Hitchens for Blair

Here's Christopher Hitchens' latest column discussing why he supports Tony Blair (Hitchens, you may remember, is a Brit expat living in the U.S.)

Fascinating Intra-Conservative Debate: The future (and past) of Conservatism

Here are links to a really interesting philosophical debate between Conservatives on the state and future of Conservatism.

It began with this lengthy essay by Andrew Sullivan (free logic required), editor of the New Republic and a gay conservative. His argument centers on the division between Conservatives of Faith and Conservatives of Doubt (in layman/simplistic terms, something akin to religious conservatives versus limited government conservatives).

Ramesh Ponnaru of National Review responded with these posts in blog form here.

Jonah Goldberg responds in column form here in a very thoughtful and insightful discussion of Sullivan's piece and Conservatism in general.

Overall, I think the whole discussion is fascinating. I won't write too much right now about my thoughts on Conservatism, but I do believe that the fact that intra-conservate philosophical debates such as these are so prevalent, indicates why Conservativism is the majority ideology these days: While intellectual examination has largely stagnated in the Left (I challenge anyone to cite major figures of the Left that are involved in open introspective analysis of their ideology), it is flourishing on the right.

Reading these pieces may not be for everyone (they are heavy in philosophical terms), I encourage everyone to at least give it a try. Feel free to send me your thoughts as well. I do love a good debate.

William F. Buckley: Still the best writer in the country...

It's hard not to be repetitive in my praise of William F. Buckley. Let simply say that the man is deeply insightful and a brilliant writer. As evident here.

Stating the Obvious...

Forgive me for borrowing this from the Corner at NRO, but I share their amusement.

Newspapers repeatedly write this story (Seriously. It appears every month it seems):

Crime rate down, but prison population on the rise

What's funny is that the article is always written with bemusement over how such a situation can occur.

Is it honostly such a difficult notion that putting criminals in jail prevents them from committing crime; therefore the crime rate drops?

That anyone wouldn't get this is...well...mind boggling.

Quote of the Day

"As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it."
-- Vaclav Havel

The Cost of Roe...

Here's a very interesting column by David Brooks in the NYTimes. The premise of the piece is that Roe v. Wade is the primary cause of the political strife and civic destruction we are experience in our country. It's well worth the read [Note: NYTimes FREE login required].


While Brooks doesn't do so, I think you can make comparisons to the impact that Supreme Court decisions like Dred Scott had prior to Civil War. Now, I certainly don't mean to imply (nor do I think) that the Abortion issue will lead to some kind of civil war, but I think the comparison is valid in the effects on our government's ability to deliberate and discuss issues in the course of finding solutions.

Anyway, read the Brooks piece.

This would make me cry...

This is the most brutal book review I have ever read (and one of the funniest). And it's of an author, Thomas Friedman, who I actually like.

Here's an excerpt from the review:

"On an ideological level, Friedman's new book is the worst, most boring kind of middlebrow horseshit. If its literary peculiarities could somehow be removed from the equation, The World Is Flat would appear as no more than an unusually long pamphlet replete with the kind of plug-filled, free-trader leg-humping that passes for thought in this country. It is a tale of a man who walks 10 feet in front of his house armed with a late-model Blackberry and comes back home five minutes later to gush to his wife that hospitals now use the internet to outsource the reading of CAT scans. Man flies on planes, observes the wonders of capitalism, says we're not in Kansas anymore. (He actually says we're not in Kansas anymore.) That's the whole plot right there...."

"His description of the early 90s: The walls had fallen down and the Windows had opened, making the world much flatter than it had ever been—but the age of seamless global communication had not yet dawned.

How the fuck do you open a window in a fallen wall? More to the point, why would you open a window in a fallen wall? Or did the walls somehow fall in such a way that they left the windows floating in place to be opened?

Four hundred and 73 pages of this, folks. Is there no God?

[Update: Added link that I somehow forgot to post]

How to bring Doom to Terra Firma (and not so Firma)

In case you were really wondering how to destroy the Earth, I give you this website. It's hilarious and informative. I especially like how energetic and excited the author is about the subject.

It's good for a few laughs...

Delay and Blankley

Don't have to comment other than to say that I really liked this column by Tony Blankley. I think it's right on. Incidentally, that we even have to refer to Lincoln Chafee as a "Republican" is a joke...

For the time being...

For those of you who were wondering, for the time being my posting will continue to be intermittent to non-existent. I've started a new job and have yet to figure out how/when to fit in my blogging responsibilities.

