 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
What They Thought March 13, 2005 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins Note: I would appreciate it if the liberals would read the first sentence out loud. One of the many arguments put forth by the leftists regarding the ties between the holy order of al Qaeda and the infidel Iraq and terrorist trainingis that Al Qaeda would have had nothing to do with Saddam or his infidel secularist running yellow dog regime because they drink alcohol and like women. But there is an old saying in the Mid East: “You and me against my brother. You, me and my brother against the outsider.” A simpler explanation of this charming little quote would be that "all of our differences can be settled after we get the outsider." Or maybe a better way would be to say "I’ll slit your throat in the night after we slit theirs." As the left is so happy to point out, we are the outsider in this case. They like to point that out a great deal, don’t they? After we begin drilling for oil in Alaska, they will probably begin to talk about the possibility that the caribou are going to attack us to protect their own barren moonlike homeland from the pork-eating carbon-based bipeds that are unaware of the ethics and virtues of vegetarianism. I’m so sorry. I realize that had a certain Romper Room quality to it, but I am trying to reach the liberals. “And I see Teddy and Jimmy and Billy…. My, my, Billy and Jimmy have very different views on cigars. Go to commercial. Oh, my. I sure hope that didn’t make it onto the show. The contamination of the children’s minds. Oh, gosh.” But back to the Mid East for a moment, before I continue my relentless attack on the left-wingers. Aesop’s fables talked about the Mid East in a way that made me laugh, and it did a lot to explain not the why, but the way it has always been over there. Basically, the story goes like this: Hermes was traveling the world and dispensing problems to various parts of the world. His cart broke down and when he went to one of the local villages to find someone to fix it the locals plundered the cart. So this shows that the place has always been a mess for outsiders, which leads us back to that lovely quote. But to hear some say that the holy order of al Qaeda wouldn’t have anything to do with the infidels in Iraq is absolutely ridiculous. According to their religion, they are not supposed to be killing women and children either, but they have shown repeatedly that they have no problem with that. So we can see from this that they have a tendency to bend the rules to suit their needs, which once again goes back to that quote. But here’s the biggy on that one: Many people say that they wouldn’t have gone to Salmen Pak to learn how to take over an airliner with unconventional weapons because of the corrupt regime in Iraq. The body of the jet was provided by Russia, by the way. But the claim that they wouldn’t have gone to Iraq for training because it was a secular nation flies in the face of one very obvious fact that the liberals tend to try to gloss over. Or better yet, completely ignore. Those who flew the jets had absolutely no problem with learning how to fly a jet in the first place from the great white Satan. That’s us, by the way. The Palestinians had no problem with Saddam paying them to have their kids go out and paint the town red in Israel. So their values and virtues are pretty much based on what they want at the moment. It reminds me of the thought processes of the radical left. It’s a sort of an "any ol' port in a storm" mentality. I realize that I may have offended a few liberals and a few people who don’t know they are liberals by pointing out the obvious flaws in their limited thinking so I’m going to throw them a bone here: This article was printed using recycled electrons. No paper mites, spotted owls or trees were harmed in the process. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
|
No column this week. |
||||||||||
You may have missed it, but roughly 50 Vermont towns passed resolutions last week calling for the return of their National Guardsmen from Iraq. “They can’t do that,” you say. Sure they can. They just did. Now, whether they’ll look to enforce those resolutions—that’s another issue, and the answer remains to be seen. This could all be purely symbolic, of course. And if it is, it wouldn’t surprise me. But who knows? Vermont could be serious about this. After all, these resolutions were passed on Town Meeting Day, when Vermonters met in their respective jurisdictions to discuss such local issues as school funds and… um, snow blowers. They didn’t get together to shoot the breeze, you see. They got together to take care of business. And war is business. It’s serious stuff. So is Vermont serious or what? Well, to call this “secession” is admittedly premature. Okay, to call it “premature” is, itself, premature. No one’s talking secession here. Except me. And maybe the Second Vermont Republic (a secessionist movement in Vermont). I bring it up for a reason, though. Namely, because civil war fits neatly into the Red