The Richard Sternberg Affair

Readers may recall the contretemps surrounding the Richard Sternberg affair and his alleged mistreatment at the Smithsonian Institute, which he attributes to his having published a paper written by Intelligent Design theorist Stephen Meyer. There are conflicting accounts of exactly what has happened to Dr. Sternberg, but Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost offers the following as to why he thinks Sternberg is more credible than the gentleman from the Smithsonian who denies Sternberg's charges:

While there is no way for us to know exactly who is telling the truth, let's look at how each side's point of view was presented:

Sternberg filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. By making the claims and signing Form OSC-11 (2-05) , Sternberg acknowledged that he was aware that making a false statement or concealing material fact would be committing a criminal offense punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. He also agreed to speak on record with a columnist who was writing an editorial for the Wall Street Journal, ensuring that his claims would be on public record in a national newspaper.

Jonathan Coddington was offered a chance to present his side of the story in the WSJ article but chose not to do so. Instead, he thought it would be more appropriate to present his rebuttal in the comments section of a blog.

This is not dispositive, of course, but Carter's argument is persuasive. Why would Sternberg place himself in serious legal jeopardy if his charges were false, and why wouldn't Coddington, if he were going to deny Sternberg's allegations of mistreatment, use the same venue that Sternberg used? Why announce your denials in a blog? Stay tuned.

Making Them Talk

Power Line has some good news on the war against Iraqi terrorists:

The latest top al Qaeda operative to fall is Zarqawi's military advisor, Adnan Muhamed Hamed Alqeisi. Haider Ajina sends us this translation of an article that appeared today in the Iraqi Arabic newspaper "Nahrein":

"Iraqi security forces arrested Adnan Muhamed Hamed Alqeisi also known as Abu Walied, during surprise operation in southern Baghdad. Abu Walied, and Iraqi of 41 years of age, was a facilitator for the terrorist group led by Alzarqawy who is tied to Alqaida. He was also in contact with Abu Omar, Hassan and Abu Seif who Zarqawy named commander of Baghdad; those were arrested earlier last month."

"The Iraqi vice president Dr. Berhem Saleh said that Abu Walied was working as a military advisor to the top leaders in Zarqawy's terror group, and he also supplied terrorist activities in Baghdad. The vice president also said that Zarqawy is loosing his battle against the Iraqi people and his organization of terrorists and criminals is loosing its main leaders over the last few weeks. This is to the credit of the Iraqi security forces and tips from the population."

A few weeks ago there was speculation that Zarqawi himself may have been captured--not, of course, for the first time. But the continued roll-up of the gang members closest to him suggests that either he has been captured and is giving up his colleagues, or, more likely, the net is steadily closing on him.

This latest arrest raises some troubling questions, actually. Obviously these guys are ratting on each other and giving each other up to the Iraqi police, which causes us to wonder what sort of interrogation techniques are being employed there. Are the Iraqis resorting to torture to extract their information? Are they, for instance, saying mean things to these thugs about their mothers to get them to give up their secrets? Are they using stressful methods like raising their voices and making them sleep in single instead of queen-sized beds? Are they subjecting them to excruciating ordeals like forcing them to listen to AC/DC albums? Just wondering. Maybe TruthOut.org should look into this.

State of the Union...

Ughh...I'm reeling from the recent price drop in gold...all the way to my favorite gold dealer to buy more! Why? Simply because gold serves as the ultimate barometer of the "perceived" value of a country's currency even though there can be short-term events that cause things to appear to be otherwise. In the '90s, when the NASDAQ went from 500 to 5000, the common expression was "buy the dips". People that did that made out handsomely...until the year 2000.

Briton's Chancellor Gordon Brown has come out from under his rock, once again, to suggest that the IMF sell some of its gold to alleviate the debt of third-world countries. The possibility of this event has made a huge contribution to the recent decline in the gold price (even though such sales would only be to central banks meaning the gold would not appear on the open market). While appearing to be a champion of people of low economic status, consider this article

So I interpret such news as efforts to distort economic reality. If you look at a long term graph of the price of gold, you can see that it's not uncommon for it to pull back anywhere from 50% to 100% of its previous rise. Then it turns around and goes to new highs. The important thing to keep in mind is that the fundamentals (trade and budget deficits) that have caused the price to be where it is from its low of $260 in the year 2000 are still firmly in place and as long as they are, the price over the longer term will continue to trend upward. Any short term moves are temporary anomalies.

