Blog
Archives : Jan’04 Feb’04 Mar’04 Apr’04 May’04 Jun’04 Jul’04 Aug’04 Sep’04 Oct’04 Nov’04 Dec’04
Thu Aug 25 08:21:47 2005
Support the Troops
This guy does an awesome job of explaining my feelings about the folks who say, "Support our Troops - Bring them home!"
I'm more of a "Support our Troops - Shut the fuck up and let them do their jobs..." type-of-guy, but Scott says it much nicer than I.
Fri Aug 5 09:12:21 2005
Thu Aug 4 13:55:43 2005
President Bush has a talent for getting the liberals in a bunch. I guess lately he said something about "Intelligent Design" that set off a bunch of ho-ha. Here's the quote I found (The Washington Post):
"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
Now what the hell is wrong with that? The only thing I can find wrong with it is the use of the word "both" where it should have been "all". It's supposed to be Freedom of religion, not Freedom from religion. I'm not sure how we got so far off track here. Almost all of the religions of the world today are tolerant of each other (with one notable exception) so why not teach them all? What are the liberals afraid of?
Mon Jul 18 16:50:34 2005
Brilliant
This article in Legal Affairs suggests that we reclassify terrorists as "enemies of the human race" – offering them absolutely no protection of law.
It wouldn't matter if the terrorist committed a specific crime. Membership in a terrorist organization is what matters. Members of these organizations are, de facto, not innocent.
TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL OF DEFINING TERRORISM as a species of piracy, consider the words of the 16th-century jurist Alberico Gentili's De jure belli: "Pirates are common enemies, and they are attacked with impunity by all, because they are without the pale of the law. They are scorners of the law of nations; hence they find no protection in that law." Gentili, and many people who came after him, recognized piracy as a threat, not merely to the state but to the idea of statehood itself. All states were equally obligated to stamp out this menace, whether or not they had been a victim of piracy.....For now, these possibilities remain distant. But there are immediate benefits to pointing out that terrorism has a precedent in piracy. In the short term, it is a tool to cut the Gordian knot of definition that has hampered antiterrorist legislation for 40 years. In the long term, and far more important, it provides the parameters by which to understand this current and intense conflict and the means within which it may one day be resolved. That resolution will begin with the recognition among nations that terrorism is a threat to all states and to all persons, the same recognition given to piracy in 1856. Terrorists, like pirates, must be given their proper status in law: hostis humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Hat tip: MaryAtExitZero
Mon Jul 18 15:39:43 2005
I haven't been following the whole Rove/Plame thing, it just seems like much ado about nothing to me. Typically when anything gets this much attention, it's more than deserved. However, I did find this link, which seems to sum the whole thing up nicely.