Good Muslim, Bad Muslim

An essay by Robert Spencer, "Taking Truth about Jihad Terrorism to the People." And a related post.

It's Time for Change in the Supreme Court

Our nation's High Court needs a change badly. Ann Coulter writes "Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion" on this.

Same-Sex Marriage Legalized in Spain

Europe is getting ever darker and filthier. I think President Zapatero is right when he said, "We were not the first but I am sure we will not be the last." Others will follow and the degeneration of Europe will continue because of this precedence. Spain is heading towards its own destruction. First, its people dispatched its conservative leader and elected Zapatero. As if that wasn't enough of a blunder, it withdrew from the Coalition from Iraq because of the strong liberal push from within. Meanwhile, the nation is falling apart for its inability to deal with Al Qaeda and the Basque Separatist Movement, exacerbated by its own conflicting liberal ideology. Now this. I only hope that a similar domino effect will not take place in the US from outside influence of its errant neighbor, Canada and the degenerate liberals within. May we look to Spain as a disturbing example of what to avoid.

A Patriotic Widow

Here is an honorable widow. Despite losing her husband in the war in Iraq, she understands what needs to be done. She understands the meaning of honor and sacrifice. Mrs. Owen understands that the just cause of this war and the goal of freedom are greater the loss of her husband and 1700+ others. What an honorable and brave woman she is.

In contrast to this, I posted an article here about an irrational mother.

What's Wrong with the People in Our Government?

It's a brilliant and pointed article by Peggy Noonan. "Conceit of Government: Why are our politicians so full of themselves?" She is right again.

"Oh Say Can You See"

From The Belmont Club Blog

Michael Ignatieff writes in the New York Times about a mission whose outcome is not yet known. It is the American mission to spread the Jeffersonian dream of freedom to the world. He asks two questions: first, whether any set of flawed human beings can set out upon a such a missionary enterprise without being guilty of self-righteousness; second, whether the Americans are willing to pay the high price for this endeavor. (Hat tip: MW)

John F. Kennedy echoed Jefferson when, in a speech in 1961, he said that the spread of freedom abroad was powered by ''the force of right and reason''; but, he went on, in a sober and pragmatic vein, ''reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men.'' The contrast between Kennedy and the current incumbent of the White House is striking. Until George W. Bush, no American president -- not even Franklin Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson -- actually risked his presidency on the premise that Jefferson might be right. But this gambler from Texas has bet his place in history on the proposition ... If democracy plants itself in Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East, Bush will be remembered as a plain-speaking visionary. If Iraq fails, it will be his Vietnam, and nothing else will matter much about his time in office.

Although Ignatieff plainly wants to see freedom spread, one of the sources of his unease is the role of God, or something like it, in the missionary endeavor. How much better it would be, he seems to ask, if any claims to universality or transcendence could be kept out it. Then we could bring the Europeans and the Canadians in on it.

From the era of F.D.R. to the era of John Kennedy, liberal and progressive foreigners used to look to America for inspiration. ... For a complex set of reasons, American democracy has ceased to be the inspiration it was. This is partly because of the religious turn in American conservatism, which awakens incomprehension in the largely secular politics of America's democratic allies. ... Ask the Canadians why they aren't joining the American crusade to spread democracy, and you get this from their government's recent foreign-policy review: ''Canadians hold their values dear, but are not keen to see them imposed on others. This is not the Canadian way.'' One reason it is not the Canadian way is that when American presidents speak of liberty as God's plan for mankind, even God-fearing Canadians wonder when God began disclosing his plan to presidents. ...

Yet for all of that, Ignatieff recognizes the power of the idea that Liberals have ceded to the Conservatives. But he fails to ask himself what precisely it was about the Conservative embrace of the Jeffersonian proclamation that sets it apart from the Liberal acceptance at arms-length as exemplified by John Kennedy. He doesn't convincingly explain why Reagan should discover in liberty something which John Kennedy had missed; why George W. Bush should find in it something which Bill Clinton did not.

It was Reagan who began the realignment of American politics, making the Republicans into internationalist Jeffersonians ... Faced with the Republican embrace of Jeffersonian ambitions for America abroad, liberals chose retreat or scorn. Bill Clinton -- who took reluctant risks to defend freedom in Bosnia and Kosovo -- partly arrested this retreat, yet since his administration, the withdrawal of American liberalism from the defense and promotion of freedom overseas has been startling. The Michael Moore-style left conquered the Democratic Party's heart; now the view was that America's only guiding interest overseas was furthering the interests of Halliburton and Exxon. The relentless emphasis on the hidden role of oil makes the promotion of democracy seem like a devious cover or lame excuse. The unseen cost of this pseudo-Marxist realism is that it disconnected the Democratic Party from the patriotic idealism of the very electorate it sought to persuade.

One possibility is that Reagan and Bush possessed a faith in the universality of human liberty that Kennedy and Clinton did not. It was one thing to coldly deduce that China could be reached by sailing westward from Europe, but it took Columbus to stake one's fate on it. Ignatieff sees this, but cannot bring himself to admit it. Missionary endeavors require a kind of faith. A kind of action in advance of the result. The Canadians and Europeans would not come on those terms and so we should not be surprised that they have not come at all.

John Kerry's presidential campaign could not overcome liberal America's fatal incapacity to connect to the common faith of the American electorate in the Jeffersonian ideal. Instead he ran as the prudent, risk-avoiding realist in 2004 -- despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that he had fought in Vietnam. Kerry's caution was bred in the Mekong. The danger and death he encountered gave him some good reasons to prefer realism to idealism, and risk avoidance to hubris. Faced with a rival who proclaimed that freedom was not just America's gift to mankind but God's gift to the world, it was understandable that Kerry would seek to emphasize how complex reality was, how resistant to American purposes it might be and how high the price of American dreams could prove. As it turned out, the American electorate seemed to know only too well how high the price was in Iraq, and it still chose the gambler over the realist. In 2004, the Jefferson dream won decisively over American prudence.

Ignatieff's oddest choice of words is to characterize Kerry as a realist and George Bush as a gambler, as if there were any certainty to be derived from sitting back passively, as he accuses the Liberals of doing; as if there were any recklessness to warring on enemies who had warred on you. "The real truth about Iraq is that we just don't know -- yet -- whether the dream will do its work this time. This is the somber question that hangs unanswered as Americans approach this Fourth of July." But that's what freedom is: the ability to ask a question and not be afraid of the answer.

Sign of A Downfall

Canada is heading down the wrong direction that will lead to its downfall.

Religious Artifacts in Government Buildings

These should stand as a testimony of this country's religious foundation as reflected by its Founding Fathers. May neither Supreme Court Justices nor the ACLU ever take that away from it.

A Reason to Engage Democrats

Here is one reason why engaging Democrats is becoming more important. The Democratic constituents are fed by power-hungry political machine who cares not for integrity. They resort to lies just to win votes. They cannot let their ideology stand on its own in the marketplace of ideas for they know it will not stand. So, they use lies in order to paint an ugly picture of the opposition instead of paint a more desireable picture of themselves. That's downright shameful.

Chinese dragon awakens

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Conservatives Are Winning!

And worldwide, too! I am very encouraged by this. I hope that this isn't simply a swing to an opposite direction out of discontentment or desire for change no matter what the change may be. I really hope that this is a sign of people waking up to reality after tasting the bitterness and hypocrisy of liberalism. Fight on conservatives! It's working.

Madonna Gone Mad?

It doesn't take a genius to see that this is nonsensical. Then again, it doesn't take a genius to realize that Kaballah is nothing but a mystic cult. It does, however, make Madonna a nonsensical cultist.

Saddam Hussein's New Novel

Islam is not a peaceful religion. Good Muslims read the Quran and believe it. Those who do, behave as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden do and possess their worldview and opinion of non-Muslims. They spout hate, incite war, and murder innocent people.

The Genius of Woody Allen

What a tragic title. And so is the title of this article in Der Spiegel, "'Nothing Pleases Me More than Being Thought of as a European Filmmaker.'" It seems that Woodly Allen is joining an increasing number of American actors and filmmakers who are ashamed of being Americans but not too ashamed of the fame and fortune they've acquired and made possible by the freedom and free market capitalism that America provides.

Here is a brilliant quote from Allen. "There is nothing really redeeming about tragedy. Tragedy is tragic...."

Oh, really? How's that?

Life maybe sad and full of tragedy, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's meaningless.

Lilek's comment.

"TO: Our Chinese monitor"

An article in WORLD magazine by Gene Edward Veith. What a beautiful piece.

Kranish Makes a Concession

Yes, I consider this a concession because of Kranish's tie to John Kerry and his opinion of him and Pres. Bush. Kerry should've been less quick to call Bush an "idiot." He isn't the genious he and his supporters think he is.

Sen. Pelosi to the Rescue -- Not!

I can see it in my mind. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, with her face red, stomps in rage of the insensitivity of Karl Rove's accusation of her ilks. Apparently, she is still bitter of the success of the throngs of brave American people who demanded apology from the Sen. Dick "I want to hug all the terrorists" Durbin. Pelosi refused to denounce Sen. Durbin for his comment equating the treatment of the prisoners in Gitmo to that of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. We all know what Sen. Pelosi is saying. It's nothing but rhetoric. She has nothing to offer but her deep hatred and bitterness towards the Bush Administration.

And others jumped in the bandwagon. Ooh. Are you (raving mad liberals) reeling with emotional hurt stemming from Mr. Rove's comment? Do you need psychological therapy, too?

Karl Rove Said It Best

Karl Rove said the following last night at a fundraiser for the Conservative Party of New York State in Manhattan regarding the decline in liberalism in politics.

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

and

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

And no more need I say.

"Prophet of Decline"

As a Christian, I find it difficult to give props to an atheist. More often than not, their philosophy and epistemology which shape their worldview are skewed and contradictory. Every once in a while, I encounter or read about an atheist who possesses admirable wisdom and knowledge -- someone who makes me wonder why he or she chooses to reject God and who challenges me to engage atheists with more grace, savvy, and diplomacy. Oriana Fallaci is such a person.

"A nation of deists"

"The dominant American religion is a far cry from Christianity | by Gene Edward Veith

Sometimes recognizing a problem requires finding the right words to name it. Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton have coined a phrase that describes perfectly the dominant American religion: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

Those authors are researchers with the National Study of Youth and Religion at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) and have written up their findings in a new book: Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford University Press).

After interviewing over 3,000 teenagers, the social scientists summed up their beliefs:

(1) 'A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.'

(2) 'God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.'

(3) 'The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.'

(4) 'God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.'

(5) 'Good people go to heaven when they die.'

Even these secular researchers recognized that this creed is a far cry from Christianity, with no place for sin, judgment, salvation, or Christ. Instead, most teenagers believe in a combination of works righteousness, religion as psychological well-being, and a distant non-interfering god. Or, to use a technical term, 'Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.'

Ironically, many of these young deists are active in their churches. 'Most religious teenagers either do not really comprehend what their own religious traditions say they are supposed to believe,' conclude Mr. Smith and Ms. Denton, 'or they do understand it and simply do not care to believe it.'

Another possibility is that they have learned what their churches are teaching all too well. It is not just teenagers who are moralistic therapeutic deists. This describes the beliefs of many adults too, and even what is taught in many supposedly evangelical churches.

Mr. Smith and Ms. Denton recognize this. MTD has become the 'dominant civil religion.' And it is 'colonizing' American Christianity. To the point, these secular scholars conclude, 'a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but is rather substantially morphed into Christianity's misbegotten step-cousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.'

Consider how many Christian publications, sermons, and teachings are nothing but moralism. Sometimes morality is reduced to the simplistic MTD commandment 'be nice,' though often real morals are inculcated. But the common assumption is that being good is easy, just a matter of knowing what one should do and trying harder. The biblical truth that bad behavior is a manifestation of sin, a depravity that inheres in our fallen nature, is skimmed over. And so is the solution to sin: a life-changing faith in Jesus Christ.

Consider how many Christian publications, sermons, and teachings are primarily therapeutic. It is true that Christ can solve many of our problems. But much that passes for Christian teaching says nothing about Christ. Instead, it consists of pop psychology, self-help platitudes, and the power of positive thinking.

Consider how many Christian publications, sermons, and teachings talk about God in a generic way, but say nothing about the Father, who created and still sustains the world; the Son, who became Incarnate in this world to win our salvation; and the Holy Spirit, who works through the Word of God to bring us to faith.

Christianity is about grace, not moralism; changing lives, not making people feel better about themselves; the God made flesh, not an uninvolved deity. And that is better news than Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. •"

Copyright 2005 © WORLD Magazine
June 25, 2005, Vol. 20, No. 25

Interview with Michael Medved by Marvin Olasky

Turning right.

Meanwhile, the Episcopalian leaders choose to live in the dark

In relation to my previous posting on Pope Benedict's chastisement of Europe, the US Episcopal church leaders on the other hand have followed the ways of secular Europe. I am surprised that the worldwide Anglican Church has not split. It would do the conservative wing of the Anglican Church much good to separate itself from the US Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada if they want their faithful to continue to fill and pews. These shameful and regrettable decisions and behaviors of the above said church leaders are hurting the Church in general.

Church can never accept abortion - Pope's book

Pope Benedict gets it.

Democracy in Iran

No matter what the presidential candidates and the Mullah say about the democracy in Iran, it is a sham. Until the people are really allowed to elect their leaders then it isn't a democracy. The Iranian youths certainly understand that and that is a good thing for the country, not to mention the US. At some point, all the current leaders will expire. What we should do is continue to pump money in Iran to support the current pro-democratic movements, institutions, and leaders. The young people of Iran want to see the day when democracy is a reality.

"An H.O.T. Tax Would Let the Liberals Pay Until They Stop Hurting"

Yet another liberal inconsistency.

***

by Deroy Murdock

President Bush’s bipartisan Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform should propose a measure to assist a neglected segment of society: the avowedly under-taxed. The H.O.T. Tax would give those who think their levies are too low the ability to pay the steeper tax bills they say they deserve. This is the truly compassionate thing to do.

The H.O.T., or Higher-rate Optional Tax, would offer relief to powerful Democrats and wealthy liberals who cannot stand it when Republicans cut their taxes. Look how lowering taxes has raised the blood pressure of these Americans:

*“I don’t need a tax cut,” Senator Frank Lautenberg (D – N.J.) announced last October 8 on the Senate floor. “It will not do me any more good. I can’t buy more. I can’t eat any more. I can’t do more, and I want it distributed among the ordinary people who work every day.”

