The Ports Thing

Explain this to me - what's the big deal? Let's look at it like this. Say that you own a warehouse and folks bring stuff to you and you are concerned about bad stuff getting in - where is the securty risk?

A guy picks up the stuff at another location, and brings it to you in sealed boxes. A guy unloads the boxes from the truck and brings it to a guy with a clipboard who decides if it should come into the warehouse or not. Once approved, the stuff goes into the warehouse.

The danger lies in the origination of the boxes, where they come from and what's in them, and in the guy with the clipboard being honest. The area of least danger is the guy carrying the sealed boxes from the truck inside - he will never even know what's in them, right?

My understanding is that the Dubai company is buying the right to be the guy carrying the boxes from the truck to the warehouse, not the originator of the boxes or the shipper, or the security guy. Please explain how it matters who does that and why it's dangerous for them to do it particularly, especially when the ones doing the actual labor will all be american longshoreman.

Again, what's the big deal? The whole thing smacks of opportunism on the left (not to mention hypocracy) and knee jerk ill-informed reactionism on the right. I go with the Prez on this one.

Gay Marriage post reboot

In case you missed it, the Gay Marriage post of a few days ago now has 25 comments! Take a read through them and see if you would like to add to a wide ranging discussion on this topic, plus some other topics, like the Bible's consistency as a document, and much more.

Let's Teach to the Test

I may be taking my life in my hands here - since both my 'co-bloggers' are teachers - and because I'm pointing to something in the Washington Post - but off we go:

I've never really understood why testing gets teachers so excited. Always seemed like a good idea to me. This Let's Teach to the Test is, I think, a good presentation of why 'Teaching to the Test' is NOT bad. The better phrase is 'Teaching to the Standard', which is what we really want teachers to to.

David

Another reason to NEVER vote for Chuck Hagel

It's because he can always be counted to say crap like this -

"And Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, a Republican and Vietnam war veteran, told The Omaha World-Herald, "If he'd been in the military, he would have learned gun safety."

Note that he only gets news from RINO statements like these, and not for any ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENT. Let's get this guy out of the '08 race before Iowa, ok?

The whole story is here, where we get Hagel's quote right after Reid's latest nutball diatribe.

Finally a post on gay marriage!

I know...it is what you have all been waiting for. You are very welcome.

I came across this on the National Review website.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200602160828.asp

It is an article by Ramesh Ponnuru about a sensible idea on the subject. The idea is to enact a law that gives people the right to give rights to another person concerning medical decisions and such. It stays away from "domestic partnership" or any other such marriage terms. It is meant so that ANYONE (for example a brother and sister sharing an apartment and splitting bills) can benefit from it. The idea is to confer some benefits on partnerships but not including any mention of sexual relationships in the law.

The reason this is interesting to me is that the gay marriage issue has always troubled me on one account. I am a devout Christian and therefore am completely against homosexuality and the "gay" lifestyle. It is a religious issue for me. I am not homophobic (and being someone that exists in a Arts-related field...i wouldn't last long if i was). I just believe it to be wrong. HOWEVER, there are plenty of things in this world that i believe to be wrong that the government is involved in. I am also VERY aware of the need to respect all people and the choices they make. Where i am troubled is the idea of being against someone having the "right" to things like visitation at a hospital or making medical decisions, etc. To deny someone that seems to approach being just mean...and i dont quite know what to make of that.

I will never support "gay marriage" because marriage is a religious thing as far as i am concerned (there is probably a debate to be had about whether the government ever should have got in the marriage business in the first place). Civil Unions to me is just a way to get around the word "marriage". For that reason i don't like that either. However i MIGHT (again...haven't really thought about it enough to decide) not have a problem with conferring on everyone the right to pair up with someone (for instance i know a couple of older widows at my church that are roomates for expense reasons) for the mutual benefit of both.

Anyway...just thought i would throw the idea out there. This way David and RMR can tell me how wrong i am without having to call me or talk loudly at me in my livingroom. :)

LoydRight

I Don't Get This Cheney Thing.

I understand it being a big deal when the VP shoots somebody. But i don't get what the press is mad about here. If i were Cheney (As an aside...God help us all if i were!) i would say this : "I understand many of you in the press corp. are upset that you didn't find out about this shooting until a day after it happens. This was an accident and an emergency. I dealt with it as such. A dear friend of mine was injured and i spent my time making sure that he and his family were cared for. I am sorry that you didn't find out about this sooner but in the end, reporting is your job and not mine. If you want to find things out sooner then do your job better and stop griping at me for not doing it for you. Reporting the things that happen in my personal life, be they positive or negative, to the media never has been nor ever will be a priority in my life and you guys are just going to have figure that out and get over it."

This story is interesting because a VP was in a shooting incident. Beyond that it is a political joke. It means nothing. It should and will go away as long as the victim makes a full recovery. MY prediction is that (again as long the victim is okay) the Democrats and MSM will go way overboard with this and shoot themselves (Hello irony!) in the foot. It has already begun with Lawrence O'Donnell http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/was-cheney-drunk_b_15646.html suggesting that Cheney was drunk and that THAT is the reason for the delay in reporting. (BTW...just to show you the lunacy of it...his evidence for this is the police report that says the incident didn't involve alcohol...umm....okay?)

The lunacy of the left goes on and on.....

New Abramoff and Bush photo released

Saw this today - courtesy of BlogsforBush. It's the latest suspicious photo of the President and Jack Abramoff:

I think that Bush is the red arrow in Crawford, Texas, and that Abramoff is the other one in Washington. With this damning evidence, I guess they have proved a connection...

How's your world view?

Well, the Bush "open mike" story had an interesting quote -

However, the microphones stayed on for a few minutes. That allowed journalists back at the White House to eavesdrop on Bush's defense of the eavesdropping. His private statements were basically no different from what he's said in public.

What, he didn't dive into nefarious plans to destroy the country? How's that fit your world view, libs?

More on the King Funeral Travesty

Two great articles today on the disgusting display at the King funeral this week.

First, Mary Mitchell , an African-American columnist, no conservative she, and Lee Harris from TCS Daily, who both have great comments to make. I also would encourage you to visit the RCP blog, which quotes both articles and has this comment:

The left is welcome to screech and froth and spew as much hatred as they want over this President. Lord knows the hard right had its collective fits over Clinton all through the 90's. Yet it is inconceivable that a former Republican President would have seen fit to launch an attack on Bill Clinton on the occasion of a dignitary's death. It wouldn't have happened. Because the unwritten rule has always been - up until the left recently lost its mind, that is - that some things were above politics.

Is nothing sacred? Is no ground hallowed? I am truly sickened by this, even more so having had time to think on it.

Wellstone redux

Remember the Wellstone memorial (I hope I am spelling the name right)? Well, the libs are at it again, taking what should be an honest and heartfelt farewell for a quality American and turning it into a political pep rally. You can read about it in this article - Four presidents and a rowdy funeral for a King - Yahoo! News.

What are they trying to say? The president gave a eulogy to Ms. King's valuable legacy of fighting for civil rights, and the rest try to score points on him. Is that what her life was about? Doesn't she deserve soaring oratory for living her life the way she did? Doesn't she rate that? Do they have no taste?

It's just like the way they took the funeral of Paul Wellstone, a liberal to be sure, but a decent guy with real convictions (he flew commercial in coach as a Senator, just for an example) who deserved to be honored, and not have his funeral cheapened with political theatrics.

It's disgusting. And it proves that they will never learn.

Originalism vs. the Prenumbra

There has been a good discussion going on about originalism in the constitution a few posts back, and I wanted to draw attention to it. The two posts involved are here and here. Thanks to Meg for her comments on the posts.

Home Run!

At least according to CBS's flash polling. Here are some sample results:

VIEWS OF THE SPEECH'S PROPOSALS (Among speech viewers)
Approve 77%
Disapprove 23%

WOULD BUSH’S PROPOSALS MAKE YOUR LIFE … (Among speech viewers)
Better 59%
Worse 9%
No effect 33%

WILL BUSH PROTECT YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES? (Among speech viewers)
Yes 59%
No 41%

And a really interesting one...

WHO IS WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ? (Among speech viewers)
After speech
U.S. 52%
Insurgents 8%
Neither side 40%

Last week
U.S. 40%
Insurgents 8%
Neither side 52%

This is a complete reversal of public opinion on the war.

I'd say a successful speech. I do agree with Podhoretz, though - drop the laundry list in the speech in the future. It's antiquated and limits the speech's overall rhetorical effect. Hit the big stuff and leave the various kinds of wood we can burn for alternative fuels to later.

Kerry full of it...AGAIN!

Here's the latest departure from reality, courtesy of Drudge:

KERRY CLAIMS: 53% OF CHILDREN DO NOT GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL
Wed Feb 01 2006 10:43:40 ET

Sen. John Kerry claimed this morning on NBC TODAY that 53% of America's children do not graduate from high school -- a claim that raised eyebrows in the NBC control room, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.Kerry made the comments after host Katie Couric asked the former presidential candidate about Bush's State of the Union call to train 70,000 additional teachers in math and science.

COURIC: He wanted to train 70,000 additional teachers in math and science.

KERRY: That's terrific. But 53 percent of our children don't graduate from high school. Kids don't have after-school programs... He didn't ask America to sacrifice anything to achieve great goals and the biggest example is making the tax cut permanent for the wealthiest people in America. The average American struggles to find time to take carry of families, working two or three jobs... It's a disgrace. He did not tell the real state of the union.

Kerry's 53% claim conflicts with a recent press release from the U.S. Census Bureau: "High School Graduation Rates Reach All-Time High" And the Census Bureau's own website states: 85.9 Percent Of Americans Aged 20-24 Are High School Graduates. (U.S. Census Bureau Website, www.census.gov , Accessed 2/1/06)

Don't they realize that we can LOOK THIS STUFF UP?