Advocacy Education

Advocacy Education is what public schools are all about. Sure, reading, writing and arithmetic are taught. What's changed since my time in primary school is the schools are no longer teaching traditional American values. We could call this the "multiculturalism dividend".

Since liberals took control of the education establishment, our schools stopped emphasizing God, country and family – God forbid! No, we wouldn't want to express the values of faith, national pride and married man/woman/child families! That would be superstitious, xenophobic and homophobic. How intolerant!

Nope. Now your character is assessed on your positions on the issues. Are you anti-smoking? Do you recycle? Are you terrified about global warming and man's effect on nature in general? Are you a citizen of the world? These are the criteria for how you will be judged by the school faculty and your peers. If you advocate the right positions, you're a good person. If not – well – you need re-education.

Here's just a small example. My daughter came home from second grade lamenting the endangered status of wolves in America. Her dad and I tried to explain that, while wolves were only recently re-introduced in Wyoming, they're plentiful in Canada and therefore, not truly endangered.

As westerners, this issue hits close to home. I read the comments posted by visitors and locals to the natural history museum in Cody, Wyoming, on the subject of the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone. This was before the wolves were well-established and I went into the debate on the side of "restoring the balance" of predator and prey. After reading the concern of the locals for the safety of their children, pets and livestock, I changed my mind.

If the locals were advocating the eradication of an already established species, I'd have more trouble defending their position. But, the wolves have been gone a long time and the people have been established just as long. Also, the wolves seem to be prospering in their remote and isolated habitat in Canada. So, because some liberals have this utopian vision of nature (not to mention the Endangered Species Act to help them litigate), people in the vicinity of Yellowstone now have dangerous predators lurking in their backyards. This is an absurd and abusive use of government power. One might even say "totalitarian". And is an example of why liberalism in its current form is so dangerous.

My kid is being taught that people are bad and wolves are good. There is really no nuance on the subject. The wolves are already making their way to Colorado, where we live, and there is a buzz about reintroducing the grizzly here. I have an opinion on that, but it wouldn't pass muster at the local public school! How do you think New Yorkers would respond to grizzlies in Central Park? That's absurd, right? Exactly my point.

So the ABCs have become:

A is for Anti-smoking
B is for Balkanize by race, gender and religion
C is for Conservatives are mean and stupid.

No wonder so many of us are running for the doors looking for another choice. Thank God for our charter school (and I can say that there). But, is there any hope for a public school system that teaches values diametrically opposed to those of about half the population? And what good is this advocacy education doing our society?

Public Standards versus Private Behavior

In the city where I live, there has been some controversy generated by a tolerance campaign started by a gay advocacy group. I was discussing it with my sister, with whom I agree 99% of the time, and said I would like to see homosexuality go back into the closet. She admitted she is soft on the issue and was put off by my use of the term "deviant" because of the negative connotations.

If you are gay and you're still reading, I appreciate your open-mindedness and the opportunity to explain myself better than I did to my sister. I believe it is possible to be compassionate in the private and have public standards that are not tolerant of expressions of sexuality of either the hetero- or homo-sexual sort. I don't want gays to go back in the closet in fear – rather I want them in the closet out of modesty and discretion as is my own heterosexuality. True, I wear a wedding ring, but otherwise there is no public display of what is happening (or not) in my bedroom.

Do I believe homosexuality is immoral? No, not in the strictest sense. I have known gays who were undeniably born gay and I have known gays (lesbians) who understandably chose to be homosexual due to some horrific interactions with the opposite sex. I have been friends with both sorts and have great compassion for them. However, I'm pretty sure the lifestyle is unhealthy (physically and otherwise) and that they wouldn't wish their experience on anyone else, especially any offspring.

So, what am I advocating for public standards? I think society benefits most from the ideal of man/woman marriage and childrearing. I don't think it is good for us to know what Jim McGreevy was doing while his wife was recovering from a C-section. I don't think it is good for young girls to be hyper-sexualized with Bratz dolls and revealing clothing. I don't think it is funny for John Stewart to ask Dennis Miller if he would rather "do" Hannity or Colmes. Our public standards of decency have been dumbed so far down that our only criterion for judging whether or not people qualify for marriage is whether or not they love each other. So, do polygamists qualify as long as they love each other? Plenty of men can love more than one woman and vice versa. What about incest? If you think this is a stretch you should research the case of the brother and sister in Illinois trying to escape prosecution with this argument.

I use the term "deviant" because it is descriptive. I don't mean to hurt homosexuals with the term. I just don't know of a better way to describe the tragedy that is homosexuality. I have my own in-born and learned flaws, but I thank God that I do not have the burden that homosexuals bear. Like alcoholism or personality disorders, homosexuality is tragic for the individual and the family that loves them. Let's validate each other's humanity (not necessarily our private behavior) while advocating the highest public standards.

Meet America at IHOP

My girls have been begging to go to IHOP for their NEW stuffed French Toast. So, this all started with a successful American-style marketing scheme. But, since I’d gone to mass Saturday night and we might be able to beat the morning church rush, I thought “what the heck”.

The only IHOP I knew of in town has been here since when I came as a kid – let’s just says its decades old. I was thinking it would be run down and greasy spoonish, in a not so great neighborhood, so I got on MAP Quest to try to find a newer one. There were two others farther away and I didn’t know exactly where they were, so I decided to take a chance on the one I knew.

Here’s where things get good. We wait five minutes, thinking it is going to be 20 because the restaurant is jam packed and only has 20 tables in the front section. It is a long narrow projection where the booths are set up in a U configuration; that is, booths around the edges and booths in the middle; all booths facing into the U shaped aisle. The first thing I notice is how polite and friendly the elderly wall-eyed waitress is who is serving us. It seems most of the waitresses are old-pros, which explains the short wait. I like that. The décor is bright cream painted walls with accents of red silk geraniums hanging from the ceiling. I like that, too. Not pretentious, but pretty in an old-fashioned way.

The waitress is chatty with the tables around us, but in an unobtrusive way. A couple of young black men at the booth across from us were joined by three young black women and were having to squeeze in to find room. Our waitress quipped over her shoulder “I hope you all know each other?” They laughed and carried on their amusing conversation.

I then noticed her speaking Spanish to the table of two women behind us. None of these women (including the waitress) looked particularly Latina to me, but there they were speaking Spanish.

And then I started a little census looking around the room: There was a youngish attractive black man reading the paper on the other side of our booth; I noticed a young couple looking like they’d been to the prom last nights because her hair was still made-up; There were two inter-racial couples over fifty: a black woman married to a white man; an Asian man married to a Latina woman; A young white family with three boys and a girl; Another table of young white men with tattoos and piercings wearing black and adorning their ears with Ipods; and, of course, the young group of black friends enjoying themselves at the booth across the way. The rest were predominately white of mixed ages – one little boy a Down’s child.

