Login : Register Home : Tags

George Bush

Stem cell federal funding

Anglosphere

President Bush might use his first veto om an expension of federal funding for stem cell research:

Bush, who agreed in 2001 to using federal dollars for research on a limited number of existing stem cell lines, opposes the congressional plan to underwrite research using future embryos that would otherwise be discarded at fertility clinics.

To be honest, I don't care about the outcome - there are more important things to worry about. But I anticipate another run of "Bush bans research" criticism so it's good to (again) explain that restrictions on federal funding have nothing to do with the legality of stem cell research. You want stem cell research? Fine, go do it. Just don't expect the American taxpayer to sponsor you (even more), that's all.

Washington gets soft on illegality

Anglosphere

This entry could have been called something like "SCOTUS Lunacy" to keep a Simply American tradition, because the White House has just completely lost it. Near-amnesty for illegal immigrants was heralded before. Now it is time to get soft on illegal combatants as well:

The Pentagon outlined the new standards to the military in a 7 July memo.

The directive says all military detainees are entitled to humane treatment and to certain basic legal standards when they come to trial, as required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Sure (and I've said this before), but what about article 4A of the third Geneva convention?

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Illegal combatants fail those requirements. Whatever law or treaty applies to them, the Geneva Convention explicitly does not. President Bush has made a huge mistake by bowing to Supreme Court pressure. Stay the course my ass.

So tell me, are there any explicit instructions in the Constitution that anyone would like to see ignored?

Divide and prevail

Anglosphere

Are the US and Al-Qaeda bedfellows?

Al-Qaeda leaders sold out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to the United States in exchange for a promise to let up in the search for Osama bin Laden, the slain leader's wife claimed in an interview with an Italian newspaper.

"I think a secret pact was struck whose immediate goal was his death," she told the newspaper. "In return, the American troops promised to ease, at least momentarily, their hunt for bin Laden."

Personally I think it's a load of bull. The true story here is probably as follows: Al-Qaeda sympathisers are getting cranky and divided because we are getting the good results (There has not been a terrorist attack on US soil for almost five years) while they are getting the bad results (free elections instead of Taliban and Baath, Zarqawi dead) in the war on terror.

In case Zarqawi's wife is making correct claims, good riddance President Bush. He promised not to negotiate with terrorists and the American electorate should hold him to that promise. On the other hand, if Al-Qaeda is indeed breaking apart, then perhaps Americans should give credit where credit is due and repeal the 22nd Amendment. (Or at a minimum keep Hillary out of the White House.)

Theocratic prudes and nice guys

Anglosphere

George Bush is an evil theocratic prude stepping on our freedoms in the name of family values and religion. Or at least, that's how some people would describe the man. In my experience there is a tendency amongst those people to then add how Bill Clinton was such a decent, honourable President. What a nice guy!

Fair enough, under the Bush administration Congress did regulate porn with USC 2257's record-keeping requirements to make sure minors would not enter the industry. Never mind that ten years ago under the Clinton administration, Congress actually passed the Communications Decency Act in an attempt to outright ban not just obscene but also "indecent" speech on the Internet. Excuse my language, but shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits fart turd and twat that!

Also fair enough, the Bush administration does frequently express conservative family values which often derive from Christianity. Never mind that the cartoon wars resulted in Bill Clinton attacking blasphemy as we speak (while we still can). Andrew Stuttaford points out on The Corner:

Clinton embarrasses himself in Pakistan: "I strongly disagreed with both the creation and the publication of cartoons that were considered blasphemous to devout Muslims around the world because they depicted the Prophet."

Leaving aside the fact that the prohibition on depiction of Mohammed is by no means as clear-cut as Clinton pretends to think, we have to deal with the fact that Clinton believes that images that "offend" the beliefs of one religious faith should not even be created, let alone published.

...

That's wrong, wrong, wrong. No collection of beliefs, even if they do involve a deity, should be given special privileges and protections. And, Bill, if my free speech is your blasphemy, that's just tough.

Unfortunately these words will probably not prevent that the urban legend where Bill Clinton is a nice guy will live on for ever. Nor that special privileges for religions already exist.

Illegal combatants now legal

Anglosphere

In a blow to the Bush administration, secularism and sanity, the US Supreme Court has decided unanimously that illegal activities are allowed in the name of religion.

Justices, in their first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts, moved decisively to keep the government out of a church's religious practice.

Federal drug agents should have been barred from confiscating the hoasca tea of the Brazil-based church, Roberts wrote in the decision.

The tea, which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered sacred to members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, which has a blend of Christian beliefs and South American traditions. Members believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea, which is consumed twice a month at four-hour ceremonies.

Brilliant. As a libertarian I am in favour of legalisation of harmless drug use, but I have to disapprove of the actual argumentation in this particular case because it is based on religion and not harm done.

Apparently it is okay to ignore federal narcotics law and import treaties for the sake of foreign-based churches. Then where do we draw the line? What other laws and treaties should not apply to members of a religion?

How about the Geneva convention or the right to life. If memory serves me right, I recall a number of people who believe they can understand a bloke called Allah only by killing others while concealed in civilian clothing. We could call these people illegal combatants or terrorists or tyrannic fundamentalists, but perhaps government should be kept out of such foreign religious practices and admit a zero tolerance approach is not sensible.

Right. Let me tell you what's not sensible: a world where religious activities are exempt from law where similar secular activities (medical marijuana, anyone?) are not. I wonder whether Neil likes John Roberts, still.

Double standards

European Union

Why aren't leftists full of rage today? Jacques pulled a Georgie:

French president Jacques Chirac has warned France could use nuclear arms if attacked by a state or state-supported terrorist group.

Just imagine the outcry if POTUS George W. Bush would drop such a hint.

© Copyright 1995-2008 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

Tom has more friends but mine are prettier! (#1/1)