newcity
Well let's try this
This is a test
My apologies to those who read this blog; I typically write in "Word" then cut and paste to the blog. Apparently the formats don't match, so paragraph separations, etc. don't come over. I'll work on that!
Jonah Goldberg has an excellent piece in "National Review Online" (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp) which does a great job of showing why conservatives just don’t get it. His article deals with the relative (de)merits of racism vs. sexism, and it’s built on the typical conservative view of history as a snapshot of what’s happening TODAY.
Jonah’s a very nice guy. I’ve written him on occasion, and he’s even sent me greetings from Cosmo, the wonderdog. I have it on good authority he’s married to a woman.
But he’s hopelessly confused (as are conservatives in general) about the liberal view on racism and sexism. He quotes NOW President Terry O’Neill as saying that racism and sexism are the same thing; but his own quote doesn’t have her as saying that. He had to erect a strawman to make it APPEAR feminists think sexism is identical to racism. It’s not.
Sexism, and racism are forms of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the absurd notion that some simple idea can be used to explain very complex facts. “Blacks are inferior”; “women should stay at home”; “God did it in 6 days” are all examples. Shelby Steele recently wrote in the “WSJ” that racists have a profound lack of imagination; they can’t see themselves in someone else’s shoes. Fundamentalism is lack of imagination writ large. (Yes I know my idea might appear to some to be fundamentalist itself. But that dog won’t hunt).
Women can serve in combat, as fighter pilots. They make great physicists, engineers, and chemists. They’ve been astronauts, and in my own service, the Coast Guard, coxswain boats with the best of ‘em. Blacks do the same. Trent Lott, and earlier conservatives preached for so long this was impossible that it became national policy. Conservatives have been so wrong for so long about so many things, it’s difficult to take them seriously when they DO have a point; if they ever have one.
And they’ve been wrong on deep and profound issues. When Trent Lott supported a Governor who didn’t want to ban lynching, how can conservatives BEGIN to explain that? Conservatives kept women out of America’s best colleges until the 70’s. How can they explain THAT?
I’m no feminist prude. I think women are sexy as hell, and would never want to banish the discussion of sex from public life. But conservatives think women are ONLY about sex. They didn’t want women to have the right to vote. They didn’t want them given equal rights to work. They didn’t want them to be given protection from sexual harassment. Now they complain about marginalia. They simply can’t accept women as equals. It’s ironic some of the loudest complainers (Phyllis Schlafly, that female Uncle Tom is a prime example) are women. As someone once wrote, it’s strange to see women taking public positions that women shouldn’t be taking public positions.
The ‘human person’ called woman is FIRST a human being, THEN a woman. That’s why they have HUMAN rights. While we can’t forget sex (nor should we), it shouldn’t be the telescope that society sees women through. Since conservatives have focused on race and sex so often, legislation to banish discrimination has had to do likewise. It’s conservatism that forced law to relinquish being color and sex blind, not liberalism.
Conservatives have lost all the important battles. Blacks can vote. Women can be fighter pilots. And the reason they lost them was because they were wrong. The great genius of conservatives is that they’re better at marketing than liberals are. Many young women would be appalled at Jeremiah Denton’s view of women (as a senator, he opposed marital rape legislation because ‘husbands deserve a little piece of ass every now and again’). They often forget how difficult it was to get the rights they now take for granted. While Jessica Gavora, Jonah’s wife, writes for conservative magazines, she forgets that 30 years ago, she wouldn’t even have gone to college.
But conservatives have won the war. Most Americans are conservative (or center right). Conservatives have been very successful at creating selective amnesia in the U. S. They’ve elected both houses of Congress, and the President. The Supreme Court will soon be theirs. By convincing Americans that the battle for individual rights is for ‘minorities’, they’ve convinced working Americans that individual rights are not worth fighting for.
Liberals have achieved great things. But there are battles to be fought. America is a more just place because of liberalism; even conservatives take for granted the rights liberals won for everyone.
So the creationists are on the warpath against science again, I see. The "National Review", which in conservative circles passes for a peer reviewed science journal, weighs in with an editorial by John West, Jr. at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-west121702.asp
He crows about the recent creationist victory in Ohio where creationists managed to get ‘criticism’ of Darwin’s theory legitimized. He also cites the ‘tremendous’ number of scientists (150) in the past few years who’ve signed statements saying the origins of life are too complex to have happed by chance. Of course, “Time” magazine a few years ago in an issue addressing creationism, pointed out that, of the 480,000 life and earth scientists, about 5% are creationists. Big deal.
West and other religious fanatics (like Osama Bin Laden who also opposes evolution) ignore the fact their view of reality isn’t science. While West pretends the shoddy way evolution is taught undermines its credibility (as if this subject is different than any other taught in schools), this hardly is a way to evaluate whether a theory is good science.
His fascination with ‘scientists’ like Dembski, Behe, etc, also ignores the fact none of these guys have told us HOW creationism/intelligent design works. As Michael Turner points out in a recent issue of “Scientific American” about the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, ‘if it can’t be tested, it isn’t science’.
The role of science is to develop mechanisms. Mechanisms…theories…are ideas about HOW things happen. Intelligent design is a failure. Even its most ardent supporters have NO idea about how intelligence does anything. My dog is intelligent, but can’t build a universe. While creationists say intelligence is involved in complexity, they ignore the fact that the most intelligent carpenter uses hammer and nails, i.e., the forces of nature. Einstein couldn’t build a dollhouse using magic. But creationists think, somehow, we all got here without evolution, or any other NATURAL force.
It’s no accident that bin Laden doesn’t like evolution. He’s an enemy of civilization and prefers medieval explanations for events in the world. It’s very disappointing to see conservatives also pushing a regressive view of the world. Science works. Science is successful because it’s limited. It does not explain why we are here. It does not determine morals. If your theology teaches grass is pink, so all those who think it’s green are atheists, that’s a problem for your religion. If you believe the earth is ‘created’ by god, according to some mythical incantation from the bible, that’s your problem, too.
South Korea seems to be all abuzz with anti-Americanism due to the acquittal of 2 American servicemen who hit and killed 2 Korean children. It’s unfortunate these accidents happen. Apparently, pedestrian vs. auto accidents are fairly common in Korea, and these poor kids just happen to be the latest victims.
In the last few days, 300,000 S. Koreans marched in a candlelight procession (described by the “Korea Times” as an ‘anti-American’ march) to protest the “SOFA” (status of forces agreement) between the US and Korea. This agreement, like one we have with Japan, isolates US service personnel from local courts.
Whether or not this is a good thing (I don’t think I’d be too happy if British or German soldiers couldn’t be tried in US courts for their actions here), the fact is, South Koreans seem to have a very short, and selective memory about US activities in their country. We are the only buffer they have against the murderous North. North Korea has 1.2 million troops who are fed on the backs of 2 million corpses of those who’ve starved in N. Korea to feed the military. I’m an engineer in the semiconductor industry. I can’t see how agitating against the presence of US troops is going to encourage investors to take a chance on Korean IC manufacturers. If the US leaves, so will the money.
But, it’s up to the Koreans. I’d be happy to bring back the 37,000 US troops in Korea. I’d be happy to have the Korean IC manufacturing industry collapse for the foolishness of arrogant Korean demagogues. All the Koreans have to do is ask us to leave. We will.
Then the party can start.
While the President has not yet, according to polls, made a convincing case for war against Iraq, one point should be clarified: this war, if and when it starts, is not about oil. In fact, the economics make it almost impossible for the US to attack Iraq on that basis.
There are 2 possibilities if this war is for oil; the price goes up, or the price goes down. Bush is an oil man; of that there is no question. What the bleaters of the ‘blood for oil’ mantra forget is that oil company profits INCREASE with increasing oil prices. If they think the war is for ‘cheap oil’, they ignore the fact that if the US ‘controls’ Iraqi oil, and guts the market, the first folks to feel it will be Bush’s friends.
But the mantra chanters also ignore the fact that LUKOIL of Russia, and several French oil companies have signed contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields. And the US has promised them these contracts will be honored if there’s a ‘regime change’ in Iraq. So the US does not get cheap oil; it does not get expensive oil. It gets no oil at all from war against Iraq. While the Iraqis recently cancelled LUKOIL’s contracts, that’s their fault, not ours.
I did not vote for Bush, and have serious reservations about his domestic social agenda. But the ‘oil for blood’ crowd has no credibility. If we stay away from war, let’s do it on the basis of a critical analysis of the situation, not on bumpersticker ideology.
