Perpetual election in Washington

Democrats Claim Win in Washington's Gubernatorial Election:



"Democrats have claimed victory in the race for governor by a razor-thin margin of eight votes, citing preliminary results of a hand recount they say puts Christine Gregoire in front for the first time. Republicans maintained the race was still too close to call."



It seems odd that this election is so hotly contested. I can understand how no candidate would want to lose an election, especially a close election with numerous allegations of fraud. This election seems to be drawing undue attention. I wonder if this is a dress rehersal for later elections. Each side may be determining what they can do and how far they can go to win an election. It is sad that any election on any level should be decided in the courts. Something needs to be done to the election process. I know that John Fund as done research into voter fraud. I do not know what suggestions he makes as to how to better the process.

Additionally, it seems odd that a Republican has a chance to win the gubernatorial race in a state that is traditionally Democratic on the national level. Here in the Peoples Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we have a "Republican" Governor. I am not sure why this is so.

Victory for gun-toting pick-up owners

Department of Justice: Second Amendment Is Individual Right:



"The U.S. Department of Justice has declared that the Second Amendment explicitly recognizes the right of individual Americans to own and carry firearms. Gun rights advocates call the statement a 'good first step' but cautioned that it is not the end of the gun control debate."



I remember hearing when Ashcroft first became AG that he held this view. I wonder what this opinion will do for the gun laws.

Stupid Broncos

It seems that, lately, the Broncos have been succeeding only at bucking off victories. While many teams--Carolina, Buffalo, San Diego--have been getting better as the season progresses, Denver has been gradually descending into mediocrity. They have sunk from being in the top 10 in both offense and defense into leading the league in obsense gestures (Note to Plummer: alieniating your fan base is Step 4 in the "Brian Greise How to Exit Denver Manuel." Step 3 is falling in your driveway for no apparent reason.) Last year my uncle noted that they need to get rid of Shanahan. I am starting to agree. He seems to be a good coach when the other team is playing poorly. Put him in a tight game situation and he drop the victory like a 200 pound magget. Although they still have a slight chance of making the playoffs, they have effectively placed it in the hands of other people. They have given San Diego the best Christmas present they could ask for, the Division. Most of Denver's history has been a series of Maybe-next-year Seasons. I for won am tired of them blowing it halfway through the season. Some serious changes need to occur.

The venerable dog

Dave Berry expounds on the remarkable qualities of dogs:



I'm trying to convince my wife that we need a dog. I grew up with dogs, and am comfortable with their ways. If we're visiting someone's home, and I suddenly experience a sensation of humid warmth, and I look down and see that my right arm has disappeared up to the elbow inside the mouth of a dog the size of a medium horse, I am not alarmed. I know that this is simply how a large, friendly dog says: ''Greetings! You have a pleasing salty taste!''

I respond by telling the dog that he is a GOOD BOY and pounding him with hearty blows, blows that would flatten a cat like a hairy pancake, but which only make the dog like me more. He likes me so much that he goes and gets his Special Toy. This is something that used to be a recognizable object -- a stuffed animal, a basketball, a Federal Express driver -- but has long since been converted, through countless hours of hard work on the dog's part, into a random wad of filth held together by 73 gallons of congealed dog spit.

An hero writes of another hero

Oliver North, a hero in his own right, tells the amazing story of Sgt. Rafael Peralta:



"Unfortunately, unlike Pablo Paredes, Sgt. Rafael Peralta will get little media coverage. He is unlikely to have books written about him or movies made about his extraordinarily selfless sacrifice. But he is likely to receive the Medal of Honor. And that Medal of Honor is likely to be displayed next to the only items that hung on his bedroom wall - the Constitution, Bill of Rights and his Boot Camp graduation certificate. "



In the last episode of Band of Brothers, a veteran tells how one time his grandson asked him if he was a hero in the war. He said he replied, "No, but I fought with a couple of heroes over there." (Note: The quote is not exact, but close)

Hero

Whittaker Chambers writes in his magnificent book Witness that the reason he defected from Communism can be summed up in 5 words, "One night I heard screams." More people in the free world need to hear those same screams. Natan Sharansky is one who has heard those screams. He was a dissident in the Soviet Empire that spent several years in the Gulag. He seems to be of the vien of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Both these men are great men, intellegent and brave. Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy, is now on my Christmas list. I have wanted to read some of Solzhenitsyn's books--The Inner Circle, A Day in the Life of Ivan Denosivich, The Gulag Archipelago--but have not up to this point. FrontPage magazine has a fascinating interview with Sharansky. It is an absolute must-read. Here is are some exerpts:



I was inspired to write this book by those who are sceptical of the power of freedom to change the world. I felt that the arguments of these sceptics had to be answered. The three main sources of scepticism are first, that not every people desires freedom; second, that democracy in certain parts of the world would be dangerous; and third, that there is little the world’s democracies can do to advance freedom outside their countries.

This scepticism is the same scepticism I heard a generation ago in the USSR when few thought that a democratic transformation behind the iron curtain was possible. Just as the sceptics were wrong then, I am convinced they are wrong now about the possibility of freedom spreading to the Middle East.



Fear societies are inevitably composed of three separate groups: True believers, dissidents and doublethinkers. True believers are those who believe in the ideology of the regime. Dissidents are those who disagree with that ideology and are prepared to say so openly. Doublethinkers are those who disagree with the ideology but who are scared to openly confront the regime.

With time, the number of doublethinkers in a fear society inevitably grows so that they represent the overwhelming majority of the population. To an outside observer, the fear society will look like a sea of true believers who demonstrate loyalty to the regime, but the reality is very different. Behind the veneer of support is an army of doublethinkers.



The two most important things that can be done to promote democracy in the world is first, to bring moral clarity back to world affairs and second, to link international policies to the advance of democracy around the globe.

When we are unwilling to draw clear moral lines between free societies and fear societies, when we are unwilling to call the former good and the latter evil, we will not be able to advance the cause of peace because peace cannot be disconnected from freedom.



Of course, it also helps to be able to see the lighter side of life, even in the most difficult hours. I especially liked telling anti-Soviet jokes to my interrogators. I remember one time I told a joke about Brezhnev being furious when Americans succeeded at putting a man on the moon. After emergency discussions with other members of the Politburo, he assembled all the cosmonauts. "We have decided to beat the Americans by sending a man to the sun," declared Brezhnev." "But Comrade Leonid," replied one cosmonaut, "we will be burned alive." "What? You think we at the Politburo are idiots" shouted Brezhnev, "We have considered everything. You will be sent at night."





You would be remiss to not read the whole interview.

Swift Boat Vets get recognized

It is about time someone honored the heroic stand of the Swift Boat Vets :



"Official military records and even statements from Swift Boat veterans in Navy documents raised questions about their largely unsubstantiated claims, but the political damage had been done. At a post-election forum Wednesday in Boston, Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager, said she regretted underestimating the impact of the Swift Boat ads."



