Archives

Click here for the previous month's archive.
This page displays the June 2005 archive.
Click here for the next month's archive.

ideology politics

Internet debate

One of my contract jobs entails that I read emails directed to a certain think tank website — which shall be nameless. On the basis of these emails, I can say that

conservatives and liberals can be equally obtuse
the ability to read and comprehend varies inversely with a writer's commitment to the position under attack
people rarely try to convince anyone else of anything; they instead vent, spew, and make disingenuous rhetorical gambits
what I think of as the religious reaction is certainly not limited to people who worship at a particular religion, though these are often as unhinged as any ideologue
a favorite rhetorical gambit is to charge one's interlocutor with using rhetorical gambits

There are a few exceptions to all this, of course. But civilized correspondents on the Internet do not seem to be in the majority.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 1, 2005 | Netizen permalink

Almost every day theology gets another blow from science. So badly has it been battered during the past century, indeed, that educated men now give it little more credence than they give to sorcery, its ancient ally. But squeezing out the logical nonsense does no damage to the poetry; on the contrary, it frees, and, in a sense, dignifies the poetry. Paul's chief doctrines, clearly stated, offend the intelligence intolerably, but clothed and concealed by the gorgeous vestments of the mass they separate themselves from logic entirely and take on something of the witchery of beauty.: H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: Fourth Series, p. 74–75

pets ethics law

Cruelty to animal rights activists

I've killed a chicken with an ax — for reasons of harvest. I've killed kittens with the rather unsettling method of brick in a gunny sack and a throw into a creek — for reasons of population control. I didn't enjoy either task set to me. But that neither clears me nor condemns me. What matters is this: Neither act amounted to the kind of torture that reasonable people would prosecute me for — though I'm sure there are many animal rights activists who would disagree. To these activists I say: think.

A month ago I wrote about the killing of an allegedly stray cat. The man who shot, skinned, and decapitated the cat in a restaurant parking lot was not charged with trespass, theft, and destruction of property, he was charged under an animal cruelty law.

He was let off. And maybe he should have been. It was as a property rights violation that his gruesome act most offends me. And though what he did was gruesome, it was not cruel to the animal. It was cruel to the witnesses and friends of the cat.

Since it is legal to slaughter chickens, cattle, sheep and other familiar animals — as well as hunt a wide array of wild creatures (at least according to established hunting seasons) — it is idiotic to call the slaughter of a pet cruel. Further, it is not against the law to kill a pet, as such. Euthanasia for pets is regularly practiced. Destruction of stray and unwanted dogs and cats and ferrets et al. is even more common. Mass destruction. (Where are the pro-life activists about this? Isn't this a slippery slope practice?) So killing is not cruelty.

Torture is cruelty.

Had Queso's killer skinned the poor cat while it was still alive, that would have been horrible, and that probably should be illegal. The moral weight of non-human animals doesn't prevent their slaughter, but it should prevent their torture.

Unfortunately, people who come to the defense of non-human animals don't seem able to make such distinctions. And so they corrupt our laws with goofy, unrealistic standards and requirements.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 1, 2005 | Netizen permalink

[O]nce a word is not only current but accepted willy-nilly in a meaning, no power on earth can throw it out.: Kingsley Amis, The King's English, of gay

taxation redistribution libertarianism

Between charity and taxation-for-redistribution

In the course of tearing into some Democrats' attempts to pimp themselves for the moral values vote, Paul Jacob has something of interest to say about the nature of a Christian virtue:

It's not charitable, of course, to condemn people for a lack of charity. Charity is something special because it is freely given, not something to be coerced or browbeaten out of someone.

Some might be tempted to criticize this, I suppose, by attacking the centrality of the giver's intention. It's not charity if the recipient doesn't want the largesse, either. Doesn't what the recipient wants matter? Does it really matter what the giver feels?

I'd say yes to both.

Paul Jacob himself contrasts charity with taxation. He really means taxation-and-redistribution. Jacob is right to make the contrast.

Charity is the willing giving of something of value to another, with no expectation of anything more than a thanks in return. Thievery is the taking of something one wants from someone else, without permission. Taxation is the socialized version of thievery; the redistribution part of the process might be considered the socialized analogue to private charity, but since there is more of a middle-man in place in the process, we realize that more than a thanks is expected; a vote for the political supporter of the process is expected, and often gathered.

