The Black Republican

A lot of times, I'll go tripping through a series of a series of websites in sequence so fast that I'm overloaded with ideas and emotions and can't properly formulate a coherent post about the topic. At that point, what I have to say about each page I visited is so minimal that I'm inclined to add the first page to Recommended Reading and leave it at that. But I can't do that, because the nature of the subject matter absolutely screams for commentary.

What's a person to do in this case? Perhaps the best choice would be to simply throw out the links I've visited, with minimal commentary and ask for discussion of the content - and perhaps as important, their inter-relation to one another. Maybe I'll save up these kinds of experiences when I get them during any given week and come back to them as a recurring event under this title on Tuesdays.

(But, of course, don't hold your breath for that.) ;-)

The focal point of today's Tiptoe is Spike Lee's new movie, CSA: The Confederate States of America.

The first thing that caught my eye was the section titled "Timeline".

I can't figure out which "in-depth" item turned my stomach more: Einstein or the pope. Of course, it's just satire... right?

Most of the other pages I visited were hyperlinked from the "pages" of "CSA Today" (accessible from the main page by clicking "The Real C.S.A.").

The lead-in titled "Museum celebrates slavery" links to the Jim Crow Museum, whose Q&A section includes a very interesting analysis of Amos 'n Andy - a show I'll admit I've never seen, but criticisms like this make me wonder which racist TV producers must have created The Honeymooners and Married With Children.

Of course, the answer to my obvious bigotry is found at this site, which tells me that my impression is just a product of white privilege. Meanwhile, the lead-in article from the CSA movie site is almost a parody of itself. The subtly perverse logic involved is truly masterful.

If we must show respect to all other groups, why should we be permitted to dismiss political correctness when it applies to Native people? Why are Native people the only race of people that are permitted to be used as mascots? Interchange the name of any race with the Indians and it immediately becomes clear that we can not have teams called The Negroes, The Asians or The Jews. (emphasis in original)

Oh, I forgot. It's just more white privilege.

Getting back to "CSA Today".... The "Money" page teaser leads to Slavery in America. Which, of course, begs the question why we don't hear about slavery in Africa.

Probably for the same reason we're supposed to see satire in linking from "Forrest Memorial Unveiled: National hero recognized" to a real site defending a Nathan Bedford Forrest memorial. Because the founder of the KKK is so obviously someone beyond redemption it parodies itself, right? Ironically enough, that site led me to this, via the general's Wikipedia entry:

A convention and BBQ was held by the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association at the fairgrounds of Memphis, five miles east of the city. An invitation to speak was conveyed to General Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the city's most prominent citizens, and one of the foremost cavalry commanders in the late War Between the States. This was the first invitation granted to a white man to speak at this gathering. The invitation's purpose, one of the leaders said, was to extend peace, joy, and union, and following a brief welcoming address a Miss Lou Lewis, daughter of an officer of the Pole-Bearers, brought forward flowers and assurances that she conveyed them as a token of good will. After Miss Lewis handed him the flowers, General Forrest responded with a short speech that, in the contemporary pages of the Memphis Appeal, evinces Forrest's racial open-mindedness that seemed to have been growing in him.

Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God's earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. ( Immense applause and laughter.) I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don't propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand. (Prolonged applause.)

Whereupon N. B. Forrest again thanked Miss Lewis for the bouquet and then gave her a kiss on the cheek. Such a kiss was unheard of in the society of those days, in 1875, but it showed a token of respect and friendship between the general and the black community and did much to promote harmony among the citizens of Memphis.

The Scratching Post

Bill Sammons' new book Strategery is really starting to make some waves inside the beltway and other Blue-state bastions. Just as a snippet, via Drudge comes evidence that the big guy himself (GWB) sees the affect of the new media and Blogosphere all too well:

"I think what’s healthy is that there’s no monopoly on the news. There’s competition. There’s competition for the attention of, you know, 290 million people, or whatever it is.

And the amazing thing about this world we live in is that there’s a kind of free-flowing, kind of bulletin board of ideas and thoughts out there in the ether space, sometimes landing on somebody’s desk and sometimes not, but always available. It’s a very interesting period."

He is so right, we do live in interesting times! And the Architect Carl Rove not only considers Memogate a watershed in the rise of this new media, but he actually hat tips the Pajamahadeen in the process...

"The whole incident in the fall of 2004 showed really the power of the 'blogosphere'...

Because in essence you had now, an army of self-appointed experts looking over the shoulder of the mainstream media and bringing to bear enormously sophisticated skills..."

"There is so much ugliness and viciousness and fundamental untruths that the blogosphere transmits...

It also is a vehicle for ugly rumors, for scurrilous personal attacks, an avenue for the creation of urban legends which are deeply corrosive of the political system and of people’s faith in it."

I strongly suggest this piece by John Fund as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Mike Peters as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Victor Davis Hanson as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Thomas Sowell as "Recommended Reading".

Cox & Forkum

I strongly suggest this piece by Mansoor Ijaz as "Recommended Reading".

The editorialists I agree with most often, namely the ones at The Wall Street Journal, have weighed in on the current buzz-buzz-buzz flittering about cable news, op-ed pages and the blogosphere. As with the Administration's stillborn guest-worker program plan, their position here seems like blind ideology searching for some reality. But in the same way I support the guest-worker idea as a better-than-none half-measure, I support the president on this one too.

No, wait... I think that's a little bit too strong a statement. The fact of the matter is, I simply don't care which foreign conglomerate manages our commercial port operations. Let's face it: our borders are as porous as a spaghetti strainer, our State Department hands out visas like they're chocolate mints, and Aunt Bessie is being strip-searched at the airport while Hassan and Mohammad walk right past the security checkpoint. Does it really matter who negotiates longshoreman contracts, as long as the federal officers who have prevented further plots on our soil continue to provide port security?

Now, almost as an afterthought, the WSJ comes to the president's defense and plays the race card.

(T)he same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen.

UPDATE: Aunt Bessie Peggy agrees with me... again.

I wanted to take a moment to call attention to the Recommended Reading section. Particularly of late, when we each seem to have less time for regular and in depth postings, we are using the RR section more often as a connection to stories we find important/noteworthy. Hopefully in the future we will have the inspiration and time to comment and direct attention to the elements within those stories which we find relevant, until such time, please feel to tell us how they affect you.

My latest entry to that section is a historical analysis explaining how we have arrived at the current perception of Anti-Semitism. I strongly encourage that you read it through.

Here is the link again:

The New Anti-Semitism

LGF

I strongly suggest this piece by Bernard Lewis as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Tony Blankley as "Recommended Reading".

Ben Shapiro asks the question "Should we prosecute sedition?"

Great question... and my quick answer is "Hell yes!"

But what exactly is sedition you ask? Well, this is the legal definition, but Mr. Shapiro lists practical and real-world examples of the term that I think most would understand better. However, most American will not want to be as blunt, rude, or vulgar as I am in my response. Most will want a more subtle, elegant, or nuanced way of suggesting that we really should begin to consider such prosecutions, or at the very least should be much, much more critical of those people that who make statements that could very well result in additional violence against American citizens around the globe. Given the current kerfuffel over a few cartoons, is it even possible that this kind of talk will not spark more violence? And if a US Service member is hurt or killed as a result, does that not fit the definition of sedition perfectly?

I think perhaps the President may have said it best

"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other."

Sedition is against the law. The real question then is not if we can, and not even if we should (because laws are created to be enforced, not just to look pretty), but if the American public has the stomach to actually do so!

BTW... if your knee jerk reaction to the above quote was to say to yourself "if came from the mouth of the Bushchimphitler then the opposite must be true" I must warn you, George W. Bush wasn't the President who said it!

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin

I strongly suggest this piece by The Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

Omar Sacirbey has piece which reflects how some American Muslims are reconciling their love of their religion with their love of free speech. There are promising comments, such as this one,

As a Muslim, I can understand the emotional intensity of the issue, however, responding through violence does not uphold the dignity of our faith," said Mahdi Bray, head of the civil rights bureau of the Washington-based Muslim American Society, in a statement following a meeting with Denmark's ambassador to Washington. "Burning buildings and throwing bricks is definitely not the answer.

Which then slides back to call for economic retaliation,

Muslims united and using their economic leverage, now that's something the world can respect

Or, the world could respect that Muslims are content to only speak out with expressions of disappointment, understanding that there are those who do not share their belief, a strategy I thought this man was promoting,

On the legal level and from an Islamic perspective, people have a choice," said Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary-general of the Indianapolis-based Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim organization in the United States. "I don't expect my neighbor to have the same reverence about the Prophet Muhammad.

