Thinkin’bout Stuff

Submitted for your review:

• You are driving down a street, cell phone to your ear, reaching for another fry with a cup of Coke wedged between your thighs, when a young boy darts into the street after a ball. You swerve and hit a parked car… who’s to blame?
• You know the land is below sea level, on a fault line, along a coast prone to hurricanes, but you build a million dollar house anyway. Nature huffs and puffs and blows your house down. Who should pay?
• The area you live in is prone to major fires but all you can do is ensure you have a good evacuation plan because the state has decided that brush thinning, removal of trees within feet of your house or even dead trees in some instances are all prohibited due to environmental concerns.  A fire is started by an arsonist, another by downed power lines, another by lightning, and yet another by a child playing with matches. Who do you blame? Who should pay?

In each of these cases, the proximal cause is clearly defined. The child ran into the street, I had to swerve.  The hurricane was a direct hit on our town and we lost everything. The fire was started by the little boy and thousands of acres burned.

As I’ve attempted to show in the examples above, “blame” should not end with the proximal cause.  In fact, in many of these examples, the proximal cause may not even be related to the root cause, and it is the root cause which must be addressed to 1) determine liability and 2) prevent repeat events.

For example, if you had been focusing on the road instead of your fries and cell phone, perhaps you would have been able to react properly to a somewhat predictable event.  You did not know a child would dart into the street at that very moment, but you did know the potential for that event existed and may even have experienced that event in the course of your driving history. Your actions increased the risk the subsequent event would occur, hitting the parked car or perhaps even the child.

Similarly, if you knew that building your house near the coast would eventually lead to your house being destroyed, whose fault is it when it blows down? And how much is government to blame for willingly accepting development in these areas in exchange for tax dollars?

In the case of the California fires, the fact that speculation, and in some cases known events ,about the proximal causes of the various fires, incudes lightning, downed power lines, arson, and just about anything else that can cause a spark, to some degree indicates that one or more fires was virtually inevitable. The 10-12 year old with a match is not the root cause of one of these fires; his act was one trigger event among a multitude of possible trigger events that lead to the fire.  But the root cause or causes behind the magnitude of the fire and the subsequent damage are independent of the spark that caused the initial flame.

Problems are solved and risk events minimized by addressing root causes, not proximal causes.  A simple test:

If I eliminate the cause, will the problem be solved and future risk be reduced or eliminated?  If not, we are probably not dealing with a root cause.

The question that must be asked: What were the events that lead not only to the starting of the fire, but to the magnitude of the event? Anything that adds to the risk or adds to the magnitude of the event should be documented and addressed. That is the only way to reduce the risk of recurrence and the magnitude should the risk event be realized.

Will punishing the family of this child prevent future out of control fires from destroying thousands of acres and causing millions of dollars in damages?  Of course not.  Should the child be punished? Yes, as much as any other child who plays with matches and causes a fire. But should the blame for the magnitude of this event be placed upon his shoulders or that of his family’s? In my opinion, no.  Not only would that not solve anything, it would allow those who need to address the root causes to hide behind the proximal cause.

And that will lead to more out of control fires.

Soccer season is over. Work is calming down a bit. I find myself Thinkin’bout Stuff again.

Interesting how little has changed since my last post. For example, I found this snippet that I never got around to completing and posting from May 2007:

Anyone else getting tired of the Democrats wasting time and money on this investigation into why federal prosecutors were fired? Besides a political witch hunt, what is the goal here? What critical national need are they filling? What major crises are they solving? Assuming Gonzales were forced to resign, how will that make life better for you and me? Who really cares why they were fired when they can be fired without a reason anyway.. just as has happened in every other administration prior to this one?

The focus of this session of Congress seems to be revenge for having lost past elections. It’s all about playing gotcha and gimmee. What have they accomplished beyond empty political statements, like sending bills to the president they know will be vetoed effectively delaying the funding of the troops so that they can make a point. Who cares about your damn point! Stop making points! We get your point! Now go do your damn job!

You want to fire someone? Fire Reid, Pelosi and all of these renegade committee chairs who believe it is the role of Congress to spend hours grilling administration officials even when the evidence clearly indicates no wrong doing; who believe that anyone who the president believes is qualified for any position in the administration is, by definition, not qualified, and that reading and passing legislation is more of a hobby to be done in whatever spare time that is available after the inquisitions have ended for the day.

