The Dragon Master Gunner has another good post (on the putatively impending civil war in Iraq) in which he asks

Why do they honestly hate him so much? Because they misunderestimated his strategery during the 2000 and 2004 elections? Or because they think of themselves as so much smarter than the rest of us, you know, Red Staters. Do they really think we're ignorant country bumpkins for voting our moral conscience?

I have long pondered this question. I was clued in to the answer during the 1996 Olympics, thanks to Bryant Gumbel’s brother (whose name I cannot recall presently). Those who watched the games may recall being incredulous that the media covering the events just could not bring themselves to root for the American team. When asked about this, Brant Gumbel’s brother explained that they didn’t want to lose their “objectivity”.

Why do the media hate the President? Because they are marxist in worldview. As such they despise capitalism and virtually everyone and everything associated with it, including the nation-state. No doubt, they share Jay Bennish’s view that capitalism is, among other things, opposed to human rights. The action in Iraq, however it may be characterized, is an action by a free nation-state. More than that, it is the action of a free capitalist nation-state. And this free nation-state’s leader is a capitalist; and not just any type of capitalist, but an uber-capitalist. After all what is more capitalist than (gulp and spit) big oil?

That’s why the media hate the President, and their country. It’s part of their hatred of capitalism. And this isn’t their country; the world is their country.

Tags:

nation-state, capitalism, main stream media, MSM, Marxism, Iraq, Red Staters, Red States, Bryant Gumbel, Jay Bennish

I was listening to Bill Bennett’s
radio show on the way in to work this morning. James L. Swanson (author of the book, Manhunt: The 12 Day Hunt For Lincoln's Killer) was his guest. Bennett asked Swanson to compare Presidents Bush and Lincoln. Swanson, in commenting on Bush supposed violation of civil rights and of the Constitution generally, said, essentially, that President Bush has done nothing when compared to President Lincoln.

Now, I don’t believe that the President has violated any provision of the Consititution. (In fact, I doubt that it is any secret that I am a fan of the President.) But really, saying that one President has done nothing when compared to some other President is like saying that an accused murderer (including a cop killer here where I live) has done nothing when compared to, say, Charles Manson.

That doesn’t strike me as the best defense. Should the President actually be impeached, I’m glad that Swanson won’t be managing his defense. Should President Bush be impeached, the question at his trial before the Senate will be whether he violated the Constitution or some other provision of federal law, not whether he engaged in fewer violations than some other President.

Besides, I’m not very impressed by President Lincoln anyway. The man took the first step in virtually destroying federalism in this union. (It is possible, you know, to believe in states’ rights without at the same time believing in slavery, racism, or segregation.) In fact, this isn’t much of a union; it’s a dominion. But that’s just me.



Tags: Bill Bennett, James L. Swanson, impeachment, civil rights, Bush, Lincoln, federalism, states’ rights

Recall that the President said he would veto any bill that would stop the Dubai ports deal (of which I have not been a particular fan). Recall also that the President is committed to financing the war on terror. The President is now in the position of having either (a) to veto a bill financing the war in order to veto a bill blocking the ports deal or (b) signing a bill blocking the ports deal in order to sign a bill providing funding for the war. Why? Because a bill which, among other things, will provide additional financing for the war has an amendment attached to it; and this amendment blocks the port deal. With a line item veto, the President could get the funding for the war and still have the ports deal go through.


Did I mention that I’m not a big fan of the ports deal? What I dislike more than things like this ports deal are dirty tricks like this latest stunt!


By the way: not being a fan doesn’t mean I’m opposed. It just means I’m a sceptic. That’s all. Of course, now that Dubai is pulling out, it doesn't really matter.

I wanted to follow up my two posts on Intelligient Design with one on plausiblity structures. But this one at evangelical outpost is already written and posted. Why re-evolve the wheel? While you’re there, this one on dropping use of the term supernatural is also worth the reading.

You’ve got to go to Red Sky Brothers, specifically, right here. They have a 16 minute interview with three former Islamofascist terrorists. It is truly MUST SEE TV.

We hear the Left scream, yell, and rant about American Imperialism. For a change of pace (not to mention tone and volume), try reading this article, “The New Geopolitics of Empire,” by John Bellamy Foster, which at least makes a case without engaging in the sort of annoying whining that most leftists do. How good a case? In the end, Foster’s problem is that the world empire that the US is supposedly building is a capitalist one and not a socialist one. Here’s his conluding paragraph:

What hope remains under these dire circumstances lies in the building of a new world peace movement that recognizes that what ultimately must be overcome is not a particular instance of imperialism and war, but an entire world economic system that feeds on militarism and imperialism. The goal of peace must be seen as involving the creation of a world of substantive equality in which global exploitation and the geopolitics of empire are no longer the principal objects. The age-old name for such a radical egalitarian order is “socialism.”

He simply prefers a pax marxiana to a pax americana. That's his right. But he doesn't really make an ethical case for why socialism is superior to capitalism, or why capitialism is evil. He just writes under the implicit assumption that this is the case. More than likely he would say that the superiority is in the goal of socialism to bring about an equal distribution of wealth. But of course this assumes that such a state of affairs is ethically superior to that state of affairs in which there is an unequal distribution of wealth. Because the marxist worldview is atheistic, I deny that it is in a position to talk ethics. But that's just me.

At any rate, Foster offers something better than typical leftist screed. And he may actually be correct that the powers that be are building an American empire. Well, so what if we are?

[Headnote: This was supposed to have been posted on Friday. I have no idea what happened. File it under Better-late-than-never, even if, now, a bit irrlevant.]

If you would like to hear capitalism-hating Jay Bennish’s geography class anti-Bush tirade Michelle Malkin has posted a link to it here, or you can just click here. (Scroll down on the page to where it says "Listen to the taped remarks made by Overland High teacher Jay Bennish in a 10th grade World Geography class. They were recorded by student Sean Allen. "

…New Orleans Mayor Ray “School Bus” Nagin can add “disgraceful” to the list of adjectives that fit him.

When you look at something like the photo of the son of a [sorry, I was about to have a Patton moment] below, you must surely agree with the Master Blaster’s assessment.




Can you believe the gall of this sack of [sorry, almost had another Patton moment]? There he is, looking for all the world like a third world dictator, while dressed up in a mock-up of a US military uniform.

As we all know from listening to the news yesterday, the big story is that Bush knew about the levees. The Alien Media Nation, as Bill Bennett likes to call them, are worse marksmen than VP Cheney. Those of us who remember, know that what we all knew about the levees was the possibility that they would be topped, not breached. And that is what the President knew.

The media spent most of yesterday talking as if topped and breached were synonymous terms; and they are not. Of course, it is not very easy to fault them for this error: being so cozy with gays they could easily get the idea that being topped and being breached are the same thing because they are…for gays. Ahem.

But see
this article
for a bit more information regarding what the President knew and, more importantly, where he got some of his information.

Now, I just happen to believe that the AMN (i.e., Alien Media Nation) do know the difference—when it comes to levees—between being topped and breached. What they are counting on is this: that the majority of us do not know the difference.

And their purpose for this? Must be to continue to work on the portrait of the President as a not-Benevolent Dictator (when compared of course to their Benevolent Dictators life Roosevelt and Clinton). For whatever it’s worth, I don’t care whether the President care about me. I don’t want a President to care about me. In fact, I want a government that doesn’t care about me. For, as I said in a previous post, at some point we just have to take responsibility for saving our own asses.

Interesting exchange here about the nature of the conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. A brief defense of Jews and Christians by an Arabic-speaking secular humanist.

Perhaps you’ve seen this also. I was forwarded the following from a student of mine. It’s tempting to say, that if it were true, you won’t find me so much as urinating in the restroom of a Starbucks ever again.

Recently Marines in Iraq wrote to Starbucks because they wanted to let them know how much they liked their coffee and to request that they send some of it to the troops there.

Starbucks replied, telling the Marines thank you for their support of their business, but that Starbucks does not support the war, nor anyone in it, and that they would not send the troops their brand of coffee.

So as not to offend Starbucks, maybe we should not support them by buying any of their products!

As a war vet writing to fellow patriots, I feel we should get this out in the open. I know this war might not be very popular with some folks, but that doesn't mean we don't support the boys on the ground fighting street-to-street and house-to-house for what they and I believe is right.

If you feel the same as I do then pass this along, or you can discard it and no one will never know.

Thanks very much for your support. I know you'll all be there again when I deploy once more.

