Basslines to Baselines

I have a hard time following day-to-day politics as most of the available information is pointlessly superifical (CNN) incredibly partisan (MoveOn) or usually a bit over my head because the stories can often be incredibly complex.
Thank God for friends who keep up on these things and help me fill in the blanks. That’s what Steve Abraham did for me in a recent Myspace message exchange. After I finished my ungrad degree in 2004 I had time to attend some Anti-war rallys, which was great. However once Saddam had been toppeled things became a little hazy for me: while I was firmly against going to Iraq in the first place I also believe that the U.S. has an obligation to repair the damage it had done. (Hey no doubt Saddam was a tyrant, but spreading Democracatic values is not as easy as killing one tyrant, the U.S. has a pretty dilltued view of it’s ability to spread Democracy). Suffice to say the issue seemed much more complicated than exit-ASAP or the alternative stay-the-course-(indefintiely).

FINALLY, thanks to Steve, I have found a plan I can get behind:

HR 1234 The Plan to End the Iraq War
BUT WAIT… hours after publishing this post I found a counterpoint from one of my favorite authors: Howard Bloom, check his blog entry Backbone! for more about the necessity of continued U.S. presence.

In either case I’m torn between the Machievellian neccessity and a moral desire to reform our presence — what can be done that is both practical and moral?

It’s hard to find a hint of anger in Sam Harris’ voice when he and Reza Aslan debate ‘Religion and Reason’ as broadcast on CSPAN’s BookTV. ( web / real video )

Whereas some of Harris’ debate partners can get a little sandpapery, puffing-out-their-chests trying and insulating their battered agurments with poor logic and weak statements propped up with self-important attitude. At least that’s what happened with Dennis Prager and Harris did a four-round exchange about faith for Jewcy.com.

To be fair, Sam Harris is not a gentle human being, but he’s not cruel either; at least not outside of the bounds of a healthy intellectual debate. He has the simple advantage of having impeccable rhetoric and reasoning.

Which leads to the question, does faith stand a chance against reason in any debate? Keep in mind that I don’t think that intellectual debates are the be-all-end-all of truth, just one useful tool for exploring an issue.