Perhaps a reading of their op/eds will shed a little more light on just what the ADA does:

AMENDMENT WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE TO THE CONSTITUTION

By: Amy Isaacs, ADA National Director

The self-proclaimed “uniter” and his Congressional cohorts are doing it again. Dividing the country in time for fall election season. The issue this time is gay marriage. The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment is a willful attempt to play politics with the U.S. Constitution. The amendment would invoke a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, thus inserting bigotry into history’s most inclusive and democratic document.

President George W. Bush said: “Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.” A ban on same-sex marriage fails miserably in serving to the common welfare. It simply creates a sub-class of individuals. Not only are same-sex couples denied the right to marry, thousands of benefits ranging from pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations, and inheritance that other couples enjoy are not available to same-sex couples.

The intent of our Constitution has been to protect and expand the rights and protections of individuals. This proposed amendment would seek to limit and restrict individual liberty by discrimination. The Federal Marriage Amendment is an unnecessary and counterproductive approach to the ongoing debate on same-sex marriage. Most importantly, it is inconsistent with the history and tradition of our Constitution.

Marriage is a union of two people and traditionally has involved a man and woman. Opponents of same-sex marriage often cite tradition as a reason to ban same-sex marriage. However, traditions change and tradition is not an adequate rationale for preserving bigotry and injustice. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” The Federal Marriage Amendment does not represent “the progress of the human mind” but rather the fear and hatred of progress so prevalent in those who would have us mirror our “barbarous ancestors”.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, in delivering an opinion declaring Virginia’s “tradition” of banning interracial marriage unconstitutional, said, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” The statement is equally valid for heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.

Even Vice President Dick Cheney feels this sort of discrimination is bad. “The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s really no one else’s business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard…I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area,” said Cheney during the 2000 election.

“Traditions” evolve or dissolve, however, there is certainly one tradition we should embrace, the American tradition of equality and progress. America should follow the tradition of progress by allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights and protections as others. America should follow the tradition of protecting rights and promoting equality rather than discrimination.

I happen to agree with the meat of that op/ed since I strongly disagree with the need for the Federal Marriage Amendment.  However, I do not believe that the FMA would be destructive to the Constitution.  To say that it would be is, and of itself, destructive.  How can something that is enshrined in the COTUS itself (the process of adopting an amendment) be harmful to it?  If anyone should welcome the resulting debate over the FMA it should be the ADA.  That leads me to form the following the conclusion about the op/ed itself, it’s knee-kerking.  Very little actual thought went into the op/ed itself, despite it’s verbage.  They automatically formed their conclusion against the FMA because the President happens to be for it.  If anyone wishes to fisk that op/ed (John) feel free.  I don’t have the time.

The ADA has four more op/eds up on their site, ranging from the NCLB Act, Saving Overtime (on this one I can only imagine the ADA’s stance is that the Bush administration is going to get rid of it.  Which is, of course, a ridiculous notion, and one that has long since been debunked), Third Party Candidates (which calls for Nader to give up his third party presidential bid this year.  So much for choice in that regard), and yet another one supporting same sex marriage, which, as I have stated on numerous occasions, I am in favor of.

One can also presume that tthe ADA is against (in some form or fashion) what the ACU is for (i.e. less regulation, lower taxes, etc..).  So, Kerry receiving a lifetime rating of 92% from them is not all that surprising.  More grist for the mill I supppose.

Now this next one is interesting, since I didn’t know this particular group focused exclusively on the issue of gay rights.

Human Rights Campaign: 100—Gay Rights

Still attempting to get my mind around the fact that an interest group which calls itself “The Human Rights Campaign” is single issue.  Are they attempting to infer that if you are not gay then you are not human?  That’s a ridiculous inference of course, but it does make one wonder. 

Insofar as their mission statement/overview is concerned?  What are basic human rights?  Well one can infer the most important of those rights is the right to keep breathing.  And inasmuch as I am aware there is no orchestrated effort to deprive GLBT people of that right.  A few idiots to be sure, but an orchestrated effort? 

