April 06, 2006
Dan Simmons - Must Read
Several years ago my older sister passed along a couple of Dan Simmons' books,
Hyperion and
The Fall of Hyperion. She highly recommended them, but I had a lot of trouble enjoying them. Not really my kind of Sci Fi, at least at that point in time.
So I approached this speculative piece by Dan Simmons with a fair amount of skepticism. But I am really glad I took the 10 minutes to read this.
Premise: a time traveler from the future drops in on Dan and describes the world of the future, dominated by Islam. He compares the West of the present to the Athenians before Syracuse (and explains the analogy for those without a grounding in classical history). Here's an early excerpt to whet your appetite:
I tried to relax. "What do you want to talk about?" I said.
"The Century War," said the Time Traveler.
I blinked and tried to remember some history. "You mean the Hundred Year War? Fifteenth Century? Fourteenth? Sometime around there. Between . . . France and England? Henry V? Kenneth Branagh? Or was it . . ."
"I mean the Century War with Islam," interrupted the Time Traveler. "Your future. Everyone's." He was no longer smiling. Without asking, or offering to pour me any, he stood, refilled his Scotch glass, and sat again. He said, "It was important to me to come back to this time early on in the struggle. Even if only to remind myself of how unspeakably blind you all were."
"You mean the War on Terrorism," I said.
"I mean the Long War with Islam," he said. "The Century War. And it's not over yet where I come from. Not close to being over."
"You can't have a war with Islam," I said. "You can't go to war against a religion. Radical Islam, maybe. Jihadism. Some extremists. But not a . . . the . . . religion itself. The vast majority of Muslims in the world are peaceloving people who wish us no harm. I mean . . . I mean . . . the very word 'Islam' means 'Peace.'"
"So you kept telling yourselves," said the Time Traveler. His voice was very low but there was a strange and almost frightening edge to it. "But the 'peace' in 'Islam' means 'Submission.' You'll find that out soon enough"
Great, I was thinking. Of all the time travelers in all the gin joints in all the world, I get this racist, xenophobic, right-wing asshole.
"After Nine-eleven, we're fighting terrorism," I began, "not . . ."
He waved me into silence.
"You were a philosophy major or minor at that podunk little college you went to long ago," said the Time Traveler. "Do you remember what Category Error is?"
It rang a bell. But I was too irritated at hearing my alma mater being called a "podunk little college" to be able to concentrate fully.
"I'll tell you what it is," said the Time Traveler. "In philosophy and formal logic, and it has its equivalents in science and business management, Category Error is the term for having stated or defined a problem so poorly that it becomes impossible to solve that problem, through dialectic or any other means."
I waited. Finally I said firmly, "You can't go to war with a religion. Or, I mean . . . sure, you could . . . the Crusades and all that . . . but it would be wrong."
The Time Traveler sipped his Scotch and looked at me. He said, "Let me give you an analogy . . ."
God, I hated and distrusted analogies. I said nothing.
"Let's imagine," said the Time Traveler, "that on December eighth, Nineteen forty-one, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke before a joint session of Congress and asked them to declare war on aviation."
"That's absurd," I said.
It takes a few unpredictable turns after this. Query: what do you think the "three words" are?
Posted by: JohnL at
09:28 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 670 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Billy Hollis at April 07, 2006 06:49 AM (Us4uD)
2
God is great
I realize this is only two words in Arabic, but that was my first gut instinct. That this man, warning his Grandfather about a future of Islamic dominance, still cannot quell the urge to say these words in praise of Islam's God.
Posted by: Lyric Mezzo at April 07, 2006 11:30 AM (SuTqC)
3
President Hillary Clinton. And may God have mercy on our souls.
Posted by: Mike in Austin at April 07, 2006 04:17 PM (C+9LY)
4
"Islam delenda est"
That should seriously chill anyone with the liberal-left sensibilities of the narrator.
Posted by: warhorse at April 07, 2006 09:07 PM (UH1S8)
5
"Kill them all."
It is the same solution presented by Kurtz in _Heart of Darkness_ and in _Apocalypse Now._
Posted by: Paul M. Jones at April 09, 2006 07:17 AM (Ev9kR)
6
I guessed the same as Billy- NYC.
Posted by: owlish at April 10, 2006 09:55 PM (RFqm1)
7
"eat my Shorts"?
This is probably very good writing and all, but I don't think there are all that many people out there anymore with illusions about Islam. At least not in the red states. Maybe a lot who won't admit it.
Posted by: kyleN at April 11, 2006 04:45 PM (Bl8It)
8
I would have to disagree; I think there are a lot of people who think there are a lot of more serious problems than the entire religion of Islam.
two other possibilities:
Jerusalem, Mecca, Medina [destroyed in that order, leading to a true uprising of the "arab street."
air borne rabies [a terrorist form of rabies might not lead to the predicted future- if anything, it would be significantly worse]
Posted by: owlish at April 11, 2006 09:38 PM (RFqm1)
9
I think the three words are:
"It will happen."
Posted by: Anders at April 12, 2006 08:02 PM (gVIwD)
Posted by: Beth Atkins at April 13, 2006 07:36 AM (Q5rtQ)
Posted by: will at April 17, 2006 01:01 AM (aGTUQ)
12
"Drink more Ovaltine."
Yes, that's right, the time traveller was a crummy commercial!
Posted by: IvyMike at April 29, 2006 01:45 AM (v+XaI)
13
"Bush was right."
Would definitely disturb me for the rest of my life...
Posted by: drklameth at May 10, 2006 08:49 AM (6wA0y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 26, 2006
Rahman Situation
Velociman
has the right idea.
Posted by: JohnL at
11:47 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Apparently, the guy has been released, possibly with an insanity defense being the reason.
So the question is, is this the better outcome, with Afganistan [very] slowly working its way towards a modern secular state? Or would it have been better to go in, guns blazing, and make clear certain parts of sharia are not going to be acceptable?
I'm tending towards option #2 myself, although I think that will probably lead to a direct confrontation with all of Islam, not just these tiny little branches.
Posted by: owlish at March 27, 2006 09:47 PM (dVBGe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 16, 2006
Hat Tip to Crooked Timber
The other day, Ted at
Crooked Timber identified some low-hanging fruit ripe for elimination from the US federal budget. After citing an egregious example of useless waste, he wrote: "My first response was 'This is why good people turn libertarian.' Upon reflection, thatÂ’s my second response, too."
