Doing Something

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost pokes a little fun at the LIVE 8 festivities:

Last weekend hundreds of thousands of people gathered in ten spots around the globe for a series of free concerts meant to persuade world leaders to give more money to fight poverty in Africa. The idea for the concerts was conceived in May and hastily organized by Bob Geldof. Within two months the former Boomtown Rat was able to convince dozens of actors, musicians, and politicians to join in forming LIVE8, "the largest mandate for action in history."

Unlike most benefit concerts, though, Live8 won't be raising a dime to actually end poverty. As the web site notes, "LIVE 8 is calling for people across the world to unite in one call - in 2005 it is your voice we are after, not your money." Geldolf says the event is intended to raise consciousness and exert political pressure on the G8 summiteers.

According to the New York Times, the concerts included more than 200 musical acts scheduled to play more than 69 hours of music. Organizers said 5.5 billion people would be able to watch or listen on the Internet and more than 182 television stations and 2,000 radio networks and stations. Coldplay's Chris Martin called the concerts "the greatest thing that's ever been organized, probably, in the history of the world."

The greatest thing that's ever been organized (probably) in the history of the world?

Hmm, sounds like a challenge. Well, ... the blogosphere accepts.

The greatest thing that has ever been organized - probably - in the history of the world will occur in the blogosphere. By linking blogs we shall create a revolution in consciousness raising. We shall raise our consciousness higher than has ever been attempted before. And once our collective consciousnesses have reached stratospheric levels, the G8 will have no choice but to consent to our demands.

Here is how you can participate in the greatest thing that has ever been organized - probably - in the history of the world:

1. Raise your consciousness.

2. Show others that you have raised your consciousness by linking to this post and displaying the Official Logo of LotR (at Carter's post) on your blog.

3. Tell the world exactly what it is you are raising your consciousness about (it can be anything you want).

4. Use your raised consciousness to exert political pressure on the G8 summiteers.

5. Feel good about having participated in an action that, while not having actually affected anything, has allowed you to be part of the greatest thing that ever been organized - probably -- in the history of the world.

As Geldolf said, "Something must be done, even if it doesn't work." By participating in the Linkers of the Revolution event, you can do something. It won't work, of course, but that doesn't matter. Something must be done. And this is, technically speaking, something.

Viva la Revolution!

Maybe Carter's being a little hard on the LIVE 8 folks. They mean well, after all, and isn't that all that matters?

A Friend's Admonition

A friend reproves us for being both unfair and guilty of the same fault we imputed to others in a couple of our posts of 7/7. His argument is in our Feedback section. Check it out and see if you agree.

Life in Hell

A South Korean newspaper sheds a little light on life in the socialist workers' paradise of North Korea:

Citing interviews with North Korean defectors, a Seoul-based research institute said yesterday that the regime in Pyongyang is continuing an aggressive campaign to suppress underground churches in the country.

The 2005 North Korea Human Rights White Paper published by the Korea Institute of National Unification reported a number of executions of religious figures operating underground Protestant churches in the North. In 2001, five people found guilty of conducting missionary work were executed by firing squad in Nampo.

North Korean defectors are quoted in the report as saying that Pyongyang is doing everything it can to stop the spread of Protestantism in the communist country. According to the report, 86 members of underground churches were rounded up in the early 1990s in Anak, South Hanghae province, some of whom were executed while the rest were sent to political prisons.

A North Korean defector said he had once participated in a three-year long operation to uproot an underground church in 1996. Since 1997, North Korea has been instructing its people to report any kind of proselytizing to the authorities. As a pretense that religious freedom exists in the North, Pyongyang has built a number of churches, but underground churches have been vigorously suppressed.

According to the report, economic crimes in particular continue to be punished through public executions. Disclosures were also made detailing executions of people who had been selling human flesh at the height of the country's food crisis in the late 1990s. The research institute said a number of defectors had given testimony about the sale of human flesh.

They're so hungry for food that they'll eat human flesh. They're so hungry for God that they'll risk imprisonment or death in order to find Him. The poor masses of North Korea find themselves languishing in a state-imposed hell. They're starving both physically and spiritually, but their leaders are determined to manufacture nuclear weapons which will neither fill their bellies nor nourish their souls. For what?

A Simplistic View

If anyone would like insight into the thinking of true-blue lefties and why the Democratic Party is doomed to utter irrelevance short of a miraculous turn-about, they ought to read today's discussion thread at Democratic Underground.

General Theme: The London atrocities were all the fault of Bush/Blair.

The belief seems to be that if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and Iraq London wouldn't have happened. Never mind that 9/11 predated the invasion of Afghanistan and that Islamic terrorism has been striking western targets at least since the 1970s. What the DU contributers don't seem to accept is that Islamo-terrorists are only proximally concerned with Iraq. The real reason for their hatred of the west is that our values are antithetical to Islam.

Moreover, we, the infidels, have produced a steadily advancing civilization while they, the faithful, have failed in every measure to move beyond the middle ages. This is a maddeningly difficult fact to accept and it fuels their rage against us. Their only accomplishment in the last five hundred years has been to devise more ingenious ways of killing people. Finally, as long as the west, or at least the U.S., stands behind Israel's right to exist the Islamists will hate us.

To blame the London horror on Bush and Blair is to hold a very simplistic view of the struggle we're in.

George Galloway: Political Groin Puncher

MP George Galloway says this today: "We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings."

This really is low. Galloway is trying to turn this atrocity to his political advantage and the tactic is as tawdry as it can be. First, it's easy to say that attacking terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq makes an attack on the homeland more likely. If it happens the person who said it can say he told us so. If it doesn't everyone forgets that he said it.

Second, if Galloway truly believes that England would not have been a target had they not allied themselves with the U.S. he's very naive. Islamists are at war with western civilization and they will eventually attack it anywhere they can. Allies of the U.S. are primary targets because of the urgency of isolating the United States. If and when that is accomplished all western nations will be leisurely intimidated until they are reduced to abject dhimmitude (subservience to the will of the Islamic caliphate).

The proximate goal of the Islamists (and tacitly approved by many other Muslims throughout the world) is to cripple the U.S. and its allies. The mid-term goal is to translate that weakness into the destruction of Israel, and the long-term goal is the spread of Taliban-like rule across the globe. If Galloway can't see this he's burying his head in the sand.

Third, it is reprehensible of him to assert that the government ignored the threat of Islamic terrorism. He has no way to know this to be true. He's simply trying to use this horrific event to discredit the very people who are doing the most to defeat the savages who carried it out. This is the worst kind of opportunism, and Galloway should be held up to public opprobrium for engaging in it.

Why Liberals Smear

Chuck Schumer says that the Dems are gearing up to "go to war" over Bush's SCOTUS nominee. Apparently they see the prospect of a conservative Justice as a greater threat to the United States than Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies. At any rate Dennis Prager sums up the Democrats' rules of engagement for the political battlefield:

We don't know who President George W. Bush will nominate to succeed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But this is certain: Democrats will smear the nominee. It will not matter how personally honorable, how intellectually honest, how legally profound this nominee is. Indeed, the greater the individual, the greater the personal attacks will be.

Why? There are three reasons.

First, Democrats believe that conservatives by definition are bad people. As Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic National Committee recently said, "in contradistinction" to Republicans, Democrats care if children go to bed hungry at night. In most Democrats' minds, conservatives/Republicans do not care if children go to bed hungry, and they are racist, intolerant, regard women as inferior, are stingy and mean spirited, and prefer war to peace.

The reason they see conservatives this way is that most people on the Left are certain that they mean well; therefore their opponents do not mean well. Moreover, liberals tend to assess policy positions on that basis -- are the motives good? -- rather than on the basis of what actually does good.

For example, liberals advocate bilingual education for immigrant children despite the fact that bilingual education hurts immigrant children. It slows learning the language of the adopted country and integrating into it, and thereby hurts their chances for success. Nevertheless liberal educators and politicians prefer bilingual education -- out of compassion for immigrant children (and antipathy to American assimilation). Therefore liberals believe that since compassion leads them to favor bilingual education, only a lack of compassion can explain conservative preference for English immersion.

Likewise in liberal eyes, the Republican/conservative preference for lowering taxes can only emanate from selfishness and apathy toward the poor. And conservative support for the war in Iraq cannot emanate from love of liberty and a moral desire to destroy Islamic totalitarians, but rather from love of oil, commitment to American imperialism and macho adoration of military might.

On issue after issue, Democrats perceive Republicans as not merely wrong, but bad. And when fighting the bad, almost any weapon may be used. The tactic of choice has been the smearing of conservatives. There are few major conservative political figures whose names have not been sullied by liberals. It began with Judge Robert Bork, reached its nadir with Clarence Thomas and continues to this day.