Now let's look at another component of the economy that motivates me to "go for the gold"...

From Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley:

The Federal Reserve is trapped in a moral-hazard dilemma of its own making. It dates back to the Great Bubble of the late 1990s and the central bank's unwillingness to take away the proverbial punch bowl just when the party was getting good. The close brush with deflation that then ensued was a painfully classic post-bubble aftershock. That experience underscores the greatest shortcoming of modern-day central banking -- the inability of monetary policy to cope successfully with asset bubbles and the deflationary perils they engender. The history of the 1930s and Japan in the 1990s are grim reminders of that shortcoming. Alan Greenspan's confession finally sets the record straight on how he got us into this mess.

And for you odds players out there, this link from his article in November where he says:

The chance we'll get through OK: one in 10. Maybe.

To finance its current account deficit with the rest of the world, he said, America has to import $2.6 billion in cash. Every working day.

That is an amazing 80 percent of the entire world's net savings.

Sustainable? Hardly.

Meanwhile, he notes that household debt is at record levels.

Twenty years ago the total debt of U.S. households was equal to half the size of the economy.

Today the figure is 85 percent.

Nearly half of new mortgage borrowing is at flexible interest rates, leaving borrowers much more vulnerable to rate hikes.

The U.S. has become the consumer of last resort for the world's goods brought to you by 40 year low rates of interest from the Federal Reserve and, as a result, the typical U.S. consumer has been refinancing their mortgages and financing their consumption by borrowing against the equity in their homes. Stephen Roach says:

"through home income extraction [home equity loans] income-short households pushed the consumption share of US GDP up to a record 71.1% in early 2003 (and still 70.7% in 4Q04) -- an unprecedented breakout from the 67% norm that had prevailed over the 1975 to 2000 period."

This will end and it will end badly and this is why. Today, the engine of consumption is enabled by the lowest interest rates in 40 years. Interest rates are a tool that is used by the Fed to control the flow of dollars into the economy. When rates go up, it chokes the supply of new dollars into the economy, decreasing inflation. Remember that dollars are "borrowed" into existence. The Fed could print a billion dollars but that has no impact on the economy until someone borrows them. So if rates don't rise people and businesses are more inclined to borrow.

The bigger issue is that the Fed doesn't have total control of interest rates. There comes a time when they are forced to raise them because too many dollars are being pumped into the economy. That's what happened in the '70s when Paul Volker raised rates to 18%. He had to do this because inflation was showing up in the general economy in terms of higher prices of consumer goods. Today it's showing up in the stock market and housing.

On the other hand, with the dollar dropping in value against other currencies, the U.S. is forced to raise interest rates to make the Treasury bonds foreign countries buy more attractive so they continue to buy them. Those Treasuries are how the U.S. finances it's trade deficit. In other words, the Fed is in a no win situation. If they raise rates, they might continue the trade deficit but tank the economy.

Just the other day, the latest employment numbers were disappointing yet the stock market surged. Why? Because this was perceived as an indicator that interest rates would stay low to help a still-struggling economy. But if the Fed keep rates low, inflation will go out of control.

If anyone finds fault with my reasoning I sure would appreciate hearing from you for an alternative interpretation of what is going on. But in the mean time, it's "Katie, bar (as in gold bar) the door."

As always, thanks for reading.

The President's Numbers

We're not big on public opinion polls unless they confirm our prejudices, of course, and this one by Gallup does just that so we'll share it with you:

A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey shows that President George W. Bush's approval rating has increased to 57%, up from 51% three weeks ago. The approval increase appears to be related to the recent Iraqi elections, which the poll shows went better than most Americans expected. In general, the public is more positive now than it was before the elections about the way Bush has handled the situation in Iraq, as well as how the war is faring for the United States. At the same time, the poll shows little change in Bush's job approval rating on the economy or on Social Security.

By almost a two-to-one majority (61% to 31%), Americans said the elections in Iraq went better than expected. This perception appears to have led Americans to a generally more positive view about Iraq and about Bush.

The poll shows that 55% of Americans now say the war in Iraq was not a mistake, while just last month 52% of Americans felt it was a mistake.

Also, there is a 13-point increase in the percentage of Americans who say things are going well for the United States in Iraq -- 53% say either "very" or "moderately" well now, compared with 40% prior to the Iraqi elections.

