The NY Times once again shows its complete lack of patriotism.

I have to admit, however, that this is first rate investigative journalism. The type we see far too little of these days. These reporters are to be commended for their professional skill. A job well done, however, may still be a moral wrong.

In the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai, WWII British POWs led by Colonel Nicholson (memorably played by Alec Guiness) build a railroad bridge for the Japanese in Southeast Asia. Pride in their impressive technical accomplishment blinds them to the fact that they are lending support to the enemy in wartime.

Similarly, the NY Times reporters have an impressive achievement to their credit, but one that lends support to the enemies to our country in wartime.

The real failure here is in editorial discretion. The decision to run the story at this time was wrong. I do not suggest that the NY Times editors should have spiked the story, instead they should have shown it to the CIA and given them some months to shut down the enterprises at issue and set up alternate front companies. Unfortunately, the men who are in these companies right now are at great personal risk – due mainly to the moral blindness of the NY Times.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater: neutrality in a war between good and evil is not a virtue. We can all only hope that the NY Times recognizes this someday.
- posted by Thomas @ 8:43 AM 0 comments

 
I have just finished tweaking this blog. You now have the ability to leave comments to the posts. Also, readers can now take a look at my profile.

I still cannot figure out if anyone can e-mail me. This is embarrassing as I consider myself to be a tech-savvy guy.

However, if all else fails just e-mail me at:

tgcrowell at hotmail dot com (insert appropriate punctuation)

(the stripping of punctuation above is designed to frustrate automatic e-mail harvesting software)
- posted by Thomas @ 6:10 PM 0 comments

 
Abu Al-Zarqawi is reportedly wounded. Some Islamo-fascist friendly web sites have been asking for prayers for his recovery. Sorry but I just can't comply.

However, as I was reading Black Five this afternoon, I found this link to Chrenkoff's Blog where you can leave you own prayers for the future of Abu Al-Zarqawi. I have already left my own not-so-charitable thoughts. Feel free to leave your own.
- posted by Thomas @ 5:04 PM 0 comments

 
I was reading Mark Steyn’s online article this morning about the problem with corruption in Canada. Apparently the ruling party has been using (abusing?) public funds to keep their political allies and friends well-fed and happy. I do not know enough about the subject to comment directly but one point stuck out at me. Mark Steyn observes that the "everybody does it" defense is being used by the Liberal Party defenders just as Bill Clinton's supporters used it during his administration.

In real life – as opposed to politics – you mostly hear this argument from teenagers and persons with a teenager's judgment. It abandons moral judgment and jumps into the cesspool of cynical relativism. It also conflicts with the rule of law, as laws no longer matter – just momentary consensus.

I certainly hope for Canada's sake that they reject this argument. They can either choose to be governed by objective truths as enunciated in laws, or watch their society undergo a one-way ratchet to increasing corruption and moral decadence.

The Canadians I know are good and decent folk. I suspect that goes for most Canadians. I am optimistic that those qualities will save them from accepting this bad argument.
- posted by Thomas @ 10:13 AM 0 comments

 
OK, OK so it's been a while since I last blogged. The recent news story about the $45,480 for the death of a cat in Seattle, however, has got me back into the game.

The non-lawyer reader may think that this woman actually won that amount at the end of a lawsuit. She almost certainly didn't. Although the press accounts don't say so explicitly, the context makes me believe that this was a "default judgment." What that mean is that the defendant didn't bother to respond and the woman's attorney walked into court and simply had to convince an overworked judge (Barbara Linde in this case) to pick a number out of thin air.

The chance of this woman ever getting any money at all is virtually nil.

Judge Linde probably figured it was easier to give this attorney what he was asking for than to get bogged down in a lengthy explanation of the intrinsic value of pets. She didn't expect to draw national attention. In any event this is not what you would expect if the case had been actively defended.

Judge Linde made a mistake in awarding anything for emotional distress much less $15,000. The law is actually pretty clear that the most this woman should have gotten was the cash value of the pet.

The $30,000 for the actual value of the cat seems to be wholly unsupported. That is lawyer speak for "made up." I challenge anyone to find a cat that ever sold for that much - excepting rare breeds and show cats. Remember the dead cat in this question was a stray this woman picked up. It seems to me the cash value is what she paid for it -- nothing.
- posted by Thomas @ 9:10 PM 0 comments