You want to talk about “worst” lists… so far this Congress is on a path to be the worst in history.  Don’t agree? What have they accomplished? Any bills out there to reduce dependency of foreign oil? Anything to encourage an increase in refinery capacity? Any real legislation to secure our borders? Any action to protect the tax cuts that will expire so that the economy can continue to grow? Let’s make the question open ended… what have they accomplished?

That was May 2007…  

Well, since then, the approval rating for this Congress plunged to a tie for the all time low of 18% in August (compare that to 45% in February 2005) and currently polls in the low to mid 20’s.   Interesting side note… in an ABC News/Washington Post poll, the majority of those polled believe Congress has not accomplished anything and only 25% blame the Democrats…  they do realize the Dems control both Houses, right? (It has to be bugging Reid and Pelosi that President Bush has been polling better than the Dem controlled Congress).

So here we are, 6 months later and this Congress has still accomplished virtually nothing of note.  We are still having ridiculous hearings, arguing over whether the President has the right to fire federal prosecutors.  Congress is still crying that they aren’t being treated as the “co-equal” branch of the government that they are, simply because the President has exercised his veto authority.  And now they came this close ((  )) to blocking the confirmation of a new Attorney General who was hand picked for nomination by Senator Charles Schumer, who apparently has decided to hold his nose and vote for his own candidate for the job.

And why is there so much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands in the hallowed halls of Congress these days? Nominee Mukasey has refused to declare waterboarding to be a form of torture without having the opportunity to review classified documentation that will not be available to him until he is confirmed. 

Leaky Leahy and Diver Dan Kennedy are incensed since they have already declared that waterboarding is torture and is illegal.  Unfortunately for them, the lawmaking body which views them as <cough> leaders and who actually could make waterboarding illegal, have politely declined to do so,  preferring to carp about Mukasey instead of acting upon there own supposed consciences.

But the fun continues.  Senator Obama chides Senator Clinton for backing a resolution labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, presumably opening the door for President Bush to attack Iran.  Senator Clinton fires back that the resolution does not give the president the authority to attack Iran and if Senator Obama felt this was so important, wonders why he didn’t bother to show up and vote against it.  Senator Obama counters with his own resolution to tell the President he can not attack Iran without going to Congress first (which, by the way, is not true), Senator Clinton says the resolution is a waste of time because the first resolution did not give the President authority to attack, but then sends a letter (with 28 other senators… drafted by Senator Pistol Packin’ Jim Webb) to the President to let him know he doesn’t have authority to attack, but Obama does not sign the letter….  following all of this?  I’m not…

If Iran is providing terrorists with weapons to attack our troops in Iraq, and if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, and if we are in a war against Islamic terrorism….  why would we not want to have the option to…  um…  I don’t know…  attack the terrorists?

Oh.. by the way.  None of these resolutions or letters does a damn thing, they are non-binding… kind of like a letter to the editor… gets them on the record, let’s them get it off their chest, but doesn’t really change anything.    And Congress still hasn’t approved any of the annual spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, but they have time for all of this stuff.

Speaking of Senators Obama and Clinton, when last we left Senator Obama, he was considering the option of invading Pakistan.  Today we learned that, unlike the proposed resolution to our differences with Pakistan, Senator Obama would solve the minor differences we have with Iran by offering them membership in the WTO and by having direct one-on-one diplomatic negotiations with Adolf Ahmadinejad. On the other hand, we learned that Senator Clinton supports New York Governor Spitzer’s unilateral decision to provide drivers licenses to illegal aliens, unless of course she opposes the idea, but if given the option, she would pretty much just ask that we not ask such hard questions…. after all, it’s not nice to pick on girls.

I sincerely hope that, should the country go insane and elect HRC president, she not pull this weak everyone-is-picking-on-me crap when dealing with the leaders of other countries, friend and foe alike… they’ll eat her (and us) alive.

So many thoughts, so little time.

Virginia Tech Tragedy

My heart goes out to the friends and families of the victims of this horrific attack. I haven’t written this week largely due to this tragedy; not ready to write about the events that unfolded Monday morning and not interested in writing about anything else with this weighing so heavily on my mind. 

Tonight the major TV news outlets are showing clips of a video this murderer made before he killed all of these innocent people. While showing the video may fill a need to satisfy a morbid curiosity, I hope it does not serve as a catalyst for others to follow this same path.

Some, like Rosie O’Donnell, will take this as an opportunity to push a gun control agenda; others will blame a society where we protect the rights of potentially dangerous people at the risk of leaving ourselves vulnerable to this type of tragedy (I fall somewhat into that category). But the bottom line is that we will never be able to protect ourselves and our children from evil 100% of the time.

