On Hiatus

Until there are eight days in a week or more hours in a day, I'll mainly be blogging at the two blogs listed to the right of this post. Cheers!

Brilliant

Don't miss this excellent satire on the Obamamessiah from the TimesOnLine UK. As the Brits would say, "It's Just Brilliant, Lovey."

John Derbyshire: Talking to the Plumber

For today’s post I defer to the excellent thoughts of Mr. John Derbyshire, whose writing, intellect and wit I admire (though I disagree with him on matters of God and Creation and do not like the sarcastic and dismissive tone he often adopts when discussing them).

I try not to be too vexed about it, though, because Derb will be gently corrected (as will we all, in those areas of Belief in which we err) when he eventually meets his Maker. And I do hope mercy prevails that day, as I would very much like to sit and chat with him some lazy afternoon in Heaven.

Update: A friend asks me if I'm going to disclose that I recently wrote a complaint letter about Derb's caustic sarcasm (in re: to Creationists) to the editors at National Review. Consider it disclosed. I have a love-hate readlationship with Derb, what can I say...

Sacrificial Goats

I am both happy and humbled to see that National Review editor Rich Lowry also wrote about the Left’s (a) frothy-mouthed hatred of The Evil Speculators and (2) cognitive disconnect re: the concept of supply and demand this week (see my earlier comments here).

Happy because it is nice to imagine a serendipitous connection (along the lines of “great minds think alike”) and humbled because Mr. Lowry’s writing is so much better than mine. I was especially delighted with his ending: “If Congress wants a scapegoat for high oil prices, it should revert to the ancient practice and literally expel a goat from the U.S. Capitol. Atavistic, yes, but no less irrational.”

Once recovered from the awe and wonder educed by use of the word “atavistic” (which for all you non word geeks means reversion to some old or ancient practice)(and no, I am not ashamed to admit I had to look it up) I did a little research and was amused to find this excerpt on the proper methods of goat ousting from “Ritual Dynamic Structure” by author Roy Gaines:

EXPEL GOAT INTO WILDERNESS
1. Speak while leaning both hands on the head of a goat
1.1 Lean both hands on head of goat
1.2 Speak while keeping hands on head of goat
2. Expel goat into wilderness
3. Cleanse handler of goat
3.1 Launder clothes
3.2 Bathe in water

Gaines’ little outline deconstructs the portion of the book of Leviticus in which Aaron receives expicit instructions for cleansing the Israelites of all their sins. Apparently God was a stickler for details because His directions also included flow chart elements for the proper methods of collecting confessions and various post-event atonements.

Anyway, I like Mr. Lowry’s suggestion. I imagine the goat banishing ceremony would go something like this:

SENATOR DORGAN (solemnly placing both hands on the head of a confused goat while Reid and Pelosi look on): Lo, it has come to pass that the members of this Hallowed Hall have cast lots and that by the will of Heaven ye shall be the Scapegoat.

(goat trembles nervously)

Upon thy head we place the sins of this unholy congregation, which include but are not limited to, blaming speculators for high oil prices, ignoring market conditions, and boring the American public with our endless speechifying.

(goat stares at Senator Dorgan, puzzled)

Unhappy beast, ye shall now bear the burden of all our iniquities and transgressions.

(goat glances around for possibility of quick escape)

Therefore ye shall be sent into the Wilderness to be seen nevermore.

(goat relaxes, looks relieved)

We who are cleansed shall remain here, burn incense upon the Altar of the Most High, and have a Committee Meeting.

(goat nibbles on Dorgan's sleeve to see if it's any good)

Pass ye now through the Holy Tabernacle so the Lord may frown upon thy cursed head.

(goat walks through the Veil, stifles a yawn)

Now go into the Wilderness and be seen nevermore!

(goat happily ambles off)

Let us now wash our flesh with fresh water and retire to our Chambers where, afflicted, we shall do no work, no, neither for our country nor for any poor sap that sojourneth among us. And let this be an everlasting statute.

And so it was...

Back on the Job

I took a few extra days after getting home, but I see I've missed a Visitor so I had better get back with it. Since I'm typing this, I may as well say something about something. How about how terrible Tom Brokaw has been on Meet the Press the past two Sundays? His feigned attempt to ask Al Gore a couple of tough questions this morning were worthy of an eye-roll. At least Russert had a little fire in him when he drilled people - even those you knew he liked or agreed with. Brokaw is a wet noodle.

Time Off

I'm taking a two week break from Shoe starting Monday, June 30. I'll be back on/around July 14. Have a great 4th of July!

Update: For your entertainment and/or enlightenment while I'm gone check out Tim Blair's Blog and/or VodkaPundit over on Pajamas Media and/or Little Green Footballs or the always fabulous Corner.

String Theory in 500 Words or Less

Today we’re going to stray off the beaten path and talk about particle physics and String Theory. What’s in it for you, you ask? Well, for one, since I’m going to take a shot at explaining it in 500 words or less, you can learn quite a lot in a very short time. Also, if this set of ideas that some call "The Unified Theory of Everything" proves out someday, you’ll be able to nod knowingly and say, “Yes, yes, I have always thought so.” If neither of those are enough to keep you, then go away and come back tomorrow when we'll talk about something easier like how screwed up the Supreme Court is these days.

So. We’ve been told that ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. We call the electron a fundamental particle belonging to a nice little particle family called “leptons," and we believe that its neutrons and protons are made of even smaller fundamental particles called “quarks.” Our current beliefs about the subatomic universe are summed up nicely in what we call the Standard Model of particle physics. This model describes what we say are the twelve basic building blocks: six types of quarks, and six types of leptons. Quarks go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (For example, a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The leptons include the electron and its two heavier pals, the muon and the tauon, plus three neutrinos.

The Standard Model also describes the four known fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. It is believed that each of these forces are produced by particles that act as carriers of that force. The most familiar of these is the photon, otherwise known as a light particle, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. The graviton is the particle associated with gravity (and is already familiar to Star Trek fans). The strong force is carried by eight different particles known as gluons, and the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- and the Z. (Disappointing little labels after names like “charm” and “strange” – but I digress.)

The Standard Model pretty thoroughly describes all particles and forces, with one exception: gravity. The gravitational force has proven difficult to describe or map. For years this has been one of the most important problems in theoretical physics. We seem unable to come up with a viable quantum theory of gravity. In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as one possible means for developing a microscopic theory of gravity as well as possibly being the possible Holy Grail of quantum physics, the aforementioned Unified Theory of Everything.

The fundamental idea supporting String Theory is that all the different particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: something that is too small to be visible on any existing microscope and which looks like a little piece or loop of string. So, whereas we would commonly picture an electron as a point with no dimensions and no internal structure – a point that cannot do anything but stay where it is, or move to another place in space-time – String Theory says that if we had an adequately powerful microscope, we would see that the electron is not really a point and is instead more like a tiny string. And we would see that this string is able to do something besides sit still, or move: it can oscillate and/or vibrate.

So, if one of these strings, of a certain mass, oscillates and/or vibrates a certain way, then from a distance we would be unable to tell it is a string and might see what we call an electron. But if it had a different mass, or oscillated and/or vibrated in some other way, we might call it a photon, or a quark. If String Theory is correct, the entire universe is made of these tiny strings of varying mass that oscillate and/or vibrate at different speeds or “resonances”…and it is our ability to see (and/or hear? and/or sense?) them that will lead to further knowledge and possible theoretical breakthroughs.

Update: I asked my brother to fact-check this post; he emailed with this: "Good summary; you excluded anti-particles, but that's not a big deal. Also, the standard model doesn't contain gravity at all; it doesn't predict gravitons. More importantly, though, is that the key behind string theory is that strings exist in more than 3 spatial dimensions (various theories have different "extra" dimensions, up to 8, I think). This makes it a highly mathematical theory with few testable predictions with current technology."

Update 2: There's now a comment by someone who says I'm wrong in other ways, too. I'm just glad someone besides my brother (and Mom) read the whole thing. But I guess I'd better give up my Dreams of becoming a world renowned String Theory Expert...

Don't Blame It on the Rain

Last week the WSJ reported that as the Mississippi river rises, a debate is storming between scientists, environmentalists and housing developers over whether irresponsible development is the cause of all the recent flooding. Due to the high demand for waterfront real estate, developers of new and expanding communities often push for new, taller, and stronger levees. But by building along the riverbanks and forcing the Mississippi into a bed that’s less than half the width it was 100 years ago, developers are forcing the river to run faster and higher.

