Wednesday, February 08, 2006
I haven't seen "The Blade" publish any of these cartoons that are upsetting the islamofascists. I know "The Blade" is a very courageous paper, very dedicated to freedom of the press. Like most of the "main stream media" they're very concerned about press freedom and the need for shield laws so "reporters" can protect their "sources" - real or imaginary. But I wonder why the delay in publishing these cartoons?
Papers in this country, like the New York Times, don't have any qualms about publishing material that damages the nation's security, i.e., informing terrorists who want to kill us and establish islam as the official and only religion of the world. No, they're fearless when it comes to things like that. But, they're gutless when it comes to these cartoons, which are, ahem, NEWS.
These liberals what hypocrites! Spineless, lying hypocrites.
Yeah. And are those clods at the University of Toledo going to sponsor talks about how islamofascists are taking these cartoons which were published last year plus some others they themselves created (wonder what Mohammed thinks about that) to fan anti-western hate.
Well, don't hold your breath. If they do anything, it'll be to tell those poor clod students how we need to be more tolerant and how it's our fault. The fact is that tolerance cuts both ways. We don't have to be tolerant of barbarians. That's what these islamofascists are.
Papers in this country, like the New York Times, don't have any qualms about publishing material that damages the nation's security, i.e., informing terrorists who want to kill us and establish islam as the official and only religion of the world. No, they're fearless when it comes to things like that. But, they're gutless when it comes to these cartoons, which are, ahem, NEWS.
These liberals what hypocrites! Spineless, lying hypocrites.
Yeah. And are those clods at the University of Toledo going to sponsor talks about how islamofascists are taking these cartoons which were published last year plus some others they themselves created (wonder what Mohammed thinks about that) to fan anti-western hate.
Well, don't hold your breath. If they do anything, it'll be to tell those poor clod students how we need to be more tolerant and how it's our fault. The fact is that tolerance cuts both ways. We don't have to be tolerant of barbarians. That's what these islamofascists are.
# posted by sirwd @ 8:45 PM 
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
An Ohio State Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Chief Justice Moyer, has been talking out loud. What he's been saying is disturbing.
I glanced over an article in that rag, The Toledo Blade, that seemed to indicate that Moyer advocated life appointments to the Supreme Court of Ohio. I say "seemed" because "The Blade" is not to be believed in its reportage. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume it's actually factual.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060127/NEWS02/601270368&SearchID=73234879358621
Liberals really like to push this fantasy that by making the judiciary unaccountable to the electorate the judiciary somehow become more impartially wise arbiters. As far as I know, while the above sentiment is often mouthed, the exact process by which its magic is achieved is never articulated. More importantly, the facts show just the opposite result to be true. Remember the federal judiciary? It's devolved into a judicial oligarchy where liberal judges and justices, insulated from the electorate, i.e., the people from whom all power in a democracy resides, have relegated the written Constitution to a blank page on which they may write their peculiar agenda.
Is it a coincidence that those states which have somehow found rights to same sex marriage and other views which a majority of Americans find offensive have Supreme Courts whose members are appointed to life-time terms and not elected? I think not. And that's what Moyer's goofy idea would yield in Ohio. I agree with Mr. Seitz who has observed that
"The plan is fundamentally anti-democratic and uses a meat axe to rectify problems that would be better dealt with in ways short of robbing the public of its rights."
Indeed, this recognition of the dangers an unelected judiciary is hardly new. Mr. Justice Yates, writing as Brutus, noted the above objection and others more than 200 years ago. Given the history of the Supreme Court, Mr. Yates has proven himself, unfortuately for us all, all to prescient.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Frankly, given this article in "The Blade," Mr. Seitz would seem to make a much better Justice than Mr. Moyer. Let me be the first to say, Seitz for Ohio Supreme Court Justice.
I glanced over an article in that rag, The Toledo Blade, that seemed to indicate that Moyer advocated life appointments to the Supreme Court of Ohio. I say "seemed" because "The Blade" is not to be believed in its reportage. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume it's actually factual.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060127/NEWS02/601270368&SearchID=73234879358621
Liberals really like to push this fantasy that by making the judiciary unaccountable to the electorate the judiciary somehow become more impartially wise arbiters. As far as I know, while the above sentiment is often mouthed, the exact process by which its magic is achieved is never articulated. More importantly, the facts show just the opposite result to be true. Remember the federal judiciary? It's devolved into a judicial oligarchy where liberal judges and justices, insulated from the electorate, i.e., the people from whom all power in a democracy resides, have relegated the written Constitution to a blank page on which they may write their peculiar agenda.