*“If you think it’s good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them [the GOP],” President Bill Clinton told the Democratic Convention last July 26.

*“I am a traitor to my class,” actor Paul Newman said July 8. “I think that tax cuts for wealthy thugs like me are borderline criminal. I live very high off the hog.”

*“I want no tax cuts, and want to pay MY FULL SHARE of taxes to support the public good,” Oregonian Harry Demarest stated on the website of United for a Fair Economy, an anti-tax-cut group co-founded by Chuck Collins, heir to the Oscar Meyer wiener fortune.

The H.O.T. Tax would ease these statists’ pain. The IRS simply would add a small box to the 1040 tax form beside these words:

“If you believe you should be taxed at a rate above that assigned to your income bracket, please indicate here the higher rate you prefer. Kindly calculate your tax liability, and send it in.”

With that easy step, congressional liberals and residents of Malibu and Martha’s Vineyard no longer would have to keep the tax cuts conservatives keep throwing their way. Instead, they could send 50, 75, or even 99 percent of their incomes to Washington so the GOP Congress and President Bush can spend it even better than they can.

While this reform would increase taxpayer choice, it might generate little revenue. Arkansas, Massachusetts, and Virginia taxpayers already may pay above and beyond their usual top rates, though few do this.

When Massachusetts cut its top tax rate to 5.3 percent in 2001, it let guilty liberals pay the old 5.85 percent rate. According to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, as of June 15, only 930 taxpayers opted to do so on their 2004 returns, generating an extra $246,505. In 2002, 2,215 taxpayers paid the higher rate, yielding $341,829. Among 3,218,572 returns filed in 2003, only 1,488 (or 0.046 percent) paid the voluntary higher rate, adding $209,216 to state coffers.

Pro-tax U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D – Mass.) spurned the higher rate that year. “No, I won’t” pay some $800 extra, Frank told Boston radio host Howie Carr in April 2003.

“I don’t trust the legislative leadership and Gov. [Mitt] Romney to make the right decisions, so I’ll donate the money myself.” How inspiring to see a confirmed progressive like Barney Frank choose private charity over public assistance.

“Americans recognize, as Congressman Frank also figured out, that government doesn’t spend its money wisely as is and already takes too much of what we earn,” National Taxpayers Union president John Berthoud observes.

Senator John Kerry (D – Mass.) sailed into hot water last year when tax returns revealed that he also paid the Bay State’s lower tax rate. Kerry thus enjoyed state tax cuts akin to the federal tax reductions he excoriated on the campaign trail. Then again, perhaps he intended to pay Massachusetts’ higher rate, but his calculator slid off his yacht.

Beneficent supply-siders should introduce the H.O.T. Tax in Congress even before the tax-reform commission’s July 31 reporting deadline. American liberals should be given the earliest opportunity to stop resisting tax relief and send the Treasury as much of their own money as their bleeding hearts desire.

Lion in Winter

Graham Says NYC Revival Probably His Last.

Liberal Losers Conduct a Fool's Hearing

Liberals keep contradicting themselves.

"Losing Their Heads Over Gitmo"

Ann Coulter manages to be funny and poignant at the same time.

"Psychotherapy for Art"

These folks get it.

***

And, on a related note, here is an excerpt from Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s article on the influence of the Catholic Church in the formation of Western Civilization:

"Instead of the Gothic cathedral and the Pieta, consider what modern Europe -- too sophisticated for Christianity, you understand -- has to show for itself. In 1917, the French artist Marcel Duchamp shocked the art world when he signed a man's urinal and placed it on display as a work of art. A poll of 500 art experts in 2004 yielded Duchamp's Fountain as the single most influential work of modern art. (All too often, art experts spend their time laughing at the rest of us for not being sophisticated enough to appreciate the likes of Duchamp.)

Duchamp was a formative influence on London-based artist Tracey Emin (b. 1963). Emin's My Bed, which was nominated for the prestigious Turner Prize, consisted of an unmade bed complete with bottles of vodka, used prophylactics, and bloodied undergarments. While on display at the Tate Gallery in 1999, the bed was vandalized by two nude men who proceeded to jump on it and drink the vodka. The world of modern art being what it is, everyone at the gallery applauded, assuming that the vandalism was part of the show.

Emin's more notorious work, called Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963-95, consists of a tent on which are sewn the names of everyone she has slept with over the course of her life. (She includes not only her sexual partners but also family members from her childhood, as well as her two aborted children.) Emin is now employed as a professor at the European Graduate School.

Europe can also boast a cultural milieu that has brought forth a generation too self-absorbed even to be bothered to reproduce itself at replacement level. There, in the most literal sense of the term, is a dying civilization."

Oh, how sophisticated have we become.

Democrats Just Can't Stop Embarrassing Themselves

The Democrats must be getting desperate. It's not enough that Howard Dean has been embarrassing the Party, now Sen. Durbin is helping him. I'm not complaining. In the process of doing so, they inadvertently are increasing the Republican base. Lacking any substantial political stance, they become attack dogs who growl at everything the Bush Administration is doing -- well or not.

Earlier, I wrote about Sean Penn's journalistic visit to Iran. Well, Mr. Penn, here is a target audience for your "It's unproductive" speech. You can inform Sen. Durbin that what he and many other Democratic Congressmen are doing are not productive. I don't have any proof right now, but we shall see in the next election whose Party is going to win the votes. Say "no" to Gitmo. Say "no" to judiciary candidates. Say "no" to UN representative candidate. But say "yes" to filibuster. That's just too bad and shameful, not to mention unproductive.

Sean Penn in Iran

I read an article on Editor and Publisher about Sean Penn's interview with one of the 8 candidates of the upcoming Irani presidential election. There was nothing really interesting about the article or anything compelling about what Sean Penn is doing in Iran. The election itself is a joke. Unlike what the above said candidate said re: the Irani election being more democratic than an American election based on the number of candidates on the ballot, those candidates are actually hand picked and approved by the government. No matter who wins, the Mullah will be happy. It doesn't sound democratic to me. Anyway, back to the article. I found these paragraphs to be a bit of a farce.

"The actor caused a stir when he attended Friday prayers last week and heard the 'Death to America' chants. But on a visit to Iran's Film Museum in Tehran this week he told a student that those oft-heard chants hurt Iran-U.S. relations.

'I understand the nature of where it comes from and what its intention is,' he said. 'But I don't think it's productive because I think the message goes to the American people and it is interpreted very literally.'"

"But I don't think it's productive?" What does that mean? I think it depends on what one thinks being productive means. In a country whose government does not want democracy and rejects the western value of freedom, I'm not so sure it's unproductive to chant "Death to America." After all, they mean it. Anyone aware of the history of relationship between Iran and America understands that they would annihilate us if they could. We are satan to them. To interpret the chant as anything less than literal would be foolish. Even if one isn't familiar with the relationship I mentioned, how else should one interpret the statement? So, what does Mr. Penn prefer these Iranis do that would be more productive? I think I know the answer to this. Start coddling up with the American liberals and the media. The chants aren't helping the Left with their liberal cause. If this continues, the media would have to edit most of the stuff they capture in Iran and would have nothing to report that would further their bias. Stop the chanting and start courting the American Left who are ready to welcome them with open arms. Mr. Penn just can't stand the thought that the Bush Administration might be right about Iran or anything and may be doing good things to protect the American people from those who desire nothing more than to annihilate them.

