Scott's Tuesday Observations

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

1. The new pope's photo on the Yahoo! homepage resembles a villain from a Star Wars movie. I wish him the best of luck and hope he helps to bring people of faith together around the world.

2. Today is the ten year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people. I remember that day all too well being taken home from school and hearing about it on the radio. I remember the award winning photograph of the firefighter carrying out the dead baby and the subsequent trials of Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

3. A firefighter in Wisconsin pushed for a resolution that would legalize cat hunting. As expected, cat lovers are furious and the firefighter has been receiving death threats. Unless all those animal lovers start claiming the homeless cats roaming the streets serving no good purpose, then this is a plan that should go unchallenged. They're just cats, people. Plenty of 'em to go around.

4. The Center for Disease Control has apparently overreacted with their claims that being overweight is a serious health risk over the years. Now they've released like a zillion or so new food guide pyramids apparently contradicting everything we've been told in the past from the old one. The new thing now is whole wheat: the good carbs. White is bad. I've actually been on top of that for awhile and am still ahead of the general public that is pretty much clueless to the dangers of TRANS fat. Stay away from those French fries and Double-Stuff Oreos.

5. A new book is out called South Park Conservatives : The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias. It's author, Brian C. Anderson, claims South Park has a conservative twist. I don't think it's all that conservative, in fact it's pretty balanced, but they do make fun of liberal issues much more and is perhaps why the creators were so brutal to Michael Moore in the their film "Team America." I'm requesting a review copy for this site and will come up with my own conclusions.

Ann Coulter; Sexually Harassed or Just Protocol?

Monday, April 18, 2005

Cum the unflattering TIME photo, this hasn't been a good week:

KRISTA SNOOK seems to enjoy her job doing airport security at the Harrisburg, PA Airport a little too much. When my rubber-soled Keds failed to set off the magnatometer and give her an excuse to feel me up, she still insisted on a full-body search on the grounds that I had not taken off my rubber-soled Keds the first time through (on what I thought were the sensible grounds that rubber-soled Keds could not possibly set off the magnatometer or conceal a pea). So I went through the magnatometer in barefeet, risking athletes foot and gangrene, which also failed to set off the magnatometer. But I got a full-body search anyway. It was like a date with Ted Turner: whether you liked it or not, your clothes were coming off at some point. Ms. Snook took special care in waving the wand over my barefeet — barefeet! — but then quickly turned to the main issue at hand: the risk of an exploding bra. The last time I was mauled like that, I at least got a couple of cosmopolitans and a steak first.

Looks like Ann Coulter has learned two lessions this week:

1. Require approval before TIME publishes your photo, always. (Malkin's got more on TIME and their photo restoring).

2. Remove your shoes before going through the airport metal detector, always.

The Fans Can't Really Support This

Saturday, April 16, 2005

The new stadium will be built just north of the existing facility in the Bronx, and is designed to seat 50,800. That's smaller than the current capacity of 57,478, but the new ballpark will have more luxury suites.

No other stadium hosted more superstars than Yankee Stadium in Bronx, New York, but that won't stop city officials from wiping away 82 years of history to make way for "luxury suites." As if baseball couldn't get any more lame.

At least the $800 million stadium will be paid for by the team, a fact dwarfed by the reality that whatever magic takes place there will be seen by 7,000 less people.

Mailbag: Aggressive on Gays

Friday, April 15, 2005

Red Sand questions my agenda:

I'm wondering why you take such a hostile position against gays (this wasn't your first post on gay marriage) when you claim to be a Libertarian who favors a small government that doesn't interfere with private matters.

That my support of sound judicial review has led some to believe I have "hostility" toward gays proves how diluted the purpose of government has become in the minds of today's society.

Correct. I support small government...the smallest government possible that is still able to protect its people and insure our government functions as it was designed to do so.

The case in Oregon is about the complete rejection of a constitutional amendment and the will of the people to refuse gay marriage. Such is life; we can't all have the laws reflect our individual preferences.