It is interesting that even FoxNews calls their allegations "unsubstantiated." I wonder if they do this to avoid any more criticisms of being in the RNC's pockets. It is very unfortunate, since I am not aware of anyone who has solidly refuted their claims. (Via Powerline)

Ann Coulter on losing

Ann has the same view I do on the Peterson Monkey Trial:



"But even Geragos and Sherman would never sneeringly dismiss evidence in a murder trial as 'circumstantial evidence.' Only nonlawyers who imagine they are learning about law from 'Court TV' think 'circumstantial evidence' means 'paltry evidence.' After leaping for the channel clicker for six months whenever the name 'Scott Peterson' wafted from the television (on the grounds that in a country of 300 million people, some men will kill their wives), I offer this as my sole contribution to the endless national discussion."



She also discusses the Demo's propensity to lose, a subject I hope to write about later.

TV doesn't like Religion?

Something is awry. Look at this study:



NEW YORK – Television entertainment programs mention God more often than they did in the mid-1990s but tend to depict organized religion negatively, a study released Thursday said.

The Parents Television Council watched every hour of prime time on the broadcast networks during the 2003-04 season and logged 2,344 treatments of religion. They judged 22 percent of the mentions positive, 24 percent negative and the rest neutral.

Stem Cells From Fat Used to Repair Skull

The lame may not yet be walking and the blind may still need their sight, but this seems like a step in the right direction:



"Surgeons have used stem cells from fat to help repair skull damage in a 7-year-old girl in Germany, in what's apparently the first time such fat-derived cells have been exploited to grow bone in a human. "



If they had used fetal stem cells, this young girl would probably be winning chess matches against Kasparov (spelling may not be correct, but the thought is?.

The stupid trial

I would be pefectly content to never have to hear another word on the Peterson Trial. I have never been even minimally interested it. I can't imagine how a man can viciously kill his wife and unborn child. Sinced he was convicted by a jury of his peers, and they have recommended the death pentatly, he deserves to die.

He has committed a heinous act. Why should we as Americans care? Why should we have it constantly shoved down our throats? Heinous crimes occur every single day--crimes and acts more grotesque than this one. Why is this crime any more important? Who cares if he was rich or if Lacy was beautiful? Is a crime less evil if a homeless man committs it? Does it matter less if an ugly woman was killed? He killed his unborn child. Why is this child more important than the thousands of innocent babies that are slaughtered every day under the pretense of "women's choice"? Why don't we hear more about them? What is the national importance of this crime? The Bill that passed Congress recently enabling prosecuters to charge a person with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman is good bill. It certainly puts pro-Murder advocates in a precarious position. But that is a separte issue from this particular crime. We don't need to hear every single detail of this crime on cable news. Court TV is a channel dedicated to this type of journalism. Anyone who is interested can tune in. Why does the media feel it is necessary to keep this case in the spotlight? Are they manufacturing its importance, or do they report it because people are interested and will tune in? If the former is true, then our news people have a problem. There are many more important issues--Iraq, Iran, Israel, the UN, homeland security, abortion, attacks on Christianity, Ukraine, etc--that deserve attention. These are the issues they should be reporting. If the latter is true--that this story is the one Americans want to hear--then Americans have a problem. Why don't Americans want to hear about truly important events? Are we sick of hearing about Iraq? How can we be sick of hearing about our troops in Iraq? Iraq is of the utmost importance. News stations may be running out of bad news to report, and that is a good thing. Would it hurt the news channels to spend 30 minutes a day reporting the good news from Iraq and Afghanistan?

This is case is sensationalism. There is no historical significance in it. It is cheap entertainment, not news. It is not much different than the Simpson Trial. Who cares about it? I believe every criminal out to be tried, convicted, and sentenced. I believe every sentence ought to carried out to the fullest. And I believe the 300 reporters that camped out near the courtroom to cover this trial have wasted a half-year of their life.

A Hopeful outlook

Here is an interesting article on The Coming Arab Revolt:



"A successful Iraqi election following the Palestinian vote would make it a six-pack of electoral defeats for the twin evils of tyrant and terrorist. The other four? Australia returned pro-war-on-terror Prime Minister John Howard to power. In Afghanistan, voters braved Taliban terror to elect a president. In the United States, Bush won on the family value of protecting and projecting liberty. And people power thwarted thug attempts to steal Ukraine's presidential election, with a new vote set for Dec. 26."



If this assessment is correct, everyone everwhere can rejoice in the triumph of democracy.

El Baradei must go

U.S. Opposes Third Term for U.N. Nuclear Inspector ElBaradei:



WASHINGTON – The Bush administration wants to oust the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency after his second term ends next summer.

No public criticism is being directed at Mohamed ElBaradei, an Egyptian diplomat who has run the International Atomic Energy Agency since 1997.



I wonder if Mr. El Baradei could find a nuclear weapon if it was stapped to the Eifel Tower. I have not studied him that much, but it seems has though he and the IEAE (Is that the right acronym?) have been very successful at enforcing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, expect for all the nuclear weapons that have proliferated under their watch.

Dave Berry gets along

Dave's magnanimity is inspiring:



"I thought that, in today's column, I would heal the nation.

The nation suffered a wound during the recent presidential election as a result of the rift between the red states -- defined as 'states where `foreign cuisine' pretty much means Pizza Hut'' -- and the blue states, defined as ``states that believe they are smarter than the red states, despite the fact that it takes the average blue-state resident 15 minutes to order a single cup of coffee.''"

Since when is the UN Anti-Semitic

Anne Bayefsky details the heinous anti-Semitism of the U.N.



The omission goes to the heart of what's really ailing the U.N. For the past four decades the United Nations has become the personal propaganda machine of the nom de guerre of Arab and Islamic states — Palestinians. Their aim is to demonize, debilitate, and destroy the state of Israel — the thriving democratic beachhead in their midst — for a start. The original U.N. mission, to protect the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, has been hijacked and corrupted by nations that neither share the universal values of the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights nor have democratic intentions.



If the U.S. had not been such a staunch defender of Israel, the Israelis would be currently living at the bottom of the Mediterranean. I cannot understand why the U.S. does not give unconditional support to Israel.

Clinton's Rich friend

Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich has turned out to be somewhat profitable:



WASHINGTON — Billionaire Marc Rich has emerged as a central figure in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal and is under investigation for brokering deals in which scores of international politicians and businessmen cashed in on sweetheart oil deals with Saddam Hussein, The Post has learned.

Rich, the fugitive Swiss-based commodities trader who received a controversial pardon from President Bill Clinton in January 2001, is a primary target of criminal probes under way in the U.S. attorney's office in New York and by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, sources said.

At Least 15 Killed in Philippines Blast

The terrorists are active in the Philippines:



"MANILA, Philippines -- A powerful explosion ripped through an outdoor market packed with Christmas shoppers in the southern Philippines on Sunday, killing at least 15 people and injuring 58 others, the military said.

A homemade bomb or a grenade concealed in a box went off in the market's meat section in General Santos city. Officials immediately stepped up security, fearing more attacks in the port city 620 miles south of Manila.

'This is a terrorist attack by any measure,' Sen. Richard Gordon, who heads the Philippine Red Cross, told ABS-CBN television. He criticized the military and police for failing to prevent the attack despite what he said was intelligence information of an imminent terror strike in the city."

Iran battles terror?

