Truth Matters

Many of us grew up thinking that truthfulness was the highest of human virtues. Dishonesty was seen as a contemptible character trait and the liar was among the worst sort of people. To tell a lie as a child, especially to one's parents, was the source of considerable guilt. Without honesty and integrity, we believed, none of the other virtues could flourish, trust would diminish, character would become obsolete and society would unravel.

Unfortunately, this is pretty much what has happened. It's no longer the case that truth holds an exalted place in the catalogue of virtues. For many, especially among secular progressives, truth has been stripped of its status as an objective good in itself, and reduced to a pragmatic function, a tool to be employed in the service of promoting higher goods. Truth, in our post-modern world, is now seen as whatever works to advance whatever goal or project to which one aspires.

The change has had seriously deleterious, even tragic, consequences in our personal and corporate life. It has also had a terribly corrosive effect on our political life. Politicians, for some of whom power is the highest good because without it none of the lesser goods are possible, can lie about themselves and other people, and the lie, like base metal transmuted to gold, is transformed into something "true" and virtuous by the fact that it helps the liar succeed in acquiring the power, influence, and success he needs to promote his agenda.

Politicians all along the ideological spectrum lie, of course, but conservatives still generally believe that lying is a moral wrong. Liberals, particularly secular liberals, are less likely to feel bound by traditional moral assumptions, and thus more likely to distort and misrepresent the truth than are conservatives. Thus our recent politics is befouled by unseemly allegations which are at best irresponsible and at worst exceedingly harmful:

1. George Bush is labelled a liar for telling us there were WMD in Iraq when there apparently weren't. This charge was itself false because it was clear to anyone who looked at the matter that the intelligence services of the whole world thought Saddam had WMD. So did most Democratic senators. Bush may have been mistaken, but a mistake is not a lie.

2. Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh have had their reputations smeared by allegations of racism (O'Reilly) and insulting the troops (Limbaugh). Their accusers, including senators on the floor of the Senate, allege them to have said things the transcripts and witnesses affirm they clearly did not say. Nevertheless, the accusers have not relented or withdrawn their charges.

3. Senator Clinton insinuates that General Petraeus is dishonorable because his testimony doesn't conform to what she and others in the Senate expected to hear. MoveOn.org, without offering a shred of evidence, accuses the General of betraying his country in a full page New York Times ad which the Times originally gave them at a fraction of the going rate for ad space. Neither MoveOn or the Times has apologized.

4. Opponents of SCHIP are accused of not caring about the poor or the elderly because they do not wish to see health care be taken over by the government. Bush is accused of heartlessly cutting the program when in fact he wants to expand it but not as much as its proponents want.

5. False or misleading statistics are used to color the debate on everything from racial discrimination to the number of homeless, the severity of the threat of HIV, the prevalence of rape on college campus, the number of uninsured people in the U.S., and much else.

Lies and deception are an acid eating away at the fabric of our society. When our politicians lie to us and we lie to each other it dissolves trust and spawns suspicion. A society which has lost the ability to trust its leaders and to trust each other is a society doomed to disintegrate. John Adams wrote that our form of government was designed for a moral people and cannot survive under any other.

Progressives don't disagree with Adams, necessarily, but many of them simply don't think that lying about people or promoting falsehoods is really immoral as long as the cause is in their eyes just. Since the most just cause for them is the promotion of the liberal agenda, whatever works to advance that agenda is by definition good, even if they know, or should know, that it's not true.

RLC

Peace Prize

A blog called The Daily Gut speaks for many (including us) in presenting the case for who should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday:

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded this morning, and I'd like to congratulate Irena Sendler. Sendler was a former history teacher who rescued 2,500 children during the Holocaust and was a top contender for the wondrous prize. Back during the early 1940's, Sendler was a Catholic social worker who had gone into the Warsaw ghetto to rescue Jewish kids who were destined either to starve there, or die in death camps. She would sneak the kids past Nazi guards, sometimes hiding them in body bags, or would provide them with false documents - inevitably getting them to Polish families for adoption, or hiding them in convents or orphanages. She also made a list of the children's real names, put them in a jar and buried them, so that some day she could dig them up and find the kids to tell them their true names. The Nazis captured her and beat the crap out of her, but she later escaped, and she went into hiding. She's now in her late 90's , living in a nursing home in Poland.

I want to congratulate her, because she didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead it went to Al Gore, the guy who invented the Internet. Go figure.