We'd like to know what it is that has changed in Iraq in the last three weeks, or the last three months, that has caused people to give the president higher marks now than previously. The elections occured in Iraq, of course, but they weren't a surprise. They had been scheduled since last year. Nor should their success have been a surprise except perhaps to those whose only news source is the MSM or Left-wing journals and blogs.

The fact is that things are going about as well in Iraq now as they have been for the last year or so. The difference is that the MSM, having very few blown up cars and shredded bodies to report about on election day, focused instead on something which they had ignored ever since the fall of Saddam - the joy and hope of the Iraqi people. Evidently, when a lot of average Americans saw Iraqi jubilation on their television screens it jolted them into changing their minds about the quality of the job that Bush is doing there.

Unfortunately, if that's the reaction that positive news coverage is going to produce, then we fear we shouldn't look for too many more upbeat stories from Iraq for awhile. The last thing the MSM wants is to be responsible for continued improvement in Bush's approval numbers, and they're probably aghast that they've precipitated this recent spike.

We Report, You Decide

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe has a problem with some of the tactics employed by female interrogators at Guantanamo Bay on Muslim prisoners, and Debbie Schlussel thinks he's off his rocker.

We think that both of them are partly right, but read both articles and see what you think.

Is Killing <i>Fun</i>?

Adventures With Chester has a ton of background on the now famous LtGen Jim Mattis who shocked the delicate sensibilities of the fragile flowers in the MSM by stating that he enjoys killing people who beat up women for not wearing a veil (and presumably people who behead innocent captives and people who trick Down's Syndrome youngsters into conducting suicide missions to blow apart other children, etc).

We wouldn't put it quite the way LtGen Mattis did, and in fact we are prudish enough to think that killing should not be "fun" under any conditions. It should be undertaken only with deep regret that it's necessary. Having said that, however, we do not deny that there is something deeply satisfying about justice, and though it should not be regarded as fun, there is, no doubt, a large measure of satisfaction to be taken from knowing that one has removed from the planet someone who preys on innocent women and children and who kills wantonly. Taking the lives of such individuals is an act of justice, it is the right thing to do, and there is nothing reprehensible in LtGen Mattis finding satisfaction in the doing of it.

Anyone interested in this story should check out Chester's site.

Ideological Flip-Flop

Back in the early fifties William F. Buckley defined conservatism as standing athwart the juggernaut of history shouting "stop." We thought of this the other day and marveled at how things have changed.

Consider this little quiz: Of the two, conservatism or liberalism:

1) Which is more likely to be "reactionary"?

2) Which is most likely to oppose reforms designed to protect the common man?

3) Which is most likely to protect the fat cats?

4) Which is most likely to oppose deficit spending?

5) Which is most likely to impede individual liberties?

6) Which is most likely to oppose measures to free oppressed peoples from tyranny?

If you answered "conservatives" for any of these then you're still living back in the sixties with Ward Churchill:

1) Contemporary liberals have no plan or ideas for Americas future except to keep us from moving beyond the same threadbare socialist nostrums that emerged in the thirties and blossomed in the sixties and seventies.

2) Conservatives support Bush's proposals for reforming tax law, tort law, and social security. Liberals oppose all three. Conservatives also met serious liberal resistance in the nineties when they pushed for education and welfare reform.

3) Liberals will support no reform which works to the economic detriment of their deep-pocket donors in the legal profession.

4) Traditionally liberals reveled in deficit spending. Now that the Bush administration is spending more than the government is taking in liberals would have us believe that they've transformed themselves into parsimonious misers.

5) For the last thirty years Liberals have been the most radical opponents of genuine freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to bear arms. No challenges to any of these freedoms have come from the Right in decades.

6) The opposition to freeing people from tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq comes primarily from the Left. The loudest calls to pull out of Iraq now and leave the Iraqis to the tender mercies of al Zarqawi and the circling hyenas in Damascus and Tehran are coming from the Left.

It might be argued that liberals don't oppose the ends that conservatives seek, they merely disagree on the best means to get there. Yet they offer no alternative proposals for achieving those ends. Everywhere we look we find liberals doing nothing, offering nothing, except resistance to change. Their sole contribution to the issues of our time is to stand athwart history shouting "stop."

The Other Side of the Story

The other day we posted and commented upon a story which appeared in the WSJ by David Klinghoffer about the reaction at the Smithsonian Institute to an article on Intelligent Design which appeared in a journal edited by a research associate at the Smithsonian. There were some allegations made in that story which reflected poorly on the open-mindedness and ethics of Smithsonian employees.

