New York Times Whining & BDS

There have been a lot of pretty silly editorials by the New York Times, but the latest is one of the most laughable I've seen in a long time. And this is from the editorial board, not some clown like Frank Rich.  

We do not envy President Obama as he tries to undo George W. Bush’s illegal and shameful detainee policy.

Except it wasn't illegal or shameful. And Obama is basically maintaining it. Other than that, it's a great characterization.

But that does not change the fact that Mr. Obama was wrong when he flip-flopped and decided to resist orders by two federal courts to release the photos.

That's an opinion, not a fact. For people more concerned with U.S. security, Obama's decision was the correct one. There was no good reason to release more pictures of abuses. After a section about Obama's proposed changes to military tribunals, we come to one of the most idiotic parts of the Times argument

The problem is that these tribunals, unlike traditional ones, did not just cover prisoners captured on the battlefield. They covered anyone whom Mr. Bush declared beyond the reach of law with the preposterous claim that the whole world is now a field of battle.

The editorial board of the Times is basically declaring that they don't have the slightest idea about terrorism, or what a fight against Al Qaeda entails. There is no "battlefield" in most cases. Al Qaeda isn't an army. It's a bunch of non-state terrorists. The fact that a terrorist is captured in some other circumstances than a battle doesn't make him an ordinary criminal, as the Times seems to think.

Since the Times is apparently so utterly clueless about the practical matters involved in fighting a non-state terrorist group, it's no surprise that their ideas are so ridiculous. The entire article is nothing but whining and sniveling about the supposed evils of Bush, and how terrorists need to be tried in civilian court. You can tell that they are horrified that their beloved Obama isn't living up to expectations. Where are the show trials? Where are the rights for terrorists like the poor oppressed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Obama is actually worrying about national security, and making practical decisions instead of being a BDS-infected nutcase. And the Times can't have that. 

Homo Sapiens ate Neanderthals?

According to a new hypothesis, Homo Sapiens killed and ate Neanderthals in some cases.  Fernando Rozzi, of Paris's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique said,

'Neanderthals met a violent end at our hands and in some cases we ate them.

'For years, people have tried to hide away from the evidence of cannibalism, but I think we have to accept it took place.'

He draws these conclusions based on Neanderthal jaw found in France, and a study by the Journal of Anthropological Sciences. Other scientists disagree and point out that one jawbone is hardly overwhelming evidence. But they recognize the scientific importance of the investigation, and that it adds to the evidence that "competition from modern humans probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction." 

HOT5 Daily 5/17/2009

1. "Waterboard Pelosi!" Not really, but still a good post on the Speaker and her obvious lies.

Representative Sample: She’s obviously well-trained in resistance to reality and truth, and traditional, less harsh methods of getting the information out of her have failed. Her despicable willingness to subordinate national security to her own partisan political interests couldn’t be more apparent

2. "The Anglo-Saxon Model in a Hole"  Vs. the French Model.

Representative Sample: In the fifteen years after they won the Cold War, the U.S. and Britain have done something curious: amidst the hubbub about the end of history and the triumph of capitalism, they retreated from the model that helped them win. On the other hand, the Continent, under the relentless pressure of failure, moved the other way.

3. "Obama Three Right Turns this week" #3 seems to be more just a good political move. But still, the first two are important.

Representative Sample: shockingly, I find myself in agreement with the President three times this week. I won’t hold my breath for it to happen again.

4. "Creationism Museum in Canada" Canadians can stop looking down on the U.S. creation museum and reflect on their own embarrassment.

Representative Sample: Built from the foundations up, for the glory of the Creator, to display the evidence of his handiwork and refute the lie of evolution.

5. "Are Video Game Sales An Economic Indicator?"If so, they match many other indicators -- pointing down.

Representative Sample: Douglas McIntyre of 24/7 Wall Street writes that video games are an excellent economic indicator. And - given their lousy recent sales numbers - the indications aren't good

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

Gays Cost Too Much Money

Today, Republican Committee Chairman Michael Steele unveiled the latest really bad argument against gay marriage: it's going to cost small businesses money.

"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."

Steele claims that this kind of message can reach a "broader base." If this is an example of Steele's new innovative ideas for Republican renewal, we might as well forget about it.  It completely ignores the primary questions about gay marriage and takes a purely cynical approach. Let's just forget about whether gay people deserve equal treatment with regard to marriage and focus on possible monetary costs. It's almost an admission that standard arguments against gay marriage are so weak that opponents need to find a new tactic.

