Like the Man said.....

.....It's cultural

Ragin' Dave of Four Right Wing Wackos fame has a must read post up on the Sean Taylor story. (Dave's source material, the Jason Whitlock post is here.) Reading Dave's post, I can't help but think of Bill Whittle's Tribes essay.

Like Dave said: Think about this. It's not genetic. It's not racial. It's cultural. Hatred and violence don't know a skin color.

6000

and change

Some time in the past 25 hours, the Supply Side Politics hit meter rolled over the 6,000 mark.

Thank You. Very Much.

I appreciate every one of those hits. Thank you for your continued support of Supply Side Politics. I'll strive to continue posting on the previously established irregular pattern.

Thanks again.

Michael

Ownin' Up

The lapse in retribution is rectified

A few weeks back, I posted the text of "Free" (27 October, to be exact). Here's the original that set the whole thing in motion:



You're right: I still haven't figured out how to embed YouTube clips. Still, it's just a click away.....

Not taking the bait

and still trying to figure out the degrees of separation.....

.....but that's another story for another time.

Via Joe at Cold Fury, comes an excellent link to the Fred File, where Fred! espouses his opinion on the UN controlling the inter web tube net thingy. I've yet to read anything from Fred Thompson that I seriously disagree with, and his recent post is no exception.

More soon. Late, tired; you've heard this song before

Follow up

Two comments within 24 hours! I'm both humbled and insulted.

It appears that my "Open Letter to the Secretary of State" from last evening has created a minor stir on the inter tube web net thingies. Even if I can't spell "Secretary" correctly. I'll leave the spelling error in the original post; I should either post whilst sober or use the spell-checker.

A bit of history behind that post: when I first read the "Rambos of Rapproachment: Diplomats Well-Nigh Refuse To Take Assigned Postings In Iraq" and the "A “Revolt” At The State Department?" posts (and the associated links) over at Ace of Spades HQ, I was having a particularly bad week both in the Stupid Business and at home. Most of that post was written out of frustration with My Life at The Moment. I'd suggest that it was a poor attempt at humor, but I'd offend the poor attempts at humor everywhere.

Note to Self: don't post the "saved as draft" crap unless it's salient.

Since it's ultimately more important, I'll address the "humbled" aspect of this whole fiasco.

Consul-At-Arms has generously linked my post on his blog, in conjunction with his comment. Sir: Thank you for your service(s). In the past hour I have been on a short, but fascinating tour of your blog, and will add it to the SSP blogroll forthwith.

Consul-At-Arms, you are obviously not one of the "panty-waist Foggy Bottom wankers" that I disparaged in my original post. I (should) know better: the MSM often makes mountains out of mole hills, distorting minor dissent into full-blown rebellion.

In other news: as for "insulted":

Anonymous calls me a "chicken hawk". Anonymous (if that is indeed your real name); for your reference I do not own "cammy pjs"; in fact, my pajamas are imprinted with little sailboats piloted by teddy bears. I hope that helps.

Caption Contest

Hillary's reaction after being told that the buffett has been stocked with her favorite dish: penne pasta tossed with sun dried tomatoes and the souls of aborted fetuses in a light cream sauce.

Your captions are welcome in the comments. thatisall

An Open Letter to the Secratary of State

cc: President G.W. Bush, White House

Dr. Rice:

I'll go.

I will go to Iraq to fill the diplomatic mission there.

I have read reports lately that some in the diplomatic corps have been openly refusing to serve in Iraq, despite their oath of office. As one dissenting "patriot" once said: "Screw 'em".

I'll go to Iraq, for as long as it takes. And I'll re-up for the coming "reconstruction" in Iran, as well.

As far as my resumé Curriculum Vitae is concerned: it is obvious that I have no experience or training in formal diplomacy. Please allow me to address these issues point by point, surely you'll see that the appearant "negatives" are in fact positive points to our mutual favor.

Although I have no documentable "diplomatic" experience, upon closer inspection you'll see that I have 15+ years of experience in the Stupid (Automotive) Business. Daily, I have to deal with a customer whose language I do not speak, and whose customs and practices are completely incomprehensible. Iraq will be a piece of cake compared to the daily crap of which I currently am obliged to put up with.

As I sit amongst my collegues in the Stupid Business, within earshot of my small but tiny cube, I am exposed to a veritable cornacopia of languages including (but not limited to) Japanese, Hindi, Spanish, Korean, British English, Hindi (the other kind), Mandirin Chinese, Russian, Polish, one of the other Chinese dialecs. There's even one joker speaking French (I am not making that up). Beyond that, I have limited language skills: I can speak several variants of English, passible Texican Spanish; and I can order a beer and inquire as to the whereabouts of the restroom and generally be polite in half a dozen languages.

I do not hold a Degree from an Ivy League college, so don't worry, I didn't drink the Kool-Ade. I earned a BBA from a large, midwestern University (that's going to lose to Ohio State on Saturday).