Also, as the developers pave over and drain off nearby low lying wetlands, additional runoff water is channeled into the river. Critics say the result is a self-perpetuating cycle: Levees are built; wetlands are drained; the rivers rise higher, new levees are built even bigger; and the rivers rise again. Add in a little spring rainfall and disaster ensues.

At the center of the problem is the lack of a comprehensive river-management plan. Each levee along the Mississippi is under local control. “Each levee has a small impact, but cumulatively they can have a large impact," said David Busse, chief of engineering and construction for the St. Louis District of the Army Corps of Engineers. "From an engineering point of view, it would be great to look at the system as a system."

Can anyone say “Duh”…???

From NASA: Great Shuttle Mission Photos

For your viewing enjoyment, some great NASA photos from a past shuttle mission.

Hathida Prosecutions: 0-7

I was glad to see Michelle Malkin raking the New York Times over the proverbial coals for their dishonest reporting in re: to the Haditha trials. Over the past two years The Times has written 35+ stories (along with headlines in giant font) re: the alleged crimes of these Marines while editorializing that the incident was the “defining atrocity” of the war, yet has posted only two small blurbs noting that seven of these eight officers have now been acquitted (one still awaits trial).

The blatant bias and lack of integrity at the NYT continues to be appalling. And while we’re talking about character assassination and biased, irresponsible journalism, how about MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s characterization of the “willful targeted brutality” of these Marines before the trials even began? Or The Nation’s conclusion that the regiment “perpetrated a massacre”? Or similar comments in The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and the L.A. Times? Will any of these entities, or Congressman Murtha, who also slandered these Marines, now apologize for their propaganda? Honesty and integrity not being on their agenda, we won't hold our collective breath.

Is Obama in Violation of US Code Title 18-713?

When I saw this story on Obama's new seal, I recalled this little piece of U.S. Code which refers to: Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress, and which says:

(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

And wondered...???

What a Difference the Messenger Makes

The liberal media is praising Obama for making some critical statements about black fathers in front of a predominantly black audience. Addressing the congregation of a large black church, Obama mentioned his own absentee father and said “we need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” He went on to state, “more than half of all black children are living in single parent households” and “too many fathers are MIA” and “the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.” Obama is being widely credited with making a speech that was “striking for its bluntness” and is being applauded for his courage in presenting it to a black audience.

So what about poor Bill Cosby, who has been bluntly speaking about the epidemic of fatherlessness among black Americans for over a decade? Where are Cosby’s accolades for having the courage to confront his own culture? The New York Times has called Cosby’s speechifying “inflammatory” and other forums have referred to his criticisms of the black community as “controversial.”…yet when Obama echoes these same sentiments, he is praised for being “brave” and making a “positive stand.” The capacity of the liberal media to ignore these sorts of disparities is truly amazing.

Because Baby Alex's Momma Says So

Recent days have seen quite a few media chime-ins on the ‘Baby Alex’ ad sponsored by MoveOn.org. The ad features a young mother bouncing a beaming baby boy on her lap and emoting in a quavering, affected voice, “John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for a hundred years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him.”

We’ve become accustomed to the Left’s propensity for not letting the facts get in the way of a nasty campaign ad, but one still feels disgusted at the ad’s blatant exploitation of babyhood in an attempt to manipulate voters. For the umpteenth time, McCain never said he wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years. He simply referenced our ongoing military presence in countries like South Korea and Japan and said the same would be fine in Iraq “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” And, presumably, it would also be fine with McCain, and any other sensible American, if Alex grew up, enlisted in the military, and were stationed for a time in peace time Iraq.

It’s not ok with this quavering, indignant mother, though. Asserting lifelong ownership of her son, she is not going to let John McCain “have him.” Nevermind that McCain will likely die of old age before the boy turns 18, and nevermind that the boy may well grow up and decide to serve his country of his own free will. Those facts do not make for good Drama – and it is drama, after all, that so often trumps the facts in our national dialogue.

Too bad little Alex’s mother is not as committed to truth telling as she is to claiming ownership over a life that, ultimately, is not hers. Her assertion that she knows what is best for another, both now and for all time, embodies the justification for the Left’s entire political agenda. As this ad reveals, the lefties do not hesitate to try to dictate the life choices of others. Other viewpoints, and freedom of thought and choice, are not in the script...even for their own children.

Yet Another Gaza Ceasefire

Mind boggling as it is, another Israeli ceasefire on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip has gone into effect. Previous ceasefires have been punctuated by regular attacks from Hamas and have given Hamas a chance to re-group and re-arm. This one will be no different. Israel’s intermittent periods of capitulation and “military restraint” continue to teach Hamas that there are no real consequences to their actions. Furthermore, the Palestinian moderates have zero chance of ruling Gaza as long as Hamas can convince the people that they are gaining ground and winning concessions.

And indeed, they are. The Egyptian-brokered ceasefire places no limitations on Hamas activities in Gaza (and even if it did, there is no way to monitor them). Hamas is free to stockpile arms, plant mines, dig tunnels, and build bunkers. By the end of the ceasefire, Gaza will be fully armed and ready to do battle even more effectively than before. Another few such ceasefires and Hamas will not only be equipped to hold sway over Gaza indefinitely but could also make an attempt at invading parts of Israel.

What is Israel thinking, and why is the White House expressing hopeful optimism about this latest ceasefire? It borders on insanity.

Sign the Petition: Broadcaster Freedom Act

Today's CNSNews.com E-Brief sums up the latest in the Left's attempt to resurrect the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" so they can subdue or silence some or all of the voices of conservative talk radio. Apparently there is a new bill in the works - "The Broadcaster Freedom Act" - that liberals in Congress are blocking from getting to the floor for a vote. CNS has named this July 4th "Radio Independence Day" and has provided a link to their Citizen Petition to stop the Fairness Doctrine and push forward the new Freedom bill. You can sign the petition here.

The goal is to present Congressional leadership with at least 100,000 signatures demanding that the Broadcaster Freedom Act be brought to a full floor vote before the Fourth of July. So far, 194 members of Congress have signed a petition asking for a discharge of the bill from committee to The Floor, but 24 more signatures are needed.

U.S. Department of Gangster Rap Promotion

Johah Goldberg @ The Corner on NRO made up this blog post title a couple of days ago, and provided this fascinating snippet from a profile of Alicia Keys in Blender:

We ask what other gangsta rappers she liked. And that’s when Keys drives a steamroller through the wall.

“‘Gangsta rap’ was a ploy to convince black people to kill each other,” she says, putting down the sandwich. “‘Gangsta rap’ didn’t exist.”

Come again? A ploy by whom?

She looks at us like it’s the dumbest question in the world. “The government.”

Jonah: Well, first of all, I want that government agency closed immediately. Second, I want to know why the brilliant bureaucrats in charge of blowing up New Orleans levees, creating AIDS, and concocting the Gangsta Rap Myth are never put in charge of, like, the Department of Education or HUD. Imagine if they could use their skills for good instead of evil?

The Strange Mathematics of Oil

To date, I agree with every word and/or admire every question that comes out of Victor Davis Hanson's keyboard. Here is a verbatim transcript from one of his posts on The Corner yesterday:

1/2 a million barrels, yes -- 1 million, no?

I am confused: for years we were told that the projected 1 million barrels per day from ANWR would be simply too small to make much of a difference given our 20 million some barrel a day appetite — and therefore not worth the environmental risk. Now we wait in tense anticipation for a Saudi willingness to pump an extra 1/2 million per day (from where and how we apparently simply don't care), which we hope will send a message that world supply and demand might be in better sync to cut the feet out from under speculators. So how can 500,000 barrels now do what a million once could not?

Viva Ireland!

It is worth nothing that Ireland has voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty, the replacement document for the previously rejected EU Constitution by which the EU is trying to achieve full status as a sovereign entity. Against the urgings of their prime minister, their cabinet, the majority of the business sector, the Catholic church, and the media, the Irish people have refused to water down their national identity or give up sovereignty in favor of more bureacuracy and oversight of/from the EU.

The reaction of the EU to Ireland's vote was telling. The EU President called a press conference and made vague threats. Other EU leaders spoke openly of various legal remedies that will enable them to either ignore the Irish vote or force Ireland to vote again (and again...until they accept the Lisbon Treaty). Instead of respecting the electoral results in Ireland or engaging in a renewed campaign to change the hearts and minds of the Irish, the EU is looking to subvert and/or overpower. So much for their "democratic ideals."