State/Blue State discussion. Think about it. Is civil war not the direction in which we’re headed? For years now, the media has fostered this idea that Red States and Blue States actually exist. The idea is predicated on one thing and one thing only—the presidential election. Blue States vote Democrat; Red States, Republican. No room for the many strains of liberalism, conservatism, and none-of-the-abovism. Just one or the other. Case closed. End of story. Oh, and one more thing: Neither side likes the other. At all. Now, it’s true you can learn a lot about a state based on the guy it wants in the White House. If a candidate’s platform includes flu shots, pony rides, and beating up queers, then some combination of flu shots, pony rides, and beating up queers undoubtedly plays well in any state that votes for him. That’s fine, as far as it goes. (Not the beating up queers part. The part about… ah, you know what I mean.) However, the fact that all 50 states went to George Bush and John Kerry doesn’t mean Americans belong in Red and Blue folders. All it means is the system only gave us two choices. And two lousy choices at that. Red States and Blue States wouldn’t be a problem if the only thing they existed for was coloring election night maps. But since we’ve got nothing better to talk about, we sit around for four years talking about what those maps mean. As a result, voters in Red States become “Red Staters” and voters in Blue States become “Blue Staters.” Not Texans and Californians. Not humans. Not even Bush and Kerry supporters. “Red Staters” and “Blue Staters.” It’s shorthand. Plain and simple. Well, fine. You want to call them that? Call them that. But it’s not exactly accurate. And, if anything, it only serves to create the perception of categories that aren’t actually there. Case in point: Pennsylvania’s a Blue State. So is Hawaii. So you’re going to tell me Pennsylvanians and Hawaiians are brothers in arms? How? Look, as a Pennsylvanian, I have no qualms with Hawaiians. I’m sure they’re nice people. But the Hawaiian life—which revolves around grass skirts, volcanoes, and hanging ten, dude—and the Pennsylvanian life—which revolves around football and pretzels—are nothing alike. Pennsylvania has a lot more in common with its next-door neighbor, Ohio. But since that’s a Red State, I guess it means Ohioans are “diametrically opposed” to me? That doesn’t seem fair. What did I ever do to them? The problem, as I see it, lies not in cultural differences but in the fact that we’ve learned to tie our cultural differences to electoral outcomes. Red States and Blue States are not “real,” necessarily. But they are self-perpetuating. This brings us back to Vermont. Now, Vermont, as you know, is a “bastion of liberalism.” And like other bastions of liberalism, Vermont is unhappy the Democrats lost last year. The way they see it, Bush’s victory is a mandate for war. And even though Kerry’s victory would’ve been a mandate for war, too, Kerry didn’t win. Bush did. And Vermont doesn’t like him or his stinking war. So they’re giving the feds two middle fingers and telling them to get lost. This creates a slight breach in etiquette. Again, this could all be symbolic. But what if it isn’t? What if other Blue States follow their lead? What if hundreds of similar resolutions are passed throughout the Northeast and Great Lakes regions? And what if Blue Staters, inspired by national-election desperation, seek to control their own National Guardsmen in a last-ditch effort to bring the boys home? Will Red Staters see it as an effort to compromise national security and/or undermine President Bush? How will they ask Washington to respond? With force? Perhaps it’s not likely, but it’s certainly conceivable. The Vermont resolutions may not kick start a Blue State secession, but they could easily kick start a discussion on the power of the federal government. And don’t get me wrong: I’m okay with that. Government power deserves to be challenged—especially when it comes to war. However, while I’m a fan, so to speak, of the Civil War (i.e., I like to study it), I don’t think I’d enjoy it if a second one happened tomorrow. After all, as a swing state voter with no connection to either political party, I have issues with both sides. If you ask me, there should be a color beyond the Red and Blue spectrum to represent peaceful coexistence—not a state of being, but a state of mind. In fact, forget colors. Colors won’t do the trick. From now on, I’m a Translucent American. You can have your civil wars and cultural divides if you want ‘em. I’d rather gear up for baseball season than spend the summer dying for freedom or… um, snow blowers. Who’s coming with me? Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
