30 December 2012

Uncommon Commentary #316: Newtown, Old Story

Among those who expressed condolence over the sad event in Newtown, Connecticut were students of the Caroline Miller School in Monrovia, Liberia, an institution sponsored by the Newtown Rotary Club.  This, along with the fact that Liberia has a low standard of living and that civil war there ended less than a decade ago, started me wondering what the infant-mortality rate and the average life-expectancy might be in that country; it turns out that the former is the seventeenth highest in the world, and the latter is number 194. (Also, more than 1 in 5 children under age five is underweight).  Suppose, therefore, that 20 elementary-school children die in a small city in Liberia over the course of one year rather than in one day, and as a result of conditions that do not prevail in wealthier places like Connecticut; is that less lamentable than what happened in Newtown?  Not in my opinion; it simply doesn't grab headlines like mass murder. (The one real distinction between this hypothetical situation and the shooting in Connecticut is that surviving pupils at the Sandy Hook School could be traumatized by what they witnessed.)
Tragedies happen every day, all over the world.  I don't say that we ought to ignore the Newtown massacre, but simply that we ought not to become fixated upon it.

27 December 2012

Uncommon Commentary #315: Breaking the Cohabit

Word-choice matters in the formation of attitudes.  I wonder how much less cohabitation there would be if we started referring to a woman who's shacking up with a man not by a term that's designed to sound respectable, i.e., "live-in girlfriend" or "partner", but by one that describes what she really is: "concubine."

22 December 2012

Uncommon Commentary #314: How Could a Choice Made by the OBAMA Not Be Perfect?

In nominating Sen. John Kerry to replace Hillary [sic] as secretary of state, President Obombast called him the "perfect choice". If he's the perfect choice, why wasn't he the first choice (as opposed to the present holder of the position, as well as to Susan Rice, although the latter was never actually nominated)? Perhaps he's "perfect" in that he would unquestionably perform his duties just as badly as Hillary [sic] has and as Rice would have. In 2003, as Haitian rebels were fighting to end the thuggish, corrupt, left-wing rule of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Kerry proposed sending US forces to the war zone. The purpose? Not to haste the deposition of the despot, but to prop up his regime!
There is one way in which Kerry comes far closer to perfection than the current Secretary of State does: He can spell his first name.

19 December 2012

Uncommon Commentary #313: The Knee-Jerks' Reactions

Unlike most other opinions on the issue of "gun control" (which is a misleading term, since all that a government can really do is try to control guns), this u.c. presumes neither that those responsible for the US Constitution (specifically, the Second Amendment thereto) were endowed with superhuman wisdom nor that restricting the ownership and use of firearms would have prevented the murders committed by the likes of Javon [sic] Belcher and Adam Lanza. Its purpose, moreover, is not to argue either for or against "gun control"; it is (in this first paragraph) to argue against the hypocrisy of anti-gun hotheads who pretend to have deep respect for our country's constitution yet demonstrate willingness to violate the spirit of the document, and (in the next paragraph) to explain something that seemingly almost nobody understands, i.e., the primary motivation for the creation of the Second Amendment. The laws of Connecticut (where Lanza carried out his massacre) technically comply with the Second Amendment, but going through the obligatory background check merely gives a prospective gun-buyer the privilege of possessing a gun rather than of carrying the same. Anyone who wants to have the opportunity to actually use his weapon when necessary must pay for another permit, which will entitle him to have the gun on his person but only within the borders of his own town; the purchase of yet another permit is required for crossing from, let's say, Bridgeport to Fairfield in possession of said gun, even if one lives 20 feet from the city line. Doubtless, the purpose of this web of red tape (only part of which I have described here) is to make it as difficult as is legally possible for someone to exercise his constitutional right to bear arms.
"Gun-control" advocates (even well-meaning ones) often argue that the Founding Fathers would have approved of measures to ban only certain types of arms such as assault rifles, but, in truth, they almost certainly would not have done so. The leading reason for the Second Amendment's inclusion in the Constitution is that firearms had made it possible for ordinary folk to fight authority. When the armored knight and the longbow ruled the battlefield, years of training were required for one to become an effective warrior, but the introduction of the gun changed that; henceforth, anyone who knew which end of a "hand cannon" to point at the enemy could challenge the powers that be. The backers of the Second Amendment knew that the colonists' possession of guns had made the Revolutionary War feasible, and they regarded such possession as necessary for the sake of resisting the rule of the new government, should it ever become as overweening as the British Crown allegedly had; they would have deemed it necessary for a citizen to be permitted to own not just a handgun but also true assault rifles (as opposed to the semi-automatic that Lanza used) or even machine guns, which would have availed him the maximum firepower for countering the firepower of an oppressive regime. (Indeed, there is significance in the fact that the Second Amendment does not use the word "guns"; what it gives us the right to keep and to bear are not "firearms" but simply "arms", meaning weapons in general, without limits on the potency thereof!)
The way that we wage war has changed considerably since 1789, and so, in our era of nuclear warheads and chemical weaponry, it may be that the Second Amendment to the Constitution has outlived what usefulness it had; don't think, though, that it is possible to have it both ways, viz., to restrict firearm sales or usage in any way without infringing—note the choice of this particular word, with its fine shade of meaning, for the text of the amendment—on what the Founders regarded as vital for the defense of political liberty. One cannot honestly favor any degree of "gun control" without opposing the Second Amendment.

18 December 2012

Uncommon Commentary #312: Labor Pains

One current labor-unionist protest uses a slogan that proclaims what is precisely the opposite of the truth. Demonstrators against right-to-work legislation in Michigan brandish signs which read “Fighting for Democracy!!!”[sic]; how did the “for” get in there?
The recalcitrants' counterparts in Philadelphia, by contrast, came up with a form of protest which is more appropriate than they realize. It seems that they took to the street simply because a non-union electrician won a contract (on which unionized electricians also had the opportunity to bid) to work on renovations to the Vista apartment building on the 2800 block of N. 47th Street in Philadelphia; members of IBEW local 98 subsequently vexed the apartment-dwellers by blasting out a recording of an infant's bawling, from approximately 8 a.m. each day until the middle of the afternoon. I can't think of a truer analogy to their behavior than the crying of a baby.

17 December 2012

Uncommon Commentary #311: UC #239 Follow-Up

The cable-television network H2, affiliated with the History Channel, has been airing a series called Countdown to Apocalypse; the episodes have titles like "Countdown to 12/21/12: Nostradamus", "Countdown to 12/21/12: Four Horsemen", &c.  This is perhaps the most egregious example of what I wrote about in Uncommon Commentary #239.  It would be bad enough if people were merely made nervous over the Winter Solstice for no reason, but the effects of this fear-mongering could even prove deadly; if something like the mass suicide by Heaven's Gate cultists in the 1990's should occur, such persons as the makers and broadcasters of Countdown to Apocalypse, and of other programs in the same genre, would bear considerable responsibility for the tragedy.

16 December 2012

Uncommon Commentary #310: Is the CEO of GE an SOB?

As you may have heard, General Electric head and Obombast economic advisor Jeffrey Immelt has said (in speaking of mainland China) that "state-run communism" is "the one thing that actually works"!  One tries to be charitable and assume that he didn't mean his remarks to sound the way that they did, but, if that be the case, why has he made no effort to explain what he did mean?

12 December 2012

Uncommon Commentary #309: Why Couldn't Obama Himself Have Gone Extinct?

Our president has a fish, a lichen, and now a prehistoric lizard named for him.  Each namesake is appropriate in its own way, on which topic I'll not comment further.

11 December 2012

Uncommon Commentary #308: I Need Relief from Relief Concerts

Why don't overpaid quasi-musicians just donate their own dollars to help those affected adversely by Hurricane Sandy, rather than give the inevitable concert for the purpose of raising money from others?

09 December 2012

Not Quite Either an Uncommon Commentary or a Miscellaneous Musing, but Rather a Seasonal Suggestion

Anyone who would like to maintain a greater degree of distinction between Advent and Christmas than the commercialization and secularization of this time allows us to do might want to imitate my practice: put up a tree during Advent (generally on Christmas Eve), but not turn on its lights until the anniversary of the Nativity arrives (ideally at midnight), and leave them on through all 12 days of Yuletide, after which I take down the tree.

06 December 2012

Uncommon Commentary #307: TEA-Totallers

The inevitability of higher taxation next year, as made evident in the negotiations regarding the so-called "fiscal cliff"—even before many Republican senators and representatives, for instance, openly renounced their pledge not to vote for a tax increase, their leadership was expressing willingness to eliminate deductions for the highest earners, which would have the same effect as a tax increase—demonstrates that the TEA ("Taxed Enough Already") Party's influence is dead, at least among those whose whose opinions really matter in our political system. (of course, this demise, ought already to have been obvious from the election results.  A country that has been made to see the error of its spendthrift ways does not re-elect a chief executive who, with the co-operation of the party that retained control of the US Senate in the same round of elections, has done more to increase our debt that anyone else in history.)  President Obombast (and his minions in Congress and in the media) must be very proud of what he's done to destroy the movement. (But then, he's always been very prideful, hasn't he?)

29 November 2012

Uncommon Commentary #306: We Only Demonstrate Our Apathy

This past week, Egypt's popularly elected Mohamed Morsi proclaimed that his state's executive and legislative branches, both controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, are not subject to what we call "review" by the independent judicial branch.  This further demonstrates the futility of political revolution, but my uncommon commentary is not directed at Egyptians; it's directed at us Yanks.  After all, the people of Egypt are at least resisting the assumption of unconstitutional power by their president and his allies (although many of them are doing so with violence, which ought not to be imitated); why aren't there demonstrations in our country, against the arrogations of our chief executives?  Where were the protests by "we the people" when Franklin Roosevelt attempted to neutralize judicial review with his "court-packing" scheme, and where are they now that Emperor Nerobama has issued nearly a thousand "executive orders" (greater than the number of those by all our other presidents combined) that usurp the lawmaking function of Congress?  The year of Hosni Mubarak's fall also witnessed the "Occupy" movement here in the USA, whence it spread around the world like a pandemic, but that ugliness was embraced by Obama and his fellow malfeasants. (The TEA Party movement had of course exerted influence before then, but its rallies concerned economics rather than the exercising of authority not granted to the president by the US Constitution.)  Do we who pride ourselves in supposedly being the freest and most freedom-loving people on Earth, and whose Constitution putatively guards us against overweening government, simply not care whether our president behaves more like an autocrat than a democrat?

28 November 2012

Uncommon Commentary #305: Even Calling Them Immodestly "Dressed" Seems an Overstatement

The conventional expression "half-naked" no longer adequately describes immodestly dressed girls and women.  These days, the extent of nakedness is often closer to 95 percent.

22 November 2012

Uncommon Commentary #304: It's Better to Idolize a Saint than a Pop Celebrity Anyway

Prayer is not the same as worship.  When a sinner prays to a canonized saint, he's not worshiping that person, but, rather, asking (v.i.) somebody who's in the presence of God to intercede for him before the Deity, just as Moses interceded for the Israelites when he was in His presence. (To "pray" means to entreat or implore, and was formerly used, in a derived sense, as a function word equivalent to "please".)  It ought to be noted also that the Church Militant (that is, the believers still on Earth) can ask friends in person or over the telephone or via electronic mail or in some other way to pray for them, but that high technology still doesn't enable us to send our petitions to Heaven, where dwell the Church Triumphant (viz., those who have died in the state of divine grace), and so we have no means other than prayer for communicating our requests to our celestial friends the saints. (I'm not arguing that no one overdoes devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary; many Roman Catholics, in my opinion, exaggerate the rôle of the BVM, but they still stop well short of committing "idolatry", contrary to the opinion of most Protestants.)
Nor is veneration the same as worship; the former means "a holding as holy or sacrosanct because of character, association, or age", to quote Webster's dictionary.  I've never seen a holy relic in person, but I've seen pictures of the Shroud of Turin, which is unquestionably the burial cloth of Christ. (Its authenticity is questioned by some, but their reasons for doing so are very poor.)  Viewing something that actually touched the body in which God became incarnate, and looking upon not just an artist's representation of the Savior but the actual image of His face, inspires awe and reverence in me; in other words, it's an aid to worship, not an object of worship.
Neither prayer to a saint nor veneration of a relic therefore qualifies as idolatry; anyone who says otherwise effectively accuses thousands of persons over the ages, who are themselves considered to have attained sainthood, of having been idolaters.  That's enough to make the Church Triumphant militant!