Crooked Timber is a consistently good read on the center-left side of the political spectrum. Check it out.
Posted by: JohnL at
10:27 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
February 15, 2006
Do I Seem Like an Anarchist to You?
The strange thing here is the orders of the runners-up. Democrat? Republican or Socialist? Yikes.
(via Donkey Rex Ferric)
Posted by: JohnL at
11:23 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Yeah, turns out I am an anarchist but also somewhat of a fascist! Funny how that works out.
I think they make some outdated assupmtions. For instance if you are against the War on Drugs you move forward in Libertarian, but also in Democrat.
I don't know of any Democrat who is against the war on drugs except maybe Bill Mahr.
Posted by: Kyle N at February 19, 2006 08:06 AM (4l13K)
2
Hardly anyone
in office opposes the WoD.
Posted by: Anton Sherwood at March 07, 2006 12:54 PM (kjhqr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ghost in the Moon
This post earns Matoko Kusanagi a move from the
The Green Hills of Earth to the
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress portion of my blogroll.
(The TMiaHM section is reserved for libertarians/classical liberals).
Posted by: JohnL at
11:15 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
January 24, 2006
January 17, 2006
Great Jefferson Quote
Can you imagine any modern President drafting a statement with the eloquence, economy, and profundity of the following?
[O]ur rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
From the E-text Center, UVA Library.
...It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. There in but nine words is the purest distillation of a libertarian's opposition to criminalizing "victimless" conduct.
(Hat tip: Timothy Sandefur, whose thoughts on Blackstone and the common law you should go read. Now.)
Update: Be sure to read Timothy's co-blogger's thoughts on Blackstone, too. Very, very good stuff.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:26 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.
1
There is an entire website devoted to nothing but Jefferson quotations that I stumbled onto one night. Three of my favorites:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
"The freedom and happiness of man... [are] the sole objects of all legitimate government."
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
Yes, I'm a libertarian, but a Christian one. Reading Jefferson brings into abjectly stark relief how far this country has strayed from its original mission: Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, blood alcohol laws, substance abuse laws (To name but a paltry few): All those things are anti-American, and by extension, anti-Christ, since He is the ultimate author of our liberties (Not to mention that Christ is the original Libertarian). All of those laws are nothing more than money grabs and they have our legal system pimping for the treasury and insurance companies. Not to mention that many taxpayer-funded government agancies waste of billions of dollars per year solely to support those reprehensible laws.
It is interesting to me that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin (To name but three) all grew their own marijuana and distilled their own strong spirits (And the cannabis was not grown only for the hemp to make rope: Settlers in this country knew what marijuana was and the qualities it has virtually from the moment they stepped off the ships, because the Native Americans gave it to them; "Here White Eyes, try some of this, then order pizza."). Why can't more people see this simple fact? Because the government is such an effective propaganda machine... and the laws in this country are made by lawyers. This country has become a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers because - with the exception of a few tokens - all the lawmakers are lawyers. Obviously, that's a conflict of interest of the worst kind because lawyers are going to make laws for the benefit of lawyers, and not the citizens. If the founding fathers - most lawyers themselves - would have known that the legal profession was going to devolve into a mob of money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing shysters they surely would have barred (ha, ha) anyone with a law degree from serving in the legislative branch of the government (Which is obviously what ought to be done).
Which brings up a Shakespeare quotation I rather like.
Posted by: Hucbald at January 19, 2006 02:35 AM (gX0+k)
2
To bad there is no chance for the Libertarian Party to ever gain any acceptence. I still work to try to turn the Republican party in a libertarian direction because they are somewhat closer than the Democrats.
One thing to consider, is that Jefferson, for all his knowlege and eloquence, was not a succesful President. He was considered as a bungler. That is why although I am a libertarian, I am also a pragmatist. Too much pure theory, of any type, can get you in trouble.
Posted by: kyle at January 19, 2006 05:19 PM (2cvYF)
3
Hucbald, Jefferson - like many of the Founders - was a Deist, not a Christian. He did not believe in the Trinity or in the divinity of Jesus, heretical notions to most Christians you would know today. And I totally agree that he and most of the other Founders would weep if they could see to what horribly intrusive extent the central government has insinuated itself into our everday lives. One of their biggest concerns was preventing factionalism, so I think they would be very disenchanted with the K-Street special-interest groups, too.
Posted by: JohnL at January 19, 2006 09:40 PM (dYzx6)
4
Interesting post and interesting comments, John. Looks like a winner.
But smells like teen spirit. (Sorry, couldn't help myself, not even sure what that means.)
Posted by: RP at January 20, 2006 10:02 AM (LlPKh)
5
John: I know about Jefferson's unorthodox spiritualism, and I share some of it myself. Jefferson wrote his own version of the NT that contaned only what he thought to be logically true. Back in my Evangelical days, that horrified me. Later - after years of reading virtually every english translation of the Bible available - I began to see Jefferson's point: There is no way anyone with a brain can accept that every word in the Bible is inspired directly by God and is absolute truth, because so much of it is contradictory. Jeremiah held the clue for me when he said of the Word of God, "The false pen of the scribe has turned it into a lie./The lying pen of the scribe has made it of no effect." (Depending on the translation) And also that God did not instruct Israel in the mind numbing details of the rituals associated with sacrificial offerings &c. (Interesting to note: Scribes are the direct antecedents of... lawyers). I'm not a "chapter and verse" quoter of Biblical text, so you'll have to read Jeremiah for yourself, but this made me realize that the Bible was written, transcribed, and re-transcribed countless times over the centuries by men, many of whom had their own agendas, some of which were, let's say, less than pure. So I began to realize that the Bible can be explained - in this sci-fi fan's terminology - with the reverse motto of The X-Files: "The truth is IN there," but there is also a lot of nonesense. Vis-a-vis the NT, I have come to believe that the only unpolluted Gospel is that of Mark: No virgin birth, the family of Jesus thought He was crazy (And, certainly they wouldn't have though that if His birth was "Miraculous") &c. Mark starts off with the ministry of John the Baptist: If you eliminate everything from the other Gospels before that point, they make a lot more sense (But there are other later corruptions present in the other three versions). One question that will turn every Evangelical into a rationalizing fool: "If God promised David that one of his direct decendents would rule forever, why would God have fathered Jesus Himself through the Holy Spirit and turned that promise into a lie?" Joseph was the father of the Christ, in the normal, natural way; otherwise He is no Branch of David, Jesse &c. Jewish lineage is always traced through the Father, and Mary was not of the House of David. This reply is too long, but don't think I hate all lawyers: I'm a MAJOR Hugh Hewett fan (There are a FEW good ones. LOL!). Christ freed us from the burden of the errant law of man, as well as from the penalty of the divine Law of God.
