There is not much from the San Francisco chronicle that dons these pages, but I thought Debra Saunders’ response to California’s recent Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual marriage was a pretty honest take. I haven’t read the actual opinion, but from what I have read, it’s more of the same - a court doing what it thinks is right for the people rather than letting the people do it themselves.

But I have to agree with Justice Marvin Baxter’s dissenting opinion that the court “does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.”

What next? Baxter wondered if in the future an “activist” court might look at this opinion and “conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified.”

Baxter stipulated, “In no way do I equate same-sex unions with incestuous and polygamous relationships as a matter of social policy or social acceptance.” His point is that George and company opened “the door to similar treatment of other, less deserving, claims of a right to marry.”

You’ll find a similar rationale in the U.S. Supreme Court’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. The real question at this point is not how this decision impacts jurisprudence - the real question is whether or not this will allow the conservatives to shift the political focus from Iraq and economy in the Fall and remind its base of the moral issues at stake. With two SCOTUS justices likely stepping down during the next President’s term, it is not much of a red herring

Well, lo and behold, Jonathan Edwards came out with his endorsement of Obama after it was essentially a ‘done deal’. Way to show some leadership and chutzpa John.

Now, lets just hope Obama selects you because you are a strong, principled leader with a lot of backbone. Not that it was too original or unpredictable, but I predicted this here. I don’t want to be judged as a prophet and all that, but political  my astuteness is uncanny.

I’m going to go out on a limb and state that I think the superdelegates in the Democratic party will very soon shift their focus and support to Hillary. No doubt you’ve heard of the spectacle that the good Rev. Wright is making, and although Obama is working hard to distance himself and denounce his “spiritual advisor”, he’s not getting the job done. His unwillingness to unequivocally denounce the Rev. at the outset of all this several months ago will not be forgotten by the GOP in the Fall, and it will not be overlooked by the Dems this May and June. Rev. Wright and Obama are linked, rightfully or not, in the minds of the American people, and no matter how hard Obama tries, his twenty years under the tutelage of Rev. Wright will be his downfall. Add in Rev. Sharpton’s claim that Obama is now grandstanding for the white people, and you’ve spelled his doom.

Obama cannot escape the individuals and the issues that he must to win a general election. The Democrats are enamored by Obama, but they are more enamored by a legitimate shot at the White House. Hillary is the only candidate that gives them “hope” any longer.

One thing we can always be sure about taxes - those who support taxes really want someone else to pay them.  If you don’t believe me, ask your most liberal friends if you can see their tax returns and see if they tried to minimize their taxes.  Yet, I bet those same people are irritated that Bill Gates and others wrote off items as well.

Although that is personal income, I think the same can be said for businesses.  Here is a story where New York is ordering “large web retailers” to pay taxes.  Some retailers welcome the tax, believing these “e-tailers” are “stealing their customers”.  How they arrive at this conclusion opposed to believing that the State is chasing away their customers is beyond me.

The politicians will claim they are protecting the little man (who says they can’t open an on-line store?), but the bottom line, yes, that bottom line, is “the state estimates this new Internet tax will bring in $50 million this year and $75 million next year.”  Politicians are more greedy than any CEO or Big Business in America and it is to support their big government and rather than service they use their power to achieve their ends.

The left is good with the rhetoric. They oft claim two things about themselves (among others) - their value of ‘civil rights/liberties’ and their open mindedness. Yet, they seem most apt to go this route?

This is the sort of thing that convinces me that environmentalists and socialists are in cahoots and see it as their last refuge for their control of others. They are the ones that really care. They are the ones that really understand. They are the ones that can provide solutions. So we have to submit to their wills, so they can impose their morality, lifestyles, and worldview on others. This all, of course, comes through the coercive power of the State.