16 November 2012

Uncommon Commentary #303: UC #282 Follow-Up

Libertarians have so excessive a regard for "liberty" that, although deploring the overall results of the latest US elections, they actually hail certain States' approval of ballot measures legalizing same-sex "marriage", even though this is contrary to natural law as well as to the moral law of every major religion. This demonstrates the divergence, which I pointed out in Uncommon Commentary #280, between libertarianism and Christianity; the New Testament tells people "… only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh…" (Gal. 5:13b) and "Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil…" (1 Peter 2:16a). I didn't point out in my previous anti-libertarian posting, however, that practicality is also at issue. One problem with a welfare state is that, as Margaret Thatcher once noted, there comes a point at which one just runs out of other people's money; likewise, the granting of more and more "rights" and "freedoms" cannot continue indefinitely, because the exercising of those "rights" and "freedoms" begins to violate the rights and freedoms of others. The Libertarian Party evidently has already entered that area of philosophical contradiction, for its platform of this year recognizes a right to life but also a right to induce abortion; how can anyone who doesn't suffer from multiple-personality disorder honestly reconcile those positions? (There are, of course, dishonest ways to do so, such as denying that an unborn human being is a human being, or acknowledging that an unborn child is human but declaring that he has not attained to whatever is meant by "personhood".)
Not only Christians, but also anyone else who has sense, ought to know that there is no right to do wrong.

Uncommon Commentary #302: His Own Victims Need Help More than Sandy's

(This is not really a new posting, since I've split Uncommon Commentary #298 into UC's #298 and #299; you do not therefore need to read either this u.c. or the previous one if you've already read "old" UC #298, unless you haven't fulfilled your duty of memorizing my mesmerizing words written therein.)
In exit polls conducted by Fox News, over 40 percent of those who voted to re-enthrone Emperor Nerobama said that his "response to Hurricane Sandy" was a major factor or even the decisive one. So the incumbent makes a big show of supposedly aiding those affected by Sandy, and this erases the memory of nearly four full years of abject failure? It's preposterous if true, but I suspect that it's not the actual reason. Remember that in these surveys, people were asked to state why they voted as they did. If you had cast your ballot in favor of Obama, what would you give as justification:—That the US economy is in better shape than it was four years ago? Try again. That the world is in better shape? That doesn't work either, does it? I think that you get the idea. It seems likely to me that Obama supporters had the same problem, and that the nonsense about the natural disaster (as opposed to the man-made disaster of the President's re-election) is just a subconscious attempt to rationalize the irrational.

09 November 2012

Uncommon Commentary #301: Election Reflection

(See the note at the beginning of UC #299.)
I pray for those persons hurt by Obama's domestic, economic, and foreign policies, but, since I’m a philosopher above all else, don't expect me to show anguish over the pernicious effect that the prolongation of his misrule will have on the USA itself.  As I implied in Uncommon Commentary #31, the fact that we choose our leaders means that we generally get the kind of politicians that we deserve, and that our country therefore merits what will happen to it in the coming Obama term.

07 November 2012

Uncommon Commentary #300!

Forget the supposed "Mayan apocalypse" foretold for the winter solstice.  The US apocalypse has already taken place, on Election Day.

05 November 2012

Uncommon Commentary #299: Wouldn't Hitler and Stalin Resent the Comparison?

I have never been among those who have likened Obama to either Hitler or Stalin—thus far, he seems more like Huey Long or Hugo Chavez—but such a comparison is not really so "extreme" as it might seem.  He may not be guilty of mass murder as they were, but he clearly is an unscrupulous, megalomaniacal abuser of power, and that does qualify him as a monster; this is why I often refer to him as "Emperor Nerobama" (see the list of domanisms).  How anyone who hasn't spent the past four years in a coma can approve of the President's domestic, economic, and foreign policies is hard enough to understand; how anyone (with a conscience) who does approve of those policies can not be scandalized by the way that his administration effects and enforces said policies, and tries to intimidate anybody who does not agree with them, is absolutely unfathomable.

03 November 2012

Uncommon Commentary #298: She's Evidently Lost Her Mind as Well

Some Holly-woodhead has filmed an advertisement for Emperor Nerobama's re-enthronement effort, reportedly aimed at first-time participants in the "democratic" process, in which she likens voting for Obama to losing her virginity. (Her tasteless plug for that thug is actually available on the Obama campaign's W.W.W. site!)  I consider her simile perversely appropriate, since neither losing her virginity nor casting a ballot in favor of the current president is something that she ought to have done.  It's not just in regard to her virginity that she's a loser.

26 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #297

Do you remember that imbecile from the McDonald's in Fort Meyers, who publicly asked Obama to get him a better job?  I think that I now know how the President complied with his request: He was given a position in the Department of State, and put in charge of security for Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Uncommon Commentary #296: Our Military May Have Fewer Horses, but it Has a Jackass for a C-in-C

In the candidates' foreign-policy debate, when Mr. Romney noted that the Navy has fewer ships now than at any other time since before the then-isolationist USA entered World War I, President Obombast replied: "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."  Expectedly, the incumbent's worshipers in the media have hailed his line (which was undoubtedly rehearsed during preparations for the debate, for use in the event that the Republican nominee should make such an observation as he did) as a witty retort; unexpectedly, I haven't heard any wise commentators, i.e., those called "Conservatives", point out the main reason for the inadequacy of Obama's response. (There was an item restricted in its subject to the fact that our military does still use bayonets, contrary to our commander-in-chief's placing that weapon into the same category as mounted soldiers.)  The Doman Domain exists partly for the sake of giving me an opportunity to say what others ought to have said but have not, and so: Unless the President is so obtuse as to think that the naval branch of our armed forces has no more need of ships than the Army does of true cavalry (as opposed to tanks, which are classified as "armored cavalry"), the drip's quip was not a serious attempt at rebuttal but merely a chance to score a "zinger", which (in tandem, naturally, with disingenuous personal attacks upon his opponent) seems to summarize the Obombast campaign's entire strategy for the final two debates.  Sarcasm has a legitimate place in political discussion, but only where it's used to help make a (valid) point, not to avoid having to make one.

Uncommon Commentary #295: UC #294 Follow-Up

Only six days ago, I wrote that a combined total of over 711 million dollars had been raised for the Romney and Obama campaigns; I got this figure from both the Federal Election Commission and OpenSecrets.org, but an article yesterday at FoxNews.com reported that, "according to accounting statements submitted to the government", the sum has exceeded two billion dollars.  I know that the Democrats' economic policies have made inflation worse, but I didn't expect this.

