Now this is interesting
I don't really know what to make of this piece from Political Wire: "'The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions,' the AP reports.
'Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.' "
What immediately comes to mind is Carter's total inability to resolve the Iran Hostage Crisis, and Reagan's immediate resolution of the same by simply winning the election. I always chalked that up to fear of Reagan's hawkish side, rather than an Iranian soft spot for Republicans. Remember, we're the ones that want to invade and topple Tehran's current government, if only we thought that were feasible.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Now this is interesting
CNN.com - More flu shots will be available in January: "Drug maker Aventis-Pasteur has found an additional 2.6 million doses of flu vaccine that it will deliver to the United States in January"
Are we entirely sure we want a vaccine that a FRENCH drug company found in a closet, somewhere? Sounds a little suspicious to me.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
CNN.com - 23 tigers die in bird flu outbreak: "Twenty-three tigers have died from bird flu at a private zoo in Thailand after being fed the carcasses of chickens infected with the disease, a government official said Tuesday."
OK, when 23 tigers die of a form of flu, can we stop referring to it as "bird" flu?
CNN seems to be having problems today.
CNN.com - Police kill India's 'Robin Hood': "He was accused of killing 120 people, many of them police and forestry officials, and of making millions of dollars from poaching elephants and smuggling sandalwood, which is used in the perfume industry. [...]
Many compared him to a modern-day Robin Hood, operating in the jungles and carrying out crimes against the rich to help the poor."
As you can see from the headline, this guy is considered a Robin Hood by some. First of all, even when robbing the rich, Robin Hood is nothing but a liberal in thief's clothing. Second of all, this guy killed 120 people, including many police officers and forestry officials. Does this sound like robbing the rich? Or helping the poor? No, it sounds like a murderous maniac. Oh, and he was a poacher too. This guy doesn't seem like someone whose death should be headlined with a title that suggests he is deserving of some kind of respect. I'd have to say, the world is probably better off without him. Oh, and in case you don't believe my judgement, how about this paragraph:
"He often boasted of beheading his victims and once said he cut up his victims and fed them to fish."
Also, the article provides absolutely no description of any crimes that robbed the rich to help the poor.
I know how you feel, Glenn
Instapundit.com: "InstaPundit is not an unbiased news service. It consists entirely of my opinions and such links to factual items as I find interesting. Its whole purpose is as a vehicle for my biases, in fact. It is not unbiased and objective in any fashion, but rather is opinionated and slanted, much like other, more respectable, outlets such as The New York Times and TonyPierce.com."
I've had some comments along the lines of the post to which Professor Reynolds is responding here. Read his whole response, apply it to RFTR, and you've got some idea of how I feel.
Don't criticize me for not considering both sides of the issues. I have considered both sides of the issues, but this blog is not about showing you my search for the truth, it is about presenting my conclusions, and the reasons why I've reached them. Toward that end, you'll definitely come across bias on this blog. If you think I'm an unthinking automaton, who follows whatever propaganda is handed down to me, I'll just point out that I don't even like Michael Moore (ha. ha. ha.), and that you're welcome to comment on my posts, or even email me, and I'd be happy to have an earnest debate with you, and explain what considerations went into the decisions I've reached.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Sunday, October 17, 2004
I'm not sure I understand this one
I'd like to hear what Eugene Volokh has to say about this: CNN.com - Terror fears don't trump Constitution, court rules: "Fears of a terrorist attack are not sufficient reason for authorities to search people at a protest, a federal appeals court has ruled, saying September 11, 2001, 'cannot be the day liberty perished.'
A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Friday that protesters may not be required to pass through metal detectors when they gather next month for a rally against a U.S. training academy for Latin American soldiers."
I'm a little confused by this decision. Having not read the actual decision, or any criticisms, it's hard for me to distinguish between metal detectors in this circumstance, and before boarding an airplane. It seems that, if you want to go somewhere specific, you may have to give up a little bit of your personal liberty in order to be secure. Is that really an abuse of the Constitution? In my opinion, it's not an illegal search and seizure if you have a right to not attend the event.
It's simple, really
CNN.com - NY Times: Detainees at Guantanamo stripped, shackled: "Uncooperative Guantanamo Bay detainees were regularly subjected to highly abusive treatment over a long period of time, unidentified guards at the U.S. military base, intelligence agents and others who worked in the prison told The New York Times."
If proven true, this is inexcusable, and heads will, and should, roll.