N With Both Feet

Clear thinking on the Foley matter...

2006-10-11T16:15:00.000-04:00

Here's an observation concerning the Foley fuss that I read in today's WSJ Opinion Journal (quoted without attribution):

Just why does Congress need to have all the teenagers roaming the halls? Although child labor might have some libertarian/Randian appeal in the abstract, in the real world the Congress is just full of narcissists and other creepy types who talk about themselves in the first person plural (or the third person singular in the case of Bob Dole). Lots of personality disorders being sublimated in constant activity and attention, I'd guess. Definitely not where I would want my teenage kids spending a lot of time. Shouldn't our position just be to get rid of the page program?

No quibble from these quarters that this "scandal" is an issue that rates our attention. It is an above-the-surface symptom of an underlying cancer of a particularly virulent strain. And the writer of those words is not wrong about the sketchy characters populating Capitol Hill.

Nevertheless, as has become very clear, this "story" has not been driven by any genuine concern for the participants of the page program, but rather by cynical political interest by GOP adversaries. It seems there is no depth our political leaders are not willing to plumb for perceived political gain...

Churchill's wisdom not learned

2006-06-28T14:53:00.000-04:00

"It is the habit of the boa constrictor to besmear the body of his victim with a foul slime before he devours it; and there are many people in England, and perhaps elsewhere, who seem to be unable to contemplate military operations for clear political objects, unless they can cajole themselves into the belief that their enemy are utterly and hopelessly vile… This may be very comforting to philanthropic persons at home; but when an army in the field becomes imbued with the idea that the enemy are vermin who cumber the earth, instances of barbarity may very easily be the outcome. This unmeasured condemnation is moreover as unjust as it is dangerous and unnecessary." --Winston Churchill

In a letter to his protégé, Timothy, the apostle Paul describes end times. In that passage there is a valuable insight that pegs one of the hallmarks of this age. The passionate apostle Paul talks about persons who are:

"...always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." --II Timothy 3:7

How well this describes post-modern man! In this age of staccato information, the trick is sorting through the clutter, not getting our hands on the "facts."

It is indeed rare that one finds authentic "truth" or genuine "knowledge" floating in that vast sea of "information" that is daily dished out by our mainstream media. That we find ideas presented to us that are truly insightful is equally rare.

I happily came across a most insightful piece by Diana West in the Washington Times. And it follows that she looked to one of humanity's better thinkers as the basis of her insight. I hope I can provide excerpts from this piece and keep the cogency of her thinking in tact.

"...it is a quotation by Churchill on the subject of war. Specifically, what happens to a civilized society when it goes to war with a barbarous one. ...what I remember as being the main point was that if the civilized society is to prevail over the barbarous one, it will necessarily and tragically be degraded by the experience as a vital cost of victory. Partly, this is because civilized war tactics are apt to fail against barbarous war tactics, thus requiring civilized society to break the "rules" if it is to survive a true death struggle. It is also because the clash itself — the act of engaging with the barbarous society — forces civilization to confront, repel and also internalize previously unimagined depredations."

Who better than Winston Churchill to fully appreciate the bitter costs of war? Among those costs is the toxic effect upon civilized persons who were compelled by desparate circumstances to do what was necessary to preserve civilization itself.

"The question is, did bombing Dresden to defeat Hitler or dropping two nuclear bombs to force Japan to stop fighting make the Allies into barbarians?
"I think most people would still say of course not and argue that such destructive measures were necessary to save civilization itself — and certainly thousands of mainly American and Allied lives. But if this argument continues to carry the day, it's because we still view that historic period from its own perspective. We view it from a perspective in which Allied lives — our fathers, husbands, brothers and sons — counted for more than Axis lives, even those of women and children."

What follows is where Ms. West helps us to see our own circumstance with amazing clarity...

How quaint. That is, this is not at all how we think anymore. If we still valued our own men more than the enemy and the "civilians" they hide among — and now I'm talking about the war in Iraq — our tactics would be totally different, and, not incidentally, infinitely more successful. We would drop bombs on city blocks, for example, and not waste men in dangerous house-to-house searches. We would destroy enemy sanctuaries in Syria and Iran and not disarm "insurgents" at perilous checkpoints in hostile Iraqi strongholds.

In the face of Hitler's barbarity--and the distinct potential of Nazi Germany prevailing, Churchill came to embrace the notion that the good guys could not afford to forego using whatever means, whatever weapons, were at their disposal. This included the tactic of carpet bombing cities and even the use of poisonous gas. Let us let the Prime Minister speak for himself:

"When all was over, torture and cannibalism were the only two expedients that the civilized, scientific, Christian States had been able to deny themselves: and these were of doubtful utility."

Had the pugnacious Churchill not been fully convinced of the legitimate distinction between good and evil, he could not have come to this point of tactical clarity. Now Ms. West hits us with the emasculated counterfeit propagated by our liberal elite that has made a black and white difference in how we prosecute the war in Iraq.

In the 21st century, however, there is something that our society values more than our own lives — and more than the survival of civilization itself. That something may be described as the kind of moral superiority that comes from a good wallow in Abu Ghraib, Haditha, CIA interrogations or Guantanamo Bay. Morally superior people — Western elites — never "humiliate" prisoners, never kill civilians, never torture or incarcerate jihadists. Indeed, they would like to kill, I mean, prosecute, or at least tie the hands of, anyone who does. This, of course, only enhances their own moral superiority. But it doesn't win wars. And it won't save civilization.
Why not? Because such smugness masks a massive moral paralysis. The morally superior (read: paralyzed) don't really take sides, don't really believe one culture is qualitatively better or worse than the other. They don't even believe one culture is just plain different from the other. Only in this atmosphere of politically correct and perpetually adolescent non-judgmentalism could anyone believe, for example, that compelling, forcing or torturing a jihadist terrorist to get information to save a city undermines our "values" in any way. It undermines nothing — except the jihad.
Do such tactics diminish our inviolate sanctimony? You bet. But so what? The alternative is to follow our precious rules and hope the barbarians will leave us alone, or, perhaps, not deal with us too harshly. Fond hope. Consider the 21st-century return of (I still can't quite believe it) beheadings. The first French Republic aside, who on God's modern green earth ever imagined a head being hacked off the human body before we were confronted with Islamic jihad? Civilization itself is forever dimmed — again.

Diana West is absolutely spot-on with this one. Would the the policy makers inside the Bush administration proceed with like clarity and purpose.

Is it art?

2006-06-21T16:29:00.000-04:00

This Wall Street Journal story is sweet... and it's true...

Artist David Hensel managed to get an entry into this year's summer show at London's Royal Academy of Arts. Given that there were over 9,000 applications to the world's largest open-submission exhibit of contemporary art, that's quite an honor.

The thing is, Hensel's "art" isn't exactly what found its way into the exhibit--it was the sculpture's base and a wooden support that made the jury's cut.

The plinth and the jesmonite sculpture it was intended to support apparently got separated from each other. Judging the items separately, Hensel's laughing head (entitled, "One Day Closer to Paradise"--which took the artist two months to carve and polish) was rejected by the Academy's panel. The slate base (which took four hours to hew) and support were, however, accepted.

The rectangular slab and barbell-shaped boxwood support were labled "Exhibit 1201." Mr. Hensel said of the outcome, "It says something about the state of visual arts today." When this story hit the press, the Royal Academy denied having made an error. The slate base and carved wooden support were "thought to have merit," according to an official statement from the Royal Academy.

Hat tip: WSJ opinionjournal.com
Photo: WSJ

Sex and alcohol--religious taboos?

2006-06-21T13:08:00.000-04:00

“There are two things you never want to see made: sausage and legislation.”

This is the time of year when many Christian denominations in the U.S. gather their representatives to make policy decisions. It is church government at work at its highest levels. Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Baptists have or are meeting and we're hearing about the contentious issues in front of them.

Not that conservatives have a shortage of thorny business to work through. However, most often the “issues” making headlines are the result of liberal activists within the denomination pushing to expand their territory and influence.

Truth be told, most of the mainline denominations long ago were taken over by the left whilst the non-activists slept. What passes for debate is really the faithful doing their best to do damage control. But like a homeowner in New Orleans living behind one of those dikes putting up sandbags as the next tropical system approaches, it’s largely an exercise in futility.

An exception this year is the Southern Baptist Annual Meeting. The country’s largest protestant denomination has of late been moving in a--shall we say--more "conservative" direction. They easily passed a resolution condemning all alcohol use. Reflective of my own reaction to this teetotaler's resolution is this statement by Justin Taylor:

I'm not sure how wise it is to pass resolutions that functionally condemn the actions of Jesus (John 2; Luke 7:33-34; ) and Paul (1 Tim. 5:23). I'm also not sure it's very wise to prohibit that which God has given as a gift (Deut. 14:26; Ps. 104:15)

I understand their concern. Alcohol does and can do great damage when it gets the better of an individual or influences group behavior.

Nevertheless, the operative principle is moderation in most instances where excess can produce disastrous results. For example, over-eating can be profoundly unhealthy. In this case we don’t counsel complete abstinence—we counsel self control.

Sex is another case where excess or a lack of self control can bring devastation. Most of us (including, I suspect, most Southern Baptists) wouldn’t do away with sexual activity all together, we rather promote keeping it within the boundaries established by our Creator.

Justin Taylor’s blog, Between Two Worlds, has a great discussion of this issue. There's a great Martin Luther (a good German who was known to enjoy his beer) quote:

We must not...reject [or] condemn anything because it is abused. This would result in utter confusion. God has commanded us in Deut. 4 not to lift up our eyes to the sun (and the moon and the stars), etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Therefore we propose to rush in and pull the sun and stars from the skies. No, we had better let it be. Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him (Ecclus. 19:2; 31:30); so we kill all the women and pour out all the wine. Again, gold and silver cause much evil, so we condemn them. Indeed, if we want to drive away our worst enemy, the one who does us the most harm, we shall have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, as the prophet, Jer. 17, says, "The heart of man is crooked," or, as I take the meaning, "always twisting to one side." And so on - what would we not do?

At the risk of making this entry overly long I must include this last bit. This is the text of a resolution that was submitted to the Evangelism Committee of the Episcopal Church's General Convention by Rev. Guido Verbeck (Western Louisiana). The committee members reportedly considered this resolution too controversial to be debated on the convention floor:

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church declares its unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved (Article XVIII); and be it further
Resolved, That we acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6); and be it further
Resolved, That we affirm that in Christ there is both the substitutionary essence of the Cross and the manifestation of God’s unlimited and unending love for all persons; and be it further
Resolved, That we renew our dedication to be faithful witnesses to all persons of the saving love of God perfectly and uniquely revealed in Jesus and upheld by the full
testimony of Holy Scripture.

Hat tips: Evangelical Outpost and World Magazine Blog

"Why doesn't God show Himself in an obvious, inarguable way?"

2006-06-20T16:49:00.000-04:00

The question above was posed to Marvin Olasky. Without comment from me, here is his written response:

A question thrown at me: "Why doesn't God show Himself in an obvious, inarguable way?"
My response was, "What do you want, a chorus line of Alpha Centauri and other stars spelling out the letters G-O-D? Look at the four big pieces of additional evidence for the existence of God that have arisen within recent decades:
1) The big bang theory, with everything arising out of nothing, suggests that for everything to emerge and get moving there had to be a Prime Mover. Lots of atheists try to get around this, but there's also
2) The "rare earth" understanding, by which this planet had to have so many things so perfectly calibrated to be hospitable to life as we know it-- and the chances of that happening by chance seem infintesimal within this universe. To get around that, some theorize about the existence of parallel universes, or say that some kind of life as we do not know it would otherwise have arisen, but there's also
3) The knowledge we've gained about the intricacy of the individual cell; Darwin and his contemporaries saw it as something akin to a Lego block, but the complexity makes it almost a universe by itself, and one that could hardly have arisen by chance. Some may doubt that, but there's also
4) The Boston Red Sox coming from three games behind to beat the New York Yankees in the 2004 playoffs and then win the World Series. This is the show-stopper of evidence.
OK, I'm kidding about #4, but the combination of the first three plus more that I could throw in makes me suggest that God already makes his existence obvious through his creation, and there's no need for Him to do more. So how come his existence is argued against by so many people? Maybe that relates not to the reality of God but to our human need to make an argument. I'm suggesting that those of us who find the evidence for God's existence inadequate often do so not because it is, but because they prefer materialism to something spiritual and therefore uncontrollable by us. As Psalm 19 declares, "The heavens declare the glory of God..." There's plenty of evidence of what theologians call "general revelation."
Now, if you want to ask for more evidence concerning "special revelation" about Christ specifically, that's another topic and one that is arguable. Wouldn't it be great if Jesus had done things that could be done only by God, like instantly controlling the weather or turning a Long John Silver value meal into enough to feed thousands of people? Of course, if the journalistic/historical records are accurate, Jesus did those things, but the clerical establishment said He was doing magic tricks or playing with Satanism. If Peter had only used his video camera... but if we had Christ's healings and feedings on film -- a superhuman highlight reel -- wouldn't we say it was a magic act like David Copperfield's, or an optical illusion? With testimonies galore, we'd talk about mass hysteria.
I'm sure you can do better -- your turn.

Well said, although much more might be said concerning this ageless question. And as we might have it, quite a bit more was said at World Magazine Blog where this piece was posted. There are some comments that are worth reading if you care to delve deeper.

2006-06-16T19:30:00.000-04:00

It tickles my fancy...

2006-06-16T10:23:00.000-04:00

Whatever one might say about Bill Clinton, it's hard to deny that he was an astute politician.

The GOP had some notable wins during the time he was in office. But more often than not, in the many head-to-head political skirmishes over the eight years of his administration, Bill and his boys often seemed to out-maneuver the House and Senate Republican leadership. Not only could Bubba parse with the best of 'em ("That depends on what the meaning of is is."), he could run with the big dogs when it came to pure politics.

This is why Republican initiated votes in the House and Senate over the last few days so tickles my partisan fancy.

Yesterday, Senate Republicans brought John Kerry's resolution calling for withdrawal from Iraq by the end of this year to the full senate for debate and a vote. The resolution was soundly rejected 93-6. According to an AP story:

The Senate vote unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking GOP leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and war critic.

Note the AP's "he said" qualifier. Was it, or wasn't it taken from Kerry's much trumpeted resolution?

On this particular occasion Kerry did join five other Democrats in voting for the resolution. Nonetheless, Kerry whined about his resolution being brought up for a vote. He denounced the Senate measure as a "political game." Did he ever really intend for his resolution to be considered, or was proposing it simply political posturing?

Just a short while ago, the House voted 256-153 to reject time tables in withdrawing from Iraq. According to another AP report:

The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.
In a 256-153 vote, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

This was an extremely astute move on the Republican's part. It dispelled the smoke and cast a bright light on the Democrats attempting to politically exploit the difficulties associated with the war. It's nice to see the home team win a few.

The Washington Post: The good and the painfully bad

2006-06-10T16:18:00.000-04:00

Yes, the main stream media is often predictably awful. Thankfully, every once in a while, valuable content finds its way into the mix. Case in point: Here are two articles, both from the Washington Post. One is a clear example of the press doing poorly. The other offers a valuable perspective and is surprisingly good.

The first relates (of course) to Iraq--particularly the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Generally The Post avoids the excesses typical of their rival the New York Times. In this particular case, the two are indistinguishable.

The second relates to the recent elections in Peru. This column offers a personal perspective from someone who knows of what he speaks. I will highlight some excerpts, but let me encourage you to read this one in its entirety.

Driven by obvious partisan instincts, Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus do their best to turn a story worthy of celebration into a slam against the Bush administration:

From the moment President Bush introduced him to the American people in October 2002, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi served a crucial purpose for the administration, providing a tangible focus for its insistence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
...In addition to his indisputably prominent role in the Iraqi insurgency, Zarqawi was always a useful source of propaganda for the administration. Magnification of his role and of the threat he posed grew to the point that some senior intelligence officers believed it was counterproductive.
But the administration also occasionally found it useful to play down Zarqawi's importance and influence.In early 2004, the then-governing Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad triumphantly displayed an intercepted letter from Zarqawi to the al-Qaeda leadership that it said illustrated the terrorist's despair in the face of an increasingly competent U.S.-trained Iraqi security force.

Let me see if I've got this right. On one hand, the administration exagerated Zarqawi's role ("magnified," to use their term). On the other, the administration "played down" Zarqawi's importance. In both cases, the "journalists" imply, the administration warrants criticism. And this passes for news print, not opinion. Hmm...

In contrast to the above, in a piece entitiled "Andean Blues," Alvaro Vargas Llosa, reflects on the recent presidential election in Peru. Llosa is a Peruvian native, living inthe U.S. who, as the result of his grandfather's death, found himself in Lima on the day of the runoff between Alan Garcia and Ollanta Humala. To quote Llosa:

One of them, former President Alan Garcia, brought ruin to Peru in the 1980s -- hyperinflation, corruption, abuse of power...
The other candidate, Ollanta Humala, was a former military officer accused of human rights violations who led a coup attempt against dictator Alberto Fujimori in 2000. He is now close to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and sought to replace the fragile republican institutions with an authoritarian, or caudillo-style, nationalist regime.

Peru's election is not unlike the mayoral contest in New Orleans. Mulitple candidates populate the first ballot (I think there were something like 20 candidates for president in the initial round). If no one has a 50% majority, then there is a runoff.

In the early going, Humala held a commanding lead in the polls, but as the election drew near, his numbers began to drop. Nevertheless, he won the first ballot with about 30% of the vote--not enough to avoid the runoff, however. Two other candidates received an almost identical percentage of the vote. Lourdes Flores, a buisness-friendly conservative and Alan Garcia who had reigned over a disasterous presidency from 1985-1990. Each recieved about 23%, but Garcia's percentage was fractionally higher.

The two top vote getters were thus, Humala and Garcia--not an attractive choice, either way you cut it. They faced each other in the run off in early June. Humala's standing plumeted in the final days of the campaign and Garcia ultimately won with about 55% of the vote.

Garcia seems to have "evolved." He favors Peru remaining a part of the global community. His leftist tendencies seem to have moderated. Peru definitely dodged a bullet with this one. We can be thankful that the people were not dupped as the voters in Venezuela were. Let's hope that Garcia's second effort as Peru's leader works out better this time.

Top photo: Ollanta Humala (attribution unknown)
Lower photo: Peru's next president, Alan Garcia (Reuters)

Sex, seniors and STD's

2006-06-01T17:56:00.000-04:00

Sexually transmitted diseases (STD's) are "running rampant" at a Central Florida retirement community, according to a recent news report aired by Local 6 News. The Villages is located near Orlando and has, apparently, become quite the "hot spot."

A gynecologist (who's office is located in The Villages) said she treats more cases of herpes and the human papilloma virus in the retirement community than she did when she practiced in Miami:

"Yeah, they are very shocked (to hear the diagnosis)," said, gynecologist Dr. Colleen McQuade. "I had a patient in her 80s."

One health care provider believes that Viagra, no risk of pregnancy and ignorance are primary factors contributing to this recent phenomenon. Richard Matwyshen, who oversees the community singles group, says it not unusual to hear remarks like, "Should I bring the little blue pills over tonight?"

