Iraq versus California

A piece by Victor Davis Hanson is making the rounds today, in spite of being written back in April. If you haven't read it, it will probably knock your socks off. Here is a taste.

War-torn Iraq has about 26 million residents, a peaceful California perhaps now 35 million....

As a fifth-generation Californian, I deeply love this state, but still imagine what the reaction would be if the world awoke each morning to be told that once again there were six more murders, 27 rapes, 38 arsons, 180 robberies, and 360 instances of assault in California — yesterday, today, tomorrow, and every day. I wonder if the headlines would scream about “Nearly 200 poor Californians butchered again this month!”How about a monthly media dose of “600 women raped in February alone!” Or try, “Over 600 violent robberies and assaults in March, with no end in sight!”

Judge Leslie Lewis, Overreactor

As the mother of two toddlers, I'm rather used to overreactions to events. Mercy barely touches Ezra, he falls down and says, "Don't push me, Mercy!"--that sort of thing. Comes with the territory of raising little kids.

It doesn't usually come with the territory of being a judge. Not dealing with the overreactions of others (although I'm sure there is a lot of that), but actually being the one doing the overreacting.

From the Deseret News:

The hunting-community controversy stems from a February hearing on a third-degree felony count of wanton destruction of protected wildlife filed against Michael Jacobson. In the hearing, Lewis was recusing herself from the case because of her personal bias against deer hunting. While expressing her views, Lewis confronted Jacobson with questions of how he feels while shooting a deer. Jacobson's brother, Kent Jacobson, stood up to leave the courtroom. Lewis ordered a bailiff to bring him back into the courtroom.
"Now, why did you feel the need to make such an explosive and clear indication of your displeasure or boredom at being here?" Lewis asked.
Kent Jacobson responded: "OK, it's not just the displeasure of being bored here. The problem is, is we have just as much rights of going out and shooting deer as you have the right ..." He was then cut off by Lewis.
"What are you talking about?" she injected, and then ordered that he be arrested and sent to a holding cell.
Court records show Lewis recused herself and sent the case to Judge Dino Himonas, who ordered Michael Jacobson to pay $2,500 in restitution and to give up his hunting rights for two years.

If you watch the video (posted on YouTube), Kent Jacobson was extremely respectful and very cordial. At no time did he lose his temper--although according to a SL Tribune article (no link, sorry), he left because he didn't want to make a scene.

I agree that judges should keep order in their courtroom, but, to me, she clearly overreacted and overreached her authority. Perhaps this is a one-off--maybe she was just having a really bad day. Still, when someone is in a position of authority, of public trust, this kind of thing is clearly inappropriate. We need to decide if we can trust her to never do this kind of thing again--or else I don't think that she should be retained.

BYU sues...

BYU is suing Pfizer, claiming over $1B in losses over the development of Celebrex, an NSAID drug that was immensely popular before it was revealed that it can cause heart damage. There has been much written about this in the Bloggernacle (here in particular), but the most informative thing I've read about the issues behind intellectual property and universities was by Jeff Lindsay at Mormanity. Brother Lindsay has quite a bit experience in this particular area, and his explanation is both informative and easy to understand.

The Lamentable Loss of the Baseline Facts

It is not always easy to find honest and objective political discourse. One trend of recent years that especially concerns me is the loss of an accepted set of baseline facts. Charges are repeated over and over again even when they have been demonstrated to be false. Commentators have adopted an us-against-them mentality, villifying "them" without good cause.

I wish we could disagree without being vile or hateful. We should be able to trust in the good intentions of the opposing faction even if we disagree with their conclusions.

The puzzling thing that we see, is that this polarized atmosphere encourages people to be less than straight with the facts. I hope for the continued success and increased output of factcheck.org, a group devoted to debunking fallacious claims made in political campaigns. We need more reliable places to find the facts.

BYU Forum by Indonesian Leader

From a BYU press release:

Brigham Young University will host an Indonesian political leader, author and leading Islamic scholar at a forum Tuesday, Oct. 10, at 11:05 a.m. in the Marriott Center.

Alwi Shihab will speak on "Building Bridges to Harmony through Understanding."

Shihab has been minister of foreign affairs (equivalent to the U.S. secretary of state), coordinating minister for people's welfare and president of the National Awakening Party. He is also an adviser to the Indonesian president and special envoy to the Middle East and all Islamic countries.