Is it a coincidence that those states which have somehow found rights to same sex marriage and other views which a majority of Americans find offensive have Supreme Courts whose members are appointed to life-time terms and not elected? I think not. And that's what Moyer's goofy idea would yield in Ohio. I agree with Mr. Seitz who has observed that
"The plan is fundamentally anti-democratic and uses a meat axe to rectify problems that would be better dealt with in ways short of robbing the public of its rights."
Indeed, this recognition of the dangers an unelected judiciary is hardly new. Mr. Justice Yates, writing as Brutus, noted the above objection and others more than 200 years ago. Given the history of the Supreme Court, Mr. Yates has proven himself, unfortuately for us all, all to prescient.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Frankly, given this article in "The Blade," Mr. Seitz would seem to make a much better Justice than Mr. Moyer. Let me be the first to say, Seitz for Ohio Supreme Court Justice.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Alito gets senate advise and consent. Oh, happy day!
Course, I like how the liberal media spins this. Heard something to the affect that Alito gets the lowest vote in history or some such nonsense. Well, who exactly does that reflect badly upon? Alito? The Republicans? or is it the Democrats, who again show us they are nothing but the puppets of extreme left-wingers. The answer is, of course, the latter. The Democrats in Congress are the puppets of loony left-wingers who are anti-US.
Republicans should take note, however, the next time a left-wing President tries to foist a left-wing justice on us, like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, the Republicans need to pull the same kind of antics that the Democrats do. Maybe then we can get the nomination and advise and consent process back onto a Constitutional footing.
How typical that left-wingers say they need to use an unconstitutional filibuster to protect our Constitutional rights. How is the filibuster unconstitutional? Well, Congress is free to make up whatever rules it wants in order to affectuate its Constitutional rights and obligations, but it's not free to impinge on the rights and obligations of the other branches as determined by the Constitution. Denying the President a vote via filibuster (in affect denying an opportunity for "advise and consent") for a given nominee is clearly unconstitutional.
Anyway, speaking of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, the former ACLU guru and radical feminist, whose husband had many investments that raised conflict of interest questions which the liberal media ignored, she's going to be appearing the University of Toledo law school. I'm sure all the liberal profs are already queuing up to kiss her ass.
If anyone wants an idea of a halloween costume that will be guaranteed to frighten small children, cause horses to bolt, and pregnant women to go into spontaneous labor, well, it'd be a Ruth Bader-Ginsburg costume. I mean, well, get a load of this pic:
http://www.law.utoledo.edu/
I'm not one of those people who has been impressed with Bader-Ginsburg's "jurisprudence," i.e., her activist liberal agenda. For example,
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/whelan200504260804.asp
But, I suppose this sort of observation won't sway professors who like to post pictures of Bush with lens cap on binoculars etc. (He seems to have taken down this pic for some reason). But don't have the intellectual honesty to give context etc.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/dumb_at_the_dmz.guest.html
Course, I like how the liberal media spins this. Heard something to the affect that Alito gets the lowest vote in history or some such nonsense. Well, who exactly does that reflect badly upon? Alito? The Republicans? or is it the Democrats, who again show us they are nothing but the puppets of extreme left-wingers. The answer is, of course, the latter. The Democrats in Congress are the puppets of loony left-wingers who are anti-US.
Republicans should take note, however, the next time a left-wing President tries to foist a left-wing justice on us, like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, the Republicans need to pull the same kind of antics that the Democrats do. Maybe then we can get the nomination and advise and consent process back onto a Constitutional footing.
How typical that left-wingers say they need to use an unconstitutional filibuster to protect our Constitutional rights. How is the filibuster unconstitutional? Well, Congress is free to make up whatever rules it wants in order to affectuate its Constitutional rights and obligations, but it's not free to impinge on the rights and obligations of the other branches as determined by the Constitution. Denying the President a vote via filibuster (in affect denying an opportunity for "advise and consent") for a given nominee is clearly unconstitutional.
Anyway, speaking of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, the former ACLU guru and radical feminist, whose husband had many investments that raised conflict of interest questions which the liberal media ignored, she's going to be appearing the University of Toledo law school. I'm sure all the liberal profs are already queuing up to kiss her ass.
