The Bosque Boys

Good friend of the Bosque Boys, Mark Osler (real name), who maintains Osler's Razor is featured on NPR's Morning Edition this morning. He speaks on something we have covered in the past (see this post): the great disparity in sentencing guidelines in regards to cocaine possession versus crack cocaine possession, which also correlates to a racial disparity in sentencing.

Osler is a Baylor Law professor and former federal prosecutor; he specializes in sentencing.

The NPR story: "Crack Cocaine Sentencing Rules Hit 20."

For more information:

Douglas Berman's blog on sentencing.

From Gateway Pundit, this story of election fraud in Missouri, specifically St. Louis.

Kansas City officials say this is the most irresponsible and extensive voter registration abuse in Missouri in the twenty five years they have been on the job with the Kansas City Board of Elections. That's saying a lot considering there were 16 convictions of election crimes since 2004 in the St. Louis area alone!

The voter registration fraud is occuring in St. Louis. Gateway Pundit has the UPI article on the fraud, plus links to other sites covering this issue, including a video. Read the post.

I mentioned earlier that I feared voter fraud in St. Louis, a long-time source of corruption that always benefits the Democrats, could hand a close election to McCaskill this year.

I still have a troubled mind going into this election. Big-government, no immigration policy Republicans disturb me. But, I'll not vote Democrat again until the party takes strong steps against voter fraud, from which they have benefitted for years. And, if you post a comment saying that Republicans are just as bad: present proof. The overwhelming majority of voter fraud in the last several years, that I am aware of, has been Democrat related. Perhaps the party needs a new slogan: Democrats: taking over America one activist judge and one fraudulent vote at a time.

I had meant to comment on this story in the Daily Mail when it came out, but one thing led to another and none of them back to this article, till now. Hat tip Drudge.

The lead paragraph:

One of the country's leading hospitals is throwing aborted babies into the same incinerator used for rubbish to save only £18.50 each time, it has emerged. Addenbrooke's Hospital, in Cambridge, said it was no longer able to afford the dignified disposal at a local crematorium of foetuses from unwanted pregnancies. Instead, they are being burnt in the hospital's main incinerator - which is normally used for rubbish and clinical waste.

My intitial reaction was to think--well, it has finally happened, the logic of the abortion position has led to consistent action. If an unwanted baby is thought of as something to be rid of like waste, then dispose of it like waste.

The next paragraph got me thinking:

The revelation sparked anger and distress among church leaders and pro-life groups, as well as women whose pregnancies were terminated at the hospital.

I would expect anger from church leaders and pro-life groups, but am not accustomed to seeing the feelings of "women whose pregnancies were terminated" mentioned. (more below)

» Read More

I offered my take on the President's press conference yesterday (Wednesday) this morning (Thursday) on Channel 10. Here is a summary of my remarks:

The Politics of Iraq:

Two weeks ago, after a press conference in the Rose Garden, I opined that the President was attempting to seize the agenda and the initiative, hoping to shift the debate away from congressional scandal to issues more favorable to the GOP: the economy and security.

Yesterday, the President all but admitted that the upcoming election would be a referendum on Iraq. It is suddenly apparent to the White House and the Republican establishment that the key to maintaining control of the government is not the economy, domestic security issues or immigration; the real issue is Iraq, which must be addressed to the satisfaction of the American people before Republicans can move on to any other topic.

Why the President?

Ironically, the President has thrust himself into the middle of the debate. This tactic goes against the conventional wisdom [that he is poison for GOP candidates], but Karl Rove and the President himself have great confidence in his ability to win over voters (and they have an impressive track record). The President is appealing directly to the people who like him and want to believe in him. It is a bold political move [but these guys are nothing if they are not bold].

What will happen?

This is a tight election, and I believe it is still a fluid election. Two weeks ago we were talking about Mark Foley and North Korea. Those things seem less pressing today. No one can really say what the tipping-point issue will be in twelve days. The decision out of NJ yesterday regarding same-sex marriage is bound to motivate social conservatives. Democrats cannot be happy about that issue resurfacing at this point.

Do any of those issues matter this year? Or is this all about Iraq?

Iraq, at this point, seems the defining issue. Why? It is the most important foreign policy event of our generation, and we seem to be at the moment of truth. As a result, President Bush is: 1) out in front reaffirming the case that achieving our objectives in Iraq is in the nation's vital national interests; 2) reminding people of the progress; 3) admitting mistakes; and 4) offering confidence that we are making needed adjustments and promising the citizenry that we will prevail.

Of course, the Democratic opposition wonders why this change in rhetoric took so long, calling the new rhetoric "confusion" or a diversion rather than the administration genuinely adapting to new circumstances.

Stay Tuned.

The New York Daily News is reporting that "transgendered" men may now use the Women's Restrooms legally. Article here.

The line for the girls' room just got longer.
Men who live as women can now legally use women's rest rooms in New York's transit system under an unprecedented deal revealed yesterday.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed to allow riders to use MTA rest rooms "consistent with their gender expression," the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund announced yesterday.

We are talking about men, guys with penises, free to use the Women's Room because they dress like women and act like women.

We live in strange times. (more below)

» Read More

Guest Blog

Here is the latest thinking from Bosque Boys friend, Tocqueville:

The New Jersey Supreme Court has unanimously ordered the state to grant all of the privileges and rights of marriage -- but not necessarily the word "marriage" -- to same-sex couples. The legislature has 180 days to act. The court leaves open the possibility that gay-marriage litigants can come back to the state courts at a future date and request full marriage.

Three justices concurred, saying that the state should have been required to grant full marriage under state law. Litigants thus fell one vote short of a majority for same-sex marriage.