But, then once again I am disappointed when he continues.

All that we are expecting is that they don't insult a personality that's made such a historical contribution. This is more a responsibility of living in a pluralistic society than a question of legal restrictions

The intolerable word is, "expecting", which connotes a demand. A single concept which belies that Dr. Syeed wants others to be responsible for obeying his religion. The antithesis of the autonomy of religious thought characteristic of a pluralistic society.

I was encouraged by this section of the article,

Imam Mohamed Magid, executive director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society in Northern Virginia, said while he understood Islamic offense at the cartoons, Muslims would be better off protesting defamations against the faith perpetrated by their co-religionists.

"Prophet Muhammad is offended every day when somebody blows themselves up in a marketplace in Iraq. He's offended whenever somebody is beheaded. Prophet Muhammad would have opposed the burning of these embassies, or calls to kill Danes or other people," Magid said. "You can't be untouchable and then call other people infidel."

Now, that, is the message I need to hear more often if I am to be re-convinced that Islam is not incompatible with a free and civilized community.

Mr. Sacirbey also seems to understand,

To me, that is a greater insult to the prophet they claim to follow than a few offensive drawings, especially as people who know little of the prophet's true character and history attribute their violence to him.

Furthermore, Islam brooks no compulsion in religion, nor does it demand followers of other religions adhere to its religious sensibilities.

"There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith" (2:256) and "To you your way, to me mine" (109:6) lay out Islam's cardinal tenet of tolerance and make it clear that non-Muslims are not expected to follow Islam's religious rules.

Even though many Muslims believe Islam prohibits portrayals of the prophet, protests of blasphemy are misplaced as the Danish, non-Muslim cartoonists aren't bound by Islam's rules.

There is hope, there is always hope. Free expression seems to be a difficult concept for people to grasp. It is apparent, from so many examples, that some people have a problem finding appropriate ways to express themselves. And, certainly, it is known that some people have a problem grasping the proper response to insult within a free society.

I strongly suggest this piece by Judicial Watch as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Sacramento Bee as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Jay Ambrose as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by CBN Wire as "Recommended Reading".

Mark Steyn at The Corner, writing about The Great Cheney Hunting Accident Caper:

A "sinister cover-up" has to boil down to more than not giving David Gregory a press release. And, given that the media's spent the last two weeks telling the public why they don't need to see these Danish cartoons, it's hard to take them seriously as sudden converts to the public's right to know every detail, if only when it comes to minor hunting accidents.

Lost years ago as a casualty in the political correctness wars and relegated by popular culture to the status of a footnote on many calendars, the significance of today has been banished from the ranks of honored civic holidays. We are told it's just as important to honor all our nation's leaders - or at best we can only provide a single Monday in February to mark the birth of President Washington and his greatest successor. But in this age when we're constantly told how important and patriotic it is to dissent, we at The Black Republican have decided we'll jump on that bandwagon in true conservative fashion: by standing athwart history, yelling Stop.

So please take a moment to stop and reflect on the meaning of February 12th. Today marks the 197th anniversary of the birth of our nation's 16th and greatest president, the original "Black Republican" himself, Abraham Lincoln. To mark this occasion, my contributors and I have decided that henceforth on this date we will honor the memory of President Lincoln with the awarding of an honor designating one person as The Black Republican of the Year.

As anyone who has followed this site will know, there are certain qualities we recognize as exemplifying The Black Republican. First and foremost, such a person is an American who stands squarely behind the Union "brought forth on this continent, a new nation," and who, "under God", fights to keep our States together. He respects our Constitution "of the people, by the people, for the people", its system of checks and balances, and its delegation of powers. Lastly, The Black Republican respects the Liberty hallowed by our forefathers and protected by our soldiers, that "all men are created equal".

Unfortunately, in this age so far removed from the Black Republicans of Lincoln's day, it is difficult to find someone who fully identifies with all these principles in the same manner that we express them. And yet it is not so hard to find men and women of good will and firm resolve who have touched on one or more of these aspects in such a consequential way that their efforts deserve recognition. Therefore, our choice "will not be judged by the color of their skin" or by their religion, or even by their ideology or party affiliation, but "by the content of their character," and the worthiness of their participation in civic life during the past calendar year. It goes without saying that the honor is not intended to deny or disparage the accomplishments or meaningful contributions of anyone not named, and is simply the expression of our sincere thanks to someone we believe deserves recognition in the great tradition of the Republic.