Actually, it's not all that hard to figure. The Nobel committee swoons over liberal nominees who hold all the "correct" views and who also hold celebrity status. The Goracle is all of those and more. There's no way he wasn't going to receive the prize despite the fact that Ms Sendler displayed personal courage that Mr. Gore has never had to exhibit and has saved more lives and done more good for humanity than has Mr. Gore. Ms Sendler is now a feeble old woman and Mr. Gore is a famous member of the glitterati. Ms Sendler is yesterday and Mr. Gore is the future. Ms Sendler risked her life to save lives but Mr. Gore risks nothing to make millions lecturing a fawning world about global warming.

The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke.

HT: Hot Air

RLC

Dim Prospects for Social Conservatives

First Things has a series of fine essays by Nat Hentoff, John DiIulio, and Joseph Bottom on the current crop of presidential candidates.

Hentoff is the rarest of political commentators, a staunch pro-life atheist leftist. Every paragraph of his portion of the article is a gem. For example:

I wish - although I know it is not going to happen - that at least one contender for the presidency would repeat what Cardinal O'Connor asked at the Harvard Law School (not a friendly audience for him but a challenge he enjoyed) in April 1986: "How safe will the retarded be, the handicapped, the aged, the wheel-chaired, the incurably ill when the so-called quality of life becomes the determination of who is to live and who is to die? Who is to determine which life is 'meaningful,' which life is not? Who is to have a right to the world's resources, to food, housing, to medical care? The prospects are frightening."

Hentoff thinks Hillary would be a disaster for the pro-life cause, but DiIulio argues that, from the standpoint of meeting our obligation to help the poor, Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee are the best candidates in their respective parties.

Bottum dejectedly observes that we should "be honest and admit what we all know: The weakest set of candidates in living memory has taken the field, and we still have more than a year left of watching these people, lumbering and blumbering toward the goal line." He goes on to make a strangely contradictory claim. He argues that Hillary has a lock on the nomination but will almost certainly lose to any candidate the Republicans put against her except Ron Paul. But oddly Bottum then goes on to express doubt that Guiliani would beat her.

He makes an excellent point, though, about what Americans have to look forward to should a Republican win the presidency and the Democrats pick up more seats in the Senate:

Nonstop congressional investigations of everything the president does, rejections of Cabinet members and Supreme Court justices, the Democrats freed of responsibility for actually prosecuting foreign policy - all pushed by a netroots base of leftist activists convinced that, once again, the presidential election had been stolen from them. No wonder some conservatives seem to think it would be better to go ahead and elect Hillary Clinton.

Bottum concludes that 2008 looks grim for social conservatives:

A Fred Thompson nomination, a slim election victory over Hillary �Clinton, a stealth pro-lifer slipped on the Supreme Court through a Democratic Senate - that weak �scenario is about the best a social conservative can hope for today. Everything else is bad. Very bad.

In my opinion this is much too pessimistic. The right man in office can still prosecute the war on terror, enforce existing immigration laws, keep spending and taxes down, and appoint at least two good justices to the Supreme Court. This last may be difficult, but depending on who the President is, it may not be impossible.

The country may be Slouching Toward Gomorrah, to employ the title of Robert Bork's famous book, but the right man in the White House, though he may not be able to turn things around without a sympathetic Congress, can at least keep us from falling completely over until the American people, perchance, come to their senses.

RLC

Hubris and Stupidity

For sheer hubris and stupidity it may be hard to beat the letter from some prominent Muslim scholars in which they warn that the "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other. This claim is true enough, of course, but then they go on to say that:

"As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."

I see. And this, one is expected to suppose, is what those evil Christians are doing everywhere one looks - waging war against Islam, driving poor Muslims out of their homes, teaching anti-Muslim hatred in their Christian schools, etc. Meanwhile, we find no mention in the report on the scholars' letter of the Muslim endorsement of executing Muslims who convert to Christianity or of the murders by Muslims of Christian missionaries in Afghanistan, Africa and Indonesia. Nor do we find mention of the fact that where Christians live as minorities among Muslims, as in Iran and Syria, they're being systematically driven from their homes and churches. There's no mention of the fact that in virtually every conflict being fought around the world Muslims are involved, often on both sides of the bloodshed, and that the hostilities are invariably initiated by Muslims. There's no mention of the fact that virtually every act of terrorism in the last twenty years has been perpetrated by Muslims, and virtually every case of murder and persecution involving actual Christians and Muslims has been perpetrated by Muslims against Christians.

For these scholars to suggest that Christians, qua Christians, are oppressing Muslims, qua Muslims, is ludicrous. Christianity does pose a threat to Islam, however, and it is this threat that probably provides the impetus for the scholars' letter. Wherever Muslims are actually free to choose between genuine Christianity and Islam, Islam is at risk, and it is this that the mullahs and imams interpret as an attack on their faith.