In situations like this, we feel helpless and afraid. Our reaction, as we have seen in past encounters with evil such as 911, is to respond by grasping for answers, looking for something or someone to blame, because if we can figure out who or what is to blame, maybe we can prevent it from ever happening again and move on with our lives.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. 

Stricter controls on guns may or may not have prevented this particular incident from occurring on this particular day, but evil will find a way. Allowing professors to carry weapons on campus, as some have suggested, may have reduced the carnage, but there is no guarantee.

Perhaps if privacy laws were not so strict, Seung-Hui would never have been flying under the radar and would not have been in a position to carry out his delusion driven attack; then again, perhaps others who are no threat to anyone would be shunned and isolated simply because they sought treatment for depression at some point in their lives. Where’s the balance? Is there a right answer? I think it really depends… 

Speaking of Rosie…

After Columbine, Rosie said we need more gun control laws (even though several gun laws on the books were already broken in that incident, which would lead one to believe more laws would have simply meant more broken laws). 

Then in 2002, Rosie explained she didn’t really mean it, admitting her body guards carry guns and indicating her comments after Columbine were based upon an emotional knee-jerk reaction. She said that all she wants is all guns to be licensed and registered: 

Now, following the Virginia Tech incident, Rosie says we should amend the Constitution and that we need to take away “illegal” handguns: 

So… how do we decide who has the right to carry a hand gun and who does not? Seems like, according to folks like Rosie, it depends on who you are. If you are a Rosie O’Donnell, you have a right to carry a hand gun or have a hired gun; the rest of us need to be kept in line.

Two classes, two sets of rights. 

Speaking of class…

The governor of a state should not consider himself above the laws of the state he has been elected to lead.

Shortly after the accident involving NJ Gov. Jon Corzine, nearly as high a priority as ensuring the governor was cared for was finding someone to blame. There was a search for the mystery truck that caused the chain event that lead to Gov. Corizine being rushed to a hospital in critical condition. 

One thing that caused me to smirk, just a bit, was thinking about how much time and effort would have been put in to find that mystery truck, which was not actually involved in the accident itself, if you or I had been in that passenger seat instead of the Governor of New Jersey. How often is an accident caused by a vehicle not involved in the actual crash and how much resource is expended trying to find that vehicle? 

But we must find those responsible for the governor’s critical injuries and bring them to justice. That is the way we view the world these days… some one must be blamed and punished. 

With all due respect, and continuing sympathy and concern for his current situation, the governor need look no further than his mirror to find the person who is responsible for his being so badly injured. 

For starters, we learn that the governor does not wear a seat belt. I often questioned the man’s judgment when he was a senator, but this indicates three things to me. First, being among the US aristocracy exempts him from the rules you and I must abide by; second, he is going to do whatever he wants regardless of the evidence, whether it be seat belts or taxes; and third, no matter what happens, it’s someone else’s fault. 

Then we learn that the SUV he was riding in was traveling at 91 mph!!!!! 

I have never in my life traveled at 91 mph, even in states with much higher speed limits than New Jersey. I can’t imagine so blatantly breaking the laws of NJ when I visit. Not only did he endanger himself and his staff (yes, I know he wasn’t driving, but do you think the state trooper who was driving that fast was doing so without, at a minimum, the full knowledge of the governor?), he endangered every other person he passed on the road that day. Why? because he is the governor and can do what he wants. (By the way, does it bother anyone else that a state police official added that speed was “not a factor” in the accident.  

If you are driving 91mph in New Jersey and you have an accident, speed is a factor. (Unless of course the driver is a state trooper and the passenger is the governor… than someone else is 100% to blame.) What politicians like Corzine tend to forget is that they are governor because they were elected to represent the people, they are not kings or dukes who are above the laws that are there to keep the rest of us in line. 

This is an excellent opportunity for him to prove me wrong on at least one point and do some good at the same time. After he has recovered enough to breath on his own (and I pray that happens soon and that he has a full recovery), he needs to admit he was wrong, subject himself to whatever appropriate legal actions would be taken with anyone else in a similar situation, and become an advocate for following traffic safety laws, using himself as an example of what can go very wrong when you don’t follow the laws of the state that he leads. 

And speaking of laws…

Congratulations to the US Supreme Court for getting it right: 

Yahoo/AP & AFP: The US Supreme Court backtracked on abortion rights for the first time in more than a generation Wednesday, upholding a federal law banning a controversial late-term abortion procedure. 