This is similar to an earlier Vermont Supreme Court decision. Essentially, this requires (at a bare minimum) a kind of "separate but equal" regime between traditional marriage and gay "whatever you call it." The operative quote appears to be:

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution. With this State’s legislative and judicial commitment to eradicating sexual orientation discrimination as our backdrop, we now hold that denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1. To comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."

The decision repeatedly relies on "the substantive due process and equal protection guarantees of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the State Constitution." But Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution reads in full:

"All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

The words "due process" or "equal protection" appear nowhere. Although this portion of the NJ Constitution (relied on by the court) has been in place for over 200 years, only today do we finally learn what it has apparently required all along. Here, then, is the revelation of that requirement (with marching orders and a hard deadline to the state's legislative body to boot). A most unusual (and politically calculated) decision (mandating to the legislature), which is backwards from a democratic system that usually percolates from the bottom up, not the top down. As appalling as slavery was, it was resolved by a Civil War and the 13th Amendment. As appalling as segregation was, it was primarily addressed by the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - laws that Congress was not told they "must" pass.

Political Impact

As far as political fallout, I think people can basically tell when judges are legislating policy matters or substituting their own policy preferences for that of the elected branch, and this perception isn't necessarily tied to whether one agrees with the result or not.

If it really is in the constitution, it shouldn't be all that hard to explain where it is and why the basis is found there, and it shouldn't take 90 pages and analogies to things that glow around the sun to say so. If the issue is such a winner, debate it in the open legislature. Otherwise we have surrendered our republic to an unelected elite in black robes who are unaccountable for their decisions. Just once, I'd love to see a legislature respond with the same thing Andrew Jackson did - "John Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Tocqueville

Breaking news: about 3:40 EDT the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its ruling on same-sex marriage. The full opinion is here. pdf file The relevant summary paragraph is

HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married
heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds
that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex
couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the
civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex
couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

So, full benefits of marriage, but whether to call it marriage or not up to the legislature. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . .

Earlier I wrote about President Bush's millennial hope--a time of peace and prosperity brought about by democratization and free markets. here and here I labeled him a postmillennialist, because this view of history in Christian thought is known as postmillennialism: Jesus will return after a lengthy period of peace and justice brought about by the spread of the gospel. (Ironically, our chief adversary in the world today is the Iranian president who has his own millennial ideas involving an apocalypse and the return of the Hidden Imam. post here)

Responding to a query from Joab, I promised here to engage in a series of posts explaining (and defending) each millennial position. My explanation and defense of postmillennialism, an extremely influential world-view among American evangelicals in the 19th century, is here. Below is my explanation and defense of amillenialism.

» Read More

Where we failed in Iraq:

1. We vastly underrated the task before us in 2002 and 2003.

2. We were very slow in adapting to reality and changing tactics.

3. We are three-and-one-half years into a war, and our government is pleading for us (the American people) to have faith in their ability to get it right--without giving us a lot of foundation for the leap they are asking us to make. The problem is not that the President is changing tactics. The problem is timing.

Three-and-one-half years is as much time as you can expect the American people to advance you in a war. If the war was unwinnable in that stretch of time, then it was a foolish undertaking. If the war was winnable in that span of time, then it has been foolishly prosecuted. Either way. The clock is running out.

4. Granted we may finally have it right (or we may be on the verge of having it right), but the administration is down to almost no credibility with the majority of America.

Why must American presidents win wars quickly?

Because Osama is right. Defeating the United States is a matter of endurance and ruthlessness.

The Wizbang essay again (the lesson of Vietnam):

"The North Vietnamese knew they could never defeat the US in a face-to-face battle; every time they tried, they lost and lost decisively. They had no chance of attacking our ability to wage war; our industrial base was thousands of miles out of their reach. So they, instead, attacked our resolve. That was a key factor that led to our eventual withdrawal from Viet Nam, followed shortly thereafter by the abrogation of the peace treaty and the final conquest of the South."

By the way, that was essentially the strategy of George Washington in the American War for Independence. Washington understood that if he never lost his army, the British could not win the war. And if the British could not win, they would eventually lose.

They did. They grew frustrated with a seemingly endless and immensely costly war to achieve a goal that increasingly appeared less than a vital interest. They eventually threw in the towel.

For what it is worth, the Revolutionary War was America's longest war that we actually won. Vietnam was longer--but we lost that one. It is important to point out that the Revolutionary War was fought prior to Constitutional government. There was no president and no midterm elections.

Generally, Americans need to strike and win quickly. We have had long wars (the Civil War and WWII to name two), but in both cases we made progress at crucial times. We were on the way to beating back Japan in the Pacific by the summer of 1942. We had air supremacy over Europe by 1943. Americans could see the light at the end of the tunnel. The fall of Atlanta came at a fortuitous time for Abraham Lincoln in the months prior to his bid for reelection in 1864. The Philippine War was long and bloody (about the same duration as our current war), but the victory was in hand by the time the war became a matter of intense public debate.

This war is too long. No one (not even the President or his closest supporters) sees a light at the end of this tunnel. We are in trouble--not because we cannot beat the insurgency at some point given enough time. We are in trouble because time is running out for us politically.

This is not to say that we cannot save ourselves and the Iraqis (and the world), but we need to move quickly, act in a united way and get a little lucky.

Note: the Wizbang essay referred to above is cited in Part I (below); it is "A few random thoughts about the war in Iraq, and warfare in general."

I appreciate the Gardener's post below in which he featured a post from Wizbang: "A few random thoughts about the war in Iraq, and warfare in general." However, while the post is instructive in many places and well-argued, the analysis is too rosy.

» Read More