the duenorth archives.

a new day in the old world

How long has it been since we've seen something this substantial, something this enviable, in Europe? Read the Noonan article here. And pay close attention to Noonan's take on the Royal/Sarkozy debate in France.

on pelosi's recent visit to syria

"Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish."

Read the Washington Post editorial here.

when would this ever be 'humorous and fun for kids'?

There are many ingenious ways to get your point across, but this is not one of them. It's distasteful and exploitative. Actually, I hesitated to even write about the alternative Easter egg hunt because by doing so I'm drawing attention to it (exactly what the anti-war protesters would want). But some things are useful in showing the great lengths to which people will go when they think they are right.

Alternative Easter Egg Hunt Near White House to Use Fake Cluster Bombs Made By Kids FOXNews.com (April 6, 2007)

a new kind of journalism

From Michael Yon's blog...and inside Iraq:

"Best thing I ever did was join the Army. Second best thing I did was get out."

"I flew to Tikrit, then down to Baqubah. Realizing before landing that no publication would likely print the unvarnished truth from me, after about a month in Iraq, I started one of those blog things. I barely knew the word "blog." Soon, people were calling me a blogger. Was that a compliment or insult?"

"My access to soldiers and Iraqis was incredible, I saw parts of the war that weren't reported anywhere, like the courageous Iraqis who were getting into the fight to push back the terrorists."

"When my writings about Mosul started to attract a huge readership, the MSM press took notice, though not always with Tony C's collegial tone. Many "professional journalists" sneered at my work. The most common criticism was that I lacked "objectivity" because I called enemy fighters "terrorists" when they used car bombs to blow up civilians, or because I openly admitted that as an American, I hoped "our side" would win. I seemed to get particularly bad marks for describing the outcomes of combat missions with terms like: "killed the enemy," "shot the terrorist," or "captured the suspects." But in the context of the war as I was seeing it, the terminology was accurate."

"We simply cannot beat the terrorists if we do not learn how to embrace media realities."

on courteous public discourse and (gasp) responsible citizenry

"We should forbid less and demand more. We should exert less pressure from without and encourage more discipline from within. We should ask people to be dignified, hope they'll be generous, expect them to be fair. When they're not, we should correct them. But we shouldn't beat them to a pulp. Because that's not nice."

-Peggy Noonan, "That's Not Nice," Wall Street Journal Opinion, March 9, 2007

a circle around march 2008

"If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for [Barack] Obama but also for the Democrats."

-John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, in response to Obama's declaration that he would remove troops by March 2008 (courtesy of TIME, Feb. 26, 2007)

disowning conservative politics

I am incensed. This is exactly the attitude I find among my fellow believers in Christ that I fight so hard against. Cowardly Christianity. It's sugar-coated, to be sure, but it's still cowardly. Granted, there is a right and reasonable way to take your stand...sometimes it may even include choosing your battle--to a greater or lesser degree. But take a stand!

And read between the lines, people.

_____________

NY Times
July 30, 2006
Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

MAPLEWOOD, Minn. --- Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing---and the church's---to conservative political candidates and causes...

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

"When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses," Mr. Boyd preached. "When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross..."

Sermons like Mr. Boyd's are hardly typical in today's evangelical churches. But the upheaval at Woodland Hills is an example of the internal debates now going on in some evangelical colleges, magazines and churches. A common concern is that the Christian message is being compromised by the tendency to tie evangelical Christianity to the Republican Party and American nationalism, especially through the war in Iraq...

"When we joined years ago, Greg was a conservative speaker," said William Berggren, a lawyer who joined the church with his wife six years ago. "But we totally disagreed with him on this. You can't be a Christian and ignore actions that you feel are wrong. A case in point is the abortion issue. If the church were awake when abortion was passed in the 70's, it wouldn't have happened. But the church was asleep..."

Mr. Boyd said he never intended his sermons to be taken as merely a critique of the Republican Party or the religious right. He refuses to share his party affiliation, or whether he has one, for that reason. He said there were Christians on both the left and the right who had turned politics and patriotism into "idolatry..."

