Pat Robertson: Jackass

Get this from a conservative Christian minister:

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson told viewers on his "The 700 Club" show Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

Oh, that's bloody BRILLIANT.

Robertson accused Chavez, a left-wing populist with close ties to Cuban President Fidel Castro, of trying to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."

"This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen," he said.

Maybe ole Pat should look at some of the things happening in south/central America. Note that CAFTA has passed and that ALBA is failing. To date ALBA only has one signatory other than Venezuela, and that's Cuba. Not what I would call a resounding show of solidarity.

Chavez is throwing money around massively, and has little to show for it in his country. The returns for his actions have not benefited Venezuela to any major extent. The best thing for the US to do is sit back and let Chavez hang himself. Loud mouths like Robertson only give people ideas in places where those ideas could take root. How much damage would occur to the US economy if an Islamic terrorist type decided to assassinate Chavez?

Chavez has said he believes the United States is trying to assassinate him, vowing that Venezuela, which accounts for more than 10 percent of U.S. oil imports, would shut off the flow of oil if that happens.

Even if the assassination fails, it could easily prompt Chavez into action that could be damaging to the economy.

Let's not mention that I find it unlikely that Jesus Christ would have approved of a minister of his religion preaching murder for any reason.

Bring Back the Viet Nam Protest Ethos

I don't usually post anything that was previously posted by Instapundit (H/T) because, really, what would be the point. However, this is so much more coherent than my rant below, and yet, in the same vein, that I figured, this time, I'd post from the IP in order to have more complete, and clear, communication on this topic.
Althouse talks about the implications and efficacy of bringing back the good old days of protest. Nixon won... twice. That's despite Joan Baez (crunch, crunch, grind) being against him... twice. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to bring back Tricky Dick. I just want to point out that, while the anti-war protesters back them got some of what they wanted (we pulled out of Viet Nam, prematurely and disastrously), but actually lost a lot of other things that they marched for as well. For example, 7 out of 10 of the presidential elections since 1968 have gone for the counter-counter-culture candidate. Something to think about. Althouse lays it out much better than I can.

Changing Minds in the Muslim World

This opinion piece by Michael Barone refers to the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

But the most important changes occurring -- not just in Iraq, but across the Muslim world -- are changes in people's minds. These are harder, but not impossible, to measure.

George W. Bush has proclaimed that we are working to build democracy in Iraq not just for Iraqis, but in order to advance freedom and defeat fanatical Islamist terrorism around the world. Now comes the Pew Global Attitudes Project's recent survey of opinion in six Muslim countries to tell us that progress is being made in achieving that goal.

Minds are being changed, and in the right direction.

You can read the research in detail here.

http://pewglobal.org/

Joan Baez at Camp Casey

Can you hear that sound? That's my teeth grinding. Saying the name Joan Baez in my presence causes it. Even when I was a completely crunch granola tin-foil wearing moonbat (as close as i got to being one anyway), Joan Baez crawled up my spine. See, when she & her husband were out protesting the troops as part of their war in Viet Nam, my father was in a hospital recovering from a grenade wound. I'll never get out of my head the image of this rich little child or privilege protesting, not just against the war, but against those "baby killers." You know who they were right, the middle class and poor guys that didn't get deferments because Momsie & Daddems sent them off to college. Who did this swine think she was to attack those men. You're against the war? Fine. Protest the war. Leave the troops alone.
Luckily (unluckily?) the moonbats have learned that lesson anyway.
So, now Baez was at Camp Casey. As far as I'm concerned, this story has now jumped the shark. I heard a quote from her this morning on the radio that I tried to find online but couldn't. My (probably incorrect) recollection of it was this:

Like, it's like, the like glass, was you know like shattered. At the front of a, like, bus, by Michael Moore. And like, Cindy Sheehan like stepped through, you know.

Oooh, my teeth ache.

Vietnaminization of Iraq

So Chuck Hagel is on board with forcing Iraq into the Vietnam mold. The terrorist/insurgents must just be loving this.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on ABC's "This Week." "I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

I'd love to know why he thinks the presence of the US military is destabilizing the area. I'd also like to understand what he thinks on the potential for a Sunni/Shia sectarian civil war should the US withdraw as he is demanding.

"It seems that the ice is cracking in a bipartisan way in terms of congressional dissatisfaction with President Bush's policy in Iraq. The silence in terms of directly criticizing the administration's handling of Iraq — its mismanagement — has come to an end," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. Although his independent centrist organization is affiliated with the Democratic Party, Wittmann formerly served as a senior aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

I'm so very tired of the "mismanagement" gripe. I keep hearing it, but never hear them present any real information that shows irrefutable evidence of mismanagement. But then, I also fail to understand a group calling itself "independent centrist" and being affiliated with a single party. Doesn't strike me as being quite honest.

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the former majority leader, said that his constituents, despite their "very pro-military" feelings, were beginning to question whether the United States was doing enough to help establish an independent Iraqi government and make enough progress to allow troop withdrawals anytime soon.

"They still believe very strongly in President Bush," Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press," citing recent conversations with frustrated constituents. "But they have a right to ask their elected officials, you know, 'What is the plan?' "

The plan, the plan, what is the plan. Do you really think there is no withdrawl plan? Just take a second and think about the military. They rarely have any situation without a plan of some sort, and a huge theater most definitely has one. The problem I see in telling the plan is that people demand time-tables with plans. With the situation being rather fluid in Iraq at the moment, I find it unlikely that there is a defined time-table.

Personally, I believe we have already been told the withdrawl plan. The problem is that the plan that is known is vague. Iraq needs to get it's military/police establishments self standing and in place. They need a constitution and an elected government. They require a more stable environment between the Islamic sects, which should come with the government stabilization.

Hagel, however, said that it was the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq that was causing the destabilization, and that the administration needed to start articulating its long-range plans for withdrawal immediately or risk having Iraq become as politically costly as the Vietnam War.

The only destabilization that is occurring, which is caused by the US military, is related to the insurgents. Note that 14 or 15 of the providences of Iraq are stable. Also note that most of the insurgents are attacking Iraqi citizens more than they are attacking the US military. Odd that don't you think?

Politically costly? What? Oh, wait. Hagel is looking to run for president in 2008. He's posturing a centrist position and worried that because he's republican he'll be branded with the results of Iraq. Bloody politician.

"We are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar or dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay, the more problems we are going to have," Hagel said. He was particularly harsh in his criticism of Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, for saying in an Associated Press interview a day earlier that the Pentagon was making contingency plans for having more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq through 2009.

Such plans, even if they are a worst-case and unlikely scenario, are "complete folly," Hagel said. "There's no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Hagel demands to be told about withdrawl plans, but when he hears of plans for staying, he starts screeching. Plans don't indicate intentions. Plans are put in place to ensure you know what you need and where you need resources should an issue arise. You'd think being an adult that Hagel would understand such a concept. But then, it doesn't sound as good politically.

Rewilding of North America: Crack Pot Ecology

Why is it if you have an especially stupid idea you get so much press?

The "rewilding" of parts of North America's heartland could restore some balance to an ecosystem that lost a slew of similar species around 13,000 years ago, according to a commentary in this week's issue of the journal Nature. Although conceding that "huge cultural obstacles" would have to be surmounted, lead author and Cornell University ecologist Josh Donlan argues that the long-range plan also might help preserve animals in danger of extinction elsewhere.

Cultural obstacles aside, releasing dangerous carnivores into the wild may not be the smartest action. Especially since the environment has changed just a little in 13,000 years. What balance would this restore? Or more properly, what ecology would this act be frigging up?

This from the country where sections are plagued with pests like deer who decimate crops or the local gardens. Then you hear the screeching about coyotes killing pets or just being seen near a home. In many of these areas it's nearly impossible to hunt these pests. What do you think will happen when lions start wandering around the neighborhood?

Look at the poll further down on the page. The majority think that this is a good idea.

