Digging Himself a Hole

The Politico lists twelve reasons why Sen. Obama's assertion that bitter Pennsylvanians are clinging to guns, religion, and bigotry to compensate for their dismal economic circumstances is going to be a considerable problem for him going into the last round of primaries. Some of the twelve are pretty insightful.

Hillary, of course, is trying to separate herself from what she alleges to be Obama's elitist views on gun control and faith, portraying herself as something of a pious Annie Oakley, according to the New York Times blog.

As with so many things Mrs. Clinton claims about herself, however, this portrayal is misleading. In 1999, for instance, she supported a number of gun control measures that would have raised the age limit for possessing a handgun to 21 from 18 while still allowing exemptions for hunting, employment and ranching; extended background checks to those who buy guns at gun shows, provided that the records are eventually expunged; banned juveniles who are convicted of violent felonies from ever owning a gun; make parents subject to prosecution if they recklessly or negligently allow a gun to fall into the hands of children who use it to commit a crime, and expanded the government's gun tracing program, underway in 35 cities, to 75 cities.

As it happens, each of these strikes me as a sensible proposal, but none were popular with many second amendment supporters, including the National Rifle Association. In fact, there's probably no significant difference between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama on guns or religion. The question is whether either is willing to say exactly what she/he believes about gun control and second amendment rights clearly and unambiguously in the states whose primaries will be held over the next forty five days. My guess is that neither will.

RLC

Giving the Rest a Bad Name

Justin sends along this story of how things are sometimes portrayed by the media. Fortunately, there are many fine people in journalism who hold themselves to high professional standards and do great work. Unfortunately, this story may sound a little too familiar to some who have dealt with the minority who don't:

A man is walking by the zoo when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to devour her right in front the little girl's screaming parents.

The man runs to the cage, hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back, letting go of the girl, and the man brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him profusely.

A reporter has seen the whole episode and, addressing the man, says: "Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've ever witnessed a man do in my whole life."

"It was nothing," said the man. "Really, the lion was behind bars, and I knew God would protect me just as He did Daniel in the lions' den long ago. I just saw this little kid in danger, and did what I felt was right."

"I noticed a Bible in your pocket." said the journalist.

"Yes, I was on my way to a Bible study" the man replies.

"Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist with the New York Times, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this on the front page."

The following morning the man buys the Times to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads on the front page.....

"Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist Assaults African Immigrant and Steals His Lunch."

Notwithstanding what I wrote in the first paragraph about how most people in any profession have high standards, for some reason this story reminds me of the line that 99% of politicians give the rest a bad name.

RLC

Two Myths About ID

In one short little essay Michael Egnor manages the noteworthy feat of exploding two Darwinist myths about intelligent design. The first myth is that design can be produced by natural forces like mutation and natural selection. Design, as Egnor argues, requires intelligent direction ab defino.

The second myth is that intelligent design is not falsifiable. Understand that a theory that is falsifiable is not necessarily false. Rather to be falsifiable means that we can imagine some observation that, were we to make it, would show the theory to be false. It may be that that observation never occurs because the theory is in fact true. For example, a theory that holds there to be only nine planets in the solar system may be true, but we can imagine an observation that would falsify it, namely the observation of a tenth planet. On the other hand, try to imagine an observation that would falsify the belief that ghosts exist.

Since falsification (or testability) is a standard criterion for what constitutes good science, the critic of intelligent design seeks to have ID ruled out of bounds because, he alleges, there is no imaginable observation or state of affairs that would show that biological structures were not designed by an intelligent designer, and therefore the theory cannot be falsified. This, however, is a peculiar criticism for the simple reason that ID is the denial of Darwinism and therefore Darwinism, if it were true as its votaries believe it to be, would itself constitute the falsification of ID.

As we have argued elsewhere on Viewpoint, Darwinism states that natural mechanisms alone are sufficient to account for all that we see in the biological realm. intelligent design denies this claim and states that natural mechanisms by themselves are not sufficient to explain at least some biological phenomena. The two claims are mirror images of each other. They have the same logical character. If Darwinism is true, as the Darwinian believes it is, then ID must be false, but if ID is not falsifiable then neither is Darwinism. Thus ID and Darwinism either both qualify as science or they both fail.

Egnor concludes his essay by noting that, "The truth is that Darwinists aren't concerned that intelligent design isn't falsifiable. They're concerned that it isn't false."

Read the whole thing at the link.

RLC

Culturally Maladroit

"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Barack Obama talking about Pennsylvanians embittered by job losses.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but it sounds like he might be suggesting that Pennsylvanians who support the second amendment, who are personally devout, who oppose open borders and are uneasy about the Mexification of the American west and southwest and the economic burden illegal immigration is placing on people are bitter folks looking for both crutches and scapegoats.

Maybe he meant something different, I don't know, but what it sounded like he said is not going to endear him to voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, or West Virginia where primaries are looming. It seems lately that whenever Sen. Obama opens his mouth he risks alienating more people who were formerly sympathetic to his candidacy. After his controversial remarks about what white people really believe about blacks this comment about economically stressed whites being a bunch of stereotypical rednecks has given Mrs. Clinton a splendid opportunity to start pounding away with questions about what Obama's deepest beliefs about white people really are.

I'll be a bit surprised if she hasn't started to exploit this opening even before I get this posted.

RLC

Taxpayer Subsidized Islam

Minnesota's KSTP reports that a Minnesota charter school funded by tax dollars has been accused by a substitute teacher of violating the law by teaching Islam:

[S]ubstitute teacher Amanda Getz taught at Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, or TIZA last month and told the Star Tribune about things she observed that day that shocked her.

"I've been in a lot of schools and I've never been in a school where they had washing rituals, or they had prayer, or where they had a room where you had to take your shoes off," Getz said.

"It is most likely that this substitute teacher was sadly mistaken," said TIZA Executive Director Azad Zaman.

He said the school follows state and federal guidelines when it comes to religion.

"We're required under the federal guidelines to allow students to pray when they wish to do so. And as Muslim students, they're allowed to pray around 1:30 p.m., so we allow them to do that," Zaman explained.

TIZA requires all students to learn Arabic as a second language to English.

State law requires the school to fly an American flag during school hours, however no flag flies outside of TIZA Academy.

Zaman told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS he didn't know how to work the flagpole.

One wonders how much the students are learning if the director of the school can't even be taught to work a flagpole.

The Star tribune has a more complete follow-up article here.

HT: Jason

RLC

Obama's <i>Mein Kampf</i>?

Ann Coulter has read Barack Obama's autobiography and wonders if anyone else has, and, if so, how it is that Obama is still a potential president of the United States.

Well, I haven't read his book, so I can't tell whether her assessment of it is fair or not, but if it is, then Senator Obama doesn't sound like the right guy to talk about "transcending race."

If anyone who has read the book has some insight into Obama's thinking please let us know your thoughts. If anyone who reads this post is planning on voting for Obama please do us all a favor and read the book first.

Meanwhile, check out Coulter's column. Compared to some of what she writes this one is relatively low on snark.

RLC

Developments in Cancer Research

In light of the recent news about cell-phones causing brain cancer this report is especially relevant: Scientists have made a remarkable discovery in the treatment of cancers, specifically, but not solely, brain cancer.

It had been thought that all the cells in a tumor were identical, but it has been discovered that the tumor is actually fed by stem cells that reside in the tumor near blood vessels from which they derive their nourishment. Drugs that attack the blood vessels cause the stem cells to die off which, it is thought, cause the tumor to whither.

There's a story and video here.

RLC

African Hero

Dr. Paul Kengor, noted biographer of Ronald Reagan, pens a fascinating article about George Bush's leadership, derived from his Christian faith, in mitigating the miseries of Africans. The fascinating thing about what Bush has done is how quiet the left has been about it. Much of Kengor's column recounts the history behind Bush's initiative in the course of which he writes this:

If a Democratic president had done what Bush has done for Africa, the New York Times would recommend a 100-foot bronze statue on the Mall. Instead, there is utter silence concerning this stunning, expensive act of human charity-one certainly beyond what American presidents would ever be expected to do. Liberal college professors and Hollywood types would be walking around with special little ribbons on their lapels representing the president's Africa initiative.

