Carnival of the Vanities

MOBster Doug Bass hosted episode 128 of the Carnival of the Vanities.  Here are the posts that caught my eye:

The Speculist's entry, All Our Tomorrows, covers time and physics as explained in the book, The End of Time by Julian Barbour. 

Every possible moment -- past, present, and future -- exists and is as real as this moment. Also, we don't "move through" these worlds; we’re a part of them. Running through the Configuration Space is a wave of probability that connects one complete, perfectly still universe with the next. Our entire experience of motion, of occurrence, of time itself, is just an illusion…not unlike the illusion of motion pictures. The frames that make up the movie that we call time are these snapshots of the universe.

Admittedly I am no physics expert, and was frankly unaware of "one of the biggest problems in physics, the gap between the classical model of the universe and the quantum model", but it struck me that Mr. Barbour's take on time lines up with the Christian concept that God is outside of time, knowing the beginning from the end. Fascinating.

While visiting the Speculist I discovered Phil is writing an online novel, Stillness.  I've made it through Part 1 today so I feel completely justified in blaming him for the work I didn't get done.  I usually would prefer to hold a real book in my hands, but this story is worth that sacrifice so far.

Wicked Thoughts senses bias in Snopes handling of two stories.  I use both Snopes and Truth or Fiction and remember having the same impression about a Snopes entry I'd read, but I hadn't really followed up on it.

The always excellent QandO Blog forsees a future split in the GOP, We Had To Destroy the Party to Save It, most likely between the Social Conservatives and the rest of the party. During Hewitt's last visit to the Twin Cities, he foresaw immigration as an issue that could split the party.  As ticked as we all are with the way the government refuses to enforce current immigration laws, putting us all at risk in the process, I don't see it as the issue that will divide the current GOP base.

What has united support for the GOP, from those who lean socially liberal like Glenn, to libertarians like the QandO authors has definitely been the War on Terror.  If the Democrats field a candidate who is believable on the defense of the country and truly understands the threat of Islamofacism, the GOP stands to lose its majority.  That's why a Hillary candidacy concerns me.  She is talking the talk, but from all I know of her dislike for the military, I could never trust her to walk the walk.

So, I foresee the same GOP division that QandO does, with social conservatism being the force able to divide us.  However, I see it from the perspective of a social conservative, not a libertarian. I disagree with his assertion:

The Social Conservatives, on the other hand, seem far less interested in limited government.  In fact, they seem just fine with an expansive government, so long as that government is working towards their own social/cultural ends.

I see no conflict between being socially conservative and wanting limited government.  In fact, I don't know any conservatives who are in love with the spending policies of the Bush administration.

What do you foresee splitting the GOP majority?  How do we hold it together?

Comments

[Eva Young]

I think illegal immigration is a major issue that splits the GOP. Immigration was a bigger issue than Kolbe being gay with his last primary challenge.

Social conservatives are fine with a government that has sodomy laws, laws banning sex toys - and other nonsensical laws that try to dictate the details of what people should do in the bedroom. Part of Scalia's concern with overturning the Sodomy Laws in Lawrence was that this would also repeal laws against ******gasp******* masturbation. Do you really think the government should go there?

[Sandy]

I think conservatives are pretty united on the illegal immigration issue. We're against it, consider it a huge security issue, and wish our leadership would take a stand. But they're afraid of a hispanic backlash, a growing constituency that has helped us to win elections recently. (In my opinion, legal citizens of hispanic origin would support actually enforcing our immigration laws.)

The problem from the right with Lawrence is the fact that the Supreme Court saw fit to rule on an issue that should have been left to the state, (most states have already changed their sodomy laws), and they left a huge opening for other issues, like poligamy. (The lawsuits are already in process, so there's no arguing the slippery slope doesn't exist.)

We have no desire to bring the courts into your bedroom. However I do reserve the right to have an opinion when you advocate changing the legal definition of marriage. I object to having those decisions made by men and women in black robes rather than by the legislatures that represent the people.