Republicans have come nowhere near making the number of personal attacks on the private lives of public individuals. One reason, ironically, is that people expect more decent personal conduct from conservatives. Nor is it intellectually honest to counter that Republicans did the same thing to President Clinton. Had President Clinton said, "I am sorry for my lapse in judgment. I am sorry to my family and to my country," Republicans would have dropped the Monica Lewinsky affair. It was his lying -- to the country and under oath -- that kept the issue alive.

A second reason Democrats and others on the Left use smear as a political weapon is to avoid challenging ideas and intellectual argument. Liberals have been able to do so in all the areas they dominate -- academia, news media and unions. Instead, they have learned to rely on personal attacks, such as routinely labeling opponents "racist," "sexist," "homophobic" and "intolerant."

Third, having been unable to persuade the American public to adopt most of its policies, the Left has increasingly relied on the courts to do what the political process will not do. As Democrat William A. Galston, former aide to President Bill Clinton, admitted this past weekend, "Beginning in the 1950s, the Democratic Party convinced itself that, especially on social issues, the principal vehicle of advance would be the court."

Therefore, nearly all the Left's eggs are in the judicial basket. It knows: no liberal courts, no liberal agenda. When combined with moral contempt for conservatives and an inability to persuade the public, the Left must retain the Supreme Court at any price. And that price is the good name of good people. As you will see.

This is what makes liberals so loveable. They're just such fair-minded, decent, and honest folk.

I remember back in the late sixties there was a massive protest in the streets of Washington against the Vietnam war. A car containing an elderly couple who just happened to be driving through town was unable to move because of the crowd in the streets. One of the young gentlemen threw himself onto the hood of the car and vomited all across the windshield right in the faces, as it were, of the occupants. The tactics of the Left have apparently changed little over the years.

When you're bereft of ideas, when your solutions to the world's problems defy common sense and historical experience, when an honest debate works only to your detriment, the only way you can hope to win is to spew vomit and slime on good and decent people.

Limit Tenure?

Bruce Bartlett offers what seems on the surface, at least, to be a fine idea in the Washington Times:

Lately, something of a consensus has developed around a constitutional amendment to limit justices' terms of 18 years, staggered so there would in theory be an opening every two years. This means every president serving a full term would likely make two appointments to the Supreme Court.

I believe elimination of life tenure, through this scheme or another, would greatly reduce the intensity of Supreme Court appointment battles because the stakes would not be so high. Both sides would know if they failed this time around, they would probably have another chance within two years.

Eighteen years is longer than the historical average tenure for a sitting Justice. Bartlett notes that:

Historically, people were appointed to the Supreme Court relatively late in life -- as a capstone to long careers in law or public service. Today, there is a much greater effort to appoint relatively young justices so they will spend as much time there as possible. There is also greater pressure for justices to avoid retiring until severe physical infirmity demands it.

For these reasons, tenure on the court has increased over time and turnover has fallen. According to Northwestern University law professors Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren, since 1971 the average justice's tenure has increased from 12.2 years (1941-1970) to 25.6 years. The average age of a justice leaving office has risen from 67.6 years to 78.8 years between the same periods. And the average number of years between court appointments has almost doubled from one every 1.67 years to one every 3.27 years. The current makeup of the court is one of the longest in history, lasting more than 10 years, since Justice Stephen Breyer's 1994 appointment.

Good article, good idea. Bartlett offers a couple of other advantages of this proposal in his essay. Unlike other suggested constitutional amendments this one would be easy for both conservatives and liberals to vote for. We doubt, though, that anyone in Congress would expend the energy to really push it unless there are some really ugly nomination fights over the next couple of vacancies.

Is Syria Getting Tough on Terrorists?

Maybe Syria intends to avert an American incursion of its territory after all:

A Syrian policeman was killed and two militants captured during fighting on a mountain overlooking Damascus yesterday in a second day of battles between Syrian security forces and rebels connected with the war in Iraq. The gunbattle, which allegedly involved former bodyguards of Saddam Hussein, came amid indications that the Syrian Government is increasing its efforts to capture militants who use Syria as a staging ground for attacks in Iraq.

Sana, the official Syrian news agency, reported: "The clash took place on Mount Qassioun with a group of people wanted for terrorist crimes, some of whom were former bodyguards. The gunbattle claimed the life of Ahmad Hijazi, a security forces officer, Sana said, which added that two police officers and two other security force officers were wounded.

The agency said that the two people arrested were Sharif Aied Saif Smadi, a Jordanian, and the wife of his brother, Mohammed, who is on the run.

The incident came a day after fighting between Syrian troops and suspected Islamist militants returning from Iraq who were trying to cross into northern Lebanon, near Homs. Two soldiers and a militant were killed in the fighting, the first incident of its kind along the Lebanon-Syria frontier. Syrian troops arrested at least 34 militants staying at a nearby safe house, Sana said.

Lebanese media reports said that among those arrested were Lebanese and Algerians. The al-Jazeera satellite channel named the dead militant as Majdi bin Mohammed bin Said al-Zreibi, a Tunisian. Syria faces pressure from the US to stop militants crossing into Iraq.

Let us hope that Syria will be consistent in applying pressure on those who are using its territory as a safe haven from which to launch assaults on Iraq.

Debka File says that the gun battle broke out as a result of a massacre of Syrian tourists by the terrorists although why they would have done this was not made clear.

Sagan on Skepticism

"But the tools of skepticism are generally unavailable to the citizens of our society. They're hardly ever mentioned in the schools, even in the presentation of science, its most ardent practitioner, although skepticism repeatedly sprouts spontaneously out of the disappointments of everyday life. Our politics, economics, advertising, and religions (New Age and Old) are awash in credulity. Those who have something to sell, those who wish to influence public opinion, those in power, a skeptic might suggest, have a vested interest in discouraging skepticism."

Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Sagan is exactly right. He has put his finger on one reason why there is so much opposition from the Neo-Darwinian priesthood to those skeptics who dissent from the true religion.

Moral Equivalency Watch

Apparently Brian Williams' blow dryer has singed his common sense. That's as good an explanation as any for why the NBC anchor would have made this blockheaded statement to Andrea Mitchell the other night. In a story on the newly elected Iranian president, a man who appears to some of the Americans who were held hostage in Tehran in the late seventies to be one of their abductors, Williams said:

"What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."

Evidently, at some point in Mr. Williams' educational journey he was taught that George Washington kidnapped and held foreign diplomats against their will for over a year, had them beaten and mistreated and in fear of their lives, which were repeatedly threatened, not because they had committed any crimes against the colonies but simply because they were British. Ah, you say Washington never did that? Maybe it was Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, or Jefferson. Maybe John Adams. It must have been one of those guys because Brian Williams said so on NBC.

For sophisticates like Williams terrorism is relative. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, don't you know. The fact is that the word terrorist denotes something pretty specific in today's parlance. It refers to one who deliberately undertakes to kill large numbers of innocent civilians in order to weaken opposition to whatever goals the murderer might have in mind. At the very minimum a terrorist is a murderer.

Since the word terrorist did not exist in the 1770s, when Williams says that the British might have regarded the founders as terrorists the only meaning he can be ascribing to the word is the meaning it has today. As such, his statement makes him look like a dunce.

Williams, like so many liberals, can't seem to escape the desire to draw a moral equivalence between Americans and America's foes. In their view, if our enemies are evil they're no more so than the very best men this country has produced. Evil, after all, has no objective definition. In the Orwellian Newspeak of the times evil is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, the liberation of fifty million people is a great atrocity, terrorists who deliberately murder women and children are compared by Michael Moore to the Minutemen of colonial America, Bush is Hitler.

It's as pathetic as it is stupid.

The Dems' Dilemma

A couple of Washington Post writers think that the bipartisan filibuster deal struck six weeks ago will make it difficult for the Democrats to stop a conservative Bush nominee for the seat vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor:

The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under "extraordinary circumstances." Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances" and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.

The distinction is crucial because Democrats want to force Bush to pick a centrist, not a staunch conservative as many activist groups on the political right desire. Holding only 44 of the Senate's 100 seats, Democrats have no way to block a Republican-backed nominee without employing a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to stop.

GOP leaders, sensing the Democrats' bind, expressed confidence yesterday that the Senate will confirm Bush's eventual nominee, no matter how ideologically rigid. "I think there is every expectation, every reason to believe that there will be no successful filibuster," Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on "Fox News Sunday."

Under the "Gang of 14" accord, the seven Republican signers agreed to deny Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) the votes he needed to carry out his threat to bar judicial filibusters by changing Senate rules. The seven are implicitly released from the deal if the Democratic signers renege on their end. Yesterday, key players suggested the seven Democrats will automatically be in default if they contend a nominee's ideological views constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify a filibuster.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of the 14 signers, noted that the accord allowed the confirmation of three Bush appellate court nominees so conservative that Democrats had successfully filibustered them for years: Janice Rogers Brown, William H. Pryor Jr. and Priscilla R. Owen. Because Democrats accepted them under the deal, Graham said on the Fox program, it is clear that ideological differences will not justify a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.