If anyone wants an idea of a halloween costume that will be guaranteed to frighten small children, cause horses to bolt, and pregnant women to go into spontaneous labor, well, it'd be a Ruth Bader-Ginsburg costume. I mean, well, get a load of this pic:
http://www.law.utoledo.edu/
I'm not one of those people who has been impressed with Bader-Ginsburg's "jurisprudence," i.e., her activist liberal agenda. For example,
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/whelan200504260804.asp
But, I suppose this sort of observation won't sway professors who like to post pictures of Bush with lens cap on binoculars etc. (He seems to have taken down this pic for some reason). But don't have the intellectual honesty to give context etc.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/dumb_at_the_dmz.guest.html
# posted by sirwd @ 6:18 PM
Sunday, January 29, 2006
I'm disappointed. I was hoping there would be a strike at UT. These liberal fat-cat professors need a dose of reality. Alas, it was not to be. I must admit that I haven't kept up on the facts. In other words, who caved? I suspect the University did more caving than the faculty and the "staff." The faculty got their foot in the door on this "issue" of "domestic partner" benefits, i.e., they get the coverage although they apparently have to pay something towards it. Undoubtedly this is part of some incremental approach, a favorite tactic of liberals, towards getting full recognition and support for whatever concubines and eunuchs they keep on the side.
If there's a silver lining, it may be that the University's enrollment will continue to drop, forcing the layoff of faculty and staff. I realize that they'll sell off the physical plant and come whining to the taxpayers to bail them out ere they do that, but it would be fun to see.
The University of Toledo is really a substandard institution nowadays. Of course, it's a matter of their own making. Liberals in the teacher's unions have provided these so-called institutions of higher learning with "marching morons." Young people who have been indoctrinated in the dogma of diversity, feminism etc., but who can't read, write or do sums.
If I had kids, there's no way I'd let them go to UT. First I'd send them to private schools for grades K-12, naturally. Even there, you have to be discriminating. St. John's HS in Toledo used to be a good HS, but I think they've fallen prey to political correctness, i.e., they've gotten too liberal. MVCDS has been out for many years. You want to send your kids to a school where they will be educated and socialized to some extent but not brain-washed.
-
On the local political front, Carty is talking his grandiose ideas for Toledo again. Well, you can't say the guy doesn't have vision. However, one might wish he was grounded a little more in reality. Budget and money reality don't seem make much of an impression on Carty - in that regard, he's a true liberal. I do give him some credit for mentioning that Toledo needs to try to get more white collar jobs. Unfortunately, that idea is about 30 years too late. But, give him his due, he's the first Toledo politico to realize it!
It's too late for Toledo. The young people who have any prospects have either already left or will leave for other more vibrant, culturally and economically, areas. All that's left in Toledo and Lucas county is a husk.
I wonder if it isn't the case that most of the depressed areas in the nation are those that have been under the sway of liberals long term? That's sure the case in Toledo and Lucas county Ohio.
Of course, the local liberals and the local liberal rag, "The Blade," blame the Republicans etc. But, truth be told, the liberals have been running the show here locally for ages. It's their fault. Toledo schools have been run by liberals, they produce students who suck. Curiously, the same can't be said for Sylvania, Maumee, and Perrysburg. Liberals will say it's because Toledo doesn't get the same money or something. Even if that's true, which I doubt, don't believe it. For example, Washington, D.C. schools get more money per pupil than anyone, but they're the worst schools in the nation.
People in Toledo are just plain stupid. They have too much of this stereotypic blue-collar type: low-brow, ethnic types coming from countries with a socialist tradition who'll believe any sort of socialist propaganda the unions, the Democrat establishment, or "The Blade" push. Well, either that or they've been on government hand-outs for generations.
By the way, has anyone ever checked how well "The Blade" has done on its agenda for the city, the county, the state, or the nation? "The Blade" has been in lock step with the local Democrat establishment on what's best for Toledo for years. And we all know how well Toledo is doing as a result.
If there's a silver lining, it may be that the University's enrollment will continue to drop, forcing the layoff of faculty and staff. I realize that they'll sell off the physical plant and come whining to the taxpayers to bail them out ere they do that, but it would be fun to see.
The University of Toledo is really a substandard institution nowadays. Of course, it's a matter of their own making. Liberals in the teacher's unions have provided these so-called institutions of higher learning with "marching morons." Young people who have been indoctrinated in the dogma of diversity, feminism etc., but who can't read, write or do sums.