They also seem to favor Hate Crimes legislation, which is a form of legislation I oppose.  Hate Crimes legislation punish thought, period.  Also, the case can be made they are a soft form of discrimination.  A white male murders another white male, there is no call to use a hate crimes statutue.  Black male murders a white male, same thing.  A white male murders a black male?  And off we go.  Regardless of circumstance, the murder victims are just as dead. 

We’ve had laws against homicide in this country since it’s founding, and they do absolutely zero to prevent anyone from killing anybody.  To think by passing yet another set of laws which tacks on an extra penalty because the victim happened to be a minority (and I say minority in the general sense of that word) is going to prevent a member of that group from being murdered is ludicrous, not to mention dangerous.

Kerry gets a 100% rating from the HRC.  That speaks volumes.

Next group.

Chamber of Commerce: 0 (2003 rating)—Business Concerns

Not much to say there, except in 2003 Kerry did not once vote the USCoC way on any piece of legislation relating to American business concerns.  Conclusion Kerry is anti-business.

Next group.

National Taxpayers Union: 14—Low Taxes

That should surprise absolutely no one.

Next group.

American Association of University Professors: 100—Labor & Progressive Causes

I do believe that The Political Junkies Handbook got that one wrong.  Yes the AAUP is a labor group.  But it is a labor group focused on higher education issues not progressive causes per se.  Unless one counts campus speech codes, which the local branch here does favor up to a point.  I’m a member of the local branch by virtue of where I work, but I am not technically a member of the national organization.  Is the local branch a liberal group?  Yep.  So maybe the handbook got it right in calling it an organization that favors progressive causes.  Since I haven’t attended a meeting of the national organization I really cannot say.

Moving on..

Citizens Against Government Waste: 25—Less Waste, Fraud & Abuse in Government

From their Mission Statement, “Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a private, non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than one million members and supporters nationwide. CAGW’s mission is to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government.”

The CAGW has since focused more on “pork barrel spending” than anything else.

Now, to be fair I don’t think any elected politician at this point in time would get very high marks from the CAGW.  However, one has to remember the president himself is not responsible for actual spending, that duty falls to the houses of Congress, of which John Kerry is a member (when he bothers to show up, that is).  It is true that pretty much everyone on the right-side of the blogosphere wishes Bush would use his veto, just once, when it comes to spending.  But to think Kerry would be any better in that regard is delusional.  A 25% rating from the CAGW says a lot in that respect.

Public Citizen: 85—Consumer Rights

No link for that one, since pretty much everyone can guess just what that group does.  They sue.  A lot.  And often.  For groups such as that the phrase caveat emptor holds little to no meaning. 

Family Research Council: 0— Maintaining the Traditional Family Structure

Basically a pro-life group.  Given Kerry is pro-abortion, a zero rating from them is not a surprise.

Gun Owners of America: 10—Second Amendment Rights

I’m a member of the SAF and the NRA, and they rate Kerry even lower than the GOA (which I am not a member of).  For all of his talk about being a hunter, Kerry is about as anti-gun rights as you can get.  And yes, the Second Amendment has absolutely zero to do with hunting.  Kerry doesn’t get that, and probably never will.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: 100—Gun Control

Name is self explanatory, so no link is needed.  Every time an anti-gun rights bill has been introduced Kerry’s voted for it.  The argument can also be made that Kerry is also anti-self defense, since that is one of the main reasons why we have the Second Amendment.  The other main reason of course is so that we, the people of this country, can fight the rise of tyranny.  So, it can also be said Kerry is pro-tyranny.

NARAL: 100—Reproductive Rights

Claims to be for a woman’s right to choose.  What they really mean is a woman’s right to have an abortion.  Freedom of choice is inherent in our society, so to say you for a right of choice when what you really means is right to an abortion, is disengenious at best and dishonest at worse.  Their “choice” is, in my opinion, murder, since I believe life begins at conception.  However—and before the flames start, I believe an issue such as this needs to be left up to the states and the political process to decide, and not the federal government, and certainly not the federal judiciary who are essentially accountable to no one.  Abortion belongs in the political arena, not the judicial one.

