He thinks he's in California, circa 1991 (or maybe 1983). And he doesn't want to move to that "damn cold hell" - Minnesota.

I stroked his hair, and asked softly, "Do you want the bad news yet?"

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.  Section I, Article II of the US Constitution

Despite his age, I think it's safe to say that John McCain was not alive at the time of the Constitution's adoption.  But is he a "natural born Citizen"?

Born August 29 (hey- another Virgo!), 1936 at Coco Solo Air Base, John Sidney McCain III was born in the Panama Canal Zone to US parents.  There's no doubt that he is a citizen, and has been since he was born.  But that "natural born" tag does not have a real clear definition, and since the only instance of the distinction in the ENTIRETY of US law is the qualification for President and Vice-President, it hasn't had many cases tested against it.

In 1790, the Congress passed "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", providing the process for residents to become citizens.  Included was this line:

"the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens" 

This followed the English tradition (going back to 1350) of granting the same rights of inheritance to children of British subjects born overseas, then further in the early 18th century, of expressly declaring those children to be natural-born subjects of the crown. 

Five years later, this law was repealed, and a new act for naturalization passed.  The relevant clause now read:

the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States"

No longer are the children considered "natural born."  This could easily have been an oversight on the authors, but based on this phrasing, the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott that citizenship deriving from this clause was a form of "naturalization."  They didn't rule on the question of whether such a person would be eligible for the Presidency, since they were instead ruling on whether a slave was a person or property, but a citizen is either citizen "by birth" or "by law" (naturalized), and the implication, if read, would infer these children would not be "natural born citizens."

So, thanks to Dred Scott and, oh yeah, the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, overruling Dred Scott and giving a definitive answer:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So, that's it:  Either you're born in the United States, or you're naturalized.

In case this point doesn't seem clear, United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, a case ruling on whether a child born on US soil to foreign nationals is a citizen, provides this telling comment in the dissent, saying that the ruling would have the effect that:

"...the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not." Chief Justice Fuller, dissenting.

Note that because this was a dissent, it does not hold any value as a ruling itself, but at least suggests (strongly, I think) that citizenship granted by statute at birth is NOT the same as "natural born" citizenship.

So, is a US air base, in the Panama Canal Zone, part of the United States?

Legally, the Canal Zone was Panamanian territory under exclusively American control, but not actually incorporated into the United States itself.  So, no- the Canal Zone was not the United States.  Nor is a military base on foreign soil, United States- a point that the conservative basta... I mean... members of the Supreme Court seem quite clear to point out when they rule on Guantanamo. 

So, John McCain was not born in the United States.

He was automatically naturalized, by statute, at birth.

John McCain can not be President.

Consistently rated as one of the most fiscally responsible Democratic governors in the nation (Imagine the words "fiscally responsible" tied to a Democrat!)

Negotiated with Sudanese officials to secure the release of National Geographic journalist, Paul Salopek.

Richardson simply never brokered an impressive resume into the cult of personality that the modern race for the President has become.  Hillary has a saying, "You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose."  Richardson simply never found the lyrics to his campaign.

Ah well...  How's Paul's campaign doing, I wonder??

Realistically, unless Edwards pulls off some stunning upsets, the race on the Democratic side is merely Clinton and anti-Clinton.  With Edwards drawing off some of the anti-Clinton vote, it seems as though Hillary will pull a string of wins.  She probably WON'T secure enough delegates on Super Tuesday to win the nomination- in fact, she's likely, at best, to only pull in 35-40%.  But the Democrats have their "PLEO"- read as "muckity-mucks".  Nearly 800-strong, this 20% edge that will turn a close race into a landslide.  Hillary doesn't have to reach a majority- she merely needs to reach an edge, and even if Edwards (who looks to stay in the race to the convention) and Obama outnumber her, the party will coalesce behind her to show "unity", rather than face a divisive convention.