"Based on what we've done in the past with Brown, Pryor and Owen," Graham said, "ideological attacks are not an 'extraordinary circumstance.' To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent."

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a leader of the seven Democratic signers, largely concurred. Nelson "would agree that ideology is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' unless you get to the extreme of either side," his spokesman, David DiMartino, said in an interview.

Of course, this all assumes that Democrats can be trusted to keep their word. Even if they violate the spirit of the deal, however, and seek to filibuster a nominee on ideological grounds, it still works to their disadvantage inasmuch as their betrayal would anger perhaps all Republicans and enough Democrats a cloture vote to end the filibuster would succeed.

So if the Democrats refuse to filibuster over ideological differences, Bush wins. If they do try to filibuster, either cloture will be invoked (if the Republicans can get 60 votes), or the rules will be changed to disallow filibusters (if the Republicans can muster 50 votes). Either way, it looks like any reasonably well-qualified nominee will be confirmed.

The wild-card in all this would be the nomination by Bush of his buddy Alberto Gonzalez. There are enough conservative Republicans who will settle for nothing less than a staunch "original intent" Justice on the Court and who are sufficiently skeptical of Gonzalez that the necessary votes to confirm him may not be there. The word among conservatives is that Gonzalez is Spanish for Souter. Another Souter is the last thing the Court, or the nation, needs.

Tough Words

Iraqi blogger Omar at Iraq The Model has some tough but wise words for the cut and runners:

Yesterday [the] interior ministry in Saudi Arabia uncovered a new list of wanted Al-Qaeda members with 36 names on it, 21 of who are believed to be residing in Iraq right now.

Can anyone tell me how can these terrorists be stopped from moving their zone of action to other countries if they weren't intercepted right here and right now? There's no doubt that once Iraq falls in their hands they will start looking for other battle grounds and they will search for the "greatest Satan" in other places. It is the American existence in Iraq that attracted them to a great extent and when there are no Americans in Iraq Al-Qaeda will not simply drop their weapons and start a normal life, they will seek other places where they can find, and kill Americans.

What I want to say here is that it is our fate to fight terrorism on our own land and we (the majority) have accepted to challenge this fate the day we abandoned Saddam and welcomed our freedom but that's not the case for you in America. Actually we've got no other choice but to fight and keep fighting until we win over the terrorists because otherwise we'll have to submit to their will and the damage would be irreversible.

Fighting terrorism for us in Iraq is a matter of life or death so we have no choice but to keep fighting until we kill or lock in jail every one of them and we're doing this whether the world supported us or not but in case we failed, the consequences will not be confined by Iraq's borders. You (the west) can step back and wait for the terrorists to knock on your doors at any minute or you can put your s*** together and fight them while they're thousands of miles away.

This is war, it's not a picnic and don't think that we're enjoying it and we're not expecting you to enjoy it either. By quitting now some might think that needless losses are going to be avoided but that's-in my opinion-is a very shortsighted way of thinking because quitting now will only expose America and the rest of the world to a much greater threat.

I was talking about this to one of my friends and he described this war in an interesting way, he said "this war is much like a fierce boxing match; you punch and you get punched but even if you're stronger than your opponent you should not allow him to catch his breath at any round because he might then give you a surprising punch when the next round begins and knocks you down".

So my advice to the American politicians on both sides but especially those on the left side is: grow up, this is not the time to seek political wins and it's not the time to use other's mistakes to get some publicity. We're facing very tough times so use your skills to find solutions. Bottom line is, talk less, think more and do more.

Unfortunately, Omar is laboring under the illusion that the Left in this country gives a damn about Iraq. They don't. What they care about is abortion on demand, gay marriage, and getting the political power to see that these remain, or become, legal. That means denying George Bush and the Republicans any successes they might otherwise achieve, and that means undercutting our effort in Iraq in any way they can without jeopardizing their own political prospects.

If the U.S. is going to succeed in establishing a stable and free Iraq (and, as an eventual consequence, a stable and free Syria and Iran)it will have to be done without the cooperation of the Left, at least the hard Left of Move On.org, etc.

The Next SCOTUS Retirement?

We don't like to spread rumors, especially internet rumors, but, well, this was too good to keep to ourselves. A blog which specializes in legal and judicial matters says this:

Here's a wildcard for you: I have it on reasonably good authority that an unlikely retirement might be on the way, too. A Supreme Court insider told me several weeks ago that Souter may well retire. He apparently told friends and family that he has always planned to step down upon turning 65, and that he'd rather return to New Hampshire year-round than continue to spend time in D.C. He's 65 now.

If that happens, remember where you read it first. If it doesn't happen, just pretend I never wrote it.

And that we never repeated it. Unfortunately, we don't really think Souter will retire, although he should have done so about twenty years ago. He's going to need some income to buy himself a new house when his current domicile gets converted into the Lost Liberty Hotel.

Thank You, America

The Middle East Media Research Institute has the translation of a column written by a Saudi named Muhammed al-Sheikh. The essay appeared June 18th in the Saudi daily al-Jazirah and was titled Thank You America:

"What have the Arabs given us Saudis in comparison to what we have gained from our relations with America? I know very well that this is an extremely sensitive issue that many would hesitate to address; they are restrained by a culture of fear that prevents them from confronting controversial and sensitive issues head-on.

"The late King Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, was a resourceful and far-sighted statesman when he chose the Americans rather than the British to come and search for oil in the Kingdom. He did so despite Britain at the time being an important force in the region, with its colonies and dependencies surrounding the infant kingdom. The politics of the time plus the colonial legacies of both Britain and France made King Abdul Aziz distance himself from them and look to the New World.

"Not long after the Americans and their expertise arrived, oil was gushing from beneath the desert sands and the development of the modern Saudi state began.

"Following World War II, the Arab countries had to choose between the two different world systems - communism or capitalism. King Abdul Aziz chose capitalism, the West, and America in particular. Thanks to this relationship that has lasted for more than six decades, we Saudis were able to invest oil revenues in building our country. King Abdul Aziz laid the foundations for a consistent Saudi foreign policy that held the Kingdom's interests above other considerations.

"These are the reasons why the Kingdom flourished while other countries went down or teetered on the verge of collapsing. Those countries bet on the wrong horse and did not realize that survival lies in economic development and modernization. They chose to confine themselves in a cocoon and remain isolated from the rest of the world, blinded by the illusions of nationalism and other false ideologies. It was indeed very strange to hear those fragile regimes labeling themselves progressive while calling us reactionary.

"We must admit that our relations with America were the cornerstone for our development and progress. In return, we must ask what we have gained from our relations with the Arab world. Speaking frankly and unequivocally, all we got from them was trouble. Our brothers, as they call themselves, conspired against us, attacked us, and used all the means at their disposal to derail our plans for unity.

"History has proven that Arab nationalism is a destructive ideology. We, the Saudis, must set our priorities and carefully read history to extract its lessons while at the same time endeavoring to build something new that does not take anything for granted - as has been the case in the past - but that thoroughly debates and analyzes everything. We must rely on an ideology that treats the national interests of this country as the top priority."

A few more columns like this and the Democrats are going to have to find themselves another myth to substitute for the one about how Americans are despised throughout the Middle East because of our interference in Muslim lands.

Red and Blue Litmus

For years the Democrats insisted that any so-called "litmus test" for Supreme Court nominees was unfair and inappropriate. That was then, this is now:

Democrats called for a deliberate review of any nominee and pledged to press the eventual candidate on issues including abortion and same-sex marriage, while Republicans declared that such specific inquiries were out of line. "All questions are legitimate," Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. "What is your view on Roe v. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage? They are going to try to get away with the idea that we're not going to know their views. But that's not going to work this time."

Senator Ted Kennedy threatened that if the President abuses his power and nominates someone out of the mainstream of American opinion he will oppose the nominee. Sen. Kennedy is not known for his sagacity or clarity of thought, but this is remarkable even for him.

How is it an abuse of power for the President to exercise his constitutional prerogative to nominate anyone he wishes to the Supreme Court? If the candidate is unqualified the Senate can refuse to confirm him or her, but it's just goofy to call a nomination an "abuse" of power. And what constitutes being "out of the mainstream," anyway? Is anyone to Mr. Kennedy's right out of the mainstream? Would Justices Thomas, Scalia, or Rehnquist be out of the American mainstream? Why would a conservative of their stripe be regarded as extreme but former ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg be acceptable?

But then such questions are idle. Senators Kennedy and Schumer are not interested in rational discussion nor argument. They are interested in imposing their ideological will on the nation through the decisions of the Supreme Court. So, we hope, is Bush. The difference is that Bush has the constitutional right to do it, and the Senators have no right to stop him unless they can muster a majority who feel as they do. All their talk of abuses and mainstreams is so much smoke designed to obscure the fact that their opposition to the president's choices is not at all about qualifications, it's about ideology.

