Huck and Homosexuality

The Politico thinks that positions Mike Huckabee took on AIDS and homosexuality back in the early nineties make him an unattractive candidate today.

Huckabee argued that 1) the government was spending a disproportionate amount of money on AIDS research, 2) that AIDS carriers should be isolated from the general population and 3) that homosexuality was both aberrant and sinful.

I think a good public policy case could be made for both 1) and 2) although the idea of quarantining AIDS carriers was becoming less urgent by the early nineties as we were learning more about the virus. Still, there was enough uncertainty as to how the disease was being transmitted that Huckabee's position was not unreasonable at the time.

On the matter of homosexuality it is certainly true that it is aberrant and that every major religion represented in the United States has traditionally regarded it as sinful. The definition of aberrant is a deviation from the norm, and homoeroticism is not normal either in terms of the design of our bodies, its acceptance among the general population, or in terms of the percentage of people who consider themselves homosexual.

The only demographic in which a majority would be upset by Huckabee's judgment would be the secular elites in Hollywood and on University campuses and he is very unlikely to have much support among these folks in any event.

Depending on how Huckabee articulates these positions when he's asked about them by the media - which he certainly will be - his views could well make him even more attractive with groups that Republicans usually have a hard time reaching, blacks and Hispanics, both of which are predominately of the same opinion regarding homosexuality as is Huckabee. The worst thing he could do when asked to defend himself would be to waffle.

RLC

Petraeus Wins Another Convert

Michael Golfarb of The Weekly Standard remarks on an editorial in the Washington Post in which Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets for Freedom, has coauthored an op-ed with Major General John Batiste.

Batiste is the formerly antiwar general who spoke out against Donald Rumsfeld, and who, until recently, was a Board Member of VoteVets.org (the antiwar MoveOn.org vets front group).

Goldfarb notes that in his Post column Batiste and Hegseth write that:

First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.

Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.

Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country.

Goldfarb comments:

There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom.

The antiwar movement has lost one of its most powerful voices today, and it will be interesting to see whether they turn on one of their own, or come around to the view, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that the surge is working.

A year from now, if Iraq continues on its present trajectory, Bush could well be looking like a less eloquent version of Winston Churchill, and the Dems who so bitterly opposed him will be jumping off bridges.

RLC

Colorado Springs

Slapstick Politics has a lot of information on the tragic Colorado Springs shooting including some insight into how the shooter was stopped. It turns out that the killer "hated Christians." Anyone surprised? I wonder if he was a fan of Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion.

It also turns out that the woman who stopped him had a carry permit and her own firearm. She saved perhaps dozens of lives, which will certainly put the media in a quandary. They'll want to tout her heroism because she's a woman (and maybe even because she was indeed a hero), but they won't want to publicize the fact that she used a concealed firearm because that will make it harder to pass restrictive gun legislation.

Anyway, the next time someone goes on about the alleged crimes of Christianity ask them how far back in history one has to go to find an instance of a Christian shooting up a meeting of atheists and killing two teenage sisters.

UPDATE: Video of a press interview with the woman who shot the gunman can be seen here.

RLC

Waiting For Godot

We don't know much about fiscal policy and economics so we're easily led on these matters. In fact we've been wringing our hands for the last four or five years as one economic poobah after another has proclaimed the economy to be teetering on the brink of recession. Then we get all confused when the numbers come out for the most recent quarter and invariably they show an economy that's as robust and healthy as anyone could reasonably hope for.

For example, Larry Kudlow, writing at National Review Online, tells us that:

Americans are working. The 4.7 percent unemployment number remains at an historical low. On a three-month rolling basis, the U.S. economy has added over 100,000 jobs. Meanwhile, the household job count shows that an average of 303,000 jobs have been added in the last three months. This is noteworthy because it suggests that the job market is turning around.

Hours worked are growing more than 1-percent annually, while workers' wages are running 3.8 percent, a full percentage point ahead of inflation. As for this week's productivity report, it was nothing short of spectacular: the 6.3 percent productivity gain was the best in four years. A rise in productivity is good for growth. It's good for profits. And it's good for low inflation.

Speaking of inflation, business inflation is down from 3.5 percent just over a year ago to 1.5 percent today. Meanwhile, oil prices have retreated to $88. And, to top it all off, last night we received a tremendous new number showing household net wealth has headed even higher. It stands at a record $59 trillion dollars. That's more than seven percent above a year ago.

