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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?