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.

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.