Out of the 12 groups surveyed here, six are what one could call “liberal” from those six liberal groups, Kerry received a composite score of 577, with an average score of 96.  Yet Kerry wants the American voting public to believe he is a moderate.  Keep dreaming, John.

Here’s a table that shows the US Military casualties in Afghanistan, per year, and per month:
Year----------Total Casualties---------- Per month
2004----------------35----------------3.89
2003 ------ ---------- 46 ---------------- 3.83
2002 ---------------- 43 ---------------- 3.58
2001 ---------------- 12 ---------------- 4.00
Total ---------------- 136 ---------------- 3.89

Here’s the same for Iraq:
Year ---------- Total Casualties ---------- Per month
2004 ---------------- 568 ---------------- 63.11
2003 ---------------- 482 ---------------- 40.17
Total ---------------- 1050 ---------------- 50.00

US troop levels in Afghanistan are 17,000, and the corresponding number for Iraq is 135,000.  That works out to be about a 8:1 ratio.  Therefore, the Iraq Theatre of Operations casualty rate is virtually identical to that in Afghanistan....78 per 10000 soldiers, as opposed to 80 per 10000.  The main difference is in quantity, not rate.  It’s like comparing the number of men with blue eyes in Plain City, Ohio, and in Columbus, Ohio.  There’s more in Columbus, even though there is no real difference in the real rate. 

Actually, that surprised me a bit, because I thought that all the reports of insurgency and civil war that were coming out of Iraq meant that we were losing people right and left.  The casualty rate is less than 3% different from Afghanistan.  I think that this is attributable to the professionalism of our soldiers, the training and skill that they have, and their ability to change their strategies in the face of adversity. 

However, it sounds as if the Afghani situation, when looked at in the social and political context, is more stable, and it appears that Iraq is sinking into quagmire.  Well....why? 

Actually, it’s relatively easy to understand. 

Afghanistan, pre-Enduring Freedom, was barely even a nation-state, as defined by accepted parameters.  The Taliban Government was unable to maintain social and political control over all the areas of the country.  The borders of Afghanistan were constructed by the states around Afghanistan, and few governments recognized the Taliban as legitimate.  There was no universal socio-political order.  There were the harsh, anti-Western, anti-democratic, and Islamofascist conditions and laws enacted by the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and the rest, who fell under warlords, tribal law, and the like.  There was no established system, or overlording body politic.  The slate was a jumbled mess of anarchy, and the Coalition quickly destroyed the Taliban hold on Kabul.  That removed the biggest obstacle to soverignty to the Afghanis. 

Iraq, on the other hand, had been ruled for a generation by an Islamofascist dictator.  Hussein ruled by intimidation, fear, bribery, and had established a plutocracy, filled with his Tikriti relatives.  He had killed upwards of a half-million of his own people, invaded Iran and Kuwait, and established his government as the only legitimate power in Iraq.  The UN as a whole recognized his suzerainty over the Iraqis.  There was an established authority, a large amount of social stratification, and there was no serious challenge to him from within Iraq.  When we invaded, and overthrew the Ba’athists, all of that structure was destroyed, and there was anarchy. 

That explains many things.  It shows why there was rampant looting at the fall of Baghdad.  It shows why the US tried to bring in an old Saddamite general to govern Fallujah (an attempt to reintroduce a recognized structure).  It shows why there is still this troubling insurgency, and why they keep struggling to break our morale and fighting spirit.  If we get shaky, or if the perception of the situation becomes resoundingly negative, the people in Iraq will long for a return to the old Ba’athist days (much like people desired Hitler in the 30’s, and a return to Communism during the tenure of Boris Yeltsin). 

