Sunday Comic

Joe Sacco's the "comics journalist," and his latest work as an inbed with reservists on the road and the Euphrates is well worth the read. (And worth the wait to read it. The PDF linked to in the title downloads slowly.)

More here.

Why I love NY

This is why I love NY. The Red Sox auction off the naming rights to its stadium for a day, and a Yankee fan buys it at auction and want to name it Jeter Stadium. Genius. This is what separtes the great from the merely good. It Troy all over again. Boston wins, celebrates to excess, and someone says, "Hey I got a GREAT idea." There's just no way bringing this big wooden horse inside can backfire, we're the champs! The worst part is that the auction winner only had to bid $2325 for the naming rights. Beenie Babies sold for more. This makes me an official Yankees fan, sorry Mc Lieberman.

France tries to become the Stalin Malone of the EU

At this point France is just disagreeing to disagree. Chirac refuses to vote to include Hezbollah in EU's list of terrorist organizations. I get that France wants to be the counterbalance to the US in international affairs, but this is getting out of control. Really, I just feel for Hezbollah. While they have the good fortune to rhyme with ebola, always a plus when you're trying to be menacing, they have to wonder what they have to do for a little recognition. I guess suicide bombing is so yesterday. I can just see them crowded around a small t.v. waiting for a shout-out from Chirac, only to be left out. Truely a sad day for the Hezbollah faithful. Maybe not as sad as Gary Payton hearing he's been traded to the Hawks, but still, pretty gloomy.

Supportive???

There is a human being walking the earth with the rest of us who, when commenting on her husband's suicide said, "I wish I could have been more supportive of his decision." And she didn't just say it privately to friends, she believed that repeating this twisted sentiment to the press for all to read would not reflect ill on her. Keep in mind we aren't complicating the issue with an extreme disability or severe chronic pain. This husband was just a guy who felt that leaving a bloody corpse in the kitchen by the 12 pack of Diet Pepsi for his son and grandson to find was a better plan than facing another day of duty to his life.

I wish I could be more supportive of that too. I wish I could be more supportive of rape and white slavery. I wish I could be more supportive of people who want to cheat on their wives or steal from their employers. I wish I didn't ever have to make a stand and call wrong what it is when someone else wants it to be right. I wish I could take the easy path. I wish I could be Spanish. No, I don't. Because if I were to strip conviction and courage out of my life there would be no reason not to follow the other cowards into the kitchen with my own revolver.

Designated Driver

From Saturday's New York Times:

". . . most Chinese international security experts insist that the United States holds the two most important keys to resolving the North Korean problem: ending a state of hostility that dates from the earliest days of the cold war and providing tangible assurances to North Korea that Washington does not seek the government's overthrow.

'Although many of our friends see it as a failing state, potentially one with nuclear weapons, China has a different view,' said Piao Jianyi, an expert in international relations at the Institute of Asia Pacific Studies in Beijing. 'North Korea has a reforming economy that is very weak, but every year is getting better, and the regime is taking measures to reform its economy, so perhaps the U.S. should reconsider its approach.'"

A reconsidered approach is exactly what the Bush administration has made the past four years. How carefully and consistently that approach has been made says much about the so-called neo-cons. This says it especially well, and explains both Powell's failure in the Bush administration, and the Bush administration's failure to end N. Korea's nuclear program or, in other words, Kim Jong Il's regime.

The "tangible assurances" North Korea seeks seem unlikely to come from the Bush administration any time soon, for diplomatically calibrated reasons the article makes all too clearly and amusingly, unless you're Powell (that sexy sportscar of a state department secretary who turned all the pretty little pundits' heads, but couldn't carry the load).

Nor should these assurances be offered. North Korea's not a nation in an "axis of evil"; it's a singularly imminent global ground zero, dead center of a decade-in-the-making disaster-to-be. Whether it's war precipitated by a border crisis with South Korea or nuclear brinksmanship in the Sea of Japan, it'd be hell on Earth, and we'd be in it with China. Short of a war with North Korea, there's its nuclear technology or materials being sold to Islamicists or nations like Libya.

Minus honeyed words in cuckoo Kim's ear, however, we had an obligation after Afghanistan and along with continued anti-terrorism efforts to make disarming North Korea our top international objective. Had we not reached for what's correctly been called the low-hanging fruit of Iraq, we wouldn't have spent almost two years and counting chewing that rotten apple instead of sitting at the table with the EU and China (in addition to the six-party talks), making what's in everybody's all-around interests clear: Kim's regime will struggle to survive nuke free, or not at all, and China—not the U.S.—can be the hero here.