Cali Bound

We're in south-central Cali today and all Father's Day weekend. Among other things, we're going to visit the Reagan Library, have brunch in Montecito, enjoy the oceanside hills of scenic Santa Barbara, and hit the beach. Blessings!

Polygamy

A few weeks ago, Anne and I puzzled over the non-enforcement of federal polygamy laws in certain enclaves where it is practiced openly (brought to light vis a vis the recent goings-on in and around that Texas compound that's been in the news). Anne said, "Either it’s against the law or it isn’t. It suggests to me that there exists an undercurrent of uncertainty as to the justice of the ban, if not in the courts, certainly among individuals."

Perhaps it is ignored or tolerated in certain parts because it's seen as a religious thing that causes no harm to the common good, since these folks don’t seem to cause any trouble otherwise? However, I can't help but feel disgusted that these people marry their 15 to 18 year old girls off to the community's old men. One feels sorry for these young women, who are taught from birth that it is their Heavenly duty to go along with it, and that only by this path will they reach the ultimate Celestial place.

Where's Voltaire When We Need Him?

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Voltaire

Just read an interesting commentary by Brian Fitzpatrick, Senior Editor @ the Culture and Media Institute, in re: this report and all the talk about the possible resurrection of the FCC “Fairness Doctrine.” The old rule, done away with under Reagan, required radio stations that aired op-eds to give free, equal time to opposing views. The regulation was intended to benefit the public by providing diverse information on controversial issues on the airwaves. Now, thanks to the Internet, the addition of hundreds of newspapers, a plethora of new-ish radio broadcast stations, and nearly a dozen news/opinion television networks, people can access information (and varying opinions) any time they wish. As such, there is simply no need for a Fairness Doctrine.

Lefty allegations that talk radio is dominated by conservatives and subsequent claims that we need to reinstitute the Rule are pretty silly. Fitzpatrick rightly points out that of the roughly 2,200 radio stations that do talk radio, more than one third feature predominantly left-liberal programming. More to the point, a balance exists in every single major market: the talking points of the Left are on the airwaves along with conservative radio shows, and listeners can make their choice. (Anyway, only about 7% of the American public even listens to talk radio, so what is all the hype about?)

As for the major news networks, news magazines, and daily newspapers, they are already primarily dominated by the Left and/or Center – but you don’t hear Conservatives trying to insisting that these forums give us a free voice on their dime and time. Instead, conservatives and libertarians plug away as best they can in the forums that exist, or try to create new forums through private and non-profit funding, trusting the public to seek out the type of news and information it wants.

In re: to the fact that there are about twice as many conservative as liberal radio talk shows, someone ought to tell the Left about a jazzy little economic concept called Supply and Demand. Radio stations can’t survive indefinitely without listeners to support them, plain and simple. No audience means no air time, and that is as it should be. Air America Radio and others have stumbled because of an overly progressive and often caustic bent, not because anyone on the Right has impeded them vis a vis federal rules and limits. I think Fitzpatrick is quite right when he says that the Left fears the strong influence of conservative talk radio, and that their desire for raising the Fairness Doctrine from the dead is mainly motivated by a desire to “hush Rush” et al – or at least to set limits re: how many stations can broadcast how many hours of conservative talk across the nation. If so, they are allowing their personal political motives to trump general respect for freedom of speech and free markets. This is glaringly un-Democratic and ought to confound and concern the minds of intelligent, honest Democrats. Once again, by being on the wrong side of an issue like this, the Left reveals itself to be a group of hyper-controlling, moralizing busybodies who value winning over Liberty.

NV: More Knee Jerking Over Yucca

“The United States Department of Energy submitted its license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 3,” wrote Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto in an op/ed in this Sunday's Nevada Appeal. “Nevada's experts reviewed the application and quickly concluded that it is neither viable nor complete.”

I'm wondering who these “Nevada experts” were. I think I'll call the AG's office this week and ask. If there's one thing I've learned in my short stint on NV's political airwaves, it's that big words get bandied around like nobody's business and follow-up questions are key. (Shall we take a wild guess and speculate that at least some of these "experts" are people who have already come down against Yucca in the past? And shall we ask how they managed to sift through the 8,600 page application in less than a week in order to render their "expert" verdict...? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to take three to four years to evaluate all the information before reaching its decision on whether or not to license the Repository...so who were these speed-reading geniuses that managed to do it in 4 days?)

We keep seeing what looks an awful lot like co-ordinated knee-jerk opposition over Yucca Mountain lately. Stand by!

LOL

I haven't posted much about Obama because I can't bring myself to believe my beloved country will elect this naive, inexperienced, vapid person of questionable judgment to the office of the Presidency. Today, however, I was presented with something so funny and apt that I felt I must share (and which made me wish I could draw better). Anne of Idaho wrote in:

Several people on-line today have been positing that Obama will “grow with the job” and become more centrist as the realities are brought to his attention. Someone ought to do a cartoon with Obama on a bicycle with training wheels practicing on the White House driveway. I envision him in a dorky striped shirt and shorts with untied sneakers and a beanie hat with a balloon tied to his wrist that says, "We Are The Ones We've Been Waiting For."

I'm going to send this to several syndicated cartoonists and see if anyone's game. Stand by!

Seattle Bows Down to the Carbon gods: Beach Bonfires Discouraged Due to Carbon Emissions

Didn't have much time for reading The Corner this week, but Anne of Idaho sends along an excerpt from a new carbon emissions story Jonah mentioned, followed by her own comments (with which I heartily agree). According to a memo on beach bonfires from the Seattle Parks and Recreation Dept. released this Thursday, "The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon ... emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming."

Anne: This can be likened to a dieter wiping sweet peas off the list of things he can eat while retaining ice cream and cake. Or a husband coming home with a set of new golf clubs after telling his wife she needs to have fewer manicures in order to help with household economies. Doesn’t anyone on these boards and committees and government entities ever raise the issue of rationality? There were nearly one million acres of forest land burned in Idaho last year due to past government policies about logging. I hardly think a few thousand beach fires, or even a few million, matter.

Andrew Stuttaford on NRO had this to say about the world's New Religion: The Seattle Sacrifice An entertaining story...and yet another example of how certain aspects of environmentalism are, in some ways, taking on the characteristics of a religion. You can read the banning of the beach bonfires both as ritual sacrifice and as no less ritual renunciation of pleasure. The whole thing is, in all likelihood, futile, but it generates a comfortably shared illusion that 'something' is being done, as well, of course, as providing an excellent opportunity for those in charge to demonstrate their moral superiority and for those beneath them to be bossed about. In its own remarkably petty way, it's perfect.

Sketchy Judgment

It's being widely blogged this weekend that 9/11 plotter Khalied Mohammed was allowed to glance over a courtroom drawing of himself and that military prosecutors caved to his complaints that his nose was drawn too big. According to a story in the New York Post, the courtroom artist was then given additional time to "properly" depict the terrorist. A Pentagon spokesman said, "It shows the lengths we go to take their desires into consideration."

And we are proud of this because...?

Chuck Muth: Paul Supporters Announce Their Own Personal Convention Restart

Chuck Muth's June 6 Nevada News & Views lights on exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about when advising Libertarians to either pacify or disavow their nuttier factions. Chuck is a Ron Paul supporter who laments being tarnished with "the same brush as the wacko fringe of his supporters here in Nevada..." He's referring to a small rebel force of "Paultard" (Paul + retard - re) agitators who have donned their light sabers, dubbed themselves the new experts on Robert’s Rules of Order, and announced their intention to convene their very own Nevada Republican Convention on June 28th in Reno. Of course, only one convention can be held in a presidential election year and the state committee has already announced that it will be on July 26th...but the Paultards are not going to let a little thing like the rule of law get in the way of a good time. Their Thursday press release announced: "Nevada Delegates Reject State Party’s Date for State Convention.” The rest is too ridiculous to repeat.

I agree with Chuck's assessment of how this will likely play out: The Paul supporters will meet on June 28th. Their meeting will have no legitimacy and anyone they “elect” to attend the national convention will not be seated by the RNC. They will then boycott the official July 28th convention which won't be able to muster a quorum in order to conduct official business so either (a) no NV delegates will go to the national Convention, or (b) state party leadership will select the delegates to go to the national Convention. Either way, these Paul supporters won't be casting any actual votes for Paul in any forums that will actually count. Hope they have a great time in Reno on the 28th. Party On!