What Muslim scholars should be doing, if they feel compelled to compose such letters, is urging each other and their flock, if they really want peace, to emulate Christians instead of killing them.

RLC

Vestigial Structures

Darwinians ever since Darwin have pointed to structures like the human appendix to demonstrate that our bodies were once different from what they are today. The tailbone is a vestige of the tail that humans once possessed, we're told. Hip bones in whales are vestiges of legs possessed by the whale's ancestors which walked on land. And the appendix too, was believed to be a functionless appendage left over from some previous stage in our evolution.

Over time functions were found for many of these "vestigial structures" and they were quietly dropped from the textbooks. Now it looks like it has been shown that the appendix, too, has a function in the body, and must be added to the ranks of former vestiges which are no longer vestigial.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems that every new scientific discovery that bears somehow upon the controversy between intelligent design and Darwinian materialism either supports the ID position or counts against the materialist position. It's hard to think of any discovery of the last twenty years or so that actually supports the materialists.

But I might be uninformed. If anyone can think of a counter-example please pass it along.

RLC

The Israeli Raid

The plot line concerning the Israeli raid in Syria continues to gradually unfold. DEBKAfile has the latest.

RLC

The Aftermath of Withdrawal

Attempts by Democrats in Congress and the Left in general to force a withdrawal from Iraq seem to have subsided since General Petraeus gave his report to Congress last month. Unfortunately, some Democrats' reasons for not pursuing withdrawal are based more on political considerations than on a prudent regard for the potentially horrendous consequences of our leaving before Iraq is sufficiently stable to fend for itself. Nevertheless, it's good, in my opinion, that demands for an American retreat have faded. Here's why:

Let's think about what we can reasonably expect to happen if we withdraw our combat forces from Iraq. I'm not claiming that any of these consequences are certain to occur, but they are all plausible and they are all much more likely to happen if we pull out than if we stay:

1. Al Qaeda will move into Iraq in force and slaughter everyone they can find who cooperated with the U.S. They were slaughtering them before the surge, there's no reason to think that if we leave they'd suddenly have a change of heart. The victims would include government officials, police, military, trible leaders, professionals, etc. and the families of these people. Even if these amount to only 1% of the Iraqi population that would still be 250,000 people.

2. Shia militias and extremists like Muqtada al-Sadr will seek to settle old scores with the Sunni, especially the Baathists. In this they may be joined by the Kurds. The Sunnis will either flee the country or be murdered and have their property confiscated. This is a huge fear among the Sunni today and for many of them their only hope is that we stay to prevent this from happening.

3. It's very likely that there will be civil war over the oil fields.

4. It's very likely that Iran will see our withdrawal as an opportunity to seize the southern part of Iraq under the pretext of helping their fellow Shia.

5. It's likely that either Iran or Turkey, or both, would go to war with the Kurds in the north.

6. It's also likely that other Sunni Arab states would be pressured to come to the aid of their fellow Sunnis, thus intensifying the conflict and making Iraq an abattoir of war and death.

7. Because Iraq would become a battleground for both indigenous fighters and foreign forces the land would be thrown into chaos. The average Iraqi would find himself without food, medical care, and probably water, oil, and electricity. Education would shut down and Iraq's bustling economy would become a shambles. Starvation and disease would claim thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives, mostly children. War and retribution would claim thousands more. The total number of dead could easily top a million people.

8. It's also likely that, once we withdraw, the U.S. would be psychologically, logistically, and economically unable to go back into the Middle East to stop any of this. We would no more be able to go back into Iraq than we could have gone back into Vietnam or Cambodia.

9. Moreover, the Arab nations would sense that our withdrawal would be impossible to reverse, and see it as an opportunity to step up attacks on Israel without having to fear that we would wade back into the region to help. They would still have to fear our air force and navy, perhaps, but if they sense that our leaders in Washington have lost the will to use force they would be more likely to risk war with Israel if they think they could succeed in crippling or destroying them. Even if they are wrong about American willingness to come to the aid of Israel their misjudgment would still be catastrophic if it leads them to war with the Israelis.

10. Iran would see our withdrawal as a green light to continue developing nuclear weapons and the rest of the Middle East would be forced to do likewise to protect themselves from Iranian nuclear hegemony. Any war against Israel would be much more likely to involve nuclear weapons.

11. North Korea and China would both see us as unwilling to keep our commitments to our allies. The North Koreans might be emboldened by our lack of resolve to restart their nuclear program and threaten South Korea, and China would probably feel safe in initiating their long promised war to retake Taiwan. And who knows what effect our withdrawal would have in Moscow and Europe.