"Semper Fidelis."
Sgt Howard C. Wright
1st Force Recon Co
1st Plt PLT

Now, I’d like to think that this isn’t true because I really enjoy Starbucks. But it comes, apparently, from a Marine who feels confident enough to have provided his name, rank, and unit. If a Marine and I were hanging out someplace and he looked out the window and told me that he saw a flying donkey, I’d go to that window and have a look. I’d rather think that a donkey could fly than that a Marine would lie—especially about Starbucks. (For surely a Marine sergeant has better things to do than to sit around making up lies about Starbucks!)

But alas it isn’t true. I went to TruthorFiction.com to check it out. To his own admission, Sergeant Wright heard of this by word of mouth, and—as were all do from time to time—responded without investigating. (You could say that he trusted but did not verify.)

Sergeant Wright sent out a subsequent e-mail which reads as follows:

Dear Readers,

Almost 5 months ago I sent an e-mail to you my faithful friends. I did a wrong thing that needs to be cleared up. I heard by word of mouth about how Starbucks said they didn't support the war and all. I was having enough of that kind of talk and didn't do my research properly like I should have. This is not true. Starbucks supports men and women in uniform. They have personally contacted me and I have been sent many copies of their company's policy on this issue. So I apologize for this quick and wrong letter that I sent out to you.

Now I ask that you all pass this email around to everyone you passed the last one to. Thank you very much for understanding about this.

Howard C. Wright
Sgt USMC
1st Force Rcon Co
1st Plt PLT RTO

(Read it yourself,here.)

Whew! For a moment, I was really worried. You see I got this deal where I shop at Safeway and if my purchase is a certain amount I get a free Starbucks. I would sure hate to see that go to waste.

The Dragon Master Gunner, who now posts at Tanker Brothers with his younger brother, CavTanker, has what I think is a fine post
(of course, I’ve already demonstrated my partiality to them) which you may file in both the “Know Your Enemy As Yourself” and the “This Is My War, Keep Your Whimpy Hands Off” folders. Here’s a sampling:

Here's what I don't get: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, and the rest of the Liberal Left will do anything and everything they can to undermine our efforts to win the War on Terror. They don't do it out of any genuine desire to lose, but out of hatred for the President.

They are short sighted, and fail to see "The Big Picture".

The weakness of Liberalism is what extremist Muslims hate about us the most. That is what makes us "degenerate and demoralized". Does anyone think for a moment that religious extremists would support something as horrific as Abortion? These people follow Muslim law, where a thief has his arm chopped off, and an adulteress is stoned to death! Do you really think for a second that they give any credibility to people that don't have the stones to enforce the death penalty?

By undermining our efforts at winning this battle of cultures, the Crazy Left actually validates the reasons people like Bin Laden hate us! They tell the world we are weak, indecisive, and so focused on hedonism and sin as to make them even more righteous (in their own minds)!

His larger argument is that this war is our generation’s war, our test. He wants to pass this test like the Greatest passed the WWII test, and not fail it like our immediate predecessors did with Vietnam. I could not agree with him any more than I do. I don’t think it would be a waste of time to read the post in its entirety.

[Note: I had hoped to post this much earlier, but work and family commitments (imagine!) just had to intrude.]

In my previous post I asked which religion is supposedy “endorsed” by teaching the so-called Intelligent Design theory of origins. Now I will take up the matter of its science credentials.

One key to understanding the controversy over Intelligent Design is the role played by worldview. Much as evolutionists like to pretend the contrary, worldview does play a role. One part of one's worldview is one’s theory of knowledge, what it is and how to get it. This is involves a decision as to whether supernatural explanations are permitted in science, or rejected. The decision, either way, is an arbitrary one.

One reason Judge Jones had for his decision was that "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation." This may be a "centuries-old ground rule," but that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. It also means that the outcome of any scientific investigation is a bit determined at the outset: if you start by requiring what your results cannot be, you have gone a way toward determining what your results will be, especially if the options are greatly limited. This "centuries-old ground rule" requires that the results of any and all scientific research accord with the philosophy of naturalism, or ontological naturalism. Now, of course, we shall be told, "No, we are not requiring ontological naturalism. We are requiring only methodological naturalism." But this distinction is a bit disingenuous: whether the requirement is ontological or methodolocical naturalism, the results of scientific research still--always--accord with ontological naturalism. The assertion that the requirement of methodological naturalism in the process of doing science is not a tacit requirement of ontological naturalism in the results of doing science is a ridiculous one, if not also a dishonest one. When it comes to the doing of science there is not a bit of difference between the two: Methodological naturalism assumes that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Ontological naturalism is the metaphysical assumption that the natural world is all that exists. Methodological naturalism in science means pretending that, for all practical purposes, ontological naturalism is true. And so, it comes as no great surprise that this "centuries-old ground rule" just happens to accord well with ontological naturalism, the worldview which gained the ascendancy after the Enlightenment.

Because ID violates this "centuries-old ground rule" it is untestable and therefore not science. This is the point at which I can honestly say that I don't have a dog in the show because I don't believe that a properly scientific theory of origins is possible. The origin of a species, however it may occur, is not repeatable. No experiment can be performed. (Evolutionists, of course, have a solution to this problem, which I shall deal with below.)

I know that evolutionists constantly tell us that the evidence for their position is so overwhelming as to make evolution almost an incontrovertible fact. And supposedly, this involves some testability. But does it really? Obviously, I can’t do an exhaustive study here, but I can at least take a cursory glance.

When I do so I find a bit of speculation, which differs from Intelligent Design only in that it is naturalistic speculation. The evidence for evolution
comes from four sources: (1) morphological; (2) genetic sequence; (3) ancestry of organisms; (4) history of life. A brief word about the first three:

1. Part of the role played by fossils is the so-called transitional form. The most well-known of these is probably Archaeopteryx, a primitive bird, similar in size and shape to a magpie, with short, broad wings and a long tail. Its feathers resemble those of living birds, but Archaeopteryx was rather different from any bird we know of today because it had jaws lined with sharp teeth, three fingers ending in curving claws, and a long bony tail. It is supposed to be a powerful piece of evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. All of this is rather interesting, but in the end evolution has to be true in order for there to be “transitional forms”. Using the putative existence of “transitional forms” as evidence of evolution, requires assuming the very truth of evolution in the first place. If evolution does not explain origins, then the existence of something like Archaeopteryx must have another explanation. (For example, it may have been nothing more than a winged reptile with feathers. The fact that it was a reptile with feathers would not mean it was a transitional form.) When the fossil record is viewed as a record of evolution it does precious little good to talk about it as evidence of evolution. This is like viewing the Bible as the record of God’s revelation to man and then using it as evidence of God’s existence. At any rate, an interpretation of a fossil is no more testable empirically than an interpretation of T. S. Eliot’s The Wasteland.

2. The universality of the genetic code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent (UCD) for all bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. Analysis of the small differences in the genetic code has also, supposedly, provided support for UCD. Another important piece of evidence is considered to be the fact that it is possible to construct a detailed phylogenetic tree for all three domains (i.e., bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes) based on similarity. Why universality of the genetic code may be regarded as evidence of universal common descent but not evidence of the work of a single designing intelligence is beyond me. Note that there is nothing properly testable here either. You look at the genetic code and note that it is universal. Without performing (without even being able to perform) a single experiment you conclude Universal Common Descent, not Intelligent Design. Of course, we shall be told that everything in science does not require experimentation. Sound extrapolations can be made from what is known to what is not known; happens all the time. Of course this requires the further assumption of the principle of uniformitarianism (contrast with catastrophism), which allows natural scientists to infer causes through their empirical effects. But note that reliance upon this principle constitutes an assumption regarding precisely what is at issue. Specifically it means starting with a tacit denial of Intelligent Design in order to present an argument against Intelligent Design. No wonder they end by concluding no Intelligent Design! (And they say that it is Intelligent Design that tries to overcome science with philosophy of science!)

Now, it isn’t that ID adherents deny that causes can be inferred through their empirical effects. That isn’t much of an issue. At issue is whether the same laws which govern the present operation of the universe also governed its origin. This is what can not be known; it can only be assumed at the outset--before you even start your scientific investigations. You do not discover whether the same laws which govern the operation of the universe also governed its origin; you decide. And once you have (arbitrarily) decided that “science” is to be identified with atheistic explanations, you have also (arbitrarily) decided the issue.

To then turn round and assert that some equally arbitary, but contrary, decision is not “science” really isn’t playing fair. (Although it does remind us that, as Michael Polanyi has pointed out, in Personal Knowledge, “science” is really nothing more than what a majority of “scientists” say it is.) At any rate, nothing prevents the conclusion that the reason for the universality of the genetic code is simply that there is a single code-maker.