It seems that, according to Iran, they have finally stepped up to the plate. They have convicted some terrorists:



"'A few pro-al-Qaida Iranian nationals have been tried and convicted,' Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

Their number, he said, is less than 'the fingers on one's hand,' he said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

He did not give details, including when they were convicted, what sentences they had received or what sort of support they had provided Osama bin Laden's terror network."



I think Iran "arresting" terrorists is quite like Pedro Martinez "batting" in the last World Series. Good for them.

Colson's Christmas classics

Chuck Colson tells heartwarming storying in his column:



Learning to love our enemies is so important, something every Christian must strive for. But when we’re fighting deadly enemies, as our nation is today at war, doing so is a miracle—a miracle of restoration and healing that can come only through faith in Christ.



Please link to and read it all. Your heart will truly be warmed.

Out of a burning building

Cal Thomas wants to get out of the UN:



Too many U.N. members hate us because our decisiveness exposes their vacillation. The world would be better off without this body and with an association of democracies in its place. It is not likely to happen, because false hope is preferred by too many diplomats and politicians over actual results. Still, the slogan "U.S. out of U.N. - Now!" never sounded more timely or represented an act that would be more beneficial to the United States.



At the very minimum, we need to attempt to effect some reform. We pay almost a quarter of their finances. For the sake of Mother Teresa we have the world's largest army, economy, and ball of twine. Don't those things mean anything anymore

If you need a laugh

Ann Coulter may not be the most tactful conservative, but she is one of the wittiest.



Columnist Bob Herbert sneered of Rice's nomination in the New York Times: "Competence has never been highly regarded by the fantasists of the George W. Bush administration." For example, these are the bumbling nitwits who conquered Afghanistan, the "graveyard of empires," and toppled Baghdad in less time than your average Jennifer Lopez marriage lasts. (Wait, I can't remember: Was it the Bush administration that hired Jayson Blair?)

So far, Dr. Rice has demonstrated her abundant competence only in academia, geopolitics, history, government, college administration, classical music and athletics. I eagerly await the Bob Herbert column in which he lists the subjects and pursuits he's mastered. If only Rice talked about her accessorizing like Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, she might impress the sort of fellow who writes for the New York Times.

Safe nowhere

Bruce Bartlett doesn't let us forget that we still have terrorists attacking our country from within. Thankfully, their methods are much less elegant:



Animal rights activists also target farmers and those who wear fur, even if the fur came from animals raised exclusively for this purpose. In some cases, however, their efforts have been counterproductive. Last year, for example, a few dimwits set 10,000 mink free from a farm in the state of Washington. Now without food, the mink began attacking various endangered species in the area and even devoured each other. Although most of the mink were recaptured, perhaps 1,000 died as a consequence.

What is happening in our classrooms?

Thomas Sowell (a columnist I highly respect) believes Americans are not getting the most our of high school class-time:



What about the ethics of using steroids? Kids can talk about this at home or on the streets or just about anywhere. What about the ethics of using up precious school time for such chatter when there are serious deficiencies in our children's ability to measure up to international standards in an increasingly competitive international economy? Presiding over classroom chatter is no doubt a lot easier than teaching the Pythagorean theorem or differential calculus. But teachers who indulge themselves like this, at the expense of their students' future, have no business conducting discussions of "ethics" about athletes using steroids -- or any other ethics issue. Jason Giambi may have done some damage to his own career, and to George Steinbrenner's pocketbook, by taking steroids. But that is nothing compared to the damage done to schoolchildren whose time is frittered away talking about it when there is serious work that remains undone.



As my students would probably tell you, I was not aware of the fact that many people actually expect teachers to "teach" during class-time. This changes my whole curriculum. Sowell makes a strong final point:

Schools that give easy grades are setting their students up for a very hard life without the skills to compete. Instead of giving students and their parents a realistic picture of where they are, while there is still time to do something about it, schools are passing the job of confronting reality on to employers who get these youngsters when it is usually too late. Yet schools think they are teaching "ethics" when their whole abdication of adult responsibility is profoundly immoral.

2008 is too close

In 2008, my son will be 6 and my daughter will be 4. In 2008, our country will expereince another presidential election. I am not ready for either. It seems that many in the commentariat are. Hugh Hewitt writes on the front-runners of the 2008 election.



I long ago revealed myself as a single-issue voter: I favor the most conservative Republican in the primary most likely to win the general election.



I too consider my self this type of "single-issue voter." Hewitt thinks Guilliani will take the nom. I will have to consider carefully if I would take his record on security and defense over his beliefs on abortion and marriage. Thankfull, I have time for this, and for enjoying my childrens' childnesses.

Krauthammer

Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, Charles Krauthammer:

This in Afghanistan, which only three years ago was not just hostile but untouchable. What do liberals have to say about this singular achievement by the Bush administration? That Afghanistan is growing poppies.

Good grief. This is news? "Afghanistan grows poppies" is the sun rising in the east. "Afghanistan inaugurates democratically elected president" is the sun rising in the west. Afghanistan has always grown poppies. What is President Bush supposed to do? Send 100,000 GIs to eradicate the crop and incite a popular rebellion?

VDH and the Ents

Not surprisingly, Victor David Hanson has read Tolkien (I am sure he has read most authors).

Here is a quintessential VDH:

So, to our discredit I suppose, we are enjoying schadenfreud after our recent transatlantic acrimonies: Europe preached a postmodern gospel of multiculturalism and the end of oppressive Western values, and now it is time to put its money (and security) where its mouth is — or suffer the usual hypocrisy that all limousine liberals face.

Return to Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

I have just read an article entitled, "Two Becoming One Flesh: Marriage as a Sexual and Economic Union" by Allan Carson in The Intercollegiate Review (published in 2004 by the Intercollegiate Studies instated) (Hat Tip: Mr. Gomez) . This article is not available online.

Mr. Carson presents a highly intelligent review of marriage from a sociological and anthropological standpoint. He points out that much of the same-sex marriage movement is rooted in evolutionary thought. Here are some excerpts:



It would certainly be going too far to say that modern evolutionary theory and Genesis have converged; significant differences remain over key matters, such as timing. All the same, it would be fair to say that new research guided by evolutionary theory does agree with the author of Genesis that humankind, from our very origin as unique creatures on earth, has been defined by heterosexual monogamy involving long-termed pair bonding (that is, marriage in mother-father-child household) and resting on the special linkage of the reproductive and the economic: where two become one flesh. So the evolution of marriage did occur--but only once, three to four million years ago, when "to be human" came to mean "to be conjugal." All the other cultural variations surrounding marriage are mere details. "Change" must therefore be understood as the mark of cultural strengthening or weakens around a constant human model. And, rather than being the "pinnacle" of evolution, homosexuality and "gay marriage" emerge as obvious evolutionary and cultural dead-ends. Such practices are by definition sterile, and evolutionary theory--on its own terms--depends on reproductive success.

In the name of evolution, the campaign for same-sex marriage openly mocks the religious heritage of Western civilization. It ignores the hard-won lessons of human history. And it rejects the results of scientific inquiry, relying instead on sentiment to make its case. In all these ways, the campaign is radical indeed. Just as recklessly, the same campaign will, if successful, also subvert the one trait--permanent heterosexual pair-bonding focused on reproduction and child rearing--which science points to as unique to human nature and vital to human success, even to human existence, on earth. Advocates for change in the nature of marriage are playing with elemental evolutionary fire.



