The on-line semi-intellectual journal of an oddball generalist.

Posted By Confutus

I've already mentioned the Fort Hood shootings: The evidence is piling up that the perpetrator was indeed motivated by the same Islamist beliefs that motivated the attacks on the World Trade Cener eight years ago.  This act was a violation of his oath of enlistement as an officer, a betrayal of his fellow soldiers, arguably treason "making war on the United States", and coldblooded, premeditated murder.  Even by tenets of the religion he professed, he was an oathbreaker and a murderer. Justice demands that he be given the exact degree of mercy he gave to the 14 dead (ai;m counting the unborn child, too) and the 40 odd wounded he left.  


The proposal to try the terrorists responsible for Sept 11, 2001 in New Yokr City under the same protections afforded US Citizens, has sparked outrage.  This is because, at least since the Warren Court of the 1950s, the US criminal justice system is biased in favor of the accused, and everyone knows it.  There is a non-negligible possiblity that these men will walk free for any number of reasons: Bias of the judge,  technicalities regarding admissibility of evidence,  manipulation of the jury selection process,  or any other reasons.  For those who remember the OJ Simplson trial, and saw his legal team turn his trial for murder into the trial of the LAPD for racism and win, it is not unreasonable to fear that a legal team of experts funded by oil money could turn this into a trial of the american government., and that the legal process of discovery will uncover information that ought not be revealed to our enemies.  The outrage and the fear is because we cannot be assured that the judicial process will actually  convict those who are clearly guilty.


Then there is Obama's latest diplomatic blunder in bowing to the Emperor of Japan.  It is longstanding precedent that the President of the US, as a head of state in his own right, does not bow to any foreign monarch. This makes a mockery of earlier protestations that he wasn't really bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia a few months ago.



Posted By Confutus

On President Obama's speech to Congress on Health care, I didn't hear it. I skimmed the transcript afterward.  I'm not going to quote the whole thing, but as i read off the  list of promises, my thought was..Impossible. There's no way any government program is going to do all that. I think "Rainbow Stew" by Merle Haggard sums up my response.


The education speech was, as I suspected, pretty much innocuous. But the opposition to it is some measure of how little Obama is trusted.


There was some commentary that mentioned how difficult it is to actually "read the bill" when it comes to legislation. That's because legislation is full of professional legal jargon "legalese", that is virtually incomprehensible to the layman and requires a whole library for even the specialist to follow. It appears that the highly specialized and complex nature of Federal laws and regulations impose a huge, and largely unrecognized burden on society. I woulder if it would be a good idea to scrap the whole thing and start over.



Posted By Confutus

So I was up too late, and ran across the story that Van Jones has resigned as White House "green jobs czar', over allegations that he had been a communist, had signed a petition calling for investigation of the Bush Administration for knowingly permitting the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, and had descriped the Republican Party using a vulgar term (Admittedly, he also applied the term to thimself, but not to Obama... obviously, his usage is a trifle inconsistent)


Wkipedia says more:

In 2004, Jones was one of "100 notable Americans" who signed a "911 Truth Statement" from The statement called "for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

On September 3, 2009, Jones issued a statement regarding the "incendiary" petition stating, "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever." A White House official said that Jones did not review the document carefully before signing it.


A commenter on Jay Bookman's blog came up with this gem, however.  Two years before this petition, in 2002,  Van Jones had been helping organizing a march to bring these same allegations  to California Senator Diane Feinstein's attention.


Really, Mr. Jones? Not Ever?


"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."



Sure. And Obama is bringing about a new era of peace and healing and end to racial division and political strife, too.


Posted By Confutus

I'm willing to agree with those who think that the opposition to Obama's proposed speech on education has been much overplayed.  On the other hand,  it's a sign that a large and increasingly vocal segment of the American public no longer trusts him in any way.


He has developed something of a  reputation for saying whatever is politically expedient, even if it contradicts what he said last year, last month, or five minutes ago. He often does not say what he means, and often does not mean what he says.  If he can be trusted for anything, it is to be a large-government redistributionist of the Robbin' Hood variety.   He campaigned on "Hope and Change", but what he has delivered is too much same-old, same-old: either the worst of the Bush administration, (however you define that "worst")
 or the kind of socialism that  went out of fashion in the 1980s.


I wouldn't attempt to keep students from hearing  the speech. However, I would want to read it first, and a bit more carefully than Congress manages to read multi-billion dollar appropriations legislation.


Posted By Confutus

I just noticed a call for papers from the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology at Utah Valley University at New Cool Thang. ( it was still Utah Valley State College when I got my Associate's Degree there).  I'm somewhat interested in philosophy, but I'm still a bit skeptical of it. I'd really like to see philosophy discussed from an LDS perspective, rather as Hugh Nibley did it,  ("The World and the Prophets") rather than the LDS views discussed from the philosophical point of view, as I suspect will be done here. But since I'm at best an armchair amateur, there is probably little I could contributed, or be allowed to contributed, to such a gathering. 


Since I'm going to be discussing the US Federal Government from time to time, I might as well lay out where I stand. 


I do not think Barak Obama is doing well as President, I never trusted him from the beginning of his campaign, and do not approve of either his political philosophy or the job he is doing. I take note the criticism of of his pace in appointing officials as expressed in the New York Times not long ago.


I also do not approve of the job the US Congress is doing. I oppose the evident corruption and hypocrisy of many of those who occupy the Senate and the US House of Representatives.


I also do not approve of the job the US Supreme Court is doing. I believe that the Court has essentially gutted the Constitution by declaring that it means whatever the Court decides it means. What is left is the form, and not the substance, of what the founders intended, and their ideals are upheld by the remaining  traditions of the people, not law.


Having said this much, I believe in a restoration of the Government as the founders intended it, rather than overthrow or replacement, as a certain number of radicals on both ends of the political spectrum have advocated. I hope to bring in fact-based discussions  from time to time, as I continue to do more studies in history. I cannot claim to be unbiased, though I will try to be fair, and civil.  I expect  commenters to do the same.








User Profile

Recent Entries
Latest Comments

You have 1391066 hits.