I Can Hear You!

There have been plenty of issues over this last year. To conclude the year, I am finishing with a post on the wiretapping controversy. The basic argument from the ACLU and others is that the direct wiretapping order was illegal. Period. Since the president did not go to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court within 72 hours of the order, he broke the law. John Dean called it the first time a President has admitted to an impeachable offense. Representative John Lewis called for articles of impeachment to be written and Barbara Boxer took these statements "very seriously."

The only problem with this argument is that a direct presidential order is legal. As the National Center for Policy Analysis points out in the Wall Street Journal, "The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that President Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. However:

• No Administration then or since has ever conceded that the Act trumped the President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it.
  
  
• FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved; it was not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
  
  
• In several cases, a special panel of judges heard FISA appeals and found "the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information;" and, "FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
  

The evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions, says the Journal:

• They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties.
  
• Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, says the President.
  
• The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.
  
• These wiretaps were not used for criminal prosecution but solely to detect and deter future terrorist attacks -- which is precisely the kind of contingency for which Presidential power and responsibility is designed."
  

That should be the end of it! If wiretapping in this sense is legal, if there are no abuses of authority, and if it is only used on terror suspects, then there is absolutely no reason to have such a big controversy.

The problem with this postition on wiretapping is that it has received very little actual support or coverage. Even being a news pundit, I was unable to find the justification that the administration claimed supported the legality of wiretapping until today. Without accurate representation in the main stream media (and in the minds of some congressmen), this issue is being blown way out of proportion.

This information was first leaked to the New York Times, which ran an article on the subject in defiance of the President's express request. Now we have another leak. A leak about the leak probe investigation (say that ten times fast!) It is good that the administration is trying to take action against those who leaked such information in a time of war, but another leak leads to more obstacles.

I am sure terrorists understood that they could be listened to and took precautions against it. Now they know, and will be even harder to catch. You can't wiretap a hand written note passed hand to hand. Another negative repercussion is that the defense lawyers for captured terrorists are trying to get their clients off on a legal technicality ... the wiretaps were illegal.

In the end, we have a controversy, an impeachment threat, an increased awareness from terrorists to government information gathering, and the possibility of terrorists getting off scot-free. All this ... over something that has been firmly established to be legal since 1978. Go figure.


In a lighter vein, Happy New Year! As Nate said, "Thanks for reading!"

Ah, Scrappleface...

So, I've mentioned how much I like Scrappleface, right? :-)

This story just really hit the mark for me. In a time where the President is being challenged on everything he should be doing, (and not challenged on the things he should be doing but isn't,) this scrappleface entry is a gem among gems.

And oh yeah... MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Thanks for reading this year, mates. Cheers!

Christmas out of the Culture and the Christ out of Christmas

Dr. Munoz, a professor at Tufts University and a law scholar, gave an excellent synopsis of the different positions that could be held on the separation of church and state. You could be a strict separationist and believe that the government must be completely separated from religion. As such, the government will lean toward secularism instead of true neutrality. The other side of the spectrum is somewhat more divided. You could be a secular traditionalist and say that because our founding fathers were religious, it is ok for this current government to be as well. The second division is the "no coercion" school. You can believe what you want, as long as you do not coerce others into a mandatory belief system. Finally, you could subset the "no coercion" branch to say no psychological coercion, meaning you can't have displays of overt religion in schools or other public institutions.

Apparently, the government (and some elements in the popular culture) seems to be leaning toward the secular separationist viewpoint. Although there are plenty of examples, I am referring specifically to Christmas. This is not a new controversy. For example, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito ruled as a 3rd Circuit Court Judge on a case involving a Christmas display in 1999. In the end, the nativity display was allowed (I kid you not) because of the relative prominence of Frosty, Santa, and the Jewish Menorah.

