We're back!

Hello folks,
Horns and Heifers is back. It turns out finishing college and working nearly full-time don't allow much time for blog writing. I have graduated, though, so let's get the ball rolling.

Susie and I will have a nice post for you later this week. The topic is government intervention in private business.

For now, let's check out some links with a new format...

The Good:

Obama and Courts Disagree
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/politics/14gitmo.html?hp

The New York Times, doing what comes naturally to non-journalists, gave this article the headline "U.S. Won’t Label Terror Suspects as ‘Combatants’," ignoring the meaty portion of the article. Before we get to the good, I should point out that Obama's stance is both worthless and superficial. It will become worse than worthless if/when Guantanamo detainees are moved to US Soil. Until that day, store these jerks where you'd like and call them what you want; I just want them locked up.

The good is the court ruling. First, it's nice to see the courts get it right. The Guantanamo detainees were fighters. We wouldn't give individual trials to Nazi soldiers, Japanese Kamikazes (if alive), or British troops in the Revolution. Why allow terrorists to roam free?

The popular answer has been "because it wasn't a war." In other words, because these fighters did not fight under a country's flag, they should get a pass. By that logic, we couldn't detain Jewish fighters or Gypsy terrorists. After all, diaspora lack their own land. Woe to the Jewish fighter who takes up Israel's flag, though; you become a soldier instantly. (Not to mention you associate yourself with Israel. For shame...)

The good goes beyond the court getting the ruling right, though. It also shows a sliver of light. Maybe our judicial system won't bow and bend to accomodate Obama. Maybe legislating from the bench is out and the courts will do their jobs. This is one battle won, and it shows we may be able to win the war.

Plus, this show's true idiocy. I'll take a president who mispronounces "nuclear" and tries to walk through a fake door over one who doesn't understand the law and tries to get into the Oval Office via a window. At least a fake door looks like a door.


The Bad:

Obama Camp Tactics
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/gibbs-responds-to-cheneys-remarks/

Another Times article. This article shows the wonderfully tactful methods White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is using. Here's the gist:

- Dick Cheney criticizes Obama plan to shut down Gitmo
- Gibbs gets angry
- Likens Cheney to Limbaugh, though he means it as an insult
- Uses sarcastic tone and caustic intention
- When confronted, Gibbs claims to sometimes "ask forgiveness rather than permission."

What doesn't happen:
- Personal attack by Cheney
- Logical argument or forethought by Gibbs
- Actual apologies or request for forgiveness by Gibbs

The whole event is a microcosm of the liberal portion of America. Rather than respond to legitimate criticisms, Gibbs simply reverted to name calling. How effective would it have been for Gibbs to simply say "here's why Cheney is off-base..?"

Answer. Still not overly effective. At least he wouldn't have been rude and disrespectful, though. This is the type of response I would expect from a small child.


The Ugly:

Obama Finds Respectable Forum
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1653321120090316

Obama's schedule for further serious discussion includes an education summitt led by Big Bird at Sesam Street, an automobile industry conference at Funland Go-Karts, and a seminar on censorship as part of this week's episode of Saturday Night Live.

Speak for yourself. Don't use a fake, humorous forum to demean others.