Posted by: Hucbald at January 21, 2006 08:52 AM (gX0+k)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 14, 2005
Save the Anglosphere
Do you know about
ITAR? The acronym means "International Traffic in Arms Regulations" and refers, essentially, to an area of US export control law intended to keep the United States from exporting critical military technologies without proper scrutiny.
Unfortunately, as currently applied, it is needlessly pushing away our closest allies in the world: the UK and Australia. In fact, it has gotten so bad that the UK may withdraw from the Joint Strike Fighter program(me).
Both Presidents Clinton and Bush have pushed for basically a blanket waiver to allow the UK and Australia to participate with the US in weapons development and other areas of military cooperation. Unfortunately, Republican Congressmen Henry Hyde [IL] and Duncan Hunter [CA] oppose what should be a no-brainer. Read the linked articles above, educate yourself, and send a letter to your congresscritter encouraging him or her to support waiving the ITAR restrictions on the UK and Australia.
(Via Instapundit).
Posted by: JohnL at
11:28 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.
1
While I agree with you, there are legitimate concerns on the other side. Britain's integration into the European defence industry means that there is a real fear that American military technology could be leaked to, say, the French. And when it comes to military secrets, telling the French is like telling the Chinese, Russians, and pretty much everyone in the world we don't like.
Posted by: buckethead at December 17, 2005 10:06 AM (Qgvr0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 30, 2005
No Bias Here. Move Along.
From the Yahoo main page, under "In The News":
Bush Attempts Hard Sell on Iraq Progress
AP - Wed Nov 30, 1:57 PM ET
WASHINGTON - President Bush's depiction of Iraqi security forces as "helping to turn the tide" is difficult to square with persistent setbacks in handing control of the country back to its own people. His suggestion that Americans are solidly behind the mission also understates opposition at home, and his hard sell on the rising quality of Iraqi forces overlooks complexities on the ground.
Nope, no editorializing here. Just the news.
Posted by: JohnL at
08:20 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
November 08, 2005
Vote Against Proposition 2
This is for my Texas readers. I'm post-dating it to stay at the top of my blog until after Tuesday's elections. Texans are heading to the polls on Tuesday, November 8, to vote on nine proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution.
Proposition 2 would amend the Texas Constitution with the following text (from HJR 6):
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Before we get into the actual black-letter meaning of the amendment, let's look at the intent. This is designed to keep any sort of gay marriage or similar legal arrangement such as civil unions, from being accorded any legal status in Texas.
While I hope that gays may someday legally marry, adopt and otherwise enjoy the equal protection of the laws and the same privileges and immunities as heterosexual couples, there are two very good reasons for all Texans -- including those opposed to gay marriage -- to vote AGAINST this amendment:
First, Texas already forbids same-sex marriages by statute.
Second, the plain text of the amendment lends itself to a construction outlawing all marriage. Read clause (a) closely. It defines marriage as only a "union" between a man and a woman. What kind of union? Physical? Are straight couples only married when in fact they are engaged in sexual congress? OK, maybe that's a silly argument. But look at clause (b). Neither Texas nor any political subdivision of Texas may "create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
What does "identical" mean? Exactly the same as? Isn't the only thing identical to marriage, marriage itself?
Could Texans really be about to abolish the legal institution of marriage altogether? I know some libertarians -- not me -- who would be delighted at that prospect.
Certainly section 2 of the House joint resolution could be used by a creative lawyer to argue that the Legislature knew that it was incumbent on couples (of whatever kind) to get their affairs in order as to guardianship, survivorship, etc., as they were about to obliterate all the legal privileges appurtenant to marriage.
I know the right wingers will say this isn't what they meant. But they should have been more careful drafting the amendment's text.
One very real potential casualty of this amendment could be common-law marriages. Like most Western states, Texas has a fairly short statute of limitations for the formation of a common-law marriage. But since common-law marriages are not formalized by a license, I would read this amendment to forbid any family or probate courts from recognizing the entitlement of the common law spouse to their share of the community property.
This is just a needless, largely symbolic, and ugly mess. One driven by bigotry and closed-mindedness. I hope (without much optimism) that my fellow citizens will keep this abomination from becoming part of the Texas constitution.
If you are registered to vote, PLEASE VOTE. And vote AGAINST Proposition 2.
Update: Be sure to check out the discussion in my comments. Here's my explanation of the legal futility of the proposed amendment to prevent "activist judges" from imposing gay marriage:
Third, this is all a red herring, because the status quo under both Texas and federal law is that gay marriage is and remains illegal and need not be given full faith and credit, even if permitted in other states. This is the case NOW. Prop. 2 will do NOTHING to change this, and in fact may undermine long-customary common law marriages (to the detriment of the abandoned common--law-wife, typically). You may call that FUD, but have you read the plain text of the amendment? It is sloppy and unforgivably vague. Which means everything will end up in court, which is what the amendment is supposed to prevent.
Fourth, speaking of court... the same federal constitutional challenge that would lead to a change in the status quo (see 3) would also lead to an invalidation of the proposed marriage amendment. The supremacy clause of the US Constitution would bind Texas, if activists manage to win an extension of marriage rights as a basic liberty under the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments. Think of all the dead-letter miscegenation laws that were on the books in the South after Loving v. Virginia.
I think Virginia Postrel sums it up much more elegantly:
Since Texas already defines marriage by statute as the union of one man and one woman, Prop 2 is nothing more than a gratuitous attempt to build Gov. Rick Perry's social-conservative voting base by attacking gays. Supporters say an amendment is necessary to control "activist judges." But the only judges the amendment would bind are Texas state judges. Texas state judges, including the state's Supreme Court, are elected by Texas voters. Texas state judges are quite conservative. They are, to put it mildly, highly unlikely to find a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution.
(Voting guide for all nine amendments beyond the jump):
more...