Then Kengor says:

George W. Bush, devout Christian, in the role of Good Samaritan, was doing what no leader of any country had ever done for Africa.

I wrote on this in an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle in September 2004. The opinion editor of the Chronicle was, like Bob Geldof, a fair liberal; he happily ran the piece, thinking it would enlighten his readership, especially the faith component-a bracing revelation to an angry left that insists Bush's "born-again faith" makes him a narrow-minded troglodyte.

What was the response? I received hateful e-mails telling me that not only was Bush - and myself as well - a "moron," but the entire Africa AIDS thing was a ruse, a sham, and the money wasn't even being spent. Bush was a "liar," and so was I. One e-mailer acted like a child with his hands over his ears screaming, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" Facts made no difference whatsoever.

Likewise, there is denial or disinterest by liberals who dominate America culture and shape perception: Hollywood, academia, media. The left so detests this president that it will not give him credit for anything. He is a new kind of Frankenstein's monster: half Torquemada and half Boris Karloff.

I'm not surprised by the lack of credit Bush has received on this from the right. Conservatives don't like how this president spends money like a drunken sailor, and his action toward Africa is viewed as another such manifestation - a raft of do-gooder poppycock that isn't the job of the federal government.

The big story is why the left isn't thrilled, and then, beyond that, the deeper silence that refuses to acknowledge the link between this work of Bush benevolence and his Christian faith. For George W. Bush, this is simply a reward he will need to receive much later - much like the Good Samaritan.

The fact is that many on the left are not as fair-minded as Geldof or Bono. Their hatred for Bush is personal, not just political. The New York Times won't be erecting any monuments, but I'll bet a few go up in Africa someday, which is where it counts, anyway. I'll bet a few also go up in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. I wonder how many monuments there are in foreign countries to any other American president.

RLC

Show of Hands

Speaking of Africa, let's have a show of hands - How many think we should use force to rescue the Sudanese? More than 200,000 people have died, and 5.4 million have been driven from their homes as the devastating war continues in Darfur, Sudan. Suffering children and families urgently need food, water, and medical care to survive according to World Vision.

This tragedy is little different than the one in Rwanda in 1994 when the nation's of the world stood around twiddling their collective thumbs while a million Tutsis were savagely butchered by the Hutus. The pace of the genocide in Sudan is somewhat slower, but it's just as deadly.

Diplomacy seems to have little effect on the thugs in Khartoum. The only way to save these wretched people from the ravages of the militias who are murdering, maiming, raping and enslaving them appears to be to use military force. Let's take a stand. Should we rescue them or should we not? Should we send in troops and pacify the countryside and topple the brutes who hold power in Khartoum or should we sit around the air-conditioned United Nations, wining, dining and generally talking the problem to death while the Sudanese starve in the oppressive heat? These seem to be our options, so which do you support?

I think our answer to that question says a lot about what kind of people we are, don't you?

RLC

Liberal Governance

Rich Lowery illustrates in just a few short paragraphs why liberalism is a terrible philosophy by which to govern. Many of our major cities are disaster areas, like New Orleans but without the hurricane, and almost every one of them is managed by liberal Democrats. Lowery focusses on just one particularly egregious example, Detroit.

Detroit suffers from every possible malady except a plague of locusts, and that's only because they find urban living uncongenial. The city has a revitalized downtown, but all around it, the city rots. Forbes magazine declared Detroit "America's Most Miserable City," on the basis of its unemployment and crime rates, among other things. The unemployment rate of 8.2 percent is the highest of any major urban area in the nation, and its homicide rate is higher than New York's in the bad old days of the early 1990s.

The city has lost 1 million residents since 1950. It was hit by the decline of the auto industry and white flight, fueled partly by racism. These trends would have rocked the city no matter what. Detroit compounded them with disastrous governance, personified by Mayor Coleman Young, who held office for 20 years beginning in 1974.

His record raises the question why, if it wanted to engage in a nefarious plot to hurt blacks, the federal government would invent the AIDS virus when it could simply emplace mayors like Coleman Young instead. "Imagine a Rev. Jeremiah Wright with real power," says urban expert Fred Siegel. Coleman taunted suburbanites, accusing them of "pillaging the city," while his scandal-plagued administration managed the city into the ground.

Read the rest at the link for which thanks are due to Jason for passing it along.

To Lowery's column we might add the recent news that seventeen of the nation's 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates less than 50 percent, with the lowest rates reported in Detroit, Indianapolis and Cleveland.

Nevertheless, the people of these cities keep electing the same party to run the schools despite their abject and catastrophic failure. It would be amusing were it not so tragic.

RLC

Build the Wall

How many of our sons and daughters will have to be killed by illegal immigrants either in automobile accidents or by violent crime before our leaders experience a little electoral fear and trembling? Jamiel Shaw is the latest of a long list of people who would be alive today were our borders properly defended against the tidal wave of criminal and otherwise irresponsible aliens that has flooded this country in the last fifteen years:

What part of "close the border" does our political leadership not understand? Watch this to get a sense of the magnitude of the tragedy of our refusal to control who comes into this country:

RLC

Resurrecting the <i>Betray Us</i> Meme

It's been some time since I've seen anything quite so embarrassingly absurd as this column by Robert Scheer. The reader can't get past the first two paragraphs without wondering whether Mr. Scheer needs to be tethered to earth to keep from floating away:

General Betray Us? Of course he has. MoveOn.org can hardly be expected to recycle its slogan from last September, when Gen. David Petraeus testified in support of escalating the U.S. war in Iraq, given the hysterical denunciations that worthy group received at the time. But it was right then -- as it would be to repeat the charge now.

This is a libel and although he wouldn't do it, Petraeus should sue Scheer down to his Birkingstocks. Listen to Scheer's reason for his slander:

By undercutting the widespread support for getting out of Iraq, Petraeus did indeed betray the American public, siding with an enormously unpopular president who wants to stay the course in Iraq for personal and political reasons that run contrary to genuine national security interests.

It's almost demeaning to respond to this sort of flapdoodle. In Scheer's mind it's an act of treason to hold a minority view on the war, if indeed it even is a minority view. It is furthermore an act of treason, Scheer declaims, for a military officer to support his commander-in-chief.

Never mind whether what Petraeus said was actually true or not, that evidently is of no concern to Scheer. What Petraeus said was a betrayal because it was not what Mr. Scheer, no doubt himself a highly acclaimed expert on Iraq and the military, wanted to hear.

Mr. Scheer also, mirabile dictu, has a fiber optic tube running right into George Bush's brain enabling him to discern exactly what the President's motives are, and he's here to tell us that they're not pretty. They're "personal" and "political," don't you know. Scheer is certain of this despite the fact that it defies all common sense since Bush has paid an enormous political price for his steadfastness in the war and his personal grievance with Saddam, who tried to kill Bush's father, was satisfied when Saddam was captured. Nevertheless, when the denizens of the paranoid fever swamps start popping their hallucinogens, common sense and rationality are rendered irrelevant.

Scheer goes on to embarrass himself further:

Once again, the president is passing the buck to the uniformed military to justify continuing a ludicrous imperial adventure, and the good general has dutifully performed.

This is gratuitously insulting, a not uncommon resort among the President's critics. How is the President passing the buck to the general? Congress called Petraeus to appear before them. What was he supposed to do? Refuse?

There's more to Scheer's column, but don't waste your time. You can probably find more thoughtful commentary in the student newspaper of your local high school.

RLC

Moral Inequivalence

In terms of consistently good content few columnists are the equal of Dennis Prager. His recent column got me to thinking...