I only watched snippets of the debate last night, but several things seem evident to me:

1. Obama is a much better pep rally speaker than a debater.

2. Hillary just doesn’t have “it”. She does not come across well and she seemed to struggle through answers and rebuttals, as if she was over coached & she wasn’t being herself, trying to say just the right thing rather than answering questions.  It was like when I pitched in little league and the coach would yell at me, “Stop aiming and throw the ball!”  She aimed too much.
3. Whatever Hillary threw at Obama he hit her up with, “I am rubber and you are glue…” She tried to tie him up with the Weatherman Underground and he retorted, “That’s funny. Her husband pardoned members of the Weatherman Underground…” He is excellent at that sort of retort.

4. Obama came across as the better of the two debaters - see 1.

Pottery Barn (supposedly) has this policy - “You break it,  you buy it.”  In our scenario, America is the Pottery Barn and we broke Iraq (it was broke before our arrival, but…).  Like many issues, the issue is not whether we should fix it or not, but what is the best way to fix it.  After five years and struggling to meet any of our success “bench marks”, it should be plain that we need new ways to fix.  Right now, the Democrats are offering new & better solutions in Iraq compared with the Republicans, who has a Presidential candidate suggesting we might be there for 100 years.  The Democrats are starting to insist that the Iraqi’s pay for their own reconstruction - “Democrats plan to push legislation this spring that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country, sparing U.S. dollars.”

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said pausing troop reductions would signal to the Iraqis that the United States was committed to the war indefinitely.

“Rather, we need to put continuous and increasing pressure on the Iraqis to settle their political differences, to pay for their own reconstruction with their oil windfalls, and to take the lead in conducting military operations,” said Levin, D-Mich.

Aside from the “windfall” rhetoric, Senator Levin is spot on.  It is unfortunate that the Republicans, being led by the President, are not offering substantive change and solutions in Iraq.  Senate Foreign Relations chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., said, identifying the problem well, “It’s clear to me, and I think to my Republican colleagues as well, the president just says his only plan to is keep roughly 140,000 troops there until the next president becomes president, and hand off the problem to him or her.”   (Lets just hope ‘her’ does not receive the hand off.)

Per this report, U.N. (so you know they are objective and good) meteorologists are predicting that temperatures in ‘08 will be cooler than previous years.  The article states, “If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.”

At this point, I don’t believe anyone can or should question “climate change theory.”  Clearly (?), the climate seems to be in constant flux and we just need to be patient as the temperatures have a pattern of rising and falling.  The problem with much of the “climate change” debate is that it is presumed by those most vocal, like an Al Gore, that government provides the solution, which is a non sequitur.   Even if I grant “climate change,” it doesn’t follow that government regulation and laws can provide the remedy.

It’s very early in the season, but it is an important day, as the Reds are throwing out the young pitching phenom, Johnny Cueto, to the mound today at 12:35 in an attempt to steal their first series of the year from one of the NL’s best, the Arizona Diamondbacks.

The 22-year-old right-hander was a non-roster invitee to Spring Training and earned himself a rotation spot by providing some of the most dynamic performances of camp. Johnny Cueto, your big stage awaits you.

If he proves to be as electrifying as everyone thought in the Spring, the Reds actually have a decent starting rotation. If Dusty can get em’ to make a bit more contact at the plate, we’ve got a legitimate shot.

One of the ill effects of government programs, especially schools, is that they are neutering in nature. For example, you may or may not agree with war in Iraq, but an honest assessment of the Bush Program, including the implementation of Democracy, is that they hope to neuter Islam, at least certain segments and factions of it. Now, in one sense, this may allow certain elements of diversity to spring up for a season, but it is at the expense of the preceding worldview and ideology. I don’t really have a problem with this occurring, realizing it is inescapable, but the problem arises when a certain segment, like most secularists, think they are “neutral” rather than neutering in their approach and theory. They assert that some how they aren’t really neutering a worldview, but just being neutral.