Perhaps grandma and grandpa will have some new-found wisdom for their grandkids--learned the good old fashioned (hard) way.

Hat tip: World Magazine Blog

"We're here, we're queer...GET USED TO IT" !!

2006-05-16T18:52:00.000-04:00

I've observed homosexual activists chanting this in-your-face slogan on numerous occasions. It's a standard sound track at events where hard core activist groups like Act-Up and Refuse and Resist are present. And while these two groups represent the more militant wing of the activist left, I would nevertheless submit that homosexual advocates in general are shooting for more than just tolerance.

At their core, sexual minorities not only want acceptance, they insist on approval. Tolerance is their mantra, but they are nevertheless themselves highly intolerant (as this recent story shows clearly). They'll take every inch they're given and tenaciously keep pushing for the next mile.

In their grand strategy, one of the key targets is our youth. They are given wide berth in our public schools (which are much less open to Christian activities than they are pro "gay" activities). The earlier they can shape an apporving attitude the better.

Take this story for instance. You most likely are unaware that April 26th was a national "Day of Silence," an event organized by the New York City-based Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. According to their website:

An estimated 500,000 students at 4,000 schools nationwide are participating in GLSEN’s Day of Silence® to peacefully bring attention to the pervasive problem of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) bullying and harassment in schools....

This event took place in thousands of schools "under the radar" of most parents. GLSEN's training manual does advise that organizers structure this event to fit their own local situation. In at least one case, the planners apparently pushed the envelope a bit too far. A story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel carries this lead paragraph:

Parents are angry and school leaders are promising action in response to a "Heterosexual Questionnaire," approved by two teachers, that asked students questions such as: "If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?"

You can view the entire questionnaire here. What do you think? Were the organizers at Port Washington High School simply seeking tolerance?

Graphic from GLSEN's Day of Silence training manual

The EU, Romanian orphans and divine judgement

2006-05-15T14:58:00.000-04:00

There is a good chance that you've never heard of Baroness Emma Nicholson. She is a member of the European Parliament who hails from England. I would not want to be in in the Baroness's royal shoes when she one day stands before the Just Judge.

Despite there being over 80,000 children lacking parental care, in 2004 Romania banned all adoptions. And this misguided woman is chiefly responsible.

The Baroness was appointed by the EU as Romania’s rapporteur (advisor) helping to put the former Soviet satellite on track to become a member of the European Union. According to Chuck Colson,

The baroness pressured the Romanian government to declare the adoption ban, making baseless accusations that international adoptions spawned corruption and child-trafficking and insisting that anything short of a total ban would prevent Romania’s entrance into the European Union.

Of these allegations, Congressmen Chris Smith (R-N.J.) says,

“Lady Nicholson has no facts to support her allegations . . . and indeed her allegations have been refuted by UNICEF.”

As you might imagine, many of these orphans live in horrid circumstances. Colson points out that, "When that ban took effect, more than one thousand children were already in the process of being adopted by foreign families, including two hundred in the United States. Some of these children have already met and bonded with their would-be adoptive parents."

Here's something constructive you can do in honor of Mother's Day~

TAKE ACTION:
Write to Romanian President Traian Basescu through the Romanian Embassy in Washington and urge Romanian authorities to immediately resume consideration of all of all pending adoption cases.
President Traian Basescu c/o The Embassy of Romania , 1607 23rd Street NW Washington, DC 20008
Or e-mail:mailto:adoption@roembus.org .

War of Words

2006-05-12T13:29:00.000-04:00

Words can be critically important. Their misuse often comes at a cost--the consequences of poor word choices are often severe.

I can think of several ruined careers owing to poorly chosen words. Words can inflict mortal damage upon a relationship. Epic political struggles are won or lost depending on which side uses words most effectively in the contest for hearts and minds.

It is highly unfortunate that the war presently being fought by the U.S. and the coalition of the willing has been sloppily labled, "The War on Terror." This inaccurate lable blurs our understanding and minimizes the stakes involved.

What we are really fighting is Islamic fascism that aspires to nothing less than global domination. I would submit that this understanding of our struggle carries much weightier implications and adds vital clarity to this matter of strategic national importance.

Columnist Dennis Prager makes the distinction in a piece with the somewhat mundane title, "The war we are fighting needs a more accurate name" :

We are no more fighting a "War on Terror" than we fought a "War on Kamikazes" in World War II. Of course we had to stop Kamikaze attacks, the suicide crashing by Japanese pilots of airplanes into American war ships. But we were fighting Japanese fascism and imperialism.
The same holds true today. We are fighting Islamic fascism and imperialism (though surely not all Muslims).

Prager goes on to draw the historical parallels between the two. He also highlights some of the dissimilarities.

The parallels are almost as extensive as any historic parallels of two different phenomena can be. The fascist Japanese regime aimed to subjugate much of the world, Asia in particular, and it used whatever violence it could think of without any moral constraints. The fascist element within Islam wishes to subjugate the entire world using whatever violence it can think of without any moral constraints.
Of course, there are differences: Imperial Japan was preoccupied with dominating Asia, while imperialist Islam aims to dominate the whole world. And imperial Japan did so as an outgrowth of nationalism, while imperialist Islam does so from an outgrowth of a trans-national religious ideology.
Islamic terror is a tactic of an ideology. That ideology can be called "radical Islam," "militant Islam" or "Islamist," but it is rooted in Islamic imperialism.

Let me encourage you to read the rest of his analysis. And before I close this entry, let me also mention a book that Prager commends to us by University of London professor Efraim Karsh. "Islamic Imperialism" (Yale University Press), says Prager, "is one of the few indispensable books on Islam. " One of the few, he says. Interesting.

Photo attribution unknown
Hat tip: Townhall.com

I say that what you say is what I say...

2006-05-11T17:12:00.000-04:00

I have to admit it. I'm cynical. Hmmm...I wonder why.

Here's an AP/ABC account of Howard Dean talking about how much the Democratic Party and evangelical Christians have in common. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) Dean said:

"One of the misconceptions about the Democratic Party is that we're godless and that we don't have any values.
The truth is, we have an enormous amount in common with the Christian community, and particularly with the evangelical Christian community. And one of the biggest things that Democrats worry about is the materialism of our country, what's on television that our kids are seeing, and the lack of spirituality."

In the interview Dean also stated categorically:

"The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says."

In Dean's own words, he "mistated" things a bit. The ABC/AP story goes on to say that:

After the gay rights group went public with its complaints about his remarks, Dean acknowledged: "I misstated the Democratic Party's platform, which does not say marriage should be limited to a man and a woman."

It's true. Most politicians will say just about anything to anybody if they think it might get them a few votes. Sincerity in Washington is as rare as a lemon tree in Alaska.

Photo: Associated Press

Wishing Bush's Chief of Staff were Peggy Noonan

2006-05-11T14:48:00.000-04:00

Does anyone doubt that, irrespective of party affiliation, politicians are tone deaf and bereft of authentic, ethical leadership? Our elected representatives would do well to not only listen to Peggy Noonan, but to heed her advice:

But faith in political action has been damaged the past few years, not by outside forces but by the two major political parties themselves.
If you are a normal person with the normal amount of political awareness, you might see it this way:
The Republicans talk about cutting spending, but they increase it--a lot. They stand for making government smaller, but they keep making it bigger. They say they're concerned about our borders, but they're not securing them. And they seem to think we're slobs for worrying. Republicans used to be sober and tough about foreign policy, but now they're sort of romantic and full of emotionalism. They talk about cutting taxes, and they have, but the cuts are provisional, temporary. Beyond that, there's something creepy about increasing spending so much and not paying the price right away but instead rolling it over and on to our kids, and their kids.
So, the normal voter might think, maybe the Democrats. But Democrats are big spenders, Democrats are big government, Democrats will roll the cost onto our kids, and on foreign affairs they're--what? Cynical? Confused? In a constant daily cringe about how their own base will portray them? All of the above.
Where does such a voter go, and what does such a voter do? It is odd to live in the age of options, when everyone's exhausted by choice, and feel your options for securing political progress are so limited. One party has beliefs it doesn't act on. The other doesn't seem to have beliefs, only impulses.

I hope her voice (in this case an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal) makes it through the clutter that envelops the beltway. I wish this unease that I feel in my gut was not there. I also wish that my premonition that Ms. Noonan's prognosis is all but inevitable was off the mark.

I will say that I don't think it's too late to turn things around. But the type of leadership this situation calls for appears to be AWOL.

Photo: www.peggynoonan.com

Feeling Pinched in America...

2006-05-09T15:31:00.000-04:00

Many of us would most likely read past the following news paper story without catching the spin. It is not unusual for James Taranto, of the Wall Street Journal, to notice tid bits like this and, with helpful insight, call them to our attention. The Washington Post ran the following article on their front page with a head line that read, "Rising Expenses Have Consumers Feeling Pinched." Taranto has a category for these sorts of stories: "The World's Smallest Violin." His deconstruction is short, so here's the whole thing.

You just have to love the creativity with which journalists try to produce bad economic news in a good economy. Yesterday's Washington Post had a front-page story headlined "Rising Expenses Have Consumers Feeling Pinched," which included this sob story:

Arlyne Foy of Fairfax city said she and her husband recently slammed the brakes on plans to buy a larger home in Loudoun County because of rising mortgage rates and the prospect of much higher commuting costs and utility bills.
Foy, 40, and her husband figured they could have afforded a bigger house, since their 3,000-square-foot townhome probably had grown about $200,000 in value since they bought it two years ago. But they didn't want to part with their very low 4.875 percent mortgage or her husband's 10-minute drive to work as a massage therapist and yoga instructor.
"The thing is, we're very comfortable," said Arlyne, a homemaker who cares for their 3-year-old daughter. "And we know we aren't going to find an interest rate as excellent as the one we have now."

The heart bleeds.

Oh Israel, why so many enemies?

2006-05-08T15:06:00.000-04:00

Historical perspective can be useful. These are turbulent times and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer provides some needed context where the growing hostility toward Jews and the nation of Israel are concerned. I commend Israel in the crosshairs to you. Here is an excerpt:

When something happens for the first time in 1,871 years, it is worth noting. In A.D. 70, and again in 135, the Roman Empire brutally put down Jewish revolts in Judea, destroying Jerusalem, killing hundreds of thousands of Jews and sending hundreds of thousands more into slavery and exile. For nearly two millennia, the Jews wandered the world. And now, in 2006, for the first time since then, there are once again more Jews living in Israel -- the successor state to Judea -- than in any other place on earth.
Israel's Jewish population has just passed 5.6 million. America's Jewish population was about 5.5 million in 1990, dropped to about 5.2 million ten years later and is in a
precipitous decline that, because of low fertility rates and high levels of assimilation, will cut that number in half by mid-century.
When 6 million European Jews were killed in the Holocaust, only two main centers of Jewish life remained: America and Israel. That binary star system remains today, but a tipping point has just been reached. With every year, as the Jewish population continues to rise in Israel and decline in America (and in the rest of the Diaspora), Israel increasingly becomes, as it was at the time of Jesus, the center of the Jewish world.

Hat tip: Townhall.com

Africa moving in the right direction

2006-05-06T11:25:00.000-04:00

Here is some wonderful and encouraging news that I just happened upon this morning. It pertains to the expansion of Christianity in Africa and a corresponding loss of Muslims on that continent.

Interestingly, the source of this information is Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani; president of The Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, which is an institution specializing in graduating imams and Islamic preachers. He was the invited guest on a television program, the text of which is translated into English:

Islam used to represent, as you previously mentioned, Africa’s main religion and there were 30 African languages that used to be written in Arabic script. The number of Muslims in Africa has diminished to 316 million, half of whom are Arabs in North Africa. So in the section of Africa that we are talking about, the non Arab section, the number of Muslims does not exceed 150 million people. When we realize that the entire population of Africa is one billion people, we see that the number of Muslims has diminished greatly from what it was in the beginning of the last century. On the other hand, the number of Catholics has increased from one million in 1902 to 329 million 882 thousand (329,882,000). Let us round off that number to 330 million in the year 2000.
As to how that happened, well there are now 1.5 million churches whose congregations account for 46 million people. In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity. These numbers are very large indeed...

James M. Arlandson, the blogger who brings this story to our attention comments on the Sheikh's remarks:

From what I have heard from reliable sources, six million may be too low. Reliable accounts say that one hundred thousand Africans convert to Christianity per day, though not all of them come from Islam. Then Katani says Muslims should build schools before mosques, in order to build the worshipper (Muslim) before the building. Why? To stop the the dangerous “Christian missionary octopus”

Thanks, James, you just made my day. I will pass this good news on to all my missionary friends.

Hat tip: LGF

2006-05-06T09:30:00.000-04:00

shifting rocks

Bureaucratic travesty

2006-05-05T11:19:00.000-04:00

For the record, I am supportive both of the troops serving on our behalf as well as this administration's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been among the crowds at our airports applauding soldiers returning from a tour of duty in Iraq. It warms my heart to see sacrificial service appreciated by regular citizens. When it comes to the war on terrorism, as far as I'm concerned, polls be damned. I think it was John Locke who said, "The masses are asses!"

That said, intractable bureaucracy is an ever-present and infuriating part of military life. I am a Viet Nam veteran and served in the reserves for several years. I know of what I speak. I recently stayed with an Army officer friend of mine at his home on post for a few days and he very naturally shared some of the stories of truly-stupid bureaucracy he had recently encountered. This is a part of the military experience and you learn to co-exist.

However, when layers of institutional lethargy result in unnecessary fatalities and life-altering injuries, something needs to be said. Thankfully, Michael Goldfarb has gone public with a very real bureaucratic travesty involving our troops and IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). It is long over due. I hope you do more than read about this problem. Contact your representatives and let them know that this situation is completely unacceptable. Here's an excerpt from the Goldfarb article:

Two weeks ago, I was contacted by an individual uniquely qualified to comment on both the threat posed by the IED and the military's response. This individual is a staff-level military officer who focused on the IED threat while serving in Iraq during most of 2005. He has been on patrols with U.S. units in the high-threat IED areas around Iraq and has also worked in the Pentagon.

This officer described to me a military that has been ineffective in confronting the IED threat for three reasons: (1) overdependence on technology-based solutions; (2) a stifling culture of bureaucracy; and (3) a failure to compile accurate information on each IED attack
Hat tip: Powerline

Odious hypocrites & cowards

2006-04-27T15:35:00.000-04:00

Last night I watched a "documentary" that dealt with President Bush's membership in the Skull and Bones . The film's far-ranging conspiratorial hysteria touched on the New World Order, the Illuminati, and the Trilateral Commission. You get the idea.

Simply put, I'm not a conspiracy enthusiast. Nevertheless, there was enough solid content in this film to give me pause. Am I misguided in being generally supportive of our president? Is my loyalty to my faith setting me up to be played and manipulated by clever politicians?

Perhaps.

Then today I read an Op-Ed by Brent Bozell that laid-bare the hypocricy of those self-proclaimed guardians of free speech--the ones who call the shots about what gets aired on TV and what doesn't. Specifically Bozell looks at Comedy Central's refusal to allow South Park to show a cartoon depiction of Mohammed.

When Mohammed was slated to appear, the image of Mohammed was replaced with a black screen, reading: "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network." So keep score. Comedy Central wouldn't allow "South Park" to show a cartoon depiction of Mohammed ... but it didn't have any problem with the show ending with a depiction of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush: "Look at me, I'm Jesus. Would you like me to crap on you, Mr. Bush? Mmm, yummy, yummy crap!"
...Viacom used to be the scum of the Earth, parading around and accept awards from the ACLU for their "courageous" programming. (Last June, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California hailed Comedy Central boss Doug Herzog with its "Torch of Liberty" Award: "Herzog has also always stood by 'South Park' and its creators' right to free expression.") These people are still the scum of the Earth, but now they can't in any way claim that they're courageous when it comes to controversy. They're hypocrites and cowards of the most odious rank.

There's more worthwhile analysis in Bozell's, "South Park and Popetown." I hope you'll take the time to read it. If you're a person of faith, you ought to.

Now, back to George W. Bush and conspiracy theories. I am in fact troubled by our president being a Bonesman. And when you consider how many of our most prominent leaders in business and politics are members of secret societies, it should prompt concern.

But when I look at the political left in the US, the company they keep and consider what it is that they stand for, the fog is dispersed and I remember clearly why I've planted my feet on the right side of the political spectrum. Just like me, President Bush will one day stand before God and give an account. Until then, I will remain wary and cautious. But I won't be moving leftward any time soon.

Sex in the gayest of cities

2006-04-25T16:15:00.000-04:00

Get this. San Francisco's, "The Castro"--a homosexual enclave in one the planet's gay meccas--has apparently seen an increase of families--both gay and straight--in recent years.

According to the LA Times, many of these families are not happy with the neighborhood's in-your-face hedonism. Forgive me for observing that this piece simply oozes irony. Here are two quotes (among many) that will prompt some hetro-head scratching:

The editor of a publication aimed at gay mothers and fathers thinks Castro parents should accommodate the neighborhood, not the other way around. "That culture existed long before they arrived," said Angeline Acain, a New Yorker who's editor and publisher of Gay Parent, a nationally circulated magazine. "If you see a window display you find offensive, don't take your kid down that block."
Fred Kirkbride, who owns a Castro Street antiques store, said that a community that has for years argued for tolerance by heterosexuals should be more accepting. "Isn't it amazing how long we fought to be accepted by straight society? Now we want to keep straights and their children out of here," he said.

Rethinking rhetoric

2006-04-25T15:35:00.000-04:00

"We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. . . his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses." Aristotle in Rhetoric

Here's some excellent political advice that almost certainly will not be heeded. Erik Lokkesmoe, a former cabinet-level speechwriter and Capitol Hill press secretary, offers some wise counsel to politicians in general and to the Republican party in particular in an article entitled, Three things you never hear in politics . What are the "three things"?

"Think back to the last time you heard a lawmaker genuinely say, without prompting or pressure, "I was wrong." Or fierce opponents say to one another, "You make a good point." Or a commentator, stumped by a tough question on national television, say, "I don't know."

We're not holding our breath, but it would indeed be refreshing were we to be proved cynical. The "character" referred to by Aristotle is unfortunately in short supply on Capitol Hill.

Hat Tip: TownHall.com

Are Rumsfeld's days numbered?

2006-04-25T13:33:00.000-04:00

I think not. I hope not. In any event, they shouldn't be.

This highly effective Secretary of Defense has done precisely what President Bush charged him to do--shake up a petrifying military establishment, move it away from its cold war orientation and refocus its strategic and tactical capabilities to meet present day realities. As you might imagine, Rummy made some bitter enemies in the process. These disgruntled Clinton-era generals are the very high-profile critics now being given such a welcome forum in the main stream media (MSM).

Politics can be ugly and mean. And no stripe of politics is meaner and uglier than the power wars waged at the top of our national government. Frothing democrats and the MSM are like jackals and hyenas that have gotten a whiff of blood and who sense vulnerability. Right now they are snipping at the Secretary's ankles. His untimely demise is their desperately-hoped-for strategic end.