Posted by: JohnL at
10:00 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1142 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Sorry -- I'm for the amendment myself. Beyound the religious argument (which for me is very strong) there is also the "what is best for our society?" question. I believe that the side effects would be very bad for our society as a whole and for our children in particular.
While we disagree on this, I hope we can still be friends. One should be able to disagree without being disagreeable, eh?
Robin Juhl
Posted by: Ranten N. Raven at November 06, 2005 10:43 PM (+oX0z)
2
"It's for the children" is always a useful, empty, statement. Even if banning same sex marriage would somehow help "the children," the wording on this amendment could do awful things to marriage in Texas.
Posted by: Owlish at November 07, 2005 02:08 AM (rzugH)
3
I make a simple statement of my belief, and you call it "a useful, empty statement?" That is not exactly nice.
The line of legal definition must be drawn somewhere. Consider abortion: If you read Roe v. Wade, you'll see that the court actually said that the state had a legitimate interest in regulating abortions in the final trimester. But the line was not clearly drawn. Now, it's considered a woman's right to have her baby killed when partially born. All from same ruling.
Once marriage open up, we will soon have Heinlein-style multiple partner marriages. There would soon be every possible premutation. While that's fun to read about, I don't think it good for society and for children. Once it's acknowleged as a "good thing" via legal recognition, then the schools must teaach that "it's a good thing." Even for those styles of marriage that might prove disasterous, there is no opportunity for schools to descriminate against them. All are equal before the law, just as schools must now teach that all abortions are good.
That's how I see it, in a nutshell. You can certainly disagree, oh Owlish one. But I hope you at least recognize that it's my honest belief, not some convenient "useful, empty statement."
Robin Juhl
Posted by: Ranten N. Raven at November 07, 2005 06:07 AM (+oX0z)
4
There have been various public policies, that have been supported by people as "for the children," for instance the War on Drugs, that had unintended consequences. Such as, it's easier for a teenager to get access to marijuana than to alcohol. So, yes, saying "It's for the children" to me is trying to get people to vote for your side, without making the rational argument for why I should be on your side.
So you don't like the idea of same sex marriage, and think it will lead to other arrangements being called marriage, which will be bad. Ok, that's an argument. Seems like a weak one to me, but ok.
The point is, Proposition 2 won't just ban gay marriage, and gay civil unions. The wording is such that it seems to prevent the state from recognizing
any marriage. Which is, I suspect, an unintended consequence you would not want.
Posted by: owlish at November 07, 2005 08:27 AM (rzugH)
5
[Deleted at request of commenter].
Posted by: Mallorie Royo at November 07, 2005 05:29 PM (2Mr7s)
6
Owlish: I didn't set out to change your mind to my side. I simply stated that I was on the other side, what motivated me, and expressed the hope we could all still be friends. Also, I don't believe the text of the amendment threatens marriages under existing law. That argument reminds me of Microsoft's approach to fighting for market share: FUD. Create "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt" in the minds of managers when they think of other products. I can't change your mind; you can't change mine. But I hope we can keep from hurling "Moonbat!" and "Wingnut!" at each other.
Mallorie: Only God can judge us, true. As a Christian, I believe that giving in to homosexual urges is on a par with giving in to adulterous urges. Both old & new Testaments seem to regard them in the same light. But we are all sinners. "Sinful feelings?" Get them all the time. Lust and greed are sins I fight daily, hourly, minute-by-minute, even. It is not my place to judge, for I have legions of my own sins. You ask how this could harm me and mine, though....
You point out that you do not flaunt your sexuality, and in fact mute your behavior near families because it might make them uncomfortable. This is gracious behavior, to be concerned with the feelings of others. But, if the state recognizes your union as a "good thing" that is on a par ith the marriage of that mom & dad, why should you? Your marriage would be as good as theirs. They can kiss, hold hands, etc. You may continue to mute your behavior, others would not. "We're here; we're queer; get used to it!" is an old chant now.
You don't seek adoption? Why not, once married? Your marriage would be as good as any other's. The two gay guys across town? Why can the state descriminate against them? There would be no legal reason to do so.
What would schools be required to teach? That hetrosexual monogamy is society's prefered norm, the standard to which we should aspire? No, they must treat all marriages equally. Gay activists who don't respect families' feelings would make sure of that. Sex education classes would get even more..."interesting."
If any two people can get married, why not any three or any five or any twelve? (That's why I mentioned Heinlein: his stories included families that had multiple husbands and multiple wives.) What legal reason is there to stop such marriages? None, if any two adults have a right to marry, so do any three, etc. The Mormans may soon get polygamy legalized again.
I don't seek to convince you, just to inform you of my belief: I don't believe that direction is good for society. Yes, I know: Owlish and our kind host disagree. After tomorrow, we an all go back to being allies on many other questions.
Posted by: Ranten N. Raven at November 07, 2005 09:20 PM (+oX0z)
7
First, I want to thank everyone for remaining civil.
Second, I know Owlish personally, since long before I knew he was gay. Everything I knew about him as a person before he came out would have led me to believe that he would make as good a husband and father as I am today. So why can't he? He didn't decide to "become" gay. It's who he is.
Third, this is all a red herring, because the status quo under both Texas and federal law is that gay marriage is and remains illegal and need not be given full faith and credit, even if permitted in other states. This is the case NOW. Prop. 2 will do NOTHING to change this, and in fact may undermine long-customary common law marriages (to the detriment of the abandoned common--law-wife, typically). You may call that FUD, but have you read the plain text of the amendment? It is sloppy and unforgivably vague. Which means everything will end up in court, which is what the amendment is supposed to prevent.
Fourth, speaking of court... the same federal constitutional challenge that would lead to a change in the status quo (see 3) would also lead to an invalidation of the proposed marriage amendment. The supremacy clause of the US Constitution would bind Texas, if activists manage to win an extension of marriage rights as a basic liberty under the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments. Think of all the dead-letter miscegenation laws that were on the books in the South after Loving v. Virginia.
So, best I can tell, this amendment is motivated primarily by ignorance, but also significantly by a kind of ugly and cumulative intolerance.
Posted by: JohnL at November 07, 2005 09:50 PM (dYzx6)
8
Ranten, of course you're as welcome as anyone to read and share your opinions here. Your opinions are probably the same as those of my boss, my coworkers, my parents, my pastor, and most of my fellow citizens here in Plano. The majority is not always and forever right, however.