But Donlan said he and his colleagues are merely hoping to provoke a much-needed debate over the future course of wildlife conservation and ecology. Conservation biologists, he said, "are easily characterized as purveyors of gloom and doom." By putting forth a proposal, albeit one with big obstacles, he said his field can move from a largely reactive stance to one that is more proactive.

True, the current American landscape now includes humans who would very much prefer to be left out of any Pleistocene-like food chain. "We envision perimeter fencing probably playing a large role," Donlan concedes, adding that establishing elephant and lion populations may take 50 years.

Yeah, that's the way to provoke debate, come out with some crackpot idea and believe you won't be branded as an idiot. As for perimeter fencing, how much will that cost? A fence that can restrain an elephant isn't a cheap item. The problems with this concept are just huge.

But, hey, think of the environment. Almost as foolish a statement as "think of the children."

BTK Killer gets 10 Life Sentences

Ten life sentences.

Confessed Kansas serial killer Dennis Rader was sentenced on Thursday to 10 life sentences for a 17-year murder spree that Rader, a former church leader and dog catcher, said was driven by demons and sexual fantasies.

Sedgwick County District Court Judge Gregory Waller said the 60-year-old Rader will not be eligible for parole for at least 40 years because at least one murder qualified as "especially heinous."

Parole? Parole?

What am I missing here? What would justify the death penalty? Kansas has the death penalty.

If you can't find someone to do it, I'll volunteer. Hell, I'll even bring my own club.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

More Red on Red

For those who have nothing but despair & despondancy about Iraq...

Al Qaeda's Plan

Fascinating read over at the Fourth Rail. You'd think those guys were at war with us for reasons other than our occupation of Iraq. Has anyone told Cindy?

George Orwell on War, Fascism and Pacifism

I started at the link above, and then I kept going. I was trying to find some sources for what Orwell said about Fascism and the people who protested against the Second World War (yeah, the "greatest generation" had moonbats too). I've seen quotes & excerpts, but I wanted to know what the web actually had on this topic.

Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.

Holy cats. Things haven't changed much in 60+ years.
There's quite a lot of his work published out to the internet. Anyway, that's about all the scholarly work I can stand at the moment, let's get to the meat. This web site quotes Orwell several times. Which led me to search out the source of some of these quotes, which led to this interesting paper written by a pacifist. He attempts to lay out how and why Orwell can be used as a tool to support pacifism despite the fact that Orwell was virulently opposed to pacifism. The quotes most used by the anti-war crowd are from the 30's, when Orwell was opposed to war, but was still against fascism. A very sensible approach, summed up as, let's not fight, but if we do, you'll know I was there. The paper is extremely well written, but, I suspect due to my own prejudices, it had the opposite effect to that which it intended. I came to see Orwell as right more often than not. For example, here, the author agrees with Orwell, just not the methods that Orwell approved:

Orwell’s right: there’s no choice between resisting Hitler and surrendering to him. That doesn’t mean, though, that resisting Hitler, that resisting evil generally, needs to be violent. What Orwell is contemplating in Gandhi is the idea that certain nonviolent practices can be formidably resistant, as uncompromising as battle. (This is an idea that western pacifists learned from Gandhi, and often didn’t like learning; Gandhian resistance seemed to them excessively coercive, too close to violence for comfort.29) The sit-ins and jail-ins and boycotts of the American civil rights movement, which was strongly influenced by Gandhi, are forms of coercion. When Denise Levertov writes of peace as being “an energy field more intense than war,” it’s perhaps this Gandhian mode of nonviolent resistance that she has in mind.

But the author himself notes that in truly repressive regimes, Gandhi would have been shot out of hand (see the articles on AQ killings of voting workers, etc., below). But the real gist of the Orwell/Anti-War movement, as I see it, is here:

A courageous pacifist would not simply say “Britain ought not to bomb Germany.” Anyone can say that. He would say, “The Russians should let the Germans have the Ukraine, the Chinese should not defend themselves against Japan, the European peoples should submit to the Nazis, the Indians should not try to drive out the British.” Real pacifism would involve all of that: but one can’t say that kind of thing and also keep on good terms with the rest of the intelligentsia.7 It is because they consistently avoid mentioning such issues as these, while continuing to squeal against obliteration bombing etc, that I find the majority of English pacifists so difficult to respect.