Now one of those employees has come forward to present another side and to address some of Klinghoffer's allegations. His remarks can be found at The Panda's Thumb. Evidently, somebody in this dispute, intentionally or not, is misleading us. We'll let you know where the truth lies if, and when, we find out ourselves.

Follow up on gold

Back in November I posted an article Gold vs the U.S. dollar.

At that time I mentioned that the price of gold, having risen to new highs, might drop to $420. Well, that has happened and the way things are going now, the price might even drop to $400. Personally, I see it as a great buying opportunity, compliments of those who are wont to suppress the price of gold in an effort to distort economic reality.

As anyone who has read my Gold Page can surmise, my advice to acquire gold isn't about a "get rich" scheme, rather it's about protecting one's self from dishonest government. More to the point, it's not about Democrats or Republicans or any other party affiliation...it's about returning to a value system upon which our great country was founded. It's about being a Patriot.

Having said that, I offer the link below to An Analysis of Antal Fekete's Plan for a Parallel Gold-Coin Standard by Nelson Hultberg

From the link below:

If a free society is to be restored to America, then gold and silver must become the fulcrum of our monetary reform. Dr. Antal Fekete has given us a brilliant means to achieve such a monetary system with his new theory of the gold standard incorporated with the Real Bills Doctrine. It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to objectively investigate his plan and his marvelous works. If Jefferson and Jackson were alive today, they would be seeking this man's counsel. All contemporary patriots, pundits, and freedom advocates should do likewise.

Antal Fekete is a truly brilliant individual and I encourage you to read the article in its entirety.

www.afr.org/Hultberg/013105.html

Ernst Mayr, Dead at 100

Ernst Mayr, the very prominent Harvard evolutionary biologist, and author of numerous works on the subject is dead at age 100. Mayr was a key architect of the neo-Drawinian synthesis, the blending of Darwin's theory of natural selection with the science of genetics, and was instrumental in persuading biologists to accept the view that species evolved only when isolated from their parent populations. His influence among modern evolutionists is probably second only to that of Charles Darwin himself.

A Democratic Paradigm

Omar at Iraq the Model posts an amusing parody of a Syrian news article praising elections in Syria. Omar writes:

I received this sarcastic article via e mail from a Syrian friend who's a member of the "Reform Party of Syria". The article talks about the latest election in Syria and compares between this one and the Sunday elections of Iraq. Here's the whole article:

Doubt reigns over the outcome of Syrian elections; Outside observers question legitimacy of Bashar Assad's 99% victory over (now presumed missing) opponent.

Results from Monday's Syrian elections were announced today, with a clear mandate handed to Bashar Assad, with his ruling Ba'ath party sweeping the elections with a staggering 95% of the votes. However, opposition parties such as the Communist Party and the Liberal Syrian Nationalist Party voiced complaints that their election results of negative 5 and 3 percent respectively were products of an unfair and rigged election process.

The head of the Ba'ath party regional politburo promised to immediately look into allegations of fraud and "resolutely and mercilessly deal with complaints so that they never ever happen again...ever."!

CNN analyst Fareed Zakaria however moved fast to point out that the high voter turnout rate ought to be looked at as a positive developmental sign for democracy in Syria. "With a 90% voter turnout rate, Syria remains light years ahead in the field of democratic involvement as opposed to one certain neighboring Arab so called democratic state...I don't want to start naming names here or getting into a game of my-Arab-country-is-more democratic-than-yours...but lets face it, Syria's elections went off without a hitch and were never marred with the uncertainty and chaos of not knowing who was going to win."

When asked for their opinion on the remarkably high turnout of Syrian voters, unfriendly election 'monitors' simply shrugged and pointed to their bats.

A number of Middle Eastern experts also praised the convenient simplicity and easy to understand ballot for the Syrian presidential elections. While the ballots in the recently conducted Iraqi elections included as many as a hundred different entities and nearly seven thousand candidates, the Syrian ballot was in contrast much more compact allowing for little room for voter confusion (in most instances the ballots were already pre-marked in favor of Bashar Assad).

In addition, Ba'athist officials this year introduced a new 'voter friendly' ballot to ensure that absolutely no Syrian citizen would be faced with the dilemma of indecision (let alone chaos) that plagues many voters in the democratic world. At the top of each ballot now stands a picture of a smiling Bashar Assad above a caption that reads: 'Vote, your life may depend on it'.