And then it hit me! Eureka! I found America at the International House of Pancakes! Not the bitter backstabbing racially religiously Balkanized America the Left sees. This was a room full of strangers behaving with civility and good humor toward one another. This is the America I imagined and found. Here in a predominately conservative white Christian community I found a place where we can all just get along. Don’t believe the America bashers! This is a great country with mostly wonderful people. Get out – rub elbows - and have some really good pancakes too!

Tom Wolfe, an American Patriot

The Wall Street Journal published an interview with Tom Wolfe this weekend. Here’s a sample:

"I really love this country. I just marvel at how good it is, and obviously it's the simple principle of freedom. . . . Intellectually this is the system where people tend to experiment more and their experiments are indulged. Whatever we're doing I think we've done it extremely, extremely, extremely well." Silence. "These are terrible things to be saying if you want to have any standing in the intellectual world."

Amazing that Jay Bennish and Ward Churchill would have a happier meeting of the minds with the intellectual elite than Tom Wolfe, isn’t it?

Wolfe is a true patriot who manages to make legitimate and searing criticisms of his country. He has a “death-clamp on the American Zeitgeist” and so can honestly expose the repulsiveness of the celebrity culture (“Bonfire of the Vanities”) and the hyper-sexualization of college campuses (“I Am Charlotte Simmons”). He says:

"I Am Charlotte Simmons," particularly in its notice of the coarse sexuality governing campus life, is a book a liberal would never write, as corroborated in the many negative reviews: "'Oh, big deal, they're having sex in college, yawn, yawn, what a surprise,'" as Mr. Wolfe puts it. "I do not disallow the possibility that they just didn't like it," he continues, but he was frankly taken aback by those who took it "as a counterrevolutionary attack on the sexual revolution. . . . Then it really dawned on me that so many people are proud of the sexual revolution, you know, 'We freed ourselves from those damned religious people and this Puritanism.'" "At least in the story," he pains to note, all this "has a very deleterious affect on a very innocent albeit egotistical girl -- and that's I think what's there." Sign of the times, I suppose, when you're considered conservative for exploring the very real consequences of cultural change.

Isn’t it refreshing to hear a criticism of America that has nothing to do with Enron, Halliburton, CO2 emissions, racism and imperialism? And I find it so much more credible coming from someone who has a deep and abiding love for his country:

"I also believe in the United States. I think this is the greatest nation that ever existed, still is. It's really the only really democratic country in the world. Find me one country, just one country in the entire world that would let a foreign people -- different culture, different language, and in many cases different color than the majority of the native stock -- take over politically an entire metropolitan area in less than one generation. I'm talking about the Cubans in Miami . . ."

I doubt that Mr. Wolfe would label himself conservative, but the following certainly exiles him from the liberal camp:

George Bush's appeal, for Mr. Wolfe, was owing to his "great decisiveness and willingness to fight." But as to "this business of my having done the unthinkable and voted for George Bush, I would say, now look, I voted for George Bush but so did 62,040,609 other Americans. Now what does that make them? Of course, they want to say -- 'Fools like you!' . . . But then they catch themselves, 'Wait a minute, I can't go around saying that the majority of the American people are fools, idiots, bumblers, hicks.' So they just kind of dodge that question. And so many of them are so caught up in this kind of metropolitan intellectual atmosphere that they simply don't go across the Hudson River. They literally do not set foot in the United States. We live in New York in one of the two parenthesis states. They're usually called blue states -- they're not blue states, the states on the coast. They're parenthesis states -- the entire country lies in between."

He also has this to say about the internet: "Using the Internet is the modern form of knitting," he continues. "It's something to do with idle hands. When you knitted, though, you actually had something to show for it at the end. So on that note, I’m off to do something productive! Blog on – if you dare!

Tidbits

When I was a lefty, I thought conservatives concerned about Soviet expansion who saw commies under every rock were conspiracy theorist wackos akin to flat earthers and fluoride hysterics. Now I think lefties are conspiracy theorist wackos who see “big oil” and “Walocaust” as the underlying motivation for everything, including the liberation of millions in Afghanistan and Iraq. When lefties worry over American imperialism, they’re really worried about a Wal-Mart being built in downtown Baghdad. Scary!

Do you know the Jewish interpretation (according to Dennis Prager) of the commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain”? The Hebrew translation is “Thou shalt not carry the name…” which Jews believe means that you should never commit acts of evil in God’s name. I wonder how the Islamists interpret it.

Did you read Peggy Noonan’s piece about the Oscars and George Clooney? She really nailed it! George got a little information (very little) about the McCarthy era from the media (or friends who got their information from the media) and made a movie based on it. It turns out George’s viewpoint on the subject is naïve, simplistic and stupid. Imagine that! Good night, good luck, good riddance!

How ‘bout that “port scandal”? I was really outraged when I heard we were selling our ports to the UAE. Since then, I’ve learned a little and even though I still know very little, apparently I know more than most congressmen. For instance, I now know that foreigners don’t own our ports, but mostly foreign owned companies run operations at our ports, including the communist Chinese. We were probably at greater risk of having terrorists infiltrate the British owned company that sold to the UAE than we would have been with UAE ownership. Have you seen some of the protests in Britain over the cartoons? I’ve also learned that the UAE has been a good ally since September 11 and even has made Dubai a port-of-call for our navy! This country is trying to modernize and liberalize and we just spit on it. This incident will be all the worse if anyone makes any political capital off of it.

Have you ever owned a beta (Siamese fighting fish)? They’re really inexpensive, interesting, low-maintenance pets. For about ten dollars you can get the whole set-up: vase, decorative rocks, plant, food and fish. We have two in separate bowls (they’ll kill each other in the same bowl) and like to watch them “fight” by putting the bowls next to each other. I like to get a “fish-eye” view by looking through one bowl into the other. No wonder they get all worked up! The distortion made by the bowl makes the other guy look huge!

When are we going to start bombing Iran? No – really. The suspense is getting to me. Despite the liberal characterizations of us as bloodthirsty warmongering idiots, I really was not happy to see the build-up to the Iraq war. I wasn’t at all sure we were doing the right thing and I didn’t want conservatives to have to suffer the political consequences. Now I fully support the war there and I know, intellectually and morally, that we are doing the right thing. But, this Iran deal is making me unhappy in a different way. We simply cannot – CANNOT – let Iran go nuclear. This just seems such a no-brainer to me and we now have staging positions all around Iran. Let’s get busy! It just seems way too close to too late.

