|
Saturday, July 09, 2005A few weeks ago, Democrats were declaring Bush a dunderheaded fool with no idea how or when we were getting out of Iraq.Now a leaked document from the Brits indicates the US and UK have been working out fairly detailed timetables about how and when to gradually turn over Iraq to the Iraqis and withdraw. Do you suppose the Democrats will now take to the floor of the House and well of the Senate to salute Bush for his visionary efforts to give the Iraqi people back their nation now that it's been firmly wrested from Saddam and the Baathists? Nah, by week's end, there'll be complaints about the timetable, questions about whether we can pull out that fast and a million other criticisms. That's because, my friends, the sickest of the Democrats are so afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome that if it makes Bush look bad, they'd prefer that the Iraqi people be again enslaved and the United States defeated. These are not people who remember the truest horrors of Vietnam. They see in that conflict only a victory over "the man." And now they're rooting against their country again. Those alert enough to detect signs of Bush Derangement Syndrome are advised to consider this: If certain Democrats would rather see the US lose a war and a nation sink into chaos than to let Bush claim a victory, what do you think is really on their minds when they oppose school, tax and Social Security reform. Hint: It ain't your interest they're concerned about. 
posted by gbarto at 11:11 PM Precisely: Myself, I don't "believe in evolution" because I recognize that it is a scientific theory with good explanatory power that may or may not be true. Don't know, don't care because it doesn't affect a damned thing. I don't think schools should be in the business of teaching "truth" either, rather they should teach facts ("here are the observable data") and explanations ("here's what we think happened based on those data"). No, creationism shouldn't be taught, but neither should evolution be taught as ***TRUTH***. Teach it as science, which is interested in data, not truth. Data are what they are, truth is what *you* think it means.This comes from the comments on a post at Volokkhs about whether the left is as religious about science as the right is about its religious assumptions. What I find most striking is how a postmodern left that disavows absolute truth as the imposition of the reality of the powerful onto the less powerful suddenly discovers in the theory of evolution something so perfectly observed that it cannot be questioned. If, however, the evolutionists cared as much about science as they do about keeping man in his place, they would welcome challenges to evolution, as these lead to lines of inquiry that will help us either refine the theory or disprove it, either way increasing our understanding of, at the very least, what we do and do not know. Appalled as I am by the prospect, I am increasingly of the opinion that both evolution and ID should be taught. This is not because I think the present conception of ID has a leg to stand on, but because debates about the teaching of evolution and creation no longer hinge on scientific inquiry, but on political questions about man's place in the universe and his right to shape his world. If it is clear that the hard core advocates of creationism are goofy and uninterested in "science" except as a means to proving their interpretation of the Bible, it is equally clear that the hard core advocates for teaching evolution are uninterested in science except as a buzz word to shut down argument against their conception of the human species as base, foul and animalistic. Since this is not about science, but about philosophy, I think it's only appropriate to teach both sides and let the kiddies decide for themselves about a matter that affects, in the larger society, politics more than science. If they follow this author's thinking, they'll conclude that the evolutionists may be right about the mechanism and the creationists may be right about the need to think about man as more than an agglomeration of amoebae, while God's presence or absence in the whole thing is a trickier issue. The only certainty will be that neither the ardent evolutionists nor the ardent creationists are much fun to hang around with when they get going on their favorite topic.
posted by gbarto at 6:01 PM Time for a sophisticated European approach to terrorism In today's New York Times, we find two very interesting articles, excerpted below: Despite Terror, Europeans Seem Determined to Maintain Civil LibertiesThe article also notes that "In general, ... British police intelligence has been very good at keeping tabs on Muslim radicals inside Britain...." Then there's this article: Italians Fear They'll Face Next Attack by TerroristsOrdinarily, I'm not impressed with what I find in the Times, particularly when they're fawning over how the Europeans do things. But... The Europeans are right. We should ditch the Patriot Act. It's time to stop snooping through library records, confiscating granny's nail clippers and making America remove its shoes. Let's address the real problem, in keeping with the enlightened European security measures described above:
In the US, we have little things like the equal protection clause and Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, random detainment, etc. that stand in the way of these sophisticated European protections of civil liberties. That's why everyone has to put up with the nonsense. I'm personally only marginally averse to making life miserable for radical Muslims hellbent on destroying our society if that's what it takes to let the police do their jobs well instead of continually restaging the current homeland security farce. But given the NYT's regard for foreign fighters pulled off the battlefield and brought to Guantamo, I suspect they'd be a little upset if Bush decided that a certain class of citizens - Muslims - logically deserved extra close scrutiny while ordinary white - and black - folk went about their business. I wonder if the NYT editorial board, ever concerned with liberty and justice for all, will glance through the news pages long enough to note the blatant profiling and harrassment of Muslims in Europe. I'm not holding my breath waiting for their editorial condemnation of Germany, Italy and Great Britain.