"How Liberals Misuse Class -- Part III"

by Thomas Sowell

Posted Jun 15, 2005

"Sometimes it seems as if liberals have a genius for producing an unending stream of ideas that are counterproductive for the poor, whom they claim to be helping. Few of these notions are more counterproductive than the idea of 'menial work' or 'dead-end jobs.'

Think about it: Why do employers pay people to do 'menial' work? Because the work has to be done. What useful purpose is served by stigmatizing work that someone is going to have to do anyway?

Is emptying bed pans in a hospital menial work? What would happen if bed pans didn't get emptied? Let people stop emptying bed pans for a month and there would be bigger problems than if sociologists stopped working for a year.

Having someone who can come into a home to clean and cook and do minor chores around the house can be a godsend to someone who is an invalid or who is suffering the infirmities of age -- and who does not want to be put into an institution. Someone who can be trusted to take care of small children is likewise a treasure.

Many people who do these kinds of jobs do not have the education, skills or experience to do more complex kinds of work. Yet they can make a real contribution to society while earning money that keeps them off welfare.

Many low-level jobs are called 'dead-end jobs' by liberal intellectuals because these jobs have no promotions ladder. But it is superficial beyond words to say that this means that people in such jobs have no prospect of rising economically.

Many people at all levels of society, including the richest, have at some point or other worked at jobs that had no promotions ladder, so-called 'dead-end jobs.' The founder of the NBC network began work as a teenager hawking newspapers on the streets. Billionaire Ross Perot began with a paper route.

You don't get promoted from such jobs. You use the experience, initiative, and discipline that you develop in such work to move on to something else that may be wholly different. People who start out flipping hamburgers at McDonald's seldom stay there for a full year, much less for life.

Dead-end jobs are the kinds of jobs I have had all my life. But, even though I started out delivering groceries in Harlem, I don't deliver groceries there any more. I moved on to other jobs -- most of which have not had any promotions ladders.

My only official promotion in more than half a century of working was from associate professor to full professor at UCLA. But that was really just a pay increase, rather than a real promotion, because associate professors and full professors do the same work.

Notions of menial jobs and dead-end jobs may be just shallow misconceptions among the intelligentsia but they are a deadly counterproductive message to the poor. Refusing to get on the bottom rung of the ladder usually means losing your chance to move up the ladder.

Welfare can give you money but it cannot give you job experience that will move you ahead economically. Selling drugs on the streets can get you more money than welfare but it cannot give you experience that you can put on a job application. And if you decide to sell drugs all your life, that life can be very short.

Back around the time of the First World War, a young black man named Paul Williams studied architecture and then accepted a job as an office boy at an architectural firm. He agreed to work for no pay, though after he showed up the company decided to pay him something, after all.

What they paid him would probably be dismissed today as 'chump change.' But what Paul Williams wanted from that company was knowledge and experience, more so than money.

He went on to create his own architectural company, designing everything from churches and banks to mansions for movie stars -- and contributing to the design of the theme building at Los Angeles International Airport.

The real chumps are those who refuse to start at the bottom for 'chump change.' Liberals who encourage such attitudes may think of themselves as friends of the poor but they do more harm than enemies."

Hillary A Liar?

One would have to be extremely deceived or in denial to make the claim that the MSM are leaning in favor of the conservatives and the Republicans these days. Which one is Hillary?

She can make the claim that the Media are bowing to the Republicans, which in itself is a ridiculous claim, but when given the opportunity, she shuts the Media out. What gives?

This falls under the Outright Despicable category

Why wasn't this covered by MSM?

***

And here is an article by Elizabeth Kantor of Human Events Conservative Booknotes.

You Can Take the Abortionist Out of the Back Alley . . .

Posted Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:51:43 PM

You can take the abortionist out of the back alley, but can you take the back alley out of the abortionist?

Legalization of abortion in America was promoted in the 1960s and '70s with the argument that bringing it into reputable doctors' offices would keep women safe from the unprofessional "abortion butchers" plying their trade in back alleys. And legal abortion continues to be defended the same way today. The theory is that women need to be protected from the unscrupulous predators who would victimize them in their desperation, if abortion were outlawed. Conservative columnist Suzanne Fields summed up this strain of pro-choice argumentation thus:

". . . abortion is legal, and likely to remain that way in the first trimester because the majority of Americans want it that way. That doesn't make it right, but it does observe the reality. Many in this majority, probably most, would never have an abortion themselves, but they know about the back-alley abortions in the bad old days when women, such as a married aunt of mine, died at the hands of abortion butchers who prospered outside the law in the way bootleggers did during Prohibition."

Modern manufacturers and distributors of alcohol are a real improvement on Prohibition-era bootleggers like Al Capone. But there are some businesses that, no matter how you try to mainstream them, don't seem to clean up all that well. They never really become respectable. Instead, they tend to drag the mainstream culture down toward their own level.

Pornography is one of those industries. It's legal, it's everywhere, and it's overwhelming our whole culture's standards, as Ben Shapiro handily demonstrates in Porn Generation. But it still isn't the kind of career you want to talk about with your neighbors -- or even your own children. (See, for example, this Wired story about the how "the porn webmaster community" grapples with balancing career and family life.)

And abortion is another. Legalizing abortion didn't magically turn regular doctors into abortionists, or abortionists into regular doctors. Of course, many doctors were corrupted -- some in small ways, some spectacularly -- by the opportunities opened up to them by legal abortion. That kind of corruption is bound to happen in any situation where atrocities are suddenly no longer forbidden, and suddenly profitable. But while, thank heavens, the whole medical profession didn't sink to the level of the "abortion butcher," neither did the doctors now legally performing abortions really rise to the standards of the rest of the medical profession. The fact is, the kind of surgeon who wants to make his living killing babies (or who resorts to abortion because he can't succeed in any more reputable field) is not your average kind of doctor.

The bizarre case of Kansas City abortionist Krishna Rajanna, which you can read about -- but ONLY if you have a strong stomach -- on World Net Daily this week, is, it has to be admitted, not typical even of abortionists who get in legal trouble -- of whom there are significant numbers. (Click here to get to a page with links to news stories about "Abortionists in Trouble." As those links and this NewsMax story suggest, sexual assault seems to be the more usual kind of sleazy behavior they're involved in.)

Dr. Rajanna appears not to have been a fan of personal or clinic hygiene, and his ideas about how to dispose of the "medical waste" into which he had turned the babies he aborted were eccentric, to say the least. Gruesome details and links ONLY for folks who want to see what his clinic (and the inside of its refrigerator) looked like appear in this World Net Daily piece. The doctor's refrigerator was a portrait of the banality of evil: plastic bags, disposable cups, and cut-off milk cartons full of tiny body parts in one side of the fridge, a cake and a bottle of Dr. Pepper in the other.

The Kansas state board that regulates the practice of medicine has revoked Dr. Rajanna's license for not keeping his clinic clean. But even if he'd used a sterilizer instead of a dishwasher, and medical waste disposal containers instead of a toilet and garbage bags, he'd still have been in a very dirty business.

New word meant to demean Christians

Christers and here also. Will comment later.

Weldon Challenges CIA Handling of Source

Villepin named new French PM

My comments in italics.