If I had kids, there's no way I'd let them go to UT. First I'd send them to private schools for grades K-12, naturally. Even there, you have to be discriminating. St. John's HS in Toledo used to be a good HS, but I think they've fallen prey to political correctness, i.e., they've gotten too liberal. MVCDS has been out for many years. You want to send your kids to a school where they will be educated and socialized to some extent but not brain-washed.
-
On the local political front, Carty is talking his grandiose ideas for Toledo again. Well, you can't say the guy doesn't have vision. However, one might wish he was grounded a little more in reality. Budget and money reality don't seem make much of an impression on Carty - in that regard, he's a true liberal. I do give him some credit for mentioning that Toledo needs to try to get more white collar jobs. Unfortunately, that idea is about 30 years too late. But, give him his due, he's the first Toledo politico to realize it!
It's too late for Toledo. The young people who have any prospects have either already left or will leave for other more vibrant, culturally and economically, areas. All that's left in Toledo and Lucas county is a husk.
I wonder if it isn't the case that most of the depressed areas in the nation are those that have been under the sway of liberals long term? That's sure the case in Toledo and Lucas county Ohio.
Of course, the local liberals and the local liberal rag, "The Blade," blame the Republicans etc. But, truth be told, the liberals have been running the show here locally for ages. It's their fault. Toledo schools have been run by liberals, they produce students who suck. Curiously, the same can't be said for Sylvania, Maumee, and Perrysburg. Liberals will say it's because Toledo doesn't get the same money or something. Even if that's true, which I doubt, don't believe it. For example, Washington, D.C. schools get more money per pupil than anyone, but they're the worst schools in the nation.
People in Toledo are just plain stupid. They have too much of this stereotypic blue-collar type: low-brow, ethnic types coming from countries with a socialist tradition who'll believe any sort of socialist propaganda the unions, the Democrat establishment, or "The Blade" push. Well, either that or they've been on government hand-outs for generations.
By the way, has anyone ever checked how well "The Blade" has done on its agenda for the city, the county, the state, or the nation? "The Blade" has been in lock step with the local Democrat establishment on what's best for Toledo for years. And we all know how well Toledo is doing as a result.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The local alleged institution of higher learning, The University of Toledo, continues its parade of liberal myths and the hacks who promote them. On the 25th of January the 24th annual Cannon Lecture, whatever that is, will present "Documentary" filmmaker Rory Kennedy – “Domestic Violence: A Family Affair.”
When I was a kid, I used to think documentaries were unvarnished, straightforward accounts of actual events or situations. Maybe they were - back then. Today most, if not all, documentaries are at best nothing but slick propaganda. National Geographic isn't about a bunch of bare-breasted natives anymore, it's all about indoctrination into nonsense like global warming and why we should love the people who hate us.
What would lend credibility to the University and its liberal overlords would be to invite someone like Kate O'Beirne to speak on gender issues!
http://www.nrbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6862
Then we might be able to say the University is about real diversity, not just this phony diversity liberals like to talk about, i.e., get rid of white males unless they're flaming homos, stamp out Christian organizations, promote radical Islam, make men the root of all evil etc. A liberal's idea of diversity is to create an environment where, while on the surface everyone looks different, underneath they all believe and act the same.
I think it's time to dispel some of these liberal myths and lies that are foisted on poor malleable college students who've already been sinned against when they were in grade and high school by the liberal teachers' unions and gotten more indoctrination than education.
A lot of these liberal gender myths they spout stem from "sociologists." Well, if you haven't figured it out yet for yourself, let me clue you in. Sociology isn't a science, it's nothing but liberals garbed in pseudo-academic status spewing their agenda under the guise it's "science!"
There is this marvelous British tv series "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" who never miss a change to ridicule this myth that sociology is a science. And, as the Brits say the criticism is spot on.
Since we're talking about gender "relations" one of my favorite foils is the "respected" sociologist (propagandist) Lenore Weitzman. She foisted a bunch of pseudo-scientific bull crap about marriage and divorce which lawmakers and liberal judges bought hook, line, and sinker. In the case of judges, it was easy for them to buy it because they wanted it so badly!
