It has just dawned on your weblog host that some of the webroll additions to the weblog margin in the past day or so may be misunderstood by some of you readers. For this reason, I will endeavour tomorrow or on Monday to explain the reasons for their additions. In the meantime, I ask those who are predisposed to take a "ready, fire, aim" approach to commentary generally speaking (and you know whom you are){1} to kindly cease and desist until the time that my reasons for those additions are explained to the readers of this humble weblog by yours truly. (At which time, this temporary posting will be deleted forthwith.)
[Update: The promised thread is about 65% done as of this moment and should be ready for blogging sometime tomorrow. -ISM 6/18/06 7:55pm]
Note:
{1} Indeed you sorts were primarily the ones I had in mind when recording this audioposting earlier in the month:
Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof--An Audio Post (circa June 8, 2006)
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Points to Ponder:
Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."[...] He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. [Janice Rogers Brown (circa April 20, 2000)]
Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."[...] He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. [Janice Rogers Brown (circa April 20, 2000)]
Thursday, June 15, 2006
On the Death of Zarqawi and the MSM's Coverage Thereof:
(A Guest Editorial by Henry Odum)
[Prefatory Note: Sometimes readers of this humble weblog can express a point more passionately than your host either can or will. On those occasions, it is more appropriate to post their stuff and add to it at my discretion rather than write from scratch on the subject they email on. Though the words of the emailer will be in black font; other than that, the normal protocols of the guest editorial format will be utilized. -ISM]
#######
I woke up the other day to here the joyous news of the end of Zarqawi's efforts on behalf of Satan.
I saw it announced at a press conference in Iraq, and saw the Iraqi press burst into spontaneous applause. I heard on the radio about people in Jordan, who lost loved ones in his attacks there rejoicing, and others in Jordan celebrate saying that he defamed Islam and Jordanians as well.
Then I turned on "Good Morning America" in time to catch the end of a report on the death, with an interview from a freed hostage who appeared to be (can't say with 100% certainty) one of those party of Chicago based peace activists (one was killed, the others let go as I recall) bemoaning Zarqawi's death, saying he did deserve to be "brought to justice" but was sorry to see him killed. We then cut to the reporter, talking to Diane Sawyer, finishing up his report on this final note [paraphrasing] "And Diane, we also spoke to the father of Nick Berg who also said he was sorry that Zarqawi was killed and that in his opinion, it is George Bush, not Zarqawi, who is responsible for his son's death for starting the war in Iraq."
And that was the note the report ended on.
Incredible.
Just incredible.
That the MSM's, all-consuming loathing of Bush means that even the news of the elimination of this evil man must be skewed to be yet another indictment against George Bush. That upon hearing of Zarqawi's killing, the immediately - *immediately* - sought out those victim's of his depredations who they knew would not applaud, but complain about Bush.
It's not that the president's actions can't ever be questioned or criticized, but the way this story is being handled just spells out, yet again, how many reports coming out of the MSM must always be qualified by the fact that it extrudes through the filter of their what can only be charitably described as "unhealthy obsession" with the president.
Actually the speed with which they sought dependable anti-Bush victims for their coverage on Zarqawi's death, crosses over the realm from unhealthy obsession into morbid obsession.
I think we've all been given a preview of what kind of coverage we can expect when the day comes that Bin Laden is taken out of the picture. Notwithstanding the past few years of "Why hasn't he been able to capture bin Laden/Zarqawi" talk, no doubt the coverage will be just the same as what we're seeing now.
MSM = Mainstream Madness.
Just had to vent.
#######
[Epilogual Comment: I cannot think of anything of a necessary nature to add to what Henry said except to note that while I do not always agree with the contents of a guest editorial, there is at least a macro concurrence between my views and those Henry expressed above. -ISM]
(A Guest Editorial by Henry Odum)
[Prefatory Note: Sometimes readers of this humble weblog can express a point more passionately than your host either can or will. On those occasions, it is more appropriate to post their stuff and add to it at my discretion rather than write from scratch on the subject they email on. Though the words of the emailer will be in black font; other than that, the normal protocols of the guest editorial format will be utilized. -ISM]
#######
I woke up the other day to here the joyous news of the end of Zarqawi's efforts on behalf of Satan.
I saw it announced at a press conference in Iraq, and saw the Iraqi press burst into spontaneous applause. I heard on the radio about people in Jordan, who lost loved ones in his attacks there rejoicing, and others in Jordan celebrate saying that he defamed Islam and Jordanians as well.
Then I turned on "Good Morning America" in time to catch the end of a report on the death, with an interview from a freed hostage who appeared to be (can't say with 100% certainty) one of those party of Chicago based peace activists (one was killed, the others let go as I recall) bemoaning Zarqawi's death, saying he did deserve to be "brought to justice" but was sorry to see him killed. We then cut to the reporter, talking to Diane Sawyer, finishing up his report on this final note [paraphrasing] "And Diane, we also spoke to the father of Nick Berg who also said he was sorry that Zarqawi was killed and that in his opinion, it is George Bush, not Zarqawi, who is responsible for his son's death for starting the war in Iraq."