2. The ancestry-of-organisms line of evidence used to make use solely of traits shared by all living organisms. Now it makes use of the genetic code. As we know, every living cell makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. All organisms use the same genetic code to translate nucleic acid sequences into proteins. The universality of these traits strongly suggests common ancestry, because the selection of these traits seems somewhat arbitrary.

But the only reason for accepting common descent is, again, a prior commitment to natural (i.e., atheistic) explanations, as well as the (arbitrary) assumption of the principle of uniformitarianism. The existence of universal traits can also be explained by a single designing intelligence who designed diverse creatures with universal traits precisely because these diverse creatures would be living in the same world. Note something else. We have been told that science doesn’t just accept a supernatural explanation over another simply because, no natural answer to a given question is immediately apparent. But when we come to inquire about the selection of these univsersal traits we are told that it seems to be arbitrary. In other words, we don’t know the reason for the selection of certain traits; therefore, common descent. Any explanation will do, no matter how unfounded, as long as it is merely natural. (NB. Saying that selection of traits appears to be arbitrary is not the same thing as providing supporting evidence for common descent. If you will pause briefly, it will strike you that common descent is not supported by the evidence [i.e., universal traits]; it is being used to explain the evidence. And again, the only reason for preferring common descent to some function of Intelligent Design is that prior commitment to natural explanations, requiring the assumption of the principle of uniformitarianism.)

Those three items all have something in common: they are not subject to testing; there are no experiments to perform which will tell us anything about origins. (Again, it is usually about this point we hear about the principle of unifomitarianism.)

My point here is not to defend the scientific credentials of Intelligent Design. I’m not a scientist; but I do know a thing or fifty about language, logic and philosophy of science. As I said above, I do not think that there can be a properly scientific theory of origins. Therefore, I deny the scientific credentials of evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design, along with Creationism. The only thing that makes evolution a scientific theory is a commitment to defining science as naturalism (bearing in mind that the distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism is a false one when it comes to doing science). If you reject this arbitrary equivocation, evolution has no claim. As a theory (of origins) compared to other theories (about present operations) like relativity, it provides no experimental confirmation, makes no predictions that can be verified, and is not subject to testing--like Intelligent Design.

What evolution does do, however, is provide the non-theist with his very own creation myth.

Okay. Here's the "disclaimer" which caused all the furor:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves."

In reaching his decision Judge Jones treated four issues:

1. Whether an Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism (Opinion, 18 - 36).

On this question we are treated to an historical review of the controversy over evolution going back to the 1920s and 1930s. And, of course, he does find that, in fact, "an objective observer would know that ID and teaching about 'gaps' and 'problems' in evolutionary theory are creationist, religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism." I see at least two logical problems here.

First, it ignores the issue of whether there are "gaps" or "problems" with evolutionary theory. Let's say, for purposes of argument, that creationists were the first to talk about gaps and problems with evolution. So what? That in and of itself is irrelevant to the question of whether there are gaps or problems. It is, in fact, a form of ad hominem; it's called a bulverism, an attempt to refute an argument by making a statement about why a person is making the argument. Joe says to John, "There are gaps and problems in the theory of evolution." John responds by saying, "Joe, you only say that because you are a creationist." Seriously, what has Joe's being a creationist have to do with whether there are gaps and problems with the theory of evolution. What if, Joe is a creationist because he first came to believe that there are gaps and problems with evolution? Let's turn things around a bit. John says to Joe, "Evolution is true." Joe responds, "John, you only say that because you are an atheist." The proposition, "Evolution is true" is not refuted by asserting anything about the person stating the proposition. In the same way, Joe's being a creationist is irrelevant to the question of whether there are gaps and problems with the theory of evolution.

The second problem is that, Judge Jones's reasoning here would mean that there could never be any meaningful talk of any gaps or problems with evolutionary theory. Let's say that someone whom even evolutionists recognized as a bona fide scientist (for our purposes, let's say the late Stephen J. Gould) started talking about gaps and problems in evolutionary theory. There could never be any mention of it because, as Judge Jones now informs us, any such talk is a religious strategy that evolved from earlier forms of creationism.

2. Whether an Objective Student Would View the Disclaimer as an Official Endorsement of Religion (Opinion 37 -- 50).

and

3. 3. Whether an Objective Dover Citizen Would Perceive Defendants’ Conduct to be an Endorsement of Religion (Opinion 50 -- 64)

The answer to these two questions is obvious enough, I suppose. The real problem here is that a constitutional prohibition of establishing a religion (i.e., a specific religion) has been translated into a prohibition of endorsing "religion." And what constitutes "endorsing" religion? Well, whatever the courts say constitutes it.

Note also the absence of specificity. We have gone from Congress's being prohibited from making some (specific!) religion the religion of the land, to every governmental entity in the republic being prohibited from "endorsing" some entity called religion. And what, exactly, is it for something to be a religion? Why, again, whatever the courts tell us it is.

A third problem is, in addition to the aforementioned translation of the constitutional prohibition of establishing a national religion, how the term religion is so obviously re-defined (especially in this present case) to mean just theism. Anything that seems to lend credence to theism counts as an endorsement of "religion." There's just one problem: theism is not a religion ; it is a philosophical school, a position on the philosophical question of the existence of God, in contrast with atheism. There is a second problem: not all religions are theistic, like Buddhism, for example.

I think this last point raises a problem. If teaching ID supports or endorses "religion" because the "intelligence" behind the design must surely be God, then the teaching of evolution must also endorse religion because with its tacit denial of "intelligence" it lends support to non-theism and, by logical extension, non-theistic religions like Buddhism and secular humanism (arguably, of course). Not only that, but since the state is supposed to be neutral with respect to religion, this implies that the state should (a) teach nothing which lends credence to religion and (b) teach nothing which would militate against religion. If so, then evolution is hardly religiously neutral, since it militates against theism, which the courts equate with religion.

Be all that as it may. I am still hard-pressed to understand in just what way allowing the teaching of ID constitutes an endorsement of religion. Which religion does it endorse? Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Hinduism? If so, then how? Merely because ID is consistent with these religions? And why would that be a problem, given that evolution is consistent with (in addition to atheism, which is not a religiously neutral position) a religion like Buddhism?

It begins to look as if the real problem is not endorsement of "religion" but the acknowledgement by the state of any intellectual respectability for theistic "religion." Witholding that acknowledgment is not neutral.

Besides, what the Constitution prohibits is the establishment of a specifically identified religion (i.e., Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Conservative Judaism, etc.), not the vague notion of some "endorsement"of some formless entity called "religion".

Next: Whether ID is science

Permit me, in catching up after a short absence (due to business elsewhere), a brief rant.

Liberal Democrats like to refer to themselves as "progressive" now-days. Progressive. Forward moving. A rather obvious implication is that the opponents of "progressives" are--what?--regressive, I suppose. Hmmmm. Submitted for your perusal:

1. This past weekend, Nancy Pelosi gave a townhall meeting. When asked if Democrats could come up with a candidate who could beat a Republican nominee, she said yes, and that this Democrat contender would be comparable to F.D.R.

2. We all know that Democrats like to talk about the Iraq theater of the war on terror as if it were a repeat of Vietnam. As if. I grew up surrounded by men who were actually in Vietnam...fighting, not reporting. I have eyewitness testimony of the events in Vietnam. Iraq is not Vietnam--not yet. (But it will be if the Alien Media Nation have their way and this war gets run by the Legislature and not the Executive! But I digress.) One has to wonder: As long as they want to go back to F.D.R. why don't they frame discussions of the war on terror as if it were World War Two?

F.D.R. and Vietnam. It seems that, for Democrats, moving forward means going backward. Now we know why they think conservatives are wrong on the issues: they think that we are the ones going in the wrong direction. But what can you say to people who insist that moving ahead requires living in the past?

Nor ought we to entertain the notion that their position on health care provides any evidence that--on at least that issue--they are moving ahead. They tell us that we are one of--if not the only--advanced nation on the planet without nationalized health care. Look at Great Britain, they say. Look at Canada. Great Britain and Canada, among others, have had nationalized health care for some time, right? That means, again, that Democrats are looking to the past saying, in effect, not only, "Let's move in reverse" but also "Let's go back and join others who are failing in their own attempts to solve the problems we are working on."