There are no certainties, of course, but the chances are good that our withdrawal would be a total disaster for the Middle East and the world.

It's hard to deny that at least some of what is forecast here would follow upon an American withdrawal from Iraq. More importantly, we can be assured that the chances of any or all of these horrors happening are far greater if we leave Iraq than if we stay. That alone, in my view, obligates us to continue our efforts to eliminate the terrorists, put down the insurgency, and help build the country. Contrary to what war critics allege, the stablity of the world depends upon the U.S. finishing the job in Iraq.

Opponents of our presence in Iraq don't usually try to deny that the awful events listed above are more likely to occur if we retreat. They simply argue that we've done enough, whether good or bad, and that we should pull out regardless of the consequences, and let the chips fall where they may. If we followed this policy, though, and a catastrophic bloodbath did ensue, our retreat would be seen by history as one of the most disgraceful moral blunders in the history of our nation.

RLC

For the Children (Partly)

Proponents of expanding SCHIP (States Children's Health Insurance Program) would have us believe that children are being hurt by the President's decision to veto the bill, but apparently taxpayers pay for more under SCHIP than just coverage for children.

According to a press release from Republicans serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee 13 states will spend more than 44 percent of their SCHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women.

Michigan tops the list with 71.6 percent of its SCHIP money earmarked for adults who have no kids. In New Mexico, 52.3 percent of the state's SCHIP dollars will be spent on childless adults.

It'd be helpful if the proponents of the program were up-front with us about who, exactly, the taxpayers are buying insurance coverage for under this program.

HT: Michelle

Who Huck Is

The New Republic has a good piece on Mike Huckabee. The reader gets helpful insight into who Huckabee is and what sort of principles he holds. There are some things about him which some people will find difficult to accept, of course. He has a history, for example, of wanting to raise taxes, a fact most fiscal conservatives will find hard to overlook. He also supported, as governor of Arkansas, giving college scholarships to children of illegal aliens, an unfortunate blemish which will also raise some red flags about how serious he'd be on stopping illegal immigration.

Nevertheless, there is also much about him to like. He is generally conservative on social issues and perhaps most importantly, seems like a genuinely good man. Read the article and see what you think.

RLC

Strange Column

Tony Judt starts out sensibly in a New York Times editorial explaining why a number of liberals supported the war in Iraq, but as he gathers steam he proceeds to run himself right off the rails.

Consider the following puzzling paragraph:

Those of us who pressed for American-led military action in Bosnia and Kosovo did so for several reasons: because of the refusal of others (the European Union and United Nations) to engage effectively; because there was a demonstrable and immediate threat to rights and lives; and because it was clear we could be effective in this way and in no other. None of these considerations applied in Iraq, which is why I and many others opposed the war.

This is very strange. Mr. Judt believes that there was adequate justification for getting militarily involved in Kosova and Bosnia in the '90s but that those same justifications did not obtain in Iraq. How does he come to such an odd conclusion?

Surely he remembers that it was the failure of much of the rest of the world to do anything serious about Saddam that caused Mr. Bush to feel compelled to take action himself. Surely, he is aware of the murders and tortures which the Saddam regime was engaged in right up to the invasion. He cannot be unaware of the mass graves of tens of thousands of corpses that our troops uncovered in Iraq. Surely, too, he is aware of the twelve year diplomatic process the U.S. pushed in the U.N. that resulted in resolution after resolution, each one of which was used by Saddam merely to light his cigars.

It seems that Mr. Judt is either living in a state of self-delusion or he believes that by simply asserting something as though it were fact, his readers will accept it as the truth. In any case it's hard to imagine anyone giving credence to his reasoning.

RLC

No Middle Ground

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has some pithy thoughts on the recent Israeli raid on the Syrian nuclear station, or whatever it was:

Between July and September, weeks of high-level talks took place [between the U.S. and Israel]. The Israelis wanted to destroy the facility immediately, and had some support from the American intelligence community that had managed to miss this development. However, Condoleezza Rice and others did not. They wanted to "confront" the Syrians first -- as the Jerusalem Post puts it, to scold Assad publicly for operating a nuclear facility.

Yes, I'm sure that would have been effective. Publicly scolding them over the Hariri assassination only resulted in five more car-bomb assassinations of anti-Syrian politicians in Lebanon since then. Fingerwagging has done so much to curtail their material support for Hezbollah, too.