Yucca Licensing Application Is In

The Reno Gazette Journal reports that Reid and Ensign blast the latest push to get the repository at Yucca Mountain approved. No surprise there. And, since the licensing approval process will take at least another 3 years, this issue will soon be sleeping again. Is no one in Nevada going to get ready for the likelihood that the site will be approved? Don't we have some lobbying and negotiating to do to ensure Nevada benefits from this decision? At least one man is trying, see here.

United We Must Stand

It seems to me that the steady decline of conservatism presents an opportunity for the Libertarian and Conservative movements to unite – if the Libertarians will agree to judiciously advance their agenda within the existing political and cultural framework. If they wish to be taken seriously, Libertarians must recognize that frenzied podium pounding and the organization of unsanctioned political caucuses are largely ineffective. It is fruitless to willfully ignore the existing political machine – or try to shout it down. The Liberty we seek will not be achieved through mindless anarchy. Revolution must be rooted in reasoned reform and must manifest through the public dissemination of information and the existing electoral process. We must persuade through the intelligent presentation of ideas.

Along these lines, Libertarians must also decide to respect reasonable, traditional socio-political norms and disavow the fringe groups who seem more concerned with their freedom to publicly drink, carouse, use drugs, and advertise their sexuality than with preserving and protecting the basic liberties granted by our Constitution. Every individual has the right to “Party On” if they wish, but those who truly seek to promote a civil agenda for the common good must carry themselves with dignity if they expect to be taken seriously. Good manners and courtesy are part of a civilized debate, and only by behaving well and honorably in public forums can we appeal to the Conscience of the nation.

The Libertarian values of Justice and Liberty are the highest political objectives we can seek. Too much government intervention — whether economic, cultural, or social – stifles freedom and corrupts justice. It must be opposed at every turn. Libertarians and Conservatives must unite and march in the direction of the Old Right which opposed the New Deal and favored political decentralization. We must resist increasing infringements on our daily lives. We must abhor the moralizing busybodies in D.C., adhere to Principle, and resist the tempatation to let minor differences divide and conquer us. It is essential that we come together and convince our fellow citizens that we should not rely on The State to do for us what we can and should do for ourselves. We must persuade our neighbors that our dependence upon the nebulous Government to solve all our problems is a losing (and very expensive) game.

In addition, atheist and anti-religious Libertarians must make peace with people of faith. To scoff and snicker at Judeo-Christian thought and the classical-liberal Greek intellectual traditions upon which this nation was built is foolish. What do these anti-God ranters think will replace a deep respect for the dignity of Man, the Golden Rule, and the Scales of Justice in the hearts and minds of men? The only viable political replacement for the deeply imbedded moral Code to which the faithful willingly adhere is either (1) a socialist State that sloppily engages in privileging or de-privileging its citizens through subjective lawmaking and then lulls them into calling it justice and fairness, or (2) a dictator or despot who arbitrarily rules through raw force. These are the very things Libertarians seek to avoid, diminish, or abolish so let us be sensible and realize that the values of Judeo-Christianity have more in common with the core values of Libertarianism than not. Both are rooted in a belief in the right of men to live and die Free and in an adherence to individual responsibility for one's Fate.

Stand by for a post on how Libertarians and Conservatives must find common ground on the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, policing and surveillance, immigration and border control, and preserving and protecting our political and economic interests around the globe.

Christianity and Libertarianism

My learning curve re: Libertarianism continues. Yesterday I found out that some of my new conservative-Libertarian friends are “godless.” Since we agree on issues of excessive taxation, education reform, intelligent energy policy, labor union reform, the decline of the GOP via the erosion of principles of liberty and conservatism, the lack of accountability and transparency in government, and the role a citizen and journalist ought to play in all of it...we shall in all likelihood continue to be agreeable birds in the proverbial nest. And as we join forces to promote truth-telling in civic life, I will continue to explore and entertain those Libertarian principles I think are sound. I really do not know what the political theorists have to say about Christian Libertarianism (is there such a thing?) but this is what I will say for myself, for now:

I believe God created us to be free. This freedom allows us to really Live: to inquire, ponder, reason, decide, experience, learn, grow, and inquire again. God does not force His grace and truth upon us, and Christianity rejects the use of duress or coercion to persuade people - as does Libertarianism. We are each free to choose our path as long as we understand that with freedom comes responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We can and should live Free, but we must not expect others to be harmed or pay the price for our choices (i.e. our freedom must not infringe on the freedoms of others).

The State should have no authority over our God-given freedoms (or "natural rights") except as we agree to submit. The legitimate realm of government should extend only as far as is necessary to protect the liberty, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Government should be as limited as possible while still maintaining order and justice, and we should be wary of those who try to wheedle or steal our freedoms away from us. With freedom we can each choose to search our souls, ponder our origins, and discern some Purpose in our lives – or not. No one can force a "higher purpose" upon another.

My prime example is this: Jesus Christ spent 3+ years walking the earth talking about the Kingdom of God and freedom from oppression. Never once did he use force to persuade anyone. Indeed, this was one of the primary reasons so many Jews rejected Him as the prophecied and promised Messiah: he came quiet as a Lamb instead of roaring like a Lion. Israel's desire for a conquering warrior-king was so whipped-up that they denounced the peace-talking Christ even against all evidence of His authenticity. The Jews wanted to establish a Zionist state in which all non-believers would be punished, banished, or killed; Christ came speaking of love, kindness, patience, mercy, grace, and the brotherhood of all mankind. Christ offered grace - and the Freedom to choose. As Christians, we must do the same. Faith cannot be forced.

The Islamic Law of Apostasy: Murder by Any Other Name

In re: to my recent post on missionaries and Muslims converting to Christianity in the U.K. and elsewhere, Anne of Idaho writes in and asks, "Who is going to be responsible for Islam’s attitude about conversion, i.e., killing apostates?"

Answer: When Muslims choose to murder Muslims who have denounced Islam, the responsible parties are the murderers and no one else...except perhaps the false prophets and teachers who say "believe in Islam, or die." We must not hide ourselves in the hope that the hatred and terror of Islam will pass us by, and we need not assume responsibility for the heinous acts of others.

My encouragement to all Christians - whether missionaries, Muslim converts, or ordinary citizens - is to have the courage to seek, believe, and speak the truth about God whenever and wherever possible. If there is a price for believing and sharing God's truth and grace, whether Islamic enmity or even our earthly lives, then let us gladly pay it. It doesn't matter whether our listener is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan, and it doesn't matter on what nation's soil we stand. In the grand scheme of things, we each have an audience of One. We must open our hearts and live with courage and joy. We must live as if death is already defeated. And so it Is.

Murderers cannot kill us; they can only send us Home.

great comment from OvercomingBias.com

From a post on yesterday's Overcomingbias.com:

For the last few years the message we'd heard from our relatively liberal media is about how powerful is the U.S. president and how important are leader motives in determining policy outcomes. Specifically, we've heard that U.S. outcomes are bad because of Bush's despicable motives [added: and incompetence] -- Bush has personally destroyed Iraq, New Orleans, the global environment, the deficit, oil and food prices, drug prices, the housing market, the mortgage industry, civil rights, and so on.

Odds are we will soon have a president Obama, and with him the outcomes won't be much different - U.S. presidents don't control that much after all. So we will soon hear the media talking a lot more about how limited is presidential power and how important is other context in determining outcomes -- Obama tried but was thwarted by congress, foreigners, interest groups, the weather, complexity, and so on. Just wait for it.

What a great point. I have always found the intellectually dishonest habit of scapegoating a president for Every Wrong Under the Sun very annoying. Anyone who remembers his 8th grade history and civics lessons in re: to our system of built-in checks and balances (refresher: the legistlative branch; the judiciary; and the executive office ) ought to know that Presidents do not, in fact, have all that much power. Love them or hate them as you wish, but don't blame them personally for decisions that Congress also made, or the Courts upheld.

CNS News: Anglican Church Aims to Spread Gospel to UK Muslims

In re: to my "Evangelism: The New Hate Crime" post, Kevin McCandless @ CNSNews.com (London) reports that with more and more Britons embracing Islam, the Church of England is launching a campaign aimed at converting Muslims to Christianity. At the church's General Synod this coming July, clergy and lay members will consider a motion calling for a recognition of the "uniqueness of Christ" and urging the church to proclaim "the gospel of salvation through Christ alone."