I will eventually figure it out, but in the meantime, please be patient.

See you on the other side of this little hiatus,
Ian

A Rant on Congressional Ego...

I've had a thought I've been ruminating on for a while. Well, actually that might be too strong of a word. I haven't been fixated on it. I've thought about enough to have it register as a consistent thought, but not examined it enough to come to any conclusions.

At any rate, I've had the opportunity to meet a number of public officials in my life, in addition to the many many many hours I've watched the behavior of members of Congress on C-Span and the like.

From these experiences, I've come to loathe the better-than-thou attitude of so many in Congress, particularly in the Senate.

And it brought to mind the following questions:

Why is it that there seems to be some unstated requirement for the average citizen to treat all Congressmen and --especially-- Senators with such reverence and respect?

and

Why is it that we are to treat members of Congress as if they are the American elite; so much better than all of us?

Now, I fully believe that we should accord all people with a general level of respect for their status as a person. But anyone who has ever met a Senator, in particular, knows that they walk around like they're wearing God's magical sweater vest and that we must all bow down to their superiority. And this is true regardless of where they are. It's not hard to picture any given Senator screaming "I'm a United States Senator, by God!" and cutting to the front of the line at a corn dog stand, for example.

As I see it, under our system as a Democratic Republic, I (and my fellow citizens) are the ultimate bosses. Yet, I (and my fellow citizens) grant power to a select number of individuals to wield authority in my name. From this, I think I am well placed to be specially respectful for the institutions of the government and the specific offices that I have allowed to exert influence over me.

So who would this be? Obviously the people I immediately choose to fill those offices, namely my House Representative and my two Senators. Additionally (through causal chain), I am influencing the selection of Leadership. Assuming that there are 5 primary leadership positions in the Senate and 9 primary leadership positions in the House, this leads to at most 17 figures in Congress who, based on my model, are owed a special level of respect by me (depending on who your Senator is, this number can vary).

So why exactly should I bow down to the other 518 members of Congress and pretend that they are on some pedestal above me? What exactly is it that the Junior Senator from, say Rhode Island (which is Lincoln Chafee, should you care), or the senior Senator from Massachusetts (Ted Kennedy) has done that I am to give him special deference?

They don't wield authority over me precisely because I haven't ever granted them permission to do so (i.e. through a result of my vote). And logically, if they aren't wielding authority over me, then how exactly are they any different from the average citizen I might meet on any given street? Or perhaps more easily comparable, am I as a citizen of Oregon required, as a sign of deference, to give my place in line at that corn-dog stand to the governor of Delaware? Or Florida? Or Iowa? Or California? Of course not, and most people wouldn't think to do so. So why are those 518 members of Congress noted above any different?

They are members or Chairmen of Committees, you say? Indeed, it's true that Committees do exert some power in Congress. But while some learned political scholars might disagree, I don't really give a hoot about Committees because the power they wield comes as a result of a perversion of our system.

Committees were established to facilitate the overall action of the entire body of the Congress. Committees are to act as guides in expediting the process of legislative creation. They were NOT created to be arbitrative bodies in a general sense. That the leadership in Congress is given the ability to break Committee power at any time it chooses is indicative of the role that Committees were supposed to play. (This is why it's so outrageous when the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, for example, attempts to stifle the ability of the entire Senate to vote on Court nominees.)

From this, it should be apparent that any influence wielded by those 518 members of Congress I mentioned is from the aggregate power of Congress. To this end, because my model bases given respect on the amount of authority exerted, I am willing to grant those 518 individuals 1/535th extra amount of respect. I think that my addressing them as "Senator" or "Representative" should cover it.

But I'll be damned if I let them get a corn-dog before me.

Who made the seating chart?

Btw, if you didn't notice, President Bush will be seated in very close proximity to Mohammad Khatami of Iran at Pope John Paul II's funeral...

That should be interesting. Of course, if there is a big turnout of dictators and world thugs, it likely won't be too different from a U.N. conference...

One last thought on Karol Wojtyla's life...

I'm sometimes leery to keep posting Jonah Goldberg, if only because I don't want this to become "Ian's Altarblog to Jonah Golberg." However, I really enjoy Goldberg's writing, so I must post when I find a column that is particularly good.

I enjoyed this piece on John Paul II. Don't worry, it isn't redundant to other columns on him (actually, Goldberg makes an effort not to be repetitive to other writings). But there are some really interesting historical facts mixed in with a good analysis of the importance of John Paul the Great.

