A critical pespective on Bush

Here's an worthwhile article from the Times of London on their interview with President Bush. No fans of President Bush by any means, the writers give an pretty candid look at the 43rd President of the United State.

Sample quote:

"In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes one’s faith in the reliability of the modern media."

As I noted, that such a critical paper at the Times is writing this is an interesting development. Check it out.

A leftish worldview...

You know you're a leftist when you feel that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy are shills for Karl Rove...

I think I disagree with most everything this author probably believes in. But at least she's open about being anti-war. My favorite argument of hers is that we fight wars out of bravado, not necessity. Something tells me that she has a "Give peace a chance" bumper sticker...

The Great Emancipator and the junior Senator from Illinois

I find Barak Obama to be an interesting guy. He's still a political lightweight, though I suppose given the void that is Democratic leadership these days, he gets more prominence that he so far deserves.

I do think it'll be interesting to see how his career develops. He's been a bit of an opportunist and political flak so far, which is a bit disappointing, since I think it's pretty accurate to say that he's intelligent enough to know that the Pelosi/Schumer track leads nowhere but lost elections (or upward immobility more accurately, since a Democrat won't lose in Illinois sans corruption...er, massive corruption I should say...ala Rostenkowski),.

Anyway, I bring all this up because I just read Obama's quote about Abraham Lincoln. Drudge links to the article, though unfairly cuts the quote to seem more of an attack on Lincoln that the whole passage would indicate.

Drudge's excerpt: "[I] cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator."

The actual quote in full: "I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator," Obama said. "As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice."

As I said, I think Drudge kind of distorts the message. But he's trying to get hits, so what do you expect?

As for the quote...

Personally (and tangential to my main point), I don't see the relevance or necessity of mentioning that he's an "African-American," though I realize that even today everything runs through the prism of race/ethnicity/etc. I do think it's stupid though. When analyzing Kennedy (any of them), I don't think it necessary that I include "as an Irish-American...." Granted, the context of the quote is about Emancipation of slaves, but realistically does the color of a person's skin or their heritage really affect a person ability to analyze and understand the history of slavery? It's not as if anyone alive today --white or black-- had any involvement in the era, so who cares what color that persons skin is. But I digress...

Anyway, I agree with Obama to some degree in that I don't think it's totally accurate to say that Lincoln was an anti-slavery zealot his entire life. But both politically and personally, would it really kill him to give credit to Lincoln for moving in the right direction later in life, even if not perfectly intentioned by 'modern' standards? Contextually, Lincoln was taking the country down paths that no one else had the courage (with power) to do.

It seems to me a bit asinine to refer the Emancipation Proclamation as a 'military document,' with the intention of implying it as a meaningful criticism. Any action conducted during a state of war onto a warring populace, regardless of the subject, might be construed as a military action (and the order for it as a military document). This says nothing about the merit of the order itself in terms of its positive social impact.

Ultimately, we open up to an argument about the necessity of intention when giving credit for positive result. But regardless, in this case it seems undeniable that there was positive result in Lincoln's action. Obama approaching the subject with at least an appearance of hesitation in granting Lincoln credit for moving in a positive direction seems a bit unfair academically, and -- more certainly-- stupid politically.

Ideology vs. Partisanship

I’ve been amused by the mock-outrage of the Democrats over Karl Rove’s statements the other day.

I just read an letter from John Kerry urging me to demand the resignation of Karl Rove (Why the Senate feels is should have ANY input into the makeup of the President's Cabinet other than a rubber-stamp approval is beyond me. That issue was decided back in Washington's first term...).

It’s interesting in that in the rhetoric of the Democrats, it is made clear that they refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between being a Democrat and a Liberal. Rove’s comments made no mention of the Democratic party, just the ideology of Liberalism, which is a set of beliefs that historically (or at least since the late 60s transformation of modern liberalism) show compassion for and a willingness to try and understand those who commit acts (sometimes egregious), be it criminals or those who commit war (case in point: Noam Chomsky’s writing). And while I may disagree with it, there is nothing inherently bad about that mindset. But it IS the ideology of liberalism.

The Problem for the Democrats is that modern America is historically more conservative, and as such Liberals tend not to want to be open about their ideology, because they wouldn’t win elections (it’s why you’ll almost never hear a Democrat run openly as a Liberal, whereas conservatives do run as such).

At any rate, it’s telling that John Kerry and his compatriots believe that Ideology is the same as party. Or in other terms, an idea is the same thing as a party. It helps explain why Democrats right now are rightly perceived as having no ideas: all they are is a Political Party. And who can get excited about that?