Suffering Sappho!

So now it's Keyes? Phenomenal.

And it's all in my forthcoming feature film, League of Extraordinary Lesbians.

Alan Keyes

Nobody wants to give Uncle Joe any guff about this? Really?

Personal Soapbox

Yes, I'm slowly turning this site into a personal venting source against a increasingly intrusive government. However, there is a very interesting case before the Supreme Court. The case is Kelo v. City of New London and its about Eminent Domain abuse. George Will's piece is well done. There are more than 10,000 cases of Eminent Domain being used to take property from one private citizen to another. In one case, the city council passed zoning laws to declare an are blighted, that used a definition that included that a home must have three bedrooms, two bathrooms, attached two car garage, and central heat and air. However, not even the mayor or any of the seven city council members who were trying to condemn the neighborhood had homes that met the description.

Social Security

What seems to be missing in the debate is that shoring up Social Security and personal Savings Accounts are two different issues, although the second ones cost will make the first goal even more difficult. The President bravely mentioned the proposals needed to return the program to solvency, he even made sure that we knew democrats had proposed each one of them. My feeling is that social security has worked rather well so far and solutions like rasing the age, reinstituting the payroll tax on those making over $80,000, means testing, lower benefits or some combination of those would solve the problem for those that think Social Security as originally envisioned should be maitained.

On PSA's, what i don't understand is whether we want to view Social Security as a safety net or an investment program. Lets not confuse the two, if people who aren't market literate make their own investment desicions, we will have more elderly in poverty at the end of the day. This may be a reasonable trade off, since others will retire with more money then they would have otherwise. If the Federal Gov't administers this plan is there a danger of state interference in markets? If the goal is to expand investment to grow the "ownership society" why not expand the 401(k) plan?

I credit the President with having the stones to get this discusion started but hopefully I wont heave to hear how those who disagree with PSA's hate freedom and think that gov't can spend your money better than you can.....

What Another Conservative Wants

Social Security Numbers: Third Rail, First Step?

The more I read about the all-around opposition or reluctance to support the personal accounts that Bush is proposing, the more I'd like to believe Bush is framing social security reform, not the tax cuts, as his domestic policy legacy. It'll take his successor (s) and subsequent congresses, but given the unprecedented expenses ahead for the U.S. and what surely will be our generation's growing interest and influence, social security as we know it is nearing its end.

Today Bush's stand on social security is principled; by 2012 , it's a winner, and the pivotal issue upon which the Democrats must also stand or finally fall as a viable party.

What a Conservative Wants

I think we established that there isn't a monolithic conservative view on constitutional jurisprudence, however Justice Scalia is a good place to go for at least some guidance as to a conservative paradigm.

In commenting on the notion of employing international law when deciding American jurisprudence, in this instance the question was what would he do if there was no US abortion jurisprudence but there were Canadian decisions, Scalia had this to say:

"I wouldn't look to Canadian law. I'd look at the text. It says nothing about it and I look at 200 years of history. Nobody ever thought it said anything about it. That's the end of the question for me. What good would reading Canadian opinions do unless it was my job to be the moral arbiter, which I don't regard it as. I regard the Constitution as having set a floor to American society. That floor says nothing about abortion. It's not the job of the Constitution to change things by judicial decree. Change is brought about by democracy. Abortion has been prohibited. You want to change that? American society think that's a terrible result? Fine, persuade each other about that, pass a law, and eliminate the laws against abortion. I have no problem with change. It's just that I do not regard the Constitution as being the instrument of change, by letting judges read Canadian cases and say, "Yeah, it would be a good idea not to have any restrictions on abortion." That's not the way we do things in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens and repeal the laws. Why should the Supreme Court decide that question?"

This is consistent with what I tried to say in my evolution sticker post. The Constitution is silent on many of the issues that society is attempting to resolve. Scalia is saying, don't turn it into a hand puppet and put words in it's mouth. If it is silent, let it be silent so the people can be heard.

As an aside, Justice Breyer felt that international opinions could be used to settle American constitutional questions. This demonstrates the liberal inclination to wander away from original intent. Clearly, the desires of our constitution creators cannot be found outside of the borders of the US.