Palestine is at least 1,400 years old, is one of the world's oldest nations, has its own language, its own religion and even its own ethnicity. Over 1 million of its people have been killed by the Israelis, its culture has been systematically obliterated, 6,000 of its 6,200 mosques have been looted and destroyed, and most of its leaders have been tortured, murdered or exiled.

It seems there should be far more outrage about this than there is. It seems that the U.N. should be doing more than it is to condemn Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians. It seems that the U.S. should be distancing itself from the Israeli government instead of drawing ever closer to it. Why isn't Israel a pariah among civilized nations? Why does anyone have anything, commercial or diplomatic, to do with it?

Perhaps because none of the above is true of the Israelis and their treatment of the Palestinians. It is all true, though, mutatis mutandis, of China and Tibet.

Prager's column is about the differences between how the world treats the Israeli/Palestinian problem and how it reacts to the Chinese repression of Tibet:

Palestinians have none of the characteristics [of the Tibetans]. There has never been a Palestinian country, never been a Palestinian language, never been a Palestinian ethnicity, never been a Palestinian religion in any way distinct from Islam elsewhere. Indeed, "Palestinian" had always meant any individual living in the geographic area called Palestine. For most of the first half of the 20th century, "Palestinian" and "Palestine" almost always referred to the Jews of Palestine. The United Jewish Appeal, the worldwide Jewish charity that provided the nascent Jewish state with much of its money, was actually known as the United Palestine Appeal. Compared to Tibetans, few Palestinians have been killed, its culture has not been destroyed nor its mosques looted or plundered, and Palestinians have received billions of dollars from the international community. Unlike the dying Tibetan nation, there are far more Palestinians today than when Israel was created.

....of all the causes the world could have adopted, the Palestinians' deserved to be near the bottom and the Tibetans' near the top. This is especially so since the Palestinians could have had a state of their own from 1947 on, and they have caused great suffering in the world, while the far more persecuted Tibetans have been characterized by a morally rigorous doctrine of nonviolence.

Prager points out that despite almost perennial U.N. condemnations of Israel there has never once been a condemnation of China. Indeed, China was voted onto the Security Council and enjoys considerable prestige as it continues its genocide against Tibet and offers its support to murderous regimes like the Sudanese, the Burmese, and the North Koreans.

You'll have to read his column to find out why he thinks this is, but here's a thought to tide you over: Yesterday's protests in San Francisco notwithstanding, being on the ideological left too often means never having to say you're sorry whereas being an ally of the U.S. too often means nothing you do to protect yourself is ever justifiable.

For many in the United Nations and on the secular left justice is merely a word that's used to surround oneself with a cachet of moral righteousness, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

RLC

Girls Will Be Girls

The parents of the girl who was beaten for thirty minutes by a bunch of high school savages are pulling their daughter out of public school and home schooling her. Who can blame them?

Perhaps the proceeds they'll no doubt receive from suing the parents of the eight individuals involved will enable them to hire full-time tutors or send their daughter to a private school.

The victim suffered a concussion and damage to her eye and hearing. The girls and two boys who were involved in this sickening episode are facing felony charges. They should also be facing a massive financial judgment that'll take them many years to pay off.

HT: Hot Air

RLC

Upper-Class Misers

Jason calls our attention to an article in NRO by Arthur C. Brooks on Mr. and Mrs. Obama's charitable giving habits. It turns out that the Obamas managed to free themselves of a whopping 1% of their income between 2000 and 2004 despite earnings of about $245,000. Their explanation for their niggardliness (look it up) was that they just couldn't afford to give more.

You'd think that the only Americans with the nerve to use such an excuse for not giving would be the poor. But in fact, it is the poor - specifically the working poor - who can most teach upper-class misers a charity lesson. The working poor are America's most generous givers when we measure giving as a percentage of income. Most studies have shown that the working poor tend to give away between four and five percent of their incomes, on average, while the rich give away between three and four percent. (Both groups give away significantly more than the middle class.)

The Obamas got rich in 2005. Their income increased sevenfold from 2004 to 2005, mostly because of Mr. Obama's book royalties, and stayed very high in 2006 for the same reason. In 2006, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney's books and the couple's investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)

The Obamas' penny-pinching would not be at all offensive if it weren't for their eagerness to raise the taxes the rest of us pay to essentially fund programs that would help the same people that much charitable giving helps.

Brooks goes on to note another astonishing fact:

In 1996, the General Social Survey asked a large sample of Americans whether they agreed that, "The government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality." Those who "disagreed strongly" with this statement gave an amazing twelve times more money to charity per year, on average, than those who "agreed strongly." People disagreeing strongly also gave nine times more to secular causes than those agreeing strongly, and even gave more to traditionally progressive causes, such as the environment and the arts.

When the government becomes anything more than a last resort for people who are struggling it does several things. It discourages the development of the virtue of charitable giving, it generally does little to help the people who receive the taxpayers' largesse, and it impoverishes you by taking more money out of your wallet and filtering it through several layers of bureaucracy before it gets to its intended recipient.

I read once that out of every dollar taxed for welfare, only twenty seven cents makes it to the person in need. No wonder people don't want the government doing welfare.

RLC

Why the Poor Stay Poor

There are lots of reasons why the worst off among the world's people are mired in poverty. Some of it is due to forces beyond their control, as Paul Collier points out in his excellent book titled The Bottom Billion, but as he also points out a lot of it is not.

This e-mail from a missionary friend of mine in Haiti suggests that there is an ingrained self-destructiveness and stupidity afflicting at least some of the poor that just traps them in perpetual poverty and wretchedness:

Hello, everyone.

Prices have been rising here (as everywhere, apparently). The problem here is that people always seem to think that taking to the street and breaking up stuff will bring a solution. SO, the last week has been marked with riots and road-blocks all over the island. In the name of protesting against high prices, rioting crowds have burned vehicles, broken into food-storage buildings, burned houses, and blocked major roads. It's one more episode of shooting at your own feet.

Sadly, the president here has been making jokes about the situation. That only seems to send the crowds toward greater mischief. We're not sure where this is headed. Prices are high. No supplies will be coming in our way. I'm already out of cash. We're not sure when we'll be able to move around again, and even if the roads open up that doesn't mean that businesses will be back on line right away. So, we can say it's getting worse quickly.

Pray for peace here in this crazy place. The UN has been under attack as part of the riots. They're eating well and driving nice vehicles while no one is able to really determine what good they are actually doing here. That makes them a target.

We'll be in touch. Andy

I don't know which is more pathetic, the behavior of the mobs or the fecklessness of the U.N. Given the history of the last sixty years neither is very surprising.

If anyone would like to help Andy, let me know, and I'll put you in touch with him.

RLC

Change We Can Believe In

"We need more white people." At least that's what the Obama people were saying as they tried hard to manufacture the appearance of diversity at a campaign rally. Can you imagine a Republican operative saying something like that? The media would attack him like a swarm of bees until the unfortunate fellow was forced to flee his post.

Don't expect journalists in the liberal media to point out hypocrisy in the Obama camp, though. They're hip-deep in it themselves. Sam Alito was almost denied an appointment to the Supreme Court because when he was in college he held nominal membership in an all-male, all-white organization. Barack Obama belongs for twenty years to a church whose pastor is a bigoted fabulist, and the media quietly tip-toes away from the implications of his association, as though they were leaving the bedroom of a sleeping child.

Obama is, moreover, an acquaintance, and possibly a friend, of a man named William Ayers who in the sixties was responsible for bombing several government buildings and who recently averred that he wished he'd done more damage than he did and wouldn't rule out doing it again. You probably haven't heard about this if you get your news from the MSM, but if a GOP candidate had had such an association that'd be all you'd be hearing about. Ayers has contributed to Obama's campaign and the two of them have been neighbors and associates for years. At the very least Obama should explain the nature of the relationship, it being a little awkward to have a president who consorts with unrepentant terrorists, but don't count on the media to force the issue.

Obama also has ties that go back 17 years to an indicted political financier by the name of Tony Rezko, a Chicago slumlord, currently under indictment for demanding kickbacks from companies with which he had business relationships. Obama worked for the law firm that Rezko employed during the nineties.