Ba'athist elections officials were mulling using a more direct slogan next year 'Vote or die' but feared comparisons with a similar slogan by American channel MTV urging young people of that country to vote. However, Syrian Ba'ath officials were quick to remark that any superficial similarities between the slogans were completely coincidental and not to be taken in similar context. 'Believe me, we mean it in a totally different way' said Nabil Wahshi, general secretary of the Damascus Ba'ath party.

In a New York Times editorial, Michigan University's professor of Middle Eastern studies Juan Cole said that he saw the elections in Syria as a model for other Arab countries to follow. "The last thing the Arab people need is a red herring like 'free and open elections' to distract them from the international Zionist/Neo-Con conspiracy to take their oil" Professor Cole then added that President Assad's ability to gain such a high percentage of the vote "all the while maintaining an oligarchic cult of personality oppressive regime mired in nepotism and corruption" was "truly impressive" and a positive sign of "Arab solidarity."

Indeed, many regional experts contend that the Syrian elections are the most legitimate to date among any held in the Arab world. According to one (unnamed) Syrian political analyst, "The Syrian elections are totally legitimate and a great advancement of Arab pride. No one can say that Bashar Assad heads a puppet regime, it is not controlled by foreign outside forces... or by the people, and it is completely unbeholden and unaccountable to anyone!"

In a sign of international solidarity, Richard Gere phoned to give his congratulations to president Assad and according to one observer was overheard playfully teasing Assad - reportedly remarking -"Hey buddy, 20 more years, eh?"

Assad in a televised address this Tuesday said that he wished to thank the Syrian people "from the bottom of my heart" for their support and continued faith in his Baathist regime, cryptically concluding that "While I may not be able to thank each and every one of you who voted for me...rest assured, someone on my behalf will be paying a visit for those of you who did not."!

Ninety percent turnout?! We Americans could certainly learn something from the Syrians about the importance of voting in a democracy. Maybe they'd be willing to send some advisors over here in 2008 to help us develop a deeper appreciation for the beauty of free elections. The Syrian government would probably insist, however, that no advisors be permitted to come unless there are guarantees that they won't be allowed to defect while they're here.

The Wild Ride to the Bottom Has Begun

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost informs us that New York has pushed the toboggan over the brow of the slippery slope, and the wild ride to the bottom, monotonously predicted by Viewpoint on a number of occasions (see here, for example), has commenced:

In a stunning decision handed down earlier today, a New York state court ruled that same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry. What is even more surprising, however, is the way in which the judgment leaves the door open for the legalization of polygamy:

"The challenges to laws banning whites and non-whites from marriage demonstrate that the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice may not be denied based on longstanding and deeply held traditional beliefs about appropriate marital partners."

If longstanding and deeply held traditional beliefs are not enough to restrict who may marry, then it is unlikely that previously held views of marriage could be denied either. In fact, the court even opens the door for polygamy by including it as an acceptable definition of marriage:

"Defendant's historical argument is no less conclusory than amici's tautological argument that same-sex marriage is impossible, because, as a matter of definition, "marriage" means, and has always meant, the legal union of a man and a woman. Further, the premise of that argument is factually wrong; polygamy has been practiced in various places and at various times, for example, in the Territory of Utah. See Davis v. Beason, 133 US 333 (1890); Genesis 29: 21-30; Deuteronomy 21: 10-17."

Carter says he can't decide which is more ironic: "the fact that the judge uses the Bible as a reference source in making the case for same-sex marriage or that polygamists will use that wording to justify extending marital rights to their own relationships."

It won't stop with polygamy, nor can it. Once the breach is opened in the traditional definition of marriage, there is no non-arbitrary stopping point. Next up: Group marriage.

Another Media Fantasist

The Washington Times reveals the rich fantasy life, while noting the execrable behavior, of CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. During a discussion on media and democracy, Mr. Jordan apparently told the audience that "he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by U.S. troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted..."

Jordan has made similar accusations on previous occasions. According to the Times:

In November, as reported in the London Guardian, Mr. Jordan had said, "The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the U.S. military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by U.S. forces." This is very serious stuff, if true. Yet aside from Mr. Jordan's occasional comments, there's no evidence to support it.

The MSM has chosen to completely ignore Mr. Jordan's irresponsible allegation, realizing, no doubt, that any claim this bizarre should probably be supported with at least some evidence, a minimal requirement Mr. Jordan has completely disdained. An unsubstantiated charge of this magnitude sounds like another Dan Rather scandal in the making, and Big Media doesn't want to be the catalyst for destroying the credibility of yet another major news institution.