In an earlier post Stryker wrote, "I still haven't heard a single good reason to prohibit gays from marrying." Perhaps he is correct, but is that justification to ignore a constitutional amendment because he doesn't like it?

Should we encourage government officials to ignore a law that prohibits when "there isn't a single good reason" that law is in place? No democratic society can survive when laws – even unpopular ones – are ignored.

More Gay Marriage Defiance

Thursday, April 14, 2005

The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to gay couples a year ago by Portland's Multnomah County, saying a county cannot go against state matrimonial law.

"Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state's legislative power," the high court said in its unanimous ruling.

The court said state law bans gay marriage. It also noted Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment last November that even more explicitly prohibits the practice.

Welcome to a state that requires Supreme Court intervention to acknowledge the will of the people. Not only was gay marriage prohibited by state law but voters approved a constitutional amendment against it.

I'm not going to get into my personal opinion on gay marriage because regardless of what it is I respect our system of government and how it was designed to work. When the People pass a constitutional amendment I expect city officials not to break it.

Scalia Ambushed by Sodomy

Speaking of idiots on college campuses uninterested in opposing views, this is just unsurprising:

WHEN U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke Tuesday night at NYU's Vanderbilt Hall, "One gay student asked whether government had any business enacting and enforcing laws against consensual sodomy. Following Scalia's answer, the student asked a follow-up: 'Do you sodomize your wife?' The audience was shocked, especially since Mrs. Scalia was in attendance. The justice replied that the question was unworthy of an answer."

Nice. Here you have the opportunity to question one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country and you instead disgrace yourself in what is a continuing trend of attacks against conservatives on campus.

Down on DeLay

I admit I was pretty steamed after the whole Terri Schiavo debauchery, so it's probably a good thing my bully pulpit doesn't extend as far as Tom DeLay's does. The House Majority Leader, who said that the judges who refused to reinsert Terri's feeding tube would one day "answer for their behavior," has apologized for his "inartful" remarks criticized by both Republicans and Democrats.

Next he'll have to answer to the ethics allegations against him stemming from privately financed trips that may have been paid for by lobbyists. It's not a good day to be Tom DeLay.

How College Liberals React to Opposition

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Ann Coulter recalls how liberals treat opposition:

Last October, two liberals responded to my speech at the University of Arizona – during question and answer, no less – by charging the stage and throwing two pies at me from a few yards away. Fortunately for me, liberals not only argue like liberals, they also throw like girls.

Unfortunately for them, Republican men don't react favorably to two "Deliverance" boys trying to sucker-punch a 110-pound female in a skirt and heels. The geniuses ended up with bloody noses and broken bones.

In the five months following the liberal ass-whupping in Arizona – I mean "fact-driven debate" – all was quiet on the Eastern Front. College liberals still couldn't formulate a coherent argument, but they seemed to want to avoid ending up in jail having to explain to their cellmates that they were in for trying to hit a girl (and missing).

On March 29, liberals' intellectual retort to a speech by William Kristol at Earlham College was to throw a pie. On March 31, liberals enjoyed the hurly-burly of political debate with Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University by throwing salad dressing. On April 6, liberals engaged David Horowitz on his ideas at Butler University by throwing a pie at him.

Without a doubt shenanigans is found on both ends of the political spectrum, but on the college campus the hostility is overwhelmingly perpetrated by the Left.

When Ann Coulter spoke at the Florida State campus a few years back, liberals arrived in droves to protest and display signs with unspeakable messages. Funny, for a group of people with so much distain for her politics, not one of them challenged her intellectually. When I disagreed with her I stood up (the first one to do so) and called her out and challenged her ideas. It was legitimate debate. We exchanged thoughts in a civilized manner.

I don't see liberals welcoming opposition on campus. Rather they prefer to stay within the comfort of their liberal talking points they were raised on without challenge. The front page headline of the current issue of the Florida State newspaper, The FSView, reads "Professor Speaks Out on Patriot Act." That's apparently the biggest story at one of the largest college campuses in the United States. A professor disagrees with the Patriot Act. Amazing.

