Open Topic Sunday ... Grilling The Minds
If you're new to the site, or new to this idea it's real simple. I choose a couple, two or three topics, and I want the thoughts of the people here. The would be Sabrina, our partner in Chicago. Marcie, my beuatiful better half, and myself. The rules are even simpler than the concept. We each get 1 paragraph to talk about the subjects in question, and there's no insults or slams (not that we would) allowed. Disagreement is one thing; being rude is another.
I want thoughts on the following stories:
--Moussaoui was sentenced this week. Do you agree with the sentence? Why? Why not?
I posted that this case belonged in a military tribunal, and not OUR courst system. Not only is the military better equipped to handle the case, but Moussaoui shouldn't have had access to our judicial system. It isn't designed to handle war criminals, and as he isn't a citizen, he shouldn't have been extended such rights which are available only to citizens. The military has a different set of guidelines that they have to abide by that would be better suited to handle him. In addition to that, i really have to hand it to the prosecution for blowing the case. The jury stated that the government couldn't prove the aggravating factors in the case. If you can't prove that in a conspiracy case where 3000 Americans died because of people like Moussaoui, you should hang your head in shame.
I cannot speak for my associates, but I personally feel let down by the criminal justice system, and
I am pretty sure I know why. First of all, the criminal justice system handles just that--crimes. Murder, rape, child molestation, fraud, etc. That is what the criminal justice deals with, and nothing more. It was the Justice Department's brilliant move to try Moussaoui in the criminal justice system, believing that an unbiased jury of American citizens would find in their favor. This was beyond dumb. After reading over the reports from the jury (we had one juror who as ardently against the death penalty even though he knew it was likely to be asked of from the jury; mitigating factors such as childhood brought into account) I knew that the American public could not handle this task. It is not that America is "stupid," per se. But I feel they cannot handle the weight of such a case. Moussaoui should have been tried in a military tribunal. He was a soldier in a war, and because of that, it is the military who should have given him hi trial. Would he have received the death penalty then? Who knows? But the inclusion of such things in a trial regarding the guilt or innocence, plus the sentence, of a man who has stated--boldly--that he has no problem with sacrificing his life to kill innocent people, and that he helped those hijackers on 9/11, is preposterous. Civilians cannot comprehend these things, and the Moussaoui sentencing shows it.
Both ladies did a good job explaining their ideas regarding the Moussoui sentencing. I, too, agree that this should have been best left in the hands of the military. I commend the Justice Department for wanting to show the world that Americans can handle such matters. Now, not to be rude to Americans, but it's pretty obvious that we can't. This was shown by that fact that the jury fell for the defense's tactics, including this: They agreed that Moussaoui's childhood was a mitigating factor in what happened to him, and his steps in joining al Qaeda. OK, while that might make sense if Moussaoui had commited a random act of street violence, such a factor weighs little in this case. What would stick in my craw (if I hadn't had it removed years ago so that I sleep better at night) is that such a mitigating circumstance is completely irrelevant in a case where we're discussing a soldier, on a mission to hurt us. Civilian courts can't handle this, but military courts can.
--The "May Day" Demonstration for illegal aliens was held. Was it a "bust" to their cause? A boost?
First things first: May Day? Not the best day to hold such a demonstration. That goes especially for the pro-Communist groups that were out amidst the demonstrators. As I noted yesterday, there were plent of Che shirts, signs and banners out amongst the people. In addition to that, there were plenty of anti-American, pro-"reconquista" people out there. But the biggest bust about the whole thing is that the people it was held for (in honor of, or what have you) did not bother to participate. Their jobs were more important, and so was the day-to-day shopping. I do not want to seem like I am defending the illegal aliens here, but they really are no different from us. They have jobs. They have families. And those families go to the store each day--from the small convenient store on the corner to the big-chain grocery store up the street--just to be able to provide their meals. The only people who should have learned a lesson from the May Day demonstrations were its organizers. Their message, apparently, did not get out, or other's livliehoods were more important. I am guessing it
was the latter.