Having 8 year old twin daughters and a 3 1/2 year old son, I have "mad skilz" in the conflict management / mediation department, along with the patience of Job.

As I have worked in the Dearborn, Michigan area for nearly five years in the past, I have a profound affection for Middle Eastern food. I can easily "go native" as far as culinary issues are concerned. I can even make hummus all by myself!

Upon a thorough examination of my education and experience, Dr. Rice, I'm sure you'll see that I am perfectly suited for the diplomatic mission in Iraq / Iran, unlike the panty-waist Foggy Bottom wankers who are resisting your direction and neglecting their Oaths of Office.

Call me?

Michael

Didn't I already say that?

It's like deja vu all over again

Just two weeks short of three years ago, I put up a post on the subject of abortion. A "position paper" of sorts; written off-line in a small, but tiny studio apartment in Louisville, Kentucky (stoopid work, it's a long and sad story, give it a miss), to be posted from the local library the next evening. In retrospect, it's a bit rambling, yet my position on the subject has not changed.

The original post is here; please note that I was blogging under the pseudonym "Heywood" at the time.

In the interim, the post was all but ignored until December 2006, when it was linked by Pat over at 240worthofpudding. He has an interesting take on the subject, please do go read.

Lo and behold: I hook up to the inter-web tube-net thingy tonight and the subject is front and center. Via Mike of Cold Fury fame, comes this link to the Garry Willis / LAT piece that all the cool kids are talking about. Although I share Mike's apprehension about the subject, I'm going to re-post the text of my 19 November 2004 post (with the silly 'Heywoods' taken out and a mild editing of punctuation).

The Abortion Issue and the Issue of Abortion

(Originally posted 19 November 2004)

Just looking at that word on the screen makes almost everyone cringe. For many people, it’s the one issue that “pushes the button” and sends folks into fits of incoherent rage. On both sides. If you will bear with me, and take everything in context and hear me out, maybe I can shed my personal light on these two troubling issues.

“Two issues?” you may ask. Yes, two issues: the Abortion Issue and the Issue of Abortion. “Sophistry!” you cry. Not at all. There are two distinct issues at stake here, let’s explore them both. So go refill your drink (make it a double) or get a fresh cup of coffee or nuke some popcorn or whatever you do to bunker down. I promise to try to keep this as short as possible, after all, I don’t have Bill Whittle’s bandwidth.

First, let’s explore The Abortion Issue, the campaign plank that all political parties have. “Where do you stand on the Abortion Issue?” Candidates across the board are asked that question ad nauseum. It has even filtered down to the infinitesimally local level. We have a family friend who is the elected Clerk of our municipality. Being a good incumbent democrat, the first line in her campaign literature is that she in a “pro-choice township clerk”. I am not making this up, if I could post the image, I’d scan in her campaign literature and include it with this post. But, alas..... May I ask a (not so) rhetorical question? What does the township clerk’s position on the Abortion Issue have to do with their ability to do the job at hand? Really, WTF? I don’t give a damn what the dog-catcher’s views on the Abortion Issue are, just as long as there aren’t rabid dogs roaming the streets of suburbia. The Clerk’s job is to properly register voters (a really scary thought based on personal experience), record deeds, and other clerky type activities. The last time I checked, medical procedures do not fall within the jurisdiction of the local Clerk’s office.

Which illustrates the point. The Abortion Issue is defining. It instantly polarizes the audience, chiseling a line into granite that is difficult for anyone to cross. And just because the example presented is of a democrat hawking the Abortion Issue, don’t be fooled. There are an equal number of republicans running for Library Trustee or whatever who prominently display their position on the Issue.

Here’s the deal. Both sides profit from the Issue. Refer back to the previously unpublished “Michael's First Maxim on The Big Issues” as follows:

Never base your vote on an issue on which both sides have a vested interest in the status quo.

Simple, concise, right to the point. I like it. “But what do you mean, Michael?” Good question, allow me to explain.

Every election cycle, particularly a Presidential election, this Issue is front and center. And why not? It’s a big generator of cash for both sides.

You see, dear reader, the republicans go out campaigning, preaching to the faithful, that they are “this close to ending the scourge of abortion forever”. Yes, if the republicans are elected, they’ll work day and night to make sure that not another abortion is ever performed in this country. “Righteous, brother” the faithful say, “How much do you need?” as they reach for their checkbook.

Meanwhile, on the other side of town, the democrats are out campaigning that unless they are elected, the evil republicans are going to “take away the right to choose” and the nazi’s will take control and no one will ever be free to choose again. “Far out, man” their constituents say, “Dude, lemme write you a check”.

Both sides raise a tremendous amount of money hawking the Issue; if there was a way to quantify the take based solely on this Issue, I believe we would find that the two sides profits equally, dollar for dollar. Both sides would be financially crippled if the Issue was ever taken off the table. This is my point: if tomorrow the Issue was resolved one way or the other, carved in stone, and was no longer an Issue to be Campaigned Upon, what would happen?

