News for Dogs: Week of October 14, 2007

I Won’t Dance, You Can’t Make Me:

Up first is the story of a teacher who stood, or I should say refuse to stand, on her principals when she decided not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Dianne Dunfry is a middle school teacher in Seabrook, NH, who filed a lawsuit in federal court stating that her “First Amendment Rights were violated.”. It is kind of ironic that such a story like this would happen in a State whose motto is “Live Free or Die.”

The Right of Dissent

Several students joined Ms. Dunfry by declining to participate in the morning custom. Ms. Dunfry has never stated why, after a decade of performing the Pledge, she decided not to partake any further. Ms. Dunfry’s is not only alleging that her First Amendment Rights are being violated, but that parents, school board members, and school administrators have been retaliating against her for her refusal.

The schools position is that Ms. Dunfry has other discipline problems unrelated to her First Amendment lawsuit. The teachers union is supporting Ms. Dunfry it what should prove to be a no win scenario for anyone.

Ms. Dunfry joins a long list of public officials, usually teachers such as Brian Bown (How Many Teachers Does it Take to Prove Political Dissent), who refuse to participate in events such as the Pledge or a moment of silence. Teachers are public representatives that fall under the mandate of public policy. That does not mean that they surrender rights guaranteed by the Constitution, however State and city governments establish policies, which teachers agree to adhere to as a condition of their employment. Considering Ms. Dunfry freely participated for over 10 years, is validation that she understood her roles a teacher. I am surprised that as an American History teacher, Ms. Dunfry forgot the most important part of the First Amendment, which can be found in the first sentence - “Congress Shall Make No Law…” I might be wrong, but I do not believe that the school policies for the Seabrook Middle School are drafted, approved and mandated by the Congress of the United States.

We are Moveon.org, We Can Do Whatever the Hell We Want!

Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, got a lesson in hypocrisy this week at the hands of the keepers of public virtue, no other than Moveon.org.

Senator Collins is a moderate Republican that is well respected in Washington and in her home State of Maine. Senator Collin’s campaign produced a video meant to distance herself from the recent “General Betray Us” ad created by Moveon.org. Senator Collins placed the ad on google.com, like every other politician in America has done. That ad was removed by google.com at the request of Moveon.org.

Moveon.org Pollutes Politics

Moveon.org cited “copyright” violations because Moveon.org is trademarked, and Senator Collins campaign violated a google.com policy on trademark materials. Have you look at the material that Moveon.org has produced against politicians, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and numerous others. Each of these have copyrighted/trademark their materials, yet Moveon.org has taken the position that since they are “public figures,” than they are not protected. Yet why does that argument not apply to a Moveon.org, a “public pundit,” that has a huge public footprint?

Hey Moveon.org, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!”

Dust of the Mantle, And Move the Oscar Over:

Your 2007 Noble Peace Prize Winner is……….Albert Arnold Gore!

Like the Oscar Mr. Gore won earlier this year, the Nobel Prize means very little to anyone other that Mr. Gore’s supporters. The Nobel Prize long ago, like the Oscar, lost any merit when it became clear that it was nothing more than a “popularity contest.” Very seldom do the truly deserving ever get nominated, let alone win.

What was interesting about this story is that it happen on the same day that an English Court ruled against the movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” the same movie Mr. Gore won both the Oscar and the Nobel Prize for:

It Just Doesn't Hold Water

School administrators wanted to show “The Inconvenient Truth,” uncontested in public schools. The judge cited 9 distinct errors/misrepresentations that call into question the integrity of the movie.

Integrity matters very little to some people, as long as the "end justifies the means." The problem is the "means" is supported by propaganda that props up their issues, or attack their opponents.

The Politics of Genocide

When is a genocide not genocide? When it gets in the way of politics. The non-binding “Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide - House Resolution (HR) 106”, is meant to acknowledge the deaths of over 300,000 Armenian’s (some put the death toll as high 1.5 million people), and hundreds of thousands who were forced from their lands, many of whom came to America.