Between charity and the taxation-and-redistribution racket is market exchange. I give up a good to you so that you will give up a different good to me. We both give up something; we both gain something. This is the middle ground between charity and thievery, and a respectable middle ground it is. Charity is respectable, too, but one should not expect society to run on it. It helps oil the wheels, but the wheels turn on the principle of exchange.

And what of thievery? It goes on all around us. We try to minimize it . . . except in one domain, politics. In politics, the taxation-and-redistribution racket goes on and on. Why not? Taxation is thought to be necessary for civilization to crunch along. Redistribution is something many people have grown to need, and many more people to crave, each wanting to receive more in benefits than in taxes paid. Politicians play at the margins of the perception of that ideal compromise, trying to promise to each group to either keep their taxes down or their redistributed benefits up. And since it is all so complicated, people feel that it is impossible to change in toto, and thus support only marginal changes in the complexion of that basic deal.

Paul Jacob pillories Democrats for pretending to demonstrate charity by their support for taxation and redistribution. Republicans, it seems to me, by attacking marginal tax rates and a tax here and there, but rarely daring to cut redistribution, are just as contemptible, though, are they not?

Whichever party is in power, we know that the basic con game goes on. It's just the distribution of burdens and benefits that shifts a bit.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 5, 2005 | Netizen permalink

In the ordinary course of human events, great nations appear to have had but one life.: F. Marion Crawford, Ave Roma Immortalis, p. 50

Nazism style coolness see: A Disturbing Form of Hip

This is cool?

Nazi stylings are on the rise in Germany, or so says Spiegel Online. Let us now reassert an old truth: kids are basically herd animals, thinking that joining a movement of other kids makes them cool. But if anyone could choose a sillier, less cool look (without putting on a full bozo costume, red nose and hair and all), it's not this guy:

He looks like a pallbearer for Hitler's lost testicle.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 5, 2005 | Netizen permalink

While it has continually increased that pressure of population which has been a cause of progress, excess of fertility, has been among the chief factors in the production of these miseries, and must long continue to be such. . . . [A] higher development of mind, brought about by still increasing pressure of population, and still greater cerebral activity entailed by it, will gradually diminish the fertility, until the excess practically disappears: the highest degree of individuation entailing the lowest degree of reproduction.: Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Ethics, Part III, "The Inductions of Ethics," p. 554

books conservatism libertarianism see: Rand, Woods, Spencer, Freud?

Harmful books and idiotic lists

Human Events's Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries provides a good look into the conservative mind:

Marx & Engels: The Communist Manifesto
Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf
Mao Zedong: The Little Red Book
Alfred Kinsey: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
John Dewey: Democracy and Education
Karl Marx: Das Kapital
Betty Friedan: The Feminine Mystique
Auguste Comte: The Course of Positive Philosophy
Friedrich Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil
John Maynard Keynes: General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

The explanations for each book are instructive in a back-handed sort of way: the judges don't tell us whether Kinsey was wrong in his report, just harmful; Nietzsche's God is dead thesis/fantasy gets attention, and his work is dismissed with a Nazis loved Nietzsche ploy. The fact that Nietzsche himself hated both anti-semitism and German nationalism isn't worth a mention.

The Honorable Mention list includes On Liberty by J.S. Mill. At this point my usual revulsion for conservatism rears its ug . . . elegant and beautiful head.

I haven't read much of the commentary on the Web about this list. One particularly idiotic comment by Ralph E. Luker was enough for me. On both of two counter-lists he included novels by Ayn Rand as harmful, and though I tend to dislike Rand as much as any libertarian can, that inclusion seems pretty idiotic. What has her effect been on the world? Alan Greenspan in charge of the Fed? A little more tolerance in the general culture for individualism? (How horrid!)

More nincompoopish yet is the inclusion of Herbert Spencer's The Evolution of Society. This title is a compilation by (I think) the great iconoclastic sociologist Stanslav Andreski, and was used a bit in college courses in the '70s. Wow. Some harmful influence! Since Spencer was pretty much reviled throughout the 20th century, his harm must've occurred in the 19th, when he fought British imperialism and the rise of socialism. I'll remember not to look for more judgments by Mr. Luker.

Oh, Luker's also one of those people who spell Adolf Hitler's name with a ph instead of an f — perhaps he's Ph imbalanced. I know I'm feeling a bit acidic after reading him.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 6, 2005 | Netizen permalink

Meridians were made for man, not man for meridians.: William Willet, on his proposed Daylight Saving Time

puns sex

On being the recipient of a pun

The pun is too often derided. I've long enjoyed making them, and, turnabout always being fair, I usually receive them well, too.

