Transterrestrial Musings  


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
Journoblogs
The Ombudsgod
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
Joanne Jacobs


Site designed by


Powered by
Movable Type
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Eye For An Eye? | Main | Could Be Any Millenium Now »

The New Brain Trust

Fred Siegel has an interesting article on the intellectual vacuity of the postmodern radical left:

Back in the fall of 2003, when Dr. Dean was still riding high in the Presidential primary, Iíd listened in on a conversation among undergraduate Deaniacs outside my office at Cooper Union in the East Village. "This just doesnít feel like America any more," one of them said to a friend, who replied, "Fuck Bush," and pointed to a button on his jacket bearing the same slogan.

Itís an old professorís habit, but I had to engage them. "What does that mean?" I asked the fellow with the button. "Bush is bullshit," he replied, "the most evil man in the world." When I said that wasnít an argument and pressed him, he acknowledged that "Saddam isnít a good guy," but "who are we"óhe pointed both to me and his like-minded friendóto "judge Saddam Hussein?"

"Why not?" I asked. He replied with an answer right out of the postmodern playbook. Americans canít judge another culture, he insisted, because there is no common morality. But if thatís the case, I asked, why then was George Bush "undoubtedly the most evil man in the world?" He seemed puzzled by the idea that his version of an emotional truth might seem incoherent to others...

...But even as academiaís batting average has declined, its claim to superior knowledge has expanded. The old ideal of disinterested scholarship, or at least the importance of attempting to be objective, has been displaced. In 2003, the University of Californiaís Academic Assembly did away with the distinction between "interested" and "disinterested" scholarship by a 45-3 vote. As Berkeley law professor Robert Post explained, "The old statement of principles was so outlandishly disconnected to what university teaching is now that it made no sense to think about it that way."

The reality, as Professor Post recognized, is that many professors now literally profess. Far from teaching the mechanics of knowledge, they are in fact preachers of sorts, spreading a gospel akin to that of Howard Dean. And if they are part of grievance-studies departments, like Ward Churchill or Joseph Massad, there never was any expectation of objectivity: They were knowingly hired as activists and are now puzzled as to why this has become a problem for some of their students and the larger public. After all, what they preach is built into the very orientation students are given when they arrive on campus. New students at many schools are quite literally given a new faith in which the world is divided into victims and victimizers, with little room for common ideals of citizenship or rationality, and no basis for debates that approximate the give-and-take of politics.

This appeal to tribalism was nearly summed in a popular T-shirt of the mid-1990ís. It read in large print: "If youíre not black, you wouldnít understand."

If his thesis, that modern academia is the "brain trust" of the Democrat Party, is correct, they're in for a lot more electoral pain in the future. As he points out, the campuses have become such echo chambers for this stuff, in which their ideas are rarely challenged, that they've become hothouse plants that wilt under actual analysis, as is occurring more and more every day on the Internet.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2005 07:58 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-diagnostics.cgi/3534

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Comments

There is no money that's not tainted. Government grants are ill-gotten gains from evil shareholders and corporations.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at March 17, 2005 10:26 AM

It would seem to me that in any argument regarding morality the only person whose input is of no value whatsoever is the one who insists that there is no common morality.

His argument undermines his argument.

Posted by Michael at March 17, 2005 11:26 AM

Still, the vacuity or other of a supposed 'radical left' is probably not a particularly good question. These people have little power right now.

A better question is whether the neo-conservative strategy of trying to scare middle America into accepting an American police state and multiple wars; whether this strategy is moral.

And since the neo-conservatives actually have the ear of an American president, this seems to me to be a far more interesting question.

Posted by Ian Woollard at March 17, 2005 03:13 PM

A better question is whether the neo-conservative strategy of trying to scare middle America into accepting an American police state and multiple wars; whether this strategy is moral.

The best question is why anyone, anywhere, takes this kind of hysterical rhetoric seriously.

Posted by McGehee at March 17, 2005 03:41 PM

"The best question is why anyone, anywhere, takes this kind of hysterical rhetoric seriously."

Because it allows them to avoid facing the reality that no one bought into their failed ideas. They can avoid the pain of rejection by engaging in this excerise in fantasy conspiracy made pseudo-reality and repeating it at every opportunity ad-nauseum.


The paradoxical "Chimpy McHitler" (Thanks Barbra, I like this better than ChimpHitler)theory I dub this. Where the failures of the left are attributed to the rise of a comically stupid, shit throwing, black hearted, war mongering, coke snorting, fundamentalist homo killing, iron fisted fascist chimpanzee-president.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 17, 2005 04:37 PM

??? An even better question is why you don't think that that's what's been happening!

The political strategy of using fear of WMDs, and terrorism as a way of getting the American people to allow Bush to take Iraq is exceptionally clear. The absolute non existence of WMDs and the extremely clear lack of connection between Al Queda (indeed, the pre-invasion palpable *hatred* between these groups) and Saddam Hussein only helps to illuminate more clearly what went on.

Just tonight there was a program about the death of Kelly; in it there is a scene where he interviews an Iraqi who tells him point-blank that there was no WMDs after the early 90s because Hussein had ordered them destroyed (to avoid trouble with the west), but Hussein couldn't allow that information to get out, because then he could lose power over his state which was based on terror and would face invasion threats. That has always has seemed to me to be the most likely explanation of what went on- Hussein was scared of the west, but had to maintain control. And that's why WMDs were never found. They never existed much after the inspectors left in the early 90s.

Posted by Ian Woollard at March 17, 2005 04:44 PM

Chimpy McHitler. LOL!

Posted by Ian Woollard at March 17, 2005 04:45 PM

"Still, the vacuity or other of a supposed 'radical left' is probably not a particularly good question. These people have little power right now."

I completely understand why you wouldn't like that question, as your vacuity is apparent. Power-hungry leftists must be even more panicked than they were after the November elections now that that they see the vaunted Arab street is rising up not against the USA, but their own tyrannical governments.

"A better question is whether the neo-conservative strategy of trying to scare middle America into accepting an American police state and multiple wars; whether this strategy is moral."

And using absurd phrases like "American police state" is trying to do what, exactly? Scare middle America, perhaps? Is it moral to spread lies like that?

Posted by Jim C. at March 17, 2005 05:14 PM

"the November elections now that that they see the vaunted Arab street is rising up not against the USA, but their own tyrannical governments."

Yes! The rivers are flowing red with blood from the violence of the uprising in um... where was this happening again, it doesn't seem to be on any of the news? :-)

"Is it moral to spread lies like that?"

I wouldn't know. You'll have to ask the neo-conservative 'experts' in Bush's government, they certainly have practical experience :-p

Posted by Ian Woollard at March 17, 2005 05:32 PM

Incidentally, when you board a plane in America on an internal flight, 'under the law' you have to show ID. That's probably not unreasonable.

However, if you ask to *see* the law that says this, they can't show it to you.

Apparently, there is a law, but it's *illegal* for Americans to see the law.

Me I think that that's going to far. But if you never hear from me again, that's probably because I broke a law I can't see by saying that; and got disappeared or something.

Have a nice day!

Posted by Ian Woollard at March 17, 2005 06:03 PM


> an Iraqi who tells him point-blank that there was no WMDs after the early 90s
> because Hussein had ordered them destroyed (to avoid trouble with the west), but
> Hussein couldn't allow that information to get out,

Even though the agreement he signed *required* him to provide that information.

> because then he could lose power over his state which was based on terror
> and would face invasion threats.

"His state was based on terror"???

I thought you were denying any connection to terrorism?

> However, if you ask to *see* the law that says this, they can't show it to you.

> Apparently, there is a law, but it's *illegal* for Americans to see the law.

Talk about paranoid.

Do you really expect an airport security guard to lug around a set of law books, just so they can show them to a hippy out to harrass someone who's trying to do his job?

Posted by at March 17, 2005 06:26 PM

Ian, do you have some kind of bizarre fantasy that things are better in the UK? At least, here, individuals are allowed to defend themselves against both criminals and overwheening government.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2005 06:27 PM

Ian,

You prove the vapidity of your so-called arguments every time you use the term "neo-conservative". There is no such thing. This is just a term made up by the pseudo-intellectual PC brown shirts of the Left because they needed create a sinister-sounding enemy, lest the great unwashed masses wake up and recognize the Left's intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 17, 2005 06:36 PM

"Ian, do you have some kind of bizarre fantasy that things are better in the UK?"

