Steve's No Direction Home Page :
If he needs a third eye, he just grows it.
Updated: 10/23/2004; 11:48:08 AM.

 

Subscribe to "Steve's No Direction Home Page" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

 
 


Friday, October 18, 2002

The Eye of the Beholder

25. Earth Erotica Photography by Heather Firth (4.0 points). Mother Nature ... Metafilter [( blogdex : recent )]
3:15:49 PM  Permalink  comment []



But SeriouslyMan, It's Fair & Balanced! At The Same Time.. Fox has Steven Milloysay How Reliable Is Ballistic Fingerprinting?. The Skeptic's Dictionary looksat Mr. Milloy's web page "The... [OliverWillis.com]
Willis points to a nice assessment of Steven Milloy's so-called "JunkScience" web site and book. I subscribed to this guy's newsletter for a while,and even read his book. It's just politics; to Milloy "junk" science is sciencethat doesn't suit his ideological ends, which having nothing to do with science.Good to see the Skeptic's Dictionary refuting this guy.

3:14:11 PM  Permalink  comment []

Barlow says it right

John Perry Barlow: The American Republic is Dead. Hail the American Empire. Or else.

[The Doc Searls Weblog]

I've often found myself strangely at odds or uncomforatable about Barlow, but this piece is really great. He brings to bear a lot of analysis and a lof of research I haven't seen before. Must reading.

 Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

 Robert Byrd quoted that passage in his brilliantly Quixotic speech to the Senate last week. The Senate ignored him as easily as they ignored you and millions of others who believe in American principles.

... What this resolution is truly about is the elimination of all sovereignty but our own. This is about our becoming the Dad of the World. Having declared ourselves immune from international prosecution for war crimes, we have proposed our right to disregard the sovereignty of any country that, in our opinion, doesn't deserve it.

...If another country harbors people we regard as terrorists, they have forfeited their sovereignty. If they cobble together a few of the weapons we possess in stupefying abundance, we will cross their borders and disarm them by force. Indeed, if they do anything that might eventually, left to develop unchecked, threaten American interests, we will stop them as brutally as we must.

These statements are not merely polemical on my part. They are American policy.

2:06:55 PM  Permalink  comment []

© Copyright 2004 Steve Michel.



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.
 


October 2002
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Sep   Nov

      EV