Bryan Strawser

You are here: Home / 2005 / Archives for November 2005

Archives for November 2005

America will not run…

by ·

President Bush, today:

Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is weak and an unreliable ally.

Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends.

And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America.

To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief.

We’ll leave when the mission is done. And not a moment sooner.

Statism and the government

by ·

One of my all-time favorite blogs, the Coyote Blog, has a post up about Statism and the Technocrats:

Over the past fifty years, a powerful driving force for statism in this country has come from technocrats, mainly on the left, who felt that the country would be better off if a few smart people (ie them) made the important decisions and imposed them on the public at large, who were too dumb to make quality decision for themselves.  People aren’t smart enough,they felt, to make medication risk trade-off decision for themselves, so the FDA was created to tell them what procedures and compounds they could and could not have access to.  People couldn’t be trusted to teach their kids the right things, so technocrats in the left defended government-run schools and fought school choice at every juncture.  People can’t be trusted to save for their own retirement, so  the government takes control with Social Security and the left fights giving any control back to individuals.  The technocrats told us what safety equipment our car had to have, what gas mileage it should get, when we needed to where a helmet, what foods to eat, when we could smoke, what wages we could and could not accept, what was and was not acceptable speech on public college campuses, etc. etc.

He goes on to discuss the recent Plan B review, the breast implant mess from Clinton’s term, and other topics.

Reading this reminds me of why I am glad to be a Libertarian, and not a Republican or Democrat. Even though I disagree with the Libertarians on foreign policy, the military, and the war on terrorism.

The point here.. it’s my life.. and my money. Leave it alone.

A few questions for the Star Tribune

by ·

Today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial is titled America’s Shameful Shift on Torture. It is quite possibly one of the most vile pieces of editorializing that I have seen in a long time. Some choice excerpts:

There is no escaping that this administration has undermined the nation’s highest ideals, thereby jeopardizing its moral leadership in the world. It is now clear that it also has jeopardized its ability to bring terror suspects to justice.

[…]

Then, early this month, the Washington Post exposed a secret string of CIA prisons in Eastern Europe and Asia where treatment most would term cruel, inhuman and degrading takes place.

There’s more, of course, but you’ll really need to read the editorial to get the full grasp of what I mean.

So, with that in mind, let me ask a few questions of the Star Tribune editorial board:

  1. Is a terrorist subject to the Geneva Conventions?
  2. Is a terrorist an unlawful combatant?
  3. Can a person in US custody be turned over to a foreign government?
  4. Does the answer to number three change if that government has a record for torturing persons in custody?
  5. Can a person in US custody be turned over to a country that does not have the same protection for those accused of a crime as the United States?
  6. If a soldier commits a crime – even a war crime – in Iraq or Afghanistan – does that mean that General Abazaid has commited a crime?
  7. What about Secretary Rumsfeld?
  8. How about President Bush?
  9. What rights does a person in custody captured on foreign soil that may be part of Al-Qaeda have?

Rather than all of the random opining going on out there – let’s see them discuss some facts about what is and isn’t legal.. and take some hard stances.

Other Discussions: Rambix, Technorati

Asshats and Tools

by ·

Sarah, over at Trying to Grok decimates a writer and his letter to Stars and Stripes:

Actually, I know quite a few soldiers who joined “for flag and country”, and I know many who joined just because they wanted a job but end up staying for their country. My husband called the Army a “labor of love” the other day; he could get out and see what other jobs he could find, but he stays out of a sense of purpose and duty.

And, yes, I bet many of them would think you’re a tool.

You probably do indeed lack conviction. Not everyone considers it the Worst Possible Thing In The World to get deployed. Some people, my husband included, think it’s the most important thing they’ve done with their lives, and though they don’t necessarily cherish the thought of deploying for another year and missing out on their own wives’ puppy-dog eyes, they are more than willing to do whatever it takes to see Iraq succeed.

Democrats.org sucks

by ·

And no, it’s not just because it’s a website for democrats, run by democrats, but rather because it sucks.

I am doing a research paper for college on the USA Patriot Act and need dissenting voices. So I goto democrats.org expecting to be able to click a few links and find their position on the USA Patriot Act.

Do I find that? No.

What do I find? Nothing.

Why, you might ask? Because their website sucks ass.

I did goto the Electronic Frontier Foundation website. What did I find? A whole list of issues linked to news about those issues and clear statements on the EFF’s position.

And we wonder why the Dems have no traction? Why we can’t tell what they stand for?

One reason is that their website sucks ass.