They can not realistically rid themselves of President Bush. But if they can bring down Rumsfeld, a primary architect of this administration's military policy and who, by extension, bears key responsibility for the war in Iraq, they will have succeeded at a vital alternative. There is no better way to discredit this President than to discredit the war in Iraq. After all, President Bush has unapologetically made Iraq the linchpin of his presidency. Do you hear the din of yipping and howling?

Jed Babbin, former deputy under-secretary of defense, effectively uncovers this political scheme for what it is. Particularly, he takes aim at obstructionist former Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki and General Anthony Zinni, former commander of CENTCOM. If you want to understand this intense propaganda campaign, Babbin's expose' will blow away the dense smoke and infuse some helpful clarity. I strongly commend it to you. Here's an excerpt:

And then came Sept. 11. The Secretary of Defense became the secretary of war and the transformation he had brought to the Pentagon had to be continued under fire. Still, the Army resisted.
Shinseki balked at striking at the Taliban. For the record, our forces slashed into the Taliban around Oct. 5, 2001, less than a month after Sept 11. But — aside from Rangers and Army Special Forces — the Army stayed home. Shinseki wanted at least six months to assemble and move an enormous Soviet-like force into Afghanistan and the president wasn’t having any of it. This is why Shinseki retired in 2003 with a festering grudge against Rumsfeld.

It absolutely makes no sense for Donald Rumsfeld to be fired for not going along with the wrong-headed ideas of Bill Clinton's intransigent military chums. As Babbin suggests in his article, the era of “Blackhawk Down" is over, and we have Donald Rumsfeld to thank for it

Dialing-down the anger

2006-04-18T17:33:00.000-04:00

When I started N WITH BOTH FEET, I posted diligently for over six months. To define "diligently," generally, I posted at least once a day, and often two or three times a day. Then, as the Christmas season approached, I found myself pulling back. "Pulling back" became a season of writing almost nothing at all for my blog.

For one thing, I found myself becoming too political--and too negative. I was paying close attention to the political landscape and eventually found it toxic to my soul. I did (and do) not want to be just another voice in a den of shouting.

RESOLUTION: I intend to change the focus of this blog. I want to reach out and build bridges, not do my part to blow them up.

As a cautionary tale, I thought I'd bring this Washington Post article to your attention. Perhaps some of you have seen it. It is here for that small number of folks who may happen across this blog and have not had a chance to read it. It is entitled, "The Left, Online and Outraged." Here's an excerpt:

SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. -- In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating,
self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

I encourage you to read the entire piece. The Washington Post is no bastion of the right and this piece takes a surprisingly candid look at the seething hatred that's out there--particularly in the blogosphere. We are a polarized people and it is not to our benefit. Maryscott O'Connor is addicted to her hatred and the community of hostility that she's fostered.

Let me not leave you with the impression that my criticism is directed only leftward. There is ample hatred on the right. In all honesty, it strikes me that it is of a different magnitude and that, apart from a truly fringe minority, civility has not been abandoned, generally speaking. It is toxic to be sure, but less malignant. All of us would do well to dial-down the anger and recommit to civil society where differences in perspective can be managed without warfare.

Photo Credit: David Finkle, The Washington Post

GREAT SEX (Who's having it...and who isn't)

2006-04-08T13:06:00.000-04:00

The director of "Basic Instinct 2," Paul Verhoeven, in reaction to its 10th place opening in the US remarked that:

"Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States," said the Dutch native. "Look at the people at the top (of the government). We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends."

A few days ago, James Taranto, who authors the WSJ's "Best of the Web Today," deconstructed Verhoeven's remarks:

"Christianity and sex have never been good friends," Dutch director Paul Verhoeven said in a story we cited yesterday. We didn't dwell on that quote, but it seems worth doing so now. It seems an odd point, given that in the Bible, God enjoins his creations to "be fruitful." Until we perfect cloning, there's only one way to do that.

A reader calls our attention to this 1999 Slate article:
When University of Chicago researchers set out to discover which religious denominations have the best sex, they learned that the faithful don't do all their shouting in church. Conservative Protestant women, their 1994 survey found, report by far the most orgasms: Thirty-two percent say they achieve orgasm every time they make love. Mainline Protestants and Catholics lagged five points behind. Those with no religious affiliation were at 22 percent. (Unitarians may not wish to read any further.)
The main topic of the Slate piece is the burgeoning market for Christian sex advice books: "Evangelicals may not want their children to study sex ed in school, but they are not afraid of studying a little sex ed in their bedrooms," writes Mark Oppenheimer:
Perhaps the most notable quality of the Christian sex business is that it is evangelical, not puritanical. It is very pro-sex--as long as sex takes place in the context of marriage.
And that's the point. When Verhoeven says "Christianity and sex have never been good friends," what he means by "sex" is not sex but uncommitted sex--the weird anti-ideal of the sexual revolution.

The idea of sex without strings attached has, to be sure, a certain allure. But as a practical matter it is simply unworkable for most people. It's emotionally messy and requires more effort than it's worth. It seems obvious that you'll have more and better sex if you go to bed every night with someone you love. To do that, you don't have to be Christian, but it doesn't hurt.

Descent into irrelevance

2006-01-25T11:35:00.000-05:00

[Hat tip: Powerline ]

Stunning stupidity

2006-01-25T10:54:00.000-05:00

Yesterday (1/24), an LA Times columnist, Joel Stein, published a commentary piece entitled Warriors and wusses . The opening line was, "I DON'T SUPPORT our troops." Here's an excerpt:

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the
subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.
...The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.
I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.

As you might expect, Mr. Stein's candor has resulted in a tempest of protest. I'm a bit conflicted about the whole thing.

On one hand, I'm stunned by his stupidity and his willingness to dismiss the value of what our troops have accomplished. One the other, I think he has had the moxi to say what large numbers of war foes truly believe and feel. His willingness to forego political correctness and to say what he's really thinking is kind of refreshing.

That said, he's still embarassingly ill informed and myopic. Here's an on-air exchange with Hugh Hewitt that removes all doubt concerning Mr. Stein's ignorance and political skew:

HH: Let me ask you a tough question, Joel, because this is the toughest one.
J.P. Blecksmith was a young Marine lieutenant, graduated from Annapolis, killed in Fallujah on November 11th, 2004. Just a tremendous human being and man. If you meet his parents on the street, what do you say to them?
JS: That I'm so, so sorry.
HH: Do you honor the service that their son did?
JS: To honor the service their son...now this is a dumb question, but what do you mean by honor? That's a word you keep using. I'm not entirely...maybe that's my problem. But I'm not entirely sure what you're...
HH: Honor usually means gratitude and esteem. Are you grateful for and esteem what he did? Honestly?
JS: Honestly? I admire the bravery. I don't...you know, I feel like he did something I could never do, so I'm kind of in awe on some level. Am I grateful, that I feel like he protected me? Um, no I don't.
HH: And so, do you think he died in vain?
JS: Yeah. I do. And that's why I'm so horrified by all this, and why I don't want empty sentiments prolonging the war.
HH: And the people who've died in Afghanistan. Have they died in vain?
JS: Well, if they haven't, what have they accomplished?
HH: I'm asking you, Joel. You wrote the column. You tell me. Have they accomplished nothing?
JS: Well, um, do I think that I, as an American, are safer because of what they did?
HH: That wasn't what I asked. I askd did they accomplish anything in going to Afghanistan.
JS: If I were an Afghani, I would probably...if I lived in Kabul, I probably would think that they accomplished something, sure.
HH: All right. Now have you read any books on the military? I mean, do you read this stuff at all, like Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts?
JS: No. No, I'm not an expert at this at all. I mean, I think you certainly can tell.

[Hat tip: Powerline]

The brainbox and the blowhards

2006-01-13T18:00:00.000-05:00

So, what did you think of the Alito hearings this week? Did the performance our our esteemed leaders in the U.S. Senate inspire confidence? Respect?

If you were able to catch a segment of the proceedings beyond the sound bites on the evening news, perhaps you shared my primary impression... "what a bunch of windbags!" And there was no one more pompous than the bloated Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. What a piece of work he is.

If you want to read a clear-eyed assesment of this process (a process that's more pretense than substance) you want to read this piece in the The Economist. Here's a quote to whet your appetite:

TED KENNEDY is deeply troubled by the ethics of the Supreme Court nominee. Between 2001 and 2006, Samuel Alito, who is currently an appeals court judge, accepted $7,684,423 in “donations” from special interests who perhaps wanted the law tweaked in their favour. That included $28,000 from defence contractors, $42,200 from drug firms and a whopping $745,373 from lawyers and law firms.
No, wait. Those are Senator Kennedy's conflicts of interest—or, rather, a brief excerpt from a long list compiled by the Centre for Responsive Politics. The lapse for which the senator berated Mr Alito was considerably less clear-cut.

Happy Holidays...

2005-11-25T21:31:00.001-05:00

Go ahead. Tell me that things aren't spiraling out of control in this self-absorbed, "it's all about ME" society. Consumerism at its worst reared its ugly head today in sunny South Florida, and people were hurt as a result.

Today is "Black Friday" -- the day after Thanksgiving and the unofficial kick-off to the Christmas shopping season. It is one of busiest shopping days of the year, second only to the Saturday before Christmas

Hoping to avoid lackluster sales, retailers this year have been advertising significant savings on their merchandise. Motivated by deep discounts and special offers, large crowds of shoppers began forming early in Sawgrass Mills, FL--before 4:00 a.m.--according to a report in the Sun Sentinel--a news paper based in Fort Lauderdale.

BrandsMarts had advertised "doorbuster specials" and hundreds of other discounted items. By the time the electronics store opened its doors at 6:00 a.m. the hardcore shoppers had apparently exhausted their patience. In an effort to keep things under control, a store manager informed the early-birds they would only be admitting about 20 persons at a time.

Moments before the crowd burst under the metal gate at BrandsMart , Tony McLeod, another BrandsMart manager, tried to calm down shoppers, telling them the store could only allow groups of about 20 to enter the store at one time to avoid overcrowding.
..."There is more than enough for everybody. The sale is going on all day," he shouted as frustrated shoppers shouted back, complaining they were tired of waiting."We have your money out here," one woman responded angrily. "We need to go to other stores. I can't stand here all day."
One man shouted through the gate that he had been waiting for an hour and half. A woman from Brazil, nearly in tears, asked in Portuguese whether she could be allowed inside because her husband was already there. Others complained that security personnel lowered the metal door and left them isolated from family members.

Inside, 17 cashiers were not sufficient to avoid long lines. When a few aggressive shoppers took it upon themselves to duck under the metal gates, the crowd morphed into a mob and forced their way into the store. In the onslaught, 73 year-old Josephine Hoffman of Coconut Creek, was trampled. Also hurt in the chaos was 9 year-old Maria Garcia.

According to the Sun Sentinel report:

A woman at a Pembroke Pines Wal-Mart was also injured and required hospital treatment when she was pushed to the ground by another shopper, according to fire officials.

This is a full-frontal glimpse of the American under belly. I wonder if any of those folks had a second thought about what happened or their own behavior. And what's with getting in line before 4:00 a.m. to shop? One of our founding fathers, John Adams, is famously known to have said, "The masses are asses." I couldn't agree more, sir.

[Hat tip: The Drudge Report]
Photos: The Sun-Sentinel

Quote of the day...

2005-11-24T00:07:00.000-05:00

"The only war the Democrats really have their heart in is the war to undermine the Bush administration. Any incidental damage done to the national interest in furtherance of that war appears in their eyes to be for the greater good. "
Scott Johnson, Power Line 11/26/2005

Turning the other cheek

2005-11-23T10:05:00.001-05:00

Some sermons are easy to forget. But last Sunday's service at Victory Christian Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma is not likely to be forgotten by those in attendance any time soon.

Pastor Pastor Billy Joe Daugherty had just finished preaching on "a lifestyle of worship and thanksgiving" when he gave an alter call. He began praying for a man who had come forward when, without warning, the man clocked him with a solid right cross. The squarely-landed blow inflicted a cut above the pastor's left eye that required a few stitches. The senior pastor continued to minister, applying pressure to the cut above his eye with a handkerchief.

There is video of the incident and the pastor recounting the story in his own words at the church's web site. Pastor Daugherty said:

"On Sunday, November 20th at the 11:00 o’clock service in the ORU Mabee Center, at the altar call time, as I walked up to a man and began to pray for him, he hit me, knocked me backwards, and then grabbed the back of my coat, pulled me back and swung at me and hit me again."

The man who blindsided the preacher was Steven Rogers, a 50 year-old man who has a history of run-ins with the law, including some time in an institution. Pastor Daugherty didn't press charges against his assailant. However, Rogers hit others who had subdued him in the presence of police officers and was arrested. The story was carried on local TV stations.

In the video message describing the disturbance, Pastor Daugherty speaks of a breakthrough in worship for both himself and the congregation as they "released" the troubled man and forgave him.

Victory Christian Center is a mega church in Tulsa, the home of Oral Roberts University. From what I can deduce, Daugherty's ministry is akin to those of Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland. These ministries are sometimes labled "name it and claim it" churches or places that preach "health, wealth and prosperity." I found critical postings regarding Daugherty elsewhere on the internet. The criticisms notwithstanding, from my point of view, Daugherty got this one completely right. Way to go, pastor.

QUESTION: Seen photos like these in the MSM lately?

2005-11-22T10:34:00.000-05:00

I came across this link at Little Green Footballs. First, thank you Michael Yon for bringing a missing perspective to this vital national debate. And thank you Charles Johnson for the excecellent service you provide day in and day out at LGF in bringing really good and always relevant content to your readers--content that might otherwise escape our notice.

Here's three of Michael Yon's photos of Iraqi children. I'm placing a link to Michael's blog in hopes that more folks will see his good work.

All photos are by Michael Yon

The Religion of peace

2005-11-21T11:17:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure why the Middle East has been the focus of so many of my posts lately. Perhaps it's the despicable and conspicuous effort of Democrats to exploit our presence in Iraq (and the costs associated with that presence) for political advantage. In any case, I thought it my responsibility to bring this insightful commentary from the land of down under.

Perhaps you recall the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands by an Islamic radical. The film maker made a documentary concerning domestic violence within Islam and as a result was shot several times and almost decapitated in broad daylight in the streets of Amsterdam by an Islamic extremist. According to the The Australian, "impaled on a knife in van Gogh's chest was a five-page note declaring holy war on The Netherlands and threatening death to other public figures deemed "enemies of Islam". "

Now the Islamists have set their sights on another target...Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee turned Dutch MP. The topic of the film drawing the ire of muslims was the oppression of homosexuals under Islam, the threat to everyone taking part was deemed so great that she decided there would be no faces shown on screen and no end credits and that the entire production team would remain anonymous.

Here's an excerpt:

"In The Netherlands, terrorists want to threaten not only the public ... they also want to kill public figures, such as artists, academics and politicians," he said. "It is not special in terms of Islam -- in Iran, it is normal to kill people who criticise Islam, as in Egypt and Iraq. It is legitimised by Islamic political theology, which says it is all right to kill someone if they are an enemy of Allah. But this is happening in Europe."

Cartoon of the week

2005-11-20T23:38:00.000-05:00

Rarely will you find a cartoon posted on this blog. But this one, from TIME.com Cartoons of the Week, was just too inviting. I admit surprise that it was chosen by TIME. (Click on image to enlarge.)

[Hat tip: LGF]

“Thank you, Father Kim Il Sung”

2005-11-17T12:44:00.000-05:00

WARNING: This story contains graphic descriptions of the persecution of Christians in North Korea. It is not suitable content for children. You've been alerted, please exercise personal discretion.

According to a report issued a few days ago (11/14/2005) by The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), the North Korean government punished five Christian church leaders by running over them with a steamroller before a crowd of spectators who "cried, screamed out, or fainted when the skulls made a popping sound as they were crushed."

A father and his daughter, according to the report, were executed by a firing squad in front of school children after the daughter was caught with a Bible.

These and other horrifying accounts are detailed in the report. The New York Sun published a story yesterday that focused upon the USCIRF report, which carries the title, “Thank you, Father Kim Il Sung”. The title is explained in the report:

“Thank you, Father Kim Il Sung” is the first phrase taught by North Korean parents to their children.

A press rlease goes on to summarize the report's findings:

From cradle to grave, North Korean citizens are surrounded by the all-encompassing presence of the “Great Leader” and his son, the “Dear Leader,” Kim Jong Il, and their Juche ideology and personality cult. The Kim dynasty is much more than just an authoritarian political regime. It holds itself to be the ultimate source of power, virtue, spiritual wisdom and truth for its citizens. Interviewees in the study talk about the portrayal of religion as evil in North Korea’s education system and media, and the reported 450,000 “Kim Il Sung Revolutionary Research Centers” at which North Koreans are required to attend at least weekly sessions for instruction, inspiration, and self-criticism. Heterodoxy and dissent are repressed quickly and efficiently, with punishment meted out to three generations of the dissident’s family. “Thank you, Father Kim Il Sung” tells the story of the systematic denigration of North Korea’s once vibrant religious life, the conscious attempts to establish a quasi-religious cult of personality centered on Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong Il, and the survival of limited religious activity in North Korea.

[Hat Tip: The Drudge Report]

A case of relativity...

2005-11-11T00:26:00.000-05:00

Charles Johnson at LGF first quotes from an AP story that deals with the aftermath of the Jordanian bombings. According to the story, the Akhras clan--who happened to be celebrating a wedding at the Radisson Hotel in Amman--lost 17 family members:

SILET AL-THAHER, West Bank - In this Palestinian village, the Akhras clan mourned 17 relatives killed by a suicide bomber in Jordan — the first time Palestinians have been a target in a suicide attack.
"Oh my God, oh my God. Is it possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims?" asked a weeping Najah Akhras, 35, who lost two nieces.
Similar thoughts were heard over and over in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Thursday, as Palestinians expressed outrage over suicide attacks aimed at civilians.

He then goes on to observe that this reaction is a somewhat different than when the target is Americans or Israelis:

Well, that’s a first. The normal Palestinian reaction to mass murder of civilians is rather different.

We truly sympathize with the Akhras family and all those who lost loved ones in this twisted act of cowardice. However, in the interest of fairness, we feel obliged to put up a few post-9/11 photos as a reminder...

2005-11-11T00:07:00.000-05:00

sand bottom

Distortions, misrepresentations, and falsifications

2005-11-10T23:36:00.000-05:00

In an era of sound bites and MTV, the public's attention lasts about as long as a New York minute. With a "little" help from a sympathetic media, adversaries of our president have managed to convince most of us that we were deliberately manipulated into war. This characterization is demonstrably not true.

There are those who will believe this myth irrespective of the facts or the evidence because they are predisposed to do exactly that. Here we're obviously describing the base of the Democratic Party--the Move On and the Daily Kos crowd. Their reaction to George Bush is visceral and the intensity of their hostility overshadows what rationality they otherwise might possess. Then there are those who are insufficiently aware (either by design or by neglect) and, thus, cannot separate fact from fiction. These folks reside in the squishy middle and navigate by preference rather than principle. They are frankly the target audience of the left's campaign of deception. They heard something the other day or read something somewhere. And that's enough. They're persuaded. Bush lied.

The few who remain open to factuality and are interested in the truth of this vital national matter will want to read this commentary by Norman Podhoretz. He's gone to a lot of trouble to cover territory that all of us should be familiar with, but have likely forgotten. What he writes is definitive.

