Texsanity

Saturday, December 14, 2002


Steven Den Beste takes care of the depleted uranium issue that Mighty Pinter raised.

"The reality is that the primary danger from depleted uranium is heavy metal poisoning, a chemical effect, rather than any danger from its radioactivity, and because uranium is pyrophoric much of the uranium used in combat burns and turns into the oxide. It's true that breathing the dust has the potential of causing lung cancer, but even there the risk is pretty low, because the resulting dust is extremely dense and doesn't tend to stir up readily or hang in the air. And even its danger as a chemical poison is low (in terms of contaminating areas), and heavy metal poisoning doesn't cause the effects he's blaming on it.

The biggest hole in Pinter's argument is this: it's true that we used a lot of DU projectiles in the Gulf War, but the majority of them were used in Kuwait. It's not a universal ingredient in all American weapons. It only appears in specific weapons designed to destroy tanks.

First, the penetrator in the APFSDS ("sabot") rounds was DU, but we didn't actually fire all that many of those. The other major use of DU was in the bullets fired from the GAU-8 gun on the A-10 "Warthog". Thus the primary places where DU would be found were in those places where American tanks fought against Iraqi armor (e.g. 73 Easting) and on the "Highway of Death" north of Kuwait City where American aircraft (prominently including the Hogs) massacred a column of Iraqis attempting to flee from the US Marines coming up from the south. Pinter's fantasy of a sort of uniform increase in the radioactivity level of the entire region is, shall we say, not justified by the facts; the DU we used was mostly expended in a relatively small amount of the terrain and it doesn't disperse easily.

Besides which, if DU has caused so damned many birth defects in Iraq, why are we not hearing similar reports out of Kuwait where far more DU was used? My best guess is that the presumed huge number of birth defects in Iraq is actually nothing more than an example of Pinter's hallucinations."

If there are higher cancer rates among Iraqis since the Gulf war, I wouldn't be suprised if they came as a result of exposure to Iraq's own chemical and biological warfare agents. The beast was, after all, producing aflatoxin, which does not immediately incapacitate but causes increased cancer over time.

The DU issue is a red herring. But it's "uranium" and its (gasp) "radioactive" (barely) so it must be a ghastly American invention inteded to induce cancer and "bleeding recutms" in small children.



Mark Steyn works over Harold Pinter.

"Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer had a very shiny nose," he continued, "and, if you ever saw it, you would even say it glows. You know why that is? Depleted uranium. Oh, yes, don't worry, he can still guide your sleigh tonight. It's not hard to follow a reindeer whose rectum is leaking radioactive blood across the sky, is it?"

Hilarious.


Thursday, December 12, 2002


At least the Kurds exhibit some common sense.

From Julia Duin's article on NRO:

" When I drop by for one of their delicious rice-in-grape-leaves, roasted-chicken, and homemade-yogurt dinners, we banter about life in this country. The Kurds continually inform me the freedom here is excessive. "Why do you allow all these foreigners to stay in your country?" they ask of the Middle Eastern students studying here. "If you bombed a building in Iraq, all the Americans would be sent out the next day." We are way too lax with terrorists, they warn me. We don't understand human nature."

"When they see debates over the timing of an attack published openly in American newspapers, they laugh in amazement. Is nothing secret? they ask me. Don't we understand he's a 21st-century Hitler and that the Kurds are the "Jews" he wants to exterminate?"

Earth to Hollywood - Ed Asner, ARE YOU LISTENING?


PLEASE JUST SHUT UP, PLEASE

More sage wisdom from Nobel Prize winner and friend of tyrants, Jimmy Carter: "Until President Bush, every president, Democratic or Republican, has in my opinion played a balancing role as a trusted mediator," he said. "Now, though, it seems obvious that the present administration in Washington is completely compatible with the Israeli government and they have completely ignored ... the Palestinian Authority."

Excuse me, oh GRAND POOBAH, but Bush hasn't ignored the Palestinians he has told them that the US is willing to back the formation of a Palestinian state once they put forth some credible leaders and STOP BLOWING THEMSELVES UP IN ISRAELI DANCE HALLS. Let's see, in your term as president did YOU ever publicly support Palestinian statehood?



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


President Bush comments on one of Jimmy Carter's negotiating partners.