Do not see “Doogal”. It is a weird kid’s film about a dog and his friends who try to save the world from a deep freeze brought about by the escape of an evil spring loaded wizard. Unfortunately, although the message is supposed to be about teamwork and friendship, it gets lost because the title character has no redeeming qualities (indeed, his fetish for candy brings on the whole crisis). Even his loyalty to his owner is self-serving. The producers seemed to try to salvage something for the adults by showing outtakes of the actors doing the voices during the credits. Since Whoopie Goldberg and Chevy Chase are among the “talents,” that pretty much drove the last nail in the coffin for me.

Do you know why Islamists believe they’re going to be given 73 virgins if they blow themselves up? It turns out Muslims have defined heaven as the place where they get to indulge in all the impure acts that are forbidden on earth. If they sacrifice themselves for Islam, they get lots of sex and can drink from the rivers of wine that flow in heaven. Stunning, isn’t it? It seems so ass-backward to us Westerners. But it explains a lot when you think about those young sexually repressed men who are taught that their bodies and all they naturally desire are impure. They are also chosen at birth by their families to be martyrs for the faith. These families actually celebrate their hideous deaths because it helps the rest of the family get to heaven! I learned this from a French film producer on Dennis Prager’s show. He has interviewed jailed Islamists who failed at suicide bombings and the families of successful suicide bombers. He’s made a documentary called “Suicide Killings” which is due out this summer.

Something else I learned on Dennis Prager’s show… did you know the story of Adam and Eve is really a powerful lesson on our need for each other? I certainly never thought of it this way until Dennis explained what an evangelical minister taught him. God saw Adam’s discontent and recognized that even He was not enough for Adam! Adam needed a human companion and so God provided Eve. Isn’t that a wonderful thought?! God knows we need each other and He provides!

God bless and keep blogging!

Cons of "Crunchy Cons"

NRO's Jonah Goldberg has written a scathing review of "Crunchy Cons" by Rod Dreher. I've only read to page 14 of the book, but I'm pretty sure Jonah has nailed it! I'm a reformed granola lefty, so I recognized Dreher's characterization of conservatives (the conventional non-crunchy kind) as greedy materialists for the insult it is. I also know Dreher is right about ugly shoes being more comfortable and organic produce being yummier. But, as Goldberg asserts, footwear and grocery shopping habits do not a new movement make.

If Dreher is right about the Godless greedy materialist nature of conventional conservatism, how does he explain all the average and low-income Republican voters (by far the majority)? It drives Liberals nuts that these people "vote against their interests" (why don't they loot the treasury like us Liberals)! And what about the statistics that reveal charitable giving is markedly higher in the red states and particularly in the poor Bible-belt states of the South? What about the fact that Republican donations are primarily from small donors where Democrat donations are primarily from large corporate donors?

I'm afraid Dreher's narcissism has caused him to lose sight of what conventional conservatism is really about: “Classical liberals root their case for laissez-faire in the autonomy of the individual, the primacy of freedom, the faith that virtue not freely chosen isn't virtuous, and in a deeply religious conception of the individual conscience (another sorely missing voice in Rod's book is Michael Novak, the world's leading authority on the intersection of market economics and Catholicism).” Wearing comfy shoes and wanting to eat fresh organic produce doesn’t make you a Liberal. But, believing these acts are morally superior can sure lead you down the Leftist path.

The Wisdom of Bill Part III: Culture Divide

Bill Clinton’s third biggest concern for the world is “culture divide” – or what I prefer to address more directly as cultural conflict. I’ve discussed the absurdity of Bill’s number one concern – “climate change” and the moral vanity of his second concern – “inequality”. Now, “culture divide” is something I can take seriously.

You may expect me to start into a comparison of Western and Muslim culture, but first I have to address the “culture war” right here at home, initiated by liberals like Bill. Liberals very cleverly and with accurate calculation took control of some of the most powerful institutions in Western society in the last several decades, including the academy, the judiciary and the media. These institutions are now controlled by people who do not believe in American exceptionalism. To the contrary, they believe that America is racist, sexist, homophobic and imperialist. They claim to be describing you and me, folks.

Take racism, for example. Conservatives have been trying to credit liberals with success in eliminating institutional racism for years now. Conservatives were slow to take up the civil rights cause (although congressional conservatives voted in higher percentages for the civil rights legislation of the 60s than liberals). This country achieved in relatively short order, although not without pain, the important change of making racism socially unacceptable. Job well-done, liberals!

But, doggone it; liberals simply will not be convinced of their success! Why just look at the “color of the faces of Katrina” (Jimmy Carter at Coretta Scott King’s funeral). As if the tragedy of a hurricane has anything to do with racism! Do you think the faces of Katrina would have been whiter if the storm had struck during the Carter or Clinton administrations? I find it gravely insulting to those Southern white boys seen lowering themselves from helicopters into the cesspool of N.O. after Katrina to literally wrap themselves around desperate black people to suggest racism was a factor. The coast guard was there the first day rescuing people; otherwise Ray Nagin’s prediction of 10,000 dead might have become accurate! The fact that the cameras weren’t there to catch the initial rescues does not diminish the heroism of these men. Don’t you dare call America racist!

And then we hear that the federal response was so slow and the feds knew – they knew for years in advance – that those levees wouldn’t withstand a hurricane of magnitude 3 or above! I don’t buy it – the slow response bit. We all felt desperate watching the residents of N.O. stuck in the heat and humidity on those bridges and rooftops, sometimes for days. But, we also know that the media invented stories of murder and mayhem and now pat themselves on the back for their excellent coverage of the story. C’mon folks! The response wasn’t perfect, but this disaster was bigger than anything America had experienced before. It was a lesson.

How about those levees? Talk about slow response! Bill Clinton had eight years to do something about them and did nothing! And George Bush had a few other important things on his plate after 9/11. I realize the buck stops with the president, but he is neither the mayor of N.O. nor the governor of Louisiana. At what point do the locals bear responsibility for local issues and when do we federalize them?

If blacks suffer poverty disproportionately in America, it is no longer because of racism. Sadly, it is because many have bought into the liberal idea that the government can and should fix their problems. I have become cynical about the Democrats position on race and poverty. Surely the “smartest couple in the world”, Bill and Hillary, know that people’s best hope for overcoming poverty are traditional values that sound like a conservative manifesto: get married before having babies; worship God regularly; get the best possible education you can; work hard. If so, why do the Democrats keep playing the race card and blaming Republicans when blacks suffer? I believe they are intentionally holding blacks down with disinformation, the victim mentality and fake government solutions to try to hold onto power. If blacks help themselves by embracing traditional American values, they’ll see the Democrats as the false friends they are. Black loyalty to Democrats is a way for poor black people to keep rich white people in office – nothing more.

