Category: Uncategorized

From the New York Times:

Once President Bush signed the new law on military tribunals, administration officials and Republican leaders in Congress wasted no time giving Americans a taste of the new order created by this unconstitutional act.

Within hours, Justice Department lawyers notified the federal courts that they no longer had the authority to hear pending lawsuits filed by attorneys on behalf of inmates of the penal camp at Guantánamo Bay. They cited passages in the bill that suspend the fundamental principle of habeas corpus, making Mr. Bush the first president since the Civil War to take that undemocratic step.

I don’t think “undemocratic” is the correct word, particularly in light of our profoundly undemocratic system of government. Indeed, it has never been less democratic, as the courts have methodically worked to prevent the will of the people from being expressed either by their legislatures or by referendum.

As with most successful expansionist acts, the immediate consequence of the new military tribunals law is a trivial one. No one would have cared if the men at Guantanamo had been shot instead of captured, and indeed, given the experience of Israel, Italy and other countries that have captured terrorists, there is some real question about the utility of capturing terrorists in the first place.

It often turns out to be a catch-and-release game anyhow, since sooner or later hostages will be taken, an exchange will be negotiated at 100-1 or 1000-1 and a surprisingly high percentage of the captured terrorists will be released. At least, this has been the continuing pattern seen with the Red Brigades, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and now Hamas.

But the devil always lurks in the details. I haven’t been a fan of Keith Olbermann since he left Sportcenter, but he and Jonathan Turley managed to nail it for once in pointing to the definition of an enemy combatant. The definition is an open one liable to expansion, and as with the definition of income taxpayer that once applied only to a very small percentage of the populace, probabilities are with the likelihood that it will expand over time.

While Cedarford is correct to point out that there have been many past violations of significant Constitutional concepts before that have not been disastrous, he neglects to take into account both the “two-steps-forward, one-step-back” nature of those historical actions as well as the most ominous aspect of the situation; the administration’s drive toward political union with Canada and Mexico.

One can at least argue that post-Lincoln and post-FDR America were still America. (Some would, with no little evidence on which to make their case, disagree vociferously.) But regardless of whether the Neue Amerikanische Einheit makes its first appearance post-Bush II or post-Clinton II, one will no longer be able to make that claim.

The ambitious and evil always rely heavily upon the weak-minded and the easily swayed. From Paul Johnson’s “Modern Times”:

The notion that the student body is in some constitutional way a depository of humanitarian idealism will not survive a study of the Weimar period…. The Nazis did consistently better among the students than among the population as a whole and their electoral gains were always preceded by advances on the campus, students proving their best proselytizers. Students saw Nazism as a radical movement. They liked its egalitarianism. They liked its anti-Semitism too.
– Johnson, “Modern Times” p. 127

Their national socialism, our feminism. The methods and the results are always the same, masterful manipulation of the mindless leading inevitably to murder.

Caesar Arevalo gets a little carried away with the Nazi Germany simile:

If Vox Day had lived in Germany in the 1930s, Hitler would have hired him as his chief of the Nazi propaganda machine. Vox is unable to admit that America is fighting alone for the survival of Western civilization. His denial that North Korea and Iran are ready to use nuclear arms against America reminds me of Chamberlain’s optimism after his meeting with Hitler.

Vox Day’s arrogant attitude and big complex of superiority control him to the point that he mocks those who are being oppressed under totalitarian regimes. He said that peoples would support dictators if nuclear arms are developed to “defend” themselves against foreign powers.

He thinks that “freedom” is allowing Islamic terrorists and anti-American elements to carry out their plans with no interference of the government. His burlesque attack on the faith of President Bush reveals his ignorance in biblical eschatology and his hate of those who support Israel’s right to exist. It really takes an amount of faith to believe in what Vox Day writes.

Considering the way in which America helped spawn and refine the single most destructive force yet known to Western civilization – feminism – I think that Mr. Arevalo will be sadly disappointed if he thinks America is going to defend it. I don’t deny that North Korea and eventually Iran are prepared to use nuclear weapons against America if necessary, I merely deny that they are either insane or suicidal enough for that to be a primary motivation.

Apparently Mr. Arevalo doesn’t believe God is capable of protecting Israel against Iran, which therefore leaves the responsibility in George Bush’s all-capable hands. The good news for the Arab world and the Jew-haters, then, is that if the president protects Israel as effectively as he has protected America’s borders, Israel will be gone by this time next year.

Speaking of which, isn’t leaving the borders open and permitting terrorists to freely enter and move about the country an indication that those anti-American elements are at work within the American government?