Most evolutionary thought, where it is Darwinism or Marxism, tends to mechanize humanity, effectively making humans less human. Marxism considers man to be merely a mechanism of the state. No one human possesses an inherent significance. Darwinism considers man to be merely a mechanism of nature, one more cog in the complicated gear of natural selection. He is merely one level of the food chain. Carson calls same-sex marriage a "dead-end," and that is precisely what it is. I said earlier that I do not feel that reproduction is an effective argument for heterosexual marriage, as it is true that many heterosexual couples cannot bear children. It is also true that no homosexual couple (on their own) can ever conceive a child. The only means of "reproduction" for them is adoption or some type of surrogate.

I once saw a sci-fi movie entitled Gattica. It starred Ethan Hawke, Jude Law, and Uma Thurman. The story was set in the future, where genetic science had advanced enough so that each couple could engineer the perfect child, one who will be ostensibly perfect and beneficial for the state. It is an interesting movie. It attempts to convey the fact that our humanity is something quite a bit more advanced than genetics. If our scientific and social trends continue in their current directions, it would not be too much of a leap to imagine a world like the one in Gattica. If you remove traditional marriage from the picture, you are not left with many other choices.

Although love and commitment are essential to marriage, they are not the totality of it. No one can deny the fact that same-sex couples have the capacity for unselfish love and devotion. No one can deny the fact that many, as many heterosexual couples, can make good parents. Marriage, however, should be about much more than love, as Carson points out above. Love and commitment are not the central issues.



. . . The traditional case points to the needed recovery of a cultural understanding of marriage as the union of the sexual (meaning the reproductive) and the economic, with an insistence that law rest on this human universal. In the short run, this would be vital to the defense of marriage at a time when it faces profound legal and cultural challenges, rooted in misguided evolutionary theories. In the long run, it would be essential to the very health, and survival, of our nation.

A second imperative therefore would be more productive and more vital homes. . . .



. . . In contemporary America, same-sex marriage has won a hearing in part because many see heterosexual marriage in the early twenty-first century as falling far short of the traditional standard binding the reproductive and the economic. Accordingly, any effort to rehabilitate the institution of marriage must not stop with legal bans on "gay marriage." It must also embrace true encouragements to the reconstruction of the function-rich and child-rich homes



If homosexual marriage is biologically and socially irresponsible, as the article posits, then there remains no possibility of gay marriage ever producing "more productive and more vital" homes. The only possible effect of same-sex marriage is a loving environment. It seems doubtful that merely a loving environment can have a lasting effect on society. That is why marriage must be about more than just love and commitment.

An Enigmatic Dick Morris

Dick Morris wrote on article on this past election.

“Mass communication” usually denotes the few speaking to the many through the journalistic and electronic media that they control. Now it must be redefined as the masses communicating and imposing their views on the elites, often over the furious objections of their former masters.

I have mentioned before that I don't get Morris. He is a political strategist, and a pretty good one at that. He was the architect behind President Clinton's damage control. He seems to understand how the Washington establishment works. I have not be able to nail down his political and moral views. I would guess that he is somewhat of a centrist, but I am not sure. I am sure that he does not have a favorable view of Ms. Sen. Hilllary Clinton. I would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall when Morris and her were in the same room during the Clinton administration, if they ever were.

Wake up, Journalists!

Memo to journalists: Welcome to the United States, a land where no one is above the law. It seems as though those in the media industry (let's never forget that journalists are first and foremost capitalists) have lost their immunity. Just look at this story, and the whole memo debacle with Dan Rather, and the increasing influence of alternative news sources. MSM needs to send out an SOS. Jonah Goldberg over NRO has written a couple of articles (including this one) on the subject of media above-the-law-ism. He makes some good arguments on this topic.

Arafat's violent legacy

Steve Stalinisky of the Middle East Media Research Institute, writing on Yasser Arafat/a>, says:

"American officials intimately involved in the Oslo Accords now publicly state that more attention should have been paid to the issue of Palestinian incitement, and what the Arabs were saying amongst themselves about peace in Arabic. With Yasser Arafat gone, the U.S. should be paying close attention to his heirs to understand their true intentions."

Some people in the media have taken hold of the idea that now the Arafat is gone there is a real possibility of a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem. This seems highly unlikely. As this article details, Arafat has passed on an ethos of hate and violence. I wonder if any in the PA truly wants a two-state solution. Some recently have said that Arafat refused the 2000 peace offer because his constituency did not want it (never mind the fact that they are merely echoing his sentiments and embracing his teachings). They posit the image of Arafat the peace keeper (kind of like "Ed Gein, the Preschool teacher"). Who is left to hold back the Palestinians now? There will never be a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem, because the Palestinians are the problem.

The Irrelevant UN

Powerline has a tremendous article by Professor Charles Hill on the UN. What stands out to me is the tremendous affect President Bush has had on the UN, and the world for that matter. I wonder if history will record President Bush to have been one of the most important foreign policy president's ever. It is difficult to see the significance of Bush's policy over the clamor of his rauccous opponents. There is little doubt that Mr. Bush has forced the UN's hand and their pacificistic sideline-ism.

RE: Intellegence Reform

In my previous post on intel reform, I referred to a Congressman from CO whose name I could not remember. He is Tom Tancredo, and he is working with Rep. Sensenbrenner. Immigration reform is probably the most important national security issue right now. We will never be able to effectively protect ourselves unless we carefully screen the individuals who immigrate to our country, and we carefully track their movements in our country. I am not talking about hiding a Federal Agent in the trunk of their car. As I mentioned, we need to have some check on those who are overstaying their legal visas. The people who want to come to our land for legitmate reasons should have no problems with a few extra provisions for their safety and ours.

The fallacy of racial quotas

There is now a scientific, statistical study that shows the deletarious effects of racial prefernces on black law students.

"The 35-year-old debate about affirmative action in university admissions has often focused on whether the supposed benefits to black and Hispanic students justify the costs to whites and Asians who lose out, and the resulting racial divisions and resentments.

Lately, some critics of racial preferences (including me) have also speculated that many of the supposed beneficiaries might be better off without preferences. They are so much less qualified academically than their white and Asian classmates, this argument goes, that they end up near the bottom of their classes and drop out in disproportionate numbers."

Affrimative action and racial quotas (an extremely un-PC term) could never make any logical sense. How can you end racial discrimination by choosing people according to their ethnicity? In the words of Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull, "It defeats its own purpose." It would be analagous to ending the servitude of blacks by enslaving whites.

A soldier's duty

Michelle Malkin also an article on AWOL and AINO (American in Name Only). The article details how Jeremy Hinzman as fled his post to Canada, objecting to the war in Iraq.

"Several others have followed Hinzman's trail, hoping Canada will buy into their sob stories. But by embracing our cowards, Canada undermines not only the war on terror but also its own asylum system. American deserters face neither execution nor persecution if returned to the United States. Just look at Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes, who on Monday refused to board his Navy ship in protest of the war on Iraq.

Unlike Hinzman, Paredes is ready and willing to go to jail. After his release, Paredes is sure to get a book deal, a CBS made-for-TV movie, a party at Susan Sarandon's, and honorary Canadian citizenship -- if he doesn't apply for it himself first."

