Hugh Hewitt says that it was “shameful” of NBC to show the videos of the mass murderer. What do you think?
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees hit his 10th home run of the year today—in the Yankees’ 14th game. It was a walk-off job. He is on pace to hit 115 home runs this year.
It’s been three years to the day since I called for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. See here. Don’t misunderstand. The war—or rather, the invasion—was justified. But the goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, not to rebuild the nation with American treasure and lives. President Bush should have stopped while he was ahead, i.e., when the mission really was accomplished.
Three out of four firms refused to put up Christmas decorations last year. Most Christmas cards no longer show the Nativity scene. More shops and stores than ever opened for business on Christmas Day. These are just the outward signs of an increasingly militant secularism, for the progressive elite in Britain today detests Christianity. The country is not being destroyed by Islamic terrorism but our traditional way of life and self-understanding is being undermined by aggressive secularisation.
(Peter Mullen, “Eternal Life,” The Salisbury Review: The Quarterly Magazine of Conservative Thought 25 [spring 2007]: 35-6, at 35)
Here is a New York Times editorial opinion about yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. I don’t see any mention of the fetus. Do you? Perhaps that’s why the Times doesn’t understand the ruling. If only women matter, and the Court upholds a limit on their ability to have a “medical procedure” performed, the ruling will appear utterly irrational, indeed, sexist.
Addendum: Will somebody please explain to me the relevance of the fact, which the Times emphasizes, that the five justices in the majority are male? Aren’t three of the four dissenters male? Is the Times implying that males have no right to make or interpret law on abortion? What if the fetus is male? Does that matter? Oh, wait; fetuses don’t matter. Only women matter. Is the Times suggesting that in abortion cases, only female justices may rule? Should Justice Ginsburg have decided the case herself? It’s all very puzzling, isn’t it? But then, this is the norm for the Times, which is little more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. That the Times is so hysterical about the ruling (look at the manipulative rhetoric) is the best indication that it is sound.
To the Editor:
In light of the tragic events at Virginia Tech, and in the spirit of legal clarity, perhaps we should change the language of the Second Amendment to what it has effectively become.
The amendment currently states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
To align with what the National Rifle Association and its political handmaidens assert, let’s change it to: “As a protected part of American culture, the right of psychopaths, criminals and violent family members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
At least that would be more honest.
New York, April 18, 2007
Note from KBJ: Gun Derangement Syndrome. By the way, the NRA supports severe punishment of those who misuse guns. I wonder why Tim Zagat didn’t mention this. Oh, wait. He’s not interested in the facts. He’s interested in manipulation. The end justifies the means.
This past Saturday, during the Lancaster bike rally, I was approached by a familiar face while at a rest stop. It was Robert Crosby, who is a photographer for UTA. He was working the rally as a volunteer. Robert took pictures of me 10 years ago at the UTA baseball stadium, as an illustration for my essay “The Philosophical Genius of Baseball; or, What Is It Like to Be at Bat?” Robert mentioned that he had taken a picture of me a year earlier (on 28 March 2006) as I was teaching my Philosophy of Law course outside. I was delighted to hear it and asked for a copy of the image. Today, Robert sent it to me. See here. Thanks, Robert!