In my constant reading and researching on the war, I came across an interesting observation about the priorities of the primarily Democrat anti-war politicians. I will preface this article by saying that I realize there are war supporters and war protestors on both sides of the Congressional aisle. It is not fair to pigeon-hole any party and make broad assumptions about where all politicians stand. However, it is fair to point out that the majority of politicians speaking out against the war and putting forth legislation to defund the war or demanding an immediate withdrawal of our troops (however ill conceived that might be) are Democrats.

So having said all that, here is the idea that caught my attention. The Democratic party is traditionally in favor of granting broad social benefits to illegal immigrants. Broad social benefits that involve broad government spending. However, this same political party that is willing to extend welfare benefits to illegal immigrants is willing to take money away from our military. The anti-war Democrats may be willing to spend our tax dollars on health insurance for illegal immigrants, but they don’t want to spend that money on troops who are fighting a war on terror. There is no talk on Capital Hill of defunding social programs that exist primarily to address the needs of illegal immigrants, but the Congressional anti-war Democrats are spending every minutes they can to campaign to defund a war that is still being fought. I cannot think of a clearer example of political priorities being severely out of touch with reality.

How can we seriously consider funding illegal immigrants, but refuse to fund our troops who are in harm’s way? The men and women who are putting their lives in danger in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve more than that. They deserve to be more than a political pawn, they deserve to be more than a budgetary weapon to use against the President. There should not be any talk about defunding a war when we still have troops fighting it. How is that blatant illogic of that statement not immediately obvious? Defunding a war when out military is still actively engaged in fighting the enemy is tantamount to abandoning our service members. Whether members of Congress support the war or not they must give our troops the equipment and resources they need to defend themselves and this country until Congress pulls them out. To do any less is irresponsible and reprehensible.

Colorado gay rights groups fighting an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative aren't playing defense. They're playing offense:

Amendment 43 isn't meant to change the law. It's meant to change the subject.

The subject, of course, being Iraq, high gas prices, lack of affordable health care, and so on.

The Hotline's blog thinks this line of attack is so good, it may actually cost Republicans in other races in the state:

Their argument, in a nutshell, is that with the whole world seemingly going to hell, gay marriage is minor in comparison.

Regardless of how one feels about that argument, the ad campaign to defeat Colorado's Amendment 43--both its subject and its line of reasoning--have spread to other races in the state, as this damning video of Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO-04) makes clear. That can't be good news for Colorado Republicans--and with so many vulnerable, some might even privately second guess the wisdom of this ballot initiative.

On the web: Say No To 43

Amendment 43 isn't meant to change the law. It's meant to change the subject.

The subject, of course, being Iraq, high gas prices, lack of affordable health care, and so on.

The Hotline's blog thinks this line of attack is so good, it may actually cost Republicans in other races in the state:

Their argument, in a nutshell, is that with the whole world seemingly going to hell, gay marriage is minor in comparison.

Regardless of how one feels about that argument, the ad campaign to defeat Colorado's Amendment 43--both its subject and its line of reasoning--have spread to other races in the state, as this damning video of Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO-04) makes clear. That can't be good news for Colorado Republicans--and with so many vulnerable, some might even privately second guess the wisdom of this ballot initiative.

On the web: Say No To 43

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A bomb blew up a kerosene tanker truck in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood on Saturday, killing at least 37 people, police said. Meanwhile, authorities said a leader of Ansar al-Sunnah, a group linked to al-Qaida in Iraq that responsible for kidnappings and beheadings, has been captured by Iraqi and U.S. forces....

Elsewhere, an American soldier was killed in a roadside bomb attack in northern Baghdad, the U.S. command said. No further details were available.

In another attack, a Danish serviceman was killed and eight others were injured by a roadside bomb in southern Iraq the Danish army said. He was the fourth Danish serviceman to die in the conflict....