I don't have a problem with soldiers who disagree with a specfic conflict. It is their moral duty to listen to their conscience. I do have a problem with someone who refuses to face up to the consequences. I guess this Hinzman is afraid he might break a nail.

ELF's near Christmastime

Michelle Malkin as a sumation of the ecoterriorist attacks by the Earith Liberation Front:

"Since my days at the Seattle Times, where I covered both ELF and its animal-rights arm, ALF, I've continued to track the ecoterrorist movement and its anti-capitalist, anti-military saboteurs. These incendiary menaces declared war against us a long time ago. Maybe now that it's hitting closer to home around the Beltway, Washington will finally answer back."

Do you suppose the ELF's understand the hypocrisy of their actions. What good does it do to protest urban sprawl by sending pollutants into the air? Do they actually believe developers are going to back down? Somebody needs to take these people and slap them around for a good five minutes.

The Quasi-Rev. Al Sharpton

The Villiage Voice (not a strong conservative periodical) has an investigative article on Mr. Sharpton and his alleged extra-marital affairs.

"The Harris saga is not just a question of sex; it's a window into the dysfunction of Sharpton's universe. NAN's domain name was purchased in September 2003 and no one's ever talked to the company that bought it; they just stopped posting. The Voice sent a donor up to the 125th Street office in December 2003 to make a $25 contribution and the check was never cashed. Sharpton's campaign owes $479,050.72, having stiffed many vendors and staffers, most of them black, just as he and NAN have stiffed everyone from travel agencies to limo companies to the firm that had the title on a $46,880 SUV Sharpton leased from Gidron. The Federal Election Commission even wants its $100,000 in public matching funds back because Sharpton has refused to comply with a subpoena for detailed campaign records. The subpoena involves the over-the-limit expenses billed to Sharpton's credit card to cover Marjorie and Eddie Harris's travel."

The article contains quite a bit of circumstantial evidence, and the preponderance of it makes Mr. Sharpton look very suspicious. Of course, he is innocent until a racist judge unfoundedly declares him guilty. I can't wait for that.

The Eclectic reader

Here are some of my thoughts on various subjects:



intelligence Reform Bill--I see that it passed the House today--300 and some to 75. Fox News said that Duncan Hunter received the language he and others wanted regarding the chain-of-command. James Sennsenbrenner did not get the driver's license provisions he wanted, but he did get a promise it will be on the fast-track next session. I don't completely understand how the politics of Congress works. I know that it is not easy to get work accomplished. I know that when so many Congressmen are for a bill, it becomes very difficult to hold out. I hope that they work hard on getting the license bill next session. The other day I heard some Congressman from Colorado (I can't remember who) who said that it was more dangerous to pass a bill that gives the allusion of safety rather than one that actually provides safety. This is an excellent point, and I wonder if this bill will bring about some beneficial change. I don't see how having a single career bureaucrat (or whoever gets the job as Intel Czar) processing all the intelligence. There were obviously some systemic problems in the intelligence business. Let's hope this bill resolves some of them. Dick Morris (I don't completely get his angle) made the argument on Hannity and Colms that the only way we can find aliens who have lost their legal status is through their driver's license, or lack thereof. Supporters of the policy of allowing illegals to get licenses say it makes the roads safer. What in Martha's Stewart does having a driver's license do with being a safe driver? Have these people ever driven in Massachusetts, or Florida, or New York, or the planet we call "Earth"? Besides, it is not our roads that should be the biggest concern. Our biggest concern should be our buildings, and bridges, and schools.



Mr. Bill O'Reily--O'Reily is a scream. He said tonight that he thought a belief in the historical Jesus is "cute". I may be paraphrasing a bit, but not much. He is strong when he talks about economics and politics. He is rather bafoonish when he speaks on moral issues. I understand him to be a Catholic. That should be a good thing. If he is, he is not a very morally strong one. He is so pragmatic with many of his beliefs, though I don't see how he can call them beliefs. According to him, everything that is not backed up by a preponderance of facts is simply a nice little belief that ought to be respected as such. Many times he really irks me.



College Basketball--Syracuse and Oklahome State are playing right now. Neither team has more than 30, and it is half time. I would expect both of the teams to put up more points, even though both are excellent defensive teams. Both of the teams should do well this year. My guess is that either 'Cuse or Pitt will win the Big East. Oklahoma State and Kansas will fight it out for the Big 12. I don't want to make a pick on National Champion yet. Let me say it will either be UNC, Kansas, OSU, Georgia Tech, Wake, Arizona, or Illinois. These all have strong, legitimate chances of winning. The last several years have a chosen the side of experience. This year all of these have experience like the plague. OSU probably has the most. Illinois has the best guards in the league. This looks to be an exciting, parried season. I don't have enormously high hopes for the Blue Devils, as I have stated before. They can be in the top 3 or 4 of the ACC (I am going to pick NC State to win the conference this year). They are definitely in the top 25, probably the top 15. I am looking for a Sweet Sixteen this year.



Spelling--I apologize for any and all misspellings. I can spell as well as Usher. The spell check on my laptop is a bit hairy. It doesn't always allow me to make changes. Sometimes it will highlight a term and then skip it before I can do anything. It is quite irritating (though you could never tell by watching me). I will attempt to never misspell anything ever.



Torturing Prisoners--Responding to my earlier post regarding the prisoners at Gitmo, I will never understand "prisoner's rights." As the article I linked to pointed out, the terrorists that are being held here captured while they were fighting our troops. We have been able to obtain highly valuable intel from them. At least 6 of the murders that were released (under intense international pressure) went back to Iraq and Afghanistan and fought once again with our troops. What price is to high to pay for our security? If a few terrorists, who have hurt innocents and soldiers and who will hurt more if they get a chance, have to experience some discomfort in order for us to get life-saving intel from them, so be it. Their lives are far less valuable than our American soldiers. Do you think the innocent civilians who have had their heads un-attatched from their bodies experienced any discomfort? Do you think the murders care about our "rights"? Too many liberals want to be safe while still living in the comfortable and morally superior Muffinland. People are not very nice here on earth. Some people forfeit their "rights" when they callously extinguish the "rights" of others. Let's get our priorities straight.



More from the Eclectic Reader soon.

Torture at Gitmo?

Ted Lapkin writes about the alleged torture techniques at Guantamano.:

"While lesser categories of coercion should not be routine, they should be available to intelligence authorities in case of a classic 'ticking bomb' scenario. If inflicting mild discomfort on a captured al-Qaeda operative could prevent a mass-casualty terrorist attack, would that be a greater offence against morality than allowing the slaughter of innocents to proceed?"



I will speak more on this later.

The war on camera

Caroline B. Glick writes about the situation in Fallujah where the Marine killed the terrorist/murder lying on the floor in the mosque. She details how difficult the war is in the face of so much journalistic antagonism: "Add to this the fact that terrorists eagerly exploit universally recognized symbols of non-combatants and you have a war that you simply cannot justify on camera." Many Americans seem to forget that war is hell, and that few lovely pictures will come out of the grisly battlefields. They also forget about the power and influnence the media can have with a few out-of-context images. As William Randolph Hearst once supposedly said, "You give me the pictures, and I will give you the war." It is such a challenge to establish the proper context for these images we are seeing. I don't think many journalists are going to take the time to establish it either. Many of them have an ideological agenda that is going to distort their objectivity. Let me say that there is no such creature as a completely objective journalist. They are as rare as an eighty year old gymnast. We as Americans need to understand the horrific nature of war, and that a dead terrorist is far more desirable than a dead American soldier.