20 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #294: Wouldn't You Rather Give to a Poor Person than to a Poor President?

To date, the effort to elect Romney and that to re-enthrone Obama have raised a combined 711 million dollars.  I wonder whether anyone other than I ever thinks about how much good this money would do if it were used for charitable contributions (which are tax-deductible anyway, unlike political donations) instead of being given to presidential campaigns, only one of which can result in victory.

14 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #293: Does "None" Really Refer to How Much Sense They Have?

The Pew Forum frequently conducts surveys on religious beliefs, in which those polled are asked whether they designate themselves as members of various denominations.  The proportion of those who answer "none of the above" (and who consequently are becoming known as "Nones") is rising sharply, and is at a new high: an appalling 1 in 5.  Probably anyone in this age can have a crisis of faith, but militant nullifidians bear much of the responsibility for this repellent trend, and so I have a message for them: If you won't admit that the Deity exists, that's your problem.  Don't insult us believers by speaking as if you alone were capable of using logic, and don't whine that your "rights" are violated when we express our faith.  Learn a lesson from Psalm 14, which opens with "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

13 October 2012

The Best of Uncommon Commentary

In consideration of the Norwegian Nobel Committee's making yet another unworthy choice of whom to "honor" with the Peace Prize, you may want to visit or revisit Uncommon Commentary #79.

12 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #292

Many analysts of the presidential debate—I wrote this prior to the vice-presidential version, but it took me a few days to post it—say that the incumbent looked as if he were "bored" and as if he "didn't want to be there."  This ought not to surprise anyone who has lived during the agonizing reign of Emperor Nerobama.  It's only natural that someone who thinks of the presidency as his birthright would be weary and even resentful of the need to debate anyone who dares challenge that right.

06 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #291: And You Thought that the IRS Makes Mistakes Only on Your Case

A 1954 amendment to the Internal Revenue Service tax code states that tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” As so often is true, the IRS is in the wrong. Certainly clergy ought to avoid preaching on matters that have nothing to do with religion, but candidates for public office often take ungodly positions on religious or ethical issues, forcing them into the political sphere. It certainly is a prerogative and a duty for pastors to give their charges moral instruction, and that includes instructing them not to elect politicians who, for instance, espouse the legality of induced abortion, which is the greatest evil not only of our time but of all time. (Even if such a politician should hold a commendable position on every other issue, anyone who wants to call himself a Christian must vote against him; Right and Wrong outweigh all other considerations.) When the Western World was much more truly Christian than it is now, the prerogative and duty of ministers of God to get political in some circumstances did not have to be exercised as often as it does currently, but in recent decades it was done by at least one man who has been canonized as a saint: Padre Pio told his parishioners, from the pulpit, to vote against the Communists.
That 1954 amendment therefore ought to be either greatly modified or abolished, but instituting a flat tax, i.e., a system of taxation in which everyone would render the same proportion of his income to the Treasury, would enable us to fulfil every Columbian's dream of abolishing the IRS itself. An economist writing in National Review in the early 1990's recommended setting the universal rate at 17 percent, but I favor 10 percent, if only on a scriptural basis; if that quota satisfies God Almighty, why couldn't it do for Uncle Sam?

05 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #290: Not Having His Cherished Prompter Didn't Help, Either

Leftists generally concede that President Obombast lost his first debate with Romney—interestingly, the Democratic National Committee predicted that he would do so—but some of them have tried to make excuses for his poor performance; my favorite comes from Al Gore, who, demonstrating the same grasp of scientific matters that has made him the bane of real climatologists and meteorologists and a laughing-stock of Conservative analysts, stated that the Denver altitude adversely affected the President.  The real reason for Romney's triumph is simply that he took advantage of the debate's format to put Obama on the defensive about his record; how can anyone defend the Obama record?

30 September 2012

Uncommon Commentary #289: A 'Phone from a Phony

An internet video that has lately attracted attention refers evidently to a federal program called Lifeline (which pre-existed our transformation into the Obama Nation, but which has grown far more costly under the current president's mismanagement) that gives cellular telephones to the penurious.  The reason for my mention of the video is that it features some woman saying "Keep Obama as president.  He gave us a phone [sic]."  Now there's a good reason to re-elect a president!

19 September 2012

Uncommon Commentary #288: Obombast's Administration Is Definitely Not an "Intelligence Community"

It's question-and-answer time at the Doman Domain, with the answers supplied by me:

Q: Is it true that what happened in Benghazi, and the anti-US riots that have taken place at our embassies elsewhere in the Moslem world, are responses to a film that reportedly disparages Mohammed?
A: Obama's administration and the media have gone by that assumption, but so far it seems unsupported by any evidence.  If that film has played any rôle whatsoever, it's been that of a pretext (almost certainly suggested to the rioters inadvertently by the US Department of State, as I noted in the previous uncommon commentary).
Q: Was the attack upon the US Consulate in Benghazi a deliberate act of terror?
A: Is Joe Biden a windbag?  Who ever heard of a "spontaneous" assault that employed mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, and improvised explosive devices (i.e.d.'s)?  Even in Libya, those things aren't just lying around on the ground, waiting to be used by "extremists".

Q: But, isn't there a consensus in the "intelligence community" that it was not planned far ahead of time, and that the fact that it took place on 11 September is just coincidence?
A: That's what we've heard from the Obombast Administration, not from the "intelligence community" itself.  The only source of intelligence to have spoken up so far—one in Libya—has contradicted the administration's position (as has the Libyan government).

Q: Why, then, is the administration lying to us?  Is it just force of habit?
A: In this case, it's because Obama doesn't want to admit that Moslem terrorists have successfully targeted the USA during his presidency; it's the same reason (along with, naturally, Political Correctness) why they're unwilling to refer to, e.g., the Fort Hood massacre as terrorism.

Q: Is history repeating itself?
A: There is a marked similarity, regarding unpreparedness on the part of the US government, between the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the bombardment of the Benghazi consulate.  In 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt—a president to whom, interestingly, Obama is often compared by his supporters—knew from deciphered Japanese communications that Japan planned to assail the USA somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, yet he failed to alert our bases to the fact; on 11 September of this year, Obama's administration had similar reason to fear a terrorist incident in eastern Libya, yet there were no Marines on guard at the consulate in Benghazi, or, indeed, additional safety precautions of any sort.