Well, let me tell you what would happen. Both sides would see a ton of money up and disappear. Gone. Poof. Cash no more. “What, no more money? Whatever shall we do?”

Both sides would have to start coming up with realistic positions on real issues. Both sides would have to actually have to appeal to the collective voter’s logic and intelligence, rather that the collective Neolithic emotional appeal.

Since I bat from the Right side, I see this as being far more devastating to the democrats than the republicans. In my twisted world-view; no middle class working voter would ever vote for a democrat again, suddenly National Security / Defense, Education, Social Security, and relief from oppressive taxation would become real issues in a campaign, and quite frankly, the dems cannot compete in those arenas. Roughly half of the dems’ base is gone. Poof.

The republicans would suffer losses as well, although I can’t imagine on the same magnitude as the dem’s losses. Sure there will be the fundamentalist constituency who currently vote republican solely on the basis of the republicans’ stance on the Abortion Issue, who will start voting for the democrats because of their position on other social issues. But by and large, the people who vote republican because of the Abortion Issue are a smaller percentage of their base than the people who vote for democrats because of their position on the Issue.

I’ll say it again: Never base your vote on an issue on which both sides have a vested interest in the status quo. The current disposition on the Abortion Issue is the status quo.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

“But, Michael” you ask “where do you stand on the Issue of Abortion?” Good question, I thought you’d never ask. I present you with the Ultimate Position on the Issue of Abortion (or at least my ultimate position on the Issue):

Go get yourself another drink, and bring the bottle back with you.

“We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Familiar words, right? If not, go yea therefore to the next meeting of the School Board of the School District from which you graduated high school and beat senseless, with a shovel, the Members of the Board for failing you in your education. In my view, it is down-right criminal for schools to graduate students without a firm grasp of the concepts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But I digress......

I define myself politically as a Constitutional Conservative. The Constitution of the United States is THE WORD in my world. Go read it now and be prepared to discuss at length.

OK, you’re back.

Constitutionally speaking, once Life begins, said Life is endowed with the Constitutional Rights that you and I enjoy. Therein lies The Question: When does Life begin? At conception? At birth? Somewhere in-between? My answer is an unqualified “Yes”. Let’s explore our options.

We can all agree that Life begins quite some time before birth. (If you don’t see it that way, chances are you stopped reading by the fourth or fifth paragraph. Fine. Skitter off back to the Democratic Underground and start a thread about what a dangerous Fascist nut job that Michael character is. Make sure the shiny side is out when you make your tin-foil hat and ditch your cell phone because, you know, they track you when you use your cell phone.) OK, that should take care of the whole issue of late term abortions, which are Just.Wrong. A procedure that was rarely performed in this country but yet the republicans made a big splash with some of their constituency by making it illegal and the democrats made a big stink about how the fundamentalist republicans were taking away abortion rights. Yawn. This isn’t China, where the practice is common-place. Late term abortions were never an everyday procedure in America. Period. The republicans’ late term abortion ban was nothing more than pandering to a certain faction of their base, so they could show the faithful that they are doing something about the Abortion Issue. Please refer back to Michael’s First Maxim on the Big Issues. Nothing to see here, move along.

Here’s the leap that some of my brethren on the Conservative side of the aisle will have issue with: As Life begins some time before birth, it also holds that Life begins some time after conception.

After.Conception. I know that for a lot of you that cuts against the grain. Accepted. I’ve been swimming against the current my entire life. While I might not agree with your emotion or theology, I respect your position. Scientifically speaking, half of the “conceptions” do not result in pregnancy. You know that, I know that, so this whole debate over “conception” is a gray area.

So when does Life begin? At the first heartbeat? At the first brainwaves? When they start kicking? After the ultrasound? I honestly don’t know.

This I do know. Life begins long before birth. Life begins some time after conception. Clear as mud, right?

There are a number of popular arguments on when Life begins put forth by both sides. I do not have the patience or bandwidth to list them all. The problem with most of these arguments (and their rebuttals) is that they are based in emotion, theology, or pure narcissism. None of the various arguments are based on science or the Constitution.

Therein lies the problem. Until we can scientifically define when Life begins, this debate shall continue.

Let’s sum this up before I drop my bombshell:

· Once Life begins, that Life is endowed with full Constitutional Rights.

· We cannot currently scientifically define the precise point where Life begins.

Here’s the payoff: since we can not scientifically define when life begins and, without such definition, the point at which said Life is automatically endowed with Constitutional Rights is in question, the current laws in place on the Issue of Abortion are the Law of the Land and they should be upheld.

Once medical science has advanced to the point where the definition of when Life begins can be carved in stone, I will fully support an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America permanently banning the procedure after that point. Those of you who know me know of the sacred place that I hold our Constitution and my long standing position that there is no issue that merits it’s amendment.