one nation for why?

So I was wondering today why we should try to hold Iraq together when it's such an artificial invention in the first place? It's something I think about a lot, but then I think, well, if it's such an obvious question how come nobody's asking it? However, really, why one nation? Iraq was one nation formed out of a few outlying colonies/states/provinces? of the Ottoman Empire if I remember my history with any trustworthiness and it's always been held together with the glue of potential terror and terror unleashed. Such an artificial design seems only to have inspired imperialist-born misery on a huge population for awhile now. And if the Turks are so afraid, why are they afraid? We're afraid because in a partition Southern Iraq definately becomes an extension of Iran and the oil there becomes Iran's, pretty much. I guess we have to ask to what degree this is already true? And also, how much is it worth to prevent this? And a few other questions as well...but it's late.

I was also wondering why leftist intellectuals have not insisted on changing the words they use in debates about what the judiciary should look like and what kind of philosophies they support on the bench. "Strict Constructionists" and "activists" are not good words to have when arguing against conservitive ideology on the bench. Strict constructionist just sounds stern but fair, in reality so-called "strict constructionists" seem to believe that dozens of men came together after a hellish decade of fighting and living in economic turmoil and agreed exactly on what the government being established should look like and where it would head. In reality, the Constitution is not a single voice of agreement, and maybe not even a harmonization. Instead it is a series of compromises, agreements and insistances over objections that were palatable for many of them precisely because it was not a fixed document and because it was something that could be interpreted and fought over in terms of meaning. To insist on not going outside of the written of the Constitution is an opinion about the Constitution and, I believe, one that would be out of step with many of the framers of the original Constitution. So instead of calling them Strict Constructionists, I would label them with a term they should know, "Pharisees".

Meanwhile, "activist" conjures up a bunch of long-haired hippies and self-righteous intellectuals and while I'm in favor of more of both, most of America isn't and they hear "activist" and they're thinking "this guy wants to bomb some college administration building and talk to me about some linguist from the 18th Century." "Activist" sounds to too many like "recklessness". I don't believe this is true, sometimes the status quo is the recklessness (was there anything more reckless than the Democrats continued support of the Iraq War during the last election? Supporting the status quo was not only unpatriotic, it doomed them to irrelevance from which they've yet to disassociate themselves while Bush and his administation have not had one success to show for all their failure). While the esteemed Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that those not supporting the Pharisees were "idiots", I would argue that these are simply people capable of viewing the Constitution as something that points toward its own meanings without always giving them if it is going to take into consideration things like women's rights, intellectual property issues and all other kinds of et ceteras seen, forseen and unimagined. These "activists" are aware that there is a guiding spirit behind the Constitution, a commonality of belief if you will about government, or a common denominator maybe. This commonality of belief springs forth from the idea that government protects the rights and liberties of the people and is given permission to rule from the people. In this age in which leaders seem to insist in ruling over us, deciding popular elections with nine votes and the like, it might be helpful if Scalia and his juggernaut of ideologues would have some sort of concept of these principles. I don't believe they do. Their arrogance to rule is as disgusting as the deadly sin of gluttony. Anyway though, I haven't figured out a better name than "activist" yet.

Otherwise the day was pretty quiet. I need to find a new book to read, I finally finished #9 Dream, which was pretty brilliant; I need to find my shaver, I look like hell and a friend comes to visit tomorrow.

The studenten have tests tomorrow. We'll see. We've been going awfully fast as of late.

Saw The Libertine last night...dark. Duck Season on Sunday I liked much better, not that The Libertine was bad or vapid, just that Duck Season was less an intellectual exercise and more a curious exploration of characters and environments. Like most movies that are love letters to the towns they are set in, there were few shots of Mexico City and no postcard shots; instead the love letter was addressed through the characters who grew there.

Matt Murton's having a nice spring for the Cubs...so can Dusty ruin him? It'll be an interesting experiment.

the new glasses


Nouri Ar Rawi


Scalia


desk in my classroom