Gay Rights

Robert Knight's latest article is interesting in how it opposite it seems from reality. He is taking on America's Homosexuals, who he inexplicably paints them as seemingly all powerful bullies intent on doing horrible things like passing ordinances that protect them from discrimination.

Yep - those all powerful gays are fighting really hard against being discriminated against. Robert Knight is standing up for Churches and individuals who want to discriminate against them. It's so backwards to reality.

Knight takes particular issue with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

A shocking example of a religious institution cowering before its opponents and suing for peace at Caesar’s throne is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ outright endorsement last week of a “gay rights” law in Salt Lake City. In essence, the law redefines biblical sexual morality into a form of actionable bigotry, turning ordinary people with traditional values into the legal equivalent of hateful racists. Adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to non-discrimination laws is the gateway to the entire homosexual political agenda, from harassing the Boy Scouts to forcing pro-homosexual programs into the schools and workplace. It is also an indispensable step for the creation of same-sex “marriage.” For a conservative religious institution like the LDS to embrace it is not only immoral but suicidal.

Again, Knight paints this law as an assault on Christianity. If Christians aren't free to oppress Gays than they are being persecuted and attacked. I've commented on this syndrome before. To certain Conservatives, if Conservative Christians don't get everything they want, they are being persecuted.

The War on Terror

Sorry not to be around this week - I have been ill and am still coming out of it.

Anyway credit where credit is do, Jonah Goldberg's latest article is not totally unredeemable.

Ultimately, the disagreement is one of first principles. If we are at war, then the rules of war apply. The fact that this is a war unlike others we've fought should not mean that it isn't a war at all.

Don't tell that to Obama. He's made it clear that he doesn't see the threat as an unconventional war but as a conventional law-enforcement problem. The attorney general insists that 9/11 is a matter for civilian courts.

OK he kind of kills it in the second paragraph, but the first paragraph is essentially accurate. Is the War on Terror a War or isn't it?

Or, to be more precise, are people captured in the war on terror captured on the battlefield or aren't they? See if they are captured on the battlefield than we can hold them in one way and if they are captured as civilians we have to treat them another way. This underlines the essential problem in the phrase "War on Terror" because the battlefield is, well, pretty much everywhere. Which implies that the Government can pick up anybody, anywhere, hold them for as long as they want and then dump them, with no recourse.

You might think I'm exaggerating but this has already happened several times. The Uighars held at Guantanemo for example. Others that we have turned over to countries who have somewhat less stringent rules on torture.

So Goldberg is right, this is about first principles. He wants the Government to be able to arrest anybody they want and hold them for as long as they like, so long as we are in a "War on Terror." Obama somewhat agrees with that (as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, his policy on this seems to guarantee that terrorists will be found guilty, and a venue in which they can be found guilty will be selected for them. Greenwald has also pointed out how this makes it difficult to defend trying some of them in New York.).

I am not insensitive to the difficulties of fighting this particular war, but I don't think we should abandon our principles to do it.

Bravely pointing out typing Errors since 2002

I assume this is an error. This is from Kevin McCullough's latest article, in which he argues against the rule of law on the grounds that it would be psychologically difficult for New Yorkers.

These trial proceedings will reopen the still mending emotional, psychological, and physical wounds of 9/11. In deciding with such reckless abandon to make a political pay-off to the far left, and the radical Islamic sympathizers they ignorantly embolden, President Obama is ripping the stitches out of the hearts of those that have wondered if closure will ever come. When the Attorney General promises court room cameras and complete transparency of the proceedings, he seems to ignore the possibility of radicals on camera shouting inaudible commands, jibes, and insults at those in the room as well as those sitting in caves across the globe.

I assume he means audible rather than inaudible. It's hard to shout inaudibly.

As for the desire to abandon the rule of law, I disagree with McCullough. I believe that our founders were inspired when they created it, and that many good and great men have toiled in the vineyards of justice to create our modern legal system. Yes it has problems, but it is more than equal to the task of providing justice to these men.

Treason and Intellectual Honesty

Austin Bay's latest article is about how Liberals throw around the term traitor too easily, in contrast to a real traitor like that guy who shot up Fort Hood, killing several people. Let's take a moment and be grateful that this isn't another Muslim Menace article.

Bay refers to an ad by MoveOn.Org which renamed General Petraeus as "General Betray Us," and Joe Klien suggesting that some of Fox News' programming was seditious (both pretty stupid in my opinion). He compares these to instances to the Joe McCarthy witch hunts.