***


PARIS, France (CNN) -- French President Jacques Chirac has appointed loyalist Dominique de Villepin as prime minister after French voters rejected the European Union Constitution -- throwing the future direction of the 25-nation organization into doubt.

As France's foreign minister from 2002 to 2004, Villepin gained a worldwide reputation for his impassioned defense of the French stance against a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

* Hmm.... This is how Chirac won his last election -- by bad-mouthing the US. He knows he has no chance at winning the next election b/c of his blunders unless he can resurrect his anti American rhetoric. Who better to help him than Villepin. Still no substance, but rhetorics might just swing the votes his way.

Villepin, 51, replaces Jean-Pierre Raffarin -- the first government casualty after France said no to adopting the constitution in Sunday's referendum. The document lays out a new framework for the union, which added 10 members a year ago, and creates the permanent positions of president and foreign minister.

On Tuesday, Villepin arrived at the presidential Elysee Palace just minutes after Chirac bid farewell to Raffarin with a handshake on the palace steps.

* What? Not even a pat on the back?

In a short statement, Raffarin, who was prime minister for three years, denied his departure was connected to the referendum.

* Does anyone believe this? Even the French knew this would happen if the "Non" vote wins.

Villepin is a long-standing Chirac loyalist and was once his top adviser. Critics point to his never having held elective office.

* In other words, a liberal "yes" man.

Later Tuesday, Chirac said in a televised address that he was bringing Nicolas Sarkozy, a two-time minister and potential rival, back into the new government "in a spirit of coming together.

* Chirac wants to win the next election but has no chance in hell. Let's bring in the opposition to appease the angry French mob. Do the French see the double talk? The sad thing is that this strategy often works.

Villepin had been widely tipped to replace the unpopular Raffarin, whose economic reforms and poor record on jobs were blamed for the scale of Sunday's referendum defeat.

* Again w/ the liberal fingerpointing. It's Chirac's liberal Administration that fails. Chirac needs to take stock of his poor performance instead of blaming it on Raffarin.

With votes counted in all of France and its overseas territories, the "No" camp had 54.87 percent, with only 45.13 percent voting "Yes," according to figures released by France's Interior Ministry.

Analysts say the defeat was humiliating for Chirac, who had campaigned heavily for a "Yes" vote. France, a founding member of the European Union, was the first country to reject the charter.

Chirac is the second French leader, after Gen. Charles de Gaulle, to lose a referendum since the founding of the French Fifth Republic in 1958.

* And de Gaulle got the airport named after him. Maybe Chirac will still have hope of a lasting tribute by having the Parliment house named after him.

Chirac and other backers had argued that establishing the framework for the union would streamline the organization, let Europe speak with one voice on global issues and strengthen the Euro.

But opponents argued that it would diminish French national identity and sovereignty and lead to an influx of cheap labor just as France struggles to reduce unemployment.

* Liberal economics doesn't work. It's almost anti capitalistic. Is it any wonder that the French bureaucracy is unable to deal w/ this globalization and failed the people? The capitalist-minded can't work over 35-hrs. a week and the socialist-minded don't want to have to work over that. Is it any wonder why this system has caused increased unemployment? This is the very reason they feel the need to subsidize Airbus. In the meantime, they keep voting for bigger gov't that insists on blaming the US for the problem. And, across the pond, the American Democrats still want big gov't to legislate everything, too.

That unemployment rate -- along with EU polices, slow economic growth, conflict between France's pledge to reduce its public deficit and Chirac's pledge to cut income taxes and other reform plans -- all offer challenges for de Villepin as he tries to steer France for the final two years of Chirac's term in office.

Chirac says he intends to meet with EU leaders in Brussels on June 16 and "defend the position of our country."

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said leaders "need to do more to explain the true dimension of what is at stake, and the nature of the solutions which only Europe can bring."

* Sounds like a socialist talk to me.

"There will be time for that debate, of course, but I think one thing is sure: we should, together, try to put Europe back on track again," Barroso said.

* I can't agree more. Return to your traditional roots, Europe! Here is your chance. Somehow, I don't see this happening though.

Several European countries said they would proceed with their own referendums on the EU constitution despite France's rejection.

Polls in the Netherlands, which holds its own referendum on the constitution on Wednesday, suggest the "No" camp there is leading by 60-40 percent, and the momentum is likely to gain with the defeat in France.

* And just a few weeks ago, the Dutch would've voted Yes. You can predict the liberals would jump on whatever bandwagon is rolling.

But British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the EU needed time to reflect on the French result and that it was too soon to say if Britain would press ahead with a referendum.
"What is important now is to have time for reflection, with the Dutch referendum in a couple of days' time and the European Council in the middle of June, where all the leaders can discuss the implications of the vote that has taken place," he told reporters.

* Passe. "No" it is for the Dutch.

Regardless of the votes in France and the Netherlands, a European Commission spokesman said the ratification process for the constitution would go ahead.

"The procedures have been completed in nine countries representing over 220 million citizens. That is almost 49 percent of EU population. The Commission thinks this is a very important reason why the ratification procedures should go forward," Mikolaj Dowgielewicz told The Associated Press.

* Most of the French opposition to the Constitution is doing so out of discontentment w/ Chirac's Administration and not a vote for sovereignty or traditionalism. The Constitution originates from France's ex-President and would probably have been supported were the French not unhappy w/ the current Administration. One of Chirac's most vigorous opposition is the Socialist faction. Yes, the Socialists. How ironic?

"How Liberals Misuse Class -- Part II"

by Thomas Sowell

Posted Jun 14, 2005

"Someone once defined a social problem as a situation in which the real world differs from the theories of intellectuals. To the intelligentsia, it follows, as the night follows the day, that it is the real world that is wrong and which needs to change.

Having imagined a world in which each individual has the same probability of success as anyone else, intellectuals have been shocked and outraged that the real world is nowhere close to that ideal. Vast amounts of time and resources have been devoted to trying to figure out what is stopping this ideal from being realized -- as if there was ever any reason to expect it to be.

Despite all the words and numbers thrown around when discussing this situation, the terms used are so sloppy that it is hard even to know what the issues are, much less how to resolve them.

Back in mid-May, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal had front-page stories about class differences and class mobility. The Times' article was the first in a long series that is still going on a month later. Both papers reached similar conclusions, based on a similar sloppy use of the word 'mobility.'

The Times referred to 'the chance of moving up from one class to another' and the Wall Street Journal referred to 'the odds that a child born in poverty will climb to wealth.' But the odds or probabilities against something happening are no measure of whether opportunity exists.

Anyone who saw me play basketball and saw Michael Jordan play basketball when we were youngsters would have given odds of a zillion to one that he was more likely to make the NBA than I was. Does that mean I was denied opportunity or access, that there were barriers put up against me, that the playing field was not level?

Or did it mean that Michael Jordan -- and virtually everyone else -- played basketball a lot better than I did?

A huge literature on social mobility often pays little or no attention to the fact that different individuals and groups have different skills, desires, attitudes and numerous other factors, including luck. If mobility is defined as being free to move, then we can all have the same mobility, even if some end up moving faster than others and some of the others do not move at all.

A car capable of going 100 miles an hour can sit in a garage all year long without moving. But that does not mean that it has no mobility.

When each individual and each group trails the long shadow of their cultural history, they are unlikely even to want to do the same things, much less be willing to put out the same efforts and make the same sacrifices to achieve the same goals. Many are like the car that is sitting still in the garage, even though it is capable of going 100 mph.

