Month: March 2005

More on the Literal Existence (or Not) of Rights .

Reader Anthony sent me links to two QandO Blog posts on the question of the reality of “natural rights.” The first one is The Right in My Garage, and the second is Natural Rights? Anthony thought they were an interesting adjunct to my own post on the topic, What is a “Right?” from near the inception of this blog, and I have to agree with him. I also have a post, An Interesting Email Exchange, where Swen Swenson of (the now apparently defunct) blog Coyote at the Dog Show discussed the “reality” of rights.

So if this topic interests you, there’s some extensive reading to keep you occupied. Be sure and read the comments at QandO Blog too. Thanks for the heads-up, Anthony. Those were interesting reads.

(Sorry for the lack of posting, but I’ve been busy, and I’m doing a lot of reading and thinking lately. Not so much inspiration for posting as of yet.)

UPDATE: D’OH! I forgot to link to the post that started this latest round, Dean Esmay’s The Genesis of Rights. Good post, and good comments.

Updated again, 3/11: I just remembered this post from July of last year, It’s Not All Faith, on this same topic. Before Sarah started blogging over at Carnaby Fudge, she sent me an email on her take on the origin of rights, and I replied to it.

Well, This Explains that “Avoiding the Northeast” Thing.

I just took this Yankee or Dixie? test and scored 64% Southern. Yup, that’s about right.

The “No Nuance” President, Exhibit “B”.

Another example of what speaking clearly and carrying a big stick means in the political world is brought to us by way of The Belgravia Dispatch (hat tip to American Digest for the pointer).

In Bush we do not have an intellectual who sets dinner companions atwitter on the Left Bank and Islington; but, and putting it plainly, we have someone who is not a bullshiter (like his predecessor, who was an unusually good one). He walks the walk. And people know it (I have a friend who was recently deep in the Amazon. An Indian, in a primitive and remote hamlet, said he was scared of Bush’s electoral victory. Why? Because he really means what he says came the response, ie more wars could be in the offing the Latin American, lefist-infused thinking went). Chuckle at my feverish cheerleading in trotting out such vignettes. But the fact is that when a typical President might have said something like “I call on the great and proud nation of Egypt to bla bla” the typical reaction in Cairene ministries would have been to ignore the prattle deeming it was meant mostly for domestic consumption. Not this time; as Mubarak felt compelled to start pushing forward real reforms. Again, Bush is judged to really mean it. The Saudis ostensibly get this too–despite all the Mooerian distortions of the House of Saud’s relationship with the Bushies. And, of course, there was the specter of millions of Iraqis risking very life and limb to vote in convincing number. This too is Bush’s legacy–the bad WMD intel aside. It took boots on the ground to have those elections come off (even if we didn’t have enough at critical junctures allowing the insurgency to fester). Look, anyone who thinks Bush’s forward-leaning posture on the entire democratization issue has had no impact on the Lebanese filling the streets of downtown Beirut are in denial of reality; or rabidly partisan fools, or both.

(Recognize yourself there, Ed Kilgore?)

Previous related posts:

The No-Nuance President

He Really Doesn’t Do Nuance

Which Would You Rather Have in a President?

Sarah and LabRat, This One’s for You.

Via Rev. Sensing I found this really interesting essay on The Left and Evolution by Chicago Boyz contributor Shannon Love. Damned fine piece. Excerpt:

Creationists are exasperating because they never study evolutionary theory in any detail. Since they start with the unshakable presumption that the theory is wrong, they can never actually honestly analyze the theory and therefore can never understand it in any depth. They just skim over the theory looking for points that confuse them and then pronounce the misunderstood points as fatal flaws within the theory itself.

Frankly, most creationists’ knowledge of evolutionary theory boils down to, “them scientist fellas what says we alls comes from monkeys!”

Of course, this is a much different view of evolutionary theory than that held by the majority of secular leftists. Their superior educations and their generally more open-minded and inquisitive natures have given them a view of evolutionary theory that might be summed up as, “them scientist fellas what says we alls comes from monkeys!”

