Big Brother Will Soon Be Watching

This story raises some alarms about an emerging technology that most people probably know nothing about, but people who have access to it will know pretty much everything about you there is to know:

Here's a vision of the not-so-distant future: Microchips with antennas will be embedded in virtually everything you buy, wear, drive and read, allowing retailers and law enforcement to track consumer items - and, by extension, consumers - wherever they go, from a distance.

A seamless, global network of electronic "sniffers" will scan radio tags in myriad public settings, identifying people and their tastes instantly so that customized ads, "live spam," may be beamed at them.

In "Smart Homes," sensors built into walls, floors and appliances will inventory possessions, record eating habits, monitor medicine cabinets - all the while, silently reporting data to marketers eager for a peek into the occupants' private lives.

Science fiction?

In truth, much of the radio frequency identification technology that enables objects and people to be tagged and tracked wirelessly already exists - and new and potentially intrusive uses of it are being patented, perfected and deployed.

Read the rest of the story at the link. Thanks to Justin for passing it along.

RLC

Giving Away Your Money

This will toast your muffins: Under the current structure of the stimulus package many illegal immigrants will receive a tax rebate. What a country.

RLC

Reagan Nostalgia

William Kristol at The Weekly Standard urges conservatives to get a grip:

Conservative editorialists, radio hosts, and bloggers are unhappy. They don't like the Republican presidential field, and many of them have been heaping opprobrium on the various GOP candidates with astonishing vigor.

For example: John McCain--with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82.3--is allegedly in no way a conservative. And, though the most favorably viewed of all the candidates right now, both among Republicans and the electorate as a whole, he would allegedly destroy the Republican party if nominated.

Or take Mike Huckabee. He was a well-regarded and successful governor of Arkansas, reelected twice, the second time with 40 percent of the black vote. He's come from an asterisk to second in the national GOP polls with no money and no establishment support. Yet he is supposedly a buffoon and political na�f. He's been staunchly pro-life and pro-gun and is consistently supported by the most conservative primary voters--but he is, we're told, no conservative either.

Or Mitt Romney. He's a man of considerable accomplishments, respected by many who have worked with and for him in various endeavors. He took conservative positions on social issues as governor of Massachusetts, and parlayed a one-term governorship of a blue state into a first-tier position in the Republican race. But he, too, we're told, is deserving of no respect. And though he's embraced conservative policies and seems likely to be steadfast in pursuing them--he's no conservative either.

One could go on. And it's true the Republican candidates are not unproblematic. But they are so far performing more credibly than much of the conservative commentariat. Beyond the normal human frailties that affect all of us, including undoubtedly the commentators at this journal, there is one error that is distorting much conservative discussion of the presidential race. It's Reagan nostalgia.

Read the rest at the link to see what Kristol is talking about. I don't know how many of our readers listen to Sean Hannity, but if there's anyone who suffers from the syndrome Kristol writes about it's Hannity. Hannity worships Reagan and seems to have forgotten that the Gipper's tenure was not as glorious and unblemished as he imagines. Indeed, two hundred of our Marines were murdered in Lebanon and Reagan responded by having us slink ignominiously out of the country. He also put Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, a move that set the pro-life movement back by a generation.

Make no mistake. I think Reagan was a historic president, but conservatives like Hannity do make a mistake, in my opinion, when they idealize his presidency and make that ideal the standard by which any candidate is to be measured.

Thanks to Jason for the link.

RLC

Edwards Withdraws

Democrat John Edwards announces his withdrawal from the presidential race in the Hurricane Katrina stricken Ninth Ward of New Orleans, La., Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2008. Edwards' wife Elizabeth and son Jack applaud. So do we.

Maybe Democratic voters who voted for Hillary or Obama better start looking for a lawyer.

RLC

Brave New World

Denyse O'Leary ruined my evening the other night with three predictions she offers at Uncommon Descent. O'Leary looks for the following to happen sometime in the not-to-distant future:

1. Academic institutions will force students to sign statements saying that they renounce the idea that the universe could be intelligently designed. So students from most normal human traditions will be forced to sign a statement saying that their tradition is actually lies, garbage, and drivel. Even though the evidence of the fine tuning of the universe actually supports their traditions' most basic elements. And if they appeal to the judiciary, the judgebots will demand that they sign, if they want an education.

2. Many religion profs, divinity profs, chaplains, alleged Christians in science, etc., will urge the students to sign the statement, because - whether they know it or not - they are totally in the materialist camp. They hope that they can get a salary while they sell out their tradition. It is unclear why these profbots and revbots should not be booted, given that the evidence from science actually supports, rather than undermines, traditional beliefs about the basic nature of the universe. But lots of people get a salary to pretend otherwise, and they will go on doing so.