So long as each generation raises its own children, people from different backgrounds are going to be raised with different values and habits. Even in a world with zero barriers to upward mobility, they would move at different speeds and in different directions.

If there is less upward movement today than in the past, that is by no means proof that external barriers are responsible. The welfare state and multiculturalism both reduce the incentives of the poor to adopt new ways of life that would help them rise up the economic ladder. The last thing the poor need is another dose of such counterproductive liberal medicine.

Many comparisons of 'classes' are in fact comparisons of people in different income brackets -- but most Americans move up from the lowest 20 percent to the highest 20 percent over time.

Yet those who are obsessed with classes treat people in different brackets as if they were classes permanently stuck in those brackets.

The New York Times series even makes a big deal about disparities in income and lifestyle between the rich and the super-rich. But it is hard to get worked up over the fact that some poor devil has to make do flying his old propeller-driven plane, while someone further up the income scale flies around a mile or two higher in his twin-engine luxury jet.

Only if you have overdosed on disparities are you likely to wax indignant over things like that."

Mother of dead soldier vilifies Bush over war

Overemotional mother who refuses to understand the meaning of service and sacrifice. Blame Saddam Hussein. Blame Osama bin Laden. Blame Abu Mussab al Zarqawi. They killed your son -- not Pres. Bush. Fight so that they won't be able to murder anyone else. Don't forget, Ms. Sheehan of Vacaville, CA, that they would kill you, too if it weren't for your son fighting for our freedom and that of the Iraqis. Don't let your emotions overwhelm your sense of reason and sound judgement.

"How Liberals Misuse Class -- Part I"

by Thomas Sowell

Posted Jun 13, 2005

"The new trinity among liberal intellectuals is race, class and gender. Defining any of these terms is not easy, but it is also not difficult for liberals, because they seldom bother to define them at all.

The oldest, and perhaps still the most compelling, of these concerns is class. In the vision of the left, we are born, live, and die in a particular class -- unless, of course, we give power to the left to change all that.

The latest statistics seized upon to support this class-ridden view of America and other Western societies show that most people in a given part of the income distribution are the children of other people born into that same part of the income distribution.

Among men born in families in the bottom 25 percent of income earners only 32 percent end up in the top half of the income distribution. And among men born to families in the top 25 percent in income earners, only 34 percent end up down in the bottom half.

How startling is that?

More to the point, does this show that people are trapped in poverty or can coast through life on their parents' wealth? Does it show that 'society' denies 'access' to the poor?

Could it just possibly show that the kind of values and behavior which lead a family to succeed or fail are also likely to be passed on to their children and lead them to succeed or fail as well? If so, how much can government policy -- liberal or conservative -- change that in any fundamental way?

One recent story attempting to show that upward mobility is a 'myth' in America today nevertheless noted in passing that many recent immigrants and their children have had 'extraordinary upward mobility.'

If this is a class-ridden society denying 'access' to upward mobility to those at the bottom, why is it that immigrants can come here at the bottom and then rise to the top?

One obvious reason is that many poor immigrants come here with very different ambitions and values from that of poor Americans born into our welfare state and imbued with notions growing out of attitudes of dependency and resentments of other people's success.

The fundamental reason that many people do not rise is not that class barriers prevent it but that they do not develop the skills, values and attitudes which cause people to rise.

The liberal welfare state means they don't have to and liberal multiculturalism says they don't need to change their values because one culture is just as good as another. In other words, liberalism is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

Racism is supposed to put insuperable barriers in the path of non-whites anyway, so why knock yourself out trying? This is another deadly message, especially for the young.

But if immigrants from Korea or India, Vietnamese refugees, and others can come here and move right on up the ladder, despite not being white, why are black and white Americans at the bottom more likely to stay at the bottom?

The same counterproductive and self-destructive attitudes toward education, work and ordinary civility found in many of America's ghettos can also be found in lower-class British communities. Anyone who doubts it should read British doctor Theodore Dalrymple's book 'Life at the Bottom,' about the white lower class communities in which he has worked.

These chaotic and violence-prone communities in Britain do not have the excuse of racism or a legacy of slavery. What they do have in common with similar communities in the United States is a similar reliance on the welfare state and a similar set of intellectuals making excuses for their behavior and denouncing anyone who wants them to change their ways.

The latest round of statistics emboldens more intellectuals to blame 'society' for the failure of many people at the bottom to rise to the top. Realistically, if nearly a third of people born to families in the bottom quarter of income earners rise into the top half, that is not a bad record.

If more were doing so in the past, that does not necessarily mean that 'society' is holding them down more today. It may easily mean that the welfare state and liberal ideology both make it less necessary today for them to change their own behavior."

Hugh Hewitt's Godblog Recommendations

"And Al Mohler's principal blog site has moved here. The Godbloggers keep getting better and better, and Adrian Warnock now counts 2,500 Godblogs. Regular visitors here know that I urge bookmarks for both Mohler and Warnock, as well as daily visits to MarkDRoberts, Joe Carter's EvangelicalOutpost, John Mark Reynolds, Tod Bolsinger's It Takes A Church, Randy Elrod's Ethos, RomanCatholicBlog, StandToReason, and The Anchoress, and regular visits to Normal Rockstar, Rhett Smith, Summa Aesthetica, and others."

Will We Even See The Day?

Thomas Sowell wrote the article "Looking Back: Will Our Descendants Ever Be Able to Forgive Us?" in Human Events. I don't know if we even have another 100 years. If we let the liberals win, then I'd be certain that our dominance in the world will dwindle very quickly. I'd have no doubt that we'd be annihilated by our enemies in that time. That is to say if Christ doesn't return to earth first.

Of David Horowitz and Belief in God

I like the last paragraph of this article by Marvin Olasky.

"MSM's Asymmetrical Skepticism"

From Hugh Hewitt's blog today.

"Today the Washington Post branded the U.S. led effort to build an effective Iraqi Army 'Mission Improbable.'

Yesterday Newsweek/MSNBC reporter/analyst/commentator Howard Fineman, in an article about Iraq titled 'Was it Worth It?', wrote that '[w]e had noble goals in Vietnam, but achieving them was too costly and the Vietnamese didn’t share them,' thus telegraphing Fineman's assessment of the Iraq front in the GWOT.

Everyone is entitled to skepticism and their own conclusions, and as ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran put it to me, we have to be aware that '[t]here is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous,' and correct for it.

But isn't it obvious that the skepticism directed by many in MSM to the rebuilding of Iraq and the necessity of succeeding there is nowhere matched by a similar MSM skepticism of the 'roadmap' process on the Israeli-Palestinian front? Or that skepticism of the Oslo accords was rarely heard within MSM, even as the second intifada lurched into being, and that few if any in MSM dared question the necessity of Israel trying again to reach peace with the Palestinian Authority even after suicide bomber after suicide bomber took hundreds of lives?

Does anyone want to argue that the new Iraqi government has less of a chance of stabilizing Iraq than the PA has of controlling Hamas and Hezbollah? If not, then how to explain the unrelenting skepticism directed at the reconstruction of Iraq --of which the above two articles are only the most recent high-profile examples-- with the near complete absence of analytical skepticism directed at the PA's future?