The Big Lie

The Left hyperventilates every time President Bush connects 9/11 to the War on Terror and the WOT to Iraq. They just can't bring themselves to believe that Islamic terrorists like al Qaida and more secular terrorists like Saddam Hussein might actually cooperate. Any claim that they do is regarded by them as another one of Bush's multitudinous lies. They point animatedly at the 9/11 Commission report's finding that no link has been found between Saddam and 9/11 as if that were all the proof they needed that no linkage exists between Saddam and al Qaida.

Melanie Phillips has collated the evidence, however, and as happens with clock-like regularity, it turns out that the President's critics have to simply ignore a mountain of fact in order to maintain that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaida. Here's one significant example of the many she discusses:

The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin, Saddam's biographer, got hold of a top secret memo made available by Iraq's interim government which explicitly linked Saddam's regime to Mohammed Atta, the terrorist mastermind behind 9/11, and the Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. Written to Saddam by the former head of Iraq's intelligence service, it contained the following incendiary passage:

'Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer (an Arabic nom-de-guerre - his real identity is unknown) and we hosted him in Abu Nidal's house at al-Dora under our direct supervision. We arranged a work programme for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him . . . He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy'.

Note the date: July 1 2001. Note the phrases 'the targets that we have agreed to destroy' and 'under our direct supervision'.

There's much more information like this at her site. Of course, it's not proof, but then nothing would constitute proof for the Left. Even if Hussein admitted that he personally financed the 9/11 operation the Left would protest that he was tortured by Alberto Gonzalez in order to extract the confession from him. These folk are in deep denial. Phillips closes her piece with this:

As I have noted on innumerable occasions, none of this evidence is cast-iron. But there is so much of it, it is simply not credible that Saddam had no links with al Qaeda, even if he was not personally involved in 9/11. And as for his links with other terror outfits, this is indisputable. Saddam's Iraq was the principal training ground for Islamic terrorism.

The anti-western left has, over the course of history, fallen time after time for the propaganda of murderous tyrants who offered a handy platform for bashing the home society by providing the alibi of conscience. The investment of personal, political and moral identity that this represents is so immense that after a short while such gullible dupes are simply incapable of recognizing reality even when it stares them in the face. Hence their stupefaction when confronted with the enormities of Robespierre, Stalin or Mao. To that list must now be added the Islamic jihad and Saddam Hussein. The difference is that this time these useful idiots have taken the middling people of Britain and Europe - and increasingly, it seems, of America - with them into the land of deluded wishful thinking. The result could be that this war against the jihadi terror could be lost -- at home.

Read the whole thing.

Our Amazing Soldiers and Marines

Blackfive has a fascinating account of combat in Fallujah shortly after several American contractors had been killed, their corpses abused and hung from the trestle of a bridge. It's a great read for the Fourth of July and once you start it you won't be able to stop. The courage and toughness of our troops is simply incredible.

Have a great Independence Day.

Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

The debate over Intelligent Design usually focuses on the biological component of Design theory and thus many lay-people may be unaware that there is also another, even more powerful design argument based on physics. Some writers have written on this topic for the general public, Hugh Ross, for one, but perhaps the best book I've found that deals with this issue is a work by University of Delaware physicist Stephen Barr. Barr's effort is entitled Modern Physics and Ancient Faith and is an erudite and very comprehensive treatment of the support that contemporary physics gives to belief in a cosmic Designer.

The scope of Barr's study encompasses not only physics but also mathematics, philosophy, and theology. His scholarship and learning are impressive yet the book does not swamp the reader with math or recondite technical concepts. Barr explains the concepts of physics which bear upon the matter of design lucidly and cogently.

The framework upon which the arguments of the book are hung is a comparison of the worldviews of materialism, the belief that matter is all there is and that all phenomena are ultimately explicable in terms of material processes, and theism, the belief that behind the phenomena of the world there lies an intelligent mind which has created and ordered the cosmos.

For at least two centuries materialism waxed strong among philosophers and scientists. Materialism was based upon the evidence of our senses, it was the philosophical foundation for science and thus of knowledge. If we couldn't test a hypothesis empirically without invoking immaterial entities and explanations it was dismissed as literal nonsense. Theism was based upon speculation and putative revelation. It was not knowledge, it was faith. Theism began to diminish among educated people during the Enlightenment, and its complete demise was prophesied repeatedly throughout the twentieth century.

Gradually, however, it began to dawn on philosophers and scientists throughout the last century that advances in physics were reversing the momentum that materialism had achieved. It was beginning to become clear that theism was more compatible with the phenomena being discovered by scientists than was materialism and that materialists were having to resort to the most bizarre, untestable hypotheses in order to save their worldview from utter loss.

There were five developments in particular, Barr calls them plot twists, which support the theistic view and which are difficult to explain in terms of materialistic atheism:

1. Big Bang cosmology entails that the universe had a beginning. This is a vindication of the theistic view and a shock to the materialists who were convinced that the universe was eternal.

2. The deep mathematical structure of the universe possesses a beauty, elegance, and complexity that seems incompatible with the materialist notion that the universe just is, that its existence is simply a brute fact that needs no explanation.

3. The physical parameters that govern the universe are so precisely set that deviations of the most exquisitely minute amounts in any one of dozens of these would have made the existence of a universe in which life could emerge and thrive impossible.

4. Increasing evidence from physics, mathematics, cognitive philosophy and neuroscience is leading people who think about these things to the conclusion that there's more to human understanding than just a physical brain. There is increasing evidence that there's something more than matter which comprises our cognitive apparatus.

5. The unfolding of the implications of quantum mechanics has undermined one of the major materialist arguments against free-will, i.e. the idea that in a closed universe there is no opening for freedom. Quantum theory has also raised a powerful argument against materialism in that "a careful analysis of the theory suggests that observers lie, at least in part, outside of the description provided by physics." In other words, one of the entailments of quantum physics, some are arguing, is that there must be something about observers of physical systems that is itself non-physical.

There are, Barr argues, only three ways to explain these phenomena naturalistically: They are the product either of the laws of nature, natural selection, or chance. He argues that only the last of these avoids logical difficulties which beset the other two. Even so, for the universe and life to have arisen in the form it has by chance requires that the materialist resort to "infinities of unobservables." They have to posit an infinitely existing universe or an infinite number of disparate universes, or an infinite number of discrete domains in the present universe, or a near infinite number of planets (to account for the emergence of life), or they have to posit an infinite number of worlds constantly splitting as observations and choices occur. As Barr says, "It seems that to abolish one unobservable God, it takes an infinite number of unobservable substitutes."

Modern Physics and Ancient Faith goes into a great deal of detail about each of these developments or plot twists, and although some of it may seem a little arcane, particularly the discussion of symmetries in physics, almost all of it is quite accessible to the interested layman.

As mentioned above, this is one of the best books available on the contemporary argument for the existence of a transcendent intelligence based on the physical facts of the cosmos. We recommend it to anyone interested in the intersection of science, religion, and philosophy. A published review of it can be found here and the book can be ordered here.

Helping Africa

Amidst all the talk about yesterday's Live 8 concerts and the G8 summit talks Herb London suggests a few pointed questions. Recalling that twenty years ago similar concerts (called Live Aid) were held which raised a couple of billion dollars for African relief he wonders what ever became of that money? Who received it? What was it used for?Who is accountable for it?

"Moreover," he notes, "over the last decade government and private charities have poured over $25 billion into Africa for seemingly little effect. In fact, Africa has had an aggregate g.d.p. reduction of about 25 percent since the Live Aid concerts two decades ago."

Live Aid was derisively called Band Aid by some who argued that unless the corruption which causes poverty on that continent is removed, financial aid is little more than putting a band aid on a gangrenous limb. Throwing money at poverty salves the conscience and makes us feel like we're doing something noble, but if, as Peter Baur, the father of development economics noted, "foreign aid is little more than poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries," then are we really doing anything other than wasting precious resources?

As Hudson says:

Without question the issue at hand is poverty in Africa, but overlooked by well meaning rockers is that as long as tyrannical governments control the distribution of funds those targeted for relief never get it. Starvation is indeed a problem in many parts of Africa, most especially in the Sudan. But in this nation emergency food relief sent by the U.S. and others is used as a weapon to subjugate designated enemies of the government. This has been a pattern observed earlier in Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

"Eliminating poverty anywhere in the world," he goes on to say, "is a worthwhile, if utopian, goal. But, money alone won't do it when those funds aren't used to address the problem. All the serenades of 'We Are The World' and 'Do They Know It's Christmas?' won't amount to a hill of beans unless there is accountability for the billions of dollars that will be contributed."

