Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
July 15, 2005
BLOG: Quick Links 7/15/05

*Go vote in Mac Thomason's tournament to determine the most annoying ESPN on-air personality!

*Charlie Cook thinks it's the Democrats who need to worry about party unity on judges, not Republicans. And check out The National Journal's daily Blogometer.

*Dr. Weevil notes the loathsome Juan Cole's insistence on using the term "guerilla" to describe what any sane person would call terrorism:

When you're firing mortars at a market full of unarmed civilians, or murdering unarmed barbers, you are a not a guerrilla, or even an unlawful combatant, but a common murderer. And when you do it to terrorize the general population, as is quite obviously the case here, you are a terrorist. Why can't Cole use that word?

This is of a piece with the BBC's decision to declare the term doubleplus ungood. I didn't necessarily think it was accurate for the Bush Administration to call the insurgents "terrorists" when they first started attacking US troops, but given that the bulk of the attacks these days are aimed at Iraqi civilians (indeed, if they weren't, we could leave without much consequence), the term obviously fits.

You know, I understand why there can't be universal agreement on a truly comprehensive definition of terrorism, but there's no morally defensible reason why there can't be common agreement on a minimum definition of terrorism: when non-regular combatants (i.e., no uniform, no accountable chain of command, etc.) direct violence at primarily civilian/non-combatant targets, that's terrorism, period. (When the same violence is directed by regular combatants in a declared war between combatant nations, that's a different story, albeit in most cases equally objectionable - different, because the offending nation and its own populace can be held directly accountable). People like Cole just can't bring themselves to condemn terrorism because that would undermine the noble and treasured endeavor of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

*You would think that this case is more important and interesting than the Aruba Police Blotter. And this may have been missed by the media altogether, and may not lend itself to any obvious solution, but that doesn't make it any less tragic.

*Tom Elia says rooting for both the Cubs and the White Sox is a sign of the sickness of our age.

*Dean Barnett writes for the Weekly Standard that the Democrats are making a mistake in following the lead of the left blogosphere (hat tip: RedState). I've made this point before.

*The list of things potentially (a) classified or (b) harmful to national security that have been leaked through the NY Times in the past five years would be so long as to defy enumeration; Powerline notes a prominent and egregious example. Yet, somehow, only one riles.

*Stephen Green predicts that an economic slowdown will lead to saber-rattling by China. His prediction is swiftly fulfilled.

*When they get to the movie of "Namor the Sub-Mariner," it's time for Hollywood to just throw in the towel.

*He who Laffs last Laffs best.

*The Pope thinks the Harry Potter books offer "subtle seductions that work imperceptibly, and because of that deeply, and erode Christianity in the soul before it can even grow properly. This was written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in apparent approval of a book arguing that the Potter books (1) "blur the boundaries between good and evil and impair young readers' ability to distinguish between the two" and (2) "glorify the world of witches and magicians at the expense of the human world."

With all due respect to the Holy Father, the latter charge is silly - that's the nature of fantasy and sci-fi stories, even those written by ardent Catholics like Tolkein, and isn't a problem because in the real world there are no wizards - and the former charge just doesn't withstand contact with the actual books, which paint a very clear contrast between good and evil in all its forms, including cowardice, prejudice, snobbery, malicious gossip, jealousy, paranoia, overweening ambition, and joy in inflicting pain.

*John Cole has the latest on Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, with some news reports that bear very careful reading before you jump to conclusions.

*Blogger Chris Short discusses growing up in a cult. Hat tip: Jeff Quinton.

*DYKWIA?

*They've dropped baseball and softball from the Olympics. Sad, but Olympic baseball was really never a main event in the baseball world. There's something to be said for my older brother's view that no sport should be in the Olympics if winning an Olympic gold medal isn't the biggest event on the sport's calendar.

*I missed this whole Jeter-A-Rod fight story when it happened, as well as the 100th anniversary of Moonlight Graham's cup of coffee.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:15 PM | Blog 2002-05 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (1)
Comments

Terrorism under the guise of a soverign government's military would be a war crime. I think these definitions are not hard to come by morally, at all.

The left often is sympathetic with terrorists, hence their difficulty to call it what it is. Morally indefensible.

Posted by: Forbes at July 15, 2005 3:50 PM

What crap. Do you actually believe the garbage that comes off Fox and right wing Talk radio? Clearly you must.

One thing is for sure: The left ceratinly doesn't do business with terrorists and their families. We leave that to the current administration.

Posted by: jim at July 16, 2005 7:45 PM

You forgot to use all CAPS in your rant--but your raving certainly supports my contention regaring the sympathies of the left.
;-)

Posted by: Forbes at July 18, 2005 6:36 PM

How is that a rant? That is well short of a rant by any standard. Raving? Please. See this is the thing with you guys on the right. You think left=angry left=loves terrorists. It is just so far from the truth yet if you listen to that blowhard Limbaugh or others of his ilk (which I assume you do) then you somehow end up repeating it like it is gospel.

Do you really honestly believe that people who are not Republicans are terrorist conspirators and sympathizers? I mean, really, if you do that is just pretty ignorant. Becuase someone disagarees with you they are unpatriotic, fascist and a terrorist harborer? That is either the most naive position one could take or the dumbest.

Does my rant include the factual information about the long standing business relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Laden (yes, that Bin Laden) family? George Bush's first partner in the oil business (partner in the sense that he bailed his ass out): Osama's brother. If that is ranting how does one manage to get anything across to people such as yourself?

Posted by: jim at July 19, 2005 5:47 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg