Content by von
Posted at 1:01pm on Jan. 24, 2006 Comment on RedHot Debate
By von
Dale writes:
The problem I have with it boils down to... determined by who? By doctors? Lord knows, one can find doctors on any side of an issue, and sometimes they can be swayed by political ideology or by financial considerations or by things other than purely medical considerations. They are human, after all, as fallible as any of us. Who choses which doctors? Who chooses the choosers?
If there was truly a way to come to a clinical, dispassionate, and truly scientific evaluation, I would agree that, in general, I have no objections, much like Erick. But in practicality, such evaluations are elusive, experts will disagree, and those adjucating the decision can have agendas beyond the fate of the person hanging in the balance.
I'd prefer to have a system where, in such cases, society acted to give the benefit of any doubt to the side of life.
I don't want to quibble with either side in this debate, but I do want to point out that these very same concerns implicate the debate over the death penalty. Indeed, we can reformulate Dale's point quite neatly as follows:
The problem I have with it boils down to... determined by who? By lawyers? Lord knows, one can find lawyers on any side of an issue, and sometimes they can be swayed by political ideology or by financial considerations or by things other than purely medical considerations. They are human, after all, as fallible as any of us. Who choses which lawyers? Who chooses the choosers?
If there was truly a way to come to a clinical, dispassionate, and truly scientific evaluation of an accused guilt or innocence, I would agree that, in general, I have no objections, much like Erick. But in practicality, such evaluations are elusive, experts will disagree, and those adjucating the decision can have agendas beyond the fate of the person hanging in the balance.
I'd prefer to have a system where, in such cases, society acted to give the benefit of any doubt to the side of life.
I don't suggest, by the bye, that Dale fails to appreciate the parallel. Nor do I intend to suggest anything about my own views on either subject; only that the parallel is interesting.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:37pm on Aug. 25, 2005 On Iraq: The Belgravia Dispatch's Latest
By von
Greg Djerejian has a must read on the current situation in Iraq, the problems with our current approach, and the fallacy of believing that the choice is between "fighting the terrorists over there and fighting the terrorists here" (i.e., the so-called "flypaper strategy"). In the course of it, he makes an argument that I've echoed myself:
Look, we don't need to make fake arguments about why we are in Iraq [i.e., the flypaper strategy]. We went in because Saddam was an uniquely dangerous individual whom was commonly believed to be in possession of WMD. In a post 9/11 world, caution demanded that the burden of proof that he had disarmed be on him. He never convincingly showed the world his regime didn't possess WMD, and Bush acted pursuant to various UN resolutions to bring him to task. But we were wrong, and he didn't have WMD, yet History had marched on by then. In turn, of course, the goal was not to disarm the regime, in the main, but now to create a democratic Iraq. We are flailing, currently, in achieving this goal. And, if we fail, the ramifications will be immense. A splintering of Iraq could lead to interventions in that country by Saudi Arabia, by Iran, by Turkey. Ethnic cleansing within the country is a real possibility even if neighbors don't stir up too much trouble. Terror havens may take root in a prospective Sunni para-state.
Thus the critical need for honesty and serious thinking and fortitude. The stakes are immense. Failure is not an option. And success will be bolstered by a President who appears, not a broken record spouting bromides about 'staying the course', or 'fighting them there so we don't fight 'em here' or 'god's gift of freedom'--but rather spelling out a convincing war strategy to win this thing. What do I want to hear? Well, it more what I don't want to hear. Even as the country is in the midst of huge turmoil, we keep hearing about troop withdrawals. Why? Such talk won't helpfully 'concentrate minds', or otherwise mitigate the potency of the insurgency, or reassure all those Iraqis out there worried about perma-bases and us taking their oil. It will only embolden insurgents and maximalists who will wait out the Americans to pursue their nefarious agenda. And the notion that Level 3 Iraqi forces, many of them who will flee the second they don't have U.S. backup, are going to take the fight to the enemy, by 2006, well, it's just utter bunk.
Read the whole thing -- http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004733.html. It's worth it.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:36pm on Jul. 22, 2005 On Trevino's "choosing sides"
By von
Trevino's two RedHot posts regarding the Muslim Council of Britain's reaction to the recent subway shooting on the Tube are unfair and misleading. They do not represent my values.
