I seem to have temporarily lost my spark for raging against current events - hence the lack of recent posting. My laptop passed away awhile ago, and that has futher discouraged me. Additionally, I've had many other things keeping me busy - work, trying to keep house and mostly a summer English clas that I clearly underestimated. I am trying to ease back into the habits of being a student and instead this class has been a painful reminder of everything I despised about my old college english classes. Vacuous and empty attemtps to re-interpret the mediocre writings of perverts and pedophiles masquerading as sub-standard writers. I loved my critical thinking and composition class because we dealt with real issues like the treatment of women in Islamic-rule countries and legal doctrines about special rights. In this course, the only work we're reading that might be partially useful is a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Anyway...On to more important things, I think I've almost forgotten how to blog.
Supreme Court
A few incidents have caught my eye lately and stirred some of my old passions. Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the United States Supreme Court on Friday. This will ensure that Bush will have a shot at doing the right thing and nominating a solid Constructionist to the Court. O'Connor has certainly damage in her wake on vital decisions about abortion and racial preferences. The important thing now is that President Bush use this oppotunity to appoint the right individual. There has been much talk about appointing Alberto Gonzales to the Court, but this would be an enormous mistake. Gonzales would have to recuse himself from some of the most important decisions ranging from abortion to the Patriot Act. Ramesh Ponnuru over at National Review wrote an excellent piece on how silly a Gonzales nomination would be.
We should expect a hard fight for the right man on the Court and if the liberals don't put up a fight we need to be worried. I say that our President absolutely must invest the "political capital" to appoint a Constructionist judge to the Court and if that means a long and drawn out political battle, it is worth fighting - he can recess appoint someone in the meantime (and I hope he would just appoint another Bork - watch the liberals shudder in horror).
I actually paid a dollar for a copy of the New York Times the other day (I was so embarrassed I couldn't let my eyes meet those of the Starbucks Cashier selling me the filthy rag). Overcoming my guilt, I discovered a very lengthy feature on none other than the traitorous Anthony Kennedy (who had us all hoodwinked over his conservative voting record until **blink** he became an activist judge, infamously citing the laws of other countries as guides for US policy). Former Justice Bork offered one key insight: "...the solution is one hell of a battle for judges who stick to the actual Constitution." Amen, Mr. Bork.
Happy Independence Day (or The Relevant Insights of Time Magazine)
For it's 4th of July week edition, Time Magazine offered two features; "Uncovering the Real Abe Lincoln" and "Inside the Mind of An Iraqi Suicide Bomber." The Lincoln feature was innocuous enough, although I never really trust any mainstream historical accounts these days. What caused my blood to boil was the article on the suicide bomber. It was an interview with a young man who is on the waiting list to be sent on a suicide mission for the insurgents in Iraq. In the opening sentences he says, "First I will ask Allah to bless my mission with a high rate of casualties among the Americans." I still can't read those words without feeling a blinding rage surge through my body. The young man is part of what used to be the ruling Sunni minority in Iraq, well educated, wealthy. He said once Saddam fell, he turned against the Americans. "We expected them to bring Saddam down and then leave. But they just stayed and stayed." The article continues,
This is just another tragic example of how American journalism has become a self-serving monster with no morals except good ratings and no allegiance except getting the story. Just as CNN turned a blind eye to the attrocities of Saddam's regime so as not to lose their rights to covering Iraq, Time Magazine just issued a first-person interview with a known enemy of the United States. Sometime in the near furture, this young man will yse himself as a human detonator and kill American soldiers and most likely innocent Iraqis. Time should feel blood on their hands when the mothers of these soldiers weep.
War of the Worlds?
We saw this movie a few nights ago (actually, we snuck in after watching another movie). Please, spare yourselves the $10! The original book by H.G. Wells is great (as is "Time Machine"), the movie was a tragic resort to every alien-movie cliche in the book. Tom Cruise has embarrased himself so much in recent days with this whole chest-pounding Katie Holmes act that he was completely unconvincing (he would have been unconvincing in the first place so they had to make him a deadbeat dad instead of a strong father-figure looking out for his family). Dakota Fanning is deceptively played in the previews as the helpless girl; in the movie she is an annoying, shrink-wrapped brat. And the screaming, she has this horrible blood-curdling scream that won't quit. NOT CUTE. As if this was not enough, Tim Robbins makes a brief and alcohol-bloated appearance in the film. The only politically-charged line in the film was unsurprisingly reserved for Robbins: "Occupation never works." In the only gratifying moment of the film, we are allowed to know that Tom Cruise kills Robbins but not given the satisfaction of seeing the deed. The ending was weak, offering few answers to questions and bringing the whole story to an uncomfortable and screaching halt. Sad, sad, sad.
