Andrew Sullivan directs us to this interesting article on the Mathew Shepard murder. The reader may remember that Shepard was a homosexual who was brutally murdered after leaving a nightspot with two other men. The crime became a cause celebre among those pushing for hate crime legislation as well as those who wished to portray America as a hot-bed of homophobia.

It turns out that the sordid facts of the case don't lend themselves to either of these purposes.

RLC

This story tells of a woman who had been paralyzed for twenty years who is now able to walk at least a little as a result of stem cell therapy. This is wonderful news and a partial vindication of President Bush's stance on stem cell research. The cells which were used were taken from umbilical cord blood, not human embryos.

Perhaps one of the most astonishing things about the report is that this woman was able to get up out of her wheel chair despite the fact that John Kerry and John Edwards were not elected on November 2nd.

RLC

The Philosophers' Magazine features an article from The Australian which discusses the thoughts of philosopher A.C. Grayling on the difference between academics and intellectuals:

Ouch! In other words, modern academics, or at least a substantial portion of them, have devoted their lives to a completely pointless pursuit of the trivial and insignificant. One wonders how a haughty author of numerous papers and books that no one has read or cares about reacts to the charge that his life's work is a meaningless waste of time. Not equably, we suspect.

RLC

Marvin Olasky does an interview with Peter Singer, the Australian born ethicist now teaching at Princeton, and offers some interesting commentary on Singer's radical views.

Professor Singer's views are shocking but they shouldn't be. He is simply living out, more consistently than most, the implications of an atheistic worldview. Olasky quotes Whittaker Chambers who wrote a half-century ago that, "Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness."

Professor Singer, we say, is more consistent than most atheists but that is not to say that he is totally consistent. He does seem to think that some things are wrong, for example abusing animals, but here he fails to follow the logic of his assumptions. If he's correct about there being no moral authority outside of our own autonomous selves then moral categories like right and wrong are meaningless and empty of content. There are only things that we desire to do and to say that to impose upon those acts some moral value is arbitrary and gratuitous.

Naturalism offers man no moral anchor to keep him from drifting toward whatever behavior his feelings and impulses incline him. Whatever we can do is "right" to do. If Singer were totally consistent, he would simply say that the only ethical system which makes any sense, given his worldview, is the one which says that might makes "right."

RLC

We had decided sometime ago that seeing Oliver Stone's Alexander the Great would be an inexcusable waste of time and money. Victor David Hanson agrees:

We're glad we passed it up.

RLC

Kudos to David Wayne at Jollyblogger for calling our attention to the Reformed view of predestination and for doing such a fine job of laying out the case for it. He admits in his piece that the implications of the doctrine are difficult to reconcile with the concept of a perfectly just and good God, but the Bible seems clear, he argues, that some people are predestined to be saved and some are predestined to be lost and that whether we understand it or not that's where we have to take our stand.

We're not theologians here at Viewpoint, but we're not so sure that the words of the Bible actually demand this interpretation. It's possible to read the verses cited by Wayne as suggesting that those who freely accept Christ and are saved are, or have been, predestined to then go on to become sons of God. We grant that this may not be the plainest sense of the words, but when the plain sense doesn't make sense then it is sound exegesis to seek another sense. And if anything about this controversy is clear it is that the conjunction of the following two propositions does not make sense:

One Calvinist reply to the apparent contradiction between these two claims is to quote Paul who asks "does the clay ask the potter why have you made me thus", but this seems an inadequate response to a very perplexing question. Clay pots are not conscious. They don't feel and suffer, much less do they endure for eternity. Human beings are more than clay. For a conscious eternal soul, capable of profound suffering and anguish, to be placed upon this earth simply to suffer forever is completely alien to any notion of justice or goodness of which we are capable of conceiving.

One way around the difficulty, some have suggested, is to maintain that the "lost" do not suffer for eternity but rather are annihilated upon death. This may indeed be better, but one still wonders how denying some individuals eternal happiness is either good, just, or merciful when the individual had no ability to choose that destiny for himself.

