No Story Here

It seems now that there has been yet another rape allegation in Durham, North Carolina. A woman alleges that she was assaulted at a house party, a circumstance similar to the case in which the Duke lacrosse players were accused, falsely, of having raped an "exotic" dancer.

The second case even has another similarity to the first in that it is an interracial incident. Nevertheless, despite the media obsession with the Duke case, and its similarities with this second case, you probably haven't heard about the recent incident. Why do you suppose that is? Does not our media salivate like Pavlov's dogs at the thought of writing about white on black crime? Then why hasn't it jumped on the second case? One guess.

Some crimes evidently don't matter as much to the folks who report our news as do others.

RLC

Atheism, Theism, and Design

One often hears, despite numerous attempts to disabuse people of the notion, that Intelligent Design is religious because it leads inevitably to the conclusion that the designer must be the God of the Bible. This is nonsense, of course, but the objection persists because were it ever to be given up it would open the door for ID to be taught in public schools and once that happened Darwinism would go the way of Marxism and Freudianism.

Telic Thoughts has a post on a 1982 speech given by Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the most famous scientists of the twentieth century. Hoyle was an atheist but, as impossible as it might seem to some of ID's opponents, he believed in the intelligent design of life on earth.

Read the article to see what Hoyle advocated. The point is that ID, to the disappointment of theists and atheists alike, does not necessarily entail the God of the Bible and is, ironically, compatible with both. What it's not compatible with is the materialist interpretation of Darwin which says that physical processes like the laws of chemistry and physics, plus time and chance, are all that's required to explain life and the cosmos.

Hoyle believes that the designer is part of this universe. It is possible, though, that the designer transcends this universe, but is still not the God that Christians worship. Physicists talk of the possibility of other universes existing beyond our own. If there are such worlds out there it's possible that an inhabitant of one of them designed our world. If speculations about the existence of other worlds is a legitimate topic of scientific discourse then so must be the possibility of an intelligence in such a world being capable of designing other worlds. Again, the point is that whether ID is a scientific theory or not, it is clearly not religious. It does, however, have religious implications, just as does materialistic Darwinism.

RLC

If I Die

Here's a great song written and sung, I believe, by a soldier in Iraq. It's titled If I Die Before You Wake. Give it a listen.

RLC

Gettin' Outa' Dodge

While Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha prophesy that Bush's new policy in Iraq will be a dismal failure and seek to cut off funding for the troop surge, ABC pulls the rug out from under them with this report:

While members of the U.S. House of Representatives take turns weighing in on President Bush's planned troop surge in Iraq, the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago, and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

In other words the chief trouble-maker in Baghdad has hightailed it to Iran, which, of course is being falsely accused by the Bush administration for supporting the insurgency.

Why did the Mookster get out of town? Obviously he wasn't buying the Democrats' rhetoric that the surge would do no good. Apparently his patron in the government, prime minister al-Maliki, had finally grown impatient with Mookie's antics and withdrew his protection. Consequently, the dentally challenged sheik, like his ancestors in Babylon four thousand years ago, read the hand-writing on the wall and decided to take his lieutenants and run.

The question now arises as to how effective he will be as an absentee jihadi. How much street cred has he lost among the rank and file for absconding and leaving them to face the American troops and their firepower alone. If, in fact, al Sadr, far removed from the action, has lost his influence among the faithful then Bush's plan scored at least one major success before it was even implemented.

Don't expect Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews to place much emphasis on the point, though. They're too busy trying to make a big deal out of pentagon sources backing off from earlier claims that the Iranian government must know about the supplies of Iranian weapons being smuggled into Iraq.

RLC

GOP Straw Poll

Captain's Quarters offers an opportunity to participate in a GOP straw poll if you wish. Go here and cast your vote for whom you'd like to see representing the Republicans in '08. You can also follow the links to view the overall results of the poll thus far.

RLC

Myths About Atheism (Pt. X)

This is the final post in our series on the Ten Myths About Atheism that atheist Sam Harris seeks to refute in an article he wrote for Edge.