I think your mentions of Heinlein are very interesting, as that is the libertarian outcome of removing the state from the marriage equation. I'm not convinced it would be worse than the status quo. I'm not convinced it would be better either, though I am inclined that way. My only hesitation is based on child custody/support issues and marital property issues in non-traditional arrangements.
But those are and will remain academic questions for quite some time.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Posted by: JohnL at November 07, 2005 10:00 PM (dYzx6)
9
Raven: Based on your assumption that non-traditional marriage isn't good for children, aren't there other existing conditions affecting far more children that should be outlawed before worrying about gays and polygamists? Divorce and single-parenthood are, if not yet openly encouraged, certainly very common and it wouldn't surprise me if children of single parents are being told their smaller families are just as good as the traditional 2-parent version.
Has the use of legislation to protect children (or others) from certain beliefs ever worked in the past? Isn't Libertarianism about being free to make your own choices in life and allowing others to make their own? Are you really saying you don't think people in "non-traditional" relationships should not be allowed to enjoy the same legal benefits and protections you do solely because you don't want your children to think such relationships are acceptable?
Posted by: Skwigul at November 07, 2005 10:32 PM (fMF9u)
10
I know Owlish personally, since long before I knew he was gay.
And before I knew I was gay.
The majority is not always and forever right, however.
My step-grandfather was offended by mixed race marriages, which to me seemed just stupid. In the past, that probably was a majority opinion.
I know a gay couple who have been together for more than 10 years. It seems to me that Hollywood celebrities having fly-by-night marriages do much more to undermine marriage than the possibility of my friends getting married.
Posted by: Owlish at November 07, 2005 10:36 PM (rzugH)
11
R. Juhl has every right to be concerned about the state of marriage and society. Unfortunately that concern doesn't justify voting yes on Prop 2 (which is badly worded and unnecesaary in Texas anyway as explained above). R. Juhl's concern could be better focused on strengethening straight "marriage" and parental responsibility laws... but somehow I doubt R. Juhl feels nearly as motivated to vote-in government oversight and critical assessment of his own personal/familial relationship. Sure, he might say, straight people are the ones responsible for the sorry state of marriage as it stands now - but it's so much easier to vote against the gays. You can't expect him to turn a critical eye to the way his straight family and friends treat marriage when there are gays around who already think it's okay to hold hands in public.
But he still, of course, wants to remain friends - as long as you aren't a gay friend who thinks kissing your partner of 20 years goodbye at the airport is okay when he and his family are within eyeshot. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Posted by: kipp at November 08, 2005 01:26 AM (HxLAi)
12
John L.: Thanks for the clear thinking, the forum for discussion, and he kind words. You are gracious host. Discussions where we all agree are boring. When we can disagree in a civil manner, we can seek uderstanding, at least.
Owlish: Thanks for an interesting and civil discussion.
Kipp: Thanks for the gratuitous insults and for ascribing your fears to my thoughts and attitudes. Unlike John L., who knows Owlish, you don't know me.
I grew up knowing Jerry and Bori. Jerry was my mom's best friend from HS days. They were at all my family events. They lived together and owned a business together. When I ws older I heard laughing references to how wild their parties were. Esspecially mentioned was the time Bori fell asleep drunk right under the window AC unit (early 1960s) and got pneumonia. Bori commited suicide around 19070, and it brought Jerry & my mother even closer.
I didn't know they were gay until I was nearing graduation from HS. And Jack? My favorite uncle? He's gay, too? And Mr. Harrington, my 7-9th grade music teacher? Amazing!
Lord, Jerry was fun at parties. Loud? A Joke a minute? WOW! When WakkaWakka was five, Jerry mooned him. My brother told me: "He did the same thing to you when you were that age."
Jerry went on a sex-vacation trip to Thailand about five years ago. The AIDS he contracted there killed him about three years ago.
My mother was DEVASTATED. I miss Jerry, too.
Don't try to tell me how I feel, bucko. I'd use stronger language, but his is John L's home, not mine. Now, I need to get off to work.
Posted by: Ranten N. Raven at November 08, 2005 06:00 AM (+oX0z)
13
RnR-
What a touching story about the all the swell gay people in your life. I'm sure George Wallace has lots of black friends, too.
Did you ever stop to think that just maybe Bori wouldn't have committed suicide - and Jerry might not have needed to go on a Thai sex vacation and gets AIDs - if perhaps society accepted gay people or gave some aknowledgement to long-term commitment between gay people.
I don't know you RnR - and these issues are pretty major in my life so please forgive some of my 'tude. Despite your fond memories, most gay men don't get AIDS on Thai sex vacations. And many of them aren't funny, hyperannuated teenagers - they're just regular mature adults trying to lead happy, responsible lives and some of them want to raise children, too. These people aspire to the very standard of marriage that straight people have let slip over the last 30 years. Voting yes on Prop 2 does next to nothing to protect straight marriage and does everything to prevent committed gay couples from receiving any aknowledgement that society values their relationship and committment.
You are complicit in the oppression that can make life very sad and very difficult for gay people. I doubt you sneer at them in public or ban them from your birthday parties. But you are sneering at them in the voting booth by voting for Prop 2. I'm sorry if it seems unfriendly to point that out...
Posted by: kipp at November 08, 2005 11:55 AM (g5s3Q)
14
Not to mention, you've seen 2 people die, and your major concern is how it will affect the children if we legalize poligamy?
Or is it that if Bori and Jerry had just accepted Jesus into their lives, and gone Ex-Gay, none of that would have happened?
Posted by: owlish at November 08, 2005 12:10 PM (rzugH)
15
I'm a hater and a religious bigot, or so you say. Sorry for taking my faith seriously. I try to open up and I get slammed. Not the best way to convince me of your arguments.
This vote is over. I will not engage here again.
John L: If you ever head San Antonio's way, let me know. I'd like to buy you a drink.
Finis.
Posted by: Ranten N. Raven at November 09, 2005 05:56 AM (+oX0z)
16
Hmm. JohnL, I'm sorry if I was involved in losing you a reader.
Posted by: Owlish at November 09, 2005 10:09 AM (rzugH)
17
I wonder if those in favor of "traditional marriage" realize that at one time it was against the law to marry someone who had epilepsy. And at one time inter-racial marriage was illegal as well.