Since the MSM won't do their job one must turn to alternative media for the details. Luckily, Hugh Hewitt and Ed Morrissey are on the case. Between the two of them all the sordid details can be pieced together.

The director of CNN News evidently thought he could get away with slandering American troops without anyone noticing. The American public should demand that he come forward with evidence for his libels or else be fired (and sued) for lying about our troops.

American Hero

This photo at Release the Hounds and the accompanying explanation are worth seeing and reading. Why doesn't the MSM run stuff like this?

A Picture of Evil, A Portrait of Heroism

This account from Omar at Iraq the Model shows how despicable are the savages our troops are working to extirpate in Iraq:

I strongly believe that terrorists are cowards but the cowardice you're going to see in this story is just exceptional. The suicide attack that was performed on an election center in one of Baghdad's districts (Baghdad Al-Jadeedah) last Sunday was performed using a kidnapped "Down Syndrome" patient. Eye witnesses said that (and I'm quoting one of my colleagues; a dentist who lives there) "the poor victim was so scared when ordered to walk to the searching point and began to walk back to the terrorists. In response, the criminals pressed the button and blew up the poor victim almost half way between their position and the voting center's entrance".

I couldn't believe the news until I met another guy from that neighborhood who knows the family of the victim. The guy was reported missing 5 days prior to elections' day and the family were distributing posters that specified his descriptions and asking anyone who finds him to contact them.

When a relative of mine (who has a mental handicap due to an Rh conflict at birth) told me a month ago that a group of men in a car tried to kidnap him as he was standing in front of the institution he periodically visits to get medicine and support waiting for his brother; I thought that he was imagining the whole story. He said that they tried to force him into the car telling him not to be afraid and that they're from the "mujahideen and not going to hurt him". My relative, despite his handicap was moved by his survival instinct and managed to run away.

After I heard the other story, I began to connect between the two stories and to consider my cousin's story as a true one that uncovered a new miserable war technique that can come only from the sickest minds.

What a huge difference there is between those who kidnap and use the mentally handicapped to perform their murders in cold blood and between the brave Iraqis who sacrificed their lives to protect their brethren. One story that is famous now in Iraq is about one brave Iraqi (A'adel Nasir) who saw a suspicious looking guy walking around a polling center in (Al- Hurriyah) district and soon the brave man realized that the suspicious guy was trying to commit a suicide attack; he ran towards him, wrestled with him and knocked him down causing the bomb carried by the terrorist to explode, sacrificing his own life and saving the lives of the people standing in line at the gate of the voting center. It turned out later that the terrorist carried a Sudanese identification. Now, the school that hosted the voting center on the 30th carries the name of A'adel Nasir, as the Iraqi minister of education announced today.

The pathetic terrorists are breaking one world record after another in cowardice and insanity and this tells how bankrupt they're getting.

The story of A'adel Nasir (I've seen his name rendered differently in different reports) is especially significant. Everyone knows that Americans and Brits have acted with extraordinary courage in Iraq, but the MSM seems to be convinced that Iraqi troops and police have been less than audacious in risking their own lives in the fight for their own freedom. Not only does the behavior of millions of Iraqis who braved death threats in order to vote explode this myth but so does the heroism of A'adel Nasir whose courage will be a model for young Iraqis to emulate for generations.

More Gators in the Moat

The talented Tom Graffagnino posts this clever piece of verse at Without Excuse Creations:

"More Gators in the Moat!"

or

("Piltdown! Man the Iv'ry Towers!")

The Supernaturalists are coming!

Egad! By land!...

....By sea and boat!

Piltdown! Man the Iv'ry Towers!

Quick! .....

More 'gators in the moat!

Don't they know our Theory's Fittest!?

How dare they challenge you and me!?

O my Gawd! Can you imagine!?

We shan't allow this Heresy!

Call the Bio-Bishop Council!

Convene the Cardinals from their perch!

Yo! Onward Evo-Soldiers!

We must defend Pope Darwin's Church!

Kids today know how we got here....

It took a while....

But they believe!

Magik Microbe straight to Shakespeare!

What more could "Lucky Mud" achieve!?

No! We mustn't give them access,

To our children made so bright.

Darwinistas! Man your stations!

No Debate!

Comrades, Unite!

Battle Cry: "From Scales to Feathers!"

Battle Hymn: "From Mud to Man!"

And the drumbeat in the background?....

Censorship!

Impose the Ban!