The controversial procedure — carried out after the fifth month of pregnancy when the fetus poses a danger to the mother’s health — was banned by the US Congress in 2003, after lawmakers concluded it was not medically necessary. 

Keep in mind.. Congress passed a law banning the procedure, the President signed it into law, and the Supreme Court affirmed the law is Constitutional. Three branches of the US Government, all in agreement. Period. 

So, what does Justice Ginsberg have to say about it: 

“Today’s decision is alarming,” Ginsburg wrote in dissent for the court’s liberal bloc. She said the ruling “refuses to take … seriously” previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion. 

“It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases,” she said. 

“For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health,” Ginsburg wrote. 

Found necessary and proper by whom? The process worked madam. Congress writes laws, the president signs them, and your only roll is to determine if they fit within constitutional bounds… not legislate from the bench as the more liberal courts have established as their domain. 

I’ve always found it fascinating that we must assume that the previous decisions by the Supreme Court are right and that the court is infallible… until a court disagrees with the liberal view of the world, then the decision is flawed.

If, as Ginsberg implies, the Supreme Court should never reverse previous positions, we might still be living in the dark days of slavery in this country (read up on Dred Scott v. Sandford): 

Claiming Missouri citizenship, Scott sued Sanford for his freedom in the federal court in St. Louis. Sanford’s lawyers argued that Scott could not be a citizen because he was a slave and a Negro. The court ruled against Scott on May 15, 1854. Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act two weeks later, opening areas of the West to slavery where it had been banned by the Missouri Compromise. Furious northerners burned its author, Stephen A. Douglas, in effigy. On July 4, abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison publicly burned a copy of the Constitution, crying, “So perish all compromises with tyranny.” 

Fighting broke out in Kansas and made the expansion of slavery the issue in the 1856 Presidential campaign, won by James Buchanan. The Supreme Court heard argument in Dred Scott. v. Sandford in February 1856, reached the end of its term, then heard argument again in December. In February 1857, a majority of the Justices agreed to follow precedent and say that the ruling of the highest state court was final—that Scott was a slave under state law. Such a narrow finding would leave unresolved two dangerously controversial issues: Whether or not a free Negro might be a citizen of the United States; and whether or not the 1820 Missouri Compromise was constitutional. 

When it was learned that two dissenting Justices planned to argue that Congress in fact had the power to regulate slavery in the territories, that under the Missouri Compromise Scott was a free man and a citizen, the majority decided to enlarge the scope of the decision and deny the power of Congress. Some members hoped the Court’s opinion would resolve the question, win acceptance, and possibly save the Union. Newly elected President James Buchanan may have shared that hope; in his Inaugural Address on March 4, he promised that “in common with all good citizens” he would “cheerfully submit” to the Court’s decision. Two days later the Justices began to deliver eight separate opinions. The majority ruled that Scott was still a slave. Three, including Taney, said no Negro, even if free, could hold citizenship in the United States. And for the first time since 1803, the Court held an Act of Congress null and void. Under the Constitution, it announced, Congress had no power to limit the expansion of slavery by law, as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had done.

So.. our infallible Supreme Court said that Congress did not have the power to limit the expansion of slavery, that Dred Scott must remain a slave even though he had argued he was freed when he was brought to a free territory, and three justices said that “no Negro, even if free, could hold citizenship in the United States”. 

They were wrong then.. Ginsberg and Co are wrong now. And what of our Dem candidates for president?: 

The leading Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, quickly denounced the decision as a threat to women’s health. 

Yeah, maybe, but the evidence presented contradicts this position.  It will, however, do wonders for the health of near-term babies who are sacrificed through this barbaric procedure.

Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are in synch here, but we are to believe Hillary, Barack and John all know better.

Again.. congratulations to the US Supreme Court for having the courage to resist the pressure to follow precedent and free the unborn child from the torture of partial birth abortion. 

It must be so liberating for Senator Kerry. Now that he has announced he is not planning to run for president in 2008, he no longer needs to pretend, no longer needs to polish his image, he can finally proclaim to the world that which has troubled him but was left unsaid for so long (or at least for a couple of years now): the United States has become ”a sort of international pariah”.

Oh sure, he still needs to face the voters of Massachusetts, but how tough is it to get elected in a state where Teddy Kennedy keeps getting sent back to Washington year after year even after the Chappaquiddick incident and reports he tried to subvert President Reagan’s foreign policy by offering to “assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts” (which some might view as treason, but at the very least is a likely violation of the Logan Act) how likely is it that Massachusetts would ever vote Kerry out of office for simply calling the United States a pariah?