"America wasn't founded as a theocracy," he said. "America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn't bloody and barbaric. That's why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.

"I am sorry to tell you," he continued, "that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ..."

One woman asked: "So why NOT us? If we contain the wisdom and grace and love and creativity of Jesus, why shouldn't we be the ones involved in politics and setting laws?"

Mr. Boyd responded: "I don't think there's a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice. Just don't slap the label 'Christian' on it."

israel/lebanon conflict

"Being here is part of defending the country. If Hezbollah wins this, the terrorists win this war, and not just against us but against the free world. You think I'm coming down from here? Never."

...Read more from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page. Grapes of Wrath: Israel hasn't been so united since 1967, by Bret Stephens.

a marginalization of opinion

As Sunday's special "Opinion Exchange" section of the Star Tribune highlights, the battle over same-sex marriage is still very much a hot topic here in the cold state of Minnesota.

While marriage is currently defined in state statue as a "civil contract between a man and a woman," both advocates of gay marriage and defenders of traditional unions argue that the current law on the books is not enough. Commonality--indeed, even civility--ends here.

While I was excited to see such a vast amount of print dedicated to this important debate, I quickly saw the lop-sided nature of the "exchange." Several articles, including the paper's own editorial, take a stand against traditional marriage while only one--an interview with State Sen. Michele Bachmann--stands in defense of traditional marriage.

Here's a taste of the radical accusations and inflated scholarship of some of these articles:

-"The demand for gay and lesbian marriage 'was an inevitable result of the previous revolution in heterosexual marriage.'" (Stephanie Coontz' Marriage: A History, quoted in "The History")

-"Contrary to what you've heard, gays pose no threat to your traditional marriage. Even using the word 'marriage' in this debate is a ploy to mislead the public because the question isn't really about marriage in the way most Minnesotans think of it--that is, marriage in a church or in any religious context." (Star Tribune Editorial)

-"In terms of Minnesota's economy, passing [a state marriage amendment] would be like hanging up a gigantic sign: 'Innovative, entrepreneurial young people: Go elsewhere.'" (Interview with Richard Florida, "The Economic Impact")

And perhaps my favorite:

-"This question is being called from the right. It's a political ploy, cloaked as a morality play." (Lori Sturdevant, "The Politics: Courage in the Face of a Campaign Ploy")

Do these arguments sound tasteful, well researched and solid to you? Shoot, forget tasteful and well researched--are they even solid talking points?

In response to this massive amount of self-important tolerance-dumping, the Opinion 'Exchange' acquiesced to print an interview with Sen. Bachmann entitled, "The Catalyst: 'One of the Most Uniting Issues.'" Intriguing.

In the interview, Sen. Bachmann articulates the universally historic nature of the institution of man-woman marriage and its unifying force within culture. The Senator also calls for the public debate of the issue, saying, "The voting public should have the right to decide on the rules that we're going to live under as a society."

Senator Bachmann raises a very important point--that public debate in this country is vital to the perpetuation of democracy. The same could be said of abortion, or euthanasia, or stem-cell research.

But marriage is unique by nature of its position in the foundation of society as a load-bearing wall. Advocates of gay marriage don't realize they're fighting for an oxymoron. To expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is to render it impoverished and qualitatively different. It would render a change in the very nature of marriage and read like a chemistry textbook in which the old is done away with and a new substance has come.

Thus the debate must be taken to the American people, not simply decided from on high by wayward judges or the intellectual elite deluded into a mode of "forward" thinking. It is here, to which Sen. Bachmann alludes, where the American people will find themselves unified in a fight for what is right.

Cardinal Urges Reconsideration of Stance on Evolution

While I can no longer claim to be among the ranks of poor college students, one of those adjectives is unfortunately still relevant. I make it a habit to avoid splurges as often as possible (Starbucks Java Chip Frappucinos aside), but while in said coffee shop the other day I picked up a print copy of the New York Times. A headline on the front page had caught my eye: “Leading Cardinal Redefines Church’s View on Evolution.”