What is the liberal agenda in this cultural conflict? It is virtually the opposite of the values that made America great:

Traditional American values:

1. All men are created equal. (In the sense of equal rights)
2. Among these God given rights are the right to life,
3. liberty,
4. and the pursuit of happiness.
5. In God we trust.
6. E Pluribus Unum. (Out of Many, One)

Liberal American values:

1. Everyone should be equal (socialism).
2. Everyone has the right to a comfortable life with health insurance.
3. You’re free to do anything offensive to the Right, but nothing offensive to the Left; political correctness and campus speech codes.
4. The government owes you happiness.
5. Only fools believe in God; we are a secular state protected by the separation wall.
6. Out of One, Many; multiculturalism and moral relativism.

This nonsense is being legislated from the bench, touted in the media and taught in the schools – K through 12 and beyond. It is a miracle that at least half of Americans still have some perspective on what is fundamentally good and right about America… this nation founded on an idea, not geography or ethnicity. This land of the free and home of the brave is worth fighting for… it is God’s gift to humanity. So, keep praying and vote for conservative Republicans! Because, this culture war is going to have to be won at home before it can be won in the wider world.

(Also see part 1 and part 2)

The Wisdom of Bill Part II: Inequality

Bill Clinton's second big concern for the world is "inequality". This is such an interesting and revealing worry for the Left. I remember being drawn toward liberalism for the passion it held for "equal rights". And I know many well-intentioned liberals who, still, in their 40s and 50s, rationalize their liberalism based on the Left's attention to "inequality". So, it seems worth some examination of Bill's use of the term "inequality".

First it is instructive to consider the terms Bill didn't use. He didn't say "equal rights". And, despite all liberal characterizations to the contrary, I think us conservatives would put "equal rights" in our top five concerns for the world - at least as part of our overall concern for freedom and human dignity.

Isn't it interesting that he didn't say "injustice"? Injustice is such a good term because it covers so many other concerns. Denying someone his or her "equal rights" is an injustice. Stealing and murder (defined as the intentional killing of an innocent) are injustices. Bearing false witness, or in other words, lying about someone's character, actions or intentions is an injustice. The Democrats might also call this "exploiting Republican vulnerabilities". But, no, Bill didn't say "injustice" so we must assume that is not what he meant.

What did he mean by inequality? Did he mean, say, that Americans just have way too much materially and should equal things out with the rest of the world? For example, the Bolivians are muddling through with high rates of poverty and subsistence living. Should American workers hand over more of their wages to the Bolivians to equal things out? We all know that the world is way too big and too many people are living in poverty for the first world to be able to support the third world. And while Bill may characterize himself as an idealist, he is not stupid. So, no, I don't believe this is what he meant.

Did he mean that it is unfair that Bill Clinton and Bill Gates have so much and therefore, should pay higher taxes so that poor Americans become "more equal" through the government dole? This might be closer to his intended meaning. It is my understanding of Marxists that they believe government should provide for the material well-being of its citizens. This idea is essentially communist/ socialist and is antithetical to what conservatives believe about government. The fact that communism has proven to be evil (more people slaughtered under communist regimes during “peacetime” than in any war, including WWII) and socialism is dying a slow death in Europe does not sway Bill’s outrage at the unfairness of inequality.

Conservatives believe that the unfairness of life (inequality) is rightly addressed through the expression of Judeo-Christian values, not the tax code. We believe the government is too powerful and too corruptible when it becomes vested in the material well-being of its citizens (see Tocqueville’s highly accurate predictions). We believe government is most effective and efficient at defending the nation and delivering the mail (Thomas Jefferson). We believe, like the founding fathers, that our nation’s vitality and continued success is dependent on a virtuous citizenry and a constitutionally limited government. We believe that, while our nation’s values and morals are expressed in the statutes, societal virtue cannot be legislated. People can only be credited with virtue when they are free to choose sin (think Afghanistan under the Taliban as the negative example).

So, what does Bill mean when he talks about “inequality”? He may mean to promote Marxism, but I think he and other liberals haven't fully formed their thoughts on "inequality". He is simply engaged in an act of moral preening. And unfortunately, liberals are slavering over the show.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III will address Bill’s concern with “culture divide”. We may have some agreement here, but I’ll use the politically incorrect term “cultural conflict”. Stay tuned.

(Also see part 1 and part 3)

The Wisdom of Bill

It is probably going to appear that I'm obsessed with Bill Clinton, but I'm really using him as an illustrative example of liberal thinking. And he's such a good example because he's a "moderate" and his ideas are constantly promoted by the press as the accumulated wisdom of an ex-president. I also use him because George Bush keeps referring to him as such a good friend of the family (ugh!). OK - I'm obsessed.

Well - did you catch Bill's comments from Davos, where he is king? He was asked for his top three concerns for the world. Are you ready? Make your guesses now before you read on. C'mon, it'll be fun.

1) Islamic fascism/terrorism
2) nuclear proliferation
3) promoting freedom/representative government

Oops - sorry - that's my list. Here's Bill's:

1) climate change
2) inequality
3) cultural divide

About climate change, Bill says essentially that human progress as we have known it will stop as a result of global warming. That's a downer, isn't it? Now, one must always keep in mind the audience whenever Bill is talking - and this one was in Davos, Switzerland with all the world's big name elite leftists in attendance - so his climate concern is very reflective of European leftist sensibilities. But, American leftists are really European leftist wannabes and Bill is showing them the way.

Here's the procedure:
1) start with an issue about which you know very little and pretend you know a lot, even though the evidence is sketchy;
2) develop terms and phrases that describe the worst possible outcome and use them constantly to scare the hell out of everybody who knows as little (or even less) as you do;
3) use that fear to promote your political agenda and propel yourself to power with it.

On "climate change" ("change" is scary, but, guess what? climate change is nothing new), let's stipulate that the earth is getting warmer(about one degree in the last century at the surface, on average). Then, let's admit that perhaps human activities causing the emission of greenhouse gasses (like CO2 and methane) contribute to the increased warming. Unfortunately, these emissions have a habit of hanging around and, so, the "damage" that has been done has been accumulating for decades and what we're emitting today will be around for many decades to come. What to do? What to do?

If you are a True Believer, you should really become one of the Noble Savages you admire so much. Really - riding a bicycle isn't sufficient because bicycle manufacturing, and for that matter, anything manufactured, causes tons of emissions. Maybe this is what Bill is advocating when he says human progress as we have known it will cease!

I think it would be better if we all took a deep breath (did you know air quality has been improving for years now?) and thought about some things first. Like, one piece of evidence we have that is pretty compelling is that solar activity coincides nicely with global surface temperature fluctuations. We've got data on this folks. And we've experienced an increase in solar activity in the last decade or so that might have something to do with climate changes seen recently.