Personally, this was a bust. And it was a bust for three specific reasons. First, the illegal aliens went to work--the bulk of them showed up and did the work they were hired to do. Second, they failed to "shut down" the cities that were on their "hit-list." LA, Washington, Phoenix, Dallas, Chicago, and New York had little in the way of traffic problems from the demonstrations because the cities were prepared. On top of that, only about one to two million nationwide turned out for the demonstration. Third, and most importantly (and as Marcie pointed out above) the average retailer was still used on Monday by citizen and alien alike. Many citizens took to the stores to do what they could to help retailers that were worried. And while some stores like Target, or Wal-Mart might have suffered a bit of a drop, grocery stores were still raking in the business. No, the demonstrations failed miserably.
I must concur that the demonstrations were a failure. For the reasons that Marcie gave, as well as those that Thomas gave. BUT I believe the biggest failure in it was not the demonstration itself, but rather it's organizers. They wanted this to be the end-all, be-all for the illegal immigrant movement. They were so hoping that the demonstration would be so large, so snarling, so over-the-top that the Congress, in it's collective weak-kneed approach to almost everything, would cower and cave in. This demonstration was for intimidation, and nothing more. They wanted the major cities in the United States brought to a stand still. They wanted retailers to suffer--not only from a lack of business, but also in the lack of employees. But, it was the illegals themselves that sent the message, and it came through loud and clear. For those not listening (and that includes the liberals that organized this utterly ridiculous demonstration) this is, basically, what the illegals said in return: "We came to America for a better life, and a better job. Here in America we have more opportunity than in Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venenzuela, France, Jordan, Germany, Romania, Iran, or any other nation on the face of the earth. We don't want to break your laws, but for our sakes, and the sakes of our families, we must. But we will work hard, and we will be productive members of your society." Yes, they broke our laws to get here, and for that they should be punished. But they learned their lesson from the last protest. They saw how upset we became over it, and thought better this time around.
--Sen. John McCain announced on Don Imus' show that he would give up the First Amendment for a "cleaner government." Thoughts regarding Capt. Queeg?
I'm taking point on this one for the sheer fact that I'm not aware of anyone (except maybe my beautiful other half) that dislikes this man more than I do. Hugh Hewitt claims this guy gets the important things right, yet I don't hear him stating that this is one of those times. Captain Queeg, as I like to call him (Dammit, someone stole his strawberries, and he's not letting this nation rest until he gets them back!) has some serious problems. No, I'm not talking about the possible mental problems the poor slob might have. I'm talking about his ideas of conservatism vs. the base. It's a clear picture for the base to see that he doesn't mesh with what we embrace as conservatism. Yes, he's pro-life, and he's been an ardent defender of the war. Granted he criticizes the war at nearly every step (from troop levels, to body armor, to armored-up Humvees, to what constitutes torture, etc.) and did a fine job of that in 2004 while the president fought off the Kerry dogs that McCain seemed to be petting. But on the issue of Campaign Finance Reform, McCain made his bed right there. When he knowingly and willingly stole away part of our freedom of speech, he showed that he didn;'t stand for the conservatism that we do. We hold the Constitution in high regard, and place it on a pedestal so that no one can tough it. With this statement on the Imus show, McCain not only says he wants to touch it, but that he wants to get rid of it in favor of a cleaner government. To the lousy senator from the great state of Arizona I say this: Leave it alone, and let Congress come up with the ways to deal with such decisions, such as the House reform package (that needs another once over), and allow the Congress to clean itself up. There's no need to state your sacrificing anything out of the Constitution because the voices in the mirrors you kiss tell you to.
There is no love-lost between Senator McCain and myself. I have disliked this man since his implication inthe Keating Five scandal. His self-destruction on the campaign trail in 2000 showed him to be of the unhinged variety. Campaign Finance Reform, needless to say, was a boondoggle which should haunt him to the end of his career; the legislation being a direct violation of his oath. The Gang of 14 deal sealed his fate, as far as I was concerned, when he decided that the Seante (or, I should say a select few in the Senate) were granted "extra-Constitutional" powers; those rendered in their decision as to whether or not a judicial nominee represented "extraordinary circumstances." As someone who is well-versed in the Constitution, no such provision exists; the Senate rule is wholly unconstitutional. The extra salt thrown on the grave is his torture legislation. The president did curtail its meaning--as is his province as Commander-in-Chief--but the "sin" remains, nonetheless. His idea of tossing the Constitution overboard in favor of a "quick fix" right now comes as no surprise to me, and it changes nothing. Despite Hugh Hewitt's idea that the man is good on the main issues, I disagree. His methodology revolves around him alone, and the country be damned. I do not trust him. I do not like him. And I want this soundbite played everyday should he run for president. Bury him, here and now.