Another factoid worth considering is that mortgage refinancings are soaring at lower rates. Since June, they are up nearly 70 percent, while mortgage rates on 15 and 30-year loans are down nearly a 100 basis points. That is a very positive, very welcome development that ought to cushion the plunge in home sales, and maybe even prices.

This just doesn't sound to our untutored ear like the beginnings of a recession, but then we're not beset with Bush Derangement Syndrome. If we were, then facts like these wouldn't matter. BDS sufferers are convinced that the economy can't be good because Bush is stupid, or something like that. Anyway, the numbers look pretty good to us, and we're beginning to wonder if waiting for the recession isn't a bit like waiting for Godot in Samuel Beckett's play. The actors expect Godot's arrival at any minute but for some reason Godot never comes.

RLC

Broken Compass

Philip Pullman is an atheist/agnostic who writes children's books with anti-Christian themes. One of his books (The Northern Lights) has been made into a movie (The Golden Compass) which was released this past weekend and a number of groups are urging people not to take their children to see it.

A couple of high school-aged young men of my acquaintance saw the movie and said that the anti-theism was pretty blatant. The biggest concern many have about the film is that it will entice youngsters to read Pullman's books. For our part we think it'd be a fun idea to have a double feature. Take the (teenage) kids to see The Golden Compass and then follow it up with something that shows the logical outcome of man's attempt to kill God. We recommend Schindler's List as a suitable sequel and a vivid picture of what happens when anti-theism leaves the realm of fantasy and plays itself out in the real world.

Details can be found here.

RLC

Religious Candor

Chip Bok comments on all the scrutiny, superficial as it has been, of our candidates' religious beliefs:

Pretty funny.

RLC

Thought For A Sunday

Taken from An Humble, Affectionate, and Earnest Address to the Clergy by William Law.

His intellectual faculties are, by the fall, in a much worse state than his natural animal appetites, and want a much greater self-denial. And when own will, own understanding, and own imagination have their natural strength indulged and gratified, and are made seemingly rich and honorable with the treasures acquired from a study of the belles lettres, they will just as much help poor fallen man to be like-minded with Christ, as the art of cookery, well and daily studied, will help a professor of the gospel to the spirit and practice of Christian abstinence. To know all this to be strictly the truth, no more need be known, than these two things: (1) that our salvation consists wholly in being saved from ourselves, or that which we are by nature; (2) that in the whole nature of things, nothing could be this salvation, or savior to us, but such an humility of God manifested in human nature, as is beyond all expression. Hence, the first unalterable term of this savior to fallen man, is this, "Except a man denies himself, forsakes all that he has, yea and his own life, he cannot be my disciple." And to show, that this is but the beginning, or ground of man's salvation, the savior adds, "Learn of me, for I am meek, and lowly of heart." What a light is here, for those that can bear, or love the light! Self is the whole evil of fallen nature; self-denial is our capacity of being saved; humility is our savior. This is every man's short lesson of life; and he that has well learned it, is scholar enough, and has had all the benefit of a most finished education. Then old Adam with all his ignorance is cast out of him; and when Christ's humility is learned, then he has the very mind of Christ, and that which brings him forth a son of God.

Blair Talks About Faith

Tony Blair talks about talking about God. In the course of the article on Blair, the writers say:

However, Mr Blair, who is now a Middle East peace envoy, has been attacked by commentators who say that religion should be separated from politics and by those who feel that many of his decisions betrayed the Christian community.

In other words, some of Mr. Blair's critics think that a politician should somehow separate his policy decisions, which are often moral - approaches to poverty, disaster relief, war, environmental protection, stem cell research, for example - from his deepest convictions about what grounds right and wrong. This would be humorous were the plea to separate the two not so pervasive and those who demand it not so strident.

As it is it's simply fatuous. One can no more separate one's beliefs from the grounds for those beliefs than one can separate one side of a coin from the other.

What those who advocate such a purge of religious values from the public square would do is reduce every public debate to a struggle for power to determine whose tastes, feelings and biases will prevail.

If one person says we should help the poor and another says we shouldn't, how do we decide who is right if we're not permitted to bring our deepest beliefs to bear upon the matter? Indeed, the only person who can answer the question is the religious man. The secularist can give no answer to the question why we should help the poor other than to say that it just seems right to him to do so.

It's not a very compelling reason, but that's really the best the secular man can do, poor chap.