Wayne points out that the possibility mentioned above, that God only predestines those who freely choose His salvation, doesn't help exonerate God of the charge of being cruel since it still leaves His goodness open to question. If God foreknew who would accept salvation and who wouldn't, but nevertheless went ahead and created those He knew would ultimately choose to reject His offer of salvation, He would still be open to the charge of cruelty or malevolence.

Perhaps Wayne has gotten himself tangled in the web of His Reformed theology and can't get out of one difficulty without enmeshing himself in another. In this case he's entangled by the Reformed doctrine of Divine sovereignty which holds that every single detail of creation was foreordained and predetermined. It may be, however, that God doesn't deliberately and willfully create every individual who has lived on earth, any more than He directly causes every event that happens to a person in his lifetime. Perhaps God only created the progenitors of mankind. The individual progeny of the original creation may be a result of chance and human volition. If so, God would be absolved of the charge of cruelty since He did not cause the birth of any particular individual nor did He foreordain that any given individual would spurn His love.

Another possibility is that God simply doesn't know what free beings are going to choose to do in their future (See a fuller discussion of this possibility here). Such knowledge may be beyond the capabilities even of a Being who possesses omniscience, just as the ability to create a world in which it would be true to say that God did not create it is beyond the scope of Divine omnipotence.

In any event, the question of exactly what Scripture is referring to when it mentions predestination is very puzzling and every potential resolution carries with it its own set of problems. Some Christians argue that whether our eternal destiny is predetermined or not makes no practical difference since each of us has to live as if we are free agents responsible for our own choices. This is true, of course, but the importance of the question lies not in its significance for our individual salvation, rather it lies in its apologetic significance. Those hostile to the Christian faith have long used the image of a cruel, malevolent deity gleefully creating beings for no greater purpose than to spend eternity condemned to torment and agony as a powerful tool with which to discredit Christianity. It's an image of God that makes Him seem more like Saddam Hussein than the source of love and goodness. It's an image that Christians must dispel, and so we must not throw up our hands and say the problem is too mysterious to be solved. We need to work at solving it.

RLC

This is extremely weird. Go to Drudge to look at the before and after pictures of Viktor Yushchenko, the challenger in the disputed Ukrainian election, and then read the story here.

And Americans were outraged at reports that people had voted multiple times and that some ballots weren't counted. This is an entirely new twist in the evolution of negative campaigning.

RLC

The Ledger-Enquirer.com has a day by day account of the battle for Fallujah. It's not pretty, but it's an outstanding piece of journalism.

RLC

Dennis Prager undertakes to answer the question, how did a party filled with people with "values" become identified as the party without values. His reply to the question pretty much says it all. Here's an excerpt:

As long as these people are the face of the Democratic party, the average Democrat is going to feel like Ronald Reagan and Zell Miller did, that the party had left them in its rear-view mirror. As long as these people personify what it means to be a Democrat, voters in the heartland are going to find it difficult to pull the lever for Democratic candidates. The values embodied by the leadership of the party are the values which define the party. The Democratic leadership, its spokespersons, its big donors, and its celebrities largely embrace the values of Hollywood, trash culture, and the far political left, but these are not the values, at least not yet, of a majority of Americans. It's not that the Democrats are the party without values, it's that they are the party with the wrong values.

Read the rest. It's very good.

RLC

Arthur Chrenkoff has his 15th edition of Good News From Iraq up and there's a ton of it. Just a couple of items from this fortnight's edition:

This is an incredible development that the MSM is evidently dumbfounded by since they've said next to nothing about it. We can be sure that had, say, the Clinton administration secured such a diplomatic coup the media would be chiseling his visage in the side of Mt. Rushmore even as we speak.

And there's this from Stan Coerr, a Marine helicopter pilot who went into Iraq in the first wave of the Coalition troops. Coerr reflected recently on the significance and purpose of America's mission:

One cannot reflect upon this report by Chrenkoff, taken in its entirety, without thinking that the United States, despite its historical black marks, is the greatest nation ever to grace this planet, and that the American people, our many shortcomings notwithstanding, are among the greatest people ever to inhabit the earth.

