Cranky Bastard

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

Maybe there is a large contingent of backers of the SCOTUS decision that were quiet during the uproar. If so, the President would try to slip this past them, I suppose. I can see land developers being ticked about it, but they will find out. The rest of us love this. As I have mentioned before, emminent domain is a double-sided issue. It is unfair in certain instances, and then in others it seems the only way to get neighborhoods back in shape and thriving again. My overall is what seems the majority felt after the ruling, which is that we should protect private property ownership over other interests. That is why it seems strange that they wouldn't highlight this Order.

BREITBART.COM - Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House Document: "The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.
As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:"

Everyone should read the rest of this AP piece. What becomes clear is that Al Qaeda feels somewhat defeated. Of all things that the Pentagon could leak, this is a very good document to get out to the public. The piece refers to the building of Iraqi forces, to the time issue not being on their side, and how to create new fronts on the war on terror that might give them a leg up, i.e. a U.S. war with Iran. We should be ever proud of the fact that they are feeling this way, and should wonder why anyone would doubt that we could make them worry.

Children, TV and the FCC�-�Commentary�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper: " This bill is just a small part of what must be a larger effort to see that television -- and indeed all media -- can be a positive influence on the minds of our children.
Our children's minds are our nation's most valuable resource. Our children will produce the next great ideas, great inventions and great art. If television is to be so pervasive in shaping their minds, it is in our national interest to vigorously protect them. In the modern world, it takes more than a village to make television a positive influence for children, it takes a society -- parents, educators, advocates, broadcasters, producers, and yes, government regulation."

I understand that parenting is challenging and that much of media is not helping the effort, but legislation on what is suitable for the nation's children is not the answer either. Television's purpose is not to be an influence on children. Children are not the only viewers. There are some of us who prefer a show about adult topics told in an adult way. That should be allowed. The rest of us, adults, want to watch television that is not concerned about a possible eight year old viewer, but rather about entertaining. I prefer cursing in my television, and give my eyes and ears to those that fulfill that desire. Eight year olds should not watch what I prefer and there should not be legislation trying to bar my preferences from the airwaves either.

Coulter lambastes 9/11 widows in book - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com: "She also wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.""

Unfortunately, she threw flames to get press for her book. It worked. Her book is at the top of the Amazon list. By saying it this way, however, the level of discourse is put at the very bottom of the barrel. I say this because there is a kernel of truth in her very wild remarks. Her complaint at the center of this mess is the inability of other voices to argue with women who have been widowed simply because of their tragic status. They went from being unknowns to politically known quantities. In this new light, anyone that opposes them is supposed to tip toe around any argument of their stance because of their horrible experience. That is a valid point that many have been thinking and/or saying since the election where they campaigned for Kerry. Coulter just said it in a disgusting way to get press for the book. I really wish she hadn't. She is a very smart woman. I don't always agree with her. Any reader of this blog knows that I take some relief in atheism and its variants, therefore her book isn't up my alley. She often cuts to the core of the differences between the (R)'s and (D)'s. She is right sometimes. Now, and really for the past couple of years or more, I cannot see her as anything but a flamethrowing, less-than-thoughtful commentator. That is unfortunate.