Mick Wright.net

Details via Michelle Malkin.
Previously on Fishkite: Monuments to Freedom.
See also Jim Hoft for a good companion post.

Defending the Dead Vote:
This year Georgia passed a law requiring voters to present state-issued photo IDs, a measure that could help prevent mass quantities of dead voters from influencing elections, but a federal judge declared the law unconstitutional because it amounts to a “poll tax.” The IDs cost $35.

I’d like to see an ID charity launch, in order to help those groups singled out by critics, who say the expense “hurts the poor, the elderly and minorities.” I’m curious to know how the poor, the elderly and minorities are able to drive, or open bank accounts, or rent videos from Blockbuster… but if such great numbers of people really don’t have identificiation, or the $35 dollars required to obtain it, I think the citizens of Georgia would be more than willing to help them out, since the integrity of our elections are at stake.

Actually, though, such charity isn’t necessary. The bill’s chief sponsor has agreed to amend the law in order to offer these IDs for free.

Not good enough, says State Rep. Alisha Morgan and her friends at the AARP, the League of Women Voters, the ACLU and the NAALCP. They vow to repeal the law:

“It’s whatever it takes,” Morgan said. “I’m putting on the armor. Nothing they can do will fix the bill. It’s a bad law and it needs to be repealed. We’re not going backwards.”

What more can you say? When the headlines read, “State to Issue Free IDs: Poor, Minorities Hardest Hit,” there’s really no way to respond but to quote Al Gore:

“Sigh.”

The Cubs-Marlins Switcheroo Project:
Former Chicago Cubs right-handed reliever Joe Borowski has signed a one-year contract with the Florida Marlins, where he will join fellow ex-Cub pitcher Sergio Mitre.

Kinder, Gentler Stem Cell Research:
Sen. Bill Frist puts a local spin on a national story: Memphis families suffering the consequences of sickle cell disease will benefit from a bill President Bush signed into law this month. What’s more, the new law is embryo-friendly: the stem cells are taken from umbilical cord and placenta blood.

Russian Revolution:
The AP reports that a religious book-to-TV story has captivated Russian audiences. Lots of good stuff here:

Vladimir Bortko, director of the 10-series movie broadcast on Rossiya state television, said the book embodies freedom for several generations of Russians.

“It was like a breath of fresh air in the dead atmosphere of Soviet writing,” Bortko said.

He added that, for many Soviet citizens, Bulgakov’s novel was their first encounter with the Bible, which was discredited by the atheist communist government.

…

Some critics of President Vladimir Putin’s government say Bulgakov’s novel is becoming increasingly relevant in today’s Russia, where all nationwide television channels are controlled by the state and where security forces enjoy extended powers and little accountability.

“In Russia, as opposed to many other countries, several truths are not obvious yet – neither to the authorities, nor to the people – (including) that a person has an inherent right to life and freedom, that the state must serve individuals, not subdue them,” said Marietta Chudakova, a leading Bulgakov scholar.

We regret those truths are not obvious in several places here, either.

The AP is gushing with gaity this morning:

Who’s afraid of a couple of gay cowboys?

Not moviegoers, who helped “Brokeback Mountain” post the highest per-screen average over the film-flush holiday weekend.

The Ang Lee film, which follows the 20-year forbidden romance between two roughneck ranch hands, earned $13,599 per theater, compared with $9,305 for weekend winner “King Kong” and $8,225 for “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.”

Unfortunately for the movie’s supporters, the AP is basically comparing apples and oranges: Brokeback’s theatre average is inflated by its marketing rollout scheme, with the film playing only in a highly selective set of 217 locations. What happens when we limit the theatre averages from ‘Kong’ and ‘Narnia’ to those same locations? It’s a good bet we’d still find those two films on top, back to back.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt notices the same article and rewrites the lead.

UPDATE II: Box Office Mojo: “It’s natural for a picture’s average to drop significantly as it adds smaller markets.”

The AP picks up Tuesday’s WMC-TV 5 report confirming the allegations linked here two weeks ago today:

68 dead people are confirmed by the Shelby County Election Commission as having voted between 1994 and 2004.

…

John Harvey, a candidate for Shelby County Sheriff, first dug up the deceased voters’ records.

