Yet Another Astute Comment

We've been having this debate and I could never find the right words. This guy had them:

"the radical, fascistic Islamist movement" is "a perversion of the religion in the name of a supremacist, violent ideology"

I get confused between originalism, textualism, and strict constructionism. But I assume at any rate that you are not one of those who believe "no unreasonable searches or seizures" actually means "there is a right to have an abortion." If so, how would you interpret "kill the infidels whereever you find them," other than, well, as an exhortation to kill the infidels whereever you find them? What is it, a metaphor for "try to get to the gym regularly"?

Am I being too literal-minded? Ok, then how do you choose to define the "true" Islam? Perhaps you want to look to the original intent of the guy that wrote the book. But wait, Mohammed killed people who refused to submit to Islam. So, it's not the text, it's not the actions and words of the founder, maybe it's the behavior of adherents throughout history? Because, you know, Islam spread because of its inherent beauty. As the Muslim army came over the mountains, the villagers always ran to greet them, strewing rose petals in their path, grateful to be exposed to the light that is Islam. Aaaahhh. Right.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how violent jihadists like Bin Laden are "perverting" this religion. To the contrary, they're acting in perfect accord with the dictates of the text, the behavior and intent of the founder, and all historic precedent. But wait, I don't expect you to answer this, because...you can't say that! People have to say it's a peaceful religion if they're talking about it publicly, like a little disclaimer, even though everyone knows this is false. Otherwise, one runs the risk getting stabbed like Theo Van Gogh. I think we all understand this is the case.

NB (to whom it may concern): the foregoing is purely for the sake of argumentation, because people like to argue. In fact, I have the highest respect for your peaceful religion, so please don't kill me.

That Last One

Was from Ace of Spades commenter Moonbat_One. Sorry, I hit send too quick.

Another Astute Comment

I seem to have lost the link for this commenter's, um, comment but here it is anyway:

The heart of the Donks' problem is that they believe they're not getting their message out, and if only the American people knew what Democrats stood for they'd fall all over themselves to get to the polls to vote Dems into office.

They think their politics and ideas are solid gold, it's just their communication sucks. It never occurs to them that their communication is just fine and people know full well what the Democrats' vision for America is. The problem is that a lot of people find Liberalism and its political ideas repellent. But at the same time, Liberals are unwilling to comprimise those ideas. If anything, they believe they have to be MORE liberal, father to the Left. Moderation and erasing the clear differences between the Dems and the GOP is a political loser in their eyes, that's what the Kos Kidz believe. Markos's election win record speaks for itself about whether he's correct in this assessment or not.

Best Comment I've Read in a Long Time

He's commenting on the supposed correlation between intelligence and irreligiousity (not a word). He said "

If intelligence were consistently and strongly correlated with all character traits that we universally regard as positive (e.g., compassion, humility, courage, kindness, patience, contentment, charity, loyalty, etc. etc.), then I think I'd be more inclined to lend this argument more importance than I do now.

But the fact is that, in my estimation, intelligent people do not have the monopoly on such qualities, even in the aggregate. So even if a resistance to religiosity were a positive character trait, it doesn't immediately suggest that possessing it is a sign of intelligence.

Furthermore, the great metaphysical questions of this world have yet to be answered in any definitive way by anyone of any level of intelligence. Surely if intelligence were sufficient, we'd have some better answers by now. Given that we do not, perhaps intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be.

But if we do finally come across someone with the intelligence to tackle such issues, then I hope we can delay him (or her) long enough to figure out a way to explain women to men. That seems like the far more important task than to get to the bottom of this whole God thing."

Love it. The first paragraph especially.

Changing the Electoral College

This idea is pretty dumb. It's a totally in-the-moment-what-can-we-do-now-to-win idea.

Cathy Seipp on gay marriage

I'll be honest. This is exactly how I feel too. Sorry, doesn't make me homophobic, and being against ILLEGAL immigration doesn't make me a bigot or racist, Tendril. We left childish and silly arguments behind when we left grade school, remember?

Link

Drug Testing Link

Love this article

Boy, Christopher Hitchens sure has his moments. This is one of them.

Is the Problem with Poverty the poverty or the inequality?

The post that CIS needs to read, but won't, and even if he did, would completely discount everything in it, because, as he has demonstrated amply in the past, he considers himself the smartest man on the planet, and is never wrong or correctable about ANYTHING.

Confronting bullies

Love this article.

Good Points all

Especially about immigration.

Yes,I'm finally buckling down

Try out this link. I think it's the one on the efficacy of drug testing.

ANother thing for the paper

A link on Fourth Amendment rationales for determining "reasonableness" of the invasion.

Communitarianism or Socialism

The phenomenon described here is interesting. I think CIS has these type of moments all the time, where he doesn't realize what the hell he is saying, and is actually in favor of free markets and freedom.

Syriana is not factually accurate? How could this BE?!?

A British expat takes on Syriana's questionable facts.

Great Explanation

QandO once again explains clearly why I am a libertarian.

The absolute right stance on this

Eugene Volokh explains perfectly how we should respond to the cartoon rioters.

Affirmative action and FAIR

A commenter gives Althouse's argument the smackdown. This argument also applies very well to Kaimi Wegner's "reparations for slavery would be within the rule of law" argument.

Competition is Good

John Stossel praises competition and I agree with his points.

Big Ideas

Another winner from Jane Galt.

Scary

This is a scary article. I used to think I wouldn't live to see it, but I now believe I will.

Well Written

Megan McArdle writes very well.

I Love This Essay

By Stephen Green.  The highlights:

"Look. I voted for George Bush because I felt I had to, and not because I have any deep attachment to the man or his party. Had the Democrats been smart enough to nominate Joe Lieberman, he would have gotten my vote with little hesitation – and that much only because of the natural reluctance to change horses midstream. I didn't write this response to defend Bush – far from it. In fact, I wish we had a President more serious than Bush, not less.

And I want the Democrats to know that. I want them to know that I'm a hawk first, and a Republican voter second, maybe fifth."

But that's really defining victory down quite a damn lot, isn't it?

And no mistake.