This is actually my first comment ever...and quite probably my last, largely because if I start posting here I'd never be able to get him to leave "my place" alone! That much togetherness might not be good for domestic tranquility, I'm thinking.
:)
But I do read y'all all the time, and I'm so very glad to see you back. Really, really glad, Leon.
by neo-conservatives and corporate interests, that hold special favor with this administration.
To discuss the "end of tyranny" by military means, round the globe as the basis for foreign policy is extreme and wrong headed. And this "fear" of tyranny, as manifested in the global war on terror was sold to conservatives as the "right place" to fight "them" over there so we don't have to fight "them" over here.
The current foreign policy is filled with confusion...... through lack of clarity. The reasons for fighting "terror" in Iraq have morphed too many times to be consistant with the true purpose of the war. If the motives had been pure, the likelihood of success would have been much greater. If the US were interested in promoting freedom and democracy they would have included the Sunni's in a cut of the oil profits, they would have respected the patience it takes to establish a firm democracy, in Lebanon and Palestine, and Most importantly they should have respected the culture of the people that expressed their will through elections.
You can't export democracy, without respecting and understanding the culture of a people. This was the neocons biggest mistake. Understanding a culture requires empathy and understanding for different ways of thinking......which is what you ascribe to liberals as being "weak" of "morally equivalent"... and a giant flaw in philosophy, summarised by the statement, "Oh, well let's just be them all an ice cream cone.".
The neoconservatives wrong headedness of liberating a culture while offering American corporate heads a piece of the Iraq pie, basically the freemarket philosophy of open it up to business and let the money do the democracy was an utter and complete failure.The impure motive. The US was not seen as the nice guy, but the economic opportunist. Mr. Kudlow goes to Iraq, and thought he was in America.
As a progressive I am pleased to see the conservatives reasses. I think they have strayed for the sake of political victory from the ideology. If you look at the situation realistically, this President has betrayed your party and every faction of it for raw political gain with no clear moral compass other than granting more and more power in the executive branch. I see that as a dangerous direction for our country. It is done behind a screen of promoting fear of terrorism as an end to the West as we know it. The only one that can protect us, and is wise enough, is the President. I ask you, doesn't that go against conservative philosophy.
We forget that the reason our country has remained strong is because we have a two party system, and the constitution enshrines checks and balances. The conservative message has been hijacked by men that aspire to global domination of world markets, by controlling the Middle East and conquering it militarily. And the method has been to promote terrorism to near hysterionic and srhill cry, of you will die unless we pass the war budget of 500 million off budget. Tell me I am wrong.
If you really want to fight terrorism, respect the culture, respect the enemies strengths, allow them religous freedom, and for god's sake don't glorify the beauty of democracy and then disrespect the results of a democratic election.
I see the main difference in liberal and conservative views on fighting this ugly war in the Middle East, is progressives seek to understand more what causes terrorism, as in winning hearts and minds conservatives just want to erase the symptoms through force, as in do it our way or we will blow up your house.
It applies in this country and it applies abroad. The best, the absolute best social program is a good job. We should be working together to strengthen the economies of Iraq, and Lebanon, not destroy their infrasture so they can't work and are stuck in refugee camps, hopeless, helpless, dependent on a helping hand and furious with those that destroyed their country.
Ender must be working overtime to get the recent avalanche of conservatives in here.
Now I know why you avoid diaries on Iraq:
I remain convinced that the Iraq War should be supported because based on the information available at the time, Saddam Hussein posed a very real threat to the stability of a vital region of the world,
Not true. There is ample evidence the intelligence was fixed around the policy. Also, it was us, the United States, who were said to be under a real threat, not just “a vital region of the world.â€Link , link , and link (I can find more examples if needed). Of course if we could complete Phase II that the intelligence committee (mainly Roberts) is blocking, perhaps we would know for sure (not going to happen). All the preceeding links are from a left think tank, but the citations provided go to traditional media reports.
. . . we will have owed it to history to have tried not going to wholesale war with all the world's radical Muslim nations.
Dubious. How so? I think we are heading in that direction unnecessarily.
As far as your analysis discussing abortion and classical liberalism, I’d have to read the original link first, but I disagree (again) that zygotes/fetusus, as I believe they are called, do not take primacy over their mother’s bodies. Interesting that you tie almost all topics to abortion.
I do think we need to rethink our strategy of democracy as the cure-all for the world’s problems. We (as in most of the West) progressed towards democracy because of our unique circumstance and history. I do not believe it has the same results/effects when it is thrust undeservedly (meaning without the appropriate historical prerequisites) upon a country as all indicators now show.
...especially find myself wondering how it is that conservatives have come to measure the success of a society in terms of its material prosperity. The only answer that I can come up with is that we have allowed ourselves to be hoodwinked into defending what is perceived as the proper structure for a government, rather than defending what is good for a society.
My dear young man,
It is common for seminary students to have a crisis of faith near their ordination. The timing comes from realizing that soon you will be cast into a sea of unbelievers w/nothing but your faith to support you. If you aren’t scared, you aren’t paying attention.