The reflexive production of anti-Bush/anti-Operation Iraqi Freedom pieces in tandem with an endless supply of pieces urging Israeli flexibility and concessions is not surprising giving that the left supports the PA and opposes Bush, and MSM is dominated by the left. The deep bias is also not very consequential, given the rise of new media. But pretending that MSM is other than a a semi-independent operating arm of the political left is certainly an exercise in self-delusion."

Of Howard Dean and MSM Bias

I wrote about Howard Dean's recent blunders yesterday. To my discredit I have not paid as much attention to mainstream media as of late as I usually had in the past. Apparently, the Left-leaning MSM have been hiding Dean's blunders. Hmm.... I wonder why?

And here is something from Larry Elder about the wrath of Dean.

Was It Worth It?

This is an excerpt from Hugh Hewitt's blog posting today.

***

Howard Fineman's MSNBC column, "Was It Worth It?", underscores how difficult it is for the United States to succeed in the war on terror given the public's media-driven demands for quick results and tied-up-in-bows conclusions. Fineman begins his gloomy, defeatist column with a letter written by an officer he will not name in a branch of the service he will not specify:

"Our eventual departure,” he worries, “will leave nothing but cosmetic structure here.” “Every mission,” he writes, “requires a conscious escape from the resignation that there is nothing here to win and every occasion to fail.”

Less than a month ago, Newsweek ran with an anonymous source's story on Koran abuse, and riots erupted and people died. Now we are treated to an anonymous officer tolling doom for the new Iraqi government.

I believe that Fineman has such a letter, and that it was written by an officer. So what? If you stop by Major K's blog, and especially the post "Getting the Hang of this Democracy Thing," you will get a completely different picture, but this one backed up by a name, a rank, and a picture.

There are lots of reasons an officer might send Fineman such a letter, reasons we cannot know because we don't have the specifics on the author. Fineman's decision to launch a column using that letter as opposed to Major K's post is a choice --one consistently made by MSM-- to lead with the bad news from Iraq and rarely, if ever, underscore not just the progress there, but also the alternative universe that would exist if, two years and two months ago, Saddam had not been removed.

The Washington Post has an account of the early effort to get the Iraq constitution drafting underway. "Was It Worth It?" might have reflected on the incalculable value of such a process in bringing the middle east out of its decades of corrupt dictatorial default setting, where the only previous alternative was a slide into theocracy. RegimeChangeIran is another site where skeptical western reporters might want to check when asking "Was It Worth It?" Or perhaps a close inspection of the latest story on the terror network, which has Sacramento FBI chief Keith Slotter saying "[w]e believe from our investigation that various individuals connected to Al Qaeda have been operating in the Lodi area in various capacities, including individuals who have received terrorist training abroad." The GWOT cannot be sliced and diced into convenient easy to win battles and tough slogs that require years of occupation.

It is all one war. What is amazing and dispiriting is that a journalist as admired as Howard Fineman can be asking, less than four years after 9/11, "Was It Worth It?", as though there was any real alternative.

The European Bias

Sadly, this view is not uncommon among Europeans. Much of this view is driven by a liberal anti-American mainstream media in Europe with hatred towards American ideology and policies.

Madonna = Esther = Con Artist

Those who are opposed to Kabbalah didn't seem to offer any compelling reasons why people should not want Madonna's latest venture in their neighborhood. If it's just about money, then people shouldn't concern themselves with it too much. After all, they don't have to buy anything if they don't want to. However, it isn't just about the fact that Madonna charges ridiculous fees for trinkets. Kabbalah is dangerous. Perhaps the opponents to Kabbalah and Madonna's hotel did say other more compelling reasons for their opposition but that This is London, which isn't known to be friendly to conservatives, just failed to report them.

Dean Can't Stop Putting His Shoe In His Mouth

Howard Dean hasn't changed much since he lost the bid for the Democratic presidential candidacy. The crazy ranting is still his choice of speech delivery. It is said that his grassroot support is still strong. He is the leader of the Democratic Party and the Democrats believe that he is the man for the job -- the one to represent them. This is troubling to me considering the state of the cultural war in our nation albeit not surprising.

I have a difficult time seeing the logic of picking Dean as the head of the Party. Given his records, I would think that the Dems would've picked someone else to represent them and to revive the image of the Party that is presently tarnished. The Dems know they need to work hard to earn the religous American and the traditionalist votes. However, Dean hasn't done much toward this goal. On the contrary, he's done much to offend and discredit these voters. The picture isn't so clear to me, but I'm not so sure at this point that electing Dean as the Party Chairman was simply a badly calculated move or an underhanded one. We shall see as the Democrats' strategists unveil their plans to win the next election.

If the Democrats are being underhanded, then I think it is the case that either Dean is a moron or a puppet or a sacrificial lamb for the Party or quite possibly all of the above. Is Dean so reckless as to think that his behavior and his rantings won't have any effect on his personal integrity? Is he so blind to not see his actions as hurting the Party? Or, is Dean just a political puppet used by the strategists to advance the image of Hillary Clinton as a moderate and a peacemaker? We shall see.

The Left Is Getting More Ridiculous

With Howard Dean continuing his thoughtless rip-roaring jabs, the academic types are upping the ante with their own rants about their "superior" ideology and intellect. They are committing the very hypocrisy of which they are accusing the Right. If anyone wants a concrete example of the Left-wingers thinking they're smarter than than the Religious Right, the traditionalists, and the fundamentalists in general, just read this article. Is there any doubt that this CUNY Professor is biased?

***

Update:

Mr. Shortell is dropping his chairmanship or more likely given the boot from the position. He claims that the opposition to his chairmanship is all politically driven. Shortell is complaining that injustice has been done to him because he wasn't given the liberty to be as biased as he wants to be when he teaches and heads the CUNY Sociology department.

Oh, boo hoo, Shortell. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and start packing for that move to Canada you've been wanting to do?

"Exodus"

by Elizabeth Kantor, Managing Editor, NRO

Also on NRO today (hat tip to Mr. Guinivan), David Shiflett, the author of Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity:

"Writer Andy Ferguson encountered the lesser god while taking a class at a West Coast Episcopal seminary. Andy sometimes argued basic Christian beliefs with a professor. After one such discussion he repaired to the lunchroom, where he was approached by a fellow student. 'We have finally figured out what your problem is,' the classmate said. 'You are the only one here who believes in God.' Andy thought it over and concluded: This guy is right."

Unfortunately, there's more than one denomination in mainline American Christianity where you could be the lone student in your seminary classes who believed in God. It's no wonder the numbers of folks in those demonimations is shrinking.

What puzzles me is why a considerable number of people who don't believe in God still are deeply and energetically interested in religion -- interested enough to be running seminaries full of unbelieving seminarians, who, in many cases, plan on careers as unbelieving clergy.

You Mean Sex Really Doesn't Sell?

Well, I think the title isn't really appropriate for this post, but I thought it has some relevance to the previous post with a similar title.

This is a step in the right direction. Extreme left-wingers and liberals need to wake up to the reality that their views do not represent majority opinion. They only think so because the extremist minority are extremely vocal. In addition, I believe they think they're smarter for adhering to the "progressive" views than the throngs of regular Joe-and-Jane-traditionalists. The negative impacts of the policies the extremists favor are becoming more apparent and the public just isn't buying them.

You Mean Sex Doesn't Sell?

This is what happens when conservatives vote with their money. Fight on, folks! Let's see if Hollywood pays attention. They should if they want to make money.

