Talking to Iran

Lately, it seems that there has been some folks calling for the Bush administration to talk with Iran. I know that during the Petraeus/Crocker hearings several Democrats brought up this point, and that Obama also has this as a central point on how he would conduct foreign policy. While I do agree that normalizing diplomatic relations would probably be a good idea, I do have some qualms. Well, really only one qualm.

Do we really want the Bush Administration of all groups to begin those talks? Is no one concerned about what they might say or how bad they might screw this up? Wouldn't it be better to wait until a more responsible and sober administration took office to begin a major diplomatic initiative?

Like the earlier racism post, maybe I will get back to this later.

One more thought about the 2nd Amendment

At the end of my post about the 2nd amendment, I kind of let things hanging in the air. I had another thought about those fanatical supporters of the 2nd amendment. While I have already talked about how I think 2nd amendment supporters are cowards who don't really believe their own logic, this cowardice can be seen yet again in their claim that the 2nd amendment is there to defend all the other amendments. Take an example that has been ongoing for most of the Bush Administration: Federal warrantless wiretapping and repeated violations of the 4th amendment. In no way does having a firearm prevent the government from engaging in activities that violate that amendment. Furthermore, if you had a firearm and a illegal search of your home and person is occurring in front of you, shooting the officer is still murder. No court has recognized an affirmative right to defend one's interpretation of the other amendments of the Constitution. Attempting to do so would still put one in other legal jeopardy.

This point about the 2nd defending all the other amendments could be stood on its head. Just as the 2nd allegedly defends the others, so do the others defend the 2nd. Without the 4th, the government could know exactly where all firearms are at all times, assuming the feasibility of a monitoring regime. Without the 1st, supporters of the 2nd could not organize politically to defend their rights, such as they conceptualize them to exist, under the 2nd. Without the the 5th and the 6th amendments, gun owners could not defend their rights in court such as the use of deadly force to protect themselves and others, or even their right to litigate their interpretations of the 2nd.

Well, I feel like I have beaten topic into the ground. I am sure I will have more on this topic in the future.

Are they going to hurt us, Walter? No Donnie. These men are cowards.

You know something that really chaps my ass. Fundamentally, almost all Americans are nihilists. They believe in nothing. Everyone is a cafeteria everything. A little from this philosophy, religion, or political beliefs, a little from that. Frankly, it is kind of disgusting. Why this is, I don't know. Could just be the fact we live in a post modern age or that beliefs have become too dangerous. How could ideas become too dangerous? Ideology can destroy the world now, but does it really operationalize down to individuals not having personal beliefs? Do people really not believe things because those beliefs aggregated could lead to horrible consequences like nuclear wars? I think that people don't have fundamental beliefs because having such are too painful on a much more personal level. Having beliefs is painful because beliefs generally require sacrifice in one way or another. Most Americans don't want to sacrifice anything, if at all possible.

Maybe that is all wrong, maybe Americans are not fundamentally nihilistic, or maybe not for the reasons I propose. This was just something I was thinking about this morning.