The Genocide That Must Not Be Forgotten

All eight of the former US Secretary of State’s have come out in opposition this resolution. The State department, as an extension of the Bush administration, is also opposed to this resolution. A similar resolution was rejected by President Clinton during his term in office. The general consensus is that passing HR106 would strain our relationship with Turkey, a strong ally in Iraq. In fact as I was writing this piece the Turkish Ambassador to the United States was recalled. That may be so, but it shouldn’t stop us from doing the right thing.

Some would say that we should leave it to the historians to decide whether what happen in Armenian was a genocide. That is ludicrous! There sits a memorial on the site of the former Auschwitz Concentration Camp that simply states “Never Again.” The sign wasn’t placed there by historians, but by a world that made a promise to remain vigilant. Somehow we seem to have forgotten those words. Burundi (1972), Cambodia (1975 – 1979), Bosnia (1992 -1995), Rwanda (1994) Sudan (2000 – 2002), and Darfur have all happen on our watch. How easy was it for us to forget two simple words? Unless we stop and think about what history teaches us, past mistakes are destined to be repeated. Recognizing all genocides, including what happen in Armenian, is the first step to preventing them.

Darfur happened because it was not politically expedient for America, or the rest of the world, to intervene, just as it was with Armenia (1890 - 1920). What the cause and effect of each genocide has on the world can be left to the historians. The remembrance and prevention should be left to each of us. When it comes to “crimes against humanity” we are all historians.

21 Countries have already officially recognized the Armenian Genocide to include Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Vatican City. 40 of the 50 United States have passed resolutions recognizing the atrocities committed against the Armenian people. The United States, United Kingdom and the European Union have not official used the word “genocide,” but have acknowledged atrocities did occur.

The death toll and the methods used against the Armenian people are considered by many to be the first modern “genocide.” The Armenian genocide was the model studied by Hitler as he prepared for his campaign against the Jews and other “undesirables.” In fact, the lack of attention the world paid to the Armenian Genocide emboldened the Nazis. To call it anything else, or reject that the atrocities “rise to the level of a genocide,” is to rebuff history and devalue those that perished at the hands of evil.

In the end, House Resolution 106 lacks teeth because it is “non-binding,” a term suggesting a “lack of importance,” which many consider insulting to the Armenian people who suffered under the Ottoman Empire (who in 1915 was a Muslim nation that was governed by Sharia-based laws) and to their ancestors seeking affirmation. But it is a start.

As for Turkey, they should look to their hearts as a nation, and help begin the healing. The Armenian Genocide does not represent who Turkey is today as a country, nor more than slavery represent present-day America. There is no shame in admitting the failures of your past, either as a person or as a country. But pride can be found in our actions today to right the wrongs that clutter history, if to do nothing more than to say “Never Again!”

NOTE:

Both BBC (which I have included) and PBS presented documentaries of the subject. Although the BBC leans heavily on America’s failing to recognize the atrocities (while ignoring their own government, as well as other world governments failure to respond), it is a valid piece.

BBS – Betrayed

News for Dogs: Week of October 7, 2007

Character Training:

Recently I wrote an article that asked the question “Is character important (Our Moral Compass)?” Of course character is important, but somehow we seem to have lost its value in today’s world. Maybe it is just the result of the “free-spirited” lifestyle choices that was born in the 60’s, and intensified through the 70’s and 80’s. Character seems to be the victim of the “me” mind-set that has permeating our culture.

What is the solution? How about “Character Training,” as suggested by author Randy Sheridan:

Character Training

Yeah..Baby!:

How do Democrats get people to vote for them? The old fashion way, they buy their vote! Hillary Clinton has purposed a “radical” idea (Hillary's Political Advisor: Time Magazine) of providing a $5000. 00 bond for every kid born in America (including those born to illegal immigrants). The only difference between Clinton’s scheme and those used by the likes of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson is the taxpayers of America would foot the bill.