So when we get these yahoos get on about the evils of the US, yet call the terrorist thugs "Minutemen", they're allowing for one kind of violence, but not another. When the tinfoil crowd goes on about the evils of Israel, but wears a chalabah in support of Hamas, they're saying that this violence is OK, because I like it, but that isn't. When they rise up in riteous anger over the abuse at Getmo, but aren't getting equally, or more, freaked over the AQ torture chambers found in Iraq (or Saddam's torture chambers for that matter), they've decided that this violence is OK.
Anyway, Mr. Rosenwald goes on to write about how pacifism could work and how Orwell was wrong. He cites the German women's protest in 1943 when thier husbands, Jews, had been arrested. It worked. An amazing story, but a very rare instance. The thing to remember is, that there were a lot of people working against the Nazis from within Germany, but it was the war that stopped them. In fact:

Those who attempted to rescue Jews and others from the Nazi death sentence did so at great risk to their own safety. Anyone found harbouring a Jew, for example, was shot or publicly hanged as a warning to others.

Passive resistance, hiding a Jew, got people shot & hanged. Funny how a successful act of passive resistance can be trotted out but the myriad failures, and their bloody consequences, aren't mentioned. If Hitler had stayed mostly within his own borders, basically hadn't invaded France, sparking WWII, does anyone doubt that the Third Reich may have lasted 30 years? And like Sadam's Iraq, that would be a nasty 30 years.
Back to Orwell. The most amazing thing is that Orwell was fairly prolific (although known primarily for two works today, 1984 and Animal Farm) so he wrote enough that either side can take quotes and put them to work. So, while Orwell was anti-war until Germany went too far, he was never an absolutist and was, in fact, anti-fascist. The anti-war faction can use his quotes, but they usually have to be taken out of context or ignore later statements. Even those in support of the war have used Orwell, probably appropriately. His books are so misused. The left frequently quotes 1984 and just as frequently tries to change the meaning of words from the dictionary. Newspeak anyone? Anyway, Orwell's time and ours are not that different. In this age of sensitivity, are not all cultures equal?

Till recently it was thought proper to pretend that all human beings are very much alike, but in fact anyone able to use his eyes knows that the average of human behaviour differs enormously from country to country.

As recently as right now in fact. There are plenty of anti-war protesters that can't see any difference between the US and AQ (Cindy Sheehan's "Bush is the bloodiest terrorist on Earth" statement certainly comes to mind).
Enough rambling. I learned a few things and shared them. Time to go & bottle some beer. I'm probably going to brew up a batch of Barley Wine today too.

More On Iraqi "Minutemen"

What a lovely bunch of fellows. When the "anti-war" people get their way, these are the types of people that will attempt to fill the power vacuum we'd leave in Iraq. Say what you must about the USA, but we don't do this type of thing. These are barbarians. They're at the gate. Could we please fight them there rather than in the streets, in front of our homes, next to our children.

Spam Bots

Cool little rant about the spam we've been receiving lately. Plus an analysis of they work. Fun reading while waiting for the blood pressure to go down.
H/T Althouse

Iraqi Minutement

That brilliant Michael Moore was right. The insurgents in Iraq are JUST LIKE our own minutemen, true patriots rising up against tyranny to spread democracy.

Gunmen seized three Sunni Arabs hanging posters urging people to vote in the constitutional referendum, drove them to a mosque and shot them dead Friday.

Just like when OUR mintuemen were fighting their own countrymen, kidnapping and murdering those who were trying to participate in their new gov... wait, er, what was I saying?

Oh, never mind.

More on Cindy Sheehan - She's driving Dems to the Right!

Well, at least one of them. This is a fun read.

I actually felt myself become a republican today. It was around 10am, when I read the latest update of the Cindy Sheehan saga in CNN.com.