Q: Was there any time in history when as many things were going wrong for the USA as have gone wrong under Obama?
A: I, an historian, can't think of any.  The War of Southern Secession (i.e., "Civil War") and the Great Depression, for example, obviously were great trials for this country, but at least our civilization was not falling apart as it is now.  (Anyway, Obama's policies may well be propelling us toward a true civil war and an even greater depression.)

Q: Is there anything that you can add to what you've already said here?
A: Certainly, but I'll save it for some other uncommon commentary.

17 September 2012

Uncommon Commentary #287: The US Statement Department

At first, I was not inclined to agree too strongly with those who criticized the US government's handling of the latest post-"Arab Spring" crisis.  The official statement that "The Embassy of the United States [sic] in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims …." impressed me as a typically politically-correct, overly apologetic proclamation by Obombast administration officials—note the use of the word "continuing", as if Muslims ought to feel persecuted by the West—but I couldn't censure them for trying to snuff out a flame before it could become an inferno; I also knew that the reportedly anti-Islam video The Innocence of Muslims—I have not seen it—that has been blamed for arousing the ire of the Mohammedans was posted on YouTube, and can thus be watched anywhere on Earth that people have access to the W.W.W.  Then, however, I realized the significance of the fact that the embassy's statement was made prior to the beginning of the "violent protest" (i.e., riot) in Cairo, and that the violence broke out in the very city where said statement had been issued.  If The Innocence of Muslims is guilty as charged, the logical hypothesis is that the embassy unwittingly drew attention to that film, and thus helped send the present wave of anti-US expression over the Near, Middle, and Far East and North Africa.

15 September 2012

Uncommon Commentary #286: A Kooky Man and a "Snooki" Fan

I would never have believed it, but there apparently is one way in which Obama is preferable to Romney.  A few years ago, the former appeared on that sober forum for vital issues, The View; asked for his opinion of "Snooki", he replied that he had no idea who that is.  Romney, on the other hand, has admitted that he's a "Snooki" fan. (For those of you who have done better than I at ignoring the USA's insipid popular "culture": "Snooki" may sound like a name for a teddy bear rather than for a human being, but it evidently refers to someone on the pointless and objectionable "reality" show Jersey Shore.)  And so, I would finally have a reason to support our president for re-election, if only he weren't a duplicitous, unprincipled, left-wing, egomaniacal, intolerant gangster!

08 September 2012

Uncommon Commentary #285: If They Didn't Oppose Restrictions on Arrogance and Stupidity, Party Membership Would Drop to Zero

The Demagogic Party's official platform opposes "any and all" restrictions on fœticide, and therefore must include antagonism even to parental consent for a minor to have abortion induced.  Are the Dumbocrats saying, then, that a girl of, let's say, 13 years of age, who's not old enough to vote or even to drive a car, is old enough to decide whether her unborn child should live or die?

04 September 2012

Uncommon Commentary #284: Taking the Dip out of Diplomacy

Originally, states—true states, not the 50 de-facto provinces of the USA—sent ambassadors to one another only on those occasions when they actually needed to communicate diplomatically; embassies later become permanent, but their establishment was restricted to those polities that had significance in international affairs; not until after World War II did countries adopt the current practice of exchanging official representatives with every sovereignty on Earth.  In consideration of this history, there's an obvious way for our government to save money: close US embassies in lands that play no important rôle in world politics, which the majority of them do not.  This might offend the pride of many foreigners, but pride, although we usually speak of it as if it were something positive, is a deadly sin anyway.

31 August 2012

Miscellaneous Musing #49

People nowadays think of conscience as a kind of substitute for moral authority, something that gives you permission to decide what is right no matter what someone of superior wisdom, e.g., God, has to say on the subject.  In actuality, conscience is something that compels you to do what may go against your will, but which you know to be right because someone of superior wisdom has established it as such.

29 August 2012

Uncommon Commentary #283: Petty Officers, the Navy Needs; Petticoats, it Doesn't

Growing up, I thought it good to have women in the US military, because the military was thus larger (or so my immature reasoning went) than it would be if men alone went to war.  Having learned more about life since then, however, I now understand that the Gentle Sex really doesn't belong in the armed forces even during peacetime.  Further, the Navy is currently so desperate to bring its spending under control that it has resorted to giving petty officers unwanted discharges; instead,—be forewarned that my following question is rhetorical, since the Left has far too much influence over the US mindset for such a sensible proposal as this to actually be accepted—why not bar females from enlisting (or re-enlisting, if they are already in the service) and from becoming commissioned?

21 August 2012

Uncommon Commentary #282: Or Are They Trying to Persuade People Not to Vote for Their Own Party, Which Is a Much Better Idea?

My dictionary defines a libertarian as (1) "an advocate of the doctrine of free will" or as (2) "one who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty esp. of thought and action". As a Christian (who rejects the Calvinistic form of predestinarianism) I certainly make no objection to the libertarians of the first definition, but on the same grounds (less the parenthesized material) I have cause for disagreement with the libertarians of the second meaning. The latter are right most of the time, and indeed there evidently are Christians who profess libertarianism as their political philosophy, but if they should think more deeply about the matter they would find it impossible to reconcile that philosophy with what we ought to know as Christians: that the purpose of life is not to have as much liberty as possible but to do the will of God, "in whose service [to quote Saint Augustine] there is perfect freedom". Non-Christian libertarians carry their faulty logic to its inevitable end, and reason that people have a right even to do such un-Christian things as fornicate, use illegal drugs, kill unborn children, and marry a member of one's own sex.
And then there are those libertarians with a capital "L". This past week, the Libertarian Party put out a statement with a subject line that reads thus: "Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson Could Deprive Mitt Romney of 5 battleground states, 74 Electoral Votes, 27% of the Electoral Votes needed to win in 2012". (I have no explanation for the inconsistency in capitalization, unless it's just that Libertarians feel that their unrestricted liberty gives them the right to disregard the rules of proper English.) Are Libertarians trying to give the election to the incumbent?

