The Hollywood Liberal videotaped Justin Raimondo’s talk to the Whittier Law School on Tuesday (which his Wednesday column is a transcript of). The talk is available in four parts, in both high- and low-bandwidth.
Many thanks for THL.
Justin Logan on Eugene Volokh’s paean to public torture:
You know, you guys are, like, so judgmental. What’s so bad about sadism, anyway? Who are you to rule it beyond the pale for libertarian debate?
Time for yet another attack on my favorite adversary: The Pentagon. Their new project is not quite as silly as their numerous others. This one represents a legitimate and serious threat to the survival of the species. According to a new story carried here by the Washington Post, the Pentagon is ready to test a launcher for;
an unmanned maneuverable spacecraft that would travel at five times the speed of sound and could carry 1,000 pounds of munitions, intelligence sensors or other payloads.
The story goes on to say;
The use of space “enables us to project power anywhere in the world from secure bases of operation,” says the Pentagon’s national defense strategy, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed on March 1. Among the key goals in the strategy paper are “to ensure our access to and use of space and to deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries.“
That sounds like a ‘space war’ to me. There’s virtually no way to shoot something like this down (The US may already have a hypersonic spy plane called the ‘Aurora’. If so, it would have been in service for at least a decade without having been shot down.). Five times the speed of sound? And in sub-orbital space? Put yourself in the position of one of the US’s ‘enemies’; You have to find some way to defend against this thing. Now suppose that this hypersonic space glider is armed with nuclear bombs or tactical missiles. How can the Bush administration’s systematic militarization of space fail to start a new and fantastically dangerous arms race?
From today’s presidential press conference:
Your administration continues to make the use of video news releases, which are prepackaged news stories sent to television stations, fully aware that some or many of these stations will air them without any disclaimer that they are produced by the government.
The comptroller general of the United States this week said that raises ethical questions.
Does it raise ethical questions about the use of government money to produce stories about the government that wind up being aired with no disclosure that they were produced by the government?
BUSH: There is a Justice Department opinion that says these pieces are within the law so long as they’re based upon facts, not advocacy.
BUSH: And I expect our agencies to adhere to that ruling, to that Justice Department opinion.
This has been a longstanding practice of the federal government to use these types of videos.
The Agricultural Department, as I understand it, has been using these videos for a long period of time. The Defense Department, other departments have been doing so.
It’s important that they be based upon the guidelines set out by the Justice Department.
Now, I also — I think it would be helpful if local stations then disclosed to their viewers that this was based upon a factual report and they chose to use it.
BUSH: But evidently in some cases that’s not the case.
QUESTION: But the administration could guarantee that’s happening by including that language in the pre-packaged report?
BUSH: You mean a disclosure, “I’m George W. Bush and I… “
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Well, some way to make sure it couldn’t air without the disclosure that you believe is so vital.
BUSH: You know, Ken, I mean, there’s a procedure that we’re going to follow and the local stations ought to — since there’s a deep concern about that — ought to tell their viewers what they’re watching.
In other words, we’ll continue to lie, and it’s your responsibility to catch us in the act. Which brings to mind some interesting words from another time:
The idea of responsibility – of being accountable for one’s actions – has no meaning in a world where there is neither truth nor reality, but only endless interpretation.
Notorious war reporter Ed Vulliamy – whose claim to fame was “witnessing” the genocide in Bosnia through paid PR plants – came out swinging in Tuesday’s Guardian, accusing Russia of hiding Balkans war crimes suspects.
Unlike most articles putting forth allegations of such seriousness, Vulliamy’s tone is that of absolute truth and verified facts – yet he offers little or no corroboration for his claim. No one in the story is ever quoted by name; it’s all “sources at The Hague and other intelligence sources,” “one senior diplomat,” and “[o]ther western intelligence sources.”
The entire shocking expose stinks of nothing so much as the “revelation” of Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s. At least Colin Powell had pretty pictures when he got up and lied at the Security Council. Vulliamy don’t need no stinkin’ evidence; he’s got it all figured out in his head…
One-time beat poet-become-Sufi-devotee Stephen Schwartz responds to this blogpost. Kinda. Well, not really. Here he is in the comments section of FrontPageMag, under the (all-caps) heading “LAST EXIT TO SANITYVILLE“:
I think SANITYVILLE was a few exits back, Comrade Sandalio. Anyway, the entire Internet is still waiting for you to explain these evil hyperlink thingies. Is it true that if you click on one it will steal your soul?