"The President has developed a similar grudge against the North Korean leader. “I loathe Kim Jong Il,” he told the Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in a recent interview. “I’ve got a visceral reaction to this guy, because he is starving his people. And I have seen intelligence of these prison camps — they’re huge — that he uses to break up families and to torture people. It appals me.”

Mr Woodward spoke to Mr Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and included the interview in the epilogue of his instant bestseller about the White House after the September 11 attacks. When the subject of North Korea came up, Mr Bush became so emotional that Mr Woodward thought that he was about to leap to his feet.

Mr Bush said that he was “not foolish” and that he understood the threat posed by the North Korean military. He also said that he was under pressure to go slow, because the plight of the North Korean people would worsen once the United States began tightening the screws. But he added: “I just don’t buy that. Either you believe in freedom, and worry about the human condition, or you don’t.”

And you either wring your hands about it (like Mr. Carter and the Hollywood crowd) or you DO something about it, like President Bush. Guess which approach I like better?


Wednesday, December 11, 2002


Artists United to Surrender without a Fight...uhh, sorry Win without War provide more fodder for the internet's Fearless Fisking Brigades.

"War talk in Washington is alarming and unnecessary."

Funny, it seems to me that the prospect of a sadistic madman having control of nuclear weapons would alarm most sensible citizens, war talk or no.

"We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We support rigorous United Nations weapons inspections to assure Iraq’s effective disarmament."

Thanks alot. But why do you assume that weapons inspections will "assure Iraq's effective diarmament" when seven years of inspections failed to do so? And what do you plan to tell the kids when those weapons, that Saddam swears he doesn't have (and Blix swears he can't find) end up killing tens of thousands in Tel Aviv...or Los Angeles?

"However, a preemptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests. Such a war will increase human suffering, arouse animosity toward our country, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, damage the economy, and undermine our moral standing in the world. It will make us less, not more, secure.

Damaging the ECONOMY is a reason for not liberating the Iraqi people from torture? The likelihood of more terrorist attacks should DETER US from doing what is right? Freeing a people from a fiend who uses acid baths, genital electroshock, dismemebering, child torture and rape to control them will INCREASE human suffering? UP is DOWN!

"We reject the doctrine – a reversal of long-held American tradition – that our country, alone, has the right to launch first-strike attacks.

First, the state of hostilities with Iraq never ended. They have repeatedly violated the cease-fire agreement (how many times do you have to fire at American aircraft before we get REALLY PISSED) and are continuing to do so now (after being warned that "We are REALLY, REALLY, DOUBLE-SUPER SERIOUS NOW MISTER!). Second, we ARE at war with terrorists who are being funded by Hussein (sure they are also being funded by the Saudis, but one step at a time).

"The valid U.S. and U.N. objective of disarming Saddam Hussein can be achieved through legal diplomatic means. There is no need for war. Let us instead devote our resources to improving the security and well-being of people here at home and around the world."

Diplomatic means have failed for a decade...why would any rational human believe that the same institution with the same players will succeed now? I forgot, we must genuflect at any mention of THE UNITED NATIONS...after all, Libya spearheads UN human rights efforts...Libya, F***ING LIBYA.

There is more about press conference at Frontpage (the link)...there has to be more to the statement...guess I'll just have to wait to complete the fisking. Ed Asner MUST have had something fiskable to say....I KNOW IT. Damn, fiskus interruptus...and just before bed no less!


Harold Pinter, that hysterical boob, adds to the torrent of rabid anti-American dreck from the cowardly left. Thank God for idiots like this - my "fisking" blades were getting dull!

"Earlier this year, I had a major operation for cancer. The operation and its after effects were something of a nightmare. I felt I was a man unable to swim bobbing about under water in a deep dark endless ocean. But I did not drown and I am very glad to be alive."

Ughh. I have a feeling that this is not good news.

"However, I found that to emerge from a personal nightmare was to enter an infinitely more pervasive public nightmare - the nightmare of American hysteria, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and belligerence; the most powerful nation the world has ever known effectively waging war against the rest of the world."

That's right, oh VOICE OF REASON. All bow down before mighty PINTER. Please OH LORD, teach us the error of our ways. DELIVER US FROM HYSTERIA, IGNORANCE, ARROGANCE, STUPIDITY AND BELLIGERENCE....on second thought, PISS OFF PEA-BRAIN.