I can ease your mind in some ways. The first is about the nature of faith itself. The secret of faith is that it is necessary for survival. The principle of irreducible complexity requires that you simply gotta have faith. True you get to choose what to believe, but the world we live in is inexplicable and thus the world we live in requires faith. For instance:
1) Some observe creation and assume a Creator, while
2) Others observe creation and assume that they are the smartest thing in the room.
You tell me which person is taking the greater leap of faith.
In short none of us knows that our faith is properly placed: deal w/it. This is the nature of the world and this fact about our world is neither good nor bad, it simply is a fact. If you were waiting for some white light of clarity to appear before you as you neared graduation, you are premature. They tell me that the opportunity to follow the white light doesn’t present itself ‘till somewhat later in the game.
Myself, I have taken the leap of faith that the purpose of man is to do the best we can toward creating a better life for our posterity. I could be wrong, but hey, this is my shot and I get to choose: and that is my choice.
The second topic I would raise for you to consider is whether forming the structure of government is the best we can do on a macro level toward creating a better life for our posterity. I submit the answer is yes. This is the ancient question of nature v nurture. Rousseau was the one who struck the biggest blow for nurture w/his Tabla Rosa. Marx ran w/that Idea and described his “new manâ€. The key in this is to observe is that tyrants universally choose the “new man†model. There is a message there for those who would listen.
There is an excellent book on the founding, Forest McDonald's Novus Ordo Seculorum , which describes the intellectual philosophy of the young republicans as tending toward the Puritan Republicans in the north, and the Agrarian Republicans in the south. The Puritans were taken by the concepts in Joseph Addison’s "Cato" and looked for a great leader. The Southerners weren’t so sure that anybody was good enough to lead them and settled for the belief that universal land ownership (an ownership society if you will) is the best they could do to create the possibility of a better life. Again, it is a matter of faith.
Toward making that judgment about values, I would direct you to Menger’s (not Samulson’s) theory of ‘marganal utility’. The short version is that values are approachable, but unknowable for the very reason of irreducible complexity that clouds our study of creation.
It was Mises who demonstrated that the free market was the only way to determine value and that controlled economies must – because they lack free markets – fail. The theory was tested post-WW II when Keynes’s “Commanding Heights†proposals were adopted in Europe, and the result was a more thorough destruction of the coal and rail industries than was accomplished by the wartime bombing of both sides put together. In short, nobody really knows what they are doing, and if we are all doing the same thing, then we are sure to meet disaster.
As for your doubt about seeking what is good for society. Read (or re-read) Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty. It has a couple of chapters that will give you reason to follow, on faith, that creating a more prosperous society is the best we can do. BTW: Hayek wrote an essay called “Why I am not a Conservativeâ€.
Who missed the point of this post by a wider margin - you or missliberties.
First - seminary is long in the rearview mirror for me; "ordination" even longer. I'm not having a crisis of faith in God, I'm having a crisis of faith in classical liberalism - the two are distinguishable, as hard as that may be to believe.
The second topic I would raise for you to consider is whether forming the structure of government is the best we can do on a macro level toward creating a better life for our posterity. I submit the answer is yes.
That is, I think the entire point that this article was set about to refute; to that end I would submit that the conservative should consider the governments of Ireland and France in comparison and contrast, and determine whether the question has answered itself.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Interesting timing on the pimping of the Iraq War, given that this past week even Rumsfeld stopped with the happy talk long enough to deny he had even been engaging in happy talk. This war has been fought by brave soldiers following the orders of an inept Secretary of Defense who has had the blessing of the President and, more importantly, the vice-president to do as he sees fit, destroying our military in the process. Rumsfeld and his cohort of enablers have ignored the advice of anyone who disagreed with them, including lifelong Republicans who know a thing or two about how to fight a war. Until they had screwed the pooch beyond the point of no return, a substantial portion of the criticism was about the way they were fighting the war and mostly leaving the diplomacy toolbag superglued shut. Almost without fail, this criticism was labeled as treason by Republican loyalists.
Now that sound advice has been ignored long enough to bring Iraq to the brink of civil war, it is time to stop with the talk of defending the war and start with the talk of admitting the "my way or the highway" failures that got us here. We should have had more troops and the people on the ground were not allowed to ask for more troops. Even though Rumsfeld and others were constantly saying they were listening to the people in the field, they were actually only listening to the people in the field who were saying what they were told to say. The promotion process has been so politicized that military leaders still in uniform risk punishment for telling the truth. Everyone knows what happened to General Shinseki, but I recommend reading this to get insights on how promotions and/or demotions have been politicized. But, above all, I recommend the new book by Thomas Ricks .
As a U.S. citizen why is that a problem for me? I haven't noticed much islamofascism in the U.S.
That certain persons would like to murder U.S. citizens is a problem for me, but not all islamofascists are interested in murdering U.S. citizens. Some are primarily interested in murdering Israelis, or Iraqis or Saudi Arabians or Iranians. Also not all those with an interest in murdering U.S. citizens are islamofascists.