I’m not kidding.

There have been a couple of spirited arguments discussions on the topic of evolution/secular humanism here and at Carnaby Fudge. I thought it might be interesting to throw a bit more gasoline on the fire.

UPDATE, 3/8: If you’re not reading the comments, you ought to be. Sarah took exception to one of mine (which included a link to an earlier essay) and has penned a response over at Carnaby Fudge. I think she’s more than a little wrong, and told her so in the comments over there.

The saga continues!

This is Literally Laugh-Out-Loud Funny.

As long as The Lord of the Rings isn’t your religion. Via Dodd at Ipse Dixit, someone with far too much time on their hands was discovered by someone else with far too much time on their hands, and through the billions of dollars of high-tech infrastructure that is the internet, we have – accessible to billions throughout the world – alternate versions of LOTR, with Boromir as the putative hero.

The first two are my favorites.

Quote of the Week.

From a week ago, and why I didn’t do it then is beyond me. Critical Mastiff put up an outstanding post, The Gun Thing which was featured in last week’s Carnival of Cordite. I even left a comment to that effect. I know I planned to post on this quote, but forgot. I’m fixing that now. (Also adding him to the blogroll under Gun / Rights blogs.)

One of the recurring themes here at TSM is the fundamental difference in philosophies between those who recognize “violent and predatory” versus “violent but protective,” and those who see only violence versus non-violence. The concluding paragraph of Critical Mastiff‘s post expresses eloquently why this is such an important thing to me and to him and to people like us:

(W)e must not forget that when we fight for the right to bear arms, we are not only fighting for a physical tool. We are fighting to determine the very character of the American mind — whether we want our children to grow up fearing power, or using power to fight evil.

Precisely. And it’s a worthy fight.

I KNEW Someone Would Say it Perfectly.

By now, I’m sure, the entire blogosphere has heard about the FEC’s consideration of regulation of the internet under the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Bi-Partisan violation of the First Amendment Campaign Finance Reform Act. Instapundit, for example, points to Ed Morrisey’s of Captain’s Quarters observation that

McCain and Feingold have managed to foster real bipartisanship — they’ve gotten liberal and conservative bloggers alike to detest them. Jerome Armstrong at MyDD, Atrios, and DailyKos all agree — this legislation has become a serious threat to political speech, and John McCain and Russ Feingold have become two of the most dangerous politicians to American liberty since Huey Long.

I’ve withheld comment, mostly because if I started writing about it I was afraid the increase in my blood pressure would cause red streams to shoot from my eyes, and it’s difficult to get blood out of a keyboard.

However, The Everlasting Phelps has saved me from arterial rupture. His post on it is short, acerbic, to the point, and precisely expresses my position on the topic. Please read. Add a “Ditto” for me.

UPDATE: The Geek says it well, too, and wants to start has started a conspiracy blogger movement.

Now I’ve got to add a flag to my left sidebar.

(Done!)

Further Update: Kim du Toit echoes Phelps – “FUCK YOU!” Phelps’s was more emphatic, though.

One More: Mike of Feces Flinging Monkey is the creator of the graphic:

…except on those principles themselves.”

(Still quoting others for post titles…)

Anarchangel has an excellent post up on just that topic: the differing first principles between our gun-culture and the anti-gun culture. Quote:

Here’s the thing, pro-gun and anti-gun people are arguing from a different set of first principles. There can be no useful debate betwen two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves.

ProGun people believe that the gun is a useful tool with no inherent motive, and no inherehnt dangers, excepting misuse. Additionally, guns are examples of elegance in mechanical engineering, which many take pleasure in. Finally they are a source of enjoyment through the practice of the skill of marksmanship. But guns are jsut inanimate object; dangerous if muisused, but so are knives, screwdrivers, chainsaws, cars.. well really just about anything. A gun is an inanimate object, just like any other two pound chunk of metal.