Here are a few excerpts:

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.
...This entire scenario of purported deceit has been given a new lease on life by the indictment in late October of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby stands accused of making false statements to the FBI and of committing perjury in testifying before a grand
jury that had been convened to find out who in the Bush administration had “outed” Valerie Plame, a CIA agent married to the retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV. The supposed purpose of leaking this classified information to the press was to retaliate against Wilson for having “debunked” (in his words) “the lies that led to war.”
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who brought the indictment against him, himself wrote:
[t]his indictment is not about the war. This indictment is not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

Group home owners convicted of sexual slavery

2005-11-08T09:25:00.000-05:00

WARNING: This story contains graphic details that some will find offensive. It is definitely not suitable for minors.

Standing in direct contradiction to yesterday's post about Ahmed Khatib and his family, this disturbing news exposes the opposite side of human nature--the capacity seemingly normal people have for inhumanity toward others who are vulnerable.

Arlan Kaufman, 69 and his wife, Linda Kaufman, 62, were both convicted in federal court yesterday of abusing the mentally ill residents of group homes they owned and operated. Both were found guilty of 32 criminal counts which included charges of forced labor, involuntary servitude, health care fraud, mail fraud and obstruction of a federal audit. Arlan Kaufman was found guilty of one additional charge.

These facts, however, do not convey the true horror of this story. The couple were found guilty by a jury of their peers of mistreating their mentally ill clients, enslaving them and having them perform sexual acts, and bilking the federal government of $217,000.

Video evidence and testimony from their former patients paint a disturbing picture of life inside Arlan and Linda Kaufman's group homes for the mentally ill. This account from The Capital-Journal begins to capture the abusive reality:

Lynn K. remembers sleeping naked on the floor beneath a dirty hunk of carpet in the "Isolation Room." Her door was locked from the outside. A bucket substituted as a toilet. There was no furniture. Lynn's belongings were kept elsewhere in the two-story house that served as a private group home for adults suffering persistent mental illness.
Lynn said the most frequent visitor to this cell-like space was Arlan D. Kaufman, part of a husband-and-wife team that operated two unlicensed treatment facilities in this city of 19,000. At least once a day, Mr. Kaufman entered her dark chamber. The therapist was clothed. The patient remained nude. They would talk. About what, Lynn can't precisely recall.

By all outward appearances, Arlan and Linda Kaufman were upstanding members of their community. They were members of Faith Mennonite Church in Newton, Kansas. Their pastor, Gordon Smith, said he believed them to be "good people."

The couple divided their time between church and the two group homes for disabled persons that they operated. They raised three apparently-successful children and were doting grandparents. Their two residential facilities at 321 W. Seventh Street and 119 W. Eighth Street had been operating for 20 years.

Arlan Kaufman's credentials are impressive. He holds a PhD from Ohio State University in Social Work and helped establish a social work program at his alma mater, Bethel College. He worked for Family and Children's Service in Kansas City and was on staff at Prairie View mental health center in Newton. He also served as chairman of the social work department at Bethel. His wife, Linda is a registered nurse.

The Capital-Journal was able to obtain written summaries pertaining to the video taped evidence obtained by federal agents:

Two written summaries of contents of the videotapes, one obtained through a Kansas Open Records Act request to the Kansas Board of Nursing and the other received from law enforcement officials, confirm Mr. Kaufman was shown on one tape urging patients to masturbate and urinate in front of other patients. On another tape, Mr. Kaufman instructed patients, male and female, to shave pubic hair of clients of the opposite sex.
The camera caught patients and Mr. Kaufman discussing sexual fetishes and fantasies, the summaries say. Close-up shots were taken of clients' penis and vaginal areas. According to reports, Mr. Kaufman is shown touching the genitals of male and female clients. A group of patients was filmed hula-hooping in the nude, the summaries say.
According to the reports, a male patient was videotaped while forcing objects up his anus. Mr. Kaufman is captured on tape urging a client to stick a paint brush up his urethra, a summary says. The taping caught a group discussion of sex toys and group massage, during which Mr. Kaufman said, "I'm just going to enjoy watching you."
The summaries indicate the Kaufmans relied on Scripture to justify their interpretation of therapy. That insight was drawn from a taped conversation in which a male patient expressed consternation about instructions for shaving private areas of female clients.
"There is a group discussion," the summary says. "Arlan Kaufman discussed how it relates to the 'New Testament.' "

The Kaufmans have consistently maintained their innocence. They acknowledge the factuality of the video taped evidence, but insist that it is being misinterpreted. They say they employed "unconventional" therapy techniques, including "nude therapy." They and some of their clients were members of nudist societies. They insist that these practices are legitimate and that they had the best interests of their clients at heart. The jury disagreed.

The Eurabian civil war?

2005-11-08T00:36:00.000-05:00

Some have a clear-eyed view of reality. Many don't. Among those who do is Mark Steyn, columnist for the Chicago Sun Times.

Take this paragraph from his column ("Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands") on Sunday, for instance:

The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible for frosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle. Unlike America's Europhiles, France's Arab street correctly identified Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.

This evening I watched an extended segment on Public Television's "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" dealing with the "unrest" in France. Not once did either of the two analysts (Alexis Debat and Alec Hargreaves) or the interviewer, Ray Suarez, speak directly to the Muslim component of this story. If you listened carefully, you might possibly have deduced that the rioters were mostly North African Arabs who are also Muslim. At one point, Debat referred to them as "immigrant French." Were there an antececedent to clarify "immigrant" then the term would have been useful. Talk about missing the obvious!

Granted, for the most part, these "immigrants" aren't Islamic fundamentalists. But they are Muslim and they share a generalized disdain for the West in common with the rest of the "Arab street." And to that extent, they are natural allies of global jihad. Alec Hargreaves said of them:

They want to participate; they want to be French, but they are being told that they are not French.

What does Steyn have to say about this?:

...the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.

Yes, the rioters are alienated and yes, they've been marginalized in French society. However, it is minimumly a stretch and probably inaccurate to say that "they want to be French." Perhaps if French society were not so elitist and if they had evolved a means of assimilation, then it might be asserted that the "immigrant French" were motivated to be French. Their current actions do not suggest that their present goal is "Frenchness." Further, is Hargreaves serious when hes says that "...they are being told that they are not French." ? Duh!? Is anyone who isn't ethnically French unaware that they aren't French in a Frenchman's presence?

Getting back to the Steyn column, not only does Steyn perceive the present situation with clarity, he is also able to draw from a solid historical perspective.

Battles are very straightforward: Side A wins, Side B loses. But the French government is way beyond anything so clarifying. Today, a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman. They're in Brussels, where Belgian police officers are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan, and in Malmo, where Swedish ambulance drivers will not go without police escort. It's way too late to rerun the Battle of Poitiers. In the no-go suburbs, even before these current riots, 9,000 police cars had been stoned by ''French youths'' since the beginning of the year; some three dozen cars are set alight even on a quiet night. ''There's a civil war under way in Clichy sous-Bois at the moment,'' said Michel Thooris of the gendarmes' trade union Action Police CFTC. ''We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.''

Steyn's conclusion isn't optimistic:

In defiance of traditional immigration patterns, these young men are less assimilated than their grandparents. French cynics like the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, have spent the last two years scoffing at the Bush Doctrine: Why, everyone knows Islam and democracy are incompatible. If so, that's less a problem for Iraq or Afghanistan than for France and Belgium.
If Chirac isn't exactly Charles Martel, the rioters aren't doing a bad impression of the Muslim armies of 13 centuries ago: They're seizing their opportunities, testing their foe, probing his weak spots. If burning the 'burbs gets you more ''respect'' from Chirac, they'll burn 'em again, and again. In the current issue of City Journal, Theodore Dalrymple concludes a piece on British suicide bombers with this grim summation of the new Europe: ''The sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.''

Here's an AP story that quotes a rioter declaring, "It's the start of war!"

The power of a simple act

2005-11-07T17:06:00.000-05:00

A brilliant point of light has appeared in a vast sea of hatred. A simple act of humanity has displaced deep, surrounding darkness--at least for the time being. Let us pray it does not get swallowed-up by raging hostility.

Ahmed Ismail Khatib, a 13 year-old Palestinian boy was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers last Thursday when they mistook his toy gun for a real one. His grieving parents, in a profound act of reconciliation, have donated his organs to six ailing Israelis.
Ynetnews reports:

Ahmed's heart has been transplanted Sunday into the body of a 12-year-old girl at the Schneider hospital in Petah Tikva. His liver was donated to a six-month old baby and a 66-year-old woman at the Beilinson hospital in town. Ahmed's lungs will be donated to a 14-year-old Cystic Fibrosis patient, and his kidneys to a five-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl.

Palestinian news agency, Ma’an, reported that Ariel Sharon offered to personally apologize for the killing. The boy’s father has been invited to meet with the Prime Minister. Ismail Khatib, Ahmed's father, said he and his wife decided to donate the organs “for the sake of peace between the two people.”

“If this would serve the Palestinian problem and advance a just peace, I will meet with Sharon and bring him a message of peace,” said the boy's father.

May many follow the redemptive example of Ahmed's parents. Herein is true hope for this intractable situation. When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

Another link for the same story covered by a different publication here.

Caption for the (upper right) photo: Yusra Gadban, a Druze Israeli, standing over her daughter Samah Gadban, 12, as she recovers from a heart transplant operation at the Schneider hospital in Petah Tikva Sunday. (AP)

[Hat Tip: I came across this story at Little Green Footballs who links to Bookworm Room ] The photo is a reproduction of the original by AP

2005-11-07T16:46:00.000-05:00

where are we?

Indoctrination in lieu of learning...

2005-11-07T15:42:00.000-05:00

Another case of politically correct silliness is the focus of an editorial by Suzanne Fields. Resident Assistants (RAs)--live-in student counselors--at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire are prohibited from leading or hosting Bible studies (in their own rooms on their own time) in the interest of "approachability," Fields tells us.

The director of university housing says the ban is necessary to enable the RAs to "share" the perspectives of the students, to make RAs "approachable."
Where have we found such empty-headed university administrators? This destructive silliness goes to the root of politically correct attitudes: Feminist ideology, good; the Bible, bad. Goofiness, good; common sense, bad. Dismissing the begats so easily begets intolerance and ignorance. Reaching for moral equivalence, the housing director reassures critics that the Koran and the Torah are banned, too. The university is now considering an extension of the bans to forbid political and ideological discussions.

One RA has held a performance of "The Vagina Monologues" in her room--perfectly acceptable RA behavior, apparently. Fields draws the obvious contrast:

What do the Bible and the "The Vagina Monologues" have in common? Not much. But surely we can all agree that both are covered by the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
...Vagina perspective trumps the perspectives of Moses and Matthew in behalf of "approachability." That certainly sounds postmodern enough. Such flouting of the traditions of free speech -- and good sense -- is typical of the disease of political correctness that in various forms infects many campuses, denying students a fundamental understanding of the meaning of free speech.
"The First Amendment doesn't end with Bible study or with 'The Vagina Monologues' -- it guarantees a student's right to perform both," says David French, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Fields suggests that our institutions of higher learning have departed from their primary mission:

By banning free speech, the universities impose indoctrination in lieu of learning. The Founding Fathers are spinning, but they're only dead white men, after all.

Deafening Silence

2005-11-07T14:36:00.000-05:00

To the shame of it's larger and more influential counterpart, but not surprisingly, the Washington Times has been at the front of this story all the way.

Michael Steel is the Lieutenant Governor of Maryland and he's running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Senator Paul Sarbanes. Steel is the first black man elected to statewide office in Maryland and he's a conservative Republican. He has been the object of racist derision by black Democrats who don't like his politics.

These political foes seem to think calling a back man an "Uncle Tom" or altering his image to make it look like Little Black Sambo is OK--provided he doesn't agree with them. They also apparently don't have a problem with their activists tossing Oreo cookies at him during a campaign debate.

"I think it embarrasses our state to have elected officials speak in those terms," observed Micheal Steel in a follow-up story with the Washington Times.
"Marylanders now have a sense of the content of their character, because that is what [Martin Luther King] wanted us to judge each other by, and that's enough for me," Steel said.

One political adversary who happens to be running for the same seat, Kweisi Mfume, former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, did criticize the racist attacks--although he did so in a rather tepid manner. According to the Times, Mfume was joined by members of the Congressional Black Caucus in saying that Baltimore lawmakers in the General Assembly should "cease and desist" from making racial comments about Mr. Steele.

The Times reported Friday that the leading Democrat candidate for the seat, U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, pledged to not use racially charged attacks in his run for senator. But Cardin, who has a much larger campaign war chest than Steel, stopped short of chiding fellow Maryland Democrats who approve of such tactics.

"This is the Democratic Party, after all. We have a rather open party, and people are very opinionated," Mr. Cardin said. "I'm not going to start dealing with that other than to say ... our campaign will not
permit any racial issues. We are going to deal solely on the issues."

Some of Steel's Democratic critics have justified the racist remarks by saying the Lieutenant Governor's values do not represent black interests.

"The fact that my values are outside the black community ... will come as a surprise to my mother, who raised me with those values," said Mr. Steele, whose widowed mother raised him in the District
working as a minimum-wage seamstress and refused welfare. "When I have opponents like that say that I am anti-black, [I say] show me in my rhetoric where I have been anti-black, tell what I have said that has been anti-black," he said

We will be watching to see how this story plays out in the state as well as in the major media.

The problem of being "too white"

2005-11-03T23:42:00.000-05:00

This is a fitting companion piece to my post about the Lt. Gov. of Maryland who's presently running for the U.S. Senate. Michael Steel is a successful black Republican and black Democrats can't stand his politics. He's been pelted with Oreo cookies, been called an Uncle Tom and had his image altered to represent a Black Sambo which was subsequently posted on a website.

Duke University is hosting a two-day conference for educators dealing with youth and race. Among the topics being debated is a problem facing high achieving black students. If they do well scholastically, they are likely to face fall-out from their peers for being "too white." According to News 14, a local cable channel in the Raleigh Durham area, Students say the stigma is keeping some of their peers from doing well in school. Tenth grader Anais Guzman is on the honor roll. She says some of her peers see the achievement as acting "too white":

"They can get high grades but they don't want to because they'll be considered as acting white, so they put white people down,” Guzman said.
...College freshman Erin Burns added, “Black students that are doing well in the classroom or hang out with white friends or have good grammar, talk properly or don't use slang, they get accused of being white a lot."

William Darity, of the African-American Research Institute at UNC-Chapel Hill, doesn't think this negative peer pressure is a major factor. While the "acting white" stigma does play a part, he thinks student performance has more to do with school structure and curriculum for minorities:

"We argue it's due to the school context and because of a pattern of exclusion of vast numbers of black kids from the most challenging curriculum.” said Darity.

The students insist the "acting white" theory is a reality.

While this story is noteworthy, it hardly strikes me as a "NEWS FLASH". I have black friends who've made the same observation to me. I suspect this phenomenon is everyday stuff for members of the African American community who are motivated to achieve.

One suspects the notion that "doing well" is a "white thing" is a sterotype originally propagated by whites. Ironically, it seems that many blacks have internalized this noxious untruth. It has been absorbed into their cultural identity which they "own" with a sense of pride. There's a sense of separateness here that is rooted, as James Taranto observes, "[in] pernicious notions of black inferiority." One hopes this problem can and will be effectively combated.

We've all been exposed to the idea that victims of abuse are at increased risk of becoming abusers themselves. Is that what is at work in Maryland where black Democrats are the adult counterparts to the students who lob insults at their achieving peers?

Quote of the day

2005-11-02T22:42:00.000-05:00

This from James Taranto at Best of the Web Today:

Republicans should welcome anything that rallies the bases of both parties, for two reasons. First, the Republican base is bigger (see election results, 2004). Second, the Democratic base is totally insane. These people are now, according to the Village Voice, touting Cindy Sheehan for president.
"Democrats love to mock the Republican base for believing the Bible is true. Democratic basemen believe "Fahrenheit 9/11" is true! "

So what's up with the "Gang of 14" ?

2005-11-02T15:11:00.001-05:00

To ban judicial filibusters, Republicans need the support of at least three Republicans in the Gang of 14. The group's compact precludes filibustering in the absence of "extraordinary circumstances." The Washington Times is reporting that, at this early date, four Republicans and two Democrats who are party to the agreement have found no "extraordinary circumstances" with the Alito nomination. There's obviously a long distance before Alito's confirmation and there yet may be a showdown. But if the Times has this right, a filibuster does not at this point appear probable.

Under terms set by the Gang of 14, the seven Democrats promised not to back filibusters except under "extraordinary circumstances" and the seven Republicans vowed not to invoke the "nuclear option" unless Democrats abuse the filibuster.
...Four Republicans and two Democrats have found no "extraordinary circumstances" with the Alito nomination. Although that number is not enough to prevent Democrats from filibustering the nomination, it is enough to employ the nuclear option.
Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, declined to comment yesterday on whether Judge Alito's nomination amounts to "extraordinary circumstances," except to say that he is "strongly supportive of this nomination, based on what I know."
Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat, said he isn't aware of any "extraordinary circumstances" and has "not heard any of my Democratic colleagues in the Gang of 14 talk about using the f-word, filibuster."

Alito isn't an ideologue

2005-11-02T13:22:00.000-05:00

His 90 year-old mother, Rose Alito, of Hamilton, New Jersey, said of her son, "Of course he's against abortion." But those hoping that Samuel Alito, president Bush's nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, will vote pro-life--regardless of the issues involved--are likely to be greatly disappointed.

The Christian Science Monitor reviews the four abortion-related cases Samuel Alito ruled on while sitting on the bench at the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals. In three of the four, Alito ruled in favor of Abortion rights.

"If he has antiabortion philosophical leanings he did not let that warp his judgment in the [1995 Medicaid case in which Alito cast the deciding vote striking down a Pennsylvania abortion restriction] case," says Seth Kreimer, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-counsel on the winning side in the 1995 case.

Legal experts have differing perspectives of what Alito's jurisprudence might look like were he confirmed. Special interest groups, senate staffers and legal scholars are scrutinizing Alito's opinions. He has a 15-year tenure on the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals. Consequently, there is a substantial "paper trail."

...the true test of appeals court judges isn't which personal views they hold, but to what extent those personal views may influence how they rule in a particular case.
On this issue, legal analysts disagree in their assessments of Judge Alito. Some say he is a conservative ideologue. Others say he is a smart, careful jurist who leaves personal views behind when he dons his black robes.

Alito's rulings will provide ammunition for conservatives and liberals alike. My sense is that his nuanced record increases the likelihood that he will ultimately be approved.

RACISM IS OK...as long as it's directed at a Republican

2005-11-02T11:19:00.000-05:00

During a gubernatorial debate in 2002 at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Democratic party activists pelted Michael Steel with Oreo cookies. Presently Maryland's Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Steel is a Republican and he is also African American. Can you imagine the uproar had it been Republicans pelting a black Democrat?

The Washington Times is running a story todaythat focuses on the tactics being employed by Democrats--particularly black Democrats--against Lt. Gov. Steel, who is presently running for the U.S. Senate.