As for those oppressed masses, it’s a heartwarming fiction that people everywhere yearn to breathe free, but that’s far from true in the United States, let alone in places where the people have never wanted nor expected genuine freedom. Most people around the world want very little except to eat well and watch television and they are prepared to put up with nearly anything that will permit them to do that in peace.

From the New York Times:

The researchers found that “women still do twice as much housework and child care as men” in two-parent families. But they said that total hours of work by mothers and fathers were roughly equal, when they counted paid and unpaid work.

Using this measure, the researchers found “remarkable gender equality in total workloads,” averaging nearly 65 hours a week.

But… but… men get paid for a higher percentage of the work they do, so clearly the dastardly Patriarchs are still busily oppressing away. Never mind the fact that no one else can be expected to care, let alone pay for it, if your carpet is vaccuumed or not.

The study also explains why marrying a career woman is likely to be a bad idea:

Over all, the researchers said, employed mothers have less free time and “far greater total workloads than stay-at-home mothers.” The workweek for an employed mother averages 71 hours, almost equally divided between paid and unpaid work, compared with a workweek averaging 52 hours for mothers who are not employed outside the home.

On average, the researchers said, employed mothers get somewhat less sleep and watch less television than mothers who are not employed, and they also spend less time with their husbands.

There’s a silver-lining in the career girl cloud, of course. A working wife may be more harried, irritable and sleep-deprived, but at least you won’t have to spend too much time with her prior to the likely divorce. And since she’s got a career, you probably won’t be liable for alimony either.

This also explains why a woman shouldn’t expect to have children and advance into the executive ranks. There are always exceptions, of course, but in general, you can’t put in less than 40 hours per week into your career and still move up the ladder.

VPFL Week 6 results:

104 East Mesa WhiteTrash
41 Santa Barbarians

86 Mile High Club
72 West Texas Vikings

83 Greenfield Grizzlies
22 Pale Horse Cowboys

82 Newport Sea Dogs
67 COS McRays

52 Burns Montgomerys
50 Mounds View Meerkats

This was clearly not the week to leave Joe Horn sitting on the bench. That was an error in judgment, although sometimes, it’s just clearly not your year. A bad week for Jeff Wilkins can happen, but the complete uselessness of Jake Plummer against a pathetic Oakland defense is almost enraging, especially when you’re only playing him on Peyton Manning’s bye week. I wasn’t asking for much, I mean, Spacebunny could throw for 150 and a TD against the Raidess this year.

I have proof that it could be worse, though. I was starting Rex “Kordell” Grossman in my more prestigious league since Palmer was out on a bye. That, combined with no less than four starters on byes, left me with a grand total of six (6!) points against Big Chilly. Needless to say, that team is still winless.

I hate bye weeks. Oh, and before I forget, thank you, Drew Bledsoe, for throwing that interception at the end of the game that gift-wrapped Philadelphia a 101-yard return for a touchdown. Instead of an eight-point win that would have me in fourth place even with the loss to Nate, I got stuck with a tie that has me hanging with the bottom-dwellers.

Iron Mike is coming back:

At a news conference at an Italian restaurant, Tyson said he would likely go just four rounds and that future stops on the tour might include bouts with women, possibly professional boxer Ann Wolfe.

Wolfe, from Waco, Texas, is 21-1 with 15 knockouts.

“She’s such a prominent, dominant woman in the boxing field,” Tyson said.

When asked if he was joking about fighting women, Tyson said, “I’m very serious.”

Russ Young, a promoter for Wolfe, said such a bout will never happen. “That’s the first we’ve heard of it,” Young said. “No state would sanction that. She would be outweighed by 60 to 70 pounds. Ann would never entertain the idea.”

In other words, one of the best female boxers in the world, in the prime of her career, wouldn’t even entertain the idea of fighting a washed-up fighter who is so out of shape that he can’t even go five rounds.

This is no discredit to Miss Wolfe, who obviously knows what she’s about. I’m actually mocking those who claim to “know this woman” with a black belt who routinely beats up all the men around her. The only women who believe women can defeat men in physical combat are those who have never fought a man or been hit by one.

It doesn’t matter how well-trained you are if you are giving up speed, strength, reach, mass and power absorption.

But I certainly hope some woman will be so foolish as to take on Tyson in what would surely be a most educational Battle of the Sexes.

E. Silk writes a letter to WND:

Bad news for Vox Day. After reading his article about allowing Iran and North Korea to have nuclear weapons because we can’t stop them from getting it – just like we couldn’t stop Hitler and his Nazi Party from taking over the world, or Hirohito and his cronies, I guess – the MENSA group has decided his IQ has dropped below their minimum requirement.