It's just a matter of time folks. Just as in Canada and parts of Europe, gay marriage will be legal here someday. It's just going to take us backwards homophobic Americans a little while longer to get there.
Posted by: Texican at November 09, 2005 02:57 PM (qIXZN)
18
I really have to chime in here, on behalf of the minority who are Intersexed.
The men who are 46xx females genetically, but with Adrenal Hyperplasia. The women who are 46xy males genetically, but have Complete Androgen Insensitivity. Those with Kleinfelters syndrome, 47xxy, who look like normal males, unless you know what to look for. Those with mosaicism, where parts of the body are 46xx, others 46xy, and possibly other still 47xxy. These are the common conditions, 1 in a few thousand, get to 1 in 100,000 and some really weird stuff can happen.
Many have grown up believing themselves "normal". Many have gotten married. Some (mosaics and Kleinfelters) have even had kids. Some go to their graves never knowing that they were different.
What about the 46xy girls with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, who find themselves turning into men at puberty?
What about those whose mothers were given DiEthylStoboestrol during pregnancy, so their unborn son ended up with a female-pattern brain? Or those where it just happened due to a natural hormonal glitch? Or where a daughter ended up with a male-pattern brain, something about as common?
This has nothing to do with sexual preference : many such transsexuals didn't know their condition was a congenital anomaly, that was only found out in 1999. The Female transsexuals know they're women, despite being in a male body, it doesn't fit and is a constant source of misery. The Male transsexuals know they are men, despite the curves, the ones they hate with a passion.
How would you guys like it if you'd been born in a body that was a petite size 8, 34C cup, "daddy's little princess", and hating every second of it since age 5 or so. Because that's when you would know - this stuff has nothing to do with sex, it's gender. How would you like it if you knew you could never be a father, if you wanted kids you would have to have sexual relations with another man?
Now you know what it's like for about 1 in 2000 people.
So in 1970-something, there you are, you just think you're psychologically screwed up, you don't know the reason you feel as you do is because the very brain cells in your head react differently to hormones and neurotransmitters from everyone who looks like you. You don't know that the cell patterns in the BSTc layer under the Hypothalamanus, and other gross brain structures, are those of the opposite sex to your body. You just think you're a bit weird, a bit screwed up in the head. But if you tell anyone, you'll end up getting aversion therapy, ECT (shock treatment), mind-bending drugs... none of which will work, there has never been a single documented case of a "cure", but they'll keep on trying well into the 21st century.
You deal with it. You make the best life you can. If you're lucky, you find a member of the same sex as yourself who is attracted to your opposite-sexed body. If you're very, very lucky, you manage to overcome your natural homophobia, and fall in love with them too. You marry, and have kids. This is especially common with females, they have strong maternal instincts, even if they do have male chromosomes.
But some crack under the strain. Usually about 33 years after puberty. Maybe all do - how would we know? Then the only choice they have is twofold: to either have the hideously embarressing, expensive and protracted cosmetic "sex change" treatment (which has a 97% success rate), or figure out how they're going to die: by their own hand, or, if they have the courage, just letting nature take its course. Stress kills them within months, years at most, years of torment 24/7. Or decades of being a Zombie on huge doses of Happy Pills to keep them breathing.
Parenthetically, there is a third possibility, but incredibly rare, very few cases reported. Sometimes the body starts changing without any treatment. Such people don't get a choice. They change, partially, anyway.
In any case, you end up with two people who are married, usually with children, and of the same somatic sex. 80% of such marriages immediately fail. 20% don't.
"Those who God has joined together, Let No Man put asunder". Even if, through a medical condition, they end up with the same sex.
But it's only a tiny minority of course. Why, not even a thousand in Texas, only a couple of hundred.
Zoe (one of the rare ones who
had no choice)
Posted by: Zoe Brain at November 10, 2005 06:03 AM (1Hvoy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 24, 2005
Contra Miers
For the sake of
N.Z. Bear's tracking system,
I oppose the Miers nomination.
I've kept mum until now on the Miers nomination. I was initially underwhelmed, and my estimation of Miers' adequacy for the job continues to decline.
It was bad enough that she took a swipe at the Federalist society as being too political (while claiming the NAACP wasn't). Her few writing samples are simply banal. I would love to get a hold of a few of Judge Posner's thank you notes. I bet they're considerably better-written than the "Way Cool!" cards authored by Harriet.
Part of me hopes this is a setup to make Janice Rogers Brown look stellar by comparison. If so, then Miers is truly a team player for the most brilliant man she has ever known. But I really doubt it. This President is simply not an intellectual, and this decision bears the hallmarks of a "gut call" as opposed to a well-reasoned selection process.
For further thoughts, consult Jeff Goldstein (just click and scroll), whose opinions on this matter largely reflect my own.
Also, check out the intellectual firepower on the board of advisors to the new Americans for Better Justice, which was formed by conservatives who support the President, but oppose the Miers nomination.
Posted by: JohnL at
11:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.
October 05, 2005
Ten Big Things
OK,
Joe tagged me with this meme several days ago. This one took some thought.
The source of the meme, Dan at Searchlight Crusade, explains his concept thus:
We've been allowing ourselves as a society to lose sight of the big stuff in amongst all the little day-to-day stuff that goes on every day, rather than keeping focused on the end result of the big projects.
Not everybody has the same list of Big Things, and most of them tend to be personal, not public or political in nature. It can be hard to keep them in sight, especially when you're thinking tactically from day to day and you need to be thinking strategically. People whose list of big things are different from one another, whether different in priority on the same items or having completely different items in the list of Big Things, are predictably going to have intractable arguments between themselves, which do not often admit of a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Nonetheless, if both sides to an argument are aware of their differences on Big Things, they are far more likely to come to an agreement to disagree more or less amicably, even if one wins the voting and the other loses.
Big Things tend to be broad based, not specific issues themselves. It is rare that one vote on one item directly resolves a Big Thing. Big Things take dedication and years of work to resolve; on a day to day basis there are victories and defeats, some more important than others but few, if any, critical to the point of being a sure overall victory or defeat.
So what are ten eight of my political "big things"? Check them out beyond the fold...
more...
Posted by: JohnL at
11:05 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1524 words, total size 10 kb.
1
terrific list. I prefer the War Against Militant Islam formulation. Much better than the war on terror.