The Israelis, who actually originated the "Bush doctrine" decades ago, appear to be the only nation still using it. They probably have concluded that they cannot rely on American will to protect them from Syria and Iran any longer, especially after this episode. The US opposed the raid up to the moment it occurred, afraid of destabilizing the region. Israel, more worried about the consequences of a nuclear Syria -- something that should worry us as well -- simply ignored Washington after weeks of argument and acted in its own self-interest.

If Morrissey is correct what he writes demonstrates the futility of trying to talk people out of doing what they're determined to do. In this case our State Department talkers no doubt told Syria that if they don't give up their plans to finish this facility they would lose it and Syria no doubt thought they could stop any attack with their new Russian air defense system (which proved totally useless). But here's the point, nothing deters these people except the credible threat of annihilation. There are things we could do short of war - sanctions, blockades, etc. - but all of these ultimately lead to war. Not Iraq under Saddam, not Syria under Assad, not Iran under the mullahs and A'Jad could be, or will be, deterred from their determination to establish radical Islamic hegemony throughout the entire Middle East and eventually the world apart from war or credible threat of war.

The tragic truth appears to be that we either accept a nuclear armed Syria and Iran or be prepared to go to war with them to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. Both options are fraught with danger and calamity, but in the end the Islamists seem determined to leave us no middle ground.

RLC

Re: Cold Case Smear

My friend Steve offers an eloquent defense of Cold Case and urges that the series not be judged on the basis of one episode that may, or may not, have wandered out of bounds. I've posted his response here and on our feedback page:

My wife and I might be the only parents in America who actually have to beg our 3-year-old son to watch tv from time to time. He really doesn't know how to watch it because it's almost never on in our house. But there is one show my wife and I have watched steadily for more than three years now: Cold Case.

I was traveling recently and missed the controversial show referenced in this blog in which some renegade Christians stone a girl to death. I'll definitely need to see that one before I comment at all on it. But as a Roman Catholic, I've always found Cold Case's portrayal of religious faith, particularly Catholicism, to be sensitive, insightful and quite compelling. My wife and I watch this show largely because of its very powerful storytelling. Its characters are complex, and the show is relentless in exploring the awful capacity for evil that humans have as well as the toughness and goodness that allows us to endure horrible things and try to right them.

Religion is of course a major part of our society, so Cold Case is bound to take on themes of faith in some episodes. When it does, the depiction of religion has frankly been overwhelmingly positive. If you watch the show consistenly as I have, you learn that the police lieutenant who serves as the boss for the show's detectives has a brother who is a Catholic priest - and he's quite proud of that. During one show, when a detective suggests that a young boy might have been murdered years before by a priest, the lieutenant snaps, "Just because he's a priest doesn't mean he's a pedophile." And by the end of the show, it turns out the priest is the good guy. In other episodes, a young girl in mortal danger from her father is left by her mother in a Catholic church that takes care of her. In another show about drug trafficking, a flawed but fearless Latin American priest stands up bravely for Latino women against savage drug dealers. There are other examples along these lines, but you get the idea: Cold Case takes religious faith very seriously.

I don't know much about the background of the show's producers and writers, but my guess is that at least some of them are religious themselves. Cold Case is rich in religious symbolism, and its stories are largely about evil, love and forgiveness. It sometimes shows us things we don't want to see or think about, but it does so artfully and memorably. Even if the show went astray a bit with its recent controversial episode - and I'll need to see it first to decide - it has a long track record of being a friend of faith. And in our modern television culture, the faithful among us need all the friends we can find.

Good points, all. So, has anyone actually seen the episode that the article our post was based upon made reference to? If so, was it as bad as the article claimed? Please share your thoughts with us.

RLC

Man-Made DNA

The Guardian has a story that sends the needle on our hype detector soaring into the red zone. According to the article Dr. Craig Venter, a DNA researcher:

"is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth...The announcement, which is expected within weeks and could come as early as Monday at the annual meeting of his scientific institute in San Diego, California, will herald a giant leap forward in the development of designer genomes."

The technical achievement seems quite impressive, but it seems somewhat of a stretch to claim that Dr. Venter's lab has created a new life form. What Dr. Venter has done, and we don't minimize the achievement, is to construct a chromosome out of the raw chemical materials of DNA and insert it into a bacterium. This is a notable technical accomplishment, but it's a long way from creating a new form of life. The Guardian continues:

The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome ... is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form.

It will not be a new life form. It will still be a bacterium. It may, if the synthetic chromosome can successfully integrate with the cell's biochemical machinery, have different characteristics than any bacterium that existed before, but that no more makes it a "new life form" than a new variety of roses is a new life form.

The Guardian seems to recognize that it has overstated things a bit and tries to pull back somewhat from its earlier claim:

The team of scientists has already successfully transplanted the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another, effectively changing the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100% confident" the same technique would work for the artificially created chromosome.

