August 23, 2005 by s.z.

And Don't Some People Believe That Dinosaurs are Still Around? And speaking of respected conservative thinkers (and we were, just yesterday), here's Brendan Miniter, the assistant editor of the WallStreet Journal's OpinionJournal.com, with a column entitled "Evolving Tactics: Conservatives learn to fight like liberals."  And here is the highlight (IMHO) of the piece: [C]onservatives are using arguments and tactics heretofore under patent protection by the left, including [...] arguing for free speech and "diversity" in education. The last has drawn a surprising amount of attention lately with a debate over evolution and "intelligent design"--the hypothesis that evolution isn't random but rather the mechanism an intelligent being uses to change the universe. President Bush pushed this debate well into the public spotlight by remarking that intelligent design should be taught in addition to random evolution. Whatever the merits of this debate, it's interesting that the "religious right" is co-opting the arguments of the left. With "diversity" a worthy goal in education, why not present students with "both sides"? That way no one is left out and everyone is included. But why stop with biology "diversity"?  I'm sure there's room for a lot more science diversity, such as teaching kids that some people believe that lightning is caused when electrical charges build up within clouds, then connect with oppositely charged particles at the ground to complete an electrical circuit -- but other people believe that it's caused by an unknown power (possibly God) trying to kill somebody who took His name in vain, or masturbated.  And while there is no evidence for the second belief, that doesn't mean that it's not true, kids, so that's why we learn about it in science class. Tomorrow we'll have a lesson in math diversity: while some people believe that pi is 3.1415926..., other people believe that pi is 3.  And hey, we don't want them to feel left out, so we're going to teach you both beliefs, and you can choose which pi "theory" you like the best. 5:01:26 AM

Attack of the Chickenhawks It seems that Human Events Online finally figured out that Ann Coulter was never going to come through with her blog CoulterGeist, so they let the young people use the space to put on a show set up a blog called The Right Noise.  (TownHall set up a similar blog last year -- I guess the idea is to keep the kids so busy blogging that they won't even think about stealing the jobs of their elders, or starting a revolution, or having sex.) And it also seems that our young Ann Coulter replacements are tapping into the same collective wingnut consciousness that inspired VBen Shapiro column of the 17th, " Why the 'Chickenhawk' argument is un-American: Part I." (Either that or they are copying off of VBen's paper.)  Here's a "Right Noise" post from the 22nd: Frying the Chickenhawk Argument By: Roger Custer The Left is now pushing the “chickenhawk” argument against those of us who support our troops and the war in Iraq but are not in the Armed Forces.  But this “argument” is easy to fry.[...] My recent appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal included a caller who accused me of being a hypocrite for not serving in Iraq.  I told her that I am fighting the battle of ideas on America’s college campuses. Wow, that sure put things in perspective, because I now realize that fighting the battle of ideas on campuses by working as a "program officer" for Young America's Foundation is just as uncomfortable, lonely, and dangerous as serving in Iraq.  I hope that C-SPAN caller really felt put in her place by Roger's riposte. The Left assumes that people must be involved in an activity in order to express an opinion about it.  If that were the case, not many people could express opinions about anything since they would be limited to their own fields.  Only teachers could discuss education policy, only construction workers could discuss growth and zoning policy, only policemen could discuss drug policy, and only social workers could discuss Welfare policy. Or, as Ben put it:   We constantly vote on activities with which we may or may not be intimately involved. We vote on police policy, though few of us are policemen; we vote on welfare policy, though few of us either work in the welfare bureaucracy or have been on welfare; we vote on tax policy, even if some of us don't pay taxes. Hey, not-so-great minds think alike too! Back to Roger:  Moore asks, “Dude, where’s my country?” But I say my country is one where anyone has the freedom to express an opinion about anything. Roger, like I told Ben the other day, you can express your opinion on anything you want.  Feel free to talk about the glories of war while you stay safe at home -- it's free country, so knock yourself out.  In fact, if you want, you can even preach about how young people should remain pure until marriage, while you visit hookers on a nightly basis.  But just realize that you open yourself up to charges of hypocrisy if you do that.  And also realize that other people have the freedom to express the opinion that you are a pussy for saying that you fervently believe in bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqis through war, while also claiming that you are too busy arranging for Affirmative Action Bake Sales to actually join the military. Later that same day (Monday), Jack Langer ( "Mr. Langer is a PhD candidate in Russian history at Duke University") weighed in on the topic -- he too seems to have been reading from the same sheet music as Ben (but not reading from Ben's column, of course, since that would be plagiarism): RE: Frying the Chickenhawk Argument By: Jack Langer Roger, I have also been amused by the chickenhawk argument which, of all the Left's tropes, I think is among the least logical. The argument is that only those who have served or are currently serving on the front lines have the moral authority to support a war. By that reasoning, the only people who would be able to send troops into battle would be those among the president and members of congress who are actually combat veterans. The presidency and congress would naturally have to be shut to non-veterans, since declaring war is a fairly important function of Congress, and conducting a war is a somewhat significant duty of the president. Ben's words were a little more law schoolery-like: The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself. Back to Jack:  Aside from decimating the entire idea of civilian control over the military, this concept would have precluded some rather important figures in American history from serving their country--President Lincoln, for example, would rank among the moral pygmies without the authority to support a war. Oddly enough, VBen also mentioned Lincoln: By the leftist logic, here are some other "chickenhawks": John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton But this is my favorite part of Jack's post (and it's not even hinted at in Ben's column!): The purveyors of the chickenhawk argument also fail to realize how inherently sexist, heterosexualist, and ableist this argument is - since women, homosexuals, and the handicapped cannot serve in the front lines, none of these people apparently ever have the moral authority to support a war. Jack, honey, I don't think even Michael Moore is saying that you have to serve in the front lines to avoid being a chickenhawk -- you'll notice that George W. Bush isn't on Ben's list, and George didn't get within a million miles of a front. But more importantly, whatever gave you the idea that homosexuals cannot serve in combat?   Of course they can (and do).  So, feel free to contact your recruiting office, and sign up at your earliest convenience (unless you are fighting the battle of ideas in the Russian history department of Duke, and, like Roger, feel you've done your part for freedom). 2:52:26 AM