RLC

If no one objects, I'd like to add a Post Script to my previous article on The U.S. Dollar vs. Gold to address the question of plausibility. It's interesting to note that only several years ago, articles like the one I presented were relatively scarce and when found, were often quickly dismissed as the rantings of crackpot folk on the fringe. Yes, Doom 'n Gloomers, to be sure. Always pessimistic...always believing the sky would start falling at any moment. For the reader to even consider the plausibility of such a scenario would mean they were just as nutty as the author.

Times have changed since then for several reasons, 1.) The very issues in question haven't gone away, rather, they have become more severe with increasingly disastrous implications gaining in probability. 2.) Respectable people in the mainstream with established credibility are starting to make the same observations and express their concerns. 3.) We're starting to hear rumblings from Asia, Russia, and even South America that maybe it's not such a great idea that their reserves be so fully invested in U.S. dollars and the time may have come to reduce risk to the dollar through diversification.

Today it's easy to find articles on the Internet and other media from people growing increasingly concerned about the condition of the U.S. Dollar. Here are links to just a few...


Warren Buffett - perhaps the most successful investor of all time.



Bill Gross - managing director of Pimco, the worlds largest bond fund handling several hundred billion dollars. He offers some very good points here but I must say, his recommendations at the end leave me a little confused.



Allan Greenspan - Chairman of U.S. Federal Reserve



Ron Paul - Congressman 14th District of Texas (My opinion - One of the very few honest politicians alive.)



W Joseph Stroupe - Editor in Chief Global Events Magazine


WSC

We shouldn't do this, and if we had even a modicum of either humility or dignity we wouldn't, but since we have neither we are inviting our readers to consider entering Viewpoint into nomination for a weblog award at 2004 Weblog Awards.

There are a number of categories into which we fit, and we would be grateful to be nominated in one or more of them, if for no other reason than that it would give us greater exposure. We'd do it ourselves, but we have to draw the line against shameless self-promotion somewhere. If you need our URL it's www.wscleary.com/pov/home. Thanks.

RLC

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has a lot to say about talk radio that others of us have been thinking for a long time. He offers essentially four reasons why talk radio seems to be losing its luster: It's politically or ideologically monolithic; it wastes far too much time on commercials and other extraneous, mind-numbing noise which are the talk-radio version of Chinese water-torture and which occupy about half of every hour of air time; the callers are too often either sycophants or banal; and, though it may be heresy among conservatives to say it, the big-time hosts are beginning to grow threadbare.

We confess that we often listen to talk radio when we're driving alone, and frequently find it very informative. Nevertheless every one of Carter's complaints is on the mark. Take, for example, the last.

Rush has for years been a national treasure, but more recently he seems to have become too convinced of his own self-importance. In the early years this was his shtick, now it seems to be his truth. On those occasions when he's not off on a trip somewhere he too often gives the impression that his show has been reduced to a mere sideline in his life. He's still good at pointing out the contradictions of contemporary liberalism, but his program is no longer as richly entertaining as it once was. Perhaps this is because he has allowed himself to become too much a caricature of the fat-cat, cigar-chomping, country-club Republican. His fondness for name-dropping and lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous exploits have become tiresome and are of little or no interest or relevance to the majority of his audience.

Rush is in many ways an admirable person, having risen to the top through dint of hard work and having persevered through a number of very difficult crises in his personal life, but despite his disclaimers, he seems to be taking both his show and his audience for granted.

Sean Hannity seems like a good guy, but he's especially hard to take on the radio. Every conversation is an opportunity for him to talk about himself in tones that ooze a faux humility. He likes to say that it's not about him, but, in fact, it seems to be all about him. His debating style is extremely confrontational and unpleasant. His preferred tactic is to refuse to let a guest speak and to step all over whatever words the unfortunate interlocutor does manage to sputter. It's quite unedifying.