Anyway, what Weitzman said was a bunch of nonsense, but even today it's bought by liberals and taught by them as gospel at a university near you. But it's all lies, Mr. Mason. There's not one word of truth in it.
http://www.spca.org.au/document_library/Lies%20Damned%20Lies%20and%20Lenore%20Weitzman.pdf
Radical feminist liars like Weitzman and other liberals of her ilk tend to view marriage and divorce as lose-lose situations for women. That's their mind-set and they're not about to let the facts get in the way. In fact, if marriage and divorce are a lose-lose situation for anyone, it's for men.
http://www.glennsacks.com/4_feminists_myths.htm
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
When I was a kid, I used to think documentaries were unvarnished, straightforward accounts of actual events or situations. Maybe they were - back then. Today most, if not all, documentaries are at best nothing but slick propaganda. National Geographic isn't about a bunch of bare-breasted natives anymore, it's all about indoctrination into nonsense like global warming and why we should love the people who hate us.
What would lend credibility to the University and its liberal overlords would be to invite someone like Kate O'Beirne to speak on gender issues!
http://www.nrbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6862
Then we might be able to say the University is about real diversity, not just this phony diversity liberals like to talk about, i.e., get rid of white males unless they're flaming homos, stamp out Christian organizations, promote radical Islam, make men the root of all evil etc. A liberal's idea of diversity is to create an environment where, while on the surface everyone looks different, underneath they all believe and act the same.
I think it's time to dispel some of these liberal myths and lies that are foisted on poor malleable college students who've already been sinned against when they were in grade and high school by the liberal teachers' unions and gotten more indoctrination than education.
A lot of these liberal gender myths they spout stem from "sociologists." Well, if you haven't figured it out yet for yourself, let me clue you in. Sociology isn't a science, it's nothing but liberals garbed in pseudo-academic status spewing their agenda under the guise it's "science!"
There is this marvelous British tv series "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" who never miss a change to ridicule this myth that sociology is a science. And, as the Brits say the criticism is spot on.
Since we're talking about gender "relations" one of my favorite foils is the "respected" sociologist (propagandist) Lenore Weitzman. She foisted a bunch of pseudo-scientific bull crap about marriage and divorce which lawmakers and liberal judges bought hook, line, and sinker. In the case of judges, it was easy for them to buy it because they wanted it so badly!
Anyway, what Weitzman said was a bunch of nonsense, but even today it's bought by liberals and taught by them as gospel at a university near you. But it's all lies, Mr. Mason. There's not one word of truth in it.
http://www.spca.org.au/document_library/Lies%20Damned%20Lies%20and%20Lenore%20Weitzman.pdf
Radical feminist liars like Weitzman and other liberals of her ilk tend to view marriage and divorce as lose-lose situations for women. That's their mind-set and they're not about to let the facts get in the way. In fact, if marriage and divorce are a lose-lose situation for anyone, it's for men.
http://www.glennsacks.com/4_feminists_myths.htm
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
# posted by sirwd @ 3:22 PM
Monday, January 16, 2006
The UT school of law continues its love affair with left-wingers. They started off their speaker series with some women, J.E. (I guess she doesn't like her given names) McNeil, the Executive Director of the Center on Conscience and War. Her theme: Do you feel a draft? The talk was co-sponsored by the ACLU of Ohio and the NW Ohio Peace Coalition.
It sounded like a must miss, and I did miss it. I had enough of this left-wing two-faced BS from the Kerry campaign last Presidental election. Nevertheless, I'm sure the usual suspects attended from the law school and the kook community.
According to the press release, "the Center on Conscience & War (CCW) was formed in 1940 by an association of religious bodies." Course this begs the question: what religious bodies? Looking on the net, it appears it was initially formed by "historic peace churches" like Mennonites, Quakers, Brethren, and the Amish.
Normally Mennonites, Quakers, Brethren, and the Amish are the sort of people that liberals would make fun of for their peculiar ways and dress. But here, of course, they can be exploited because their principled, although misguided, objectives dovetail nicely with liberal's unprincipled objectives.
The liberal objective is to essentially destroy the United States as a distinct entity on the world stage, a nation that does not have a socialist tradition, a nation that is exceptional among nations. As currently constituted, the United States is an impediment to world socialism and other failed liberal agenda. It's a thorn in the good liberal's side.
It's odd, of course, that the liberals should be so opposed to a military draft. Why? They're actually in favor of "national service." What is national service? It's just another name for a draft. Course they give you an option - if you want to call it that. Work for free in something like the peace corps or be a marine. What if you object to indentured servitude period? Would the CCW represent you if you refused to work in inner city LA? (Probably safer to be a marine.) It's also worth remarking that professional military men don't favor drafts. They prefer soldiers who want to be soldiers.
