Around the Horn and the Process (part IV?)

Before we do the Process, let's mention that In Search of Telford has been added to the blog roll over to the right there. Enjoy. I will say that Telford is a word that seems to cry out for me to add in additional unnecessary letters.

OK, to the Process of putting together an "Around the Horn" post. Some bloggers, Bark Bark Woof Woof notably, do blog-a-rounds of the entire Liberal Coalition. I salute them, but I don't think that would work for me. Because I'm somewhat lazy, and also because I'm too talkative. And also because I really enjoy consistency. I want to be able to do a blog-a-round every week, and if I did the entire liberal coalition I simply wouldn't actually do it.

So I've decided to do smaller blog-a-rounds, usually between 8 and 11 websites at a time. This also affords me the opportunity to comment on the posts a bit more than I might if I was doing the entire liberal coalition. In order to ensure that I don't miss any members of the Liberal Coalition, I have a Excel Spreadsheet (entitled, for reasons passing understanding, "Liberal Coalition Jonses") to keep track of how many hits each blog has received from me. For those curious Echidne of the Snakes has received the most hits from me with 18, and In Search of Telford has received the fewest with 2 (including today's). But of course In Search of Telford has the lowest amount of hits because it's new to the list.

Anyway on to this weeks selection of links.

In picking a link from a website, you always start at the top and go down--which means a lot of the time the top story is the one you link to. Just the way it goes. You generally read down until you find something you like and if the first story is something you like, well, that's the one that you use.

And Then . . . has some good commentary on recent attempts by the Bush Administration to blur the difference between government propaganda and the evening news.

blogAmy has a story on stuff that happened over the weekend that may not have been reported in any great detail.

For those interested in Comic Books, Chris "Lefty" Brown has a post on a recent event put together by Warren Ellis on the future of Comic Books.

Collective Sigh has an interesting theory on why President Bush seems to be bouncing around a little bit more than normally.

Dohiyi Mir has the word on the top 20 Monty Python Sketches. He would add the Australian Bruces sketch, which I agree with. I would also add the Election Returns ("May I just say that this is the last time I will ever be on television?"), How not to Be Seen, and The Science Fiction Sketch.

The Gamer's Nook has an interesting poem / song up. I guess it's a song, but it reads like a poem. Might look it up on Rhapsody later if I can.

Rooks Rant has a section on how the war in Iraq has been reported. Or misreported as the case might be.

Trish Wilson's Blog has the news that apparently we are crazier than other parts of the world. Not sure what to think about that.

And that's it for another week. I'll be back later with some stuff about something. Hooray!

A Higher Standard

A while back I wrote about the torture issue in relation to Alberto Gonzales being named Attorney General. Today Thomas Friedman talks about the higher standard our troops fought under in the American Revolution.

What is particularly moving is one of Mr. Fischer's concluding sections, "An American Way of War," in which he contrasts how Washington dealt with prisoners of war with how the British and Hessian forces did: "According to the 'the laws' of European war, quarter was the privilege of being allowed to surrender and to become a prisoner. By custom and tradition, soldiers in Europe believed that they had a right to extend quarter or deny it. ... In these 'laws of war,' no captive had an inalienable right to be taken prisoner, or even to life itself."

American attitudes were very different. "With some exceptions, American leaders believed that quarter should be extended to all combatants as a matter of right. ... Americans were outraged when quarter was denied to their soldiers." In one egregious incident, at the battle at Drake's Farm, British troops murdered all seven of Washington's soldiers who had surrendered, crushing their brains with muskets.

"The Americans recovered the mutilated corpses and were shocked," wrote Mr. Fischer. The British commander simply denied responsibility. "The words of the British commander, as much as the acts of his men," wrote Mr. Fischer, "reinforced the American resolve to run their own war in a different spirit. ... Washington ordered that Hessian captives would be treated as human beings with the same rights of humanity for which Americans were striving. The Hessians ... were amazed to be treated with decency and even kindness. At first they could not understand it." The same policy was extended to British prisoners.