Bill Gates, a keynote speaker at the National Governors Association/Achieve Summit, recently remarked that our high schools are obsolete because the system only prepares one-third of our students for college, work, and citizenship. So aside from the cost barrier, there is a barrier called lack of preparedness that is preventing two-thirds of our students from being able to succeed in school or make a living. He went on to say that the best educated kids in the United States are the best educated kids in the world and of that we should be proud of that. But I beg to differ with him. According to Education World, “The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reports that ‘on average, 10 percent of 15-year-olds in [the 30 member] OECD countries have top-level literacy skills, with which they are able to understand complex texts, to evaluate information and build hypotheses, and to draw on specialized knowledge. In the United States, 12 percent of students are among those top performers; only six countries -- New Zealand, Finland, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland -- have a larger percentage of top performers. At the other end of the scale…an average of 18 percent of 15-year-olds in OECD countries (including the United States) show serious weaknesses in the literacy skills needed for further learning. With a relatively high percentage of its students doing well, but a relatively high percentage also doing poorly, the United States, on average, is only average.’ Furthermore, in a voluntary benchmarking study included in the 1999 TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study), U.S. 8th graders ranked 19th in math and 18th in science among 38 participating countries. According to Youth at the Crossroads: Facing High School and Beyond, a 2000 Education Trust report, however, ‘although only one country does better than we do in grade 4 science, by the 12th grade, we outperform only Cyprus and South Africa. Our 12th graders end up in the same position in mathematics.’" It was known that our schools were in trouble twenty years ago, when the National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Perhaps it is premature for Mr. Gates to applaud the dedicated teachers and principals around the country for producing the best educated kids in the world. A fraction score well, but as can be gleaned from the above statistics, only in literacy do they perform on top of the world. It is not surprising that the United States has, according to Gates, “one of the highest high school dropout rates in the industrialized world” and that many who graduate do not go onto college.” Finally, those “who do go on to college are not well-prepared – and end up dropping out.” On the surface, I find nothing wrong with Bill Gates’ suggestion about how to help fix this problem. He has seen evidence that setting high academic standards, reducing student teacher ratios, and providing additional resources while making teachers and administrators responsible for improving performance can work to improve things. But I disagree that by redesigning the existing public education system, these problems will be resolved. All schools need to provide a relevant while challenging curriculum, and caring adults who look out for their students. There is also mounting evidence that smaller school size positively affects motivation, attendance rates, and a feeling of safety. What Bill Gates did not touch on nearly enough is that only by inserting competition into the public school monopoly, will there be sufficient motivation to make these ideas more than a pipedream. Schools have known that they needed to change for over twenty years. Yet things have gotten progressively worse. Why should they change? They won’t go belly up as long as they have a monopoly on the public money. Bill Gates understands that “you have to be able to make systems of schools work for all students. We need equitable school choice.” But only by making school choice available by giving tuition tax credits or vouchers to those who cannot afford alternative methods of education, will we equalize opportunity and preparedness across social and economic lines. By forcing the public schools to compete for students, they will have to improve or lose their students to better educational institutions. It would be a crime to lose another generation of students to poor education. If Bill Gates truly wants to see schools graduate a prepared workforce, one that is able to make a living above the poverty line, then the best way is to provide money to low income families to be used for tuition scholarships at alternative sources of education. Many of these already have high standards, small school atmospheres, teachers who go the distance and a proven track record of success. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