RLC

D'Souza vs. Dennett

Dinesh D'Souza recently debated Daniel Dennett on the topic of whether God is a human artifact.

A blogger sympathetic to Dennett's views watched the debate and writes about his disappointment in the quality of Dennett's performance.

"And here's the weakness of the entire Atheist movement on display. Argument via ridicule only takes you so far, and only keeps the already converted entertained. Time and again I was disappointed not only by Dennett's inability to articulate the science, but in his inability to respond to D'Souza's very interesting thought experiments, analogies and use of example from the history of Philosophy itself. What a disappointment from such a well-trained professor of philosophy!"

D'Souza also shares some thoughts about the contest and offers video of it here.

RLC

The NIE

The recently released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) made the claim that Iran gave up its ambitions to develop a nuclear weapon four years ago and primarily for this reason the document has drawn a lot of critical attention. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, for example, levels some pretty serious criticism of its alleged flaws in a column in the Washington Post, to which I refer readers interested in seeing why the document has generated so much skepticism.

Rush Limbaugh also points out that not only are the authors of the document politically hostile to the current administration but one of them was drawing exactly the opposite conclusions about iran only four months ago:

On July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE's publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar, one of the three authors of the NIE, gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: 'Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States' concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran's neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons -- despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.'

according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites 'an intelligence source' as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as 'hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials.'

What's even more strange about the NIE is the reaction to it by Bush's political opponents. They're alleging that somehow this report discredits Bush's Iran policy, but how is that so? What exactly is Bush's Iran policy? It's to muster international pressure to insure that Iran does not pursue nuclear weapons. His opponents say that this is now pointless because Iran's not pursuing nukes. They then go on to add that now we can stop the "saber-rattling" and use diplomacy. Well, when has Bush rattled any sabers over Iran? And if Iran is not pursuing nukes what do we need diplomacy for? The call for diplomacy seems bizarre coming from people who believe that there's nothing to negotiate with Iran about.

Even if Bush's diplomacy did involve saber-rattling, why is that bad? Surely diplomacy with Iran without the credible threat of force is useless. What incentive does Iran have to behave itself unless it fears punishment? This question brings us to another interesting point about the NIE.

In their eagerness to use this report against Bush his political detractors have overlooked the fact that if the report is to be believed Iran gave up its nuclear program in 2003. There was no U.S./Iranian diplomacy taking place in 2003. The only thing that took place in 2003 was that we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein in less than a week. That sent shock waves through the axis of evil and if Iran dropped its nuclear ambitions that year then there's every reason to believe that they did so because they didn't want to be next.

If the NIE is right in recent years Iraq and Afghanistan have been liberated from tyranny, and Libya, North Korea, and Iran have all stepped down their march toward nuclear weapons. That's a pretty good legacy, perhaps unprecedented, for whatever administration supervised it, but don't expect the left to give Bush credit. They're more likely to argue that it was out of fear of a diplomatic offensive from future president Hillary Clinton that moved these wise leaders to capitulate to her years in advance than they are to acknowledge that George W. Bush is responsible for a truly remarkable and historic achievement.

RLC

Let a Thousand Questions Bloom

So much has been made of Mitt Romney's Mormonism that he felt it necessary yesterday to give a speech about it. Mike Huckabee, too, has had to explain his beliefs to journalists who seem discombobulated by the fact that convictions that have been commonly held by intelligent Americans for two thousand years are still held by some today.

I think these inquiries into the faith commitments of the candidates for leadership of the free world are a good thing. We should know what resources these people draw upon to help them through difficult times and to shape their view of the world, and I would enjoy hearing the media ask Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton exactly what are their views of the person and nature of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to happen. The point of the media asking Romney and Huckabee about their faith, I suspect, is to embarrass them among the elites. If they can make them look like religious "extremists" or exotic rubes they may undermine their appeal with a group of voters to whom they might otherwise be attractive. On the other hand, they don't want to undermine the Democrat candidates' appeal among the great unwashed so they won't risk asking them a question that might make them look unsympathetic to the superstitions of the masses.

On a related matter, the protestations of those who complain that we shouldn't care about a person's religion or that the constitution prohibits religious tests for the office of the presidency are getting tiresome. I doubt very much if those who insist we shouldn't delve into a person's deepest beliefs would still say that if a Wahhabist Muslim was running for president. I think the religion-is-irrelevant crowd would be falling all over themselves to demand that such a candidate clarify his religious views ad infinitum. And they should.