I thought to myself, this otta be good.

In the Times article, journalists Dean and Goodstein offer a middling analysis of Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn’s recent Op-Ed essay opposing Darwinian evolution, questioning its concord with Church teachings, and urging educators to take a second look at biases in their science classrooms. I say the piece by Dean and Goodstein was mediocre because it did well to measure the weight of the cardinal’s action and potential fallout within the Catholic Church, but the journalists failed to accurately represent the true conflict--that of the basic viability of the theory of evolution.

Dean and Goodstein make an erroneous fundamental assumption that skews the entire piece: “Darwinian evolution is the foundation of modern biology. While researchers may debate details of how the mechanism of evolution plays out, there is no credible scientific challenge to the underlying theory.”

Well, thanks for clearing that up. Apparently I’ve been missing something all along while living my life based on unwavering belief in the “non-credible, non-scientific” biblical account of intelligent design and the genesis of man.

But Cardinal Schoenborn doesn’t discount evolutionary theory completely. He writes, “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense--an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection--is not.” Despite the careful lines drawn by the cardinal, Dean and Goodstein report that while opponents of Darwinian evolution appreciated the Cardinal’s essay, “scientists and science teachers reacted with confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal’s sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths.”

Hmm. Perhaps they should question not their faith but their scientific beliefs. Which is paramount?

I applaud Cardinal Scheonborn’s courage in taking the initial step to urge the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI to reconsider its stance on evolution, for that is what has been done here--no more, no less. As Jefferson so notably said, a little revolution now and then is a good thing.

A Satire on a Certain Documentary...

This is ingenious--a satire on the Fellowship of the Rings and Michael Moore's 9/11 documentary. Stick with it through the credits. Someone has imagination and a hilarious sense of political adroitness.

www.fellowship911.com

Media Perspectives

Anyone want to know what Dan Rather and a common car thief have in common? An interesting take on the CBS forgeries. I like this author's presentation.

Read the Matt Hayes article here.

Critical Observations

Check out Peggy Noonan's current editorial in the Opinion page of the Wall Street Journal online. I highly recommend that you keep an eye on her pieces; they are both entertaining and informative. (See my link to the right.) She writes every Thursday. This week's is exceptionally well done regarding the shining stars of the Democratic National Convention in Boston:

"When Barack Obama began his speech everyone watching thought: A star is born. Talk about famous overnight. His Bill Cosby-esque line--"the slander that a black youth with a book is acting white"--was right for the times, which is to say in line with common wisdom, and when he spoke of blue states where "we worship an awesome God," he was not just hitting a note but using the authentic language of American evangelism. When you first see him he is a plain man of irregular features and jug ears. But when he begins to speak his features blend into harmony and handsomeness. This kind of thing only happens if you have magic. At one point the C-Span cameras went to an unhappy looking Jesse Jackson in the stands. He looked like he was thinking, "I don't remember passing a torch." But it was passed."

Read the full article here.

Moore vs. O'Reilly

In a historic dialogue from the Democratic National Convention, it's Michael Moore vs. Bill O'Reilly on July 27, 2004:

O'REILLY: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism — I know that escapes you —

MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?

O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.

MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?

O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorists. Don’t you know anything about any of that?

MOORE: So, you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?

O'REILLY: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.

MOORE: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.

O'REILLY: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.

MOORE: Now come on...

Read more at this FOXNews link.

New Ultrasound Technology Reveals Striking Pictures

I must say this new technology and what these doctors in London have been able to do is fascinating. Their work, while not necessarily motivated by an opposition to abortion forces, is nevertheless inherently pro-life in its discoveries. But the work of these doctors transcends the abortion debate and serves to help the world grasp a piece of the magnificent in the creation of God.

"A new type of ultrasound scan has produced vivid pictures of a 12 week-old foetus "walking" in the womb. The new images also show foetuses apparently yawning and rubbing its eyes.

The scans, pioneered by Professor Stuart Campbell at London's Create Health Clinic, are much more detailed than conventional ultrasound.

Professor Campbell has previously released images of unborn babies appearing to smile.

