenfranchised and don’t wish for the institution of marriage to be changed without even a discussion over the matter in Wisconsin.  This feeling is why so many states, most recently Ohio, have pushed to enact Defense of Marriage Acts, in the hope of getting around Article 4, Section 1.  

Although this tactic raises the issue of gay marriage to the federal level, I don’t think that it necessitates a constitutional amendment.  The second part of Article 4, Section 1 says, “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”  Congress has the power to regulate how states must recognize the acts of other states.  The reason for this is to prevent exactly the problem we are seeing with gay marriage.  Let’s take another active issue as an example.  In Texas, I can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  That permit has been verified legal by court challenges and carries with it the full support of Texas law.  Should other states that don’t allow concealed carry be required to allow me to carry my concealed weapon?  Of course not.  The states have decided that the issue of concealed carry is an issue of such magnitude that the citizens of each state should have a say in whether or not they want to allow concealed carry.  Gay marriage is just a weighty an issue, if not more so. 

So, a law passed by Congress and signed by the President is sufficient to regulate gay marriage between the states.  In fact, the Defense of Marriage Act does just that by saying that one state does not have to recognize a gay marriage granted by another state. 

The second tactic used by the proponents of gay marriage that raises the issue to the federal level is when they classify gay marriage as a civil right.  I do not think that marriage, gay or straight, is a civil right at all.  Certainly we all have the right to marry whomever we choose, yet that does not make it a civil right.  For instance, I would be married to my wife regardless of whether or not the state chose to recognize it.  I am married because I stood at the altar before God and vowed to love her and cherish her for the rest of my days.  It was my right to make those vows, but it is not my right that the State makes her my default beneficiary or combines our tax returns.  These are merely civil codes that the State has decided are proper for us to adhere to.  We could do away with all of the laws and regulations regarding marriage and I would still be married to my wife (and happily so).

Some will say that gay marriage is a civil right because the State should recognize gay and straight marriages equally - otherwise the State is violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.  I soundly reject that argument.  The State discriminates all the time in the interest of the public good.  As I have argued before (and won’t dig back into here), heterosexual marriages are rewarded by the State because they provide a net benefit for society.  Think of it another way - if discrimination regarding marriage truly falls under equal protection, then it would be unconstitutional for states to treat marriage differently.  In Wisconsin, I can’t sign a lease without a form signed by my wife saying that she agrees.  In Texas, that form is unnecessary.  That would be unconstitutional if equal protection truly applied. 

All of my protestations aside, several courts are now trying to interpret the constitution in a way that requires that gay marriage be allowed.  I think that the courts are absolutely wrong, but it only takes one court ruling to start a precedent.  The supporters of gay marriage are waging battle on the field of constitutional interpretation.  We conservatives must meet the enemy, or be defeated.  It is on this basis that I reluctantly support a constitutional amendment to make the constitution absolutely clear in regards to gay marriage. 

The issue of exactly how an amendment should be worded is another matter entirely.  I would prefer that it be as small as possible.  For instance, I would prefer that it merely amend Article 4, Section 1 to clarify that what states must recognize or not from the other states can indeed be defined by an act of Congress, and specify that no provision in the constitution may be interpreted to apply to marriage.  This would leave the battle for gay marriage at the state level and remove all federal issues.  I think that we are on dangerous ground if we amend the constitution to actually define marriage.  This leaves open the door to amending the constitution to define all sorts of legal arrangements.

If you got this far, the answer is still “yes.”  Thought I do so with the greatest remorse because I think that the fact that a constitutional amendment may be necessary in this case is another sign of the crumbling of our legal system.