The lecture circuit is almost exclusively liberal. Speakers constantly harangue Israel for their oppression of Palestinians, denounce the war in Iraq, speak against male dominance over women, and so on. They get their time to speak and face no trouble for it.

But when ministers come to recite passages from the Bible, liberals don't respond with debate but with acid. They taunt and berate anyone who challenges anti-Christian practices such as pre-marital sex. When anti-abortion speakers come, as rare an occurrence that may be, liberals raise the "women hater" signs.

Again, both conservatives and liberals are guilty when it comes to reacting to different ideas, but it's one-sided on college campuses. That liberals resort to pie throwing is disgraceful and it says something about their willingness (or lack thereof) to hear opposing views.

Okay, Some Men Profit From Female Sexuality

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

While on the subject of feminism I wasn't considering this story:

Thirteen years after most silicone-gel breast implants were banned, federal health advisers on Tuesday narrowly rejected a manufacturer's request to bring them back to the U.S. market, citing lingering questions about safety and durability.

Elective surgery is huge in the United States and plastic surgeons are making big bucks making big boobs. But enhancement surgery such as breast augmentation is risky, and considering the horror stories I've heard about faulty breast implants and bodies rejecting the artificial substance, you'd have to really desire a different physique to go through with it.

Feminists who blame men for encouraging a society that equates status with bra size have their sights set on the wrong target. It's the willingness of women that keeps the industry alive and doctors' wallets fat.

Not that I'm speaking against the procedure; I personally know a few girls who've come home with new "assets," and there are legitimate reasons for changing the way you look. One girl wanted to look different. Another wanted to be more attractive to a man who was into that type.

I probably don't have to tell you that the latter friend is the least content with her life. Far too many women like her flock to undeserving men and tailor their lives to suit his needs. They only have themselves to blame.

Feminists Lose Bitter Icon

Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist who crusaded against the evils of pornography and violence against women died Saturday at the age of 58.

Dworkin wasn't exactly the most attractive woman; as one writer wrote on her passing: "She was the stereotype of the Millie Tant feminist made flesh - overweight, hairy, un-made-up, wearing old denim dungarees and DMs or bad trainers - and thus a target for ridicule."

But she isn't reviled because of the way she looks, even though she purposely avoided the hygiene rituals such as shaving and conditioning women these days take part in to appeal to others…you know, things that men do to. Like most feminists, it was her attitude -- especially towards men -- that was so appalling.

"Pornography is a celebration of rape and injury to women; it's a kind of union for rapists, a way of legitimizing rape and formalizing male supremacy in our society." She said that pornography is both a cause of male violence and an expression of male dominance, that women who enjoy porn are harming women, and that lesbian porn is self-hating. Women who worked in porn wounded themselves as well as every other woman as a result of men watching it.

Never mind that criminologists have universally dismissed the theory that pornography is the catalyst in male aggression against women, it was a belief Dworkin wasn't going to give up and one she took to the grave.

Unless you actually believe pornography fills us men up with sadistic ambition to torture women, it's hard to rationally understand why feminists would have a problem with it. That a woman could become rich just for taking part in an act that is otherwise acceptable in society but for money, is empowering, even if not respectable.

Feminists argue that pornography is degrading to women, yet it's members of the other sex you will find sneaking into filthy adult video stores and spending untold amounts of money for sexual release. It's men who remove themselves from society to the confines of their FAVORITES folder where you could only imagine what sites are bookmarked between photos of the the kids.

And it's not like you have to be attractive to make bread using your body; an industry that is open only to porn stars and strippers. Prostitutes do it all the time. Only women (usually the most undesirable) can walk the busy streets of the inner city and make money for spending just a few minutes with a desperate man. Now let's talk about degrading.

Dworkin even took her fight to the institution of marriage: "Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women."

If that's supposed to influence women against getting married, where they could be subjected to the sexual desires of the impure husband, it wasn't a very good one as Mrs. Dworkin died a married woman.