And, let's go nuclear. This is a very European thing to do after all (France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power). No CO2 emissions. But, what about the spent nuclear fuel, you ask? I know it is dangerous, but we have this place called Yucca Mountain out where nobody cares to live with air bases nearby to protect it. We've developed technology to keep it safely contained for a thousand years (I'm not sure of the exact number - but, a long time). I know environmentalists want it to be a million years, but they're letting their European leftist thinking get in the way. See, if it is safe for a thousand years, then we have that long to improve the technology - unless you believe, like Bill, that human progress will cease because of a degree or two up-tick in surface temperature over a hundred years.

What about alternative fuels? With the Middle East wackos soon to extort outrageous prices for oil, I'd say the market incentive for developing alternative fuels is just around the corner. Bear in mind though, that in the real world of energy production, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Industry and manufacturing have to happen and will entail capital and environmental expenses.

So, what would Bill do about climate change? I don't believe he would shut down the global economy based on the current data - after all, even he wouldn't sign Kyoto. See, the problem with liberals is, they're constantly making up crises for which they offer no real solution. But, their awareness of the crisis is supposed to convince us that they're the leaders we need. And then they accuse conservatives of fear mongering on issues such as national security. So, what are you going to get worked up over? A one degree increase in a century or 9/11? Increased solar activity or a nuclear Iran? Which problem seems more immediate to you - CO2 emissions or fatwas promising to avenge the caricatured Mohammed with blood in the streets of Europe? I know what I think - but I'm no ex-president!

I've gone long on climate, so I'll address Bill's other concerns later. Please visit again.

(Also see part 2 and part 3)

Desperate Despicable Silence

What is former President Bill Clinton doing while President Bush is taking heat for "domestic spying"? I haven't heard or read any comments from him. I have read that the Clinton administration vehemently defended the right of the executive to conduct warrantless searches as one of the president's war powers. Why can't the the Clinton crowd come out and say they agree with the administration on this point? After all, Hillary may be the next president to need such powers to protect the nation, if all goes as planned for the Democrats. Here's what I think. The Democrats are so profoundly unprincipled that they would rather see Bush impeached for a policy that they previously and presently support than speak the truth. Either that, or they really would throw our national security to the terrorist dogs! Whatever the case, they are desperate to find a decent principle they believe in and despicable for their silence on this matter.

It's the Demography, Stupid

This is such an important, but lengthy piece by Mark Steyn, published in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal today. I hope you can access it at the link, but you may need a subscription. Whatever your ideology, I recommend a subscription to the WSJ Opinion Journal if you truly want to know what and how conservatives think.

The gist of the article is that, while we Westerners are busy worrying about expanding our government services and regulations to ensure a "living wage" and "universal healthcare", our culture is being overcome by demographics. The "replacement" minimum birth rate of 2.1 children per woman is narrowly met in the United States (2.07), but is half that rate in countries such as Spain and is under 2.1 in virtually all the Western or westernized countries such as Japan. On the other hand, Muslim countries have rates well above 2.1 - some as high as 6+. This isn't even about race or religion, as some on the left will accuse us conservatives. This is all about culture. Over 60% of Muslims in the UK would like to live under Sharia law. If you are a feminist interested in preserving your "right" to an abortion, you do not want to be living with the cultural elimination of the West as these demographics foretell.

Have You Read Tocqueville?

Me either. But, here are some excerpts from Michael Novak's speech about the 200th anniversary of Tocqueville's birth:

Tocqueville foresaw a new soft despotism coagulating around the lower classes, with their low tastes and their resentments of anybody supposedly better than they are. They will want everybody pulled down, controlled, regulated, to enforce a leveling equality. The passion behind this machinery of repression will be envy. Here is how he describes it:

I am trying to imagine under what novel features despotism may appear in the world. In the first place, I see an innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls. Each one of them, withdrawn into himself, is almost unaware of the fate of the rest....Over this kind of men stands an immense, protective power which is alone responsible for securing their enjoyment and watching over their fate. That power is absolute, thoughtful of detail, orderly, provident, and gentle. It would resemble parental authority if, fatherlike, it tried to prepare charges for a man's life, but on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood. It likes to see the citizens enjoy themselves, provided that they think of nothing but enjoyment. It gladly works for their happiness but wants to be sole agent and judge of it. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasure, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, makes rules for their testaments, and divides their inheritances. Why should it not entirely relieve them from the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living? Thus it daily makes the exercise of free choice less useful and rarer, restricts the activity of free will within a narrower compass, and little by little robs each citizen of the proper use of his own faculties. Equality has prepared men for all this, predisposing them to endure it and often even regard it as beneficial.Having thus taken each citizen in turn in its powerful grasp and shaped him to its will, government then extends its embrace to include the whole of society. It covers the whole of social life with a network of petty complicated rules that are both minute and uniform, through which even men of the greatest originality and the most vigorous temperament cannot force their heads above the crowd. It does not break men's will, but softens, bends, and guides it; it seldom enjoins, but often inhibits, action; it does not destroy anything, but prevents much being born; it is not at all tyrannical, but it hinders, restrains, enervates, stifles, and stultifies so much that in the end each nation is no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as its shepherd. (Democracy in America, Vol. 2, Part 4, Chapter 6) [emphasis added].

That is why I'm against modern liberalism! And here's why I'm for America with its Judeo-Christian values fully expressed:

On yet one other count, Tocqueville should have been far happier to have been correct. He hit the bulls-eye when he wrote that the truly distinctive genius of America was to solve the riddle that Europe and Asia had failed to solve, how to incorporate the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom into each other, "forming a marvelous combination":

Religion regards civil liberty as a noble exercise of man's faculties, the world of politics being a sphere intended by the Creator for the free play of intelligence. Religion, being free and powerful within its own sphere and content with the position reserved for it, realized that its sway is all the better established because it relies only on its own powers and rules men's hearts without external support.

Freedom sees religion as the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its rights. Religion is considered as the guardian of mores, and mores are regarded as the guarantee of the laws and pledge for the maintenance of freedom itself.

Here's the rest of Michael Novak's excellent speech. He wraps it up this way:

All in all, Tocqueville has a right to take pleasure in getting a number of very important matters right — including a new form of despotism to worry about. Moreover, there are religions and civilizations whose God seems not be committed to liberty and the personal dignity of each. But is that only an appearance? Is it in fact true?

It is past time to put Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" on our reading lists.

Rejoice!

I find conservatives to be so reasoned and contained that, sometimes, I'd like to see a Howard Dean outburst! So here's mine... YEEEEAAAGGGH! I want to adopt an Iraqi democrat! Betty Dawisha, the "go to hell" senior, would be a good choice. This is why I'm the Western Chauvinist. I'm passionate about the superiority of liberty and representative government over all other systems. Iraqis have had their taste of freedom now - they won't be going back. If there is a better justification for this war, I'd like to know what it is.