To the extent they have not interesting in attacking the U.S., I don't really see why it is a problem for us.
Ender must be working overtime to get the recent avalanche of conservatives in here.
I just finished my projects, and now I'm back.
Not true. There is ample evidence the intelligence was fixed around the policy.
Ah, yes - here comes The Big Ditch™, in which your conspiracy is a point of doctrine, and disbelief in all conspiracies is a point of mine. I will only say that, having spent my entire life interacting with humans, they are all universally bad at keeping secrets. The bigger the secrets, the worse they are at this proposition. I would also point out that you are now involving the governments of at least three different countries (two of which did not join our war effort) in your conspiracy theory. Thanks, but I'll pass.
Also, it was us, the United States, who were said to be under a real threat, not just “a vital region of the world.†Link, link, and link (I can find more examples if needed).
I grant you this proposition, and I still believe it to be true in the sense that you intend it. However, only a very dull-witted person would believe that threats to the stability of that "vital region of the world" are not ultimately threats to the United States. This is, again, material that has been re-hashed ad nauseam, which is the real reason I avoid these diaries: the ones between the evolutionists and ID'ers are generally more productive (which is really saying something).
Dubious. How so?
This depends on whether you believe that Westernism is on an inevitable collision course with the greater (notice I did not say complete) Muslim world. I take that proposition basically for granted, as I read the news. You could, of course, think that this will all just magically work itself out and soon we'll be holding hands and singing Kum-Ba-Yah, but I have a decidedly more skeptical view. As I abhor the idea of a wholesale military conflict, the only alternative is to support some sort of other means of diffusing the conflict. Information is often a powerful force, but it is one that will never make any headway where it cannot be heard.
As far as your analysis discussing abortion and classical liberalism, I’d have to read the original link first, but I disagree (again) that zygotes/fetusus, as I believe they are called, do not take primacy over their mother’s bodies.
No one is saying that they do, in the same way that my son does not take primacy over my body. However, legally I cannot kill him, and this is how it should be.
Interesting that you tie almost all topics to abortion.
I'm not oblivious to my single-mindedness, but abortion is the great and overarching failure of Westernism, a blight that plagues and festers its society and disentigrates the glue that holds society together. This really is the logical conclusion of the pro-life position; when one reaches the conclusion that one's government declines to punish over a million murders a year, the further conclusion that we are facing the greatest spritual crisis we have faced since slavery is, in my mind, inescapable.
I do think we need to rethink our strategy of democracy as the cure-all for the world’s problems. We (as in most of the West) progressed towards democracy because of our unique circumstance and history. I do not believe it has the same results/effects when it is thrust undeservedly (meaning without the appropriate historical prerequisites) upon a country as all indicators now show.
I guess those truths were not so self-evident after all. Relax, I'm coming around to agreement with this proposition.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Please read Bush's West Point speech. He describes a new form of diplomacy that abandons the Great Powers diplomacy that has been accepted from Westphalia to Yalta. He replaces the defense of the status quo at the price of selling up to a third of the earth's population into Communist slavery (Yalta), for the absolute duty to defend and extend freedom. It is a great change in the affairs of nations and has met universal resistance from the striped pants set. The logic for the change is that history has accelerated and the world has shrunk to the point that the old Great Powers theories simply don't work any more.
As for your conclusion:
I do think we need to rethink our strategy of democracy as the cure-all for the world’s problems. We (as in most of the West) progressed towards democracy because of our unique circumstance and history. I do not believe it has the same results/effects when it is thrust undeservedly (meaning without the appropriate historical prerequisites) upon a country as all indicators now show.
The Key Word is "rethink". I am open to suggestions. Our fact situation is that tens of thousands of Madrassas are pouring out Salafis who wish to take the world back to the good old days of the 7th Century, and are more than willing to kill all who oppose that process. So, give me some of that new thinking dude: dazzle me.
that you seem to miss, and the whole of your conservative movement has seemed to miss;
your assessment of reality is been at minimum a contortion of the truth, biased towards and focused and singular goal of electing a Republican majoriy, while forgetting its principles.
Anytime anyone attempts to bring to light actual hard cold facts, if they are liberal your immediate prejudice against them interferes with clear thinking and generates an automatic pavlov's response of slanderous attacks.
I suggest you clear your eyes of bias and realize that the liberal community holds a much tighter grip on reality, than those of you that are in such grizzly shock at the failed state of Iraq they now suffer a crises of ideology.
After all it was liberals who predicted the present wars outcome, yet it brings us no solace. That is why I welcome conservatives questioning the part they have played in this debacle that we might work together to somehow solve these overwhelming problems... together.
A strong conservative party must have a premise based in reality. When you say smaller government you have to mean it. When you say democracy you have to mean it.
And supply side economics is vodoo economics and it always has been. If you want your party run by the rich eilite, then keep promoting vodoo economics. That is the economics that brings in cheap labor from Mexico, and sells a little piece of this country every time you buy a cheap trinket from communist China.
I am quite sure you will take issue with my reading comprehension. But I have said my piece.