Defining Checks and Balances

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Saturday that the fight over President Bush's judicial nominees is really a battle between Democrats who believe in checks and balances and Republicans who want everything their way.

"When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way," he said in his party's weekly radio address.

Someone should really tell Mr. Reid that checks and balances has nothing to do with party control, rather it's about each of the three branches of government retaining exclusive power over the others while at the same time being checked by those branches.

While it is true that Republicans "want everything their way," as every party inevitably does, such progress isn't being made. Democrats have already blocked 10 of President Bush's nominees to the federal courts and the Republicans are getting frustrated.

By enacting the so-called nuclear option, Republicans can bypass debate and filibusters which they feel have been used in a partisan manner to prevent qualified judges from serving due to ideological differences Democrats don't agree with.

By canning filibusters nominees will simply be sent to the floor for an up or down vote and the first side to collect 51 out of 100 votes wins. With 55 Republicans in the Senate, it's no wonder Democrats fear the nuclear option and the makeup of the federal judiciary.

Their argument that banning filibusters is against limited government is loud, but such a rule change is clearly not unconstitutional. The role of the Senate is to "advise and consent" presidential nominees and the task would be satisfied with a simple majority-wins vote. Even if the confirmed judges all turn out to be hardcore right-wing Republicans, the check of the Senate over the President will be satisfied.

Right-Wing Judicial Activism?

Thursday, April 07, 2005

Cynthia Tucker clarifies the meaning of "Judicial Activism" for us:

Ultraconservatives want you to believe the term "activist judge" applies to a group of determined liberals whose rulings have overturned historic precedent, undermined morality and defied common sense. But the controversy that erupted around Schiavo, who died on Thursday, ought to remind us once and for all what "activist judge" really means: a jurist whose rulings dissatisfy a right-wing political constituency.

Actually the former definition is correct. Only a liberal court could find something called a "penumbra" in the U.S. Constitution. Had it not been found, liberals wouldn't have been able to create the right to abortion, a nonexistent right that stems from the nonexistent right to privacy. It didn't matter no such rights existed because the Supreme Court wanted them and with the wave of a pen the problem was solved.

It was the worst case of judicial activism this country has ever seen. In the ugly Terri Schiavo case, conservatives did not want Judge George Greer -- who hails from my hometown -- to rule against law or become an activist. They wanted him to accept evidence of abuse on the part of Mrs. Schiavo's husband. Whether or not Michael was a bastard is something we'll never know, but perhaps the allegations against him could have been investigated.

Of course conservatives were upset with Greer's ruling against Terri's family, but most importantly they were upset with how he came to his conclusions. The so-called "ultraconservatives" were pissed by the way the case was handled and believed it warranted federal judicial review. That's not judicial activism; that's due process.

Update: I just published an editorial over at the main site that goes into more detail.

Nudity's Not Art

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

It's a story I've been following for awhile now, and I was unsure how it would play out after "the plan" was enacted. Looks like not so well.

Boise, Idaho is probably not the most ideal city for strip club owners looking to make the big bucks, considering its ban on full nudity.

But Erotic City owner Chris Teague came up with an ingenious idea: declare Monday night "art night" and allow patrons to observe fully nude women in the name of art. Teague further attempted to legitimize his gimmick by handing out pencils and sketch pads to patrons so they could sketch the girls hoping to satisfy a Boise exception that allows full nudity for "serious artistic" expression only.

City officials were unimpressed, however, and cited Erotic City for violating Boise's nudity rules. A police spokeswoman justified the action by saying the patrons were not focused on the art.

So how can you tell if someone's focused on the art or not? Perhaps I don't really want to know, but it was a good attempt by Mr. Teague nonetheless.

Forgive Me Father For I Have Seen Sin

Monday, April 04, 2005

The Drudge Report informs the hoi polloi:

# 1 MOVIE IN USA WEEKEND POPE DIES 'SIN CITY' FEATURES A CARDINAL AS CANNIBAL, IN LEAGUE WITH A SERIAL KILLER WHO READS THE BIBLE, A CROSS IN JUST ABOUT EVERY SCENE... MOVIE FEATURES BRUCE WILLIS RIPPING A MAN'S PENIS OFF...