Jimmy Carter: Not Just Another Nice Guy

My first vote was for Jimmy Carter – when he lost to Reagan. I remember the feeling at the time. Carter had been a “new hope” after the Nixon/ Watergate corruption. He had that big grin and Southern drawl and he was the smartest president we ever elected (a nuclear engineer!) before Bill Clinton. Oh sure, he didn’t do hostage rescues very well and the economy was in an abysmal state and conservation wasn’t just a buzz-word – it was a way of life (my dad really did set the thermostat to 55 degrees at night). America was experiencing unrelenting Carter malaise, but he was such a nice guy – and his opponent was that “saber rattling, idiot actor Reagan” – ugh!

And then there was the Reagan term, which reinforced the idea of Carter as a really nice guy. After all, Reagan fired the air traffic controllers right off the bat. Then he set about invading various helpless little nations to the south like Grenada. He called the Soviet Union an evil empire and caused all sorts of international chaos with his “Star Wars” initiative and bombastic rhetoric. Meanwhile, Carter was starting up Habitat for Humanity. What a nice guy.

I’m ok friends. I haven’t lost my mind. I’m just giving you the back story so you’ll understand the degree of disappointment and contempt with which I now hold Jimmy Carter. I’m getting much of the inspiration for this article from Jay Nordlinger’s “Impromptus” on National Review Online. Here's a quote from Jay’s remarks on Carter’s op-ed in the L.A. Times:

For example, he writes that George W. Bush has implemented "a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican." Among these principles is "the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights."

Where to begin! Here’s what us neoconservatives believe Carter means by these principles:

Peace = pacifism with dialog no matter how feckless or how dangerous the outcome.

Economic and social justice = minimum wage (living wage) increases no matter how many low wage jobs are lost, single payer (that’s taxpayer) cradle to grave health insurance no matter how poor the medical services become, affirmative action (preferential treatment based on skin color and gender) no matter how damaging to race relations or insulting to the meritorious, protection from torture (not having your A/C turned off) if you’re an “enemy combatant” held in Cuba.

Civil liberties = abortion on demand, the right to say and perform acts of treason in the U.S. Congress or as a former president without consequence.

Our environment = no exploration for oil resources anywhere and massive taxpayer investment in alternate energy sources, certainly no more nuclear power no matter how clean it is, expansion of species protection no matter how many people suffer/die as a result, agreement to Kyoto and follow-on even if it means destroying the American/global economy.

Human rights = the fundamental right to abortion, to health insurance, to not ever be offended, to state sponsored secular humanist education (gosh, if only the founding father’s had heard the poetry of these ideas – Jefferson would have amended the Declaration!).

You would think that anyone with half a brain who had run the most unsuccessful administration in the country’s history could learn something from failure (I know, that’s probably oxymoronic). But, no – not liberals - and particularly not Jimmy Carter. These people are delusional! As a service to them, I’ll address Carter’s principles from this neoconservative’s point of view.

Peace is a brief interval that occurs between major human conflict, assuming you don’t count “minor” flare-ups, civil wars and intra-national genocidal acts by tyrants like Saddam Hussein. Peace is only possible for us good guys to enjoy after defeating evil. And we are by far and away the good guys as the only people in all of human history to willingly sacrifice our blood and treasure for the liberty of others – whatever their race or religion. Now, that is a commitment to fundamental human rights. If you disagree – prove me wrong! I only ask that you do it using history and facts.

Economic justice is achieved through free-market capitalism with minimal regulations to ensure the honesty of bookkeeping and profit reporting. This system is amoral and all participants should understand that.

1) If someone wants to sell you dog droppings and you’re willing to pay money for it – that’s a free-market capitalist transaction. It is not the government’s business to keep you from buying dog droppings or to set the price. The government’s only concern with the transaction should be that the dog droppings seller honestly represents his product and his profits to his shareholders.

2) There is no such thing as an obscene profit. The profit incentive is what drives the whole system and creates greater efficiencies. Huge profits are followed by a market adjustment that usually benefits the consumer by lowering the price of the product. This occurs because the profits are so great that more people/companies want in on the action, therefore increasing the supply and – you got it – lowering the price.

3) By free-market we also mean that the government should stop subsidizing businesses such as farmers. This tampers with the price of products on the world market and unfairly affects poor farmers in the third world. Sugar is a case study.

But, what about the principle of “from those who are able to those in need”? That, my friends is socialism and it is immoral. It is immoral both because it encourages the unrealistic expectation that the government can meet your needs and fix your problems (not to mention the political corruption resulting from a party cultivating a dependent class), but also because it is stealing resources and virtue from the able. Those who are able to support the poor have a disincentive to work hard to get ahead (the government just takes it for someone else) and are less likely to feel generous toward the poor as a result. Helping the poor is a Judeo-Christian value (synonymous with neoconservative values), but it is to be performed by the individual, not by the government. If you want to help the poor, work at a soup kitchen or, better yet, become an entrepreneur and provide jobs! Paying your taxes doesn’t count.

Social justice is what happens when we adhere to our Judeo-Christian values and expect the same treatment of all Americans under the law. This means that we’re advocating a color-blind meritocracy. We want liberals to stop Balkanizing this country by promoting multiculturalism! We don’t care if you descended from African slaves or Italian princes. Your ancestors’ sins and/or suffering do not attest to your character or ability! Have you studied hard and tested well? Then you deserve to move up. Have you shown talent and initiative in your efforts, but have limited opportunities because of your family’s limited means? We want you to have a scholarship. We’re for equal opportunity – not equal outcomes. Liberty means the chance to succeed and to fail.

Civil liberties are alive and well in America as evidenced by the Left’s favorite mouthpieces still enjoying their liberty while committing sedition and treason during a time of war. Ted Kennedy – just a few days before the January 30 vote in Iraq – calling for a pullout of American troops! Who was this intended to benefit? Certainly not the Iraqi people who braved the threat of terrorists killing their children to go to the polls despite a high-profile American calling for us to abandon them to the killers. Certainly not the American military, which would suffer the loss of purpose on top of the loss of heroes by abandoning its mission. Kennedy’s position is so spectacularly repulsive because he is advocating the same fate for Iraq and America that he succeeded in achieving for Southeast Asia and America in abandoning Vietnam. He, personally, has the blood of innocents on his hands.

Have you noticed that anytime the Iraqis get close to an election, the liberals start their hysteria? Now the Democrats are continually quoting a poll indicating that “80% of Iraqis want us out”. These are serious times calling for serious thinkers. Does anyone seriously believe that 80% of Iraqis want the American military to pack up and leave today? I really want to hear what kind of distortion of logic and reality you can use to convince yourself of this. Don’t you find it more likely that the Iraqis answering the poll felt intimidated and gave the safest answer they could about the “occupiers” when they know that they’re more likely to be killed for the “wrong” answer by terrorists than they are by Americans? John Kerry, Howard Dean and Barbara Boxer are just a few liberals using the poll to lend support to our enemies. And yet – they suffer no consequences – not even hard questions from the media. I don’t want to hear any more complaints about loss of civil liberties from liberals! When Iraqis enjoy the civil liberties of American liberals, then it is time for us to leave!