The 10th "myth" is one that Viewpoint readers might be forgiven for thinking that we have addressed almost every other day since we started this blog over three years ago, but it is such an important matter, and it seems to pop up so often, that it bears constant attention. Mr. Harris claims it to be a myth that:

Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran - as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery - and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture - like the golden rule - can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

Harris simply misses the point in the first paragraph above and manages to elicit a host of questions in the reader's mind that he himself leaves unasked and unanswered. Why, for example, does he believe that cruelty is wrong? What makes it wrong? Is it wrong because evolution has hard-wired us to have certain intuitions that cause us to consider it wrong? What if someone (there have been many, many examples) doesn't have such intuitions, would cruelty not be wrong for them? And if our moral intuitions are the products of evolution what could possibly obligate us to abide by them?

He suggests that these moral intuitions have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about how best to promote human happiness, but he does not answer the question why it should be a duty to promote the happiness of others rather than just his own happiness. In other words, an atheistic worldview such as Harris espouses offers no grounds for saying that egoism or selfishness is wrong and more altruistic ethical behaviors are right. Why should I not promote my own happiness even if it comes at the expense of the welfare of others?

Indeed, the only way we can determine that it is better to care about others than to care only for oneself is to hold both views up to a higher ethical standard, a moral dictionary, so to speak, and ask which conforms best to this higher standard. The problem is that for the atheist there is no higher standard. The choice between egoism and altruism reduces to nothing more than personal preference. It's a purely arbitrary selection not binding upon anyone, not even the person who holds the preference.

Harris' secondary claim that our moral progress hasn't come from reading the Bible is historically dubious, as is the assertion that the Bible condones slavery. But be that as it may, his claim that every civilized person now recognizes that slavery is an abomination is an obfuscation. It is only those people whose morality is based on the will of God as revealed through the scripture who have any basis for making such a judgment. Slavery is an abomination for only one reason: All human beings are made in the image of God and are loved by Him. We belong to Him and He has endowed us all with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus no man has the right to treat another as his own property. It is interesting in this regard that the abolitionist movement in both England and the United States was lead by Christians and nourished by the church. Had it been left to secularists and secular institutions slavery would probnably still be with us today.

If there is no God then any man has the "right" to do whatever he has the power to do. In a world without God slavery is not an abomination, it is simply one man exercising power over another. Such an exercise is neither good nor bad, it just is. This is why, when a nation becomes officially atheistic, as did communist nations during the twentieth century, one of the first casualties is invariably the concept of human rights.

Previous posts in this series may be accessed by clicking on the following links: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V and VI, Part VII, Part VIII, and Part IX.

RLC

Marcotte Resigns

The sweet, demure Amanda Marcotte has regrettably resigned her post as blogmaster for the John Edwards campaign. I'm sure the entire campaign staff breathed a sigh of relief when Amanda chose to decamp depriving the ambulance-chaser of her legendary charm and wit. Here's a sample of what the Edwards folks got when they hired Ms Marcotte. One has to wonder what kind of people John Edwards has put in charge of his campaign that they would have thought this sort of thing appropriate to represent a man who aspires to be president of the United States.

Caution: this is most definitely not for children.

In a way it's too bad Marcotte resigned. She would have provided all of us with many mirthful moments during the primaries.

RLC

Panning <i>Jesus Camp</i>

Joe Carter skewers Jesus Camp, a documentary supposedly about Evangelicals but, according to Carter, really about Pentacostals. Jesus Camp has been nominated for an Academy Award (although as PC as Jesus Camp may be, it probably has no chance of winning against Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth), but I haven't seen it so I can't comment on Carter's review. If you've seen the film, you might want to check Carter's post out for yourself.

RLC

Is Assassination Moral?

A week or so ago I invited comment on reports that the Israelis had assassinated a key Iranian physicist working on their nuclear weapons program. I asked if killing this man averted a wider war and possibly a nuclear explosion in an American city would it be the morally right thing to do. Here are several of the responses we received. The following opinions should not be assumed to be consonant with our own views:

I am all for the assassination of Iran's top nuclear scientists. It doesn't seem like anything else will stop them from continuing down the dark road to nuclear power. One thing to keep in mind though is that the U.S.A. has to keep its hands "clean" of the matter. Otherwise the world will once again call us a "bully" and constantly attack our world cop nature. Also Iran would most likely be very upset by the time it actually develops nuclear weapons, and be very volatile. Of course from what I understand they're already quite volatile and very likely to use their nuclear prowess when it becomes available. Maybe I'm not really for the assassination of Iran's nuclear scientists, I just like the sound of it. NM

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

If we are to make the assumption that a war was certainly averted by assassinating Iran's physicist, then I say it was the most moral thing that could have been done. Who can argue that losing one life is not preferred to losing thousands of lives? I suppose that one could argue that had the physicist been allowed to live and war broke out there would still be hope for a positive outcome. What that positive outcome could be I have not the slightest idea. I think that the world would look back after a war and ask why there was not more done to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.