And that was the note the report ended on.
Incredible.
Just incredible.
That the MSM's, all-consuming loathing of Bush means that even the news of the elimination of this evil man must be skewed to be yet another indictment against George Bush. That upon hearing of Zarqawi's killing, the immediately - *immediately* - sought out those victim's of his depredations who they knew would not applaud, but complain about Bush.
It's not that the president's actions can't ever be questioned or criticized, but the way this story is being handled just spells out, yet again, how many reports coming out of the MSM must always be qualified by the fact that it extrudes through the filter of their what can only be charitably described as "unhealthy obsession" with the president.
Actually the speed with which they sought dependable anti-Bush victims for their coverage on Zarqawi's death, crosses over the realm from unhealthy obsession into morbid obsession.
I think we've all been given a preview of what kind of coverage we can expect when the day comes that Bin Laden is taken out of the picture. Notwithstanding the past few years of "Why hasn't he been able to capture bin Laden/Zarqawi" talk, no doubt the coverage will be just the same as what we're seeing now.
MSM = Mainstream Madness.
Just had to vent.
#######
[Epilogual Comment: I cannot think of anything of a necessary nature to add to what Henry said except to note that while I do not always agree with the contents of a guest editorial, there is at least a macro concurrence between my views and those Henry expressed above. -ISM]
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Monday, June 12, 2006
Sunday, June 11, 2006
More on the Bush Administration/FBI Constitutionality Question:
(From the Mailbag)
This is a response written to an email received recently which pertained to these previous weblog postings:
On the Latest Bush AdministrationSNAFU Situation (circa May 27, 2006)
On the Fourth Amendment, The Supreme Court, and Warrantless Searches (circa June 1, 2006)
The words of the emailer will be in purple font.
It isn’t a matter of a warrant. It is a question of use of power by one branch of government to intimidate another branch. It is FBI agents, representing the executive branch, intimidating and making threats against capitol police, employees of the legislative branch, and seizing papers of a legislator.
Okay, let us consider that subject for a moment. Are the legislators somehow by virtue of their office free from having to obey the law??? This would be an odd position for the Framers to have taken considering how they were themselves the victims of aristocratic double standards. The idea of any class of people being above the law was repugnant to them and it therefore stretches credibility to presume that such an intention could be manifested anywhere in the Constitution. There was however, a separation of powers with checks and balances but that is not the same thing.
The section of the constitution in question is “They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”
This is non-sequiturial. To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), Rep. Jefferson has not himself been arrested and is not in jail. The whole clause involves the arrest of legislators or attempts to intimidate or otherwise coerce a legislators vote in any session of the legislature. This includes arresting them in the chambers during session, going to and from any of the legislative sessions, or questioning them in any other place with regards to a speech they delivered or a debate they were involved in within any chamber of the legislature. That is all.
The point of this section is to preserve the independence of the legislative branch.
The issue does not involve any speech or debate Rep. Jefferson delivered in either house and he has not been arrested. To postulate as the writer did that the above passage of the Constitution in any way is a violation of the separation of powers is to read into the Constitution provisions that are not there. Surely the emailer does not intend to do that; therefore I am wondering if they had another passage of the Constitution in mind when they assert a claim of "violation of separation of powers" because if not, then the assertion has more than adequately been confuted with the contents of this posting.
(From the Mailbag)
This is a response written to an email received recently which pertained to these previous weblog postings:
On the Latest Bush Administration
On the Fourth Amendment, The Supreme Court, and Warrantless Searches (circa June 1, 2006)
The words of the emailer will be in purple font.
It isn’t a matter of a warrant. It is a question of use of power by one branch of government to intimidate another branch. It is FBI agents, representing the executive branch, intimidating and making threats against capitol police, employees of the legislative branch, and seizing papers of a legislator.
Okay, let us consider that subject for a moment. Are the legislators somehow by virtue of their office free from having to obey the law??? This would be an odd position for the Framers to have taken considering how they were themselves the victims of aristocratic double standards. The idea of any class of people being above the law was repugnant to them and it therefore stretches credibility to presume that such an intention could be manifested anywhere in the Constitution. There was however, a separation of powers with checks and balances but that is not the same thing.
The section of the constitution in question is “They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”
This is non-sequiturial. To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), Rep. Jefferson has not himself been arrested and is not in jail. The whole clause involves the arrest of legislators or attempts to intimidate or otherwise coerce a legislators vote in any session of the legislature. This includes arresting them in the chambers during session, going to and from any of the legislative sessions, or questioning them in any other place with regards to a speech they delivered or a debate they were involved in within any chamber of the legislature. That is all.
The point of this section is to preserve the independence of the legislative branch.
The issue does not involve any speech or debate Rep. Jefferson delivered in either house and he has not been arrested. To postulate as the writer did that the above passage of the Constitution in any way is a violation of the separation of powers is to read into the Constitution provisions that are not there. Surely the emailer does not intend to do that; therefore I am wondering if they had another passage of the Constitution in mind when they assert a claim of "violation of separation of powers" because if not, then the assertion has more than adequately been confuted with the contents of this posting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)