Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe has a problem with some of the tactics employed by female interrogators at Guantanamo Bay on Muslim prisoners, and Debbie Schlussel thinks he's off his rocker.
We think that both of them are partly right, but read both articles and see what you think.
Adventures With Chester has a ton of background on the now famous LtGen Jim Mattis who shocked the delicate sensibilities of the fragile flowers in the MSM by stating that he enjoys killing people who beat up women for not wearing a veil (and presumably people who behead innocent captives and people who trick Down's Syndrome youngsters into conducting suicide missions to blow apart other children, etc).
We wouldn't put it quite the way LtGen Mattis did, and in fact we are prudish enough to think that killing should not be "fun" under any conditions. It should be undertaken only with deep regret that it's necessary. Having said that, however, we do not deny that there is something deeply satisfying about justice, and though it should not be regarded as fun, there is, no doubt, a large measure of satisfaction to be taken from knowing that one has removed from the planet someone who preys on innocent women and children and who kills wantonly. Taking the lives of such individuals is an act of justice, it is the right thing to do, and there is nothing reprehensible in LtGen Mattis finding satisfaction in the doing of it.
Anyone interested in this story should check out Chester's site.
Back in the early fifties William F. Buckley defined conservatism as standing athwart the juggernaut of history shouting "stop." We thought of this the other day and marveled at how things have changed.
Consider this little quiz: Of the two, conservatism or liberalism:
If you answered "conservatives" for any of these then you're still living back in the sixties with Ward Churchill:
It might be argued that liberals don't oppose the ends that conservatives seek, they merely disagree on the best means to get there. Yet they offer no alternative proposals for achieving those ends. Everywhere we look we find liberals doing nothing, offering nothing, except resistance to change. Their sole contribution to the issues of our time is to stand athwart history shouting "stop."
The other day we posted and commented upon a story which appeared in the WSJ by David Klinghoffer about the reaction at the Smithsonian Institute to an article on Intelligent Design which appeared in a journal edited by a research associate at the Smithsonian. There were some allegations made in that story which reflected poorly on the open-mindedness and ethics of Smithsonian employees.
Now one of those employees has come forward to present another side and to address some of Klinghoffer's allegations. His remarks can be found at The Panda's Thumb. Evidently, somebody in this dispute, intentionally or not, is misleading us. We'll let you know where the truth lies if, and when, we find out ourselves.
At that time I mentioned that the price of gold, having risen to new highs, might drop to $420. Well, that has happened and the way things are going now, the price might even drop to $400. Personally, I see it as a great buying opportunity, compliments of those who are wont to suppress the price of gold in an effort to distort economic reality.
As anyone who has read my Gold Page can surmise, my advice to acquire gold isn't about a "get rich" scheme, rather it's about protecting one's self from dishonest government. More to the point, it's not about Democrats or Republicans or any other party affiliation...it's about returning to a value system upon which our great country was founded. It's about being a Patriot.
Having said that, I offer the link below to An Analysis of Antal Fekete's Plan for a Parallel Gold-Coin Standard by Nelson Hultberg
From the link below:
Antal Fekete is a truly brilliant individual and I encourage you to read the article in its entirety.
Ernst Mayr, the very prominent Harvard evolutionary biologist, and author of numerous works on the subject is dead at age 100. Mayr was a key architect of the neo-Drawinian synthesis, the blending of Darwin's theory of natural selection with the science of genetics, and was instrumental in persuading biologists to accept the view that species evolved only when isolated from their parent populations. His influence among modern evolutionists is probably second only to that of Charles Darwin himself.
Omar at Iraq the Model posts an amusing parody of a Syrian news article praising elections in Syria. Omar writes:
Ninety percent turnout?! We Americans could certainly learn something from the Syrians about the importance of voting in a democracy. Maybe they'd be willing to send some advisors over here in 2008 to help us develop a deeper appreciation for the beauty of free elections. The Syrian government would probably insist, however, that no advisors be permitted to come unless there are guarantees that they won't be allowed to defect while they're here.
Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost informs us that New York has pushed the toboggan over the brow of the slippery slope, and the wild ride to the bottom, monotonously predicted by Viewpoint on a number of occasions (see here, for example), has commenced:
Carter says he can't decide which is more ironic: "the fact that the judge uses the Bible as a reference source in making the case for same-sex marriage or that polygamists will use that wording to justify extending marital rights to their own relationships."
It won't stop with polygamy, nor can it. Once the breach is opened in the traditional definition of marriage, there is no non-arbitrary stopping point. Next up: Group marriage.
The Washington Times reveals the rich fantasy life, while noting the execrable behavior, of CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. During a discussion on media and democracy, Mr. Jordan apparently told the audience that "he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by U.S. troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted..."
Jordan has made similar accusations on previous occasions. According to the Times:
The MSM has chosen to completely ignore Mr. Jordan's irresponsible allegation, realizing, no doubt, that any claim this bizarre should probably be supported with at least some evidence, a minimal requirement Mr. Jordan has completely disdained. An unsubstantiated charge of this magnitude sounds like another Dan Rather scandal in the making, and Big Media doesn't want to be the catalyst for destroying the credibility of yet another major news institution.
