FROM NOTACOMMIE

Hey, if solar power works in Germany, it’s got to work here. We need to stop being so dependent on oil for political, environmental, and all sorts of other reasons.

FROM NOTACOMMIE

Fascinating stuff from Charles Taylor, a Catholic philosopher and darned important one, reviewing a book in the NY Review of Books about cultural death within the Crow tribe. He talks about radical hope and the need for some sort of faith…I really like Charles Taylor a lot.

by Not A Commie

Please forgive the New York provincialism, but I’m fascinated by stuff like this: folks want to open a school for Arabic studies here in Brooklyn, and it’d be a middle school open to any kids that want to go. There are already schools like this for Chinese kids, Latin kids, etc. They (of course) teach English and “American values” but they also teach a respect for a certain culture.

Obviously, multiculturalism to an extreme is exclusionary and not based in community, but are assimilation and homogeneity the only alternative?

FROM NOTACOMMIE

What’s fascinating about the latest outing, this time of the head of BP, is how rare and tired the story feels. When Neil Patrick Harris, and, well, whatever the dude’s name from Grey’s Anatomy, and then Lance from N’Sync….when all those folks were outed, nobody really cared when they told the world, yep, I’m gay!

These stories are really only interesting today because of what a non-event they’re becoming. People are being outed and America and Western Europe just don’t seem to feel its newsworty anymore. I mean, even McGreevey, who would love for the story to be how he is a persecuted
“gay American”, really got canned because of massive corruption and nepotism.

FROM NOTACOMMIE

Hey Great Falls Jeff! I love a spirited debate.

Our current efforts are not working. The Mission is not accomplished. I can get you the sources if you want them, but they’re all over the news now, including, as I mentioned, Bush I’s former secretary of state and his secretary of defense and lots of other respected people now saying the war in Iraq has to be changed substantially and a shift must occur to diplomacy and statecraft. You marshall no evidence in opposition except to say that we need to finish the course. The occupation simply won’t work, as per much of the foreign policy-military-intelligence establishment. Many thought it would and now realize they were wrong and it didn’t work.

If people said it was a good idea to stab yourself in the foot before and now they say it’s a bad idea, does that make stabbing in your foot okay because darn it they ought to be consistent?

Also, Clinton actually cared vastly more about Al Quaeda than W. and warned W about it back in 2000. W and his staff ignored the possible problems until, essentially, 9/11. If you don’t believe me, I’ll get you sources. Also, this isn’t simply a matter of being misled–there are numerous accounts of Cheney and Rumsfeld looking for any chance to get into Iraq they could find, and they used 9/11 as a veritable gift from the Lord to get in. You can argue their motives were honorable–sharing democracy, etc, etc–but the point is, they wanted this war and looked for evidence to support it. I know this is a bold claim, but I think a lot of people accept it. If you don’t, I’ll find you evidence.

Speaking of evidence, you mention Syria had financial ties to Al Quaeda. Er, so did (and does) Saudi Arabia. Didn’t we invade Iraq?

As for WMD, you claim that WMD were found in Iraq–this is true before the embargo. Were the sort of WMD that justify this war (remember the mushroom cloud speech?) found after the embargo? I challenge you to find that proof. It’s not there.

I mean no disprespect to the soldiers in Iraq, nor to the innocent civilians trying to make their lives there. It’s not a matter of cutting and running, which, yes, is cowardly. It’s a matter of the most effective strategy. Of course, there are people that want to just forget about the people of Iraq and move on, and that would be terrible.

But then–what frustrates me most about a lot of folks who cry about the poor Iraqis–where are they about Darfur? About the Congo? About vast Chinese repression of human rights?

FROM NOTACOMMIE

I must say that I do not view my accusation of Senator Reid and a good number of the Democratic majority as cowards as an ad hominem attack. I called them cowards because I believe them to be cowards….Can we no longer call a person out for their deeds in a public forum without having to qualify that we really think that they are a good person and that they just made a bad choice?

A few responses: first, as we are all made in the image and likeness of God, yes, I do believe that we are good people that make bad choices, although some people make consistenly bad choices and therefore qualify as having very evil actions even being, themselves, evil, aka Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc, etc, etc.

Believing people are inherently selfish, that’s just original sin, but do you really believe there are people that are not inherently good? If so, that’s fine, but you’re ignoring a whole lot of the Bible. Also, you call Democrats to task for just attacking Bush’s intelligence, but, in fairness, it’s pretty easy to call Reid a coward (you’re right that he does backpedal) and it’s pretty easy to call Bush dumb, Cheney a liar, and a whole lot of the Republican party a bunch of cronyistic crooks (covering up soliciting boys over IM while in Congress, Delay, Ralph Reed and swindling Native Americans, Rudy G. appointing mob-tied Kerik as his buddy and possible federal appointee and the Bush white house buddy-buddyism is pretty overwhelming, but if you want names and examples, I can give them. There are more folks too.)