No, not at all. Much the same at best, and probably slightly worse. There's a reason that 1984 was written in the UK. :-)

"At least, here, individuals are allowed to defend themselves against both criminals and overwheening government."

No. At best, in America you are allowed to possess small arms, and having the option to die in a hail of bullets. Or burn to death, you know, like Waco?

Incidentally, you're perfectly at liberty to defend yourself against criminals in the UK, you're just not allowed to use excessive force (e.g. shooting them in the back whilst they're running away). Killing in self-defense is perfectly fine; the police don't even bother charging you for that. You can't kill people for merely stealing your stuff though, in many ways America is rather barbaric that way.

Posted by Ian Woollard at March 17, 2005 07:04 PM

"You prove the vapidity of your so-called arguments every time you use the term "neo-conservative". There is no such thing. This is just a term made up by the pseudo-intellectual PC brown shirts of the Left because they needed create a sinister-sounding enemy, lest the great unwashed masses wake up and recognize the Left's intellectual and moral bankruptcy."

Eric, have you got a program that comes up with this stuff? If so I'd like a copy, It doesn't actually make any sense but it's rather fun.

Pretty much, if I make up a word, fretch, and say, look at Eric, he's a fretch, then the term means something. As soon as I do that, a new term exists. For you to deny it is senseless.

The term Neo-conservative is fairly easily defined and can be applied to quite a few figures in the Bush administration.

Now stop being such a fretch, or I will be forced to reason with you some more!

Posted by Ian Woollard at March 17, 2005 07:19 PM

Hmmm, Wikipedia has a good treatment of neoconservatism as somwhat vaguely defined in the US. In summary, the term wasn't created by the supposed adherents, but has been "embraced" on occasion by key ideological leaders (in particular Irving Kristol). I'd say though that it appears sufficiently well defined to apply to the ideology of various political players, but that like many political terms it probably fits poorly many of the people it's applied to.

For example, Condi Rice probably is commonly refered to as neoconservative, but doesn't really fit the criteria. Also, it's enlightening to read through the wikipedia debate on the neoconservatism article (and more general what neoconservatism is, who is a (real or imagined) neoconservative, and some off the wall stuff). IMHO, this is one of the things that makes Wikipedia valuable.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 17, 2005 08:57 PM

Why do people believe that an "argument from authority" citing the so-called Wikipedia is going to carry any weight? Such an fallacious argument should, at the least, be attributed to a nameable, responsible person and not that amorphous blob of free-floating biases and changing opinions.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at March 17, 2005 11:44 PM

Ian Woollard repeats the line that Saddam had no WMDs. Perhaps he'd like to take a look at this article by Christopher Hitchens the other day:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2114820/

Of course, the article does not exonerate Bush or the Coalition, however. But it does nail the "Saddam had no WMDs" refrain of the isolationist Right and out-of-it left.

Posted by Johnathan at March 18, 2005 06:06 AM

Ian,

Just because someone makes up a term and asserts a definition does NOT make that term legitimate or useful in discourse. That's just not rigorous. Not that the post-modernists know a thing about intellectual rigor. And so we return to the vapidity of any arguments that resort to name-calling using a made-up term. The fact that some folks don't even realize how empty-headed they appear to be when using pseudo-intellectual terms like 'neo-conservative' is a sad testimony of the state of western education.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 18, 2005 06:18 AM

Raoul, I don't see your point. Wikipedia isn't the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm not arguing the virtues of the above article on the basis of authority - note the use of phrases like "good treatment of neoconservatism" or the linkage to the discussion page. But let's say I was, what more authoritative internet source for "neoconservatism" did you have in mind?

Frankly, the Wikipedia is use at your own risk adn there's a lot of error and deception contained herein. But it has a lot of appealing features that make it very useful. First, it is open in design, discussion, and the history of an article. I've viewed the history of some articles to see individuals insert, edit, and delete text. Ie, I can see what each user (at least under that handle) did (who can incidentally can hide under an IP address or an anonymous handle). The process does seem to make a decent article.

