16 March 2016

Miscellaneous Musing #79

It’s well-known that many German war criminals came to the USA after the Third Reich fell, but we probably don’t think about the fact that not all of them had to assume new identities.  Consider the postwar career of Wernher Von Braun, who had been an officer in the SS and then built rockets, using slave labor, for the purpose of massacring civilians.  We ought to have handed him over for trial, but, because our desire to have him (and other, less-prominent scientists with National Socialist connections) in our space program overcame our desire to see the guilty punished, we instead gave him US citizenship, honors, and celebrity!  In doing so, we betrayed the high ideals for which our country purportedly stands, and we also betrayed our allies.  Would the man have escaped justice if his V-2's had been aimed at New York and Washington, DC rather than at London and Antwerp?

09 March 2016

Uncommon Commentary #497: Is the End of a Friend What We Intend?

Contrary to what is often said, the USA has never been an “ally” of Israel.  Allies are states (such as the United Nations during World War II) that fight on the same side in wartime, or have an (official) peacetime agreement (e.g., the NATO) that they will fight on the same side during a future war.  The US relationship to Israel could never have been called anything more than friendship; as a description of that portion of the relationship which has now gone on for more than a quarter-century, even that term would be largely inaccurate. (Would a friend try to force a friend to make himself more vulnerable to his enemies?)

01 March 2016

Uncommon Commentary #496: UC #4 Follow-Up

When I wrote UC #4, I mentioned only one of my reasons for disliking the practice of using State primaries to decide a political party’s nominations for the US presidency; that error is now rectified, for I here present two others.
  1. In my (expert) opinion, the USA had better chief executives when nominees for the office of president were selected in “smoke-filled rooms.”  The newer system may be more “democratic”, but I would prefer something less “democratic” and more effective.         
  2. The later the date at which a State’s political-party members caucus, the more likely it is that the party’s eventual nominee will already have been determined effectively or even officially.  This fact can make voting seem even more truly pointless in latecomer States than it does on Election Day (and, thanks to “Super Tuesday”, this onset of irrelevancy can occur very early in the campaign season); further, since voters in these many States may prefer candidates different from those preferred by voters who live elsewhere, but since their different choices may be rendered moot as candidates who gained insufficient support in the earlier primaries—on might call them “primary primaries”—withdraw from the race, the winner of the nomination may not even be the actual favorite of his party’s majority.  It would make more sense for all 50 States and the District of Columbia to hold their primaries on the same day.

(If I come up with any more reasons, I’ll let you know what they are.)

22 February 2016

Uncommon Commentary #495: Even a Politician Can’t Speak for 11 Months!

Most politicians traditionally have been of the opinion that the US President, having been “democratically elected” and all that, ought to get the man whom he wants when he nominates someone for a high post.  Since Obama has disgraced his office, I agree with those who believe that he ought not to be treated with the same deference; I do not, however, understand how we can fulfill the Senate Majority Leader’s stated determination not to allow a vote on any nomination of a replacement for Antonin Scalia until a new president assumes office, which would mean going 11 months with an even number of justices on the Supreme Court!  This determination, and Senator Cruz’s vow to filibuster—see the title of this u.c.—any vote that nevertheless takes place on an Obama pick, would make more sense if the GOP did not control the Senate; since Republicans do compose the majority, it seems to me that they ought to abandon the attitude that I mentioned in my opening sentence, and simply reject Obama’s favorites until he tries to salvage as much of his judicial legacy as he can by selecting someone whom the opposition will find tolerable.  Indubitably such a choice would still be inferior to one made by a Republican chief executive, but having injustices rather than justices appointed to our highest court is one of the consequences that ensue when we the people foul up the electoral process.
Alternately (and sarcastically), perhaps we could reduce the membership of the SCOTUS to seven persons, compensating for Scalia’s death forcing the retirement of left-wing bigot Sonia Sotomayor!

15 February 2016

Miscellaneous Meditation #78

It’s ironic that so many women nowadays consider a career to be more important than motherhood.  The human species could survive without professional women, but it certainly could not do so without mothers.

09 February 2016

Uncommon Commentary #494: Lift High the Cruz?

I have a high opinion generally of Senator Ted Cruz, but he has done and said some odd things.  Several years ago, he filibustered ostensibly against continued government overspending, and then immediately voted for the overspending just like the “establishment” politicians; after the death of Nelson Mandela, who, as a Marxist, a terrorist, a critic of the US War on Terror, and a supporter of abortion-on-demand, was hardly someone whom a conservative ought to admire (see UC #380: Not My Kind of Fella, That Nelson Mandela), Cruz posted a tribute to him on his Facebook page and also attended his funeral.  There may be no truly ideal presidential candidate, but Cruz–if the foreign-born Texan is indeed even eligible to hold our highest office—is perhaps farther from the ideal than a nominee ought to be.

02 February 2016

Miscellaneous Musing #77

I’ve recently found that, rather than dislike a person, it’s both more prudent and more charitable to try to dislike only qualities or behaviors of that person.  Hardly anyone completely lacks positive (or negative) character traits, and so my new policy makes it easier to have a good relationship with someone who is not likable overall. (This attitude can be applied even toward an entire ethnic or religious group, as I had already done unknowingly in the last sentence of I Slam Islam?.) If, here at the Doman Domain, I still refer to someone in terms that imply whole disapproval, I’ll do so only for the sake of simplicity in treating of persons whose negative attributes greatly outweigh or outnumber the positive ones (or simply because old habits are hard to quit).