Also, while it is true that the constitution prohibits a religious test for the office of president that proscription is a legal limitation. A person cannot be legally prevented from being elected president just because of his religion, but that doesn't mean that voters can't or shouldn't base their vote upon what a candidate believes.

In the case of Mitt Romney, who I happen to like, no one argues that he should be barred from running because he's a Mormon, but it doesn't follow that his beliefs should therefore be considered irrelevant by the voters.

RLC

Adam Rutherford: Stazi Agent

Atheist Adam Rutherford writing in The Guardian comments on the denial of tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez by Iowa State University:

Saying, whether in 4004 BC or 13 billion years ago, that "God made it" is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

No, it's not a scientific belief, but what of it? Neither is the statement that the universe just popped into existence of its own accord a falsifiable assertion. It, too, is an affirmation of a particular metaphysical commitment. So why is one non-falsifiable assertion enough to get one exiled from the scientific community but the other is perfectly acceptable?

Rutherford's column gets worse:

I know that, were I in a position to offer Guillermo Gonzalez tenure, I would deny it for the precise reason that his, yes, religious views about purpose in the universe explicitly mean he is a crap scientist, regardless of his ability to generate valid data.

Rutherford is, astonishingly enough, claiming that whether or not someone is a good researcher, whether or not they are a good teacher, whether or not they can "generate data," they are a "crap scientist" and should be fired if they don't embrace the particular metaphysical view of the world that he favors. Since when must scientists be atheists and view the universe as a purposeless machine? Since when is there a philosophical litmus test for who can teach science?

Mr. Rutherford's take on the nature of science is breathtakingly narrow-minded. His bigotry would have led him to deny tenure to Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle and a host of other brilliant thinkers who saw the cosmos as the handiwork of a Creator.

Nor can Mr. Rutherford adduce any empirical evidence to show that the inference of intentionality drawn from the structure of the cosmos is mistaken. Nevertheless, even if it were mistaken, it'd be mistaken about a philosophical interpretation of the scientific data, not about the science itself.

Inquisitors like Rutherford, however, don't care about such distinctions. For them science is not just about producing data, it's about promoting with missionary zeal a metaphysical worldview that science itself can in no way justify or support. It's about evangelizing the masses on behalf of a materialistic atheism. The religion of materialism wraps itself in the garb of science hoping that no one will notice and pronounces all challenges to its hegemony to be illicit attacks on the sacred cow of science. Conflating metaphysics with empirical science the self-appointed preachers of materialistic orthodoxy set out like Torquemada to punish as heretics anyone who deviates from their doctrine by sending their careers up in flames.

There's a wonderful movie out titled The Lives of Others. It's about how the tyrannical East German secret police, the Stazi, punished citizens who flouted official communist doctrine or who were so indiscreet as to utter an irreverent word about the East German government. Watching the movie one is astounded at the pettiness and small-mindedness of the people who made up this oppressive apparatus. Sadly, they were people whose minds worked just like that of Adam Rutherford.

At the end of the movie the Berlin Wall has fallen and the communists are thrown out of power. A victim of the Stazi oppression encounters a former official, a vindictive man who was in charge of rooting out political heretics. The victim, with palpable and justifiable disgust, says to this odious and pathetic figure, "To think that people like you once actually ran a country." Reading Rutherford's column those words echoed in my mind - to think that people like this actually dictate what beliefs are philosophically acceptable among scientists.

RLC

Fat and Fit

Here's good news for all of us who find that our shoes seem to have receded progressively further from our hands, harder to see, and harder to tie as the years have passed:

Being fit helps you live longer - even when you're fat, an American study has found.

Striking findings show the fittest fat men and women aged 60 and over are more likely to live to a ripe old age than their averagely weighted or slim - and less fit - peers.

The message seems to contradict current anxieties about an obesity epidemic and constant messages to lose weight.

But U.S. researchers led by Dr Steven Blair claim all older people, including those who are obese, can benefit from increasing their activity levels.

I wonder if increasing one's visits to the refrigerator counts as increased activity.

RLC

Evil in Everyday People

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters discusses a book by Barbara Oakley in which Oakley tells this story about her sister:

My sister stole my mother's boyfriend. It wasn't as if the boyfriend, Ted, was any great catch. At 85, he trundled about with a nose tube and oxygen tanks, hacking and snorting as he nursed his emphysema. Then there was the age gap - Ted was 40 years older than my sister. So what was the attraction? As it turned out, it was the gift Ted had planned for my mother - the Parisian vacation she had always dreamt of.