So we come to the issue I have with "Happy Holidays" and the government's seeming multi-religious requirement. How many practicing atheists, Hindus, Jews, or what have you are actually offended by a person's saying "Merry Christmas" or seeing a Christian Christmas display? I like Michael Medved's analogy: If I am a single bachelor living alone, and someone says to me "Best regards to you and your family," I am not going to get angry, offended, or even peeved at that person. I understand that the comment was made with good intentions, and I will accept it at face value. Why people cannot do the same with a federally recognized holiday is beyond me.

Christmas belongs in the culture as a Christian holiday, not only for traditional reasons, but also because there is no "coercion" involved. Eliminating the religious aspect of the holiday has no solid basis. Despite this, it is frowned upon to say "Merry Christmas" in school or the workplace.

However warranted Christmas may be, we still hit the same controversy. When Representative Joann Davis introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives regarding Christmas, there was a major outcry. Another representative wrote a bill using H. Rez. 579 as a template. He replaced "Christmas" with "Hannakah, Kwanza, and Ramadan." Fortunately, Davis's resolution actually passed the House. When a country has to pass a bill saying that "[The House]

(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas ;

(2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas ; and

(3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions," we are obviously going in a wayward direction. As Representative Davis asked, "When did Christmas get so offensive?"

Thus, in the spirit of the holidays, "Happy Christmahunnakwanzadays!" (and Merry Christmas!)

Life, Liberty, and Television

We all have inherent rights. First are the God given inalienable rights that no government has the right to take away. Then come the civil rights, identified by this government as just. These rights do receive different definitions over time, hence the ability to amend the Constitution. One right we are now entitled to, according to the United States Congress, is the right to digital television channels.

George Will writes more extensively on this topic. He points out the cost of ensuring all Americans have the ability to receive digital channels by use of a converter box or a new television is approximately three billion tax payer dollars. This subsidy does not discriminate on the basis of income. A millionaire and “your Aunt Emma in her wee apartment” are both applicable for the same amount of money.

In the end, we have three billion dollars of pork to ensure a “right” that all Americans will receive television broadcasts in digital. Since two slight variations of this measure passed both the House and the Senate, it makes me wonder just where our country is headed.

Invasion

My family has the most extraordinary mealtimes. No, really! In spite of my mother's excellent cooking, though, I'm speaking of the conversations. The topics can move anywhere from airsoft/paintball, to politics, to movies, to religion/theology, to stuff that blows up, to the schedule for next week, to a pun... you get the drift. Needless to say, the conversations around TeamMat's table definitely give rise to some new thought patterns. New neural synapses firing at different times than they might normally. And so I give you: Christmas.

What the heck? Already? I know, I know... It's only the tenth, right? But this thought struck me in such a way I thought I'd share it with you.

When the Messiah was born, he didn't just put on human-ness over his godhood like one does an overcoat on a windy day. It's essential to understand this: Jesus, the Christ, was God *and* man, both, together, 100% of each, in the same package. Kind of tough to get your mind around, eh? Don't give up! You see, becuase the Christ was all man, He was tempted with sin. Tempted in some ways as we will never be tempted ourselves. (When was the last time somebody offered you the world?) But because He was all God, He was able to resist the temptation perfectly and never fall. And this is as far as some people go, but take it a step further. Jesus' humanity is the only reason His death on the cross wasn't meaningless. If He had been all God, woopidedoo; the sins of *humanity* demanded a *human* sacrifice. But Christ was human, which meant He was eligible for the role. But take a step back for second.

When Jesus was born on this earth in some cave-stable in Bethlehem, it was a straight-up invasion. Oh sure, God had come to earth before, but never to stay, and never as a human! The evil duke who lays claim to the world (Satan) got a slap in the face that night so many years ago. And this is the important part: since Satan *still* lays claim to this world, that makes those who follow Christ... the Resistance! And there will be crackdowns. There already are in other parts of the world; pray for those churches! The crackdown is coming to America as well; but it will be a far more subtle and insidious crackdown. It's already begun, as a matter of fact. Persecution of a Biblical Worldview in the "marketplace of ideas" is not only the norm, it's expected. And if you grant a Biblical Worldview the time of day, you're working with them. Which of course gives us few allies.

