05.24.08
Two cheers for cheer
Another opinion writer who is definitely in the pantheon of top practitioners of that craft (see invitation in post below to kick around who might comprise the top five) is Roger Kimball. To scroll down his posts at Pajamas Media is to have your sense of the gorgeousness of truth sharpened.
A recent piece of his has as its thrust a reconsideration of recent conservative gloom about conservatism’s prospects. He offers another view, but, as one would expect from a towering giant of a wordsmith, he does much more. He offers, for example, a consideration-warranting look at where conservatives on one hand and Freedom-Haters on the other find levity and pessimistic prospects in life.
A technique marvelous writers sometimes use is the placement of a quote from another great writer in their work that is an irreplaceable gem. Kimball has done that here with this nugget from Lord Falkland: “When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”
Mr. Dings said,
May 26, 2008 at 12:22 pm
As quoted from the linked article:
“This is the oldest and the best argument for conservatism: the argument from the fact that our actions almost always have unforeseen and unwelcome consequences. It is an argument from so great and so mournful a fund of experience, that nothing can rationally outweigh it. Yet somehow, at any rate in societies like ours, this argument never is given its due weight. When what is called a “reform” proves to be, yet again, a cure worse than the disease, the assumption is always that what is needed is still more, and still more drastic, “reform.”
Then why, pretty why, oh neocon bloggie? Why do you pound the drums of war so, hereabouts? I can only imagine more collossal messes like Iraq, although progress and, again, near-victory has been declared, half a decade after “shock and awe(ful)” and the great joke of “Mission Accomplished.”
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
May 26, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Let me be thinking about that. I recently had another conversation with another friend – who’s been drifting away from right-ismward Obama-ism, if yu can believe that – who said she’s starting to think war per se is futile. I pointed out several instances in which wars have indeed solved problems for humanity – the Civil War ending slavery, World War I ending the unnatural alliances and dynasties that were keeping Europe from joining the 20th century, World War II stopping the totalitarian devouring of Europe and the surrender of the Pacific rim to Japanese imperialism. She pointed out that, in each case, the war’s conclusion led to new sets of problems that surely would set the stage for yet more wars.
Valid enough, but the fundamental question is, how is a human being – or a human society – to react when a really bad agent of badness has made it clear he’s going to do bad things to your chances to live, or be free, or have your health or your dignity?
Mr. Dings said,
May 26, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Of course in the event of an attack or efforts from other “reformers” to “reform” us, we must go on the defensive and prevent that from occurring. Jim Webb provides a portion of editorial article the WSJ solicited from him after 9/11 but never printed in his new book: “A Time to Fight:”
Those who are aligned with the terrorist movement, whether logistically or in a training environment or operationally, should be considered legitimate targets and should not be spared. But random bombings and the deliberate destruction of populated areas without such a connection should be avoided. Over the long term this approach would deny terrorist armies not only their support base, but also their present justification that the United States and its allies are conducting a broad war against the Muslim people.
Do not occupy territory.
The terrorist armies make no claim to be members of any nation-state. Similarly, it would be militarily and politically dangerous for our military to operate from permanent or semi-permanent basses, or to declare that we are defending specific pieces of terrorism in the retions where the terrorist armies live and train. We already have terrain to defend–the United States and our outposts overseas–and we cannot afford to expand this territory in a manner that would simply give the enemy more targets.
He says he wrote this on 9/12/01, when he had no doubt the neo-cons were again intent on going after Baghdad. The complete article is posted on his personal Web page at http://www.jameswebb.com/
Webb is often mentioned as possible Vice Presidential Democratic nominee in 2008 due to his military experience and positions on issues. This could serve as a shield against potential Republican attacks on Obama’s lack of foreign policy, defense experiencr and military service such as John McCain made on May 22, 2008.
Although he said he is not interested in the vice presidency in a Meet The Press interview, speculations about him being picked by the eventual Presidential nominee are still heard.
FYI, both my father and father-in-law, educated WWII vets, and old-school cradle Demos both say they will not vote for Obama, although they would vote for Hillie if she is the nominee. I know Obama is not getting my vote either.
He has not endorsed either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama during the primaries.
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
May 26, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Interesting to see what your dads do come November, since He Who Was Formerly Thought To Walk On Water is going to be the FHer nominee.
Mr. Dings said,
May 26, 2008 at 5:46 pm
No brainer.