But not so quickly Ms. Clinton, American’s aren’t as dumb as you think the are (excepts those Democrats “with amnesia” who will vote for Hillary):

Bad Idea...to some

France Sides with America…really?!!?:

Sounding a bit like President Bush, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, warned that military action would not be ruled out should Iran continue with their weapons, I am sorry..I meant to say energy, program:

Tough Talk a la carte

Peace activist throughout Europe will have to fix their signs to display Sarkozy pictures with a Hitler mustache instead of President Bush.

Would a Woman Make a Good President?

Much is being made about the possibility of Senator Hillary Clinton becoming the next President of the United States, with great emphasis on the fact that she is a woman. American’s are being asked if they would vote for a woman for president, or for that matter a Hispanic, or a Black candidate. Maybe Hillary should be the first female President, or Richardson the first Hispanic or Obama the first Black. Let’s just get it out of the way so that race and sex won’t be as important in the future when we go to select our President. The problem is the fact that a candidate is a woman, Hispanic, or Black should not be the primary qualifier for them to be President. In fact, it should be so far down on the list, it would be irrelevant.

The desire to elect the first female President is so compelling that one of the most anticipated TV shows in 2005 was ABC’s “Commander-in-Chief.” The show portrayed Republican males as schemers, seeking to undermine President Gena Davis’s administration. The show believed so strongly that American’s were incapable of voting for a woman as President, it had the female President ascending to power by accident, a fluke that was never suppose to happen. The show fluttered, due in large part to the in-fighting between the creator and the network. In the end the show joined a long list of shows thrown into the heap bin of TV history.

“Commander-in-Chief,” like the “West Wing” before it, portrayed a President of strength and, all though flawed, people of character. The problem was, that unlike the actual world, writers penned scripts that were disconnected from the true complexities a “real” President must deal with on a daily basis.

I guess I am naïve, but I don’t tend to look at the hereditary attributes of a candidate, but to their character and experience, when deciding whether to cast my vote for them. I suspect that there are people out their sallow enough who will vote for their next representative based solely on the candidates race or sex. Would I vote for a woman for president, yes. Would I vote for Hillary Clinton, no.



It was once believed that the first female President of the United States would be in the mold of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a diehard Conservative. Margaret Thatcher was Britain’s version of Ronald Reagan. Intelligent, tough, and all to aware of the perils that existed in the world. There is something to be said about Prime Minister Thatcher’s strength, not because she was a woman, but because she was a person of character. Unfortunately, she is not eligible to run for the Presidency of the United States.

There are however, well-qualified, Conservative women that are far superior to Hillary Clinton. These women possess the experience and character to serve as Commander-in-Chief:

North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole: Senator Dole ran for President in 2000. She received degrees from Duke University, Oxford and Harvard. Ms. Dole started out her political life as a Democrat, working in Washington on issues concerning the disabled. She worked in the Johnson administration, and stayed on when Nixon became President. Senator Dole served on the Federal Trade Commission under Nixon. Senator Dole would later go on to serve as Secretary of Transportation (the first woman to hold that position) within the Reagan administration, and Secretary of Labor in President George H. Bush’s administration. From 1991 to 1999 Senator Dole was the President of the Red Cross, which she vacated to run for President of the United States.