But hang in there! Just as Satan's cheers turned into wails and teeth-gnashing when Christ was raised from the dead, so it will be when he thinks he's beat us into the dust, only to have our Heavenly Father return and, quite frankly, own his face.

You *don't* want to mess wit' my Daddy.

(Viva la reformation!)

"Aslan is on the move!"

I cannot think of a movie that has actually given me goosebumps … until yesterday. Certainly, some movies like “The Diary of Ann Frank” or “The Passion” have given rise to powerful emotions, but not goosebumps proper.

I was able to attend a Pre-Screening of the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as hosted by the Discovery Institute. (Yes, that Discovery Institute.) It was stupendous. Honestly, it was one of the best movies I have seen.

There were slight variations from the book, but these actually had no effect on the plot or message of the movie and actually added to the story effectively. I am not so much of a fan(atic) that I won’t accept these minor changes.

The story is a powerful one. I found myself within the movie; not just watching it. The overt Christian message the C.S. Lewis expressed was striking. Unfortunately, this allegory is being downplayed. Douglas Gresham, Lewis’s stepson, is quoted as saying, “Churches in Britain and America are promoting the film as a Christian film, but it’s not . . . and the Narnia books aren’t Christian novels. On the Michael Medved talk show Gresham reportedly said that one could find Christian values in Narnia, but so too one could find Hindu values. I’m sorry Mr. Gresham, but in C.S. Lewis’s own words, “The whole Narnian story is about Christ.

It is worth pointing out that Lewis wrote much more than children’s fantasy. His “Mere Christianity” and “The Screwtape Letters,” logically lead from human understanding to the existence of God … the God of the Bible. Lewis said, “The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.” In his autobiography, “Surprised by Joy,” C.S. Lewis does an excellent job of describing the fleeting and panging moments of Joy that he experienced. These glimpses into beauty and longing for something more in a spiritual sense are difficult to communicate, but applicable to all humankind.

Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe is the only movie in my personal history to enact a moment of Joy as C.S. Lewis described them. What should you do? Watch the movie, read the books, and check out the other literary achievements of C.S. “Jack” Lewis.

Fence Hopping

There are three important markets in any economy. The labor, goods, and capital markets are the backbones (or the parts of one big backbone?) of any capitalist economy. If there is a shortage or problem in any of these markets, there is a problem in the whole of the economy. Well, there is a problem in the labor market.

As President Bush repeated in his speech today (Dec. 7), immigration is a major part of the labor issue and problem. I'm referring specifically to the Mexican/US border where Mexicans illegally cross in order to find better paying jobs, citizenship for their children, and free health care. Obviously, this drains revenue from the United States, creates ethnic "pockets" of Hispanics who may have trouble adapting to American culture and life, and puts a strain all tax paying citizens.

As with many economic concepts however, there is a trade off. Produce and farm companies need labor. Many Americans are unwilling to do the work that illegal immigrants will do relatively cheaply. This is noted by the Associated Press when Angie Wagner wrote on the 3rd, "Illegal immigrants may number as high as 20 million, and they are gaining a larger share of the job market, according to Bear Stearns in New York. ... this is America's underground economy, and it generates billions of dollars worth of labor each year. Illegal workers come for the jobs, and always find companies eager to hire them.

"The toleration of illegal immigration undermines all of our labor," said Vernon Briggs, a Cornell University labor economics professor. It rips at the social fabric. It's a race to the bottom. The one who plays by the rules is penalized. It becomes a system that feeds on itself. It just goes on and on and on.""

