Consider this headline and the following piece: "A mother's grief: The startling images which show how chimpanzees mourn their dead just like humans"
I'm still waiting for the requiem mass.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Gator Aid
The news broke just a short while ago that a US District judge in Florida had ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. He did so chiefly because of the "individual mandate" provision that required citizens to purchase health insurance. The news made me think again about the oft-used comparison of health insurance with auto insurance.
The Left has no trouble mandating auto insurance because, they will argue, driving is a privilege, and not a right. But health care, they insist, is not simply a privilege, and most especially not simply a privilege of the privileged. It is, rather, a natural right, up there with life and liberty. Am I to understand, then, that they want to force us to pay for a right?
Maybe they would have had more luck with the judge had they argued that no one has any obligation to pay for their own health insurance. Why, that would violate not only the Constitution, but the spirit of the Declaration as well. However, one absolutely must pay for everyone else's health insurance. Now shut up and fork it over.
I shoulda been a lawyer.
"Knock-knock"
"Who's there?"
"Asbestos"
"Asbestos who?"
"Asbestos I can tell, we're gonna make a million bucks on this lawsuit."
The Left has no trouble mandating auto insurance because, they will argue, driving is a privilege, and not a right. But health care, they insist, is not simply a privilege, and most especially not simply a privilege of the privileged. It is, rather, a natural right, up there with life and liberty. Am I to understand, then, that they want to force us to pay for a right?
Maybe they would have had more luck with the judge had they argued that no one has any obligation to pay for their own health insurance. Why, that would violate not only the Constitution, but the spirit of the Declaration as well. However, one absolutely must pay for everyone else's health insurance. Now shut up and fork it over.
I shoulda been a lawyer.
"Knock-knock"
"Who's there?"
"Asbestos"
"Asbestos who?"
"Asbestos I can tell, we're gonna make a million bucks on this lawsuit."
Prudence, Indeed!
If, as they say, politics makes for strange bedfellows, international politics makes for even stranger ones.
Such was the nature of our long relationship with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, as well as our relationships with a host of other dictators, strongmen, and thugs both before him and, without doubt, long after him as well.
The British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott was famously skeptical of any kind of politics that "pursue perfection as the crow flies." The wisdom of that skepticism is in order here as well. Somewhere between pristine principle and bald interest lies the less-than-straight line drawn by prudence, the art that is definitely needed as we both witness and react to what is transpiring in Egypt. As a consequence of it, we will soon be re-evaluating our foreign policy (heck, we're already doing it) and the temptation will be to forgo prudence for what is imagined to be undefiled principle. That would be unwise and potentially dangerous.
Ironically, we can be thankful, in a fashion, that a Democrat is currently in the White House. As such, the Democrats cannot afford to act or speak too irresponsibly, as they did for almost the whole of the Iraq War. (Notice how closed-mouthed, as a party, they've become about the War since they took hold of the full reins of government?) Were it a Republican Administration instead, we can be sure there would be no relief from ignorant and opportunistic caterwauling about why we ever struck a deal with a dictator in the first place. Blessedly, the GOP is not so inclined, populated as it is with conservative politicians who, for the most part, understand instinctively the folly of such rhetoric.
Making common cause with a thug is an always dangerous thing to do. But the chief reason for our relationship with Mubarak, and virtually every other similar alliance besides, is that despite our wishes to the contrary, no superior alternative exists. In politics, domestic and international, the nature of the real, not the hoped-for alternative is always what matters in the end.
What was then and is now the real alternative in Egypt? By framing this as a mass uprising, the media has become complicit in making it seem as though the effective choice is between Mubarak, or someone like him, and an otherwise peaceful democracy. I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure that what replaces Mubarak's rule will be peaceful at all, an Egyptian Rainbow Coalition of Muslims, Christians, and secularists calmly dividing the spoils of victory. In fact, I'm not so sure it will be a democracy at all. I'm even less sure that it will be a liberal democracy. No, that's not correct. I'm virtually certain that whatever replaces Mubarak, it will not be a liberal democracy.