Conservatives need to get REAL. Big words, and philosophical meanderings of history, the Irish vs the French, etc., are not helping to ground your conservative philosophy in reality. The bottom line is Americans want to feel secure in their jobs. Stop telling them they are not good enough. Republican policies have brought us LESS Security not more, on the economic home front and in our foreign policy.
I look forward to reading your results regarding the signing statements.
Ah, yes - here comes The Big Ditchâ„¢, in which your conspiracy is a point of doctrine, and disbelief in all conspiracies is a point of mine.
I am no fan of conspiracies myself. Case in point . I do not wish to expound on this topic any longer than necessary since it is relatively peripheral to your argument, but I do think there is sufficient evidence to question whether or not the point of war was decided with cherry-picked intel (re:my links, PNAC, Bush saying “Knowing what I know now, I would still have attacked Iraq,†etc). Evidence is the element of discernment between merely conspiracy and a justified argument. Agreed, it is not without some dispute, but that is why we are here.
. . . which is the real reason I avoid these diaries: the ones between the evolutionists and ID'ers are generally more productive (which is really saying something).
Yes.
No one is saying that they do, in the same way that my son does not take primacy over my body. However, legally I cannot kill him, and this is how it should be.
For another post, but I will say that the essential difference we have is when a fetus is granted the full rights of a human or when life (loaded and used loosely) = human. I think your faith prevents you from seeing this in any other light, so I tend to avoid discussing this topic. Though, catch me at the right time . . .
I guess those truths were not so self-evident after all. Relax, I'm coming around to agreement with this proposition.
Nice to see change in the room.
I think classical liberalism and democracy (with the necessary regulations , mind you) signifies the apex of social organization, but it is a matter of how you get there that determines the benefits.
a link to the speech? I suppose I could look it up, but I'm rather busy today.
He replaces the defense of the status quo at the price of selling up to a third of the earth's population into Communist slavery (Yalta), for the absolute duty to defend and extend freedom.
I thought we were fighting terrorists not the communists? Perhaps the Great Powers theories does not work because we are the sole Great Power. I will have to read more before I comment further.
Wikepedia's definition of various forms of government or philosophy.
Conservatism is a philosophy defined by Edmund Burke as "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve". The term derives from conserve; from Latin conservâre, to keep, guard, observe. Classical conservatism does not readily avail itself to the ideology of objectives. It is a philosophy primarily concerned with means over ends. To a conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society.
contemporary liberalism emphasizes individual rights as opposed to group rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, and progressive taxation, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.
Totalitarianism is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with labour unions, churches or political parties. Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of single-party state, secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics (political purges and persecution of specific groups of people).
Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by strict obedience to the authority of the state, which often maintains and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures. The term may also be used to describe the personality or management style of an individual or organization which seeks to dominate those within its sphere of influence and has little regard for building consensus.
corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups
Reactionary was used to refer to those who wished to preserve feudalism or aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism or liberalism.
I think the liberal reason for advocating for Roe V Wade is a altruistic one--to prevent deaths of women who died from backstreet abortions.
Even if you make abortion illegal, you cannot stop it.
Thus one needs just to work with the system rather than have partisan fights on the issue. I have problems on voting for politicians base on a single issue and politicians using the issue hypocritically but not really doing anything about it once in power.
Society needs to focus on making abortion RARE but not jailing women. Jesus did not condemn the adulterer who was being stoned to death--he just told her to sin no more.
Make abortion clinics bankrupt by decreasing demand when you treat the root causes of unwanted pregnancy.
Now that it is glaringly apparent that things are spinning out of control, everyone has their fingers pointed elsewhere.
The best description I can think of for the past few years of a nation ruled and dominated by "classic liberalism"....... ........ is the era of the Enron Republicans.
Everyone looked the other way, and said it was going to be okay, while the core foundation of our country slowly shifts and cedes moral authority to those who seem to have none.
for those who might be interested . I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I can't believe there are still some who would call the idea of selective intelligence a conspiracy.
of any kind of failure, you'll grow old and die waiting.
There will never be any admission of failure, not even after we withdraw and the whole place goes right down the crapper.
That's because once Iraq becomes the new Somalia, it will all be blamed on treasonous liberals. Yes, liberals have stabbed America in the back. If only the liberals hadn't tied Bush's hands, we could have won that war.
And the sad state of the Army will be the fault of liberals, too. Ya see, all that hatred for America that liberals have been fomenting demoralized our troops and gave aid and comfort to our enemies.
what you can get. Since Leon is wanting to talk political theory now, I take that as a sign that he finds reality-based discussion to be a losing proposition. That's probably as close to an admission as we will get. ;)
Always making broad points and running away crying foul if their theories are discussed except on their own terms....... that I haven't quite figured out what they are yet, except ALL liberal views are invalid and there detestable.