Worth thinking about, particularly if you consider in light of the 26 prisoners who have died in United States Custody (as Mr. Friedman does).

Another Voice

I hate to bring up Terri Schiavo, but popular libertarian radio host Neal Boortz wrote on this issue today, taking a somewhat different tack than his fellows on the right.

As Rush opens the hour he has a question; a question for “you liberals.” He wants to know “Why do you want Terri Schiavo to die?”

. . . I want Terri Schiavo to die because I believe she’s earned it.

I don’t view death as the end of the journey of a human soul. I view it as a transition. The God I believe in would not waste the total life experiences of a man or woman made in his image on a total and complete death; a dead end, if you will, with nothing to follow. I cannot believe that it is God’s plan that the life experiences of a man; wisdom gained, lessons learned and love experienced, should, upon death, disappear as if they never were. I believe that there’s something to follow the life we know on this earth; and I believe that most of the people fighting to keep the body of Terri Schiavo alive feel the same way.

A worthwhile article to check out, and at any rate it puts a little bit of a wrench in the argument that Liberals want death / Conservatives want life argument that some on the right are trying to make.

The Process - Part III

This is the first column after lunch, and by this time I've generally had all the Conservative Nonsense I am interested in having. So I generally have a few options. I can mine the sources I mentioned earlier. I can extend my search further out, maybe into the Blog-O-Sphere or to other publications I don't read as much. This is also a common point at which to post my observations about life (such as they are) or to try something humorous.

This time I am pulling something from the Nation, on Campus Leftism and Campus Rightism. The article is pretty good at poking holes in the rights arguments about campus diversity, but the most interesting part is right up front.

What fuels the persistent charges that professors are misleading the young?

A few factors might be adduced, but none are completely convincing. One is the age-old anti-intellectualism of conservatives. Conservatives distrust unregulated intellectuals. Forty years ago McCarthyism spurred Richard Hofstadter to write his classic Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. In addition, a basic insecurity plagues conservatives today, a fear that their reign will be short or a gnawing doubt about their legitimacy. Dissenting voices cannot be tolerated, because they imply that a conservative future may not last forever. One Noam Chomsky is one too many. Angst besets the triumphant conservatives. Those who purge Darwin from America's schools must yell in order to drown out their own misgivings, the inchoate realization that they are barking at the moon.

I do think there is definetely something to the idea that Conservatives are uncomfortable with dissenting voices, and, in a perfect world, such voices would not exist. This helps one understand Rush Limbaugh's critique of the media. He thinks that if the news media were unbiased and fair, they would sound a lot like him.

The Process - Part II

This is the mid-morning post, running a little later than I'd like, but not much. Usually I try to post again somewhere between 10:00 and 11:30. For this second post I have a number of options. I can go back to Townhall, and if I saw two interesting articles there, I often will I'll pick the easier article to write on for the morning post, and let my mind digest the other one a bit more. Alternatively I will go to a couple of other sources. I might visit Commondreams.Org or Working For Change if I want a liberal article, or I might visit the New York Times Editorial Page or the Village Voice to see if they have anything interesting. Haven't been to the Village Voice in a while come to think of it. Alternatively, I might just stumble across something interesting at another website, and post on that.

For example, this morning I read an interesting discussion of Kurt Gödel over at Salon. I try to keep links to Salon to a minimum. I think it's a brilliant website, but you have to either pay to watch it (as I have) or watch a brief ad in order to gain access to their content. In this case I think the article is strong enough to warrant a mention.

It is actually a book review of a recent book on Gödel's work, which seeks to place said work in the context of the times. Gödel (along with Einstein and Heisenberg) are often credited with having proved the unknowability of the universe. In fact, Gödel would probably have been uncomfortable with that interpretation of his work, which can be seen as a reaction and critique of the Vienna Circle and the Logical Positivists or Formalists.