If there were ever two-like minds on the subject that apparently dislike the man. And while I can't argue with them, I also can't add anymore than what they have already stated. As a ConLaw lawyer, I, too, dislike the disregard that Sen. McCain has for the Constitution. When I go into court, or take a case regarding the Constitution, my goal is to help my client, but also to uphold the ideals and interpretations of the Constitution. As I am much like Thomas and Marcie, I have an idea of what that means. That's not always the case when I take a case, and I have to play by precedents set, but it's better than watching a whole chunk of the constitution disappear. When this doddering old fool deicdes to run for president, I hope that people like thomas and Marcie will go out and actively campaign against John McCain on the grounds that the man has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to the Constitution, and he's too dangerous to be messing around with it.
--Ken Blackwell won the primary for governor in Ohio. Thoughts on that, and the GOP in 2006/2008?
I like Ken Blackwell, and I contributed to his primary campaign. I'll be doing so again in his run for the governorship of Ohio. And I think his primary win sends a big signal to the GOP base, as well as the Democrat Party. We're not going away. We're noit running away from 2006. We're making strides. Let's face it, Blackwell is goig to be a tough opponent. As will Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, and Mark Kennedy. These people are solid conservatives, in the mold of a John Kyl, a Rick Santorum, and a Ronald Reagan. They understand the trials ahead, both in the war and on the domestic front. You ask me what I think of the GOP in 2006/2008? I say that it looks good. It looks better than what it did a couple months ago.
In honor of James Lileks, "The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades." (For those scratching their heads, that would be James' theme music on the Hugh Hewitt show. But it is true. The future is much brighter now. Both houses of Congress are looking at immigration reform. They are addressing issues regarding the privileges in Congress, and dealing with the problem of lobbyists. They are not folding up the tent and staying at home, fuming over the inablity of certain members of the GOP. We are getting out. And we are getting the word out. To top it off, those people that Sabrina listed are also stand on that platform of reform. They also stand upon the platform laid out by Hugh Hewitt time and again. No, the future looks good for the GOP, but only as long as they stay on target and on message. What is unfolding right now for 2006 and 2008 shows that we know what the base has to do, and the base is responding already. They did it in the primary for Ken Blackwell, and they will do it across the country in other tightly contested races.
I highlighted Hugh's distinguished post yesterday regarding this, which is why this question is before us today. With the steps taken in recent months, and the judicial nominee battle starting to heat up again over the likes of Kavanaugh, Boyle, and a host of others, the GOP is sending a message to the base and to the Democrats that we are not simply going to go silently sulking into the night. If we go down in 2006, we will do so swinging. We know that to put the Democrats in power right now--at this crucial juncture in this nation's history, and especially in the war--would be disastrous. They don't understand what is at stake, or if they do, they lack the ability to care about it. It shows. It shows everytime they bring up retreat and defeat. They bring it up when they push forward a cockamamie fix to the immigration problem that bears no accountability in it, or added border security. We do get it. Our candidates know what the base wants. And no, to the Left I say we don't want a "theocracy" or a "dictatorship." We want sensible and sound leadership from Washington. We want reforms in a system that has been broken by years of neglect, influence peddling, and corruption. In short, we want the nation back. We want the nation we had, in part, in the beginning. Personal responsibility, common sense leadership, and an end to the special interests that seem to drive an agenda wholly contrary to what we believe in. Debate is healthy for a nation. Capitulation, and an adherence to a status quo that has failed isn't.
And, on that note, I think we'll close this segment of Grilling the Minds out. We will be right back here tomorrow (and throughout the day today if time permits) to go right back to work informing our readers of the day's notable events. Also, feel free to check out our brethren 101st Keebee members. The link list to the left is growing each day I can add to it.