Anti-gun people operate from a completely different principle. They believe guns are inherently wrong. They equate guns with assault and murder, and conflate a causal relationship. They believe that if anyone would have a gun, they must have a valid justification for it, and that they (the anti-gun people) must judge the validity of this justification. They believe that the desire to carry a gun is in iteslf a pathology, and therefore no-one who wishes to carry a gun should be trusted to do so.

It’s just another way of stating the philosophical schism between those of us who understand the concept of violent-and-predatory vs. violent-but-protective, and those who only see violence vs. non-violence. It is very much a matter of first principles, and it is why one of my earliest posts on this site was Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection? The only way to reach the other side is to debate those first principles, and the only way to do that is to get the other side to look at the harsh realities versus their philosophical ideal.

I’ve tried pretty hard to do that in many of the essays over there on the left under “Best Posts,” just as I did in the six months I spent posting in the Gun Dungeon of DemocraticUnderground.com. Just before they tombstoned me, I got nearly the greatest compliment a writer like myself could have. There was the following exchange at the end of what was to become almost my last thread there:

khbaker
Aug-27-02
Reply to post #20
21. Oh, I’m willing.

Your side finds guns just as animated, potent and totemic as my side does, if not more so.

Oh, certainly. At least the “totemic” part, anyway.

Considering the kind of comments that turn up here from Gun Huggers on a regular basis, I don’t think a cautious, intelligent advocate such as yourself can afford to…….

I will readily admit (and have, I believe) that we are often our own worst enemies. The number of “people with less than 100 posts” who come in here and hurl invective certainly make points for your side of the argument. But have you spent any time in the talk.politics.guns newsgroup? Your side is abundantly represented by the slavering gun-phobic there. I don’t bother with it because it is essentially a flame-fest of the far fringes attacking each other through the anonymity of the internet.

You know why I like this forum so much? Because it represents a good cross-section of the gun-control demographic – the people who “believe in gun control” but who aren’t really involved in it, and who don’t really think about it. The moderators do a good job of keeping at least the gun freaks out of the board. Instead, the groups represented are the moderates, and the gun haters. The moderates I think I can reach. The gun haters make excellent illustrative examples. They generally sound so reasonable until you expose them. The gun freaks? Yes, they frighten John Q. Public. Hell, I find them a bit discomforting. I find skinheads and the KKK discomforting too, but that’s insufficient reason for a general restriction of free speech and search-and-seizure rights.

I think I represent something you don’t see a lot – the reasoned, logical fanatic (as I defined it to CO Liberal in another thread, “fanatic: won’t change the subject, and won’t shut up.”) Or, the “cautious, intelligent advocate” as you put it.

You want to discuss emotional wellbeing? Hell, I’m up for it.

Paladin
Aug-27-02
Reply to post #21
22. Cut Yourself Some Slack

This issue needs a lot more “advocates” and a lot fewer “fanatics,” on both sides.

I think you fit in the “advocate” category. As I’ve said before, I also think you fit in the “pain in the ass” category, but you’ve exhibited your emotional wellbeing by considering that a compliment…..

khbaker
Aug-27-02
Reply to post #22
23. I LIKE being a PITA

It’s tough to ignore a nagging pain.

And I am, most certainly, an advocate. But, as CO Liberal and I have discussed, I’m also inflexible. I have a position I’ve taken after research and due consideration, and I’m not moveable on that position. So, my advocacy is to get others to consider that position, and accept it. If being a PITA is required (and it seems to be,) that’s what I do. Like I said, I won’t change the subject, and I won’t shut up.

Cappurr
Aug-27-02
Reply to post #23
24. Dear PITA

Don’t shut up. I wildly disagree with most of your positions on this subject, but you are a damn fine advocate. And you make me think. And that is important.

They booted me on Sept. 3 after I had achieved 1819 posts.

Making them think. It’s why I now blog. (Won’t change the subject. Won’t shut up.) But boy do I miss that target-rich environment!