Monday, February 16, 2009

HOT5 Daily 2/16/2009

1. "Stimulus II? Ponder This …." It wouldn't surprise me.

Representative Sample: despite all the rhetoric and nonsense to the contrary by Obama and the Dems, we are on the road to repeating the mistakes Japan made that brought them their “lost decade”?

2. "THE PARTY THAT LOST ITS MIND" David Frum not a fan of GOP tactics used in opposing the stimulus.

Representative Sample: Could we possibly act more inadequate to the challenge? More futile? More brain dead?

3. "Reaction to Wilders’ Deportation" More on the Wilders situation.

Representative Sample: Islamist terrorist attacks from London and Madrid to Iraq demand that mature democratic societies and elected representatives discuss and challenge the ideology that supports terrorism, not hide behind falsehoods

4. "Idiot of the Day"  Are rights based on needs?

Representative Sample: Since when does someone have to have a “need” for any right in order to exercise that right? Shall we require the same litmus test for the rest of the Bill of Rights?

5. "Two if by Sea, three if they attack from freshwater"  Will fish strike back against humans?

Representative Sample: victims of a focused campaign of extermination, are fish forming an insurgency intent on terrestrial Jihad?

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

2 comments:

  1. The conclusion in #4 is a little extreme, don't you think? Banning firearms leading to another civil war? A needs-based approach to rights would be somewhat farcical, but I think the way he adapts it to freedom of speech, religion etc isn't very accurate. Also, specifically as regards gun rights, I imagine the bill before Congress takes a cost-benefit, safety/rights approach rather than simply saying "you don't need to bear arms anymore."

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The conclusion in #4 is a little extreme, don't you think? Banning firearms leading to another civil war? "

    Somewhat yes, although that type of language is fairly typical among big gun-rights advocates -- especially the anarcho-capitalist types. This is a life or death issue for a significant number of people. And I do think there would be large amount of violence if the government ever attempted to ban firearms entirely, and actually tried to enforce the ban by confiscating existing weapons. Many people would simply hide their weapons, but others would respond with violent resistance. It would turn a huge minority of the population into criminals overnight.

    "I think the way he adapts it to freedom of speech, religion etc isn't very accurate"

    I think its fair to point out that we don't take that approach to other rights, but you will hear it all the time in reference to gun rights. You'll hear things like: why does anyone need to own 20 weapons? Or, there will be either an implied or explict argument that only weapons that are used in hunting are "needed." That argument is very common. In some respects it is similar to saying why do you need a right to free speech? If you are going to put needs-based conditions on rights, there are other rights that could be subjected to similiar restrictions.

    ReplyDelete