Many of you, especially Jeff, will love this.

So far, I've just watched the first 30 minutes of the debate, and now I've got to go to bed.  But first, I had to blog about something that Kerry said.  When asked about some Catholic archbishops' opinions that it would be a sin to vote for Kerry because he supports abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Kerry responded with the following.

I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith....  My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead."  And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

I'm a little surprised by this.  I think Kerry is trying to impress his religious viewers by quoting the Bible, but it seems to me that he sets himself up here.  I was really surprised by his mention that his faith is the inspiration that leads him to fight against poverty and for the environment.  This statement completely destroys his excuse for being pro-abortion.  The scripture alone points out that faith without deeds is dead.  Since Kerry feels he is prevented by the Constitution to support his “faith“ that tells him that abortion is wrong, he lacks the works that give life to that faith.  As a result, that faith might as well be dead.  But, in the biggest contradiction of all, Kerry admits that he has no problem legislating his “faith“ as it relates to poverty and the environment.  Why then can he not legislate his “faith“ on the fundamental issue of human life?

If you like this sort of topic, David Mobley has a separate, but related blog entry about legislation and right and wrong.

I figured I'd weigh in on the 1st Presidential debate before the 1st VP debate tonight.  On presentation, I give Kerry high marks.  His voice even sounded natural.  I think this format favored Kerry as far as presentation goes.  Specifically, the colored lights indicating time were not helpful to the President.  Bush is a straight-to-the-point kind of guy, and having to give a two minute answer to a question that he would prefer to answer in ten seconds forces him to stretch out what he's going to say, to speak slower, and to be more repetitive.  It was kind of like a football game, where you don't want to give up the time of possession stat.  Had we the public not been made so aware of the time factor, I think we would have preferred shorter answers from Bush and would have seen Kerry has long-winded in comparison.  The other factor in presentation was that some people didn't like the expression on Bush's face when not answering the question.  I'm not saying that for presentation sake, he doesn't need to be careful, but one should note that the rules clearly stated that there not be a camera on the candidate not answering the question.  Of course, as Mark pointed out, had the broadcasters gone along with this rule, they would never have been able to have the camera on Kerry, because he was always the candidate not answering the question.

On substance, I stand by Bush.  Kerry is consistent only in saying that Bush always makes the wrong decisions.  According to Kerry, in Iraq, Bush adopted too much of a go-it-alone policy.  However, in North Korea, Bush needs to go it alone.  The fact is that Bush went to the UN and asked other countries for help.  They didn't help.  That did not deter him.  Kerry complained that we aren't training Iraqi troops fast enough.  However, they are in the midst of training.  Unfortunately, we can't plug them into the Matrix and download military manuals directly into their brains.  I thought one of Bush's best points was to ask how Kerry was going to get other countries to help out in something that he calls a mistake.  And I agree.  I understand that Iraq is a rough situation.  Bush understands that Iraq is a rough situation.  Kerry seems to want us to believe that all of the problems in Iraq will go away if he is elected.  If he really does have solutions, I'd respect him a lot more if he would offer them now.  That's the end of my rant.

In the upcoming debate addressing domestic issues, we will undoubtedly hear from Kerry about jobs lost during Bush's first term.  As Kerry reminded Bush that it was Bin Laden that attacked us on 9/11, I hope that Bush will remind Kerry of the same fact, that it was Bin Laden that attacked us, including our economy.  Bush did not attack us with his policies.  In fact, his policies stemmed the tide of the enormous damage done on 9/11 and have brought us back from that horrible disaster. 

Man, I would hate to have to be President.

I just watched Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore debate a few issues.  I found it interesting that Moore only agreed to do the show if O'Reilly agreed not to edit the interview.  Why do you suppose Moore didn't extend the same courtesy to President Bush in his not-a-documentary?  Moore clearly understands how grossly you can take a person's words out of context if you want to make them look bad by doing some clever editing.  In the end, Moore's disdain for Bush, no matter what the rational evidence, came through crystal clear without any editing tricks being pulled on him.  Surprisingly, Ben Affleck had a very reasonable discussion with O'Reilly at the beginning of the show.