On the other hand, perhaps the guilty party should have spared the man's life and destroyed the nuclear technology the man was working with instead. That would certainly halt the production of nukes, at least until new machinery and equipment could be acquired. That would be the morally superior thing to do, that is, if destroying a nuclear facility could be done with the assurance that people at, or nearby, the facility would not be killed in the process.

The ultimate question here is whether or not more lives were ultimately saved by killing one. But who can really answer that? There are too many variables to consider. We will never know for sure if the actions taken truly result in the saving of lives. Situations like this one are tough because there is no clear right way to go. If it were up to me, I would not have killed the man because I am confident that I should not murder under any personal circumstances. But, under the authority of a government like this was (if it was indeed done by the Israelis), I have no problem choosing to act in favor of the lesser of two evils. SL

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

I think that every attempt to maintain peace in the Middle East should be made because if it isn't there will be a disasterous affect throughout the world. There might have been better ways to go about this, but this was effective. Taking the lives of people is always a questionable deal, but in this situation I think it might have been the right step. DJ

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

Is this ethical? Wow, that is a loaded question...even if it can be worked out that assassinations to avert nuclear war are a morally okay thing...who decides who the targets are? Why the scientist overseeing production? Why not the people who are actually ordering the production to exist in the first place? Why not those who run a government which would support such a plan?

It is a difficult thing to say that murder is ever morally fine; however I feel there is precedent in history for such singular acts in order to save lives. If you see a man walking into a school with a gun, do you say please stop, or do you go into action to stop him? Be it you or the police, one would naturally say force. This is because there are situations where our "instinct" to protect, or our desire to avoid a coming calamity shows us the course of action to take. This might, on another day, be considered amoral. However, there are situations where force is warranted. JY

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

I do not believe that assassinating nuclear scientists is a moral or workable solution to the Iran problem. First of all, killing a man for his abilities is a dangerous thing to do. Arguments could then be made for killing young Arab men who could potentially become suicide bombers that would become a slippery slope. Assassination is viewed worldwide as cowardly and wrong. It is not right to kill a person for their deeds without a proper trial. Not only is this morally wrong, it would not serve its purpose. If nuclear scientists are killed, new ones will receive training, and take over research. Problems are always best settled head on, though that sometimes is not the easiest way. A band aid over the gaping wound that is Iran would do no one any good. MS

All of these comments came from college students.

RLC

Feedback

Check the Feedback page for some comments about recent posts.

RLC

Torture on 24

My friend Jason sends along this article in The New Yorker about Joel Surnow, the co-creator of the television hit 24. The article is a little long, but it makes for interesting reading, especially when the author, Jane Mayer, talks about Surnow's youth.

Her main point in the essay, though, seems to be to challenge Surnow's use, and evident approval, of torture in the series. Lots of interrogation experts are trotted out to tut tut about the harmful effects the show is having on the attitudes of American youth and to offer their arguments for absolutizing a ban on torture.

Surnow is given the last word, however, and in the last paragraph I think he blows his critics' arguments right out of the water.

Torture for the purpose of amusing the torturer or punishing the victim is an absolute evil, but if there's a chance that innocent lives may be saved through the application of painful coercion to someone who withholds information that could save them, such coercion is morally justified, if not obligatory.

Anyone who finds this view offensive should put themselves in the place of a parent or spouse whose loved one is threatened with death. We've discussed this problem several times over the last couple of years and the interested reader might wish to check out some of our previous posts on the matter. This one is probably the best one to start with, but others here, here, and here might be helpful in making our position clear.