Publius II
The Bunny ;)
Mistress Pundit
If you're new to the site, or new to this idea it's real simple. I choose a couple, two or three topics, and I want the thoughts of the people here. The would be Sabrina, our partner in Chicago. Marcie, my beuatiful better half, and myself. The rules are even simpler than the concept. We each get 1 paragraph to talk about the subjects in question, and there's no insults or slams (not that we would) allowed. Disagreement is one thing; being rude is another.
I want thoughts on the following stories:
--Moussaoui was sentenced this week. Do you agree with the sentence? Why? Why not?
I posted that this case belonged in a military tribunal, and not OUR courst system. Not only is the military better equipped to handle the case, but Moussaoui shouldn't have had access to our judicial system. It isn't designed to handle war criminals, and as he isn't a citizen, he shouldn't have been extended such rights which are available only to citizens. The military has a different set of guidelines that they have to abide by that would be better suited to handle him. In addition to that, i really have to hand it to the prosecution for blowing the case. The jury stated that the government couldn't prove the aggravating factors in the case. If you can't prove that in a conspiracy case where 3000 Americans died because of people like Moussaoui, you should hang your head in shame.
I cannot speak for my associates, but I personally feel let down by the criminal justice system, and
I am pretty sure I know why. First of all, the criminal justice system handles just that--crimes. Murder, rape, child molestation, fraud, etc. That is what the criminal justice deals with, and nothing more. It was the Justice Department's brilliant move to try Moussaoui in the criminal justice system, believing that an unbiased jury of American citizens would find in their favor. This was beyond dumb. After reading over the reports from the jury (we had one juror who as ardently against the death penalty even though he knew it was likely to be asked of from the jury; mitigating factors such as childhood brought into account) I knew that the American public could not handle this task. It is not that America is "stupid," per se. But I feel they cannot handle the weight of such a case. Moussaoui should have been tried in a military tribunal. He was a soldier in a war, and because of that, it is the military who should have given him hi trial. Would he have received the death penalty then? Who knows? But the inclusion of such things in a trial regarding the guilt or innocence, plus the sentence, of a man who has stated--boldly--that he has no problem with sacrificing his life to kill innocent people, and that he helped those hijackers on 9/11, is preposterous. Civilians cannot comprehend these things, and the Moussaoui sentencing shows it.
Both ladies did a good job explaining their ideas regarding the Moussoui sentencing. I, too, agree that this should have been best left in the hands of the military. I commend the Justice Department for wanting to show the world that Americans can handle such matters. Now, not to be rude to Americans, but it's pretty obvious that we can't. This was shown by that fact that the jury fell for the defense's tactics, including this: They agreed that Moussaoui's childhood was a mitigating factor in what happened to him, and his steps in joining al Qaeda. OK, while that might make sense if Moussaoui had commited a random act of street violence, such a factor weighs little in this case. What would stick in my craw (if I hadn't had it removed years ago so that I sleep better at night) is that such a mitigating circumstance is completely irrelevant in a case where we're discussing a soldier, on a mission to hurt us. Civilian courts can't handle this, but military courts can.
--The "May Day" Demonstration for illegal aliens was held. Was it a "bust" to their cause? A boost?
First things first: May Day? Not the best day to hold such a demonstration. That goes especially for the pro-Communist groups that were out amidst the demonstrators. As I noted yesterday, there were plent of Che shirts, signs and banners out amongst the people. In addition to that, there were plenty of anti-American, pro-"reconquista" people out there. But the biggest bust about the whole thing is that the people it was held for (in honor of, or what have you) did not bother to participate. Their jobs were more important, and so was the day-to-day shopping. I do not want to seem like I am defending the illegal aliens here, but they really are no different from us. They have jobs. They have families. And those families go to the store each day--from the small convenient store on the corner to the big-chain grocery store up the street--just to be able to provide their meals. The only people who should have learned a lesson from the May Day demonstrations were its organizers. Their message, apparently, did not get out, or other's livliehoods were more important. I am guessing it
was the latter.