I'd love for you to peruse my posting history and point out where I've ever been a pollyana about Iraq, or even discussed the strategical details whatsoever. Those kinds of questions are over my head, and I'll not be the sort of person to play expert through the magic of Google.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
That Google is a very useful tool for researching things that are not complex in nature; military tactics and strategy doesn't fall into that category.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Comments :
Welcome back (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Thanks, and
It is indescribably good to find you posting here.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Also
Did you bring your "sock puppet"? :-)
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
No puppets here :)
This is actually my first comment ever...and quite probably my last, largely because if I start posting here I'd never be able to get him to leave "my place" alone! That much togetherness might not be good for domestic tranquility, I'm thinking.
:)
But I do read y'all all the time, and I'm so very glad to see you back. Really, really glad, Leon.
yeah, really
good to see you back here. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You were gone?
...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
smack! :)
We miss you insights as well :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Your party has been hijacked
by neo-conservatives and corporate interests, that hold special favor with this administration.
To discuss the "end of tyranny" by military means, round the globe as the basis for foreign policy is extreme and wrong headed. And this "fear" of tyranny, as manifested in the global war on terror was sold to conservatives as the "right place" to fight "them" over there so we don't have to fight "them" over here.
The current foreign policy is filled with confusion...... through lack of clarity. The reasons for fighting "terror" in Iraq have morphed too many times to be consistant with the true purpose of the war. If the motives had been pure, the likelihood of success would have been much greater. If the US were interested in promoting freedom and democracy they would have included the Sunni's in a cut of the oil profits, they would have respected the patience it takes to establish a firm democracy, in Lebanon and Palestine, and Most importantly they should have respected the culture of the people that expressed their will through elections.
You can't export democracy, without respecting and understanding the culture of a people. This was the neocons biggest mistake. Understanding a culture requires empathy and understanding for different ways of thinking......which is what you ascribe to liberals as being "weak" of "morally equivalent"... and a giant flaw in philosophy, summarised by the statement, "Oh, well let's just be them all an ice cream cone.".
The neoconservatives wrong headedness of liberating a culture while offering American corporate heads a piece of the Iraq pie, basically the freemarket philosophy of open it up to business and let the money do the democracy was an utter and complete failure.The impure motive. The US was not seen as the nice guy, but the economic opportunist. Mr. Kudlow goes to Iraq, and thought he was in America.
As a progressive I am pleased to see the conservatives reasses. I think they have strayed for the sake of political victory from the ideology. If you look at the situation realistically, this President has betrayed your party and every faction of it for raw political gain with no clear moral compass other than granting more and more power in the executive branch. I see that as a dangerous direction for our country. It is done behind a screen of promoting fear of terrorism as an end to the West as we know it. The only one that can protect us, and is wise enough, is the President. I ask you, doesn't that go against conservative philosophy.
We forget that the reason our country has remained strong is because we have a two party system, and the constitution enshrines checks and balances. The conservative message has been hijacked by men that aspire to global domination of world markets, by controlling the Middle East and conquering it militarily. And the method has been to promote terrorism to near hysterionic and srhill cry, of you will die unless we pass the war budget of 500 million off budget. Tell me I am wrong.
If you really want to fight terrorism, respect the culture, respect the enemies strengths, allow them religous freedom, and for god's sake don't glorify the beauty of democracy and then disrespect the results of a democratic election.
I see the main difference in liberal and conservative views on fighting this ugly war in the Middle East, is progressives seek to understand more what causes terrorism, as in winning hearts and minds conservatives just want to erase the symptoms through force, as in do it our way or we will blow up your house.
It applies in this country and it applies abroad. The best, the absolute best social program is a good job. We should be working together to strengthen the economies of Iraq, and Lebanon, not destroy their infrasture so they can't work and are stuck in refugee camps, hopeless, helpless, dependent on a helping hand and furious with those that destroyed their country.
I'm only half stupid
Welcome back.
Ender must be working overtime to get the recent avalanche of conservatives in here.
Now I know why you avoid diaries on Iraq:
Not true. There is ample evidence the intelligence was fixed around the policy. Also, it was us, the United States, who were said to be under a real threat, not just “a vital region of the world.†Link
Dubious. How so? I think we are heading in that direction unnecessarily.
As far as your analysis discussing abortion and classical liberalism, I’d have to read the original link first, but I disagree (again) that zygotes/fetusus, as I believe they are called, do not take primacy over their mother’s bodies. Interesting that you tie almost all topics to abortion.
I do think we need to rethink our strategy of democracy as the cure-all for the world’s problems. We (as in most of the West) progressed towards democracy because of our unique circumstance and history. I do not believe it has the same results/effects when it is thrust undeservedly (meaning without the appropriate historical prerequisites) upon a country as all indicators now show.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Your Crisis of Faith
My dear young man,
It is common for seminary students to have a crisis of faith near their ordination. The timing comes from realizing that soon you will be cast into a sea of unbelievers w/nothing but your faith to support you. If you aren’t scared, you aren’t paying attention.
I can ease your mind in some ways. The first is about the nature of faith itself. The secret of faith is that it is necessary for survival. The principle of irreducible complexity requires that you simply gotta have faith. True you get to choose what to believe, but the world we live in is inexplicable and thus the world we live in requires faith. For instance:
1) Some observe creation and assume a Creator, while
2) Others observe creation and assume that they are the smartest thing in the room.
