I make no apology for calling him a provincial redneck, because that, to be fair to him once more, was how he thought of himself and even described himself. It was a scandal that a man with so little knowledge of the outside world should have had such a stranglehold on American foreign policy for so long. He once introduced Benazir Bhutto as the prime minister of India. All right, that could have happened to anybody. But what about the hearings on North Korea in which he made repeated references to "Kim Jong the Second"? In order to prevent any repetition of this idiotic gaffe, Helms' staff propped up a piece of card on which was clearly written the pronunciation "Kim Jong ILL." The senator from North Carolina duly made the adjustment, referring thenceforth to the North Korean despot as "Kim Jong the Third."Good riddance Jesse...
I won't go into great detail on his post from July 14th on what he feels is a false zero-sum choice proposed by liberals with regard to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I feel this piece is either a hard line out to right center, or maybe it is reaching on an error by the left side of the infield? I am not as convinced as Mr. Hitchens that the war in Iraq is going as well as he would have it, but he does make one point in reference to the Afghanistan war that I believe to be of import.
It would also be very nice to accept another soft-centered corollary of the Iraq vs. Afghanistan trade-off and to believe that the problem of Afghanistan is a problem only of the shortage of troops. Strangely, this is not the view of the Afghan government or of any of the NATO forces on the ground. The continued and, indeed, increasing insolence of the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies is the consequence of one thing and one thing only. These theocratic terrorists know that they have a reliable backer in the higher echelons of the Pakistani state and of its military-intelligence complex and that while this relationship persists, they are assured of a hinterland across the border and a regular supply of arms and recruits.Until Pakistan gets serious about the insurgents in the Tribal Regions, an area much neglected and extremely economically and politically depressed, there will be no true "peace" in Afghanistan... no matter how many NATO or US troops are there.
And finally we have the blind salamander column dated July 21st. In this column Hitchens offers an interesting argument against the entire mindset of linear progression, which is of primary import to the Creationists (and is at least partially shared by many other humans). Hitchens proposes considering our current position not as the resultant of a natural progression, but as the temporary status quo of an ongoing and dynamic process, whereby things (cells, organs, organisms, ecosytems, planets, galaxies, etc.) come and go. There is no ultimate end to evolution, it is merely a part of the ongoing change that is the universe.
I am not myself able to add anything about the formation of light cells, eyespots, and lenses, but I do think that there is a dialectical usefulness to considering the conventional arguments in reverse, as it were. For example, to the old theistic question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" we can now counterpose the findings of professor Lawrence Krauss and others, about the foreseeable heat death of the universe, the Hubble "red shift" that shows the universe's rate of explosive expansion actually increasing, and the not-so-far-off collision of our own galaxy with Andromeda, already loomingly visible in the night sky. So, the question can and must be rephrased: "Why will our brief 'something' so soon be replaced with nothing?" It's only once we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design.
No comments:
Post a Comment