As things stand in Egypt, no mere democracy, no democracy in which the majority rules, rules simply, and rules without prior respect for individual rights, that is, rules without respect for liberty, constitutes in any meaningful sense a palatable alternative to the rule of a strongman like Mubarak, a strongman who is otherwise on our side and who can, and will, hold the forces of radical Islamism at bay. Those forces remain, to both our principles and our interests, the most immediate and real threat with which we must contend. Whatever else we do, we need to remember that.
Such was the nature of our long relationship with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, as well as our relationships with a host of other dictators, strongmen, and thugs both before him and, without doubt, long after him as well.
The British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott was famously skeptical of any kind of politics that "pursue perfection as the crow flies." The wisdom of that skepticism is in order here as well. Somewhere between pristine principle and bald interest lies the less-than-straight line drawn by prudence, the art that is definitely needed as we both witness and react to what is transpiring in Egypt. As a consequence of it, we will soon be re-evaluating our foreign policy (heck, we're already doing it) and the temptation will be to forgo prudence for what is imagined to be undefiled principle. That would be unwise and potentially dangerous.
Ironically, we can be thankful, in a fashion, that a Democrat is currently in the White House. As such, the Democrats cannot afford to act or speak too irresponsibly, as they did for almost the whole of the Iraq War. (Notice how closed-mouthed, as a party, they've become about the War since they took hold of the full reins of government?) Were it a Republican Administration instead, we can be sure there would be no relief from ignorant and opportunistic caterwauling about why we ever struck a deal with a dictator in the first place. Blessedly, the GOP is not so inclined, populated as it is with conservative politicians who, for the most part, understand instinctively the folly of such rhetoric.
Making common cause with a thug is an always dangerous thing to do. But the chief reason for our relationship with Mubarak, and virtually every other similar alliance besides, is that despite our wishes to the contrary, no superior alternative exists. In politics, domestic and international, the nature of the real, not the hoped-for alternative is always what matters in the end.
What was then and is now the real alternative in Egypt? By framing this as a mass uprising, the media has become complicit in making it seem as though the effective choice is between Mubarak, or someone like him, and an otherwise peaceful democracy. I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure that what replaces Mubarak's rule will be peaceful at all, an Egyptian Rainbow Coalition of Muslims, Christians, and secularists calmly dividing the spoils of victory. In fact, I'm not so sure it will be a democracy at all. I'm even less sure that it will be a liberal democracy. No, that's not correct. I'm virtually certain that whatever replaces Mubarak, it will not be a liberal democracy.
As things stand in Egypt, no mere democracy, no democracy in which the majority rules, rules simply, and rules without prior respect for individual rights, that is, rules without respect for liberty, constitutes in any meaningful sense a palatable alternative to the rule of a strongman like Mubarak, a strongman who is otherwise on our side and who can, and will, hold the forces of radical Islamism at bay. Those forces remain, to both our principles and our interests, the most immediate and real threat with which we must contend. Whatever else we do, we need to remember that.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Berman on Kristol
As I've used this phrase as an intro more than once or twice, I think perhaps I need to create a category of blogs titled, "If you're interested in such things..." This one would go there.
Paul Berman, a member of the so-called liberal hawks, liberals who, at least at first, supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has written a review of a new collection of essays by the late Irving Kristol, famously "the godfather of neoconservatism." I think it's worth a read.
As it happens, Berman takes more than a few shots at Kristol, perhaps trying to reestablish his liberal bona fides after supporting "Bush's Wars." Nevertheless, the review, if nothing else, is a good way to learn something about American intellectuals who came of age in the 1940s, more or less, and then changed their mind, or didn't, Kristol being perhaps the preeminent example of the former.
But the review is more than that. For one, it's a fine example of good writing. Consider a couple of examples from the piece where Berman is trying to communicate the disillusionment of many left-wing American intellectuals after Stalin's serial crimes became undeniable.
Wish I'd written that. Anyway, as I say, if you're interested in such things, do give it a look.
