Take a good look at this picture.

In my last post, I was concern to stress the importance of distinctions, relevant distinctions. The photograph above is technically correct: the US was, in fact built by immigrants. This would be a good point if anyone was talking about stopping all immigration. Maybe some are, but this protestor is not dealing with that particular issue. The protestor is addressing the issue of current proposed legislation that deals with illegal immigration.

This is an exercise in deliberately ignoring an issue. No one is talking about immigration per se; the current proposed legislation is not designed to stop immigration. The issue is illegal immigration. The question is whether the US were built by illegal immigrants. And even if someone wanted to claim that the US were built by illegal immigrants, previous abuse is no argument against proper use.

Many people are trying to immigrate here legally. They are waiting upwards of 18 months for the paperwork to go through. They are following the laws. Those who immigrate illegally decide that the laws don’t apply to them.

Many of those who are opposed to the proposed legislation are liberals, Democrats. It is interesting to watch them favor immigrants who migrate here illegally, while at the same time screaming about an illegal war in Iraq, and a President who, they claim, ignores the law in order to spy on Americans. I don’t want to make any unwarranted assumptions about the protestors, so it would be interesting to see the results of a poll which would ask respondents how they feel about the legality of the war in Iraq and about illegal immigration.

You know, one of the arguments in favor of illegal immigration, when whittled down to essentials is, “It’s good for us.” One of the arguments in favor of invading the sovereign nation of Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein is a great deal similar to that one.

So, I guess one question that I have is why can we permit illegal immigration on the one hand, but not an illegal war? Another question is, “We’re a sovereign nation. Why isn’t it wrong for our neighbors to the south to invade us?” Shouldn’t a sovereign nation be able to define by law who gets in and why?

I used the word invasion. At several of these rallies there have been many more Mexican flags than US flags and people chanting, “México! México! Sí se puede!” (“Mexico! Mexico! Yes we can.”) One would expect that if these rallies were about what is good for the US, by people who wanted to be Americans, there would be no Mexican flags and that the chants would be something like “Queremos ser norte americanos!” (“We want to be Americans!”) As it is they are telling us, “We’re here! We’re Mexicans! Get used to it!” (Recall the leftist reaction to the flying of the US flag on Iraqi soil and compare the disimilar reaction to the flying of the Mexican flag on US soil.)

I live two doors down from an immigrant, a German immigrant. He flies the US flag, not the German flag. He has flown the US flag every day since 9-11-01; and he was the first one on my block to do so. That shamed me.

So let’s not pretend that these immigrants want to participate in our building project. In flying their nation’s flag on our soil and chanting as they did, they have made their loyalties quite clear.

You want to immigrate here? Fine by me, if you will do so legally. Want to fly your nation’s flag? Then go back to that nation you are so proud of and fly that flag on your own soil. For I have no doubt what would happen to me if I vacationed down south and flew my nation’s flag out my hotel window.

Lest anyone think that my motivation is racist: I am the proud descendant of both Viking and Spaniard explorers on my mother’s side. I am the adopted son of a Mexican-American. Viva los estados unidos!

The title of Justice Ginsberg’s speech which I mentioned in my previous post is "’A  decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind’: The Value of a Comparative perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.”  This title is an allusion to the very first sentence of our Declaration of Independence: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (italics added).”

Justice Ginsberg finds some precedent for her “comparative perspective” in the fact that the Declaration expresses a concern for attention to the good opinion of foreign nations.  She would have us to believe that in paying attention to foreign law, and using such to interpret and apply our own, judges do no more than what the Declaration does.  It occurs to me that she overlooks certain distinctions, distinctions which are important and are  made by our very Constitution—the one she has sworn an oath to protect and defend.  I am referring to the distinction between the legistlature and the judiciary, specifically what sort of acts they each may perform, and not perform.

First, she overlooks the fact that the Declaration which evinces this concern for the opinions of other nations, was a legislative act, not a judicial one.  The people, through their representatives in the Continental Congress, expressed this concern and acted upon it by the act of the national Congress.  At the very top of the document one reads: “In Congress, July 4, 1776.”