"If you are not with us, you are against us," President George W. Bush has said. He has also said: "We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders." Quite right. Look in the mirror, chum. That's you.

America is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and is prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world put together. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own factories. The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is almost a joke."

Harold has been spending too long at the Mikey Moore website. Iraq AGREED to divest itself of WMD, Bush is only trying to ENFORCE that agreement. Can no one on the clueless, anti-war left at least grant this FACT? When has the US walked away from agreements (not PROPOSED agreements) on chemical and biological weapons? Of course, we must conceed the point: Bush = Hitler, after all Hollywood told us so.

"America believes that the 3,000 deaths in New York are the only deaths that count, the only deaths that matter. They are American deaths. Other deaths are unreal, abstract, of no consequence."

"The 3,000 deaths in Afghanistan are never referred to. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead through American and British sanctions which have deprived them of essential medicines are never referred to."

Let's see, lie, lie, distortion(lie), lie. Over and over, we have stated that we regret ANY civilian casualties whether in Afghanistan or, in the future, in Iraq. The 3000 deaths in New York were perpetrated by a group harbored by the Afghan government. That government was given the opportunity to hand over bin Laden and his organization; they were fully aware of the consequences of a refusal. Go ask an Afghan woman if the war was worth it. 2+2 = 4

Dead Iraqi children? Again, Saddam had a choice. Comply with the agreements he made and the sanctions are lifted. Take advantage of the oil for food program and the people don't have to suffer. As Kenneth Pollack points out, "...Saddam and his cronies were the most important element in Iraq's humanitarian disaster....(he) always had it in his power to have the sanctions lifted by simply agreeing to give up his WMD programs....through a combination of purposeful cruelty, stupidity, shortsightedness, and depraved indifference, the regime played a major role in increasing the misery of its people."

Were we responsible for Stalin's massacres? Pol Pot? After all, we ARE the big, bad U S of A! The great SATAN! WE MUST HAVE DRIVEN THEM TO IT!

"But what a misjudgment of the present and what a misreading of history this is. People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget: they also strike back.

The atrocity in New York was predictable and inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against constant and systematic manifestations of state terrorism on the part of America over many years, in all parts of the world."

No, dimwit, it is you that misread history. Bullies only grow more bold when left unchallenged. The New York attack was not inevitable; we were asleep. We are awake now.

"However, terrorist attacks are quite likely, the inevitable result of our Prime Minister's contemptible and shameful subservience to America. Apparently a terrorist poison gas attack on the London Underground system was recently prevented.

But such an act may indeed take place. Thousands of schoolchildren travel on the Underground every day. If there is a poison gas attack from which they die, the responsibility will rest entirely on the shoulders of our Prime Minister. Needless to say, the Prime Minister does not travel on the Underground himself."

Since the Prime Minsiter "does not travel on the Underground himself" if follows that he does not care about the safety of "thousands of schoolchildren"? It is you, asswipe, who would do nothing to stop it that imperils them. When, exactly, is a murderer to be held responsible for his murderous acts? By your logic....let's see...you have offended me deeply by your article...my psyche has been damaged by your anti-American rhetoric...therefore, IF I KILL YOU IT IS YOUR FAULT!

"The planned war against Iraq is in fact a plan for premeditated murder of thousands of civilians in order, apparently, to rescue them from their dictator."

No, it is "in fact" a plan to depose a dictator and remove the threat of a madman possessing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. If it were a plan for "premeditated murder" we'd just lob a ballistic missle at Baghdad and not risk the lives of any American soldiers.

If this dissapoints you, perhaps we could just send a "smart bomb" over to your place (since we're such bloodthirsty lunatics, you know).

"I believe that it will do this not only to take control of Iraqi oil, but also because the American administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary. Many Americans, we know, are horrified by the posture of their government, but seem to be helpless."

Do you actually know how much oil the US imports from the Iraq? About 8%. That's less than we import from Nigeria. Ah, I see the connection now...we terrorize Nigeria with the Miss World pageant...we terrorize Iraq with disarmament...IMPERIALIST AGRESSORS WE! Wait...we haven't dropped any bombs yet! Bush is falling down on the job here!

"Unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to challenge and resist American power, Europe itself will deserve Alexander Herzen's declaration - "We are not the doctors. We are the disease".

Pin-head! We finally agree on something - europe has no intelligence, courage or will.

It must be great to live a life free of the burden of facts. If those pesky facts don't fit your argument just ignore them! We all know that you CAN'T LET FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF THE TRUTH!! You obviously don't know anything about the American people and don't care anything about the plight of the Iraqi people.


Jonah Goldberg Weighs in on Trentgate: "Trent Lott only does two things well, freeze-dry his hair and say stupid things. He mishandled impeachment, mishandled the 1998 elections, mishandled power-sharing with the Democrats after the 2000 election and mishandled Jim Jeffords straight into the Democratic Party.

One reason so many conservatives are denouncing Lott is that he's never given conservatives much reason to trust him or care about him. He's a deal-cutter who seems to stand for nothing except massive amounts of pork to his home state and, occasionally, sticking up for Jim Crow."

Amen, brother. Let's get this guy outta here.


Tuesday, December 10, 2002


MORE JIMMY

After looking after my afternoon post, I started to wonder - "Why is Carter accepting the Nobel Prize anyway?"

If Gunnar Berge were to offer ME the freaking Nobel prize saying that it should be interpreted as a "kick in leg" to President Carter, you know what, I'd tell Gunnar to go back to the great frozen tundra and take that cold little prize and shove it up his puckered, pacifist a-hole!

Gunnar's little secret is that he is that he is the director general of his government's policy-making Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. Golly, it wouldn't be to hot for the Norwegian economy if Iraqi oil were suddenly back on the market, would it? As Al Gorebot would say, I am not implying that Gunnar has any conflict of interest here; some might suggest that, but I am not.

Back to Jimma. It would be nice if he showed some damn patriotism and solidarity with his country (not to mention cojones) and refused the award because of the slight towards our current HEAD OF STATE. But no, he's spent to many hours at tea parties with tin-pot dictators like Kim Jong-Il and Fidel Castro to throw away the payoff over PRINCIPLE. Hell, he likes those two so much he ought to go over and get to know Saddam, after all he's a lot like his good buddy Kim (brutal repression and torture, WMD programs, etc.). Maybe he could convince him to play nice? Whaddaya think?

I also heard that Carter criticized Isreal for failing to maintain peace with its neighbors. Jeez, if maniacs with explosives strapped to their bodies kept infiltrating Georgia from South Carolina, Alabama, and Florida and blowing up little girls in pizza parlors, I bet Georgia would have a hard time being at peace with ITS neighbors. EXACTLY HOW CAN YOU BE AT F***ING PEACE WHEN GROUPS SWORN TO YOUR DESTRUCTION ARE CONSTANTLY ATTACKING YOU? WHY DOES AN EX-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES UTTER SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

To become a Nobel Prize winner.


Mark Levin puts the Trent Lott flap in perspective.


Jimmy Carter will never get it. At his Nobel Prize acceptance speech he offered the following gems:

"Mr Carter did not mention either country by name, but said: "For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventative war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences."

How are we to enforce our treaties then? Will we TAUNT our opponents into complying? EARTH TO JIMMY CARTER - our enemies don't follow Robert's Rules. Saddam is a sadistic, homicidal, megalomaniac with biological and chemical weapons trying to get nukes. Just for the record, Iraq agreed to eliminate its WMD and ballistic missle programs as concession to the Allies (US) for not marching all the way to Baghdad and taking care of it themselves. As soon as we left the country, the Iraqis began their cat and mouse game with the inspectors, obstructing and frustrating them to the point of actually firing shots over their heads.

Al-Qaeda has ALREADY attacked us (so we can't take PREEMPTIVE action against THEM).

When experience tells you that a government will never live up to its international agreements and the threat is grave enough there is no choice but to take military action. Carter can call this preemptive if he wants but its really a flare-up in a conflict that has been ongoing since Iraq invaded Kuwait. Only now have we decided (and much too late in my opinion) that no other alternatives exist except war.

"The greatest challenge the world faces ... is the growing chasm between the richest and poorest people on earth," he said.

