(if I were the) King of the Forest

Here is my take on Barack Obama and the Reverend Wright: most people and especially Obama partisans, have missed the point.

mail order abilify
cost of acai
cost of accutane
aciphex no prescription
acomplia no prescription
online actonel
actos price
cost of aleve
allegra drugs
alli rx
buy cheap altace
cheap antibiotics
aricept mg
discount arimidex
buying ashwagandha
astelin
atacand best price
atarax price
discount augmentin
discount avandia
avapro drugs
avodart uk
bactrim no rx
benadryl tablets
benicar tablets
biaxin drugs
buspar […]

…assuming that things will continue to behave as they have always done — particularly after hundreds or thousands or millions of observations have failed to find an exception to that behavior — does not constitute or require a leap of faith. Faith is not belief despite the absence of proof but belief despite the absence of evidence.

I would be comfortable with a President who serves a philosophical ideal. I would not be comfortable with a President who serves a Master.

Notwithstanding the popular mythologies of “Democratic Accountability“, under the best of circumstances our control as individual citizens over the actions of our government is diffuse and indirect, and under the worst circumstances it is all but nonexistent. In the absence of large-scale corruption, conflicts of interest, and bureaucratic inertia democratic government may reflect the general moral consensus of society as a whole but it can never reflect all the subtleties of an individual moral outlook. There is probably no one in America, now or in any earlier golden age, who can say that all their tax dollars are wisely or even agreeably spent. Even good government is by nature a compromise.

If you really believe in ensuring your economic activities, including charitable giving, reflect your individual moral values and your individual social vision and your individual voice you would be wise to remove as much of that economic activity as possible from the control of others who might see the world differently – to remove as much of that economic activity as possible from the control of any communal agent, including and especially from the control of government.

The chaos we are seeing — on the ground and in our own thinking — reflects the dissolution of the “nation” into more fluid and less tractable identities and spheres of interest. Al Quaeda is not a country, and yet in many circumstances it seems to define and control a “nation” of people who pledge it their loyalty. Iraq was not Al Quaeda, but were they really distinct — two “nations” apart — or were they part of the larger Arab — or was it Islamic? — “nation” to which both claim allegiance and from which the “clash of civilizations” is arising? Is the UAE a country allied with the United States, or is it a culture allied with Arabia or with Islam?

Given that the moral purpose of the death penalty is its symbolic import, we can formulate an alternative death penalty that both preserves that purpose and protects the innocent from unjust execution. The key is to separate the sentence of death from the implementation of that sentence. The imposition of a death sentence communicates our moral intent; the execution of the condemned merely closes the account.

So colleges are supposed to open minds unless it makes them open to this particular brand of religion?

Colleges provide a forum for expression of different opinions and varying religious views — excepting that those particular opinions and religious views are to be silenced?

Proselytizing and recruitment by a Christian group with no university affiliation or endorsement — but not proselytizing and recruitment on behalf of Marxism or Utilitarianism or Feminism or Afro-Centrism or any of the other myriad -isms that contend for the students’ attention and commitment in the classroom and through student organizations with the official imprimatur and blessing of the university — constitutes an appalling imposition of those views?

In March of 2005 the Colorado Supreme Court voided the death sentence for a murderer on the basis of the fact that a juror during the penalty phase – when the decision of what sentence to impose was being debated – had copied down a verse from the book of Exodus and quoted it during […]

In October of 2004 Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus published a critique of the environmental movement, which they claimed was too focused on technical and policy arguments over regulations and not focused enough on presenting a positive vision that inspired people to their cause. They had become the dour uncle focused on limits and sacrifice, presenting a grim future with a message of “just say no” to progress.

Salon.com wrote about their article and about the ensuing debate within the environmental community over the future of environmentalism. I thought the self-critique was insightful and overdue, but I thought they overlooked one aspect of modern environmentalism that contributes to its decline within the broad American population.

Here’s what the Democrats really need to acknowledge: “values” – whatever they may be – are a huge part of our “interests” and most of us are willing to sacrifice some (or even a lot) of economic advantage to have the “values” of society reflect our own – or at least to secure our freedom to live by our “values” without interference from people who think they know better than we.