FEC and the Blogging World

The House is currently considering regulating political speech in the blogosphere. From MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - Political bloggers who offer diverse views on Republicans and Democrats, war and peace argued on Thursday that they should be free of government regulation.

The notion was echoed by some members of the government agency trying to write rules covering the Internet's reach in political campaigns.

Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to the Web.

You can find the testimony from the Hearing before the Committee on House Administration on their website.

This is how it begins, how regulation of speech acts start. Fax, email, write, call. Let your congresspersons know how you feel.

London Calling

In my daily blog surfing I've been coming across posts of a sympathetically bewildered nature with regard to the London bombings yesterday. As I read, I found myself increasingly aggravated by the tendency of writers to do the following:

1. Express sorrow/dismay/outrage that such an atrocity and affront to human life has occured.
2. Consider the nature of such attacks as barbaric/inhuman.
3. Excuse the attacker because "they're just like us in some way" (or a variation on the same).
4. Somehow position the US & her allies as the cause.

I'm sick of it. I'm sick to death of the desire to lay blame at our doorstep for the reprehensible actions of others. Sick of it. Why can't we stay in one place for a moment and chew on the nature of the enemy? What is the nature of the enemy? What, exactly, are we fighting? And why are we so freaking reluctant to openly question that without feeling like we have to run off to blame ourselves? That is the behavior of an abused housewife, to immediately excuse the wrong done by another because "I must have done something to upset him." And no, I'm not suggesting that those who do this are abused housewives. I'm just sick to death of this mentality permeating our public discourse.

It's crazy, I tell you. I don't think that we should fall into purely jingoistic rhetoric. I just wish I could read the blogs without feeling like I should be apologizing to people. London is calling, as New York was calling, as Madrid was calling, for us to meet the enemy, not to excuse it.

Be Very Afraid

Supreme Court Votes Against Private Property Rights

I'm so enraged I can't say anything else.

Senate To Vote On Amendment Re: Flag Burning

It's been all over the news lately; the Senate is going to vote (or may have already) regarding banning the burning of the American Flag. I was wondering what you thought of this?

Personally, I think it should be banned. But the question is what would we do with people who continue to burn the flag even if it is illegal; because you just know people will still do it. It will probably result with a fine and a slap on the wrist. I really don't think banning burning the flag will stop people from doing this hateful and hurtful act.

I could also go onto say, sarcastically, that the desecration of the Quran was "Freedom of Speech". Freedom of Speech is a good thing, but burning the flag is not freedom of speech in my opinion. It is a dangerous and violent act; I would even go further and say it is a hate-crime on all Americans. Most people who burn the flag are just lazy and asinine hippy types that are too listless to actually take any other kind of action. They are only doing it for shock value and attention.

Maybe I can knit up a bunch of American Flags and send them to the ACLU, no I would not want all my hard work burned up. Maybe I can send them to the troops fighint for our freedoms. Or I'll send them to the Senate.

Of course the ACLU is opposed to this amendment but they sure can put a stop to a school board meeting praying outside their school, off hours, can't they? What about that being free speech?

American Housewife has a similar post. Also see Stop The ACLU Blogspot.

Democrats Fighting Amongst Themselves

Here is the full post from the latest AP article:

WASHINGTON -- "Democrats Joseph Biden and John Edwards are criticizing party chairman Howard Dean, saying his rhetorical attacks on Republicans have gone too far.

Dean has said Republicans never made an honest living in their lives and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence. DeLay has not been accused of any crime."

Dean "doesn't speak for me with that kind of rhetoric and I don't think he speaks for the majority of Democrats," Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

While discussing the hardship of working Americans standing in long lines to vote, Dean said Thursday, "Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."

Edwards responded that Dean "is not the spokesman for the party."

Dean is "a voice. I don't agree with it," Edwards, a former senator and the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2004, said Saturday at a party fundraising dinner in Nashville, Tenn.

Asked about Dean's remark about Republicans and honest living, GOP chairman Ken Mehlman told NBC's "Meet the Press": "I'm not sure the best way to win support in the red states is to insult the folks who live there. I think that a better approach might be to talk about the issues you're for."