What do neoconservatives think about environmental policy? Hey, if it is going to increase the number of caribou in ANWR by 300% (as it has elsewhere in Alaska) to have an oil pipeline running through there, I’m all for it. I like mammals generally and humans particularly as made in God’s image. Therefore, I’m not too keen on species protection for pests such as insects and rodents. I also don’t believe it is a good idea to reintroduce predator species among human populations once they’ve been eliminated, no matter how repulsive and inhumane the original means of elimination may have been. While limousine liberals are all too happy to have wolves back in the lower 48, I won’t advocate the return of them to Central Park.

As for energy production and global warming, I’m willing to accept that some global warming may be in progress. However, considering that the data seems to align more consistently with solar activity (and the sun is a way big thermonuclear reactor only 90 million miles away), I’m not prepared to buy the human fossil fuel/CO2 cause yet. On the off-chance that CO2 production by humans has some effect, I’m willing to go nuclear to try to reduce our emissions. I also believe that, if nuclear power is good enough for the French as a primary source of power, it is good enough for us.

How about human rights? I’m for them, unless you’re against them for me and others (think Islamists and other totalitarians), in which case I’m against them for you. I guess I should define human rights for me so as to distinguish them from what Carter means. Human rights to me are those so eloquently stated by Jefferson in the Declaration: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, Carter and other liberals have conflated these fundamentals with some rather obtuse un-articulated constitutional rights (like privacy) that we have to clarify somewhat.

The right to life is not the same as the right to a convenient or comfortable life. If you are inconvenienced by an unwanted pregnancy, you do not have the “human right” to deny the right to life to your unborn child. Killing an innocent is never a moral choice (with the exception of war casualties), whatever the underlying reason, and it does not improve you or your society to have this “right”.

Liberty is not license. The right to liberty is the God-given right to exercise your conscience (assuming you have one). You are free to choose your religion or no religion. You are free to associate with whomever you please. You are even free to think and say pretty much anything, as long as it doesn’t fall outside the bounds of your society’s social/ethical codes, which in our case are based on Judeo-Christian values.

You have the right to pursue happiness, but the government is not able to guarantee it to you. In a free society, you may sometimes/often be offended. Get over it! Having health insurance is not going to make you happy if you’ve been diagnosed with cancer, but can’t get an appointment with an oncologist for 6 months – just ask the Canadians. Happiness is not guaranteed by God or government and is never provided by government.

What about human rights for terrorists in detention camps? They want to cut off your heads and consign your wives and daughters to the barbarity of Sharia law. They keep screaming it through video recordings sent to al-Jazeera! I think they’ve relinquished their human rights. Neocons aren’t advocating the torture of terrorists, but not because it would deny them their human rights. We don’t want our military men having to perform torture because it denies our men their human dignity. I’m all for the psychological and physical coercion of these animals if it will save innocent lives. Turning off the air conditioning in Cuba for people raised in 120 degree temperatures in the Arab desert is not torture. Neither is a gun shot past the head to get someone to reveal information about an ambush in Iraq. It is an honest way to say “your life is only worth the information you provide me – this is war!”

If what I’ve described as neoconservative ideals is not Jimmy Carter’s America – or yours – it is not because America has left its historic ideals behind. It is because, thank God, most Americans realize that the socialistic secular humanist theories proposed by liberals like Jimmy Carter are failures and against the interests of the United States and, therefore, human liberty around the world. We have to stop providing cover for proponents of leftist ideology as nice guys. They are not nice guys at all when innocents are forced to live with - or die from - the consequences of their ideology. Jimmy Carter is not just another nice guy.

Liberals Are From Venus; Conservatives Are From Mars

I guess this has been floating around for years, but I just recently read it and got such a good laugh, I had to share.

---

Remember the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"? Well, here's a prime example offered by an English professor at Southern Methodist University, English 44A, SMU, Creative Writing [Professor Miller]

In-class Assignment for Wednesday: "Today we will experiment with a new form called the tandem story. The process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting to his or her immediate right. One of you will then write the first paragraph of a short story. The partner will read the first paragraph and then add another paragraph to the story. The first person will then add a third paragraph, and so on back and forth. Remember to re-read what has been written each time in order to keep the story coherent. The story is over when both agree a conclusion has been reached."

"The following was actually turned in by two of my English students:

Rebecca - last name deleted, and Gary - last name deleted."

STORY: (first paragraph by Rebecca) At first, Laurie couldn't decide which kind of tea she wanted. The chamomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now reminded her too much of Carl, who once said, in happier times, that he liked chamomile. But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about him too much her asthma started acting up again. So chamomile was out of the question.

(Gary) Meanwhile, Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, leader of the attack squadron now in orbit over Skylon 4, had more important things to think about than the neuroses of an air-headed asthmatic bimbo named Laurie with whom he had spent one sweaty night over a year ago. "A.S. Harris to Geostation 17," he said into his transgalactic communicator. "Polar orbit established. No sign of resistance so far..." But before he could sign off a bluish particle beam flashed out of nowhere and blasted a hole through his ship's cargo bay. The jolt from the direct hit sent him flying out of his seat and across the cockpit.

(Rebecca) He bumped his head and died almost immediately, but not before he felt one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman who had ever had feelings for him. Soon afterwards, Earth stopped its pointless hostilities towards the peaceful farmers of Skylon 4. "Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel," Laurie read in her newspaper one morning. The news simultaneously excited her and bored her. She stared out the window, dreaming of her youth -- when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no newspapers to read, no television to distract her from her sense of innocent wonder at all the beautiful things around her. "Why must one lose one's innocence to become a woman?" she pondered wistfully.

(Gary) Little did she know, but she had less than 10 seconds to live. Thousands of miles above the city, the Anu'udrian mothership launched the first of its lithium fusion missiles. The dim-witted wimpy peaceniks who pushed the Unilateral Aerospace Disarmament Treaty through Congress had left Earth a defenseless target for the hostile alien empires who were determined to destroy the human race. Within two hours after the passage of the treaty the Anu'udrian ships were on course for Earth, carrying enough firepower to pulverize the entire planet. With no one to stop them, they swiftly initiated their diabolical plan. The lithium fusion missile entered the atmosphere unimpeded. The President, in his top-secret mobile submarine headquarters on the ocean floor off the coast of Guam, felt the inconceivably massive explosion, which vaporized Laurie and 85 million other Americans. The President slammed his fist on the conference table. "We can't allow this! I'm going to veto that treaty! Let's blow 'em out out of the sky!"

(Rebecca) This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My writing partner is a violent, chauvinistic, semi-literate adolescent.