A listener might like to hear a reasoned discussion when Sean has a liberal guest on, but that's pretty much hopeless. Hannity isn't interested in discussion, he's interested mostly in just pummeling his adversary into oblivion. He regards conversation as a kind of combat waged with clubs rather than as an attempt to increase the audience's understanding of the issues he's debating and to help them move closer to the truth. When Sean features a conservative guest with whom he agrees he often spends much of the allotted time talking, usually about himself, and leaves the guest relatively little time to say much of anything before the station has to break for commercials.

None of this isn't to suggest that neither Limbaugh or Hannity aren't still tremendous national assets. They are, but one wonders if, like great athletes, they aren't moving past their peak. Conservative talk radio has been a wonderful boon to this country. It has provided millions of Americans with information that was easily accessible nowhere else and has served to galvanize conservative citizens around a set of ideas that many found difficult to articulate themselves and which many also assumed no one else held. Even so, despite all its virtues, talk-radio is in jeopardy of becoming tired and old. It would be a shame if that were to happen.

RLC

Bridget Johnson in Opinion Journal notices that Hollywood has been strangely silent about the brutal murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam.

Ms Johnson sees a slavish devotion to the dictates of political correctness as the culprit. Maybe she's right. Or maybe van Gogh's murder carried a message that wasn't lost on our courageous Hollywood film makers: It's a lot easier, and safer, to confine your political efforts to telling lies about George Bush than to tell the truth about Islamo-fascism.

RLC

Recent reports of the assassinations of Sunni clerics have been sparking speculation as to who is behind their deaths. Here's the Strategy Page's take:

Belmont Club has some interesting observations on al Zarqawi's fading fortunes. Among them is this:

The Fourth Rail has a report that overlaps with and draws from Belmont Club's analysis, but also features additional material:

The United States' military appears to have the bad guys on the run. The only question is how patient the American people will be in the face of continuing casualties. The elections on January 30th will tell us a lot about both the prospects for the future of Iraq and whether the public will stick with the project of planting another democracy (along with Turkey) in the heart of the Islamic world. One thing is almost certain. If we pull out Islamo-fascism will not only prevail in Iraq it will be an irresistible tide throughout the Arab world. Muslims everywhere will see our withdrawal as a sign from Allah that the end of the infidel is near, that Islamism is vindicated, and there will be no stopping it. Our withdrawal would be a disaster for the world.

RLC

There are serious events occurring in Ukraine these days which have been precipitated by what is almost universally believed to have been a fraudulent election manipulated to keep a corrupt, pro-Russian oligarchy in power. There is widespread belief that a reform candidate named Yushchenko actually won the election but had it stolen from him by the incumbents. This has produced huge protests in Kiev and elsewhere which threaten to topple the current administration. The police have even joined with the protesters who have through peaceful means managed to shut down the government.

For updates and details from a blogger who is an eyewitness in Kiev (and seems to be an American) go here. Instapundit is also following the events in Ukraine and has a lot of links to other sites.

RLC

Captain's Quarters has caught wind of mysterious, and apparently very important, developments in North Korea:

Hmmm.

RLC

Recently, brother Dick asked if I would write an article on what is, and has been, happening with the performance of the dollar vs. gold. I thought, gee, I have a degree in psychology and I've been a software engineer for the last fifteen years how can I comment with any degree of authority on said topic? Well, as it turns out, this subject is kind of a hobby of mine and I've been following it for some time. Actually, off and on since the late '70s.

Back in the '70s I had a garage business where I worked on cars for a living. One of my customers was an older guy who would buy used cars, bring them to me for repairs so they would meet state inspection, and then sell them on his used car lot.

He was a gold bug. A gold bug (I prefer the term: gold advocate) is a person who believes that gold is and always will be the only real money, that gold has been wrongfully displaced by the paper dollars that the Federal Reserve creates with a key press on a computer, and that some day gold will again be recognized and restored as the only real currency.