The new life form will depend for its ability to replicate itself and metabolise on the molecular machinery of the cell into which it has been injected, and in that sense it will not be a wholly synthetic life form. However, its DNA will be artificial, and it is the DNA that controls the cell and is credited with being the building block of life.

In other words, what Dr. Venter will be doing is a bit like inserting a new operating system into a computer. This is not the same as inventing a whole new kind of computer. It's not clear from the article that the new chromosome will even function in the cell, but if it does what Dr. Venter has done will be to have designed a program for a computer that will make the computer do things it didn't do before.

The Guardian then adds this disturbing quote from Dr. Venter:

"We are not afraid to take on things that are important just because they stimulate thinking," he said. "We are dealing in big ideas. We are trying to create a new value system for life. When dealing at this scale, you can't expect everybody to be happy."

A new value system for life? What does that mean? Aldous Huxley must be smiling.

RLC

Accutane for Marxism

Marxism, like acne, seems to be a perennial affliction of adolescents whatever might be their chronological age. So we're not surprised that a news report out of South Dakota (Okay. We're a little surprised that it's South Dakota), says that some people are concerned about the formation by high school students of a young socialists club in their high school:

A new group at Roosevelt High School discusses socialism every Thursday morning. Not everyone is comfortable with the Young Socialist Club's views, but federal law says school districts must allow all student organizations.

The Young Socialists Club at Roosevelt High School is looking for new members. Their flyer asks for students to quote "Come explore the vast realm that is socialism." But also on the flyer is a picture of Karl Marx, who is best known as a revolutionary communist. One of his famous quotes, "Workers of the World Unite," is printed boldly on the handout. But Roosevelt Principal Don Ryswyk says those references do not concern him.

He says, "At Roosevelt we have young Democrats club, we have the young Republicans club and they were asking for a young Socialists club and so I saw it as an equity issue and the students talked to me about some of the things they were going to research and I also saw it as an educational club."

I'm not sure why they felt they needed a club for young socialists if they already had a young Democrats club, but never mind. We have a suggestion for any school personnel who might be concerned about student socialists running around school quoting Marx. Hold a school-wide assembly and show the movie The Lives of Others. Certain scenes would have to be edited out for propriety's sake, but that film should serve as an effective antidote for whatever enchantments Marxist-Leninism might still hold over our idealistic young people.

It's a German film about what life was like for artists and writers in East Germany in the years prior to the fall of the Berlin wall, and it's a good vehicle for disabusing students of their fantasies of a Marxist worker's paradise. It's exceptionally well-acted and the cast's portrayal of the oppressive evil of the East German system is at once understated and riveting. Despite the depressing theme the movie has a redemptive ending that hits just the right note.

We give The Lives of Others two thumbs up. Somebody send the DVD to Principal Ryswyk.

RLC

Save Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has left the United States because she feels her life is in danger and she can not afford to hire a security detail. She tried to return to her native Netherlands, but according to this report the Netherlands' Prime Minister has told her to stay out because they don't want to pay for her protection as they did before she originally left there to come here.

It's hard to believe that this woman, a heroine in the fight against radical Islam, is going to be abandoned to the murderous psychopaths who have been threatening to kill her as soon as they have the chance. Where is President Bush on this?

If the reports are true she's in real danger, and no one who is in a position to help seems interested in doing so. Perhaps she should go to Israel where she'd be as safe from the Islamic orcs as any other citizen. Or maybe Blackwater Security ought to be made to take her on pro bono in partial retribution for their crimes in Iraq.

RLC

Guns and the Supreme Court

One of the cases the Supreme Court is likely to consider this term revolves around a Washington D.C. law that bars residents from keeping handguns in their homes. A lower court struck down the ban in March and Washington has appealed to the Supreme Court. If the justices hear the appeal, they could issue the first ruling on whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms protects individuals or only state militias.

Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley comes reluctantly to the conclusion that contrary to the arguments of his fellow liberals the Second Amendment of the Constitution does indeed protect an individual's right to own a firearm. Turley is to be commended for placing principle above personal preference. He writes:

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington...

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

There's much more to his argument at the link. One thing about the objection he mentions above concerning the intent of the Framers is that even if their words seemed to limit the right to bear arms to militias, how can liberals justify placing a narrow interpretion on this amendment when they insist on placing the most expansive interpretation on the First Amendment?

Clearly, the Framers had politics and religion in mind when they conferred upon us the right to free speech, but the Supreme Court has subsequently expanded that right to cover things like pornography which there's no reason to believe the Framers wished to include. How can we justify expanding First Amendment rights to pornographers while restricting Second Amendment rights to militiamen who no longer exist?

