I'm not motivated enough by most news I've read over the last 3 or 4 days, so I'll offer quick commentary on a few items that warrant a mention.

First, the Democratic Primary in Virginia is tomorrow. I couldn't care about it in the least. I haven't paid any attention to the candidates because I'm not a Democrat. I'll probably vote tomorrow (party affiliation isn't required), if only to vote for the lesser of the two candidates. I don't expect either to win in November against George Allen, as he starts his presidential campaign two years early. However, a fight would be useful for turning back the dictatorial leanings of the current Republican party.

That said, I'll probably vote for James Webb over Harris Miller. The little bit of news I've read leads me to believe that neither is worth a November vote, but Webb seems less wrong than Miller. Also, I'm sick of receiving unsolicited campaign literature in the mail from Miller's campaign. I don't care that Webb supported Reagan, Allen, and Bush in the past. Sending me that message tells me party doctrine is more important than principles. No, thanks.

I might sleep in, instead.

Update 06/13/06: I slept in.

---------------------

Next, I like this editorial from Charles Krauthammer.

English is the U.S.'s national and common language. But that may change over time unless we change our assimilation norms. Making English the official language is the first step toward establishing those norms. "Official" means the language of the government and its institutions. "Official" makes clear our expectations of acculturation. "Official" means that every citizen, upon entering America's most sacred political space, the voting booth, should minimally be able to identify the words President and Vice President and county commissioner and judge. The immigrant, of course, has the right to speak whatever he wants. But he must understand that when he comes to the U.S., swears allegiance and accepts its bounty, he undertakes to join its civic culture. In English.

That's an excellent summary of my feelings, which I hope I've conveyed through my various blog entries on this subject recently. If not, allow me to assume Mr. Krauthammer's words as my own.

---------------------

I usually find Mr. Krauthammer's columns among the smartest around, as I did with the one above. That's what makes this one on the marriage amendment so perplexing. I can't endorse any part of it.

Gay marriage is a legitimate social issue to be decided democratically. The problem is that imperial judges are legislating their personal preferences, striking down popular will and calling it constitutional law.

Most notoriously, in Massachusetts a total of four judges out of seven decided that the time had come for gay marriage. More recently, in Georgia and Nebraska, judges have overturned (state) constitutional amendments banning gay marriage that had passed with more than 70 percent of the vote.

Mr. Krauthammer is too smart to bow before the false political god (majoritarianism) now praised by social conservatives everywhere in America. Seventy percent approval means nothing if we're to have the government we think we have. The solution is not to dissolve the judiciary and resort to mob rule. America was founded on principles which are still valid today. We should be moving in the direction of more liberty and less government control, not the opposite. That Mr. Krauthammer would even suggest that a Constitutional Amendment against same-sex marriage might be necessary makes me think less of him. Anyway, this is just a taste, as I can't do the article any justice in explaining how wrong it is. Read the whole thing to learn how a smart man can produce an atrocious opinion.

---------------------

Next, in an embarrassing display, Rep. Candice Miller explains why my favorite whipping boy, Rep. Tom Davis, is wrong about giving D.C. full voting rights in the House of Representatives. While I agree with her on this issue, for the Constitution is explicitly clear on how to handle the District, I laughed at this:

I feel it is my duty as a member of Congress to protect the sanctity of the Constitution, and see to it that no action other than that which is laid out in our Constitution is considered on this issue.

Is that why Rep. Miller voted "Yea" on a proposed marriage amendment in the House? But that's contentious, so I'll ignore it. Instead, I'll point out that she voted for the recent legislation to increase fines for broadcast "indecency". I suspect the sanctity of the First Amendment warranted a "yea". Should I mention her vote for the flag desecration amendment the last time it came up? (Source)

---------------------

I saw an ad in the Metro today for HireVetsFirst. It's ridiculous enough to promote hiring veterans. I don't recall seeing any anti-veteran bias in any company I've been involved with. I don't expect any to start soon, so this seems to be a waste of money. But HireVetsFirst? Job applicants should be pushed down the list if they haven't served in the military? Hogwash. It's still an all-volunteer army. Not serving does not make a person less patriotic. This is a discriminatory push for fake patriotism. We have better ways to waste spend tax dollars.

See, I still managed to ramble as long as I usually do, so you've gotten your day's fill. Feel better? I do.