You tell me which person is taking the greater leap of faith.
In short none of us knows that our faith is properly placed: deal w/it. This is the nature of the world and this fact about our world is neither good nor bad, it simply is a fact. If you were waiting for some white light of clarity to appear before you as you neared graduation, you are premature. They tell me that the opportunity to follow the white light doesn’t present itself ‘till somewhat later in the game.
Myself, I have taken the leap of faith that the purpose of man is to do the best we can toward creating a better life for our posterity. I could be wrong, but hey, this is my shot and I get to choose: and that is my choice.
The second topic I would raise for you to consider is whether forming the structure of government is the best we can do on a macro level toward creating a better life for our posterity. I submit the answer is yes. This is the ancient question of nature v nurture. Rousseau was the one who struck the biggest blow for nurture w/his Tabla Rosa. Marx ran w/that Idea and described his “new manâ€. The key in this is to observe is that tyrants universally choose the “new man†model. There is a message there for those who would listen.
There is an excellent book on the founding, Forest McDonald's Novus Ordo Seculorum , which describes the intellectual philosophy of the young republicans as tending toward the Puritan Republicans in the north, and the Agrarian Republicans in the south. The Puritans were taken by the concepts in Joseph Addison’s "Cato" and looked for a great leader. The Southerners weren’t so sure that anybody was good enough to lead them and settled for the belief that universal land ownership (an ownership society if you will) is the best they could do to create the possibility of a better life. Again, it is a matter of faith.
Toward making that judgment about values, I would direct you to Menger’s (not Samulson’s) theory of ‘marganal utility’. The short version is that values are approachable, but unknowable for the very reason of irreducible complexity that clouds our study of creation.
It was Mises who demonstrated that the free market was the only way to determine value and that controlled economies must – because they lack free markets – fail. The theory was tested post-WW II when Keynes’s “Commanding Heights†proposals were adopted in Europe, and the result was a more thorough destruction of the coal and rail industries than was accomplished by the wartime bombing of both sides put together. In short, nobody really knows what they are doing, and if we are all doing the same thing, then we are sure to meet disaster.
As for your doubt about seeking what is good for society. Read (or re-read) Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty. It has a couple of chapters that will give you reason to follow, on faith, that creating a more prosperous society is the best we can do. BTW: Hayek wrote an essay called “Why I am not a Conservativeâ€.
Trying hard to tell
Who missed the point of this post by a wider margin - you or missliberties.
First - seminary is long in the rearview mirror for me; "ordination" even longer. I'm not having a crisis of faith in God, I'm having a crisis of faith in classical liberalism - the two are distinguishable, as hard as that may be to believe.
The second topic I would raise for you to consider is whether forming the structure of government is the best we can do on a macro level toward creating a better life for our posterity. I submit the answer is yes.
That is, I think the entire point that this article was set about to refute; to that end I would submit that the conservative should consider the governments of Ireland and France in comparison and contrast, and determine whether the question has answered itself.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Welcome back!!!
Interesting timing on the pimping of the Iraq War, given that this past week even Rumsfeld stopped with the happy talk long enough to deny he had even been engaging in happy talk. This war has been fought by brave soldiers following the orders of an inept Secretary of Defense who has had the blessing of the President and, more importantly, the vice-president to do as he sees fit, destroying our military in the process. Rumsfeld and his cohort of enablers have ignored the advice of anyone who disagreed with them, including lifelong Republicans
who know a thing or two about how to fight a war. Until they had screwed the pooch beyond the point of no return, a substantial portion of the criticism was about the way they were fighting the war and mostly leaving the diplomacy toolbag superglued shut. Almost without fail, this criticism was labeled as treason by Republican loyalists.
Now that sound advice has been ignored long enough to bring Iraq to the brink of civil war, it is time to stop with the talk of defending the war and start with the talk of admitting the "my way or the highway" failures that got us here. We should have had more troops and the people on the ground were not allowed to ask for more troops. Even though Rumsfeld and others were constantly saying they were listening to the people in the field, they were actually only listening to the people in the field who were saying what they were told to say. The promotion process has been so politicized that military leaders still in uniform risk punishment for telling the truth. Everyone knows what happened to General Shinseki, but I recommend reading this
to get insights on how promotions and/or demotions have been politicized. But, above all, I recommend the new book by Thomas Ricks 
.
"the problem of Islamofascism"
As a U.S. citizen why is that a problem for me? I haven't noticed much islamofascism in the U.S.
That certain persons would like to murder U.S. citizens is a problem for me, but not all islamofascists are interested in murdering U.S. citizens. Some are primarily interested in murdering Israelis, or Iraqis or Saudi Arabians or Iranians. Also not all those with an interest in murdering U.S. citizens are islamofascists.
To the extent they have not interesting in attacking the U.S., I don't really see why it is a problem for us.
Thanks.
Ender must be working overtime to get the recent avalanche of conservatives in here.