Whatever you think about Matt Hale, the recent arrest came as no surprise. His strange saga first brought national attention when his application to practice law was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court's Committee on Character and Fitness. Most of the public would consider him an avowed racist and his "World Church of the Creator" a bizarre sect. But this account is not about the merits or falsehoods of his politics or doctrine. He is charged with a crime, according to the New York Times - Law enforcement officials with Chicago's Joint Terrorism Task Force said Mr. Hale had crossed the line when he asked another person to "forcibly assault and murder" Judge Lefkow. It should be a given that efforts to commit murder are morally wrong. But we live within the protection of a legal system that presumes innocence until proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. Or at least we are told that is the standard . . . Lefkow has been presiding over the trademark case involving Hale's use of the name World Church of the Creator. The particulars in this case are secondary to the story. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, has it correct, when he says the "conduct alleged in this indictment is disturbing on many levels, but particularly so because it targeted a judge, whose sworn duty is to apply the law equally and fairly to all who appear before her." In the past the ACLU would take up Free Speech charges related to unsavory characters. Since their evolution into an anti-god advocacy, their likelihood to champion such dissenters is remote. While the immediate indictment against Hale was issued by a grand jury, Hale asserted: “I never urged anyone to commit a crime and I am completely abiding by the law on a daily basis.” Based on the specific charges, the First Amendment seems moot; while Amendment XIV, due process would certainly apply. Now review the decision of the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond., Va. Those judges affirms President Bush's authority to detain indefinitely American citizens captured in foreign battles or those who participate in terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. The appeals decision overturned a lower court's ruling that 22-year-old Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana native captured last year in Afghanistan, must see the government's evidence supporting its claims that he fought with al-Qaida and Taliban forces against the United States. Since that decision stopped short of approving those same powers over American citizens arrested on U.S. soil, one would think that the issue ends at the waters edge. Or does it? The importance of Yaser Esam Hamdi or Matt Hale lies with their families and friends, but their significance in the law, applies to all of us. Or at least it should! However, since the enactment of the Patriot Act, the lines of “Due Process” no longer exist for anyone, who has the misfortune to be labelled an enemy combatant. In an era of unbridled government usurpation of reach and scope, is there any doubt that the such a designation will soon apply to selective alleged crimes, committed on home ground, by rebellious citizens when it suits the ‘War of Terror’ on America. Here is a resolution from students of the Milton Academy. They have it right. Just substitute your name for Hamdi and Padilla. A Resolution Prohibiting the Detention of US Citizens as Enemy Combatants
If citizenship is now defined as having arbitrary application of rights and protections, the definition of what an enemy combatant is, becomes subject to the same discretion of courts, politicians and bureaucrats. In 'Combatants' Lack Rights, U.S. Argues - by Washington Post staff writers Tom Jackman and Dan Eggen, we get a warning about the sharp departure from Constitutional safeguards. They write about the Hamdi case, that some legal scholars compared the filing to arguments used by the government during World War II to intern thousands of Japanese Americans. "This is really an astounding assertion of authority," said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor.
Robert A. Levy from the Cato Institute addresses the Padilla case. “The Constitution does not distinguish between the protections extended to ordinary citizens on one hand and unlawful-combatant citizens on the other”.
Now that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wants to be their own ‘Rocket Docket’ for unlimited state exploration of previously restricted space, we are all in danger of a new challenger explosion. What Levy attributed to the Bush executive branch, has now received the blessing of a ‘star chamber tribunal’. Relate this precedent now fixed back to Matt Hale, the stretch is not far to depict him or others that fall outside the boundaries of docile government servants, as enemies of the state. If he acted with intent to cause harm to a judge, he gets no sympathy from us. But if his only offence is to confront the ‘PC’ system, doesn’t he deserve the same protections of the Constitution as any American citizen? Remember your answer to this question, especially when judges like Joan Humphrey Lefkow rule on subsequent government efforts to broaden the definition for an enemy combatant. The meaning and intent of the Constitution can be understood easily. Due Process applies to all citizens. If it doesn’t, what kind of country is it? The words of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, applies to judges and to Courts of Appeal. Let’s us all hope the Supreme Court will restore justice for all.
|
||||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Saturday, March 19, 2005 10:47 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||||