It is ironic that the people who are most concerned about the terrible level of poverty in Africa are relatively mute about demanding the ouster of the tyrannies which are responsible for it. Perhaps the attention currently being focused on the suffering of the African people will cause a few of those whose hearts sincerely break over the deprivation and misery of these people to realize that in order to bring relief and justice to those in need one must sometimes employ force. Throwing money at the poor just empowers their oppressors and makes their problems even more severe.

Condign Punishment

Brother Bill opines re the BTK killer that:

Personally, I think we should be reading in the news that he "tried to escape" whereby he grabbed a gun from a guard, saw no way out, and shot himself in the head...five or six times.

Bill is showing his compassionate side. What he suggests would actually be kinder than what Rader deserves.

PC "Journalism"

How's this for an amazing piece of media America-bashing? In an article on an elderly woman's birthday in Amsterdam, Reuters seizes the opportunity to shoehorn into the story a ludicrously irrelevant swipe at the U.S., from the 19th century, no less:

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch woman who swears by a daily helping of herring for a healthy life celebrated her 115th birthday on Wednesday as the oldest living person on record.

Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.

The passionate soccer fan celebrated her birthday in a nursing home in the northern Dutch town of Hoogeveen.

It's a classic specimen of a PC social announcement, one which will be taught at journalism schools to future generations of journalistic novices eager to learn how it's done. Thanks for the tip to Jonah at The Corner.

Despite the utter dopiness exhibited by the writer of the piece, it does inspire one to consider a possible career as a composer of such announcements for Reuters. It seems like easy money. Here are a few of our practice efforts in case they ask to see a resumè of our work:

Joe and Flora Dillone will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary on July 6th. They were married exactly one month before American planes, without warning, dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan incinerating 150,000 people in seconds. The Dillones have six children and twenty grand and great-grandchildren.

Frank Standish will be retiring this month from New Tool and Die works of Smithville, PA. Mr. Standish has been with the company for thirty seven years starting as an apprentice in 1968 shortly after U.S. troops under Lt. William Calley massacred 128 civilian Vietnamese at a village named My Lai in a typical act of American savagery during that war.

The Upper River High School class of 2000 will be holding their fifth year class reunion next week to celebrate the anniversary of their graduation in a year fraught with historical significance. It was in that year Republican George Bush, guided by the shadowy, Rasputin-like figure of Karl Rove, stole a national presidential election from Democrat Al Gore who actually had more votes than did Bush.

You get the idea. I bet we'd win the job if we applied.

Here's One To Watch

China's CNOOC, the third largest petroleum company in China (and state owned) wants to buy UNOCAL, a petroleum company in California, in an effort, no doubt, to secure oil reserves to fuel their burgeoning economy. Chevron Corp. has offered $16 billion for UNOCAL and CNOOC has offered $18 billion.

Some congressmen see this as a threat to our national security (sadly, only 40 of them.).

This is creating a dilemma that I knew would occur eventually and the implications could be huge. What we have here is a nation that has accepted US dollars in transactions for goods and services. The US dollar is a promise to pay and lawful tender for all debts public and private. In other words, as declared by the issuing country, these dollars cannot be refused.

In a capitalist economy, the shareholders of UNOCAL are entitled to receive the best offer for the company maximizing the value of their shares.

If it is the case that CNOOC (China) is not allowed to buy UNOCAL, China will undoubtedly question the benefit of holding so many US dollars as the purchasing power of this "money" appears to be limited.

A case can be made that there appears to be double standard regarding the true convertibility of US dollars into wealth. If China comes to this conclusion, it could have a major impact on all things economic in this country as the inflow of dollars from China are largely responsible for keeping our economy afloat.

Read more at the link.

Molly Math

Michelle Malkin calls our attention to this astonishing confabulation from the pen of Texas fantasist Molly Ivins:

Since my name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself, I'll tell you exactly why I opposed invading Iraq: because I thought it would be bad for this country, our country, my country. I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, and that is the reason I continue to oppose it today.

I think it has done nothing but harm to the United States of America. I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been sullied. I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.

Really? We're responsible for more than a million dead Iraqis? An e-mailer to Michelle Malkin totes up the numbers:

Take estimates of 500,000-1 million soldiers and civilians killed in the Iran-Iraq war triggered by Saddam Hussein, add the 400,000 dead Iraqi civilians USAID estimates to be in at least 53 mass graves found in Iraq so far, and then add the very conservative estimate of 22,000 dead as a result of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait=1,422,000.

Even using iraqbodycount.net's high-end estimate of 25,000 dead (total, by both sides) the numbers aren't even close, unless you use MollyMath, where a couple of ten thousand and some change is worth more than a million.

In a world where an insistence upon objective truth is seen as a droll vestige of an obsolete oppressive white male mindset, it may seem churlish of us to call attention to Ms Ivins' tenuous acquaintance with factual reality. Nevertheless, we can't help but be amazed that a nationally syndicated columnist, even taking into consideration that she's a liberal, would write such a howler. She'd have looked less foolish, perhaps, had she not made such a point of telling us that she was speaking for herself.

Losing Hearts and Minds

Strategy Page reveals al Zarqawi's plan for winning hearts and minds in Iraq:

Suicide bombers have largely been foreigners. As Iraqis are quick to point out, Iraqis are not into this sort of thing. Neither are the foreigners any more, many of them refusing to undertake missions that just kill Iraqi civilians. So more and more suicide bombers are not volunteers, but men kidnapped and told to carry out the mission, or see family members killed. The bodies of car bombers have been found handcuffed to the steering wheel. Many suicide car bombers have dual detonation systems, one under the control of the driver, another under the control of a distant "supervisor," ready to set the bomb off if the suicide bomber is seen to get confused, or tries to get away from his fate.

The sage thinkers at Move On.org insist we get out of Iraq now and let the chips fall where they may. Where they'd fall, of course, is right into the lap of the people who have no qualms about threatening someone's family unless he kills himself along with a slew of innocent children. Move On doesn't seem to care, though. It's easy to blow the trumpet for retreat, of course, when it's not one's own friends and family that will be targeted for death.

From John Hathaway...

It appears that Mr. Hathaway is a proponent of "Free Gold". "Free Gold" is the term given to the concept whereby gold and fiat currency coexist. In such a scenario, gold serves as a store of wealth and currency is used as a convenient means of conducting everyday transactions.

While one may say, "That's the way things are today.", that is not the case. Gold is not free to express it's true value. Central Banks have been on a campaign to sell their gold holdings into the open market, thereby depressing the price of gold and stifling the measure of inflation.

Additionally, bullion banks have leased gold to private entities at a lease rate of incredibly low levels of interest. The private entities, in turn, sell the gold (causing the price of gold to drop) and use the proceeds for other investments that pay a higher rate of return than the cost of the lease. Later, they buy gold at the lower price and return it to the bullion banks. This is known as the gold carry trade.

This practice fell out of vogue as global interest rates declined over the last five years and, to no surprise, there has been a coincident increase in the price of gold over the same time period.

From the link:

Capital flows into gold under one scenario only: when the lack of investment returns elsewhere, the desire for safety, and the ascendance of a risk-averse psychology at large converge.

In other words, investors come to gold through a process of elimination. It is an odyssey of discovery and realization that investment vehicles thought to be potentially rewarding are in fact filled with hazard and adversity. The current gold cycle began with the collapse of the Nasdaq bubble. The collapse eliminated investor passion for highly speculative equities with little or no operating history trading at absurd valuations. That was five years ago and marked the beginning of a secular downturn in credit. The Nasdaq peak represented the culmination of a credit cycle that commenced in June 1982, when 30 year treasuries were priced to yield 13.92%

The high water mark of the credit cycle, in our opinion, should be measured not by the quantity of debt outstanding, as some would argue. Surely, the Fed's energetic effort to prop up the post 2000 economy has resulted in significantly more debt outstanding than before the Nasdaq crash. Instead, the apex of the credit cycle must be identified in a less quantifiable manner. It is the degree of fantasy present in investor expectations as to future returns. The fact that there is more General Motors paper outstanding than five years ago is not due to GM's improved credit standing or a heightened level of expectations for returns. Obviously, the reality is quite the opposite. A most useful objective measure of credit excess (and fantasy) is the ratio of the Dow Jones Industrial Average to the price of an ounce of gold. The DJII traded at 40x the price of an ounce of gold in 2000. Today, that ratio is 24x. At the bottom of credit cycles in the previous 100 years, that ratio was more or less 1x. A rising gold price merely anticipates future downgrades in financial assets of all stripes, including equities, debt, and currencies.

...

The global market cap of mining shares is about $100 billion. Investing in shares is subject to a long list of risks including geopolitical, cost pressures, labor disruptions, mine accidents, and environmental lawsuits to name a few. However, the greatest risk by far is share dilution by financially unsophisticated managements. Over the last two years ending December 31, 2004, the share count for the entire industry rose 33%. Is it any wonder that the shares and share indexes have lost some momentum in light of the additional supply? We wholeheartedly support the scathing comments of Graham French speaking at a mining conference in April of this year: "This industry is so blas? that 90 percent of capital raising is done without consulting shareholders." We would add that the industry consumes huge quantities of capital on which it generates poor returns. It cannot afford to take its shareholders for granted.

