This will be my last post on this blog. Since I'm now an expectant father, I've concentrated on my fatherhood blog, which doesn't leave much time or energy for this one. I hope to develop some degree of readership over at this new blog, beyond the sporadic and accidental visits to this blog.
Perhaps someday I'll return to a format like this, but if you'd like to keep reading my work, head on over to Paternal Prose (http://www.paternalprose.com).
1/26/2007
1/13/2007
Impeachment
I hear and see a lot more these days about the prospect of impeaching George W. Bush. At first, it just seemed like a concept that a few nuts on the far left were pushing. I decided to take a closer look at the impeachment process.
Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states the following:
There are accusations that the president lied and fabricated intelligence to justify the cause for the Iraq war. If either or both of those accusations are true, I would argue for impeachment, and ultimately, removal from office. As a citizen without intimate knowledge of how the Bush Administration arrived at the conclusion that invading Iraq was necessary, I can only make the following observations:
1 Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states the the House of Representatives has sole power of impeachment. Section 3 states that the Senate has sole power to try impeachments.
2 If George Mason, one of the founding fathers present at the Constitutional convention in 1787 had gotten his way, incompetence may have ended up being grounds for impeachment. He suggested the term "maladministration" be added, as he felt the initial words "Treason" and "Bribery" were too limiting. Ultimately, "high crimes and misdemeanors" was chosen over "maladministration". You can read more about this here, under the Impeachable Offenses section.
Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states the following:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."I don't think the President has committed treason or bribery. He may, however, be guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors", mainly because those terms leave much room for interpretation. This interpretation is left to the House of Representatives, and the Senate1. Of course, a Republican's and a Democrat's interpretation of a high crime or misdemeanor may vary.
There are accusations that the president lied and fabricated intelligence to justify the cause for the Iraq war. If either or both of those accusations are true, I would argue for impeachment, and ultimately, removal from office. As a citizen without intimate knowledge of how the Bush Administration arrived at the conclusion that invading Iraq was necessary, I can only make the following observations:
- George Bush and other officials told us on a number of occasions that Iraq posed a grave threat to us, and was planning to acquire, or had already acquired WMD's. We have not uncovered any of these weapons to date. The inability to locate these weapons suggests a lie, or incompetence.2
- Saddam Hussein had a weak military which was no match for our forces. I suspect he knew and learned this shortly after his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I also believe that he knew it was not in his best interest to attack the U.S., if he wished to remain in power. This does not sound like a country that posed a grave threat to us.
1 Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states the the House of Representatives has sole power of impeachment. Section 3 states that the Senate has sole power to try impeachments.
2 If George Mason, one of the founding fathers present at the Constitutional convention in 1787 had gotten his way, incompetence may have ended up being grounds for impeachment. He suggested the term "maladministration" be added, as he felt the initial words "Treason" and "Bribery" were too limiting. Ultimately, "high crimes and misdemeanors" was chosen over "maladministration". You can read more about this here, under the Impeachable Offenses section.
1/01/2007
New Year's Non-Resolutions
I think New Year's resolutions are mostly a joke, and have become a way for businesses to make money off of people's admirable, yet destined for failure, attempts to make positive life changes.
With that in mind, I present to you my list of "Things I'd Like to See Happen for 2007 That May or May Not Come to Fruition":
With that in mind, I present to you my list of "Things I'd Like to See Happen for 2007 That May or May Not Come to Fruition":
- Have a child. This goal is already 75% complete. Due in April!
- Reacquaint myself with Buddhism, and begin meditating daily again.
- Start taking the dog on daily hour-long walks.
- Be able to squat 300 lbs. and bench press 200 lbs. by June 1st.
- Double retirement savings by year's end.
12/30/2006
Saddam No More
Broad Sunlit Uplands summed up the current events in Iraq very nicely. He put into words much of what I've been thinking lately, and in the wake of the hanging, but did it much better than I could have. So, I offer you his words.
A Road Full of Assholes
I used to drive fast and tailgate other motorists. It made me feel like a rebel to drive 75 mph in a 50 mph zone, and piss off the guy in front of me. When you're a twenty year-old shy college kid lacking confidence, you do what you can to bolster your self-image.
It's interesting how much my perception has changed nowadays. Ten years ago, I thought it was cool or rebellious to speed/tailgate. Now, I think that people who behave that way on the road are being assholes, just the same way people thought of me ten years ago as I sped by them.
My dream is to stop one of these people one day and ask them where they are going that's so damned important. And, maybe call them an asshole.
It's interesting how much my perception has changed nowadays. Ten years ago, I thought it was cool or rebellious to speed/tailgate. Now, I think that people who behave that way on the road are being assholes, just the same way people thought of me ten years ago as I sped by them.
My dream is to stop one of these people one day and ask them where they are going that's so damned important. And, maybe call them an asshole.
12/29/2006
A Christmas Gourd
My brother John, and his wife Aislynn, made this for us as a Christmas gift this year. It's obvious that they put a lot of thought and work into it, and the result is beautiful. They both have so much talent. We will be displaying it proudly in our home.
12/21/2006
Some Progress
Governor John Corzine (D-NJ) signed legislation today granting civil unions to same-sex couples.
The legislation is a nice step forward, and New Jersey now joins more progressive states such as Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts, the only one in the group that allows same-sex marriage.