I just finished my projects, and now I'm back.
Not true. There is ample evidence the intelligence was fixed around the policy.
Ah, yes - here comes The Big Ditch™, in which your conspiracy is a point of doctrine, and disbelief in all conspiracies is a point of mine. I will only say that, having spent my entire life interacting with humans, they are all universally bad at keeping secrets. The bigger the secrets, the worse they are at this proposition. I would also point out that you are now involving the governments of at least three different countries (two of which did not join our war effort) in your conspiracy theory. Thanks, but I'll pass.
Also, it was us, the United States, who were said to be under a real threat, not just “a vital region of the world.†Link, link, and link (I can find more examples if needed).
I grant you this proposition, and I still believe it to be true in the sense that you intend it. However, only a very dull-witted person would believe that threats to the stability of that "vital region of the world" are not ultimately threats to the United States. This is, again, material that has been re-hashed ad nauseam, which is the real reason I avoid these diaries: the ones between the evolutionists and ID'ers are generally more productive (which is really saying something).
Dubious. How so?
This depends on whether you believe that Westernism is on an inevitable collision course with the greater (notice I did not say complete) Muslim world. I take that proposition basically for granted, as I read the news. You could, of course, think that this will all just magically work itself out and soon we'll be holding hands and singing Kum-Ba-Yah, but I have a decidedly more skeptical view. As I abhor the idea of a wholesale military conflict, the only alternative is to support some sort of other means of diffusing the conflict. Information is often a powerful force, but it is one that will never make any headway where it cannot be heard.
As far as your analysis discussing abortion and classical liberalism, I’d have to read the original link first, but I disagree (again) that zygotes/fetusus, as I believe they are called, do not take primacy over their mother’s bodies.
No one is saying that they do, in the same way that my son does not take primacy over my body. However, legally I cannot kill him, and this is how it should be.
Interesting that you tie almost all topics to abortion.
I'm not oblivious to my single-mindedness, but abortion is the great and overarching failure of Westernism, a blight that plagues and festers its society and disentigrates the glue that holds society together. This really is the logical conclusion of the pro-life position; when one reaches the conclusion that one's government declines to punish over a million murders a year, the further conclusion that we are facing the greatest spritual crisis we have faced since slavery is, in my mind, inescapable.
I do think we need to rethink our strategy of democracy as the cure-all for the world’s problems. We (as in most of the West) progressed towards democracy because of our unique circumstance and history. I do not believe it has the same results/effects when it is thrust undeservedly (meaning without the appropriate historical prerequisites) upon a country as all indicators now show.
I guess those truths were not so self-evident after all. Relax, I'm coming around to agreement with this proposition.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Why we are in Iraq
Please read Bush's West Point speech. He describes a new form of diplomacy that abandons the Great Powers diplomacy that has been accepted from Westphalia to Yalta. He replaces the defense of the status quo at the price of selling up to a third of the earth's population into Communist slavery (Yalta), for the absolute duty to defend and extend freedom. It is a great change in the affairs of nations and has met universal resistance from the striped pants set. The logic for the change is that history has accelerated and the world has shrunk to the point that the old Great Powers theories simply don't work any more.
As for your conclusion:
The Key Word is "rethink". I am open to suggestions. Our fact situation is that tens of thousands of Madrassas are pouring out Salafis who wish to take the world back to the good old days of the 7th Century, and are more than willing to kill all who oppose that process. So, give me some of that new thinking dude: dazzle me.
Re: the metaphor of faith
Forgive me if it was misplaced.
Re: The point you set about to refute
Did you read those chapters in The Constitution of Liberty already? If so, I would be glad to disscuss the ideas in them.
The larger point
that you seem to miss, and the whole of your conservative movement has seemed to miss;
your assessment of reality is been at minimum a contortion of the truth,
biased towards and focused and singular goal of electing a Republican majoriy, while forgetting its principles.
Anytime anyone attempts to bring to light actual hard cold facts, if they are liberal your immediate prejudice against them interferes with clear thinking and generates an automatic pavlov's response of slanderous attacks.
I suggest you clear your eyes of bias and realize that the liberal community holds a much tighter grip on reality, than those of you that are in such grizzly shock at the failed state of Iraq they now suffer a crises of ideology.
After all it was liberals who predicted the present wars outcome, yet it brings us no solace. That is why I welcome conservatives questioning the part they have played in this debacle that we might work together to somehow solve these overwhelming problems... together.
A strong conservative party must have a premise based in reality. When you say smaller government you have to mean it. When you say democracy you have to mean it.
And supply side economics is vodoo economics and it always has been. If you want your party run by the rich eilite, then keep promoting vodoo economics. That is the economics that brings in cheap labor from Mexico, and sells a little piece of this country every time you buy a cheap trinket from communist China.
I am quite sure you will take issue with my reading comprehension. But I have said my piece.
Conservatives need to get REAL. Big words, and philosophical meanderings of history, the Irish vs the French, etc., are not helping to ground your conservative philosophy in reality. The bottom line is Americans want to feel secure in their jobs. Stop telling them they are not good enough. Republican policies have brought us LESS Security not more, on the economic home front and in our foreign policy.