...As news of Pope John Paul II's death dominated the weekend, moviegoers appear to have vindicated recent accusations that America is plagued by what religious radicals call a death culture in the wake of the Terry Schiavo case—by flocking to the ultra-violent Sin City.

Please. I am the greatest advocate of life you'll ever meet. I stand proudly on the side of good over evil and speak for the defenseless; the unborn. I fought for Terri Schiavo. I fought for her parents and family that wanted to keep her alive. I see the church as an institution of higher authority and a beacon for the weary. I believe faith drives the life of every good man.

But I also like to have a good time once and awhile. Tonight I cursed the Boston Red Sox and cheered the New York Yankees while downing a few brews and enjoying a sandwich. Then I saw "Sin City" for the second time this weekend because I liked it, as you can tell from my review.

And to add to Drudge's caption, not only does Bruce Willis rip a man's balls off…he shoots them off too in a different scene.

You see, I live a good life. God knows it and I don't have to prove it to him by avoiding what makes life fun. The movies can be a great release. The bloodier the better. You should try it sometime.

Sin City and the First Movie Review of Fever Pitch Published

Saturday, April 02, 2005

My movie review of Fever Pitch is the first available on the Internet, so go ahead and be one of the first to find out how bad it is...as if you expected anything good from Jimmy Fallon in the first place.

On the other hand, I absolutely loved Frank Miller's comic-to-film adaptation that was released in theaters this week. Read my Sin City movie review for all the goods.

Currently Sin City is the best movie of the year.

Old Men Now Invading the Internet

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Our nine High Priests on the Supreme Court have decided to take their ever-expanding powers into the last vestige of non-regulated freedom; the Internet.

If the Court sides with the entertainment industry, such companies could use litigation to drive file-sharing software companies out of business. It would also reverse a rule that has been in place for the last two decades that protects manufacturers from lawsuits concerning copyright violations committed by customers using their products illegally.

You know, makers of VCRs, CD/DVD burners, IPODs etc., would be open to frivolous lawsuits by greedy entertainment corporations.

As always, we can turn to Justice Antonin Scalia for perspective: "(If) I'm a new inventor, I'm going to get sued right away."

Exactly. There won’t be any stopping the snowballing of lawsuits. Just as it is insane to hold reputable gun manufacturers responsible every time a gun goes into the wrong hands, we shouldn't target makers of products that are aimed to do good when someone uses it for bad. As if a file-sharing company has any control over what its users use it for.

So Metallica, Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks and others who say their "livelihoods are threatened" can go drop off the face of the earth for all I care.

Your whining is pathetic and, frankly, embarrassing to your fan base.

As if Moms Matter

Friday, March 25, 2005

From The Illinois Leader:

GRANITE CITY - A Sothern Illinois woman was arrested last week after trying to intervene on behalf of her 14-year old daughter's effort to have an abortion. The girl was allegedly taken to an abortion clinic by the mother of the man allegedly to have impregnated the 14-year old.

It was later determined that the woman who had posed as the "grandmother" to the school authorities was the mother of the male who had fathered the unborn child the 14-year old girl was carrying.

When the parents were notified their pregnant daughter was not at school, they suspected she had been taken to the Hope Abortion Clinic in Granite City.

"My husband and I rushed to the abortion clinic where we saw our daughter's name on the roster and the time she had checked in," the mother said. She then went into the clinic and searched a room filled with young women awaiting abortions but did not see her daughter.

She took a seat near the main desk and said, "I was told I could not prove my daughter was there so I began calling her name. A medical tech at the clinic told me , 'It's your daughter's rights, it's her body. You have no rights.'"

After continuing to call out her daughter’s name and telling her "don't do it," authorities were called and the mother was arrested.

As the police were putting the mother in the squad car, she was crying out, "Please, please, help me...my daughter is in there."

