Showing posts with label unrr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unrr. Show all posts

Thursday, April 23

Link blag

Lefties are upset that more centrists healthcare reforms such as the Healthy Americans Act are being considered.

Andrew: the Right has forgotten what tyranny is.  (but at least they finally found something worth mocking)

Megan and Manzi examine torture's effectiveness with their logic caps on. Conor quibbles.

Radley: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) is a ridiculous hack.

Sad news: Ann Coulter's mother is dead. Worse news: Ann Coulter is still alive. (hey don't look at me, she's said far more outrageous things)

Maine gay marriage hearing is a riot.

Cato: We have a "People's Garden"? Deus mio.

High-class redneck hunting. The orange cap is a nice touch.

Kid studies female anatomy.

Sunday, April 19

Another vote for private education

Well ok, civilian education. Thomas Ricks in today's Post (meme):
Want to trim the federal budget and improve the military at the same time? Shut down West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy, and use some of the savings to expand ROTC scholarships.

After covering the U.S. military for nearly two decades, I've concluded that graduates of the service academies don't stand out compared to other officers. Yet producing them is more than twice as expensive as taking in graduates of civilian schools ($300,000 per West Point product vs. $130,000 for ROTC student). On top of the economic advantage, I've been told by some commanders that they prefer officers who come out of ROTC programs, because they tend to be better educated and less cynical about the military.
Update: Yglesias thinks it's worth investigating, and I agree.

UNRR disapproves, which is a fair opinion, but I don't see substantive reasons behind it.

Outside the Beltway notes the costs differences are worth exploring but that having fewer instructors with PhDs isn't a useful metric. He concludes with an appeal for diversity -- "Having everyone follow exactly the same path may simply not produce the range of viewpoints and experiences we need." -- which I find more persuasive.

Update II: QandO says Ricks doesn't know what he's talking about in comparing ROTC to the service academies.  This part is particularly interesting:
as I observed it, at company grade (the ranks 2LT, 1LT and CPT are considered “company grade” ranks), the West Point grad and the OCS grad were usually the best officers (and with obvious exceptions, I felt most of the OCS grads were a touch better than the WP guys) while the ROTC guys were playing catch-up. Around the 5 year mark, at the rank of CPT, everyone was pretty much even.

Again, these are my observations, but as we moved into the field grade ranks (the ranks MAJ, LTC and COL are “field grade” ranks), the ROTC and West Pointers began to pull away from the OCS grads. However, at both levels, West Pointers were right there among the best because they’d been taught and taught pretty well to function at both levels.

Wednesday, April 8

Blindness abounds

UNRR discusses some excerpts from Camille Paglia:

something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American liberalism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power.

Irrationality and directing infantile abuse at opponents isn't restricted to the left of course, but it is certainly prevalent among liberals -- many of whom are shocked and horrified at the mere thought than anyone would dare disagree with their deeply held assumptions. Anyone who does so must therefore be evil and acting out of evil motives. Tolerance is one of those virtues the left likes to preach about but almost never practices toward opposing views.

And finally, Paglia's best line:

Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play.
Obviously that's a massive over-generalization. But it has been true in a general sense as long as I can remember.
This is funny because excepting the liberalism-specific piece that I highlighted, everything else is either exactly backwards or applies more to the reverse side.

Republican conservatives these days are the ones hurling the vast majority of irrational, infantile abuses, at least in public.

And Democratic liberals are the ones more interested in facts and pragmatism. They persist in their delusions on things like the efficacy of state redistributionism, of course, but conservatives have their own delusions on other matters: international relations, what military can or should do, and 'family values'.

Friday, April 3

Explaining the Iowa ruling

At "Time to add another star", UNRR commented:
Another short-sighted and counterproductive effort by a court to unconstitutionally change existing legislation and manufacture a right which did not and does not exist, rather than allowing gay marriage to be legalized through the political process. And I say this as someone who strongly supports gay marriage. The way to do it is shown by Vermont.

Having the courts arbitrarily declare gay marriage a right, based on nothing other than their own opinion, helps cause a backlash, increases hostility toward gays, makes many people view gay marriage as an illegitimate institution, and even alienates some gay marriage supporters, such as myself.
But he now links to this post at The Victorious Opposition which does a nice job of boiling the ruling down to brass tacks and convinced him to change his mind about the constitutionality of the decision. So good on him.