Paul Eddy, the priest introducing the motion, said he fears that the Anglican Church has "watered down its faith" in recent years. Where many Muslims are outspoken and publicly robust in their faith, he said the church of England has "lost its nerve." Among other measures, Eddy says he wants to see priests receive training in evangelization. Eddy has already secured support from a number of synod members, including Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, a Pakistan-born clergyman has recently repeated earlier warnings that the decline of Christianity has weakened Britain and led to many neighborhoods becoming "no-go areas" for non-Muslims.

Sign Here

According to polls, between 50% and 73% of the American people agree that with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment, we should drill for oil off America's coasts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If you agree, click here to sign a petition that will urge Congress to authorize the exploration of domestic energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.

Nevada's Trifecta of Education Failures

In his May 31st Nevada News & Views, Chuck Muth mentioned that four of five of Nevada's "anti-charter school" State Board of Education board members are up for re-election this year. This is notable because the Board has killed (by a vote of 5-5) all recent school choice measures including slapping a moratorium on all new charter school applications as well as voting against the expansion of existing charter schools. (The Board's explanation for denying new school applications? They were "overwhelmed" - with all 11 of them.) Muth has often pointed out that just one vote would make a difference. Happily, four challengers have now been found and have successfully filed to run against the anti-charter board members. Happier still, the four challenged members have now decided NOT to run - and there is apparently serious discussion of a recall effort against the remaining anti-charter member, Anthony Ruggiero. Those hoping for greater school choice may be only one election away from seeing change.

Why does this matter? The answer, according to Matthew Ladner's recent piece over at the Nevada Policy Research Institute (for the whole article go to http://www.npri.org/publications/quality--quantity) is twofold. First, the US Census Bureau has estimated that the number of Nevada children under the age of 18 will nearly double between now and the year 2030. To accommodate this growth, Nevada will have no choice but to build many new schools as well as fix up some old ones. Second, Nevada's quality of education is extremely poor. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which tests representative samples of students in all 50 states, shows that Nevada's fourth graders rank 46th in the nation in reading skills, while its eighth graders rank 47th. An alarming 43 percent of Nevada fourth graders scored below the basic level on reading on the recent 2007 exams, while 37 percent of eighth graders scored below basic reading levels. Add all this to the above mentioned slap-down of charter schools, and you've got a Trifecta - of failures.

Nevada's apologists for these problems are constantly calling for more money. Unfortunately, our taxpayers have been pursuing spendy policy for decades with little to show for it. Nevada's public school spending in 2003 was between 40 and 60 percent higher than the national average on a per-pupil basis (depending on the spending category) yet our students are testing more poorly than ever. Given our rapid growth, increased costs are unavoidable, but borrowing for new school facilities must eventually be repaid in the form of lower classroom spending - or, as is customary here in the Silver State, higher taxes. Even with tax hikes, Nevada's public school districts continue to take on millions in new debt each year as they strive to keep up with rising enrollment.

School choice - including the addition and expansion of charter schools - can improve public school performance, reduce the need for new debt, and reduce the burden on taxpayers. School choice programs can actually place students in quality private schools for less than the cost to educate the student in the public system. How is this possible? One example Ladner cites comes to us from Florida's corporate scholarship tax credit program, Step Up for Students. He says it "gives a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to corporations that assist non-profits to provide private school scholarships." The result, according to the Collins Center for Public Policy, is that the state saves about $3,800 for each student using a scholarship credit voucher. Sounds like good policy to me.

Evangelism: The New Hate Crime

We learn from this story in the Telegraph that two American evangelical ministers living in Great Britain were recently threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime." The nature of their heinous acts? They were handing out gospel leaflets and talking with four Asian youths. Apparently a police community support officer interrupted the conversation and questioned the ministers about their beliefs. He then told them they were "in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread [a] Christian message." He said they were committing a "hate crime" and threatened to take them to the police station. He did not in fact arrest them but did part with these ominous words: "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well, you have been warned."

Will this incident fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns with large Muslim populations, as the Bishop of Rochester claimed in The Sunday Telegraph earlier this year? The outcome of the trial will surely have some bearing. Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, the two full-time evangelical ministers, have launched legal action against West Midlands Police, claiming the officer infringed on their right to profess their religion.

Homeland Security Under-Secretary Wants War Terminology Tweaked

Just when we thought the pious worship of Political Correctness couldn’t get any sillier, today’s Financial Times reports that a high ranking Homeland Security official wants us to stop using the phrase “War on Terror” because it’s being “interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam.” The suggestion surfaced in two memos including one from the National Counterterrorism Center entitled “Words that Work and Words That Don’t.” One wonders who at the NCC hemorraged their cerebrum thinking up that dazzling heading? The other erudite memo, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, stated, “The terminology the U.S. government uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology.”

Question: Huh???

Can someone explain to me why the Muslim world is now equating the word terror with Islam after years of repeatedly and indignantly claiming that their religion is one of peace? Haven't we all been told ad nauseum that there's a huge difference between the religion of Islam and the fanatacism of terrorists? How can the phrase “war on terror” do anything to “inflate” the peace-loving Muslim religious base if the two are truly as far removed from one another as the East from the West…? And why is the Department of Homeland Security happily going along with all this blather without so much as a Whoa Nellie?

This protest reminds me a little of the Far Lefties who ranted and raved about President Bush calling them “appeasers” in his recent speech to Israel’s Parliament…when Bush was not in fact talking about them. Their misinterpretation and half-hysterical remonstrations revealed that they think of themselves as that dirtiest of modern wartime words: appeasers. One suspects this “Terror = Islam” objection is the same sort of cognitive math. We’re not saying the war on terror is a war on Islam, but the Muslim world is hearing it – because they already know the two often equate.

In any case, the United Muslims Against Accuracy seem to have some fans here in the America. A few international policy experts have suggested that we should re-name the challenge of our times as “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress.” Noble sounding, but vague. It also comes a bit too close for comfort to the enthusiastic slogans of “progress” and “modernism” espoused by Communist China and other totalitarian regimes. Not exactly the banner we want to be waving as we march around the world.

Additionally, the slogan falls short because we are largely engaged in a global struggle between – and not of – nations. Anyone who’s been paying attention for more than five minutes knows we can’t even agree on what progress should look like, nevermind how to team up and bring it about. The un-United Nations ruminates endlessly over what should be done on a thousand fronts as they grapple with the cold, hard fact that America’s “security and progress” is the nightmare of many world leaders. To pretend we are a part of a unified global community floating in a happy boat of common values and progressive agendas is to depart from the realms of PC politics and sail toward the sandy white shores of LaLa Land.

As I circle back on the moniker “war on terror,” allow me to suggest this snappy phrase for the next round of NCC and DHS memos: “War On Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime Who So Much As Breathes In the Direction of American Lives, Limbs, Liberties, and Lands”

That should do very nicely, now and forever. Semper Fi!

Vegas trivia

It may come as a surprise to out-of-towners that Las Vegas has more Catholic churches than casinos. Perhaps not as surprising is the fact that Sunday worshipers sometimes toss casino chips in the offering basket. Since they receive chips from so many different casinos, the Catholic churches have devised a method of collecting: they send all their chips to a nearby Franciscan monastery for sorting and the chips are then taken to the casinos and cashed in. This is done by the chip monks.

What Floats McCain's Boat

Chuck Muth’s YuccaFacts has good fun today. He first quotes John McCain on Yucca Mountain in a speech in Denver yesterday:

“I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”

Muth then reminds us that a primary argument of Yucca Repository opponents has been Transportation and quips, Does the term “mobile Chernobyl” ring any bells?” Now, enter McCain with this grand Plan for overseas storage. Muth poses the obvious question: “How is it going to get there?” and wonders how consistent opposers will be in re: to their objections when the destination is no longer Yucca – nor indeed, anywhere in the good old U.S. of A.

My questions are: Which lucky nation does McCain have in mind for the storage site? Who will enthusiastically raise their hand in favor of becoming the world’s nuclear septic tank? And how does Mr. GreenJeans – the guy who now sells organic t-shirts and mugs on his website and “uncategorically opposes” building an oil refinery and pipeline in rural Alaska so a few caribou can freely enjoy an unfettered sunset – justify suggesting floating boatloads of radioactive waste in and out of the world’s major ports and population centers?

