2008 August 11 | Hanlon's Razor

Russia takes Georgian town

By Hanlon, on August 11th, 2008 at 05:41 PM

I’ve been getting asked why I’m not writing too much on the Georgian situation. The reason is actually pretty simple: I don’t know enough about it. As a former co-conspirator on this site explained the whole thing to me, I found myself realizing just how ignorant on the Eastern European dynamic I am.

Well I can’t keep on ignoring things, not when Russia’s taken a city inside Georgia and is apparently staking it out to charge toward the capital.

Georgian soldiers fled Gori, 17 miles from the border with rebel South Ossetia, in panic and disarray, clinging to the sides of cars and vehicles as they sped out of town. A Georgian armoured personnel carrier was in flames on the street, a victim of an apparent sudden rout.

Alexander Lomaia, secretary of the Georgian security council, said that the Georgian army had been told instead to concentrate its efforts on holding Mtskheta, 15 miles from the capital.

Okay, what we’re looking at it aggression. End of it. Russia is on the path to aiming for a straight-up regime change in the pro-west Georgia. Much as I hate to say it, the right-wing line that this cannot be accepted is right, hypocritical as it may be. No left-wing venom here, just a serious concern.

By the way, Times Online’s analysis of the situation, calling it a trap, is a great primer on the situation. They’ve got a great team working on it, and I’d wholly suggest reading up on things. Kind of a shame that the Brits are beating us in excellent journalism (our guys won’t shut up about Edwards), but at least it’s out there.

Obama hits back.

By Hanlon, on August 11th, 2008 at 03:19 PM

Oh snap.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBPZyXvEw6M

More Rove-ian politics on the horizon

By Hanlon, on August 11th, 2008 at 03:16 PM

I know it’s naive to think that the 2008 cycle will be free of dirty politics, but I was still holding out hope that there would be a line that wouldn’t get crossed. Not so. Obama’s camp has buckled down, ready to respond to charges that the Senator supports, of all things, infanticide. We’ve entered DEFCON 4.

“Unlike Obama in Illinois, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to support the [2002 federal] bill,” Hudson wrote earlier this year. “In fact, the bill passed the Senate 98 to 0 with pro-abortion senators like Boxer (D-CA) and Reid (D-NV) supporting it. In 2003, the bill was introduced in the Illinois legislature for the third time and directed to a committee chaired by Obama, Health and Human Services. They refused to bring the bill to a vote. Only when Obama left for Washington in 2005 did the Born Alive Infant Protection Act pass the Illinois legislature. It’s for good reason Barack Obama has been called ‘the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.’”

The only problem with Hudson’s logic is that it requires comparing apples to oranges. The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact. Critically, the Illinois version of the bill that Obama opposed was also bundled with other proposals that would have put doctors at risk of prosecution, which led the Illinois State Medical Society to oppose the measure along with Obama. The state bill also carried greater influence in terms of enforcement, since states had been granted greater leeway in regulating abortion practices ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Two things pop into mind.

Read More ->

“Unlike Obama in Illinois, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to support the [2002 federal] bill,” Hudson wrote earlier this year. “In fact, the bill passed the Senate 98 to 0 with pro-abortion senators like Boxer (D-CA) and Reid (D-NV) supporting it. In 2003, the bill was introduced in the Illinois legislature for the third time and directed to a committee chaired by Obama, Health and Human Services. They refused to bring the bill to a vote. Only when Obama left for Washington in 2005 did the Born Alive Infant Protection Act pass the Illinois legislature. It’s for good reason Barack Obama has been called ‘the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.’”

The only problem with Hudson’s logic is that it requires comparing apples to oranges. The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact. Critically, the Illinois version of the bill that Obama opposed was also bundled with other proposals that would have put doctors at risk of prosecution, which led the Illinois State Medical Society to oppose the measure along with Obama. The state bill also carried greater influence in terms of enforcement, since states had been granted greater leeway in regulating abortion practices ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Two things pop into mind.

Quick note

By Hanlon, on August 11th, 2008 at 11:07 AM

My spam filter seems to be going a little haywire and I’ve lately had to moderate probably 90% of the comments coming down the wire. If yours doesn’t show up immediately, rest assured I’m going to approve it as soon as I get the notification.