This Just In: Ross Douthat is Still Silly

Why, you ask, did a wealthy and pampered man refuse to step in when an act of pure evil occurred in his shop, on his watch, and by an ex-colleague? Because he was a moral monster, you might think. Well, as it turns out, no. At least According to Ross Douthat. It is because Paterno like many

good people, heroic people, are led into temptation by their very goodness — by the illusion, common to those who have done important deeds, that they have higher responsibilities than the ordinary run of humankind. It’s precisely in the service to these supposed higher responsibilities that they often let more basic ones slip away.

That right, it was Joe Pa's essential goodness and heroism that led him to allow a serial child raper to continue child raping for nearly a decade if not longer. He has higher responsibilities than protecting children from a child raper. According to Douthat, a rich man giving some small or large percentage of his wealth to create funds, professorial chairs, and buildings that bear his name is the kind of heroism that quails before the minor matter of stopping child raping. The NYTimes ought properly be ashamed of the voice of the turtle they have unleashed on the land.

 Let alone the question does he think that it is actually the case that ignoring great evil is evidence of being either good or heroic? When he writes these hot messes, do you think he actually thinks?

Francis Fukuyama: Reliably Wrong.

Some time ago, I made the point that Francis Fukuyama is always wrong and insisted that his new tour of western civilization would continue that tradition. It turns out, I was right.

David Brooks is an Annoying Such And So

An aside from his recent op-ed:

The purpose of the meeting was to see which regions were doing a good job of getting the veterans treatment and housing vouchers, and which weren’t. (Democrats seem to feel comfortable using vouchers to address housing problems but not education and health care problems.)

Because providing housing is different from providing education and health care. Consequently, people who prefer to get things done right rather than mindless follow some failed ideology do different things to resolve the problems.

Also, too: "seem to feel comfortable"? How about: concluded after looking at the evidence?

And as well:

Unlike some political appointees, Donovan and Gould are deeply involved in the intricacies and are powerfully driving policy.

Name the rapscallions, you passive aggressive such like. The whole thing is a master class is insinuation, faulty logic, and unsupported conclusion. It is, in other words, Brookstastic.

Wrongly Wrong

I think we can all agree that the events in Japan are a tragedy of unimaginable scope and, were it not for the fact that 30 years of following Neoliberal claptrap has hollowed out the American economy, we would be able to provide more of the needed to help. But what with one war or another and endless rounds of tax cuts. One way to help get us moving in the right direction is to stop getting things wrongly wrong.

One of these news events that seems to demand note, but about which a humble political blogger can say little. Does the fact that an earthquake can serious damage a nuclear power plant without necessarily causing a radiation leak make us more or less sanguine about the idea of building additional nuclear facilities? I’m not sure whether this counts as “see, it’s risky!’ or “see, even in an earthquake it’s not that bad.”

No radiation leaks? How about we put this one in the jumping the gun to make an inapt point department.

And:

If we imagine a hundred years into the future of fossil fuels and a hundred of nuclear power, at the end of a century, how much damage do we imagine each will have caused? I suspect that if it's really an either/or, the nuclear route is likely much safer.


Again, I'm not wanting to say anything definitive. But even at these moments when we see the most frightening side of nuclear power, I think we should still draw back and look at the global -- meant both literally and figuratively -- costs of different fuels and consider the possibility that nuclear power is actually safer for our own health and that of the planet.

While were imagining things, we could imagine a world that uses less energy and relies on sustainable energy sources to supply it that would be yet even better and safer, which we should have done lo these many years ago. If we sketch our options as being bad or worse we are like Jason without the dove. The reason to use a neither nor as opposed to an either or is that neither fossil nor nuclear is ever going to be safe enough.

How Wrong Can One Man Be?

Recently, Andrew Sullivan made fun of Bill O'Reilly for, it seems, insisting on the eternal mystery of God's creation. In response to a reader's suggestion that if Sullivan is, as he claims, a "man of faith" Sullivan believes the same nonsense as O'Reilly. Sullivan, never one to avoid being wrong, argued

I do not believe that God "put the moon there". That kind of specificity, when science can easily explain how all this occurred, is not orthodox Christianity. If O'Reilly meant that there is a profound mystery about our existence and consciousness in the universe(s) that we inhabit, and that that mystery cannot be explained by science alone, I'm with him. It's just so depressing to see Christianity represented by someone who sounds like your uncle after too many drinks at Christmas.

The Bible is very clear on who created the heavens and the earth, hint it was God. There nay some dispute between your different orthodoxies, as there is necessarily more than one, about the 6 days as metaphor or fact but there is no dispute about God the creator. Sullivan is a Catholic and the orthodox Catholic position is that God the heavens and the earth.  You can judge for your self, by reading the Catechism on creation, but as I understand the orthodox Catholic position on this issue God both created the world, the laws that govern it, and granted humanity the reason necessary to understand those laws as a means of further revering God's greatness and goodness.

Or to quote:

279 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."¹¹⁶ Holy Scripture begins with these solemn words. The profession of faith takes them up when it confesses that God the Father almighty is "Creator of heaven and earth" (Apostles' Creed), "of all that is, seen and unseen" (Nicene Creed). We shall speak first of the Creator, then of creation and finally of the fall into sin from which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to raise us up again. 

Skip down a bit and:

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."¹²¹

Which leads to the important point that:

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?