He has compiled a book of the images called Watch Me Grow.

Conventional ultrasound, usually offered to mothers at 12 and 20 weeks, produces 2D images of the developing foetus.

These are very useful for helping doctors to measure and assess the growth of the foetus, but convey very little information about behaviour..."

Read the rest of the article here.

A Smashing Review

From the New York Times comes a refreshingly frank review of Clinton's presidential memoirs, "My Life."

"The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull — the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history."

"Mr. Clinton once remarked that he saw character as "a journey, not a destination," and at the end of this book, he cites "becoming a good person" as one of his life goals. Still, the seeds of his adult self can be glimpsed in an autobiographical essay he wrote in high school: "I am a living paradox — deeply religious, yet not as convinced of my exact beliefs as I ought to be; wanting responsibility yet shirking it; loving the truth but often times giving way to falsity." It is only because Mr. Clinton was president of the United States that these excavations of self — a staple of celebrity and noncelebrity memoirs these days — are considered newsworthy."

And WHAT was Dan Rather thinking?

"But while Dan Rather, who interviewed Mr. Clinton for "60 Minutes," has already compared the book to the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, arguably the most richly satisfying autobiography by an American president, "My Life" has little of that classic's unsparing candor or historical perspective. Instead, it devolves into a hodgepodge of jottings: part policy primer, part 12-step confessional, part stump speech and part presidential archive, all, it seems, hurriedly written and even more hurriedly edited."

Read the entire review here.

Noonan on Kerry

JFK Disease
It's more than "hoff" wacky.

Thursday, March 4, 2004 12:01 a.m.

John Kerry certainly looks like a president--the thick steel-wool hair, the Lincolnian planes and shadows of his face. He is tall and slim and seems
serious. He also has the guts to wear salmon-colored ties. A red tie is red
and a blue tie is blue, and red and blue know what color they are. Salmon is
a more delicate hue. Salmon can't decide what color it is. Sometimes it's
pink and sometimes it's orange. It's like wearing ambivalence on your shirt.
This is an unusual thing for a politician to do if it's thought through, and
it takes courage.

Mr. Kerry seems to me not a man of deep belief but of a certain amount of
sentiment and calculation. One has the sense he is a liberal Democrat
because of the time and place in which he was born, that he inhaled a
worldview as opposed to struggling through to one.

I have been wondering how much of Mr. Kerry's career is an essentially
unreflective meditation upon the life of John F. Kennedy. Or to put it more
directly, how much of his professional life has been a case of JFK disease.

The murdered president dominated the imaginations of more than a generation
of Democratic politicians, and continues as their most formative role model.
President Clinton had a famous JFK complex. No one who was there will ever
forget the moment at the 1992 Democratic Convention when the famous picture
of teenage Bill Clinton pushing himself forward to reach out to shake hands
with President Kennedy flashed across the screens that loomed over the
convention floor. I was there in Madison Square Garden, and the impact on
the crowd was electric, as if Leonardo's painting had come alive and they
were actually seeing God touch Adam.

Gary Hart in 1984 took JFK disease to the point of physically imitating
Kennedy on the campaign trail, shoving his hands distractedly in and out of
the pockets of his suit jacket, tugging at his hair (actually this was more
like Bobby Kennedy). I saw Mr. Hart do this with my own eyes the night he
won New Hampshire. I was a young writer at CBS, working on Dan Rather's
copy. I thought Mr. Hart attractive and his imitation suggestive of deep
weirdness. It turned out he did a fabulous verbal imitation of Teddy too.

Sen. Kerry has had his JFK moments too. The other day I watched a clip of
Mr. Kerry's famous testimony to Congress on Vietnam 30 years ago. Have you
ever heard it? It was a total JFK impersonation--"hoff" for half, etc. In
the pictures that exist of Lt. Kerry in Vietnam he seems startlingly similar
in pose, squint and physical attitude to pictures of John Kennedy with his
crew in World War II. PT boats, Swift boats; "Mahs-CHEW-sitts," the initials
JFK . . .