Gotta love sentiments like that. Plus, he includes an interview with her in which she makes it clear she was against going into Afghanistan too. So this isn't about "Bush lied", it's about "I'm a leftie chickendove unable to stand up to the terrorists until they show up at my door, and I'm using my dead son to get some media mileage." Absolutely pathetic and despicable.

Hat tip to Nidanwife for pointing me to this.

After Cindy Sheehan

Salon Magazine.

What more needs to be said. OK, I'll say more anyway. The sub-head on the article reads:

The antiwar movement was dominated by lefties and ineffective -- until a grieving mother from California became its symbol. With Middle America now asking the same angry questions she is, will the movement finally take off?

Now maybe I'm wrong, but someone that speaks at places like this and makes statements outlined here, is not exactly from "Middle America." As a matter of fact, since these are basically the extreme left talking points ("war for oil","constantly changing reasons for war", blah, blah, blah), then this is not really someone from "Middle America" is it? Didn't most of America, especially the middle, support the war in Afghanistan? Not Ms. Sheehan. Come on. She's a lefty. A total moonbat lefty. And everyone and there brother is going on and on about her and it's getting thick. Stop already.
Anyway, back the Salon article:

House, Sheehan and dozens of other members of military families opposed to the war represent the new face of the American antiwar movement -- a movement that has, over the past two years, managed to stage a few massive street demonstrations, but has otherwise had little success convincing Democrats, not to mention Republicans, to take up its cause.

Oh, well if dozens of people are against the war, it's shocking that they haven't convinced everyone to be on their side. And let's face it, these are not new faces. Cindy Sheehan, for example, was against the war from the start, but it was her son who volunteered for the Army and switched his MOS so that instead of being a non-combat role, he was in a direct combat role. So, all this junk about her being against the war because of her son... He was the adult that volunteered to go, not her. It just doesn't really matter that she's against it. He supported it.

Many of the more polarizing voices of dissent -- like Michael Moore or International ANSWER -- have been drowned out by a larger sea of opposition.

If true, that's going to have a real impact on the war.
That Sheehan's protest has caught on with the media now is not so much a testament to the power of her story as it is to the caprice of the national media, they say, which has long ignored opposition to the war and only now -- when Americans seem finally ready to oppose the war -- is changing its tune.

Or, it's August and not much is going on in the world at the moment and since they're down there in Texas with Bush anyway...

Sheehan herself has made her position crystal clear. "We're over there and we need to come home," she said in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. What happens in Iraq after we leave isn't a worry of ours, she added. "We need to let the Iraqi people handle their own business."

Like we did the people in Rawanda & Somalia? Like the Europeans did the people in the Balkans? Like the world did for 30 years of Sadam's rule (how many graves were there again?). Whatever did happen to "never again" anyway?

To say the least, Sheehan is a bomb-thrower, which many on the right hope will knock her from her new perch as the head of the antiwar movement. During the past couple of weeks, Matt Drudge has put forward a constant barrage of some of her most impolitic statements about foreign policy -- her criticisms of Israel, or the "foul-mouthed tirade" she delivered at San Francisco State University in April, in which Sheehan called members of the Bush administration "fucking hypocrites" and declared, "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"

OK, it's actually an almost balanced article, which, since this is Salon we're talking about, makes it balanced. But this last bit, to me, is the main problem I have with the anti-war people, becuase, as George Orwell so ably pointed out, being against a war on Fascism means being a supporter of fascists.

One lingering question is the movement's position toward Iraqi insurgents, which is undefined, and which may leave the people who are against the war vulnerable to the charge that they are comforting terrorists in calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. According to Leslie Cagan, the national coordinator for United for Peace and Justice, the group has adopted no formal response to Iraqi insurgents because there is a wide range of opinions about the matter among UFPJ's member groups. Cagan says that within the group there is "a general feeling that we understand why people are using many tactics to fight against the occupation by the U.S. military, but we do not support terrorists or organized paramilitary groups."

Until this question is answered, then the "anti-war" people, as far as I'm concerned, can be safely labeled "pro-terrorist."

