Prejudging the Case

Seven year old Aiyana Stanley-Jones died in a horrible tragedy a few days ago, and her funeral was yesterday. Yet rather than lament the fact, we see only that the opportunists have arrived in Detroit to make hay for themselves at the young girl's expense.

Notables such as attorney Geoffrey Fieger and preacher Al Sharpton have come out of the woodwork supposedly out of concern for Aiyana's life and tragic death, and to raise awareness of the plight of such young innocents. But it is fair to ask how truly concerned they are for her and how much of their invective is driven by the personal incentive of staying in the limelight themselves.

This is not to say that there should not be a thorough investigation of the matter. If the Detroit Police officers involved acted rashly then such has to be addressed. Yet why is it so many involved have already presumed bad judgment on the part of the cops? The AOL News report on the funeral ends with Aiyana's young friend Roshell Johnson asking, "Why did the police do this to her?"

We don't know yet that the police did anything wrong. Even at that, we don't know how much the grandmother's actions helped or hurt the matter, and we ignore that the police were present in the first place to arrest a murder suspect living in the house. How much of the fault therein might lie with the household?

True, we don't know that either just yet. But everyone is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Why don't the men and women in blue receive even that little amount of due consideration?

What we have here is a circus with Al Sharpton and Geoffrey Fieger in the center ring for reasons of their own vainglory. That does not serve the cause of justice. And it in truth mocks Aiyana Stanley-Jones' sad death.

Life Isn't Easy

A few months ago, a nun had been excommunicated for allowing an abortion at a Catholic hospital in Arizona. The participants in a similar case in Brazil have been excommunicated for permitting an abortion for a pregnant nine year old girl last year. These events have drawn particular focus on the issue of abortion, if it is possible that any greater emphasis can be placed on it.

Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted has put the question in proper perspective: there are always two lives at stake with a pregnancy, and each has equal moral value. The end can never justify the means, and one innocent life cannot be directly taken even to save another. It is as simple as that.

The circumstances may indeed be tragic. The girl in Brazil was the victim of such. The woman in Arizona, pregnant with her fifth child despite a known health issue, may also be, but the case is less clear there. Presumably she knew of her condition yet allowed herself to become pregnant, and that is most definitely a mitigating circumstance which must be considered. But the bottom line is that we are not dealing with the big bad Catholic Church acting without concern for human life. Indeed we at dealing with Her instructing the faithful in very real and human terms: addressing the issue of the sacredness of life itself.

The answers are not always easy, but, every Christian his cross must bear. We were never promised that life would be easy. The supporters of the nun's decision speak as though she and her associates did a great good; yet a life was lost, directly and by a conscious decision no less. That is not being readily addressed by the public, and it is the salient point. The matter is very grave, a point which certainly the principals involved would concede. Yet the only moral option was clear, and it was not followed.

Every Christian his cross must bear. We will not always like the result, but there are times where we have no moral choice but to let things play out. It's often sad, yes, even regrettable, but we live in a fallen world. We do not improve it by submitting to that fact. We only make it worse.

The Sins of the Father

It seems as though the acorn does in fact fall close to the tree. Rand Paul, fresh off a victory in the Kentucky Republican Senate Primary race, has put his foot squarely in his mouth by addressing an issue which should not be an issue in the 2010 elections. He suggested in an interview with National Public Radio that he does not agree with at least part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Bad move, and poor judgment, which are exactly the reasons why the more libertarian among us cannot make greater electoral gains in the United States.

While a systematic and rational philosophy are important, indeed paramount, for the formation of good people and good law, libertarians tend to be far too unyielding when it comes to compromise. This does little more than keep them on the periphery, dismissed by conservative and liberal alike as marginal.

Mr. Paul had to know that the interviewer was attempting to paint him into a corner; he's surely intelligent to realize that. So why let it happen? Because he felt very strongly that the issue needed to be addressed, even as he conceded that it was an intellectual rather than political argument and would be used against him.

He could have and should have side-stepped it. He might have pointed out that such laws help business owners open their doors to everyone without any fear of private sanction against them: "Sorry, folks, the law is the law and I have to serve everyone." Instead he finds no concession on the matter, and rips open the proverbial worm can.

The whole incident is reminiscent of the diatribe his father Ron went on during the 2008 election season, about the North provoking the South into the Civil War. Not only was the elder Paul wrong in fact, but he allowed the creation of an issue centered on him which reduced his effectiveness as a counterweight to the status quo. It served no purpose to his candidacy, and could have been easily avoided.

Rand Paul is doing the same thing. He is letting a weak strand of his philosophy potentially torpedo his fledgling Senate campaign. He needs to remember that there is nothing wrong with small concessions, even if they taste bad (hint: they're going to). He needs to realize that concession is part of political life, and there's no point fighting battles you cannot win.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. So long as Rand Paul and his libertarian allies stick to such axioms, they cannot become the majority among the electorate. That's truly a shame, because so much of what they espouse is right. They merely need to learn to adapt, or at least shut up about what can only harm them. Especially when it's not all that wrong to begin with.