RLC

Sunday Editorial

I was invited to join a number of non-journalists in the York area who will be submitting columns to the local Sunday paper over the next year. My first contribution is on the Iraq war and borrowed from a post I had written some time ago for Viewpoint. It appeared in yesterday's paper:

Feb 11, 2007 - President Bush has taken much criticism, some of it deserved, for the way the post-war has played out in Iraq. Disillusionment with the Iraqis and the rules under which we operate there has led many to favor bringing our troops home as soon as logistically possible. The day may come when we decide to do that, but before the American public signs on to such a step we should understand clearly what withdrawal will entail.

One need not be a military expert to anticipate that the aftermath of an American pullout would likely include at least these seven consequences:

1. Sunni and Shia would be at each others' throats in a desperate civil war for political dominance. It would be a fight for survival because whoever prevails would surely oppress, if not utterly eliminate, the loser.

2. Iran would move into Iraq on behalf of the Shia and to settle old scores with the Iraqi Sunnis dating back to the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. They would doubtless annex the oil fields in the south. Meanwhile, pressure would mount on Sunni nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to come to the aid of their beleaguered brethren. Turkey would take advantage of the chaos to settle their chronic Kurdish problem by invading northern Iraq. Syria would be sorely tempted to grab some oil fields wherever it could. Iraq would get carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey among its neighbors and would be almost completely helpless to prevent it.

3. Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations would exploit Iraq's weakness to establish training areas and safe havens in the country from which to launch terrorist attacks around the world.

4. Anyone who had collaborated with or cooperated with the coalition would be marked for torture and death by insurgent forces. This could amount to perhaps hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis.

5. The chaos of war and the rape of the country's resources would result in severe shortages of food, water, medical care, sanitation and electricity. Refugees would flood into neighboring states and subsist in squalid camps. Perhaps millions of Iraqis would starve or perish from disease if these conditions persisted more than a few months.

6. The United States would be thoroughly discredited and blamed for the misery and strife in Iraq because of our retreat. No nation would ever trust us again to honor a commitment. Pressure from their people would cause governments in Kuwait, Oman and Qatar to insist we abandon our bases there. Other Muslim nations, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia, seeing that we are undependable partners in the war on terror, would ratchet back their cooperation. As the last American helicopter flees Baghdad, every Arab nation with enough money will begin looking for nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the Iranians. Nations like Libya, which had given up the quest for nuclear weapons, would feel safe to resume it.

7. Our lack of credibility in the region would embolden Israel's neighbors to settle the "Zionist problem" once and for all. Once we start pulling out of the Middle East, it would be psychologically impossible to reverse course and go back in. The enemies of Israel would see our withdrawal as presenting them with a golden opportunity to wipe Israel from the Earth, and the Israelis would probably resort to nuclear weapons to keep that from happening.

It may be, of course, that none of these things would occur. It may be that in the vacuum created by our absence the Shia and Sunni would turn their swords into plowshares and live amicably with each other.

It may be that other nations would not be at all tempted to grab what they can of Iraq's oil wealth.

It may be that al-Qaida feels content in the hills of Pakistan and wouldn't move in force into Iraq.

It may be that the insurgents would forgive and forget the collaboration of their fellow Iraqis with the infidels.

It may be that Israel's Arab neighbors would feel sorry for Israel in its isolated and vulnerable state and offer to make peace instead of war.

And it may be that the Second Coming will be tomorrow, but all of our experience tells us it probably won't be, and it is our experience which should inform our judgments and policies, especially our foreign policy.

The status quo in Iraq is certainly not acceptable, and we may soon decide that we've done enough there, but, if so, let us not delude ourselves by thinking we are doing something noble or moral by withdrawing. A premature exit would consign hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis to almost certain death and would earn us the contempt of history for our betrayal.

There is an opportunity to comment at the link.

RLC

Honoring a Hero

Those readers of a certain vintage will remember how the left vilified Ronald Reagan as a trigger happy cowboy who was, they insisted, the greatest threat to the world's existence ever to serve as a head of state. His resolve in refusing to bend to the Soviets' attempt to achieve military dominance in Europe, and his refusal to back down from his plan to place medium range Pershing missiles in Europe within striking distance of Moscow, drove the left into apoplexy.

So it is that those of us who thought his determination to gain peace through strength was the correct course and that his plan to drive the Soviet Union to collapse was absolutely necessary read this article at Breitbart.com with particular satisfaction:

Opponents of Poland's former communist regime reportedly want to pay a posthumous homage to US President Ronald Reagan by erecting his statue in the place of a Soviet-era monument.