In fact, national service was part of John Kerry's platform - until it was discovered he was talking out of both sides of his mouth, as liberals are wont, and it was discretely removed without reportage or fanfare from his webpage etc.
Let's call a spade a spade. The real problem here isn't that liberals are opposed to a draft. As we've seen, they actually love the idea. It's just another currently untapped form of taxation. No, what they're opposed to is young men volunteering to fight for the nation. That implies a strong America, and liberals don't want that.
In fact, years before 9/11, there was an article in The Atlantic Monthly (a liberal rag) saying a draft was needed because the military attracted too many conservatives, i.e., people who believed in American Exceptionalism, a strong America etc. To these liberal kooks a draft would water down the military with the typical products of liberal teachers' union members: young people who don't want to work, can't read or write, and think the gummit owes them a living. In other words, the liberal's issue with the military is that it actually works.
Just who are these COs that groups like CCW represent?
The New York Times (excerpted)
October 9, 2004 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Column 3; Foreign Desk; THE SATURDAY PROFILE; Pg. 4
HEADLINE: In Canada, an Exile Pleads a Tangled Case for Refuge
BYLINE: By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
DATELINE: TORONTO
[quote]
Mr. Hinzman says he joined the Army in January 2001 in part to be able
to afford to eventually go to college, but his other reason was linked
to what he calls his Buddhist ''lens'' on life. ''My intent,'' he said,
''was to annihilate my ego.''
''On the surface, obviously I made the wrong career choice and I wasn't
introspective enough before I went in,'' he said calmly, sitting on his
futon couch in a near lotus position with his bare feet crossed.
Mr. Hinzman is ... 25, .... He is a Roman Catholic, a convert ...,
[b]ut his spiritual searching has taken him far and wide, from Quaker
meetings to Buddhist studies.
Mr. Hinzman .., born with no father on his birth certificate -- ''I am
a bastard,'' he says .., [was] raised by his grandparents after his
mother could not care for him, for reasons he refused to discuss.
[I]n the Army [he was] promoted to specialist, and he was due to enter
the elite Ranger school when he decided to file for conscientious
objector status in August 2002.
(Aside: Because of his CO application, when in Afghanistan he served in
the kitchen, apparently.)
MAJ Amy Hannah, spokeswoman for the 82nd Airborne, said the
investigating officer had concluded that ''Hinzman was using the CO
process to get out of the infantry.'' She said he never took his case
to a final appeal.
A 2002 study by the United States Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences found that deserters tended to be less
educated and of low intellectual aptitude, to engage in delinquent acts
before deserting, to have family and personal problems, and to come
from broken homes.
[endquote]
I gather the CO's argument is that if he hadn't deserted he
would have been forced to commit atrocities. Apparently he belongs
to the John Kerry school. Moreover, he also claims that such
conduct (atrocities) is systemic and not anomalous, that the
war, Iraq and Afghanistan? is immoral and illegal, and that
returning him to the US would subject him to persecution as a CO as
opposed to prosecution under UCMJ as a deserter.
His hearing in Canada was on 6 Dec. Lawyers for Hinzman and the
Canadian government will be supplying additionial written
submissions in January with a decision expected in February.
If turned down, Hinzman can appeal to the Canadian Federal Court
level and then to the immigration minister, whoever that might be.
The current one is in a bit of hot water over a Romanian stripper
and some alleged campaign contribution improprieties.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/23/sgro041123.html
A witness who appeared in Hinzman's behalf, former Marine Sergeant
Jimmy Massey, said his unit killed various "innocent" parties. This was
also reported in Europe.
Massey, a 12 year veteran of the Marines, was apparently honorably
discharged (when?) diagnosed as suffering from severe depression
and post traumatic stress disorder.
This is the best witness they could come up with?
Gleaned from yet another source:
At his hearing, Hinzman told how he voluntarily approached a recruiting
office in late 2000, saying he was raised believing the military had a
"higher purpose." (Must've been around Xmas time, see above and below.)
After examining recruiting brochures and videos, Hinzman determined he
wanted to be an infantryman to experience "the essence" of the Army. He
subsequently enlisted two weeks later for a four-year term.
It sounded like a must miss, and I did miss it. I had enough of this left-wing two-faced BS from the Kerry campaign last Presidental election. Nevertheless, I'm sure the usual suspects attended from the law school and the kook community.
