Category: Current Affairs

I really, really do not want to make light of the actual human events involved here, but this story is surreal (and –I would speculate–the basis of the Easter Bunny Hates You video):

In what would seem to be nothing more than a holiday prank, a newspaper in Florida reports that the Easter Bunny was arrested for attacking a woman. Unfortunately, however, it turns out that the truth can indeed be stranger than fiction.

Naplesnews.com reports that a 6-foot tall 280 pound Easter Bunny and his assistant were arrested by Fort Myers Police for an altercation Saturday night at the Edison Mall.

According to the victim’s husband Robert Johansson, "It was something like you would see in a movie."

Johansson says the incident started because the Easter Bunny decided to close shop 15 minutes early on Saturday night with a line of children and families still waiting. Robert says his wife, Erin, approached the manager to complain when she was knocked to the ground.

According to Johansson, "The next thing you know my wife is sucker punched by the manager, she is pulled to the ground by her hair and then the Easter Bunny jumps on top and starts punching my wife in the head."

Arthur McLure, who listed his occupation as the Easter Bunny, and 25-year-old Crystal Frechette were charged by the Forth Myers Police with battery and disturbing the peace [SOURCE].

MORE FROM THE SMOKING GUN.

Charles Krauthammer has a reputation for being one of the smartest political commentators around.

In a recent column, he argued the case that:

Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters, and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.

He went on to argue that the way to achieve objective (1) is to build a wall, and the grounds on which he argued it–or part of the grounds–were interesting: It’s the compassionate solution.

GET THE STORY.

There are other ways to stop illegal immigrants from coming to this country, such as making their lives in this country so difficult that they won’t want to come here anymore, or slapping American citizens who employ them with harsh penalties that actually get enforced, but these would cause human suffering needlessly.

The most human solution, to this line of thought, is to simply build a barrier. No barrier is perfect, but if you make it hard enough to get past then most people won’t try and the tidal wave of illegal aliens coming into this country now will be slowed to a trickle.

And walls don’t hurt people. They don’t cause suffering.

Certainly, if people bang their heads against walls, that’ll hurt, and if the wall is too short and they try climbing it or knocking part of it down or burrowing under it they may hurt themselves, but that is dwarfed by the suffering that would be caused by the alternative ways of diminishing the flood of illegal aliens.

Unless one is committed to the idea that America should willingly absorb an unlimited number of illegal aliens (something Catholic teaching does not require) then it looks like the most merciful way to stem the tide is to simply build a wall (or series of walls, augmented by patrols).

At least it’s the most merciful means that America has within its power to do.

An even more merciful thing would be for the Mexican government to reform itself, end its corruption, stop encouraging illegal immigration to the United States, and open up its economy so that people in Mexico will have economic opportunities at home and won’t feel the need to flee their country.

Those are things that the American government can encourage the Mexican government to do, but they’re not within the American government’s power. It takes two to tango, as they say.

What is within the American government’s power is building a wall, and that is looking like the most merciful thing that we know we will be able to do.

A while back I read a statement issued by some Mexican bishops (not sure if it was the whole conference or not) that patronizingly said America should not build such a wall because, they said, such a wall would not work.

This, of course, was completely disingenuous.

They know that a wall would work, which is why they were advocating against it being built. It wouldn’t stop every single illegal alien from coming into the country, but it doesn’t have to. It only has to hold back the tsunami we’re currently experiencing.

If someone has a better proposal–that can be realistically achieved and isn’t just a pipe dream–for how to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, I’d love to hear it, but for now a wall is looking like the most practical, most merciful thing that I can think of.

If you’d like to make a proposal to address this problem, please do so. It needs to have three qualities:

1. It is more compassionate than building a wall (including more compassionate for Americans, meaning that it doesn’t required them to bear huge costs that are far larger than the cost of building and patrolling a wall).
2. It will actually work.
3. It is something that the U.S. has in its power to do (i.e., it doesn’t depend on what Mexico does, since their government has shown itself to be a bad faith partner in solving this problem).

Please argue why your proposal fits each of these criteria.

Whatever turns out to be the best way stop illegal immigration, we’ve go to do something that is effective. Regardless of what happens to the illegal aliens already in this country–whether they’re given amnesty or not (and I’m virtually certain that they will be)–we simply cannot continue taking ineffective measures at securing our borders, for it will only encourage more illegal immigration.