Second, it has an internet focus. There are a lot of terms, myths, concepts, sayings, etc out there and a very good chance that they end up somewhere on Wikipedia.

The coverage is pretty decent and some areas are really well done. I have been pretty satisfied by the articles in my area of expertise (mathematical physics). They're surprisingly deep and useful for what is touted as an encyclopedia.

Finally, the price is right. You don't even need an account to access any part of the site.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 18, 2005 08:04 AM

Fretching: senselessly arguing the meaninglessness of reasonably well defined terms especially when done by Eric. S.

Stop fretching Eric. Somebody simply made up the term 'post-modernist' that you used too. The fact that you don't realise this says plenty about your understanding of what's really going on in the world. The idea that you are proposing that somebody who uses terms correctly is uneducated in some way; well, that's very typical for a fretch like you.

Posted by Ian Woollard at March 18, 2005 03:24 PM

"Ian Woollard repeats the line that Saddam had no WMDs. Perhaps he'd like to take a look at this article by Christopher Hitchens the other day:"

As I understand it, they've found equipment that they say could be made to make WMDs. It can take considerable time to do that. Arguably the tools in John Carmacks garage might be used to make a space rocket- doesn't mean he's done it.

It's a far cry from actually having done it. They didn't find evidence that it had been used to do that; did they?

The Bush and Blair position was that they *already* had WMDs. No evidence of that being so has been found whatsoever.

Posted by Ian Woollard at March 18, 2005 03:49 PM

Ian,

I apologize for not being totally clear and spelling out things that I figured educated people already knew. 'Post-modern' has a rigorous meaning that arose from use in academic journals, etc. (Ignoring the rampant lack of intellectual rigor exercised by academics in areas that utilize the term.) 'Neoconservative', as used in discourse over the last few years, has no such attempt at rigor behind it. It is, in fact, an egregious misuse of an actual word that came into use about 50 years ago. The term actually applies only to a liberal who has changed to become a conservative and thus doesn't apply to most folks in the Bush administration or in the Republican party. The poorly informed pseudo-intellectuals of the Left, particularly in academia, apparently decided it sounds scary and corrupted the actual term to fit their extremist agenda. This is what I mean by a "made up" term. This is also why the empty-headedness of many on the Left should be self-evident, except, of course, to those same empty heads. Children like to use big words that sound 'neat' and often just make up definitions that they think sound right. This, apparently, is where some in academia are in their intellectual development. They just like to hear themselves use big words that they don't really know the meaning of, and so they make up a meaning.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 19, 2005 11:08 AM

Ultimately, the english language changes over time. It's senseless to rail against such changes, the English language is not, and probably never will be anything other than a total mutt of a language. A mongrel with dozens of parents; and it is constantly on the move. Gay, e-mail, email, shroomers, larpers, shibbying, the list goes on.

It looks to me that the term neoconservative is being used in a new way right now. You might be right as to their motivation, but the people doing it don't seem to be empty headed. There has actually been some shifting of the political lines, and some of the terms may not mean quite what they did.

You also seem to be looking at things one dimensionally left vs right. There's much more complex things happening, religion is figuring larger and soci4list ideas are not so powerful. The axis of American politics is possibly becoming less stably aligned; fear of communism isn't quite so fierce with USSR gone (no reds under the beds). There is even a worryingly similar pattern between for want of a better word, neoconservatives, and islamists- both seem to be trying to impose a morality on a set of people; one that the people largely seem to reject. Remember when Clinton was being impeached for 'immorality'? The American people largely didn't care, but the neoconservative groups that later joined the Bush government were attempting to pull society together to further their ends- to boot Clinton out. The islamists have been trying to do the same thing using radical Islamic ideology- again, moslems almost universally reject it. The neoconservatives are now trying to use the fear of Islamists/Al Queda to pull american society together and increase or maintain their power. For that to continue to work there had better be another big terrorist attrocity soon, but largely Islamist groups were in disarray after Afghanistan was invaded and the camps destroyed. Ironically, that means that it's theoretically in the Bush governments interest that OBL *not* be caught, but I imagine that won't be *official* government policy any time soon. :-)

Posted by Ian Woollard at March 19, 2005 09:56 PM

"There has actually been some shifting of the political lines, and some of the terms may not mean quite what they did."