3. Social workers will come out from under the floorboards from every direction to urge the young people to be "nice" and sign.

I don't know what she bases these depressing prognostications upon other than the historically demonstrable tendency of left-wing materialists to impose a tyrannical and mindless conformity on as many people as possible whenever it is within their power to do so. I hope she's wrong, yet her predictions have about them a certain troubling plausibility. God help us.

RLC

The Evolution of the Surge

Fred Barnes has written a fine piece in The Weekly Standard that takes us behind the scenes of the decision to implement the surge in Iraq. It is a must-read for anyone interested in the war and the history behind the major change in strategy responsible for the current status of that conflict.

President Bush comes out of this narrative looking for all the world like one of the most wise and courageous men ever to hold the office of the Presidency. Almost everyone in the military, the state department, the media and the congress opposed him yet he and a few of his advisors believed we had to win and that the surge was the best, maybe the only, way to accomplish that.

We haven't won yet. There still remain serious systemic problems in Iraq, but Bush's resolute implementation of the strategy called "The Surge" has convinced all but the most dour doubters that a historic victory is at least within our grasp.

Read Barnes' account. It's worth the time.

RLC

Kicking the Addiction

C. MacLeod Fuller comes to the rescue of those ensnared by the lotus eaters (See The Odyssey) on the Isle of Liberalism and offers those mired in the Slough of liberal Despond (See Pilgrim's Progress) a 13 step program of escape.

If you feel helpless to break your own self-destructive addiction to liberal ideas then Fuller's essay is just what you need. Today is the first day of the rest of your life.

RLC

State of the Union

For those who missed it, Ben Johnson at Front Page Mag offers an overview of last night's State of the Union Address. As I listened on radio it seemed that it wasn't the most soaring speech the President ever gave, but it was very substantive and politically adroit. Johnson agrees.

RLC

Guide for the Perplexed

Are you puzzled by some gnawing philosophical conundrum? If so, you may wish to seek relief for your curiosity at Ask A Philosopher. Asking a philosopher a question about a difficult issue may, of course, be a frustrating exercise for the inquirer since philosophers frequently don't give you the answer to your question but prefer instead to help you sort through the various options. Even so, give it a try.

HT: Evangelical Outpost.

RLC

A Time For Grace

Madison Trammel at Christianity Today wonders what should be done about ESPN's Dana Jacobson. If you aren't familiar with Jacobson's recent transgressions go here for the full story. The short of it is that in a drunken rant in which she was vulgarly denigrating the University of Notre Dame, the "Touchdown Jesus," and Jesus Himself she delivered herself of the unladylike sentiment, "F---k Jesus."

This has caused predictable outrage among Christians everywhere, though certainly not of the sort that would have ensued had she substituted Mohammed for Jesus. Many are calling for ESPN to fire her and indeed they fired Rush Limbaugh for much less, and other sports journalists have been given their pink slips by other networks for much more innocuous statements. But I agree with Trammel. The potty-tongued Ms Jacobson obviously needs to have her mouth washed out with soap, but I don't think demanding that she be fired is the best way for Christians to handle this. Trammel says:

Personally, I can't see that firing Jacobson accomplishes much, besides showing that Christians can flex their muscles and get people fired just as well as any other group. "Bless those who persecute you," Paul writes in Romans 12:14, "bless and do not curse." As followers of Christ, we'd be better served by an ESPN-arranged meeting between Jacobson and a group of local pastors. She could apologize in person-something she's already done in a prepared statement-and they could explain, with grace and understanding, why they accept her apology in the name of the one she denigrated.

I think that the circumstances do indeed call for a display of grace, should she ask for it, which would show the world that Christians are compassionate and forgiving people. Let's leave the fatwas to the Muslims. Who knows but that such an act of love and reconciliation would touch Ms Jacobson and perhaps nudge her into the Kingdom. It'd sure illustrate better than any argument ever could the stark difference between Christianity and Islam.

Dana Jacobson

RLC

Rooting For Obama

Barack Obama won big in South Carolina on Saturday, and this will be seen as good news by Republicans who should be cheering for an Obama win in the Democratic nominating process. The reason is that if Hillary wins the nomination she may decide, or have it decided for her, to ask Obama to run as VP. A Hillary/Obama ticket would be almost irresistible to an electorate eager to parade their willingness to vote for a woman and/or a black man regardless of what they stand for. To put both on the same ticket would make the Democrats very difficult to beat in November.

