It's true, there are FEW who rival
Chickenhawk Wisdom for abuse of logic, but
Mickey Kaus has to be one of them. Note the following
Slate's Fred Kaplan, citing Juan Cole as backup, writes of the draft Iraqi constitution
[emphasis added]:
Much has been made of the assembly's debate over whether Islam should be declared "the source" of legislation or merely "a source." But look at how it came out: "a fundamental source"--which, as professor/blogger Juan Cole notes, amounts to pretty much the same thing as "the source."
No it doesn't. If something's "a fundamental source" rather than "the fundamental source" then there can be other fundamental sources. It's not, you know, the source. Duh! ... I'd say a) by buying off the mullahs with the weasel-word "fundamental," this provision looks on its face like a win for the anti-clerics; and b) Kaplan and Cole are so eager to find fault with the constitution (and, by implication, the war) that they've lost touch with logic. ... Update: Brookhiser takes an in-between position. [Via Lucianne] ... 2:54 A.M.
Ok, I'll BITE. There is a difference between an INDEFINITE article and a DEFINITE article. Your position, that there can be other fundamental sources - can be easily supported. Where are the other ENUMERATED sources within the document? How are fundamental sources ranked?
I'm really surprised at this quote as wingnuts are profligate in their opinions about Rand and, oh, Orwell. Is this a case of "more equal than others"? Come on, Prof Cole's assertion is as valid as your
vacuouspernicious view that somehow, someway, John Locke will suddenly be channeled by Chalabi.
Find mightcan at www.mightcan.blogspot.com