(Gary) Yeah? Well, you're a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at writing are the literary equivalent of Valium.

(Rebecca)
Asshole.

(Gary)
Bitch

(TEACHER)
A+ - I really liked this one.

Happiness Through IM and E-mail?

Dennis Prager asserted on the "Happiness Hour" of his radio show today that technological means of communication such as instant messaging, text messaging and e-mail allow greater clarity during arguments and greater intimacy when expressing love. WOW! I think he is really on to something here!

He's right that in a verbal argument, the "bully" always wins. The person with better verbal skills has the upper hand and the whole point of the discussion is to wait until the other person shuts up so you can articulate your point, which frankly you seldom accomplish in a heated argument. Dennis recommends going to separate rooms and IMing each other! Really - it is not a bad idea!

The written word allows you to - really forces you to - think through your position. You're also less likely to say hurtful things if you write them down and think about them first. And many people feel too vulnerable expressing loving thoughts face to face, but could probably do it fairly comfortably with writing.

This is actually something I've been thinking about lately on the recommendation of a friend. One of my second-grader's assignments for the year is to keep a daily journal where she's expected to write a paragraph every day. She is not inspired. My friend recommended that I write questions to her in the journal every day and let her decide what to answer and when. What a great idea!

It got me thinking that, not only would this improve her writing skills, but it would also increase our knowledge of and love for each other. I can ask her what skills she would like to develop and why, what or who she loves and why, what she thinks I love and why, etc... The whole concept seems so obvious and beneficial that I'm shocked I didn't think of it myself!

I've also remembered that my parents advocated "love letter" writing as part of the pre-cana program they lead. And, as Dennis said, we wouldn't know nearly as much about historical figures such as John and Abigail Adams were it not for their love letters. He also took a call from a woman who lost her husband to cancer in August. He was an Air Force retiree and had many friends around the world. The friends kept track of his condition by e-mail and expressed their great love for him and how he had affected their lives. The woman kept the e-mails and is making a memory book for their nine year old son. Powerful stuff.

Prager also said that, while a mirror reflects our physical being, our writing reflects our soul. It is what we think and how we feel in physical form. So, here's to technology, the written word and greater happiness. Blog on.

Tom Bethell on Evolution vs ID

Tom Bethell is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. He has eloquently stated here what I tried to articulate in my article on liberalism versus ID.

The underlying problem, rarely discussed, is that the conclusions of evolutionism are based not on science, but on a philosophy: the philosophy of materialism, or naturalism. Living creatures, including human beings, are here on Earth, and we got here somehow. If atoms and molecules in motion are all that exist, then their random interactions must account for everything that exists, including us. That is the true underpinning of Darwinism. What needs to be examined in detail is not so much the religion behind intelligent design as the philosophy behind evolution.

This is the point I was trying to make. Religious belief was not a pre-condition for the science brilliantly performed by Galileo, Newton, Darwin or Einstein. It simply was. But in modern science culture, disbelief in God is a prerequisite for consideration as a serious scientist. And the philosophy that has displaced God is not good science.

Irreconcilable Deferences

Did you catch the Sunday New York Times front page article about the resurgence of bed bugs in New York? Manhattan, no less! Oh yeah, the exterminators are doing a hopping business trying to relieve “hysteric” denizens of maternity wards, elite boarding schools and plush hotels of yea olde bed louse! Complaints are up from 2 to 375 or there abouts. What is going on here?

I should admit that I didn’t get the story from the NYT (I wouldn’t read that liberal rag except under extreme duress or on the recommendation of a trusted friend). I heard about this on Dennis Prager’s show today. As he explained, the NYT gave three possible reasons for the increase of bed bugs in New York: 1) increased immigration from “developing” countries; 2) cheap air travel in recent years (same as (1)); 3) banned pesticides. But the author really gave away the answer earlier in the article when he stated that the bed bug was virtually eliminated from NY after WWII due to the use of DDT. So, if you answered number 3, DING DING DING – you’re a winner!

Now, I’d be stopping this article letting us all enjoy the discomfort of the limousine liberals in NY if there weren’t some serious physical, financial and emotional ramifications for innocent people around the world due to the environmental movement. I’m sure you’ve heard the facts about malarial deaths in Africa, blocked development in Colorado due to the Prebles jumping mouse (which turns out to be genetically indistinguishable from your average western field mouse) and blocked development in California due to an insect species (don’t they out-number us billions to one?). Perhaps you even saw the Frontline where they interviewed a woman scientist from Africa who was developing a disease and insect resistant yam to try to feed her starving countrymen. But she was using – DUNH DUNH DUNH DUNH (you should be biting your knuckles now) – genetic engineering and so the extremist environmental group ELF torched her lab in Michigan. All very disturbing incidents, but what is the underlying cause?

I believe it is because environmental activists are “for Nature”, while those of us who espouse Judeo-Christian values are “for humanity”. This goes back to my previous article (Liberalism vs. Intelligent Design) where I stated the central tenant of J/C values that man is made in God’s image. This belief system requires deferential treatment of humanity where the environmental faith views man as an accident of evolution – no more important than any other animal, but a lot bigger pest! Now, as Dennis said, we are all environmentalists – it is absurd how liberals try to portray conservatives as against clean water and clean air – but some of us recognize the trade-offs! I know that DDT has been shown to thin the egg shells of large raptors. But, while the Bald Eagle has made a tremendous comeback since DDT was banned, tens of thousands of people are starving, suffering debilitating disease, dying and…well, being bitten by bed bugs. The moral choice seems pretty clear.

I'm Thankful for Jonah Goldberg!

Jonah Goldberg has a wonderful ability to distill some truths with wisdom and wit:

We'll have all year to gripe about the public-policy issues on both sides of the God divide. But since this is Thanksgiving, I thought maybe we could take the discussion in another direction. Thanksgiving, after all, is first and foremost about giving thanks (a close second is the tradition of lying on the couch eating super-nummy turkey sandwiches off your belly like a sea otter munching a crab leg).

Scientists often fall into a fallacious tendency, after studying and describing something according to the methods of their discipline, to believe that their appraisal of it is somehow more real than the thing itself.

If you'd like to savor the rest here it is.

And CNN wonders why we don't believe them?

For those who may have missed the Drudge report on it, CNN broadcast a speech Vice President Dick Cheney was giving live and somehow a big black X placeholder flashed over his face. CNN says it was a technical glitch.

Now, which scenario is more credible? The black X placeholder, used by hundreds of broadcasters thousands if not millions of times a day, suddenly developed a glitch in the middle of Vice President Cheney's speech? Or, some technician working at CNN who hates the administration thought it might be fun to try to humiliate the vice president in front of millions of viewers (reportedly a technician was heard laughing at the time).

CNN pegs the BS meter again!