The trick is, I’m not sure how productive those conversations are. Let’s just talk about the actions themselves rather than trying to figure out why people do what they do. Honestly, I think Bush’s desire to stay in Iraq is because he’s a stubborn, arrogant, ill-informed, anti-intellectual, spoon-fed, ignorant, worst president ever. But how effective is that to say? It just makes me feel self-righteous and people who like Bush angry. So what about an empirical analysis of the facts? That said, let’s tackle Iraq.

I called Sen. Reid et al. cowards because they are acting in an extremely cowardly fashion. I do not think that Senator Reid is a good person for this and a variety of reasons. Senator Reid voted for the use of force in Iraq (Oct 2002) and then voted to authorize appropriate funding just a year later (Oct 2003) and now is saying that we shouldn’t be there at all.

Reid was also quite misled (and I would argue lied to) as was much of this country but Al-Queda ties to Iraq and WMD in Iraq. Let me know if you need proof that these are not true, and, honestly, were pretty deliberate deceptions. It makes sense he would change his mind. But even if you want consistency, there are lots of folks that opposed the war from the get-go.

His equivication and attempts to look like the good guy only serve to demoralize the men and women we have deployed overseas but also provides encouragement to those who would only enjoy too much to see those men and women lying dead in the streets.

First off, what do we want? Do we want the most effective way to win the war, or do we want to moralize the troops? If your daughter’s leg needs amputation, do you tell her you have to cut off the leg (after all, that might demoralize her) or do you let her die in a losing battle when the leg is already lost? I want to win the war on terror, and I believe the best way to do that is what Bush’s advisors (composed of Bush I’s Secretary of State, among many important Republican others) reccomended: a gradual removal from Iraq and a shift to quickly-active military readiness against terror, more focus on anti-terror work at home, and more emphasis on statecraft and international relations Numerous retired general have critiqued both the war and the way it’s been handled, so this isn’t some dove-thing. It’s a common sense thing.

I say, let the generals and commanders in Baghdad decide what needs to happen to put down this insurrection and make Iraq a safe enough place for us to leave to a people at peace.

As the son of a high-ranking military officer, I have talked about these issues a lot with my Dad. Statements like the one above ignore the exceptional nature of the American military. Unlike nearly any other nation, we are not at risk of military coup precisely because we have civilian control of the military. Talk to any general and he or she will tell you that big decisions are made by civilians with advice from military leaders. Generals and commanders simply do what the President (the CINC) wants them to do. And a lot of very smart diplomats, military advisors, and former members of the intelligence and military community want Bush to order a gradual withdrawl of Iraq not based on cowardice but simply because they believe that this is no longer the best method for Iraqi people or for the war on terror.

BY NOTACOMMIE

The NYTimes Magazine article is all about porn becoming legitimate business.

I wish I could say this is clearly wrong (and it is!) but what’s fascinating, is there’s not really a clear line once you say that sex outside of marriage is okay. I guess (and I certainly have fallen to temptation–I am not claiming to be an example by any means) the trick is to always treat someone as an end, not a means. So someone should recieve your love, not be used to get off.

But even in marriage, isn’t sex sometimes just about getting off? And couldn’t it be about love of some sort in premarital sex, even porn? I’m just asking questions…

FROM NOTACOMMIE

It turns out that the farm bill encourages folks to buy food full of fats and sugars more likely to make them fat, while not encouraging people to buy (or farmers to grow) fresh produce. This is fascinating stuff, and, as someone who tries to eat healty on a budget, I think totally true.

Nutrition is super-important, and I don’t think we Catholics talk about it enough as Catholics. Our body is a temple of the Holy Ghost, etc, etc, is almost always in reference to sex, but it really sould be in reference to the way we keep our bodies in general, as per nutrition, exercise, and a sound physical life (rest, leisure, sleep, skin care, dental care, etc…)

FROM NOTACOMMIE

I’m sure the are cowards and all sorts of things in the Democratic party, just as there are crooks and liars in the Republican party (and the Democrats, for that matters), but could we just please assume that everyone here (from Bush to Reid) is acting with good intentions? If not, that’s fine, some people ARE evil, but I’d really rather not have an argument with someone who I think is a warmonger and who thinks I’m a coward. It’s a lot easier to just go ad hominem. So, just a discussion of policy, ay? For the sake of argument if nothing else, a civil tone?

I have other responses, but they’re sort of worthless if I’m really just in a party full of cowards.

Why are we still there?

Why is Bush going to do this veto?

I’m with the Democrats on this one. We gotta get out.