Second, she seems not to take due note of the fact that the very Declaration which expresses this concern for the opinions of foreign nations, in cataloging the grievances against the King of England, includes among those grievances that, “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation…. (italics added).”  It is interesting (is it not?) that Justice Ginsberg takes a theme from our Declaration of Independence to justify her (and her fellow travelers’) desire to “subject us to…jurisdiction[s] foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws.”  (It is just this sort of selectivity that Justice Scalia criticizes: judges who apply foreign law apply only that body of foreign law which agrees with the position they have already taken!  Here, Justice Ginsberg does it with one of our founding documents!)

Third, she seems unaware of the fact that there is a difference between concern for the opinions of others, and applying the laws of others.  In expressing a concern for “the opinions of mankind” the Declaration does not adjudicate any matter before any court.  It does no more than to express the desire that anyone in the world who may care to know, should know that the reasons behind the revolution were given by the unlawful acts of the King of England.  It is not as if any contrary opinion held by “mankind” would have constituted a veto.  “Mankind” had no vote in the Second Continental Congess.  And I see no reason to give “mankind” a virtual seat on any of our courts.

Fourth, she overlooks the distinction between giving instruction and receiving instruction.  Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy and o’Connor, speak of foreign law as instructive though not binding.  But in publishing the facts of the case “to a candid world” the colonists in revolt against the Crown were not seeking instruction; if anything they were giving it.  “These are the reasons,” they inform the world.  They do not—notice!—turn round and ask the candid world, “What do you think?”  Had that candid world stood up in mass and said in unison, “You really should not revolt!” does anyone suppose that any of the colonists would have said, “Wait fellas.  The world has an opinion on this issue we’re struggling with and though it isn’t binding, we really need to pause and consider it”?

Patrick Henry, I’m certain, would have said, “Screw the world.  I still say, ‘Give me liberty or give me death’!”  (Or words to that effect, I’m sure.)

The same Declaration which Justice Ginsberg applies in error, also claims that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."  We may, from time to time, want to look around the world to see how they address certain issues.  But it isn’t for judges to decide that we, the people, want or need this instruction.  For them to make that decision is to (let me see now, how would Jefferson put it?) “subject us to…jurisdiction[s] foreign to our Constitution” without our consent, as expressed through our representatives in Congress.  Thus another distinction that Justice Ginsberg overlooks: that between representatives and judges, a distinction made very clear in that document which she is supposed (a) to be a master of and (b) to protect and defend; I mean the Constitution, of course.

Tags for this post:  Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Scalia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg,  Ruth Bader Ginsberg,  judges, judicial tyranny, tyrants, constitutional interpretation, originalism, living document, frozen-in-time interpretation, Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry.

Anyone who listens to Laura Ingraham, has heard about the speech (i.e., "’A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind’: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication”) the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg delivered to the Constitutional Court of S. Africa on 7 February, an argument in favor of using foreign law to interpret and apply the US Constitution.  In keeping with my role as the Jack Ryan of the blogosphere (thanks, Mom) I’ve been reading through it.  (It’s my pleasure to read and analyze liberal crap so no one else has to.)  This could take a few days, what with having to stop occasionally and work (just kidding, boss).

Without taking time here to give it the analysis which, in any fair world, it doesn’t deserve, let me display this gem, as good a sampling of this woman’s genuis as surely there ever could be in a work such as this speech.  After taking several pot shots at originalism, framing it as “frozen-in-time interpretation” (and coming very close to  likening opponents of her view to Justice Roger Taney, of Dred Scot infamy) she affirms a position taken in the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations, that "[W]herever the United States acts 'it can only act in accordance with the limitations imposed by the Constitution'" (para. 28 of her speech).  Here’s what’s interesting about that affirmation: her brand of Constitutional interpretation tacitly asserts that there are no limitations imposed by the Constitution!  How could there be?  There can be no limitations imposed by a document which, in order to avoid frozen-in-time interpretations must be treated as if it were living and breathing.  A limitation is a boundary.  A living breathing document specifies no boundaries (whether absolute or relative), lest any insistence upon such boundaries be criticized as a “frozen-in-time interpretation.”  What limitations can be imposed by a document whose meaning may shift at any time, for any reason?