These are the same type of people who tell us, among other things, that we no longer live in 1789 and therefore need a "living, breathing" constitution. It's fine to go back to the 1960s and 1940s (include the 1970s, if you want to talk about impeachment), but not the 1700s. It is difficult, at times, to be charitable in thinking and writing about them and their fear-rooted policies. Darn them to heck.

(I've finished studying the recent Intelligent Design decision. And under the heading of "better-late-than-never" I will have some things to post about it. It's not as if this is going to go away any time soon.)

I have a confession to make. I never believed Pat Robertson.

When Pat Robertson "apologized" for wishing on-air that someone would take out Hugo Chavez, he did so by saying that taking someone out doesn't really mean assassinating them. Of course, to most of us who talk about taking someone out, it means assassination. Color me sceptical when it comes to Robertson's apology. (Besides, when you apologize for saying something by saying, in effect, that you really didn't say what you are apologizing for saying, it really doesn't count as an apology; it's a denial. That's what my wife says, anyway.)

Now, New Orleans mayor Ray "Everyone-is-to-blame-for-the-devastation-of-Katrine-but-me" Nagin is apologizing for claiming that N.O. was meant, by God apparently, to be a chocolate city. Now, I have to confess when I heard that I was sure the he intended to mean that N.O. was meant to be a predominantly black city. Of course, if Nagin is to believed his comments about a chocolate city were not intended to exclude whites. After all, he is quoted as saying, chocolate is made with milk. (You can read the story here.) Again, color me sceptical. Nagin's comments came after it became clear that, thus far, the majority of those who have returned to N.O. are white.

New Orleans is sinking. I've posted on that fact before, citing this article. Why anyone would care whether a sinking city were vanilla or chocolate is beyond me. I mean, what is Nagin saying? "Come sink with us"? (How's that for some spin.)

I have linked here several times to the Dragon Master Gunner's blog. It seems that the "Master Blaster," as I call him (it's a tanker thing; and actually it really is technical) has the honor and privilege of serving with his younger bother, Cav Tanker. They have a collaberative blog, Tanker Brothers. I highly recommend it.

I love these guys. First, they are soldiers; as a former soldier, I'm a bit partial. Second, they are tankers; as a former tanker, I'm extremely partial. But more than that. As Jar-Jar Binx might say, "Deez-sah boiz bomb-bad!" (Yeah, I hated Jar-Jar too, but he had some cool expressions, which, of course, sound better when I use them. Ahem.) Master Blaster and Cav Tanker are remarkably well-informed, intelligent (well, they are tankers, after all!), and they write very well. Moreover, if I may say so, they also do a fine job of damaging what I believe is a consistent stereotype of hispanics. (Andale muchachos!) That, and they make me miss the Army more than I normally do! Hooah!

Guys like these shatter the idea that people join the Armed Forces because they are so stupid and uneducated as to have no other prospects. Some do; no doubt about that. But most join because (surprise, surprise) they actually believe that despite our country's checkered past (e.g., slavery, segregation, the Indian Wars, etc) there is still a lot of good here and it's worth fighting for. I've no doubt, with the quality of thought these two exhibit that they do not belong to the class we might label as "Otherwise Without Prospects." These guys are sharp; and they reflect well upon the Army, the whole tankin' community, and their country. Visit them regularly. Sign their battle roster.

And when the Master Blaster runs for President be sure and vote for him because he has indicated a willingness to make me, Jaime Francisco Solís y Bernardo, his Secretary of Defense. When you read his blog you will find yourself saying to yourself, "Self, if ever we are to have a latino in the Oval Office, it should be this man, or someone like him." Besides, he's a war veteran. And as John Kerry has informed us, being a war veteran is an unassailable qualification for the highest office in the land.

All kidding aside, read their blog.

PS.
Normally, I'm not this emotionally expressive. Mostly walk around like I've got something uncomfortable in my fourth point of contact. But, like I said: I love these guys.

Well, that was a knock-about of pure fun! Perhaps even a waste of time. Who knows? Anyway, I'm done debating the ussue of ordination of women in the PCA. It was one of those debates in which those who argued for it, did a better job of persuading me against it.

I've been busy reading and thinking about the recent decision regarding the Intelligent Design controversy. If I can do so in a timely manner I may post something about it. Talk about a philosophy of science trumping science! One thing I have decided about this whole Intelligent Design mess: If every scientist in the entire world came to believe that the intricacies in something like a cell indicated that such intricacies existed by design ID will still never end up being taught in schools. This is because the current state of "separation" jurisprudence means that ID will always have a religious purpose if only because it lends credence to certain religious doctrines. (And never mind that Darwinsm also lends credence to religious doctrines, like atheism [as contrasted with theism], for example.)

I also have some work to do on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), a.k.a. the Federal Vision (FV), at my other (collaberative) blog, Westminster Brass.

Haven't blogged lately because I've been involved in a debate on the ordination of women in the PCA, here, in case you want to read my contributions to the debate.

After you've read the aforementioned Dragon Master Gunner's posts, the Relevant Magazine has two good artilces worth the reading, Tim Willard, "Mimicking the Mainstream" and Brett McCracken, "A New Kind of Hipster". Here are snippets of each, respectively:

"The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind," historian Mark Noll keenly observed of the current state of evangelicalism (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind). However, it was not always this way. Evangelicalism has become a juggernaut of sorts in the present age, but possibly at the expense of its mind. The sub-culture that is evangelicalism has successfully morphed into a dominant political combatant, as well as a multi-billion dollar publishing (multimedia) empire. One must ask the questions, however: have Christians sacrificed scholarship and intellect for relevance? Have Christians truly become anti-intellectual? more

and

Of course, rebelling against stiff-establishment religion and assimilating spirituality to "happening" culture has been a part of the Church since the Jesus People hippified faith back in the '70s. Then with the extravagance of '80s televangelism, a new generation of young Christians desired to break the stigma of moneyed, political Christianity. Enter the age of Christian rock music. Throughout the '90s a new counterculture developed--the rock-gospel youth group--and to scores of young Jesus freaks, faith became something comparable to all the best things about worldly culture. We had music festivals, T-shirts, books, bracelets and movies of our own--perfectly sanitized alternatives to the trendiest things in the devil’s domain. more

Enjoy.

There are some must-reads over at Gragon Master Gunner: this, and this, and this and, especially, this one.

Tankers lead the way, MG!!!

In a previous post I raised the issue of whether I--as a Christian--should not rather be praying for my enemies, instead of discussing how best to defeat them (which I have defined as stopping them before they kill us, and killing them if that is what it takes to stop them). I said that I would like to offer a longer, more cogent reply; and here it is.

I don't want to talk about this from the command to pray for one's enemies. I want to approach it from the blessing that Jesus pronounces upon the "peacemakers" (e.g., Matt. 5:9). There are, and always have been, Christians who are opposed to war simply because Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." There are at least three problems with this view. The first, which I won't deal with here, is that it imtimates a works-oriented salvation. As a Calvinist, I reject the assertion, even the tacit assertion, that we do something (even "peace-making") to earn the right to be called sons of God. That right is a free gift (see John 1:12). The second problem is that it just doesn't square with Scripture. It defines "peace" as nothing more than the absence of war. And it ignores the fact that the Prince of Peace is the Son of a God of war. The third problem is that it just doesn't square with the rest of Scripture.

First, let's deal with the idea that "peace" is nothing more than the absence of war. The usage of the word, shalom renders it impossible to believe that shalom is merely the absence of war. Since I have discussed this before, I will just quote myselfhere

On this view, Jesus, in giving us a duty to be peace-makers, is giving us a duty to do no more than to be absence-of-armed-conflict-makers. But 'peace' in Scripture is not just the absence of war. Jesus, a Jew, was talking about shalom-making. As it is used in the Tanak, or Old Testament, 'shalom' is a word that admits of a great many meanings, perhaps the least of which is merely the absence of armed conflict. When Joseph, in Egypt, saw his brothers again--but before he revealed himself to them--he inquired after "their welfare, and said, 'Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spake? Is he yet alive?'" (Genesis 42.27) In this passage both the English words 'welfare' and 'well' serve to translate the Hebrew word 'shalom'. In his commentary on this passage in Matthew, Hendricksen says that this peace is the peace of God's salvation (cf I Corinthians 1.18). Peace-makers are those "who, having themselves received reconciliation with God through the cross, now strive by their message and their conduct to be instrumental in imparting this same gift [i.e., not absence of armed conflict] to others." Look in Scripture and see who are called sons of God; it is those who have put their trust in Him and in His Anointed One. Other wise, everyone who ever signed a peace treaty ending a war, is a shalom-maker and, thus, a son of God. No only that, but on the Sojourners' view, Jesus himself is not a peace-maker, for he says he says he has not come to bring peace [i.e., now we are talking about armed conflict] but a sword. Read it for yourself:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a
sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man?s foes shall be they of his own household (Matthew 10.34-36).