Finally
In closing, have a fabulous Independence day (enjoy the freedom while it yet remains)! It's our 1st anniversary next Sunday so I'm taking the week off for a little R&R. Yay!
Anyway...On to more important things, I think I've almost forgotten how to blog.
Supreme Court
A few incidents have caught my eye lately and stirred some of my old passions. Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the United States Supreme Court on Friday. This will ensure that Bush will have a shot at doing the right thing and nominating a solid Constructionist to the Court. O'Connor has certainly damage in her wake on vital decisions about abortion and racial preferences. The important thing now is that President Bush use this oppotunity to appoint the right individual. There has been much talk about appointing Alberto Gonzales to the Court, but this would be an enormous mistake. Gonzales would have to recuse himself from some of the most important decisions ranging from abortion to the Patriot Act. Ramesh Ponnuru over at National Review wrote an excellent piece on how silly a Gonzales nomination would be.
We should expect a hard fight for the right man on the Court and if the liberals don't put up a fight we need to be worried. I say that our President absolutely must invest the "political capital" to appoint a Constructionist judge to the Court and if that means a long and drawn out political battle, it is worth fighting - he can recess appoint someone in the meantime (and I hope he would just appoint another Bork - watch the liberals shudder in horror).
I actually paid a dollar for a copy of the New York Times the other day (I was so embarrassed I couldn't let my eyes meet those of the Starbucks Cashier selling me the filthy rag). Overcoming my guilt, I discovered a very lengthy feature on none other than the traitorous Anthony Kennedy (who had us all hoodwinked over his conservative voting record until **blink** he became an activist judge, infamously citing the laws of other countries as guides for US policy). Former Justice Bork offered one key insight: "...the solution is one hell of a battle for judges who stick to the actual Constitution." Amen, Mr. Bork.
Happy Independence Day (or The Relevant Insights of Time Magazine)
For it's 4th of July week edition, Time Magazine offered two features; "Uncovering the Real Abe Lincoln" and "Inside the Mind of An Iraqi Suicide Bomber." The Lincoln feature was innocuous enough, although I never really trust any mainstream historical accounts these days. What caused my blood to boil was the article on the suicide bomber. It was an interview with a young man who is on the waiting list to be sent on a suicide mission for the insurgents in Iraq. In the opening sentences he says, "First I will ask Allah to bless my mission with a high rate of casualties among the Americans." I still can't read those words without feeling a blinding rage surge through my body. The young man is part of what used to be the ruling Sunni minority in Iraq, well educated, wealthy. He said once Saddam fell, he turned against the Americans. "We expected them to bring Saddam down and then leave. But they just stayed and stayed." The article continues,
"He also [embraces] the jihadist worldview of one global Islamic state where there is, in Marwan's words, 'no alcohol, no music and no Western influences.'"Now isn't that charming! You bet your ass we stayed, to keep people like you from turning a liberated country into an oppressed outpost for international terrorism. Marwan is at least truthful about his religion.
"Yes, I am a terrorist. Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Koran] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim."
This is just another tragic example of how American journalism has become a self-serving monster with no morals except good ratings and no allegiance except getting the story. Just as CNN turned a blind eye to the attrocities of Saddam's regime so as not to lose their rights to covering Iraq, Time Magazine just issued a first-person interview with a known enemy of the United States. Sometime in the near furture, this young man will yse himself as a human detonator and kill American soldiers and most likely innocent Iraqis. Time should feel blood on their hands when the mothers of these soldiers weep.
War of the Worlds?
We saw this movie a few nights ago (actually, we snuck in after watching another movie). Please, spare yourselves the $10! The original book by H.G. Wells is great (as is "Time Machine"), the movie was a tragic resort to every alien-movie cliche in the book. Tom Cruise has embarrased himself so much in recent days with this whole chest-pounding Katie Holmes act that he was completely unconvincing (he would have been unconvincing in the first place so they had to make him a deadbeat dad instead of a strong father-figure looking out for his family). Dakota Fanning is deceptively played in the previews as the helpless girl; in the movie she is an annoying, shrink-wrapped brat. And the screaming, she has this horrible blood-curdling scream that won't quit. NOT CUTE. As if this was not enough, Tim Robbins makes a brief and alcohol-bloated appearance in the film. The only politically-charged line in the film was unsurprisingly reserved for Robbins: "Occupation never works." In the only gratifying moment of the film, we are allowed to know that Tom Cruise kills Robbins but not given the satisfaction of seeing the deed. The ending was weak, offering few answers to questions and bringing the whole story to an uncomfortable and screaching halt. Sad, sad, sad.
Finally
In closing, have a fabulous Independence day (enjoy the freedom while it yet remains)! It's our 1st anniversary next Sunday so I'm taking the week off for a little R&R. Yay!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home