But consider how many of us were fooled in 2004; how many of us voted for this man who seems to hate America? If he loves this country, why does he visit foreign countries and speak of America in a way that confirms the worst views of this country? Is that love?

Try this for yourself, if you dare. Tell your wife (or husband or significant other) that you really love her, but she has become a sort of pariah among your friends and co-workers. Tell her that the decisions she has made have been selfish and have not considered the needs of your friends, that you are embarrassed by her behavior and that you have just told all of your friends that she is a pariah and that you are aware that she needs to change her behavior.

Then let us know, assuming you are still conscious and not writhing in pain on the floor from a well placed kick to the groin, if she understands that you are just trying to show how much you love her.

Here’s what John Kerry thinks about our great country and felt compelled to share with the world while on foreign soil, from USA Today:

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry slammed the foreign policy of the Bush administration on Saturday, saying it has caused the United States to become “a sort of international pariah.”

Kerry said the Bush administration has failed to adequately address a number of foreign policy issues, speaking during a World Economic Forum panel discussion that also included Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd al-Mahdi and Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad’s more moderate predecessor as Iranian president.

“When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said.

Reality check senator (from Wikipedia):

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. …  Both (VP) Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

So… the Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol by a vote of 95-0 before it was even submitted for ratification and the Clinton administration never submitted it for ratification and somehow not only does Kerry believe it was wrong to reject the Kyoto Protocol, somehow this is Bush’s fault even though he wasn’t elected until 2000… amazing. 

Regarding AIDS in Africa, this is our problem how? Is it because we care about the well-being of others? Feel compelled, as a compassionate nation, to help the people of other nations who are suffering? Kind of like the people of Iraq under Saddam Hussein perhaps? Did you know that the United States global commitment to fight AIDS is greater under President Bush than it was under President Clinton? Why would you… the press can’t report anything that will contradict the lies of the left:

C. HIV/AIDS Global Funding: Historic High Levels and Climbing…

• $988 million in FY2002, a 36% increase over FY2001
• $1.1 billion in FY2003, doubles level of funding when he took office
• $500 million to Global HIV/AIDS Fund, first and largest contributor

Promote Health and Education; Combat HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria

• Created HIV/AIDS Cabinet Council co-chaired by Powell and Thompson
• Jump-started Global HIV/AIDS Fund with first $500 million contribution, represents one quarter of the Fund’s total resources
• New $500M Mother and Child HIV Prevention Initiative
• New $200M Africa Education Initiative to train over 400,000 teachers; provide 250,000 scholarships for African girls; and provide 4.5 million textbooks

Continuing with the USA Today article: 

“So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”

Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”

“We should be less engaged in this ‘neocon’ rhetoric of regime change and more involved in building relations and living up to our own values so that people make a different judgment about us.”

So this is a neocon plot is it? Is Bill Clinton a neocon too? Check this out from Amy Proctor:

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition.

Those dirty-rotten Clinton neocons!

Clearly the Democrats’ support for any foreign policy has much more to do with who is in office at the time than what the policy happens to be.

Word to the voters of Massachusetts. Do us all a favor and turn this guy into a private citizen. We’ve had more than enough of this America-hating liberal who can’t keep his mouth shut, and his facts straight, when the opportunity to criticize this great nation presents itself on foreign soil.

By the way… whatever did happen to that Logan Act:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Sounds like a potential violation of the Logan Act to me. Too bad we never seem to enforce this law.

By the way… Welcome back Hanoi Jane! So good to see all the nuts from the Vietnam era climbing out from under their rocks now that they see a chance to lose another war for us.

Unfortunately, there are times when emotion sweeps through the blogosphere with such unanimity of opinion that logic is drowned by our ocean of ideas; an ocean that, at times, seems more like an ocean of idea. In the case of the border patrol agents convicted for shooting an unarmed drug runner fleeing across the border to Mexico, convinced that the big bad government is trying to appease the Mexican government or purposefully tie the hands of the border patrol, a reverse lynch-mob has formed and has gained momentum and influence with several politicians smelling political red meat for future elections.

As a result, political opponents of President Bush are actually scoring points by attacking him for not pardoning these men without a proper review of the facts of the case. Keep in mind that the pardoning of anyone after their conviction is supplanting the judgment of the jury with that of the president. The decision to pardon should never be taken lightly or used to further political agendas. Didn’t we learn that lesson during the closing hours of the Clinton administration?