   

In case you’ve just crawled out from under a rock — or in case you’ve been walking to work — gas prices have been soaring.  I just filled my tank for $3.18/gallon.  My theory for the rise in gas prices is that we’re being seeing the urban legend about cooking frogs played out at the gas pump:  If you dump a frog in a pot of boiling water, he’ll jump right out.  But if you put him in cool water and gradually raise the heat, you’ll have frog legs for dinner.  In other words, at the gas pumps we’re being acclimated to being boiled.

GET THE STORY.

Journalist and blogger Rod Dreher has a thoughtful article on how environmentalism and Christian conservatism are not mutually exclusive concepts.

"For too long, conservatives have ceded political efforts to care for creation to liberals. We Christian conservatives are finally recognizing that conservation is a matter of moral and spiritual integrity. And we’re learning that the challenge facing humankind from climate change dwarfs the narcissism of the usual left-right politics.

"Politics, however, is the primary way to address a challenge to the commons this massive — and politics won’t shift until our paradigm for thinking and talking about the environment does. The responsibility for that lies with open-minded and imaginative folks from both the liberal and conservative camps — men and women who care more about conserving the natural world and the human civilization dependent on it than they do about protecting their political purity and fundraising base.

"Bottom line: When people like me start to believe Earth Day is for us, too, the earth will move under Washington’s feet. But as long as cultural perceptions keep Earth Day a sectarian holiday for secular liberals, the pace of political change will be, alas, glacial."

GET THE STORY.

First, let me note a point on which I agree with him, though.

According to Catholic News Agency,

The archbishop of Guadalajara, Mexico, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez expressed his support this week for protests by Hispanics in the United States, saying the “undocumented” are persons who also possess the dignity of the children of God.

That much is true. The protesters are largely baptized people, and the baptized possess the dignity of the children of God. And even the unbaptized possess the dignity of human persons created in God’s image. At the same time, that is a dignity that can be abused, as when people, baptized or otherwise, break the law.

Here’s where the disagreement comes in:

During the inauguration of the Diocesan Museum of the Mexican Martyrs, the cardinal said the undocumented should not be called “illegal” because they are not criminals, but rather people who out of necessity or “ignorance left without their papers.”  He said the country to which they travel should treat them with justice and grant them a status that “respects first and foremost their human dignity.”

The U.S. should indeed treat illegal aliens with human dignity, but treating them with justice means acknowledging that they have broken the law, making their presence in this country "illegal."

It may be morally legitimate at times to do illegal things out of moral necessity, but this does not automatically make the act legal under civil law (though in some cases civil law may honor a necessity defense).

The Cardinal Archbishop is not dealing straight here. The number of illegal immigrants from Mexico who out of "ignorance left without their papers" is diminimously small. Children may have been dragged along by their parents in that condition, but the number of adults who did so is extremely low or non-existent. They knew darn well that they needed the appropriate papers to cross into the United States. Otherwise they wouldn’t be using obscure desert trails and paying coyotes sums of money to smuggle them across crammed into the backs of vans and semi-trucks.

I’m sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts, and the truth is that non-citizens who have come into this country illegally are illegal aliens by definition.

We do neither them nor the American people a favor if we try to paper over this reality with terminology that would seek to mask this fact.

To do so only distracts from the core moral questions of whether their presence in this country can be morally justified or not (that’s where the necessity defense plays a role) and what is to be done about the situation.

Military historian Victor Davis Hanson has an interesting analysis of the coming with with Iran and the reasons behind it.

Interestingly, he ends the piece with a direct appeal to Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who may well be one of the hostage-takers from the 1970s Iran Hostage Crisis) to change his course before war becomes inevitable. He writes:

Ever since September 11, the subtext of this war could be summed up as something like, “Suburban Jason, with his iPod, godlessness, and earring, loves to live too much to die, while Ali, raised as the 11th son of an impoverished but devout street-sweeper in Damascus, loves death too much to live.” The Iranians, like bin Laden, promulgate this mythical antithesis, which, like all caricatures, has elements of truth in it. But what the Iranians, like the al Qaedists, do not fully fathom, is that Jason, upon concluding that he would lose not only his iPod and earring, but his entire family and suburb as well, is capable of conjuring up things far more frightening than anything in the 8th-century brain of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately, the barbarity of the nightmares at Antietam, Verdun, Dresden, and Hiroshima prove that well enough.