Republicans don't have the "super-delegate" like the Dem's, but they do have an even larger (proportionally) contingent of officially unpledged delegates, nearly 1/4th of delegates sent up here.  What's not clear is whether a front-runner in the party will merit the votes, especially when the front runner may have less than 1/3 of the delegates.  Huckabee seems to be establishing his role among the evangelicals, McCain among the fiscal conservatives, Romney and Guiliani are battling for regional dominances, and it's remotely possible (sorry Barry) that Thompson might even wake up from his nap of a campaign, and pull in a few delegates himself.

Super Tuesday compounds this problem, not simplify it, as most of the primaries  on the Democratic side at least, are proportional.  Most of the Republican races are winner-take-all, which does look to be to Guiliania advantage, specifically in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

The frustrating part of all of this, for me, is that the media will make it seem like a series of races, and not report the meaningful numbers.  If you listened to the news, you'd probably expect that the Republican race is tied between McCain and Huckabee.  Well, the delegate count (as of New Hampshire's primary) looks like this:

1. Romney    24
2. McCain     17
3. Huckabee  15
4. Thompson   8
5. Paul            4
6. Uncomm.    3
7. Guiliani       1
8. Hunter        1

(Delegate count estimate from The Green Papers)

The words used in the release:  "Oh really?"

What evidence does the Clinton camp cite:

1. "Immediately on enterring the Senate..." the Obama camp "turn[ed] up the talk about a potential Presidential bid."
2. His law school classmates say "he was thinking about politics"
3. His brother-in-law said he admitted to wanting to run for public office, quote "Possibly even run for President at some point."
4. In third grade, Obama wrote an essay, "I Want To Be A President"
5. In kindergarten, Obama wrote an essay, "I Want To Become President"

Seriously, folks- a KINDERGARTEN essay??  This is what gets the Clintonites all uppity and self-righteous?

How about the fact that he was writing essays in kindergarten- that's pretty damn impressive if you ask me!  I was still just learning my ABC's until 1st grade. 

In 3rd grade, I wrote an essay about how I wanted to be a priest.  It's quite a few steps from there and enterring the seminary.  Or did I miss the Obama '08 Exploratory Committee being formed way back in 1972?

If this is the Clinton's idea of a retort, putting her up against Republicans, who would (rightfully) mock this sort of tactic to shreds will only give us 4 more years of Republican hell.

Stupid, stupid, stupid...  but maybe Hillary will continue to self-destruct with tactics like this.  One can only hope.

So, Sander and three of his friends are going to have a sleepover at our house.  How are we going to keep 4 fourth graders amused for hours?  Ideally, we'd like them to be able to amuse themselves, and be grown-ups for a few hours, rather than baby-sitters.  Well, video games seem an obvious choice.  Our selection of PS2 games are limited to the Guitar Hero series and some games for Daddy that are NOT kid-appropriate.  Call me old-fashioned, but I think a kid should be old enough to fire a .22 rifle in real-life before they wander through screens full of ichor and entrails.

Even more obvious, is the new system-Wii! Problem is that apparently half of the civilized world came up with the same idea, so it's not something one can just go to a store and buy.  But good news, I'm told yesterday:  the local Best Buy is getting a new shipment.  At least 18 consoles will be available.

Some quick math...  18 consoles, divided by the estimated 252,672 people who want a console and would drive to the store...  means if I'm going to have a chance, I'll have to get in line early.  Good news- our first "devastating snow storm" of the season has left 10 inches of the snow on our beloved state.  That eliminates 27 people from above, who don't have snowmobiles ready to go.

My sleeping habits have been screwy for a few weeks, but they are screwy enough on the weekends as is.  So, when I roll out of bed at 4:30 am, and look out at the winter wonderland, debating whether or not I'll even be able to get out of my driveway, let alone make it to Best Buy, I question my sanity.

And my sanity loses.

Layer upon layer of clothing.  Full pot of coffee.  Folding chair.  I even pack a DVD player.  This is 5 am, and the store doesn't open until 10.  I half-expect the line to be full by the time I get there, and I wouldn't mind all that much if it were, but just in case- I'm going to be prepared.

