We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
During his speech on Monday, Al Gore will demagogue, fear-monger, strike the podium, act santimonious, and decry Bush's Nazi Police State. But watch: the one thing he will not do is to demand that surveillance of terrorists, and information-seeking from terrorists, cease. He will Talk Loud, but Carry No Cohones. If he were to be consistent, he would demand that the US surrender immediately, and quit our surveillance of terrorists/
Why is the Left consistently soft on terror? We are always trying to figure that one out. Hornik gives it a try, at Am. Spectator
Hewitt has an interesting take on the coming changes on the Court, and the panic amongst the ACLU and the Left. He sees it as a Theist/Secularist issue. He thinks there's a great fear that people will begin to speak about morality and natural law in persuasive ways. Here.
Belgium thinks the American school system is rooted in an antedeluvian past. In Belgium, the $ follows the kid. Schools compete. Democracy Project.
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.