If you saw a generation of Republican candidates doing a physical imitation
of Ronald Reagan or George Bush the elder, would you find it weird? I think
you would. The only person in politics who has ever tried to morph himself
into Ronald Reagan was Al Gore in his first debate with George W. Bush. He
even wore makeup that echoed the heightened color of Mr. Reagan's cheeks. He
wound up looking not like Mr. Reagan but like a turn-of-the-century madam in
a San Francisco whorehouse, but that's not important. What's important is
the jarring weirdness of seeing one politician trying to make you
unconsciously experience him as another politician.

JFK was an interesting man, privately complicated and publicly merry. When
his motorcade went by in 1960, women--especially nuns, I once read--couldn't
help themselves; they jumped up and down in excitement. The Kennedy campaign
called them the jumpers. Mr. Kerry on the other hand--well, no one jumps for
him.

I didn't think a man with a face that anguished would make it this far. I
mean without other qualities that overwhelm and even counter the message of
the face, which is: I suffer from mild clinical depression, do you?

Mr. Kerry also has me pondering the now-uneasy relationship of Democrats and
class. JFK was a millionaire's son and all the happier for it. He benefited
from it. To be a millionaire in those days was strange and glamorous. And
he'd been to Harvard. An Irish Catholic who'd gone to Harvard: Go Jack. Mr.
Kerry has used his wealth to get ahead but it does not work as a plus for
him. Wealth doesn't have the patina it used to for Democrats.

He can't play regular guy, he's clearly not a regular guy. He seems very
much like a man who keeps a secret stash of Grey Poupon. This was said of
George Bush the elder but seems more true of Kerry.

When he speaks, both in prepared text and off the cuff, Mr. Kerry is boring.
I don't mean he doesn't make you laugh, nod or swoon, I mean he doesn't make
you think. A speech should be a text in which, ultimately, the speaker and
the audience are thinking, together. Mr. Kerry's crowds seem to put up with
his remarks and wait patiently till they end so they can begin to cheer.

That Mr. Kerry is a boring man means the election will be dirty and vicious.
If he were interesting and dynamic and sunny, if he seemed both experienced
and sincere, he arguably could win the upcoming race without letting his
campaign get unduly nasty. But he is a charm-free zone on the stump, and he
has offered no galvanizing political philosophy or higher meaning. His
people will feel the only way he can win is to be uniquely destructive.

How do we know that is coming? It has already begun. First the sustained
attack on the president's National Guard service. It is early for such
attacks. Second, the indiscreet threat by an unnamed Kerry adviser as
reported weeks ago in the New York Times: "Everything--everything--is on the
table." He, or she, has since been silenced. But the point was made. And
there is the repeated insistence of those around Mr. Kerry that they're just
not going to take it the way Michael Dukakis did; they'll fight when they're
attacked. In this they are peddling a story line to the press: Democrats are
unfairly attacked and have been too polite, too gentle, too liberal to fight
back.

Will this work? I haven't experienced liberals as too gentle to fight, and I
don't think anyone who pays attention to political and cultural issues has.
I have a feeling voters will experience this tack the way a mother might
experience two kids fighting in the back of the car. Johnny screams, "Timmy
hit me!" Timmy, who in fact nudged Johnny after Johnny called him stupid,
says, "I did not!" Mother admonishes Timmy: "Leave Johnny alone." Johnny
waits till she turns to smile at Timmy triumphantly and pinch him. Timmy
smacks him. "Mommy, Timmy hit me!"

Mothers in this position wind up irritated with both children, but know in
their hearts Johnny is going through a stage in which he's a weenie, and a
whiner too.

Many intelligent people think Kerry will decide to pick Hillary Clinton for
vice president. This is almost touchingly absurd. First of all, Hillary
isn't waiting at home for the guy to call. If she wants it she'll let him
know, but she doesn't want it. Why should she? She's already been president,
as it were. She's already worked hand in hand in a White House with a guy
who wasn't as sharp as she was. Moreover, she needs more distance between
her and the many scandals of the Clinton era. By 2008 or 2012 they'll be
ancient history. Then she will run, and not for vice president. For now,
Kerry doesn't want anyone who'll overshadow him, and she would. With her on
the ticket he'd be B-roll. Very soon now she'll squelch vice presidential
talk. "I made a promise to the people of New York . . ."

