Couple Thoughts
The Brits aren't buying the NIE. News, this is not. I don't think anyone is buying the NIE. I'm convinced it was released for some other political reason.
You want to watch an Australian feminist squirm? Ask her why she doesn't ever speak against the way women are treated in Islamic countries. Actually this is good for any Western feminist who seems more interested in pushing gender-based class warfare ideology than actually doing anything positive. Which isn't all of them, but is enough of them.
More gun-related sound thinking. I've heard it, I've said it. Simple fact is that some people (for which read, "most liberals") are so incapable of recognizing real evil (you know, evil that doesn't fit into a neat little "-ism" category) in humans that they are forced to attribute it to inanimate objects. Because, you know, judging people is intolerant and doesn't recognize their glorious diversity and inherent right make their own decisions and blahblahblah. So you can't say that some nutjob who failed at life decided to blaze away at a crowd of folks going about their ordinary lawful business because he was evil. No, he's misunderstood. It's that evil, nasty SKS that made him do it! Yeah! Same for that other Life Failure in Colorado.
Unless we are some sort of gun-owning lunatic, in which case we get to be demonized in any manner that particular liberal cares to use.
As an extreme example of this thinking (h/t Lawdog) is Britain's latest stupidity, banning swords. That's sad and sorry. Of course, what can one expect from a nation that just signed away its real sovereignty to the European Union. By this I mean that they no longer control their own borders and cannot make decisions on immigration. I like the UK, but they cannot exist much longer in a half-state. They will either have to choose serfdom as part of the mass socialistic European state, or liberty. Right now it ain't looking good for the liberty crowd.
You want to watch an Australian feminist squirm? Ask her why she doesn't ever speak against the way women are treated in Islamic countries. Actually this is good for any Western feminist who seems more interested in pushing gender-based class warfare ideology than actually doing anything positive. Which isn't all of them, but is enough of them.
More gun-related sound thinking. I've heard it, I've said it. Simple fact is that some people (for which read, "most liberals") are so incapable of recognizing real evil (you know, evil that doesn't fit into a neat little "-ism" category) in humans that they are forced to attribute it to inanimate objects. Because, you know, judging people is intolerant and doesn't recognize their glorious diversity and inherent right make their own decisions and blahblahblah. So you can't say that some nutjob who failed at life decided to blaze away at a crowd of folks going about their ordinary lawful business because he was evil. No, he's misunderstood. It's that evil, nasty SKS that made him do it! Yeah! Same for that other Life Failure in Colorado.
Unless we are some sort of gun-owning lunatic, in which case we get to be demonized in any manner that particular liberal cares to use.
As an extreme example of this thinking (h/t Lawdog) is Britain's latest stupidity, banning swords. That's sad and sorry. Of course, what can one expect from a nation that just signed away its real sovereignty to the European Union. By this I mean that they no longer control their own borders and cannot make decisions on immigration. I like the UK, but they cannot exist much longer in a half-state. They will either have to choose serfdom as part of the mass socialistic European state, or liberty. Right now it ain't looking good for the liberty crowd.
posted by Just A Decurion at 12/15/2007 08:41:00 PM
5 Comments:
Lousy sourcing (read none) on the Guardian article.
Do you think less of Texas, New York and Virginia for signing way their sovereignty?
Guardian?
I linked to the IHT, the Sun, BBC, and Telegraph.
No Guardian. Wouldn't be likely to link to the Guardian anyway.
And the cases are not parallel.
Of course the cases are parallel! We've already had one civil war over the exact issue.
The only difference of note is the overt socialistic framework.
The Washington Times had an article to the effect that the three individuals invovled in it are fomer State Department types that have a profound and personal ideological resistance to any form of stick in the carrot-and-stick of international relations. It other words, they are confirmed radical leftists seeking to undermine Bush. Now, granted the Washington Times is not known for its objectivity, but neither are most papers, so its far right bias is a good balance to the Post.
Well, you know where I stand on guns. Predictably, I stand in a similar position with regard to my swords.
As far as Britain's sovereignty goes.. at least they're being open about it. It's not like they're signing a free trade treaty that allows extra-national corporations to bring suits to a secret tribunal whenever a locality, county, state/province, or nation has a law that reduces profits, and then gives that tribunal the authority to unilaterally void the law in question like some 3000-mile wide countries in North America have.
Fucking NAFTA...
Post a Comment
<< Home