He described the disparity as the "root cause of most of the world's problems, including starvation, illiteracy, environmental degradation, violent conflict and unnecessary illnesses that range from Guinea worm to HIV/Aids".

So, is illiteracy and violent conflict are caused by a disparity in income between the industrial and the developing world? Bullshit. I am all for encouraging and assisting economic development in the "Third World" but to blame the world's problems on the fact that western nations have built a higher standard of living for themselves is hogwash.

We tried to help in Somalia didn't we? But the warlords stole the humanitarian aid forcing us to go in militarily. So, Mr. Carter, do you suggest that we send the US military around the world to force people to quit behaving like savages and embrace industrialization? I thought your "green" friends maintained that people in Africa are "happier" because they are closer to the land and don't have all the stress and worries of Americans.

Or maybe that's your point - if we were all poor then there would be no "disparity" and hence no "root cause" for all these nasty things. Maybe pigs will fly....maybe.


MORE ON TRENT LOTT

I don't much like Trent Lott, but I have a feeling that this thing is about to go WAY overboard.

On Hardball tonight, Chris Matthews suggested that it was a "serious moment" when Lott said that if the country had voted for Strom we wouldn't have had so many problems. Well, they played the clip on the program and it seemed to me that Lott just got a little carried away...he seemed to be trying to complement the old hosebag ("my state voted for Strom" - which got a laugh) but went too far.

Jesse Jackson, friend of Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro, is calling for Lott's resignation: "Shame on the Republican Party if it does not demote him for promoting this mean-spirited and immoral propaganda.

"The civil rights movement was one of America's finest hours. Strom Thurmond's massive resistance to that movement, and his support in states like Mississippi, was one of history's low points. Trent Lott must not be allowed to tarnish that truth."

"Kevin L. Martin, government and political affairs director of the African American Republican Leadership Council, said people were overreacting to the remarks. "By no means was he endorsing segregation or anything like that. It was lighthearted, it was humorous." Martin said Lott captures 25 percent of the black vote in Mississippi, which he said couldn't happen if Lott were a racist."

OK. Now I'm really conflicted. Can I really agree with Jesse Jackson? Not really, the Republicans should demote Lott because of his previous record as majority leader not because of his remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday party.


The Gorebot is at it again:

"Al Gore and his wife Tipper, who once raged against provocative lyrics in popular music, have co-authored a book, Joined at the Heart: The Transformation of the American Family, that devalues traditional family life and promotes same-sex marriage."

"Single people are choosing to adopt or have a child," they say, calling that one of "increasingly diverse family forms."

Just great! Exactly what we need...more "diverse family forms". I guess this is just another instance of Gorebot "letting it rip".

I was trying to find statistics on illegitimacy and divorce rates and then I realized that I don't need figures to support this argument (it's just common sense) - the best way to raise a child is with a mother and a father who are committed to each other through marriage. Government, at the state level only, has an interest in this because adoption of a minor cannot be left unregulated (this seems obvious).

There are enough single parent households in this country as it is - I don't think we should be encouraging more. Chosing to have a child as a single parent is an extremely narcissistic idea; in essence, putting the adult's desires ahead of the needs of a child. This is not a PC view, but I stand by it. The fact that the Al and Tipper Gorebots are now endorsing it is unsuprising.

Same sex marriages? They should be up to the states to decide. Personally, I don't believe that the state should give official sanction to homosexual relationships, to give them the same status as heterosexual marriages. The state should obviously be prohibited from outlawing homosexual behavior (no matter how distastful it is to some) as long as it (the same goes for hetero) is between consenting adults.

Can the sexual preference of a person be considered in some instances where minors are concerned? I think it should be. The state has an interest in the protection of minors from exposure to aberrent behavior and materials of all types.

I fully expect to get torched for this opinion. Fine. Call me what you want. My attitude is live and let live until you start talking about children...they aren't developed enough to deal with some issues and I think we, as a society, have the right and the obligation to protect them until the age of majority.


Monday, December 09, 2002


I can't stop salivating in anticipation of this letter from our friends on the left coast.

It is gratifying that Ethan Hawke and Martin Sheen will be signatories to a letter asking President Bush to "stop his war rhetoric toward Iraq". God forbid that they ever agree with me on something.

I'm sharpening up my "Fisking" knives tonight!