He’s out!

Again with the MENSA! What is up with that obsession on the part of my critics? Anyhow, this is just embarrassing. There is simply no comparison between the difficulty of permanently preventing technological proliferation and the difficulty in defeating a military opponent with expansionary proclivities.

There has never, to my knowledge, been a successful case of techno-monopoly on the part of a nation-state. If you can think of one, do let me know, but the undeniable fact is that from silkworms to satellites, from iron armor to anti-ballistic missiles, know-how has always spread despite the best efforts of those who would prefer to keep it to themselves.

No one, on the other hand, has ever “taken over the world” with or without US opposition. The examples of Germany and Japan are particularly feeble, as Germany was massively outnumbered, totally outgunned, had been roundly defeated only two decades before and had no chance of holding onto its gains in Europe once it attacked the Soviet Union and stupidly declared war on the United States.

Japan, meanwhile, managed to defeat a moribund China and take a few naval bases away from the USA and Great Britain. Its ambition was regional and even that proved far too great for its very limited capacities. As I have previously demonstrated, Japan didn’t have the wherewithal to even think about invading the USA; even the Pearl Harbor raid was a terrible strategic blunder that barely scratched American naval capabilities.

Consider this. The USA lost 12 ships, 3 permanently, of the 100 ships at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese lost 1,392 ships to American submarines alone. And just because I enjoy twisting knives:

“On 7 December 1941, the three Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers were USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3)…. Yorktown (CV-5), Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7), along with the aircraft escort vessel Long Island (AVG-1), were in the Atlantic Fleet; Hornet (CV-8), commissioned in late October 1941, had yet to carry out her shakedown.”

Amynda closes her eyes and tries to pretend it’s all about sex:

So describing sex as inevitable tends to reinforce the notion that there’s something wrong with it, which is what the anti-choicers are saying in the first place. After all, what are they trying to punish women for if not for fucking?*

*Well, they’re probably also mad at us for daring to exist, but that’s a whole nother discussion.

No, “anti-choicers” are “mad at” feminists for the same reason that “anti-Nazis” are “mad at” National Socialists… some people still retain enough moral clarity to oppose the mass slaughter of innocents. Damn their judgmental eyes!

Feminism couldn’t exist without the sort of indoctrination that turned the pro-life Christian girl of Amynda’s example into a pro-abortion feminist. It requires dedicated maleducation to warp a mind into accepting the concept that opposition to abortion is a sexual issue, but rape is not.

Which leads one to contemplate a feminist Zen koan: If a woman is raped for advocating abortion, was the rapist’s motivation sexual?

The BBC reports on the Bush administration’s disregard for evangelicals:

A new book by a former US official says President Bush’s top political advisers privately ridiculed evangelical leaders, while publicly embracing them.

Given that the Republican Party has done nothing for evangelicals or social conservatives except throw them the occasional lip service, I don’t know why this would surprise anyone. The president’s own faith doesn’t seem to inform many of his actions, the Left’s constant fears of theocracy notwithstanding.

It is worth noting, however, that the professional political strategists are so concerned about this that some are even claiming the timing of the book’s publication to be a dirty trick, indicating that Cedarford’s recommendation for the Republican party to openly disavow the religious right would be a blunder of massive proportions.

ES ensures that we hear from the “we MUST do SOMETHING!” school:

Great idea! And if the U.S. is really a friend of Israel, then we have nothing to worry about if Iran or North Korea sneak nuclear weapons into our country. I mean, for how long can we stop them from trying? Makes sense to me!!!

Oh, and if Israel is not the prophesied Israel from the Bible, well, just some more dead Jews. Way to go!

Yes, because when faced with a choice between doing the historically impossible – preventing foreign technological advancement – and the historically difficult but doable – protecting a national border – obviously it makes sense to direct one’s resources towards performing the impossible. ES’ attempted criticism here merely highlights the complete logical disconnect between the Bush administration’s rhetoric and its actions.

Seriously, how can you possibly argue that the USA must attack both North Korea and Iran in order to prevent them from sneaking nuclear weapons across our unguarded borders? And even if one was so gifted with the tongues of men and angels that one could make that case successfully, how could one possibly argue for attacking Iran first?

As for Israel, the greater part of its support from American evangelicals is based on the notion that it is, indeed, the Biblical Israel whose return from the diaspora is a sign of the approaching End Times. One cannot reasonably expect them to a) believe that God is incapable of protecting His Chosen if that is the case or b) care any more about Israel than Namibia or Rwanda if it is not.

Simply crying “no nukes, no nukes” is no more convincing from hawkish neocons than it was from 60’s hippies.