Second, I am offended that partisan groups would parade these soldiers who are against the war in front of Congress and the national media, with the hope of demoralizing our soldiers in Iraq by demonstrating how “unstable” or “lawless” our troops are. I would argue that these few men and women are the exception to the rule of competent and reasonable military men and women who make up our armed forces. Why are their voices not being brought in front of Congress? I have had the opportunity to speak with several individuals who have fought in Iraq and not one of them thinks that the war was wrong and that we cannot win and that our armed forces are conducting themselves as we would hope. This dog and pony show in front of Congress is akin to Hanoi Jane and the Vietnam Vets against the war in the early 1970s.

Third, and Bill already addressed this in a previous post, is the constant focus on post traumatic stress disorder that some soldiers return home with. I have no doubt that some if not all soldiers return home changed and with baggage. Undoubtedly it is serious baggage. However, did soldiers not have this baggage in any previous war? War is hell and soldiers who voluntarily sign up to engage in war will have to deal with it, just as U.S. soldiers have been since the Revolution. The idea that this is some new problem and those diagnosed are any different or more harmed by the stress of combat than any previous soldiers makes no sense to me. This stress is not unique or special. It comes with the territory.

Share This

Share This

An effort is under way to amend the state constitution to re-instate the law approved by a majority of California voters banning same sex marriages.

Share This

It would appear that the Scots-Irish of the Appalachian belt are turning out in huge numbers for the former first lady. Last night’s solid drubbing of Obama in West Virginia, according to this map, was entirely predictable. And, what the heck, I’ll go out on a limb and predict a similar result when the primaries visit Kentucky next Tuesday. On the other hand, I would expect South Dakota, Montana and Oregon to be much closer. In the end, it is likely that Hillary has one more solid outing in the works and it she will need to make it count, if she wants to sway the outstanding Superdelegates to her orbit.

Share This

If, as LTG likes to point out, a child’s education is entirely within the purview of the parents, isn’t this an appropriate ruling? With the right, comes the responsibility. Of course, the flipside is: If the onus were on the State to educate the child, would then the delinquency of this minor fall upon her public school teachers? As tempting as it is for me to endorse that outcome, I find both results absurd. After all, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Share This

Share This

Questions remain such as will Barr attract Ron Paulites?  Will Barr participate in a national debate with Barack and John?  Are Barr’s chances any better than a snowball’s in Hell?  And, at the root of all other questions, will Barr siphon off enough votes from McCain to hand Obama 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?  My guess is no.  Barr is just another untrustworthy quack from Washington.

Share This

I am reminded of the field hospital scene in the movie Patton:

Patton: What’s the matter with you?
Soldier: Well, I… I guess I… I can’t take it anymore.
Patton: What did you say?
Soldier: It’s my nerves, sir. I… I just can’t stand the shelling anymore.
Patton: Your “nerves”? Well, hell, you’re nothing but a God-damned coward.
[Soldier starts sniveling]
Patton: Shut up!
[Slaps him, once forehanded, then backhanded on the rebound]
Patton: I’m not going to have a man sitting here crying! In front of these brave men who have been wounded in battle!
[Soldier snivels some more, and Patton swings a vicious forehand slap, knocking his helmet away]
Patton: Shut up!
[to the doctors]
Patton: Don’t admit this yellow bastard. There’s nothing wrong with him. I won’t have a man who’s just afraid to fight stinking up this place of honor! You will get him back up to the front.
[to soldier]
Patton: You’re going back to the front, boy. You may get shot, and you may get killed, but you’re going back to the fighting. Either that, or I’ll stand you up before a firing squad. Why, I ought to shoot you right now, you…
[pulls his service automatic. At that, the doctors leap forward and hustle the soldier out of the tent. Patton keeps shouting at the soldier’s back]
Patton: God-damned bastard! Get him out of here! Take him back to the front! You hear me? You God-damned coward!
[Takes deep breath]
Patton: I won’t have cowards in my army.

Share This

“The utilitarian opposes abortion because he believes that the general practice of abortion will in the long run cause more pain than pleasure for the greatest number of people. In stark contrast, the Roman Catholic natural law theorist opposes it because he thinks that abortion is inherently wrong, irrespective of consequences.”  So far so good, no objections here. He goes on to state how classical and neo-conservative philosophies differ in much the same way.   Kerwick then compares the classical and neocon perspectives in three areas; reason, morality and the State.

Reason/Knowledge
Kerwick states “Neo-conservatives endorse a trans-cultural, trans-historical conception of reason.  Reason…is ultimately capable of rising over and against [tradition].”  Classical conservatives on the other hand, according to Kerwick, believe “…reason is the product of…tradition.  [Reason*] consists not [of]…’self-evident truths’ but in unarticulated feelings, habits and customs….”

In other words, neocons view Reason as existing in nature and paleos view it as existing in the way each specific society conducts its affairs for an undetermined amount of time.  Put another way, neocons believe in Natural Law as where paleos believe in a “what feels right is right” philosophy. I am sure a few Paleos may have an objection or two to Mr. Kerwick’s supposition.

Morality
According to Kerwick, neocons believe “morality is comprised essentially of ‘principles’…of ‘natural’ or ‘human right[s]’.  Uniquely accessible to all rational beings”   
Again, I do not disagree but I do believe he has pegged most paleos incorrectly.  To classical conservatives, Kerwick says, natural rights to not exist.  Rather, “morality is local, tradition constituted.”  Kerwick continues “Whatever principles there may be, they are the offspring of a historically specific, shared way of life….”  Is he truly arguing that paleos are moral relativists?  I am sure some paleos are, but as whole, I think not.

The State
Dr. Kerwick’s final comparison focuses on the nature of a State.  Neocons, he says, believe the State “exists to for the sake of bringing to fruition some premeditated ideal or end, like Freedom, Equality, Virtue, Security, Prosperity or Democracy.”  I disagree.  I, and I think most if not all neocons (and probably paleos too) would agree, that the State exists to perpetuate and safe guard Freedom, Equality, Virtue, Security, Prosperity or Democracy, not to create it or bring it to “fruition.” 
Kerwick states that classical conservatives, in comparison, “reject any notion that there is a single supreme end or hierarchy of ends toward which it is government’s responsibility to direct society. Government is important, and it is important that government should be strong, but its functions are few and its chief function is to preserve order.”  Really, no “supreme end?”  No final arbiter of disputes or conflicts?  Then how can a government “be strong” or “preserve order?” Strength for what and to what end?  And what “order” is being preserved?  The democratic one?  The freedom of each citizen?  Equality?  What? 

Share This

This is a disturbing story indeed.  What is wrong with some rolling papers or a old fashioned pipe?  These kids need to have their heads examined.  Only a first class nut job would think up such a disgusting and immoral past-time.

You may ask, “Why so much mention of the sick-o’s being ’home schooled’?”  And I am not sure, I just noticed that the Houston Chronicle made sure to throw it in at the end of their story.  What is their point?  That home schooling is so inherently evil that it produces pot smoking necrophiliacs?  Maybe the Chronicle will fill us in shortly.   

Share This