So far the Iranian president has posed as someone 90-percent crazy and 10-percent sane, hoping we would fear his overt madness and delicately appeal to his small reservoirs of reason. But he should understand that if his Western enemies appear 90-percent children of the Enlightenment, they are still effused with vestigial traces of the emotional and unpredictable. And military history shows that the irrational 10 percent of the Western mind is a lot scarier than anything Islamic fanaticism has to offer.

So, please, Mr. Ahmadinejad, cool the rhetoric fast — before you needlessly push once reasonable people against the wall, and thus talk your way into a sky full of very angry and righteous jets.

That’s just the conclusion, though.

READ THE BUILD UP TO IT.

I find it truly amazing that some public figures express outrage when they aren’t recognized by members of the public.

I half expect them to follow up "Don’t you know who I am?" by bellowing, "I’M CHARLES FOSTER KANE!!!"

I’m sorry, but this is the attitude of a spoiled brat. There are six billion people out there, and no matter how famous you are, not everybody is going to have heard of you or be able to recognize you. It should come as no surprise, then, when you run into such people–especially in an age in which the MSM can no longer force-feed the public with the same, "one-size-fits-all" diet of stories about public figures.

Yet some folks still take this attitude.

John Kerry is apparently famous for using the "Don’t you know who I am?" line when denied privileged treatment and is expected to take the kind of treatment everyone else gets.

And he’s not the only one with that mindset.

Witness the current brouhaha surrounding an incident on Capitol Hill where Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney apparently committed assault and battery on a capitol police officer.

According to the AP:

McKinney, 51, scuffled with a police officer on March 29 when she entered a House office building without her identifying lapel pin and did not stop when asked. Several police sources said the officer, who was not identified, asked her three times to stop. When she kept going, he placed a hand somewhere on her and she hit him, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity [SOURCE].

Okay, so the way this works is that ordinary members of the general public have to go through metal detectors, but congressmen get to wear a special pin that identifes them as such and they get to skip the security checkpoint. That already means that they get special treatment compared to members of the public. But McKinney wasn’t wearing her pin and so expected EXTRA-special treatment compared to members of the public (and her own colleagues).

That’s arrogant enough, but I find fascinating the statements issued after the event by her lawyers, who are named James Myart and Michael Raffauf.

Here’s the line Myart is taking (EXCERPTS):

Myart said McKinney would seek a criminal investigation against the officer, and a civil lawsuit against both the officer and the Capitol Police is being explored.

McKinney’s other attorney, Michael Raffauf, downplayed the possibility of pressing charges against the officer, saying, "Not every assault deserves to be criminally prosecuted."

Myart further called the incident racial profiling and said there was "no excuse" for Capitol Police not recognizing his client, and Raffauf said she was stopped solely because of her race, gender and politics.

"It is the job of the Capitol Police to protect members of Congress. As a part of that job, they are to know who those members are," he said. "Whenever you put a police officer out on the street, he is supposed to know his job" [SOURCE].

It seems as if the two lawyers have a kind of "good cop/bad cop" thing going, with Myart threatening a lawsuit against the officer and the capitol police and Raffauf sending the capitol police the not-so-subtle suggestion that "Not every assault deserves to be criminally prosecuted." Put those pieces together and you’ve got a between-the-lines threat/offer of "Drop this case under criminal law and we won’t come after you under civil law."

But not all the pieces here fit together so neatly.

Myart said that the capitol police didn’t recognize Congresswoman McKinney, while Raffauf said she was stopped because of "her race, gender, and politics." I’m sorry, but those two things don’t square. If you don’t recognize someone then how do you know their politics? I assume that McKinney wasn’t wearing anything that identified her political views.

All that–including playing the race and gender cards–is just smokescreen, though.

From the facts presented above, it looks like the officer did what he should have done: Try to stop a person trying to avoid a security checkpoint who was not wearing the pin entitling her to skip it and who was not complying with his instructions to stop.

The idea that he should have recognized her is baloney. There are 535 members of congress, and one cannot expect capitol policemen to recognize them all by sight. That’s why they have the pins in the first place.

(I’m even nervous about them not having to at least show photo ID for inspection at the checkpoint. It seems to me that lookalikes or people with lookalike pins are a potential security threat here. If getting in based on your face alone was enough or simply because you have a pin then it seems to me they’ve got a security hole that they need to close. They may have to now that McKinney’s violent outburst has brought the existence of such pins and the security procedures around them to the attention of the public.)

Unless it emerges that the officer used racial or sexual epithets or that he grabbed her in a grossly inappropriate way (and I’m inclined to give the officer the benefit of the doubt on that one, especially since McKinney seems to be gratuitously playing the race and gender cards) then I support the cop.