While we favor gold shares in most instances over the metal because they offer leverage to the gold price, we can understand why risk-averse investors looking for the protection of gold without the risk of mining would prefer the metal itself. Gold entails no business risk, only the possibility of overpaying. In our view, the potential pool of risk averse investors is considerably larger than the share oriented risk tolerant investor group. Physical gold comprises an asset class at least 10 times that of the mining shares. Therefore in time, it seems reasonable to expect the ETF and similar initiatives to have a market cap proportional in size to the underlying disparity. The recent weakness in the gold shares is a good proxy for investor sentiment. It is at rock bottom. This is confirmed by the Hulbert Gold Newsletter Sentiment Index which has recently matched record low readings. The May 23rd Market Vane sentiment gold barometer was 61% bulls, the lowest since 57% on May 13, 2004 when gold was $379. The bullish consensus was in the 40's in April '03 when gold was $320. The peak recent reading was 83% in October of 2004 when the gold price was slightly below $430.

The dollar price of gold bullion is trading within 3% of a seventeen year high, despite negative sentiment. Over the past five years, the dollar gold price has increased 50% vs. a 16% decline in the S&P 500 and a 18% decline for the trade weighted dollar. Swooning sentiment while gold trades within a few percentage points away from a seventeen-year high? Sounds like a bull market to us. It is the nature of every bull market to take along as few as possible. The recent shakeout, which began in earnest in early March, has done an excellent job of chilling investment sentiment. The early stages of all bull markets are characterized by widespread skepticism. Gold remains in a multiyear bull market that will last another decade. The deflowering of the euro represents a major milestone along the way.

...

We believe that the divestiture of gold reserves by central banks (at a measured pace, of course) offers the possibility of the eventual privatization of gold. There could be no better monetary outcome for the private sector than for all gold to be removed from central bank vaults. Citizens would then be free to choose how to hold their wealth, as they did before legal tender laws became the standard. We have no doubt that sufficient buying power exists through the exchange of questionable paper assets to support a bid much higher than the current dollar price. Would it be possible for gold instruments such as the ETF and Bank Receipts to coexist with fiat currencies? We may be witnessing the dawn of just such an outcome. In a free market for both, gold would offer the superior alternative for capital preservation, while fiat currencies may periodically offer a more convenient medium of exchange.

Nearly sixty years ago, Beardsley Ruml (Chairman of the New York Fed) wrote: "The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency" is no longer true because of the "vast new experience in the management of central banks" and "the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of currency into gold." (American Affairs, Jan. 1946) These few phrases foreshadow the sixty year evolution of the Federal Reserve from a traditional central bank into a central planning agency. (See our web site article "Beardsley Ruml's Road to Ruin," November 2004) Convenient though government sponsored currencies such as the dollar and the euro may be, they are first and foremost tools of government policy and serve the interests of the private economy as an afterthought. The dichotomy of monetary interest between the public and private sector will be exposed as the current secular credit contraction runs its course. It will culminate in a grass roots mandate for sound money, and will be expressed as a dollar gold price well into four digits.

WSC

This Indian is Hip Deep in Buffalo Dip

Trey Jackson has links to video and audio of Ward Churchill, phony Indian, fraudulent scholar, and hero to Left-wingers everywhere, uttering these words:

"For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same level of support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"

"...Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect." - Ward Churchill, Portland, Oregon- 6/23/05

Churchill denies any malevolent intent, of course, but its hard to interpret him in any fashion other than endorsing the murder of American officers. Here is an excerpt from the Denver Post story:

Reached at his home in Boulder County on Wednesday night, Churchill said the comments were made merely to spark discussion and not to take a position on fragging, which is the killing or injuring of an officer in combat by a subordinate. He said that his remarks were being taken out of context and sensationalized in an effort to drive him from his job as a CU professor.

"I neither advocated nor suggested to anyone, anything," Churchill said. "I asked them to think about where they stood on things." According to the tape, Churchill, while speaking about being a conscientious objector, asked his audience:

"Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"

When one of the forum's attendees said that the impact such a fragging might have on the officer's family should be considered, Churchill replied, "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"

Churchill has been accused of plagiarism, academic fraud and misrepresenting his Native American heritage. He is under investigation by the school's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct.

Now the man is advocating murder. How long will he continue to draw a paycheck from the University of Colorado and the taxpayers who help fund it?

The Evil Men Do

If ever you've been inclined to think that no one deserves to be executed by the state or you have ever wondered whether evil really exists or is just an outdated religious concept, you should watch this.

Watch both parts and see if you can honestly say to yourself that this man does not deserve to die.

Fact-Finding at Gitmo

Buried on page A15 of the New York Times is this little tidbit:

WASHINGTON, June 27 - Senators from both sides of the aisle competed on Monday to extol the humane treatment of detainees whom they said they saw on a weekend trip to the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. All said they opposed closing the center. "I feel very good" about the detainees' treatment, Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said. That feeling was also expressed by another Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

On Monday, Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, said he learned while visiting Guantanamo that some detainees "even have air-conditioning and semiprivate showers." Another Republican, Senator Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, said soldiers and sailors at the camp "get more abuse from the detainees than they give to the detainees."

In the last month, several senators, including some Republicans, have suggested that Congress should investigate reports of abuses at the detention center or that the military should close it to remove a blot on the country's image. One senator, Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, has come under criticism and apologized repeatedly for comparing reported abuses at the camps to treatment in Soviet gulags or Nazi concentration camps.

Mr. Wyden and Mr. Nelson were in Cuba primarily to discuss new agricultural trade and visited Guantanamo on Sunday. They ran into Mr. Bunning, Mr. Crapo and Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, who traveled to Guantanamo for the day on Sunday "to see for ourselves what all the so-called fuss is about down there," as Mr. Bunning put it.

After the trip, Mr. Wyden argued that Congress should establish treatment standards for detainees like those at Guantanamo who are neither uniformed members of foreign military forces under the Geneva Conventions nor citizens under the United States justice system. In contrast, Mr. Crapo praised the current military procedures, calling for a new international standard to cover terrorism suspects and other nonmilitary prisoners.

An official of Amnesty International, Jumana Musa, dismissed the visits as "this little Congressional show and tell." Ms. Musa said the statements did not address what she called the inadequate investigation of reported abuses. "Whether or not people are being fed orange chicken," Ms. Musa said, "does not get at the heart of the issue."

Of course, it doesn't. The heart of the issue for Amnesty International is that Gitmo is part of a Republican initiated war on terror which the United States is fighting to win. If Bill Clinton were still president AI would be off searching for Israeli atrocities in Gaza or somewhere.

The heart of the issue, in our opinion, is why this story wasn't front page news in the NYT. After the firestorm Sen. Durbin created during last week's calumnies of the American military one would think that some contrary facts would be significant news. Evidently, though, the Times didn't think its readers would be too interested in the truth of the matter.

Speaking of Sen. Durbin, why wasn't he along on the trip to learn a little bit, ex post facto as it were, about what he was pontificating upon in his Gitmo speech. Indeed, we're surprised he didn't head up the mission. After all, it's better to be late in having facts in hand if you're going to libel your country, than to never know them at all.

Thanks for the tip to Instapundit.

The Amazing Randi, Etc.

It's hard to imagine, but apparently some Darwinians have been lying about their philosophical opponents, and the California Academy of Science admits it. You can read the particulars here.

For another fine illustration of the Darwinians' passionate commitment to free and open inquiry and the search for truth see here.

Meanwhile, someone, a magician we think, who calls himself The Amazing Randi was so concerned that the Smithsonian Institute was going to show the new video The Privileged Planet earlier this month that he offered them $20,000 not to do it. The Privileged Planet, based on a book of the same name, presents what's commonly known as the anthropic principle, the idea that the physical properties of both the cosmos and the earth seem astonishingly fine-tuned for life. Fearful that such information may incline impressionable viewers toward the conclusion that the universe is not just all an accident, Mr. Randi is willing to pay "hush money" to the Smithsonian to suppress these subversive ideas.

What a great argument for materialism! Why hasn't someone come up with this before: The universe is not designed because I've got more money than you do! It's bound to convince somebody, probably.

Anyway, David Berlinski, inspired by Mr. Randi's clever strategy for persuading people of the intellectual superiority of materialism, has decided to capitalize, as it were. He writes The Amazing Mr. Randi the following letter:

Dear Amazing Randi:

I just read your widely publicized letter to the Smithsonian about its decision to air The Privileged Planet, Discovery Institute's film on intelligent design. You find it "impossible to comprehend" why the Smithsonian has chosen to screen such a film. And, I see that you are willing to pay the Smithsonian Institute $20,000 so that they don't do it.