Bay does not, of course, bring up the writings of Ann Coulter, a fellow contributor to Townhall, who has certainly thrown around the phrase and, in fact, wrote a whole book exonerating Joe McCarthy and encouraging new witch hunts against liberals. Kind of intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that the problem isn't limited to liberals, in my opinion.

Compare and Contrast

I will note at the top that both of these articles come from the Conservative website townhall.com.

Maybe Hasan is just a homicidal lunatic set to work by fevered demons inside his brain. But post-9/11, you can't be a killer who happens to be a Muslim. If you're a killer, it has to be because you're a Muslim.

Steve Chapman, "Muslims and Mass Murder"

According to witnesses, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted "Allahu akbar" before he began gunning down American troops. Now I don't know which to be more afraid of: Muslims or government-run health care systems.

Ann Coulter, "Muslim Suffers Bruised Ego in Fort Hood Tragedy"

No one thinks "political correctness" obligates the Army to treat Muslims more leniently than anyone else. But it's just as simple-minded to think they deserve to be treated worse.

Steve Chapman

Despite being well aware of Hasan's disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing.

Far less offensive speech has been grounds for discipline or even removal from duties in the military.

Ann Coulter

The al-Qaida leader likes nothing better than to portray the United States as waging a crusade against Muslims. We would be doing ourselves no favor to confirm the accusation.

Steve Chapman

So, now any dyspeptic expression toward a Muslim is grounds for calling in a diversity coordinator. And when the "victim" attacks, as at Fort Hood, the rest of us are supposed to feel guilty because Hasan's car got keyed once.

This isn't perhaps a fair comparison. Anns main point, as it always is, is that Liberals are evil monsters. The Anti-Muslim stuff isn't her main point, but tangential. Still, it is nice to see that Townhall supports a diversity of views.

The Ongoing Threat of Islam

As predicted we are seeing an uptick of articles on how we should all be afraid of Muslims. Austin Hill's latest article is particularly problematic. He references the Ft. Hood incident and another incident in which a Muslim Father ran over his daughter because she was living a sinful lifestyle.

Generally speaking, American non-Muslim fathers don’t run over their children with their cars and call it “honorable.” And American non-Muslim military personnel don’t intentionally kill their fellow soldiers. There is a pattern of very dangerous, deadly behavior with Muslims in America and around the world.

Americans must awaken to this reality, whether or not our President does.

Generally speaking, Muslims don't run over their daughters either. I mean Hill cites one incident, but that's not really a pattern, is it? Certainly I can cite some pretty awful things Christian Fathers have done to their children; would Hill then see that as proof the we need to awaken to a reality about Christians? Probably not.

I-Pod Ten - Morrissey

I have 169 Morrissey Songs. Here are 10 of them.

1. Now My Heart is Full (Vauxhill and I)
2. He Cried (Maladjusted)
3. Trouble Loves Me (Maladjusted)
4. On The Streets I Ran (Ringleader of the Tormentors)
5. The National Front Disco (Your Arsenal)
6. Certain People I Know (Your Arsenal)
7. The World is Full Of Crashing Bores (You Are the Quarry)
8. We Hate It When Our Friends Become Successful (Your Arsenal)
9. How Could Anybody Possibly Know How I Feel? (You Are the Quarry)
10. Wide to Recieve (Maladjusted)

A somewhat turgid mix.

The Muslim Menace

Obviously, given the events at Fort Hood, we can expect quite a strong of Muslim Menace articles over the next few days. At this point, let me note that I use the term Muslim Menace ironically, not seriously. It is to refer back to the Red Menace articles of the Red Scare.

At any rate Roger Chapin over at Townhallis a bit ahead of the curve in his latest article, calling for an enormous and unworkable plan to deal with radical Islam. Among other things we should end self rule in Afghanistan as it clearly hasn't worked. We should shut down all Madrasses. We should destroy Iran's Nuclear facilities and remove their leaders. We should threaten Saudi Arabia until they shut down their nuclear facilities. We should also destroy North Korea's nuclear facilities (easier said than done I would think). If we don't do this we are doomed.

If we citizens don’t very soon wake up and demand our incredibly blind, misguided and inept leadership decisively acts to rescue our nation from the abyss, nothing else we do will matter. America, the doomsday clock is ticking.

So there you go. I will only point out that this incredibly expensive and risky plan is unlikely to get the Islamic world on our side. Rather it seems more likely to create more enemies, while stretching our resources far past the breaking point.