Since the MSM won't do their job one must turn to alternative media for the details. Luckily, Hugh Hewitt and Ed Morrissey are on the case. Between the two of them all the sordid details can be pieced together.
The director of CNN News evidently thought he could get away with slandering American troops without anyone noticing. The American public should demand that he come forward with evidence for his libels or else be fired (and sued) for lying about our troops.
This photo at Release the Hounds and the accompanying explanation are worth seeing and reading. Why doesn't the MSM run stuff like this?
This account from Omar at Iraq the Model shows how despicable are the savages our troops are working to extirpate in Iraq:
The story of A'adel Nasir (I've seen his name rendered differently in different reports) is especially significant. Everyone knows that Americans and Brits have acted with extraordinary courage in Iraq, but the MSM seems to be convinced that Iraqi troops and police have been less than audacious in risking their own lives in the fight for their own freedom. Not only does the behavior of millions of Iraqis who braved death threats in order to vote explode this myth but so does the heroism of A'adel Nasir whose courage will be a model for young Iraqis to emulate for generations.
The talented Tom Graffagnino posts this clever piece of verse at Without Excuse Creations:
Very witty, and it makes an important point: Darwinism is a indeed a religion. It offers its votaries a creation myth (Life arose by chance in a primordial sea), an answer to the question of life's meaning (to perpetuate the species or at least one's genes), a ground for morality ("Right" is whatever conduces to survival), and an answer to the question of where we are going (When we die we return to the earth so that our matter may continue on as part of the great cycle of life).
Darwinism, by offering us an opportunity to "liberate the human spirit" from superstition and clerical oppression, affords us a vehicle for "salvation". It moreover maintains a priestly class of scientists and philosophers who pontificate on matters of doctrine, faith, and practice, and it proudly boasts a pantheon of saints who have gone on before. It embodies a worldview that encompasses every aspect of life. It cherishes its dogmas and orthodoxies, defending them assiduously against challenge from heretics, and traces its beginnings to the holy scriptures recorded by its founder in the Origin of Species.
Nancy Pearcey, in her book Total Truth, quotes philosopher and Darwinian Michael Ruse, who says that "I must admit that....the [critics of evolution] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true of evolution still today."
She also quotes from historian Jacques Barzun who writes that the so-called warfare between science and religion should really be seen as the "warfare between two philosophies and perhaps two faiths." It's a dispute, he writes, "between believers in consciousness and believers in mechanical action; the believers in purpose and the believers in pure chance."
Precisely. The fundamental difference between Darwinism and Christianity is that Christianity traces the origin of the world and of life back to an intelligence whereas Darwinism traces it back to random, purposeless forces. Both Darwinism and Christianity are thus grounded in metaphysical faith commitments, and from those commitments flow all of their differences.
The Discovery Institute has a new blog that focuses on media reporting and misreporting of the Darwinism/Intelligent Design debate. The news media in the U.S. seem to have rediscovered the controversy, but unfortunately, much of their coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in several cases, overtly biased. Evolution News and Views aims to offer a corrective, and anyone interested in the issue should check it out.
Andrew Sullivan, who, by the way, is largely shutting down his blog for a couple of months, relays to conservatives this question from a friend:
Good question. In fact, Viewpoint will go one better. Why should this be a matter of one or the other? Why shouldn't conservatives be arguing for both amendments? If the marriage amendment is necessary to protect marriage, and it may well be, surely an anti-abortion amendment is necessary to protect the lives of unborn children and is long overdue. It doubtless would not have been possible to get such an amendment through congress before now and may not be possible to get one passed even now, but shouldn't the arguments for it at least be raised?
That some conservatives have gone on record calling for the marriage amendment, but none appear to be interested in a constitutional corrective for Roe v. Wade, a decision many believe to be a clear case of judicial overreach that has resulted in the sacrifice of millions of lives, seems at best a little inconsistent.
The Democrats have vowed to fight President Bush's Social Security reform proposals with every weapon at their disposal. The President wishes to give people control over a portion of their retirement, and the Democrats are opposed. A number of commentators have noted the irony of liberals insisting that people have a constitutional right to choose whether their unborn children live or die while at the same time refusing them the right to choose how to invest for their retirement (or, for that matter, where to send their children to school if indeed they should choose to have them).
For the freedom-loving folks in the Democratic party freedom to choose extends little further than whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. For them, freedom's just another word for nothing left to choose.
After the Civil War there was a massive migration of blacks from the south to the cities of the north. They came looking for opportunities and a better life. There are signs that another African-American migration is taking place in our own day only this one is political, not geographical, and it is causing alarm in liberal precincts. Apparently, the Republican party is beginning to make serious inroads into a demographic group that Democrats have had locked up for sixty years, and if they are successful it would have serious consequences for the future of the party.
An article in the Los Angeles Times sounds the tocsin. Here are a few excerpts:
African-Americans are evidently tired of being snookered by Democratic leaders, both black and white. They are at last beginning to realize that liberal policies since the 1960s have often been counterproductive at best and dysgenic at worst.