I'm 5 in the line!!  Holy cow!  I almost have to stay in line now, don't I?  Yeah- I have to sit outside, in 20 degree weather for 5 hours, so I can spend way more money on my boy than I ever intended to. 

1 hour in, the coffee gets very cold.

2 hours in, the coffee starts asserting itself upon my bladder.

3 hours in, the battery on the DVD runs out.  And the bladder is pointing out the absurdity of having drank nearly a full pot of coffee.

4 hours in, the instinctive shivering sets in.  The bladder is screaming, but now way I'm bailing now.

5 hours later, my wife calls, and asks whether or not we actually want to buy a Wii.  One way or another, I'm buying a damn Wii- even if I have to return it half an hour later!

Then, beloved warmth of the store.  A quick swipe of the credit card, and then a mad dash to the bathroom.  A run to the bakery gets his cake ordered, and breakfast to bring home to wife and son.  Then it's a LONG soak in a hot, hot bathtub.  Ah....

So, come Tuesday, when my son turns 10, he'll be able to open up his new Wii and be filled with joy and excitement.  I just wish I could pack up the 5 hours in the cold to give him as well.

Here are the rules:

1. Copy this post (meaning the rules).

2. Reflect on five bloggers and write a least a paragraph about each one.

3. Make sure you link this post so others can read it and the rules.

4. Go leave your chosen bloggers a comment and let them know they’ve been given the award.

5. Put the award icon on your site.

"This award should make you reflect on five bloggers who have been an encouragement, a source of love, impacted you in some way, and have been a Godly example to you. Five Bloggers who when you reflect on them you get a sense of pride and joy . . . of knowing them and being blessed by them."

Yeesh... "Godly example"??  How about "godly" with a small 'g'- since I'm not about to purport the nature or even existence of any sort of Ultimate, Penultimate or even Minor Deities.  (Though, come to think of it, each of my nominees are each a goddess in their own way).

Not wanting to be a buzz-kill... yet jeopardizing the clear boundaries I've put between my online everyday persona and my online political persona, here's my little list.  In no particular order:

The first is easy, simply because she is the reason this particular blog (as woeful as it is) even exists.  Soccermom is unquestionably one of the most well-thought out conservative writers I've ever had the pleasure to read.  The fact I even list "reading a conservative blog" as a pleasure speaks to her deliberative nature.  She and I fundamentally disagree on several issues, but she is always consistent in her beliefs and opinions, always open to discussion even with opposing viewpoints, and a gracious host.  She's not perfect- I mean she votes Republican for heaven's sake, but she's someone I respect.

Caile-girl is a pearl.  Creative and intelligent, yet totally incapable of taking herself too seriously.  Her blog is as eclectic of a mixture you're ever likely to see, as is her mind. 

If my wife blogged, I'd have to include her on this list.  However, in the event that the first wife is unable or unwilling to perform her duties, the second wife will be called in: Kitra.  I believe everyone should be so lucky to have a friendship this close.  I believe that few do. 

Angie doesn't blog with quite the same frequency or regularity as some folks, but when she does, there is a depth in most of what she has to say.  I respect and admire her.

Finally, Excav8engineerwitch is the way I satiate my voyeuristic tendencies.  It's a guilty pleasure, a bit like reading your sister's diary (not that I ever did that), but it can be a nice escape to a land where the mountains are tall, the skies are big, and the women put poison ivy extract into gift soaps they make for their ex's.

Honorable Mention goes to  Barry who's generally smarter than his posts.  Hopefully.

Here's a big one part of the First Amendment that, in another forum, I'm getting into things in a big way.  Here is a typical modern interpretation:

Free speech is the right to piss people off.

No, no, no, no, no!!!  The First Amendment is NO SUCH THING.  There is no more right to irritate other people than there is a fundamental right to blow smoke in their faces.  The First Amendment is a limitation on what the GOVERNMENT may do, but it has absolutely no bearing on what we, as individuals, and as a community, may do.