This guy had an impact on me. Through discussions with him, I came to understand the significance of gold. It's actually very simple. Gold is a true store of wealth. In the 1920s, a $20 gold coin (one ounce of gold) would purchase a fine men's suite which retailed for...$20. Today, that same $20 gold coin will still purchase a fine men's suite which retails for $450 because that is what an ounce of gold is worth at the time of this writing. The take home message is that over the long term, gold maintains its value against the ravages of government sanctioned debauchery of its currency. In earlier articles I spoke of many of the issues surrounding gold.

The fact of the matter is that the United States has become bankrupt. This is clearly apparent to even the casual observer who considers the twin deficits this once great country has acquired. These are the trade deficit which results from the U.S. importing more than 1/2 a trillion dollars more than it exports and the budget deficit which has resulted from the U.S. spending (borrowing) 1/2 a trillion dollars more than it generates in revenues. The situation is analogous to an individual who has massively over-extending their credit card. The U.S. must borrow $2 billion dollars from the rest of the word each and every day to finance its debt.

In addition to this is the fact that there exists a $50 trillion dollars in un-funded liabilities (that means there's no money to pay for the socialist style of government programs promised to Americans like Social Security, Medicare, etc.) which is due to become payable as the baby boomer generation begins to retire. See the abyss

This is a classic example of government gone wrong. It initiates socialist policies intended to "take care" of its citizens and ends up hurting them more than helping them. And so it ever is. I've said it before and I'll say it again, government has no business trying to "take care" of its citizens. That's the responsibility and mandate of the Church. If one could have every dollar they've paid to the government's accounts established for their "welfare", they'd be able to provide for their own retirement and wouldn't be in a position where they are depending on the government for their very existence only to be devastated by some bureaucrat's decision to break a promise.

If anyone reading this thinks their investments in the stock market are going to insulate them from this mess, ask yourself what the entire baby-boomer generation is going to do when as they begin to retire. They're going to start liquidating their investments in the stock market into cash because they're going to need it. This will cause the stock market to drop significantly and I doubt I'm the only one that suspects such an eventuality. Many investors, with more understanding than myself are aware of this issue also. I doubt they will stand by idly and watch their investments decline.

And speaking of retirement, I can't see how the majority of Americans will ever actually be able to retire. It's obvious that the government is going to renege on Social Security and Medical benefits. They won't say "you can't have what you have paid into for all of your working life." It will be more like "you can't have what you've paid for until your seventy years old...or seventy-five...or eighty... Consider just the financial burden of insurance. There's health insurance including medical, dental, and vision. People in their latter years will need this more than ever and they're in for a shock when the see what it will cost when it's no longer subsidized by they're employer. Add to this the cost of home-owner's insurance, life insurance, and car insurance. To be sure, the combined costs will be prohibitively expensive for people who are on fixed income or worse, without income. We've already reached a point today where these costs are prohibitively expensive for people who haven't even retired yet!

The new paradigm for many will be to work until they drop or live out their latter years in destitute poverty living a quality of life that is diminished because of poor health. I think it was the pirate, Black Beard who said: "them's that dies is the lucky ones." It could reasonably be interpreted that the government's withholding of benefits to people who have contributed to them throughout their entire working lives would be anything less than the killing off of those who can't meet these expenses.

The American citizen has a choice to make. They can continue to go bankrupt along with the U.S. by holding onto the paper dollars and dollar related investments like the stock market (just as the Germans did with the paper Mark in the '20s) See this link from an earlier post or they can trade that paper for real wealth...gold. Forget about investing in the Euro...it's just another paper charade just like the dollar. After all, it's not redeemable in anything of value. As Murray Rothbard said, "Fiat currency, by any other name smells just as sour."

It's interesting to consider that, since 2001, the U.S. dollar has been devalued by almost 30% against the basket of foreign currencies in the U.S. dollar index yet there has been little or no economic recovery. Historically, this would result in eventual economic recovery for any country in a similar situation as the cost of their exports would drop relative to foreign currencies and their manufacturing sector would surge, create new jobs, and pull them out of the dilemma. Obviously this has not been the case. Why?

