Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April 13th, 2009

Over at Not Quite Wrong, this seemed to explain my existence.  notquitewrongdotcom-2009-02-11Except I usually would put in the second panel:  Coffee, Red Bull™, tea, chocolate covered espresso beans, etc.

Too bad this happens a lot, too.

notquitewrong-2009-03-27

♦♦♦♦

What do the next two stories have in common?

Warning:  Death of Somali pirates could escalate violence.

Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court

Leave it to the NYT to write a piece supportive of those who wish to undermine the Constitution and law in the US:

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.

Here’s the good part:

In her remarks, Justice Ginsburg discussed a decision by the Israeli Supreme Court concerning the use of torture to obtain information from people suspected of terrorism.

“The police think that a suspect they have apprehended knows where and when a bomb is going to go off,” she said, describing the question presented in the case. “Can the police use torture to extract that information? And in an eloquent decision by Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of Israel, the court said: ‘Torture? Never.’ ”

The message of the decision, Justice Ginsburg said, was “that we could hand our enemies no greater victory than to come to look like that enemy in our disregard for human dignity.” Then she asked, “Now why should I not read that opinion and be affected by its tremendous persuasive value?”

Whoa – whoa – whoa!  Easy there old girl!

See the pattern?  In both cases, what we have is that instead of showing backbone, knowing what is right, and doing the tough things that need doing… we choose to be soft and take the easy way out – if we listen to Ginsberg and this commander.

Do we refuse to wipe out terrorists because “they could escalate violence”?  Do we suddenly put American citizens in harms way because somebody cited a synthetic moral that says it is worse to disregard a terrorist’s human dignity than preserve the lives of those we are sworn to protect?  Who makes this shite up?

The fact that the admiral felt he needed to open his mouth and discuss hypotheticals is ridiculous.

In [Vice Admiral] Gortney’s words, “This could escalate violence in this part of the world, no question about it.”

Report on the facts of the rescue, sir, and leave the navel-contemplation to the pundits and politicians who apparently have much more time to waste.

To answer Ginsburg’s question… turn that around:  Why should you read someone else’s opinion and seize it for yourself?

♦♦♦♦

Yes, let’s do bring charges against the Somali pirates.  I think that the benefits of doing so are quite clear to everyone.

Holder may bring charges against the Somali pirates.

Really really obvious.  Really.

NOW WE’RE TALKING…

U.S. Military Considers Attacks on Somali Pirates’ Land Bases

Let’s hope that we allow for a successful outcome as in “Surge = good” vs. “Mogadishu = bad”.

♦♦♦♦

As a non-muslim and non-jew AND as a dog owner I kind of have to (1) agree with them that dogs are filthy animals and (2) that it’s not a lot to get worked up about.  Don’t french-kiss the dog and wash your hands – you’ll be ok.

But if they want a Seeing Eye Horse, who am I to argue?  Kinda cool, actually.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers