Saturday, August 27, 2005

A Question

One of the questions Democrats intend to ask Judge John Roberts during his confirmation hearings is whether or not he considers the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade settled law. Now, Democrats, and those left of center in general, tend to believe in the doctrine of the Living Constitution which holds that the Constitution evolves in line with the emerging standards of society or something like that. Given this position and Democrats' support (with a few notable exceptions, like Harry Reid) for infanti- abortion rights, how can John Roberts possibly answer questions pertaining to Roe v. Wade in a way that could possibly satisfy the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Friday, August 26, 2005

Better Late Than Never

The CIA may take disciplinary action against intelligence officers responsible for missing 9/11. This should have happened within two weeks of the attack. As we now know, al Qaeda was not particularly effective at covering their tracks. Only our failure to see the obvious prevented us stopping the attacks. Heads should have rolled for this four years ago, but you take what you can get.

Horrible

Adding to the bleakness of Russia's already bleak demographuc situation, more babies are aborted in Russia than are carried to term.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Not Only Is It Offensive

Stanford's nickname is in violation of the separation of church and state.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Monday, August 08, 2005

Re: Fighting Irish

It's more noble than that other Irish stereotype.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Reprehensible

The NCAA has moved to ban the use of Indian-related nicknames by schools, supposeldy on the grounds that such nicknames or "hostile or abusive". How absurd. Athletic programs at schools on all levels and professional sports teams select the nicknames they because those names indicate virtues, relating to physical courage, among other things, to which teams aspire. To name a team or athletic program after an Indian tribe is not disparaging of that tribe but rather a way of saying that said tribe displays virtues that the team/program finds emulable. In short, to name a team/program after an Indian tribe or Indians in general is to show them honor, not hostility or abusiveness.

To take an example, last year, Snickers had a contest, the grand prize for which was having an NFL team named after whoever one, ostensibly for a day. Was this "hostile or abusive"? If it's "hostile or abusive" to name a team after a group, why wouldn't it be equally hostile or abusive to name a team after an individual, as in this case or in the case of the Cleveland Browns?

Frankly, this is nothing but political correctness run amok.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

In Other Corner News

Iain Murray has received the following e-mail from a Democrat friend of his concerning the special election in Ohio:
The significance of the Ohio-2 result is that it demonstrates that Democrats can
defeat Republicans when they fight them on the issues rather than retreat from
them as the DLC has wanted to do.
Something doesn't quite add up. If I could only figure out what it was.

Acronyms

Over in The Corner, Cliff May has run across some fitting new names for Global War on Terror and their corresponding acronyms. Personally, I think War Against Radical Muslims (Global) yields the best acronym: WARM Glo.

Woo-Hoo

This is the best news I've read in a while. Bottoms up.