In the first RedHot post, Trevino writes:
The Muslim Council of Britain is upset that police at the Stockwell tube station in London knocked an Asian man (in the UK, this usually signifies south Asian) to the floor of a subway car and shot him dead -- five bullets in succession -- as he lay prone. Think this through: a man of the same apparent ethnicity as the suicide and would-be bombers of 7/7 and 7/21 flees from police; he is wearing a bulky winter coat in summer; and there is an active suicide bomb threat in the Underground. Did the police have reasonable alternatives? Not unless you consider yet more scores dead a risk worth running. Unfortunately, shoot to kill is the only real tactic available in the presence of a suicide terror threat. Not only do both parties get what they want, public safety is maximized.
Meanwhile, the Muslim Council of Britain -- fabled "moderates" all -- complains.
From the linked BBC Article,* here are the outrageous and sinister complaints of the Muslim Council of Britain, which, presumably, are the basis for Trevino's post:
The Muslim Council of Britain said Muslims were concerned about a possible "shoot to kill" policy.
Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: "There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear.
"It's vital the police give a statement about what occurred and explain why the man was shot dead."
What is sinister about any of these sentiments? They strike me as ordinary, reasonable, prudent reactions. In a free society, when the police shoot a prone man five times in the head, the police are required to provide the reasons for their actions. This is not to say that the police did not have very good reason to act as they did; indeed, both Trevino and the Muslim Council of Britain agree that their acts may very well be justified. But, surely, "choosing sides" does not mean the abandonment of the right to raise polite questions regarding the circumstances under which the police (or special forces) can shoot a guy on a subway train in the head.
It is right to grant the government extraordinary rights in these extraordinary times, but we do not abandon our duty, as free citizens, to discuss and debate the activities that they undertake in our name. Had the identical circumstances occurred in the United States, I would have asked questions virtually identical to those asked by the Muslim Council of Britain. Am I on the other side?
by von
p.s. In his second post, Trevine links to another BBC article that purportedly provides better support for his claim.*+ It fails to rebut the above criticism, and merely reads (in relevant part):
The Muslim Council of Britain said it was getting calls from Muslims who were "distressed" about the incident at Stockwell Tube station.
....
But MCB has urged the police to explain why the man - said to be of Asian appearance - was shot dead.
Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said Muslims he had spoken to this morning were "jumpy and nervous".
"I have just had one phone call saying, 'what if I was carrying a rucksack?'.
"There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear," he said.
"We are getting phone calls from quite a lot of Muslims who are distressed about what may be a shoot to kill policy."
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm.
*+http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4707781.stm
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (90) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:34pm on Jun. 28, 2005 What's there to do in Tulsa, OK?
By von
A simple, non-political thread: I'll be in Tulsa for a couple days in July for a deposition. Never been there before; fairly certain that, all things being equal, July ain't the best time to visit. Still, business is business. So, to our Tulsa residents, a few questions:
- Is there any benefit to staying downtown? Is downtown Tulsa, as they say, happening?
- If you were looking for a good meal -- it needs to be nice enough to take a client to, but needn't be fourteen-kinds-of-spoons nice -- where would you go? [Do not respond "Applebee's".]
- How bad is security at the Tulsa airport? IOW, do I need to plan for a three-hour stay in line while they do their on-the-job training, or have they ironed things out?
- How easy is it to catch a cab in Tulsa? [Possible responses range from "Cabs are our number-one export!" to "Cab? What's a cab?"]
Thanks much; all suggestions are appreciated.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 9:59am on May 17, 2005 The Pew Test
By von
.... must be skewed toward "Enterprisers," 'cause I'm one as well -- along with, reportedly, Malkin, Ponnuru, Trevino, Behan, Doverspa, and Erick.*
RedState readers: feel free to post your own results in this diary. (Pew test at: http://typology.people-press.org/)
von
*I can understand being in the same group as Ponnuru and Doverspa; perhaps, I can also understand being grouped with Erick and Trevino. But Malkin?
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:13pm on Apr. 26, 2005 Recommendation
By von
I strongly recommend picking up the current issue of Foreign Affairs.
First, walking around with a visible copy of FA is a powerful attractant to members of the opposite or same sex (according to preference). It will either get you a mate, rekindle your marriage and/or domestic arrangement, or allow you to find some measure of fulfillment in your desperately lonely and pointless life. After all, no one can resist a pompous and pretentious a-hole.
Second, FA will give you the power to utter such nonsense lines as "well, this issue of FA has some really interesting things to say about the Syrian mukhabarat ...," which will undoubtably make you a delightful dinner companion. (If Hell has gourmet clubs, that is.)