Another thing it explains is the perception that it is taking so long to get the country pacified.  Sorry, but that isn’t the case.  If we take the higher estimate of insurgents (10,000), say that 75% of them are native Iraqis and Ba’athists (7500), that still represents only .0003 of Iraqis (or, 3% of 1%).  Now, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that ten guys in ten car-bombs can do some damage, especially to people who are just trying to live their daily lives, and the attacks that are being carried out against us are quick, cheap, and noisy, but the fact that these attacks are occurring does not mean that the country is not returning to normalcy.  Most reports that are coming out of the country (not official or media reports, but ‘on-the-street’ reports) show that people are tired of the ‘insurgents’, they are ready to get on with nation-building, and that they appreciate the work that the Coalition has done.  And, yes, they want the United States to end their occupation, but that should be accepted as a good sign.  They want the reins to their own country....good for them!

See, Iraq needed completely torn down and rebuilt.  Afghanistan did not.  Iraq had a strong and uniform political framework and social structure, and Afghanistan did not.  Iraq’s old power structure wasn’t completely destroyed by the March-May 2003 Offensive, but it was crippled, and the remainder sent underground.  Iraq’s fascists had the infrastructure to do this, while the Taliban did not.  Once the war turned against them, the Taliban ran to the hills, and their attempts at counter-insurgency have not been effective.  Building a new power structure in Afghanistan did not require removing a behemoth...building a new one in Iraq did.

This is why Afghanistan seems ahead of the game, when compared to Iraq.  Iraq is coming around....believe me on that....and they will be good to go within two to three years. 

That isn’t a long time, folks.  Bush said that this war wouldn’t be short, or easy.  WWII lasted three years, and this War on Terror will turn out to be of that scale.  We invaded Afghanistan in October of 2001, and Iraq in March 2003, so the time scale is within historical standards.  Let’s not get impatient.  Let’s allow the people that are leading us in this war have the time and support to win it.

And when they start on the “slacking off” bit, remind them that the Air Force took his airplane away and the war was over.

Flying military airplanes is not a generic activity—pilots learn one type via a lot of expensive training, and have to “transition” (for which read, almost start over at near-equal expense) to fly a different type. F102s were being retired, leaving few if any for Bush to fly, and there were other pilots who wanted to make careers and/or needed the money much worse than Lt. Bush did.

The war was over, and pilots were coming home by their hundreds or thousands. At that point Lt. Bush, like hundreds of other low-time pilots and pilots qualified on obsolete aircraft, became more of a problem for the Guard than an asset. He didn’t know admin, because he wasn’t trained for it; he wasn’t senior enough to be on command or staff track; and he didn’t have an airplane to fly. Correcting any of those deficiencies would have cost the Guard budget money, money that would have been wasted because there were plenty of others available who actually still had jobs.

The Guard had no incentive to spend the enormous amount of money—up to a million bucks in 1972 dollars—to train a short-timer pilot in, say, the F4 Phantom II. There were, after all, many pilots qualified in current machines who wanted careers and/or needed the flight pay. George Bush had no intention of making the military a career, so he didn’t use his political influence for what it would have been really good for, which is getting more flight hours and/or training in a newer type of aircraft.

He flew trainers for a while, doing trainer-type things—for which I see Democrats going on about “bad landings.” In a trainer you do bad landings on purpose, to practice for what to do when you do it by mistake (or because the airplane isn’t working.) But for a guy used to flying a century series fighter trainers are boring, and all he was doing was staving off the inevitable. So he stepped aside to sighs of relief from all concerned, did the minimum for a decent interval, and asked for and was granted an out.

Was some of that “decent interval” gun-decked? Very possibly, to the benefit of all involved. Having a useless lieutenant show up for drill because he needed to mark time ‘til his separation date was, and is, not something to make a Guard commander’s heart flutter in pleased anticipation. “Stay out of the way,” would be the growl. “Oh, and if you’d like to leave early, feel free.” Is it any wonder the locals, who knew one another and were busy with their jobs, mostly don’t remember him?

One medium-decent Guard hitch, with a little bad luck involved (taking the F102 out of service.) What’s to complain about?

Regards,
Ric Locke

Damned straight