Korea

Now that it is plain that North Korea is responsible for sinking a South Korean warship, what's next?

The Korean War is technically live, a fact that many have forgotten or simply do not realize. And we have over 28,000 troops stationed on the peninsula. Any aggressive action there by either side necessarily involves us.

North Korea denies any fault for the sinking of the naval vessel Cheonan. That much should have been expected. But what kind of retaliation can there be without reigniting the ages old conflict? Clearly the North is attempting to provoke a reaction. But why, and to what end?

We should be prepared for war. Hopefully some kind of international accord can come from this short of fighting, but South Korea cannot be expected to wait forever for concessions from Pyongyang. Wars have started for much less than this in world history. An armed response from Seoul cannot be called wrong after this.

Time will tell, and we should pray that it is merciful.

The Morning After

Rand Paul has won in Kentucky, Arlen Specter has lost in Pennsylvania, and Blanche Lincoln down in Arkansas still doesn't know where she stands as of this writing. So what does it all mean?

The Tea Party folks will surely tell you that Paul's victory is a win for them, as it came against establishment GOP support for Republican primary challenger Trey Grayson. They may well be right. As to how far the ripples may be felt, only time will tell. But if in a generation we will have seen a turn back towards the more traditional libertarian conservatism of the American right, then the course adjustment will almost certainly have begun in the Bluegrass State.

Specter lost in part due to anti-incumbent sentiments, no doubt, but in part, we like to believe, because he was a turncoat. If there ever was an instance of perceived political expediency at work, it was in the Senator's switch to the Democrats as he felt he couldn't win Pennsylvania as a Republican. He would have been reelected had he stayed in the GOP, given the relatively moderate outlook of the Keystone State's electorate, but he bolted, thinking it the only way he could keep his power. It seems his little fiefdom didn't want him on those terms.

Blanche Lincoln was painted, by no less than traditional Democratic backers such as labor unions and progressive organizations, as too much of a Washington insider to be that good for Arkansas. Again, we don't know her fate at this point, but one cannot help but wonder at how even certain segments of the left are painting a hero of the Obama Administration as a pariah. Is that perhaps the Democrats' best strategy for the fall, to pretend that even the supporters of their poster boy are in fact dupes? To call the scene interesting is an understatement, but perhaps there are platoons of even liberals who see that they have overstepped their bounds and need to retrench. Or at least, as they so often do, reduce themselves to their latent hypocrisy and claim they are something they are not.

The bottom line is the anti-incumbent furor has won again. The Dems should still be quaking in their boots this morning. They have the most to lose, and are lined up to lose it.

More Politics as Usual?

Today is Super Tuesday. Sort of. It isn't expected to be anything like the Super Tuesdays which appear every four years in American presidential races, but merely as, perhaps, a portend of things to come.

Blanche Lincoln may lose her Senate seat in Arkansas if a predicted anti-incumbent furor continues to spread, and longtime Pennsylvania Senator and late coming Democrat Arlen Specter is on the bubble. Rand Paul, son of libertarian activist and longtime Republican Congressman Ron Paul, is looking good to win the GOP primary for a shot at the Senate seat in Kentucky made available by Jim Bunning's retirement.

The results will surely be overplayed and overanalyzed. Still, if all works out as anticipated, we will soon be in an even better position to see what November may bring. Will the tea partiers actually put something new on the table, or are they just attempting to rule by screams and threats, to paraphrase ousted Utah Senator Bob Bennett?

As if their screams are worse than the dictatorial style employed by President Obama and his lapdogs in Congress. But setting strident editorial comment (we include Bennett's sour grapes rant within that) aside, today will see either another stone set in the rebuilding of America, or leave a very muddled political landscape indeed.

How things look at 11PM this evening will be quite interesting.

Graffiti Art Ignores Reality

Banksy, a world renowned graffiti artist, has hit Detroit with a mural left on a wall at the old Packard plant on the near east side. A local artists group has moved the section of wall to their hovel, vowing to preserve and display it. All along, issues of private property and trespass go unanswered.

The group who took the mural, the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios, believes that graffiti art, or at least the art of this shadowy Banksy figure (he/she/they/it is apparently protecting their privacy, which is ironic considering their vandalism) must be protected no matter what the circumstances.

Setting aside arguments about street art needing to stay where it was originally or it loses meaning (even though they still beg questions of criminality) the taking of personal property not yours, even those things abandoned such as old factories, remains ignored by the so called preservationists. Does vandalism require protection?

Only in the minds of the fringe elements of society who take delight in thumbing their noses at the mainstream. Criminal acts are criminal acts, and declaring them art cannot morally save them. Indeed, it gives us a window into the mind of the modern artist, who believes that art is, well, whatever he says it is, and once said, deserving of societal protection and sanction.

In a pig's eye. Such an attitude is arrogance and, when put into action, subject to prosecution. At that point, give them a brush and let them paint the interior of their prison.