It’s probably a little late for this year, but Iowahawk has a general-purpose commencement address for anyone who’s gotten suckered into having to give one. It’s (as usual) a hoot.
That John, He’s Such A Card
Boy, now nobody can accuse Senator Kerry of not having a sense of humor.
My sides still hurt from the all the hijinks and hilarity.
Oh, and in case you didn’t get it, that was a joke.
Or was it (like Senator Kerry’s supposed bon mot) sarcasm? Either way, I guess it beats calling it another flip-flop (“I was going to announce my VP before I wasn’t going to…”)
That John, He’s Such A Card
Boy, now nobody can accuse Senator Kerry of not having a sense of humor.
My sides still hurt from the all the hijinks and hilarity.
Oh, and in case you didn’t get it, that was a joke.
Or was it (like Senator Kerry’s supposed bon mot) sarcasm? Either way, I guess it beats calling it another flip-flop (“I was going to announce my VP before I wasn’t going to…”)
That John, He’s Such A Card
Boy, now nobody can accuse Senator Kerry of not having a sense of humor.
My sides still hurt from the all the hijinks and hilarity.
Oh, and in case you didn’t get it, that was a joke.
Or was it (like Senator Kerry’s supposed bon mot) sarcasm? Either way, I guess it beats calling it another flip-flop (“I was going to announce my VP before I wasn’t going to…”)
The Philosopher’s Magazine
If you’re interested in philosophy but don’t have a background in it, check out The Philosopher’s Magazine. It’s a philosophy version of Popular Science or Discover Magazine. I’ve subscribed for a year now, and I’m happy with it. It’s not mindbogglingly deep, but it also doesn’t presume familiarity with lots of jargon, so it’s a nice way to stimulate the mind without the frustration of running to the dictionary (or Google) all the time.
The Philosopher’s Magazine
If you’re interested in philosophy but don’t have a background in it, check out The Philosopher’s Magazine. It’s a philosophy version of Popular Science or Discover Magazine. I’ve subscribed for a year now, and I’m happy with it. It’s not mindbogglingly deep, but it also doesn’t presume familiarity with lots of jargon, so it’s a nice way to stimulate the mind without the frustration of running to the dictionary (or Google) all the time.
The Philosopher’s Magazine
If you’re interested in philosophy but don’t have a background in it, check out The Philosopher’s Magazine. It’s a philosophy version of Popular Science or Discover Magazine. I’ve subscribed for a year now, and I’m happy with it. It’s not mindbogglingly deep, but it also doesn’t presume familiarity with lots of jargon, so it’s a nice way to stimulate the mind without the frustration of running to the dictionary (or Google) all the time.
No Market For Space Tourism?
Disney doesn’t seem to think so.
What Does Victory Look Like?
In comments to the previous post, Duncan Young writes:
The big difference is that in WWII the shape of victory was pretty damn clear – specific land was occupied, papers were publically signed, POW’s turned over etc etc.
I’ve never heard a non-handwaving description of what ‘winning’ looks like in the War on Terror. Which is a bit of a problem with applying the whole ‘war’ paradigm to this case.
That’s one of the problems with calling it a “War on Terror.”
If we call it by its right name, a war on radical Islamic fundamentalism, then the victory conditions become more clear, if not entirely politically correct.
It means a Middle East (and other places) in which governments don’t actively fund (or look the other way at) terrorist activities, in which imams in the mosques don’t preach hate and death to the Jews and other infidels every Friday evening, with either active government support or acquiescence, in which madrassas, if they exist at all, teach a modern and reformed version of Islam. It may also include a prosperous and free Arab world, though unfortunately it need not if those other conditions can occur without it.
That’s what victory looks like. How to achieve it is unclear, and worthy of debate, but many opponents of the war and the administration don’t even seem to see that as a legitimate goal, let alone one to debate the means of getting there. The politically incorrect part is that it means committing “culturicide,” which is something that remains an anathema to the multi-culti cultists, to whom all is relative. And while it doesn’t require genocide, it may indeed require killing many more people than we might desire, because there are some minds that won’t be changed.
Certainly policies followed in the eighties and nineties (to which it sounds like Senator Kerry wants us to return) won’t get us there. Whether or not the current policy will remains to be seen, but it’s got a lot better prospects than prosecutions and diplomacy alone. There will be many more regime changes, by various means, before this war is over.
And Speaking Of WW II
Go read VDH today:
We do have a grave problem in this country, but it is not the plan for Iraq, the neoconservatives, or targeting Saddam. Face it: This present generation of leaders at home would never have made it to Normandy Beach. They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor, cast around blame for the Japanese internment, sued over the light armor and guns of Sherman tanks, apologized for bombing German civilians, and recalled General Eisenhower to Washington to explain the rough treatment of Axis prisoners.