Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:
- Marc Schulman of American Future posts an article from Democratiya written by French philosopher André Glucksmann which I commend to your attention. Also check out Mark Safranski of Zenpundit’s commentary in which he invokes Eric Hoffer.
- Run do not walk and read this post from Tigerhawk in which he re-publishes a speech from 1984 given by George Shultz and contributes some annotated observations. One of the amazing things about U. S. foreign policy over the years is its remarkable consistency and this speech suggests that George W. Bush’s foreign policy may not be the exception to that rule that some have made it out to be.
- I found this post from Harry’s Place to be extremely distressing. Apparently the United Kingdom is closing its university chemistry departments. I’d like to know more about this. For example, are the departments, faculty, and facilities being closed or are they being subsumed into other departments?
- From the serious to the, well, not-so-serious (depending on how you look at it, of course). I just love this post from Spirit Fingers on the perils of searching for a new hairstylist.
- I wanted to comment on this observation of Glenn Reynolds’s:
Yes, the more damaging critique of Bush is that he hasn’t pressed the war hard enough — against Iran, Syria, and the terrorist supporters in Saudi Arabia — not that he should have done less.
I’m afraid that’s an exercise in fantasizing. Bush has done the very limit of what he could do in terms of prosecuting the war without being removed from office. The talk of impeachment didn’t begin in 2006 or even in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. It began in 2000 and the kind of hectoring that Bush has been subjected to throughout his presidency has consequences. I am in no way defending Bush. He’s been a remarkably unpopular president. And in my view that’s tied his hands with respect to prosecuting the war in Iraq more vigorously or expanding it to the other bad actors in the region.
- I didn’t want to let this one get by either: check out this post from Big Lizards in which it’s suggested that the defendants’ attorneys in the 9/11 victims lawsuits were in cahoots with the prosecutors of the Moussaoui case. More at Wizbang. Could someone please explain to me how some form of attorneys’ misconduct isn’t going on here? UPDATE: There’s a good point made by The Pink Flamingo Grill. The conduct of the Moussaoui case does call into question the notion that terrorism should be handled primarily through the legal system. The problem with that view, IMO, has always been that it contemplates a legal system that’s completely different from the one we have in scope and competence with all-wise mandarins running it (who I wouldn’t want to have running anything in my government even if they existed).
That’s the lot.