If formalism were correct, then it followed that mathematics could also be overhauled so that every part of it was "consistent" and the entire system was "complete." It could be boiled down to a set of rules or axioms and procedures so basic and ironclad that a machine -- the computers that were just beyond the historical horizon -- could perform it. It could be finally purged of the paradoxes that had been plaguing the field for hundreds of years. Mathematical intuition, the source of ideas that can't be formally proven but possessing what Goldstein calls, "the urgent cogency that compels belief," has no place in such a system.

Gödel's theorem used the rules of formalism itself to demonstrate that the formalist project could never be achieved. In what Goldstein calls "one of the most astounding pieces of mathematical reasoning ever produced," he demonstrated that in the kind of system that the formalists aspired to, it was possible to make a statement that was both unprovable and yet also true. This works a little like the famous "liar's paradox," in which the statement "This statement is false," can only be true if it is also false and vice versa. But Gödel's theorem was not a paradox, precisely because it pointed to the difference between what could be proven and what was true.

I'm not sure I understand that completely, but I thought it was interesting.

The Process - The Process

Some of you might be wondering how I come up with material for this process. Well today I'm going to pull back the curtain a bit and show you what lies beneath. Or behind. I'm not really sure how that is supposed to work.

Anyway if I am up and around early enough I will take a quick gander at my computer between the time I am mostly ready for work, and the time I actually go to work. My first stop? Townhall. For those of you who aren't familiar with the site, it is run by the Conservative Heritage foundation and collects columns from Conservative Columnists everywhere. I scan the titles to see if one catches my eye, then I give it a gander. Sometimes I'll skim two or three articles. That way I can spend my time on the way to work thinking about how to respond.

If nothing catches my eye than I will pick it up again when I get to work, looking a little bit further into each article, trying to find some aspect that would make a good post. Today Townhall has presented me with 16 articles to review. 8 of these articles deal with the Terry Schavio case, about which I've said all I want to say for now. If you are interested see this and this.

As for the other eight, we have Walter E. Williams on the Minimum Wage, Terence Jeffrey and Herman Cain on Taxation, Jonah Goldberg and Janice Shaw Crouse, PhD on the difference between men and women, Diana West on Lebenon, Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator, on college Republicans, and Brian McNoll on eliminating campaign finance reform.

As an aside, Miles Davis is simply incredible.

Anyway, none of these articles look any good. Ben Shapiro does note that one of the two potential heads of the college Republicans, Paul Gourly, is a pretty sleazy guy.

Gourley, as treasurer under current CRNC Chair Eric Hoplin, allegedly oversaw a series of CRNC fund-raising scandals, most notably a direct mail campaign designed to confuse and bilk senior citizens out of their money. During the 2004 election cycle, the CRNC, through its direct mail firm Response Dynamics (RDI), garnered over $6.3 million by sending misleading letters to elderly donors. The letters often included the headings "Republican Headquarters 2004," "Republican Elections Committee," and the "National Republican Campaign Fund." During the election cycle, the median age of 49 of the top 50 donors to the CRNC was 85, and 14 of the donors were older than 90.

Of course, young Ben is ignoring Ronald Reagan's eleventh commandment. "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

The other articles are a rather tepid lot. Goldberg's article sees him writing on autopilot about how amazing it is that Men and Women are different, or to be more precise, that feminists and liberals don't Acknowledge that Men and Women are different. But to be fair there is certainly a market for telling people what they already believe.

The articles on Taxation are dull, and I'm sure we will get a lot more of them in April. So I will hold off extensive discussion until then. But if you enjoy a good bratwurst than you will enjoy my discussion. Well sort of.

Anyway tune in later for a discussion of the second part of the Process ("The Mid-Morning Post")

The Minimum of Effort

Convienent how all we can talk about is Terri Schavio. Really draws attention away from the passing of our second year in Iraq and the stalled Social Security bill. I mean if all anybody can talk about is Ms. Schavio's sad story, well, how can we talk about drilling in ANWR for example?

New York Times had an editorial today on the questionable tactics used by President Bush.