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes. "Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black. "Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Steel was called an "Uncle Tom," by Senate President Mike Miller Jr. in 2001 when Steel headed the state Republican Party. Although Miller, a Democrat, later apologized for the remark, Siler Marriott, when asked about Miller's remark, said: "That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial. Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial," Mrs. Marriott said.

The Times article also spoke with the Kweisi Mfume campaign regarding the tactics being used against Steel. Mfume is also hoping to fill the open seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes and is running behind Steel in the polls.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious." "There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

It would appear as if there is a double standard in Maryland politics. If you're African American and a Democrat, you're entitled to respect. On the other hand, if your African American and Republican, then as Lisa Gladden says, "Party trums race."

2005-11-01T13:16:00.000-05:00

The end of life as we know it? [NASA photo]

Armageddon???

2005-11-01T12:38:00.000-05:00

John Podhoretz offers his take on the issue of an "all out war" over the Samuel Alito nomination to the Supreme Court. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is quoted in a Washington Times article as saying:

"This one is going to be Armageddon"

Podhoretz' analysis is worth your attention. Here are a few exerpts:

About that "all-out political war" — as an MSNBC anchor dubbed it — that has supposedly broken out over the nomination of Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court: There isn't going to be one.
...the great likelihood is that this is going to be a phony war, waged up until the moment of real combat. Unless something really shocking happens, Alito will be confirmed.
...Here are the facts of the case. No Supreme Court nominee has been rejected by the Senate since Bork, during Ronald Reagan's second term. Bork's defeat came in a Senate controlled by Democrats. Today's Senate is dominated by Republicans, 55 to 45.
...So, will Democrats try to block Alito with a filibuster? Almost certainly no. Why? Because in that circumstance Republicans led by Sen. John McCain will be forced to support the president by voting for the so-called "nuclear option" to change the filibustering rules. That takes only 50 Republican votes and one from Vice President Dick Cheney, who can break a tie vote in the Senate.
Triggering the "nuclear option" would be a huge defeat for Democrats — a defeat far greater than letting a distinguished jurist like Alito get through, no matter how much grumbling they do.
They won't risk it. Barring some shocking revelation, Alito is in by Christmas.

Podhoretz singles out the other Senator from New York for special scorn:

No war, but a lot of ugliness. For example, it took only two hours for the anti-Alito rhetoric to overheat, courtesy of New York's own Sen. Chuck Schumer. He decided, in a pretty amazing display of bad taste, to use the late Rosa Parks' corpse as a weapon.
"The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place," Schumer said.
Now, it's one thing for a senator to say that Alito should not be confirmed because he is too conservative. That's been Schumer's stance on GOP judicial nominations, pure and simple, and while it may be wrong-headed, it's not disreputable. It's quite another for Schumer to oppose a conservative jurist by suggesting his views are implicitly segregationist. That's just a lousy and rotten thing to do.

Mary, it's a bit early for revisionism...

2005-11-01T11:25:00.000-05:00

Vanity Fair (delicious irony here) will print an excerpt from Mary Mapes's forthcomnig book on Rathergate in an upcoming issue. Editor & Publisher reports on the self-redemptive exercise in revisionism. Scott Johnson at Powerline puts it nicely in relating the title of her book:

Like Joseph Wilson's The Politics of Truth, Mapes's book has a title beyond satire: Truth and Duty.

What he has to say is germane in that Powerline was one of those "far right" blogs that played a key role in Rathergate.

CBS released a statement on Monday concerning their former employee:

"Mary Mapes' actions damaged CBS News as an organization and brought pain to many colleagues with whom she worked," the statement said. "As always, revisionist history must be tested against the facts." It pointed to the independent panel's 200-page report, adding: "We believe those facts speak for themselves."

A few days ago I posted a piece titled Why are Democrats so overheated? In it, David Brooks of the New York Times considers a 40 year-old essay by Richard Hofstadter called, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."

Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies...
"The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote..."is always manning the barricades of civilization. Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."

This seems to me an apt assessment where Mary Mapes is concerned. For instance she writes:

"I must answer the bloggers, the babblers and blabbers, and the true believers who have called me everything from 'feminazi' to an 'elitist liberal' to an 'idiot.' "If I was an idiot, it was for believing in a free press that is able to do its job without fear or favor. ...I didn't know that the attack on our story was going to be as effective as a brilliantly run national political campaign, because that is what it was: a political campaign."

Remember Hillary's, "vast right-wing conspiracy"? Editor & Publisher says:

She writes that what she didn't know at the time was that the attack on the "60 Minutes" piece was just part of the Bushites "sliming" of those who raised questions about the president.

It is as if the extreme right-wing was lurking in the bushes waiting to pounce in a concerted effort to slander Ms. Mapes. The fact is that the documents were so obviously generated from a computer using Microsoft Word, that it was only a short while before the blogosphere was buzzing with very compelling comparisons of the typogrophy.

Finally, she details how in that probe the question of how "liberal" she was became paramount. She likens it to the days of Sen. Joe McCarthy and charges that it was ironic that the same network that stood up to McCarthy with the Edward R. Murrow broadcasts was now caving in to similar tactics now: "Suspected liberals had become the new 'Communists...What in the world would Edward R. Murrow think of his network now?"

It's really rather tragic in a cheesy kind of way. Mapes truly sees herself as a martyr on truth's alter.

Editor & Publisher notes:

Throughout the article, Vanity Fair frequently cuts away for bracketed response from others involved in the episode who answer or rebut some of her charges.
At one point, for example, she asserts that CBS News chief Andrew Heyward said that if the bloggers could come up with "lousy analysts" to attack the authenticity of the memos CBS could find its own "lousy analysts." In an e-mail to Vanity Fair, Heyward denied this.

Mary, now you've written your book. We're hoping, alas, you'll be able to let go.

Bill Frist on the filabuster...

2005-10-31T16:02:00.000-05:00

Powerline has the Senate Majority leader's response to Tony Snow regarding the possibility of the Democrats using the filibuster to derail the nomination of Samuel Alito:

Obstructing judicial nominees should be a thing of the past. If the Democrats want to obstruct a nominee and not give us our constitutional right of advice and consent, an up-or-down vote, we'll take it to the mat. If a filibuster comes back, I'm not going to hesitate to employ the constitutional option to get an up-or-down vote.

2005-10-31T13:51:00.000-05:00

"The Supreme Court is an institution I have long held in reverence," said Samuel Alito, as President Bush listened to his nominee's remarks at this morning's announcement. [AP photo]

RUMBLE in the Washington Jungle

2005-10-31T11:07:00.000-05:00

The stage is set for vicious political combat. Looking somewhat weary following a time away at Camp David to reflect on his judicial options, President Bush has nominated Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The handling of the next nominee is likely to be "tougher than hell," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Friday.

The AP characterizes the nomination this way:

The choice was likely to spark a political brawl. Unlike the nomination of Harriet Miers, which was derailed Thursday by Bush's conservative allies, Alito faces opposition from Democrats...
In contrast to Miers, Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 70 years," the president said. So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.

Foreshadowing the melee to come, the Senate Minority leader, Harry Reid and Democratic hatchet man, Chuck Schumer have already drawn their lines in the sand. Using the left's favored ad hominem catch word, Reid (D-Nevada) said:

"The Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people."

Schumer, the other senator from New York released this statement about the nomination:

"It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us. This controversial nominee, who would make the Court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."

In reviewing Alito's qualifications NRO's Ed Whelan writes:

Judge Alito’s entire career since graduating from Yale Law School in the mid-1970s has been devoted to public service in the law. His range of experience dealing with difficult questions of federal law is unmatched. After a prestigious clerkship on the Third Circuit, he worked as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey for four years. Then, as assistant to the Solicitor General, he briefed and argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court for four years. He next served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel—the office that was previously headed by Rehnquist and Scalia and that advises the White House Counsel’s office and the entire executive branch on the proper meaning of the Constitution and other federal law. In 1987, Alito became United States Attorney in New Jersey. In that capacity, he was responsible for all federal prosecutions in New Jersey for three years (including the successful prosecution of a Libyan-sponsored terrorist who planned to attack various New York targets). And for the past 15 years, Alito has served with great distinction on the Third Circuit.

As regards Alito's conservative philosophy, the AP reports:

Samuel A. Alito has been a strong conservative jurist on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court with a reputation for being among the nation's most liberal.
Dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite," a play not only on his name but his opinions, Alito, 55, brings a hefty legal resume that belies his age. He has served on the federal appeals court for 15 years since President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1990...
Alito was the deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration from 1985 to 1987 and assistant to the solicitor general from 1981 to 1985...
Among his noteworthy opinions was his lone dissent in the 1991 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.
In 2000, though, Alito joined the majority that found a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions unconstitutional. In his concurring opinion, Alito said the Supreme Court required such a ban to include an exception if the mother's health was endangered.
On the spousal notification law, Alito wrote, "The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," Alito wrote.

The Abortion industry is apoplectic. NARAL already has this announcement up on it's web site.

"His confirmation would radically transform the Supreme Court and create a direct threat to the health and safety of American women," said Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood.
"Now, the gauntlet has been, I think, thrown down," said Kate Michelman, past president of NARAL-Pro-Choice American.

Given the Republican majority in the Senate and allowing for the mavericks in both parties, the probable range of votes favoring Alito runs from 50 to 54, according to this analysis. That leaves the filibuster as the one remaining weapon in the opponents' aresenal. This throws the spotlight back upon the gang of 14. The New York Times has already contemplated that possibility:

Mr. Reid had already said... on Sunday, he did not rule out the possibility that Democrats would try to block a nominee by a filibuster or refusing to close debate and vote. "We are going to do everything we can" to see that the president names "somebody that's really good," Mr. Reid said.
But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism,
"the filibuster will not stand."
Mr. Graham's warning was significant because he played a crucial role earlier this year in helping block a Republican effort to change the Senate rules - known as the nuclear option - so that Democrats could not filibuster judicial nominees. His comments on Sunday indicated that this time, he would support that rule change; Democrats have threatened to retaliate with a battle that could snarl Senate business for months.
Both sides are on edge in anticipation. "There's a lot of anxiety," Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on "Late Edition." "There could be a real tough battle here and a real tough fight, depending on whom the president puts up."
Mr. Specter said he was "very worried" about the possibility of a filibuster. "The topic which dominates the discussion, as we all know, is a woman's right to choose," said the senator, who supports abortion rights.

Let's get ready to RUMBLE!!! (And by the way, did I mention how pleased I am that the president didn't make an affirmative action pick?)

Prince of Wales to plead Islam's case with the President

2005-10-30T16:40:00.000-05:00

What do you do when you're the heir-apparent to a figurehead monarchy, tolerated but not respected by your constituents and too blue-blooded to be productive the way regular blokes are?

Perhaps you do what Prince Charles has taken upon himself to do. The Prince of Wales intends to plead Islam's cause with President Bush during an eight-day pilgrimage to the U.S. beginning Tuesday. The U.K.'s News Telegraph reports:

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.
The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths...
Prince Charles, who is about to embark on his first official foreign tour since his marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall [i.e. Camilla Parker Bowles], wants Americans - including Mr Bush - to share his fondness for Islam.

The Prince and Duchess will attend a lunch and dinner with President Bush and his wife, Laura, at the White House on Wednesday. The News Telegraph says that, "Prince Charles has been wooing the US media ahead of next week's tour when he will visit New York, Washington and San Francisco. It is considered a risky venture because Diana, Princess of Wales, who died eight years ago, was so revered in the US."

According to the story in the News Telegraph:

Prince Charles has done more than any other member of the Royal Family in history to understand Islam. He said in 1994 that when he became Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he would rather be "defender of faiths" than "defender of the faith".
A year earlier Prince Charles made a speech, acclaimed throughout the Arab world, on relations between Islam and the West. He urged the West to overcome its "unthinkable prejudices" about Islam and its customs and laws. He spoke warmly of the West's debt to the culture of Islam and distanced moderate Muslims from misguided militants. "Extremism is no more the monopoly of Islam than it is the monopoly of other religions, including Christianity," he said.

In an interview on 60 Minutes today Prince Charles gives us his take on my opening question. He speaks of his desire to enrich people's lives through his work. "I only hope that when I am dead and gone they might appreciate it a little more," he jokes.

I don't want to pick any fights with our friends, the brits, and far be it from me to heap derision on the Prince's head. Maybe Charles is under the impression that by advocating for Islam (the religion of peace) in Washington he too may be greeted by 70 virgins when he enters paradise (a fate surely better than his temporal existence). I can hardly imagine that this mission will help repair the Prince's image in a country of cowboys. One understands that royals by definition lead somewhat insulated lives. Can he really be this insulated?

Photo on left: Der Spiegel / Photo on right: official U.K. government photo

Babies born to unwed moms increases by 4%

2005-10-30T00:31:00.000-04:00

The National Center for Health Statistics (NHCS) has just released preliminary birth data for 2004. While the overall birth rate is up slightly (almost 1%), there has been a significant increase in births among unwed women--an increase of 4% in just one year.

Significantly, the women who are having babies out of wedlock are not just teens, contrary to stereotype. In fact, the number of unwed births among teens is down 26% from 1970. In 2004 24% of all unwed births were to teen aged mothers, whereas in 1970 they accounted for 50% of all unwed births. Presently over half of births to women in their early twenties were to unmarried women. It's interesting to note that among the teens that are bearing children, only 20% of births were to married mothers--80% of teens having children were unwed last year.

Unmarried women in their 20s--especially those 25 to 29--is the age group with the greatest increase. These statistics would seem to indicate a growing acceptance of couples living together outside of marriage. Women in this age group are living with "partners"--and having children with their partners--but opting not to marry. The statistics indicate that in this country the 20s are the prime childbearing years, regardless of whether or not the mother is married.

Here are some highlights from the study:

There were 4.1 million births in 2004, nearly 1 percent more than in 2003. The general fertility rate in 2004 was up slightly -- 66.3 live births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, compared with 66.1 live births per 1,000 women in 2003.
Childbearing by unmarried women reached a record high of almost 1.5 million births in 2004, up 4 percent from 2003. More than 4 in 5 births to teenagers were among unmarried teens. Over half of births to women in their early twenties and nearly 3 in 10 births to women aged 25-29 years were to unmarried women. The birth rate among unmarried women of all ages increased 3 percent from 2003 to 2004. In 2004, 35.7 percent of all births were to unmarried women.
Teenage birth rates declined again in 2004, but at a much slower pace than observed since the declines started after 1991. The birth rate in 2004 for females aged 15-19 years reached an all-time low of 41.2 births per 1,000. This was 1 percent lower than in 2003 (41.6), and 33 percent lower than the teenage birth rate of 61.8 per 1,000 in 1991.
Births to older women continue to increase. From 2003 to 2004, the birth rate for women aged 30–34 years increased slightly (less than 1 percent) whereas the rate for women aged 35-39 years rose by 4 percent. The birth rate for women 40–44 years increased 3 percent

[Photo: Healthy Start Coalition, Inc.(http://snipurl.com/ja36)]

Why are Democrats so overheated?

2005-10-30T00:00:00.000-04:00

This also from Drudge...

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence to prove that there was a "broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove," writes David Brooks in Sunday's NY TIMES.
"Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society." "Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?
Brooks quotes from an essay written 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.
"The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote, "sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."
Brooks summarizes: "So some Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but had to stretch, distort and exaggerate. The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy."

Concerning the bookish David Brooks' compound question ("Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?), I have a theory... it's just a theory, mind you. Here goes...

"David, it's because they ARE unhinged!"

Infidels and the Religion of Peace...

2005-10-29T14:06:00.000-04:00

Matt Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/) links to a story from the on-line version of the Sydney Morning Herald (http://snipurl.com/j9pa ). The headline reads, "Christian girls beheaded in grisly Indonesian attack."

Three teenage Christian girls were beheaded and a fourth was seriously wounded in a savage attack on Saturday by unidentified assailants in the Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi.
The girls were among a group of students from a private Christian high school who were ambushed while walking through a cocoa plantation in Poso Kota subdistrict on their way to class, police Major Riky Naldo said.

Clearly this stunningly depraved inhumanity has a Muslim dimension to it. The story further reports:

In Jakarta, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono ordered the police to begin a hunt for the killers. "In the holy month of Ramadan, we are again shocked by a sadistic crime in Poso that claimed the lives of three school students," he told reporters at the airport as he prepared to fly to Sumatra island...
Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim nation, but Central Sulawesi has a roughly equal number of Muslims and Christians. The province was the scene of a bloody religious war in 2001-2002 that killed around 1000 people from both communities.At the time, beheadings, burnings and other atrocities were common. A government-mediated truce succeeded in ending the conflict in early 2002, but there have since been a series of bomb attacks and assassinations of Christians.

I don't doubt that there were also ethnic and perhaps tribal components (http://snipurl.com/j9ps) to the heinous act. This is not unlike the way the insurgents treat their war trophies. In this case, however, the victims were highschool girls on their way to school. And, oh yes, let us not forget that they were Christian.

This case provides another clear glimpse into the rotten core of Islam. It is but one in a long littany of such examples. How long will "outsiders" and "infidels" continue to ignore this predatory curse on humanity?

2005-10-29T00:42:00.000-04:00

deep purple

Afraid to leave our fate up to the Xo#\@/~^!

2005-10-29T00:36:00.000-04:00

Pardon the "french", but this quote is too good not to post...

The Salt Lake Tribune ran a story (http://snipurl.com/j96z) about a week ago that explored the reasons the Utah National Guard has an 80% retention rate. It might be inferred from the story that the writer(s) were surprised that the number of soldiers and airmen choosing to stay in was as high as it was, given the present circumstances. A first-ever public survey of the Utah National Guard had been conducted and the paper quoted from several of the National Guardsmen's responses. This one is pure gold:

1st Lt. Bruce Bishop, 31, a Salt Lake County firefighter, said he'll stay "because as I look around at the state of this nation and see all of the weak little pampered candy-asses that are whining about this or protesting that, I'd be afraid to leave the fate of this nation entirely up to them."
Bishop, who served in Afghanistan, is among the 450 Utah Guard members deployed to Louisiana. Most are volunteers.

Hat tip: James Taranto Best of the Web Today (http://snipurl.com/j970)

Pinkerton's perspective...

2005-10-29T00:17:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting perspective from Newsday's James Pinkerton (http://snipurl.com/j96f):

"The withdrawal of Harriet Miers is a defeat for George W. Bush, but it is a victory for the conservative movement. As we now see, there's a big distinction between the two...
The movement knows that W. will be out of office in barely more than three years, while Miers might have been on the court for decades. And the conservative movement, like all ideological movements, sees itself as eternal. So the movement, if it is to be worth anything, has no choice but to fight for what it believes--even against a Republican White House".

[Hat tip: Opinion Journal] (http://snipurl.com/j96q)

2005-10-28T00:14:00.000-04:00

Christian Carnival XCIII is up at PURE MEN BLOG (http://puremen.blogspot.com/). This is a once-per-week venue where believing bloggers pool their best posts to share with their cyber-brothers and sisters (and others). It's a fest of stimulating thought and conversation. You're cordially invited.
[Google image, no copywrite information found]

Time to move forward

2005-10-27T10:24:00.000-04:00

The Harriet Miers nomination has finally been put out of its misery. And the politically-battered nominee did the deed herself. Most of us will never know if the act was fully voluntary.