Over the weekend, Harvey added maps of the deceased voters’ locations. He’s also posted a list of names and other data on his campaign website.

Harvey also has a blog, where he calls for the resignation of the Shelby County Election Commission.

“It’s either right or wrong to dose pregnant women, newborn infants or fetuses; it’s either right or wrong to use information from those studies. Now the Congress has said it is wrong, under all circumstances, and this rule is just basically undermining what Congress has said.”

- Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on NPR’s morning edition, condemning loop-holes that could allow the EPA to use the results of some pesticide tests on pregnant mothers.

It would be nice if Boxer, who maintains a 100% “pro-choice” rating from NARAL (along with her colleague Hillary Clinton), always had such moral clarity on mothers and their unborn children.

On the positive side, however, this presents an opportunity for pro-life advocates seeking a new strategy: perhaps the best way to attract Democratic support would be to get evil, capitalist industries and polluters to support and benefit from the practice; or, better yet, encourage doctors to start offering the procedure exclusively at Wal*Mart.

Because, as we discovered earlier, the best way to get liberals to think differently about an issue is to frame it as a crusade against capitalism, big business, religious groups or the military.

UPDATE: Boxer, on the same issue, in June:

“Let’s use this time to throw out this rule that they’re drafting which is immoral on its face because it would allow EPA itself to test pregnant women and fetuses,” Boxer told reporters. “And let’s go back to the basic rules of science and morality.”

Sen. Boxer, why is it immoral to test fetuses but ok to abort them?

“He is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.’”

- Acts 4:11

This message brought to you by the Bartlett Branch Library and Broadmoor Baptist Church (part 5 of ???). Previously: one, two, three and four.

Since Bono and the Gates family were honored as TIME’s people of the year, I though I’d share an optimistic little look at some numbers on African aid.

A charity called Lifeline of Hope* claims we can feed one orphan child for an entire year for $120.00.

The BBC, meanwhile, reports that AIDS orphans in Africa ‘may top 18 million by 2010.’

So, assuming nothing is done in the meantime, we would need $2.16 billion to feed these children each year starting in 2010.

In the year 2000, the United States contributed a total of $56.2 billion in humanitarian aid, an amount that continues to increase each year.

Even if our giving held at that level, however, we could feed 468 million orphans, or 450 million more African AIDS orphans than will even exist in 2010.

Assuming that the entirety of our humanitarian efforts was concentrated in that one area, we could be feeding about 55.71% of Africa’s total population.

As I’ve written before, Bono’s ONE campaign asks the U.S. government to direct 1% of its budget, or $25 billion, to humanitarian aid each year. If instead the ONE campaign asked each individual American to donate 1% of his salary, the total would be FOUR times larger: $100 billion.

With that amount of money, we could feed the entire continent of Africa and still have plenty left over for other humanitarian causes, and without the federal government spending even ONE dime of taxpayer money.

Now how’s that for a little Christmas cheer?!

* – Hat tip to Clarke for the link.

Let’s see if I understand this correctly: most Democrats don’t agree with using “unilateral force” against terrorism, they don’t agree with fighting Al Qaida in Iraq (or in Afghanistan, when it comes down to it — as in “inflaming the Arab street”), they don’t believe America can win the fight against terror in Iraq (see Howard Dean) and would like the military to immediately withdraw (see Murtha and Pelosi), they don’t agree with spreading “American-style democracy” as a means to eliminate terrorism, they don’t agree with interrogation techniques which may prevent terrorist attacks, they don’t agree with holding detainees in Gitmo or in secret sites around the world, they don’t agree with adjudicating terrorists in military tribunals rather than criminal courts, they don’t agree with the PATRIOT act, they don’t agree that terrorists are not proctected under the Geneva conventions, they don’t agree with the government intercepting wireless transmissions between Al Qaida agents without first obtaining a court warrant, and now they don’t agree with anti-terrorism measures within the United States.

Let’s hope they never find out about the our secret anti-terror spitball program (with apologizes to Zell Miller).

When was the last time you read an article in the mainstream media demanding an account for every taxpayer dime spent on social programs such as medicare, social security, welfare or food stamps?

How about articles critical of federal funding budgeted for AIDS studies, stem-cell research or alternative energy development?

