Well said, sir.Comment Posted By GW On 5.05.2009 @ 13:48
Rick, regarding the "ticking time bomb theory," you might want to consider this article from the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/19/opinion/israel-s-fine-line.htmlComment Posted By GW On 30.04.2009 @ 22:23
Hello Rick. I find that on issue of politics and conservatism, you are an invaluable resource. But I just cannot disagree with you any more strongly on this issue. Indeed, your essay above has driven me to write two posts in response, one defining what I see as the applicable moral parameters, a second responding to your arguments in this post. They are too long to post here, but if you care to read them:
Hope all is well.
GWComment Posted By GW On 30.04.2009 @ 21:58
Hello Rick. I respect your integrity but think you are way off the mark on this whole issue, at least as it is being played out in the legal context. I have written a post in response to long to reproduce here.
If you have any thoughts in response, I would love to here them. Thanks much, Rick.Comment Posted By GW On 25.04.2009 @ 23:33
I am far less sanguine about the damage of that an Obama presidency could do to our nation.
At a minimum, the next president will determine the majority on the Supreme Court - possibly for decades to come. I see Obama looking for people far to the left of Ginsburg. But for the areas foreign policy and national security, that will be the most dangerous power a President Obama would wield.
As to Iraq, I am flatly amazed how many intelligent people, you included Rick, seem to willing to disregard Obama's iron clad promise to withdraw, and instead project onto Obama your own belief that no Presidential candidate could be that stupid. Yes, yes they can. And the ways in which that will damage and diminish America are near incalculable. What that eventually will mean is that the price we are going to pay in blood and gold to even attempt to unscrew the damage will be exponentially larger. With one kid in the military and another on the way, I feel far more secure about their future with the military fighting the radicals in Iraq today than I do about their future two years into an Obama presidency, when they are sent into Iraq as part of Obama's utterly insane QRF force. If Obama wins, I will be counting the days until their time in service is up.
You look to history to state that America will survive an Obama presidency, but we have never faced the existential challenges that we do today, not only to our national security and foreign policy, but to the very make up of our democracy. Will we survive four years of Obama - sure, much like a parapalegic in a car crash.Comment Posted By GW On 2.05.2008 @ 10:37
I think that there are some facts that invalidate some of your assumptions and I deem this topic sufficiently important that I posted a response far too lengthy to include as a comment. If you are interested:
I have finally finished the response I wanted to make to your post and Rick’s post. What it boils down to is that I think there are additional facts that lead me to believe that your assessment and Rick’s assessment are flawed.
This is not intended as any sort of personal criticism. I post my response only because this is a critical topic worthy of discussion.
That said, I welcome your thoughts, criticisms and analysis.
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/04/assumptions-conclusions-about-sadr.htmlComment Posted By GW On 4.04.2008 @ 09:17
While I accept your points, the problem is we are being driven to accept global warming as gospel and act on faith. The measures proposed in Europe to address global warming will reduce their economy significantly, and likely our own in the process. Our own biofuel boondoggle, compliments of President Bush, is playing out in the incredible inflation of food prices that will likely only accelerate as more agriculture is directed away from production for food and feed.
The bottom line is that we need to be demanding much more from the global warming enthusiasts in terms of proof to accept what could be an unnecessary cure coming at far too dear a cost. It is one thing to maintain an open mind on the issue. But neutrality in the face of the actions being forced upon us in response to global warming seem utterly suicidal. So in that regard, when I see evidence to the contrary on the global warming issue, I am quite concerned.
To give a more concrete example, I have no respect for those individuals seeking to have Polar bears declared endangered on the basis of computer models when, today, polar bears are at their highest count in fifty years. I cannot have respect for people who would push that argument. It completely defies logic, and its ramifications would be severe indeed.
Your position is nuanced, I realize. But it seems almost a criticism of those lay people who look to the evidence out there and trumpet that they are unconvinced.
I think that you are conflating two groups of people, Rick. It is one thing to respect people holding to the theory of global warming. It is another thing entirely to afford the same respect to those who have politicized it and are seeking to take extreme action using global warming as a justification. I think to afford them respect or even to afford them shrug our shoulders in the face of their actions is at our peril.Comment Posted By GW On 2.03.2008 @ 18:23
I could not agree with you more on the issue of charging Obama with being a Muslim. It is a ridiculous waste of energy with only the most tenuous of ties to reality.
My impression is that Obama would be our own Neville Chamberlin, willing to discuss peace while the people he talks with improve their position and plan their attacks. There is simply no reason to believe that talks with such groups or nation states would bear any fruit.
As to your comment on Bush and the Crusades, I could not disagree more. The Crusades are portrayed in the radical Muslim pantheon as an unprovoked and unreasonable attack on Islam by foreign invaders. The truth is that the Crusades were in response to centuries of Muslim aggression.
The Islamic world is depererately in need of honesty from the West. On that score, Bush has failed - not because he mentioned the word "crusade" during a speech, because he has refused to clearly define what radical Islam is, what are its origins, and what are its fallicies. I am not advocating that we portray GWOT as a war on Islam in any way, shape or form. But the overreaction to Bush's use of the word "crusade" was no more justified than the uproar over the Danish cartoons or the teddy bear named Mohammed. To hold Bush to account for his use of the word "crusades" is doing nothing more than excusing the actions of the radical Islamists.Comment Posted By GW On 26.02.2008 @ 20:25
When I was in undergrad, I had a truly exceptional history professor. I recall with clarity his musing during one class that history teaches us that a theocracy, regardless of which religion is in charge, is the single most oppressive form of government. It was a prescient observation indeed, since it was only a short time later that the Iranian revolution occurred. At any rate, to hear the Ayatollah Huckabee discuss imposing God's law . . . suffice it to say I find this man's candidacy very troubling.Comment Posted By GW On 16.01.2008 @ 22:26
"too many Americans who donâ€™t yearn for a new dynamic animating our political conversation in Washington."
The existing dynamic seems largely a construct of the left from where I am sitting - admittedly in the cheap seats. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me over nearly the past decade, the Democrat's idea of bipartisanship has been Republicans need to adopt the Democrats positions. Republicans as a whole have been far more willing to accomodate - sometimes far too much - than have the hard ideological left. Just recall how the Democrats utterly refused to do anything about Social Security. Or compare the approval of Ginsburg to . . . well, pick your Republican SCT or appeals court nominee. If you think I am understating the problem, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Where Obama can do the most damage is in foreign policy. And he seems utterly out of touch in that area. Scarilly so, actually.
I certainly have no qualms with electing a woman or an Afican American to the Presidency. My problem is with the particualar two choices we have in that regards. But to look forward to voting for either one on the grounds of its historic importance just does not make list of considerations.Comment Posted By GW On 6.01.2008 @ 16:26