According to the press release, "the Center on Conscience & War (CCW) was formed in 1940 by an association of religious bodies." Course this begs the question: what religious bodies? Looking on the net, it appears it was initially formed by "historic peace churches" like Mennonites, Quakers, Brethren, and the Amish.
Normally Mennonites, Quakers, Brethren, and the Amish are the sort of people that liberals would make fun of for their peculiar ways and dress. But here, of course, they can be exploited because their principled, although misguided, objectives dovetail nicely with liberal's unprincipled objectives.
The liberal objective is to essentially destroy the United States as a distinct entity on the world stage, a nation that does not have a socialist tradition, a nation that is exceptional among nations. As currently constituted, the United States is an impediment to world socialism and other failed liberal agenda. It's a thorn in the good liberal's side.
It's odd, of course, that the liberals should be so opposed to a military draft. Why? They're actually in favor of "national service." What is national service? It's just another name for a draft. Course they give you an option - if you want to call it that. Work for free in something like the peace corps or be a marine. What if you object to indentured servitude period? Would the CCW represent you if you refused to work in inner city LA? (Probably safer to be a marine.) It's also worth remarking that professional military men don't favor drafts. They prefer soldiers who want to be soldiers.
In fact, national service was part of John Kerry's platform - until it was discovered he was talking out of both sides of his mouth, as liberals are wont, and it was discretely removed without reportage or fanfare from his webpage etc.
Let's call a spade a spade. The real problem here isn't that liberals are opposed to a draft. As we've seen, they actually love the idea. It's just another currently untapped form of taxation. No, what they're opposed to is young men volunteering to fight for the nation. That implies a strong America, and liberals don't want that.
In fact, years before 9/11, there was an article in The Atlantic Monthly (a liberal rag) saying a draft was needed because the military attracted too many conservatives, i.e., people who believed in American Exceptionalism, a strong America etc. To these liberal kooks a draft would water down the military with the typical products of liberal teachers' union members: young people who don't want to work, can't read or write, and think the gummit owes them a living. In other words, the liberal's issue with the military is that it actually works.
Just who are these COs that groups like CCW represent?
The New York Times (excerpted)
October 9, 2004 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Column 3; Foreign Desk; THE SATURDAY PROFILE; Pg. 4
HEADLINE: In Canada, an Exile Pleads a Tangled Case for Refuge
BYLINE: By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
DATELINE: TORONTO
[quote]
Mr. Hinzman says he joined the Army in January 2001 in part to be able
to afford to eventually go to college, but his other reason was linked
to what he calls his Buddhist ''lens'' on life. ''My intent,'' he said,
''was to annihilate my ego.''
''On the surface, obviously I made the wrong career choice and I wasn't
introspective enough before I went in,'' he said calmly, sitting on his
futon couch in a near lotus position with his bare feet crossed.
Mr. Hinzman is ... 25, .... He is a Roman Catholic, a convert ...,
[b]ut his spiritual searching has taken him far and wide, from Quaker
meetings to Buddhist studies.
Mr. Hinzman .., born with no father on his birth certificate -- ''I am
a bastard,'' he says .., [was] raised by his grandparents after his
mother could not care for him, for reasons he refused to discuss.
[I]n the Army [he was] promoted to specialist, and he was due to enter
the elite Ranger school when he decided to file for conscientious
objector status in August 2002.
(Aside: Because of his CO application, when in Afghanistan he served in
the kitchen, apparently.)
MAJ Amy Hannah, spokeswoman for the 82nd Airborne, said the
investigating officer had concluded that ''Hinzman was using the CO
process to get out of the infantry.'' She said he never took his case
to a final appeal.
A 2002 study by the United States Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences found that deserters tended to be less
educated and of low intellectual aptitude, to engage in delinquent acts
before deserting, to have family and personal problems, and to come
from broken homes.
[endquote]
I gather the CO's argument is that if he hadn't deserted he
would have been forced to commit atrocities. Apparently he belongs
to the John Kerry school. Moreover, he also claims that such
conduct (atrocities) is systemic and not anomalous, that the
war, Iraq and Afghanistan? is immoral and illegal, and that
returning him to the US would subject him to persecution as a CO as
opposed to prosecution under UCMJ as a deserter.
His hearing in Canada was on 6 Dec. Lawyers for Hinzman and the
Canadian government will be supplying additionial written
submissions in January with a decision expected in February.
If turned down, Hinzman can appeal to the Canadian Federal Court
level and then to the immigration minister, whoever that might be.