RLC

Tough Questions for Mrs. Clinton

Dick Morris suggests a number of tough questions that journalists might ask Senator Clinton if she deigns to make herself available to them again. Here are six of them:

1) Bill Clinton refused to accept political action committee (PAC) contributions in his campaigns of 1992 and 1996. Obama and Edwards are following his example. Why aren't you?

2) After all the bad experiences you had with Johnnie Chung and Charlie Trie and their campaign donations in the 1996 election cycle, why were you not more careful in vetting the donations generated by Norman Hsu? Didn't you learn your lesson in 1996?

(As a follow-up to No. 2) After you found that you had to return almost a million dollars to the donors bundled by Hsu, you said you would be more vigilant in examining the backgrounds of donors. Why didn't you come to that conclusion before the Hsu scandal, based on your 1996 experiences?

3) Norman Hsu was no ordinary donor. He was the biggest bundler in your campaign; he gave funds to the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton School of Government in Arkansas and took Patti Solis Doyle, your campaign manager, and other aides on an all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas. He also donated to Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, whose campaign debt you agreed to help repay.

In view of his high profile in your campaign, why didn't you check him out more thoroughly, and what does this say about your ability to make quality appointments?

4) You base your healthcare proposal on the need to cover 47 million "uninsured Americans." Since about a third of them are illegal immigrants and another third are eligible for Medicaid right now and just don't apply for it, aren't you overstating the problem?

(As a follow-up to No. 4) In 2005 you co-sponsored legislation to provide health insurance to the children of illegal immigrants who have lived in this country for five years. In other words, their children would get subsidized healthcare under the State Children's Health Insurance Program as a reward for dodging the cops for five years. Do you still support that proposal?

5) You say that your healthcare proposal will leave alone those who are happy with their current insurance. But if you provide health benefits for close to 50 million new people, thereby generating huge new demand for medical care without any increase in the supply of doctors, nurses or hospitals, it will drive up prices radically. Won't that force you to institute cost controls by limiting the care those now on health insurance can receive?

6) In Arkansas, you achieved fame by urging mandatory testing for teachers and demanded that those who failed the competency tests be dismissed. You and your husband did this and implemented this policy. As a result, he was denied the endorsement by the Arkansas Teachers Union during his time as governor. Do you still support your proposal of 1983 and 1984 for mandatory teacher competency tests for current teachers - not just for new ones?

I'm a little dubious that anyone will actually have the temerity to ask these questions of Mrs. Clinton and even more dubious that she'd give a straightforward answer to them, but we'll see.

RLC

Beyond the Gates

A piece in the New York Observer chastises the Democrats for some shallow thinking on Iraq. Here are some excerpts:

If opinions about what to do in Iraq could be untangled from views of the Bush administration, it might be possible to have an honest debate about the consequences of a rapid American pullout.

Instead, we are treated to glib remarks even from some of the nation's foremost politicians. "There is no military solution," Senator Hillary Clinton said on the night before the testimony. "That is why I believe we should start bringing our troops home."

It was a dispiriting non sequitur from a woman who is known as one of the more realistic voices in the Iraq debate. There is indeed no exclusively military solution. But that doesn't change the fact that American troops are an essential part of any attempt to get Iraq back on its feet, since they appear to be needed to provide the security that might allow political progress to gain traction.

The thinking of other leading Democrats seems to trundle along even more predictable and flawed lines. The progression seems to be: Bush is bad; Bush doesn't want withdrawal; therefore withdrawal is good.

In a Washington Post op-ed on Saturday, presidential candidate Bill Richardson exhibited an abundance of wishful thinking.

Mr. Richardson asserted that "only a complete withdrawal can ... break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long."

But it is not "deadlock" that has been killing people. It is gangs of heavily armed religious fanatics and assorted other thugs. To suggest that a U.S. withdrawal would lead those groups to come to some kind of amicable understanding is risible.

Those who favor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq bridle at being described as "irresponsible." That is fair enough when Republicans throw out the term as a thinly disguised code for "cowardly" or "traitorous." But at a much more fundamental level, the U.S. does indeed have responsibilities toward Iraq. They do not just begin and end with Colin Powell's famous injunction that "you break it, you own it."

The U.S. sought to create a new, free Iraq. Millions of Iraqis joined with it in that project, at mortal risk to themselves. They were badly let down by America's blunderings and botches. But to abandon them too hastily, too selfishly or too thoughtlessly would be the greatest betrayal of all.