So it is useless to argue that (a) peacemaking is nothing more than producing or working for the absence of war and (b) that we are, by being peacemakers, being absence-of-war-makers.

Second, with respect to the God of War we must take note of the fact that if the orthodox Christian view is true, then Jesus Christ, being fully God and fully human, was in complete agreement with God (i.e., the Father) who--among other things--commanded the Israelites not just to conquer Jericho but to kill every inhabitant, man, woman and child (Joshua 6.17). He must surely have been in agreement with the Father's command to Saul to kill every last Amalekite (1 Samuel 15.1-3). If Jesus Christ is, as the writer of Hebrews claims, "the same yesterday, today and forever" (Heb. 13.8) then He still has no problem with war as such. And do let's take note: the war with which Jesus concurred was a war of conquest, which is supposedly not a just war.

A Brief Digression
But, you say, all those things notwithstanding, Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, presents a new teaching on our duty. We must love our enemies, turn the other cheek, etc. Presumably this means that a nation must not pursue war if attacked. This is nonsense.

This sort of reasoning assumes that nations have such duties as individuals have. So then, if an individual has a duty to allow himself to be assaulted, a duty not to defend himself, then so does a nation. If an individual has a duty not to relatiate when attacked then so does a nation. This sort of reasoning is logically falacious; it's composition, asserting that the whole possesses the attributes of its parts. Taken to its extreme, it would mean that since I have a duty to fulfill my wife's sexual needs, so does the state. (It's an extreme example, but it works better than any other example I've been able to use with leftist Christians.)

Here's a rhetorical question: If the duties of state and individual are identical, then do I have a power to tax? Do I, like the state, have any police powers? Can I take it upon myself to perform the duties of a highway patrolman? (Oh, boy, how I would like to!)

Returning to the main subject...
Third, with respect to the rest of Scripture, there just does not seem to be--anywhere--a conviction on the part of God's people that war, as such, is just always wrong. The Hebrews just were not pacifists. Clearly, they did not go out looking for war, but they were not pacifists as we understand the term; they did not--as Christian pacifists suggest we do--avoid war at any and all costs. When attacked, they responded in kind, with the obvious intention of conquering the enemy. And, speaking of the people of God, when the Prince of Peace returns, he is returning, sword in hand, with the armies of heaven. He is returning to conquer. It is interesting that this is the image of the returning Messiah that John gives us, is it not? The Prince of Peace carries a sword. To me that means--among other things--that there is something to be said for "Peace through superior firepower."

For all that, I believe that the strongest New Testament argument that the State, even in the New Testament era, still possesses the power to prosecute war is Paul's assertion, in Romans (13.4), that the State does not bear the sword in vain. In asserting that the state does not bear the sword in vain, Paul claims, in effect, that the state will, from time to time, kill people. If this is not the case, then he lied: the state does bear the sword in vain; it barks, with no intention ever of biting. We should also understand that the people whom the state will kill fall into two classes: (a) those within, who break certain laws; and (b) those without, who wage war against the nation. Paul seems not to hold the view that the state must lay down its arms, and eschew all war, in the name of "peace" (i.e., "absence-of-war") making.

We do this every year: honor our veterans. I am always happy to do so. When I was in school, I was the resident "expert" on World War II. So of course I have, and still have, an appreciation for the Greatest Generation.

But there is one veteran who, I have always believed, will never get his due. I mean, of course--and The Wall notwithstanding--the Vietnam Vet. You Vietnam vets don't know this, but when I see those bumper stickers I always do a brief "eyes right" when I pass you on the highway. (Brief, because I'm driving, you see.)

For good or ill (and I believe it was for good) I joined the Army because of you. I am old enough to have seen the protests, complete with draft card burning, on the evening news. I grew up in a college town. College students always seemed to think they were smarter then everybody else, and the ones I observed never had any kind words for Vietnam vets.

But I had uncles who served in Vietnam. And listening to those college punks made my little 8 year old blood boil. And I decided that before I did anything else in life, I would serve in my country's armed forces. Ten years later, it turned out to be the Army. That's because I saw "Patton" on TV. After that, it just had to be Army.

Of my service I will say only this. I served because I was convinced it was my duty. And when I enlisted (January 1984), I truly believed that NATO and the Warsaw Pact would soon have it out: I was convinced--perhaps even hoped--that I would see combat. So, I served during the Cold War, a "war" that someone (Tom Clancy?) described as a war with no battles and no monuments, only casualties. First, I was at Fort Carson, Colorado, in the 1st Squadron, 10th U.S. Cavalry (a cavalry unit comprised of both tankers and scouts). Then, I went to Germany and served in the 2d of the 32d Armor (later, the 4th of the 67th), 3d Brigade, 3d Armor Division (Spearhead). The mission of the 3d Armor Division was to defend the so-called Fulda Gap. I can assure you, it was a mission we took seriously. I don't know about any other element of 3d Div, but the 4-67 "Bandits" were fanatical, about being both soldiers and tankers"--probably because our battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel J. S. Wheeler was pretty fanatical. I really enjoyed those get-togethers on Bandit Field for our two-fold purpose. Really. I did. (Elvis Presley, by way, had been a tanker in the same outfit.)

The previous paragraph was designed to give some background for this statement. I joined the Army because I thought I had a duty to do, not because I lacked education (which, in fact, I did) and not because I had few job prospects (which, again, I had). And most of the soldiers I served with felt the same way. After all, in an all-volunteer force, you may join because you have no job prospects, but I just don't think it stands to reason that you join the combat arms. There are enough other jobs in the Army that you can do if you're joining just to have a job.

I'm thinking about that today because I have heard yet again someone on the radio suggest that joblessness is why people join. (You know how they do it. They start off by being all talk and weeping about being concerned for our troops and blah, blah, blah.) It ticks me off. I'm also thinking about it because of all those people who keep trying to insist that the war in Iraq is some Vietnamesque "quagmire". @#$% that!

I don't think I could attach a monetary value to what I got out of the service. I got so much. One thing I think I got was a fast-track to maturity. Whenever I went home on leave it seemed that a lot of people I graduated high school with were getting older, but still living pretty much the same way we did in high school--except just not living at mom and dad's. When I got out and went to college, I felt so much older (at 23) than the 18 year old freshmen. Children. All of them. And they still were when they were juniors. Desert Storm took place while I was at college. Those children protested the "senseless death" and blah, blah, blah. (I was tempted, every time I walked past their protests to salute them by extending my middle finger. But I had become a Christian by that time and wasn't sure that Jesus would like that.) One of the regular protesters was a girl named--get this--Pansy. I thought that was a very appropriate name for a liberal, of any sex.

This "fast track to maturity" didn't just come by being in the Army. It came by virtue of my specific job. It starting coming to me as a result of one of my first classes at Holder Complex at Ft. Knox, Kentucky. In that class we learned how men in tanks die when their tanks get hit. I'll just say, "Not pretty." (I'm sure the Infantry got a similar lesson.) Confronted with your mortality at age 19. It was even more serious two years later when I was in Germany, when the alert siren would go off. No one actually ever said it, but there were times we wondered if this time it was for the real, especially when, to hear the left tell it, Ronaldus Magnus (R.I.P.) doing everything he could to provoke the Warsaw Pact. And even if he were doing precisely that, let me just say that I was all for it and am darn glad to have been even an infinitismal part of his evil plan provoke the Union of Soviet Swallowed Republics.

One other thing I have from the Army--the memory of guys whose names I hope I may never forget. For example: Gary Clark and John D. Sparks (my Drill Sergeants at Ft. Knox), Richard Shevlin, Scott Jeffrey, Levy Rouse, Mark Milne, David Workman, Todd Reed, Jeff Allison (I'm sorry about that I.D. thing), William Peters ("Momma Hen"), Tim Harvey, Luis P. Venero, Jeff Sanders, Pat Stowe, Michael Marsh (a.k.a. "Marsh the Harsh"), Gary Hughes ("Master Blaster"), Pat Simmet ("Fill to this Line"), "Bear" Garner (Viva the "boot"!), Barry Freeman, Billy Ray Bell, Jim Cotton, Gilberto Marrufo, Jeremiah Nieves, Charles Crenshaw, Ray Earl Johnson, Bill Powell, David Christensen, Ray McFarland (Delta Co. 1st Sergeant) and Michael K. Seidl (Delta Co. CO).