Churches may expel blasphemers.  Women groups may expel sexists.  Yes, even the NCAA may cease any 'Native American' team names, and it is NOT an infringement of free speech- it is an assertion of the right to peaceably assemble, and as part of that assembly, determine rules for behavior in that forum.  All that the First Amendment forbids is any actual LAW stipulating restrictions on speech.

If you want to yell obscenities, do so in your living room.  If you want to preach sexist ideas, form your own He-man Woman-Haters Club.  The government can not stop you from doing so.  

Furthermore... if the free market place of ideas is to work in our society, there have to be two factors at play.  First, as the First Amendment guarantees, is the ability for all ideas to be discussed.  But second, and even more vital, is the responsibility of citizens to clearly articulate what are acceptable ideas, and what ideas ought to be shunned by "reasonable" citizens.  Naturally there is going to be disagreement, especially on the fringes.  The Freedom of Speech does not mean we shouldn't disagree... no, it means that we are compelled to establish "community norms," based on our selected community, and enforce our own standards on an individual basis.  We have to be our own censors, because we will not allow the government to take that role.

Freedom without responsibility is chaos.

Okay, here's the biggie.  And since Barry and I started in on it over at Cate's place, I'll start off by tackling just that first bit- the whole "church & state" broohaha.

Barry opened the dialog with this:

The language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

In my alleged strict constructionalist mind that means there shall be no government required religion and that the government shall prohibit no religion.

I countered with:

I'd add just two minor clarifications in bold text, and one point for you to think about, to your reading:

In my alleged strict constructionalist mind that means there shall be no federal1 government required religion, nor governmentally-preferred religion2 and that the government shall prohibit no religion3.

Reasons:

1) The Amendment is clearly speaking only about Congress. Individual States are at liberty to do as they like, including the establishment of State religions. In fact, at the time of ratification, many states DID have official religions. The Founders did not want to introduce conflict at the Federal level, so leaving States their own perogatives, merely forbid Congress from stepping into the mess.

2) Establishment can not mean merely "governmentally required," or else the clause is toothless. Suppose that was all that was meant. Then, if Congress were to pass laws that favored only Roman Catholicism, for example, but never actually declared Catholicism the "official state religion," it would effectively maintain all the benefits of an official state religion, while being (under this reading) Constitutional. Since, as noted in 1) above, this could run contrary to what individual States might have opted for as official religions, it is illogical to presume that this was their intent.

3) "religion" constitutes two parts: religious thought, and religious acts. We would agree, I believe, that Congress may not prohibit religious thought... but a strict constructionalist (and I mean truly strict) would also say that Congress may not prohibit religious acts.

That would imply
- the use of drugs, as part of a religious ritual, could not be outlawed by Congress.
- polygamy, as practiced by fundamentalist sects of Mormonism, could not be outlawed by Congress.
- homosexual marraige, as practiced by some liberal churches, could not be outlawed by Congress
- ritual animal sacrifice, as practiced by the Santeria faith, could not be outlawed by Congress.

Note- some of those things listed above, are legal, due to current understanding (the first and last, in particular. Polygamy was struck down, and the "Defense of Marriage Act" has not yet been tested with regards to a combined religious/civil ceremony; nor is it likely to be heard on First Amendment grounds frankly).

If I read Barry correctly in his responses, I believe he accepts that the Constitution is, firstly, a Federal document, so I believe that he agrees that the limitation here in the Constitution applies only to Congress, and not to individual States (or local communities, I suppose, by extension).  He questions whether "preferential" treatment qualifies as "establishment," or if that is 'interpretation' that is not mandated through strict constructionism.  I'm not clear, but I think he agrees that religious acts can, and ought, to be limited if and when they interfere with the public well-being.

How about it, Barry- am I stating your views correctly? 

Representative Ron Paul, R-Texas, wrote this little ditty about gay marraige back in 2004, and I'm with him 100%.  Leave it to the states to decide.  Bring back federalism, and get the national government out of micro-managing our lives.