I want you to know, you're doing the right thing. I figure the American people are dumb as posts. Who knows what ideas a film like that could put into their heads? You haven't seen the film either, am I right? See no evil, see no evil is what I always say.

But here's the thing, Randi. I was sort of planning to screen the film right here in my apartment in Paris. I've got a little screening room I call The Smithsonian right between the bathroom and the kitchen, I sort of figured I'd invite some friends over, open a couple cans of suds, sort of kick back and enjoy. Now you fork over $20,000 to the Smithsonian not to show the film and right away I'm showing the film here in Paris - that's just not going to work for you, if you catch my drift.

But hey, what are friends for? I mean for $20,000, I can make my screening of the The Privileged Planet go away too. An extra $10,000 and we spend the evening reading aloud from Daniel Dennett's autobiography. I hear it's a real snoozer, no chance at all that anyone's going to walk away from an evening like that with poor thoughts about the cosmos or anything like that. You handle the refreshments - nothing much, some cocktail franks maybe, a few kegs of French beer - and I knock ten percent off the price. What do you say?

Now I know what you're thinking, Randi, because to tell you the truth, I've been thinking the same thing. You're thinking, hey, I'm out forty thousand seminolas to can this film in Washington DC and Paris, and right away, some yutz is going to figure it's show time in Oklahoma or Nebraska or even in New York, and what do I do then? I'm way ahead of you on this one. I've talked with my buddies at the Discovery Institute and for the right kind of donation, we poleax the film completely. That's right. It disappears itself, if you catch my drift. You get to keep the negatives, we keep the director's cut in our safe for insurance. Is this some sort of deal, or what?

Now I know what you're thinking because I've been there myself. You're thinking, the Discovery Institute? Bunch of right-wing weirdoes, am I right? Hey, it's not like that at all, Randi, I got to tell you. We here at the Discovery Institute, we're businessmen, if you catch my drift. We want to do the right thing and we want to do it at the right price. Look at it this way. The right kind of donation gets you total peace of mind. You really can't buy that kind of protection, only in this case you can.

So give me a ring, or send me a note. I'd like to tell you we take checks, but you're a businessmen, too, am I right? It's got to be cash. More than you've got lying around? Not a problem. Just give George Soros a call. Tell him it's for a friend. Do it now. You'll sleep better at night.

Your admirer,

David Berlinski

PS: I write a lot of stuff for Commentary, too. For the right price, I don't have to write anything at all. Think it over. Let me know.

All this has got us to thinking. We wonder how much The Amazing Mr. Randi would pay us not to post anymore pieces on Viewpoint on the topic of Intelligent Design. Not that we can be bought or anything.

Media Bias: An Anecdote

President Bush gives an important speech on the War on Terrorism and our local paper runs this headline over its front page story last night:

Dems: Bush Milks False Sept. 11 Link

For the editors at the York Dispatch the knee-jerkingly negative Democratic reaction is the most important aspect of the President's address. It's the key element of the story. Why not choose a headline like: Bush Vows to Stay the Course or Bush Stands Firm? Could it be they didn't run something like these because that would have made the president seem strong and resolved and, well, that's just not the image of GWB that our local paper wishes to project.

Indeed, the AP report that followed the headline was more about the Democrats' reaction to the speech than about the speech itself. It's another example of why people are just about at the end of their patience with the way the traditional news outlets package their product.

Left-Wing Moonbat Watch

Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues and other highly acclaimed theatrical works is very much opposed to the Iraq War. She helped form the group New Yorkers Say No to War, joined the artists network of Refuse and Resist! a Maoist group, and lent her name to the Not in Our Name antiwar coalition, also organized by Maoists. In one interview, Ensler's hysterical response went like this:

"I believe that the war has been one of the great failures of American foreign policy; Al-Qaeda has multiplied from 400 to 18,000; we have killed thousands of Iraqi women and children, not to mention American soldiers. We have completely uprooted a country so that women are completely unsafe. We have also completely desecrated the countryside and the land itself. There are bombsites all over; uranium is loose. We have napalmed children....I am now trying to figure out what we are doing there. Why, and how this war has made anything better. Sure we removed Saddam Hussein, but that removal has not left anything in its wake but chaos. We have no idea why we have done this and so from my point of view as a feminist, as a woman who spends her life devoted to ending violence; I cannot imagine what on earth this government was thinking. Not to mention the complete desecration of women's rights, whether it is the ending of women's reproductive freedoms, the complete cessation of funds that go to stopping violence against women, or the lie that the women of Afghanistan are better off. I can go on and on."

No doubt she could. When one is not bound by the constraints imposed by reality one can expatiate indefinitely about anything. Where, we wonder, does this woman get her information about the comparative status of women under the Taliban and now? Were Afghan women better off when they could be beaten or killed for wearing cosmetics or going out in public without a male relative as an escort? Were they better off when they were considered to be their husband's property and had no political rights at all?

What makes Ms. Ensler think that women are worse off in Iraq now with the rape rooms gone, economic opportunities for women burgeoning, and political freedom and the vote available to women for the first time in their lives, than they were under Saddam when they had no protection from the depravity of Hussein's henchmen?

I wonder if Ms Ensler has taken a poll among Afghan or Iraqi women and asked them whether they thought they were better or worse off now than before 2002. I very much doubt it because I very much doubt that she's really interested in finding out the truth. It wouldn't fit with what she already knows.

A Dialogue on Gitmo

A friend and former student is among those who is deeply troubled by what he sees as human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay. He forwarded me a series of articles from which he draws the conclusion that Gitmo is comparable in its treatment of detainees to the Soviet Gulag. I suggested to him that he read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. He replied with an excerpt from Gulag that recounts some of the psychological methods employed by Soviet interrogators in the Lubyanka and Lefortovo prisons under Stalin and argued that their similarity to what went on in Gitmo puts them on the same moral plane.

Here is my reply to that followed by my friend's rejoinder:

R,

Thanks for the article you recommended (http://reasonablereflection.net/meadesmaxim/99/), but I'm afraid I don't see how the excerpt from the Gulag Archipelago supports the point you wish to make which is that American detention camps are comparable to the Soviet Gulag of the thirties and forties.

In the excerpt, Solzenhitsyn details methods that interrogators employed against Soviet prisoners. They are evil, to be sure, but their heinousness lies (for the most part) not in what was done but rather in to whom it was done and why it was done. The victims of these interrogations were innocent clergy, ordinary believers, dissidents, and anyone else that Stalin deemed insufficiently eager to embrace his regime. Everyone, including the interrogators, knew these people were innocent of any real crime. They were subjected to being "cursed at" etc. because the interrogators were required to get "confessions" out of them to save appearances and therefore had to break their will to resist. What was done to them was wicked primarily insofar as the victims were innocent and the rationale was so unjust.

The detainees at Gitmo, on the other hand, were believed to have information that could prevent acts of murder of innocent people. It's hard to overstate the moral difference this makes. To the extent that the detainees had females "invade their space" or were deprived of sleep in order to get them to divulge this information, these treatments were of a different moral level altogether than similar tactics used at Lefortovo and Lubyanka. In Moscow these tactics were employed against simple peasants. At Gitmo these tactics were employed against mass murderers.

Have there been times at Gitmo when interrogations crossed the line? Possibly, but every allegation of such behavior is investigated and when appropriate the offenders are disciplined. How often do you think that happened in the Gulag of Solzhenitsyn's experience? Even if there have been some incidents of abuse, there are no doubt similar incidences in every prison in the United States. Is the entire American prison system comparable to the Soviet Gulag?

Remember, in the real Gulag prisoners subsisted on a daily diet of one piece of moldy bread and a bowl of watery gruel. The bread often had maggots and beetles in it for which the prisoners gave thanks since the bugs enabled them to get a few more traces of protein into their system. There were scarcely enough calories in this diet to keep people alive and so millions died horrible deaths from starvation and disease. Millions more were permanently damaged, physically and psychologically by their suffering. The survivors emerged from their hell emaciated wrecks.

In the real Gulag the prisoners worked every day digging at frozen soil with nothing on their bodies to defend against the cold except for a few tattered rags. Frostbite and gangrene were common. They couldn't sleep because they couldn't get warm on the freezing cement floors of their cells. They lived in squalor and constant numbness and hunger. If they hesitated or staggered under their load of pain and suffering they were often beaten by their guards for sport.

In Gitmo, by contrast, the prisoners eat better and live more comfortably than do our soldiers in the field. They have menus that include glazed chicken and rice pilaf. The diet is tailored to Islamic requirements. The average detainee has gained 10 to 15 lbs. since his internment.