This can be readily seen in a case in Madison, Wisconsin where a student is suing for getting a ‘zero‘ on an art project. According to the report, the “assistant principal Cale Jackson told the boy his religious expression infringed on other students’ rights” and “Millin (the teacher) stated the cross in the drawing also infringed on other students’ rights.”  In this instance, one students “rights” are exalted over another’s. There is no neutrality in a democracy (or any system), but someone’s “rights” is always violated. The question is, whose and why? As is, if we take democracy as an absolute standard, then we are left with the masses declaration of rights as holding the answer to the “whose and why”. The same is the problem when we start to appeal to “civil rights” as well. Who determines what a “civil right” is? Is it the civil magistrates? If so, on what grounds do they determine rights & wrongs, and can they in turn change their minds on rights?

Now, I am sure this student will get some press with some mainstream conservatives and they will denounce the decay taking place in our public schools, maybe even argue for vouchers, but almost none of them will argue for the separation of school and state and point out that the problem is one of ideology and inherent in our current understanding of democracy & rights. Until that issue is discussed, then we will be left with power politics, which the Democrats are much better at playing, because they keep making more promises with your tax money.

As politicians clamor to buy votes, claiming they will solve the “mortgage crisis” or rising fuel costs with their law and their regulation of our lives, why don’t we hear politicians say they will save us from the “tax crisis” or the “rising burden of taxes”? “Tax Freedom Day” will arrive for many Americans 3 days earlier than last year (April 23rd), but that still basically means we are working 3.5 months to fund politicians desires. Now, if they relieved us from this burden, how many people would be able to meet their mortgage payments? How many people would be able to absorb the rise in fuel prices (forgetting for a moment the governments help in raising the prices)? Why aren’t the politicians saying, “I will abolish your property tax to help give you mortgage freedom & I will do away with taxes on fuel to give you relief?”

For example, in 2005, the average monthly mortgage payment was $1,015. At the same time, the average annual State and local property tax collections was $3,022 per household. So, on average, homeowners would have 3 months relief if politicians put some profit restraints on themselves and provided the constituency with some economic freedom. Why are politicians going after “corporate greed”, but not “political greed”?

Similar relief occurs if numerous taxes were taken out of the price of gasoline. In Ohio, the consumer would save about $0.464 cpg on their fuel purchases. So, the next time you fill up and you reach the 10 gallon point, you would have another $4.60 cents in your pocket. Now, that is not a ton of money, but for the poor and working class, who are usually left with the old gas-guzzlers, this is a big relief.

So, as Obama and Hillary try to buy your votes, claiming they are going to get “corporate greed” and “provide relief”, realize that they are not looking to cut their profits for the little man or provide relief in any way that may hurt them.

An interesting op-ed from the Washington Times this morning that compares the European Press’ response to criticism of Islamist extremists to the European Press’ response to those who attempted to criticize Nazi Germany prior to Hitler’s invasion of Europe.

Like the Dutch authorities, they are all “considering the possible consequences” of offending extremist Muslims. If, however, the lessons of the past are anything to go by, the submission of the Western establishment to the demands of their enemies will not deter the latter from attacking the West.

An interesting comparison, but I thought Islamofascists declared war upon the West years ago. Was there a cease fire I missed? It’s one thing to appease and renounce criticism of a potential enemy in the hope that you can kill ‘em with kindness - it’s another to refuse to confront an enemy that has already told you they are going to kill you. This is more willful ignorance than appeasement.

I have had a lot going on in my personal life the past month or so, so I have not really tracked politics, economics, or general goings on (aside from the NCAA Tournament, but even that peripherally).  This morning, however, I decided to thumb through some sources and see what is happening.

Given my agnosticism, how successful is the surge at this point?  Now that Al Sadr’s “cease fire” is over it appears that violence is on the rise again, at least in recent days.  If it continues, will this help or hurt McCain?

I just lost my governor, the “Love Gov” as some were quick to call him, for buying some high end prostitute. Apparently, his wife was telling him to “stay the course” and “to be vigilant” and not to step down. After all, what is spending a few grand on some hookers any way? The moment he stepped down, New York was swearing in a new governor who immediately admitted to his numerous adulteries. Yet, we wink at these things & probably wouldn’t have caused Spitzer to step down if he chose not to.  These sins, if they are even considered such, are readily forgivable in the political realm.