In case you missed it, Baylor was spotlighted tonight on Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor.  O'Reilly had on two guests from Baylor, one the founder of Baylor Freedom, a gay-rights type organization, and the other a student who was stripped of his scholarship after he came out of the closet.  That's right, just the two of them.  Not a single straight Baylor student.  O'Reilly also accused Dr. Sloan of intimidating Baylor students who wanted to talk about the issue of same-sex marriage.  If you hadn't heard about his, here's some links to check out.

The original editorial that sparked it all:
http://www.baylorlariat.com/archive.cfm?file=http://www.baylorlariat.com/archives/2004/20040227/022704a.html

Response from Dr. Sloan:
http://www.baylorlariat.com/archive.cfm?file=http://www.baylorlariat.com/archives/2004/20040302/030204i.html

Response from the Baylor Student Publications Board:
http://www.baylorlariat.com/archive.cfm?file=http://www.baylorlariat.com/archives/2004/20040302/030204j.html

After the show, I sent O'Reilly this email:

I haven't heard it yet, but I'm sure it won't be long before someone blames the recent tragic attack in Spain on America.  They won't accuse of us of actually being involved in the attack, but they will find us to blame because of our arrogance and wealth.

I saw Bill Bennett interviewed tonight, and he presented some good arguments opposing gay marriage.  He pointed out that it is not a civil rights issue; a gay man has every right to get married...to a woman.  No one is trying to deny him that right based on his sexual preference.  A lot of people are trying to make an equal protection argument.  Guess what, sexual preference is not equally protected by the constitution.  So, it really is a definition of marriage issue.  Bennett also pointed out that all of the cases that support the illegality of polygamy will also have to be revisited if marriage is defined.  I particularly enjoyed his description of marriage throughout history as an institution that “civilizes men, protects women, and raises children.”  I think it comes down to this.  Homosexuals, in spite of their freedom to act however they want, are hoping to further suppress their own conscience by gaining the official approval of the state.

Part of the reason that I believe that we really need to draw the line here is because of a sentiment that I've overheard twice in conversation in the past couple of months.  I've overheard two random, completely separate people put pedophilia in the context of a 'sexual preference'.  Let's face it, it was bound to happen.  As we look back over the years, people have tried to rationalize deviant behavior by appealing to our desire for personal freedom.  They will keep doing it until no behavior is considered deviant.

Now that gay marriage is the hot topic sweeping the country, I've been trying to formulate my own arguments against it.  As a Bible-believing Christian, the moral argument is the easy one.  But moral arguments are not going to get me very far with, at best, amoral people.  So, I'm looking for more practical arguments against gay marriage.  Let me know what you think.  Even if you think that there are no practical arguments, only moral ones.

I was just listening to an interview with James Carville on NPR.  He's a liberal author, perhaps among other things; I'm not that familar with him beyond what I heard today.  He was talking about his book that discusses how to “take the country back”, presumably he means from the Republicans.  There were two things in the interview that made me mad.

First, he stated that Bush went to war under false pretenses.  This is an old argument.  He went on to say that the Bush administration pursued a policy of calling all those who opposed the war “un-American”.  I understand that there are people in this country who believe that people who oppose the war are “un-American”, but I have not heard that from anyone in the Bush administration.  I actually haven't personally heard it from anyone except from the people who oppose the war.  Perhaps their guilt makes them paranoid.  If someone can find me a quote from someone in the Bush administration supporting this policy, I'd appreciate it.

Second, he attacked a policy against gay marriage.  Here's his argument: “It [the policy against gay marriage] is too stupid for words.”  Guess what, James, that's not an argument.  That's name-calling.

”My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.”

These are the opening words from our President in his speech addressing the nation at the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  If you read the entire speech, you will see that more is said about Saddam's despicable treatment of his own people than about his production of WMDs or the imminent threat to the United States.  In other words, liberating the Iraqi people has been a major part of the justification for war since the beginning.  It was not added on after the fact.  Why have we been so focused on the WMD portion of the justification?  Because that makes a more sensational news story, and that's what the media (both liberal and conservative) have talked more about.  Part of the problem of having so many political pundits on both sides, is that we hear from them every single day, and if we are not careful we start to put their words into the mouths of the people they are talking about.

So, if we can agree that the justification for war had at least two points: 1) freeing the Iraqi people and 2) defending the world from grave danger, then we have to ask ourselves if both points have to be necessary for the war to be justified.  There seems to be no debate about whether or not the Iraqi people have been liberated from an oppressive and criminal regime, so let's chalk up one legitimate reason.  Is that reason enough?  Well, I'm not enough of a history scholar to go back and find precedent for this, but I do remember that even in the midst of the Iraq debate, there was an issue in Liberia.  In Liberia, there was no threat of WMD or danger to America to muddle the issue.  Instead, it was just a clear cut case of a brutal dictator abusing his people.  In this case, the UN had no problem stepping in to help.  In fact, the U.S. administration was catching a lot of flack for not sending in our troops, which we eventually did when our demand for exile of the country's leader was met.  I realize that this just brushes the surface, but it does seem to suggest that liberating an oppressed people, by itself, is justification enough for military intervention.

As for the second justification for war, the grave danger to the world, that remains to be seen.  I think it is still too early to tell whether or not Saddam had WMDs.  It will take a long time to sweep all of Iraq with a metal detector.  So, I don't know if they have them.  I do know that he had them in '91 when he killed thousands of his own people with his own weapons.  I do know that he paid the families of people who killed themselves if they took an Israeli or American with them.  I do know that he wanted Americans dead.  I do know that I am glad that he has been captured, and that the Iraqis are free.  I hope that we have the patience to see this through.  I pray that our leaders will make wise choices, and they will do what is right, regardless of political pressure.

If the war against Iraq was an 'illegal war', as the UN, French, Germans, and Russians claim, shouldn't they be clamoring for Saddam's return to power in Iraq, instead of being 'delighted' that he's been captured and will stand trial?

I know, three posts in one day...I guess I'm catching up.  I don't know if this is making the news anywhere else in the country, but I read this article on MSNBC, then heard the story on the radio on my way to El Segundo.  For those who don't like to click on links or don't want to read the whole story, here's the gist:  Some LA city employee saw two VCRs used for dubbing, one labeled “master”, the other labeled “slave”.  Naturally, he was offended by these inanimate objects and immediately reported them to the county’s Office of Affirmative Action Compliance.  Obviously, he was concerned for the “slave” VCR, and wanted it freed from its bondage to its “master”, or as the “slave” VCR called it, “boss”.  Or maybe he was offended because of the years he spent as a slave, oh wait, we haven't had slavery in this country for almost 150 years, so unless he is also the oldest man alive, that's not the case.  I wonder, would this have been reported if the “master” VCR were black plastic and the “slave” VCR were white plastic?  As a result, they are now going to label the VCRs with “primary” and “secondary”.  Hopefully, someone will report this injustice to the EEOC or the Office of Ridiculous Complaints Compliance, and we will not rest until they are both labeled identically, perhaps just “VCR”.  Of course, the other 23 letters of the alphabet will then have to file a complaint.  Well, whatever happens, its just important that we continue to apply the most offensive context we can possibly imagine to every combination of letters that we come across until our language is completely bland and words can't hurt us any more.