Like the word Liberal.

A classic Liberal would be appaled at what has become of that once noble label.

The sad fact is modern Liberals are much less like classic liberals than modern Conservatives are and far less so than modern Libertarians who are most likely their legitimate heirs.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 20, 2005 09:08 AM

There is even a worryingly similar pattern between for want of a better word, neoconservatives, and islamists- both seem to be trying to impose a morality on a set of people; one that the people largely seem to reject. Remember when Clinton was being impeached for 'immorality'?

Excuse me? The people you are talking about are religious conservatives, which is a very different beast from neo-conservatives. No prominent Administration member labeled neoconservative is particularly religious, or claims to be. And many of them, including Paul Wolfowitz, are Jewish.

The alliance between Christian conservatives and neoconservatives is merely an alliance of convenience.

Posted by Ilya at March 20, 2005 12:23 PM

Among other fundamental misunderstandings of religious conservatives and neoconservatives, Ian writes nonsensically:

Remember when Clinton was being impeached for 'immorality'?

No, I've always had difficulty remembering things that never happened. In this universe, Clinton was impeached for perjury, witness tampering and other forms of obstruction of justice.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 20, 2005 02:12 PM

Ian, it has been proven repeatedly to the satisfaction of United States judges and juries that it is possible for a person to go from a clearly threatening posture to having his back turned in the time between the decision to fire a valid defensive shot and the round striking. We have the impression here that such expert testimony would be unwelcome in your courts.

Posted by triticale at March 21, 2005 04:38 AM

From Mr. Woollard,

"Ultimately, the english language changes over time. It's senseless to rail against such changes, the English language is not, and probably never will be anything other than a total mutt of a language. A mongrel with dozens of parents; and it is constantly on the move. Gay, e-mail, email, shroomers, larpers, shibbying, the list goes on."

THis is true, and nobody is more aware of this than an English major such as myself. Even since the 1950s, the English language has shifted and changed quite noticeably. However...

***from the Merriam-Webster O-nline Dictionary***
Main Entry: neo∑con∑ser∑va∑tive
Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
- neo∑con∑ser∑va∑tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun
- neoconservative adjective
****

Based upon this information, from a reputable source, no less, I would humbly submit that while the language may have changed, it hasn't changed that much.

Now, on to the rest of your "arguements."

"A better question is whether the neo-conservative strategy of trying to scare middle America into accepting an American police state and multiple wars; whether this strategy is moral."

To answer this, we must first find a good definition of police state. For this, we again turn to Mr. Webster....
***
Main Entry: police state
Function: noun
: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures
***

Let's see, cutting central government economic control, a proposed reduction in political control, and, one could argue, the actual enhancement of social life (into political "teams," if nothing else), not to mention a distinct lack of secret police and arbitrary action by the regular police...yep, sounds like our secret plan to turn America into a police state is right on schedule to me.


"The political strategy of using fear of WMDs, and terrorism as a way of getting the American people to allow Bush to take Iraq is exceptionally clear. The absolute non existence of WMDs and the extremely clear lack of connection between Al Queda (indeed, the pre-invasion palpable *hatred* between these groups) and Saddam Hussein only helps to illuminate more clearly what went on."

Up to and during the early part of the Persian Gulf War, America sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. The objective at the time was to give him some sort of leverage against the fanatically devoted soldiers of the ayatollahs, who the American government feared would try to annex the entirety of the Middle East. We knew that Saddam Hussein did not use them all, and we knew that he had gotten them--we had the receipts to prove it. If you watch for it, the History Channel occasionally puts out a program mentioning this. Now, if he destroyed the weapons, and then went on for another ten years playing a bluffing game with the entire world where he would not allow anybody to know that he did not have them, then, well, the more fool he. If he was going to do that, he should have kept the WMDs, so that he could use them if he had to.

"No. At best, in America you are allowed to possess small arms, and having the option to die in a hail of bullets. Or burn to death, you know, like Waco?"