In an open letter to the mayor of the southwestern city of Katowice, the former anti-regime activists said that the staunchly anti-communist Reagan had been a "symbol of liberty," the Polish news agency PAP reported.

As a result, they said, he deserved to become the centrepiece of the city's Freedom Square, replacing a monument to the Soviet troops who drove out the occupying Nazis in 1945.

They also said that they wanted the site to be rebaptised "Ronald Reagan Freedom Square."

There are already separate plans to erect a statue in memory of Reagan in the centre of the Polish capital, Warsaw, which would be paid-for from private funds.

Reagan, who dubbed the Soviet Union an "evil empire," is widely credited by Poles with having driven communism to the wall.

The conservative Republican made fighting communism the cornerstone of his 1980-1988 presidency, and backed Poland's Solidarity trade union after it went underground when the regime declared martial law in 1981.

I was reminded the other day that while Reagan was working to dismantle the "evil empire," Sen. Ted Kennedy was trying to arrange a meeting with Soviet premier Yuri Andropov to discuss ways that Reagan could be undermined. Some things never change. One of them is the complete unwillingness of the left to stand up to any tyranny that is not allied to the United States.

Anyway, maybe a couple of decades from now Iraqis will be erecting statues of George Bush in Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul. Wouldn't that just drive the Bush-haters completely bonkers.

RLC

Unhappy People

One liberal at Daily Kos comes right out and says what a lot of them seem to think:

When pressed, I sometimes reply: "I don't hate America. In fact, think it's one of the best countries anyone ever stole." But, after the laughter dies down, I have a confession to make: If by "America" they mean the elected/appointed officials and the corporations that own them, well, I guess I do hate that America-with justification.

Among many reasons, I hate America for the near-extermination and subsequent oppression of its indigenous population. I hate it for its role in the African slave trade and for dropping atomic bombs on civilians. I hate its control of institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization. I hate it for propping up brutal dictators like Suharto, Pinochet, Duvalier, Hussein, Marcos, and the Shah of Iran. I hate America for its unconditional support for Israel. I hate its bogus two-party system, its one-size-fits-all culture, and its income gap. I could go on for pages but I'll sum up with this: I hate America for being a hypocritical white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

"I'm committed to fighting U.S. foreign policy, the greatest threat to peace and happiness in the world, and being in the United States is the best place for carrying out the battle. This is the belly of the beast, and I try to be an ulcer inside of it."

[N]o, I do not support the troops and yes, I hate what America does.

For the left it's always about what they hate. Very unhappy people, leftists.

HT: Hot Air

RLC

Hoping for Peace, Preparing for War

The Guardian thinks that a strike against Iran, administration denials notwithstanding, will come this spring. The ostensible reason is Iran's nuclear weapons program and their repeated intention to use those weapons once they have them.

Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."

He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."

The bad guys in The Guardian scenario are the neo-cons at The American Enterprise Institute and in the Vice-President's office, including the Great Satan himself:

Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.

If another reason were needed surely this would qualify:

The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.

The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.

Perhaps the picture is not complete because in recent weeks four American helicopters have been shot down in Iraq with missiles believed to have been supplied by Iran.

Iran is making it clear that they will nor desist from building nuclear bombs and they are doing all they can to kill Americans in Iraq. If diplomacy fails, which it often does, to persuade Iran to give up it's maniacal obsession with triggering Armageddon, what exactly do Bush's critics on the left suggest we do?

The question is important and must be answered now by every person who cares about this country and the world, so that we don't have any ex post facto Kerryesque declamations of having been against the action before one was for it.

The question boils down to this: Should we allow Iran to continue to do what they're doing or should we stop them? Those are the alternatives. Let's not have any flummery about "involving the world community," and other such evasions favored by politicians. Assume we explore every diplomatic strategy and Iran remains obdurate. Should we then resort to force?

Anyone who refuses to go on the record with a forthright answer to this question forfeits, in my mind, his or her right to be taken seriously in the coming debates.

RLC

Speaking Their Minds

This video is a shocker, at least to me. Not because the discussion was particularly compelling - it wasn't, in fact it was disappointing - but because of the makeup of the panel, which consisted of three Christians in the media, and most of all because it was on CNN.