Ha'aretz reports that Sadaam continues funding homicide bombers while his people starve:

"Israel Radio, quoting a Palestinian Authority report, said Monday that some $500,000 in funds provided by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be distributed this week to families of Palestinians killed in the territories, including $25,000 each to families of three suicide bombers.

The radio cited a report in the PA-affiliated Al-Ayyam newspaper, according to which the families of Palestinians killed in the violence - who were not suicide terrorists - would receive $10,000 each."

OK. Bloodthirsty killers are worth $25,000 while innocent (well we assume so anyway) bystanders are worth $10,000. Need more evidence that removing Hussein IS a necessary part of the war on terrorism?

via Little Green Footballs


ANOTHER REASON WHY AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS BETTER THAN MUSLIM THEOCRACY

According to The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News :

"Jesus Has Two Mommies," billed as a lesbian rock opera, is scheduled to open this weekend at the Somerville Theatre in Somerville, Mass."

"According to this charming little play, Jesus is the child of two lesbians, whose affair at a lesbian bar...is presented as the "real Christmas story".

Nice.

I wonder if all the apologists for the Muslim rioters in Nigeria (e.g., Jill Nelson) would be as sympathetic to Massachusetts Christians if a protest at the Somerville Theater resulted in the brutal murder of the cast? After all, the purpose of this play IS to insult Christians. I don't think they would, after all, you only get a free pass if you are Palestinian or Muslim or African. Otherwise, the left expects you to act "civilized"

I, for one, do not see any reason whatsoever to hold Arabs, Africans or Muslims to a lesser standard than we expect of Americans or Austrailians or Europeans or Christians. To do so clearly exhibits a racist bias (well, THOSE people are not as advanced so we can't expect them to be CIVILIZED). No more excuses for racist murderers.

By the way,does anybody see any artistic or cultural value to a "play" like this? Of course not. But in America people are free to ridicule the political and religious beliefs of others without fear of imprisonment and with little fear of reprisal from other citizens. Try having this play in Egypt or Saudi Arabia (try just BEING a lesbian there for that matter).

And one more thing, SCREW THE SUMMERVILLE THEATER AND SCREW THOSE IDIOTIC LESBIANS . Free speach works both ways.


DRUDGE REPORT cites an El Lay Times article:

"U.S. intelligence (is) asking: Who exactly is Abu Wael? The answer could be pivotal in determining whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein really has connections to Osama bin Laden. So far, the evidence is both intriguing and contradictory. One body of evidence points to Abu Wael as a senior Iraqi intelligence officer and as Hussein's secret liaison with Al Qaeda and its Iraqi affiliate, Ansar al-Islam, or Supporters of Islam."

Is there more that is being held by US intellegence and will be released as a part of a War Declaration? We'll see.


Something seems to be afoot here:

"... UN inspectors in Iraq have returned to a nuclear facility near Baghdad for the third time.

The al-Tuweitha Nuclear Research Centre, the site of the Osirak reactor, was bombed by Israel in 1981.

It is not known why the inspectors returned for a third time."

You wouldn't think they'd be wasting their time if they hadn't seen something on the first TWO inspections that was VERY interesting.


Sunday, December 08, 2002


More peaceful Islam:

I forgot to mention in the Sullivan/Nelson post that earlier this year, an Islamic court in northern Nigeria sentenced Amina Lawal to be stoned to death for having a baby out of wedlock.

But then I guess that's no worse than requiring a 15 year old to notify her parents before having an abortion - is it Jill?


Eugene Volokh wrote an interesting piece on the recent decision about the Second Amendment in National Review Online.

In it he asks the question: "What then do people mean when they say that "evolving standards" should lead courts to reject the individual rights view of the Second Amendment?" To which he offers: "Seems to me there's only one meaning: That judges should look not to the Framers, not to the 1868 Ratifiers, not to state constitutions, and not even to polls — but only to what they think is right, or perhaps to what the social class to which they belong (elite urban lawyers) thinks is right. You don't like a constitutional right, your honor? You don't think it makes sense today? No problem! Just evolve it out of existence."

Dangerous indeed. The Constitiution is set up to allow changes should a super-majority of the people agree upon an amendment. The framers intentionally made it difficult to change precisely to protect the basic rights of the citizens from being infringed upon by shifting majorities (or even influential minorities).

