The Navajo Nation and same-sex "marriage"

Here's a dilemma for liberals: on April 22, the Navajo Nation Council voted unanimously to "void and prohibit" same sex marriages. The Dine Marriage Act of 2005 further states that the purposes of marriage in the Navajo Nation are to "promote strong families and to preserve and strengthen family values." Given that the left will almost automatically defer to Native American culture as being superior to anything in modern society, it will be very interesting to see how they will respond to this action. That is, if they respond to it at all. I suspect that if Native American people such as the Navajo happen to have a position the left agrees with, then it is proclaimed as "ancient wisdom" in harmony with the Earth. If, however, the Native American position goes against the left, it is likely to be conveniently ignored, or explained away as the result of some "corrupting influence" of the modern world. This generally fits how liberals like to see the Navajo and other native people: picturesque victims who supply bits of trendy feel-good philosophy and home decor, but who have no business thinking and acting for themselves. Or in other words, for the left, the only good Indian is a dependent Indian.

A New Kind of Tracer Bullet

A proposed law requiring ammunition sold in California to carry individual ID markings has passed its first hurdle in a State Senate committee. This brings up the question of exactly what the intent of this law really is. Advocates--including those in law enforcement--say it will make it easier to trace suspected criminals who use guns. Reducing crime is all very well and good, but this law would go beyond simple identification to impose a significant burden on ammunition manufacturers, either driving them out of business, or out of the California market. The result could easily be a new black market for criminals, combined with an increasingly defenseless citizenry dependent on California's semi-socialist nanny state for their "protection." The second part, at least, is likely a driving force behind this bill. After all, increasing dependency and decreasing freedoms has often been a way of life for the government in the Golden State.

LOS ANGELES, MEXICO?

“Last month, ClearChannel , announced a "Multicultural Sales and Marketing Initiative" to expand its focus on "serving the fast-growing U.S. Hispanic and African American population." Apparently, multiculturalism has morphed into allowing other countries to overrun our nation. It seems that ClearChannel bought the entire state of California and has, in turn, sold it entirely to the country of Mexico. This was done unbeknownst to the citizens of Southern California and by extension the United States of America. Who would have thought that the MSM would have that kind of power? Or perhaps, considering the Bush Administration’s current policies, they are just reflecting the coming tide.

The interesting thing is that the TV station responsible for this particular billboard (KRCA-TV) is also the one that last year created a reality show, Gana la Verde aimed specifically at illegal resident contestants. The top prize? A team of expert immigration attorneys to help the winner get their green card. It seems KRCA isn't simply reporting on a trend, but actively trying to promote it. If this is a case, Los Angeles, Mexico, isn't just a tag to get viewers, but a specific goal.

Outsourcing on a Cruise Ship

"SeaCode is a one-year-old company that aims to build its corporate environment around a novel idea: “Take a used cruise ship, plant it in international waters three miles off the coast of El Segundo, near Los Angeles, people it with 600 of the brightest software engineers they can find around the world (both men and women), and run a 24-hour-a-day programming shop, thereby avoiding H-1B visa hassles while still exploiting offshore labor cost arbitrage and completing development projects in half the time they’d take onshore or offshore.”

There are varying opinions about this new outsourcing concept. I think that if they are willing to hire "english" speaking techs as often or more often, this is an idea whose time has come. Have you tried to actually get some technical information from Hewlitt Packard recently. They charge you for the assistance and you spend half the time trying to translate.

High Quality Journalism

This article for the Stanford Daily by Nick Fram offers some highly intellectual analysis of Pope Benedict XVI's name selection. Nick ponders, "Nobody names a kid Urban or Hilarius, so this was his chance to have a name that nobody else had. Too bad. Or he could have made up his own name. John Paul II’s predecessor, John Paul I was, obviously, the first of his nominal line. And he’s the pope, so nobody’s going to make fun of his name no matter how ridiculous it may be. Did he ever consider taking a woman’s name? How great would that be if the new pope were called, say, Mary I?"

Stanford is obviously at the leading edge of journalistic research and analysis.

Book Review of The Third Terrorist: The Middle Eastern Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing

Here is a product description for a book that's supposed to show a definitive link between the Oklahoma City bombing and islamic terrorists. The only problem I have with that idea, is that terrorism is basically an extreme form of advertising. The terrorists' whole point is to scare the crap out of people and make them aware of whatever the terrorists' issue is. They're not going to keep their involvement secret--they're even going to claim credit for accidents if they're big enough, just in case. If it takes an investigative reporter years to uncover that they had a part in something like the OKC bombing, there was really no point to the whole thing, as they would see it. A bully doesn't punch you out in the dark and then run away--they want you to know exactly who to be afraid of, and why. Or at least that's how I see it. Thus endeth the editorial for the day.

