War Commentary

A Political Rorschach Test

One of the reasons that our nation, and indeed the world, is so divided on the so-called War on Terror (which, I remind once again, is really a war on a new form of totalitarian fascism wearing the not-that-much-less malign face of Islamic fundamentalism), is that we have major divisions over what motivates the people who make war on us.

In one sense, it’s like the old fable of the blind men and the elephant. If you’re a traditional leftist, you see everything through the lens of capitalist, colonialist oppression, and suicide bombers look like stalwart and admirable fighters against The Man. To people like Michael Moore, they are simply freedom fighters, just like the Minute Men of our own revolution. (Of course, they only use this comparison when they’re trying to make the enemy look appealing to those who disagree with them because, in fact, some of the time they’re actually instead denigrating George Washington and his troops, and comparing them to terrorists, which is apparently only a bad thing when they’re Americans.)

If you’re a multi-culturalist, you see them as misunderstood, their culture under daily siege from an unrelenting barrage of western music, and sexual images, and women with flesh exposed to the world. It’s only understandable that they would want to strike out, and even end their lives when they hear about their holy book being defiled:

He said Tanweer had never mentioned links with any militant group.

Social Commentary

Weird Bleg

For any Catholics out there (and I don’t mean cafeteria Catholics), is gambling a sin? If you went to the Vatican, and asked the Pope if it’s OK to lay some money down on the horses, would he say, “go for it”?

Media Criticism

Media Bias

It was quite amusing tonight to watch “Fox News Watch,” a show supposedly based on analysis of media performance, and to see the two libs on the panel, Neil Gabler and Jane Hall, dissing Judy Miller, as apparently the traitor to the cause. I was a little disappointed that one of the two supposedly “conservative” panelists (Cal Thomas or Jim Pinkerton) didn’t call them on it, and ask them directly who they thought she was protecting, because it’s clear to me that they’re deluding themselves that she’s protecting Karl Rove.

Space

Reading Comprehension Problem

Well, this is annoying. Mark Whittington needs to work on his, apparently.

He claimed that:

…some people…on the one hand, preach libertarian cant and, on the other hand, demand government pay money up front, before the promised hardware is even built, not to mention delivered.

We asked him for an example of such a person.

Bizarrely, he responded with:

Unlike Kistler, t/Space will not try to develop their system with commercial money but will seek a fixed-cost contract, milestone payment approach with NASA.

By what tortured logic does he think that this means that the government would “pay money up front, before the promised hardware is even built, not to mention delivered”?

Apparently he doesn’t understand the meaning of the words “milestone payment approach.” Or else he doesn’t understand the meaning of the words “up front,” or “before hardware is built” or “delivered.” Either way, it’s a head scratcher of a post.

Political Commentary

Let The Sun Set

The Patriot Act was renewed yesterday, this time without the sunset provision, despite a valiant attempt to keep it, from people like Dana Rohrabacher. He made the argument for it eloquently:

Rohrabacher said he supported the Patriot Act in 2001 because of the threat faced by the country after 9/11, but only under the belief that once the emergency was over, “the government would again return to a level consistent with a free society.”

“We should not be required to live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws that were passed during times of war and crisis. Emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard once the crisis has passed,” he said, drawing applause from his colleagues.

Exactly. And of course, this principle applies to much more than the Patriot Act. Almost every piece of legislation is put forth to address a “crisis” of one type or another–crises that often pass (if indeed they even ever existed at all), yet the legislation stays on the books forever absent explicit repeal. Sadly, it wasn’t to be, though:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

He also said 13 of the 16 provisions up for renewal have not been controversial, including one allowing increased communication between the FBI and CIA.

“Why sunset legislation where there’s been no actual record of abuse and vigorous oversight?” Sensenbrenner said.

This seems like a weak argument to me. The fact that it hasn’t been abused in the past doesn’t mean that it can’t be in the future. Anyway, I think that every federal law should have a sunset provision.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!