Lean Left

Reagan Jr. on Bush Jr.
Posted by Kevin

It looks like it’s not just “the Left” who thinks that George W. Bush is dishonest. Ron Reagan Jr. agrees:

KING: Do you have thoughts on the war?

REAGAN: Sure, I have thoughts on the war.

KING: And what do you think?

REAGAN: And I think we lied our way into the war.

KING: You think it’s a mistake?

REAGAN: Absolutely, a terrible mistake. Terrible foreign policy error. We didn’t have to do it. It was optional. And we were lied to. The American public was lied to about WMD, the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam, which is virtually nonexistent except for fleeting contacts. But they’re still trying to pull that one off now, Cheney and all are out there flogging that.

KING: Can I gather from that, that you will not support this president?

REAGAN: No, I won’t.

…snip…

KING: [ … W]hat did you think your father would say, if he were here and listening to this?

REAGAN: I don’t think he would have gone into Iraq. I think he would have been much more interested in going after Osama bin Laden, who after all planned the 9/11 transactions.

While I’m at it, Reagan Jr. also says something that I’ve been saying for quite some time in the debate about stem cell research: that it’s a morally inconsistent position to oppose embryonic stem cell research while supporting in vitro fertilization:

KING: We’re back with Ron Reagan. Your mother came out — I was the master of ceremonies that night at that dinner where they honored her at the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. Wasn’t too long, maybe two months ago, less maybe. She came out that night and strongly supported stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research. Everyone supports adult stem cell research. Where do you stand? What do you make of it?

REAGAN: I stand shoulder to shoulder with my mother on that. It’s astonishing to me that we are even having the conversation about this. We’re not talking about fetuses, human beings being killed, we’re talking about collections of cells in a petri dish that are never, ever going to be a human being. This could be the biggest revolution in medicine ever, well, ever really. Bigger than antibiotics. Bigger than anything.

And you know what strikes me, too, is that you cannot be against embryonic stem cell research and be intellectually and therefore morally consistent, if you’re not also against in vitro fertilization. Because the same thing results in in vitro fertilization. Thousands of blastocysts collections are discarded. Now you’ll notice that most of the politicians who are against embryonic stem cell research don’t say anything about in vitro fertilization. You might wonder why. Well, it’s because what are they going to do, come out against people who want to get pregnant? That’s a political non-starter so they’re going not going to — they are just going to shut up about that and go after stem cell research instead. They’re playing politics with it and it is shameful. It is shameful.

Whatever differences you may have with the Reagan familiy, they can not be accurately described as “the Left.” Statements like these, from people who can’t really be considered friends of the left, go to show that it’s not just “the Left” that has trouble with our current direction.

Then again, here’s a big reason why Ron Jr. didn’t follow his father into politics:

REAGAN: No, I’m not really cut out to be a politician. You know that I sometimes don’t know when to shut up. That could be a drawback. I’m an atheist. So there you go right there. I can’t be elected to anything because polls all say that people won’t elect an atheist.

This is also how some on the Christian Right will write off his support for embryonic stem cell testing, what with him being an “immoral atheist.”

Link via The Stakeholder.

June 24th, 2004 | Politics | 12 comments

Why I Blog
Posted by tgirsch

A while back, Kevin linked a post in which Jeanne asks why we blog. My original answer, which I did not post, was that I’ve always been interested in writing, and I’ve had an increasing interest in politics over the past couple of years, and blogging seemed like a logical way to merge those interests. Also, Kevin asked me to.

But I think I’ve found another reason. Every now and again, you’re just “on.” You actually have a cogent point — an argument that holds up to scrutiny, and one which (to your knowledge) nobody else in the blogosphere has yet made, at least not as eloquently and coherently as you believe you just did. The facts are on your side, and logic is on your side. There is a tremendous sense of satisfaction that comes when you’ve authored a post like that.

And then everybody pretty much ignores that post: few comments, no trackbacks, and everyone instead spends their time and attention on drivel like this that took you little thought and even less time. It’s the kind of humble pie that puts the world into perspective, don’t you think? And it makes you realize that as hard it can sometimes be to take negative feedback, no feedback is far, far worse.

From now on, maybe we should stick to blogging about comic books, science fiction, and pop culture.

June 24th, 2004 | Bloggin | 5 comments

Vatican Excuses
Posted by Kevin

This is depressing:

Torture, burning at the stake and other punishment for the faithful condemned as witches or heretics by church tribunals during the Inquisition was not as widespread as commonly believed, the Vatican said Tuesday.

Pope John Paul II praised the research, recalling that in 2000, the church asked pardon for “errors committed in the service of the truth through recourse to non-evangelical methods.”

You know - -the research is probably fairly accurate. Centuries of religious warfare probably did hype the horrors of the Inquisition in popular imaginations, and in some ways, an Inquisition trial was a fairer to medieval peasants than any other court proceeding he or she could expect to endure. And, of course, the Protestants weren’t above killing the body to save the soul.

And none of that means a damn thing.

The tactics of the Inquisition were un-Catholic. Even granting that the people involved in the Inquisition did not realize it then (a dubious proposition in many cases. Even if they though they were doing God’s work, they should not be excused for their mistake in interpretation) the Church realizes it now. The Church has a moral obligation to simply and forthrightly apologize for its past mistakes. Since the Church is an institution with a lifetime that far exceeds any one person’s, it needs to take responsibility for it’s past mistakes, both to reassure others that the institution has learned form its errors and because the morality that the Church upholds demands it.

The careful parsing and desire to put the best face possible on a dark chapter in Church history is understandable — but it is also wrong. Any apology that offers excuses is not an apology. Any apology that contains the words “errors committed in the service of the truth through recourse to non-evangelical methods” is offering excuses. And wrongs deserves apologies, not excuses. The Church should understand that an act accordingly.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that I found the story via Body and Soul

June 24th, 2004 | Religion | one comment

Latin American Democracy and Free Trade
Posted by Kevin

June 24th, 2004 | Economics | no comments

Large Scale, Coordinated Attacks in Iraq
Posted by Kevin

June 24th, 2004 | Iraq | no comments

Durable Goods Orders Drop
Posted by Kevin

June 24th, 2004 | General | one comment