So, without further ado, we award The Black Republican of the Year for 2005 to Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Despite the rhetoric he used when he joined the Democratic campaign in 2000 as the Vice-Presidential nominee, Senator Lieberman has been - especially since the terrorist attacks of 2001 - a firm voice of strength in America. This, more than anything, has set him apart in such a stark contrast to the rest of his party as to earn him the distinction we confer today. As the primary piece of evidence, we need only look back to the last month of the year. While the rest of Washington D.C. churned and broiled following the call by Rep. John Murtha to pull our troops out of Iraq, Senator Lieberman stepped forward to renounce that position and proclaim, "Our Troops Must Stay."

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority....

Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them.

Indeed, the good Senator has taken such a departure from the radicalism of the Left in the past year, he is now being targeted for defeat in the primaries by his own party. In a stand as honorable as Democrat Governor Andrew Johnson's acceptance of the VP slot on the pro-Union ticket alongside Lincoln, Lieberman has suggested he will run as an independent if he loses the primary.

For all these reasons - and despite the many issues where we disagree - Senator Lieberman displays qualities that have earned him our respect as The Black Republican of the Year for 2005. As a token of our respect, I will endeavor to contact the Senator's office so I can send him something from our CafePress shop. Considering his precarious political position, I won't be offended if he doesn't accept.

[Editor: It should be noted that when we decided back in December to establish this tradition, I thought it only appropriate that we should look back on our first two years of publication and name those people we would have named for 2003 and 2004, so there would be a more complete accounting from the start of the site. There was a little disagreement on the propriety and selection of those honorees, given so much time to second-guess hindsight, but I will be backdating these first two awards when time permits.]

To call Muslims angry at the Danish newspaper depictions of Muhammad hypocrites is accurate. And they, all Muslims have lost my sympathy. I remain cautiously heartened when word comes that one of their clergy condemns violence; then I lose hope when the Iman dictates the terms the West must meet in order for civility to return.

"The volcano was inside," Ahmed Abu Laban, a Palestinian immigrant to Denmark, said at a mosque in Copenhagen. "Now it's erupting, and after the volcano there will be peace again."

Abu Laban called for more dialogue, saying Muslims do not understand Europe and that Europeans are reluctant to learn more about Islam.

"We shall talk in Denmark. We shall talk in New York. We shall talk in Geneva ... and they will listen to us that we believe in God. And most importantly ... do not touch Muhammad."

Hey pal, I will learn about Islam only if I find it interesting, and I will not be behaving according to its tenets because I am not a Muslim. Muslim law has no jurisdiction in my life, that is a Western lesson for Muslims to learn. And if you don't like our approach to freedom of belief, then, don't go west Iman! If I decide to create or display an image of the Prophet, tough, get over it. Because, even if the Koran does forbid such depiction, a principle which may not be true, the prohibition does not apply to me; I am a non-believer. And in the same way that I am not concerned with avoiding consumption of meat on Friday, because I am not Catholic, do not expect me to adhere to the rules of YOUR religion either. Won't happen pal. Tell that to your people; don't try to tell the rest of us how to be Muslim. Who cares what motivates Muslims to be hateful, just stop it already. That act is tiring.

I know the game. Muslims have been angry and warring for my entire lifetime, longer, I do not expect them to suddenly change. I know that they are a danger, and yes that does cause me to fear them. And that is to their detriment. I would be far happier to not have them affecting my life in any way, and I would be content to not disturb them. But they are not going to let that happen, are they? The fascist elements without your young religion have the controls, they have an agenda of hate and destruction which overshadows the blessings within Muhammad's teachings. They, those who would use Islam to gin up the masses in revolt against all other beliefs are doing more to defile Muhammad and his teachings than could one billion artists. Pictures which show the Prophet together with bombs portray accurately the way your religion is being managed. Such depictions do not so much defile Muhammad as they portray and ridicule what has happened to his vision of a religion of peace. Now it is a religion of pieces, there are pieces of the Koran used to instill falsehoods and hatred, and pieces of your so-called martyrs and their victims, but there is no peace coming out of Islam. It is not a religion of peace; it is a religion in pieces, inspiring its followers to blow themselves and others to pieces..

