The Right Spin

Back in May an assassination attempt was made on President Bush in Georgia (the nation not the state). Apparently Dean did not learn of this until now. I had heard of it at the time but only in a single article I simply stumbled upon. He links to a post that notes:

What I find rather weird about this is the almost total lack of coverage of his assassination attempt and subsequent capture in the American press. As best I can tell from a Google Search, the Washington Times is the only American newspaper that has even noted Arutyunyan's arrest. How is it possible that American journalists have so little interest in an attempt to assassinate our President?

A very good question. The attempt on Reagan's life is part of our national memory. Everyone knows who John Hinkley is. Who knows who Vladimir Arutyunyan is? If you had asked me just 10 minutes ago I'd have no idea who you were talking about. Isn't there something wrong about this? The guy lobbed a grenade at our President. How is this not newsworthy? I cannot recall a single mention on television news. I'm going to assume Fox News said something (because I can trust them) but I cannot say the same for NBC, CNN, ABC or any other alphabet soup network.

Additionally:

The only parallel I can think of is the ho-hum attitude that journalists showed toward Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush--which was, in my view, more than ample reason to oust Saddam from power. Coverage of the disclosure of that attempt was so sparse that I would guess many Americans have no idea that Saddam tried to murder the former President.

A very good point. The leader of an enemy nation tried to assassinate a former U.S. President. This, in and of itself, is more than enough reason to have forceably removed Saddam from power.

Why doesn't the liberal media care when a Rebuplican President is nearly assassinated? Now that I think about it maybe that's how they prefer their Republicans - dead. The MSM didn't start gushing over Reagan until he died afterall. I think I may have something here...

There seem to be a feeling, especially amongst proponents of Darwinian evolution, that anything that intelligent design is religion is disguise. Particularly the Christian religion. So, what often ends up happening is that rather than addressing the objection of ID scientists the scientific community, and the mainstream media, attacks them for pushing religion into the schools. The blog "Evolution Nesw & Views" talks about it here:

More and more we’re seeing ridiculous charges from Darwinists that CSC scientists, and scientists skeptical of Darwinism in general, are religious zealots and right-wingers with theocratic leanings. It reminded me of Giuseppe Sermonti’s comment about Darwinism being the only politically correct science. So, now you have dogmatic Darwinists seeking to discredit anyone who speaks out against Darwinism in order to protect a politically correct scientific viewpoint.

While intelligent design, by its very nature, infers the existance of some sort of Designer it does not attempt to say who this Designer is. They leave that up to religion and philosophy. On the opposite side of this coin you have Darwinian evolution. A system that cannot allow for the existanc of a creator. If subscribe to Darwinism then you are an athiest. If you subscribe to ID then you're, at the very least, an agnostic. Athism and agnosticism are on opposite sides of the philosophical spectrum and compete for the hearts and minds of civilization.

When Darwinism becomes the only PC explaination for existance we're no longer dealing with science. And in a secular society anything that criticizes Darwinism is instantly suspect because of the theological implications of that criticism. Secularists don't want there to be a Creator because then they no longer are the final voice in what is moral. So then they must attack ID for being a tool to force a theological agenda because they have no other recourse. ID science is firm and raises a whole slew of very difficult questions for Darwinists to answer. Questions they don't want to answer because they've become quite comfortable being masters of the universe.

Finally, just to let you know, the Discovery Institute has no position, that I've seen, on the agenda of Darwinists when it comes to the philosophical/theological implications of their stance. They've, wisely, stayed silent on the issue. The same cannot be said of their detractors who are quick to scream about the 1st Amendment rather than simply looking at the science.

Can you imagine a situation today that cannot be decided upon by the Ferderal government? Is there any topic in which Washington has no say? I cannot think of one. Not one!

It's not suppose to be like this.

The Founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in such a way to bind the powers of the Federal government. There should have been very little for them to do. Why wouldn't there be much for them to do? Because the United States didn't need a centralized government because the United States wasn't a democracy. The Founders wanted to avoid a democracy because, while the socialist dream on paper, history told them that it quickly degraded into a tryanny - an enemy of the people. But they reconized that some form of centralized government was needed. And the preamble in the Consitution spells out what need it was to fill:

...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

In essence all we're talking about here is defending the country as a whole and ensuring the liberties and rights, as described in the Bill of Rights, of all citizens remain intact. That's about it. Not too comlicated and not too impressive when you think about it. Washington was to have very little power and most authority was to remain with individual states. And up to this time they acted as soverign nations themselves and were not too keen about giving up this power to a centralized government. These states would have balked at the status of state/federal relations we have today. The Congress or Supreme Court can overtun any state law! No one would have signed the Constitution if they knew it would lead to this. Not one.