15 August 2012

Uncommon Commentary #281: Holding the Lie-Able Liable for Libel

Slander and libel have become routine in our civilization, especially, it seems, in US politics, yet one almost never hears of lawsuits over these outrages.  Forbearance in the face of calumny can make one a better person, but if the defamed don't pursue justice for their own sake, they ought to do so for the sake of all other actual and potential victims of maligning.  Slanderers and libelists must be shown that there is a penalty to be paid, even in this life, for wrongdoing.

08 August 2012

Uncommon Commentary #280: Common Sense Isn’t Common

Many of the best-known converts from the pro-fœticide to the pro-life viewpoint received their revelation because they viewed ultrasound images which show that, yes, an unborn child is more than just a "blob of tissue".  I'm glad that they've seen the light, yet I find it disturbing that so many persons need science to prove to them what logic ought to have told them anyway: that the offspring of two human beings is a human being, and that even if an embryo or a fœtus doesn't qualify as a baby yet, it will be one in fewer than nine months.

30 July 2012

The Best of Uncommon Commentary (Has Gotten Better)

Rather than watch the Olympic Games, why not read this oldie but goodie? (I've added a paragraph, consisting of something that I have long thought but evidently had never before written down.)

24 July 2012

Uncommon Commentary #279: The NCAA's Zero-Intelligence Policy

Here are yet more thoughts on the scandal at the Pennsyvlania State University:
  1. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is infamous (at least in my opinion) for the mildness of its penalties against "football" and basketball programs that are amateur in hardly any respect save name, but that (mis)governing body has handed down against the Pennsyvlania State University a punishment of a severity scarcely heard of since the end of the Gulag: a $60 million fine, a minimum-four-year bowl ban, and, perhaps most astonishingly, the forfeiture of all victories won under Paterno during a span of 14 years!  I don't deny that university officials deserve punishment if they indeed covered up criminal behavior by Sandusky, but that punishment ought to be administered by those whom society has charged with meting it out, viz., the courts.  The NCAA has jurisdiction, so to speak, only over infractions that directly affect the playing of intercollegiate sports; if a team obtains an unfair advantage over opponents not in violation of the rules, by, for instance, paying players to sign with them instead of with someone else, the NCAA may penalize that team with sanctions and perhaps require the team to forfeit wins in games in which they used the player or players whom they recruited in that illegal fashion.  What happened at PSU, by contrast, had no effect on the Nittany Lions' performance on the gridiron.  Why, then, has the NCAA acted as it has?  Obviously, it's grandstanding on what the media call by the inadequate umbrella term "sex abuse".
  2. It's ironic that the university entrusted investigation of its scandal to a firm run by Louis Freeh, who, as Clinton's FBI director, was a member of the most scandal-ridden presidential administration in US history.  Specifically regarding Freeh, it ought to be remembered that it was during his tenure both that the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco occurred and that the agency manufactured evidence against Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.  None of this actually refutes the findings in Freeh's report, but it does mean that there's reason to doubt the accuracy thereof. (Freeh does not enhance his credibility by concluding that the curt dismissal of Paterno [v.i.] was justified, even though that dismissal took place long before his investigation implicated the late head coach in any wrongdoing.)
  3. Despite the source of the report mentioned above, I can accept all its allegations except those against Paterno.  To me, it's beyond belief that someone who, as I've stated before, was known for decades to be one of the most ethical of all public figures would actively participate in the concealment of pederasty.  If the accusation against him should turn out to be valid, then I would consider it valuable for all of us to have a psychologist explain how somebody could have gone so wrong.
  4. Finally, what could be worse than the pederasty itself is the effect that I fear the scandal, particularly the reputed involvement of Paterno, may have upon the "college football" world.  Paterno was a rare paragon in a game that has long been rife with shameful (and shameless) exploitation of student-athletes, cheating both covert and overt, run-ups of the score in games that ought never to have been scheduled, egotistical displays intended to humiliate the opposing team, &c.; now that someone of his near-saintly reputation has fallen from grace, cynicism could increase drastically, leading in turn to even more bad behavior.

19 July 2012

Uncommon Commentary #278: Not Sagacious but Salacious

It's easy to see how living under Emperor Nerobama could make one nostalgic for even the other men who have held his office since Reagan, but a disturbing number of "Conservatives" go too far when it comes to Clinton, even to the point of taking seriously the "New Democrat" label that Slick applied to himself for the purpose of his 1992 presidential campaign.  For those of you whose memory doesn't go back even 20 years: He promoted himself thus in hope of evading the infamy that had attached to other members of his party because of their left-wing philosophies.  As became clear, however, to those voters who had fallen for this ruse, there really was nothing new about him; his actions as president differed in no significant respect from those of Lyndon Johnson and Carter. (This ought, of course, to have been clear all along; one doesn't get nicknamed "Billion-Dollar Bill", as he was by the people of Arkansas, for demonstrating fiscal prudence.)
It's true that Clinton didn't emerge from quite the same patch of slime that spawned Obama; before becoming chief executive, he, like Johnson and Carter, had been considered conservative by the standards of the Democratic Party (which is not saying much), and I think that Rush Limbaugh was correct in his assessment of him as not really believing in anything except Big Government.  Unlike the current holder of his office, therefore, he was dedicated not to the transmogrification of the USA into a leftist utopia but merely to the prolongation of his political career.  This does not mean, though, contrary to the implication or assertion by some pundits who ought to know better, that he metamorphosed into a centrist in response to political circumstances.  He may have proclaimed in an address to Congress that "The era of big government is over!", but he did nothing to reduce the size of that government except, naturally, in regard to defense, the one area in which greater (but wiser) expenditures might have been justified.
It's also true that the economic growth throughout the Clinton years occurred because of wise policies, but the policies were those not of Clinton, who had little influence in such matters even before his party lost control of both chambers of Congress, but rather those of the post-1994 Republican legislative majorities. (The "boom" of the 1990's has been considerably exaggerated anyway; not until nearly the end of the decade did economic growth reach 3.5 percent, which was only the average for the USA over at least the eight decades prior to our becoming the Obama Nation, and is pathetically inferior to what has become standard for the nominally Communist People's Republic of China.)
Only in a perverse way can we honestly credit Clinton for the USA's relative economic success in the 1990's, since it was his repudiation in the 1994 congressional elections, and his weakness of leadership, that assisted the opposition in carrying out reforms.  He's no more a rôle model fiscally than he is morally.

