Jaw-Droppers

I noticed a couple or three jaw-dropping items today. One is from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled (5-4) that you and I are polluters. (See also this New York Times article.) Since the Supreme Court has now ruled that — whether or not science agrees — carbon dioxide is politically a pollutant which EPA has the authority to regulate, I wonder how long before we all have to get a license to be allowed the privilege of breathing.

Then I saw the article on the "Aroma in Tacoma" talking about the Washington State city officially blaming the victim for being attacked. Tacoma is billing the U.S. Department of Defense for their $500,000 costs in providing a significant law enforcement presence necessitated by the violent "peace" demonstrations against the military. This seems to me logically equivalent to the Saudi Arabian "justice" system punishing a woman for being the victim of a gang rape. Tacoma clearly has no principles in this. They just figure they have a better chance of getting money from their fellow victims than from the unscrupulous (and probably totally unproductive) "peace" protestors violently attacking those who protect them.

The first two items in today's Best of the Web were not quite that bad. In one, the Democrats in the House Armed Services Committee have made the Global War on Terror into "the war that must not be named" by banning the use of that phrase (among others). Column author James Taranto notes that

America seems dangerously close to a tipping point: a return to the 9/10 mindset that led to 9/11. It may be that President Bush's steadfastness is the only thing standing in the way, and that his departure from the scene in January 2009 will leave a more timid America.

Or, more optimistically, it may be that the current opposition to the "global war" is less about the war itself than about partisanship and Bush-hatred — and that its apparent gain in strength is really only a reflection of the president's political weakness late in his term.

Taranto also notes (second item) an interesting flip-flop by the Left. The Left previously demanded that Islamist extremists captured on the battlefield and in terrorist attempts be given Prisoner of War status, even though they are explicitly excluded from such status by the terms of the Geneva Accords. Now, however, they think Prisoner of War status is too severe since it mandates imprisonment until the war's end. The Left thinks that's far too long and wants these terrorist barbarians released soon (or now) so they can murder more innocent victims. In effect, they are insisting these war criminals be given more rights than legitimate Prisoners of War.

All in all, just unbelievable!