Information
ARCHIVES
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
By Steven Taylor

I kinda like this idea.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
By Steven Taylor

Just thought I’d share.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (9)|
By Steven Taylor

Rooftop Report and Kristopher of The World Around You report that Rice will indeed testify in public, under oath to the 911 Commission.

Says Reuters.com

The White House reversed itself on Tuesday and offered to have national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testify publicly under oath about the Sept. 11 attacks before the 9-11 commission.

The White House released a letter to the independent commission from legal counsel Alberto Gonzalez outlining the offer. It also said it would make President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney available to speak before a joint private session of the full panel.

Both offers were on condition that they would not set a precedent under the constitutional separation of executive and legislative powers, an administration official said.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
By Steven Taylor

I must concur with James Joyner, while commenting on this Saletan piece. Writes James:

the anti-abortion side has a huge advantage in the debate because the pro-abortion side refuses to acknowledge something intuitively obvious: that the fetus is a human life.

The utter unwillingness for the pro-choice movement to acknowledge that a fetus in utero v. a child outside the womb is the exact same thing, especially as the pregnancy increases, is a serious case of cognitive dissonance, if not simply utter denial.

As such, it makes it difficult for them to make viable arguments for their positions, especially in such rather obvious cases as partial-birth abortion and the UVVA (Unborn Victims of Violence Act). To pretend that, say, a fetus in the eighth months of pregnancy is only a human being once the mother decided that it is, is an utterly ludicrous position and one that is difficult to sustain with logic.

It is clear with the debate on the UVVA (as it was with the partial-birth abortion ban) that the pro-choice side is utterly unwilling to yield even a scintilla of space in their argument concerning the sanctity of “choice.” Partially because they fear, understandably, that the right to abortion itself comes under logical attack if any fetus in any circumstance is actually defined as a human being. Further, I think that there is a recognition, that they will not admit, that their own arguments are built on a tenuous foundation, and therefore there really isn’t any room to give.

In regards to the extreme position that many in the pro-choice movement take, note this from NARAL:

President Bush is on the verge of signing into law his second odious piece of legislation in six months aimed at undermining Roe v. Wade. The U.S. Senate passed the deceptive “Unborn Victims of Violence” Act this week – the House passed the same bill last month – and the President has vowed to sign it. Bush has already earned the distinction of being the first president ever to sign a federal abortion ban and he now has a chance to extend his reputation in history as the most anti-choice president that this country has ever seen.

So, the idea that if a pregnant women is murdered that the assailant should be charged with an additional crime if the fetus dies as well, is “odious.” To put it mildly, this is an extreme position.

Further, if signing a law that makes doing violence to a fetus, and another one that limits a rare form a late-term abortion makes Bush the “most anti-choice president that this country has ever seen” then it shows how little any previous president has done on this topic. It further illustrates that to NARAL and their allies there is no such thing as a bad abortion.

One last comment: the bill and its signing may not make NARAL-ites happy, but I don’t think that they were going to vote for Bush in any event. However, both of these bills will no doubt help excite part of Bush’s base in November.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (1)|
By Steven Taylor

On March 20, 1981 John Hinckley, Jr. shot Presidetn Ronald Reagan (along with James Brady and two members of the President’s security detail).

Time flies–I was in Middle School at the time, and heard about the shooting in the halls between classes.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (2)|
By Steven Taylor

Cox & ForkumCharacter Suicide hit the nail on the head (or the knife in the back, or whatever…).

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
By Steven Taylor

Kerry Announces Plan to Control Gas Costs.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (1)|
Monday, March 29, 2004
By Steven Taylor

There has been an N. Z. Bear spotting. His main purpose is to talk about Pooh (just go look). However, he also notes:

PS – Yah, I know the Ecosystem is foobared. No, I don’t know what’s wrong. Yes, I know your details page shows one thing and the rankings shows another. No, I haven’t fixed it yet.

I wonder if he saw his shadow when he peeked out of the cave?

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (2)|
By Steven Taylor

George Shultz makes an excellent point in today’s OpinionJournal:

In the 1990s, the problem began to appear even more menacing. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were well known, but the nature of the terrorist threat was not yet comprehended and our efforts to combat it were ineffective. Diplomacy without much force was tried. Terrorism was regarded as a law enforcement problem and terrorists as criminals. Some were arrested and put on trial. Early last year, a judge finally allowed the verdict to stand for one of those convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ten years! Terrorism is not a matter that can be left to law enforcement, with its deliberative process, built-in delays, and safeguards that may let the prisoner go free on procedural grounds.

The problem with the law enforcement approach is that it requires waiting until an attack happens, and then affording rights and privileges to the accused. Hence, warfare is the better paradigm:

In war, you have to act on both offense and defense. You have to hit the enemy before the enemy hits you. The diplomacy of incentives, containment, deterrence and prevention are all made more effective by the demonstrated possibility of forceful pre-emption. Strength and diplomacy go together. They are not alternatives; they are complements. You work diplomacy and strength together on a grand and strategic scale and on an operational and tactical level. But if you deny yourself the option of forceful pre-emption, you diminish the effectiveness of your diplomatic moves. And, with the consequences of a terrorist attack as hideous as they are–witness what just happened in Madrid–the U.S. must be ready to pre-empt identified threats. And not at the last moment, when an attack is imminent and more difficult to stop, but before the terrorist gets in position to do irreparable harm.

Notice that this doesn’t mean invading the whole world, as some interpret the “war paradigm”.

The rest of the piece deals with rogues states, and specifically Iraq and is worth a read.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (4)|
By Steven Taylor

U.S. Officials Say Saddam’s Not Talking

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
« Previous PageNext Page »

blog advertising is good for you

Visitors Since 2/15/03


Blogroll
Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics
---


Advertisement

Advertisement


Powered by WordPress