Want a clue on how you can change Islam for the better? Eliminate the concept of Jihad. Embrace your Jewish brothers. Dismantle your religious schools of hate. Learn to laugh a little. And buy Danish, as a peace offering, a symbol of reconciliation.

Oh, and shut up and mind your business, and let the rest of us mind ours, and then my sympathy for the people of Islam may grow anew.

Drudge

LGF

With all that modern medicine has achieved, still we are without a cure for over-inflated ego.

KANYE WEST - COCKY WEST I SHOULD BE IN THE BIBLE

Perhaps he is right, there might be room for a new book, one called Vanities. Finding the appropriate text would be as easy as paraphrasing from other sections, changing only the names. take for example this section, Job 18 1-4, with Job's name replaced with Kanye's:

VANITIES 1

1-2 Kanye, can't people like you ever be quiet?

If you stopped to listen, we could talk to you.

3 What makes you think we are as stupid as cattle?

4 You are only hurting yourself with your anger.

Drudge

I strongly suggest this piece by Porter Goss as "Recommended Reading".

In prior centuries, the practice of medicine was dominated by a procedure that we now consider barbaric: blood-letting. By drawing out "bad" blood the ancients thought they were getting rid of the "bad humours" causing disease. The practice sometimes (almost accidentally) purged the body of enough bacterial infection that the patient recovered, but more often not they died - probably from shock and blood loss, as happened to our first president.

I expect that in future years the practice of polling will become just as discredited within the fields of sociology and politics as bloodletting has become in medicine. Polls influence far more than they inform, and it's practically impossible to reduce any issue worth judging public sentiment into the confines of a meaningful question. And the email I received yesterday makes a compelling case why that would be so.

Dear Webmaster,

My name is Rachel Orlowski, and I’m a student at the University of Michigan. As a part of my thesis, I have designed a survey to assess the current public opinion of Americans. I’d like to hear from the audience that visits your website. Their participation is completely anonymous. Below is a blurb about the survey with a hyperlink to its location. I’m hoping that you will post this on your site. If there is a way for me to post it myself, please tell me how. Please email me back to let me know if this is possible. I’m grateful for your help!

Thanks, Rachel

Do you have something to say about the state of American society? We’d love to hear your opinion on current political issues! Click here to complete a five-minute survey from the University of Michigan. We’d really appreciate your help!

First, your initial page of directions indicates that "NO identifying information will be collected", which begged the question how you were going to be able to properly weight the sample set. It turned out you DID collect demographic information, but obviously just for statistical analysis. Fair enough, but you should state that plainly in your directions. Being lied to isn't just unethical, it tends to elicit drop-offs and corrupt responses.

Second, the sophomoric wording of most of your questions brings into question any value you might be attempting to distill from the results. You suggest a juvenile-level understanding of the complexities of the issues, not to mention an ignorance of the subtleties of scientific sampling. The most glaring example would have to be page 15: "Poor people today have it easy because of government benefits." You're forcing me to choose between callousness over the plight of the poor and implied approval of the Great Society programs that promised to cure the poor of all their ills and spectacularly failed them in every regard. I'd call the question insanely biased if I could just figure out which slant you're going to try to extract from the results.

Lastly, the high-school level formatting and design of these web pages leads me to wonder if the real survey is to determine at what point people will give up, or to provoke a response at this point in the survey (hence the participation of the Department of Psychology?). Regardless of the rationale, the whole contrivance - overseen by not just one Ph.D., but two - leads me to the conclusion that the last place in America I'll want to waste my money sending my children to college is the University of Michigan.

IILTTBR, to note the parallels between President Bush at the Coretta Scott King funeral service and Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg. To put it simply: each man humbly and directly expressed the proper sentiments where other speakers had failed. That isn't to say that Mr. Bush's remarks should be remembered and cherished in the way we recognize the brilliance of Mr. Lincoln's remarks; it is to say however that GW Bush recognized the importance of Mrs. King's life and, as Lincoln did on that November day in 1863 with regard to those who "gave the last full measure of devotion", he acknowledged her contributions accurately.

It is also not to say that other speakers did not also capture her contributions. Though some clearly were there not to praise her, but rather to extol their own virtues.