The Liberal Insanity

E.J. Dionne, Jr. of WaPo has a wonderful article: bellyaching about the evil republicans and their deleterious philosophy (Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt).

"Naturally those of us who favored giving all Americans health coverage regretted how much influence Kristol's view had on his party. "



Liberals feel the line is between those who want everyone to receive healthcare and those who could care less if black, homeless children die in the streets. This is so ridiculous. Most every conservative I know cares deeply for people and don't want to see anyone suffer. But they realize that "the poor you will always have." There is no way we are ever going to lessen the burden on the poor. We can do much, but the government is not the answer. The answer is for individual private charities, like the Salvation Army, to take care of them. These charities will have more funds if the average American is able to keep more of his money. I think that most Americans are generous with their abundance.



"And now the Republicans are moving to weaken Social Security -- one of the great achievements of progressive government -- in the name of strengthening it. They are willing to borrow massive sums to start private accounts that Republican strategists such as Grover Norquist freely concede are designed to create a new generation of stockholders -- and Republicans."



Did you get that? Republicans = rich people. Stockholders = evil, selfish people. Appartenly, according to Mr. Dionne, capital is not a good thing. Don't tell that to Adam Smith. Apparantly, the average American is imbecilic and will waste the Government's hard earned Social Security stockpile on unstable Dot Coms and comic books. Liberals cannot get off the belief that government is the answer to every question. Mr. Dionne, and others of his ilk, feel that the democrats are the party of the oppressed. They are the ignored class of intellectuals, the guardians of the truth, that have to battle the evils Republicans and their corporate backers. I feel sorry for the single mother who struggles to make a living for her and her children. I do not feel sorry for the limousine democrats can never get their way.

Bill Bennet on the Blogosphere

William Bennet has an interesting article on what he calls the "new media" (Hat tip: Powerline). I have much respect for Mr. Bennet. He is a highly educated man. He has done much for the cause of morallity and ethics in this country. I try to read every article he writes.

Dave Berry

Dave Berry : has an article on Christmas giving.

"But getting back to Christmas: My point is that, although this is a festive time of year, it can also be a difficult and stressful time for a certain group -- a group whose needs, all too often, are overlooked in our society. That group is: men. Why is the Christmas season so hard on men? There are many complex reasons, by which I mean: women."



I don't think there is anyone in America funnier than Dave Berry.

News from Iraq

Arthur Chrenkoff has an exhaustive piece detailing the good news from Iraq.: "It takes a lot to get a man of God annoyed, and Louis Sako, the Chaldean Archbishop of Kirkuk, is a very frustrated man these days. 'It is not all death and destruction,' says the archbishop. 'Much is positive in Iraq today. . . . Universities are operating, schools are open, people go out onto the streets normally. . . . Where there's a kidnapping or a homicide the news gets out immediately, and this causes fear among the people. . . . Those who commit such violence are resisting against Iraqis who want to build their country.'"



I don't have time to read all of it right now. Chrenkoff is one of the few sources who will detail more than just kidnappings and car-bombings. All of us ought to read all of these articles.

Kofi Annan's unruly son?

Now what do we have here. It seems as though Annan's son used UN link to lobby for business. Mr. Annan really needs to controll his son.

The Duke Blue Devils

The Dukies played Valparaiso today. Valpo isn't an exceptional team. However, Homer Drew is a good coach that has been very successful at there. His teams always play hard. Duke had just to much fire power today. J.J. Redick had 26 points, and he didn't even play the last 10 minutes of the game. I think he is playing very well this year. He has lost some weight and is able to run all over the court to get open. And an open shot for him is usually and made shot. Both Sheldon Williams and Shlavick Randolph (please excuse any misspellings) are doing what they need to do--playing consistently good inside. Williams is great on defense and doing better on offense each year. I don't expect them to be on the top of the ACC this year, especially with how good NC State, UNC, Wake, and Georgia Tech are this year. But it should be an exciting year like always.

Blogger goals

As I have recently said to some of my students, my goal for this blog is to be receiving at least 10k hits a day within the next month. Right now I may be getting 3, possibly 4. In order to have a successful blog, I probably need to have a quality that is different than any other blog. I haven't quite figured out what that quality will be, but I am sure I will come up with it eventually. Or I will die trying.

In the meanwhile, I need your (and by "your" I mean "mine" since "I" am the only one who "reads" this blog) help. I need you to tell an average of 20 people a day about this blog. You can do this in person, or via telephone. I suggest printing out flyers and passing them out at the mall. This being the Christmas season there will be plenty of people at the mall. Also, you could open up the phonebook and call one page of name per day. If anyone has access to a plane, I would appreciate if they could do some free skywriting for me.

One day soon, I hope to have ads on my site. When I do, I will get paid when you click on them. I hope to being able to buy a Subaru WRX next March, so please start clicking.

It is late and I think I can see the fact that what I am writing is complete malukey. I will do better next time.

The brilliant VDH

Victor David Hansen is one of the most brilliant and erudite columnists out there. Most everything he writes reverberates with genius. Here is his latest piece:



All this we must not forget. We have come too far and too many have died to cease or even pause. In the name of the dead Americans, those lost of the Coalition, and the resolute Iraqis who were butchered by both Saddam and then by the Islamic fascists, let the January election proceed as promised. If Bill Clinton could run America with 43 percent of the popular vote in 1992, if Lincoln could conduct a war after receiving 40 percent in 1860, and if the Supreme Court could adjudicate the electoral mess of 2000, so then the Kurds and the Shiites, if need be, can hold elections in Iraq with participation of 70 percent of the people. As for the Muslim clerics, Saddamites, and al Qaedists of the Sunni triangle, rest assured that there will be elections and you shall all end up on the wrong side of history. How absurd it is that the Sunni Triangle is the heart of an insurrection that feeds off either subsidy, appeasement, or the indifference of its citizenry, only then to plead that its own malfeasance should earn special dispensation from others who chose hard work and sacrifice and the chance for democratic law. Let them participate in history or watch it steamroll by from the sidelines — but let them not stop it.

There may well be even more terrible things to come in Iraq than what we have seen already, but there will also be far better things than were there before. And there will come a time, when all those who slandered the efforts — the Germans, the French, the American radical Left, the vicious Michael "Minutemen" Moore, the pampered and coddled Hollywood elite, the Arab League, and the U.N. will assume that Iraq is a "good thing" like Afghanistan, and that democracy there really was preferable — after they had so bravely weighed in with their requisite "ifs" and "buts" — to the mass murders of Saddam Hussein. Yes, they will say all this, but it will be for the rest of us to remember how it all came about and what those forgotten soldiers and people of Iraq went through to get it — lest we forget, lest we forget....



That is only a small part of it. Read everything you can by him, and by Mark Steyn.