There are two reasons that I can think of for why things are different this time. First, the U.S. has, for the most part, exported its manufacturing base overseas so there is no manufacturing sector left to do the heavy lifting and, secondly, some of the countries with which the U.S. maintains a trade deficit (in their wisdom) have pegged their currency to the U.S. dollar. This means that as the dollar drops, their currencies drop so no matter how low the U.S. dollar falls, our exports will not be attractively priced to these countries.

In either case, this is extremely significant as it implies that (A.) the laws of global economics are no longer relevant or (B.) they have apparently been suspended in lieu of a "new world order" or (C.) the party will eventually come to an end and life as we know it will be considerably different.

At this point I suspect I may have digressed from the topic I was asked to address so to gain a better understanding of the current state of the U.S. dollar see this article.

The good news is that the individual American citizen doesn't have to suffer the same economic fate as the U.S government. You are free to choose to salvage and ensure your wealth by breaking free of the paper mentality and acquiring gold which preserves wealth for ever. So while the prospect for increasing financial devastation occurs on a global level, the prudent individual has isolated themselves from the powers they have no control over by acquiring gold.

In 1980 gold reached a high of approximately $800 per ounce. When adjusted for inflation, today that would be equal to approximately $1900 per ounce. Given our current economic situation, one has to ask themselves why gold is at today's price of $450 and govern themselves accordingly.

At this link are two charts: one reflecting the price of gold and beneath it a chart reflecting the value of the U.S. dollar against currencies of other countries. They say more than I ever could about what is going on with the dollar vs. gold.

Keep in mind that gold is a long-term concept. For instance, in November of 2002 gold was at $320. Then it rose to $$380. Then it plummeted to $320 again. That's called volatility and you can't let it influence your thinking. Many who bought gold at $380 sold it at $320 thinking it was the worst investment they ever made. They were controlled by emotions rather than their reasoning and understanding. It's the trend that's important and it appears to me that the trend of gold is to increase in value over the long term. Today, gold is at $450 (I wonder what those folks who sold at $320 are thinking now.) and could very possibly drop to $420 again where it was in April of this year. That too shouldn't influence your thinking. Gold advocates acquire gold and hold on to it for the long term. Gold is the metal of kings, a true store of wealth, and protection from the ravages of governments.

Thanks for reading,

WSC

Hugh Hewitt has posted an historical document which your child will not be allowed to read in school. Doubtless if any public school teacher was so insensitive as to post this on the classroom bulletin board he or she would be compelled to remove it. We offer it to you, in part, as a way of sticking our thumb in the eye of the censorious mullahs who run our educational bureaucracy and in part so that we may all have a deeper understanding of, and appreciation for, the context in which Thanksgiving originated:

------------------------------------------------------------

Happy Thanksgiving,

RLC and WSC

The Drudge Report links us to this Reuters News article which simply confirms Viewpoint's claim yesterday that examples of bone-headed public school administrative decisions seem to be proliferating across the nation at an alarming pace.

Unless there's a lot more to this story than what we're told, the California elementary school principle in question is evidently not one of the brighter luminaries in the scholastic firmament.

We'd doubtless have more examples tomorrow of administrative asininity except there's no school for the next four days. All the administrators will be home solemnly giving thanks to John Dewey or Horace Mann, or Alfred Kinsey, or somebody, before they carve into their turkeys.

RLC

Charles Krauthammer has an interesting piece on why George Bush's second term is unique in recent presidential history and why Bush has an opportunity to be among the most consequential presidents ever. The gist of it is here:

This sounds like the next four years will be fun to watch, unless you're a Democrat - or an Islamist.

RLC

Thomas Woodward, writing for Christianity Today.com reviews the cover story on Darwinian evolution in the recent National Geographic. Woodward's review implicitly illuminates the Darwinians' strategy for dealing with the competing theory known as Intelligent Design. The strategy seems to be: Ignore it as if it doesn't exist as long as possible, and, when it must be mentioned, simply declare that it has been thoroughly discredited.