In the Sadr City attack, another 40 people were wounded by the 10 a.m. blast in the sprawling Shiite slum. People frantically carried survivors from the narrow muddy street to ambulances, and hauled away bodies in blankets....

In Kut on Saturday, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, five apparent death squad victims were turned in to the morgue....

In a grisly scene in Beiji, about 155 miles north of Baghdad, gunmen threw the decapitated heads of ten men into a popular open-air market at about 4:30 p.m., police said. They then fled the scene.

Word has it we have a "good plan" for victory on Iraq. Now would be an awfully good time to enact it, don't you think?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A bomb blew up a kerosene tanker truck in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood on Saturday, killing at least 37 people, police said. Meanwhile, authorities said a leader of Ansar al-Sunnah, a group linked to al-Qaida in Iraq that responsible for kidnappings and beheadings, has been captured by Iraqi and U.S. forces....

Elsewhere, an American soldier was killed in a roadside bomb attack in northern Baghdad, the U.S. command said. No further details were available.

In another attack, a Danish serviceman was killed and eight others were injured by a roadside bomb in southern Iraq the Danish army said. He was the fourth Danish serviceman to die in the conflict....

In the Sadr City attack, another 40 people were wounded by the 10 a.m. blast in the sprawling Shiite slum. People frantically carried survivors from the narrow muddy street to ambulances, and hauled away bodies in blankets....

In Kut on Saturday, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, five apparent death squad victims were turned in to the morgue....

In a grisly scene in Beiji, about 155 miles north of Baghdad, gunmen threw the decapitated heads of ten men into a popular open-air market at about 4:30 p.m., police said. They then fled the scene.

Word has it we have a "good plan" for victory on Iraq. Now would be an awfully good time to enact it, don't you think?

Glad to see the legislators in South Carolina are tackling the “hard” issues:

COLUMBIA — Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys.

But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.

The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.

*sigh*

Related Story - Rocky Mountain News

Denver hasn’t hired an African-American firefighter in five years. This is seen as a problem by many–indeed, it could easily seem that African-Americans are being discriminated against in the selection process–and it’s being rectified by not testing potential firefighters to make sure they’re qualified. I’m sorry, but what’s more important–the skin tone of the firefighter saving your life, or whether or not this firefighter is able to save your life?

I can understand how people would like to see a ratio of firefighters that’s more representative of the population as a whole, but is it really that much of a problem if that ratio is skewed? I suppose I wouldn’t know, since I’m a European-American and have always been a member of the racial majority, for better or worse. But it seems to me that the racial makeup of the local fire department is not important. Racial discrimination is in no way tolerable, but it’s not the only possible reason for low diversity. The above article never mentions how many African-Americans apply to become firefighters. Maybe there just aren’t many black firefighters because most civic-minded African-Americans would rather be teachers or police officers. The article makes it sound like a good number of them do want to be firefighters, but it never gives any kind of recruitment or application data. In the article, Denver Fire Chief Larry Trujillo says that the computerized testing system implemented in 2000 culturally favors white people, but the article never says how. It could be that he is right, but there’s no way to know just by reading the article.

Anyway, the answer is not to allow less-qualified people to become firefighters in the name of diversity. First, this is insulting to black people because it implies that it’s the only way they could get the job. Second, Denver is 11% black and 31% Hispanic, meaning that the other 58% of don’t-have-to-be-qualified potential firefighters would presumably be mostly Euro-Americans. So not testing people for competence is not only stupid for public safety, but also stupid for diversity. The only way to increase diversity in the fire department is through preferential treatment alone, which goes back to implying that black people are actually less qualified than others.

The article also brings up the practice of lowering the physical standards for being a firefighter so that women, who on average naturally have less physical size and strength than men, could get the job. This opens the door not only for women, but also for men who are not as strong or agile as other men. Either way, the result is less able firefighters. And there are still only so many firefighting positions available. I don’t see what the problem would be with simply hiring the applicants who have the highest test scores and leaving it at that, assuming there were enough applicants who were at least satisfactory.