Paul Berman, a member of the so-called liberal hawks, liberals who, at least at first, supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has written a review of a new collection of essays by the late Irving Kristol, famously "the godfather of neoconservatism." I think it's worth a read.
As it happens, Berman takes more than a few shots at Kristol, perhaps trying to reestablish his liberal bona fides after supporting "Bush's Wars." Nevertheless, the review, if nothing else, is a good way to learn something about American intellectuals who came of age in the 1940s, more or less, and then changed their mind, or didn't, Kristol being perhaps the preeminent example of the former.
But the review is more than that. For one, it's a fine example of good writing. Consider a couple of examples from the piece where Berman is trying to communicate the disillusionment of many left-wing American intellectuals after Stalin's serial crimes became undeniable.
To be filled with gloomy doubt, and to go limping forward, even so, in search of practical solutions, perhaps even harboring some last shrunken hope for a better world, like a man cupping a match — this was the animating inspiration of Kristol’s generation of intellectuals in their postcollege years."Like a man cupping a match..." I like that very much. And this also, describing the same men and the same spirit, but with different words: They "spent the 1950s writing books in the shadow of that same idea, discouraged but averse to despair."
Wish I'd written that. Anyway, as I say, if you're interested in such things, do give it a look.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Moran or Moron?
The spelling is just too close to be a coincidence.
Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA, is blaming the results of last fall's election on racism. You'll recall that the results included his party losing control of the House. Anyway, according to Moran, the meaning of it all is that in the United States too many, a majority in fact, just "don't want to be governed by an African-American."
Let me get this straight: In a mere two years, a whole new generation of bigoted American voters have come of age and cast their now deciding votes against the Age of Obama?
Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA, is blaming the results of last fall's election on racism. You'll recall that the results included his party losing control of the House. Anyway, according to Moran, the meaning of it all is that in the United States too many, a majority in fact, just "don't want to be governed by an African-American."
Let me get this straight: In a mere two years, a whole new generation of bigoted American voters have come of age and cast their now deciding votes against the Age of Obama?
Write Much?
Here, if you write, and even if you don't, is an article which, as articles go, and, as we know, some articles are worth reading while others are not, is most definitely worth your time as it tackles the subject of long, complex, or, better, complicated sentences that obscure rather than clarify the point, if there is a point, to be made.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Monkey Business
Headlines like this always tickle me: "How humans are 97% the same as orangutans: New research shows how DNA matches" The unstated conclusion, which is actually an assumption, as well as an aspiration, is that between men and monkeys, there really is no difference.
I've made this point before, but it's been awhile: The fact that orangutans and humans share 97% of their DNA surprises me not at all. We are both mammals inhabiting the planet earth. I suspect that between humans and horses and hyenas we would also find the DNA match to be some pretty big number.
The more interesting question is that because we are so obviously different, I've never once witnessed a orangutan build a house or compose a sonnet, what are we to make of the remaining 3%? Of what does it consist and is it important?
This gambit is used quite often when the desired conclusion is one of essential equality, like, for example, between the sexes. The fact that men and women share, oh, I don't know, say 95% of the same hopes, fears, goals, etc., says nothing about the 5% over which we differ and it is precisely that 5% that matters.
By the way, after you make that last point, DUCK!.
I've made this point before, but it's been awhile: The fact that orangutans and humans share 97% of their DNA surprises me not at all. We are both mammals inhabiting the planet earth. I suspect that between humans and horses and hyenas we would also find the DNA match to be some pretty big number.
The more interesting question is that because we are so obviously different, I've never once witnessed a orangutan build a house or compose a sonnet, what are we to make of the remaining 3%? Of what does it consist and is it important?
This gambit is used quite often when the desired conclusion is one of essential equality, like, for example, between the sexes. The fact that men and women share, oh, I don't know, say 95% of the same hopes, fears, goals, etc., says nothing about the 5% over which we differ and it is precisely that 5% that matters.
By the way, after you make that last point, DUCK!.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)