I'm not so fond of the "gridlock is good" argument. I understand the premise that slowing things down is good, but stopping them altogether is another story. We saw that in New Orleans, no matter who you blame. In New York, during Rudy Giuliani's reign, people liked him because he broke through New York's notorious bureaucratic morass and got things done. He really shined during 9/11.
I'm also on record as believing we need to increase taxes. This idea of cutting spending usually means "cut someone else's programs but not the ones I like or that benefit me." Across the board cuts, which try to address that concern, are problematic because there are those programs where there is no fat and no room to cut. We can't spend like a drunken sailor, on war or recovery from natural disaster or new medicare programs, without paying. It's a problem that we seem to believe we can get something for nothing.
Taxes are our shared sacrifice in times of need, and our investment in our society in other times. Civic pride has been reducced to tokenism. I'd like to see it come back.
We're in agreement on 3 and 5 and most of 6, 7 and 8 (I bet you can guess which parts). Great post!
Posted by: joe at October 06, 2005 01:43 PM (ZgL88)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 20, 2005
Political Test
Absolutely no surprise here:
You are a
Social Liberal
(73% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(88% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Libertarian
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
(Via Eric, with whose answers I'm sure I differed only in my reluctance to use "strongly" too much).
Posted by: JohnL at
10:28 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 2 kb.
1
After taking that test, I found myself bemused at being surrounded score-wise by the likes of Hillary Clinton, Robert Redford, Bono and Adam Sandler (that *was* him there, right?...)
Posted by: LDH at September 21, 2005 02:36 PM (bqPDz)
2
When I took the test, I got chills thinking that my alter-ego would come out and I'd be in the same spot as Darth Vader... but, nah, I'm up there with you John
Posted by: Jen at September 24, 2005 10:01 PM (LdHyM)
3
Holy mackerel. Were we seperated at birth or something? I'm only off of your scores by a couple of percentage points each.
Posted by: Hucbald at September 26, 2005 02:26 PM (o491y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 22, 2005
Two For One Special -- Or, Legal Writing
One argument that plain-English legal drafters often face when cleaning the cruft out of old contractual boilerplate is that the old language is somehow more "precise."
Take, for example, the familiar phrases "due and payable" and "null and void." They are so common that ordinary lay people bandy them about when trying to "formalize" a business arrangement.
Yet a quick look at the respective terms' definitions reveals that these are needless dualisms. The words mean basically the same thing.
Of course, give a clever lawyer two words and she'll argue that they have different shades of meaning. After long use, there will be a strong reflex against deleting "due and payable" and substituting the simple "due."
Which is why it is very refreshing to run across a legal opinion like this one every now and then. This judge not only "gets" plain English, he explains one of the reasons why legal English frequently uses two words where one will do. Here's how he smacks down a lawyer for trying to argue that there is a difference between "free and clear" and simply "clear" title.
"Monfort contends, 'Although a "clear title" is one that is not subject to any restrictions, the case at bar involved a "free and clear" title, which is the same as a marketable title.' So, according to Monfort, a free and clear title is worse than a clear title. Say what?
"Would that Harold had not lost the Battle of Hastings.
"Free and clear mean the same thing. Using both is an unnecessary lawyerism. Free is English; clear is from the French clere. After the Norman Conquest, English courts were held in French. The Normans were originally Vikings, but after they conquered the region of Normandy, they became French; then they took over England. But most people in England, surprisingly enough, still spoke English. So lawyers started using two words for one and forgot to stop for the last nine hundred years.
"So free and clear do not mean separate things; they mean, and were always meant to mean, exactly the same thing. Just as null and void and due and payable mean the same thing. All of these couplets are redundant and irritating lawyerisms. And they invite just what has happened here - an assertion that they somehow have different meanings.
"The Norman Conquest was in 1066. We can safely eliminate the couplets now....
"Nine hundred years later, courts in Ohio are still dealing with the consequences of the Norman invasion. We can only hope that some day logic will prevail over silly tradition."
Would that there were more judges like Judge Painter. And more lawyers that would think rather than merely ape what previous lawyers have always done.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.
August 11, 2005
Jimmy Carter Pwned By George Will
Must read. (via
Vodkapundit).
Or, for another thousand words, just look at the picture in the extended entry...
more...
Posted by: JohnL at
10:05 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I was in the first generation of kids who got to vote when I was 18. Voted for Carter. Felt really good about that, oh, around day 443 of "America Held Hostage". Feel even better about it now. It would be impossible to think of the words "Former President" and "Scumbag" together were it not for "Jimmah". Quite an achievement, actually. Kinda like "stagflation".
Posted by: Hucbald at August 13, 2005 06:41 PM (hXnBE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Loony Academic Left
Via
James Taranto, I learned that the American Political Science Association will hold its annual convention in Washington, D.C. in just a few weeks. On the program is a panel discussion entitled
"Is It Time to Call It Fascism?"
Do you think the good scholars will finally take an honest look at the parallels between the Ba'ath Party in Syria and the NSDAP in Germany?
Oh, don't be silly. The email forwarding the conference announcement states:
The panel, which is cosponsored by the Conference Group on Theory, Policy, & Society, the Latino Caucus, New Political Science, and the Women's Caucus, emerged from a question that Kathy Ferguson started asking last winter-spring (at ISA and WPSA) to focus on both substantive aspects and strategic/tactical ones: is there theoretical-definitional grounding to make a claim for the present US administration as fascist, and is it useful, critically, to use that language at this point in time? One of the original intentions was also to create a teaching tool out of this discussion--a handout that presents these questions and offers relevant information to students to think about it for themselves. (Emphasis added).
I would love to get my hands on one of those handouts. I wonder just how much they will encourage students to "think about it for themselves."
Here's a political science experiment: Establish how long a culture can survive philosophical poison like this.
Too bad we live in the experimental society and not the control group.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:41 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If you got one of those handouts, I bet you'd barf.
Did you notice that the question grew out of "a focus on sunstantive aspects and strategic/tactical [because they don't know the fu*king difference, me] ones"? Meaning, the answer to the question is pre-ordained and its time for them to simply hit the barricades.
Posted by: RP at August 12, 2005 02:04 PM (LlPKh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 09, 2005
Abortion and Brain Life, Redux
I note with some pleasure that John Hood, a contributor to
National Review Online's Corner expressed exactly the idea
I framed last week about "brain life" being a way to start to untangle the emotional mess around abortion.