Thursday, April 2

Cheneyism dies another death



Unreligious Right is outraged the U.S. military isn't able to "apprehend people in foreign countries, far from any Afghan battlefield, and then bring them to a theater of war" for indefinite detention without judicial review.

Our judiciary, he says, should not "have any say over military operations."

I mentioned our system of checks and balances, but as he concludes in the comments:
A check is different from a usurpation. This is a usurpation. Do you think the president should start deciding what type of prison sentences judges can hand out? Would that be a check on judicial power?
Why, yes I do, and yes it would be. We tend to call them "pardons", "reprieves", or "commutations". That'd be from Article 2, Section 2.  Great example of how our checks and balances work, buster.  He continues:
If the military is fighting to give foreign prisoners they capture access to the U.S. Court system, you might want to tell them, they'll probably be surprised to learn that's part of their mission. I'm sure it will be good for morale.
Damn.  Do they need a constitutional primer as well? I just assumed maybe they'd read it before solemnly swearing to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

As for where the judiciary gets its powers to rule on military detentions, here's Article 3 Section 2 with my emphasis:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
As pertains to Congress making such laws, Article 1 Section 8:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Now I'm no lawyer, but I have no reason to think the judge in the case we're discussing wasn't acting within the lawful authority prescribed by the Constitution and Congress.  If Mr. UNRR or any of you know of one then I'd be interested to hear it.

Update: publius explains this rulling well, I think. Basically it's narrow and only affects situations identical to Guantanamo Bay, applying the Supreme Court’s Boumediene case from last year.

Sunday, March 22

"Evangelicals are good for us, whether we like it or not"

Via UNRR, this post at Scholars & Rogues has me laughing and smiling along:

Last night we had dinner with my daughter’s future in-laws. They are devout Christians, members of an ultra-conservative evangelical mega-church.

As we sat down to eat, they asked if anyone minded if they said grace. We smiled and went along with it, but the truth is I do mind. I think coming into someone’s home and imposing your belief system is unspeakably rude and completely unacceptable. What if I belonged to the Sacred Church of Zoophilia, and I came to dinner at your house and asked, “While you dish out the salad, do you mind if I have sex with your cat?” To me, talking aloud to Jesus and forcing me to listen in on the conversation is much the same thing. And after dinner, when the inevitable sales pitch came, we turned it away as gracefully as possible.

Marrying into an evangelical family is a very depressing prospect. We know they’re going to try again: They have to. It’s a central tenet of their religion. We can look forward to a semi-eternity of being cornered at joint family events and quizzed about our relationship with Christ.

But as I sat there, smiling outwardly while I inwardly thought dark thoughts about building a huge fence around Texas and herding all the evangelicals in the U.S. inside two by two, I had an epiphany. We “seculars” and evangelicals need each other. It’s pretty obvious why they need us (because someone needs to propose and implement rational social and economic policy,) but except for the comic opportunities provided by Sarah Palin, it may be less obvious why we need them.

Reason number 1: They keep us honest, more or less. Every group, political or social, goes too far if there’s not a countervailing force. And if you completely wipe out the opposition, the one that replaces it can be much nastier than the one it replaced, like substituting a muscular and energetic Islamic movement for a decrepit and doddering Communist one. Evangelicals (and the right wing they are joined with at the hip) provide about the right level of resistance to keep the current majority in the U.S.—progressives who are secular in practice if not in name—on the up and up. I mean, be realistic, are we that sure about all our ideas? Of course not, we understand the concept of unintended consequences and can cite any number of ideas (like housing projects) that seemed good at the time that turned out really bad. At least we can count on the Evangelicals to scream “No,” no matter what we propose. That forces us to pause for a minute and consider whether our ideas are really right. The Harlem Globetrotters used to travel with their own team, the Washington Generals. Every so often, the Generals would even win a game, but their real job wasn’t to compete, it was to allow the Globetrotters to show off their considerable skills. Think of the Evangelicals as our collection of slow, tubby white guys, just out there to make us look good.