The only sin that is politically unforgivable is any connection with “racism,” real or perceived. Not only that, but it is only white politicians that must be on the look out for being a racist or associated with a racist. This became clear with Obama receiving some flap for his pastor, mentor, and “uncle” (who he has known for over 20 years) being a bigot and his rants against the United States, especially white Americans. This pastor has received a free pass, because he denounces America on the “right issues,” i.e. leftist issues, and because he is black. If the cause was abortion, sodomy, adultery, or a host of other transgressions and the pastor was white, then Obama, I believe, would be done. Yet, Obama, showing that he is made of teflon and an unbelievable boxer, took Jeremiah Wright’s crazy rhetoric and turned it to heap more guilt on America, i.e. whites, for her “original sin.”

Pat Buchanan makes some excellent points in his “A Brief For Whitey“.

The bottom line: whites are afraid to be labeled with the scarlet “R” and folks like Obama are not afraid to appeal to the politics of guilt to maintain or advance their power. If we follow a “power” hermeneutic like liberation theologians and many liberal secularists, which Wright is associated with, then we are left perceiving Obama’s words as simply another move in this power struggle, seeking to gain the upper hand. It doesn’t move race discussions forward; rather, it merely leaves everyone making power moves & raises suspicions - a far cry from steps toward unity.

Rick Santorum sets out a pretty good piece on why social conservatives are struggling a bit with McCain. Although I disagree with much of Santorum’s underlying philosophy - that the federal government should be the determinant of social mores - the article should be interesting to both sides of the aisle, as it reveals the thought of a large swath of the conservative demographic. And don’t think I’m growing more liberal as the years roll along - far from it. The Libs have their own form of secular humanistic morality they would like to see the government impose upon us as well - it’s just a bit more subtle so they remain permitted to spout off about the religious right trying to shove morality down their throats. It is a convoluted and hypocritical political climate in which we live.

I do agree with Santorum in his conclusory statements about McCain’s need to shift his policies on certain issues. Let’s hope he uses this Obama/Hillary fiasco to refine, and in some cases re-define, his “conservative” message.

I’ve known John McCain for almost two decades. Honor and integrity underlie everything he does. I can testify it’s hard to persuade him that there is another way when he believes he has taken the honorable position. He is stubborn in the best sense of the word. Conservatives are not asking him to execute a series of 180s. We’re looking for policy adjustments that show he has the independent spirit and pragmatic sense to change prior stands not simply because of new political realities, but new facts. Facts - which, as Ronald Reagan used to say, are also stubborn things.

You might have to dig a bit to find anything much on this story, but imagine if these comments from former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro were made by Trent Lott or any other white GOP male.

The controversy began Tuesday when the national media picked up on comments Ferraro made in an interview last week with the Daily Breeze newspaper in Torrance, Calif.: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Ferraro said she stands by her assertion that Obama’s success in the Democratic campaign is due “in part” to his race.

Regardless of intent, it would be the end of his career. You’ve got to love the double standard.

Top Navy Admiral, William J. Fallon, head of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resigned yesterday. Folks like Harry Reid on the Hill are pointing to the fact that he disagreed with the administration over whether or not to wage war on Iran, but Fallon debunked, or at least attempted to debunk, that theory.

Fallon, one of the most experienced officers in the U.S. military, said the reports were wrong but had become a distraction hampering his efforts in the Middle East. Fallon’s area of responsibility includes Iran and stretches from Central Asia across the Middle East to the Horn of Africa. “I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility,” Fallon said, and he regretted “the simple perception that there is.”

It had to be something greater than public perception or false reports - military guys shrug that stuff off on a daily basis. I’m thinking it had more to do with his disagreement with Bush’s all-star - Petraeus.