Back in my idealistic youth, I did rail against states' rights, just as Mr.Paul says.  I was under the elitist and mistaken notion that what are "self-evident truths" up here in the North, would be equally self-evident and true throughout this nation.  I concede my error now.  Much of the country seems to think that NASCAR is actually a sport- what's the point in trying to debate the essential human condition with someone that thinks "foot to the metal and turn right" constitutes "sport"?

In point of fact, adding the 21,500 troops only brings us back to the level we had in 2005.  Do you recall 2005 being the year that sectarian violence went down in Iraq??  There was an election that went off, I'll admit, but it was hardly the end of minor hostilities ("Mission Accomplished" II?).  At best, it was treading water.

Contrary to the stereotype of liberals ("run away!! run away!!"), I'm opposed to Bush's plan because it's too little, too late, too much like what we've had all along.  Send in 200,000 and quell the unrest immediately.  Set a definitive timeline for those troops to be supplanted by Iraqi forces- say 20,000 a month.  Use Marines and regular Army forces!  No more of this National Guard and Reserves bullshit- that was the most cheap-ass aspect of this whole endeavor. 

Barring an actual will to win, which this administration seems not to have, it would be better to get our army out of a situation it should never have gone into in the first place.  So, yes, I would prefer a phased withdrawal over this response.

Irony note:

Bush, in his speech, said that pulling American forces out of Baghdad would cause the "government to collapse, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings."  Anyone else catch the irony that by sending the forces INTO Iraq in the first place, Bush has already caused a government to collapse, the country to be torn apart on sectarian lines, and actually promulgates the violence we're currently trying to quell??

That said, I have to vehemently disagree with all those paying tribute to his decision to pardon Nixon.

Yes, the nation was being ripped apart, but that was because the President was knowingly and repeatedly breaking the law.  Back in those days, it took more than a semen-stained dress to initiate impeachment proceedings, and Nixon, bless his heart, finally crossed the line by actually bugging the Democrats.  (Yes, all you Young Republicans out there- not only was that wrong back then, it is STILL wrong today, no matter what Ann Coulter says.)  Things were so blatantly obvious that Nixon didn't even drag the nation through the impeachment process.  If only Clinton had been so honorable!

But Ford's blanket pardoning of Nixon was wrong, and here's why:

No actual criminal proceedings had been drawn up against the President, and indeed, it was not even clear if and how such charges could be raised.  There is a vital and critical Constitutional question at stake here:  Can the President, as Chief Executive, ever actually violate the law, and if so, can s/he be held accountable for such violations?  By issuing a blanket pardon, Ford left that question essentially unasked, and the result is that today, only 30 years out from Watergate, we have an administration that imperiously acts as if Watergate never happened!  What is worse, this administration (unlike Nixon's) has clearly written laws that make its domestic spying activity blatantly and flagrantly illegal; yet there are those who insist that it is impossible for the President to be in violation of law, since he is the Executor of that law.

My own opinion on the matter is plain enough- no one, no priest, poet or politician is every above the law; but I will at least allow that the point has not been definitively decided.  Watergate was the time for that question to be answered, and by issuing his pardon, Ford failed the Constitution.

Although I was only 9 at the time, I remember being troubled by the simple question:  Can a person be pardoned if they are never even charged with a crime?  Yet, that is precisely what Ford did.  Retrospectively, he gave Nixon a blank check for all that he done, and actually killed any active investigation into what may have occurred.  I would have accepted a pardon AFTER filing of charges and possible conviction.  But as much as the nation needed healing, it also needed questions and answers. 

