I was initially going to wait until I got back from a convention in Dallas to start posting, but then I figure getting a head start might not be a terrible idea so I get in the habit of posting.

Martin Devon points out an article in FoxNews about efforts in my own home town of Houston to kill the phrase "Remember the Alamo"

I left this in his comments tray, reprinted for your pleasure:

This is beyond depressing. I guess even my state of Texas is not beyond this nonsense. The entire "Remember the Alamo" phrase was not even a dig at Mexico or a comment on Mexican barbarianism. It was a tribute to the brave Texan soldiers who faught there.

Yes, there was a battle. Yes, the Mexicans won. Yes, all but a handful of Texans chose to die rather than be captured. Yes, that was used as a battle cry later on for a war Texas eventually won.

That's the way things occured. Is the fact that our smaller army whooped their bigger one offensive, too? Should we rewrite the ending or ignore it altogether?

Alex

PS. There is another battle cry that the Texas soldiers used... "Remember Goliad" which was an incident where Mexican soldiers slaughtered soldiers who had surrendered. That phrase was certainly a dig at Mexicans. That doesn't make it any less true, though.

American Kaiser Justin Weitz lambasts a recent Supreme Court decision which stated that the Federal Maritime Commission was not to hear a complaint by gambling boat denied dockage in South Carolina.

I am actually inclined to agree the ruling. It is, to me, analogous of a case of the courts throwing out a case before it is sent to trial. They Opinion argues that the the states are clearly in the right in respect to what ships are and are not allowed to port there.

I'm against tort reform, but I disagree with Weihr's assertion that this is what it is about. To me, the lawsuit was frivolous and, if it proceeded, could have led to a degradation of the states' rights and local control. That's better decided in the port or the statehouse than in Washington.

The little man has a right to be heard... and has been heard, right up to the Supreme Court. I'm reminded of the phrase "God can always hear your prayers, but sometimes the answer is 'no'."

Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan are drawing a line in the sand and putting Pakistani Dictadent Pervez Musharraf on the other side.

This is certainly not the first time that many have targetted Musharraf and there are certainly reasons to believe that he has not been entirely forthright and, at times, obstructive. He's currently embrattled in what could (but I don't believe will) become a nuclear war with India. Certainly, we would like someone more cooperative and less dangerous at the helm over there.

But in a way we're acting like the feminists who ask why we didn't support "pro-women" leaders in Afghanistan, instead perpetually lending our support to what we saw as the "lesser of two evils..." What they overlooked then, and what Safire et al are overlooking now, is that the distinction between bad and terribly evil is signifigant. The saying "one in the hand is worth two in the bush" is particularly applicable here. The current Afghani regime and Dictadent Musharraf are not perfect, or even good for that matter, but they are better than the alternatives!

Musharraf, even if he had the purest of motives, would be forced to walk a tightrope of self-interest. If he angers us too much, we'll certainly side with India in that conflict and, if necessary, invade Pakistan to round up al-Qaeda. If he follows us too much, he runs the serious risk of being overthrown and replaced by someone who would reinvoke the image of the United States as "The Great Satan."

Right now Pakistan is being led by someone praising western values (even if not living by them). We need to make due with that. There are bigger fish to fry right now.

American Kaiser Teddy Sherrill has a similar point of view.