Finally, and by far the least important reason to pick up a copy, this issue of FA has a number of extremely interesting articles on state of affairs in Lebanon and Syria, including an extremely readable (and reasonable) essay from Bernard Lewis. There's even a decent article from Kofi on the state of the world/UN (it's unclear whether there is a distinction) as a bonus.
Will everything in it confirm your "one true worldview of which all other worldviews are but poor facsimiles"? Well, it didn't work that way for my eternal and perfect truth. But I did find myself thinking a lot of things that I probably wouldn't have otherwise thought. I suspect that my legion of foreign-policy foes would consider even a modicum of further thought on my part to be a fairly good thing.
von
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 9:24pm on Aug. 30, 2004 McCain's Speech -- A personal reaction
By von
Cross posted to Obsidian Wings
So, at the start, Pericles strides forward; and why? To endorse Nicias, of course. (You on the right: you think Nicias a misnomer, a slur. See Iraq and the Peace of Nicias that is being wrought there -- yes, even now.)
History repeats itself, despite its lessons.
It's a good speech, but, at the beginning, the delivery is a bit off-kilter. McCain's uncertain, not quite ready for the moment. And, then, ....
(A personal reaction to McCain's speech follows-- viewed from FoxNews, not the convention floor.)
"Disingenuous film-maker" -- endless rote cheers of "four more years" from the crowd. A shot of Moore laughing. Rightfully so. In their eagerness, the Republicans in the hall are defeating the moment. They rush forward into a phantom gap. McCain recovers, and saves the troops from their dash into disaster: "That line was so good, I'll use it again."
The crowd silences itself, self-aware for the moment. It's a moment that seems to strengthen McCain. If you watch enough arguments (and this is one), you know that there's a moment when you catch your wind. It's usually a moment of adversity, when you forget an exhibit, or the unanticipated question comes. It seldom happens when expected. Well, for McCain, mistaken crowing by the crowd on a throw-away line provides it. He uses their error. With a laugh, he redirects their energy. From here on out, the speech gathers power, opens, and pours forth.
A defense of the Iraq war comes next; it's effective, to my biased ears: "He [Saddam] would have acquired [WMDs] again. ... We cannot afford the risk of an unrestrained Saddam. ... The mission was necessary, achievable, and noble." Huh. A pause: Yes, yes, and yes. But the failure to achieve the achievable, of course, is the central problem with Bush. Good with the "vision thing," not so good with the "execution thing"; that's the rap. Rather than stress a strength, this part of the speech inadvertently reiterates a weakness.
There's yet time to recover (again).
"Still closer to the beginning than the end of this fight .... We need a leader ... [who's committed] to moving forward. It is easier to rest ...." Yes; well said. The ground is steadying again.
"He will not yield and neither will we." Only Lieberman (D-CT) put forward the same conviction among the Democrats. It's why I supported him. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that it is a conviction shared by Bush -- shared, that is, other than in mere words and Orwellian backdrops.
But, quickly, the round up to creschendo begins: The troops "are the very best of us." The applause is thunderous and worthy -- thunderous and worthwhile. But, basking in glory, the questions come again. Why, pray tell, do we demean the service of John Kerry? And, in demeaning it, demean the service of everyone who served? I'll tell you, in their own words: That (says the law professor, who never was in harm's way) was a scrach. That (said the bicyclist who sang in a bad rock band) is a traitor who turned tail. That (says the partisan who cannot, despite all opportunity for preparation, get his story straight) is a man unfit for command.
What myopia. What pride. What foolishness. Disagree with the man on principle, but do not slander service freely given (and freely given it indisputably was.)
There's yet time. A good end is coming.
"It should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause[.]" A lesson to Democrats as well as Republicans, but neither will hear it properly.* There is good among us, and in us. There is a center. It will hold.
"We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."
Yes. Yes. The cheers come, and they are deserved.
**
Analysis: It started slow, but concluded with power. This is the Republican party that I'd proudly stand up for. Pity that Bush isn't (yet?) a part of it.
von
*Indymedia and Little Green Footballs, in their petty, silly slanders among themselves and others, are equally the enemy of good cause. Neither represents America, as it is or should be; do not let them deceive you otherwise. (Why do the mainstream bloggers not oppose them? It's past midnight, friends. Time to see who's up. And, for the record, opposing just one of two evils ain't the same as standing up for good.)