The current one is in a bit of hot water over a Romanian stripper
and some alleged campaign contribution improprieties.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/23/sgro041123.html
A witness who appeared in Hinzman's behalf, former Marine Sergeant
Jimmy Massey, said his unit killed various "innocent" parties. This was
also reported in Europe.
Massey, a 12 year veteran of the Marines, was apparently honorably
discharged (when?) diagnosed as suffering from severe depression
and post traumatic stress disorder.
This is the best witness they could come up with?
Gleaned from yet another source:
At his hearing, Hinzman told how he voluntarily approached a recruiting
office in late 2000, saying he was raised believing the military had a
"higher purpose." (Must've been around Xmas time, see above and below.)
After examining recruiting brochures and videos, Hinzman determined he
wanted to be an infantryman to experience "the essence" of the Army. He
subsequently enlisted two weeks later for a four-year term.
# posted by sirwd @ 2:19 PM
Monday, January 09, 2006
I don't watch much tv nowadays. The comment about it being "a vast cultural wasteland" seems more true than ever - excepting those channels that run shows from by-gone days like the b&w Perry Mason etc.
Nonetheless, I happened to catch about 20 seconds of a show that airs on the local PBS (Pure Bull Shit) station called "The Editors." Yes, I know, it's a rather pretentious appellation, but what else do Toledoans have but pretensions?
Anyway, "The Editors" is hosted by pseudo-intellectuals from "The Blade," some Jack and Jill team of pretentious yet grossly misinformed nitwits masquerading as intellectual and cultural luminaries.
I guess the topic of this particular program had something to do with religion - it was the Christmas season. So like typical liberals who do they marshal in as experts? Some guy representing "Unitarian Universalists" and some female clergyman whose "credentials" I didn't catch. Why is it that when liberals want to talk religion they invariably go to people who are theologically closer to atheism than, say, Christianity?
In any "reportage" etc., liberals invariably stack the deck with people who agree with their rather narrow viewpoints. I guess they're afraid of a real debate and the possibility that the actual facts will get out to the "masses."
"The Blade" routinely practices this type of "journalism." Examples are legion, but here are a couple that come to mind immediately. During the Presidential election liberals were salivating over the prospect that Britain's Tony Blair and Australia's John Howard would be turned out of office for supporting Bush over Iraq. Well, when Blair, who's actually quite liberal, was returned with a diminished majority, it was front page news in "The Blade." But when Howard won handily in Australia their was just a one incher buried days later in the back pages. I guess that result didn't fit the "program."
That's how "The Blade" reports. It either ignores or buries the news it doesn't like (the wonderful state of the national economy, progress in Iraq etc.) and highlights the news it does like (Noe's problems etc.)
That's not journalism, that's propaganda. No wonder people are abandoning "The Blade."
Nonetheless, I happened to catch about 20 seconds of a show that airs on the local PBS (Pure Bull Shit) station called "The Editors." Yes, I know, it's a rather pretentious appellation, but what else do Toledoans have but pretensions?
Anyway, "The Editors" is hosted by pseudo-intellectuals from "The Blade," some Jack and Jill team of pretentious yet grossly misinformed nitwits masquerading as intellectual and cultural luminaries.
I guess the topic of this particular program had something to do with religion - it was the Christmas season. So like typical liberals who do they marshal in as experts? Some guy representing "Unitarian Universalists" and some female clergyman whose "credentials" I didn't catch. Why is it that when liberals want to talk religion they invariably go to people who are theologically closer to atheism than, say, Christianity?
In any "reportage" etc., liberals invariably stack the deck with people who agree with their rather narrow viewpoints. I guess they're afraid of a real debate and the possibility that the actual facts will get out to the "masses."
"The Blade" routinely practices this type of "journalism." Examples are legion, but here are a couple that come to mind immediately. During the Presidential election liberals were salivating over the prospect that Britain's Tony Blair and Australia's John Howard would be turned out of office for supporting Bush over Iraq. Well, when Blair, who's actually quite liberal, was returned with a diminished majority, it was front page news in "The Blade." But when Howard won handily in Australia their was just a one incher buried days later in the back pages. I guess that result didn't fit the "program."
That's how "The Blade" reports. It either ignores or buries the news it doesn't like (the wonderful state of the national economy, progress in Iraq etc.) and highlights the news it does like (Noe's problems etc.)
That's not journalism, that's propaganda. No wonder people are abandoning "The Blade."
# posted by sirwd @ 2:05 PM