But generally the best puns are somewhat hidden, in the underbrush of everyday life and intercourse, as it were. Here is a good example, quite true, where I was the recipient of the witticism.

I was at a pub that sold hard liquor, with friends. Not flush of funds in those days, I inevitably asked questions as to price, even when it would otherwise be gauche to do so. And so, after my friends had ordered their drinks, I asked the lovely waitress the inevitable question. What would be the price of a sloe screw?

Without missing a beat, she answered, with an arched eyebrow: Would that be up against the wall?

Right here, I said, pointing to the table, will do. We smiled. She told me the price, I ordered, and judged it an altogether enjoyable interchange, based on the acceptance of a pun.

I was once lost in Seattle, and drove into a less-than-wealthy neighborhood. I decided to ask for directions. An attractive if somewhat underdressed woman was standing on the street corner. I pulled up and rolled down my window. Wanna date? she asked me. I took a moment, basking in the possibilities, and her not inconsiderable charms. Sure, I responded. Dutch treat?

She walked away. The differing meanings of the word date did not conjure up in her soul any great degree of levity. And as far as intercourse was concerned, witty banter was not the type she had in mind.

As for directions, I had to muddle on without them. I did eventually leave Seattle.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 9, 2005 | Netizen permalink

[A] democracy can function only in a society that is fairly prosperous, and in which privileges obtained through political influence are not indispensible for making a decent living. Despotism, however, cannot ensure peace for periods exceeding the length of one reign unless it is based on an undisputed rule of inheritance.: Stanislav Andreski, Parasitism and Subversion: The Case of Latin America

labor science

A scientists' Top Ten list

The Scientist surveyed some scientists, around the world, to find out where the best places were to work. To do this, they asked the study participants what their Top Ten Factors for good working environment were. At first glance, the results seem unexceptionable:

Top 10 Factors

Work is personally satisfying

Contributions to the team are appreciated

Company has high ethical standards

Colleagues do job with integrity and professionalism

Company research mission is logical and practical

Employees are included in decision-making that affects them

Improvements in capabilities/performance are recognized

Company offers adequate healthcare benefits

Company is concerned about maintaining morale

Company fosters spirit of teamwork

I remember, in a non-scientific but allegedly professional environment, advising a boss on ways to make his laborers' jobs more satisfying. I referenced the concept of flow. And I remember his response: he didn't think he had any good reason to go out of his way to make work flow, or make his laborers' work more satisfying. He hired people to do a job, and he expected the job to be done, and . . . well, you have probably come across bosses who were as rigid and foolish as this.

Of course, that boss also

tended not to appreciate contributions to his teams

did not have high ethical standards

encouraged deceit, and planned and scheduled in a chaotic fashion

kept straining the resources beyond the basic core business purpose

made decisions for employees with a minimum of negotiation and a maximum of take-it-or-leave-it

did not offer any health care plan

and so on. Not surprisingly, in this outfit, a majority of the workers rebelled, and a huge turnover occurred within the space of a year of my bringing the subject up.

It is interesting that Americans in The Scientist's survey ranked employer-provided health care at a far higher rate than did European scientists. Why? Because in Europe and most of the rest of the world, employers have little to do with health care.

The idea of including health care insurance and payments in one's basic wage contract has always seemed absurd to me. It is interesting to see American scientists fall into the same trap that so many regular Americans fall into. It's a very cumbersome system. One should want to have one's safety net quite distinct from one's form of employment. Having one's safety net actually linked to employment is bizarre.

Why do we in America suffer from this idiotic expectation? Because of wartime wage-and-price controls more than a half century dead. When war suppliers in World War II couldn't attract enough workers with higher wages (which were prohibited) they found a loophole in offering another benefit: health insurance. After a period of limbo, the loophole was written into law with a tax write-off. For corporations. Not for individuals. So there's an economic advantage, sort of, written into the system by an idiotic tax code, to obtain health insurance from one's place of work.

But of course small outfits are at a disadvantage, in terms of paperwork costs, to provide it for their employees. So it falls to individuals, who often find it hard to save for everyday health care needs and insure for large ones. Besides, they become envious and have their whole mindset corrupted by the bennies that people for big companies get.

Immediately, the U.S. should offer the tax benefit for medical savings and insurance to everyone. And, over the next ten years, sunset the existing tax benefits for companies. And then move, slowly, to a flatter tax where this kind of social engineering is a thing of the past.

