The Spectacle Blog
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
The debate between publishers and authors and Google and its allies held last night at the New York Public Library was heated, sometimes contentious and mostly civil, and even produced a point on which all sides agreed--that they are miles apart on what they view as fair use in the 21st century.
AAP's Allan Adler said if Google's theory of fair use was adopted, it would put Google in control of other people's content that it downloaded onto its own databases. While Google says it will use the scanned book content in a limited way, that could all change, Adler said.
Texas Army National Guard Colonel James K. Brown commands the 56th Brigade Combat Team operating now in Iraq. In a Q&A with reporters this morning, he had some choice words in answer to Rep. John Murtha, who called yesterday for withdrawal from Iraq because we've done all we can do there militarily. Here's the money quotes:
QUESTION: "Colonel Brown, I didn't know if you'd heard the remarks yesterday made by Congressman John Murtha calling for an immediate pullout from Iraq; Congressman Murtha being a Marine for 37 years, Vietnam veteran who had been awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. Coming from someone like that, what do you think of this call?"
COLONEL JAMES K. BROWN: "Well, certainly I think that, coming from a distinguished American, a distinguished member of our Congress, that's the ongoing rhetoric of a democracy, our own democracy, as we look at the future of our participation here.
"But physically here on the ground, our job's not done. It's been very clear by administration and by the leadership of the military here in Iraq that our exit from this theater should be conditions-based."
"Vietnam Veteran Reacts to Challenges by 'People With 5 Deferments'" -- that New York Times subhead pretty much captures the problem with Rep. John Murtha's bombshell press conference yesterday. Evidently, Murtha fought in Vietnam so that elected officials who did not would have no standing under our Constitution.
Dana Milbank, who from all indications never served in the military either, nevertheless joins in to attack Republican critics of Murtha who do not "have military service on [their] resume..." (even while saving his cheapest shot for a Republican congressman who is an Army veteran). Suddenly Milbank has great respect for Murtha, an obscure hawk "whose brand of hawkishness has never been qualified by the word 'chicken.'" Milbank confidently declares that Murtha "has long served as Democrats' conscience on military matters because of his moral authority on the subject." But how would Milbank know? Today's column is the first time he has ever bothered to mention Murtha.