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?

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").

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).

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?

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.)

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.

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?

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?