But I wonder, would scientists go along with such a plan? Are they addicted to their Big Company approach to social issues? Could they see the advantages, or are they just as clueless as most Americans?

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 13, 2005 | Netizen permalink

To understand a project means to understand it in terms of reasons for it — whether reasonable or not.: Paul Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary

grammar writing

When IF gives way to WERE alone

Were I at all considerate of the American booboisie, I would have begun this sentence with an if. Had I much interest in writing for the rabble, and letting them determine all my figures of speech and turns of phrase, then I would write differently. I might say something like this:

If I were inconsiderate of the much-abused American reader, I would have begun this sentence without an if.

But I am who I am, and I like the concision gained by eliding the if in subjunctive if/were constructions.

It's true, the subjunctive rarely gets taught in American schools, and the many ways of the subjunctive are lost on American readers. So I suppose my friend may have a point in saying that a sentence beginning with were might indicate to many readers that a question is being asked.

But really: I hazard that few intelligent readers have trouble reading subjunctive phrases eliding the if. Were they utterly idiotic, and devoid of grammatical sense, then perhaps. But I believe even the untutored have a grammatical sense, and — unlearned though they may be — I believe most can quickly catch on, and learn the meaning before the sentence has ended.

So I will continue to use less-than-common subjunctive phrasings. They sound better to me. They are more concise.

How un-American!

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 14, 2005 | Netizen permalink

Once a philosopher, twice a pervert.: Voltaire, on being invited to a second orgy

self photography

Snooty

I've long said that a good photographer is a critic with a knack for technology. The eye frames reality in such a way, and the finger snaps the shot. It's the critical intelligence that enables the photographer to know which scene to frame, and shoot.

For photographic portraiture, on the other hand, the key is to be more than a critic; it is to be psychologist. How can you get the camera to frame the image of a person in such a way as to capture that person's most important features?

A girlfriend of mine, years ago, was one of the lovelier young women I knew. But none of the pictures of her captured her beauty. They captured her cuteness and friendliness, yes. But they made her seem less than lovely, almost plain.

A good photographer, I thought, could have captured the beauty that I saw. (And I wasn't alone in thinking her beautiful; I had competition for her attention.)

Most people don't like pictures of themselves. We each see ourselves in a mirror, which distorts our image in a peculiar way. Further, the qualities in ourselves that our friends see, and like, aren't necessarily the qualities that we like in ourselves.

This is certainly true in my case. I don't believe any of my friends like the photo of me on Instead of a Blog (which I reproduce here). It is too snooty.

But it is one of the few pictures of me that I like of myself. It was taken by a quasi-professional photographer, but I cropped it. Indeed, before cropping it, I also tilted it a bit. To increase the snootiness factor.

Now, why would a person wish to do that?

Well, what I write on Instead of a Blog is not meant to present the charitable aspect of myself. To my friends and family I'm a calm, reasonable, friendly, empathic person.

To my readers, I'm a person (in the words of one reader) who doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Of course, I do suffer many fools gladly. In person. I'm quite patient and tolerant. Why, some of my best friends are fools!

But in print, I tend to say more of what's on my mind, and do not care if I offend even some of my friends and family. They read at a certain amount of peril. I'm apt to write something about some idea to which they remain committed.

So, if in the picture I seem snooty, that seems apt.

When I was very young, a boss once remonstrated me for saying critical things about some ideology or religion or another. He said, All ideas are alike, really. They're all equally valid.

Well, no. I had trouble containing my incredulity and laughter.

But I did understand what he was trying to say, and to some degree I agreed. On the job, and in everyday discourse, one has to (at least occasionally) censor oneself. I do value kindness, and one should, often, be kind to kind people who believe even seemingly vile untrue things.

This neighborly rule is one thing; the public arena another. Those who write, either professionally, or merely blogging, should have other standards. I think truth is a good one.

Which may be why I look down at the reader in that picture. Credo: Mundus vult decipi. The bulk of humanity has great trouble subjecting their thoughts to any criticism, preferring, instead, to go on believing things for idiotic reasons. How can I help but look a little down on some readers, if not all? My self-identification, surely my self-stylization, is that of a person who does not believe in things just because parents or bosses or the leaders of my group (whatever that is) say they believe them. Beliefs should be challenged, thoughts criticized. Metacredo: How a person believes can be more important than what a person believes. And that how should be in evidence in my arguments. (Of course, the rhetoric of inquiry often does differ from the rhetoric of conclusions. In the near future I may endeavor to engage more in the former than the latter.)