One of the many facts that keeps getting brushed aside is that Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos were found guilty by a jury of their peers, not summarily sent off to prison through the actions of the US Attorney trying the case or a government maliciously attacking brave guardians on our border.

Take the facts of this case and move them away from the Mexican border; move the scene to any American city or small town. Man caught with drugs, confirmed to be unarmed, sees an opportunity to flee and takes it, two cops fire 15 shots at him, hitting him once in the back… are we OK with that? Since when is it OK in this country to shoot someone in the back? Since when is it OK in this country to shoot an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat? But move this scene to the border and it’s all about national security… no it isn’t. It’s about law enforcement officers, in this case border patrol, overstepping their bounds and committing a crime. Period. No extenuating circumstances, no pass because they were guarding our borders… they blew the arrest, panicked, and then shot a man in the back.

The talk shows have had a field day with this one, parading these two convicted felons in front of the cameras to tell us all how unfair this has been. Well now the other side of the story, the one that the jury heard, is coming out.  Some excerpts from US Attorney Johnny Sutton (full document here as well as a “myth vs reality” document here):

“Agents Compean and Ramos were prosecuted by my office because they committed a number of serious crimes. They shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and posed no threat. They lied about what happened, covered up the shooting, conspired to destroy evidence and then proceeded to write up and file a false report.

“United States Border Patrol agents are some of America’s most unsung heroes. They have an enormously difficult job and, at times, they face great danger.

“The law recognizes that agents will make mistakes and the government takes responsibility for good faith mistakes made in the line of duty. But no agent is given license to willfully shoot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back simply because the job is difficult, dangerous or important. The job of federal prosecutors is to enforce the laws the best we can. If law enforcement officers break the law, they have to face the consequences just like anyone else. Agents Compean and Ramos were unanimously found guilty by a jury in a United States Federal District Court after a trial that lasted more than two and a half weeks. Both agents told their stories from the witness stand and had full opportunities to explain their version of events and to offer their own evidence. The jury heard everything including their claims of self defense. The jury did not believe their stories because they were not true.

“In this case, the evidence showed that around 1:00 p.m. MT Aldrete, the Mexican alien, initially ran from the agents, but attempted to surrender with his empty hands raised over his head after Agent Compean pointed his shotgun at him. When Agent Compean tried to push Aldrete to the ground with the butt of his shotgun, Agent Compean tripped and fell. Aldrete then took off running again toward the Rio Grande River and Mexico. Compean chased Aldrete, firing at him with his pistol 14 times, pausing once to reload and then shoot some more. Agent Ramos shot once and struck Aldrete in the buttocks. Neither agent made any further effort to apprehend him. After the shooting, they lied to their supervisors about the shooting, picked up and threw away the fired shell casings and filed a false investigative report leaving out any mention of the confrontation with Aldrete.

Agent Compean fired his weapon 14 times, pausing once to reload.. pausing to reload!!?? And MISSED every time!? Then Agent Ramos fired once and hit Aldrete? Perhaps not entirely relevant to the discussion, but he missed 14 times? Not exactly a marksman. Damn good thing this wasn’t in a small town or in a busy city with people around.

After shooting him, they turned and walked away? Is that what we expect of our border patrol agents? Shoot a guy in the back, then leave him there? Even assuming the shooting was good, shouldn’t they have then arrested him, or at least gotten him medical treatment for a gunshot wound?

Is this really behavior we want to pardon in this country?

“If Compean and Ramos truly believed Aldrete was a threat, why did they abandon him after shooting him? And if they truly believed the shooting was justified, why did they not report it, leave the scene undisturbed, and let the investigation absolve them? The answers to these questions are simple. The agents knew that Aldrete did not pose a threat as he fled, they knew the shooting was unjustified and unlawful, and they knew an investigation would incriminate them. So they chose to cover up their crimes.

“In America, law enforcement officers do not get to shoot unarmed suspects who are running away, lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false. That is a crime, and prosecutors cannot look the other way.”

Exactly! We need to stop making believe these guys are heroes. At best they made a terrible error in judgment and then tried to cover it up. Even if we want to spin this incident as a mistake, people still go to jail for “mistakes” that include purposefully shooting someone in the back while they are running away.

I am all for border security. I support fencing the border, patrolling the border, doing whatever it takes to ensure that anyone crossing any of our borders does so legally, with our full knowledge, and our permission to do so… anything short of violating the laws of our nation.

By now you’ve likely read and/or heard about the issue of Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis refusing to accept passengers who have unopened bottles of alcohol in their possession.

This situation earned national media attention because Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is proposing significant penalties, including the possible suspension of airport taxi license, for offending cabbies.