And all because I saw Vietnam veterans treated like dog doo-doo by a bunch of smarter- and holier-than-thou college wussies! I don't know who to thank.

Perhaps I was a little too "gung-ho" about it. (Oh, the "band-of-brothers" of it all!) But then, I saw my service as a sort of tribute to those Vietnam vets that I knew and revered as a kid. I didn't want to be a let-down. Whatever. Everyone who enlists (or gets commissioned) has his reasons. At least, to quote Patton again, when I think about where I was at the height of tension between NATO and Warsaw, I won't have to say, "Well, I shoveled [excrement] in Louisiana." (It's not much, but it's something.)

All right. That's what it looks like when I get emotional. Now you know how I feel. Not that it matters to anyone but me. But hooah, anyway.

Tankers lead the way.

Out.

There's a great article by Mark Steyn on the uprising in Paris. (I've linked to it here because I like this site.) Read it, and then you'll know why I ask just where is a Charles Martel when you just really need one, like when you need to stop a Muslim advance like the one that was stopped at Tours, 10 October 732.

Western Europe West just really needs another Charles Martel. Of course, Western Europe also needs people with the courage to be led by a Charles Martel.

(Hubris demands that I broadcast the fact that I knew about Charles, and the Battle of Tours long before I read Steyn's article. I have a degree in history. How could I not have known? To me, Martel ranks just about up there with Patton.)

I suppose someone could ask, since I am a Christian, whether, instead of favoring the torture of our enemies I should rather be praying for them. I would like to offer a longer, more cogent response; but let me just say this for now. I do pray for these Islamifascists. I pray two things: (1) I pray that they will stop "fighting" like pansies and come out in the open. (I will even stipulate that they may name the field and the weapons.) This will, of course, make them easier to kill, bringing the war to an end sooner. (2) I pray that they will give it up, so that we don't have to kill them. This will also result in a speedier end to the war. If they do neither, then they will die. It's not that I like that. It's just the way it must be. They--not us--want this war. And in this war they kill us, or we try to stop them. And if stopping them means killing or (I believe) torturing them for life-saving information, then so be it. They kill us or we stop them. Period.

Von Clausewitz said that all war is simple, but it becomes complex when we allow ourselves to be distracted (probably by liberals) from certain simple truths. There is one very important question in war: Do you want to win? Liberals--the few who might say yes--want to say, "Yes, but not if it means...." Sorry. The question, again, was, "Do you want to win?"

It would be nice if we could fight this war by employing the rules of engagement that civilized nations observe. But the enemy have not left us that choice, nor do they desire to do. What the left seem to want strikes me as the modern equivalent of showing up to a battle on horseback when the enemy shows up in tanks because, after all, that is how civilized people fight and we must never descend to the enemy's level. Such people are more dangerous then the enemy.

So, President Bush is assuring us all that we, the US, do not torture terrorists. It's long past time to ask why we don't, assuming that he's telling the truth.

I no longer care what problem anyone has with not treating terrorists like criminals. I see no problem with holding them in covert prisons or in places like Gitmo. The people who object to this do so because the people we are holding have been convicted of no crime. So, what? I don't think they belong to the class, 'criminal.' So let's not treat them like crminals.

On the other hand, I don't think it serves much purpose to treat terrorists as prisoners of war. Terrorists just do not fit the definition of enemy combatant. They are not soldiers.

So, I do not believe that terrorists ought to be treated like criminals. And I do not believe that they ought to be treated like prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. So, what do I believe about them?

I believe that terrorists belong to a class all their own. And just as we have separate rules governing criminals and prisoners of war, I believe that we are justified in formulating separate rules for terrorists.

They are not merely criminals. And they certainly are not soldiers. They are terrorists. Holding them in a manner in which we would not hold either convicted criminals or enemy soldiers is perfectly consistent with the fact that terrorists are neither. They are sui generis; and the rules for dealing with them must also be sui generis. And I see no difficulty in holding them in covert prisons or torturing them for information which can be used to prevent further terrorist acts--or to find Osama bin Ladin (as if that matters for anything).

Of course, we have a lot of pansies in this country who just think that holding terrorists, whether we torture them or not, just reduces "us" to "their" level. Here's a thought experiment: Let's say you are walking through the woods. As luck would have it you (a liberal) happen to be armed. Suddenly you hear a loud growl; it's a bear. He sees you, and charges. You know (never mind how; you just know) when he gets to where you are he is going to kill you. Do you (a) shoot and kill him before he kills you or (b) let him kill you because killing him would reduce you to the bear's level (i.e., the level of an ignorant, wild animal)? Now, some self-styled intellectual type liberal will quibble me here. "After all, Phil," he'll say, "a bear is an animal. A terrorist--no matter what he's done--is still a human being." If that is what someone would say, I don't know what else we can conclude but that, as far as the liberal is concerned I can (maybe) kill the bear, but I must let the human kill me. Well, I don't see why this is so. And I don't see why I should not get information from a terrorist about other terrorists in any way possible.

Of course, some well-intentioned Christian will say that as a Christian I am constrained to fight differently from my enemy, more ethically, or justly. I agree. I just don't think that torturing terrorists--people who don't mind slicing off a few heads--is unethical, or unjust. The aggressors, as far as I'm concerned, just don't get to complain about how they are comabatted, especially considering the way they "fight". They use our very sense of ethics and justice against us. No one in his right mind gives to his enemy the very means which his enemy needs in order to defeat him. As we used to say when I was in the army, "@#$& that!" Why don't we just give them tanks, and jets and machine guns too.

While the (anti?) American press are letting the world in on our covert prison system we can recall that one year ago today Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh had his throat slit by Mohammed Bouyeri.

Now, why do I link the two? Because the secret prison story is supposed, by some, to raise concerns about what kind of people we are becoming in the war on terror. Mohammed Bouyeri is a fellow traveller with the kind of people we are holding. We have not become anything like him. To kill, or merely to hold prisoner--even to torure--does not make us like "them." Why? Because they are the agressors: we would not be doing whatever it is we are doing but for the attempt to get them before they get us. Mohammed Bouyeri knows what kind of war he is fighting; and he knows how his ilk are fighting it. We are still doing better then our enemies: if we fought the way they do, we would just slit the throat of every Arab-looking person and every Muslim we could find. As it is, we still try to discriminate between those who are participants in the war against the West and those who are trying to live at peace with the West.

Those poor people (sniff) in those awful covert prisons (sniff, sniff) are getting better from us than they would extend to us.

The only way to do any fighting is the way Sean Connery put it in "The Untouchables." Remember? It went something like this: He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.

Or better yet, and a real treat, how about this bit of the "Patton Speech" from the 1970 movie, "Patton" (and based on historical research, by the way):

...When you were kids you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, big league ball player, the toughest boxer. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war, because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans....

Now, we have the finest food, equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. You know, by God I, I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against, by God, I do. We're not just going to shoot the bastards; we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel.

The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do.

Now there's another thing I want you to remember: I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose.

Now, there's one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home. And you may thank God for it. Thirty years from now when you’re sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee, and he asks you: "What did you do in the great World War II?" You won't have to say, "Well, I [wrote excrement for the Washington Post]."

Alright, now you sons-of-bitches, you know how I feel....

That's all.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

Jennifer Garner is taking a little bit of flack for the weight she has put on during her pregnancy. Take as one example, the caption, accompanying this photo of her at Gypsies, Tramps and Theives: "Jennifer Garner is seen here walking into her baby shower. I hope she loses this weight quick!"

I mean this in the best sense in which a happily married man can: I think Jennifer Garner is a beautiful woman. (Note: I did not say, "Hot.") Only someone who has little idea what a woman is for can look at this picture and see only a woman who needs to "lose this weight quick!" Perhaps, to someone like this, a woman is fit for little else but oggling and fantasizing about; she exists for sexual gratification alone--and the viewing public's at that, not only her husband's. And she must lose this weight quickly so that we can all get back to the business of lusting for her, I suppose. (Now, I make no claim to know where this blogger is coming from, but that doesn't affect what I'm presently blogging about in the slightest.)

No one who claims to have any idea what the universe is for can fail to think that Jennifer may never have looked as lovely as she does in this photograph. In the economy of God--whether she believes in Him or not--He has granted to women to bear children. She may not acknowledge it, but this is a photograph of her glorifying the God who made her, as a function of that work we Calvinists call common grace. When you take away her acting career and everything that accompanies it, Jennifer Garner is just a woman. Women, occasionally, get pregnant; sometimes they remain that way until they give birth. When women get pregnant they often put on weight, some of which is a necessity--for the baby. Get over it. Heck, I could almost envy her husband, not because I can't have sex with his wife (God forbid!) but because my wife and I can't have children. (Hey, Jen, have a couple more for my wife and I. Okay?)