Not surprisingly, the dynamic half of the dogmatic duo, Ramesh Ponnuru (the other half being the grammaticaly-challenged but equally dogmatic Katherine Jean Lopez) leapt into the fray to defend the life-begins-at-conception idea. He did acknowledge the possibility that there is a distinction between human "life" and human "personhood" and even gave a nod to the idea that the key issue in Hood's (and my) proposal is a functioning cortex, though he wouldn't want to go too far down that road.
An emailer to "K-Lo" then criticized the whole concept of "brain birth" as fetishization of the brain. The same mailer later stated through Lopez that (paraphrasing) defining humanity based on brain function would lead to harvesting organs from people in comas. This is typical emotionally-charged sentimentalism that the mystics use to oppose human cloning and embryonic stem cell research (e.g., likening the harvesting of stem cells from a blastocyst to carving up people for spare parts).
In any case, National Review's pundits have taken up the issue and there is a good deal of civil, well-stated discourse. Just click to Hood's original post and scroll up.
Posted by: JohnL at
11:01 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.
August 04, 2005
Three Rules for Happy Living
Most of the time around here, I try to avoid the sensitive issues of the day (which usually bring me little joy) and focus on the things that make my life fun to live: my family, music, science fiction, space, and many trivial little things that I find here and there on the internet. Of course, underlying all these is a strong appreciation for liberty together with the culture and legal environment that fosters my ability to enjoy these things.
One reason I really enjoy reading Stephen Green is that he seems to have a similar outlook on life as a joy to live. And, even though he tackles more political issues than I do, he does tend to avoid the hottest-button political issues. But in a late-night ramble tonight, he stakes out his position on three topics that tend to lead to holy wars: abortion, gun control, and evolution. So, lest I be dismissed as a lightweight, or at least as one too cowardly to state his views on the same subject, here are my thoughts:
Abortion: People's opinions on this issue are driven by their definition of human life. A mother has a right to liberty, which in my mind includes almost total control over her being. However, at some point before birth, a fetus becomes a human being. I tend to think "viability" is a bit of a red herring in the argument until the fetus is actually human. I believe human life begins (and ends) with a functioning (or not) human brain.
At some point around the end of the first trimester, the fetus' brain begins to exhibit steady brain-wave activity --call it "brain life" if you will. At that point, I think the the fetus' viability is more of an issue. I.e., since both the mother and fetus are now human, their rights must be protected. But the fetus is essentially parasitic on the mother's life. As long as the fetus remains non-viable, I think the scales tip heavily in favor of the mother's choice. And I believe that the balance always should tilt in favor of the mother's life (even if just a little) right up to birth. Based on the above, I also think that an anencephalic or gravely ill fetus could be terminated at any point before birth without any major ethical qualms.
Gun Control. Read the Second Amendment. Read it again. See what Steve said.
Evolution. It's just a theory. Yeah, just like special relativity or quantum mechanics. A very powerful predictive theory that underlies tremendous advances in biology and medicine. But "just a theory." Intelligent design and creationism are not theories, but beliefs. Much less powerful than a scientific theory. To be fair, I am intrigued by the anthropic principle (soft creationism, perhaps), as well as the need for an "observer" to collapse certain quantum waves (in theory), but do not think you can "prove" the existence of a creator. You have to believe.
One question for Steve, though: what about Apple versus MacPC???
Update: I made some edits to the above, which was pretty poorly-drafted in its original form. Even the title is pretty godawful, but I'll leave it as a monument to my incompetence. Just imagine that the title reads "Three Subjects to Avoid..."
Posted by: JohnL at
12:32 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 556 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Don't you mean Mac vs PC? On the other hand, I do prefer granny smiths to macintoshes.
Posted by: owlish at August 04, 2005 11:17 AM (7BXsn)
2
I like mackinaws rather than P.J.s
Going out on a limb with those three positions, eh? Good going!
I applaud you, and (at the risk of being accused of being a "yesman", I tend to agree, somewhat, with the first and second point, and totally agree with point number three.
Point one always makes me think of the pre-modern medicine and the way that life was looked at. Children were valuable only if they could work or produce. Only in this modern age are fetuses (fetii?) given rights in the womb. A mother's rights over her reproductive organs and progeny therein should be only between her, her deity of choice - if she has one- and her doctor. Just my 25 cents. It should not even be an election issue.
Nice blog! I enjoyed it.
Posted by: maybeso at August 04, 2005 11:15 PM (f088i)
3
Maybeso, Thanks for commenting. I love getting feedback. I see you're a fellow member of the LLP community. A Zen Anarchist, eh? Very interesting.
Owlish, I prefer Fujis. And thanks for pointing that error out. I need to edit my late-night postings better. Should probably just save without publishing and then publish the next day.
Posted by: JohnL at August 04, 2005 11:25 PM (gplif)
4
ID doesn't proclaim that there is a supernatural creator, yet ID opponents automatically do, why? Because it's easier to reject them out-of-hand.
If one believes, as I do, that the universe is chock full of life, and has been for millenia, is it too much of a strectch to believe that perhaps life was deposited here by an intelligent entity? But see, now I can be dismissed just as easily as a creationist because I dare mention 'aliens'.
One other point. Your definition of evolution is acceptable to many on the creationist and ID side. They all agree that species change over time. What they disagree with is the yet unproved aspects of evolution, namely speciation (the evolving of one species into an entirely different one, like a fish into a lizard) and the idea that life erupted spontaneously from some primordial soup.
Posted by: Mr_flood at August 05, 2005 09:57 AM (PubJh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 17, 2005
Thoughts on Immigration
Eric has posted a very good 1000-word essay on immigration. He does a good job laying out a libertarian position on immigration close to my own. Key points: our current illegal immigration situation is a result of the laws of economics and our misguided minimum wage laws and even a police state environment would not be able to keep out illegal immigrants who wanted in.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by: JohnL at
03:28 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
July 07, 2005
1000 Words on the UK Bombings
What can I say that this picture doesn't?
For the first time in US history, a foreign flag has the honor of flying above the Department of State.
Via Publius Pundit (via Instapundit).
Update: Yes, we are all Brits, for now.
Posted by: JohnL at
10:50 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
108kb generated in CPU 0.0429, elapsed 0.1363 seconds.
66 queries taking 0.1069 seconds, 239 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