MSM Support Dwindling

Support for mainstream media continues to dwindle. Hopefully, they'll get a clue and do something about their policy and irresponsible reporting. In the meantime, hurray for the Internet and weblogs.

Assad = Big Brother?

Does Assad think Syria a utopia? Maybe not, but he does appear to favor Chinese- (and Saddam Hussein's Iraqi-) style government-approved media dissemination. It seems he wants to maintain the opinion that American style democracy is not only inferior to his dictatorship-like government but also corrupting the Arab youths by introducing them an alternative to his form of rule.

Here is the CNN article.

***

Assad: Media, tech crushing Arabs

Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 8:45 AM EDT (1245 GMT)

DAMASCUS, Syria (CNN) -- Syrian President Bashar Assad has said the media and technological revolution sweeping the region and the world is helping his country's foes to undermine and crush the Arab identity.

Assad told the congress of Syria's ruling Baath Party on Monday that a media influx had left Arabs "swamped by disinformation" about themselves.

"These many inputs, especially with the evolution of communication and information technology, made the society open, and this opened the door for some confusion and suspicion in the minds of Arab youth.

"The ultimate objective of all this is the destruction of Arab identity; for the enemies of the Arab nation are opposed to our possessing any identity or upholding any creed that could protect our existence and cohesion, guide our vision and direction, or on which we can rely in our steadfastness," Assad said Monday.

"We must face this situation with great awareness, responsibility and defiance."

Focusing on the swirl of modern information and the huge influx of ideas to the region, Assad said that development was being exploited by what he said were the region's enemies.

Delivering the opening address of his party's congress, the first in five years, Assad also urged its members to make reform of the economy and fighting corruption their priorities. (Full story)

"We have to reorder our priorities and tackle the most important and go from there. The economic situation is a priority for all of us," he told the gathering.

"We need mechanisms to fight corruption that are more effective," he added.

The Syrian leader -- who has been under immense pressure by Washington and the West for its former presence in Lebanon and for its suspected role in helping the insurgency in Iraq -- used rhetoric that is customarily used to describe the United States and Israel.

He referred to "forces behind" the modern trends that would exploit and generate societal upheaval in the Arab world, leading "to the cultural, political and moral collapse of the Arab individual and his ultimate defeat without a fight."

"They simply aim at transforming us into a negative, reactive mass, which absorbs everything that is thrown at it without the will or even the possibility of thinking or rejecting or accepting it."

The information revolution has had a wide-ranging effect on the Arab world, with the Internet and Arabic-language TV transforming attitudes from Mauritania to Iraq.

This is what the Left thinks of our military

The Left's Eugene Debs Syndrome

by Michael P. Tremoglie

Recently Bill Maher remarked during his HBO show that the military recruits the dregs of society. This infuriated Congressman Spencer Bauchus of Alabama who said Maher's comment borders on treason.

This is not the first time Maher has cast aspersions on the military. Nor is he alone in his opinion of military personnel as America's societal residue.

Two years ago fellow liberal New York Times reporter Chris Hedges remarked during a commencement speech he made that the military consisted of, "boys from places such as Mississippi and Arkansas who joined the military because there were no job opportunities."

About a year ago Newsweek magazine wrote an article about Pat Tillman. The article, co-authored by Newsweek editor Andy Murr, stated, "American troops tend to be working-class or poor, disproportionately black, brown, or rural..."

When asked the source of this information, Mr. Murr's said it was possibly "clips." He did not think it was a scientific study.

In that same edition of Newsweek, Anna Quindlen also repeats the canard. She cites as her source a cheer by the Radical Teen Cheerleaders, "Hey Bush/Who fights your war/Just minorities and the poor."

The New Republic editor Peter Beinart wrote in a piece about the military, "This week, the papers were filled with the heartbreaking story of Pat Tillman ….Tillman's story is so moving in part because it is so anomalous. …the gulf between the military and the rest of American society is wider than it has been for generations."

What is Beinart's proof of this gulf?

For one he states that," more and more, troops hail from the South and West, and from military families." Why this is more of a concern than the idea that more and more journalists may live in the Upper West Side of Manhattan is not known.

Beinart also states that, "Minorities, who in 1973 comprised 23 percent of new enlistees, today comprise 37 percent." Yet according to the Department of Defense, " In the enlisted force, African Americans were overrepresented among …active duty… (20 percent) relative to the 18-24 year-old civilian population (14 percent).

Twenty percent is about half of the percentage Beinart cites. Furthermore when compared to the percentage of the general population of that age group African Americans are only slightly overrepresented among military personnel.

Beinart also states, "According to a recent rand (sic) study, one of the best predictors of whether a high school senior will enlist in the military is the unemployment rate in his or her county" (emphasis added).

This is what the Rand study actually said, "Characteristics Significantly Affecting Enlistment. …A senior is more likely to enlist: The higher the unemployment rate in his county" (emphasis added). (Notice the subtle difference between Beinart's statement of "will enlist" as opposed to "more likely to enlist.")

The Rand study also concluded something that Beinart's article did not include - for obvious reasons. Rand noted that the county unemployment rate is not the only predictor of whether a high school senior is more likely to enlist. The Rand study also said that a senior is more likely to enlist, "If he plans to marry within the next five years" and "the higher his number of siblings."

Neither of these factors concerns a prospective enlistee's employment status. Indeed among other factors the Rand study did state a high school senior was less likely to enlist, "The more months he's been unemployed " and "If he has a low wage." (An interesting comment by Rand is that one reason that Southerners are disproportionately represented is that there is a disproportionate amount of military facilities in the South.)

Here are some quotes from the aforementioned Rand study and from the March 2003 Department of Defense report about military demographics "Population Representation in the Military for fiscal year 2001." These quotes are the antipodes of what the mainstream media and others are saying. In fact, the American public now knowing this truth will be even more admiring of the American military.

Regarding black officers: "Minorities appear to be proportionately represented and not on the decline within the commissioned officer corps. Although African Americans comprised a much smaller proportion of officers (8 percent) than of enlistees (22 percent), when compared to college graduates in the civilian workforce 21-49 years old (9 percent African American), African Americans are equitably represented in the officer ranks."

Regarding education: "Practically all active duty and Selected Reserve enlisted …had a high school diploma or equivalent, well above civilian youth proportions (79 percent of 18-24 year-olds)."

Regarding intellect: "Enlisted members tend to have higher cognitive aptitude than the civilian youth population, as measured by scores on the military's enlistment test."

Regarding reading ability: "Like aptitude levels, reading levels were higher in the enlisted military than in the non-military sector. FY 2001 …active duty enlisted …had a mean reading level typical of an 11th grade student whereas the mean for civilian youth was within the 10th grade range."

All of these salient facts disprove the myths about military personnel. It is a lie that those who are in the military and those who are casualties are mostly poor and minorities. It is a lie, which can be traced to at least 1918.

The mantra of the poor boy fighting the rich man's war was stated during Viet Nam. It was said during Korea. It was said World War II. In fact, the founder of the Socialist Party of America, Eugene Debs, made this claim during World War I.

In 1918 Debs gave a speech, which resulted in him going to prison, during which he said, "And here let me emphasize the fact -- and it cannot be repeated too often -- that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace. They themselves did not go to war anymore than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war…"

Modern liberals seem to be afflicted by Eugene Debs Syndrome.