On hearing that my mother was planning a trip to Paris, my sister Carolyn suddenly realised that she, too, had always wanted to go to France. And what my sister wanted, she had a way of getting. When Carolyn clicked her spotlight on Mum's boyfriend, he was dazzled. Soon, my sister was tucked beside Ted and his breathing apparatus en route to Paris. Apr�s Paris, of course, Carolyn dropped Ted like a hot rock.

My mother withdrew, shamed and saddened by this ultimate humiliation. Not long after, she passed away.

I link to this because as I read it I was stunned that someone could do such a maliciously despicable thing to her 85 year old mother. It's truly astonishing how cruel and selfish people can be. I wonder if Oakley wrote the book at least in part in order to get some measure of retribution for her mother by exposing her sister's depravity. If so, I hope it works.

RLC

Enjoying Better Mental Health

People who enjoy good mental health tend to gravitate toward the Republican party, or vice versa. That's the finding, anyway, of a recent Gallup poll:

Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.

The differences are quite significant.... While Democrats are slightly less likely to report excellent mental health than are independents, the big distinctions in these data are the differences between Republicans and everyone else.

Correlation is no proof of causation, of course. The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy, or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican (or whether some third variable is responsible for causing both to be parallel).

But the key finding of the analyses presented here is that being a Republican appears to have an independent relationship on positive mental health above and beyond what can be explained by [other] demographic and lifestyle variables [such as income level]. The exact explanation for this persistent relationship -- as noted -- is unclear.

So, liberals, evidently, are more likely than conservatives and moderates to consider themselves mentally ill. Interesting. Anyone have any suggestions as to why they feel this way?

There's a lot more information about the poll at the link.

RLC

Huckabee's Illegal Immigration Statement

Regular readers of Viewpoint know that we consider illegal immigration to be among the most critical issues our country faces and that any presidential candidate has to take a strong stand on securing our borders in order to gain our support. Readers also know that we've been tentatively touting Mike Huckabee's candidacy for the past couple of months as we wait to learn more about his position on illegal immigration in general and border security in particular. We were disappointed to read that a lot of immigration organizations are opposed to him because they believe him too soft on border security and too likely to grant amnesty to illegals.

It was encouraging, therefore, to find the follow summary of his views at his web site:

• Securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency.
• I support the $3 billion the Senate has voted for border security. This money will train and deploy 23,000 more agents, add four drone planes, build 700 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and put up 105 radar and camera towers. This money will turn "catch and release" into "catch and detain" of those entering illegally, and crack down on those who overstay their visas.
• In this age of terror, immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue. Those caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported. As Governor, I ordered my state troopers to work with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest illegals and enforce federal immigration law.
• I oppose and will never allow amnesty. I opposed the amnesty President Bush and Senator McCain tried to ram through Congress this summer, and opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all.
• I oppose and will not tolerate sanctuaries for illegals. The federal government must crack down on rogue cities that willfully undermine our economy and national security.
• I oppose giving driver's licenses to illegals and supports legislation to prevent states from doing so. In 2005, I signed legislation that prevents illegals in Arkansas from getting driver's licenses.
• I will stop punishing cities which try to enforce our laws and protect the economic well-being, physical safety, and quality of life of their citizens.
• I oppose and will not tolerate employers who hire illegals. They must be punished with fines and penalties so large that they will see it is not worth the risk.
• I oppose the economic integration of North America that would create open borders among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. I will never yield one iota or one inch of our sovereignty.
• I will take our country back for those who belong here. No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver's licenses for illegals.

It's difficult to imagine any of the current top-tier candidates taking a stronger position than this. More on his thoughts on this issue as well as his stance on all other major issues can be found at the link.

RLC

Informal Logic 101

In rhetoric or logic when one person responds to a claim or an argument from another by simply insulting the other instead of trying to answer the claim or refute the argument it's called the fallacy of ad hominem abusive. This article contains a textbook example of the tactic:

Kerry spokesman David Wade issued the following slap down today in response to Rush Limbaugh, who said on his radio show that Kerry's Swift Boat attackers in 2004, "were right on the money and nobody has disproven anything they claimed in any of their ads, statements, written commentaries, or anything of the sort."

Now set aside the question of whether Limbaugh is correct in saying this and look instead at the Kerry spokesman's response. Rather than seeking to show that Limbaugh is wrong Mr. Wade launches a stream of insults aimed at Limbaugh. Here's what he said:

"At first I thought, that's not Rush, that's just the OxyContin talking. Nonetheless, this is a despicable but unsurprising new lie from a man whose closest brush with combat came when customs officials tried to take away his Viagra.

This portly peddler of hate is once again wrong on the facts. John Kerry served his country with honor in Vietnam, and has fought for his fellow veterans ever since. The lies and smears of the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush were disproved conclusively in 2004 by the men who fought by John Kerry's side in Vietnam, by the military's own records, by investigative journalists, and by the incredible contradictions that exposed these right wing smear artists. It is long past time that we end the politics of fear and smear that we have seen used against decorated veterans from John McCain to Max Cleland and John Kerry.

Rush Limbaugh's ignorance and determination to divide Americans is just another reminder that you can't spell 'Rush Limbaugh' without the letters L-I-A-R."

Wade engages in much name-calling but he offers not a single rebuttal to Limbaugh's claim. He simply states that it has been rebutted by others and proceeds to prove it by calling Limbaugh a liar. Wade evidently possesses a black belt in the art of ad hominem. He has mastered the technique of filling the air with sufficient invective so as to convince the listener that the person on the receiving end of the insults must surely be wrong because he's apparently so despicable.

One of the sad things about this tactic is that it often works.

RLC

A Whiff of Totalitarianism

The New Republic has an interesting article by Damon Linker titled Atheism's Wrong Turn.

There are a few minor matters with which one might quibble - for instance his imputation of atheism to Socrates is puzzling - but his overall point is a good one:

"[T]he new atheism" is not particularly new. It belongs to an intellectual genealogy stretching back hundreds of years, to a moment when atheist thought split into two traditions: one primarily concerned with the dispassionate pursuit of truth, the other driven by a visceral contempt for the personal faith of others.

Today's atheists, he writes, have followed the second of these traditions and as such stand in defiant opposition to the grand tradition of classical liberalism. Their implicit desire to expunge from public life every vestige of religious faith and practice fills the pages of their books with more than a whiff of the totalitarian impulse.

Read Linker's article to find out why.

RLC

The Road to the Woodshed

After years of declaring the war in Iraq a failure and months of denying that there was any progress being made there, old John [Offer-Me-the-Bribe-Later] Murtha has had something of a Damascus Road experience:

U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis "have got to take care of themselves."

Violence has dropped significantly in recent months, but Mr. Murtha said he was most encouraged by changes in the once-volatile Anbar province, where locals have started working closely with U.S. forces to isolate insurgents linked to Al Qaeda.

Kudos to Rep. Murtha for his honesty, but it probably is not very much appreciated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Majority Leader Harry Reid for whom, Murtha's candor cannot be good news. No doubt they will soon be taking old John to the woodshed for some "counselling" on the importance of keeping such politically unhelpful epiphanies to oneself. It's a fact of political life that the Damascus road often leads straight to the woodshed.

RLC

Uh Oh

We've noted that Mike Huckabee's chances of winning the Republican nomination depend largely on his views on illegal immigration. This article doesn't make us sanguine about those chances:

Groups that support a crackdown on illegal aliens haven't settled on their champion in the race for the White House, but there's little doubt which Republican scares them most - former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

"He was an absolute disaster on immigration as governor," said Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a group that played a major role in rallying the phone calls that helped defeat this year's Senate immigration bill. "Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens."

As Mr. Huckabee rises in the polls, his opponents are beginning to take shots at him on immigration. Just as problematic for the former Arkansas governor, however, is that the independent interest groups that track the issue are also giving him the once-over, and don't like what they see.

"Huckabee is the guy who scares the heck out of me," said Peter Gadiel, president of 9-11 Families for a Secure America, a group instrumental in fighting for the REAL ID Act that sets federal standards for driver's licenses.

Some leaders said Mr. Huckabee reminds them of President Bush, who pushed for legalization of illegal aliens and a new supply of foreign guest workers, despite his base calling for better border security and enforcement.

"I would say that Huckabee comes from the same perspective on the issue that George W. Bush came from - that out of a strong sense of compassion, he tries to identify with someone who comes to the United States, even if they came illegally," said Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies.

Huckabee gives a defense of his position in the article.

RLC