Rowdy Red-State Rabble-Rousers,

Knuckle-dragging Retro-Brains....

Keep your thinking in the Ghetto.

Hey, monkey!....

Mother Nature Reigns!

So, Battle Stations, Nature's Chosen!

Priests of Darwin, clean their clocks!

This ain't no monkey business....

Stand your ground, Ye Orthodox!

There!

The hoi-poloi's advancing!

Raise the drawbridge right away!

Sir, defending "Fortress Darwin",

Is the order of the day!

Sister "Lucy"! Man the Ramparts!

From high above, look down your nose,

On those attacking our assumptions.....

Who claim the case just isn't closed!

Don your helmet and your breastplate....

Our metaphysics they dislike.

The Naked Apes just keep-a-comin'...

Quick!.....

More fingers in the Dike!

Gird your loins, Ye Missing Linkers!

The Great Unwashed we shall defeat!

My! Their Wedge of Doubt grows sharper....

I'm not so sure that they'll retreat!

Yes! Defending Darwin's Castle's

Our Crusade.....and Sacred Cow.

Clarence Darrow wouldn't like it...

But some debates we can't allow!

We're entrenched in Naturalism...

We're locked in...Unbending, too.

"Liberal" Thought's not always healthy,

When we're beseiged like me and you!

So, ever "Onward Evo-Soldier"!

Fight the Fight!

And spread The Word!

Naturalism's Fundamental!

Keep the Faith, Ye Undeterred!

Very witty, and it makes an important point: Darwinism is a indeed a religion. It offers its votaries a creation myth (Life arose by chance in a primordial sea), an answer to the question of life's meaning (to perpetuate the species or at least one's genes), a ground for morality ("Right" is whatever conduces to survival), and an answer to the question of where we are going (When we die we return to the earth so that our matter may continue on as part of the great cycle of life).

Darwinism, by offering us an opportunity to "liberate the human spirit" from superstition and clerical oppression, affords us a vehicle for "salvation". It moreover maintains a priestly class of scientists and philosophers who pontificate on matters of doctrine, faith, and practice, and it proudly boasts a pantheon of saints who have gone on before. It embodies a worldview that encompasses every aspect of life. It cherishes its dogmas and orthodoxies, defending them assiduously against challenge from heretics, and traces its beginnings to the holy scriptures recorded by its founder in the Origin of Species.

Nancy Pearcey, in her book Total Truth, quotes philosopher and Darwinian Michael Ruse, who says that "I must admit that....the [critics of evolution] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true of evolution still today."

She also quotes from historian Jacques Barzun who writes that the so-called warfare between science and religion should really be seen as the "warfare between two philosophies and perhaps two faiths." It's a dispute, he writes, "between believers in consciousness and believers in mechanical action; the believers in purpose and the believers in pure chance."

Precisely. The fundamental difference between Darwinism and Christianity is that Christianity traces the origin of the world and of life back to an intelligence whereas Darwinism traces it back to random, purposeless forces. Both Darwinism and Christianity are thus grounded in metaphysical faith commitments, and from those commitments flow all of their differences.

New ID Blog

The Discovery Institute has a new blog that focuses on media reporting and misreporting of the Darwinism/Intelligent Design debate. The news media in the U.S. seem to have rediscovered the controversy, but unfortunately, much of their coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in several cases, overtly biased. Evolution News and Views aims to offer a corrective, and anyone interested in the issue should check it out.

Conservative Inconsistency

Andrew Sullivan, who, by the way, is largely shutting down his blog for a couple of months, relays to conservatives this question from a friend:

WHY NOT AN ANTI-ABORTION AMENDMENT? Here's an interesting question, posed by my friend Jon Rauch. The Senate Republicans have vowed to push their anti-gay marriage amendment, even though it won't stand a chance of getting the necessary 67 votes. The point is political and rhetorical. They are trying to build momentum, raise money, and keep the cause of banning same-sex unions alive. So why not push an anti-abortion amendment instead? They have one such amendment on hand. Both proposed amendments are allegedly against judicial meddling. Both will fail. But one deals with a much graver issue, by the religious right's reckoning - an immense loss of human life, rather than the grave evil of two human beings committing to one another for life. So why this priority? Surely, abortion is a more important matter than same-sex marriage - even for the religious right. Or is it?