I'm with Stupid

This past weekend we went to see Ben Stein’s new docu-film “Expelled.” Though I could’ve done without the insertion of old black-and-white film clips for dramtic effect, I thought the rest of the film was pretty good mainly because Stein did a decent job of choosing representatives from both sides (i.e. Intelligent Design vs. Evolution). He asked respectful and thoughtful questions; he never interrupted; and he gave everyone ample time to speak their respective pieces. For the most part, he got out of the way, which I find admirable in this day and age of unrepentant Me-ism.

The most unlikable scientist in the film heatedly called anyone who does not believe in evolution – as in, ancient lifeless primordial goop spontaenously birthing a living cell which then evolved into every species on the planet – “stupid.” Whatever his beliefs, I don’t see how that sort of name calling is necessary, constructive, or scientific. For one thing, the stupidity of a human being has no bearing whatsoever on a Fact. If a scientist thinks he has a waterproof case, then he ought to thoughtfully and logically present it. If the evidence is sufficient, then no amount of stupidity in the universe matters. It is what it is and eventually all will know it. If, on the other hand, his “scientific” theory is birthed from the loins of pre-existing assumptions, carries numerous unanswered questions in its backpack, is missing key evidence, and therefore requires a series of additional assumptions in order to make it a unified whole, then perhaps he ought to pluck the log out of his own eye and realize that the ignorance may be his – or, at the very least, that he still has some work to do.

Secondly, there is simply no rational justification for calling scientists who reject evolution, or those who believe in a Creator and who think they see both Design and Designer in the universe “stupid,” even if they are one day found to be wrong (which I don’t think will be the case, but allowing for the possibility helps my argument). Very smart people are wrong all the time. Throughout history, very well-educated scientists and researchers have been proven incorrect by later discoveries. Wrong does not equal stupid. It’s a blatant Fallacy, and it’s incredibly annoying to hear puffed-up and self-congratulating scientists use it on their fellow citizens as if it says something meaningful.

I believe there is no conflict between True Science and the existence of a Creator. I believe that serious, exploratory science can, has, and will continue to lead to the discovery of absolutely amazing Truths about the cosmos. Quantum physicists and certain sub-sets of chaos theorists are perhaps coming closest at present, but other newer branches of science may replace these in the future. It is my unapologetic view that what evolutionists call “natural selection” – mutations within species – may well be true, but evolution as a unified theory of the origin of all life on Earth is inadequate, unlikely, and as of yet, unproven. I can accept the fact of changes in a finch’s beak over time, as supported by fossil records. I cannot accept that a single-celled organism rode on the back of some magic crystal, suddenly came to life, and evolved into Me after passing “Go” and dumping off two million other species along the way. Call me crazy - or stupid, as the case may be.

I longingly wait for the day when more scientists acknowledge, as atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins finally did at the end of Stein’s film, that science still cannot explain the existence of a living cell, that neither Nothingness nor non-living matter could possibly have birthed it without some “spark” or “pre-existing” force or yet-unknown element, that the discoveries of microbiology have utterly astounded the scientific community in the years since Darwin, and that the inner-workings of a living cell (reproduction, metabolism, transport, repair) do indeed appear to be fabulously and wondrously engineered and/or designed. When pressed to name possible Sources of that first living blob on earth, Dawkins became uncomfortable and hestitatingly cited ancient alien DNA as one feasible font-o-life. When asked where THAT came from, he smiled and seemed to realize his predicament.

The so-called conflict between science and God is an illusion. The origin of life is neither a scientific question nor a religious question. It transcends both. When we all finally realize this, men and angels can rejoice – and Dawkins and Stein can have a beer and laugh.

In Deo speramus

It is perhaps fitting that on the day after Memorial Day, Victor Davis Hanson writes about Obama's "frequent recitals of U.S. history in which the Underground Railroad, the freedom riders, women suffragists, and icons of the civil-rights movement figure prominently." Hanson points out that in almost every reference to America's collective past, Obama mentions some sort of reform and/or protest. Hanson then cautions us against adopting as our heroes only those "who found the system wanting and took it on."

Hanson rightly says that there are many historical figures responsible for our freedom and prosperity and that many of them were not social activists. He suggests that Obama ought to try mentioning a few, "whether an Edison and Bell, people of action and courage like Lewis and Clark or Lindbergh, political figures such as Teddy Roosevelt, and military heroism at places like Gettysburg, the Meuse-Argonne, Okinawa, Chosun, or Hue" and says there is a need to "remind Americans of concrete examples of our exceptionalism, of good works, and of men and women of singular accomplishment".

I wholeheartedly agree. Our nation has birthed many great Citizens who never walked a picket line or marched on Washington D.C. Skepticism and dissent have their place, but we must not ever think an anti-establishment mentality is necessary to Heroism. What is essential are one or more of the following qualities: courage, strength, persistence, the love of justice, honesty, integrity, responsibility, and above all, humility. This list of virtues widens the field considerably. Indeed, I would posit that in addition to our researchers, doctors, nurses, inventors, teachers, writers, and assorted public servants, many of America's greatest citizens are ordinary people attempting to live decent lives in the midst of tremendous personal difficulty.

When I think of Barack and Michelle's seemingly endless harping and complaining, and their focus on an endless parade of negatives, I am reminded of Paul's letter to the Philippians in which he wrote, "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things" (Philippians 4:8).

Though we are not a perfect nation, how happy we should be that there is much that is true, noble, just, and good in our history. Ours is not the shameful story some like to tell: an ugly nation of extended injustices interrupted by rare heroic protests. We are more than that.

I will never vote for nor admire a man who thinks that greatness and virtue lie only on our horizon and only through his insight and leadership...rather than behind us and eternally within us by the grace of God. We are not perfect, nor ever have been. But it is God - and not Obama - in whom we hope and trust for redemption, and it is the contemplation not of what is wrong but of all that is good and right that gives us and all our heroes both courage and "the audacity of hope."

Jesus Christ: Good Man, Great Moral Teacher, or God the "I AM"?

What does a Christian say to someone who acknowledges Jesus Christ as a wise man, or says he was a great moral teacher, but who does not believe in Christ-as-God: God incarnate, God in spirit, and the son of God?

I often refer to the words of C.S. Lewis in his famous book Mere Christianity: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument refers us to two things. One is Jesus' own words about Who He Is. In the gospel of John, we note that Jesus uses the verbal formula "I AM" to describe himself as deity. Jesus says, I am the bread of life (6:35); I am the light of the world (8:12, 9:5); I am the gate (10:7); I am the good shepherd (10:11,14); I am the resurrection and the life (11:25); I am the way and the truth and the life (14:16); and I am the true vine (15:1).

As a Hebraic scholar, Jesus knew that "I AM" is the primary scriptural name of God. It is equated with the name Jehovah and/or Yahweh (YHWH) from the Hebrew haveh meaning "to be", which when conjugated in the singular present form is: "I AM." It also carries connotations of the Hebrew chaveh meaning "to live". When Moses asks God for his name (Exodus 3:13), God answers, "I AM WHO I AM" (or according to the Old King James translation, "I AM THAT I AM").

Jesus' deliberate use of the words "I am" combined with other Biblical, God-equivalent words such as "way," "truth," "life," "bread," "water," and "shepherd," show that he meant to declare his deity. It leaves no room for the "great moral teacher" argument. He was either speaking the Truth, or he was being deceitful, or he was deluded.

The second thing Lewis' words refer to is what Christians understand to be the sword-like attributes of the Logos or Word of God. It slices and separates truth from untruth. In a Christian worldview, celestial logos divides right from wrong, light from dark, and God from all that is anti-God (or anti-Christ). Whether we can appropriately apply the Word to our lives and walk the godly line between truth and grace is always in question. If we do not, the lack is in us - not in the eternal and Logos of the Creator.

In one of my favorite Bible verses, John eloquently proclaims his belief in the eternal and pre-existent deity of Jesus when he begins his book with the words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). His use of the word Logos has a deep personal, spiritual, and cosmic meaning for me. This LOGOS of the I AM exists in eternity, ever and always creates. HE moves, whirls, stands, binds, sustains, trancends, and reveals. I AM walks and talks where and when HE pleases - or HE exists not at all. So, for me, the deity of Christ is easy to believe.

Blessings on this Sabbath.

How to Be a Renaissance Man

Click here for the 75 skills every man should have, according to Esquire.

The GOP: Bastion of Conservative Values or Multi-Brand Vending Machine?