The police in the community in which the family lives allegedly told the girl's mom that they couldn't intervene despite her making a charge that her daughter had been raped (by statute) because the charge was stale--7 weeks after the incident.

Sorry little girl, but to get that piercing or tattoo you need permission from your parents. What, you want an abortion? Why didn't you say so earlier? No problem. Just spread your legs for me and we'll have that little bugger taken out in no time.

Most Valuable Readers

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Quick note to my faithful readers, most recently Nancy and Jeff Gannon, I truly appreciate your in-depth comments and rebuttals to my posts. I don't always have the time to respond to every one, including the e-mails I get and comments from other readers, but I do read every comment and consider every argument seriously and will try to catch up with responses. It means a lot to me that a good handful of people stick around when there are millions of other, probably better blogs out there that cover more exciting topics such as Jennifer Lopez and Matt Damon.

Even though Jeff and I would probably get into a nasty fist fight if we ever met at a bar, I'd buy him a drink afterwards. Thanks again guys. Darth Dan, Sarah, Rachel, Stryker (you don't count so much because you have to read this...just because), Cyber somebody (?), Middle America and everyone else I haven't mentioned but communicate with regularly by e-mail. You guys are much appreciated.

Til next time.

Enter at Your Own Risk

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

From the Tallahassee Democrat:

Floridians could shoot violent home intruders and carjackers under a bill that cleared a key hurdle in the Senate on Tuesday.

"Since the time of the Romans, a man's home has been his castle," said Sen. Durrell Peaden, R-Crestview. "There is a presumption that anyone who enters your home illegally is there to harm or kill you. ... You don't have to retreat if you're in fear for your life or fear great bodily harm."

With 83 sponsors in the House and 29 in the Senate, the bill (SB 436) is virtually guaranteed passage.

Uh-oh, someone looking to joyride could face a bullet in the teeth if they unluckily chose to carjack an armed civilian. A rapist looking for a little uninvited play could be put on his ass by a gun-toting mother before he even steps into the bedroom.

Not that I anticipate or look forward to ever having to use my 9mm or GLOCK .45 ACP for purposes other than target shooting, but it's comforting to know that if such an occasion arises I won't face criminal or civil charges for defending my friends and family.

Just Accept It

It's been five days since Terri Schiavo received any food or water from a Florida Hospice bedroom where she's currently wasting away.

Air America Radio is pleased the court won't demand that caregivers "force-feed" the "brain dead woman," as if Mrs. Schiavo is really brain dead, a term that is medically defined as someone who is truly deceased...you know, not living - should be in a casket by now.

Liberals have told me to just accept it, just leave it alone. The courts have ruled. Get over it.

"Yes, um, Mrs. Brown, I know your daughter was slain by a knife-wielding maniac and her killer walks free and plays golf in Miami every Sunday morning, but the court found him not guilty – and because our legal system is perfect – you'll just have to 'accept it.’"

Sorry, but I won't accept a judge's ruling that is based on sole testimony of a husband who claims in private he was told by Mrs. Schiavo that she wouldn't want to be kept alive by "extreme measures."

Fair enough, but who are we (or Mr. Schiavo) to say that "extreme measures" includes a mere feeding tube that supplies food and water?

Mr. Schiavo could have confirmed, "Sure honey, but should I still grant your wish if you can breathe on your own, recognize stimuli and respond to affection by your family?" But he didn't, therefore I cannot just accept it.

I can't accept it because doctors, including Nobel Prize candidates, believe they can rehabilitate her. I can't accept it because nurses have testified via sword affidavit that she has tried to communicate with them, and one nurse, Carla Sauer Iyer, overheard Mr. Schiavo exclaiming, 'When is that b---h gonna die?'"

But most importantly, I cannot accept the method by which we're letting Mrs. Schiavo die. Why can't we give her a sedative and administer lethal injection? It would take minutes, not weeks. It would be painless, not torture.

No state could get away with administering such justice to a convicted murderer, because depriving a human of food and water – no matter how depraved -- is cruel and unusual. That's no way to treat a killer. That's no way to treat an innocent woman.