They're at it already, tho proceedings stopped when a freshman congresslady from Ohio (Schmidt?) read an e-mail from a constituent that may have violated House rules on decorum by implying Murtha is a coward. While they sort this out, all the momentum building toward fisticuffs has been lost. If memory serves, we haven't had a real fight in Congress since just before the Civil War.
The Spectacle Blog
From a reader:
TAS -- I beg you to stop with this ID nonsense.
Maybe George could comment, but one thing that I've noted since I got started here at the Spectator is a desire to doggedly pursue arguments to their philosophical ends. Many thought the Spectator was just beating a dead horse by reporting on Clinton; but if the magazine was trying to score political points and make itself look good, it would have eventually rescinded its stories or pretended it never happened, tucked its tail in, and headed back to Bloomington.
What Dan Peterson did in his article was simply provide a basis for debate; before reading it, even I was not yet annealled into the fold of critics of Darwinism. ISI put out a very good book on the topic, called Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing. There's a reason they refer to intellectuals here.
John Kerry's still smarting from losing last fall. This email just went out:
This is our moment of truth. You and I have to make it absolutely clear that we won't stand for Republican "Swift Boat" style attacks on Jack Murtha.
Yesterday, an extraordinary congressman, former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on the war in Iraq. He didn't come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. No sooner had the words left his lips than the vicious assault on his character and patriotism began.
Today, in a statement on the Senate floor, in interviews with the national media, and in this message to you, I am seeking out every opportunity to defend a brave American hero that the Republican attack machine has set their sights on.
Mr. James G. Poulos, a contributor to TAS Online, takes issue with my post earlier today challenging Charles Krauthammer apoplectic and ill-reasoned column.
After considering my quick summation of ID, Poulos comments,
But it's one thing to say "maybe God did it" and quite another to say "therefore--." In unravelling the basic secrets of life on Earth, we should be none too surprised by a lack of clear evidence as to how mitochondria or the human eyeball eased into being over billions of years. The theory of evolution is on weak empirical reeds because it's being pushed beyond its brief: today bird beaks on the Galapagos, tomorrow the world, past, present, and future.
While he acknowledges evolutionary theory's lack of evidence, he seems to understand ID as concluding that without the evidence of evolution, God therefore created. From a strictly empirical standpoint, we cannot say that either God or blind, random chance is responsible for creation.
Finally, some Republicans are willing to go to the mat, and play hardball politics the way it should be played. There's a vote now scheduled for 7 pm in the House, to force Dems to say we should or shouldn't pull out of Iraq. Stay tuned. Pelosi and Co. are gonna try to wiggle past it, and the Repubs may yet cave, but right now every Dem thinking of running in '08 is carpet-chewing mad.
The University of Connecticut is in the midst of the toils and troubles that always comes with having a conservative speaker. This is your example of a typical reaction, as the Campus Establishment (by which I mean, the liberals) are alleging that those in the student government who voted to bring Coulter to campus have a conflict of interest given that they are also members, leaders even, of the College Republicans.
I think it's a big mistake, one that can affect the credibility of his critics at NRO and the White House, to paint John Murtha with too wide an anti-war brush. He is one of the very few Dems who thinks carefully and cares deeply about the defense of our nation as his book, From Vietnam to 9/11, shows. We would do better to answer him and win him over than to try to push him into the left corner. The fact that he has criticized the war -- even that he voted for Howlin' Howie -- says less about him than his decades in Congress.
After stumbling around for a while, the mainstream press has finally found an organizing principle: if an event/person advancesÂ antiwar coverage, let's push it hard.Â Almost everything in the media is nowÂ judged according to itsÂ relationship to the war, including the merits of journalists. Had Judith Miller provided some fine antiwar articles before her imbroglio, she would still be atÂ theÂ New York Times.Â Had Bob Woodward smoked out someÂ war-related scandal before this week'sÂ controversy, his colleagues would be celebrating not condemning hisÂ cavalier and sloppy habits.Â Who was and who was notÂ on the right side of the antiwar line? That's what determines coverage.Â Â