Think of it this way.  You are involved in a boundary dispute with your neighbor to the west of you.  He claims, for reasons you don’t fully comprehend, that he owns the property which you believe you own.  After all, you foolishly think to yourself, I have a deed to the property; and it’s recorded in the county clerk’s office.  Off you and your neighbor go, to court that is, where you are certain that you will win hands down, because, again, you have a deed, a legal document stipulating that you have a right to the property it describes and which is also described in the records at the county clerk’s office.  During the trial you produce the documents which specify your and your neighbor’s respective boundaries, that is the limitations on your and your neighbor’s respective property rights imposed by some legal document(s).  You are, needless to say, shocked to find that the documents which describe the pieces of property owned by you and your neighbor respectively are, according to the judge anyway, not subject to “frozen-in-time interpretations;” because they are living and breathing documents and actually have changed in meaning and, when viewed according to some law in another country, the documents which used to say that you owned your property, now say that your neighbor really owns all the property that you thought was owned by you (and actually was owned by you until the meanings of the relevant documents changed without your knowledge)!

Don’t let the sublties involved in the illustration distract you from seeing that Justice Ginsberg has pulled a barely perceptible trick on you.  She has, in fact contradicted herself: she has said both that a (legal) document with no “frozen-in-time interpretations”  imposes limitations.  Think of it!  A document which ultimately specifies nothing, somehow imposes limitations!  Yes.  On everyone except those who will tell us what those limitations are.  We used to call such people tyrants.

Tags for this post:  Laura Ingraham, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Ruth Bader Ginsberg,  judges, judicial tyranny, tyrants, constitutional interpretation, originalism, living document, frozen-in-time interpretation

So, Senator Feingold wants to censure the President for “domestic spying” (see, Ed O’Keefe, “Feingold Calls for Bush’s Censure,” here).

Even if it’s true—and I don’t claim to know or understand the applicable law, or even all of the relevant facts—consider that a censure is a punitive act.  (Representative Hyde explained this during President Clinton’s impeachment.)  You cannot have a punitive act in this country, without a trial of the facts.  It is wrong for Senator Feingold to initiate a punitive measure without a trial.  And there cannot be a trial, in this case, without an impeachment.  Here’s why: you cannot censure someone except for some wrong-doing.  And the wrong-doing must first be proved.  At this point, the President has been accused of wrong-doing.  And the President has admitted to eaves-dropping; but he has not admitted to any wrong-doing.  Therefore, it must be proved before competent authority that wrong-doing has in fact taken place.  You simply cannot, and ought not to be, punished for being accused of wrong-doing.

So far, all we have on all this amounts to: (1) the accusation of wrong-doing; (2) assertions that the evidence (including statements by the Administration) demonstrates wrong-doing; (3) assertions that this evidence is incontrovertible.  All of this, is, at best the opening statement of the prosecution at trial.  It sure as heck shouldn’t count as verdict!

Oh, one more thing.  Typically, a censure is the act of a body of one of its members.  The President, while not above the law, is not a member of the Senate.

Tags:  Russ Feingold, domestic spying, censure Bush, impeach Bush

I am moved by a recent Michael Medved program to compile, impromptu, a short list of the greatest moderates of recent history. You see, several callers expressed dismay that there are no moderates in much of American politics. So, here it is, my short list of Great Moderates.

1. Neville Chamberlain is the first person I normally think of when it comes to great moderates. And everyone knows who he is, right? Long after Churchill is forgotten, people will remember Chamberlain whose political legacy is defined by his dealings with and appeasment of Nazi Germany. He signed the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler in 1938 which effectively allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland, leaving Czechoslovakia vulnerable to German attack, one of the steps on the road to World War II. Chamberlain remained in office during the Phoney War, from September 1939 to May 1940, but resigned the premiership immediately after Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Sure, he failed to act to avert war, a war which ultimately became a world-wide war; but—and this is important—he brought peace in his time. Of course, his time didn’t last very long. (Hmmmm. On the other hand, he wasn’t very moderate about avoiding war, at any cost, including not acting to enforce the terms of an international treaty violated by Adolph Hitler. Kind of like the UN.) Long after Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, and Roosevelt are fogotten, the world will remember Neville Chamberlain.