Clinton's Iraqi Library

According the ABC News, Mark Rich may have a hand in the U.N. Oil Scandal (Hat Tip: Powerline). If Rich was getting kickbacks from this scandal, that casts huge shadow on Pres. Clinton's Presidential Library. If I am not mistaken, one of the primary donors for this $185 million pat on the back was Mark Rich. Very interesting.

"The West Wing" Liberals

This image pretty much sums up the liberal view of peace. Peace can always be achieved through an open dialogue, since all fighting is based ultimately on minor disagreements and misundertands. "The West Wing" perfectly expresses this philosophy. Last night on the show, Pres. Bartlet was planning a summit with the Chinese. He mistakenly accepted a flag from the Tawainese delegation--a flag of the Taiwanese Liberation movement, or something of the sort. Thus, problems ensue. The Chinese delegation was quite peeved over this. They were upset over a silly flag. If only they could see how ludicrous they were acting. If only they could set aside the petty differences and work together for the good of all. This silly flag and each sides' preferences are the cause of the tension between the two countries. It is none deeper than that. All they need to do is get together and have some wise, liberal-minded individual, like Pres. Bartlet, talk some sense into them. I am convinced the average liberal has no memory whatsoever. What good did "dialogue" and "paper diplomacy" do between the World Wars? Was it detente' and discussion that brought down the Evil Empire (the Soviet one, not the Steinbrenner one)? How much did all the talk and dreaded sanctions affect Saddam? Talk is worthless unless you have something to back it up. And many of these international tensions--in the Middle East and the Far East--are much more complicated than a simple disagreement over table settings. I am surprised the nuanced liberal mindset cannot understand this.



BTW--I enjoyed the episode last night. I like the fact that they are introducing more tension between the characters. It seems more interesing and realistic. Last night's show had a bit better dialouge than the last few previous ones.

Tony Snow Blog

I see that Tony Snow has a blog. It is even through the same service as me. I wish I could hear his radio show (though I cannot say that I have every attempted to find it). I see him often on Fox, and he seems to have it together. He isn't quite as partisan as Hannity and Limbaugh (not that there is anything wrong with that), and he actually takes a moral stand on issues, unlike O'Reilly. The only radio host I get the chance to hear is Jay Sevren, up here in MA. I usually enjoy listening to him, though I totally disagree with his views on Iraq. He feels we are not using the extent of our military force to oust the terrorists. He feels we should be dropping bombs on towns like Fallujah and Mosul. He considers Iraq to be a complete mess, a "Black Hawk Down", as he puts it. I have never heard him speak of any town other than, well, Fallujah. I don't know where he gets his news. He certainly never talks about the hundreds of good things that are being accomplished there. Neither he nor I are military analysts, yet he continually analyzes the situation over there. He feels, and rightly so, that our troops are doing a great job, and that it is the government that is screwing things up. I am not sure how he can make the distinction. Our troops are supposed to do what their government asks them to do. That is there job. However, no reasonalbe person could expect a soldier to obey an order that is morally wrong. We expect our troops at times to be a conscience objector (and, BTW, suffer whatever consequences comes from it). If the situation over there is so wrong, our troops would have to be complicity in the evil, or else to ignorant to know the difference. Either way, it does not look good for them. All of the troops are in the military by choice. Many enlisted so that they could fight in Iraq. Did they choose jump aboard a train wreck? Or did they join what they felt was a just cause? I would heartily agree that the military and the government controlling that military makes mistakes. I just don't think Iraq is a mistake. I don't think we have made as many mistakes as Jay insinuates. And I don't think it is possible to completely sever the "war from the warrior".

My Way News

Hugh Hewitt has some links regarding this story on euthanasia in Holland: "AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives."



This type of story is disturbing, but not entirely surprising. In our materialistic, post-Christian world we are gradually mechanizing human life. What is so incredulous is that many in our world our more concerned about the lives of a terrorist/murder in some military prison in Iraq than they are about a small helpless child. If not for the grace of God, euthanasia will be merely one more signpost on the road to complete decadence.

WSJ.com - Kofi Annan Must Go

According to MN Senator Norm Coleman, Kofi Annan Must Go: (Hat Tip Powerline)

"Our Investigative Subcommittee has gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions. We continue to amass evidence that he used the overt support of prominent members of the U.N., such as France and Russia, along with numerous foreign officials, companies and possibly even senior U.N. officials, to exploit the program to his advantage. We have obtained evidence that indicates that Saddam doled out lucrative oil allotments to foreign officials, sympathetic journalists and even one senior U.N. official, in order to undermine international support for sanctions. In addition, we are gathering evidence that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of Oil-for-Food dollars to terrorists and terrorist organizations. All of this occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the U.N.

* * *



While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign. The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose."



Sen. Coleman seems to be a superb investigator. He and his committee are doing a thorough job of investigating this scandal. It is apparant from the article that he and his fellow committee members are being very Cassius in accusing anyone. The evidence against Mr. Anan and the U.N. is beginning to appear incontrivertable.

In search of the ropes

I am working on "breaking in" this blog. I see I have numerous typos and what not. I need to train myself to give hat tip, since almost no link on this site is original to me. I will do better.

Meanwhile, two of my favorite blogs are Chrenkoff and The Corner. Both are rather longwinded, but both are stuffed with great information. You can't get anything like this from the MSM.

Chuck Colson on C. S. Lewis

Chuck Colson has some thoughts on C. S. Lewis. The problem is not that modern evangelicals are less intelligent than Lewis. As Mark Noll explains in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, the problem is that our sharpest intellects have been channeled into biblical scholarship, exegesis, and hermeneutics. While that is a vital enterprise, we rarely give the same scholarly attention to history, literature, politics, philosophy, economics, or the arts. As a result, we are less aware of the culture than we should be, less equipped to defend a biblical worldview, and less capable of being a redemptive force in our postmodern society—less aware, as well, of the threats headed our way from cultural elites.



We evangelicals have wimped out when it comes to intellectual discussions. Since the Bible is truth, all of Scripture will be intellectually sound. We have not been effect at arguing our beliefs in this post-Christian culture. It is true that many will reject Christianity for itself and not for any apparant logical inconsistency, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility. Lewis was and is a vital component of Christianity. We should carry on his legacy.

O"Reilly's "Fairness"

According to Bill O'Reilly, Dan got smeared: "Dan Rather did not get what he deserved in this case. He made a mistake, as we all do, but he is not a dishonest man.

Unfair freedom of speech did him in. This is not your grandfather's country anymore. "



O'Reilly is a good TV and talk-show host. I enjoy watching his program. However, I think his obsession with "fairness" often blinds him from the truth. He won't accuse anyone of anything until he has complete his own "complete" investigation. He seems to have an affinity toward Mr. Rather, which probably distorts his opion. I wonder if he has completed an investigation on Mr. Rather and the memos. I wonder if he will attempt one. The evidence complied by numerous qualified people against y Mr. Rather is fairly compelling. It is very difficult to believe Mr. Rather was guilty solely of laziness.

BTW: I don't think O'Reilly has ever given the Swift Boat Vets a fair shake. He thinks they have a valid disagreement with Keryy, yet he seems to think their disagreement is a smear. Fairness should never supercede truthfulness, as it sometimes does for O'Reilly.