It is not clear if this forum will be shown on BYU-TV or not. It will be broadcast to an auditorium on the other side of BYU campus from the Marriott Center, but they aren't always allowed to put these forums on public television.

I'm planning on attending this event. It sounds like Shihab served with Gus Dur, the first democratically elected president of Indonesia. I was sort of surprised to learn that Indonesia is actually the largest Muslim country by population.

I plan to put up a post on PonderIt about the forum, and hopefully I will get up a post before the forum about Gus Dur and his experiences with Mormons. I'll update this post with links when appropriate.

UPDATE: The PonderIt story on Gus Dur.

California Court on Gay Marriage

Guy Murray has posted a summary and analysis of a recent decision of the California Appellate Court on the subject of gay marriage. Here is a snippet that Guy quoted from the Court's synopsis of the decision.

All can agree that California has not deprived its gay and lesbian citizens of a right they previously enjoyed; same-sex couples have never before had the right to enter a civil marriage. It is also beyond dispute that our society has historically understood “marriage” to refer to the union of a man and a woman. These facts do not mean the opposite-sex nature of marriage can never change, or should never change, but they do limit our ability as a court to effect such change. The respondents in these appeals are asking this court to recognize a new right. Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage.

I think the court has nailed my exact view on this subject.

Foley Scandal Reeks

Congressman Mark Foley did some yucky stuff, according to news reports. I've avoided seeking out any details on the content of the messages he sent to a teenage boy we worked with. His actions have put a stink on him, his party, and the congress.

From what I can tell, the House Leadership acted appropriately with the information they received. If their story holds up, they are morally in the clear.

Investor's Business Daily has an editorial (ht Drudge) that asks why Democrats are sqealing so loudly now as compared to their reactions to previous Democrats caught in similar moral failings.

In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

They point out other issues for Rep. Barney Frank, President Bill Clinton, and Rep. Mel Reynolds. These were men caught in moral scandals that kept their jobs or, in the case of Reynolds, received a pardon from the consequenses of their misdeeds.

Why can't we all rejoice together that we've got Foley out of the House? Let's not play hypocritical games with our government.

"Is this a prank call?"

Two physicists have been awarded the Nobel Prize for their work on the Big Bang. The most amusing part of the story was this line:

Smoot told Reuters the Nobel committee called him at 2:45 a.m. Pacific Time after first dialing the wrong number.

So... the Nobel Committee isn't aware of time zones? I'd sure love to hear the recording of the first person they called.

Eat Your Heart Out Michael Reagan

I sometimes hear Michael Reagan on the radio in the evening. I think his popularity stems primarily from the fact that he is Ronald Reagan's son. Well, now that the Gipper is gone, you should be aware of a relative of our current president: me.

Yes, you read that right. I'm related to the president of the United States. Feel free to send Christmas cards with cash to try to get in my good graces so I can put in a good word for you with the Commander-in-Chief.

Thanks to the Relationship Finder (ht), I now know that I am the 11th cousin of George W. Bush, twice removed. Yet another item add to my ever-growing list of claims to fame.

Of Matters Personal and Public

Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News Sunday one week ago has opened the doors of conversation about his legacy as a president and about his role in our nation's failure to prevent the attacks on 9/11.

Clinton's moral failings sapped his reserves of "political capital" and distracted him and a nation from more important matters, such as the threat from Islamic terrorists. No person is free to choose the reaction others may have to their own actions. If only life were so arranged! So, in analyzing the culpability of our past president, we should view his actions seperately from the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the responses of his political adversaries.

It seems clear that one lesson of the Clinton presidency is that it won't do for a politician to argue that his or her personal life is strictly personal. Indeed, Clinton seems to be the most glaring example in recent memory that this just can't be so. Until politicians can act in a vacuum, their personal reputations will affect their ability to get things done. I wish it weren't that way, but reality dictates otherwise.

Political Gotcha Runs Both Ways

Hillary Clinton:

"I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

My reaction to the title of that memo was a big yawn. Of COURSE he was planning attacks. He had openly declared it on previous occasions. It was no surprise. To pretend that the title of this memo should have set off alarm bells is silly and disingenuous.

To add fuel to the fire, James Taranto reports that

...the 9/11 commission reported that on Dec. 4, 1998, President Clinton received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks."

The Ultimate Renewal Resource

Children's energy!

This is an awesome idea. They hook a children's merry-go-round toy to a water well system, and the energy from that pumps the water out of the ground. It's wonderful for developing countries because it provides a safe place to play and (presumably) safe water to drink. And the moms don't have to use their precious energy to get it.