Rezko's housing units in Chicago lacked heat from December 1996 to February 1997 because Rezko claimed he didn't have the money to get the heat turned on, but during that span he came up with $1000 for Obama's campaign for the state senate. Since then he's raised over $50,000 for Obama and worked out a sweetheart sale of a house and lot to Obama, selling him a home for $300,000 less than the asking price.

The irony of this is that Obama was a community advocate for affordable housing for the poor, and here he was being mentored by a man who was a typical slumlord. The association certainly has the odor of political and ethical sleaze about it, but the media seems unable to catch the scent. Their noses are attuned only to sleaze that bears the smell of GOP corruption.

Nor is Hillary in a position to press Obama on matters of ethics, so it's doubtful that she'll bring it up except as a last ditch attempt to wrest the nomination from Obama. It'll be interesting, though, to see the extent to which Republicans in the general campaign will demand answers to the questions raised by Obama's coziness with Wright, Ayers, and Rezko.

RLC

Connections

The development of grain-based biofuels has provided us with some great illustrations of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The shift to corn-based ethanol to wean us away from our dependence on oil certainly seems like a good idea - after all, what could go wrong? Ethanol is easy on the environment and will allow us to wean ourselves away from our dependence on petroleum and Middle Eastern sources of supply.

Well, it's not that simple. Ethanol and other bio-fuels are made from grain. The increased demand for these commodities drives up their price which is good for farmers, but bad for consumers, and absolutely disastrous for the third world poor who rely on grains like corn for food.

Here's an example I came across recently which shows how tinkering with one part of the economic web produces consequences completely unanticipated and unwanted elsewhere in the system: The increase in corn price due to demand for biofuels recently caused a large poultry operation to lay off hundreds of workers because they could no longer afford to buy feed for their chickens. Evidently chicken food is no longer chicken feed.

Paul Krugman lays out the problem in a bit more detail and spares us the bad puns in the New York Times:

Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels. The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a "scam."

This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly "good" biofuel policies, like Brazil's use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.

And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.

Oh, and in case you're wondering: all the remaining presidential contenders are terrible on this issue.

There's a lot of other interesting stuff in Krugman's piece. For example, did you know that we are in a world food shortage partly because the Chinese, having moved toward a market economy, are becoming more affluent? This means they're eating more meat which increases the demand for feed grain on the world market which means the price goes up, and poor people in the third world have to go with even less food for themselves and their families than the meager portions they were previously able to scrabble together.

What's the lesson? Exploit the oil reserves we have off-shore and in Alaska that Democrats in Congress have placed off-limits. Increasing the supply of oil would drive down its price which would lower agricultural and transportation costs associated with grain and provide a boon to the poor both at home and abroad. Indeed, reducing their cost of living may be the best way to bring relief to people who exist on the edge of starvation.

So why are Democrats, the self-proclaimed party of compassion, opposed to drilling?

Check out Krugman's column at the link.

RLC

After-Action Analysis

Bill Roggio explains what happened with the Iraqi assault on the Mahdi army in Basrah:

Eleven days after Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki launched Operation Knights' Assault in Basrah, the picture of the fighting in the city has become clearer. Maliki launched the operation after giving limited notice to Multinational Forces Iraq, and an inexperienced Iraqi Army brigade from the newly formed 14th Division cracked during the opening days of the fighting. The Iraqi Army [then] rushed forces into Basrah, including Army and elite police units, to stabilize the fighting, and six days after the operation began, Muqtada al Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to stand down in Basrah, Baghdad, and the South.

There's much more here.

RLC

The Darwin Fish

It may seem odd at first, but the 17 minute film Fitna puts Jonah Goldberg in mind of the "Jesus fish" commonly seen attached to cars and jewelry. More precisely, it puts him in mind of those who seek to deride Christianity by sporting a "Darwin" fish, a fish symbol with four tiny legs and the name Darwin supplanting Jesus.

Given the history of how early Christians used the fish symbol (The letters for the Greek word fish form an acronym for the Greek words Jesus Christ Son of God, Savior) as a sort of password or silent identity badge and who often paid for their conviction by dying horrible, brutal deaths, the Darwinist knock-off is more fatuous than clever, but that's often the case with those who mock Christianity. Most of the people who amuse themselves by laughing at a symbol of Christian suffering would not dare mock the Star of David or some symbol of Islam, and this is Goldberg's point.

He puts it this way in his concluding sentences:

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it's that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

Read the whole thing. It's pretty good.

RLC

Islamo-Fascism Awareness

This week is Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week on campuses across the nation. The aims of the observance are simple - to educate students about the threat posed by global Islamism and to urge students of all ethnicities and religions to renounce genocide and hate. David Horowitz, the founder of IFAW, discusses what is happening on more than 100 campuses this week here.

Horowitz writes:

The centerpiece of this year's campaign is the Declaration Against Genocide. The Declaration calls on "student governments and Muslim groups" to condemn Hezbollah and Hamas, and repudiate the saying of the prophet Mohammed that redemption will only come when Muslims fight Jews and kill them, when the rocks and trees cry out Oh Muslim there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him. The charter also affirms such radical notions as:

• The right of all people to live in freedom and dignity
• The freedom of the individual conscience: to change religions or have no religion at all
• The equal dignity of women and men
• The right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation, and coercion.

Students around the country will try to spread the call for this generation to respect the innate dignity of every human being.

One hundred Muslim Student Associations were asked a month ago to sign the Declaration. None of them have. That is because the Muslim Student Associations are not religious or ethnic or cultural groups. They are political arms of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of al-Qaeda and Hamas. As documented in a series of Frontpage articles and in the pamphlet The Muslim Student Association and the Jihad Network, the campus MSAs are part of the "soft jihad," the movement which provides moral and economic support to the terrorists and seeks to undermine the foundations of western civilization.

When students refuse to repudiate murder, when they refuse to endorse basic human rights for all people, then we have reason to fear that the night is falling rapidly upon us. Go to the link and read about IFAW.

RLC

A Shared Pain

A very dear friend of mine recently shared with me and several others a personal story of heartache and grief that he's been enduring. Since his story is one to which so many others can relate, I asked him if it would be okay to put it on Viewpoint. He replied, in effect, that if it could provide some measure of solace to just one person undergoing similar trials, it'd be worth it. He didn't ask for it, but I promised him anonymity so I've changed the name of his son. Here's what he wrote:

To my closest friends and family,

As you know, the past months have been a battle for my wife and I. In recent days I have been reflecting on the situation in my journal. I don't know why, but I felt compelled to put into writing the heart of the struggle for me. I'm sharing it with you so that you will see the inside of my heart. I hope this will help you understand what this battle has been for me. I'm not sure why this is even important to me, but it is. I hope you will take the time to read this and then, just keep it in prayer:

Dear Journal,

I have been an advocate for marriage and family for a long time. I suppose the roots of my passion go back to my childhood. I grew up in a family of seven children. While not a perfect family, I grew up thinking we were. We always had vacations, we worshipped together, we were spared the typical dysfunctional elements that families often bear - alcoholism, infidelity and serious illness. My Dad was a preacher and he believed very much in marriage and family. He helped instill these values in me.

After I married, I fathered four sons of my own. While not as large as my family of origin, having four children was somewhat uncommon. There were times we would walk into a mall or restaurant and feel the stares of people. Birth control had become increasingly available and popular. Population control was in vogue. Young couples were encouraged to have only two children. I guess I was breaking the rules. Then too, having four boys was out of the norm. The perfect family was two children---one boy and one girl. We were not the normal family, but I was convinced that we were a family to be proud of.

I entered college after my wife and I had children. As part of my studies, I chose subjects to research or write on that pertained to marriage and family. Woman's liberation had emerged, and in my opinion was an attack on the traditional family. I was particularly engaged in the arguments against working moms--something that became increasingly popular and common during those years as well. I read articles and wrote papers on the dangers of working mothers and the statistics that indicated woman in the workforce contributed to infidelity and divorce. My wife was in agreement with me and never worked outside the home. She devoted her time and energy to provide an awesome home environment for both myself and my children.

While growing up I had never personally experienced a broken marriage. Neither my parents, none of my aunts nor uncles, nor any of my grandparents on either side, had ever divorced. The first deviation from this pattern and norm came while I was in my first year of college. My Dad's brother, my uncle, had an adulterous affair. He had two daughters---my cousins. I lived only a short distance from my uncle when I discovered that he was cheating on his wife, my aunt. It angered me. I confronted him about it and begged him to stop and to make his marriage work. The entire situation hurt my grandparents deeply as it ended in a divorce and the selling of long-time family-owned farm property.

Not many years afterward, while I was still in college, I got a phone call from my twin brother. I will never forget his first words. He asked me if I was sitting down. Choking back tears he informed me that he discovered that his wife, a long-time friend of my wife and I, as well as being my sister-in-law, was having an affair and indicated she wanted out of the marriage. Again, as an advocate of marriage and family, I offered my help and counsel. I had several conversations with my sister-in-law, presenting evidence that I had amassed in my head of the long-term damaging effects of divorce upon children. They had two children, my niece and nephew. I had first witnessed the devastating effect of divorce on my two younger cousins, now I watched in horror as the pain ripped through the lives of my even younger niece and nephew. My sister-in-law not only ended up leaving her husband, but, seemingly out of guilt, also left my brother with the two children. My parents were devastated as divorce now wreaked the same havoc in their family that it had in my grandparent's family.

The epidemic continued. Several years later, I learned that a younger brother of mine, a man ordained in the ministry, had an affair with his church organist. Again, I felt my heart break, and I offered my help and advice. Thankfully, they were able to mend their marriage, but they never fully recovered. Now, years later, they have filed for divorce. They have four young-adult, unmarried children. Several of the children have been involved in drug usage. None of them are interested in Christian discipleship or the Christian life-style.

Enough is enough, but it wasn't over yet. After I graduated from college I entered the full-time ministry myself. With my passion for family and marriage I started immediately in ministry to offer help to troubled marriages. I continued to read book after book and article after article to gain information to help protect marriages. I began to preach several series of sermons on marriages and even taught marriage seminars. My wife and I conducted additional marriage retreats for couples. There were times we took troubled married spouses into our home. Despite my efforts, of course, I encountered marriages that failed. Through my counseling office door came person after person who either was in a troubled marriage or had been affected by one as a child. I grew quite familiar with the stories of adult children of divorce. The more I heard first hand and learned, the more my heart broke and the more passionate I became to help save marriages.

Then came a real bomb shell, although it would be small compared to what would come later. Another brother of mine who attended the church I pastored, informed me that his wife had cheated on him. This was a woman who he had met in the same Bible college I had attended. They had partnered together in ministry and had even served on staff at the same church early in their marriage. They had four children whom they had home-schooled. Immediately I tried to intervene and help them. Both came for counseling, both seemed to want to work through their issues, though at unmatched intervals. Finally, after months and months of chaos, fighting, lying and screaming, the thing ended in divorce. Helplessly, I watched my parents suffer through grief and watched once again as my nieces and nephews were thrown into the divorced parent whirlpool. The years ahead of them held in store drug use, addiction and even arrest.

On September 7th, 2008 the atomic bomb dropped. While on the way home from an enjoyable evening out, I received a phone call from my daughter-in-law asking if she could spend the night at our house. When I questioned why, her voice quavered and she said: "Rick (my son) is having an affair." Immediately my mind was flooded with all the history of the above. I went into shock. My wife and I made an immediate trip to their house. There, I met face to face the denial, the excuses, the lies and the dishonesty that I had seen in the faces of many, many people from the past. This time it was my own son wearing the mask. The real Rick, the son I had known all his life, was strangely absent. I didn't know the person who was trying to convince me that what he was doing was unavoidable. Married seven years they had just had their first baby. There hadn't been any evidence of a troubled marriage. How could I, a marriage counselor have missed this? How could this be happening? I offered one hour of counseling every day for the next week. Surely this would end, it would stop. This was insanity! My son only attended two sessions with me. He walked out angrily during the second one when I confronted him with the immorality of his behavior.

Now it's been seven months. Things have only gotten worse. The affair has matured into a living together arrangement. The "other woman's" husband has left her. She has two small children. Rick has refused to go to counseling or seek help. His wife, my daughter-in-law is on the verge of a nervous breakdown after months of incredible and insane treatment, arguments, lies and deception. She is doing her best to be a mother to their son, now one year old. Recently, she moved out of the house they bought and remodeled together and put it up for sale. Rick has supposedly filed for divorce. He has rejected all possibility of reconciliation at this point. He will not listen to his father's advice and is in complete denial of the consequences of his choices.

As a pastor, a father and a marriage advocate and counselor, the actions, behaviors and decisions of my son are an absolute nightmare. There are mornings I wake up telling myself this can't be happening and there are nights I don't sleep. Marriage and family, the very thing that I have invested much of my life protecting and promoting, has failed to take root in a member of my first congregation--my family. My son has made friends with the very enemy I have spent a lifetime trying to defeat. I think of this like a father who might be the founder of a safe-haven for pregnant girls who discovers his own daughter is planning to have an abortion, or as a father who travels the country preaching against drunk driving only to discover that his daughter has been arrested for DUI.

I don't know what the outcome of all this will be. There is salvation in the Lord and sometimes those who fail become the strongest allies of reform. As for myself, I am determined to sound the alarm and preach the message. By God's grace I will never cease to be an advocate of marriage and family. If anything, this has strengthened my resolve. At the end of my life, I hope there are at least a few people who, because of my message and example decided to make their marriage work. Perhaps a few will even decide to take up the torch themselves. God knows, we need Christians who will champion the cause.

RLC

Charlton Heston

Actor and former National Rifle association president Charlton Heston has passed away at the age of 84. Heston had the leading role in a number of classic films, The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, Planet of the Apes, Solyent Green and many others, but my personal favorite was The Agony and the Ecstacy in which he portrayed Michaelangelo opposite Rex Harrison's Pope Julius II. Pope Julius commissioned the great artist to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, which, to those who have been lucky enough to see it in person, ranks as perhaps the greatest achievement of one man in the history of art. The historical accuracy of the movie has been questioned, but it's still a wonderful film, and the interplay between Heston's Michaelangelo and Harrison's Julius is outstanding.

Heston was a great figure in America's culture and culture wars during the second half of the twentieth century and conservatives will always be grateful for his memorable contributions to both our film heritage and to our political debates over the second amendment.

See the link for more details.

RLC

<i>Absolut</i> Insult

I don't drink vodka, but if I did I'd never touch a drop of Absolut vodka after they pandered for Mexican business with this ad touting an absolut (perfect) world:

The really sad thing about this ad is that the map reportedly came from John McCain's office. Anyway, the story behind the ad can be found here. One commenter notes that Mexicans don't really want to push the border this far north. It'd mean they'd have to travel further to sneak in.

Just kidding, by the way, about McCain and the map.

RLC

Perspective

A friend e-mails that he saw a billboard in Michigan that read something like this:

FIVE YEAR DEATH TOLL

-- Military personnel killed in Iraq: 4,000

-- U S. citizens murdered in the country: 83,500

-- U. S. citizens killed in auto accidents: 210,000

-- U. S. citizens killed in home accidents: 340,000

-- Infants killed in their mother's wombs: 6,400,000

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the statistics, but they sound about right. Isn't it just a little bit ironic that judging by the amount of attention in the media some of the same people who are most outraged over the first statistic seem only perfunctorily concerned about the next three and are zealously committed to perpetuating the last?