From the two news accounts I read, my perception is that she chose a low-profile exit, rather than taking some parting shots (via a news conference) aimed at her many detractors. The AP report (http://snipurl.com/j5nl) quotes from her resignation letter which was dated Thursday:

...Miers said she was concerned that the confirmation process "would create a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."

She noted that members of the Senate had indicated their intention to seek documents about her service in the White House in order to judge whether to support her confirmation.

"While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain executive branch materials and information will continue," she wrote.

Political insiders were apparently caught off-guard by today's announcement.

The withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting potential bad news for the administration on another front — the possible indictments of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case. Earlier in the week, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq hit 2,000.
...Miers and her supporters knew she faced growing odds against her confirmation.
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because Bush had not authorized him to talk for the record, said it had become increasingly clear that her nomination was facing a collision on Capitol Hill that needed to be prevented.
Polls show Bush is at the weakest point of his presidency with growing numbers of voters disapproving of his job performance and his policies on Iraq.

Of course, there's always an interesting "back story" in an event like this. I doubt that Ms. Miers came to this decision purely independently. There were White House handlers to manage the politics. The president was no doubt actively assessing the unfolding situation. He has a well-known modus operandi of not backing down, making it pretty likely that the administration had simply come to terms with hard political reality. It's not improbable that Ms. Miers was "informed" that she had to take a hit for the good of the team. It's also possible that the president remained loyal and that his "reluctant acceptance" was genuine.

I've been convinced for a few weeks that the Miers nomination was sunk. But from my point of view, this isn't a happy day. It's not that I don't think that the President badly miscalculated. On the other hand, while I evolved during the process and came to support the nomination, I was by no means enthusiastic.

When you're the most powerful leader on earth, there's an inclination to assume you can do what you want to do. I think it's a good thing that President Bush was forced to recognize that he represents the people who elected him and that he was granted the privelege to serve by virtue of their support. In this case his supporters were not passive and he could neither blow-them-off, nor take them for granted. We do not contenance autocrats. Point made.

But I also believe that his presidency was weakened by this. And in that, I take no pleasure at all.

Local politics are tough, state politics are tougher and national politics is like herding cats. On one hand there is leadership on the other hand, there is followership. We Americans aren't very keen on the followership thing. The politics of power can get down right ugly. We've starkly been witnesses to true ugliness in our body politic.

I hope the president is able to absorb this set back, shake it off and move forward constructively. I also deeply hope and pray his next nominee is the right person for the good of the country.

[AP photo]

2005-10-26T18:01:00.000-04:00

Life in the desert

A milestone worth celebrating

2005-10-26T17:23:00.000-04:00

With relatively little fanfare, Iraq has become a constitutional democracy. The MSM is too busy focusing upon the "grim milestone" (see below) to pay much attention to the results of the referendum being announced.

In the overall tally, 78 percent of voters supported the charter and 21 percent voted against it with the voting generally running along ethnic lines. Nonetheless, the result was clear and definitive.

According to the Washington Times (http://snipurl.com/j3zp):

Final referendum results show Iraqis emphatically approved a new constitution, putting their country on a firm democratic footing and setting the stage for crucial legislative elections in just seven weeks, officials said yesterday.
"This opens a new page for a better future for Iraq," said President Jalal Talabani's chief spokesman, upon hearing the results.
"It is a very important step in the formation of a final democratic, united Iraq, and is the path for a more politically stable Iraq," said Kameron Karadaghi.

According the the Washington Times story, "Yes" votes ran as high as 99 percent in exclusively Kurdish and Shi'ite provinces, while in Anbar province, a Sunni stronghold, the vote was 97 percent "no."

Charges of voting irregularities were investigated and dismissed.

Special teams including U.N. observers audited the results in several provinces as a result of lopsided outcomes and suspiciously high turnouts, but those tallies were confirmed. "These results are correct 100 percent," said a pleased Election Commissioner Farid Ayer.

We extend our congratulations and best wishes to the Iraqi people and wish them every success as they move forward in this bold democratic experiment. Our heartfelt thanks also to the troops who have been essential in securing this hard-won milestone.

Look into my eyes...resistance is futile...

2005-10-26T15:09:00.000-04:00

The photo at left was run by USA TODAY 10/19/05 (http://snipurl.com/j3p6). It has
since been replaced by the non-doctored photo on the right. The apparent
reason for the switch is that USA TODAY was busted (see story below).

Next they'll give her a split toungue...

2005-10-26T14:34:00.000-04:00

What we see above is almost certainly the work of an individual photo editor. Maybe he (or she) thought it was cute (possible, but not probable). Or perhaps the editor was simply being malicious.

Regardless of "who" may be responsible, or "why" they did it, what we see here is another example of MSM hostility toward the Bush administration. And this isn't the first time it's happened. There was the Bush as hitler photo, the Bush flipping the bird photo (both doctored) and we all remember the (authentic) note from the president to Condi expressing the need for a "bathroom break," of which much was made.

A website called FROMTHEPEN.com (http://snipurl.com/j3no) apparently first discovered this bit of "creative" editing. I came across the story at Michelle Malkin's site (http://snipurl.com/j3nr). Michelle says she's written USA Today's Graphics and Photos Managing Editor, Richard Curtis (at, rcurtis@usatoday.com), asking for an explanation. As of this writing, she hadn't received a response from him. I'm looking forward to what Mr. Curtis has to say...

UPDATE: As of 3:45 p.m. today this note appeared along with the undoctored photo at the USA TODAY website:

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

Up to the sentences I highlighted in pink, USA TODAY was doing OK--not great, but OK. Then comes the weasel-speak for saying the editor photo-shopped Condoleezza Rice's eyes. Judge for yourself...an "accident" of face brightening? Note the pointy bottoms and triangular shape of her pupils. I'm not buyin' it.

UPDATE II: Editor & Publisher is running a story (http://snipurl.com/j5r9) that carries the headline, "Altered Photo on USAToday.com Criticized, Then Revised." You'll be interested to know that the unnamed editor was not disciplined for their "honest mistake":

"USAToday.com, like other news organizations, often adjusts photos for sharpness and brightness to optimize appearance," Anderson [a spokesperson for USAToday] told E&P. He added that an online editor sharpened the photo to brighten Rice's face, but did not do so in an effort to make her look strange.
"It's considered an honest mistake and the person was not disciplined," Anderson said, declining to identify the online editor who made the change. He added that no complaints or inquiries had come from Rice's office or AP.

Death watch

2005-10-26T00:13:00.000-04:00

The Internet is an amazingly powerful tool. Search engines are especially potent, providing immediate access to a vast array of information and data. Current technology gives us the ability to readily identify media-based political strategies. A simple search on a key word can make obvious a political party's current talking points, for instance.

As the number of military fatalities in Iraq approached 2,000, the term "grim milestone" had been used and over used. This graphic (at left), for example, was the cover story this evening at MSNBC.com (http://snipurl.com/j3jf). Here's a particularly noxious example from the true-to-form BBC (http://snipurl.com/j3hw ).
If you Google "grim milestone" you'll get about 98,000 hits at the moment. All but a few of the results on the first several pages naturally pertain to Iraq. I suspect the same would hold true generally, regardless of how deep you drill down into the results. I did note that this particular appellation was widely used at the 1,000 and 1,500 markers also. Count on its repetition should we reach 2,500.

I agree with U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, who called this "milestone" an “artificial mark on the wall.”

“The 2,000th Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that is killed in action is just as important as the first that died and will be just as important as the last to die in this war against terrorism and to ensure freedom for a people who have not known freedom in over two generations.”

While it's true that the death toll in Iraq is escalating, it's helpful to bring some perspective to the issue. The chart below is from World Magazine (http://snipurl.com/j23k). It's a bit outdated in that the comparisons were based on the death toll standing at 1,700 in late June of this year. The deaths per day is calculated by dividing the total number of deaths by the number of days (conflict duration). I did the math and the deaths per day moved from 2.125 at the point when this cart was developed to 2.209 presently. And during that time, of course, Iraq voted for its constitution which prompted elevated insurgent activity.

As this AP article (http://snipurl.com/j23o) indicates, Tuesday , 10/25/2005 the "grim milestone" was reached. The left has been anxiously waiting, the media have had their stories queued-up and the insurgents have been working hard. I don't by any means want to convey that I view this number of fatalities as insignificant. Each and every death is a tragedy in its own right and the loss of a son, a daughter, a dad, a spouse can cause a loved one's world to come crashing down. Nevertheless, it's vital to keep things in perspective and these statistics speak for themselves.

Little Green footballs (http://snipurl.com/j2ur) & (http://snipurl.com/j2v0) has been noting the "death watch" for weeks. All kinds of planning and events have been scheduled in anticipation of this threshold. Protests, mememorials, vigils are all competing for air time. One wonders how many of these would go forward if the media coverage was cancelled.

So, I say, let us pause to reflect. It's right and appropriate to do so. Then, let us steel ourselves and recommit to our resolve so that we are faithful to finish what we set out to do. After all, we've already paid a very dear price. The greatest possible tragedy would be for those deaths to count for nothing.

2005-10-25T15:34:00.000-04:00

WARNING: Offensive content

The church of hate...

2005-10-25T12:34:00.000-04:00

All of the photos above are from Westboro Baptist Church's web site (http://snipurl.com/j19j). The protest depicted in upper left photo was conducted in front of First Baptist Church in Oklahoma City 10/16/2005. The protest depticted in upper right photo was at the funeral of Lawrence Morrison, a fallen soldier, in Yakima, WA. One sign at that protest read: THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS; another read, GOD IS AMERICA'S TERRORIST. I'll let the other two speak for themselves. These photos are not unlike these: (http://snipurl.com/j1af) ( http://snipurl.com/j1ag) (http://snipurl.com/j1am) (http://snipurl.com/j1an) (http://snipurl.com/j1au) (http://snipurl.com/i63w) the same hatred from opposite sides of the political spectrum.

WARNING: This story contains content some may find offensive.

Westboro Baptist Church (http://snipurl.com/j0xg) in Topeka, Kansas was founded (1955) and is led by a preacher named Fred Phelps. He is 75 years old and reportedly pastors a flock of around 150. If you've seen any photos or news stories of pickets where the protesters are holding "GOD HATES FAGS" signs, then you've been introduced to Fred Phelp's "ministry" (http://snipurl.com/5gxb).

The Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/) is presently carrying a link (http://snipurl.com/j0y0) to a Sky News story about Phelps that describes him as "America's most controversial Christian minister." This "investigative" report from a U.K. television news program has Phelps praising the London bombings. They have Phelps on tape saying:

"Oh I am so thankful that happened [the London bombings]. My only regret is that they didn't kill about million of them. England deserves that kind of punishment, as does this country [America]".

The story goes on to report:

The church, which has 150 followers, recently started picketing funerals including those of American soldiers killed in Iraq, waving banners such as "Thank God 9/11", "God Hates Fags" and "Aids Cures Fags".

First let me say that all of the bluster about getting a reporter inside the church to "secretly" film Phelps say what he did about terrorists wrecking havoc in London's subway system is a bit ridiculous. This was much less than a hard-hitting expose. All you've got to do is go to the church's home page (http://snipurl.com/5gxb) which carries the banner, "GOD HATES FAGS," and there's nothing but that kind of content. Neither Phelps nor his followers have any qualms about speaking their minds fully and frankly. Their agenda couldn't be more transparent.

It's easy to dismiss Phelps out of hand. Revulsion is a natural response to such in-your-face, over-the-top, shock-and-awe tactics. But I must admit that, for me, Phelps and his approach evokes not just sadness, anger and revulsion (Which it surely does). There are also levels on which I find myself respecting and admiring him as well. Please bear with me.

There can be no doubt that Phelps is stunningly misguided and that his brand of "Christianity" is a warped, distorted caricature of the only faith that offers an authentic relationship with a Holy and loving God. Phelps describes himself as a "primitive Baptist" and a "five point Calvinist." The first denotes the belief that his brand of faith is the "one true" path to eternal life and their interpretation of scripture the only correct understanding of God's Word. And just as sadly, Calvinism misunderstood, Calvinism misapplied can lead one to some really ugly conclusions and beliefs.

Phelps and his followers are afflicted with myopia. Their world view is appallingly ignorant. The intolerance and absolutism bespeak a profound lack of humility and pure uneducated stupidity. There's an absence of balance and no recognition that God can not and will not be put in a box. And one of the really unfortunate realities is that once you move to those kinds of positions and beliefs, then you become insulated and all the criticism simply reinforces your preconceptions and assumptions.

Frankly, Phelps claims to speak for God. He also is responsible for shepherding a group of followers. He is a very public face and presence and the association of his ministry with the Gospel of Jesus Christ is enough to make one physically ill and wince in palpable pain. I hope I've made myself clear.

However, there are some things to admire where Fred Phelps is concerned, even if he is not the ideal representative of them. I have lamented the degree to which the Church in America has come under the influence of the culture. I have expressed my frustration with the unwillingness of a broad swath of Christian leaders to speak truth to those for whom God has given them oversight. I have written about the pervasive lack of spiritual authority that characterizes the visible church in this nation. Just recently I wrote about identity confusion (http://snipurl.com/j1m6) and about the pathetic need of evangelicals to be accepted by the pagan community as well as this emasculated compulsion to niceness.

Whatever one might say about Fred Phelps, he's not afflicted with a neediness to be liked and accepted by pagans. He exhibits real courage in his willingness to take a stand for truth against tremendous hostility--as misguided as his understanding of truth may be. (Believe me, to speak out against the homosexual agenda is to take a huge whack at an angry hornet's nest...hell hath no fury like a sodomite criticized).

Nor is Fred Phelps adrift in the same sea of moral relativity and political correctness that so many professed "believers" are. Those of us who who hold to absolutes and believe scripture to be the authoritative Word of God may still recognize that there are shades of gray in scriptural interpretation. We also see how spiritual things often elude ready explanation. We've come face-to-face with our own inclination to look for easy formulas and pat answers. One can view the certitude of this man with a certain sort of nostalgia and even, admiration.

In the final analysis, however, we must unequivocally repudiate Fred Phelps' distorted version of Christianity. We should also pray that God will graciously give Mr. Phelps revalation concerning the error into which he's submerged. That's a tall order, but not too tall for our sovereign, omnipotent and gracious maker.

[Photo from "God Hates Fags" website]

2005-10-25T00:10:00.000-04:00

fall jewels

Tribalism and its reverse

2005-10-24T16:28:00.000-04:00

It is essential to understand the role of tribalism if one is to grasp the realities of the Middle East, and more specifically, the realities of Iraq. Mona Charen has done us a a service by highlighting it in a commentary entitled, "Trial, tribalism . . . and momentum" (http://snipurl.com/iz0q).

There are multiple quotes in this piece that reflect some of the "tribal" perspectives operative in Iraq:

A Sunni perspective: "Saddam doesn't deserve all this," Ahmad Muhammad, a Mosul taxi driver complained to the New York Times. "In Halabja [the Kurdish city Saddam annihilated with a poison gas attack] there was an entire Iranian army inside our land, and who helped them enter? The traitors. What should he have done other than kill the traitors and our enemies?"--there were several of these.
The Shiite / Kurdish perspective: Shi'ites and Kurds, by contrast, expressed bitter satisfaction Saddam at last faced justice. In the Shi'ite city of Dujail, site of the 1982 massacre of 143 men, people chanted "Death to Saddam" and carried photos of fathers, brothers and sons killed by Saddam's security forces, who razed the town after someone there tried to assassinate Saddam. "I had four sons executed by Saddam," a 64-year-old woman from Karbala told the Times. "When he's executed I'll finally hold their funerals."

There are several insightful observations about the impact of this Tribalism in Iraq:

A tribal mindset precludes a genuine rule of law.
The tribalist does not ask "what has this man done?" but "to whom did he do it?"
Even worse is the sense from these reactions that sympathy stops at the tribe's edge. In Mosul, a Sunni stronghold, Saddam's defenders do not deny charges of mass murder. They simply justify it.
Can democracy thrive in such an environment? Are we free of it ourselves? The first question cannot be answered except with time and patience.
Americans have cleansed themselves to a remarkable degree of the primitive stain of tribalism. Look at the pride American servicemen in Iraq take in helping the Iraqi people.

Then Ms. Charen surprises us by talking about a sort of "reverse tribalism" that's readily observable among liberals:

But weirdly enough, tribalism exerts continuing force among liberals. Theirs is a reverse tribalism: They honor every group but their own. In doing so, they cannot bring themselves to celebrate the American-led liberation of Iraq from one of the worst monsters of our time.

"Reverse tribalism" is one way of describing it. But there are other ways to characterize this predisposition. I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks.

I can't discuss "tribalism with out making reference to a high-impact piece I came across written by William Whittle at a site called eject! eject! eject! (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/). This is a more positive take on tribalism and well worth your while. Here's a few excerpts:

It just breaks my heart into little pieces. I have said less and less as I see more and more, because deep in my core I still don’t want to believe that some Americans could willfully and consistently do such destructive things out of such petty and base motivations, things which in time will make the horrors of New Orleans look like a flea circus in a small tent, with the much larger carnival raging unseen in the background.
I’ve taken sides in these essays, obviously – that’s what I do. But I have never, until now, felt the need to take the gloves off and really let fly. I always feared I would regret it, later. I still do. Only now, I fear I will regret it worse if I do not.

He goes on to contrast "[his] tribe," with other "tribes." However, tribes as he defines it, has nothing to do with race, but rather (dare one say it...) with values and attitudes. Honest, you shouldn't miss this. WARNING: Whittle uses language that may be offensive to some readers.

Desecrating Veterans Day

2005-10-24T00:11:00.000-04:00

Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs (http://snipurl.com/ix2b) is really good at coming up with stuff like this "schedule" for a protest planned for Veterans Day in Los Angeles. It does (as he declares) expose the real agenda behind this Veteran's Day observance. He says events like this one:

"...tear away the mask of phony “caring” and reveal the true ugliness of their ghoulish agenda."

Here's a bit of the crass promo, but you'll want to read it in its entirety:

Veterans for Peace Sponsor ‘100 Coffin March’ at Arlington West Memorial.
Seeking 400 pallbearers
At 9:00 AM — Assemble coffins (made of lightweight cardboard.)
At 11:30 AM — Free T-shirts distributed to 400 pallbearers.
At Noon — Reverent, processional march will begin, heading north on Ocean from the pier, then will make an orderly about-face at Wilshire and return to place the coffins among the crosses at the beach

RSVP: tonia4@earthlink.net

Tentative Schedule for Veterans Day Weekend

Sponsored by Veterans for Peace
Honor the Warrior - Not the War
Nov 11- 13, Friday-Sunday, Santa Monica Beach by the pier.

Some joyful news

2005-10-23T16:39:00.000-04:00

Newsweek is reporting that Anne Rice, famed occultic author, has embraced faith in Jesus Christ. The Newsweek article (http://snipurl.com/iwkr) is thin on details but it suggests that the loss of her husband in 2002--Stan Rice, to whom she was married 41 years--and her own serious health problems played a role. She confirms as much on her web site(http://snipurl.com/iwml).

