A Must See
Christopher Hitchens's
review of Fahrenheit 9/11 is, well, less than encouraging.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
Gender Bias
Sucks to be male...I suppose that it's now time for God to be brought in for questioning. Walmart evidently didn't pay women as much as men in some situations (as the San Fransisco court decided today would be allowed to go to trial as a class action lawsuit - the biggest in civil rights history against a private company) or atleast its possible that they did not. Who do I sue for me being at higher health risks. It's just not fair!
Please understand that I'm not picking on women who get paid less than men and complain about it. There are many warranted situations for this type of legal action and, to be honest, this might be one as well. I was simply struck by the article on masculinity and thought it brought up and interesting similarities. This is not supposed to make a point, but to, as Barry Lopez mentioned to Diane Rehm as the purpose of fiction, spark some thought.
God and Taxes
David Brooks has written
an insightful article regarding the political importance (not necessarily the fundamental importance) of not brushing aside religious voters. I second his confusion at the Kerry camp for ignoring this important bloc while seemingly consistently playing only towards those taking on the title of 'secular'. Alongside this affinity often comes a smug sense of arrogance that demeans the idea of religiosity and considers it a set of ideas for children and the weak-minded. No matter how well Plantinga shows these ideas up (see his brilliant
Warranted Christian Belief), these attitudes still often pervade and exude from secular groups (and, consequently, they also easily attach themselves to groups who are supportive of the same).
Ronnie and the Cold War
This article discusses the ending times of the Cold War and gives a nice approximation of the different views commonly held. I really liked this piece by Fred Kaplan...very well done.
Peace and Anarchy
Must they go together? I haven't completely made up my mind yet, but Roderick T Long describes the logic that extends pacifism to its logical conclusion of anarchy.
Basically, if I'm getting this right, he says that just as we have no right to tell people overseas what to do, why do we have the right to tell others around us what to do. In other words, democracy is committing the same crime around us.
Is it just me, or does this seem incredibly impractical. The more I think about it, the more it reminds me of reading Marx. He wants to hold persuasion as the key to power, but then one must ask what types of persuasion one must be limited to...is publishing on the internet ok? is handing out pamphlets ok? is legal action ok? The idea seems well-meant, but does not really follow, as violence is simply an extended form of persuasion (...just a different type of rhetoric).
But this is getting away from the question. Fundamentally, one must ask why pacifism is correct. What does 'respect for life' really mean? Does it simply mean that I can't kill my neighbor? Or does it mean that I can't rob him, or torture him? Does retribution play in? Or how about one of the biggest problems...what if he is going to kill me or someone I know? Am I allowed to kill him after he kills someone else? But then again, isn't this more respect for the idea of pacifism and not for life? I don't know. But, if pacifism is extended into the extreme, it does mean that we do not have the right to infringe upon (yeah, see I can be purposefully ambiguous too) on each other...and in that situation anarchy is the only way.
However, any basic understanding of human nature as being 'not good' will quickly remind us that this will degrade into more violence. Violence does beget violence. But the problem is that people (unless they go through Marx's super-duper nature-changing machine of redemption) will ultimately be violent either way. As a leader, the decisions must become utilitarian and try to limit the influence of and, thusly, the power of violence in society. This is what we describe as a 'civilized' country. You might not like it, but it's the only rational way to go about running things unless you change everybody to be naturally good. And if you do, let us know ASAP.
Pacifism is one of those, 'if only' type ideas that I really wish would work. But it doesn't. It sucks, but it just doesn't. So not only is pacifism within itself not rationally possible in today's society, but an argument trying to link it to anarchy is equally (if not moreso) irrational, particularly since anarchy seems to run into similar problems when encountering further analysis.
Infidels
Zev Chafets writes
But from Daniel Pearl's dying "I am a Jew" to Gardner's pathetic "Help me, I'm a Muslim," the holy warriors of Islam have made it plain: There are no magic words. The only good infidel is a dead infidel.
I wonder if this last phrase is true. Many muslims in the US would probably argue the contrary, however, I'm not sure that a fair reading of the Koran (Qu'ran) would permit that. Infidels are worthless as they deny the truth of the God's word. Although there are concessions for the People of the Book, infidels receive no such luck. As such, even though I would rather not agree with it, Chafets's last phrase does not seem far off at all (please understand that this does not justify the killings in any case).
Reagan vs Clinton
Interesting debate in Slate from a few years back. For anyone who doesn't know much about the differing views on Reagan in particular, this makes for a fun little article.
Conservative Problems
Barlett discusses the problems conservatives might have with President Bush outside of the Iraq war. However, he concludes that
John Kerry is worse on every one of these issues. Imprisoned by the left wing of his party, there is no possibility that he will pick up the votes of disaffected conservatives — even those who strenuously oppose the Iraq war. In the end, there is no place except the Republican party for them to go.
However, Ryan Lizza over at The New Republic disagrees.
He cites a letter he received:
There is no real mystery to the disillusionment with Bush in my part of the country. It's about Fallujah. In particular, there is a widespread feeling that the President is wasting the lives of our sons and daughters while negotiating with killers...The idea of losing those children in the pursuit of a "political" settlement is beyond comprehension.
I would bet that Lizza and Barlett are talking about two different types of voters. Bartlett seems to be referring to the intellectual conservative driven by a number of issues, whereas Lizza is talking about the grassroots voters who simply are Republican. I would also interject that it's not about smart and dumb, it's simply a different cultural vantage point of the same understanding.
Actor vs Cowboy
This article discusses the possible comparison between current President W Bush and former President Ronald Reagan. It's pretty interesting overall. I know some would argue about its description of former President Clinton, but I think the contrast in responsibility it shows between Mr Reagan and Mr Bush is quite valid and vitally important when examining our moral inventory.
...on both foreign and domestic policy [emphasis added] Mr. Reagan showed both some pragmatism and some sense of responsibility. These are attributes sorely lacking in the man who claims to be his political successor.
I don't often agree with Krugman, but I think he makes a pretty good point here.
Death
Today,
Ronald Reagan died (age 93). I won't say much, except to mention that he is a man of high regard, known for topics ranging from his Presidency in the 80s to his acting career and heartfelt love letters (sent to his wife during their time apart.
The G-word
And (for now) I'm not talking about google. While
Bono is reminding the EU to honor its agreement with God, an
internal struggle is ensuing over whether or not the word 'God' will be included in the document. Of course, either way, they will stay a secular organization. But some countries want to make a feint towards conciliation for the current European Christian community by adding
a reference to the Christian roots of Europe.
As it stands, the current draft states that the EU draws support from
inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe.
I would be interested, though, if they would specify the 'humanist inheritance' of Europe. If they're talking about the 'Humanist Manifesto' type humanism, then there is just as much religious content as any other worldview (ie atheism and agnosticism) and the reference would read rather oddly (because the group would be crediting the religious roots of Christianity and other smaller players AND an atheistic worldview devoid of spiritual meaning...if they're attmepting to be inclusive and to forget historical reality, they're doing a pretty good job; but I'm not sure that's the case). But, if they mean 'human rights' and similar concepts when saying humanist, then the meaning would change accordingly. However, most of those 'humanist' leaps took place by people working for the glory of God. In either case, historical tradition must be ignored for the current reference to be totally satisfactory.