Is Europe Dying

There have been a number of this type of articles published recently. Although most of them thought that Europe was dying because it failed to ratify the constitution, this author thinks it's dying because of the constitution that it wrote. The whole article is blatant and intentional in its support of Christianity (a minus), but is a really fascinating read. The comments are worth perusing as well.

Martha Stewart Taglines

Very funny blog at SayUncle. They're looking for taglines for Martha Stewart to use in her show. I just cracked up on the second one.

Why don’t you just knit yourself a nice little doily that says Shut the Hell Up.

Mmmmm, tasty soul of the unbeliever

If I were still in prison, you’d be my bitch.

It beats house arrest.

How about a nice little you-suck-ass-themed flower arrangement for the centerpiece?

You’re getting short-sold.

I got sent to prison for lying about a crime the government couldn’t prove I committed. And you want to talk to me about tough breaks?

Time to tidy up

pwn3d

Hard to Believe, But Probably True

Found this linked at TriggerFinger. I can't find any confirmation, but it strikes me just strange enough to be true.

I had reports from members of police going to their houses while the member was waiting for their approval to purchase a gun at the show! The police asked the spouse and other family members questions about the purchases and filled in a survey! "Did you know your husband was going to a gun show today?" "Did you know your husband was going to buy a gun today?" and many other such questions.

If no one was home at the gun purchaser's house, the police went to the neighbors! "Did you know that your neighbor was buying a gun today? How do you feel about him doing so?"

One member, who was carrying a personal gun to sell, was approached by BATFE and taken to a car while they checked him out. The officer said in front of Showmasters' management, "Did you know you need a business license to sell a gun at this show? I have seen you at a lot of shows - are you in the business of selling guns? I think you are." That's called a fishing expedition and intimidation. In the end they let the VCDL member go because their fish hooks came up empty.

I guess I'll leave this in the 'rumor' category since I can't find any other source. I'd love to assume it was some crack-pot report, but it rings just a little to close to likely for me.

Stupid Legislation: Bloody STUPID Legislation

I'm not finding much happiness reading the news this AM. This article made me bang my head on the desk at least 3 times.

The woman terminated her pregnancy in 2002 after she learned that her fetus had no forebrain or cerebellum, a fatal condition known as anencephaly. Because her husband was in the Navy, the woman was covered under the military's health plan, the Civilian Health and Medical Program for the Uniformed Services, or Tricare.

But Tricare administrators said they were barred from paying for the abortion. Federal law prohibits payment for abortions except "where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term." A regulation putting the law into effect specifically excludes payments for situations involving "fetal abnormalities" and mentions anencephaly.

I want to hear just one argument that supports this legislative limitation. Just one. Then I'll find the commenter and cut their eyes out with a spoon (make that a wooden spoon). Here is a perfect example of why the decision on whether the fetus was going to survive or not should be left to the doctor and not some bloody politician. Is there anything remotely reasonable about forcing the woman to carry to term a fetus that won't survive. And, don't we owe the servicemen and women of this country and their families at least a reasonable coverage for things like this?

Lisa M. Stone, who represents the woman, said she and her husband had an annual income of less than $20,000 and could not afford the charge of about $3,000 for the abortion. The couple sued, and in 2002 a judge ordered Tricare to cover the costs, allowing the abortion to go forward.

Over 10% of their annual income for the abortion. To preserve a "life" that wouldn't have lasted after birth? WTF!!!!!

The government appealed to get its money back from the couple. Though lawyers for the Justice Department did not dispute the diagnosis of anencephaly, they argued that the Congressional restriction furthered the government's interest in protecting human life and warned against a "slippery slope" if courts tried to determine which abnormalities warranted an abortion.

Ah, the infamous "slippery slope" argument. Of course, the legislature stepped on that slope in defining what couldn't be used to warrant an abortion.

Unfortunately, I think the court did the right thing. The law was just broken from initial creation. This is just another case which makes me wonder whether some judicial activism isn't, at times, correct. Especially when the law is flagrantly unjust.