From Yahoo/AP: “Our expectation is that if you’re going to be driving a taxi at the airport, you need to provide service to anybody who wants it,” commission spokesman Patrick Hogan said.

Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport. Airport officials say that in recent months, the problem of service refusals for religious reasons has grown. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim.

But Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the state, said asking Muslims to transport alcohol “is a violation of their faith. Muslims do not consume, carry, sell or buy alcohol, and Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean, he said.

But many Somali taxi drivers don’t have a problem transporting passengers with alcohol and are worried about a backlash, said Omar Jamal, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center. Jamal said he supports the tougher penalties.

“We tell the taxi drivers, if you don’t want to do this, change your job,” he said. “You are living in a country where alcohol is not viewed the way it is in your country.”

While the debate here is about religious rights of the cabbies vs. a requirement to not discriminate against any passenger (except where a potential threat or dangerous situation is involved), I believe there is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed:

• To what extent do we accommodate the religious “rights” of any group?

The answer that probably comes to mind right away is that each individual has a right to practice their faith and follow the tenets of their religion as long as there is no direct violation of a law (for example, human sacrifice would be a no-no).

But, what if exercising your rights infringes upon my rights? I like to view things in terms of concentric circles of authority and influence. The inner most circle represents those things fully within my control; the next circle represents those things over which I have direct influence; the next are the things I can indirectly influence, and anything outside of these circles is none of my damn business.

In terms of religion I would break it down as follows:

• Inner circle (control): I can choose to go to church on Sunday or stay home
• Next circle (direct influence): I can teach my children about their faith, initially drag them to church, hope something clicks and they keep going as adults
• Final circle (indirect influence): I can write here that I think you should go to church too… I have no control, no direct influence, but I’ve offered a suggestion based upon my opinion or belief that you may or may not act upon
• Outside the circles (none of my damn business): Whether you actually go to church or not.  Notice how indirect influence in this case comes very close to none of my damn business

The concern here is that some Muslims seem to feel they have a right to pull others into their circle of influence. At the extreme, if you do not convert, they chop off your head. In the case of the taxi drivers, they are exerting somewhere between direct and indirect influence. If you are forced to choose between ditching the alcohol (or your dog) or being forced to find some other means of transportation home from the airport, the cabbies rights have been given priority over your rights. This choice would not be necessary except for the apparent belief that their sphere of influence includes you.

Where does this end? How much accommodation is reasonable for any religion? A separate prayer room at the airport for Muslims because they will not worship next to a Jew or Christian perhaps? Muslims refusing to have their faces uncovered on photo licenses? Restricting the sale of alcoholic beverages within a defined radius of a mosque? How about restricting the placement of Planned Parenthood locations so that there is not a line of sight to any Catholic church?

Even in the narrow view of the issue, focusing specifically on the job of taxi driver, is it OK for a Christian cabbie to refuse to drive people to Planned Parenthood? What if Jewish cabbies decided that they will not drive people to non-Kosher restaurants? How long would these folks have jobs?

Maybe it would not be made an issue by customers because there would be other cabs available. But what if the majority of cabbies in a given town were anti-gay, claimed it was based upon their religious beliefs, and refused to pick up homosexuals? This would be a clear infringement on the rights of homosexuals, but what are we to do, we can’t force cabbies to pick up homosexuals if it violates their religious beliefs, can we?

Of course not, but we can point out the consequences of their decisions. You do not have to pick up fares that you feel are in conflict with your beliefs, but you also do not have to collect a paycheck for refusing to do your job.

If your religion requires you be home before dark, don’t apply for a job as a night watchman; and if your religion requires that you discriminate against certain customers, perhaps you shouldn’t be driving a cab.

But the bigger issue is that it appears that we are introducing a new concept into the interpretation of Religious rights and freedoms in this country: the expansion of the sphere of influence of a group to include those who do not share the same beliefs under the guise of an individual’s right to religious freedom. This is a dangerous precedent that could lead to preferential treatment of one religion over another based upon the assertion that anything that is in conflict with their belief violates their freedom sufficiently to require that your freedom be abridged.

Will this ever happen? Not likely… but I also never thought I’d hear about public school students being taught about the Koran after 9/11 in some schools while the Bible is forbidden.

Not quite… but Senator Robert Byrd is now 3rd in line of succession to the President of the United States as the President Pro Tempore of the United Sates Senate. Heaven help us. 

