Massachusetts Democrats: soft on Communism, adultery, spitting

I cannot overstate my outrage at seeing this local news item:

BOSTON -- Massachusetts residents could spit on the sidewalk, give a tattoo, even commit blasphemy or adultery without fear of a fine or jail time under a bill being considered on Beacon Hill.

The bill would repeal nearly two dozen so-called "blue laws" -- laws that often deal with moral or religious issues...

One of the laws mandates a $300 fine or year in jail for anyone who "wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world."

[...] The bill also would eliminate laws declaring the Communist Party a subversive organization, making adultery a criminal offense punishable by three years in jail or a $500 fine, and barring anyone from "acting in a suspicious manner around any steamboat landing, railroad depot, or any electric railway station." [...]

The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Byron Rushing, D-Boston, said there's more than just legal house-cleaning behind the legislation.

"There was a feeling that we shouldn't have laws that we never use," he said. "And there were a few laws that could be used and shouldn't."

Yeah. Good job, DEFEATOCRAT Byron Rushing. Way to give the terrorists unfettered access to our steamboat landings and electric railway stations! What will you say when Osama bin Laden and his henchmen arrive at the Old Colony House in Hingham, spitting and blaspheming (as terrorists do) with impunity, and our police are powerless to stop them? What will you say then, Byron Rushing?

(Via Dave Barry).

That'll Help

You know, sometimes I wonder why we're so harsh on conservatives; when it comes to the war on terror at least, I'm glad they're stepping up with plans to resolve it. Unlike liberals, they show a real grasp of the severity of the situation. Two recent examples come to mind.

Exhibit A, Rudy Giuliani:

"We have to say to the rest of the world, ‘America doesn't like war,'" Mr. Giuliani said. " America is not a military country. We've never been a militaristic country," he added, saying national leaders have fallen into an "analytical warp" by defining the battle as a war on terrorism and not, as he deemed it, a "war of the terrorists against us."

Not a war on terror, but a war of terror against us. That... why, that changes everything! We're saved!

(Conservative blogger "Captain" Ed Morrissey, without a hint of irony, writes "Sounds a bit like 'Morning in America' again.")

Exhibit B, Patrick Ruffini of townhall.com:

Counterinsurgency in Iraq has often been compared to a game of whack-a-mole -- secure an area, only to have the insurgents pop up somewhere else. But if we slammed a mallet into the hole, and kept it there, then picked up a new one... and did the same?

This is a new game called Seal-a-Hole, and it has a very different dynamic from Whack-a-Mole: the normal game is one of futility; the game continues until the player gets tired and quits or he runs out of money. But Seal-a-Hole actually has a victory point: when all the holes are sealed, the game is over -- and the player, America, has won.

Even though Seal-a-Hole is not futile, it nevertheless requires a great deal of patience; there are many, many holes, and each hole has a mole who must be whacked. Some of the holes, such as Sadr City, are very big and will require many mallets to properly seal. But if we have the courage and fortitude of our American forebears, we will seal those holes... and we will win.

REPUBLICANS 2008: Sealing Holes With Mallets To Win The War Of Terror Against Us. Powerful stuff. You know, I wish us unserious defeatist liberals would emulate those considerate conservatives more often. We might learn something!

Candidate of a different sort

This post has nothing whatsoever to do with the UC elections.

 

However, there's an important confirmation hearing going on tomorrow down in Washington. Bush's pick for Rumsfeld's replacement, Robert M. Gates, heads to the Senate where he is most likely to be confirmed. Although it's unclear anyone can steer Iraq in any direction at this point, most agree someone should at least nominally be at the helm. That said, people have cited concern at the former CIA director's record.

The WaPo has a good piece detailing his rise to power and controversial '91 CIA confirmation hearing. Here's the link: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301059.html)

and here are some highlights:

• As a National Intelligence Officer (CIA) he was a Soviet Specialist, and fervently anti-Moscow...he wrote up lots of Intelligence briefs about Moscow's involvement in the third world with such conviction he was called a "zealot." They were almost all proved completely wrong
• He squeaked through his Senate confirmation for CIA director with lots of opposition...everyone one was worried about him DOCTORING INTELLIGENCE. SOUND FAMILIAR???.
• Hugely scandalous involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair, including a memo that said Washington should do "everything in its power short of invasion to put that [Nicaraguan] regime out,"

Find the throat of every "security voter" and hammer this down it

The Guardian today reports that an extensive survey of sixteen government agencies has led to the consensus that the Iraq war has been a boon to anti-American terrorism. There should be no doubt about this now: the 'flypaper' strategy has failed, the Iraq war has failed, the neoconservative view of a new American century has failed, and the entire national security program of the Bush administration has not only utterly collapsed, but, in collapsing, made us even less safe.

That's big stuff. It may not come as news to those of us who have always seen neoconservative foreign policy through a critical lens, but it's a connection which has failed to materialize amongst voters. We shouldn't let that happen. This is a simple connection and a powerful message, and its chillingly scary image of our current state of affairs is mirrored only by its tremendous potential for booting those leaders responsible as far away from Washington, D.C. as possible.

Don't let anyone tell you that Democrats have to tread lightly around national security. The upper hand now is and ought to be ours.