Now, guys like this could say two things. First, I'm just being a prude. The first thing to notice about this is that it's ad hominem. It says something about me, not my argument; so it doesn't work as a refutation of anything I've said. More importantly, I am applying an entire worldview here, not merely any prudish notions of "womanhood." Specifically, I am applying the Christian anthropology. What is a woman? Well, like a man, she is an image-bearer of God. Any appropriate appraisal of a woman must begin by taking that fact into account. A woman is a female man. And like a man, a woman exists to glorify God, not to serve as--among other things--eye candy. Besides, I did not become a Christian until I was 23; and the life I led before that--well, let's just say that my eyes have seen so much that it is way too late for me to be prudish about much, if anything.

Second, I'm really making too much of a photo, aren't I? Are there not other more important matters to blog about? After all, at least in this one Jennifer is fully dressed. But I'm not addressing the photo. I'm addressing the attitude that accompanies the photo, an attitude--toward women--that really is important enough to blog about. And it is an attitude which a Calvinist must assert differs only in degree from that of a sexual predator: females exist primarily to pleasure males in some form or fashion. That's what I do here--address issues from a Calvinist-Christian perspective.

I was listening to the Mike Rosen Show yesterday. Rosen was interviewing Dr. Henry I. Miller, of the Hoover Institution, about the spread of the avian flu. During the course of the interview, Rosen asked Dr. Miller about virus mutations and what it says about intelligent design versus evolution. Miller said he thought ID requires a leap of faith. He admitted that someone could say the same for evolution, but(unlike intelligent design) he could see the effects of evolution all around him. His dog, you see, was bred to kill rats. Dogs are probably descended from a common ancestral wolf. So, evolution is not the leap of faith that intelligent design is. (Mike Rosen Show, KOA-AM Radio, 20 October 2005, 3d hour.)

1. To me this is just further evidence of the fact that evolutionists just are not listening to ID people. Dr. Miller can only make such remarks by insisting on using Intelligent Design as a synonymn for Creationism. ID adherents do not deny any and all evolution. Some deny macro-evolution, but not micro-evolution. Some deny neither micro- nor macro-evolution. Unike creationists, some ID adherents are not truly theists. They are deists; as such they deny special (biblical) creation.

2. Notice that he can only see the effects of evolution if, in fact, evolution has taken place. It's unbelievable: he denies that accepting evolution over Intelligent Design is a leap of faith, but in making his case he argues in a circle. Evolution, he says, is not a leap of faith because there is evidence for it. And this evidence for evolution is precisely that we can see the evidence of evolution. (Consider this: if a theist claimed that his belief in God was not a leap of faith because he can see the evidence of God all around him we would have to admit that he, too, was arguing in a circle--or at least begging the question. And I suspect that Mike Rosen would take great joy in pointing that out to our hypothetical theist.)

3. Even if I wanted to grant that his circular argument could count as a refutation of the assertion that evolution requires a leap of faith, I cannot accept his rat-killing dog as evidence of evolution. He says that his dog is evidence of evolution because he was bred to kill rats. But that is artificial selection, not natural selection. When we talk about evolution we normally use it as a short hand for natural selection, which Darwin distinguished from artificial selection. Indeed, artificial selection made natural selection seem stronger. Darwin believed that the fact that men could select for certain traits when breeding animals ought to induce in us the belief that nature, being superior to men, could do an even better job. So artificial selection cannot be treated as synonymous with natural selection. (Yes, as a matter of fact, I have read the Origin of Species.)

So let's take stock of the logical fallacies Dr. Miller employed here: (1) circular reasoning (i.e., the effects of evolution constitute evidence for it); (2) question begging (i.e., there is evidence for evolution in the effects of it, so evolution is not a leap of faith like ID); (3) persuasive definition (i.e., "intelligent design" is "biblical creationsism").

What galls me most about dogmatic evolutionists is not so much that they don't "buy" intelligent design. What bothers me is that they won't be honest about what ID asserts and what it does not assert. What also bothers me is that while they deny ID because of it's inability to be tested, they pretend that natural selection is testable. By definition, natural selection cannot be testable--not even in principle. It isn't even falsifiable in principle. And asserting that it is so, is to engage in philosophy anyway, not science. And enaging in philosophy rather than science is what evolutionists say that ID adherents do.

Congress-woman Cynthia McKinney wants to know: Since the owners of the nursing home where so many people died are being charged with negligent homicide, should not Michael Chertoff also be so charged?

The answer: that depends on (a) whether she thinks he ought to be charged under federal or (Louisiana) state law; and (b) what the law is in these respective jurisdictions.

Louisiana state law (RS 14.32, amended by Acts 1980, No. 708, §1; Acts 1991, No. 864, §1.) defines negligent homicide as

"the killing of a human being by criminal negligence," and criminal negligence as "exist[ing] when, although neither specific nor general criminal intent is present, there is such disregard of the interest of others that the offender's conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful man under like circumstances" (RS 14.12).

Federal law looks a bit trickier. Federal law (18 U.S.C. sec 1111) defines murder as

"the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Any other murder is murder in the second degree."

Federal law, so far as I can tell, does not provide for "negligent homicide." If she wants to see him charged under federal law, McKinney would probably like to see him charged with murder in the first degree, asserting that the deaths in New Orleans resulted from "a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed." Given the difficulty (I hope) of proving "premeditated design", and given McKinney's specific use of the phrase "negligent homicide" I gather that she would see him charged under Louisiana state law. It seems to me that in order to do that, one would have to show (a) that Chertoff's relation to the deceased is relevantly similar to that of the nursing home owners to those who died in their nursing homes and/or (b) that Chertoff had a duty which he failed to perform, no doubt, by"premeditated design," and which failure resulted in the deaths in New Orleans. (And let's be clear: this duty, it seems to me, must be prescribed by state law, which, I think, does not apply to federal agents. So I guess she'll have to turn back to the U.S. Code.) Demonstrating (a) and/or (b) strikes me as bordering on the impossible.

I have a question for McKinney: Given their closer proximity to the events; given their ostensible mis-managment of federal funds; given their failures to declare a state of emergency in a timely manner--are Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco also to be charged with negligent homicide?

As I mentioned in my previous post, takings through use of eminent domain are on the rise. D.C. want a professional baseball park and they are going to get it. Read all about it, here.

A few more examples:

1. In Pittsburgh, the Mayor is threatening to use eminent domain to take more than 60 buildings and 125 local businesses in a historic downtown area to give the property to developer who will build a mall with a Gap and a Tiffany’s. (Dana Berliner, "Pittsburgh’s ‘land grabs’," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 19, 2000.)

2. Boston is using eminent domain to build a new ballpark for the Red Sox. (Brian C. Mooney, "The Mismatch of the Century," The Boston Globe, August 9, 2000, p. B3)

3. In Richfield, Minnesota, a car dealership is being threatened to make way for a new headquarters for the Best Buy electronics chain. (Jim McCartney, "Richfield, Minn., May Start Plans to Get Car Dealership Out, Move Best Buy In," St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 5, 2000.
)

4. And outside of Cincinnati, the city of Norwood wants to condemn a number of small businesses so that a nearby Walgreens can move its current store to a new corner one block away. (Ken Alltucker, "Corner braces for Walgreens; Businesses prepare to be booted," Cincinnnati Enquirer, August 10, 2000, p. C3.)

(Anyone notice a trend here? These things are taking place in states dominated by liberals.)

And you will just love this story.

1. It occurs to me that one bad argument against Miers is the one that goes something like this: Shumer and Reid are for her; therefore I should be against her. It's a logically fallacious argument; specifically, it's ad hominem. It's an argument against her that has nothing to do with her, since it asserts nothing about her.

2. Certain SCOTUS justices think that foreign law should be applied against us--at the Court's sole discretion, of course. But the Consititution says:

"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land..." (U.S. CONST.Art. 6, sec.2).

If this is the case, then what is the state of the union, if the Supreme Court applies against a state the laws of another nation? What do we call it when one nation is made subservient to the will of another nation (as expressed in that nation's laws)?