A quick revisit of this man's history:

1957: Saddam joins the Ba'ath party, a secular pan-Arab revolutionary political party.
1959: Participates in a US-backed assassination attempt on then-leader Qassim.  This turns into a farce, and CIA agents scoot Saddam off to Egypt for safety.
1959: Saddam is sentenced to death for the assassination attempt.  (He did a good job avoiding his first death sentence!)
1963: Returns to Iraq.
1964: Sent to prison.
1966: Escapes prison. (Wow- is there no killing this guy??)
1968: With CIA support, becomes head of secret intelligence.  Oversees the round up and mass extermination of suspected communists.  The US sheds few tears.
1969: Becomes vice-president of Iraq
1972: Nationalizes oil.
1973: Global energy crisis sends oil profits through the roof, allowing Saddam to use the profits to create one of the best public health care systems in the Middle East, winning an award from UNESCO.  (Damn- what an evil monster!)
1973: Institutes a nationwide literacy program.  Anyone who doesn't attend, gets three years in prison.  Iraq's literacy rate blossoms overnight. (Okay, a bit harsh, but it worked, didn't it?)
1979: Becomes President, when it was clear that the pending merger between Syria and Iraq would shuffle him off to the sidelines.
1980: Iran has its revolution, and declares its intent to spread the Islam revolution.  Saddam calls BS on that, and attacks Iran.  The US doesn't mind so much.
1982: Reagan takes Iraq off the list of "states that sponsor terrorism."  Hussein immediately tries to buy US-built helicopters.  The Congress objects, but the Reagan administration overrides the objection and the sale goes through.
1983: Reagan sends Rumsfeld off to Iraq to reestablish relations.
1984: Saddam gasses thousands of Kurds, courtesy in part, to those US-built helicopters.  The US is so appalled and aghast about this travesty that within 5 months, full and normal diplomatic relations are resumed.  Oh, and UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick issues her legendary damning statement: "We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular."
1988: Obtained CIA and DIA support on his assault against the Iranian al-Fao penisula.
1990: Dumb-ass invades Kuwait, and completely spoils his relationship with long-time sugar-daddy, US.

"[I am] disappointed with the pace of success" -- President George W. Bush.

After being presented with what it surely to be the only thing even approximating a bipartisan investigation into the handling of the Iraq fiasco, our beloved President once again showed his amazing capacity to ignore reality in favor of what his delusions tell him are true.

"“There’s an ideological clash going on. And the question is: Will we have the resolve and the confidence in liberty to prevail?... it’s not going to face this government, because we made up our mind."

Please note this last clause.  No justification is given, other than HE'S THE DECIDER, HE DECIDES.  A national election that clearly mandated a new direction is not signal enough for our leader.  A top-tier analysis by experts across the political spectrum is not signal enough for our leader.  One can respect courage, but this is (as it has always been) not courage.  Just blind obstinance.

He holds out for the promised reports due from the Pentagon, Department of State, National Security Council, before issuing his "new directive" but is there any reason to suspect that the new directive will look any different from the old directive?

Meanwhile, McCain seems to have garnered tenuous support for an actual increase of military into Iraq.  My hunch is that the support is only tenuous- moderate Democrats don't want him to succeed due to his very real Presidential prospects; conservative Republicans don't want him to succeed for the same reason.  Liberal Democrats will make no headway with their plans for a withdrawal, because the moderate Dems don't want to be tagged with the "defeatist" label.  And meanwhile, NOTHING will get done to resolve this mess!

The most disturbing point from all this muddled was Sen.Biden's comments:  "The notion that an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement would end a civil war in Iraq defies common sense,” Biden told the Israel Policy Forum. “Israeli-Palestinian peace should be pursued aggressively on its own merits, period — not as some sort of diplomatic price to make the Arab states feel good so they will help us in Iraq.”

The report's recommendations on this matter were fairly clear, IMHO:  “The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability.  There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment includes direct talks with, by and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.”

The compartmentalization of the Middle East issues has not resulted in any meaningful success in ANY arena.  Instead, it has allowed for all major issues (Palestine, Lebanon, Kurdistan, Iraq) to fester untreated.  And with the bacterial infection of fundamentalism to add, the bloody wound will only grow more diseased unless, and until, we gather a leadership core willing and dedicated to actually addressing core, substantive issues.