Bill Clinton Defends His Record on Fighting Terror

This video clip on YouTube taken from Fox News Sunday is Bill Clinton defending his record on fighting bin Laden and terrorism. For all the beating Clinton takes from the right-wing talk shows, it is useful to hear Clinton's side of the story. We've hammered Clinton for not taking certain actions. Clinton asserts that he wanted to take some of those actions but was unable to do them because he didn't have the support he needed to pull it off.

So many times issues are oversimplified to make people look like white hats or black hats. Just because I may think Bill Clinton has done some sleezy things, it doesn't mean he doesn't genuinely care about the safety of the people of this country. Just because I don't like things Clinton has done doesn't mean he wears a black hat.


Byron York has a well reasoned rebuttal to some of Clinton's arguments.

Orwell's Korea

While working late one evening, I flipped on the television as I was doing some manual labor. The show playing was a documentary "Welcome to North Korea." I was only half paying attention as I moved computer equipment and cables around the room. But the more I heard and the more I watched, the less important my labor became and the more I was pulled into the documentary.

What I saw, if accurate, was grotesque and scary. There is no other place I know of that so closely parallels George Orwell's world of "1984." We saw tourist attractions with no tourists; only tour guides pre-approved by the government that give tours filled with honorific references to the late leader Kim Il Sung. Streets are devoid of old or handicapped people; they have been sent to outlying areas to live. War museums explain the atrocities of the Americans during the Korean war and we feel the genuine hate for America that still boils in the blood of the military men that were interviewed on camera.

We heard from a North Korean defector who now lives in South Korea. He used to be a "reporter" in the propoganda department. He told of the time he was sent to report on a story where thousands of birds had spontaneously gathered to "bow their heads to Kim Il Sung." When he arrived, he was greeted by party officials who explained that the birds had just left but that it had been an amazing sight. The reporter later asked a farmer if he had noticed anything out of the ordinary. No, was the reply. I assume he returned home and wrote up the story about the birds and their honor for the Beloved Leader.

We heard about the attempts by North Korean officials to create a mythology about Kim Jong Il, the current leader of North Korea and son of Kim Il Sung. For example, the story was told that Kim Il Sung was born in a mountain cottage. Soldiers nearby felt that something very special was occuring and carved an inscription in a tree to commemorate the event. The site became a tourist attraction where Koreans could come learn to adore their new leader. One day, a Japanese botanist was touring the site. Upon hearing the story of the carving in the tree, he noted that the story was impossible given that the tree didn't exist when Kim Il Sung was born. The tree was cut down and the site was closed.

The video footage we saw of the people in genuine anguish at the death of Kim Il Sung was painful to watch. If only these people understood the pain he had caused for them!

North Korea is a sad commentary on socialism and communism. The desire to make everyone equal, while seemingly noble, has worked to grind the faces of this people into the ground. What is astonishing is that they don't recognize it but instead venerate the very villians that have crushed them. This people, stripped of ambition, have submitted to a monstrous regime. I pray for their eventual deliverance.

One thing that was never mentioned in the documentary, but everywhere visible, was the beautiful Korean culture. The dances were intricate and beautiful. The North Korean people are a beautiful and worthwhile folk. They deserve better than the devastation that is being heaped upon them.

Here is another review of the film. I can't find a place to purchase it online, so you may have to wait until it is shown on public television again if you want to see it.

More on the Electoral College

Keryn wrote recently about the Electoral College. She read me another piece that is also worth linking to on the subject. This was was from Pete du Pont on Opinion Journal.

Du Pont points out that direct election of presidents would probably lead to candidates focusing only on large cities and the issues important to city dwellers. This would strike at the heart of the compromise forged by the Founders that led to the bicameral legislature. Small states and large states get equal representation in the Senate while representation in the house is aportioned by population.

The other convincing argument from du Pont's piece was the probability of weaker presidents elected by a smaller percentage of the population. Without an electoral college with a winner-take-all system, you'd have more candidates running for a slice of the pie. There is no such thing as a run-off election (which would require a change in the constitution), so a candidate could become president by only winning 15% of the vote in a crowded field of hopefuls. Such a president would lack a mandate that comes from majority votes.

(Incidentally, I tend to favor a proportional allocation of electors as mentioned by gsbbyu in this comment.)

Reach Upward said it well in his recent comment, "Our Founders constantly turn out to have done a pretty fine job." Amen.