The Next War

March 19th, 2009

Through out the history of our nation, since it?s founding in the fire of revolution in 1776, we have spent more time at war through either actual fighting or in proxy wars, than we have at peace.

We have fought wars against almost every major European power, including ones who are now our allies, such as Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, as well as nations that are still not so friendly such as Russia.

America?s conflicts 1798 to 2004


Read more

< |||| > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Author Archive

Prop 8 The Squeal

Yesterday’s ruling on the constitutionality of the process in which Prop 8 was added to the California Constitution, even though I begrudgingly agree with the ruling, is far from the end of the fight for equality in California or in the US in general.

Saturday an event billed as “Meet in the Middle” will be held in Fresno to kick off the drive to put a repeal initiative on the ballot in 2010.


A new law suit has also been filed, this time by Theodore Olson and David Boies, that claims Prop 8 violates the equal protections clause of the US Constitution. The problem here is that just about every GLBT organization out there is against the idea of taking this to the US Supreme Court and since this is being filed in federal court it could very well end up there. (You might recognize the names as they were the two lawyers that opposed each other in the Gore vs Bush fight in 2000.) I wonder how this could effect the questioning the Sotamayor gets at her confirmation hearings.

I’m personally more included to allow the US Supreme Court fight. I don’t feel as if I should have to ask a majority for permission to exercise the civil rights that were promised to me by the US Constitution.

Prop 8 Decision Day: Update: Upheld

Today the California Supreme Court will rule on case that aledges that Proposition 8, banning same sex marriage in that state, is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is a rewrite of the constitution and not just an amendment. Unfortunately I think the argument is a weak one and I?m not expecting the court to rule against it. However I do expect them to uphold honoring the nearly 18,000 or so marriages that were performed during the short time that it was legal in the state.

Regardless how it turns out I don?t expect that this is the last time the fight for marriage equality in California will be in front of the voters.

Update: Prop 8 has been upheld by the California Supreme Court, however all marriages performed before the vote will remain legal.

Thank you California for letting the Majority trample the rights of the minority in order to maintain your religious irrelevance.

Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS

image NBC interrupted the Today show this morning to report (yes they interrupted the news, with the news, funny how that works.) that the President would be nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court at a 10:15 press conference.

The 54 year old woman who would be replacing Justice David Souter, would be the nation?s first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. She has a long history in law

I?ll post more about her background and the expected upcoming nomination fight later today.

Micro-managing the Tax Payer Checkbook

image002The President and congress have been working on getting an $85 Billion dollar war spending bill passed. On Thursday the House approved the bill but added almost $12 Billion dollars in spending above and beyond what Obama asked for.

I understand what the first 85 Billion is for. Increased numbers of troops in Afghanistan requires money for transportation, supplies, and infrastructure to maintain them. Money is also needed to continue operations in Iraq.

So what does this extra 12 Billion get us?

First of all, they added an extra $2.2 Billion in foreign aid, above and beyond that of what the president asked for. Why is congresses added more money to foreign aid than what the president wants? I don?t see any reason for it.

Second, $4 Billion of it goes to the purchase of military equipment, including the C-17 cargo planes that the Pentagon has stated it doesn?t need. Hello? If they don?t need them, why are we buying them?

This is the part that gets me. What gives congress the authority to tell the Pentagon that they have to buy these planes even if the Pentagon says they don?t need them? I understand that congress sets the budget, but shouldn?t it be the Pentagon that decides how the money is spent? I can even understand congress saying ok, here is this program for buying cargo planes, you have this much cash to do it with. Then if the Pentagon says they don?t need them or buys what they need, the left over money goes back to congress for other projects. It just doesn?t make sense that congress has the ability to say to the military, or any other government organization, that you have to buy this or that regardless of if you need it or not, that?s just wasteful. Why are we letting congress micromanage the checkbook?

Cross-posted on The Pajama Pundit

The Younger Generations Speak Out

Categories