3. Anyone keeping up with the issue of takings, since Kelo, knows that the number of takings--and the excuses for them--are multiplying. I've been thinking a lot about this and it occurs to me that there is another problem with the logic of Kelo: Kelo applies, today, only to real property. But real property is only one species of property. Once you accept that government may seize real property and transfer it to someone else, what prevents government from doing that to every species of property? Like, say, intellectual property. Patents? Copyrights? Gone!

4. Hillary Clinton, speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus recently, said she attended Sunday School as a child, but must have missed the lesson on taking care of the rich rather than the poor. Yes? Well, I also missed several lessons, apparently. I missed the lesson on patting yourself on the back for taking care of the poor with money that isn't yours, and in fact was stolen from rich people. I also missed the lesson that taking care of the poor is the government's responsibility and not mine.

ATTENTION LIBERALS: Don't tell me that I fulfill my obligation to the poor through actions taken--on my behalf--by my government. You may as well try to tell me that I can fulfill my sexual obligations to my wife through some actions taken--on my behalf--by my government. In both cases, I flatter myself to think I can do a better job! (There is a logical fallacy [i.e., composition] involved in this liberal assertion, but I don't want to trouble them about logic. Many of them just can't--and wont--be bothered with it, anyway.)

Like most conservatives, I would like to have seen either J. Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown be nominated to the Supreme Court. Some conservatives seem to have given up. This is it. They are quitting. Caution! The reason the left has been so successful is that they have been far more patient than conservatives have shown themselves to be. It took almost 60 years for the left to screw this nation up. Did anyone really think that George Bush was going to undo it all in two terms? Or with two supreme court nominees?

So, I'm disappointed. But we need to be honest about a few things.

Many conservatives who are opposed to her nomination are thinking in terms of her "light-weight-ness." She is not an Antonin Scalia. So be it. But she is a bit of a Clarence Thomas, who had little more than a year's experience as a jugde.

It is this lack of judicial experience that seems to concern most conservatives. But look (as I mentioned in my previous post): you don't have to be a judge to be on the Supreme Court; and you don't even have to be a lawyer to be on the Court. Let's ask ourselves what we really need right now.

Think of the problem. Those appointed to the Court have a tendency to drift leftward. Why is this so? I think that Michael Medved summed it up perfectly. Judges drift left because they succumb to the temptation to acquire more power. If you want power and you are a judge you must head left. If we really want to battle judicial activism we do not necessarily need people on the court who are brilliant legal minds or even judges. (And I increasingly find myself wondering if we should even want lawyers. After all, the military are under the control of civilians. Why shouldn't the courts be under the control of non-lawyers? But I digress.)

The left's number one concern, judicially speaking, is to have judges who are willing to arrogate power. It seems to me that our number one concern, as originalists, ought to be having judges who are committed to the proposition that judges say what the law is, not what it should be. In a republic, we must insist that character matters, yes sometimes even more than intellectual preparation (we don't want elites, do we?) or previous judicial experience. We ought to insist, above all else, that all our leaders--including judges--be commited to the principles of federalism. A commitment not to seek to garner more power for oneself is a matter of character. (And with respect to the whole "brillian legal mind" business. There has never been anyone on the left whom I have considered a brilliant mind at all, much less legally.)

I tend to believe that the President has ascertained that Harriet Miers is committed to judical restraint, the proposition that judges say what the law is, not what it should be. I tend also to believe that the President has ascertained whether or not she is the kind of person who would seek to arrogate power to herself. For too long we have asked the wrong questions of our judges. We have asked their views on civil rights, abortion, the environment, gay marriage, and the like. The real question really is whether they can be trusted with even a little power--and be content with having only a little power.

Now, we might all have the nominations we want if we could have a filibuster-proof nominee. For the fact that we do not, blame JOHN ONE-OF-THE-GANG-OF-FOURTEEN MCCAIN.

Of course, there might, as some suggest, have been something to having that fight in the Senate that we might like to see. And it is a fight that must, arguably, finally take place. But what we need right now is someone who, at the very least, would vote with Scalia, Thomas and, hopefully, Roberts. And, if nothing else, the appointment of Harriet Miers would give us something almost as wonderful as victory itself: the chance to live and fight another day, after we have spent a few more years pushing back "the frontiers of ignorance" and arguing the superiority of federalism.

But there's something else. I hold to a worldview, Calvinism, which is not the product primarily of pointy-headed intellectuals. The worldview to which I hold is the development of Scots and Dutch, working people, whose worldview arises from the attempt of working people to apply their fundamental religious principles to all of life. So I have a preference against scholars and academics being leaders; I prefer working people.

No, Harriet Miers is not known to be a constitutional scholar. So what? The Constitution was written to be the fundmental law of a land of working people; it is easily read. No, she is not an academic; and she is not a judge. She has, however, spent her life doing something that I can and do respect tremendously: working for a living, as a corporate attorney, and not taking up space in an ivory tower, and coming to the conclusion that because she has done so she now knows more than we what is good for us and our nation. And I would bet that she has now spent enough time in the working world to be rather unimpressed by the nation's elites--in stark contrast with the likes of Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Mr. Rogers, I mean Breyer.

Sometime ago I was blogging on the Kelo case and I made the comment that "I think we might all be better off if we let six farmers who know how to read just replace the six pin-headed intellectuals who think the reader's job is to assign meaning to the text." ("Is this a republic or an oligarchy," 30 June 2005 here. How gratifying it was today (10 October 2005) to hear Hugh Hewitt say just about the same thing. To be an originalist supreme court judge you only need to know how to read! It is not that complicated.

You know, one does not have to be either a judge or even a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. Hmmmm. The military is under civilian (i.e., non-military) control); perhaps the Supreme Court, and hence all lower courts, should--following the same principle--be under the control of non-lawyers. After all, how republican is it to have a branch of our government populated only by members of an elite profession?

Speaking of judicial activism, it occurs to me that the present argument before the Supreme Court over assisted suicide (Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623), shows a glaring inconstistency on the part of many who think that judges ought to interpret and apply the law, not create it. The brilliance of this inconsistency is revealed by the fact that many of these also believe in states' rights.

Here is a simple fact condition. The sovereign state of Oregon passed a law in 1997 permitting physician assisted suicide. Personally, I find this law repugnant and would be opposed to a similar measure here in Colorado. But the people of Oregon have spoken. That's the end of it.

Now the crux of the matter isn't properly a constitutional one. It is, as Gina Holland puts it, a bit of a turf war. "Former Attorney General John Ashcroft...decided in 2001 to pursue doctors who help people die," reasoning that "[h]astening someone's death...violates federal drug laws." ("Supreme Court showdown begins over assisted suicide,"
5 October 2005 [accessed 6 October 2005], here) As a federalist and republican, I believe federal drug laws are, for the most part, unconstitutional--at least insofar as they would not permit physician-assisted suicide in a free state. ("Free State" -- that's how the Constitution refers to them. [See U.S., CONST. Amend. 2]). Of course I also believe that courts do not really have their self-asserted authority to declare legislative acts void because unconstitutional. The Congress should repeal the law, or at least those provisions which curb the freedom of the citizens of a free state to pass such laws as they think necessary.

According to Holland: "Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's Supreme Court lawyer, has told justices in a filing that 49 states, centuries of tradition and doctors' groups agree that assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with a physicians role as healer" (internal quotation marks deleted). This is irrelevant to the court. What is relevant is this question: What is the law? The Solicitor General offers, arguably, a good rationale against physician assisted suicide, but the proper place for his argument is either the American Medical Association or the (free) State of Oregon. Of course, as Solicitor General, he is arguing the adminstration's case, not his own, but my point remains the same.

The administration lost this same case at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the one in San Francisco), which said that former Attorney General Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide." I really, really, really hate to say this--and I hope it's the last time I'm put in this postion--but I agree with the 9th Circus--I mean Circuit. (Besides, it is not as if the 9th Circus really cares about anything "historically entrusted to state lawmakers" [i.e., states' rights]--except when, as in the present case, those state lawmakers make laws that fit the left leaning views of said 9th Circus.)

I believe one of the reasons for much of the rejection of federalism is simply that some of its loudest proponents retreat from it when it is clear that federalism will result in free states passing laws that they (these pretended federalists) merely happen not to like. In other words, many so-called federalists are federalist when federalism is convenient for them, or comformable to their passions. But federalism means just this: that a state just may pass laws that we personally do not like.

Let's get real. If the Supreme Court ever does overturn Roe, this will not automatically outlaw abortions nation wide. It will return the issue of abortion to where it truly belongs in a federal republic, the free states. This means that your state may outlaw abortion. It also means that your state may permit abortions. If your state permits abortions and you don't like it, what are you going to do? Take it all the way to the Supreme Court?