Reason number 2: They do things the rest of us won’t do, like fight wars and run into burning buildings and play pro football. I have no way of proving this, but I’d wager that if you looked at who is in the military or works in our police stations and firehouses, that there is a disproportionate number of Evangelicals and devout Christians in the mix. Maybe the whole idea of the afterlife makes you inclined to do stuff that those of us with only one life are reluctant to do. But it’s a fact: It’s Evangelicals and devout Christians who put themselves into harm’s way for the rest us. And that’s true if the task is to defuse roadside bombs in Iraq or face down armed meth heads or collide full speed with three hundred pound men for our entertainment. You never see a prayer circle at a safe sporting event, like the PGA or ATP Tours, but there’s one midfield after most NFL games. Evangelicals seem far more willing to risk life and limb for the things they believe in passionately, and they tend to be passionate people. And very seriously, we should appreciate anyone who is willing to put his or her life on the line for the public good, whatever their motives.

Reason number 3: They do other things the rest of us won’t do, like live in Mississippi or Oklahoma or Nebraska. Now this one is a little less serious than the last two, but it’s still true. There’s a reason CNN’s map is all red in the south and western mid-west. It’s because that part of the country is full of Evangelicals who are happy to live in places the rest of us are reluctant to even fly over. These are places that are flat and ugly, lit by flares from oil wells and heavy with the stench of feed lots and pesticides. Most of us want to live near water or mountains, where the restaurants are good and the jobs are plentiful, not in some forgotten backwater where the best job going is principal of the local high school. But somebody has to live out there, or there would be no meat on the shelves at our local grocery, no gas stations between Chicago and Flagstaff and another 30 million people in San Bernadino County. Better them than us.

In other words, Evangelicals are like vultures - unsightly, but a necessary part of the ecosystem. So what if I don’t like them? They fill a role. And maybe instead of rolling my eyes at my future in-laws, I should appreciate them a little more.

Yeah it's kind of offensive, so I imagine any evangelical reading this would be annoyed. But so what, they say offensive things too, and nobody has a right to not be offended.

We can only live and let live. I hope they all had a lovely Sunday School this afternoon... I've just been doing far less useful things with my time like reading blogs ; )

Tuesday, March 17

Vatican backtracks, admits abortion was justified

Via UNRR, UK's Freethinker:
Vatican, stung by cruelty accusations, tries to limit the damage to its reputation

A senior Vatican official has criticised the excommunication of a Brazilian woman whose nine-year-old daughter had an abortion after being raped, as well as the medical team who performed it.

Said Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life:
Unfortunately the credibility of our teaching took a blow as it appeared, in the eyes of many, to be insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking mercy.
Me: Appeared? Probably because it was. Emphasis mine below:
The Academy for Life is tasked with promoting the church’s doctrine on bioethics.

Fisichella recently hit the headlines when he attacked President Obama’s decision to allow stem-cell research to be resumed in the US, reversing the ban imposed by the imbecile George W Bush.

In a frantic backtracking exercise, Brazilian bishops said last week that the excommunication of the mother and doctors of the girl, who was pregnant with twins after having allegedly been raped by her stepfather, was wrong and would not be applied.

According to this report, The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil decided that the child’s mother acted “under pressure from the doctors” who said the girl would die if she carried the babies to term.

Dimas Lara Barbosa, the body’s secretary-general, told reporters the mother therefore could not be excommunicated:
We must take the circumstances into consideration.
Me: *rubs eyes* ... the Catholic Church has learned to take circumstances into consideration in regard to abortion?

Who can explain this strange new turn to sanity?

It seems that belatedly -- after enough public outcry -- this church has shown itself to be less vile than one Sen. John McCain, who during last year's presidential debate mocked "health of the mother" considerations with scare quotes.
As for the doctors, there was no clear case that they should be expelled from the church either, he said, contrary to the position taken by Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, who announced the excommunications.

Barbosa said only doctors who “systematically” conduct abortions are thrown out of the church.

Sobrinho’s sick decision that the abortion “was more serious” than the rape caused brought worldwide condemnation of the Catholic Church. Many commentators denounced his lack of compassion. But Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the head of the church’s Congregation for Bishops, supported Sobrinho, telling the Italian daily La Stampa the twins had had a right to live and that the attacks on Sobrinho were “unjustified.”

Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or if the woman’s health is in danger.

The girl was found to be four months’ pregnant after being taken to a hospital suffering stomach pains. Officials said she told them she had been abused by her stepfather since the age of six.

Her 23-year-old stepfather was arrested and is being kept in protective custody.


Update: Douthat chimes