When was the last time you saw a quote in the news by “critics” or “scholars” who worried about the government’s involvement in charity efforts, such as 9/11 support, African aid, tsunami relief or funds for Katrina victims?

More than likely, the answer to each of these is “never.” That’s because the mainstream media has no problem with the government’s involvment in social programs or charity work, and in fact constantly argues for increased funding in each of these areas.

That is, of course, until the government partners with faith-based charities… or unless the funds happen to support personae non gratae, such as U.S. troops and their families.

In those few exceptional cases, liberal reporters suddenly take an interest in the cost of federal efforts and feign sympathy for the American taxpayer.

Take, for example, today’s article by E.A. Torriero in The Chicago Tribune: Pentagon uses PR muscle to boost groups aiding GIs.

In the story, Torriero seems to be making an attempt to discredit a website maintained by the military’s civil affairs unit, which simply promotes and links to private charity efforts launched by citizens around the country who want to help our troops and their families.

Some clips:

Pentagon officials say they are simply helping Americans support soldiers serving overseas. But military scholars say the effort is not merely altruistic, and taxpayers are footing the bill.

…

The Pentagon did not respond to requests from the Tribune to detail the budget of “America Supports You.” The campaign is mostly part of the Pentagon’s daily press operations and overall public-relations efforts, said Gregory Hicks, its chief spokesman.

The Pentagon does not contribute money to the charities, Hicks and officials of several charities said. Still, just a mere mention by a high government official can change the fortunes of a struggling volunteer effort.

…

The publicity comes mostly from workers on the government clock.

We’ll be looking for Torriero next time there’s a debate in Congress about tax cuts or budget cuts; I doubt his interest in fiscal discipline and taxpayer advocacy will be as potent as it is here.

Via a link posted by Matthew Tapie I found a transcript of a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life conference event on “the history of the faith-based initiative,” titled “With Ben Franklin’s Blessings.”

Here’s part:

Franklin was a very interesting character with respect to religion. He was a religious believer. He was a believing Christian. I think that Walter Isaacson’s biography of Franklin is the best single-volume biography on the subject – if anyone else has written one, I’m sorry – and he talks about Franklin as an apostle of tolerance, a person who’s views on religion were driven in the end by pragmatism. Franklin contributed to each and every religious organization in Philadelphia. He gave money and support to synagogues, churches, it didn’t matter. And about a month before Franklin died, he wrote a letter to the president of Yale, Ezra Stiles, in which – and I will quote him here – he reiterated his belief in one God and said, “The most acceptable service we render to Him is doing good to His other children.” Franklin opposed religious oaths and tests in both the Pennsylvania and the U.S. Constitution, but he was a believer – faith-friendly, pluralistic, pragmatic.

Now, please do not make a mistake in thinking Franklin was some kind of a holy roller. He most certainly was not. He was among the least religiously active of the founders, along with Madison and Jefferson and a few others. And he also had other mottos in addition to the one at the top of the page there – “To pour forth benefits for the common good,” the motto he gave to the Library Company of Philadelphia in 1731. He also was famous for the motto, “Beer is proof that God exists and wants us to be happy.” (Laughter.) He was a practical and civic-minded man, more often found in Philly taverns on Saturdays than Philly churches on Sundays. But he was faith-friendly yet pragmatic and pluralistic. And that’s the point. So I want to begin there with Franklin, and I want to come back to old Ben in due course.

I’m going to over-argue for pedagogical purposes, if you’ll forgive the term in this context. I want to look at public opinion, at court doctrine, at public administration – I know one of the most scintillating subjects that we’ll be touching upon in due course – at partisan politics or bipartisan politics, and at the empirical research on the subject. Each and every one of these domains points to almost exactly the same civic-minded perspective on the role of religion and public affairs. Each and every one of these different domains, if you will, points to exactly the same faith-friendly yet pluralistic and pragmatic perspective on how religion ought to engage and be engaged in the public square. And I want to suggest – reflecting back to old Ben – that is almost precisely what Franklin had in mind.

It’s a lengthy transcript with lots of good points made.

Tapie, by the way, has an excellent blog. His recent post on what the Church ought to do about poverty is simply amazing, not to mention the extended comment thread.