The prisoners are clothed and shod. Laundry is done for them. They're called to prayer five times a day. Religious accoutrements like prayer rugs, beads, and Korans are provided by American taxpayers and delivered with gloved hands in deference to the Muslims' belief that their captors are "unclean."

Doctors are on hand to address medical complaints and they receive hospital care when they need it. No detainees have died at Gitmo.

To compare Gitmo to the Soviet Gulag is not only factually grotesque and a slander on American troops, but perhaps worst of all, it trivializes the horrific deaths and suffering of millions of kulaks who would have regarded Gitmo as a paradise and would have counted themselves blessed by God had they been transferred into such a place.

I'm sure that that's the last thing you want to do, R, but it is nevertheless implicit in your claim that Gitmo is in any significant way comparable to the chain of Siberian labor camps run by Stalin.

-----------------

Mr. C,

You write:

"In the excerpt, Solzenhitsyn details methods that interrogators employed against Soviet prisoners. They are evil, to be sure, but their heinousness lies (for the most part) not in what was done but rather in to whom it was done and why it was done."

I think this position is very morally problematic. The destruction of a man's mind is no passing matter, no matter whom it is done to or why. The question of who the victim is seems to me to be utterly irrelevant--it is no less immoral to rape a rapist for sport than it is to rape an innocent for sport. God loves all His children equally. Motivation, of course, does have moral weight, but if the action is truly brutal in nature, as is the destruction of the mind of a man and the robbing of his dignity, then I think the old saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" must be taken seriously. We are not justified in doing anything we please to mens' minds merely because our intentions are good--there lies the road to lynchings.

"The victims of these interrogations were innocent clergy, ordinary believers, dissidents, and anyone else that Stalin deemed insufficiently eager to embrace his regime."

A principle of humane law is that suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Not a shred of evidence has been offered for the guilt of a single person detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States military. Furthermore, large numbers of detainees have been released without charge after years of detention and brutal interrogation. What right do interrogators have to brutalize these men? Why do we assume that the ones still in detention are guilty given the large number of admitted mistakes?

"Everyone, including the interrogators, knew these people were innocent of any real crime. They were subjected to being "cursed at" etc. because the interrogators were required to get "confessions" out of them to save appearances and therefore had to break their will to resist. What was done to them was wicked primarily insofar as the victims were innocent and the rationale was so unjust."

Do you think that Stalin employed no communist true-believers who thought priests and dissidents were a threat to the true and the good? Scores of documents suggest that detainees give false confessions to end their brutalizations. What, precisely, other than subjective judgments about the interrogators' mindsets, is the moral difference between the Soviet and American gulags?

"The detainees at Gitmo, on the other hand, were believed to have information that could prevent acts of murder of innocent people. It's hard to overstate the moral difference this makes. To the extent that the detainees had females "invade their space" or were deprived of sleep in order to get them to divulge this information, these treatments were of a different moral level altogether than similar tactics used at Lefortovo and Lubyanka."

Are we to believe that none of those detained at Lefortovo and Lubyanka were actually suspected of plotting violence to depose state socialism? (Terorists hate our freedoms...dissidents hated their equality, no?)

"In Moscow these tactics were employed against simple peasants. At Gitmo these tactics were employed against mass murderers."

Can you provide a shred of evidence that a single person detained as an enemy combatant by the U.S. government is guilty of murder? Why do the hundreds released without charge not count as 'simple peasants'?

"Have there been times at Gitmo when interrogations crossed the line? Possibly, but every allegation of such behavior is investigated and when appropriate the offenders are disciplined. How often do you think that happened in the Gulag of Solzhenitsyn's experience? Even if there have been some incidents of abuse, there are no doubt similar incidences in every prison in the United States. Is the entire American prison system comparable to the Soviet Gulag?"

The vast majority of the tactics Solzhenitsyn describes are explicitly allowed by U.S. policy and used with impunity. Regardless of those that are counted as "crossing lines," the fact remains that even the approved tactics are capable of the utter destruction of the human mind. That is a great evil.

Furthermore, prisoners accused of a crime have recourse to the courts to dispute their reason for detention and their treatment while detained. Enemy combatants, especially those held in secret or kidnapped, have no such rights. They are entirely subject to the cruelty and sadism of their interrogators.

As long as the United States government continues to sanction 1) the holding of prisoners indefinitely without charge, 2) the holding of prisoners in secret without access to lawyers or courts, 3) mental torture which breaks the spirit, and 4) kidnapping, it remains the operator of a Gulag. When it stops sanctioning those war crimes, I will consider the Gulag closed.

"Remember, in the real Gulag prisoners subsisted on a daily diet of one piece of moldy bread and a bowl of watery gruel. The bread often had maggots and beetles in it for which the prisoners gave thanks since the bugs enabled them to get a few more traces of protein into their system. There were scarcely enough calories in this diet to keep people alive and so millions died horrible deaths from starvation and disease. Millions more were permanently damaged, physically and psychologically by their suffering. The survivors emerged from their hell emaciated wrecks."

If your point is merely that the United States government is not known to sanction forced starvation, I will agree. However, the United States has indeed condemned thousands of persons to physical and psychological agony for the remainder of their lives. An Afghan detainee was kicked several thousand times in the course of a few weeks, another was boiled alive. An Iraqi had lit cigarettes placed in his ears. And thousands undergo the daily mental torture, with full sanction, that Solzhenitsyn described as breaking mens' souls. Maher Arar will never fully recover from the horrors of his treatment at the behest of the United States.

"In the real Gulag the prisoners worked every day digging at frozen soil with nothing on their bodies to defend against the cold except for a few tattered rags. Frostbite and gangrene were common. They couldn't sleep because they couldn't get warm on the freezing cement floors of their cells. They lived in squalor and constant numbness and hunger. If they hesitated or staggered under their load of pain and suffering they were often beaten by their guards for sport."

Numerous detainees in Iraq have died of exposure. We routinely deny detainees the ability to sleep for periods of over a week. The intervention teams at Gitmo are described in the FBI memos as routinely beating detainees for sport.

"In Gitmo, by contrast, the prisoners eat better and live more comfortably than do our soldiers in the field. They have menus that include glazed chicken and rice pilaf. The diet is tailored to Islamic requirements. The average detainee has gained 10 to 15 lbs. since his internment."

Glazed chicken is an MRE option, eaten routinely by soldiers in the field. And being fed, even force fed, is little comfort when one faces daily physical and psychological torture which includes the denial of sleep, near drowning experiences, being chained to the ceiling by one's wrists, and being beaten for hours on end.

"The prisoners are clothed and shod. Laundry is done for them. They're called to prayer five times a day. Religious accoutrements like prayer rugs, beads, and Korans are provided by American taxpayers and delivered with gloved hands in deference to the Muslims' belief that their captors are 'unclean.' "

Routinely detainees lose the privilege of time to pray if they do not cooperate with their interrogations. If they do cooperate, of course, they are given food, sex, time to pray, whatever they please. Doesn't that smack of forced confessions to you?

"Doctors are on hand to address medical complaints and they receive hospital care when they need it. No detainees have died at Gitmo."

Over one hundred have died in deaths ruled homicide by military coroners in other detention facilities around the world.

"To compare Gitmo to the Soviet Gulag is not only factually grotesque and a slander on American troops"

How does facing up to the criminal conduct of the U.S. government, the CIA, and certain elements of military intelligence slander American troops? Whom does it slander? Those who are perpetrating criminal conduct and wish to plea-bargain down their offenses?

"but perhaps worst of all, it trivializes the horrific deaths and suffering of millions of kulaks who would have regarded Gitmo as a paradise and would have counted themselves blessed by God had they been transferred into such a place."

As Solzhenitsyn describes, prisoners often felt the same way about being transferred from one Gulag prison to another. That does not mean that those prisons in which the horrors were less totalizing were not an element of the same moral evil.

"I'm sure that that's the last thing you want to do, R, but it is nevertheless implicit in your claim that Gitmo is in any significant way comparable to the chain of Siberian labor camps run by Stalin."

My claim is based explicitly on the four elements of similarity noted above. Any system of prisons which collects kidnapped persons and holds them indefinitely without trial or charge while destroying their minds for the purposes of the captors is a Gulag.

R

There'll be more to come, I'm sure.

More Good News From Iraq

Lest in watching the evening news you succumb to the doom and gloom about Iraq that is being purveyed there Arthur Chrenkoff has posted his 30th edition of Good News from Iraq. The picture coming out of that country from people who are actually there is completely different than what you hear from the senate Democrats and others who get their information from the New York Times and Washington Post.

Here's just one minor example of the way the MSM distorts the news from Iraq: Spec. Matthew Rosebaugh of the 82nd Airborne recalls a story wherein the media reported that only 40 percent of homes in a particular region have running water, giving the impression that the United States is doing little to undo the damage caused by the war. He points out, however, that before the war the figure was only 20 percent.

Why not report that the availability of water has doubled since OIF?