Society

In honor of the late Oriana Fallaci

by

Eric from Classical Values proposes Something along the lines of a Judeo-Christian-Atheist Alliance in defense of the West.

Ms. Fallaci was an Atheist who valued the cultural heritage of the West, and correctly saw that it was in grave danger from Islamic violence and terrorism. She met with Pope Benedict XVI, to discuss these matters not long before her death. The Pope is willing to say things Muslims don�t like, without apologizing for it, either. Good.

Everyone who values freedom and the cultural heritage of the West, even accepting the differences among our interpretation of those things, now has a common enemy. We should work together to defeat that enemy. We can work out our very important differences as civilized people, in a lawful manner, by argument, persuasion, electoral politics, litigation — but not suicide-murder bombings, or video-taped beheadings, or mob violence or fatwas.

I am an orthodox Roman Catholic, and I am very open to the idea.

So, query, how to give some practical effect to such a proposed alliance?

UPDATE: The exact language used by the Pope, with a link to the full speech, is below the fold

UPDATE II: Perry de Havilland says “sign me up”

Read more

Evangelicals and U.S. Foreign Policy

by

I read this paper by Walter Russell Mead in Foreign Affairs last week. It is a typically excellent Mead product.

I think the main thing Mead is trying to accomplish with this article is to show unreligious people who are part of the Northeastern establishment that (1) there is a lot more to the so-called “religious right” than their stereotypes can capture, (2) that the impact of the evangelical community is going to continue to be major, and growing influence on US foreign policy, and (3) that the policies that this community is going to advocate in the future, again, may differ from the stereotypes which the non-religious establishment has of evangelicals. Basically, American evangelicalism is a vast and influential and active world unto itself that most people who are interested in or participate in public policy know nothing about. One friend commented that Mead is being more than fair to these folks. I think he is appropriately fair. But Mead�s goal is not to criticize this community, but to try to explain them to an uncomprehending and hostile audience.

RTWT.

A Mild & Messy Rant, inspired by John Jay

by

Thank you, John Jay, for the post below. I started a comment & kept ranting, so made it into a messy post. It remains more a thrown out comment than coherent response. And, of course, mostly I think you are quite right.

Nonetheless, I think Mencken got it really wrong and is an irritating forefather of some of the worst about our culture today – especially his emphasis upon cynicism and his lack of gratitude for the rich tradition we have been given. His belief we need aristocrats is characteristic of his misanthropy which seemed to come from a narrow & bitchy soul. I remember picking up his essays to read on break & feeling physically ill – the pages seened strewn with spittle & venom. You have shown, however, that he did have both a sense of humor and common sense.

Sure post modernism is impenetrable because it is idiotic�being impenetrable is a power play for one thing. This is the same device that the theorists want to be called philosophers & contend they are discussing philosophy. Well, they are writing impenetrable prose about quite abstract, counterintuitive, and often just weird ideas. That doesn�t make it deep.

Read more

Stupid Journalist Tricks and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law

by

Strange Women Lying in Ponds eviscerates a tendentious Miami Herald article about Florida’s new self-defense law.

Miami Police Chief John Timoney is quoted in the article:

What you’re going to see is drug dealers using this [i.e., the new law] to settle scores, and the Legislature has basically given them permission

Timoney should know better. Perhaps he does. This quote reflects poorly on him in any case. The Herald plays along, because the reporters and their editors are either too lazy to do a little research or because they like what Timoney is saying or both. The fact is that no matter the changes in the law, anybody who shoots another person is going to receive full investigative scrutiny and be prosecuted if the shooting was not in self-defense. That’s as it should be. (To its credit the article provides a quote from the NRA’s Marion Hammer, who reasonably points out that criminals have claimed self-defense since long before the new law was enacted. However, Hammer’s one quote is offset by numerous quotes from opponents of the law, most of whom ignore the law’s substance.)

In particular, the article’s emphasis of State’s Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle’s comment that the new law complicates prosecutions misses the point, and the authors mislead by not providing more background on the law. The very reason the law exists is that prosecutors like Fernandez Rundle had gained a reputation for being too willing to prosecute otherwise-law-abiding individuals who defended themselves against violent attacks. The new law exists in part to clarify the legislature’s intent that good-faith attempts at self-defense not be punished. The law would not have been proposed, then easily passed and enacted, if there were no problem with prosecutors who abused their discretion.

UPDATE: A follow up by SWLIP.

(Related posts here and here.)

Remarkable — and Harsh — Photos from China.

by

The photos are here.

If there had been color film in the late 19th century USA we would have seen carnage like this as we began to climb the curve of industrialization, ordinary people routinely killed by trains, etc. Except we had democracy and were able to enact laws that led to greater public safety.

The Chinese have a long way to go before their economic take-off can become safe and clean as well as fast.

These images are remote indeed from the glittering skyline of Pudong.

I look at these and I think that the Chinese have a lot on their plate.