RLC

Europe Needs Us

Europe needs America, argues Martin Kettle in the Guardian. The one thing worse for Europe, he writes, than fighting a war with America as an ally would be to fight one without America:

Although the defects and failures of the current [European] strategy are obvious, the only serious alternative to the unilateral bring-the-troops-home mentality is to try to get the existing strategy to evolve into something more credible, shared and effective. The next US president will certainly press that case. Nicolas Sarkozy certainly had a stirring answer to it when he told the assembled houses of parliament this week that the return of the Taliban and al-Qaida to Kabul was unacceptable and that France was therefore, albeit belatedly, committing a thousand troops to Kandahar. But how many European nations are prepared to follow suit?

For years now, Nato nations have been committed to reach a minimum defence spending target of 2% of GDP. Yet 20 of them, including Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, have fallen far short. Among the six that have reached the target, the shares of four (including Britain and France) are in decline. Inevitably, that means the US carries ever more of the load and becomes ever more sceptical about taking Europe seriously.

For years also, European nations have talked about the importance of avoiding duplication in equipment and weapons. But the talk has largely remained just that. It is barmy that Europeans have four different models of tank, compared with America's one; 16 different types of armoured vehicles as against America's three; or 11 types of frigate to America's one. Once again, Europe's failure highlights the US predominance.

As Kettle says, the U.S. is carrying much of the financial burden of NATO which has essentially been a free-rider since WWII. It would be well for the critics of America's generosity abroad, both domestic and especially European, to keep this in mind when next they're tempted to complain about our relatively "meager" contributions to things like tsunami relief efforts, etc.

RLC

Forty Years Later

Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, and media commentators have throughout the day been making references to King's I Have a Dream speech and talking about keeping King's dream alive.

I'd like to, but I'm afraid that King's dream is pretty much moribund. The dream was, in part, that someday his children would be "judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin." The dream was that we would live in a color-blind society where people would look past one's race and pigment to one's values and achievement. Unfortunately, modern liberalism has made that all but impossible.

So far from making race an irrelevancy, liberalism has made it a matter of crucial importance.

Affirmative action, race-based scholarships, minority set-asides, race-norming, school busing, welfare, etc. were all attempts to compensate blacks - a kind of reparations, if you will - for the abominations of the past. What they actually accomplished for black people can be debated, but they surely stoked white resentments and pushed further into the distance the day when skin color doesn't matter.

Moreover, the Democratic party has exploited race since the 1960s by instilling in blacks a kind of plantation mentality.

They promised African-Americans they'd take care of them as long as blacks promised to remain on the Democrat plantation. Having the necessities of life provided for them by the government, blacks over the last forty years of the twentieth century have been given little incentive to cultivate the virtues that enable people to rise out of poverty and cope and compete in the wider world.

As long as there were jobs available which didn't require any special level of education, blacks who were interested could find work, but lacking the encouragement and incentive to develop their minds, having liberals constantly make excuses for black failure, they found themselves unable to succeed in universities and adrift in the sophisticated information workplace that evolved in the 80's and 90's. Unable to meet the demands of the jobs that were opening up, liberals prescribed for them even more government help, which Democrats were quick to promise. But the more government took care of their needs the further behind many African-Americans fell and the less able they were to fend for themselves.

We're sometimes surprised to find a thirty year-old who still lives at home, unable to muster the will and discipline necessary to make a decent living and raise a family on his own. We wonder at the attitude some have that their parents owe them support, and we're puzzled, sometimes, why the parents allow them to live that way. We ask ourselves if it wouldn't be better for everyone involved if the offspring were placed on the receiving end of a little "tough love."

Yet, that's a pretty accurate metaphor for how we've treated minorities in this country for the last forty five years. Our policies have created a deep dependency upon the "parent" government, and whenever the effects of this dependency are manifested in the short-comings of the dependents their failures are often seen as proof that government is just not doing enough to help.

African-Americans are encouraged by demagogic leaders like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and thousands of lesser known characters, as well as their white abettors, to believe that white society owes them big time, and liberals respond to the demands of these grievance-mongers by trying to make life as easy for the "oppressed" minorities as possible. Unfortunately, few propose placing demands on them or holding them to the same standards of performance that would be expected of whites or Asians because to do so would be racist, or at least insensitive to the historic difficulties blacks have had to endure.

So what happens? Liberal whites harbor the self-actualizing attitude, albeit tacitly, that African- Americans are the white man's burden and African-Americans develop a corresponding racial inferiority complex along with all the simmering resentments that naturally accompany such an outlook on life. The attitudes of both the liberal and the black are demeaning and degrading and neither is helpful, so how do we break out of this pattern into which we have been locked ever since the sixties?

The way out is to hold blacks to the exact same standards in every aspect of life that others must meet. Black crime, educational failure and family disintegration can't be swept under the rug, yet many whites consider it impolite to mention these vices in racially mixed company, as if it were somehow an insult to blacks to point them out. The resulting silence about them translates into a kind of tolerance, or even acceptance. Nevertheless, these dysfunctions must be consistently acknowledged and confronted as sources of failure in the black community, and grievous impediments to any hope of future black success. As long as we ignore them, or make excuses for them, blaming them on poverty, or not enough police, or bad schools, the problems will never be solved.

We must also establish the conviction that advancement or achievement should be based on nothing other than ability - not race, not gender, not who your daddy was - just merit.

Some will object that "merit" is just a racist code word - a claim that reeks of self-deprecation. Some will protest that too many blacks will fail to meet tough standards and expectations. But many others will rise to the challenge who otherwise wouldn't, and their example of accomplishment and self-worth will be contagious in their families, and will reverberate through their neighborhoods. Some will unfortunately be left behind, but the situation is critical, and we can no longer allow the feel-good nostrums of liberalism to dissuade us from doing what must be done to change the sense of black inferiority that liberalism has spawned.

What sort of standards are we talking about? Here are two just for starters: First, black kids should be expected to stay in school, get good grades, graduate and go on to get some post-secondary education. Dropping out should not be accepted in the black community. Second, black couples should be expected to wait until they're married to have children and once they're married to stay married. Illegitimacy must lose it's sanction in black society because it's a heavy anchor on black aspirations.

Those two things alone would constitute an enormous first step toward reversing the blight of black poverty and failure in America.

Like Martin Luther King, a lot of us have a dream, too. We dream of the day when what matters most in a man is what values he holds - what kind of morals he lives by, his ambitions, his attitudes toward his family, his community, and his country. We dream of a day when the things that we share in common are more important than the things which make us different. We dream of a day when the color of one's skin matters no more than the color of one's eyes, and when everyone, regardless of ethnicity, recognizes that the best way to guarantee a united, cohesive future is to share grandchildren.

Even so, if that day is ever going to come, liberalism is just going to have to get out of the way.

RLC

The Princess

In 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli wrote his famous essay on attaining and holding political power which he titled The Prince. His overriding principle was simple: Use whatever means necessary to hold on to your power, but, importantly, do it in such a way that no one knows how treacherous you really are. Assuming that Senator Clinton has studied her Machiavelli and is duly persuaded by his trenchant grasp of human nature, here's what I think will happen this summer:

Mrs. Clinton will do whatever she can, fair or foul, to persuade the superdelegates to support her at the convention, but should it become clear at any point along the way that she will lose the nomination she'll suddenly become a team player, drop out of the race, and endorse Senator Obama. Then, behind the scenes, she'll launch a determined effort to sabotage Obama's campaign and promote a McCain victory in November. She cannot do this overtly, of course, because it would destroy her standing in the Democratic party, but she can do it covertly, and I'm quite sure she will.

Why do I think this? Because if Obama wins the presidency he could well reside in the White House for eight years, but if McCain wins he's likely, because of his age, to serve only a single term. Moreover, if Obama loses in November it will likely finish him as a presidential contender, especially if McCain wins big. Having given the appearance of a gracious loser, then, Hillary will have the inside track to the nomination in 2012. It'll be "her turn" and her reward for having "played ball" this year, even though the knife in Obama's political ribs will bear her fingerprints.