. . . in the Schiavo case, and in the battle to stop the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominations, President Bush and his Congressional allies have begun to enunciate a new principle: the rules of government are worth respecting only if they produce the result we want. It may be a formula for short-term political success, but it is no way to preserve and protect a great republic.

Something to consider.

A Grabber !

Here's a good title to an editorial by Star Parker.

Social Security reform threatened by elitist liberals.

It's clear and concise, and tells you everything you need to know right up front. There's an attempt to reform Social Security, but it is being stopped by elitist liberals. And we all know that elitist liberals are bad. Bad bad bad.

I haven't actually read the article yet--just impressed with the title. Of course, Ms. Star Parker had another grabber of a title a couple of weeks ago. What was it? Oh yes.

End Social Security

See that is a grabber too. Just looking at it you know where Ms. Parker stands. But of course you have to wonder what she means by Social Security Reform there in today's title. I guess, since she is in favor of ending Social Security the version of reform that Liberal Elitists are stopping is either ending Social Security or like ending Social Security?

If that's so, I guess I'm pretty comfortable with liberal elitists trying to stop it.

Moral Ambiguity

How does one explain a good man doing bad things or a bad man doing good things? Well we get a hint of that from Dennis Prager today in a column in which he exonerates both Clarence Thomas and Bill Bennett.

I note this because it brings home a point that is often lost on most people -- religious or secular, conservative or liberal -- that human beings all have what I call moral bank accounts. Just like a real bank account into which we make monetary deposits and from which we make monetary withdrawals, we make moral deposits into and moral withdrawals from our moral bank accounts based on the actions we engage in during our lifetime.

Now, of course, some people make so many withdrawals -- Hitler, for example -- that no imaginable good act they can do will seriously change the balance from extremely negative to positive. But most people need to be assessed based on this bank account analogy. I first came up with this idea when Clarence Thomas was accused by Anita Hill and the Democratic Party of sexual harassment. Needless to say, no one knew for sure which party was telling the truth. But I made the argument on my radio show that given all the good Thomas had done, given the absence of indications of him ever acting indecently toward women employees, his moral bank account was, to the best our knowledge, quite in the black.

Fair enough. And truthfully, something I can see some value in.

But I sense that this sort of logic only applies to generally good people, and, as the old saying goes, no liberals need apply. This is Dennis Prager, after all, who has written in support of a second civil war (between Liberals and Conservatives). Both of his examples are about prominent conservatives, and I seriously question whether he'd extend the same generosity to a Al Gore or a John Kerry.

The Schavio Case

I haven't spoken much on this issue because it seems like such a personal issue and one in which I might offend people. But things are quiet today, so just let me say this.

I find it offensive that the Republicans are trying to make political hay over this very personal issue. I can feel for both the parents and the husband in this case--but I see only one party trying to use Ms. Schavio as a club to bash their political opponents with.

I could comment on the apparent lack of confidence the Republicans are displaying in their own beliefs that this and other actions reveal. They feel that their ideas cannot stand up to criticism or to opposition and therefore the only solution they see is to totally humiliate and eliminate their political rivals. And this is just another example of how they are trying to accomplish this goal.

Anyway just some random thoughts. Oh and I guess you all knew that President Bush signed a state statute, as Governor, that allows a hospital committee to, over the opposition of the family, terminate further life-support if they feel such life support would be futile. Yeah. But when continuing life costs a hospital money, well, that's a different situation.

The Lyrics to "Jehovah Made this Whole Joint for You"

Yeah this is indulgent, but on the plus side, nobody is paying attention right now anyway. Plus they are funny lyrics.

Jehovah Made this Whole Joint For You
by The New Radicals

Meet a girl named Carolina
Her parents jumped off niagara falls
She broke her hips when she was a baby
Trying to hop the Berlin wall
It's not that she's anti american
Although she shot a mayor at nine
He looked just like the prez on t.v.
But didn't know in '63 he had died

Does she think this world is all wrong
Does she think i'll rob her and run
When i ask her she gets her gun
And simply says "scat boy scat scat"

But isn't it a wonderful world carolina
Look at the birds in the sky
Jehovah made this whole joint for you carolina
And isn't it wonderful to be alive?