Anti-Semitic news

Little Green Footballs is a great conservative blog. Charles Johnson is the proprietor of the site. He normally post interesting and very pertinent information. An Anti-Israel Holocaust Survivor in Berkeley is an example of one of his posts. He links to many stories that deal with anti-semetism. This is a topic that I find very interesting, and of Biblical importance. He covers it very well

Power Line: Meet Command Sgt. Maj. Jordan

I was not aware that Michael Jordan has a Brother. The family resemblance is pretty strong. I wonder how good he is at basketball.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: 'My Son, My Son'

Here is a good article by William SafireThe New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: 'My Son, My Son': "Of course, in a $20 billion ripoff, $125,000 to the boss's son for doing nothing is chump change. But it should lead to questions for the son: what are his associations with families in the oil industry? (Yamani or ya life!) Did he lie to his father about four years of fees from Cotecna, or did Kofi fail to ask him? Did Kojo inform Sevan about the fees, or know about any lucrative oil vouchers given by Saddam to Sevan?



For the father: Will he now share with Congress, which supplies 22 percent of the U.N. budget, his 'thorough investigation' of his son's Cotecna connection? Did he learn of the 'nothing illegal' fees only last Tuesday, as his aides say? Has he since asked his Absalomic son if the secretary general can stand by his April 'nothing to do with' statement about Cotecna?



This marks the end of the beginning of the scandal. Its end will not begin until Kofi Annan, even if personally innocent, resigns - having, through initial ineptitude and final obstructionism, brought dishonor on the Secretariat of the United Nations."



He asks some great questions here, questions that Mr. Secretary General needs to answer. It seems highly improbable that Mr. Anan Senior was completely unaware of his son's doings, much less the schennanagins of the UN. My opinion is that he was very much complicant in all of this. I agree with NRO (National Review Online) in that the U.S. must call for his (Kofi's) resignation. He is a crook. Then again, what other kind of person would we expect to head such a crooked, Marxist organization.

Gay marriage arguments

I certainly have not read all the commentary available on gay marriage. I have read much, though. I am disappointed that I have yet to find a compelling argument against it. I am firmly opposed to it as it is diametrically opposed to my Christian doctrines. The Bible is clear that God's plan for marriage is one man and one woman. It is also clear that any and all sexual relations outside marriage are, in Paul's words, an "abomination". My belief is that all humans understand at some level that the homosexual lifestyle is an aberrant lifestyle. It is a choice. It is a choice that brings about much misery and depression.

All that being said, it is important in this post-Christian culture to posit an intellectual argument that is Scripturally sound. I have yet to see this in regard to gay marriage. Some have said that marriage is primarily for procreation. Since same sex couples cannot procreate, they should not be allowed marriage. Marriage is a far more complicated and intricate bond than just a means for reproduction. Also, as others have pointed out (I cannot remember where I read it), many heterosexual couples lack the ability to bear children. Can we restricted marriage to only the non-barren couples?

Many (i.e. Bill O'Reily) make the argument that we should not alter the traditional view of marriage (heterosexual-monogamous) because it is the traditional view. They don't want to contradict the obvious will of the majority. Under this argument, however, we should have never outlawed slavery, as it was the traditional view of the majority for many years. One of the tyrannies our founding fathers feared the most was the tyranny of the majority. They did not want of country governed solely by the will of the majority. They placed numerous checks and balances within government to prevent this. Any successful nation must be founded on some absolute principle outside of themselves. The general will of the people must not be overlooked. It must be placed subservient to the absolute principles of morality. What do we do if one day incest gains acceptance by a majority of people?

The only reasonable argument that I have heard is that traditional families are the strongest. There are some studies that support this, though I am unaware of their location. If you accept this argument, however, might extend far beyond marriage. If indeed homosexuality is a detriment to society, then it ought to be outlawed (as it was when Thomas Jefferson lived). Any extra-marital relationships ought to be discouraged (as they were when Thomas Jefferson lived). This argument will no doubt be seen as homophobic and Puritan, which, in a sense, it is. BTW: The term "homophobic" is a really silly term. Does it mean someone has a psychological fear of gays, much like someone who has "arachniphobia" has some psychological fear of spiders? And if it is psychological, then is it really their fault? Can they control it?

Meanwhile, my search for a strong intellectually sound and Scripturally consistent argument continues.

Experimentation

As anyone who has ever used a computer or the so-called "internet" before can easily tell, I am not very good at this (using the term "good" with its broadest implications). I am much like a fawn taking its first steps. Or like an eaglet attempting its first flight. Or like a fawn attempting its first flight. I am also not very good at writing, or using metaphors (when it comes to metaphors I am like Captain Ishmael in dance contest). For instance, or for example, I am not certain as to how to insert thus named "hyperlinks", like this or this. You should check out both of those sites. They are very good ones. Look, I guess I do now know how to "insert" the "hyperlinks". Next on my priority list is learning how to write a post in less than 45 minutes. All we can do is hope.

A psuedo-retractment

I must apologize for my two latest posts. They were, in all due frankness, bat guano. I should explain that they were actually notes to myself--examples of what not ever to post. I am sorry that anyone but me should see them. But I did need to see them. I will now be able to never publish such manure again.

Television

I have a theory that every broadcast and cable network has been hijacked by 60 year old women. I have nothing against 60 year women. Both my grandmothers were once 60. My mother will be sixty in just under 40 years. My wife will make a lovely sextagenarian. They do, however, suffer from a dangerous lack of taste. Hence, the banality that spews out of my television screen. In a world where I would have more financial freedom than I do right now, I would have digital cable or satelite, and I would be able to watch Turner Classic Movies. As of right now, I am consigned to choosing from either a litnany of TV movies (There has never been a decent TV movie and there will not be one this side of eternity) or reruns of one many flavors of Law and Order or real movies that made $7500 total at the box office. I could watch College Football. Who wouldn't want to watch North Central Connecticut State in their annual grudge match against Lemory University? It seems that the only people who enjoy the line-up are 60 year old women, who can't get enough of William H. Macy playing--what?--a loser and reruns of "Doc" on PAX.

Hugh Hewitt's infatada

I think http://www.hughhewitt.com is an execellent blog. However, I fail to understand his beef with Target. The Salvation Army is a superb and beneficent organization. They raise millions of dollars each year and help millions of needy people. I have to wonder how much money they raise with their Santa-bell-ringers each year. I can't imagine it being a tremendous amount. Being unable to stand in front of one majoy chain couldn't hurt them all that much. It could cause as much bleeding for them as the boycott will for Target--a nominal amount. My view may be far too pragmatic, and I may be missing the greater principle here. I like shopping a Target. They are generally cleaner and nicer than the best Wally Worlds. I can't see making a political statement via boycott--I don't know if boycotts are ever successful. I am all for the e-mail campaign. But let's not go overboard folks. As one respondant to Hugh's site said, why not just send the Army the approximate amount of money you would've dropped in the bucket?

Starting with the second time

I am a recent inititate into the blogosphere. I have found it to be extremely interesting and informative. Being no writer, I don't expect to make any waves. I might as well give it a my best shot. Happy belated thanksgiving to anyone reading.