13 July 2012

Follow-up to a Pair of Uncommon Commentaries

In Uncommon Commentary #229, I posited the need for a new way to measure unemployment, and proposed that whoever should provide such a statistic—since in a later uncommon commentary, #250, I recommended privatizing the pertinent survey; although I didn't mention this there, I'm sure that we could have outside sources perform all the other functions of the Department of Labor, which could thus be abolished—make periodic reports on joblesness in the entire potential workforce rather than just among persons actively seeking work within the past month.  Since that writing, I've learned that "for a truly neutral metric, economists look at the ratio of total employment to total population, known as E-Pop".  As I mentioned in that same Uncommon Commentary #229, annotations would need to be made concerning mitigating factors, but using the "E-Pop" figure still seems satisfactory (except in one respect: the inane name).

07 July 2012

Uncommon Commentary #276: What Our Economy Needs Is Economy

My dictionary's oldest non-archaic definition for "economy", you see, is "thrifty and efficient use of material resources : frugality in expenditures".)
Persons who have a psychological necessity to believe in "American exceptionalism" take some comfort from their perception that riots such as we have seen in Greece just don't happen here—What happened in Oakland this past year doesn't count? (Ironically, the ancient ancestors of today's Greeks have been deemed so exceptional, because of their cultural achievements, that they were formerly thought to have been a race apart from all other human beings.)  In Athens, however, the unrest has resulted from measures far more severe than any taken in our own land; the latest austerity plan in Hellas (= Greece), for instance, includes a 22% cut in the minimum wage, permanent cancellation of "holiday wage bonuses", elimination of 150,000 "public-sector" jobs, changes that make it easier to lay off employees, the giving to industry the ability to negotiate lower wages, cuts to state spending on health care, and 300 million "Euros" worth of reductions to pensions.  Rioting is never justifiable, and sacrifices must be made when one's country is in such a Hellas of a mess as is theirs or ours, but it is understandable that people are upset.  In Wisconsin, by contrast, there occurred near-riots and other disgraces (e.g., legislators fleeing to Illinois so as to deny the majority a quorum) because Governor Walker sought to take from State-employee labor unions their privilege (not "right") of bargaining collectively (which employees of the federal government have never had, and without which they have always, and especially now, prospered) and because the Governor's proposal meant that union dues (which Big Labor donates to Democratic campaigns for office) would henceforward be paid voluntarily rather than deducted automatically from State paychecks; what really motivated the mob in Madison, therefore, was not concern for the future of the Working Man but crude partisanship.  Can you imagine how the domestic Left will react if the USA ever gets serious about economizing?

30 June 2012

Uncommon Commentary #275: Didn't Obama Feel Guilty, Setting His Fellow Worms to Work?

I do not normally read the Washington Post, but the 19 June edition included an interesting (though deeply flawed) article about the electronic "worms" and "viruses" that the US and Israeli governments have unleashed upon Iran's nuclear-weapons program.  I shall here save you from having to read a piece that refers to the United States of America merely as "the United States" and uses illegitimate prefixes like "cyber", by relating the most salient of the article's revelations: According to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the purpose of the collaborative effort (which, it is divulged, began under George W. Bush rather than Obama) was not to end Iran's quest for nuclear arms but merely to prolong it, so as to "reduce the pressure for a conventional military attack, and extend the timetable for diplomacy and sanctions."  Thus, the hypocrite who excoriated his predecessor for not "engaging" Iran turns out to have continued that predecessor's electronic-warfare program against that country, at the same time that he was proffering his "open hand" to Ahmadinejad; worse, the assault on Iran's computers, the fact of which almost unquestionably was leaked to President Yo'Mama's (see the lsit of domanisms) beloved New York Times for the sake of portraying him as a tough guy, was intended only to postpone the "rogue" state's acquisition of atomic ordnance for how long:—until after this year's US presidential election?

26 June 2012

Uncommon Commentary #274: Chevalier Was Right to Thank Heaven for Little Girls

Some reflections on the failed effort to outlaw sex-selective abortion in the USA:
It's not possible to determine the sex of a child until 20 weeks into the pregnancy; since this is more than halfway through the human gestation period of 274 days, nobody with at least an ounce of sense can pretend that a human fœtus at this point of development does not yet qualify as a human being.
The tally in the House of Representatives was 246-168, which means that, in a body where the GOP has a substantial majority, just 59.4 percent of our legislators voted in favor of a civilized standard of morality and against that of savages. (A mere 20 Democrats voted for the bill, and even seven Republicans opposed it).
Had it passed, the law would have been practically unenforceable (because, in this country, abortion can be induced for almost any excuse imaginable; a woman need not admit that she doesn't want to give birth to a girl), but the fact that it would've been almost purely symbolic means that even a congressman who considers fœticide permissible for the sake of sex selection had nothing to lose by voting for this ban (unless he was beholden to pro-choicers so witlessly intransigent as to regard even the slightest restriction on abortion as an encroachment upon their "rights").

25 June 2012

Uncommon Commentary #273: In This Opinion Piece, "Capital Punishment" Will Not Mean Having to Live in the District of Columbia

Because of its obvious effectiveness versus those who otherwise would become repeat offenders, the death penalty ought to be used to punish many more crimes than it is currently (though only when the guilt of the convicted is indisputable, since we can get a wrongly-sentenced person out of prison, but not out of the grave).

23 June 2012

Miscellaneous Musing #48

In a public-opinion survey taken several years ago, approximately 44 percent of Usans (see the list of domanisms) aged 21 to 65 (years, not months, despite the immaturity of their response) replied that they consider marriage unnecessary for a "loving relationship".  I disagree with them, of course, but the poll result raises a rhetorical question: If a growing portion of the populace considers marriage in general to be unimportant, why is same-sex marriage increasingly regarded as vital?

13 June 2012

Uncommon Commentary #272: An Apt Name for a US President Is "D. Klein"

Yanks who fret over US decline (which, to be as fair as possible to Emperor Nerobama, did not begin but rather accelerated and became more obvious during his misrule) miss an important point.  It's normal for military and economic power to wax and wane over long periods of time; if Columbia were just undergoing an ebb in those kinds of greatness, it should not be regarded as a crisis for us (although it ought to cause some concern among, e.g., European states, most of which have preferred to rely upon their alliance with us than to have high defense expenditures of their own), and indeed could provide a much-needed infusion of the virtue of humility.  The USA, however, is not merely losing its strength; its civilization is disintegrating.  I wouldn't be surprised if civil war broke out in this land at some time during the next few decades, and I would be surprised if our country still existed at the end of this century.  (We who believe in Christ, though, need not worry over this, since we know—or at least we ought—that we are really subjects of the everlasting heavenly kingdom.  I refer the reader to Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 11:10, 13-14, 16, 13:14; and selections from patristic literature.)

