A rare moment when TV doesn't suck triggers a bit of thought

Was watching "Law & Order" earlier. Yeah yeah, it was a rerun, blow me. Uh, anyway...

The episode dealt w/ a case of a homeless skitzo being beaten to death by another homeless guy -- over a friggin orange. The guy's lawyer, fitting a Leftist archetype, tried to get him off by spinning the whole thing as if it's some gross hypocracy to apply the law to homeless people -- in a nutshell, "they've been abandoned by civil society, how can they be expected to follow it's rules?". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why that is bunk: by that logic there'd be no difference between killing a homeless person & putting down a rabid dog, what is ironically claimed to recognize a "special circumstance" actually classifies them as subhumans. Basically, the left-wing activist lawyer used a tactic of sideways declaring superiority, which the radical Left commonly charges Conservatives with doing.

But that's not the thought I was referring to necessarily. This is:

Does anyone out there have the intellectual gonads to give an explanation, in any form, of why I should not interpret that as a clear parallel to the current popular neo-Marxist habit of excusing brutality in middle-eastern dictatorships & theocracies to spite "AmeriKKKa" as they so cutely put it? Because that conclusion has gone off on a 12-0 scoring run, and it's the 4th quarter & the opposition's best defender just fouled out.

The hawkbloggers are gonna wanna strangle me for this one...

****The following came about from a discussion elsewhere on strategic alliances. IMO our current interpretation of the concept is a ripoff and needs to be either reformed or thrown out entirely. Here's more detail...****

"The problem is in being forced to subsidize the defense of other nations.

Now, theoretically...

-IF it were made clear that the sole reason for any such alliance was to further the defense of Americans and nothing else.

-IF any exchange made were explicitly barred from being transferred to unrelated matters

-and IF there were popular support for legislation affirming the top 2 conditions for that alliance -- and any other -- w/ clauses that the alliance would have to be thoroughly reviewed (w/ the findings made available to the public for comment) & renewed by BOTH houses of congress bi-annually & if the 2nd condition were broken, or any spies were caught here from the country in question, funding would immediately be zero'd.

THEN, and only then, would it be reasonable to allow. At least a measure of accountability would be in place, it'd actually be decided on through a democratic process rather than because the right people got contributions (or in Israel's case, to placate christian fundamentalists who think if we help them then Jesus is coming back), and any risk of sacrificing sovereignty in the arrangement would be scrapped.

Under any other circumstances though, "alliances" in general as we currently define them are legalized theft. We didn't explicitly tell our government they could divert our money like that, and until we say otherwise the proper response is for them to cease in doing so. Since they have no choice but to pay, I'd think Americans would be interested in defending AMERICANS w/ their taxes rather than endlessly subsidizing some vaguely-determined chunk of the rest of the world."

*Waits to be yelled at...*

Typical Media Scaremongering...

No, not "liberal". Statist.

Summing it up, simple an' plain...

Radley Balko on why Bush must go...

Bush needs to lose because politicians need to be held accountable for the way they govern....Republicans seem to think that senseless pork projects, selling out on trade, campaign finance reform, and bloated government are acceptable so long as they pass half-assed tax cuts and hold the line at gay couples getting hospital visitation rights. Republicans need to be told that that isn't okay, and they need to be slapped around a little at the polls for ever thinking it was.

...and Michael Badnarik, via a blog-ad, showing why (unfortunately) he won't be helping arrange that. Could someone, anyone in the Libertarian Party PLEASE learn to address foreign policy with some sense? Just imagine how many people who otherwise would be prime for a libertarian vote are sent packing because the party is run by pipe-dreamers who have this habit of coming off as pacifists. Yeah, sure, peace is good, and it's clear that our current policy is doing us no favors, but simply posting up on the borders isn't realistic.