The other woman of the moment, Teresa Heinz, is going to make things fun. I
saw her on C-Span give an eloquent speech a few weeks ago in
Wisconsin--notes, no text, and she didn't refer much to the notes. She spoke
interestingly of her youth, her political views. She has been wealthy,
connected and powerful for so long she has grown mildly bored with her good
fortune, and in all her time in public life she has not developed much of an
edit button. She seems in interviews like someone who's walked through many
smoke-filled rooms, waved her arms impatiently, and told the maid to plug in
a few air fresheners. She is not awed by media people; she thinks producers
and anchormen are people who are lucky she invited them to dinner at
Louisberg Square.

Mark Leibovich of the Washington Post did a brilliant and rather too
detail-rich profile of her last summer. People didn't know she considered
her late husband, John Heinz, to be her real husband until then. It was
startling, and delightful. She hasn't given an indiscreet interview since.
But she will. Before that, however, there will be a series of long and
glowing interviews from big media reporters who a) need to foster a
relationship with a possible future first lady, and b) want to be the first
to change the narrative line from "known crazy woman" to "colorful, earthy
and authentic presence--and secret power in the campaign."

The good news about Mr. Kerry, and I mean this seriously, is he does not
appear to be insane. We now know Howard Dean was frightened he might become
president, and this perhaps led to what might be called irrepressibility and
irritability. We know Wesley Clark was . . . well, he seemed a little mad
too. The untold story of the Democratic race is that one of our two great
parties had a remarkably shallow bench. They had no one. But Mr. Kerry is
not crazy. You can imagine him as president. You can imagine him struggling,
like Mr. Clinton, to know what precisely he wanted the presidency for once
he had it, but at least you can imagine him having it.

If he were president he would surround himself with the same foreign-policy
people Clinton did--Richard Holbrook et al. It wouldn't be
insane--Incompetent maybe, confusing certainly, and uncertain certainly too.
They would struggle. The great unmentioned fact of Democrats in power and
foreign policy right now is that they try hard to do nothing, because if
they were to do something it would be what Republicans do. And they don't
want to do that.

They'd be a little lost, maybe a little like JFK.

PEGGY NOONAN

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of
"A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster),
which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column
appears Thursdays.

Copyright C 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

A Governor's Perspective

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusett's ruling yesterday regarding gay marriage laws is the newest 'development' in the Family Research Council's fight for the preservation of the sanctity of marriage. I work directly for FRC's Director of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies, Peter Sprigg, who is highly involved with the media in voicing opposition to the MA ruling. Needless to say, life is very interesting right now.

The governor of Massachusetts published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today that is an excellent defense of the sanctity of marriage. I recommend that you spend some time reading this in order to better understand the weight of the issue.

AT LAW

One Man, One Woman
A citizen's guide to protecting marriage.

BY MITT ROMNEY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m.

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state's experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.

In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken.

Contrary to the court's opinion, marriage is not "an evolving paradigm." It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.

Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.

Because of marriage's pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.

It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.
So, what to do?

• Act now to protect marriage in your state. Thirty-seven states--38 with recent actions by Ohio--have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.

• Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature's job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.

With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.

• Act at the federal level. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.

People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.

TIME: The Reagan Letters

A great piece by TIME Magazine. Reagan was an outstanding president. I'm very interested in getting my hands on this new book. Also a recommended read: When Character was King by Peggy Noonan.

Read the article here.

(Courtesy of Rebecca).

Non-Existent Nessie

Alas, another of my childhood fantasies (okay, more like nightmares) dashed to pieces. Conclusive evidence has arrived: THE LOCH NESS MONSTER DOES NOT EXIST!

LONDON, England (AP) -- The Loch Ness monster is a Loch Ness myth.