This segment was actually the second part of a feature the first part of which presented two atheist couples who alleged having been persecuted because they were atheists, a charge I find a little hard to believe, actually.

Again, neither segment was very enlightening, both were, in fact, pretty shallow, but the fact that CNN would even air the second segment is noteworthy.

RLC

Hillary's Nightmare

This must keep Hillary Clinton awake at night:

Veterans of Al Gore's past are quietly assembling a campaign to draft the former vice president into the 2008 presidential race - despite his repeated statements that he's not running.

His top policy adviser from his 2000 presidential campaign and other key supporters met Thursday in Boston to mull a potential Gore campaign.

And, in the background, groups have been lobbying for Gore's return to presidential politics.

"He certainly has the right political climate. How many political candidates are being nominated for Nobel prizes and winning Oscars?" said Dylan Malone, co-founder of AlGore.org and organizer of a political action committee trying to draft Gore.

In 2002, Gore asked Malone to stop a draft effort he had begun; Malone did. Malone started up again and, so far, Gore hasn't waved him off.

"The difference is dramatic. His time has come," Malone said. "We're raising tens of thousands of dollars fairly easily. Our mailing lists are growing so quickly we have to buy new computers."

Now, if Republicans would persuade Newt Gingrich to join the fray we'd have a real contest between ideologies and ideas. Neither man is seen by their respective parties as perfect, but Al Gore is not a Kerryesque flip-flopper with his finger to the wind as Senator Clinton is. He has been nothing if not consistent in his left-wing positions. Hillary seems willing to say whatever she thinks she must to get the nomination and get elected.

Newt, on the other hand, has probably the brightest, most fertile, mind of any of the candidates in the race. He also has the virtue of being a fairly consistent conservative, a trait of which neither Rudy Guiliani nor John McCain can boast. Guiliani is a social liberal or libertarian and McCain is completely unpredictable.

A race between Gore and Gingrich would offer the voter a battle of ideas as classic as it is rare in our politics. It wouldn't be a test of who could fool the most people into thinking that they are what they're not. Gore tried that in 2000 and got burned, and it's doubtful that he'd make the same mistake again. It's too bad that neither man has indicated as yet that he will be a candidate.

RLC

Astonishing Power and Brilliance

Two galaxies similar to our own Milky Way collide in space. The collision would be catastrophic for any inhabitants of either of these galaxies:

Fortunately, contrary to popular conceptions about the existence of life in space and even the opinions of many scientists, there is reason to believe that of all the billions of galaxies in the universe and all the trillions of stars in those galaxies, sentient life probably exists near only one - our sun.

Some scoff at this notion. The universe is so incredibly vast and there are so many stars that some of them have to have planets like earth, they reason. But books like Ward and Brownlee's Rare Earth make a good case for the absolute uniqueness of earth as a suitable environment for higher life forms.

It may well be that no other galaxy, no other star, no other planet possesses the characteristics necessary to permit life to emerge and perdure. The entire universe in all of it's vastness may exist just so that we, the inhabitants of this tiny speck orbiting an average star, can. In other words, it's possible that the universe has to be as big as it is and as full of matter as it is in order for life to exist anywhere in it.

Assume that the conventional figure of about 14 billion years for the age of the universe is correct, and assume, too, that scientists pretty much correct about how stars are formed. Suppose further that the universe did, in fact, originate in a Big Bang.

Following this initial creation event the universe would have expanded rapidly. During that expansion stars were formed, lived for millions or billions of years, and then exploded like this star did:

While it lived the star was producing in its core many of the elements necessary for life. When it finally exploded many other elements were formed as well and all of them were spewed into space. Eventually, about 4.5 billion years ago, a small portion of this debris coalesced to form the earth and the rest of the planets in our solar system.

The whole time this process was going on the cosmos was expanding. Thus, life could arise on earth only after the necessary elements had been formed and only after billions of years of cosmic history had elapsed. The universe then, if this scenario is correct, has to be as old as it is, and thus as big as it is, in order for us to be here at all.

God could, of course, have created the universe complete in an instant, but if He chose to do it the way scientists think He did, what an extraordinarily extravagant act of creation He undertook just to eventually produce a world suitable for us to live in.

And what astonishing power and brilliance it must have taken.

