A Free and Moral Agent

March 02, 2005

The First Amendment

Some members of the government now want to regulate speech that you  PAY to "hear"!

From CNN via Netscape News:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Tuesday he would push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio.

"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.

Mr. Stevens has gotten too big for his britches. I'm willing to accept a reasonable argument that some sort of decency standards should be applied to the public airwaves -- it's a decency in the public square issue.

But I have paid for the broadcast via cable/satellite media, and I don't want the government to give a fig about how ::shudders:: indecent ::gasps:: it is. The humanity! So what if someone dares utter The Seven Dirty Words? Cry me a river.

I'm sorry I'm not making a better argument tonight. I'm trying to reinstall VS.NET 2002, and I'm feeling neither coherent nor patient.
posted by Tom at 5:54:00 AM | 3 comments

January 31, 2005

State of the Union 2005

After President Bush dedicated a considerable portion of his second Inaugural Address to foreign policy (beginning the end of global tyranny, or something...), I'm hoping he spends most of the SotU on domestic stuff. Like what, you ask? ...How about Social Security reform, immigration policy, school vouchers, the national deficit, and tax cuts? Here in my neck of the woods, Proposition 200 is getting some pretty serious attention.

<Digression>
A foreign government is considering challenging an American state in international tribunal. "Human rights experts" say THAT scenario could be "diplomatically embarassing for the United States." Wooo, finally! We were totally peachy until an Arizonan law cut the international mustard. Hoo boy, look out.
</Digression>

Honestly, I don't think there's anything left to be immediately said about Iraq, and the War on Terror, that hasn't been spoken. President Bush even managed (belatedly) to land on the key ideological points of going to war in Iraq, which I think were orders of magnitude more important than the WMD debate. They only thing left at this point is "stay the course."

...Now, tell me about the "thousand points of light."
posted by Tom at 7:25:00 AM | 0 comments

January 17, 2005

Newsweek profiles George W. Bush

Window of Opportunity (Newsweek)
He's hands-on, detail-oriented and hates 'yes' men. The George Bush you don't know has big dreams—and is racing the clock to realize them.

It's a three page article about the most powerful man in the world, so I recommend you take a look -- whoever you are.

I'll only exerpt one section (you're welcome):
In private, Bush rarely talks about abortion rights and gay marriage. "He doesn't even carry his family on abortion," says one family friend. "He'd probably lose a vote 3-to-1. And I bet he doesn't make one phone call on the constitutional [gay-marriage] amendment."
and I'll ask you to consider it with Andrew Sullivan's comments:
The FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] has gone unmentioned by Bush since the election - and it appears more and more like a pre-election ploy rather than a principled stand. (Of course, that's a relief but it's also an indication of how bald-faced a political maneuver this was in the first place).
Check out his whole post. Add Mr. Sullivan to the blogroll?
posted by Tom at 6:21:00 AM | 1 comments

January 16, 2005

Close the gates

Why does every stinkin' Washington scandal since WATERGATE have to end in '-gate'?

- Watergate
- Travelgate
- Docs-in-Socks-gate
- Memogate/Docugate/Rathergate (this one makes senese, sort of. Can you say, poetic justic & irony?)

There are more...can you add to the list?
posted by Tom at 7:07:00 PM | 1 comments

Dan Rather on SNL

I'm a sucker for the political skits on Saturday Night Live. I was literally on the floor, in tears, watching the 2000 Election sketch about "strategery" and "lockbox." (The twit who's currently doing the George W. Bush impressions sucks. Hard. Mr. Bush is many things, but snivelly and whiny don't come to mind. Will Ferrell captured the swagger, the drawl, and the arrogance that people see.)

After Rather/Memo/Docu-gate it was Dan Rather's turn to get sketched last night. Video and transcript at Ratherbiased.com.
posted by Tom at 7:00:00 PM | 0 comments

January 14, 2005

"Right on Campus"

From today's Opinion Journal (free website registration may be required -- just put in a bogus email address). My friends know I like to post chunks of editorials every once in a while. Trust me, this is a much shorter version. Read away.

Right on Campus
Conservatives begin to infiltrate the left's last redoubt.

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Friday, January 14, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Throughout 2003 and into 2004, a surge of protests roiled American campuses. You probably think the kids were agitating against war in Iraq, right? Well, no. Students at UCLA, Michigan and many other schools were sponsoring bake sales to protest . . . affirmative action. For white students and faculty, a cookie cost (depending on the school) $1; blacks and Hispanics could buy one for a lot less.

The principle, the protesters observed, was just that governing university admission practices: rewarding people differently based on race. Indignant school officials charged the bake-sale organizers with "creating a hostile climate" for minority students, oblivious to the incoherence of their position. On what grounds could they favor race preferences in one area (admissions) and condemn them in the other (selling cookies) as racist? Several schools banned the sales, on flimsy pretexts, such as the organizers' lack of school food permits....

...But the left's long dominion over the university--the last place on earth that lefty power would break up, conservatives believed--is showing its first signs of weakening. The change isn't coming from the schools' faculty lounges and administrative offices, of course. It's coming from self-organizing right-of-center students and several innovative outside groups working to bypass the academy's elite gatekeepers....

...The number of College Republicans has almost tripled, from 400 or so campus chapters six years ago, to 1,148 today, with 120,000-plus members (compared with the College Democrats' 900 or so chapters and 100,000 members). College Republicans are thriving even on elite campuses. "We've doubled in size over the last few years, to more than 400 students," reports Evan Baehr, the square-jawed future pol heading the Princeton chapter. The number of College Republicans at Penn has also rocketed upward, says chapter president Stephanie Steward, from 25 or so members a couple of years ago to 700 today. Same story at Harvard. These young Republican activists, trudging into battleground states this fall in get-out-the-vote efforts, helped George W. Bush win....

...Yet for most of the conservative students I interviewed, traditional values did not extend to homosexuality. Though few support gay marriage, fewer still want the Constitution amended to ban it, and most are OK with state-sanctioned civil unions for gays. "I don't buy the prevalent argument that recognizing gay unions would undermine the institution of marriage," says Vanderbilt sophomore Anne Malinee, the strongly pro-life editor of the Vanderbilt Torch, the school's conservative monthly. "Of all the issues elected officials could be focusing on, why this?" Similarly, Bucknell history and economics major Charles Mitchell, culturally conservative in many respects, isn't worried about gay marriage. "I believe that homosexuality is a sin, because that's what the Bible says, but I also believe that if two people of the same sex love each other and can get a priest to marry them, the propriety of that is none of the state's business...."


Republicans on campus will be an interesting development to watch.
posted by Tom at 6:51:00 AM | 0 comments

January 13, 2005

Site update

Added a blogroll of sorts. These are the political / current events blogs that I read on a relatively regular basis. Categorized for your pleasure. I'll introduce you to each of them as time goes on.

UPDATE: Please post in the comments if you know of any good American liberal blogs (or ANY good blog, for that matter). I'm not terrible enamored with either of the Liberal Weenies I linked.
posted by Tom at 6:29:00 AM | 1 comments

January 12, 2005

Homosexuality and the Lutheran Church

[Disclaimer: I'm a baptised/confirmed Methodist. I attend my girlfriend's Lutheran church. When I was in elementary school, my family attended a Lutheran church. Methodism and Lutheranism are the two (Christian Protestant) religious denominations I've had most of my religious contact with.]

A task force for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has deliberated on the church's official position on homosexuality and will issue its recommendations on Wednesday. An overview is provided on the ELCA's website. There's also a 12/16/04 ELCA News Service PR, and a timeline of the process. The issues at stake are:
  1. Shall the ELCA sanction same-gender relationships?
  2. Shall the ELCA ordain ("roster") individuals in committed same-gender relationship?
  3. What is the ELCA's social statement on sexuality?
My pastor introduced and discussed the first two issues in the past Sunday's sermon. He was very graceful and respectful. The sermon's theme was "Keep Your Eye on the Ball." Pastor reminded us -- gently -- that there any many more, and many more important, parts of being a Christian than getting into a polarizing debate on homosexuality.

Then, Pastor shared his personal thoughts on the issue. My gut feeling is that the ELCA recommendations are going to follow suit.
  1. First, Pastor believes that the ELCA should not sanction same-gender relationships. He believes that governmental avenues, such as civil-unions, would be more appropriate, and have the potential to provide the same legal benefits that are currently available to individuals in heterosexual relationships.

  2. Second, Pastor described this a little differently than the ELCA's website. Pastor said the church was deliberating on rostering homosexual individuals -- which is more specific than "rostering of persons in committed gay or lesbian relationships" (from the ELCA's Introduction). Pastor was not in favor of ordaining homosexuals. Obviously, this also means he would oppose rostering "persons in committed gay or lesbian relationships."
The congregation's response was muted. Mostly, we were digesting the information and figuring out what it all meant. Big-picture stuff. I live in a purple state, so I hope it's fair to say that most people in the congregation were not morally content with something that Pastor said. I was glad to see, though, that almost everyone filed out to shake Pastor's hand after service and give him words of support. It could not have been easy.

Tomorrow: My reaction to my Pastor's statements, my thoughts on the ELCA task force, and if/how the government should be involved.

Wednesday: I attend a Wednesday evening discussion group at my church. I'll have reactions and comments from that. There might even be a roundup from across the web, if you're lucky.

And someday, I can't wait to share the American Exceptionalism Intro with everyone.
posted by Tom at 7:25:00 AM | 0 comments

Previous Posts


Atom XML Feed

Libertarians

Armed Forces

Right-Wing Wackos

Liberal Weenies

Archives

eXTReMe Tracker