Fallon’s departure, effective March 31, is unlikely to have an immediate effect on conducting the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. His top deputy at Central Command, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take his place until a permanent successor is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Gen. David Petraeus, who runs the Iraq war from Baghdad but is technically subordinate to Fallon, was known to have differences with Fallon over the timing and pace of drawing down U.S. troops from Iraq. Fallon has favored a faster pullback.

It’s difficult to see throw the weeds on this stuff, but it is highly odd for a top guy to step down during a military campaign.

I find the results of this study very sad.

At least one in four teenage girls nationwide has a sexually transmitted disease, or more than 3 million teens, according to the first study of its kind in this age group.

A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls — nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

Eliot Spitzer, anti-business crusading Governor of New York, has been linked to a Washington D.C. prostitution ring by federal investigators. By all accounts, the feds have him dead to rights as “Client #9″ in the alleged high dollar call girl ring:

I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family … [and] my sense of right and wrong,” Spitzer said in a brief statement he read to reporters at his Manhattan office.

While evidence is limited, this nugget makes me think that this wasn’t/isn’t Gov. Spitzer’s only mis-adventure:

According to an FBI affadavit, Client 9 “asked to be reminded of what Kristen looked like and was told that she was an “American, petite, very pretty brunette, five feet five inches, and 105 pounds.”

He also called the issue a “a private matter” in his comments Monday.

Ummm, Governor, you are an elected official of the State of New York. If the allegations are true, then you have commited a crime. What about that is private?

Ben Adds:
Anyone else get the feeling that this was a hit job on Spitzer by the Feds? I obviously don’t condone the conduct, but the following would lead one to believe that the feds were after Spitzer from the start rather than being caught in the crosshairs of a broader prostitution ring break-up.

A law enforcement official says New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s role in a prostitution scandal grew out of a public corruption inquiry triggered by his movement of cash to bank accounts operated by the call-girl ring.
The law enforcement source spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity Tuesday because of the sensitivity of the investigation. The official says Spitzer was the initial target of the investigation and was tracked using court-ordered wiretaps, but possible charges against Spitzer have not been decided.

I got an email from a friend today espousing the same underlying suspicion - that the Bush admin is seeking to bring down the likes of Spitzer - but that we never would have heard about the feds’ involvement if Rove were in the mix still, as he would have been savvy enough to tip off the local cops.

My life is too busy to follow all the sports I might like. I’ve had to make tough decisions, like letting go of college basketball until March rolls around. In fact, I’m down to following only teams two teams as a true fan: the Buckeye football team and the Cincinnati Reds.

Since it is March, I want to talk about the Reds. For the first time in decades, I believe that there is reason for hope along the banks of the mighty Ohio. Reds fans haven’t had much to cheer about since the 1990 World Series Championship, but they are finally headed in the right direction. There is a lot of young talent on this team, and the future looks bright.

Joey Votto is another powerful bat at first base. Second baseman Brandon Phillips will be an All Star this season. Third baseman Edwin Encarnacion has turned the corner and is likely to drive 100 runs. 20 year old center fielder Jay Bruce was named minor league player of the year last year, and Chris Sabo claims he is ready to emerge as a major league superstar. Pitching prospect Homer Bailey continues to make strides. All this talent in Cincy is rare, but the guy I’m most excited about is a young starting pitcher named Johnny Cueto. This is what DDN writer Hal McCoy wrote about Johnny today:

Johnny Cueto, 22, buzzed through the Pirates batting order Friday as if he carried a Black & Decker high-powered tree cutter — a 98-mph fastball and a U Can’t Touch This change-up. In three innings, Cueto gave up one single while striking out four. “That kid has some really, really good stuff,” said Ken Griffey Jr., after watching Pittsburgh’s futility from his right field spot. Said catcher Javier Valentin, “His change-up is his best pitch, even with that good fastball. With that change-up, welcome to the big leagues, kid. People say he is the next Pedro Martinez.”

The next Pedro? At this point, I’d settle for the next Ramon. 2008 is a season to hope, Reds fans.