If she can't get the nomination this summer, it's in her interest to see Obama lose in November, and I think the smart money would be on her advancing her perceived interest even to the detriment of the interests of her party. It'll work for her, however, only if she can pull it off surreptitiously.

RLC

Explosive Film

Israel Matzov informs us that there's another film on the way that may make Fitna seem tame by comparison:

A Dutch news service is reporting that amidst all the outrage over Fitna, which was released last week, a second, more explosive video is due out on April 20. That video will feature the 'prophet' Mohammed as a pedophile.

While the cabinet is losing sleep over MP Geert Wilders' unpublished Koran film ... Ehsan Jami plans to launch a cartoon film featuring the Prophet Mohammed as a pedophile.

Jami, born in Iran, announced that his film, The Life of Mohammed, is due for release on 20 April. On TV programme Netwerk, the young politician (22) showed a screen-shot in which the Prophet, with a visible erection, takes a child to a mosque to have sex. On the mosque is a swastika.

The fragment is a reference to the relationship between the prophet and the 9 year old Aisha as described in the Koran, according to Jami. His cartoon portrays all kinds of other perverse and violent verses, he added.

For those who think this crosses the line it must be noted that the Prophet was in fact betrothed to a girl named Aisha when she was six or seven. He consummated the marriage when she was nine. Not having heard anything else about the film I can't vouch for whether it's fair toward Mohammed or not. It may be trash for all I know. I can say, though, that Jami is one intrepid fellow.

RLC

The Atheist Delusion

The Guardian features a longish but generally interesting column by John Gray critiquing the New Atheists. In the course of the essay Gray quotes Martin Amis' claim that, "Opposition to religion already occupies the high ground, intellectually and morally."

It's not clear what Amis means by "religion", but if he's referring to the belief that there is a transcendent, personal creator of the universe who has invested the creation with moral value then he's simply wrong. On both counts.

There just is no good argument against the belief that such a being exists. There are, however, good arguments for believing that such a being does exist. I modestly suggest that one such argument can be found here.

The link takes you to an unpublished manuscript. If you wish to access it simply click on the "open" button.

RLC

Liars Club

Hillary Clinton's recollections of imaginary sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia have damaged her standing with voters still quaint enough to hope for honesty from their politicians. The fabricated Bosnia escapade, however, is not the only manifestation of the Senator's superficial relationship with reality. When Hillary worked for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings in the 1970s she was fired by her boss, a Democrat congressman, for lying, unethical behavior, and generally acting like a Clinton.

I don't know if the media is going to make anything of this story, but if she continues to jeopardize the Second Coming of the Anointed One by remaining in the race, they probably will. The problem is that Senator Obama has recently undermined his own reputation for sinlessness by denying he ever saw a survey that has his name on it and which reveals him to be so far to the left on issues like abortion and gun control that he's in danger of falling off the earth.

He has also discredited himself by repeatedly misrepresenting John McCain's statement about spending 100 years in Iraq.

Six months ago the Democrats looked like there was no way they could lose in November. It doesn't look that way now.

RLC

Re: Documenting Hate

There are a couple of interesting responses on our Feedback page to yesterday's post titled Documenting Hate Is Hateful. Check them out.

RLC

Yikes!

Here's another report warning of the danger of cell-phone use. I have no way of evaluating the validity of the study, but the guy who did it is a neurosurgeon of considerable distinction:

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.

The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.

It draws on growing evidence - exclusively reported in the IoS in October - that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

Professor Khurana - a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers - reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade.

Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.

"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.

Maybe this will help motivate you to cut down on your cell-phone use. Or not.

RLC

As We Forgive

Most people are familiar with the Rwandan genocide perpetrated by the Hutus against the Tutsis in 1994 during which one million Tutsis were brutally slaughtered (See Hotel Rwanda or Beyond the Gates for a cinematic glimpse of the horror). Twelve years later an absolutely amazing thing began happening in Rwanda.

A program of reconciliation was established in which tens of thousands of the Hutu murderers are being released from prison and put to work helping the Tutsis cope with the devastation they helped to inflict. They're building homes and delivering services, in some cases to some of the same families whose loved ones they killed.

A documentary on the reconciliation program titled As We Forgive is being released later this month, and the story of the film can be read here. It's almost literally incredible. There's also a link to the trailer on the page, but I had trouble getting that to work. At any rate check out the story. It sounds like it will be a powerful piece of film-making.

RLC

Lysenkoism

Biola University recently sponsored a ceremony in which a number of people associated with the soon to be released film Expelled were recognized. One of the guests was executive producer Walt Ruloff who began with a short presentation. GilDodgen at Uncommon Descent reports:

[Ruloff] talked about his background in computer technology and how he founded a logistics-optimization software company in his early 20s that became spectacularly successful, primarily, according to Walt, because they thought outside the box and questioned everything.

After Walt sold his company he became involved with the biological research and technology world, and discovered that the exact opposite was the case: people in this field were not, and are not, allowed to ask questions. Walt was totally shocked when it was revealed to him by one of the leading genomic researchers in the U.S., who gets all his funding from the NIH and NSF, that the only way to get funding is to pretend to believe in Darwinian orthodoxy.

Even more horrifyingly, this leading genomic researcher (whose face is blacked out and voice disguised in the movie to protect him from the destruction of his life and career by Darwinists) said that as much as 30% of the research in his field is shelved and never published because it might provide ammunition for "creationists." In order to stand any chance of being published, interpretations of biological research must be artificially force-fit into the Darwinian paradigm, regardless of the evidence.

Isn't it ironic that the Darwinians tell us that Intelligent Design is the "science stopper?" It reminds me of the story of Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet biologist who rejected Mendelian genetics and pushed an environmentally-based theory of inheritance that conformed nicely with communist dogma. He exerted great influence over Soviet agricultural practices during the Stalinist era:

Scientific dissent from Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948, and for the next several years opponents were purged from held positions, and many imprisoned. Lysenko's work was officially discredited in the Soviet Union in 1964, leading to a renewed emphasis there to re-institute Mendelian genetics and orthodox science.

Though Lysenko remained at his post in the Institute of Genetics until 1965, his influence on Soviet agricultural practice declined by the 1950s. The Soviet Union quietly abandoned Lysenko's agricultural practices in favor of modern agricultural practices after the crop yields he promised failed to materialize. Today much of Lysenko's agricultural experimentation and research is largely viewed as fraudulent.

Today's Darwinian KGB agents in the university are the intellectual heirs of those who enforced Lysenko's genetic orthodoxy. The movie Expelled, from all accounts, makes this plain.

RLC

Documenting Hate Is Hateful

Geert Wilders' film Fitna is causing a lot of hand-wringing among many of his country's leaders, including the Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende. People are complaining that Fitna is hateful and will incite Muslims to violence. Balkenende says it "threatens the nation."

In light of this reaction Andrew Walden at The American Thinker writes:

Nothing makes people want to see something more than banning it, or even better yet, telling them they may not be able to handle it (remember the Blair Witch Project?). On that basis, the new film Fitna, must be pulling in internet viewers by the tens of millions.

Everyone who's anyone in the "world community", from the Dutch Prime Minister to the OIC to the EU to the UN, is telling the world this is mighty hateful stuff.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is denouncing the internet premier of Fitna, claiming, "The right of free expression is not at stake here,"

But Ban seems to imply there may be limits [for he goes on to say that], "...there is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence."

Let's see. A 15 minute video clip which documents Muslim hate and violence is condemned because, presumably, to document hate and violence is itself hateful and incites violence. By this reasoning, it would have been wrong to document the suffering of slaves in the South because to do so would have incited hostility of southerners toward the North.

I wonder if medical technology in Europe has advanced to the point where spinal implants are possible.

RLC

Internecine Warfare

This ad was developed, evidently, by a Clinton supporter in order to show his fellow Democrats the sort of thing they're in for from the Republicans if they nominate Obama. It's actually pretty good as propaganda, but to accuse the GOP of intending to use something like this when even in 2004 they never ran footage of 9/11, and despite the fact that McCain has not commented at all on Rev. Wright's peculiar views, is a bit of a stretch. Anyway, keep in mind that this was developed by a Democrat:

Maybe the GOP should use it.