I'm only half stupid
Legitimacy and Conspiracy
I just finished my projects, and now I'm back.
I look forward to reading your results regarding the signing statements.
Ah, yes - here comes The Big Ditchâ„¢, in which your conspiracy is a point of doctrine, and disbelief in all conspiracies is a point of mine.
I am no fan of conspiracies myself. Case in point
. I do not wish to expound on this topic any longer than necessary since it is relatively peripheral to your argument, but I do think there is sufficient evidence to question whether or not the point of war was decided with cherry-picked intel (re:my links, PNAC, Bush saying “Knowing what I know now, I would still have attacked Iraq,†etc). Evidence is the element of discernment between merely conspiracy and a justified argument. Agreed, it is not without some dispute, but that is why we are here.
. . . which is the real reason I avoid these diaries: the ones between the evolutionists and ID'ers are generally more productive (which is really saying something).
Yes.
No one is saying that they do, in the same way that my son does not take primacy over my body. However, legally I cannot kill him, and this is how it should be.
For another post, but I will say that the essential difference we have is when a fetus is granted the full rights of a human or when life (loaded and used loosely) = human. I think your faith prevents you from seeing this in any other light, so I tend to avoid discussing this topic. Though, catch me at the right time . . .
I guess those truths were not so self-evident after all. Relax, I'm coming around to agreement with this proposition.
Nice to see change in the room.
I think classical liberalism and democracy (with the necessary regulations , mind you) signifies the apex of social organization, but it is a matter of how you get there that determines the benefits.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Do you have
a link to the speech? I suppose I could look it up, but I'm rather busy today.
I thought we were fighting terrorists not the communists? Perhaps the Great Powers theories does not work because we are the sole Great Power. I will have to read more before I comment further.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
That's all well and good
but despite Bush's encouraging rhetoric, our committment to defending and extending freedom seems somewhat... selective.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You make it sound
almost like something Bush thought of by myself -- rather than something he pulled out of his ass, which is what it is, of course.
qui tacet consentire
As a catholic I am against Abortion
But Republicans have been in power for 12 years and havent introduce any bill in Congress to make abortion illegal.
Is GOP just using the issue to activate their base but really is not serious about it?
Further, are you seriously advocating to put women in jail who had an abortion?
Does not sound conservative to me
Wikepedia's definition of various forms of government or philosophy.
Abortion
I think the liberal reason for advocating for Roe V Wade is a altruistic one--to prevent deaths of women who died from backstreet abortions.
Even if you make abortion illegal, you cannot stop it.
Thus one needs just to work with the system rather than have partisan fights on the issue. I have problems on voting for politicians base on a single issue and politicians using the issue hypocritically but not really doing anything about it once in power.
Society needs to focus on making abortion RARE but not jailing women. Jesus did not condemn the adulterer who was being stoned to death--he just told her to sin no more.
Make abortion clinics bankrupt by decreasing demand when you treat the root causes of unwanted pregnancy.
Sad to say
that there has been no accountability.
Now that it is glaringly apparent that things are spinning out of control, everyone has their fingers pointed elsewhere.
The best description I can think of for the past few years of a nation ruled and dominated by "classic liberalism".......
........ is the era of the Enron Republicans.
Everyone looked the other way, and said it was going to be okay, while the core foundation of our country slowly shifts and cedes moral authority to those who seem to have none.
I'm only half stupid
More valid points
for those who might be interested
. I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I can't believe there are still some who would call the idea of selective intelligence a conspiracy.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
If you are waiting for an admission
of any kind of failure, you'll grow old and die waiting.
There will never be any admission of failure, not even after we withdraw and the whole place goes right down the crapper.
That's because once Iraq becomes the new Somalia, it will all be blamed on treasonous liberals. Yes, liberals have stabbed America in the back. If only the liberals hadn't tied Bush's hands, we could have won that war.
And the sad state of the Army will be the fault of liberals, too. Ya see, all that hatred for America that liberals have been fomenting demoralized our troops and gave aid and comfort to our enemies.
See how easy that was?
qui tacet consentire
hahaha You have to take what
what you can get. Since Leon is wanting to talk political theory now, I take that as a sign that he finds reality-based discussion to be a losing proposition. That's probably as close to an admission as we will get. ;)
You have got to love how
they flee the conversation.
Always making broad points and running away crying foul if their theories are discussed except on their own terms....... that I haven't quite figured out what they are yet, except ALL liberal views are invalid and there detestable.
I'm only half stupid
Here we go again, Mike
I'd love for you to peruse my posting history and point out where I've ever been a pollyana about Iraq, or even discussed the strategical details whatsoever. Those kinds of questions are over my head, and I'll not be the sort of person to play expert through the magic of Google.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
How about just playing
well-informed objective observer through the magic of google?
My experience has been
That Google is a very useful tool for researching things that are not complex in nature; military tactics and strategy doesn't fall into that category.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.