At least according to the British Broadcasting Corp., which says a team which trawled the loch for any signs of the famous monster came up with nothing more than a buoy moored several yards below the surface.

The team used 600 separate sonar beams and satellite navigation technology to trawl the loch, but found no trace of any monster, the BBC said in a television program broadcast Sunday.

His colleague Hugh MacKay added: "We got some good clear data of the loch, steep sided, flat bottomed -- nothing unusual I'm afraid. There was an anticipation that we would come up with a large sonar anomaly that could have been a monster, but it wasn't to be."

We can all breathe a sigh of relief.

Opinion: Saddam's Guerrillas

A writer for the New York Times, William Safire offers a challenging analysis of Saddam's plots and intrigues. Safire's words touch eerily close to home, and make me wonder if they might not prove to be true.

In my mind, America is relentlessly being prodded toward a precipice with a choice to either fall in desolation and ruin or to take a giant leap of faith and courage. The choice has always been and will ever be before us. It cannot be defined as a particular moment in history, but rather as a Supreme Court ruling here, a Presidential sanction there, and as other such mundane actions. God help us to be wise.

Off the soap box and back to the topic. I strongly urge you to read the article here.

CNN: Gum Ban Lifted in Singapore

I understand the government of Singapore's desire to keep its streets and public areas clean, but really...wasn't this going a bit too far? I'm glad they've come to their senses and consented to lift the gum-chewing ban.

Thursday, July 10, 2003 Posted: 11:01 AM EDT (1501 GMT)

SINGAPORE (AP) -- Good news for gum lovers.

The government of this island nation announced Thursday it will allow chewing gum, long-banned here, to be sold -- although only from pharmacies.

The decision stems from a recently signed free trade agreement between the United States and Singapore, and follows lobbying from the U.S. Congress and American gum makers.

Squeaky-clean Singapore outlawed the import, manufacture and sale of chewing gum in 1992, complaining that spent wads were fouling the city-state's famously tidy pavements, buildings, buses and subway trains.

Gum became a sticking point in recent trade talks with Washington.

Philip Crane, chairman of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee and a congressman from Illinois -- where gum giant Wrigley Co. is headquartered -- pressed for Singapore to loosen the ban.

Singapore initially agreed to allow gum to be sold only with a doctor's prescription, but that didn't satisfy U.S. negotiators.

Pharmacies may sell dentist-recommended gum that aids "dental and oral hygiene" once the trade pact takes effect, expected to be by the end of the year, a government spokeswoman said.

The Return of the King

I must admit that I have a hard time understanding the rare and (usually) sheepishly expressed admition of dislike for LOTR. Alright, maybe it's only sheepishly expressed because they have just sat through a dissertation on the finer points of Tolkien and Middle Earth--presented by me.

That's a little extreme, but I really, really like both the books and movies. And I, like many other people in this world, cannot wait until the third movie installment comes out in December.

So I thought I'd share these pictures with you. Take a look, they're great. I was trying to track down a preview of the Return of the King and ran across these instead. Set them as your wallpaper, and share the love. ;o)

FOXNews: Many Evangelicals Side with Israel

A well-written article that once again proves FOXNews is mature enough to accurately portray both sides of the issue.

But who is this guy they quote? He has the nerve to declare the American Jew and Christian conservative alliance (if it can even be called an alliance) to be anti-peace. Actually, if you read between the lines, he takes it even farther:

"The political agenda, combined with the religious agenda — you have this killer, killer combination against world peace," charged Faiz Rehmanen, a spokesman for the American Muslim Council.

And Jean Abinader, managing director of the Arab American Institute, also puts in his two cents:

"We are concerned about the present position of American interests in the region because people are literally interpreting scripture as a basis of foreign policy rather than what's best for the country," he added. "Anytime you apply theology to politics, it's very counter-productive."

Wait a minute, since when are these "people" (assuming they really exist) who are "literally interpreting scripture as a basis of foreign policy" actually in charge of determining the United States of America's foreign policy? Mr. Abinader's logic in linking the two leaks like a sieve.

Read the article here.