The capitol police have already forwarded the case to a federal prosecutor.

Unless new facts emerge, the prosecutor should throw the book at the spoiled brat.

That’s the attitude taken by commentator Charles Krauthammer on the situation in Iraq.

He writes:

This whole debate about civil war is surreal. What is the insurgency if not a war supported by one (minority) part of Iraqi society fighting to prevent the birth of the new Iraqi state supported by another (majority) part of Iraqi society?

By definition that is civil war, and there’s nothing new about it. As I noted here in November 2004: “People keep warning about the danger of civil war. This is absurd. There already is a civil war. It is raging before our eyes. Problem is, only one side” — the Sunni insurgency — “is fighting it.”

Indeed, until very recently that has been the case: ex-Baathist insurgents (aided by the foreign jihadists) fighting on one side, with the United States fighting back in defense of a new Iraq dominated by Shiites and Kurds.

Now all of a sudden everyone is shocked, shocked to find Iraqis going after Iraqis. But is it not our entire counterinsurgency strategy to get Iraqis who believe in the new Iraq to fight Iraqis who want to restore Baathism or impose Taliban-like rule? Does not everyone who wishes us well support the strategy of standing up the Iraqis so we can stand down? And does that not mean getting the Iraqis to fight the civil war themselves?

Hence the gradual transfer of war-making responsibility. Hence the decline of American casualties. Hence the rise of Iraqi casualties.

So for Krauthammer the question is not whether there’s a civil war in Iraq but how do we make sure the right guys win it:

Civil wars are not eternal. This war will end not with an Appomattox instrument of surrender. It will end when a critical mass of Sunnis stops supporting the insurgency and throws in its lot with the new Iraq.

How does this happen? The stick is military — the increased cost in the Sunni blood of continuing the fight. But the carrot is political — a place at the table for those Sunnis, some of whom are represented in parliament, who are prepared to abandon the insurgency for a share of power, a share of oil income and a sense of security and dignity in the new Iraq.

This is doable. That is not to say it will be done. It is to say that those who have decided that because of “civil war” it cannot be done have been unreasonably panicked by something that has been with us all along.

GET THE STORY.

In his latest column, Thomas Sowell writes (EXCERPTS):

Immigration is yet another issue which we seem unable to discuss rationally — in part because words have been twisted beyond recognition in political rhetoric.

The Bush administration is pushing a program to legalize "guest workers." But what is a guest? Someone you have invited. People who force their way into your home without your permission are called gate crashers.

If truth-in-packaging laws applied to politics, the Bush guest worker program would have to be called a "gate-crasher worker" program. The President’s proposal would solve the problem of illegal immigration by legalizing it after the fact.

We could solve the problem of all illegal activity anywhere by legalizing it. Why use this approach only with immigration? Why should any of us pay a speeding ticket if immigration scofflaws are legalized after the fact for committing a federal crime?

Most of the arguments for not enforcing our immigration laws are exercises in frivolous rhetoric and slippery sophistry, rather than serious arguments that will stand up under scrutiny.

GET THE SCRUTINY.

It is with regret that JimmyAkin.org announces the passing of Great Britain’s "mouser-in-chief" Humphrey the Cat. If you know anyone across the pond, be sure to extend your condolences because apparently the nation is in mourning.

"The black and white one-time ‘mouser in chief’ was perhaps the most famous pet in a country of animal worshippers.

"’World of politics mourns a legend,’ headlined the Sun, Britain’s largest circulation daily newspaper.

"’It is true. We learned last week that Humphrey has died,’ a spokesman confirmed. Humphrey was thought to be 18."

"He had wandered into No. 10 Downing Street under Margaret Thatcher and remained throughout the tenure of John Major. But he was sent away to live with a civil servant in ‘retirement’ months after Tony Blair was elected in 1997."

GET THE STORY.

The famous feline was the source of a surprising number of political scandals. Conservative party members accused Prime Minister Blair of having the cat put to sleep because his wife allegedly did not like the cat. Earlier the cat was suspected of killing a robin family, sparking an official denial from the government. The Daily Planet has not been able to verify whether a state funeral for Humphrey is planned.

Am I the only one who thinks the attention from the British government and press given to the life and death of a cat is a bit bizarre? Maybe I’m just a cranky American, but not even Socks Clinton got this kind of attention from the American government and press.