RLC

Talking the Talk, Declining the Walk

Much is being made of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's request for access to a military jet to fly her, her staff and family to California on the weekends. The cost of the plane to taxpayers would be $300,000 round trip, and the plane she has requested would dump thousands of pounds more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the plane used by her predecessor, Dennis Hastert. It has also been pointed out that her ostensible reason for wanting the larger jet, the ability to fly non-stop without having to refuel and risk terrorist attacks in airports, makes no sense since any military jet would be refueling at air force bases.

To compound the embarrassment, her colleague in the House, John "offer me the bribe later" Murtha, reportedly threatened the Pentagon with budget cuts if Pelosi doesn't get her plane. Whatever the facts of the matter, this is not the first time Pelosi's claims to be a champion of the working class and the environment are out of phase with what she actually does.

For example, News Max offers some snippets from a book by Peter Schweizer titled Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. One of the excerpts says this about Ms. Pelosi:

Pelosi claims to be a staunch union supporter, and along with her husband has received the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers Union, notes Schweizer.

Unions are, in her words, "fighting for America's working families" and battling "the union-busting, family-hurting" Bush administration. But Schweizer uncovered that a $25 million Northern California vineyard the Pelosis own is a non-union shop!

The congresswoman is the top recipient among members of Congress in campaign contributions from labor unions, and has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union than any other member of Congress in the last several election cycles.

But in addition to the wine business, the Pelosis own a large stake in the exclusive Auberge du Soleil hotel in Rutherford, Calif. The hotel has more than 250 employees, but once again, Schweizer found, it is strictly a non-union shop.

The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees.

"But a union card is not required to work there bussing tables, washing dishes, serving guests or preparing food," Schweizer wrote in NewsMax Magazine.

"As with Auberge du Soleil, at Piatti the Pelosis' commitment to organized labor ends at the front door."

Pelosi has also demonstrated hypocrisy on the environment. "With us," she proclaims, "the environment is not an issue - it's an ethic. It's a value."

[But] One of her largest investments is a private partnership called Lions Gate Limited, which operates the CordeValle Golf Club and Resort in San Martin, Calif.

To get a permit to build the facility, the partners promised to build a "public course" providing considerable access to non-members, and to abide by several environmental requirements to ensure that there would be minimal ecological damage.

But after the facility opened, the county's Planning Commission found that the golf course was in fact private - and the club had "ignored" many of its permit requirements concerning the environment!

Perhaps, some of what she's upbraided for in this article is beyond her control, but I recall how the media crucified Newt Gingrich because he had asked to be able to deplane Air Force One at the front of the craft, but the Clinton people forced him to leave at the back. Newt felt he had been deliberately dissed by the Clinton staff and was reportedly a little miffed. Whether he really was or not, I don't know, but the media savaged him for days for what they said was childish pique and arrogant vanity. So what is the media saying about Nancy Pelosi's "arrogance"?

RLC

Tubing Downstream

Hillary Clinton doesn't need a weatherman to tell her which way the wind's blowing, just a couple of pollsters. NewsMax cites Thursday's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal which chronicles Senator Clinton's shift on the war in Iraq. There's nothing wrong with changing one's mind as events unfold, of course, but Senator Clinton would have us all believe that her current position has been her position all along when, of course, it hasn't:

On October 10, 2002, Clinton spoke to the Senate in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt."

On December 15, 2003, when it was clear there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clinton's support was unwavering. "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force," she told the Council on Foreign Relations. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed."

On April 20, 2004, Clinton told CNN's Larry King that she did not "regret giving the president the authority," noting that Saddam Hussein "had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

In October 2005, amid growing anti-war sentiment, Clinton still told the Village Voice: "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

By November 2005, Hillary was softening her stance, saying in a letter to constituents: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed."

On December 18, 2006, Clinton went even further, saying on the "Today" show: "I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

On January 13 of this year, Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bush's call for a troop surge: "I don't know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work."

On January 17, Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government.

Finally, on January 27, Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president "extricate our country from this before he leaves office."

Ms. Clinton went from the view that we have no option but to stay involved and committed in Iraq to the view that we have to get out as soon as possible. That's an odd way to remain committed. Her position on the war seems to track the opinion of the American people. Like someone floating down the river in an inner tube, she goes where the currents of popular opinion take her. That may be good politics, but it's lousy leadership.

RLC