posted by gbarto at 3:41 PM Friday, July 08, 2005Two interesting posts on London from Cicero. Here's the latest, a look at how the anti-war crowd is helping the terrorists. And here's an earlier one, looking at how the addled among us would simultaneously give up our freedom and safety both by putting Big Brother in charge of more and more even though there's little the state can do about this stuff.Marcus is, of course, opposed to the war in Iraq. But he offers common sense judgments about what's going on in the world, whether it's taking a direction he likes or not. Worth a read.
posted by gbarto at 10:24 PM So I dial up AOL and the top news headlines are, alternating: Queen Visits Attack Survivors and Italian Troops to Leave Iraq In the second story, we learned that Italy will start pulling out troops this fall unless... unless conditions are such that they decide they won't. So sayeth Berlusconi, the PM. Ummm... Haven't we read this story before? Oh, yeah. We read it after the Sgrena flap. We've read it when Italians were taken prisoner. And we're read it when Berlusconi's domestic fortunes made it harder for him to take the heat for Iraq. Like Big Brother's astonishing update, the AOL story is only news today if you're willing to forget that it was news last week. Oh my goodness, the headlines tell us, now Italy is leaving! This is an astonishing new blow... Except that it's a far from astonishing and relatively old blow for those who pay attention. All that's new is that Berlusconi said it at the G8, as opposed to in Rome. I'm sure I'm just a paranoid who's overreacting. But it's interesting that instead of headlining "Blair steadfast against terror" - real news considering what his country's been through and that the intent of the attacks was to shake him - AOL Time Warner is instead running what is essentially the follow-up to an old story, but one which suggests renewed weakening in support for the war. I think it's pretty clear whose side they're on.
posted by gbarto at 9:25 PM Thursday, July 07, 2005Cicero poses an interesting question: If the threat of death can't stop a suicide bomber (obviously), what will?Has it occured to anyone to ask whether they might be deterred by the threatened murder of their families - whom Saddam and others had been regularly rewarding for the sacrifice of the suicide bombers, themselves?An interesting thought. We know that the Palestinians started turning in would-be bombers after the Israelis started demolishing their family homes. Not 100% sure about Cicero's proposal, but he's right on the substance: We need to hit the terrorists where they live. Cicero, by the way, opposes our Iraq venture. But is assuredly not soft on terrorism.
posted by gbarto at 11:31 PM On the London bombings... It was bound to happen sooner or later. And now it has. Al-Qaeda is back at it in the West. Unless it was, say, the Irish or, maybe, Basque separatists. Or a particulary angry faction within the Postal Workers Union. Now that we've got the platitudes out of the way, let's concede that at least one of the bombers probably has a relative named Mohammed. The one comforting thing is knowing that no one connected to Iraq or Saddam was involved. After all, Saddam and Osama hated each other, etc. Oops. That was before the Iraq war, talking about 9/11. Now this is doubtless Al-Qaeda punishing Britain for overthrowing its brother Muslim. Anyway, it looks like Blair, and even the London mayor, are standing firm. With any luck, this will remind Blair that the peace-loving communities in his nation, however benign, are a problem until they start turning in the rabble rousers, not just trying quietly to dissuade their sons - not too hard - from joining. We know the British and American left, of course, will draw few lessons other than that their conclusions about the war, etc, are to remain unchanged regardless of actual events. But maybe the moderates will rediscover something resembling spines and realize the need to perservere in the struggle against terrorism. The most reassuring bit comes from Wretchard, who points out that ugly as it was, neither this (nor Madrid) are particularly hearty encores to 9/11. The Islamototalitarians may dream of ruling a world of emburkaned women and men who prefer the company of other men, but the barest truth is they can't even rule a Metro for more than a few hours at a time.