Tennessee Congressman Marsha Blackburn: Congressman (a terms she prefers to use) Blackburn graduated from Mississippi State University, and represents the 7th District of Tennessee, which encompasses Nashville and Memphis. She helped form the Williamson County Young Republicans in 1977, and would later serves as their president. Ms. Blackburn served on the Tennessee Film, Entertainment and Music Commission and won elective office 1998, serving as a State Senator in Tennessee. Congresswoman Blackburn was elected to the US House of Representatives in 2002, and was reelected (after running unopposed) in 2004, and again in 2006. The Washingtonian rated Congresswoman Blackburn one of the “three best freshman congressman” in 2003. Congresswoman Blackburn was also named the “hottest woman in U.S. politics” in an online poll sponsored by Politics1.com. I am not sure how that would help her political resume, but it would make interesting dinner conversation during State Dinners.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: The first African-American woman to serve as Secretary of State. Ms. Rice was born and raised in Alabama at a time when “White’s Only” signs littered the landscape of the South. Ms. Rice often speaks of the injustices that she witnessed and suffered as a black child growing up Alabama, an experience that would serve all of us well as the leader of the Free World. Ms. Rice received degrees from the University of Denver and Norte Dame. Ms. Rice was a professor at Stanford University, and later served as the Provost (a position responsible for managing the school budget). As Provost, Ms. Rice took a $20 million dollar deficit, and turned into a surplus within two-years. Secretary Rice’s strength is her knowledge of foreign affairs. Ms. Rice has served on the Council on Foreign Affairs, Special Assistant to the Joints Chiefs, Senior Director of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training in the Military, and the first African-American Woman to serves as National Security Advisor.



Each of these women is detested by the Left. Like Conservative African-American males who are often called “Uncle Tom’s (a term I despise), these women of character are considered sell outs to a narrow view of the “feminist movement.” In Secretary Rice’s case, she has been accused of turning her back on fellow Blacks because of her position on Affirmative Action.

The Presidency is bigger than any one person, and America has recovered from poor Presidents in the past. But as with all first, those that follow either benefit from the success of their predecessor, or are measured against their predecessor’s failures. In the end it doesn’t matter whether you are a woman, Black or Hispanic, if you lack character and the experience, you will fail as President. Something we as Americans should consider when voting.

How Do You Rate Free Speech?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

There it is in black and white, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Although some people would like to find some ambiguity in the 1st Amendment (or for that matter all of the other Amendments), the simplicity in its wording is what makes it so brilliant. The Constitution is a rule book for the federal government to follow, a guide to the caring and feeding of a strong and free republic.

One webpage that benefits from the Freedom of Speech is dailykos.com. This left leaning website finds glee whenever they perceive anyone, who does not think like them, is somehow embarrassed or shown up. “Daily KO’s” offered congratulations to former-Army General Wesley Clark for his appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show (Daily KO's). During his appearance Mr. Clark suggested political speech should adhere to a rating system, like movies do, and the first person Mr. Clark would apply this rating system to, the evil Rush Limbeaugh.

Mr. Clark served our country with honor and deserves our thanks. However, I am even more thankful that he is no longer a member of the United States Military. Suggesting that a rating system should be applied to political speech, an idea born out of the misrepresentation of the “phony soldier” comments made by Rush Limbaugh, is censorship, plain and simple. The first thing an oppressive government does to control the people is stifle the freedom of speech, and the fact that a former military leader made this suggestion is an example of why our military answers to a civil authority.




I can only imagine the outcry (and rightly so) if a conservative had suggested this rating system. The fact the Daily KO was so consumed by the “can of whoop ass” that Mr. Clark opened up on Tucker, they some how neglected to see that Mr. Clark was in fact recommending “abridging” our right to free speech. Good job Daily KO.........way to be vigilante!

First, the movie rating system is a private entity, established by the entertainment community to police themselves. Granted it was born out of the necessity to stop government intervention, but it is in no way a government agency. The movie rating system is to ensure that an audience is attending age appropriate material. The movie rating system is not the overseer of free speech. A movie can still be released and shown in this country without first passing the movie rating board.

Secondly, a rating system mandated and controlled, with the express desire to affect politic dissent, by a federal government agency would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Speech that points “a defiant finger” at the US Government is exactly the type of speech our founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the 1st Amendment.

Mr. Clark, and those at Daily KO’s, would do well to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln:

“Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. “

It is always important for us to remember that our Constitution is a covenant that ensures we “do not fear our government, but that our government fears” the people they swore to serve. Laws such as the proposed Fairness Doctrine, and rating systems suggested by Mr. Clark, are ideas that have served the governments of Russia, Cuba, Burma, and China well. Unfortunately the people living within those borders have suffered greatly. Is that the "vision" Mr. Clark has for America?