Activist judges subvert the constitution and weaken the political system. After all, why go through the hassle of convening Constitutional conventions in all the states if you can just get a sympathetic court to change it for you.

This is why I find it so humorous when leftists get all up-in-arms about conservative judges. In reality, a truly conservative judge would interpret the constitiution as closely to its originally intended meaning (and as modified by subsequent decisions) as he or she could. This would never rule out potential modification if there was enough support by the people.

The left needs to be careful about pushing judicial activism. After all, tomorrow's activist judges could have a more rightward slant and the changes they "evolve" into the constitution might not be as welcome.


A few thoughts about the inappropriate response of Jill Nelson to Andrew Sullivan's article on the Nigerian Miss World fiasco.

In a stunning display intellectual vapidity, Ms. Nelson wrote, "(a)s far as I'm concerned it's equally disrespectful and abusive to have women prancing around a stage in bathing suits for cash or walking the streets shrouded in burkas in order to survive."

The last time I checked, no woman was forced to participate in the Miss World pageant. She may think that beauty pageants are "disrespectful" to women but that is her opinion and the women that participate in beauty contests and become stars (Halle Berry, Mary Ann Mobley, Ali Landry come immediately to mind) might just disagree. In any case, it is ludicrous to suggest that a beauty contest is "abusive". It's insane to equate an event, freely entered into with hopes of fame and riches, to the treatment of women under sharia law.

In her response to Sullivan's criticism she writes:

"Finally, I'm offended and bored by Sullivan and all the other willfully oblivious white guys who thought they were immune from the world's terrors - and worse, believe they had a divine right to be - until Sept. 11. Now, having experienced the terror that much of the world lives with every day, they respond by swinging their dicks around and threatening - with bombs or bombast - those who do not view the world as they do. Talk about cultural relativism, p.c. journalism, and decadent machismo! But then, what's new? In spite of all the rhetoric about how the terrorist attacks "changed us," the more things change, the more they stay the same."

Astounding. Unlike many on the extreme left, I have always understood that the price of freedom is often high - most of the time in taxes, but occassionally (and tragically) in blood. Jill is "offended and bored" by people who think that Western culture is superior to radical Islam and should use all means in its arsenal to defeat it. OK, she's wrong and intelectually lazy but that's her right. But I take EXTREME OFFENSE at being classified as a swinging dick because I advocate defeating this monstrous enemy.

"Willfully oblivious white guys"? So, Jill you have had it figured out all along haven't you? The problem in the world is white guys who don't understand that radical Islam isn't evil, it's just different. White guys who don't understand that the treatment of women is relative to the society in which they live. White guys who don't understand the subtleties of different cultures. White guys who, when threatened, whip out their dicks and press the button!

You need to get out of NOW headquarters every once in awhile and read something other than Susan Sontag. At least then you might be able to articulate a position instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks. On second thought, just stick your head and the sand and let us "swinging dicks" handle things...we'll let you know when we're done takin' care of bidness.


I consider myself a Republican, but I've never really liked Trent Lott. He just always came off as a jerk to me. It's one thing to be a tough politician and a partisan, but I always thought he was a bit over the line. I was hoping that he wouldn't automatically be reinstated as Senate Majority Leader when the Republicans retook control, now maybe there's a good reason to make a change.

Joshua Marshall, among others, reports that Lott said the following at Strom Thurmond's send-off:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't of had all these problems over all these years, either."

What in the hell was he talking about? Maybe he was suggesting that Thurmond as the nominee would have insured a Dewey presidency? Yeah, surrrrrrrre Trent. This just shows that the man has no sense. There was absolutely NO reason to say something that STUPID. Even if that IS ACTUALLY HIS OPINION (and I bet it really isn't), he should have kept to himself. You gotta know when to shut that pie-hole Trent, baby.

I've read the suggestion that our man Trent may have cost Terrell a close election against Landrieu in Louisiana. I don't think this holds any water. It hasn't gotten enough media play to have had a sway - I have only read about it on the web. Patrick Ruffini has a good analysis if you are interested.

I wish Lott would run for president...that way I could vote against him in the Republican primary.


Home
Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=