Saturday, February 14, 2004
Well, so far I've only edited each of my posts five or six times. I need to set up a policy for corrections. Generally speaking, grammatical errors will be corrected as soon as I notice, with little or no notification. Substantive and/or factual errors will be corrected in updates to the original post.
Update: Like so. This applies to any correction made more than a few minutes after the original posting. If I notice a mistake right after it goes up, I may just fix the mistake without indicating it--but only if this happens right away. Updates to the original post will only be made on the same day as that post. After that, corrections will get a new post.
Update: Like so. This applies to any correction made more than a few minutes after the original posting. If I notice a mistake right after it goes up, I may just fix the mistake without indicating it--but only if this happens right away. Updates to the original post will only be made on the same day as that post. After that, corrections will get a new post.
Conspiracy Theory Alert: I don't usually go in for conspiracy theories, but I've come up with one I'd like to share. As is expected for any proper conspiracy theory, my only evidence is plausibility and there's no way to disprove it. That said, I'd like to offer two pieces of plausibility evidence:
1. The US and Britain negotiated secretly for at least 8 months with Libya before striking a deal with Gaddafi to get rid of his WMD programs.
2. David Kay has said that he believes that some material related to Iraq's weapon programs was transported to Syria prior to the war. (Thanks to Instapundit.)
So what's the theory? Let's say Gaddafi wasn't the only one made nervous by the sudden collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by the capture of a thoroughly humiliated Hussein. Assad, after all, is much closer to the action, and is more closely associated with Hussein. It is then plausible that Assad would be interested in pursuing the same sort of deal offered to Gaddafi, may in fact be in negotiations now. This presents the possibility that Bush may know a bit more about Iraq's WMDs than Kay, which may explain his reluctance to back down from earlier statements.
This is by no means proof, or even evidence. I'm just pointing out a possibility.
New Post: More on happenings in Syria above.
1. The US and Britain negotiated secretly for at least 8 months with Libya before striking a deal with Gaddafi to get rid of his WMD programs.
2. David Kay has said that he believes that some material related to Iraq's weapon programs was transported to Syria prior to the war. (Thanks to Instapundit.)
So what's the theory? Let's say Gaddafi wasn't the only one made nervous by the sudden collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by the capture of a thoroughly humiliated Hussein. Assad, after all, is much closer to the action, and is more closely associated with Hussein. It is then plausible that Assad would be interested in pursuing the same sort of deal offered to Gaddafi, may in fact be in negotiations now. This presents the possibility that Bush may know a bit more about Iraq's WMDs than Kay, which may explain his reluctance to back down from earlier statements.
This is by no means proof, or even evidence. I'm just pointing out a possibility.
New Post: More on happenings in Syria above.
Federal Marriage Amendment: I am a conservative--on social, fiscal, and national defense issues--and like most conservatives, I am not a big fan of the Federal Marriage Amendment. If you're a liberal, that "most" probably surprises you, but I believe it to be true. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and its purpose as such is to create the guidelines by which the many and diverse other laws are enacted. Defining marriage within the Constitution stretches it beyond its purpose in the same way that the Eighteenth Amendment (beginning Prohibition) was outside the proper scope of the Constitution. On the other hand, I believe, like Donald Sensing, that the courts have long been overreaching their authority. They are certainly doing this on the matter of gay marriage. I am not in favor of gay marriage in general (to paraphrase Mark Steyn, changing over 5000 years of tradition based on 50 years of social progress strikes me as a tad shortsighted), but it wouldn't perturb me quite so much if a state legislature, elected by the people with full knowledge of their intentions, were to decide to enact gay marriage within its own state. Having it rammed down the throat of a unwilling populace by an unelected court is another matter entirely. If it takes a Constitutional amendment to prevent that, so be it.
However, I would prefer it if the amendment were not quite so specific to marriage, but addressed the problem which allowed the courts to make these decisions for us in the first place. The American system of checks and balances seems to be sorely lacking when it comes to balancing the court. Thus, I would prefer it if the amendment were to attempt to address this issue. I think it is right to worry about compromising the court's independence, about weakening the power of what is supposed to be the last defense of our freedoms. Unfortunately, the court seems less interested in our freedoms these days (see Campaign Finance Reform), so maybe it won't hurt. I'm not an expert on constitutional law, so I couldn't come up with the proper wording, but I can think of some requirements:
1. Congress would need to be able to overrule the precedent which the court sets, but not the actual ruling itself.
2. This would require at the least a supermajority in both houses of Congress to pass.
New post: I have a new post on this subject here.
However, I would prefer it if the amendment were not quite so specific to marriage, but addressed the problem which allowed the courts to make these decisions for us in the first place. The American system of checks and balances seems to be sorely lacking when it comes to balancing the court. Thus, I would prefer it if the amendment were to attempt to address this issue. I think it is right to worry about compromising the court's independence, about weakening the power of what is supposed to be the last defense of our freedoms. Unfortunately, the court seems less interested in our freedoms these days (see Campaign Finance Reform), so maybe it won't hurt. I'm not an expert on constitutional law, so I couldn't come up with the proper wording, but I can think of some requirements:
1. Congress would need to be able to overrule the precedent which the court sets, but not the actual ruling itself.
2. This would require at the least a supermajority in both houses of Congress to pass.
New post: I have a new post on this subject here.
After wasting hours and hours reading blogs and wishing I was doing something productive, I decided to start my own. That way I can waste hours not only reading, but also posting, which means that I am producing something, so that, by definition, I am being productive, even if what I am producing is pure drivel.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]