Even if you set aside the cynical nature of Steele's argument and consider it purely on its merits, it still falls flat. Gays are a small minority of the population. Gay people who want to get married are apparently a minority of a minority. The impact is hardly going to devastate small business. Then there is the fact that married gay couples, or those who wish to marry, are not exactly in the closet. A small business with such employees will probably be well aware of their situation. It's not going to be a big surprise as Steele seems to think. Many corporations already offer benefits to the partners of gay employees. Small businesses which offer benefits do so in order to retain good workers. If they have a married gay employee, offering benefits serves exactly the same purpose as with married straight employees.

Steele's argument boils down to: we need to discriminate against gays because not doing so will cost small business money. That's not exactly a good message for the GOP.

Good Article on Dick Cheney

Yesterday Carl Cannon wrote one of the very few balanced articles I've seen about Dick Cheney. Most comment on the former vice president is in the form of vilification, with a few resolute defenses mixed in from the right. But here's Cannon:

As I formulate this argument, I realize that I disagree with Cheney on the two great issues he confronted as vice president. The first was his conception of executive power. The second concerns the tactics the United States should employ in the war on terror. So let me be clear in saying that what I would like to defend is Dick Cheney's character.

His theory is that the events of 9/11, particularly Cheney's authorization to the Air Force to shoot down Flight 93 -- even though it wasn't carried out -- profoundly affected him.

Dick Cheney resolved to do whatever it would take to protect this country, regardless of the cost to his reputation or popularity. I respect him for that, and I empathize with him.

Cannon is one of the few people writing in the media who disagrees with Cheney on executive power, the role of the vice president, torture, and probably other issues as well, yet doesn't assume bad motives. As he writes,

we definitely do damage to ourselves when we substitute political debate with name-calling and ad-hominem attacks. I think Dick Cheney is wrong on important matters. I also think he is a patriot. And I hate to think that we have lost the ability to hold two such opinions in our heads at one time.

I'll second that.

Preparing for an Asteroid Strike

There's was an interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor a couple days ago called, "Who is responsible for averting an asteroid strike?" The answer of course is: no one.  The main thrust of the article is that even if a large, dangerous asteroid is detected with plenty of warning time, there is no international team or organization responsible for taking action to prevent it from reaching earth.

Scientists and engineers who have studied the problem of deflecting a dangerous asteroid believe the technical issues are difficult but solvable. The challenge now is figuring out the legal issues of who takes action on behalf of humankind and of what their responsibilities and liabilities will be.

Is there any better example of the sheer idiocy of legalism? It's tempting to dismiss the author's concerns. You might think that if a killer asteroid were bearing down on earth, the main focus would be on destroying or diverting it, not on "legal issues." But you might also think that if piracy threatened commerce in a particular region, the primary emphasis would be on eliminating the pirates, rather than legal concerns. But of course you'd be wrong. In today's political climate it is quite possible that we could see extended squabbling over international law, arguments over putting weapons into space, and all sorts of other legal nonsense. People would feel the need to consult lawyers and get legal rulings on exactly what we could and could not do to stop the oncoming asteroid. There might even be lunatics arguing that an asteroid has "rights," and we couldn't just destroy it. After all, who would have thought that people would have been crazy enough to argue that terrorists should be given rights? 

HOT5 Daily 5/16/2009

1. "Why do anti-torture people want to push their morality on the rest of us?" Best torture post ever, satire or not.

Representative Sample: We're going to endanger ourselves for some wacko's personal beliefs or their vision of the "American way?"

2. "The Psychophantic Left"  And another good post on torture.

Representative Sample: Such an absolutist position is clearly asinine, but it is the position of the left wing of the Democratic Party and their psychophants (I'm coining that phase as an amalgam of psychotic and sycophant, and defining it as an ideologically servile person who avoids an uncomfortable reality to maintain a logically untenable position).

3. "Democrats Say OK Torture" Still more on torture & Democrats.

Representative Sample: Here’s a serious question to liberals. Would you be more pissed off to know nancy Pelosi was a part of the “enhanced interrogation” debacle by supporting it, or would you be more pissed off to find out that she not only condoned torture, but also did so while pretending as if she was a vocal critic of it?

4. "Study Concludes Intercessory Prayer Doesn’t Work; Christians Twist the Results" I know, shocking.

Representative Sample: This idea has been tested repeatedly — usually, the studies have flaws. And even when the results show that the intercessory prayer has no effect on anyone, those who believe in it will look at the hits and ignore (or rationalize) the misses.

5. "Shock Poll: Americans Want Less Government, Less Spending" Maybe they shouldn't keep voting for Democrats.

Representative Sample: 54 percent of voters think the Obama administration is proposing too much of an increase in government spending, while 6 percent say not enough. About a third -- 35 percent -- says the spending is "about right."

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