I’m impressed

The Sports Gal on TV bandwagon jumping:

He [Simmons] complains all the time about everyone who jumped on the Red Sox bandwagon after they won the World Series — every time he sees someone in a brand new hat he makes a face, and he won’t let me wear my orange Sox hat, he’ll stick it down his pants and throw it in the garbage so I won’t want to wear it. But how’s that different than people jumping on the “Lost” bandwagon?

Not only is the Sports Gal bringing something to the table, but the glimpse she offers into the Sports Couple’s relationship makes it clear that there is a pair that can be confirmed to be stranger than Spacebunny and I. Not only would Spacebunny never wear an orange hat, but even if she did, I can assure you that the thought of putting it down my pants would never occur to me.

Now, I couldn’t care less about TV bandwagons, but since it’s obvious that some people do, I have to side with the Sports Gal here.

Remember, women never lie about rape

From the Telegraph:

A woman who falsely cried rape against her former husband was facing jail yesterday after being convicted of perverting the course of justice. Sally Henderson, 40, a mother of two, described by the prosecution as a “wicked liar”, claimed Richard Cooke, 39, had repeatedly raped her during their year-long marriage. But police discovered her claims were almost identical to false allegations she had made five years earlier against a previous boyfriend, Mark Rowe, 42, Gloucester Crown Court heard.

Lifting an order preventing her identification, Recorder David Lane, QC, said: “The public has a right to know the identity of a person who makes such allegations and who seeks to use the system of justice for her own, unscrupulous ends….”

Henderson reported the false rapes only after both men left her. Mr Cooke was held in a police cell for 36 hours following his arrest.

Even worse, think of the quazillion billion non-rapes that already aren’t being reported! The frightening thing about Ms Henderson’s arrest is that it could have a chilling effect on the probability that women who haven’t been raped or bave had a “near-rape experience” will report those fake rapes, near rapes, hypothetical rapes and unicorn rapes to the police.

Pretty Lady needs your help

The little wide-eyed, white-tailed doe is unsure regarding the merits of a new beau and is soliciting opinions:

What do you think, dear friends? Is this The One? Should she jump on the opportunity, or moulder away in stagnant singlehood a bit longer?

Whilst opinion appears to be running against Pennsylvania’s Finest at the moment, I hasten to remind all and sundry that it’s hard to find a boyfriend who sucks toes….

There is no separation

A Corner reader actually bothers to read the HR6166 law that recently passed the House:

The current status of the bill allows military tribunals to declare citizens and resident aliens to be “unlawful enemy combatants.” Under the language of the bill, there is no test whatsoever for whether a citizen or noncitizen is an “unlawful enemy combatant.” Under the law, someone is an UEC if a military tribunal says so. That is to say, the tribunals have power that is not at all subject to contstraint or law—or even defined by law—but that extends to U.S. citizens….

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant’ means—

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense….

`(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

`(d) Punishments- A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.

In other words, a few Executive Branch employees will now be able declare any American citizen to be a Unlawful Enemy Combatant, sentence him to death and have him executed without allowing him any recourse to judicial due process. Of course, there’s no need to worry about this unless you’re doing something wrong… everyone knows that there’s no such thing as a slippery slope after all.

I somehow doubt those who are so unfortunate as to be familiar with the justice handed out in similar executive-branch administrative “courts” that violate the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers such as Family Court, Tax Court and Immigration Court will be surprised to see these “competent tribunals” similarly abusing their illegitimate powers in the near future.

I find it amazing that those who are so defensive of the mythical “separation of Church and State” find it so easy to accept violations of the actual “separation of powers”.

UPDATE: Some “conservative” fans of military tribunals are arguing that because the overall context of the law is ALIEN Unlawful Enemy Combatants, this can’t be applied to Americans. Given how the tax code is applied significantly more broadly than it is written, color me skeptical.

The ignoble history of feminism

The suffragettes weren’t just nascent fascists, but would-be terrorists as well:

SUFFRAGETTES planned to assassinate the Prime Minister early in the last century and honed their gun skills at a shooting range, according to Home Office advisers investigating the threat.

Their memorandum, from 1909, describes pickets at the House of Commons as “half-insane women” who intended to commit acts of violence.

John Adams was right.

An ugly scenario

Derb paints an unpleasant picture of the 2008 presidential election:

Giving Mrs. Clinton the benefit of the carpetbagger doubt, that is, and taking Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg as the other two — yes, it might come down to this. [An all-Empire State election] Your choices for presidential candidate in November 2008 might be three gun-controlling, abortion-supporting, gay-friendly, illegal-immigrant-amnestying northeasterners, two of them high-tax, welfare-state, social-engineering, affirmative-action liberals.