George W. Bush does not possess the mastery of composition which Abe possessed, but then who does? But he did suffer through a situation where he was not entirely welcome (another Lincoln parallel - Lincoln was almost a second thought for those organizing the Gettysburg event and was not even the keynote speaker), while keeping his composure and the proper focus of the event. It was an act of proper and much deserved respect, delivered with class.

Some of the remarks made by former President Jimmy Carter could leave one to believe the efforts of Dr. and Mrs. King have gone in vain. That nothing has changed. When instead it is clear that, on many fronts, we can declare victory, and such recognition would have been a fitting tribute to this lady and her late husband. I would have liked for someone to have acknowledged the progress which has come from their work and sacrifice. For instance, did anyone note that four Presidents, including two from southern states, one even the protégé of a segregationist, attended this funeral? While in 1968, not one President showed to bury Dr. King. And there is a reason for the difference: America has progressed. We are not as racist today as then. We are not perfect, but thanks to the courage and leadership of some truly great figures - the Kings among them - most Americans no longer accept talk of racial division. Though some people continue to have ignorant and misguided beliefs (and this is not race specific, as some blacks are as guilty today of racism as were the stereotypical racist whites of days gone by), but overall, we Americans are better people with regard to race. And we know who to thank.

Just as Lincoln knew who to thank then, at the genesis of civil rights, Mr. Bush knew who to thank now for the progress we enjoy today. It is all together fitting that we acknowledge Mr. Bush for his well-placed remarks; for his remarks are the proper tributes to a great life.

Or, for that matter, what is the Legislative body of our government doing in the judging business at all? We already have a judicial branch, is Congress poaching on judicial territory?

I also wonder, since Congress can write laws which police the instances of eavesdropping, they must believe that eavesdropping is a Constitutionally permissible practice; as even Congress can't write laws which supersede or conflict with the Constitution. That is to say, the Constitution must not prohibit eavesdropping. There must not be a provision wherein eavesdropping violates a constitutionally protected right to privacy. So, if the Constitution does not prohibit eavesdropping, and if there is no specific law which addresses the new practice of technology driven data mining, (or whatever it is that our valued protectors are actually doing), then how can there be an offense? Constitutional. Not illegal because no law is germane. So, Senators, why are you harassing the NSA? I say, police political brutality!

Of course I am being, somewhat, liberal with the logical connections. But, then, unlike the all-knowing, all-seeing federal Legislature, I am fallible. We all inherently understand that the Congress has written laws which cover all circumstances. There is scarcely a need for the Congress anymore, they have already seen all the possibilities. And they have already structured all of the laws needed to address every possible circumstance, even with regard to the time needed to follow all of the requisite steps and to still react before a terrorist attack occurs. No danger here, Congress has acted. All that is left to do is to remind the American people that Republicans are bad, vote Democrat. So, forget the Alamo, the Maine and especially forget September 11, 2001. Congress, acting with lightning speed as only it can, Congress has foreseen all the social inequities and security issues which could ever, ever occur and Congress has taken care that they will never, never ever cause you discomfort, embarrassment, financial strain, family problems, sexual frustration, unwanted children, yellow teeth, (no wait that was a corporation), the burden of keeping your cherished but distressed property, confusion when preparing your taxes, or so many other terrible, really, really bad things. Oh, and you need not worry about that other thing happening, oh, what is the word, harm. No worry, Congress has mapped out the solution for even that problem, long ago.

So, once the little people who do that sort of stuff simply jump through the right hoops, negotiate the entire maze of paperwork, and present an undeniably clear case to body of judges who have no expertise in the area of question, we will all be safe. And you can bet on that because Congress has made it so.

Yeah, right.

I strongly suggest this piece by Andrew C. McCarthy as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Richard L. Cravatts Ph.D. as "Recommended Reading".

For all those people who complain that I don't blog enough, I'm just feeling okay, thanks.

I strongly suggest this piece by Thomas Sowell as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Clarice Feldman as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Jeff Jacoby as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Tom Bevan as "Recommended Reading".

Oh, how enlightened we have become! (my emphasis)

To these kids, homophobia is as socially shunned as racism was to the generation before them. They say it’s practically the one thing that’s not tolerated at their school. One boy who made disparaging remarks about gay people has been ridiculed and taunted, his belongings hidden around the school. "We’re a creative bunch when we hate someone," says Nathan. Once the tormenters, now the tormented.

NRO