08 June 2012

Uncommon Commentary #271: The Fact that I'm a Doman Doesn't Make Me a DOMAn

The Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA is not, contrary to the bluster of "Gay-rights activists" and to the implication of its own title, what it ought to be: a law against unnatural, unreasonable, and ungodly "same-sex marriage".  Like the defunct so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, it's a Clinton-era compromise, neither enforcing nor preventing the legalization of homosexual wedlock but reserving to the States the decision whether to legalize it or not.  The real reason why leftists hate it is that, being leftists, they can't bear to allow anyone the potential to exercise his will in opposition to theirs.

06 June 2012

Miscellaneous Musing #47

Despite the fact that its subject matter is political, this posting is a miscellaneous meditation rather than an uncommon commentary, since I am not making an argument but merely speculating about an hypothetical scenario that has interested me for some time now.  (I'm not saying that this will happen, but don't think that it can't.)
If Romney should win in November, but by so small a margin that the incumbent President could dispute the election, might Obama refuse to relinquish power?  Would it matter if Romney's victory were upheld by the Supreme Court, a body for which Obama evidently has no particular respect?  And if this did come to pass, what would consequently ensue?—Would Congress react as the Honduran legislature dealt with Zelaya, deposing the President and ordering the army to arrest him?

03 June 2012

Uncommon Commentary #270: By Today's Standards, Jack Was No Ripper

(One definition for "ripper", you see, is "an excellent instance of its kind.")
Criminologists and historians consider "Jack the Ripper" to have had five victims, an unimpressive total in comparison with the feats of more-recent serial killers. The reason why he became so infamous is that in 1888 it was a novelty for someone to commit a "senseless murder", viz., to kill without any apparent rational motive. What does it say about the degeneration of Western society between then and now, that such occurrences have become familiar to everyone who follows current events?

30 May 2012

Uncommon Commentary #269: What's Truly Broken Is the Record for "Worst President"

It is inaccurate to say, as, e.g., Democrats do when things don't go their way, that "the [US political] system is broken".  It's not that I think that this system works--see UC #241, and below--; it's just that to say that something is broken is to imply that, if repaired, it would work.  What I (at the risk of shocking the reader) contend is that what we call "democracy" is intrinsically unworkable, because it's based on the false premise that the average member of our fallen human race is qualified to choose his leaders.  In my opinion, both history and common sense demonstrate that people in general are too selfish and ignorant to vote wisely.
(Anyway, if President Obombast really wants the people to believe that "the system is broken", why doesn't he offer them evidence for his assertion, such as the fact that they elected
him to our highest office?)

25 May 2012

Uncommon Commentary #268: Don’t Be Afridi Cat; to Rescue Shakil Would Be a Slam-Dunk

(I admit that I may be going too far, using two puns in a single title.)
US non-military foreign aid ought to be abolished, and Pakistan's imprisonment of Dr. Shakil—which would be a correct way for "Shaquille" O’Neal to spell his first name—Afridi, who helped us find Usama bin Laden, provides us with a clear opportunity to sever our assistance to that country in particular.  I do not, however, agree with those who want this termination to include our millions of dollars in "counterinsurgency aid"; after all, it's in our own interest as well as theirs for the Pakistani government to continue to fight militants.  What we ought to do is threaten to put an end to that funding, as leverage to persuade the Pakistani administration to release the man into our custody.  To simply cut off Pakistan without a cent might satisfy the urge felt by many to "punish" that state, but would do nothing to free Afridi.

20 May 2012

Uncommon Commentary #267: Giving New Meaning to the Term “Dumb Show”

On several occasions, the cable television network Planet Green has broadcast a program titled The Da Vinci Shroud.  Curious as to what on Earth it might be about, I went to the capsule description, which reads: "Experts examine if the Shroud of Turin could be the work of Leonardo Da Vinci."  I've heard very many stupid things, but this may belong in the Top Ten.  There is more evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin (which is thought, correctly, to be the burial shroud of Christ) than for the guilt of most men executed for murder, but even persons who consider this relic a forgery think that the forgery took place in the High Middle Ages (ca. 1000-1300), centuries before the birth (1452) of Da Vinci.  Needless to say—Although if that's true, why am I saying it?—I didn't watch.  Planet Green will change its identity on Memorial Day, but it's possible that The Da Vinci Shroud will air somewhere else, hence this uncommon commentary's reason for being.  If it does come on, I strongly advise you to turn to some other channel; even a "reality" show would be preferable to that absurdity.

19 May 2012

Uncommon Commentary #266: And Just Think: the Naming of Our Capital for Washington Was Intended to Honor Him

In a country where no one votes, there is no vote fraud; if there are no candidates for office, there are no candidates to slander their opponents.  (Further, as this past week's training session for the US House of Representatives' Democratic Caucus demonstrates, this slander doesn’t always happen spontaneously or on the politicians' initiative.  Sometimes, the Party hires a person like Maya Wiley, of something called the Center for Social Inclusion, to instruct office-seekers to bring race into debates on issues that have nothing to do with race.)  A lack of elections is typically ranked among the worst characteristics of a non-constitutional monarchy, but campaigning here in the "democratic" USA, especially that presently being carried out by the incumbent president and his myrmidons, shows that it may actually be one of the best.

18 May 2012

Uncommon Commentary #265: Persecution by Prosecution?

In February, around the time when Emperor Nerobama appeared at the University of Miami, a Miami-Dade Community College student named Joaquin Amador Serrapio, Jr., made Facebook postings against him; according to an Associated Press item, one post "threatened to put a bullet in the president's head"—At least then he’d have something in his head!—and another "asked if anyone wanted to help with a presidential assassination".  I don't say that he did the right thing, but as the AP article admitted that there is "no indication Serrapio intended to act on the threats", does he really deserve a possible prison term (for a maximum of five years)?  He has requested a change of his plea to "guilty"; if the change is allowed, then there must be a sentence, but it ought to be suspended, as should the legal career of whoever brought charges against him.