Unless, of course, you possess a Curios and Relics License, in which case you can buy a bloody 4.5" pack howitzer, for all the federal government cares. Not to mention anti-tank rifles, mortars, and a variety of other fun and decidely non-sidearm quality weapons, up to and incuding a Browning M2. Not only that, but if you want to own a machine gun, fine, all you gotta do is pay taxes on it--they even make the things in .22LR. Hell, in North Carolina, the problem got to be bad enough that there is an actual law on the books against hunting for deer with "battery guns." Fun stuff, no?

"As I understand it, they've found equipment that they say could be made to make WMDs. It can take considerable time to do that. Arguably the tools in John Carmacks garage might be used to make a space rocket- doesn't mean he's done it."

Maybe not John Carmack, but somebody used the tools in their garage to build a spaceship--it was used for the first civilian flight into space.


"It looks to me that the term neoconservative is being used in a new way right now. You might be right as to their motivation, but the people doing it don't seem to be empty headed. There has actually been some shifting of the political lines, and some of the terms may not mean quite what they did."

If they aren't empty-headed, then they sure are giving a damnably good impression of being so. Witness Maurice Hinchley.

"You also seem to be looking at things one dimensionally left vs right. There's much more complex things happening, religion is figuring larger and soci4list ideas are not so powerful. The axis of American politics is possibly becoming less stably aligned; fear of communism isn't quite so fierce with USSR gone (no reds under the beds)."

With the USSR gone, the central unifying enemy of the country has disappeared. The Red Army no longer threatens Europe, and we no longer need fear WWIII erupting while we sleep. Thus, as I see it, we can start to worry about other things.
Like this concept that morality cannot be judged. Me, I am in complete agreement of the British official who decided that suttee (the Indian custom of throwing the wife on the husband's funeral pyre) had to stop. When told that this was an ancient Indian tradition, he replied that the British had an equally ancient tradition of hanging people who did that sort of thing.


"There is even a worryingly similar pattern between for want of a better word, neoconservatives, and islamists- both seem to be trying to impose a morality on a set of people; one that the people largely seem to reject."

And this is why "Thou shalt not murder" has been completely ignored in the American legal code. Give me a break--the morality embraced by the Christian right is the same morality that forms the fundamental underpinnings of our society. Nobody is trying to force it on anybody. It just is. My killing anybody who disagrees with me would be morally wrong. Why? Because of that same morality I have "forced" upon you. Give it up, man. The vast majority of Americans have accepted the morality you fear here in America. That the rest of the world has not is their own damn fault, and, as long as they do not try to force theirs upon us, their problem.


"Remember when Clinton was being impeached for 'immorality'?

No, I've always had difficulty remembering things that never happened. In this universe, Clinton was impeached for perjury, witness tampering and other forms of obstruction of justice."

This is true--sorry, but he was never once charged with immorality. Had he admitted his wrongdoing and appeared appropriately contrite, in all likelihood, the charges would have never have stuck, and his impeachment would have never happened.

"For that to continue to work there had better be another big terrorist attrocity soon, but largely Islamist groups were in disarray after Afghanistan was invaded and the camps destroyed. Ironically, that means that it's theoretically in the Bush governments interest that OBL *not* be caught, but I imagine that won't be *official* government policy any time soon. :-)"

And of course we all know that 9/11 was in actuality planned and funded by the CIA and the Israelis. What proof do we have? None, actually--every shred of evidence in existence (and there are many, many shreds) dictate against it. But we know we're right anyway, so we don't have to prove it.

Were Bush to bring us Osama Bin Laden's head on a platter (or, even better, a pike), this country would have a Republican government for the next twenty years. As things stand now, if somebody else comes up with a way to find him, well, the Republicans can be replaced, cheap.

"The alliance between Christian conservatives and neoconservatives is merely an alliance of convenience."

Speak for yourself Ilya. Me, I'm very glad to be a part of that alliance--it means that the Christian conservatives once more have some measure of influence, and, when you get down to it, there really is no fundamental disunity of goals.

Posted by draconis at March 22, 2005 03:24 AM

And Rand? Do something with your god-damned word filter. O-n-l-i-n-e is not a character string it should be listing as "questionable language"

Posted by draconis at March 22, 2005 03:25 AM

Dear Lord, I cannot believe it actually let me post that last one.

Posted by draconis at March 22, 2005 03:26 AM


Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments: