Eye on the Watcher’s Council

As you may know the members of the Watcher’s Council each nominate one of his or her own posts and one non-Council post for consideration by the whole Council. The complete list of this week’s Council nominations is here.

The Watcher’s Council has a new member starting this week: Francis Porretto of Eternity Road. I’ve been following Francis’s work for very nearly as long as his blog has existed. We have many points of agreement and many points of disagreement so I know that having Our Curmudgeon as a member will be challenging and interesting. Welcome, Francis.

The Colossus of Rhodey, “I Like John Scalzi”

In their submission for this week TCoR has a review of John Scalzi’s book, The Ghost Brigades, with diversions into The Forever War, Larry Niven’s Known Space stories, and Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. I read Starship Troopers when it was serialized in F&SF nearly 50 years ago. I loved it then and I love it now.

In the review Hube mentions a question asked by Col. DuBois in Starship Troopers: why is it rational for a 50 year old moron to vote but not a 14 year old genius? May I answer? Please?! Please!? The answer is that the requirement for voting is not intelligence but wisdom which is born of experience.

The Glittering Eye, “The House Always Wins”

Once again I think that my submission for this week is rather phlegmatic. In this post I react to one from Tigerhawk, a blogger I like quite a bit as a writer and thinker (and suspect I would like quite a bit as a person) on the value of risk-taking both for individuals and for the society. My reaction to this post was neatly encapsulated by a witticism from my former business partner. In reverse of Voltaire he said “I may agree with what you say but I deny your right to say it”. It may be uncharitable of me but I find it ironic to be lectured on the virtues of risk-taking by a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant corporate lawyer who went to an Ivy League school.

Different people have different tolerances for risk. One of the factors that determines that is the perception of what’s at stake and one of the factors that governs that is a sense of entitlement.

Done With Mirrors, “Hypocrites”

One step beyond irony is hypocrisy and that’s what Callimachus sees quite a bit of in the reactions of those who object to the conjoining of the attacks on 9/11 with the Iraq War on the grounds that 9/11 is too sacred to exploit for mere political reasons (but have no problem doing so themselves).

American Future, “The Mysterious Mr. Ritter”

Marc considers the odd epiphany of UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter.

Joshuapundit, “Saddam Hussein in Hell”

Freedom Fighter doesn’t have a great deal of sympathy for Saddam Hussein. I agree with him completely in this. I haven’t written much on Saddam’s execution—I’ve just collected the opinions of Iraqi bloggers without comment but it’s very clear that, as on so many issues, where you sit depends on where you stand. For Iraqis who sympathize with the insurgency the present government of Iraq is not legitimate, indeed, no government constituted while Iraq is occupied could be legitimate. My own view on this is that the present (lousy) government is about what would be expected under the circumstances and is better than what would have happened if we had just bugged out after bringing Saddam down (in contravention of international treaties and human decency).

I rejoice in no man’s death. His execution was inevitable and I think that the value of more rounds of trials was exceeded by the danger of letting Saddam live.

Soccer Dad, “Dingell-ing”

Soccer Dad reviews the case of medical researcher David Baltimore’s run-in with John Dingell. While I agree with SD that the incident seems to reflect an abuse of power, I can’t muster any outrage over it. When you’re a creature of the state as Dr. Baltimore clearly was, you should expect to be subject to the vagaries of the state. No outrage there. I’d like to know a little more about the details. I suspect that Dr. Baltimore’s real mistake was the lack of deference. Sad that it’s that way but it is, indeed, that way.

Rhymes With Right, “Hidden Truth About Arafat Revealed”

Greg comments on the revelation that Yasser Arafat was implicated in the murders of two American diplomats in 1973. My view of the matter: I believe there are far, far too many official secrets, this matter should have been made public years ago, and it should have become part of the public discourse. Concealing information makes our society less free. Yes, the revelation would probably have made matters more difficult for the State Department. Such are the handicaps of a democratic society.

The Education Wonks, “1984 All Over Again?”

EdWonk reports on the use of biometric information to identify children in Texas.

Eternity Road, “Nuremburg 2006?”

I agree with Francis that Saddam’s trial and execution were Iraqi, conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi purposes and to Iraqi norms as best as they could be mustered under the circumstances. As I noted above there are many people who believe that the Maliki government are U. S. puppets. Those who believe that cannot be dissuaded.

The remainder of Francis’s post is an interesting discussion of the Nuremburg War Crimes trials which, in my view as I presume in Francis’s, were an error that were a consequence of the horror at the atrocities of the Germans.

Right Wing Nut House, “Religion and Politics: Intolerance Is Growing”

Rick’s submission for this week is an essay considering issues of religion, politics, and tolerance which might well be summarized in a common paraphrase of Barry Goldwater’s statement in his acceptance speech in 1964: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance of tyranny is no virtue.”

I’m afraid that the sad truth is that it’s very difficult to hold a society as diverse as ours together. One of the ways of doing so is to have a number of subjects e.g. religion that polite people simply don’t discuss in public. This may have the unfortunate consequence of allowing people who hold minority views to believe that many more people agree with them than actually do.

I suspect that this is one of the problems in Iraq. Sectarian differences simply weren’t discussed in public—it was considered rude. That didn’t mean that Sunni Arabs were in the majority (as they may have convinced themselves) or that Shi’ite Arabs weren’t being mistreated by Saddam’s regime but it made it easier to ignore it if that was happening.

The Sundries Shack, “Bipartisanship? Tee Hee!”

Jimmie Bise presents a little evidence that the spirit of bipartisanship in the Democratically-controlled Congress may be short-lived (indeed, may already be extinct). I doubt that many of the Democratic partisans will be outraged, embarrassed, or surprised by the turn of events and will undoubtedly blame the Republican minority. I suspect that many Republicans will be surprised at the ease with which George W. Bush takes the change. IIRC his history in Texas was one of being able to forge agreements with a legislature controlled by Democrats. My prediction is that will endear him to libertarians and old-line conservatives even less.

Andrew Olmsted, “You Keep Using That Word…”

In a very fine post Andrew begins by talking about definitions and ends up with irreconcilable differences, using the blogosphere as a pointed example. I agree but, if I may humbly insinuate myself into the discussion, that’s the virtue of centrists (or, perhaps better, non-aligned folks) like me. I am more interested in policy. practicality, and likely outcomes than ideology and I don’t have a problem with espousing a worldview that, at times, appears inconsistent.

Well, I’ve made up my mind which posts I’ll vote for. Which would get your votes/