Check it out here.

Evidently they weren't using the Force...

Borrowing Drudge's headline: "Star Wars Geeks line up in front of the wrong theater..."

Great News for all America-Haters!

The United States will cease to exist to 2007. So says the Koran according to a Muslim scholar.

The scholar was compelled to proclaim his findings because he fears for the economic impact of such events, not for any humanitary reasons. The world would be "better off" without the US, he notes.

For me, one would think that the announcement of my imminent doom might be disheartening. I only managed a smirky grin as I read it, however. I guess that's one more reason that Allah is planning on hitting me with a tsunami.

Buckley, Thoughts on Pope John Paul II

William F. Buckley has a nice column today on Pope John Paul II.

I never cease to be amazed by Mr. Buckley's writing. What a gift to all of us.

I had thought to maybe write a short note on the passing of John Paul II, myself. However there isn't much I can add to the many things that have been said about him.

I had the opportunity a few years ago to have an audience with the Pope. I sat on the aisle and as he came by me, I reached out and was within about 3 inches of his hand.

This was an interesting experience for a number of reasons. Being in such proximity to such a monumental figure is something I won't soon forget. What especially surprised me was that I couldn't help but reach out and try to touch his hand. I didn't think about doing it. I just found myself in the action without thought. I don't think of myself as an easily "star-struck" person by any means. And I don't really know what possessed me to want to reach out in the first place. But there was something about the man that was, if you'll excuse the entendre, magnetic.

In all the coverage of his passing, I was most drawn to descriptions of John Paul's thoughts on suffering. He viewed it as a gift from God. Not in a masochistic sense, mind you; one shouldn't feel as if he reveled in pain.

But what John Paul believed was two fold.

First, he believed that, as Christ did for all of us, our suffering might be endured on the behalf of those who have gone before us but are stuck in purgatory. We suffer to allow those poor souls a chance to enter heaven.

Second, and more captivating to me, John Paul believed that suffering endured gives us perspective into the Grace of God. As is true in so much of life, such lowpoints make us stronger in mind and spirit, allowing us to fully realize all that is beautiful and good.

As John Paul once said,

"When the body is gravely ill, totally incapacitated, and the person is almost incapable of living and acting, all the more do interior maturity and spiritual greatness become evident, constituting a touching lesson to those who are healthy and normal."

I imagine John Paul's is a more eloquent articulation of the notion that without our lows we cannot appreciate the highs. The importance of such appreciation is evident in the Bible, and helps to explain why Jesus chose to suffer for 3 hours on the Cross before giving up his life.

I find that view really inspiring, not least of all because I had never really contemplated it in such a dramatic environment as death.

Anyway, my description is an incomplete picture and likely lacks the beauty of JPII's sentiments, but hopefully gives a general idea of his views on suffering.

In total, I so much respect the manner in which John Paul II chose to die. He died with the courage and grace that he lived so fully in his entire life.

[Update: I just came across an archived piece at NRO from Marc A. Thiessen that does more justice to the Pope's thoughts on suffering. I very much encourage that you read it.]

Paul Krugman: Uniting the country one column at a time

I feel secure in saying that Paul Krugman is a partisan hack who's columns are a waste of ink. Of course, I might be being to charitable. Even so, I do give his columns a cursory run through to see what the the Krugmanite commune-ity (which said bye-bye to reality long ago) is focusing their fiery eye on at the moment.

Todays' column of course doesn't disappoint. (Login Required)

Krugman analyzes the reason that polls (shockingly!) found acadamia to be extremely lopsided towards Liberal/Left-Wing self-identification.

Krugman explains that this is not because acadamia is actually liberal, but because Republicans hate knowledge and thought.

I would offer that that seems reasonable, but of course as a conservative, I'm apparently incapable of utilizing reason.

Over at National Review, Jonah Goldberg responds. Especially note criticisms of Krugman's sourcing.

Goldberg and the Environment

Here's an interesting column from Jonah Goldberg regarding world environmental issues and the United Nations.

The first part is the most interesting, as it outlines the extensive environmental rebound that is occuring in the U.S..

I've only read the piece once, so I'm not going to say if I agree with the overall sentiment of the column, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Apologies

Well, once again I must apologize for my lack of posting. My server was down, making posting an amazingly frustrating, if not impossible, endeavor. And then I was sick. So I'll try to make amends this weekend, if possible.