Personally, this was a bust. And it was a bust for three specific reasons. First, the illegal aliens went to work--the bulk of them showed up and did the work they were hired to do. Second, they failed to "shut down" the cities that were on their "hit-list." LA, Washington, Phoenix, Dallas, Chicago, and New York had little in the way of traffic problems from the demonstrations because the cities were prepared. On top of that, only about one to two million nationwide turned out for the demonstration. Third, and most importantly (and as Marcie pointed out above) the average retailer was still used on Monday by citizen and alien alike. Many citizens took to the stores to do what they could to help retailers that were worried. And while some stores like Target, or Wal-Mart might have suffered a bit of a drop, grocery stores were still raking in the business. No, the demonstrations failed miserably.
I must concur that the demonstrations were a failure. For the reasons that Marcie gave, as well as those that Thomas gave. BUT I believe the biggest failure in it was not the demonstration itself, but rather it's organizers. They wanted this to be the end-all, be-all for the illegal immigrant movement. They were so hoping that the demonstration would be so large, so snarling, so over-the-top that the Congress, in it's collective weak-kneed approach to almost everything, would cower and cave in. This demonstration was for intimidation, and nothing more. They wanted the major cities in the United States brought to a stand still. They wanted retailers to suffer--not only from a lack of business, but also in the lack of employees. But, it was the illegals themselves that sent the message, and it came through loud and clear. For those not listening (and that includes the liberals that organized this utterly ridiculous demonstration) this is, basically, what the illegals said in return: "We came to America for a better life, and a better job. Here in America we have more opportunity than in Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venenzuela, France, Jordan, Germany, Romania, Iran, or any other nation on the face of the earth. We don't want to break your laws, but for our sakes, and the sakes of our families, we must. But we will work hard, and we will be productive members of your society." Yes, they broke our laws to get here, and for that they should be punished. But they learned their lesson from the last protest. They saw how upset we became over it, and thought better this time around.
--Sen. John McCain announced on Don Imus' show that he would give up the First Amendment for a "cleaner government." Thoughts regarding Capt. Queeg?
I'm taking point on this one for the sheer fact that I'm not aware of anyone (except maybe my beautiful other half) that dislikes this man more than I do. Hugh Hewitt claims this guy gets the important things right, yet I don't hear him stating that this is one of those times. Captain Queeg, as I like to call him (Dammit, someone stole his strawberries, and he's not letting this nation rest until he gets them back!) has some serious problems. No, I'm not talking about the possible mental problems the poor slob might have. I'm talking about his ideas of conservatism vs. the base. It's a clear picture for the base to see that he doesn't mesh with what we embrace as conservatism. Yes, he's pro-life, and he's been an ardent defender of the war. Granted he criticizes the war at nearly every step (from troop levels, to body armor, to armored-up Humvees, to what constitutes torture, etc.) and did a fine job of that in 2004 while the president fought off the Kerry dogs that McCain seemed to be petting. But on the issue of Campaign Finance Reform, McCain made his bed right there. When he knowingly and willingly stole away part of our freedom of speech, he showed that he didn;'t stand for the conservatism that we do. We hold the Constitution in high regard, and place it on a pedestal so that no one can tough it. With this statement on the Imus show, McCain not only says he wants to touch it, but that he wants to get rid of it in favor of a cleaner government. To the lousy senator from the great state of Arizona I say this: Leave it alone, and let Congress come up with the ways to deal with such decisions, such as the House reform package (that needs another once over), and allow the Congress to clean itself up. There's no need to state your sacrificing anything out of the Constitution because the voices in the mirrors you kiss tell you to.
There is no love-lost between Senator McCain and myself. I have disliked this man since his implication inthe Keating Five scandal. His self-destruction on the campaign trail in 2000 showed him to be of the unhinged variety. Campaign Finance Reform, needless to say, was a boondoggle which should haunt him to the end of his career; the legislation being a direct violation of his oath. The Gang of 14 deal sealed his fate, as far as I was concerned, when he decided that the Seante (or, I should say a select few in the Senate) were granted "extra-Constitutional" powers; those rendered in their decision as to whether or not a judicial nominee represented "extraordinary circumstances." As someone who is well-versed in the Constitution, no such provision exists; the Senate rule is wholly unconstitutional. The extra salt thrown on the grave is his torture legislation. The president did curtail its meaning--as is his province as Commander-in-Chief--but the "sin" remains, nonetheless. His idea of tossing the Constitution overboard in favor of a "quick fix" right now comes as no surprise to me, and it changes nothing. Despite Hugh Hewitt's idea that the man is good on the main issues, I disagree. His methodology revolves around him alone, and the country be damned. I do not trust him. I do not like him. And I want this soundbite played everyday should he run for president. Bury him, here and now.
