Maggie's Farm

I disagree with your hypothesis that leftists are soft on terror. I rather think that both right and left have it completely wrong. The right may be the more dangerous since they mistake the behavior for a strategy and respond as though it were structured violence like war: it isn't. This is why Bush is so totally, wastefully wrong with his pointless attack on Iraq and Afghanistan. This will have precisely the effect terrorists are looking for; waste of attention and resources. I am surprised that you quote an Israeli on terror since with Sharon they have taken both left and right side position at the same time; the benefit of longer experience with terror. They are quite practical about the risks everyone runs everyday. They respond with direct return violence that has no effect but satisfaction for the populace, and they seek political accommodation to remove the motivation for terror. This is an interesting combination of strategies to keep all the stakeholders engaged and none in control. Whenter it will ultimately work is still open to question, of course. It is fairly clear that the Bush strategy has no possibility of success. it will cost billions, possibly trillions and do nothing but split Iraq into three warring provinces creating a neat home for training terrorists. I am just astounded as how far out of touch Bush and his entire team have been on this issue at the risk of the next 30 years of American security. This is what happens when domestic politics dictates foreign policy and about as sophisticated as the Spanish American Wars replete with yellow journalism and rampant jingoism. Bush should be proud that he has driven American thinking back over 100 years.

Unfortuantely Hewitt is wrong, as usual, natural law is an epistemological fiction growing from a failed theology. It is a thin reed on which to build substantial judicial rulings since one person's nature is another's artifice. Thomas, the court's most prominent natural law advocate, is merely a lazy thinker who does not wish to engage in serious reflection that may lead to very difficult decisions. He, like Hewitt, wants an easy, external answer. This way lies madness since it will force the argument to one of metaphysics and theology for which we are poorly prepared. And those who cling to natural law and the least prepared since they argue that it is all available to intuition and requires no direct reasoning. I think Kant demonstrated that this is no foundation for sound thought.