|
|
Friday, November 29, 2002You always know when you hit a nerve with the pacifists when they write equally long op-eds. Written in response to my 19 November op-ed in the Free Lance-Star, the writer has a few comments to make. I'll narrow his rebuttal down to the major points: In his statement "war for just reasons is perfectly moral because it presupposes violence for just goals," I would certainly be interested in knowing who determines the just reasons. Certainly not Saddam Hussein! But beyond this, George Weigel's defense of justice over pacifism is fairly clear. The United States has not used WMD against the citizens of say, Connecticut. Nor has our government engaged in starving its own people in order to build several White Houses across the country. Nor have we been driven into abject poverty in order to retool our armed forces. Justice you ask? Does this really need an answer? Of course it does, and the answer is simple. Are these actions - the starvation of the Iraqi people, the wanton excess of Saddam Hussein in rebuilding his personal domains, and the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction - the definition of justice? Clearly not. Therefore, we have an obligation to stop this before it is too late. Also, are those reasons because Saddam Hussein killed Iraqi Kurds who rebelled against his government? If that is the case, we should immediately go to war against Turkey, a nation that is systematically hunting down and killing (does it matter by chemicals or bullets) Turkish Kurds in open rebellion against the Turkish government. If it is of any consequence, even the Kurds in Turkey don't support the PDK. And what the Turkish regime has done to Armenian Catholics is detestable. Then again, who am I to define a just cause when I see one. As previously mentioned, an appeal to our fears is used to turn us against opposing views. The "clock is ticking overseas," "that it is Saddam who is pursuing the option of death rather than removing his weapons of mass destruction," and "the price of not carrying out our mission is too costly to allow" play to our deepest emotion--the fear of death and suffering. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz (a Chaldean Catholic I might add) has already signalled that "no Arab country is free of the threat (of war), even if it takes part alongside America in the aggression against Iraq" if attacked by the Unites States. This saber rattling is echoed not only by Iraqi dissidents, but by the Iraqi regime itself. By denying that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, you force the region to play a waiting game of Russian Roulette in order to ease the consciences of modern-day Neville Chamberlain's. We know Saddam rules an economically crippled nation, and his military forces are a mere shadow of the forces we readily defeated in 1991. We know that time is not against us. We have the most powerful armed forces the world has ever seen. We have an intelligence capability (economic, diplomatic, military) surpassed by no other. Obviously, in the opinion of the President and his staff (and former President Clinton and his administration), Saddam still possesses and is continuing to aquire WMD. I would submit that the President knows a bit more than the 'general public' when it comes to Saddam's WMD capability. By arguing otherwise, we are in effect claiming to trust Saddam over President Bush. While I know that the ultra-leftists relish such a comparison, that is utterly ridiculous to common sense - and yes, to notions of justice as well. We will prevail in this war. There is no doubt about that. And America's military men and women will be killed and maimed for a war that has had to be "sold" to the country's citizenry. That alone should make thinking men and women take pause in their support for this upcoming war. And thus the thrust of the argument. Rather than expounding on how the vast majority of the American public are convinced that the Iraqi dictator needs to go, it may be better to show exactly how we are at the point of throwing down 'the last card'. For eleven years we have fooled around with Saddam. Saddam has refused to comply with a single U.N. resolution other than by force. Saddam has demonstrated a need and capacity for warehousing WMD; chemical, nuclear, and biological. Saddam has starved his own people and refurbished his own palaces to retool for war. Against whom? The pre-emption is not America's, rather our actions are against the Iraqi presumption to conduct war against our allies in the Middle East. I have to note that the argument against 'just war' is always prefaced by the argument of who exactly determines justice. Note further that the op-ed doesn't reject the notion of just war, only that the concept is unevenly applied. In the case of the Middle East, between Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, which government merits the most attention? Furthermore, if our concepts of justice are not absolute, then how then are we able to identify other cases of injustice in places such as Turkey, Israel, et al.? It's a hollow argument against justice, and I think the author knows it. These were all arguments that were brought up during the 19 November debate at Mary Washington. Thanks to all from the area who showed up to make it such a huge success. I'm sure that the debate in the public square will continue. . . Monday, November 25, 2002Save Our Shelter has decided to go all out in its efforts to pressure the Fredericksburg City Council into approving a site within the city limits. Best o' luck, lads. And just what is the etymology of the name "Shaun"? Well it's quite simple really. . .
Wednesday, November 06, 2002'The Pelagian Drinking Song' Pelagius lived at Kardanoel And taught a doctrine there How, whether you went to heaven or to hell It was your own affair. It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy, But was your own affair. No, he didn't believe In Adam and Eve He put no faith therein! His doubts began With the Fall of Man And he laughed at Original Sin. With my row-ti-tow Ti-oodly-ow He laughed at original sin. Then came the bishop of old Auxerre Germanus was his name He tore great handfuls out of his hair And he called Pelagius shame. And with his stout Episcopal staff So thoroughly whacked and banged The heretics all, both short and tall -- They rather had been hanged. Oh he whacked them hard, and he banged them long Upon each and all occasions Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong Their orthodox persuasions. With my row-ti-tow Ti-oodly-ow Their orthodox persuasions. Now the faith is old and the Devil bold Exceedingly bold indeed. And the masses of doubt that are floating about Would smother a mortal creed. But we that sit in a sturdy youth And still can drink strong ale Let us put it away to infallible truth That always shall prevail. And thank the Lord For the temporal sword And howling heretics too. And all good things Our Christendom brings But especially barley brew! With my row-ti-tow Ti-oodly-ow Especially barley brew! -- Hillaire Belloc Disturbingly accurate. . .
I am currently writing a paper on the rehabilitation of Kantian epistemology for quantum physics and relativity theory. This is a small accumulation of my findings online, and there doesn't appear to be much beyond a dismissal of Kant because space and time - formally immutable superstructures within which everything exists - have been shown by quantum physics and relativity theory to be affected by movement and gravity, thereby making them both objects. Of course, there are a few notable exceptions such as this website entitled the Friesian School:
In short, Einstein and Kant were remarkably similar in their 'philosophies of science' so to speak. This having been said, Bell Theorem (and Schrodinger's Cat before it) still pose a distinct problem by violating principles of relativity theory. More modern experiments showing some a breakdown of relativity on small-scale experimental levels indicate that Einstein qua Kant may be right to an extent, but not completely. Does this mean that we will have to wait for superstring theory before we can have a comprehensive epistemology? Or can critical philosophy point the way towards a synthesis between relativity and quantum physics? More to come. . .
|
|
JEFFERSONIAD POLL: Whom do you support for Virginia Attorney General?1) John Brownlee2) Ken Cuccinelli AboutShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia.ContactThe Jeffersoniad
ArchivesMarch 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009
|
|