That may be the only way the PTBs can arrange to have a New York liberal elected president again… by offering strawberry, strawberry, or, for those looking for something different, strawberry. I’d like to think this would make the complete charade of “democracy” apparent to everyone paying even the smallest bit of attention to the process, but I know better.

I’m still keeping my eye on Pataki, but we’ll see. In any case, why vote for the lesser evil? Cthulhu 2008!

The importance of socialization

At least the poor girl received proper public socialization before she died:

A gunman who took six girls hostage at a high school in Colorado used them as human shields for hours before he shot and fatally wounded a girl and then killed himself….

Sherry Husen, whose son plays on the high school football team, said their family moved to the town from suburban Denver about 14 years ago “We moved up here for the mountain solitude and I just never thought this would happen in this school, but it happens everywhere,” she said.

Actually, outside of Germany, homeschoolers seldom see their school days interrupted by strange adults armed with firearms. And after a recent act of Congress, it seems they will also be sadly denied the opportunity to enjoy random body cavity searches by school authorities too.

Pedophiles, start your engines….

A variable is missing

From the Bully Pulpit’s equation:

I was going to offer this [Thomas Sowell column] as counterpoint to Vox Day’s article, but it occurred to me that it is more exemplary of the current state of political discourse in this country. Each side talks past one another, driven by the need to pull down the winning sound bite. For example, Vox never once offers ideas on what to do if we are indeed in a survival situation, and Dr. Sowell doesn’t even attempt to address the slippery slope of casting away morality and liberty in the name of security.

Missing here is the fact that I have repeatedly asserted that we are NOT in a survival situation due to Islamic terrorism. That is the context in which my two anti-torture columns were written and I think BP will recognize the logic in questioning the vital need for legalized torture sought by a government that sees no problem with annually importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims and millions of aliens. Moreover, I openly mocked the idea that torture will prove of any use even if we were in a survival situation.

In any event, the evidence that we are genuinely in such a situation is scanty indeed. Americans didn’t take Saddam Hussein’s over-the-top ranting very seriously nor do they take Kim Jong-Il’s threats to heart despite his proven possession of nukes and missile technology, so why should they quiver in fear over every no-account loser with a beard who can’t even figure out how to use his own rifle? It seems rather strange, except for the five years of media and government-driven fear-mongering.

I respect Sowell, but I have also never forgotten that even after we exchanged emails, he continued to insist that the US Navy was all but destroyed at Pearl Harbor despite the fact that its losses were very minor, less than 5 percent, in terms of its number of ships, tonnage and personnel. Given the amount of evidence amassed that the central government is working against traditional morality and personal liberty regardless of which political party is in control of it, I think BP is right to seek an answer from Sowell. I believe I have already provided one, on the other hand.

Seldom more wrong

Cedarford writes: “The “slippery slope” argument is largely becoming just a laughable piece of obvious sophistry from overuse.”

Drudge reports: “Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.”

From vaccines to health bans, from polygamy to proposed invasions, the “slippery slope” argument has never been more reliable as a predictive model. I remember being laughed at by an orthodontist’s son 17 years ago when I warned him about the effect HMOs would likely have on his father’s practice. Five years later, his father was trying to rally his fellow professionals against them. I remember a friend of mine from New York who loved the new smoking ban and laughed at the absurd notion that they would ever lead to food bans. And it wasn’t all that long ago that the homogamy crowd was insisting that expanding the state’s definition of “marriage” regarding sex was possible without expanding the number of individuals involved.

As I cited in my column on Monday, pro-torture conservatives are already calling for its use against non-terrorist American citizens even prior to its acceptance for use against presumed terrorists. So, the “slippery slope” from the torture of foreign jihadists to the torture of American citizens is all but assured.

In truth, the “slippery slope” argument, when properly made, is merely the application of the logic behind one situation to another, conceptually related situation. For example:

1. Torture is justified if even one American life is saved.
2. Terrorists are a serious threat to American lives.
3. Therefore, torturing terrorists is justified.

One can attack #1 or #2, (I reject both, as a matter of fact), but one cannot successfully attack the logic. And if one accepts both #1 and #2, one is bound to reach the same conclusion with regards to torturing criminals because the logic applies equally well if one substitutes the word “criminals” for “terrorists” in #2 and #3.

In response, the anti-slopist will usually attempt to argue, “well, that’s just not realistic” or “no one is arguing that”. But those aren’t arguments, they are only assertions, and in this case, they would be incorrect as per the previously cited example.