Companies need the labor and illegal immigrants need the jobs. One possible solution is better enforcement along the border. But this does not remove the base problem, the incentive that Mexicans have to get to America and its jobs. As Professor Douglas Massey wrote, "For the past two decades, the U.S. government has pursued a contradictory policy on North American integration. While the U.S. government has pursued more commercial integration through the North American Free Trade Agreement, it has sought to unilaterally curb the flow of labor across the U.S.-Mexican border. That policy has not only failed to reduce illegal immigration; it has actually made the problem worse. ... A border policy that relies solely on enforcement is bound to fail."

To paraphrase Adam Smith, "Incentives matter." We have to remove the reason that people illegally cross the border. As of right now, the best solution seems to be presented by President Bush. Fred Barnes laid out Bush's plan in this article. "Imagine what finally dealing boldly with America's immigration problem could do. Slashing the number of border crossings by illegal immigrants would be only the first step. A guest worker program would provide a lawful way for illegals to work here, solving a job crisis for American business and potentially reducing the incentive for illegal entry. The most difficult part would be creating a path to citizenship for those who came to the United States illegally but before a cutoff date."

So, is that it then? Not really. Politically speaking, we are not over all the obstacles. President Bush plans to include all these measures at once at one of the low points in his popularity in the country. As Fred Barnes also notes, immigration will probably be an important part of the 2006 midterm election. This immigration issue is not over yet ... we seem to have a solution before us, now all we have to do is get there.

On Tookie and on Life

A star studded movement to remove Stanley "Tookie" Williams's death sentence has only intensified over Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's head. The Associate Press reported today (December 1) that a California judge refused to grant clemency for the death row sentenced Tookie Williams.

What could possibly cause celebrities like Jamie Foxx, Mike Farrell and Snoop Dogg, as well as non-celebrities, to hold rallies in Los Angeles? Apparently the co-founder of the Crips gang is a changed and reformed man.

As his clemency petition sent to Governor Schwarzenegger states, "At San Quentin, Stanley Williams spent six years in isolation. Alone for the first time in his life, free from the threats and demands of the life he had lived, he looked into himself and found purpose. He openly renounced his prior life and gang violence. He educated himself. He became the messenger of hope, and of the futility and waste of violence. He found his own redemption."

Is this redemption factual? You be the judge. He openly renounced gang violence, but apparently other types of violence were acceptable. As reported on "Hannity and Colmes," he attacked the guards (throwing chemical substances into their faces) and got into many violent fights. This is after his six year period of "finding purpose" in isolation. He was even revealed to be a part of a plot to escape the LA county jail involving the planned murder of three people along the way.

As for his impact on others, it has been touted by many of his petitioners that he wrote childrens books. He even received a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize!

Joseph Phillips (you may know him from the Cosby Show) isn't so convinced. He reports "A quick review of Book Scan shows the Tookie series of books have hardly been blockbusters. His top seller, 'Gangs and Violence,' has sold 330 books. Another book, 'Gangs and Wanting to Belong,' sold exactly two copies."

As for the nomination for a Peace Prize, Adolf Hitler received the same distinction of being nominated for the award. It isn't really a good measure of the person's view toward humanity.

Should one bad decision condemn a man to death? There are consequences to actions. We have no control over these consequences, but we have control over the cause ... the original choice of action. Giving this man the life sentence instead of the death penalty warranted by the horrid crime of killing four other human beings is not a justice to society or the persons he murdered. We really can't make this decision on the extent of his reform in prison. The justification is not really there.

Phillips goes on to write: "Snoop, Mike Farrell, Danny Glover, Jamie Foxx and the other celebrity voices now raised in support of Williams offer a clear picture of the distorted moral vision of the Hollywood left. It is a vision that finds virtue contemptible and props up homicidal maniacs who write bad children's books as role models for the masses."

So should one bad decision condemn a man to death? Yes. One bad decision can have huge ramifications. It can be the difference between life and death ... in more than one sense of the word.

I believe Tookie Williams should be given the sentence warranted by his choices as determined within the extent of the law. If not, why even have a court?