-- Written by the traveling Tor Aktenberg --

The West: California Southland Radio Streaming

It seems that Air America isn’t doing so well. Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo maintains that the reason is Conservatives “write their messages with crayons. We use fine-point quills.” “We” meaning Liberals. It seems Liberals believe that Conservative radio listeners are basically illiterate.

I’ve decided to provide those of you in the West with an opportunity to check this out for yourselves. Heck, check it out even if you aren’t in the West. I’ve provide the links on the sidebar for internet streaming.

News Talk 870 KRLA (San Bernardino, CA) has on their line-up: Laura Ingraham; Dennis Prager; Michael Medved; Hugh Hewitt; Michael Savage; and Bill Bennett.

TalkRadio 790 KABC (Los Angeles, CA) has on their line-up: Paul Harvey; Bill O’Reilly; Al Rantel; Sean Hannity; Larry Elder; and Kevin James.

760 KFMB (San Diego, CA) has on their line-up: Rick Roberts; Bill O’Reilly; Sean Hannity; Michael Savage; Tony Snow; and Lars Larson.

Check it out. You may end up hearing Andrew Sullivan being interviewed linking Benedict XVI to Karl Rove.

Letter to Senator Voinovich

Dear Senator Voinovich,

When was it that you became President? Last time I saw, President Bush was THE elected President. You don't believe he has insight and principals that goes into his choice for the U.S. Representative to the UN? Why then are you a Republican? You fundamentally have opposing views with most of the members of your party. Maybe you ought to reconsider your political bent?

IT'S THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY FOR YOU TO STAND IN JUDGEMENT ON MR. BOLTON AND BE DEAD SILENT ON ALL THE ILLS AFFECTING THE U.N. AT THIS TIME. YOU MAY PREFER TO MAKE A LOT OF ELOQUENT MEANINGLESS DO-NOTHING SPEECHES BUT AS A CITIZEN OF THE U.S. AND MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY I PREFER THAT OUR LEADERS HOLD EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE! The U.N. is everything Mr. Bolton has said and then some. How are his views any different than the great American President Ronald Reagan? Can you honestly say that an organization that has Syria heading the committee on human rights violations is fair, just, and appropriate! We just turn our heads and pretend that everyone is working for the common cause of world peace. It is foolishness and I say any Senator that believes otherwise is UNFIT TO SERVE. MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER WITHDRAWING AND LET THE PRESIDENT HAVE HIS NOMINEES!

I may not be rich, but I do provide my time, money, and mouth to the Republican Party. I will make a point to tell them that my money should go to getting a new Republican candidate to run against you for your seat!

Thank you for your time!

Kindest Regards,

Barbara Boxer thinks John Bolton Needs Anger Management?

Mark Steyn’s column talking about California Senator Barbara Boxer saying that she thinks John Bolton requires anger management is laughable. Considering that she thinks that fighting about your beliefs is an admirable quality. On January 6, 2005 in Washington D.C. Senator Boxer said, “For most of us in the House and in the Senate, we have spent our lives fighting for what we believe in, always fighting to make our Nation better. We may not agree from time to time, but we are always fighting to make our Nation better. We have fought for social justice. We have fought for economic justice. We have fought for environmental justice. We have fought for criminal justice.” I fully agree. From time to time we don’t agree. But we fight for what we believe in whether we are Democrats or Republicans. Senator Boxer makes it clear that angry white conservative males don’t hold the lock on the good fight. Democrats can be just as angry and fight just as hard. Some would say they are angrier and fight harder than any other group of people around. Have you heard former Vice President Al Gore or Senator Ted Kennedy give a speech recently?

My concern is why the U.S. Senate is concerned that Mr. Bolton might fight for President Bush’s beliefs over at the United Nations. Why aren’t they concerned about the entire goings on at the United Nations? How come the Senate isn’t “fighting to make” the United Nations “better”? How come the Senate hasn’t “fought for social justice” at the United Nations? How come the Senate hasn’t “fought for criminal justice” at the United Nations? Why do we hold ourselves to a higher standard than others? Where is the liberal’s moral relativism when you need it? Or is it that when it comes to a choice between loyalty to the Nation’s President, and loyalty to the foreign technocrats in the big glass box, they prefer the technocrats? Isn’t there a bit of a conflict with the oath they took when they entered office, or was that just a sort of suggestion that only applied to their own favorite causes?