So original in her black lipstick
Listening to some obscure band
But isn't she pissed that all the other non-conformists
Listen to that same obscure band
That's OK she's helping the environment
By sipping pure water and such
Then she screams we better start thinking about
The ozone layer
While tossing out a styrofoam cup

Does she think this world is all wrong
Does she think I'll rob her and run
When I ask her she gets her gun
And simply says "scat boy scat scat"

But isn't it a wonderful world Carolina
Look at the birds in the sky
Jehovah made this whole joint for you Carolina
So isn't it wonderful to be alive?

Real deep shit on her mind
"Let's kill the world
Take over everything"
She says we don't need politicians
"They breed mistrust
And as a matter of fact did you steal my purse?"

Yeah, but isn't it a wonderful world Carolina
Look at the birds in the sky
Jehovah made this whole joint for you Carolina
So isn't it wonderful to be alive
Huh isn't a wonderful world to be a...
Isn't it wonderful to be alive.....
F*** Yeah, it's so wonderful I feel like...
Smiling

Idiot Sarcasm

Paul Jacob's latest column, entitled "John Kerry, inventor, wizard" is crafted to appeal to an audience of sarcastic morons. Look at this opening paragraph.

To allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or not? It is an easy question for Senator John F. Kerry . . . because he's magic!

Yep, the idio-sarcastic riff that Mr. Jacob has selected for this weeks column concerns a popular series of books involving Harry Potter. Because it's easier to just make fun of someone who disagrees with you than it is to put forward your own opinions as an intelligent contrast.

Or, to put it another way, it's easier to make someone else look stupid than to make yourself look smart. So when Senator Kerry suggests that drilling in ANWR is a short term solution or that maybe we need to find some new form of energy, well, he's being magical. Or something.

You see, Kerry has a better plan: Let's invent something spectacular to replace oil completely! Something that never causes any environmental concerns. A perfect energy source.

. . . Enough of big oil. Let's opt for magic from John F. Kerry and the wizards in Washington, let's spend a few extra trillion on new, perfect technology. Then - hocus, pocus - in a week or two, that silly ol' oil-based economy will be a thing of the past.

Yep, it's just silly to think that we will ever come up with anything better than Oil, and people who suggest that are deluded. Like John Kerry.

Oh, and anybody who uses the word "idio-sarcastic" owes this site a nickel.

Torture : Is it Good?

Apparently not, according to Conservative Jeff Jacoby, writing at Townhall. He suggests four detriments to torture. Torture is unequivocally illegal. Torture is unreliable. Torture, as a practice, can be applied to the innocent as easily as the guilty. And, finally, torture is a slippery slope. Mr. Jacoby concludes his article with this paragraph.

No. Torture is never worth it. Some things we don't do, not because they never work, not because they aren't ''deserved," but because our very right to call ourselves decent human beings depends in part on our not doing them. Torture is in that category. Let us wage and win this war against the barbarians without becoming barbaric in the process.

So all in all I salute this column. Now Mr. Jacoby does stretch the truth a little when he puts the argument for torture in the mouth of a prominent liberal (Mr. Jonathan Alter, writing directly after September 11th, who said, "In this autumn of anger, a liberal can find his thoughts turning to -- torture."). One has to assume that Mr. Jacoby is well aware that gentlemen on his side of the aisle have gone much further than this in justifying torture. But, setting aside that rhetorical sleight of hand, a very noble article.

I ruined the blog again

New quote.

But somehow I republished the entire blog, so all of the older posts look exactly like this weeks. I know it seems like a small thing, but all those previous formats and logos are gone.

Anyway trying to figure out what to do about this. Possibly this is perfect time to take this down and start over. Anyway considering.