No, the issues of Palestine is not directly connected to the issues in Iraq.  But it is foolhardy to treat a cancer in the lungs without also taking measures against the cancer in the brain.

Well, when she stopped posting, I didn't have much impetus to meander over here to bloghi.  Truth to tell, I don't even know my blog's own URL.  The only way I get here is to go first to Cate's, find some comment I posted, and click on the link to bring me here.  How tragic is that?

Oh, and then Real Life kicked in as well.  That's the biggie.

Without boring anyone (if indeed there IS anyone) wandering by this site with too much detail, the short of it is that after about a year of toying around with the idea, my dad had a decision dropped on him with yet another hospital visit.  He simply is not able to live on his own, and so, with many thanks to US Airways for incredibly low cost last-minute airfare, I flew out to San Diego, picked up my dad and as much clothing as might be useful, and hauled him back to live with us.  So, now my days are filled with the same amount of routine parenting stuff... cooking dinners, taking the son to Tae Kwon Do, serving as the Cubmaster to his pack, the usual "Dad"-things... but I also get to clean up poopy sheets, mop up vomit, catch my dad as he passes out on the way to his bed.  You know, all the kind of stuff kids look forward to doing for their parents some day.

It's really not been all that bad, and I'm sure the whole transition is even tougher on my dad (who I think has never really wanted to return to Minnesota after so many years in Paradise, er, San Diego).  But we're all getting along so far, making it through the holidays as best we can.

And just for old times' sake, I'll toss out a couple of political blatherings following this.

Peace out, and Happy Holidays to all!!!

The president-elect of the Christian Coalition of America has declined the job, saying the organization wouldn't let him expand its agenda beyond opposing abortion and gay marriage.

The Rev. Joel Hunter, who was scheduled to take over the socially conservative group in January from Roberta Combs, said he had hoped to focus on issues such as poverty and the environment.

...

"They pretty much said, 'These issues are fine, but they're not our issues, that's not our base,'" Hunter said.

Without delving too far into a group I only hear of tangentially, it strikes me as a shame that rather than tackling issues across the spectrum from a Christian perspective, the group instead opts to focus on wedge cultural issues.

An Ambulance Down in the Valley

T’was a dangerous cliff as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its edge was so pleasant,
But over its edge had slipped a Duke,
And it fooled many a peasant.

The point you will see, if you read rather close,
is the cliff had devoured many peasants.
But "oops!" goes a Duke, and up goes the shout.
The masses are less important than pheasants. 

The people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally,
Some said, “Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,”
Others, “An ambulance down in the valley.”

In the city council, in fact, the meeting was held,
and the debate between drivers and land-owners.
Property values won out, not to mention the fact
that the ambulances had donated many more kroners.

The lament of the crowd was profound and loud,
As their hearts overflowed with pity;
But the ambulance carried the cry of the day,
As it spread to the neighboring cities.

The 'crowd,' so to speak, weren't informed of the meeting,
nor would they likely have come if they'd known.
CSI was on that night, and as you'd probably guessed
They didn't dare miss an episode shown. 

So a collection was made to accumulate aid,
And dwellers in highway and alley,
Gave dollars and cents not to furnish a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.

A "collection"?  Guffaw!  We all know the word
is a polite term for what most folks call a tax.
The council, besides being paid off, could see
that there were more citizens whom they could wax. 

“For the cliff is all right if you’re careful,” they said,
“And if folks ever slip and are falling;
It’s not the slipping and falling that hurts them so much,
As the shock down below when they’re stopping.”

"And let us not fail to mention, to those who might vote,
what is known true by all politicians:
Solving a problem once, is quickly forgot,
What's remembered are long self-serving missions."

And so for the years as these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would the rescuers sally,
To pick up the victims who fell from the cliff,
With the ambulance down in the valley.

And the media reported, with self-serving glee
every bump, bruise and rescued young victim.
For quick, simple stories, without any true depth
to gain viewership, is the TV journalist's dictum.

