Patterico's Pontifications

8/22/2011

Paul Ryan Definitely Not Running?

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 12:45 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

So says the Weekly Standard.

Did he pinky swear this time?  I mean didn’t the media already say that like fifteen times? Why should this denial be taken more seriously?

Still, I think that is the right decision, if he has made it.  I don’t believe Paul Ryan has any significant administrative experience.  I like him better for the job than Bachmann, but not by a lot.

And don’t take that as me dissing him as a legislator.  I think he has been a rock star in the Representatives mainly for substantive reasons.  But that is not the same job as being president.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

Open Thread on Libya: The “Praise God and Pass the Ammunition” Edition!

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 12:36 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

I have been ill today, so that has affected blogging, but here’s a thread on Libya as Gdaffy’s* regime apparently collapses.  This is a post to share rumors, suspicions, information and updates, a real sort of DIY information sharing thread.

And to get the conversation going, here’s the part where we talk about praising God

The dust has not yet settled over the Libyan capital of Tripoli since rebels took control over the weekend. But already, a draft constitutional charter for the transitional state has appeared online (embedded below). It is just a draft, mind you, and gauging its authenticity at this point is difficult. There is also no way to know whether this draft or something similar will emerge as the final governing document for a new Libyan regime.

As both the Morning Bell and Washington in a Flash noted today, Heritage Fellow Jim Phillips recently pointed out that Islamist forces “appear to make up a small but not insignificant part of the opposition coalition,” and must be prevented “from hijacking Libya’s future.” Parts of the draft Constitution allay those fears, while others exacerbate them.

Much of the document describes political institutions that will sound familiar to citizens of Western liberal democracies, including rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system.

But despite the Lockean tenor of much of the constitution, the inescapable clause lies right in Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.

Of course forgetting that this is merely an alleged draft, that sounds similar to something found in the Iraqi constitution and I don’t think that place has been turned into Iran 2.0 just yet.  So I consider that concerning, but not necessarily a deal-breaker.  And I don’t know how concerning  it is to guarantee the independence of the judiciary.  I mean, next thing you know, the Libyan Supreme Court might declare a (Libyan) Constitutional right to gay marriage.

And then there is passing the ammunition…

This is  Hala Misrati, an anchor on Libya’s state TV who actually pulled out a gun on air and said she was ready to be a martyr for Gdaffy.

By the way, she has reportedly been arrested, no martyrdom involved.

Why do I get the feeling that if Obama loses in 2012, that this might be Rachel Maddow?

(Hat tip: Jim Treacher)

——————————-

* There are about a hundred ways to spell the name of the (former?) leader of Libya’s name.  This seems to be about as good as any.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

Big Media’s Big Failures: Non-scandal edition

Filed under: General — Karl @ 6:39 am

[Posted by Karl]

Someone asked me whether the recent error-riddled New York Times hit piece on Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, could subject the NYT to a libel suit.  Theoretically, the article is so bad that it could warrant a complaint, but as a practical matter, a lawsuit would be a waste of time.  Assuming Issa could convince a judge that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Eric Lichtblau and the NYT acted with “actual malice” in publishing the story, Congressmen are not sympathetic plaintiffs. 

Notably, the hit piece is one of the very few things the NYT has written about Issa.  The NYT has also written next to nothing about Operation Fast & Furious, the Obama administration scandal currently in Issa’s crosshairs.  Indeed, the NYT editorial board does not seem to think it’s worth investigating, let alone covering, if it does not advance the paper’s crusade for gun control.  (more…)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4356 secs.