I do not feel ashamed for preferring a snooty look for my own picture. I feel ashamed when I don't live up to that picture.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 19, 2005 | Netizen permalink

Far from the voluntary being derivable from the involuntary, it is, on the contrary, the understanding of the voluntary which comes first in man.: Paul Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary

filibuster Constitution

Unclear option

The so-called nuclear option is now apparently history. The Democrats' hated bête noir, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, is now D.C. Circuit Court bound. Apparently fearing a major showdown, middle-of-the-road Democrats caved and let the Republicans have their way. The whole issue is ancient history, by modern news standards.

And the people sigh with relief.

From what I could tell, most Americans were befuddled by talk of the nuclear option. The option seemed more unclear than nuclear.

It was all about the filibuster, a parliamentary maneuver using off-the-point talk to avoid voting on an issue. The Senate has had the filibuster since 1806. The House got rid of it in 1842.

Some like to call it extra-Constitutional, since it ain't in the Constitution. Like any self-imposed rule, it can be changed. And in 1917 a way to close the filibuster was devised, requiring two-thirds voting to close debate. This was later revised, making the halt of a filibuster even harder. The recent move to scuttle a filibuster probably strikes moderate Democrats as less dangerous than partisan war over rules.

For my part, I would like to have asked appointee Janice Rogers Brown what she thought about it all. She's a stickler for the Constitution, and has done important work reasserting the Constitution's takings clause, thus limiting government power to steal citizens' property.

How does she view the filibuster? Would she see it as a legitimate tool for minority Senators to prevent their opponents from getting everything they want? Or is it being used to scuttle the Constitutional directive for the Senate to give advice and consent on judicial appointments?

As for me, this is one issue I'm with the bulk of Americans: it still seems a bit unclear.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 21, 2005 | Netizen permalink

Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For it if prosper, none dare call it treason.: Sir John Harrington

evolution See: Individuality, Evolution, and Dancing

The levels where selection theory operates

Listening to scientists talk, or even blog, is not always as enlightening as it should be. Ricki Lewis, writing on The Scientist's media blog, asks What is the unit of evoluion, the level of life upon which natural selection acts?

Though her ruminations are mildly interesting — especially when they get to the minutia of research — at no point did she get me to take her question seriously.

Why?

Because the answer is: any level that natural selection operates on is relevant to the biological sciences, and evolution likely depends on the co-ordinated operations of several — perhaps all — levels. There is no one level of life affected by system loops that can have a natural selection effect.

Individuals and groups both met with natural selection analysis by Darwin and Spencer, and Spencer also treated habits and behaviors from a natural selection perspective.

The genetic level of explanation, of course, was an important breakthrough. But its development did not entail the junking of previous theories of group and individual selection. Revision, to some extent; yes. But rejection? No.

And why not?

Because the world is complex enough to have many levels of systemic behavior, and on each of these levels natural selection processes may be applicable.

Still, thanks, Ms. Lewis, for reminding us that evolutionists can dance.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 21, 2005 | Netizen permalink

I pay all my bills — just ask any collection agency.: James Monteith

evolution ethics See: The Taxonomic Failure of Evolutionary Theory

Evolutionary Ethics?

Evolution was a major blow to Christianity. The discovery that the world is much older than the Bible alleged convinced quite a few people that the Bible was simply wrong. The evidence of the geological record seemed firmer than the words written in books long ago. Explanations for evolutionary change that required no deity bolstered the reasons many had for rejecting Christianity in whole or in part. The better arguments were the more recent arguments. The old myths proved untrue.

No wonder, then, that many contemporary Christians keep on attacking evolutionary thought, as well as the evolutionists themselves. On Church and State 101, the site's blogger advanced yet another nutball argument against evolutionary ideas. He basically argued that evolutionists — disbelievers in the idea of special creation — have no basis for a principle prohibiting slavery. I responded in the site's comments section, which I repeat here in case the blogger tires of my post's presence on his site:

Slavery was accepted in Biblical times, and Paul's advice to Philemon was, basically, treat your slave Onesimus nicely, not set him free. I suppose Deuteronomy has some talk of slavery in it somewhere, but I note that the Ten Commandments doesn't list Thou shalt not enslave an innocent man. Admittedly, the LORD in Joshua and elsewhere seemed to prefer mass slaughter and genocide in the conquest of the Canaanites rather than enslaving them. (Slavery was often a softer form of conquest, in war. This is the usual historical origin of slavery. None of our talk really mentions debt bondage or conscription — other forms of slavery — so lets continue to ignore them.)
Now, as for our evolutionary origins. Well. So we descended — or ascended! — from apes, and even now are easily categorizable as primates. So what, exactly, is the moral import of this? We obviously have complex languages, technologies, and a myriad options for living, something that can't be said of other species. Our differences are obvious. Our societies are far more complex (more evolved, if you will), and are dependent on rules as well as customs. Slavery was common in earlier history (for instance, in the Levant in Biblical times, as stated above), and given all sorts of justifications. But morals are largely standards cultivated to improve our lot. Slavery does not improve our lot. Neither do wars of conquest, prohibitions of trade, and many other things. Civilized people eschew slaverey. For good reason.
The arguments for human liberty, for individual liberty (and thus against slavery) were made quite clearly by early evolutionist Herbert Spencer. They are not reductionist in the sense used in the original post (which was concocted, after all, to deny evolutionists any moral ground). They are nuanced, they fit life as we live it, and thus must really annoy simpletons. Spencer believed there were no knock down arguments in ethics, and the crude nature of the argument under consideration makes me marvel, once again, at his civilized approach compared to bullying, silly maneuvers so common amongst contemporary Christians.
And it is truly droll to see a Christian arguing from the Bible against slavery. The Bible is quite ambiguous on slavery, as I indicated above. More ambiguous than Spencer was, that's for sure!

My interlocutor responded dismissively and with little courtesy, precisely as one has come to expect from Christians on the Internet. His treatment of the other commentator on his site was arguably worse. I resumed the argument on Instead of a Blog.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 23, 2005 | Netizen permalink

Why bother writing a new one? Why not just give the Iraqis ours? We're not using it.: James Monteith on the new Iraqi Constitution.

politics rhetoric See: Rove Criticizes Liberals on 9/11

Moderation and restraint

I don't know about you, said the demagogue Karl Rove, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Of course not. I didn't feel them either. But, between my immediate reaction and my recommendations for action, I applied some thought.

Karl Rove has no thoughts that would, apparently, commend moderation. Or restraint. Surprise, surprise.

Actually, when I first learned of the attack, I was in bed. I rolled over, thinking, Well, it's finally happened. I didn't get angry until I saw the destruction played over and over on TV.

But then I began to reflect, and I called up my initial reaction to the news. There was nothing really surprising in all this. Though innocents died in the fall the towers, America itself (as represented by its wayward government) was anything but innocent — had engaged in fifty years of bad foreign policy that elicited such an attack — and so moving forward should have been done with some humility. And care.

Ha! Not likely in America, where foreign policy is determined by the hallucinations of a groggy giant.

It's amusing the way Rove talked about moderation and restraint, though. One doesn't feel moderation and restraint; one practices them. Rove appears to have moved into Bush Country. Perhaps Rove has been learning incoherence from Bush just as Bush has learned evil from Rove.

As for me, I'm all for moderation when moderation means proportion. There was no way I would have counselled the American government to do nothing about 9/11; that wouldn't have been proportional. But do something irrelevant, like attack Iraq? I wasn't a fool. I wasn't a knave.

But that doesn't mean Rove and Bush and Cheney weren't fools and knaves of their own special kind. The immoderate, unrestrained kind.

In the same speech, Rove also attacked a messenger rather than a message. He picked on liberal Senator Richard J. Durbin's remarks comparing American treatment of detainees with that of Nazis, Soviets, and other mad regimes. Durbin's remakr was over the top, perhaps, but Rove didn't address the verity of the statement, merely its utility: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Well, no more needs be said about the integrity of conservatives, then, either. If verity demands no comment, while utility remains the sole focus, then, we know what such men think of truthfulness. And we know how to trust them in the future.

That is, we don't — not on any matter regarding the truth.

T i m o W i r k m a n V i r k k a l a | June 25, 2005 | Netizen permalink

As there must be moderation in other things, so there must be moderation in self-criticism. Perpetual contemplation of our own actions produces a morbid consciousness, quite unlike that normal consciousness accompanying right actions spontaneously done; and from a state of unstable equilibrium long maintained by effort, there is apt to be a fall towards stable equilibrium, in which the primitive nature re-asserts itself. Retrogression rather than progression may hence result.: Herbert Spencer, Principles of Ethics, Part III, The Ethics of Individual Life, concl. paragraph.