If there were ever two-like minds on the subject that apparently dislike the man. And while I can't argue with them, I also can't add anymore than what they have already stated. As a ConLaw lawyer, I, too, dislike the disregard that Sen. McCain has for the Constitution. When I go into court, or take a case regarding the Constitution, my goal is to help my client, but also to uphold the ideals and interpretations of the Constitution. As I am much like Thomas and Marcie, I have an idea of what that means. That's not always the case when I take a case, and I have to play by precedents set, but it's better than watching a whole chunk of the constitution disappear. When this doddering old fool deicdes to run for president, I hope that people like thomas and Marcie will go out and actively campaign against John McCain on the grounds that the man has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to the Constitution, and he's too dangerous to be messing around with it.
--Ken Blackwell won the primary for governor in Ohio. Thoughts on that, and the GOP in 2006/2008?
I like Ken Blackwell, and I contributed to his primary campaign. I'll be doing so again in his run for the governorship of Ohio. And I think his primary win sends a big signal to the GOP base, as well as the Democrat Party. We're not going away. We're noit running away from 2006. We're making strides. Let's face it, Blackwell is goig to be a tough opponent. As will Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, and Mark Kennedy. These people are solid conservatives, in the mold of a John Kyl, a Rick Santorum, and a Ronald Reagan. They understand the trials ahead, both in the war and on the domestic front. You ask me what I think of the GOP in 2006/2008? I say that it looks good. It looks better than what it did a couple months ago.
In honor of James Lileks, "The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades." (For those scratching their heads, that would be James' theme music on the Hugh Hewitt show. But it is true. The future is much brighter now. Both houses of Congress are looking at immigration reform. They are addressing issues regarding the privileges in Congress, and dealing with the problem of lobbyists. They are not folding up the tent and staying at home, fuming over the inablity of certain members of the GOP. We are getting out. And we are getting the word out. To top it off, those people that Sabrina listed are also stand on that platform of reform. They also stand upon the platform laid out by Hugh Hewitt time and again. No, the future looks good for the GOP, but only as long as they stay on target and on message. What is unfolding right now for 2006 and 2008 shows that we know what the base has to do, and the base is responding already. They did it in the primary for Ken Blackwell, and they will do it across the country in other tightly contested races.
I highlighted Hugh's distinguished post yesterday regarding this, which is why this question is before us today. With the steps taken in recent months, and the judicial nominee battle starting to heat up again over the likes of Kavanaugh, Boyle, and a host of others, the GOP is sending a message to the base and to the Democrats that we are not simply going to go silently sulking into the night. If we go down in 2006, we will do so swinging. We know that to put the Democrats in power right now--at this crucial juncture in this nation's history, and especially in the war--would be disastrous. They don't understand what is at stake, or if they do, they lack the ability to care about it. It shows. It shows everytime they bring up retreat and defeat. They bring it up when they push forward a cockamamie fix to the immigration problem that bears no accountability in it, or added border security. We do get it. Our candidates know what the base wants. And no, to the Left I say we don't want a "theocracy" or a "dictatorship." We want sensible and sound leadership from Washington. We want reforms in a system that has been broken by years of neglect, influence peddling, and corruption. In short, we want the nation back. We want the nation we had, in part, in the beginning. Personal responsibility, common sense leadership, and an end to the special interests that seem to drive an agenda wholly contrary to what we believe in. Debate is healthy for a nation. Capitulation, and an adherence to a status quo that has failed isn't.
And, on that note, I think we'll close this segment of Grilling the Minds out. We will be right back here tomorrow (and throughout the day today if time permits) to go right back to work informing our readers of the day's notable events. Also, feel free to check out our brethren 101st Keebee members. The link list to the left is growing each day I can add to it.
Publius II
The Bunny ;)
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home