According to Newsweek:

"...she came close to death last year, when she had surgery for an intestinal blockage, and also back in 1998, when she went into a sudden diabetic coma; that same year she returned to the Roman Catholic Church, which she'd left at 18."
"I promised," she says, "that from now on I would write only for the Lord." It's the most startling public turnaround since Bob Dylan's "Slow Train Coming" announced that he'd been born again.

Celebrity professions can be dicey things. Two notorious conversions (both of which are decidedly non-Christian) come immediately to mind: Madonna and Kabbalah (http://snipurl.com/iwlo) and Tom Cruise and Scientology (http://snipurl.com/iwlt). The relationships these high-profile, high-powered celebrities have with their respective "churches" have generated many stories--often about financial tensions. We are so pathetically "star struck" in our culture. Well-known new believers are often exploited, I'm sad to say. Church leaders often fall all over themselves recognizing an opportunity to share the spotlight with their famous charge. And of course, the stars have lots of cash and that's its own attraction to those who are drawn into their orbit.

Celebrity conversions sometimes do not stick. Even though Bob Dylan sang, "You gotta serve somebody," it is not apparent that he is any longer serving the Lord. I hope I'm wrong about this, I don't want to unfairly judge anyone. But then there are the clear and compelling cases. Here, Chuck Colson comes to mind. I remember being very skeptical of his "jail house conversion." But to my happy surprise, he not only has held to his faith, his personal transformation is evident and he's an influential leader with a world-wide impact.

I checked out Anne Rice's web site to see what I might find about her faith. She's certainly not wearing her religion on her sleeve. But I did find some strong evidence of her belief.

There's no doubt that my life and my writing have been shaped by grief. I think I was grieving for my mother before she ever died, and that was when I was 14. After the death of my daughter in 1972, I wrote INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, without ever realizing I was writing about loss. I was writing about my daughter's loss. And I was writing about my loss of Catholic faith long before that, because I had lost my faith in the year 1960, when I first went to college. And in losing my faith, I lost my whole view of the world. (http://snipurl.com/iwml)
... I feel a great change coming in my career. Infact, I know it's coming. The book I've written, the book that will appear in 2003 in the fall. It will be the last of the vampires and the witches. It will be the very end. Of course, that's subject to change. But I don't think it's going to change. I think it's going to be the last book that I put before the world and desperately plead for: "Oh, but it's really about good and evil. Yes, yes I know it's vampires and witches, yes. But it's really about good and evil. It's about salvation, it's about damnation, it's about grace. (http://snipurl.com/iwml)

And in writing about her latest book, CHRIST THE LORD: Out of Egypt, Ms. Rice explains to her readers:

...every effort has been made to make the entire world of this book accurate according to all the records we possess. This is the Jesus who was born in Bethlehem, celebrated by angels, visited by shepherds, and the Magi. This is the Christ of the four gospels in whom I believe. -- In a way, the novel is the story of Christmas told in a new way -- from the point of view of Jesus Himself when he is old enough to start talking seriously about the mysteries surrounding His birth. --- My life has led to this book.

This auther has traveled a long wayto emerge from the dark. May God bless and protect Anne. May her new faith flourish.

[Hat tip: The Drudge Report]

Researcher says society is better off without God...

2005-10-23T00:07:00.000-04:00

Gregory Paul has published research results that suggest less religious societies are better off than their more religious counterparts. His findings were published in the Journal of Religion & Society (http://snipurl.com/ivbe). Paul states that, compared to more-secular countries such as Sweden, Britain and Japan, the more-Christian United States "is almost always the most dysfunctional."

I found this bio on him at the Johns Hopkins University Press web site (http://snipurl.com/ivbi):

Gregory S. Paul is a freelance scientist and scientific illustrator specializing in dinosaur evolution. Illustrations from his book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, along with specific skeletal studies of theropods he was commissioned to prepare, were used in the making of the Jurassic Park movies.

Other studies have come to the exact opposite conclusion. See, for example, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (http://snipurl.com/ivbm).

[Hat tip: Marvin Olasky]OOO [Illustration: www.wilderdom.com]

2005-10-22T11:48:00.000-04:00

sky light

Law against underage gay sex struck down in Kansas

2005-10-22T10:56:00.000-04:00

This one's got me thinking. The Washington Post (http://snipurl.com/ium1) reports that the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously struck down a state law that imposed a more severe punishment for underage sex if it involved homosexual acts.

The case involved an 18-year-old man, Matthew R. Limon, who was found guilty in 2000 of performing a sex act on a 14-year-old boy and was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Had one of them been a girl, state law would have dictated a maximum sentence of 15 months.
The high court ordered that Limon be resentenced as if the law treated illegal gay sex and illegal straight sex the same. He has already served more than five years.
Limon's lawyer, James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said: "We are very happy that Matthew will soon be getting out of prison. We are sorry there is no way to make up for the extra four years he spent in prison simply because he is gay."

As far as I'm able to ascertain, the intent of the law was to protect children against predatory homosexual behavior. It might be inferred that greater emotional and psychological damage to the victim could result.

Up to that point, I think I'm OK with the law. But the disparity between the sentences for hetrosexual underage sex--15 months--versus 17 years when homosexuality is involved, strikes me as terribly unfair. There's no rational proportionality, from my point of view. I agree with Justice Lukert's statement:

"The statute inflicts immediate, continuing and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justification that may be claimed for it."

It isn't surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision which struck down a Texas law against gay sodomy was cited by the Kansas Supreme Court.

Pork barrel politics: The Republicans used to be against it

2005-10-22T00:04:00.000-04:00

OOOOOo(Left) Senator Ted Stevens, AK0 (Right) Senator Tom Coburn, OK

OOThe Coburn bill to defund the Bridge to Nowhere was voted down Friday 82-15

UPDATE: You may be interested to know who were the 11 Republicans and 4 Democrats who voted to approve the Coburn ammendment. In alphebetical order they are: Allard (R-CO), Allen (R-VA), Bayh (D-IN), Burr (R-NC), Coburn (R-OK), Conrad (D-ND), DeMint (R-SC), DeWine (R-OH), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (R-SC), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Sessions (R-AL)Sununu (R-NH), Vitter (R-LA).

Among the most troubling patterns of the Bush presidency has been his penchant for big spending. One of the most dramatic changes in perception toward the two main political parties that I've observed in my lifetime has been the transition engineered by the Clinton administration that has persuaded the public that Democrats are more competent to manage the economy than Republicans. I've written about Bush's economic policies on numerous occasions and recently linked to a hard hitting Peggy Noonan editorial (http://snipurl.com/ituy). Ms. Noonan was a special assistant to President Reagan and a speech writer for the president's father when he was running for president. She's a member of the team. Of our current president's fiscal policies she writes:

George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.

Of course, things have lately come to a head between fiscal conservatives and the administration. Not only are big government adversaries unhappy with the president, they are unhappy with both houses of the legislature. In that same editorial, Noonan put it this way:

Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.

A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.

One Republican Senator, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, had the courage to confront the very project Peggy Noonan cited, the Bridge to Nowhere. Coburn put up a proposal to eliminate some $450 million in federal funds for two Alaskan bridges and shift $75 million to a Louisiana bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina. In so doing, the Obstetrician-turned-politician stepped on some toes.

"I've been here now almost 37 years," said Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and the projects' chief advocate. "This is the first time I have seen any attempt of any senator to treat my state in a way different from any other state."
"I don't kid people," Stevens shouted indignantly. "If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state . . . I will resign from this body."

An AP story today(http://snipurl.com/itvi) reports on the outcome of the Senate's consideration of Coburn's proposal:

The dispute temporarily brought the Senate to a halt as Republican and Democratic leaders sought to intercede between Stevens, the Senate Pro Tempore who is renowned for winning projects for his state, and Coburn, who was elected to the Senate last year on a platform of slashing the size of government and ending old-school porkbarrel spending.
The Senate later rejected the Coburn measure, 82-15.

The Senate did in fact vote on Coburn's proposal and in so doing provided a moment of clarity to conservatives. As John Hinderaker of Powerline put it (http://snipurl.com/itvm):

So now we know: there are only fifteen members of the Senate who are unwilling to waste the taxpayers' money on even the most frivolous of projects. Let's see what we can do about the other 82.

Another case of corporate profligacy...

2005-10-21T18:30:00.000-04:00

"High roller," is a gambling term that describes someone with big bucks who likes to risk serious money. Michael Jordan is a well-known high roller, for instance. If you're gambling your own money, you can roll high all you want as far as I'm concerned. However, if it's other people’s money, then it's a whole different deal.

Today's New York Post carries a story (http://snipurl.com/itov) about a particularly egregious case of spending shareholder's money in a profligate manner. This didn't involve gambling, but really over-the-top behavior by a well-compensated corporate CEO.

His name is Robert McCormick (http://snipurl.com/itpz), a 38-year-old married father of three who heads an international computer networking company called Savvis Communications--a publically held corporation. He lives in a suburb of Saint Louis, where Savvis is headquartered. According to an August 2003 article in STLToday (http://snipurl.com/itp9), McCormick received compensation totalling $3,024,601.

I found several stories, including this one from Computer World (http://snipurl.com/itpn) indicating that Savvis was pressured to cease providing network services to spammers

Bowing to pressure from antispam groups, Savvis Communications Inc., one of the world's largest Internet service providers, today said it is terminating service to about 40 of its customers who are using its networks for spamming purposes.

Apparently, in October 2003, McCormick took some business acquaintances to a “gentleman’s club” in New York City called Scores, according to a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court yesterday by American Express. After investigating the matter, the credit card company paid the $241,000 tab run up at the topless bar by McCormick and his pals and now they want McCormick and Savvis to pay their American Express bill.

McCormick insists he spent only $20,000, according to the law suit. On the other hand, Scores insists the bill is legit:

Scores insists that high rollers routinely drop more than $100,000 a night on big business celebrations — money that, aside from the errant $3,000 bottle of champagne, is spent largely on five-figure tips for the full-figured dancers.
Because he was spending so much money, the club had McCormick sign repeated waivers — identified with his own fingerprint — swearing that he was not intoxicated and was willing to be held responsible for the charges, explained Scores spokesman Lonnie Hanover. "We keep American Express aware hour by hour of what this man is spending," said Hanover.
An attorney for Savvis says this is a case of fraud."We are aware of the matter, and we firmly believe that Mr. McCormick is the victim of fraud here," said Deena Williamson, deputy general counsel for Savvis.
McCormick himself declined comment.
[Photo from Savvis web site]

On frogs and the rest of us...

2005-10-21T13:28:00.000-04:00

I had a roommate in graduate school who was a photo-journalist. He wanted to get some pictures of a frog and had heard that if you “cool them down,” their metabolism slows way down. So he put a frog he had captured in our freezer. Unfortunately, he forgot about the poor guy and when he finally remembered, the frog was frozen as hard as a rock. He let the frog thaw to see if he’d revive. I’m sad to report, no such luck for our frozen friend…cryogenics was in its infancy then.

Frogs are cold-blooded. That means that their body temperature adjusts to the external temperature. If you were to drop a frog into hot water, he’d immediately jump out because of the rapid temperature change. “Danger,” his little brain tells him, so he leaps as if his life depended on it. However, if you put that same frog in tepid water and then increase the heat ever-so-gradually, I’m told that Mr. froggy will blissfully boil to death, missing any danger signals all together.

This is often used as a metaphor for the dangers of gradual cultural and environmental change. Because we’ve been desensitized by incremental changes, each of which we’ve adjusted to, we fail to recognize that we are in clear and imminent danger.

That’s the back-story for today’s post. I want to talk about the incremental social changes that have resulted in widespread identity confusion within our population. I think identity confusion is a danger to each of us as well as a danger to the larger society. I guess, in some sense, this will sound a bit like I’m ranting. Here’s the distinction that I make in my own mind. To rant is to complain and it implies the absence of a remedy. I intend to describe the problem, but I also can point to a remedy. So here goes…I hope you’ll stay with me.

Why is it that evangelicals are slavishly compelled to be “nice?” And what is it that makes us so needy where acceptance by the broader culture is concerned? These two impulses run parallel, I believe, with our inclination to emphasize God’s love to the exclusion of those less-than-warm-and-fuzzy attributes of His, like justice and holiness. It’s simply not easy for most of us to be “who we really are” in an environment where to be truly Christian is to be truly different and consequently, to encounter hostility.

An apt comparison might be “assimilated Jews”—early generation Jews who eschewed their “jewishness” and adapted to the surrounding culture in order to gain the acceptance of their adopted communities.

Perhaps you can put your mental powers to work and envision a skinny 14 year-old white kid (or he could be heavy, if that works better for you), He’s from the burbs and workin’ really hard to be hip-hop. He’s got the too-long, baggy pants barely hangin’ half way down his butt. He’s wearing some designer label or perhaps a sports jersey and the pricey, unlaced high-tops. An askew ball cap is essential. Oh yea, let’s not forget the bling. His standard greeting is, of course, “What-up, dog?” But his Ebonics don’t really fly…he ain’t got no street cred.

Obviously, all of the above are cases of “identity confusion,” or, at least, "identity conflict." It’s a sad thing to observe. Such confusion is rampant, it seems to me, and it’s on the rise.

Among its many mutations is gender confusion. Males are loosing their masculinity and females are loosing their femininity. This phenomenon has progressed to such a point that we’ve adopted terms like “girly girl” to describe that sub-set of females who’ve managed to retain some of their femininity. Guys are wearing make-up and getting manicures. They’re nipping-and-tucking at the plastic surgeon’s office. They’re consulting with the “queer eye” in order to be a stylish guy.

And while “body art” is exploding generally, women especially seem compelled to indelibly embellish their physical exteriors. In a few years we won’t hear kids taunting each other by saying, “My dad can beat-up your dad!” They’ll be saying, “My mom’s tattoo is cooler than your mom’s tattoo!” Actually, it’s less likely to be a single tattoo than an entire area of their body—back, arm(s), leg(s) that’s covered in “art.” Hey, check out grandma’s belly button ring!

And this stuff is just the external manifestation of the more significant internal jumble. A victim of the confusion is sexual identity, and who among us can deny that sexual brokenness is pervasive. It’s infested society to its core. Our teachers, priests, pastors, coaches, youth workers, moms, dads, sons and daughters have (and are) being affected.

It would be easy to go on describing the symptoms. They're everywhere. What’s more difficult is the remedy. But there is indeed a remedy

If you’ve got a complicated electronic device that’s malfunctioning, it makes sense to consult with its designer to find out how to return it to useful functionality. Similarly, it makes simple sense to consult with our “Designer,” to troubleshoot the problems and find the fix. God created us and He wrote the “user’s manual.” He’s the best place to turn for solutions. And, guess what? He really does have the remedies to the things that ail us.

That’s why He sent His Son. That’s why He provided us with a detailed “user’s manual,”—the Bible. It’s really wrong-headed to think of salvation primarily as a “ticket to heaven.” For those of us presently living, heaven (strictly speaking) is a future thing. The goal of redemption isn’t just settling our future status, it’s also to provide a pathway to healing and wholeness in the present.

What’s the remedy? It is discipleship. Learning to live like Jesus lived and think like Jesus thought—the transformation of our fallen, bent character into Christ-likeness:

"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Roman’s 12:1-2)

Jesus said He came so that we might have abundant life. That abundant life doesn’t come without a cost, however. It cost Him His son and it costs us the price of discipleship. Not cheap, by any means. However, if you stop and think about it, the cost of non-discipleship is much greater.

[Image: bdgart]

2005-10-20T22:12:00.000-04:00

Kashmir victims (Yahoo images, no copywrite information found)

Second wave of Death in Kashmir?

2005-10-20T21:20:00.000-04:00

There's lots of numbers floating out there, but one thing's certain--The earthquake in Kashmir is a catastrophe that dwarfs the many natural disasters we've witnessed lately. The BBC (http://snipurl.com/irrz) today puts the number near 50,000. Local officials put casualties far higher. The map above (via The BBC), shows the area affected by the quake.

While 92 countries provided aide to nations hit by last year's tsunami, only 15 to 20 countries have thus far responded to the Pakistan disaster, the Reuters news agency quoted Jan Egeland, UN emergency relief chief, to have said.

In a post I wrote on October 12th (http://snipurl.com/irsi), I pondered the muted response I had observed to this particular natural disaster. That seems not to have changed much up to this point. The BBC reports Mr. Egeland as saying that the United Nations had never seen such a "logistical nightmare". The shortfall in aid for victims of the South Asian quake has made the relief situation worse than after last December's tsunami, he said.

The BBC quotes Mr Egeland regarding the aid sent so far:

"This is not enough. We have never had this kind of logistical nightmare ever. We thought the tsunami was the worst we could get. This is worse."
The tsunami, which struck on 26 December, killed more than 200,000 people around the Indian Ocean.
Mr Egeland, speaking in Geneva, said the quake situation was becoming worse by the day. "Tens of thousands of people's lives are at stake and they could die if we don't get to them in time."

With winter setting into the world's highest and most extreme mountain range, there could be a second wave of death affecting millions made homeless by the earthquake:

Earlier, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called for the global relief effort to be increased to help three million people made homeless by the 8 October quake and facing the fierce Himalayan winter without shelter.
"That means a second, massive wave of death will happen if we do not step up our efforts now," he said.

2005-10-20T21:14:00.000-04:00

individualism...

Soul Searching...

2005-10-20T20:27:00.000-04:00

Back on October 7th I highlighted (http://snipurl.com/irq4) a Washington Post story about a recent analysis by William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck that cautions Democrats not to drift further leftward if they are interested in a winning national political strategy. Galston was domestic adviser in the first Clinton administration and is a veteran campaign strategist.

This report is something of an encore, because Mr. Galston along with his associate, Elaine Kamarck, wrote "The Politics of Evasion," following the drubbing Michael Dukakis took in the 1988 presidential contest. It was a withering critique of the Democrat's self-defeating liberalism.

I came across this Commentary (http://snipurl.com/irrb) in the Washington Times by Donald Lambro entitled, Soul-searching Democrats. It insightfully reviews the same analysis and is worth your attention. Here's an excerpt:

After Al Gore and John Kerry, liberals to the core, led their party down to successive defeats, Mr. Galston and Ms. Kamarck are back for one more try to pound some sense into their party's head. Their central message: liberal, antiwar, welfare-state, soak-the-rich liberalism doesn't sell anymore; there are not enough liberal voters left to win back the presidency; and the party can no longer afford to ignore deeply moral, cultural and religious issues still at the core of America's political being.
To be sure, it may be a thankless task, and Mr. Galston wearily admits the party's dominant liberal wing won't change its stripes any time soon: "I've seen this movie before. Here we are 16 years later and the sequel is very much the same."
But this time their analysis, in a 70-page report titled "The Politics of Polarization," seems even sharper -- taking the party to task for self-delusions about its remaining base and a series of political myths they dismantle one by one.

The Republicans are certainly having a rough go of it lately and their problems aren't merely cosmetic. On top of everything else, they too have to contend with the dilemma of a base that pulls them away from the center. However, if the analysis of Galston and Kamarck is on target, the Democrats' problems are much more systemic and intractable than the Republicans.