posted by gbarto at 10:43 PM Tuesday, July 05, 2005Two reviews...I found myself in the Milpitas Borders today. The experience left me with two reviews to offer: Thomas Jefferson, Author of America Christopher Hitchens Hitchens is ever and always a sharp writer. Even - especially - when one disagrees with him, it's hard not to enjoy the prose, which is lucid, to the point and stylishly unadorned. The Jefferson book is, properly speaking, a biographical essay, designed to illuminate not so much Jefferson as the concept of democracy he left us with and why he was the sort of man to have done so. Sampling Jefferson's career in Virginia politics, national politics and as a diplomat, Hitchens paints the picture of a man with solid ideas about - see if this sounds familiar - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The interesting bits are where the thought espoused and the life lived don't quite match up. The biggest place where Jefferson the man and Jefferson the idealistic theoretician/wonk don't line up is on the question of slavery. The controversies crystallize in a single name: Sally Hemmings. Hitchens suggests the possibility - and plausibly - that most sides in the Sally Hemmings controversy have missed the boat. Notes Hitchens, the affair, if it occurred, would have started in France, where slavery was outlawed and Hemmings (and her chef brother) were on his payroll. If Hemmings was a free woman, could she have freely chosen an affair with a wealthy and powerful man who could provide for her and her family, albeit on the sly for reasons of politics and probity? It wouldn't be the first time such things happened in France, as those close to a gentleman named Mitterand can attest. For the reviewer, the important thing is that Jefferson and his co-authors tossed down the phrase "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." But at a moment when we're all fussing about original intent again, it's worth having a look at the noble and not so noble moments of a man who did so much to set down the vision of what America would be about and what purpose her existence as an independent nation would serve. Hitchens' little volume serves that end as well as, nay, better, than most of the denser works out there. Seattle's Best Coffee Borders is replacing its traditional café with Seattle's Best in select markets. The Milpitas Borders is among those to undergo the unfortunate transformation. What to say about the Borders/Seattle's Best? Where to begin? Let's start with the physical space. I'm not an expert on Seattle's Best styling, but in Milpitas, I must say, they've done an admirable job of taking a severely cramped space and making it feel more cramped and less inviting without markedly improving the seating options. Like the space, the new menu is... constricted. Yes, there are a few more coffee drinks. But the sodas (for plain folks like the TurkeyBlogger) seem to have disappeared. The soups and sandwiches may still exist, but they certainly didn't catch the reviewer's eye. And the assortment of candies and snacks for those who don't want a roll or similar fare will have to tolerate .
posted by gbarto at 11:34 PM Monday, July 04, 2005Speaking of what our Republic's for, etc, here's Cicero on the courts, original intent and more.Bottom line: none of the factions in the debates on the roll of the courts really want a truly originalist interpretation. First, nobody involved wants to risk having their own hobbyhorses subject to the same Constitutional scrutiny as the frivolous nonsense their opponents advocate. Second, none of them want those hobbyhorses taken out of the Constitutional debate where the public, not elitist members of the Washington culture, had a say. Third, and most important, none of them want to put the courts themselves in their proper place, which would require that the partisans either work together or have their inability to work together broadcast loud and clear. Left and right alike rely on the courts to provide them hot button issues with which they can rally their bases without actually having to make real decisions about what to do and what tradeoffs to make to create a compromise by which to govern. Those on the right and left have different cases which give them great offense. But the honest hack in Washington would have to agree that among the Court's nastier knocks was actually their failure to strike down Campaign Finance Reform, forcing the parties and the country to live with what was supposed to be pious posturing, not actual policy. Roe, by contrast, is an enormous success, enabling conservatives to run against abortion mills and liberals to run against back alley abortions while the right ignores the darker challenges of unwanted children and the left stays mum on the genocide of inner-city Blacks, a genocide orchestrated not by right wing Kluxers but by a subculture whose men don't want to pay for their children.
posted by gbarto at 11:01 PM We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.Let me see if I've got this straight. The purpose of the government is to provide a safe space in which we can pursue happiness. Governments are to do so in a manner acceptable to the people. Governments that don't are to be abolished. It's no wonder our leaders encourage us to drink beer and watch fireworks for the Fourth. Were the text to be read to an attentive public, how long would Washington stand? Still... as we have noted before, the ill disposition of our civil service toward heavy lifting coupled with the nervousness of politicians in the face of an armed populace have worked to get us closer than just about anywhere else. Happy Fourth of July
posted by gbarto at 10:04 PM |
Archives
|
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Old TurkeyBlog here.
