Thursday, May 19, 2005

DUers crack me up

From a DU thread on animal rights and other enviro-activists being on the FBI's radar screen, we have this lovely post:

"How many people have died from their activities? That would be a big fat [edited] ZERO. Now I do not condone the actions by these groups, nor am I a member, but I certainly sympathise with their beliefs in many ways. While they may be arsonists and vandals, are they really terrorists?

Burning SUV's is now apparently equivalent to assassinations done by al Qaeda or other "religous extremists". Where are our own religous extremists on this list? Any mention of abortion clinic bombings where people HAVE died? KKK? Murderers, yup, didn't hear about them other than to say that there attacks have been declining. Could that be bacause they have gained a little traction with the ideologues in government? Hmmm....

Please explain how a minority group makes its cause known when the government turns a total blind eye and when environmental laws are rolled back; when misleading names such as "Clear Skies" are fluffed out to the public? When our pristine forests will be opened up for logging? When forests are logged under the guise of bettering the health of the forest? When habitat is destroyed for inconsequential supplies of oil that will make no impact, well except to perhaps supply the military a bit more as it smacks down the iron fist on the unsuspecting American Citizen. This country fights to expand freedom? Are you [edited] kidding me.

So, if I understand, America shouldn't be worrying about the ELF, ALF, SHAC crowds because they're mere minority protesters, and besides, the poster agrees with their ideals. But we should rather be going after Al Qaeda, as if the two things are mutually exclusive.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but the liberals like the poster above don't want us going after Al Qaeda, either. American imperialism, don'cha know.

And finally, I haven't heard of an abortion clinic shooting or bombing in years. That's, like, so 1980s.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

The Newsweek diversion

Leave it to the people who opine for a living to get out in (cyber)print what I'd been thinking but hadn't had the time to post.

Namely, that the whole "Blame Newsweek" for the riots in Afghanistan completely, and probably intentionally, misses the point. For once, I somewhat agree with the leftists -- Newsweek is not to blame for the riots that left people dead. Where I depart from such agreement is that neither is President Bush to blame. For examples of that, see here, here, and here.

First, and not to put too fine a point on it, the media scandal is another example of media bias against a president they (collectively) have it in for. The Koran-flushing story was one that, like the Bush-TANG story of last summer, was simply "too good to check out." As a former reporter, I know that such a mindset exists. A reporter wants a story to be true so badly that he doesn't check it out as thoroughly as he might for fear that the story might fall apart on him. The national, elite media will look for any port in a storm to denigrate President Bush, his foreign policy, and the military.

But lost in all this is who are and is really to blame for the riot deaths: The rioters themselves and the radical, militant brand of Islam that fuels it.

There has been a hundred pounds of absolute silence of any kind of condemnation, either by official Washington or the liberal press corps, of the Islam that permits, nay, encourages this kind of criminal behaviour. I remember after 9-11 how we as Americans were roundly charged to not castigate Islam for the actions of the evil men that flew planes into buildings. The CAIR types all went on the air to remind us that the killers didn't represent all Islam. That's as maybe. But now, we've been pistol-whipped into believing that we shouldn't do anything that might upset Muslims. I swear, Muslims must be more delicate and sentitive to offense than liberals, and that's saying something.

Why should the Koran get better treatment than Christian symbols? You could take the Bible into the town square, tear it up page by page and tread all over it, and there wouldn't be riots and death in the streets. You can take a crucifix, dunk it in a glass of human waste and you'll get a government arts grant for it. Again, no riots and death. Yet, there mere thought of a Koran even near a toilet facility is enough to send people to their deaths. What's wrong with this picture?

I'm tired of coddling Muslims. It's time for them to grow the hell up. And James Zogby and the folks from CAIR, before you lecture me one more time about being sensitive to Muslims and not condemning the entire religion for the acts of a few, I suggest you start directing your haranguing focus at your own people. Maybe if you could convince your Muslim brothers and sisters as to how insensitive it is to fly passenger-laden planes into occupied buildings or to strap bombs on folk and kill innocent people. Screw you! I'm not gonna dance and tip-toe around the thin-as-glass sensibilities of Muslims. Take all your money out of the bank and go buy the biggest ladder you can find to help you get over yourselves! Get your own house in order before you start telling us how to keep ours in order.

Oh, BTW, the links to those opiners I referenced in the first graf who wrote what I had been thinking before I had the chance are here and here.

Monday, May 02, 2005

SCOTUS to review Solomon Amendment

The Supreme Court has decided to review a 3d Circuit Court of Appeals decision invalidating the Solomon Amendment that barred colleges that accept federal money from keeping military recruiters from their campuses.

This is a good thing, especialy since that 3d Circuit ruling was a laugher. First, it tried to equate higher ed institutions with the Boy Scouts under the heading of "expressive associations." Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. A university is not an "expressive association" akin to the Boy Scouts. Its job is to teach in an even-handed manner.

Secondly, the Solomon Amendment doesn't stifle a university's right to "free speech." See this.

Thirdly, the federal government has long used the power of the purse to regulate behaviour. Remember the law back in the 1980s that worked to coerce the States to raise their drinking ages to 21 by withholding some federal highway money? With federal money comes federal strings. I never particularly liked that, but it is the law and it is constitutional. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

Besides, allowing military recruiters to have a table one or two days a year doesn't mean the schools are adopting the military's positions on things, anymore than allowing Tyson Foods recruiters doesn't mean the schools endorse the eating of chicken.

I find it a bit humourous that the very people that scream "inclusion and tolerance" are so exclusivist and intolerant of anything they disagree with. That's like a pacifist beating someone up for not being pacifist.

I wonder how many European cases JJ. Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer will scour to find a case that will allow them to overturn the Solomon Amendment? As we saw with the Roper decision, American precedent to the contrary doesn't count for much with that cabal.