Someone needs to let Edwards know that Dean was elected to be the chairman to the DNC. DUH. I think he does speak for the Democrats if he is the chairman, right?

I'm just happy to see some Democrats coming out against the crazed Dean even if it is for saving their own arse. Let the in-house fighting begin.

Is Good Manners All It Takes For N. Korea?

From an article titled "North Korea Praises Bush for 'Mr.' Reference", it is reported the softened tone of the President could lead North Korea back to the Nuclear Arm Talks.

Well if good manners is all it takes to get North Korea talking again then have at it, but somehow I think this is just another ploy of Kim Jong Il to stall and to keep the focus off his his nuclear stash.

All of this name calling is getting quite old and it seems to me that the only name calling going on is from North Korea. Grow up and get with the program Kim Jong Il; following the President's example I will refrain from calling "Mr." Il what I really want to call him.

Full Story

Not One More Dime???

While doing my Saturday morning reads I was befuddled to find this scathing blog attacking our grand ole party. God forgive me for helping to spread this particular brand of mud, from one of our own no less, by throwing up his contemptible link. But you'll have to go and read it yourself to understand what I'm blogging about today.

Thank God for the following intelligent and steadfast bloggers! They have made me pay attention and want to stand up with them. So please, I beg of you to blog away in support of the following:

Matt Margolis writes the following, and I can't agree with him more!

"We have to show our support with our wallets, and our displeasure with our voices. If you think the Republican Party isn't fighting hard enough, then pick up a phone, or write a letter. Whining about it and hiding your piggy bank is no different than voting for the libertarian candidate or staying home on November 2, 2004, and then kicking yourself on January 20, 2005 while watching John Kerry get inaugurated."

Full story also posted here.

And then there is this jewel from Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:

"Let’s not eat our own like the Buchananites and the Perotistas who abandoned Bush ‘41 and ended up electing Klintoon. I’m sure most anyone can find something to criticize about the way things are done in one way or another, but isn’t it infinitely preferable to handing things over to the Left?"

Beth also is a writer for The Wide Awakes.

To put it in my simpleton terms, if your child misbehaves you would NOT withold food from him/her now would you? No, it is my responsibility to feed my children, love my children, discipline my children so they can grow up to be healthy and strong.

Witholding "nourishment" from our party would equal death, and witholding "nourishment" is not a form of discipline, it is a form of stupidity.

I don't know about you but I'm still sending money. This is my opinion. And of course being good conservatives that we are we certainly can agree to disagree.

Cross post American Housewife.

Food For Thought

I am intrigued by this recent post from Jane Galt, particularly in the discussion of "marginal cases" and how they should weigh in our consideration of policy changes. Galt does not come down in favor of or against gay marriage, but certainly offers some thoughtful discussion.

A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other

Thoughts?

To The Anoymous Poster

It occurs to me that having this buried in comments on the last (January) post was wasting some energy. Check the previous message to find the Anoymous comment to which I refer.

*******
Saddened that I've been remiss in checking this blog...I find that there was a real "gem" in the previous comment. To Anonymous: you ended your eloquent post "Well go ahead and make your choices, but dont bring the rest of us down with you. "

I suggest that you consider the ways in which I may see your choices as bringing me down. There are always varying perspectives, among humans, and even among knitters. So many have chosen to air their political beliefs/ire/frustrations in their blogs; do you accuse them of the same?

Yes, people will be and do what they are and do; we are free in this country to be and do as individuals. I certainly would not deny that and for you to imply that we think that's not the case is ridiculous and disingenous. I personally do not believe that the government should make sweeping changes in social institutions because a loud group says they should.

I don't doubt that some on the left side would turn that statement against me, suggesting that I would not support pro-lifers, for example, for calling for an end to the "social institition" of abortion. To them, I would say, that the social institution (and biological one) of motherhood has been subverted by our legalizing abortion, and that we have only just begun to see the effects of that choice.

So rail on if you feel the need and question the right of this blog to exist. And remember: a more comforting opinion is probably a mere click away.