Now comes a Republican president who may have done more for black racial esteem than all the liberal multicultural/diversity/ethnic/racial pride celebrations of the last three decades put together. He has actually elevated blacks to some of the most prominent positions of his administration, something no Democrat ever did. He also understands that what is good for America is good for African-Americans, and has steadily worked to improve the economy, create jobs, and set a positive moral tone for the country. Moreover, he has steadfastly refused to do what is standard practice for many Democrat politicians - he has refused to pander to blacks, or to treat them as if they just can't be expected to manage their own lives.
To many liberals blacks are the white man's burden, and African-Americans may finally be growing resentful of the implicit racism of this patronizing attitude. Perhaps they are tired of their indenture to the Democratic bosses and have become a field ripe for a conservative harvest. If so, a significant African-American defection would quite likely signal the demise of the Democratic party.
John Podhoretz asks an intriguing question:
This really is a kind of litmus test for the quality of our character, isn't it? Were we genuinely glad for the Iraqi people, or at least relieved, that things went well for them and their country on Sunday, or did we feel indifference or even somewhat of a letdown that there wasn't more chaos and carnage? If it was the latter then we need to have a serious conversation with ourselves about the state of our soul.
For an example of someone who stands in urgent need of just such self-examination read the piece at Good News From Iraq is up, and, as usual, it's packed.
Those who were surprised at the enthusiastic turn out at the polls last Sunday could not have been following Chrenkoff's fortnightly posts. If they had been, January 30th would have been no surprise at all.
In the wake of November 2nd our inbox was clogged with e-mails from TruthOut.org updating us every hour on the "crisis" in Ohio and the "evidence" that Republicans had been up to election day hanky-panky. About Washington state, however, where there are genuine indications of fraud in the gubernatorial balloting, TruthOut has had almost nothing to say. Doubtless that's because the tentative winner in that election was a Democrat and because the evidence of voter fraud points directly at Democrats as the culprits.
National Review Online notes that:
We're convinced that TruthOut and its friends in the MSM, like Keith Olberman at MSNBC, who were so sure that there was perfidy afoot in Ohio on November 2nd, will join with the editors of National Review in calling for a re-vote in Washington. It is the Left, after all, which was incensed in 2000 because they had incorrectly persuaded themselves that the winner in Florida had stolen that states' election, and it was the Left which was outraged in 2004 at what they had mistakenly assumed were voting irregularities in Ohio which favored the winner.
We're confident that their tardiness in joining the ranks of those demanding a re-vote in Washington has nothing to do with ideological hypocrisy, as some have alleged, and is, on the contrary, due merely to their getting their legal teams together to insure that justice will be done. Or something like that. At any rate, they'll be out there demanding a re-vote soon, you can count on it.
There is a remarkable article in the U.K. Times Online concerning the political and social disintegration currently underway in North Korea. Not every member of the axis of evil needs to be confronted militarily. Some of them, evidently, are rotting from within and will, with luck, topple at the first strong wind.
Thanks to Little Green Footballs for the tip.
The culture wars continue. We were reminded by this article in the Wall Street Journal of a quote from Darwinian biologist Richard Lewontin:
The WSJ article says this:
Materialists certainly take Lewontin's words seriously. Any scientist in the church of naturalism who gives succor to the opposition is henceforth anathema. Like a gaggle of middle-school girls shunning one of their number who has transgressed some social protocol, Sternberg's co-workers studiously avoid acknowledging him when they pass in the halls. Is there anything more childish? They probably giggle among themselves in the break-room at how cleverly they execute their indignant snubs.
The alleged complaint against Sternberg is that he used his position as editor of a journal that deals primarily with taxonomy to permit an article on a subject that was not related to taxonomy. This, however, is ludicrous. Science journals like Science and Scientific American, though their mission is to address matters of science, sometimes run articles on foreign, social, or economic policy and no editors are ostracized from the community and have their careers threatened for it.
Another charge against Dr. Sternberg was that Meyer's paper was not original and simply re-worked some of his earlier published material and that featuring it damaged the reputation of the journal. This is an odd reason to punish the editor, though. How can you damage the reputation of a publication that no one ever heard of prior to this incident? Indeed, if anything, Sternberg should be rewarded for garnering publicity for the journal that it never would have gotten otherwise no matter how many papers it published on wildly popular topics like the discovery of a new subspecies of midge in New Jersey marshlands.
Sternberg's real crime, of course, was that the article he ran was critical of Darwinism as an explanatory model for how novel morphological patterns arise in nature. If the paper had been favorable to Darwinism it would have passed completely unremarked by the inquisitors at the Smithsonian no matter how modest its scientific quality might have been. As it was, Sternberg allowed a paper into his journal that dared to question the adequacy of Darwinian theory, so he must be cast out like the academic leper he so obviously must be.
Darwinism is a religion which brooks no challenges, and heretics need be punished severely. Maybe their bodies are no longer burned at the stake, but their careers are. It's unfortunate that middle-schoolers in adult bodies have that kind of authority.