<p>I thought the <a href="http://www.flatlandmedia.com/flatlander/commentview.aspx/9a8fa76f-cfbe-4869-a573-8edbc28d22a1">Ten Commandments discussion</a> was good enough to bring it back up top for a few more thoughts I've had about it in the past couple days. I've been trying to think about from a very pragmatic approach that doesn't concern interpretation, or founders' intentions, or my Christian ideals. It seems that all parties concerned would agree at least one thing: the Constitution is a document that is supposed to protect our freedom. That's my big assumption here. If you disagree, then read no further as my thoughts will be rubbish. So, with this in mind, I have had a hard time understanding the mindset of the person that walks into the rotunda of an Alabama courthouse, sees a monument portraying the Ten Commandments, and then realizes that because of this, they are not free enough. I mean, who sees this and thinks, my rights are being blatently raped by the government! Because I don't understand this approach, I'm forced to suppose that the person who fights the presentation of this monument must have an agenda other than their own personal freedom, or the freedom of other citizens, even though they claim to be providing more freedom to us by removing the monument. So, what could that agenda be? It seems to me that what these people want is not freedom of religion, which is what the Constitution talks about, but freedom from religion. But I figured that it's more than just freedom from religion that they want, because I think we all know that we can be as free from religion as we want to be in this country. Instead, I think these people are seeking the ultimate freedom, the freedom from conscience. The morality inherent in God-fearing religions must be a reminder to them that however free they think they are, they still seem to be subject to someone or something. They still seem to feel guilty about something, even though they think that they have only to answer to themselves. </p> <p>OK, so I've made some generalizations here, but these thoughts have encouraged me to examine my own ideas about and desire for freedom. I, too, like to think of myself as autonomous, but fortunately when I'm forced to confront the fact that I'm not, I don't have to try to hide from my guilt. I know to whom I answer, personally, and that grants me a freedom that even the freedom of conscience could never bring. I think I'm about to make myself cry, so I'm going to stop there.</p>

As you all know by now, the federal court has ordered the Alabama Supreme Court to remove from its grounds a monument to the Ten Commandments. This situation, as well as the book 'Reefer Madness' that I recently checked out of the Webdell library have stirred a reaction in me. I've always been a great supporter of the U.S. Constitution. I've been proud of how the document has stood the test of time and helped to keep our nation free. In other words, I've swallowed the tripe that the Constitution is a holy document that supercedes all else in this country. It seems to me that we have so enshrined the Constitution that it has ardent followers much like any organized religion. As a result, all the arguments that are being made are claiming to be 'constitutional'. Some argue about the intentions of the forefathers. Others argue that those intentions do not matter. Some argue for the separation of church and state. Others argue that talk of such a separation is not present in the Constitution. Some argue that our system of law is built on the Ten Commandments. Others argue that the Ten Commandments is enough of a historical document that its religious significance is unimportant. All of these arguments try to appease the Constitution. Instead, someone needs to state the obvious. If the Constitution can be interpreted to mean that the Ten Commandments can not be displayed on public grounds, then the Constitution needs to be changed. Forget trying to change its interpretation, because someone will always try to alter the interpretation right back. Instead, change the 'holy' document so that no one can misinterpret it any longer. If we allow the Constitution to supercede what is right, then it no longer serves its purpose.

I went for a drive today, and I saw a bumper sticker on the back of someone's car that read, "War Is Not The Answer." I had to wonder to myself, "If war is not the answer, what is the question?" I gave it some thought, and here are some of the questions that I guess the question is not:

1. What does W-A-R spell?
2. What is it that anti-war protesters hate? (Look a little deeper into this one, and I think you'll find some humor in the expression 'anti-war protester'.
3. How did America earn its independence from England?
4. What is the name of that card game where you each flip over your top card, and whoever has the highest card gets to keep both cards?

I don't usually go on political rants, but this bumper sticker annoyed me, less because of the political statement they were trying to make, and more because of the blanket statement that without context is quite frankly nonsensical. So, for those who have that bumper sticker, I have one question: Are you so diametrically opposed to the concept of war that you would fight someone to end it once and for all? As much as I would love to avoid war, my take is that war itself is not the enemy.