Ran across this blog post by David All that essentially says Republicans need to change up the game, give up on having a core set of principles and/or limited agenda, and act more like iTunes and NetFlix -- i.e. offer conservative, libertarian, and independent voters more and varied choices -- under the larger brand "Republican."

Says All, "Gone are the days of Newt Gingrich's Contract for America, a plan which every Republican got behind and backed. A unified agenda back in 1994 was possible because of Newt Gingrich's intoxicating personality and strong leadership style; but it was also a different time, a time before the Internet inspired a culture of choice and information. Today, thanks to the Internet, each Member of Congress can and should be fighting in the trenches for the hundreds of issues which drive their voters to the polls under the banner of the Republican Party. The Internet provides a medium to distribute our message like never before. We can fight on thousands of fronts."

I'd like to hear more about the "choices" All thinks Republicans should offer in order to endear people to the "brand." I'm not opposed to hundreds of worthy mini-causes flying under the flag of the GOP, and I understand the wisdom of drumming up support through issues that click with certain voter groups. I'm just concerned that when we start talking about "branding" and "diversification" we sound more like a corporation trying to market itself for profit than a Party of values and beliefs. Loyal voters and dollars are needed, true. But is this Coca-Cola, or is this the Grand Old Party of the Republic?

Maybe All is simply suggesting that there are not ten or twenty but hundreds of conservative/libertarian issues and sub-issues to talk about, a plethora of related agenda items we could pursue, and an Internet which can help us do both. If so, I agree. If, on the other hand, All is suggesting that we water down the drink to make it easier for weaker stomachs to swallow, or that we start selling other types of soda, I can't concur. The GOP must remain rooted in conservatism, and we must persuade the citizenry - through the intelligent and passionate presentation of our values - that it is well worth preserving.

Oliver Stone to Release "W" in late October

In a subtle effort to enlighten us all, and with no thought of influencing the national election two weeks later, Lionsgate Studios and Oliver Stone will release what sounds like a downright mean-spirited biopic on George W. Bush on October 17th, 2008. As Mark Hemingway pointed out, this will be the third election in a row that a highly charged political film was released right before the nation heads to the polls. No worries: it will flop and/or fizzle, as all of them have.

How DARE You Call Me That!

We all know the New York Times has a track record of running fast and loose with the label "conservative" while severely limiting their use of the word "liberal." The Times also recently apologized for using the word "Democratic" to describe a Democratic organization. The nerve!

Vegas Union Boss Threatens MGM With Picketing Prostitutes

A push to organize MGM Mirage security guards has turned ugly, with the union’s lead organizer comparing casino executives to terrorists and threatening to bring homeless people and prostitutes to the picket line in order to make things unpleasant for the company. Those who know the organizer, Steve Maritas, don't seem too surprised by his tactics. Apparently he was convicted in San Diego of stalking his former girlfriend, and says he learned a lot about the union business from his father, a former president of a 30,000-member carpenters district council in New York City who was indicted on racketeering charges.

Read the whole story in the Las Vegas Sun, including how Maritas admits his "street tactics" backfired when he put a picture of Osama bin Laden next to a picture of Mandalay Bay President Bill Hornbuckle on the union’s Web site. “They’re both terrorists,” he told the Sun.

What Happens in Vegas Is Rarely Boring

Didn't turn on the PC and check my Inbox when I got home last night so didn't read about the drama involving Nevada Republican assemblywoman Francis Allen or see this arrest report until now. Two nights ago, she stabbed her new husband in the arm with a kitchen knife. She then locked herself in the bedroom. Because...he embarrassed her in front of her friends earlier in the evening. Hubby pulled the knife out of his arm and, with remarkable presence of mind, threw it in a ZipLoc baggie and drove himself to Summerlin hospital where a police report was filed, the knife was seized, and Allen was subsequently arrested for assault with a deadly weapon.

Her side of the story? He accidentally cut himself.

As Chuck Muth quipped in his Nevada News & Views, "I'd say the Honeymoon is over. As is her political career."

Reasons Against Yucca Repository

Looks like we have a Comment on one of the Yucca posts earlier this month. He/she is a proponent of nuclear power and favors recycling spent fuel, but is not in favor of Yucca Mountain as a long-term storage site. Primary concerns are geological and ecological: Nevada is the third most earthquake-prone state and a disaster could result in contamination of the aquifer for the entire Las Vegas valley. Another concern is transportation: can we safely move all the waste here over our highways, railways, and waterways? Even if we can, our reader suggests that instead of burying the hot waste while it winds down over the next 40,000 years, we develop better recycling technology so storage is not needed - and so nuclear energy becomes a quasi-renewable resouce.

Whatever else, I agree with this statement: "I would love to read an unbiased report about storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain." The Heritage Foundation recently stated that "no scientific, safety, or technological reason" prevents using Yucca Mountain as a repository. Is this really true? What is the proposed solution to the earthquake/acquifer challenge? I'd sure like to see more data before making my final call on the storage issue. As for recycling all the waste, naturally this seems best. With all the billions of dollars to be made, surely there must be an interest in a privatized R&D effort?

U.S. Government: Interfering Busybody or Protector and Stablizer?

Anne of Idaho writes:

It should be possible to remove ourselves from the habit of interfering in the internal policies of other nations while not giving up our role as protector and stabilizer of general areas of commerce in the world. Think of it this way: police action can be limited to protecting citizens in the streets (i.e., in public) but not invading homes and businesses (with or without warrants).

Our federal domestic policy of interfering in the minutest aspects of personal life (what we can eat, say, teach) is mirrored in our concomitant policy overseas of thinking we have the right to oversee the lives of foreigners.

A good parent knows how to maintain order without stifling freedom of thought and action. A “good nation” can and should do the same.

But a nation is not an entity in and of itself. It is a composite of millions of people of all ages and beliefs and agendas. Our ability to turn “nation” into an abstract whole has historically been of questionable service to the pursuit of peace and happiness. But the greater error will be in the abstract concept of “one world.”

People is plural.

Agree on all points.

Question: What if we learn that foreign terrorists are plotting and planning in private homes or the back rooms of private businesses of their nations? Do we have the "right" (or obligation) - with or without state or legal authorization - to disturb them and try to prevent their crimes before they hit the streets?

Question expanded to our dealings with nations: What if we learn that weapons are being developed and/or terrorists and murderers are being trained and motivated in the caves and compounds of certain countries? Do we attempt to preempt? Or do we wait for the crimes to be committed, and then try to track down the perpetrators, and hope that our success in doing so will prevent other crimes?

Should the liberty of a person, group, or nation be allowed (have the right to) exist right up until a crime is committed? Or is one's liberty subject to limitation as soon as one begins actively planning to infringe upon the liberty of another?

U.S. Government Reveals Brilliant Economic Strategy: Buy High, Sell Low

So…how about that Farm Bill? Is anyone else bothered by the fact that it contains a provision instructing the Fed to buy “surplus” sugar from sugar-growers at an inflated price...and then sell it at an artificially low price in order to make ethanol? Put another way, in support of sugar farmers and ethanol makers, Congress has decided that the U.S. Taxpayer will deliberately buy over-priced sugar and then deliberately sell it at a loss. I am just disgusted with the Congressional Republicans who voted in favor of this bill. Some sources say the legislation will increase farm spending by 44 percent over last year... Great policy, guys!

Researching Religious Figures

In my Internet wanderings this week, I ran across a good essay about the psycho-historical/psycho-biographical study of religious personalities. The subject is of interest to me in two respects: (1) the methodologies involved in investigating an historical religious figure (as opposed to any other kind of historical person), and (2) issues related to understanding the interplay between psychology and spiritualism and/or religion. I am interested in questions like: What is the role of the researcher in studying religious subjects? What place does psychology – of both the researcher and the researched – have in such endeavors? How does one methodically and objectively research religious/spiritual experience? Etc.

Media Bias Alive and Well at NBC News

On the Corner earlier this week, K-Lo provided a transcript of a letter from Ed Gillespie @ the GOP to the president of NBC News. It’s a must read for anyone interested in (or who still denies) Media Bias. The lack of journalistic integrity over at NBC News is truly outrageous. I'd threaten to stop watching, but I haven't watched in years. Anyway, the letter begins thusly:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.