Said one in his plea, “It’s a marvel to me
That you’d give so much greater attention,
To repairing the results than to curing the cause;
Why you’d much better aim at prevention.

"Of course," said his wife, "the answer that's true.
Is even simpler than my husband's full answer.
It's to close off the park, preserve it for nature.
But y'all would avoid that like it was cancer."

For the mischief, of course, should be stopped at its source;
Come friends and neighbors, let us rally!
It makes far better sense to rely on a fence,
Than an ambulance down in the valley.”

So, forgetting his wife's solution, of a nature preserve,
which would protect everyone, man and beast.
The 'sage' gave his answer, for he was a fence-maker,
and ambulances paid him the least.

“He’s wrong in his head,” the majority said,
“He would end all our earnest endeavors,
He’s the kind of a man that would shrink his responsible work,
But we will support it forever.

And someone else also noted, that putting up a large fence
would spoil the park almost entirely.
It would destroy the view, ruin the hiking,
and disrupt the habitat direly.

Aren’t we picking up all just as fast as they fall,
And giving them care liberally?
Why, a superfluous fence is of no consequence,
If the ambulance works in the valley.”

And thanks to the ambulance, my frail grandmother last week,
was saved when she had a late night stroke.
The service provided covers more than just falling,
It proved a great service to all the townsfolk.

Now this story seems queer as I’ve given it here,
But things oft occur which are stranger.
More humane we assert to repair the hurt,
Than the plan of removing the danger.

But the landowners so wealthy, atop that big hill
soon resented the townsfolk their free healthcare.
And soon started to whine, despite being the cause,
that the taxation system was unfair.

The best possible course would be to safeguard the source,
And to attend to things rationally.
Yes, build up the fence and let us dispense,
With this ambulance down in the valley.

All silliness aside, it's NEITHER of these,
When folks start climbing on cliffs unsurmountable-
Expect them to act like reasonable adults,
For their actions, hold them accountable!

Putting a fence up against a dangerous cliff, doesn't make the cliff any less of a cliff.  It can minimize some accidents, but fences can be scaled, guard-rails give way, cliff-sides wash out.  Cate has, unsurprisingly, declared herself to be more of a fence-builder, than an ambulance-supporter.  Perhaps as equally unsurprising, I am more of an ambulance-supporter, but that is because I don't see fences (meaning laws) as a real solution.  For those who are looking to go 'over the edge,' the fences aren't likely to stop them.  For those who wisely want to "stay as far from the edge as possible" (to steal from Cate's wagon-and-driver story), the fences are superfluous.

It would be nice to believe that humans are all capable, responsible souls, introspective and reflective, mature enough and wise enough to look within their own souls and make the best judgements for themselves.  Unfortunately, we all know that for most, if not all, of us, that's simply not the case.  Perhaps equally unfortunate, our legal system must be founded on the basic assumption that we are.  To assume otherwise puts all of us in the contradictory position of allowing someone else the priviledge to tell us what is best for us.  Once we accept that basic tenet, we may as well forfeit our political say, for we lose the fundamental individualism that is integral to our democracy.

Where I do differ on this theory, is when we talk about business ventures.  The notion of individual freedom begins and ends at the individual, for me.  It does NOT extend to the business or corporate level.  And my reason is simple:  A business does not have a soul.  It knows no God, no morality other than profit.  Individuals within the business may be good, moral persons, but collectives do not, themselves, have an accountability beyond their own bottom-line.  In the absence of a personal morality, it is incumbent that government serve that role for them.

Eh, starting to ramble again.  It's late. 

What the heck is that supposed to mean?? 

It made no sense to me, until one day I saw Bill O'Reilly use that phrase, as typical in some supposed take-down of the secular progressives (hmm- you mean 'liberal' isn't a bad word anymore??)  It still makes no sense to me- the only connotation I can make is to the Jonestown tragedy, but boy that's kind of a weak one.  But at least I understood: "Ah- a secret code-phrase conservatives use to recognize each other!"