2. Arlen Spectre. Who could be more moderate than a Republican who is pro-choice on the abortion issue? This guy is a Republican senator from a largely liberal state. He must work overtime trying not to piss off a sufficient number of both Democrats and Republicans in order to continue to be elected. Hmmmm. On the other hand, he isn’t moderate on the abortion issue. How could one be?

3. How about Joe Leiberman?

Oh, never mind.

This is a waste of time. Moderation for the sake of moderation is ridiculous. I think it was C. S. Lewis who said, “You can’t be a good egg all your life. Sooner or later you must hatch or rot.” Moderates are people who apparently stand for nothing except not standing for anything, or not pissing anyone off. In other words, they are people without commitments; or, if they have commitments, have not the courage of their convictions. More to the point: they are pussilanimous whimps.

Tags: Michael Medved, Neville Chamerlain, Arlen Specter, Joseph Leiberman, moderates, Munich Agreement, Sudentenland, Phoney War

A reader of this blog (thanks, for reading) writes:

“Reading Philologous' latest on Dubai I thought I would mention an interesting tidbit I heard yesterday. Do you know that Democratic (former) Senator Daschle represents Dubai in some way? Pres Clinton was advising them for a $fee & there was another Democrat named but can't remember right now. You don't think the Bush Administration was "set up" by these guys do you? They might have guessed what the reaction of Republicans would be. The fact that Hillary says she didn't know Bill was involved, makes a person really skeptical as she isn't that stupid, or is she? Just some facts I heard & know that Philologous knows how to dig further into it.

Also there are two companies looking into buying the ports deal now but don't know if they have the capital to do it. But there is one that does that someone mentioned & that would be the former company of VP Cheney. Wouldn't that be a "hoot" if that came about? How could Congress veto that American company that came to the rescue?”

I’ve done a bit of searching and what I have found is that, in fact, Daschle does not represent Dubai Ports World.  The Daschle connection is this: he works for the  Alston & Bird lobbying and law firm in Washington, D.C., which he joined in 2005 at  Bob Dole's inviation.  It is, in fact, Bob Dole, who represents DPW.  (For more on this read this article, "White House hastens to brief lawmakers on ports deal," by Keith Koffler.)

I too have read and heard that President Clinton has received money from Dubai.  However, what I have found is that this may have little or nothing to do with the ports deal.  First, the money has come from the UAE’s leaders, not from the executives at Dubai Ports World.  (Yes, DPW is a government-owned entity.  But look, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a government-owned entity; that doesn’t mean that President Bush, or even Karl Rove, approves the programming.)  Second, the money was given as a function of a relationship which has existed between the former President and the UAE and which may have nothing to do with any ports anywhere in the world.  It seems to have more to do with the American Universtity in Dubai.  (For more on this, read this article.)

So, no, I don’t think that the Administration was set up.  It is not as if any and every sale of any and every bit of property (and a port terminal is property) goes across the President’s desk and awaits his personal approval and, on at least this occasion, he got caught.  What I do think happened is that opportunists of both Democratic and Republican stripe took advantage of an opportunity to prey upon people’s fears, and, when accused of this, to blame the President for creating those fears in the first place, as if he has always encouraged us to fear every Muslim nation, never asserting that there are actually peace-loving Muslims in the world.  Hasn’t he been chided for his oft-repeated assertion that Islam is a religion of peace?  Indeed, my friends, The Red Sky Brothers, are constant in mocking this assertion.  I’m sure that we may color them sceptical of the President’s assertions.  BUT…the fact that he has made these assertions goes, I think, a long way toward demonstrating that the President has not, in fact, been urging in us a fear of every Muslim nation.

Don’t get me wrong: I wish there was a way to implicate the Clintons (and Daschle) in all this.  But it just doesn’t seem to be true.

Finally, I for one would not mind seeing a US company owning these port terminals, even if it’s Halliburton.  Operating port terminals is not a business engaged in by everyone.  Besides even Charles Shumer has indicated that he has no objections to the port terminals being owned by Halliburton.  That’s generous of him, isn’t it,  that he has no objection to a company owning something?

This post is a test.  If you came to read an actual post, just scroll down.  Thank you.  Alternatively, you could go here, since the post below links to it anyway.

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.