Comments Posted By Dean Kimball
Displaying 11 To 15 Of 15 Comments
A WORD ABOUT LOYALTY DURING A TIME OF WAR
While I appreciate Marv's comments, I question both his explicit supposition (the Vietneam was was lost at home) and implicit assumption (the situation in Iraq is directly analogous to Vietnam).
Furthermore, back to the original post, why apply labels of "unpatriotic" or "disloyal" to these anti-war protestors? Can't they be merely incorrect?
Also, let's set aside the merits of this particular action in Iraq. Would you view ANY military action whatsoever as requiring the full support of the American people? Regardless of provocation, prospect of favorable result or American body count?
Blind support of the government ("my country right or wrong") is immoral, unpatriotic, dispectful of the men and women who volunteer to put their lives on the line and ultimately not in the best interest of the country.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 27.09.2005 @ 14:07
“faithfulness to one’s government.†???? I can certainly get behind loyalty to one's country, a set of ideals or, most relevantly, our troops. However, it is the governments responsibility to be faithful to the people, not the reverse.
Cindy Sheehan and her cadre may be incorrect (and they are on several counts) but simply voicing opposition to a US policy is not disloyal or unpatriotic. That crowd is frequently intellectually lazy (or even dishonest). Those are serious offenses but it is a mistake to confuse (or conflate) those offenses with disloyalty.
I am also deeply skeptical of the notion that these people are "encouraging the insurgents in Iraq to up the body count of Americans to test the mettle of our citizenry to stay the course until the job is well and truly done". Do you truly believe that if there were no dissenting voices here in the US, the insurgents would be any less committed and dangerous? I do not.
While I ultimately opposed going to war in Iraq, I recognized that the decision was a complicated one with strong arguments on each side. The level of insurgency is much worse than I had anticipated and the high loss of American life has strengthened my opposition to the origin of this war. However, at this point, an immediate pull-out would be a disaster for Iraq and would discard those things gained at the high cost of American troop and Iraqi civilian life (I do not include the life of insugents or Saddam defenders as they deserve death).
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 27.09.2005 @ 10:27
THE ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, VERY, VERY, LAST THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ID AND EVOLUTION
Rick: thanks for the well written post. It's good to see a conservative that does not support "uniformed, head in the sand drivel". I like this very practical approach to the issue. You are dead right about our need to advance the science curriculum rather than regress it.
To all those people that responded negatively to Mr. Moran's post: ID is NOT science. Pointing out problems with more traditional theories is fine. It is not a theory in itself. Furthermore, identifying some complex aspect of the universe, be it in biology, physics or cosmology and declaring "this is too complex for anything but intelligent design" is simply giving up finding the actual truth of the universe. It is not science. Also, it is by nature, not falsifiable. How does one prove that some aspect of the universe was NOT designed? One cannot.
Let’s posit that the universe was designed by an intelligence. Also, suppose this intelligence designed things such that there are characteristics of the universe that could not arise by any means other than that design. Nonetheless, there exist processes in biology, physics and cosmology that continue to operate upon matter and energy, changing things. Let’s dub the result of such processes “evolutionâ€. How do we analyze the universe in order to differentiate the designed elements from the evolved? Science. How do we tell the difference between a designed element and an evolved element for which we have yet to fully describe the processes that brought about it’s evolution? We cannot unless the element is in fact evolved and we eventually more fully describe it’s causal processes. Science and reason are our only tools to do. When one declares an element to be designed, further analysis is blocked (at least for those that agree with the designed assessment). This is the end of science with regard to the element.
Thus, even if the universe were designed and done so in the way assumed above, yielding to ID throws up road-blocks to further discovery. It is far better, even in a designed universe, to continue on the road of science.
The tools of science and reason have brought us a long way from the cave and savannah. The tools of myth have brought us the flat earth, the earth as the center of the universe, creationism and now ID. Religion has brought some people comfort and a sense of place & community. That’s great. However, whenever people have attempted to describe the physical universe though the filter of faith, they have been wrong. This has been happening for as long as we humans (and our ancestor species) have been capable of reason. Let’s continue with the science and leave the mythology in the past.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 3.08.2005 @ 15:17
I do not think Bush the "stupidest politician in history" or anywhere close. While he is clearly not intellectual by nature, I think him rather shrewd. I doubt he lied in the more blatant way you took my meaning. Rather, I do believe he manipulated the data through pressure on his resources and through filtering of the intel available. Such manipulation probably occured on both conscious and unconsious levels. Regardless, everyone is responsible for their actions, regardless of motivation or awareness.
I take your point that the invasion of Iraq was a direct consequence of 9/11. Certainly, that is true. But why? Not because Iraq had any involvment in the attacks on our country. Rather, because the president and his staff decided to use the opportunity presented by the events of 9/11 to push their already established agenda - get Sadaam. Now, getting Sadaam was an objective of some merit. However, I find we have paid to high a cost. Back to the point - Bush does not mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same speach to broadcast his opportunism. He does so to suggest there was some DIRECT causal relationship. There was not. You know that. Yet, you suggest that a thinking conservative should endorse Bush's disingenuousness. I cannot. To my way of thinking, a thinking conservative in favor of the war should be glad we did it but frustrated and disappointed by the poor way this administration went about the action.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 29.06.2005 @ 22:10
You are usually very well reasoned and fairly even-handed despite the name of the blog (which I love btw). I do not understand why you are applauding the president for conflating the issues of 9/11 and Iraq. Its not just the liberals that get their knickers in a knot when this administration lies. You, Bush and I all know that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Bush had his reasons for invading Iraq. However, he lied to the country explicity (about WMDs) and implicitly (9/11 conflation). While I do not think costs (human and otherwise) of this war outweight the benefits, Bush could have made a sufficiently compelling case if he had been honesst.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 29.06.2005 @ 12:49
