A terrorist or not?
I think that if a person says they are attacking someone in order to be attacking the US that they are terrorists and should be acknowledged as such. Mohammed Taheri-azar said just that. “Taheri-azar replied, “It’s really to punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world.”and is quoted in the local paper as having done so. The Daily Tar Heel appears to disagree with me.
Speech or conduct?
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, with one abstention that military recruiters must be allowed on campus. They further rejected the law schools’ argument that this was a case of speech but said that it applied to conduct. Since most Ivy League schools have huge endowments, they could easily get rid of military recruiters by refusing to accept the money the government would give them. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it.
Teacher or student wrong?
Bennish, the geography teacher who went off on capitalism, Bush, and the US, said to Matt Lauer that the student didn’t get in touch with him to talk about the situation. That is true. And the student should have. But why do we think the student should have? Is there a rule about it? No. There’s not. We get the idea that the student should talk to him from Jesus. “If you have anything against your brother, go and talk to him.” There is no rule about talking to the person who is the problem outside of courtesy (US culture) and Christianity.
I don’t have to go to the man who is robbing my house and say, “You shouldn’t rob my house.” I can call the police while he is doing that. I won’t be in trouble for not telling him that I know he’s robbing my house.
Bennish knew what he was doing. He was lecturing his students inappropriately on unrelated topics. And the child went to his parents who went to the media. Do you know a better way to get a teacher regulated? I don’t. And I’m a teacher. I’ve taught both public and private school. If you want something done, you don’t go to the teacher or the school board. You go to the media. If it is a big enough deal that the media will pay attention, then you have leverage.
Foolish or genius?
South Dakota has declared all abortions against the law. That’s what the news and even most of the bloggers I read are touting. But the South Dakota law also declares that a child is a child from conception. Yes, it is an attack on Roe v. Wade. But it is more than that. The Supreme Court could just strike down the law, which still leaves the issue of when is a child a human being open. That the question will go back to the Supreme Court at all is amazing. I don’t know if it is a good decision or not, politically, and neither does anyone else. But it is the right decision.
For those who are upset about the no rape exception… No, I do not believe that a person who is raped is in the wrong. I believe rape is wrong. I also believe that murder is wrong. Should I let a victim of one crime get away with another crime? I don’t think so. “My house was robbed, so I get to steal from the store.” “I was rear ended last week by a hit and run, so I’m going to run over a pedestrian.” Get real, folks. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
And a rape victim who has an abortion will be doubly traumatized. Once by the rape. And once by the abortion.
Another point is, if you except rape victims, what is the burden of proof? Can I say I’m a rape victim? Do I have to have filed with the police? If so, then women will have clear motivation for filing a rape case when they’ve had consensual sex but think it is likely that their birth control failed. “Oops, the condom broke. I better swing by the police station in the morning.”
Rape victims already have it bad. They have to prove that a crime was done to them. It’s a bit harder than proving murder or theft. And it’s much more traumatic. Their life is already going to suck.
But that’s not a reason to let them murder someone.