Gillespie's subsequent points were that W's remarks before the Knesset were the same as all his past policy statements, the "appeasement" line needed to be put in context, and the U.S. has a long-standing policy position against negotiating with terrorists...so all the whipped-up frenzy was unnecessary. He referred to NBC's "deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline" as "utterly misleading and irresponsible." Gillespie then went on to say the following:

As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"

How nice to know that Matt Lauer, our nation's foremost expert on military and political affairs, was part of the careful deliberation that led to this "news." We certainly approve of such an accomplished foreign policy expert as Where-In-The-World Lauer. I mean, we've all seen his Tango, so, 'nuf said. Gillespie continues:

I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

Gillespie's letter ends thus:

Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olberman at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Who Else Would Do It? Who Else Could?

In re: to my Bob Barr/Libertarian post, Anne of Idaho writes:

People lose sight of the fact that our military strength does more than protect the USA . We patrol the waters in the Mediterranean in order to keep the region stable so that all countries can benefit from the peaceful movement of oil and other goods. Our presence in many areas keeps traditional foes restrained. And our military strength enables other countries (think EU) to have tiny military budgets. They know we are there. What would they do if we weren’t?

They would be royally screwed, me-thinks. Not that we say these things out loud. It wouldn't be politically correct to point out the world's dependency on us, nor to state that there is no other nation on earth who does so much, for so many, with so little thanks - or reciprocity. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."

Getting back to how all this relates to Libertarianism, though, I still ask: what is the logical-philosophical justification for the party's Isolationist ideas? I need a Libertarian to tell me.

A Few Words on Bob Barr

Bob Barr has announced his desire for the Libertarian party nomination. For those of you who are unfamiliar, Barr was a Republican who served four terms in Congress (for Georgia) before losing in a 2002 primary fight against Rep. John Linder. A quick sum-up of his time in Congress: he voted Yes to the Iraq war, Yes to the prescription-drug program, and Yes to the Patriot Act.

Barr now flies the Libertarian flag and says he is Pure-Dee anti-government as well as a staunch non-Interventionist. In another interesting role reversal, he has recently joined hands with the Marijuana Policy Project to repeal the hard work he did as as member of the Task Force for a Drug-Free America (Barr once helped block a voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana in D.C.) He says the expansion of government power after 9/11 changed his views on the war on drugs. (What does the Patriot Act have to do with cracking down on joint-smoking cancer patients? I’m just wondering…)

Anyway, I agree with Barr’s change of mind on medical marijuana and I sure don’t mind him opposing a taxpayer subsidized prescription drug plan (or any other kind of subsidy), but on the Patriot Act and the war on terror I think he’s just plain wrong. Barr now opposes laws which (I believe) have improved U.S. counter-terrorism efforts without stomping on too many constitutional liberties.

As my GOP friends keep reminding me: in a close presidential race, every vote is important. Even if that weren't the case this year, I don’t think I would vote for Bob Barr based on his views re: international relations. Perhaps I’m not leaning as Libertarian as I thought…

Question: Are Libertarian candidates making a mistake vis a vis their insistence on being anti-Interventionist? It seems to me that those who care most deeply about protecting fundamental liberties should be in favor of intelligently deploying our military wherever and whenever lunatics gather and train with the monomaniacal goal of killing us (death being the ultimate loss of freedom). 9/11 and other deadly incidents of international terrorism over the past two decades should have changed the way we think about how, when, and where we send troops and wage wars...shouldn't it?

Political Interpretations of Quantum Theory

If you are into quantum mechanics and politics, you MUST go to this page.

(Hat tip to Jonah @ NRO)

Obama Speaks! (File Under: OMG)

Listen up, good Peeps: Obama has a word for us!

“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say 'OK.'”

We can’t…? We can’t eat a hearty dinner and turn the thermostat down a notch for fear of upsetting foreign governments…? We can’t pick Grandma and Grandpa up in the SUV to go see the kid's football game and just expect to get away with it...?!

For the record: we primarily drive a mid-sized fuel-efficient sedan, eat normal quantities of food, and keep our thermostat between 76 and 79. But if I WANT to buy a gas-guzzler, gorge myself silly from dawn to dusk, and turn the temperature down so low it starts snowing in the living room, I darn well WILL - and Senator Obama and his international PC police can kiss my well-fed, air-conditioned, Hummer- driving a**.

The Opinion of Chief Justice Ronald M. George

It is a testament to our times that California Supreme Court Chief Justice George’s activist opinion really comes as no great surprise. Though his opinion conceded that “from the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman,” and though California voters in 2000 overwhelmingly ratified that understanding by adopting The California Defense of Marriage Act, Justice George feels just fine and dandy about distorting his state's constitution and overriding the electorate.

As the ink dries on George's opinion, we contemplate how marriage, and really, all of the most intimate and personal aspects of human relations, are being reduced to mere matters of personal "choice" and style. We shrug at tradition while our judges are busy red-lining our constitutions. It seems to me that the adoption of Tolerance as the greatest of all virtues, and the insistence upon viewing the world subjectively, have sped us to this place. Each person is his own little god, deciding for himself what is best and right. He yields to no moral authority; he is master of all he surveys.

The twentieth century has witnessed as much moral-personal and political change as all of History combined, and the U.S. seems to be evolving (devolving?) rapidly. I hope we are ready to deal with the consequences.

Patriot Post: Historic Documents resource

Click here for a great resource page containing links to all our nation's major historic and Founding documents. I'll be adding a link on the sidebar.

Everything Is Spiritual

Just finished watching "Everything Is Spiritual," a DVD teaching by Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Regardless of your worldview or beliefs, this DVD is a must see. I'll probably be buying it as a gift for everyone on my Christmas list this year. Just Amazing!

Desert Beauty

Before visiting Las Vegas for the first time in 1997, I envisioned a land without color (especially green). Here's a neat page of thumbnail photos that show just how pretty the desert can be. Click on each photo to see it enlarged (so you can fully appreciate the vibrant colors).

Center for Yucca Facts Cites Heritage Foundation Report : Yucca Mountain Remains Critical to Spent Nuclear Fuel Management

See this Yucca Facts blog post for the Heritage Foundation's report on the role of Yucca Mountain in the future of nuclear power in the U.S. While acknowledging that Yucca is not the whole answer, Heritage says it IS part of the solution - if not held up by politics, and if properly managed.

Jets Getting Some Exercise at Nellis AFB

Every time I've been out and about this week, including today at lunch, they've been running aerial combat exercises over Nellis. What's cooking with all the war games?!

Just for fun: Click here for YouTube video of past "Red Flag" training excercises at Nellis.

More Knesset Snippets

I’ve seen and heard lots of snippets of Bush’s speech yesterday to the Israeli Knesset, the most “controversial” of which are now on Talk Tadio and all over the Blogosphere. If you want to read the whole transcript (as I did), you can find it here on NewsBusters.

Here are a few blurbs from the speech (in italics) along with my comments:

We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.

Like our own Founding Fathers, Gen-Gurion and friends found certain truths to be self-evident and pushed through to the establishment of a new and democratic nation. The birth of the state of Israel in 1968 resonated with Americans because it reminded us of our own history.

Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world.

And so, we became BFFs.

The alliance between our governments is unbreakable...

I hope W is right, but I wonder. Obama’s been hinting around that under his leadership we'll be having fewer slumber parties with Israel and may be catching an occasional dinner and a movie with Amajinadad. If he/we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that diplomacy will work with neo-fascist, murderous Islamic despots, and if our nation's citizenry continues to devolve away from the roots of our Judeo-Christian faith, will we really remain passionate about being friends with the Jewish state? Or will the friendship fizzle out?

We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.

It is indeed outrageous that the U.N. so disproportionately chastises Israel. Just one more reason to question the moral and political legitimacy of the U.N.

....the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Not sure “natural” is the best word for the tendency to ignore, explain, justify, or defend wrongdoing. Intentions may indeed be good, but the proverbial road to hell-on-earth is paved with too great a tolerance for too many wrongs.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.

Words can be powerful, but people can believe in their ability to influence through rhetoric far too much. Jimmy Carter's recent meeting with Hamas was just the most recent example of such Hubris. There are many political occasions that call for talking, reasoning, and negotiating; there are some that do not.

We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.

All men are created equal; all governments are not. Arguments that we cannot and should not try to force democracy upon the nations of the world are valid. Democracy, by its very nature, must be conceived and carried in the minds of common men. Liberty must be desired, even at the cost of one's own life. The fear of death must be overcome by the will to live freely and well . The birth of a republic follows long, difficult labor.