Hot Air has the details.

RLC

Bad Cells

This video is an animation of the chain of events that occurs when the body rids itself of a diseased cell. It happens in our bodies millions of times every day. Mike Gene has a step by step description of what you're seeing here at Telic Thoughts.

It's remarkable what unguided evolution can accomplish. Imagine how complex and sophisticated a process like this would be were it intentionally designed.

RLC

Rappin' with Dicky Dawkins

Richard Dawkins raps on how we need to purge all unbelievers and heretics from the citadels of learning. Daniel Dennett, Eugenie Scott, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, P.Z. Myers and even Charles Darwin himself join in the fun. We're even shown historical footage of William Jennings Bryan KO'ing Clarence Darrow in the Scopes trial, though Bryan's victory was pyrrhic.

Who thinks of this stuff?

HT: Uncommon Descent

RLC

Open Letter to the Religious Right

Joe Carter is about seven for nine in this open letter to the Religious Right. The letter could have used a little proof-reading, but it's otherwise both entertaining and wise, although I'd want to dissent from a couple of things he says.

In any event, here are the first three of his nine pieces of advice to religious conservatives:

One-- As a matter of political liberty I believe it is important that we support such issues as prayer in schools and public displays of religious symbols. But I can't imagine that on the Day of Judgment I'll hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant--you have faithfully fought to keep the Ten Commandments in the courthouse." More likely we'll all be asked why we didn't spend more time concerned about our neighbors in Darfur or fighting the pandemic of AIDS. Perhaps we should rethink our priorities and put the first things first.

Two -- Being Right doesn't mean we are always right. I know we claim we understand that but it would probably help if we acted like we believed it as well.

Three -- We have ideological enemies (such as Islamo-fascists) and we ideological opponents (such as secular liberals). While our ideological opponents want us to lose elections; our ideological enemies want us to lose our lives. That's a crucial distinction that we should always keep in mind. While we have to love them all, we shouldn't lump them all together.

Some of the comments are pretty good as well.

RLC

What's Happening in Iraq?

Reading the newspaper reports of the current flare-up in Iraq and watching the evening news gives the impression that Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi army is clobbering the Iraqi military and police and that things are falling apart in that woeful country.

But then we read someone like Bill Roggio who has done outstanding reporting all through the war, and a quite different picture emerges.

Here are several important facts gleaned from Roggio's Long War Journal:

-- Close to 1000 Mahdi fighters have been killed, wounded, or captured in the last four or five days. This amounts to between 1% and 2% of their fighting force, which is a heavy attrition rate.

-- Despite media palpitations over Iraqi security personnel defecting, the number of such defections in Baghdad is about 15 out of a force of about 50,000. There may have been more in Basra but the numbers are unknown.

-- People in some of the affected towns feel secure enough at this point to demonstrate in support of the government's crackdown on the Mahdi army, and the governing coalition in Baghdad supports it as well.

-- American involvement seems limited. It consists mostly of embedded advisors in Iraqi units, scattered special forces operations, and air strikes.

-- Al Sadr is calling for a cease-fire. Why would he do that unless he realizes that if this battle continues he's going to soon be left without a functioning fighting force and is going to have to take off for Iran again to avoid arrest or worse?

Here's a good rule of thumb: Things are usually not nearly as bad as the Old Media makes them appear to be.

RLC

Surprising Truth Is No Surprise

Most of my adult life I've heard people stereotype conservatives as rich, greedy, and hard-hearted. The portrayal started with professors I had in college, some of whom I was personally close to, and continued among my professional colleagues during my early years in education. I continue to find the charge laid at conservatives' feet by liberal columnists and bloggers today.

But, like a lot of things I heard from my professors in college, this turned out to be quite the opposite of the truth. George Will explains why in this excellent article in the Washington Post to which my friend Byron called my attention.

Will quotes from a book by Arthur Brooks which we discussed at Viewpoint about a year and a half ago. Here's part of his column:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government .... The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism ... is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative.

As we noted in the earlier post, none of this should be understood to mean that conservatives are more generous than liberals. Both groups are generous, but the difference is that conservatives are generous with their own money whereas liberals are generous with other people's money.

RLC

Intramural War

Bill Roggio at The Long War Journal summarizes the fighting taking place in Iraq. It appears that media reports that the Iraqi army is falling apart are grossly over-stated.

Fighting in Basrah, Baghdad, and throughout much of the South continues as Iraqi security Forces and Multinational Forces Iraq press the fight against the Mahdi Army and other Iranian-backed terror groups. The Iraqi Army has moved additional forces to Basrah as the US and Iraqi military have conducted significant engagements in Shia areas of Baghdad. The Mahdi Army has taken significant casualties. The US military has denied the Mahdi Army has taken control of checkpoints in Baghdad.

Several hundred Iraqis are reported to have been killed during the fighting since the operation began on March 25. A large majority of them are Mahdi Army fighters, according to the press reports. The US and Iraqi military have killed more than 70 Mahdi Army fighters in Shia neighborhood in Baghdad alone over the past three days.

The Times Online claimed the Iraqi Army and police have abandoned checkpoints in Baghdad, but the US military denied the Mahdi Army is in control of police and Army checkpoints in Baghdad.

"All checkpoints and ISF [Iraqi security forces] buildings are in ISF and/or Coalition control. No checkpoint is in enemy control," said Lieutenant Colonel Steve Stover, the Public Affairs Officer for the 4th Infantry Division and Multinational Division Baghdad in an email response to questions from The Long War Journal. "There were several cases where the ISF needed our assistance (and more often than not - did not) and either CF 9 (Coalition forces) ground or air responded and either reinforced or took back in a couple instances the CP or IP (Iraqi Police) building - none of that happened today."

The Mahdi army, actually a militia, is a Shiite group being trained and influenced by Iran and vying for control of the government. The Iraqi forces under the authority of the Shiite-dominated Maliki government are inflicting heavy casualties. This is an intra-mural fight among Shia that everyone pretty much knew was inevitable, but it has little to do with the coalition surge despite claims by some in the media that it casts doubt on the surge's success.

There's more on the conflict at the link.

RLC

<i>Fitna</i> Update

The outfit hosting the movie Fitna received serious threats and decided to remove the video. It can, however, be seen here.

RLC

Amateur Atheists

Theologian John Haught makes the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens look like the gang that couldn't shoot straight in an essay which appears in the February 26th issue of The Christian Century.

Haught writes:

For many years I taught an introductory theology course for undergraduates titled "The Problem of God." My fellow instructors and I were convinced that our students should be exposed to the most erudite of the unbelievers. Our rationale was that any mature commitment that intelligent young people might make to a religious faith should be critically tested by the very best opponents.

The recent books by Richard Dawkins, Samuel Harris and Christopher Hitchens would never have made the required-reading list. Their tirades would simply reinforce students' ignorance not only of religion but also of atheism. The new atheists do little more than provide a fresh catalogue of the evils wrought by members of the theistic faiths.

It's true that when reading their books one gets the feeling that the authors believe if they can just discredit religion in the eyes of their readers they will have disproven the existence of God. It's not very sophisticated polemics, but there you have it.

Anyway, Haught offers a number of reasons supporting his conclusion that the New Atheists are philosophical incompetents, and it makes for very entertaining reading.

RLC

Lyme Vaccine

One of the most insidious maladies afflicting those who live in the northeastern U.S. is Lyme disease. Approximately 20,000 cases a year. It's both puzzling and irritating that one hears during the summer months daily news reports about the number of cases of West Nile virus, but rarely is the far more prevalent, dangerous and debilitating Lyme disease ever mentioned.

Anyway, it looks now as if a vaccine for the spirochete that causes the disease is on the near horizon. Read about it here.

RLC