Good question. In fact, Viewpoint will go one better. Why should this be a matter of one or the other? Why shouldn't conservatives be arguing for both amendments? If the marriage amendment is necessary to protect marriage, and it may well be, surely an anti-abortion amendment is necessary to protect the lives of unborn children and is long overdue. It doubtless would not have been possible to get such an amendment through congress before now and may not be possible to get one passed even now, but shouldn't the arguments for it at least be raised?

That some conservatives have gone on record calling for the marriage amendment, but none appear to be interested in a constitutional corrective for Roe v. Wade, a decision many believe to be a clear case of judicial overreach that has resulted in the sacrifice of millions of lives, seems at best a little inconsistent.

The Democratic Definition of Freedom

The Democrats have vowed to fight President Bush's Social Security reform proposals with every weapon at their disposal. The President wishes to give people control over a portion of their retirement, and the Democrats are opposed. A number of commentators have noted the irony of liberals insisting that people have a constitutional right to choose whether their unborn children live or die while at the same time refusing them the right to choose how to invest for their retirement (or, for that matter, where to send their children to school if indeed they should choose to have them).

For the freedom-loving folks in the Democratic party freedom to choose extends little further than whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. For them, freedom's just another word for nothing left to choose.

Free At Last

After the Civil War there was a massive migration of blacks from the south to the cities of the north. They came looking for opportunities and a better life. There are signs that another African-American migration is taking place in our own day only this one is political, not geographical, and it is causing alarm in liberal precincts. Apparently, the Republican party is beginning to make serious inroads into a demographic group that Democrats have had locked up for sixty years, and if they are successful it would have serious consequences for the future of the party.

An article in the Los Angeles Times sounds the tocsin. Here are a few excerpts:

Black conservatives who supported President Bush in 2004 and gained new prominence within the Republican Party are launching a loosely knit movement that they hope will transform the role African Americans play in national politics.

The effort will be visible today at the Crenshaw Christian Center, one of Los Angeles' biggest black churches, headed by televangelist Frederick K.C. Price. More than 100 African American ministers are to gather in the first of several regional summits to build support for banning same-sex marriage - a signature issue that drew socially conservative blacks to the Republican column last year.

Before the meeting, one prominent minister plans to unveil a "Black Contract With America on Moral Values," a call for Bible-based action by government and churches to promote conservative priorities. It is patterned loosely on the "Contract With America" that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich used 10 years ago to inaugurate an era of GOP dominance in Congress.

A separate group with ties to Gingrich will announce a similar "Mayflower Compact for Black America" later this month in Washington, which includes plans to organize in key states ahead of the 2006 and 2008 elections. And at the end of the month, the Heritage Foundation will cosponsor a gathering of black conservatives in Washington designed to counter dominance of the "America-hating black liberal leadership" and to focus African American voters on moral issues.

"I am frightened by what is happening," said Rep. Major R. Owens, an 11-term Democratic congressman from New York who has been conferring with colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus. "Our party is in grave danger. This Republican movement is going to expand exponentially unless we do something."

Failure to respond to the GOP investment in black communities, he said, could allow Republicans to add five percentage points to the 11% they received among African American voters nationwide in 2004.

Republican officials, such as outgoing party chairman Ed Gillespie, have said they think the percentage could rise to 30 in the next presidential election - a prediction that even some GOP strategists called overly optimistic.

Even if it rises 5 percentage points, Owens said, "the Democratic Party will be paralyzed."

Owens said the GOP strategy of courting church leadership was on target. "The churches are the last institutions alive and breathing in some of these neighborhoods, and people look to them for leadership," he said.

African-Americans are evidently tired of being snookered by Democratic leaders, both black and white. They are at last beginning to realize that liberal policies since the 1960s have often been counterproductive at best and dysgenic at worst.

Now comes a Republican president who may have done more for black racial esteem than all the liberal multicultural/diversity/ethnic/racial pride celebrations of the last three decades put together. He has actually elevated blacks to some of the most prominent positions of his administration, something no Democrat ever did. He also understands that what is good for America is good for African-Americans, and has steadily worked to improve the economy, create jobs, and set a positive moral tone for the country. Moreover, he has steadfastly refused to do what is standard practice for many Democrat politicians - he has refused to pander to blacks, or to treat them as if they just can't be expected to manage their own lives.

To many liberals blacks are the white man's burden, and African-Americans may finally be growing resentful of the implicit racism of this patronizing attitude. Perhaps they are tired of their indenture to the Democratic bosses and have become a field ripe for a conservative harvest. If so, a significant African-American defection would quite likely signal the demise of the Democratic party.