Reading this column I was reminded of the movie Beyond the Gates which tells a story based upon the tragedy of the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Thousands of helpless Tutsis had taken shelter from the murderous Hutus in a school occupied by U.N. troops. Hundreds of Hutus massed outside the gates of the school shouting threats and waving their blood-soaked machetes in the air night and day. At length the troops are ordered to withdraw, and the orc-like Hutus close in on the defenseless Tutsis, butchering 2500 of them.

I doubt anyone could watch this movie without feeling total anger and outrage at how these people were abandoned by the West and left to be slaughtered by the Hutus. If anyone doubts the complete fecklessness and uselessness of the U.N. they should watch this movie, but if they do, they need also to see it as a metaphor for Iraq. The left is insisting we do in Iraq the very same thing the U.N. did in Rwanda. The U.N. troops were caught in a civil war of extermination. They could have saved thousands of lives by staying and protecting the Tutsis but they chose to get out of the way, just as the Last Helicopter crowd is urging that the U.S. do in Iraq.

I invite anyone who believes we should pull out - John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Bob Casey, Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer and the twenty or so other Democratic senators who demand a pullout - to watch this movie and then at the end - while the U.N. is wheeling their vehicles out of the school grounds, and the desperate children are lying in their path to stop them, and the Hutus are dancing with glee in anticipation of their imminent butchery - say that the U.N. was doing the right thing by getting out of the way.

If they can't say that about the U.N. in Rwanda how can they say we should retreat from Iraq where the consequences of our withdrawal would be probably at least as horrific as what happened in Rwanda? And if they can support the U.N.'s actions then I don't want to ever again hear any of these people talk about how they care about people. I think it would make me sick.

Rent the movie. It cuts through all the arguments and abstractions about Iraq, even though Iraq, of course, is never mentioned, and shows us vividly exactly what the likely fate of Iraqis would be as soon as we leave them to the savages whose chief delight is the butchering of innocents.

RLC

Wallis on the SCHIP Veto

There is much not to like in Jim Wallis' characterization of President Bush's veto of the SCHIP (State Children Health Insurance Program) bill. Here's what Wallis says:

"To veto the bill, with no alternative plan instead - to simply abandon millions of poor children, to leave them to a market system that is failing to provide health care to enough people - is simply morally unacceptable. We must not allow this to become an ideological battle over the larger issue of health care systems. This is about a specific program for poor children that a bipartisan majority believes is working. This is not about health care theories - this is about children. And now, overriding a presidential veto will become the next faith-based issue."

Wallis makes it sound as if there is no alternative to the bill the President vetoed, but this is misleading. There is an alternative plan. The previous plan which has been in effect for ten years is perfectly acceptable to the President who even favors increasing the funding for it. It's the expansion of that plan that the President has vetoed.

He also characterizes the children affected by the veto as poor, but poor children are covered by Medicaid. The affected children live in families with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000, which makes them middle class.

Many of the children who are uncovered lack coverage because their families choose not to buy it. Many of the affected children are in families headed by unwed mothers. Why the taxpayer should subsidize the production of children out of wedlock Wallis doesn't explain, but he obviously thinks we should, even when the family is living above the poverty line.

Wallis alleges that the President vetoed a program that has been working. He did not. He vetoed an expansion of that program. Wallis also insists that these are all children who will be affected by the veto, but that, too, is misleading. In its final form the expanded program would cover people up to the age of 21.

There's no reason why Congress and the White House couldn't compromise on some of the more egregious provisions in this bill, but the Dems won't be in a hurry to do so. They'll find it much more satisfying to join Wallis in misrepresenting the President's position and hammering him for trying to keep the country from slipping into government subsidized health care for everyone. If he wants to point us to something that's "morally unacceptable" maybe he could start with that.

RLC

Cold Case Smear

Our entertainment media continues its seeming efforts to see who in the industry can come up with the most bizarre distortion of Christianity to bring before the public. The latest entry in the contest, apparently, is an episode of Cold Case that portrays devout young people in an abstinence organization as a bunch of judgmental hypocrites (what else) who actually stone a girl to death while reciting Scripture and whose youth pastor is a pervert.

Sounds like any Christian youth group one might encounter at the church down the street, doesn't it?

Read the storyline as described by Colleen Raezler of the Culture and Media Institute here. If Raezler's account is accurate this episode of Cold Case tells us a lot more about the fantasies of the people who produced it than it does about the lives of Christian kids.

Maybe the people behind the show had good intentions. Perhaps they thought their ludicrous portrayal of Christianity might entice some kids who'd never otherwise darken the door of a church to think that, hey, if that's what's going on in Sunday School, they want to at least check it out.

Just kidding.

RLC