I'm not sure why it's so difficult for lawmakers and politicians to take that final step and allow marriage to gay couples. It can't be to keep one's constituency happy, because the bigots among that constituency are already going to be angered by civil unions. It must be some attempt to preserve the tradition of marriage, but I'm not sure what's left to preserve. Marriage is barely taken seriously in this country anymore, with divorce rates up over 40% in first-year marriages.
We're getting there slowly, and it's clear that minds are opening. It's very encouraging, but I am eager for the day when gay couples can proudly declare that they are married in the legal and figurative sense.
The legislation is a nice step forward, and New Jersey now joins more progressive states such as Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts, the only one in the group that allows same-sex marriage.
I'm not sure why it's so difficult for lawmakers and politicians to take that final step and allow marriage to gay couples. It can't be to keep one's constituency happy, because the bigots among that constituency are already going to be angered by civil unions. It must be some attempt to preserve the tradition of marriage, but I'm not sure what's left to preserve. Marriage is barely taken seriously in this country anymore, with divorce rates up over 40% in first-year marriages.
We're getting there slowly, and it's clear that minds are opening. It's very encouraging, but I am eager for the day when gay couples can proudly declare that they are married in the legal and figurative sense.
Spammers
Today while looking through my spam folder, I came to a conclusion: those who engage in spamming tactics are devoid of morals, and interested in nothing more than personal gain. Of course I'm not the only one to arrive at this conclusion. There are plenty of us, but not enough.
The phrase "devoid of morals" is a little strong, but I believe it to be true. How can one justify forcing anything upon an unwilling victim, sometimes employing deceiptful tactics to do so, with the sole intent to make a profit? The answer is that spammers are inconsiderate, self-serving, and therefore, immoral.
A few days ago, someone attempted to post a comment on my other blog. The comment contained links to pornographic web sites. The content of the blog? Fatherhood. Wow! That's a serious lack of consideration and a shining example of putting one's own interests before those of others.
We'll never be able to stop spamming, no matter how many anti-spam checks we put in place. There will always be another hole for spammers to exploit, especially as web technologies continue to emerge and evolve. Assuming that one day we are able to stop spamming, those that would spam will simply find another way to achieve their goal.
Now comes the part where I ask a spammer to explain themselves. Of course that won't happen on this blog, but since I was fairly harsh in my criticism, I think it's only fair that a subject of the criticism be allowed to defend him or herself.
The phrase "devoid of morals" is a little strong, but I believe it to be true. How can one justify forcing anything upon an unwilling victim, sometimes employing deceiptful tactics to do so, with the sole intent to make a profit? The answer is that spammers are inconsiderate, self-serving, and therefore, immoral.
A few days ago, someone attempted to post a comment on my other blog. The comment contained links to pornographic web sites. The content of the blog? Fatherhood. Wow! That's a serious lack of consideration and a shining example of putting one's own interests before those of others.
We'll never be able to stop spamming, no matter how many anti-spam checks we put in place. There will always be another hole for spammers to exploit, especially as web technologies continue to emerge and evolve. Assuming that one day we are able to stop spamming, those that would spam will simply find another way to achieve their goal.
Now comes the part where I ask a spammer to explain themselves. Of course that won't happen on this blog, but since I was fairly harsh in my criticism, I think it's only fair that a subject of the criticism be allowed to defend him or herself.
12/19/2006
How do we win?
George Bush today said that he is "inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops..." to fight the war on terror. He also stated that we are in an ideological war that's going to persist for "a while". That is a true statement, if by "a while", Bush means "forever". I've had a problem with the war on terror since its inception in 2001. My gut feeling was -- and still is -- that you can't wage war on an ideology or a concept. We can stop one terrorist, of even one thousand of them, but there will always be another waiting to attack. Admittedly, I don't know how to end global terrorism, but I don't think that anyone does, including our politicians and military. I'm certain that throwing more troops at the problem, however, is not the solution. We have already lost almost 3,000 Americans in the war in Iraq, which is at least the number we lost in the 9/11 attacks.
People who are hell-bent on seeing the demise of the United States will not be deterred by sanctions, death, or any other consequence of which we're currently aware. It's unlikely, then, that throwing military might at the problem is going to be effective. Terrorists simply aren't afraid to die for their cause, and will gladly engage in battle to defend it.
Waging a war on terror to me seems as effective as employing the death penalty as a deterrent to murder. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the war on terror and -- more specifically -- the war in Iraq, have increased global terrorism. I don't have a solution for eradicating terrorism, but I don't think the Bush Administration does, either. I'm inclined to believe the solution isn't a military one. How many troops must we sacrifice before we declare ourselves victorious in the war on terror?
Ideas, anyone?
People who are hell-bent on seeing the demise of the United States will not be deterred by sanctions, death, or any other consequence of which we're currently aware. It's unlikely, then, that throwing military might at the problem is going to be effective. Terrorists simply aren't afraid to die for their cause, and will gladly engage in battle to defend it.
Waging a war on terror to me seems as effective as employing the death penalty as a deterrent to murder. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the war on terror and -- more specifically -- the war in Iraq, have increased global terrorism. I don't have a solution for eradicating terrorism, but I don't think the Bush Administration does, either. I'm inclined to believe the solution isn't a military one. How many troops must we sacrifice before we declare ourselves victorious in the war on terror?
Ideas, anyone?
Checkless Checkout
What ever happened to "Cash only please" at the express checkout lanes? I remember that some grocery stores used to ban checks explicitly from the express lanes. Say, H.E.B., can we bring that rule back?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
