| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Someone who claims to have been molested by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky is suing Sandusky and claims he is doing so, according to the article, "because he doesn't want other kids to be abused".
An admirable thought, indeed. But... this particular string of abuse ended way back in 1996.... FIFTEEN YEARS AGO! If he didn't want other kids to be molested by Sandusky, one might think that he could have called the police... sometime during the past FIFTEEN YEARS! If he didn't want other kids to be molested and thought suing Sandusky was the way to keep him from doing so, then one might think that he would have sued Sandusky... sometime during the past FIFTEEN YEARS! What a crock. Suing Sandusky now does nothing to keep Sandusky from molesting any other kids... it was pretty much a given that once Sandusky was arrrested he wasn't going to be molesting anybody else. And suing Sandusky does absolutely nothing to keep any other kids from being molested by any of the other creeps still out there. These a******s don't worry about getting sued. Jeez, they probably don't worry enough about being caught and prosecuted... so why would they worry about getting sued? Can you imagine any of them thinking to themselves 'hey, I better stop molesting little boys because I don't want to get sued'? Me neither. This.... in my humble opinion... is nothing more than an attempt to cash in. Even stipulating that the plaintiff was in fact molested, he had years and years in which to do something. Waiting 15 years is too long. Monday, November 21, 2011
While nobody can ever say for sure why the stock market goes up or down on a particular day, I am very, very, very skeptical of claims that the market drop today is because of the collapse of the so-called 'supercommittee'...
It's been apparent for a while now that the supercommittee wasn't going to come up with some universally accepted solution to the country's spending problems. In fact, there were some pretty smart people who on Day One claimed that this was all a waste of time, that there was no way the partisans on the supercommittee was going to come up with anything meaningful. But... according to the wonderful MSM, we're supposed to believe that it was only today that traders and investors woke up to the reality of supercommittee failure and decided to dump their holdings? Nah. Tuesday, November 15, 2011
I have long argued that only military action will keep Iran from developing and using nuclear weapons... and I realize that any attack on Iran won't be completely clean and free of negative aftershocks... but I totally am not worried that Iran would even try to shut down shipping in the Persian Gulf if attacked by Israel, as this article claims is the case.
Doing so would shift the conflict from a limited engagement between Iran and Israel to one in which Iran was taking on the United States as well (as much as Obama wouldn't want to respond militarily against Iran, he would have no choice but to do so if Iran tried shutting down the flow of oil out of the Middle East). While the damage from an Israeli attack would likely be limited to Iran's nuclear facilities and a handful of ground to air defense positions (those in position to interfere with the Israeli attack), a conflict with the United States would result in the US taking out much of Iran's military capabilities and command-control infrastructure. And while the Israelis are pretty much limited to one shot, which limits the damage Israel can do to Iran, the United States can pretty much attack Iran around the clock and wherever in Iran it wanted. Even if it were the United States attacking Iran's nuclear facilities (which it won't be, see my above point regarding Obama's unwillingness to use military force against Iran), Iran would be stupid - and for many of the same reasons - to elevate the confrontation. If America were to attack, it wouldn't need to wipe out Iran's military, like Israel, it would limit its attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and some nearby air defense installations. The damage would be limited. But if Iran tried to respond by closing down the Gulf, or perhaps even by attacking the United States elsewhere, it would be inviting the United States to elevate its attack. Iran's crazies may be crazy, but they're not stupid. They know that provoking a fight with the United States would result in their nose getting much more bloodied than needed.
|