If Obama wins the nomination, however, it's unlikely that Hillary would be willing to serve as his Vice President. The nature of the office would be deemed beneath her station, and she would likely choose to remain in the Senate. If so, the Democratic offering would be weaker with Obama at the head than with him as the running mate.

RLC

Perspective

Ramirez puts the media fixation on actor Heath Ledger's death into perspective:

Sometimes it seems that in order to work for a cable news network one has to pass a superficiality test. The more shallow the applicant the higher he or she scores on the test, and the higher one scores the brighter one's media future.

RLC

McCain's Open Borders Guy

Senator McCain has yet again thumbed his nose at Republican voters. It is remarkable that he manages to get any votes at all in GOP primaries, at least from people concerned about illegal immigration.

This time he has appointed as his "Hispanic Outreach Director" a man by the name of Dr. Juan Hernandez who is an staunch open borders activist. Hernandez has gone on record as claiming that "We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people."

It seems to me that conservative Republicans who are voting for McCain in the primaries know only about his steadfast support for the war in Iraq and perhaps his pro-life credentials but little about the rest of his record. His stand on the war and for unborn children make him, of course, a far better choice than any of the Democratic candidates, all of whom favor retreat from Iraq and partial-birth abortion. But all of the viable Republican candidates have the same views on the war and on life, so why are Republicans voting for the most liberal of the pack?

RLC

A Brief History of ID

James Kushiner offers a brief and useful history of the Intelligent Design movement. His essay is the forward to a series of articles appearing in Salvo magazine and serves as an excellent primer for anyone interested in understanding where ID came from and who some of the key players are.

RLC

Panic on the Right

Peggy Noonan, in a Wall Street Journal Online essay, seems to lament the fratricide taking place among pundits in the Republican Party:

As for the Republicans, their slow civil war continues. The primary race itself is winnowing down and clarifying: It is John McCain versus Mitt Romney, period. At the same time the conservative journalistic world is convulsed by recrimination and attack. They're throwing each other out of the party. Republicans have become very good at that. David Brooks damns Rush Limbaugh who knocks Bill Kristol who anathematizes whoever is to be anathematized this week. This Web site opposes that magazine.

Into the midst of this circular firing squad Noonan lobs a hand grenade:

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

It is certainly the case that the party has found itself being whip-sawed by a White House that appoints excellent judges to the Supreme Court and then buckles almost completely on illegal immigration. Even so, for Noonan to say that Bush has destroyed the GOP because of the Iraq war is quite a stretch unless she expects us to believe that because Bush doesn't have the support of The New York Times and Congressional Democrats that he has therefore destroyed the party.

What in fact has hurt the Republican party more than anything was their failure to do anything to reform Congress when they had the majority and the disgraceful moral conduct of some GOP Congressmen. If Republicans are going to act like Democrats then, voters figure, why vote for the substitute when you can have the real thing?

As for for what Limbaugh said it is indeed hard to credit. Neither McCain nor Huckabee is any more liberal than any other Republican presidential candidate since Goldwater, save Ronald Reagan. It may be that neither of them would win in November, but why either of them should be more of a disaster for the party than Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, or Bush '41 is not clear to me.

Both Noonan and Rush need to step back and get a little deeper perspective. They also need to remember that even if none of the remaining GOP candidates is ideologically pure they are still orders of magnitude better than the Clintons.

Thanks to Jason for the Noonan article.

RLC

Autumn's Onset

I commented to several friends last Fall that I thought autumn came late this year. It seemed that in my part of the country (south-central Pennsylvania) the peak Fall foliage display was about three weeks later than it was a decade ago. I wasn't sure why this should be since I had always thought that the onset of the pigment change was related to conditions like temperature and day length which surely weren't significantly different than they were ten years ago. Nor did I see anything written about autumn's tardiness anywhere, but I was pretty certain I wasn't imagining it. So, when I came upon this story at Science Daily it naturally piqued my interest:

Do those fall colors seem to show up later and later-if at all? Scientists say we can blame increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for prolonging the growing season of the trees. And that may actually be good news for forestry industries.

Writing in the current issue of the journal Global Change Biology, Michigan Technological University Professor David F. Karnosky and colleagues from two continents present evidence that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere act directly to delay the usual autumn spectacle of changing colors and falling leaves in northern hardwood forests.

"Basically, this is a good-news story for our region's forests," said Karnosky. "It suggests that they will become a bit more productive due to the extra carbon being taken up in the autumn, along with the increased photosynthesis throughout the growing season."