People seem to forget that the United States is a union. A series of individual smaller nations united for mutual protection. Do you think 200 years ago Maine gave a rip what Delaware thought about anything? No. So why then should Maine be forced to legalize something it's citizens do not want simply because Delaware has? Who is Washington D.C. to tell Virginia what to do with her citizens?

Please, tell me, if you can, are there any issues you can think of where Washington D.C. cannot trump local state law? And then tell me if this is what the signatories of the Constitution signed on for.

This thought was brought on by this paragraph in this article:

Were America still a republic, liberty would be guaranteed regardless of whom is elected on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November: the shifty-eyed Ewok (Bush) or the Wizard of Oz Scarecrow (Kerry). In democratic America, however, either of these demiurges will enjoy almost unlimited power. Marriage, marijuana, Microsoft, you name it – there is hardly an aspect of life from which these meddlers are barred. All are subject to the whims of the national majority, or, rather, of its ostensible representatives.

Courtesy of JerseyGOP. How geeked am I that Kathy Ireland is on the list!

Scott, over at Dean's World, has a good piece on the overall waste that is recycling. In short the process used to recycle waste material (paper, glass, plastics...) into new products effectivly kills any conservation efforts. He concludes that the only way to protet the enviroment is to simply use less. A very good idea.

You ever have a job you hate so much it makes you physically ill? How many times am I allowed to be called an "asshole," "fucker," and "jerk" before it's too much? How many times am I to be given the same old pizza as "thank you" for dealing with an ongoing issue from a company before I can realize they're not going to try to actually fix it? How long am I to be paid $15-$20 less than other people in unionized positions doing the same thing I do - if not less?

I am sick and tired of all this drek!

FX has got a new series by Steven Bochco called "Over There." I have not seen it yet so I will not pass judgement upon it. In fact, I had planned on skipping the whole thing altogether. I cannot trust the entertainment media (or news media for that matter) to paint a truly non-partisan picture of the conflict in Iraq. Aside from Fox News that is. That many of the elite in the media claim to "support the troops" but not the current Administration, while brining up Abu Grabe and Gitmo at every oppertunity, rings hollow to me. It was soldiers who misused their authority in these situations and to constantly bring it up, especially after all soldiers invloved have been tried and punished, only makes the jobs of the hundreds of thousands of innocent men and women in our military harder. How is this "supporting" the troops? And now the ACLU is filing a Freedom of Information Act petition with the FBI to force them to release all Abu Grabe photos. Why? For what purpose? To make those who have already been found guilty more guilty? What sense does that make? None. It would only be used to hurt the Bush Administration and that's it. The guilty have been punished and the debate as to what is appropriate treatment of non-Geneva Convention POW's is currently engaged.

So, you can see why I'm nervious about this new show. It could be a great medium to present a balanced (if fictional) depiction of what life is like in Iraq for our military. And I strongly feel that a balanced look will only help real life soldiers. A short interview Mr. Bochco had with Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday has raised my hopes. In it Bill stressed that he felt the men and women serving in Iraq were exceptionally brave in that they were fighting for the freedom of strangers in a strange land. While that fight does have postitive effects here in the U.S., as it was intended to, it has far more profound implications for the Iraqi people. This is not something that should be spat upon. Mr. Bochco acknoledged this and stated that his program isn't designed to pass judgement one way or the other on the conflict. Though he was sure ideologues on both sides would read whatever they wanted into it. Instead he wants to tell stories about real people in this extraordinary setting.

If this is true then I hope his new program ends up being compelling, honest and entertaining. If not it'll only serve as another example of the media turning on those it claims to respect.

So, I went to the Detroit Symphony Orchestra last night and saw one of the final performances of Dear Friends: Music From Final Fantasy and it was frickin' awesome! Seeing all that great music by Nobuo Uematsu played by a live orchestra was a thrill. And they capped the evening off with a dual encore of "One Winged Angel!" Sephiroth is badass. The final performance of the entire tour is tonight. I believe Lusipher is supposed to be going.

On further gaming music news: On August 28th, at the DTE Music Theatre (or known as Pine Knobb by non-heathens) there is another concert! It's called Video Games Live and promises to fully orchestrate music from a number of classic and modern games. Should be sweet!