Tag Archives: morality

Choices

Posted on by
Reply

The august editors of The Wall Street Journal oppose SecDef Pete Hegseth’s decision to live stream the execution of Nidal Hassan, the terrorist who shot up Fort Hood ‘way back in 2009.

It’s about time for the terrorist to die at the hands of the government whose soldiers he butchered, and while the editors agree, sort of, that his execution should be public, they insist that the execution be done

quietly with few witnesses beyond officials and the families of the victims who wish to attend. This consigns him to history with ignominy but no fanfare. Mr Hasan has said “I would still be a martyr” if executed, and that he killed those soldiers because they were “going against the Islamic Empire.” A livestreamed death, complete with some incendiary last words, is what he wants.

Those learned editors add

Mr Hasan and his ilk understand they are likely to die. That is part of their fevered calculation. They imagine that by their violence they will contribute to the bloody caliphate they hope to build on earth.
A public death by firing squad would give Mr Hasan that publicity in perpetuity. It would assist the cult of death promoted by the perversion of Islam….

Those editors, though, ignore the enormous white elephant in the execution chamber: the publicity for which Hasan yearns, the public execution assistance to the terrorists’ death cult, exists only because the press of which these wondrous editors are card-carrying members chooses to hype the execution, it means of carrying out, and the live streaming of it solely for their own ripped bodice wallowing and the clicks it will “earn” them.

The US doesn’t need to execute Mr Hasan on live TV to send a deterrent message. It needs to win the war against jihadists around the world….

That second sentence is true as far as it goes. But it’s much harder for the US to win any war or conflict when a mendacious press chooses hype and exaggeration over cold, nonpartisan reporting and then blames the outcome of its mendacity on the government.

An honest press, one given to objectivity and—as the WSJ editors pretend so righteously to demand—denial of the spectacle that Hasan demands for his so-called martyrdom, would simply note the fact of Hasan’s execution by firing squad with the execution attended by government officials and victims’ families, and then move on.

Unfortunately, these editors and their brothers and sisters of the press wear their blinders not along the sides of their eyes to limit their peripheral vision, but flat across the front of their eyes to limit their vision.

Cowardice of Euphemisms

Posted on by
Reply

Last Saturday, Houthi terrorists fired missiles at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing 12 and injuring more than 300. The terrorists then repeated their claim that humanitarian flights to and from Riyadh would be permitted only with their prior authorization.

Almost as perfidious, though, are the reactions of Canada and Ireland.

Canada said military activity there had disrupted flights. Ireland’s embassy called it a serious incident.

Terrorist actions are not “military activity,” nor are they “serious incidents.” They’re terrorist actions, and nothing else.

As long as these two governments cannot bring themselves to name a terrorist activity for what it is—or worse, if they cannot recognize a terrorist activity when it occurs—these two governments cannot be trusted with anything.

Full stop.

A No-Brainer

Posted on by
Reply

Or it would be for anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist. The supposed conundrum centers on England’s Premier League’s supposed cream of the crop Manchester City soccer club (not to be confused with the Manchester United soccer club, which appears to have entirely clean hands). It appears that Man City has been caught in more than 100 violations of the Premier League’s rules on spending, violations like

“‘sham’ commercial deals” from 2009 and continuing into the 2017-18 season, the Premier League said following an independent investigation. The purpose, it added, was to “artificially inflate the club’s revenues, and reduce its costs, by more than £900 million ($1.2 billion) during the affected period to appear to comply with financial rules.”

The price of this cheating could extend to this:

…the club stripped of several championships and Manchester City expelled from the Premier League. In that scenario, it would be busted down one or more divisions and forced to work its way back up over the course of several seasons.

The supposed conundrum is this:

The predicament is especially awkward for [UK Prime Minister Andy] Burnham, who built much of his political appeal on his everyman soccer-fan image, but now finds himself caught between a major investor in the UK economy and defending the integrity of the Premier League, Britain’s most popular cultural export since the Beatles.

Hmm…. Let’s see, does Burnham do the right thing, the moral thing, the honest thing, and let the League hammer City for its blatant and long-lasting cheating? Or does he wink at it in order to curry the favor of a major (foreign) investor? What to do, what to do….

As I said at the outset, only a Leftist, a British Liberal, would find himself challenged by the choice. Or, the WSJ‘s news writers are overstating the case, and Burnham will have no trouble reaching the correct decision.

Two Things

Posted on by
Reply

Here are two things, taken in isolation but not separated from each other.

Last week, five likely terrorists were caught in the process of scoping out, if not actually attacking our B-1 bombers housed at RAF Fairford in the UK. The five terrorists were back out on bail within hours of their arrest, functionally free to resume their plot.

This week, the Israeli government closed the British Consulate in Jerusalem, sending home the Consul General and the bulk of the consulate staff; this came in response to the UK’s decision to harm Israel by banning trade with Israeli settlers operating in the West Bank. A skeleton crew remains in a small diplomatic mission, styled UK Mission, Jerusalem, left to serve…Palestinians.

These two things, in their aggregation, seem to imply that the UK favors Palestinian terrorists over its obligations to NATO and to UK allies. They appear to suggest that the UK has no interest in Israel—which is further consistent with government rhetoric condemning Israel’s efforts in Gaza to defend itself against repeats of Hamas’ and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s atrocities of 7 October 2023.

This, by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, makes the matter plain [emphasis added]:

We have been clear that we do not accept that the government of Israel has the legal right to close the British Consulate General in Jerusalem, which has been there for nearly 200 years. The UK government reiterates its long-standing view that East Jerusalem is occupied territory.

A Clear Statement

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on protecting women’s sports from male participation by gender identity last Wednesday. Progressive-Democratic Party committee members boycotted the hearing a’fter the committee’s Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D, IL) pooh-poohed the risk of boys and men playing against girls in girls’ sports, calling the hearing a vendetta against trans athletes.

This is Party’s overt, clear statement in favor of boys and men playing in what used to be girls’ sports, denying those girls the privacy of their own bathrooms and locker rooms, denying those girls the self-confidence that comes from competing against other girls and winning or otherwise doing well rather than being dominated by the boys and men against whom they’re competing—to use that term very loosely in this context. It denies girls access to the accolades, scholarships, and money that would otherwise accrue to them from success.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party. It proudly adds misogyny to their platform.