They found that the forests on both continents stayed greener longer as CO2 levels rose, independent of temperature changes....There has been plenty of evidence gathered previously to show that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing tree growth to begin earlier in the spring, but until now, most scientists believed that other factors, such as temperature and length of day, were the primary elements influencing autumnal senescence.

This raises some fascinating questions. How sensitive are these plants to CO2 changes? How much of a change in CO2 concentration is necessary to trigger such a profound difference in the timing of senescence? If CO2 increases just a little bit more will deciduous trees hold their leaves all year round? What are the ecological and economic implications of all this?

If anyone knows the answers to any of these questions, let me know.

RLC

Should You Buy a Hybrid?

If you're thinking of making your next car a hybrid there are some things you need to ask yourself. One is whether your primary motive is to do your part to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse emissions or whether it is to save money. This article explains why a hybrid is probably not going to save you much money.

Update: The link in this post has been corrected.

RLC

Why McCain Won't Be President

The Democrats in their debate the other night were all talking about which of them could beat John McCain in November. Evidently, they believe McCain is going to be the GOP nominee. If they're right, it's looking more and more like any of the Democrats would beat him. The reason is that no candidate in the Republican party is likely to generate less enthusiasm among the activist members of the party than is McCain. The grassroots Republicans are largely conservative and, with the exception of two or three of his positions, McCain is not. He's a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and he's going to have a hard time inspiring the foot soldiers to get out and encourage their friends and neighbors to vote for him.

Indeed, a lot of conservatives are talking about not even showing up at the polls if McCain is the candidate. Whether they will or they won't sit it out, a successful campaign requires a high level of excitement and enthusiasm. Bush '41 didn't have it in 1992, nor did Bob Dole have it in 1996, and John McCain won't have it in 2008. It looks a lot like, if McCain is the GOP standard bearer, all a Democrat will have to do to become president is win the nomination of his or her party.

RLC

Shameless Critics

It is depressing to have to go through this again at this late date, especially since we've been over this ground so often in the past, but the President's critics leave us no alternative. The AP has reported that an allegedly independent study has found that the administration made a total of 935 separate statements in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq which were subsequently found to be either untrue or unconfirmable. The left has taken this as proof that George Bush lied us into war and have worked themselves into a swivet over what they see as the Bush administration's impeachable mendacity.

Here's Keith Olbermann and Air America's Rachel Maddow, for instance, talking tonight about the story. Their presentation of this report is breathtakingly fatuous.

First of all, the report is not done by non-partisan, independent actors. One of the organizations involved is funded by George Soros who is a rabidly anti-Bush partisan and a major left-wing moneybags. The AP's failure to mention this in their story is itself a breach of professional responsibility. That neither Olbermann nor Maddow mention it is either an indication that they didn't do their homework or that they were deliberately trying to hide this from their viewers.

Secondly, and most important, Olbermann and Maddow keep referring to the claims made by the administration, including the President, as lies, yet the AP report doesn't use this word and nothing in the story warrants such a judgment.

It is astonishing that this distinction still has to be made, but apparently it needs to be explained for those who, like Mr. Olbermann, have a limited ability to understand simple definitions: An error is not a lie. A lie involves a deliberate attempt to deceive. The liar knows that what he is saying is not true. Nothing in the AP story establishes that anyone knew that what they were asserting about Iraq's threat to the rest of the world, their possession of WMD, their support for al Qaeda, and so on, was in any way false.

On the contrary, the intelligence services of the whole world thought they were true, everyone in the Clinton administration and the Democratic leadership thought they were true, Saddam was behaving as if they were true, Iraqi defectors were telling us they were true. Yet when it turns out that some of the claims appear to have been wrong, Mr. Olbermann, whose own relationship with the truth is somewhat checkered, eagerly concludes that George Bush and his minions are liars and calls for impeachment.

Anyone who believes that George Bush was the only one who was telling us at the time that Saddam was a real threat and that he lied us into war in Iraq needs to watch this video. It'll be an eye-opener (HT: A Blog For All):

Some people truly are shameless. If one is going to call someone else a liar he has the responsibility of demonstrating that the person in question knew that what he was saying was false. To accuse someone of lying without making that demonstration is a reprehensible slander and the person who does it has disgraced himself.

RLC

More on the Objectification of Women

A lot of people have weighed in on last Saturday's post titled The Objectification of Women. Check the Feedback Page for an example from a student that is probably representative of the majority of replies.

RLC