Mugabe lables Bush and Blair "international terrorists."

2005-10-18T13:17:00.000-04:00

As Reuters likes to say, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

The Washington Times carries a Reuters report (http://snipurl.com/io8l) on an address delivered by Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe (http://snipurl.com/io8o), to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) at a ceremony yesterday in Rome marking the 60th anniversary of the FAO.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe yesterday railed against President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling them "international terrorists" bent on world domination like Adolf Hitler.
"Must we allow these men, the two unholy men of our millennium, who, in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini formed [an] unholy alliance, formed an alliance to attack an innocent country?" he asked rhetorically. "The voice of Mr. Bush and the voice of Mr. Blair can't decide who shall rule in Zimbabwe, who shall rule in Africa, who shall rule in Asia, who shall rule in Venezuela, who shall rule in Iran, who shall rule in Iraq," he said.

According to the on-line encyclopedia,Wikipedia (http://snipurl.com/io8o), Mugabe retured [from his studies and teacher training] to Southern Rhodesia in 1960 as a committed Marxist. Mugabe joined Joshua Nkomo and the National Democratic Party (NDP), which later became the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU).

Mugabe speculated during his speech as to why his government is not on friendly terms with the U.S. and the U.K.

Mr. Mugabe accused Britain and the United States of working to unseat him because of his forcible redistribution of white-owned farms among blacks, helping plunge his country into its worst economic crisis since independence from Britain in 1980. Regime critics in Zimbabwe and abroad say Mr. Mugabe's land policies have turned what was the breadbasket of southern Africa into a country facing mass shortages at home. Aid groups estimate 5 million of Zimbabwe's roughly 12 million people may need food aid this year.
Some FAO delegates applauded several times during Mr. Mugabe's fiery speech yesterday.

According to the Washington Times story, the U.S. and the U.K. are not the only countries with whom Mugabe has fallen out of favor.

The European Union slapped a travel ban on 81-year-old Mr. Mugabe after accusations of vote rigging in parliamentary elections in 2000 and in the president's re-election two years later. But he is allowed to visit EU countries to attend U.N.-sponsored events.

We wonder if Mugabe had a chance to get to the Vatican or visit the Coliseum while he was in Rome.

(Photo from Wikipedia which says its copywrite status is unknown)

The BIG one?

2005-10-18T00:57:00.000-04:00

In view of the long string of natural disasters we've observed (with the earthquake in Kashmir being the latest) I thought you may be interested to know National Geographic News is reporting (http://snipurl.com/io76) that a new computer simulation predicts a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area within the next 20 years.

The computer program, dubbed Virtual California, estimates a one-in-four chance that the Bay Area will be rocked by an earthquake measuring between magnitude 7 and 7.1 sometime in the next 20 years.

This prediction mirrors earlier findings of a US Geological Survey study:

"The USGS has estimated a 62 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake in the Bay Area within the next 28 years," said John Rundle, director of the Center for Computational Science and
Engineering at the University of California, Davis. "So we're not talking about something that's all that different."

According to the USGS study, should the seismic event not happen within the 28-year window, the odds increase:

Over the next 45 years the projected chance of such a quake rises to 50 percent. In 80 years the odds reach 75 percent, according to the UC Davis-based program.

DeLay's troubles provide leverage to fiscal conservatives

2005-10-18T00:06:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post reports (http://snipurl.com/inno) that the GOP leadership shake-up in the House in tandem with the ire of the party's base has resulted in a policy shift that makes way for significant spending cuts that had heretofore been resisted by the leadership.

The abrupt shift reflects a changed political dynamic in the House in which a faction of fiscal conservatives -- known as the Republican Study Committee, or RSC -- has gained the upper hand because of DeLay's criminal indictment in Texas, widespread criticism of the Republicans' handling of Hurricane Katrina, and uncertainty over the future of the leadership, according to lawmakers and aides.

The report goes on to point out that this is politically risky for the GOP:

But Republicans could be taking a big risk by cutting Medicaid programs while their standing in the polls has plummeted and Democrats gear up for a fight.

The back story, according to the article, is a litany of budget-busting programs shoved down the throats of rank-and-file lawmakers:

A revolt has been stirring within the House GOP ranks for months. Fiscal conservatives had accepted an expanded federal role in education enshrined in President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, had lost a fight to block the Medicare prescription drug benefit -- the largest entitlement expansion since Lyndon Johnson was president -- and had even embraced the mammoth transportation law that passed this summer with a record-shattering number of pork-barrel projects.
Since Bush came to office, federal spending had grown by a third, from $1.86 trillion to $2.47 trillion, while record budget surpluses turned to record deficits.

Perhaps principles--and not just politics--are finally having a role in the budget process. Let's hope the GOP spending orgy has come to an end.

2005-10-17T17:07:00.000-04:00

drip, drip...

Freeh vs. Clinton

2005-10-17T16:41:00.000-04:00

The accusations and counter-accusations are flying as a result of Louis Freeh--appointed director of the F.B.I. by President Bill Clinton--being willing to freely speak his mind while promoting his recently published book, My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton and Waging War on Terror.

I heard Freeh interviewed on NPR (http://snipurl.com/incw), and now the New York Times (http://snipurl.com/ind2) "reports" on Freeh's appearance on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press." Either the Gray Lady judges a book promotion to be "news" or, more likely, she's running some flack for "the team."

The rancor between Louis Freeh and former President Bill Clinton, who appointed him director of the F.B.I. in 1993, was laid raw anew today as Mr. Freeh continued his assault on the Clinton administration's handling of terrorism, while a former presidential aide accused Mr. Freeh of an
"astonishing string of failures that helped leave America vulnerable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."
...The bitterness between President Bill Clinton and Mr. Freeh has been notably open and stark since the publication of Mr. Freeh's book, which some have seen as a response to statements Mr. Clinton made about Mr. Freeh in his book, "My Life," published last year.
In that book, as Tim Russert, the moderator of "Meet the Press," noted today, Mr. Clinton said he had felt mounting concern about Mr. Freeh over "a whole series of missteps," including botched reports from the F.B.I. forensic laboratory, the release of F.B.I. files on Republican officials to the White House, and the wrongful arrest of Richard Jewell in connection with the bombing at the Atlanta Olympic Games.
Nonetheless, Mr. Freeh insisted today that he felt no "animus" toward Mr. Clinton, although he went on to say that he thought by having an affair with an intern, Mr. Clinton had "turned the office into a personal disgrace."

Millions More...

2005-10-17T15:23:00.000-04:00

Perhaps this is James Taranto day. Here's another not-to-be-missed perspective from Taranto, this time on Louis Farrakhan and Saturday's "Millions More Movement." This event-o-rama in Washington D.C. is a sequel to last decade's "Million Man March." The acerbic Taranto first takes on the movement's title vs. its actual numbers by quoting from the Washington Post:

The sun rose over the Capitol this morning where thousands of men, women and children were gathering for the Millions More Movement. And even though the crowd was not as large as the hundreds of thousands at the Million Man March a decade ago, . . . black leaders at the event said the success of the day cannot be measured by numbers.

Then Taranto takes exception to the Washington Post's dutiful parroting of the black leader's perspective:

It seems to us, though, that size does matter. If the Million Man March drew "hundreds of thousands" and the Millions More Movement only "thousands," that means this movement is shrinking exponentially--by two orders of magnitude in a scant 10 years.
The diminution of the Louis Farrakhan-led "Millions" is a welcome development.

Among the "issues of the Millions More Movement" is this:
We demand full and complete Reparations for the descendants of slaves. We demand that America take the appropriate steps to help in the repair of the damage done from 300 years of slavery, 100 years of segregation, and 50 years of the misuse and abuse of governmental power to destroy Black organizations and leaders.

Then Taranto takes on Farrakhan himself. As a starting point, he cites a Time magazine interview with the militant black leader:

Time: You've made statements regarding Judaism that many found polarizing. What are your thoughts on that now?
Farrakhan: No matter what I have said to refute that, I have never been allowed the privilege to allow my reputation to recover. Even when I've explained what I said and what I meant. I'm not afraid to stand up to what I say. And I know what I said and I did not say what they accuse me of saying.

A simple review of recent Farrakhan quotes documented by the Anti-Defamation League brings things brightly into perspective:

"I'm not an anti-Semite, I never have been one. I do not hate the Jewish people; put that down! What I hate is the degree of control that they exercise over black intellectual, cultural _expression. I do not think that no human being [sic] should determine how high we can go, that can only be determined by God and by us; not by no white man, no black man, no human being [sic]."--Aug. 31, 2005
"Listen, Jewish people don't have no hands [sic] that are free of the blood of us. They owned slave ships, they bought and sold us. They raped and robbed us. If you can't face that, why you gonna condemn me for showing you your past, how then can you atone and repent if somebody don't [sic] open the book with courage, you don't have that, but I'll be damned, I got it."--Feb. 27, 2005
"The war in Iraq is not your war; that's Israel's war. . . . The rudder that is turning America is not your elected officials; it's that small influential group of neo-conservatives that are using America's power to destroy the enemies of Israel."--Dec. 11, 2004
"See, you so called Jews--I'm not gonna give you the credit for being one of those that obey God. You portrayed us, you know what images do, that's why you jumped on Mel Gibson. But you painted us, big lips, red eyes, kinky hair, you put in the movies like that. You mocked our characteristics and made us to hate God's creation of us. You did that. Hollywood did that. . . . You take our strongest, more courageous black minds, you think we don't see you? And you put us in Hollywood. You give us television shows, and then we gotta bug our eyes."--Feb. 29, 2004

Taranto closes by astutely observing:

But Time doesn't press the matter further, allowing Farrakhan to present himself as a misunderstood truth-teller. There's something patronizing and arguably racist about the solicitude the media show to this loathsome demagogue.

Yahoo Photos, no credit found

Some are getting it right...

2005-10-17T13:03:00.000-04:00

Just received my "Best of the web today" e-mail (http://snipurl.com/in4p). James Taranto writes:

The Bush Legacy--Forget about Hurricane Katrina, the Valerie Plame kerfuffle, the federal deficit, even Harriet Miers. Forget about the things you've already forgotten about--Enron, Halliburton, the Texas Air National Guard, that kook who camped out in Crawford all those months ago. The reality is that President Bush's legacy will be judged on two things: whether America is successful in Iraq, and, if so, whether success in Iraq helps promote democracy and discourage terrorism elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
If the former happens, history will recognize Bush as a near-great president; if the latter, as a great one. That's why Bush's foes in politics and in the media, here in America and overseas, have, with unseemly eagerness and impatience, embraced the idea that America is destined to fail in Iraq. And it is why they have to be feeling pretty blue after Saturday's successful constitutional referendum in Iraq.

Taranto quotes from and links to an article in the Christian Science Monitor (http://snipurl.com/in5j). Unlike the AP report mentioned below, this story has a sense of the victorious nature of this event.

It has a series of photos from AP and Reuters which convey how most Iraqis view things. He also quotes a blogger named Bridget Johnson, who notes that terror attacks were way down compared with the last balloting:

During the Iraq elections last January there were 347 terrorist attacks on voters and polling places. Today [Saturday] there were 13.
The liberals are upset today. They discovered once again the Iraqi people agree with Bush: That their freedom is worth fighting and dying for. And they proved it by risking death to make a statement. They proved it by creating a remarkable Constitution in ten months--when it took us years.
The Iraqi people are our allies in the War on Terror. And judging by their grit, restraint in the face of violence for a bigger cause, and bravery, we are lucky to have them.
Sorry, liberals, no Civil War here. Move on. Nothing to see. Maybe elsewhere you can propagandize on behalf of mass murderers to hurt the Bush administration, but not in Iraq. Not in Iraq.

Hard won success...

2005-10-17T11:09:00.000-04:00

The Washington Times reports (http://snipurl.com/imy2) today that early results indicate Iraqis have definitively spoken in favor of the proposed constitution. USA Today is reporting the same: (http://snipurl.com/imyr).

This has not discoouraged several minions of the main stream media (MSM) from casting this historic milestone toward democracy in the Middle East as negatively as possible. Over the weekend, I saw several examples of it on TV and it was all over the net. Here's the AP's opening in one of the early on-line versions of a story (http://snipurl.com/in26) which carried the headline, "Sunnis Appear to Fall Short in Iraq Vote":

Iraq’s constitution seemed assured of passage Sunday, despite strong opposition from Sunni Arabs who voted in surprisingly high numbers in an effort to stop it. The U.S. military announced that five American soldiers were killed by a bomb blast on referendum day.

The USA Today opening likewise focused on the negative:

Iraq's voters approved their first constitution since Saddam Hussein's ouster, despite a strong turnout by Sunni Muslims against the charter, according to partial results released Sunday.

A more accurate characterization of the Sunni result would be to call it a striking split. For the new Iraqi constitution to be defeated, two-thirds or more of the voters in three or more of the country's eighteen provinces had to vote against it. In two of the four predominently Sunni provinces--Anbar and Salaheddin--voters appear to have decisively rejected the constitution (Salaheddin is the home province of Saddam Hussein).

However in the provinces of Diyala and Ninevah, the other Sunni-majority provinces (http://snipurl.com/inkh), the result indicates that most Sunnis favored the new constitution. In Diyala, 70% supported the referendum, with only 20% opposed. In Ninevah, with more than 80% of polling places reporting, 79% had voted in favor. These percentages imply that most Sunnis voted "yes."

Clearly there is a split among Iraqi Sunnis that appears in part to be geographic (Diyala is East and Ninevah is North and West of the other two). There are a significant number of Sunnis who do support the constitution. They would seem to have come to terms with the loss of their favored status under Saddam and to have grown weary of the insurgency. They have parted ways with their Sunni counterparts and spoken in favor of Iraq's fledgling democracy.
If early indications hold true, this vote may well be a historic tipping point in Iraq. It's a victory for the Iraqi people and an important success for American foreign policy--a success that has come at a dear cost to us and our alies.

But rather than characterize this for what it is, the overwhelmingly positive facts are skimmed over in search for a pessimistic facet of the story. This is a predictable but nevertheless stunning example of MSM bias.

2005-10-16T21:40:00.000-04:00

freedom requires vigilence...

Misplaced Reliance

2005-10-16T16:01:00.000-04:00

Pulling away from the Harriet Miers flap was a purposeful decision for me. I care deeply about who sits on the Supreme Court. As we saw in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election--and more particularly, the Florida ballot recount fiasco--the Supreme Court has the final say on some of the very most important decisions of our body politic. But the truth is, unlike many who care about the well being of our nation, I don't place much stock in governmental institutions.

For many years I was a political activist. I saw very clearly the latitudes and the limits of politics. I also came to understand that in a representative democracy, political power correlates directly to the strength of your constituency. The minority is limited to "damage control"--containing and minimizing your opponents' effectiveness. To set the agenda and to get something done, you need a majority. The larger and more engaged the majority, the greater the power. In the final analysis, it's about hearts and minds.

I believe that the primary strategic error made by those of us opposed to abortion was, in essence, relying on others to do what we personally were able to do. The church shouldn't have left the heavy lifting to politicians. Politics is messy business. The profile of the persons who are wired to play that game is not a profile that encourages integrity and allegiance to principal. A part of our misplaced reliance is placing too much hope in either the political process or a particular political institution.

And make no mistake; the Supreme Court is a political institution. If anything should be clear at this point it is the reality that the Supreme Court is intensely political. The "take no prisoners" political struggle over its composition is definitive evidence of that. And the rhetoric about politics having no place in the Supreme Court's function--deciding how the law is interpreted and applied--is pure platitude.

"RELAUNCHING" THE MIERS NOMINATION...
It appears that the Bush administration is trying to take a "mulligan" with the Harriet Miers nomination. Time Magazine reports (http://snipurl.com/ilky):

Get ready for a whole new Harriet. After a disastrous two weeks, White House officials say they hope to relaunch the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court by moving from what they call a "biographical phase" to an "accomplishment phase." In other words, stop debating her religion and personality and start focusing on her resume as a pioneering female lawyer of the Southwest. "We got a little wrapped around the axle," an exhausted White House official said. "As the focus becomes less on who she's not and more on who she is, that's a better place to be."

As for me, I'm hoping the administration gets its legs back.

An historical day in Iraq

2005-10-14T16:03:00.000-04:00

Iraqis vote Saturday to ratify or reject the constitution that's been hammered-out over the last several months. Even though prisoners who have not yet been convicted are eligible to vote, Sadaam declined (http://snipurl.com/ijde).

If you're interested in the provisions of the new constitution a summary from the Washington Post is here: (http://snipurl.com/ijdc)

If it was good enough for Luther and Lewis...

2005-10-14T13:00:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting outreach idea: God and Guiness.

"Theology on Tap" is the topioc of this story (http://snipurl.com/ij7i) in The Winston-Salem Journal.

"Theology on Tap (in the tradition of Martin Luther)," read the flyers posted along Fourth Street. The message was an invitation to engage in serious discussion, talk of the academic kind.
...The idea is certainly nothing new. Theological discussion in pubs can be traced to Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation. C.S. Lewis used to get together with J.R.R. Tolkien and other intellectuals for a pint when Lewis was a teacher at Magdalen College in Oxford in the 1930s.

There are approximately 11,000 undergratuates and 3,000 graduate students in the Winston-Salem area. Rob Alexander, one of the group's organizers, who's studies range from engineering to business to theology, has pondered how to create community among so many transients. Group meetings were something that he and his wife, Rebecca, now a chemistry professor at Wake Forest University, enjoyed when they lived in Philadelphia.

2005-10-13T23:47:00.000-04:00

Upper left: Bobbie Jo Stinnett; Upper right: Lisa Montgomery;
Lower left: Valerie Lynn Oskin; Lower right: Peggy Jo Conner

Desparate Housewives

2005-10-13T23:30:00.000-04:00

It's happened again! Being eight-months pregnant is getting to be dangerous in the U.S.

According to Wayne Township, Pennsylvania police, a maternity-sick woman hit a pregnant woman in the head with a baseball bat, drove her off-road and attempted to remove her baby by cutting her stomach open with a razor blade. Had she not been observed in the act by a person riding an all-terrain vehicle, she may have accomplished her goal.

A Pittsburgh TV station reports (http://snipurl.com/iih1) that the victim was 30 year-old Valerie Lynn Oskin who was 8 months pregnant. The alleged perpetrator was Peggy Jo Conner, 38. Both women resided in Ford City. According to the news report, District Attorney Scott Andreassi said the baby appears to be healthy, but the condition of the mother was unknown at the time. The suspect is charged with attempted homicide and aggravated assault, police said.

You may recall that this same thing happened in December. In this case (http://snipurl.com/iih6), using the pretext of buying a puppy, Lisa Montgomery, 36, allegedly strangled a pregnant dog breeder and did in fact remove the baby. The victim, Bobbie Jo Stinnett, 23, died. She was eight-months pregnant with her first child. Police were able to track e-mails on the victim’s computer to Montgomery's home in Melvern, Kansas where they found the baby three days later (http://snipurl.com/iihe). The case is being tried in Kansas City. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

This is the ninth such crime recorded in the United States since 1983, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
[Hat tip: the Drudge Report: (http://www.drudgereport.com/)]

2005-10-13T16:53:00.000-04:00

mother and child