Gerlernter on History

Here's a interesting article from David Gerlernter in the Jewish World Review. I think he's pretty much right on, though I'm sure someone will complain...It's worth the read at any rate.

Responding to John (My favorite pastime)

Figured I'd respond to John's comment about my earlier post regarding Victor Davis Hanson in open Blog form.=)

1) First, I note that the author of the survey has a book out entitled "Eve's Seed: Biology, The Sexes, and the Course of Human History." Now in and of itself, this logically says nothing about the merit of the survey conducted. But the fact that the author relies on a prism of Gender struggles in his analysis of history is probably a good indicator that he wasn't a fan of George W. Bush to begin with.

2)The survey is admittedly informal and unscientific. There's a word for that kind of poll in Methodology of Sampling. What is it? Hmm...Oh that's right: Worthless. It's akin to beginning your sample report by saying "I can't prove any of this nor can I provide evidence that I'm not lying."

3)The survey makes no indication about the specialties of the historians surveyed. While it might be interesting in an academic sense to note that a Historian specializing in Aboriginal Dance techniques of the latter 18th century, for example, considers Bush a failure, it doesn't really have any value towards an intelligent, objective analysis of his Presidency as it relates to the war on terror.

4)All historians are not created equal, nor does the popularity of an idea have any relation to its legitimacy, so who cares if the survey really is accurate. Afterall, the majority of physicists likely considered Einstein wrong when he released the first of his papers in the early 20th century. (My comparison here is not to Bush is Einstein. It's to say that Victor Davis Hanson is one of the great intellectuals in our country and probably the foremort military historian; therefore, i'm comfortable with agreeing with him even if most historians don't.)

5)I'm willing to wager money that his study was a poll of historians who belong to Universities. Not that it needs mentioning, but University professors are overwhelmingly liberal. Ironically, California as an example employs Liberals in 8 out of 10 faculty positions. (8/10 sounds familiar. I forget why...)

6)The author would be shot in any Academic conference for including this passage: "(Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush’s presidency is only the best since Clinton’s and one named Millard Fillmore.)"

7)Did I mention that Victor Davis Hanson is probably smarter than all those 416 historians combined?

Anyway, must get back to work before I get fired.

[Update: Corrected my generally poor writing in the post]

Quote of (Yester)Day

"It's Father's Day today at Shea, so to all you fathers out there, Happy Birthday."
-- Ralph Kiner, New York Mets Broadcaster.

Happy Father's Day to all...especially my Dad.

VDH on the Middle East and U.S. perception

Here's a great piece from the the master Military Historian. Victor Davis Hanson outlines how the U.S. feels like its losing even we're winning in the Middle East. It also includes a great analysis of the impact of a Bad-News driven media.

Remembering a wonderful man...

Here's a moving and well written piece from Jonah Goldberg. Jonah's father, Sidney Goldberg, passed away this past week is this piece is the Eulogy that he gave at the funeral. Really touching stuff, and coming as it were on Father's Day weekend.

Hitchens on stupidity and travel security...

This seems about right to me. To my mind, the TSA provides a great example of the futility and inherent inefficiency of allowing the top heavy government to run important aspects of our lives.

Growing a 2,000 year tree...

This is why science amazes me.

The article explains how scientists are growing a Date Palm of Judea that is 2,000 years old. It was found in an excavation of an ancient Jewish fort during the Roman Era. The Date Palm is historically famous, but was wiped out by the Crusaders centuries ago.

Hopefully the little guy - nicknamed Methusula -- will make it. At any rate, the story is pretty awesome.

What the difference between an editorial and a news piece in Chicago?

Answer: There is none.

Apparently this passes for journalism in the Windy City?

Reading this text, I would swear that this is an editorial. Afterall, it's not common that you would see a reference to something the Vice-President says as a "juvenile taunt," or an implicit argument supporting vitriol from a National Party Chairman, or an a personal anecdote that can't but hide the author's love of said Party Chairman.

Still, this is from the Washington Bureau Chief of the Chicago Sun Times. Nothing on the page indicated the article as anything from a factual, news article. Perhaps they ran out of room in the editorial section and decided to let it overflow into the "Politics" section?

Public Service Announcement (#2)

For the record, I haven't died, and I will be posting something soon...I'm afraid I'm suffering from work overload combined with a lack of inspiration as to what to write about (Plus I haven't been blown away by any of the articles/papers I've read recently). To those of you who are patiently waiting, I appreciate your interest! I'll make up to you my long silence here...