As I’ve said before, we get what we deserve. Nancy Pelosi is 2nd in line, Byrd is 3rd in line… does anyone believe either of these individuals would serve the country well should the situation arise where they were called upon to assume the presidency? Unlikely to happen? Yes. Impossible? No. Especially in this age of terrorism.

Nancy Pelosi at least earned the position of Speaker through skilled political maneuvering. How does Robert Byrd rate such a high honor? Let’s flash back four years to a time when the Democrats felt very strongly that another senator, Trent Lott, was no longer fit to serve because of a comment he made at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party: 

CNN 12/10/2002: Incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott issued a written apology Monday evening over his comment that the United States would have avoided “all these problems” if then-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.

“A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past,” Lott said. “Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.”

Yes, Trent Lott said something that was interpreted by many, both Democrats and Republicans, as indicating he believes in segregation. He never actually mentioned segregation, but he did say the following about Strom Thurmond while congratulating him on his 100th birthday:

“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either,”

In my opinion, quite a leap to turn a kindly gesture towards a 100 year old man on his birthday into support for segregationist policies. Was the wording poor… absolutely. But, despite his apologies, Democrats (and even some Republicans) wanted to run Lott out of town.

CNN 12/10 & 12/13: Lott insisted (he did not) mean to endorse Thurmond’s since-discarded segregationist views. Instead, Lott said, he meant to praise Thurmond’s stance on defense, law enforcement and economic development.

Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson called for Lott to resign, and former Vice President Al Gore told CNN that the comment was “racist.”

Two Democratic senators — John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin — have called on Lott to resign his leadership post, but there has been no such call from any GOP senator. Several, in fact, have risen to Lott’s defense, saying his apology should put the matter to rest.

If Trent Lott truly believes in segregation, then I agree, he should not even be a senator, let alone majority leader.  That does not appear to be the case, but either way, the point is that Trent Lott was forced to resign as majority leader based upon interpretation of poorly worded remarks even after he apologized and indicated the intent of his words was misconstrued.

So how is this relevant to Byrd being named President Pro Tempore of the United Sates Senate? Well, although it is difficult to say for certain what he truly believes today, since history seems to be relevant when choosing our leaders, let’s take a look at Senator Byrd’s history on segregation:

From Wikipedia:

• When Byrd was 24 years old, he joined the Ku Klux Klan
• Byrd was unanimously elected to be the leader, known as the Exalted Cyclops, of his local chapter.
•  He participated in the KKK for a period of time during World War II, holding the titles “Kleagle”, which indicated a Klan recruiter, and “Exalted Cyclops”.
• In his book When Jim Crow Met John Bull, Graham Smith referred to a letter written that year by Byrd, when he was 28 years old, to segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, in which Byrd vowed never to fight:

  “with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
  

• When running for Congress in 1952, he announced, “After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan.”  [Side note: He resigned in 1943 but wrote a letter to the imperial wizard in 1946 stating: “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.”]
  
• In 1997, he told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics, but: “Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don’t get that albatross around your neck. Once you’ve made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena.”
• Byrd also said in 2005: “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times . . . and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.”

So, in summary, Byrd held leadership positions in the Ku Klux Klan, refused to serve in a racially integrated military, denounced his membership when running for office, recommended young people not join the Klan because it is a political “albatross” (not because it is wrong), and apologized.

But wait, there’s more:

Byrd joined with other Southern and border state Democrats to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — a move he now says he regrets.

He also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In the opinion of one reviewer, Byrd, along with other Southern and border state Democrats, came to realize that he would have to temper “his blatantly segregationist views” and move to the Democratic Party mainstream if he wanted to play a role nationally.

So, 12 years after regretting his membership in the Klan, he was fighting against Civil Rights, which he later regretted.  Hmmm.. seems to be a pattern here.

In 1982:

Byrd has also said that his views changed most dramatically after his teen-age grandson was killed in a 1982 traffic accident, which put him in a deep emotional valley.” The death of my grandson caused me to stop and think,” said Byrd, adding he came to realize that black people love their children as much as he does his.

So.. 30 years after regretting joining the Klan, Byrd finally realizes that “black people love their children”… amazing revelation! 

Then on March 4, 2001 came this famous comment:

(Race relations) “Are much, much better than they’ve ever been in my lifetime…. I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us … I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that. There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I’m going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”

Wow! Can you imagine if Lott had said these words? Can it be that race is no longer an issue and we no longer need the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons telling us how to feel?

Now Byrd is President Pro Tempore and 3rd in line to the Presidency… and not a peep out of Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, or any other voice of the people on the Left. Go figure.