This strategy removes both the necessity of actually having to confront the arguments raised by ID advocates and avoids publicizing the fact that such arguments exist. Very clever.

It sounds quite a lot, though, like the strategy the Kerry campaign adopted to deal with the Swift Vet allegations. The tactic worked poorly for the senator, and it remains to be seen how well it will serve the Darwinians. We suspect that they will find what Senator Kerry found: Unless you actually explain why your opponents' criticisms are wrong, people just are not going to believe you when you insist that they are.

RLC

Here's a great way we can all support our young soldiers and Marines overseas and help keep their morale up. The USO, with the help of AT&T, is running a program whereby they provide phone cards for our servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan to enable them to make calls home.

Each card costs fifteen dollars (AT&T is not making any profit from the cards). We can purchase cards for donation (as many as we wish)to military personnel by dialing 1-877-522-7000 and charging the cost to our credit card. The USO will see that the cards are delivered.

It's the very least we can do.

RLC

Belmont Club, Strategy Page, The Fourth Rail, and Adventures of Chester continue to provide fascinating insight, reportage, and analysis of the current military situation in Iraq. A visit to any of these sites will produce a lot of very interesting and informative reading.

RLC

Stories of bone-headed public school administrators are frequently in the news. Here's one at Captain's Quarters about an administrator in Maryland who will not permit any mention of the fundamental significance of Thanksgiving:

Of course not. Why teach students that Thanksgiving was historically a religious observance? Why teach students that it began as an expression of thankfulness to God and was officially proclaimed by Abraham Lincoln to be a day of gratitude to God? We can't do this, these administrators are convinced, because that would be to graft a religious lesson onto a history lesson, and somehow, they intuit, that would be wrong.

Perhaps someone will inform these "educators" that by teaching about Thanksgiving "from a purely historical perspective" they are making nonsense of both the day and its history. Mr. Ridgell evidently thinks that one can isolate historical events from their context and still teach history, as if the events can be understood apart from the circumstances which cause them. Who or what does Mr. Ridgell think the pilgrims were thanking? How meaningful is any historical discussion of Thanksgiving apart from an accurate understanding of its purpose?

We wish we could say that Mr. Ridgell is in the minority among school administrators and bureaucrats, but we suspect he is not. There are, of course, many fine people in school administration, but too many of them, for all their degrees, are often among the least well-educated individuals on a school faculty. They are not infrequently people who originally went into education to coach, taught subjects which required minimal academic or scholarly preparation, found the demands of the classroom uncongenial, and when finished coaching settled upon a career in administration as an escape. They often read nothing of academic or intellectual merit beyond a few sterile education journals and many of them can scarcely write a coherent, grammatically correct paragraph. Their greatest concern is not to provide the best education possible for students but rather to keep their school boards and parents happy and to stay out of court.

It's little wonder, then, that administrators like Mr. Ridgell don't understand that the religious motivations and beliefs of the pilgrims are an essential aspect of the history of Thanksgiving and that ignoring these only distorts and corrupts history.

RLC

Another account of yet another American hero is posted at Captain's Quarters:

There are so many incredible young men and women serving in our military. Our nation really doesn't deserve them. We elevate to celebrity status the worst elements in our society, the thugs and the aesthetes, we pay them millions of dollars to amuse us. We make heroes out of criminals, drug addicts, and porn stars. We very nearly worship them. And men like Rafael Peralta fight and die in obscurity defending us from the Islamists who see clearly the decadence of our culture, despise us for it, and yearn to purge the earth of our presence.

Their mistake is that they see a part, a substantial part to be sure, and assume it is the whole. They fail to discern that amidst a debased popular culture there is still much that is good and noble and excellent in America. They fail to recognize that we are still a nation that, in addition to all the superficiality, banality, and degeneracy of those who comprise our celebrity class, can still produce such as Rafael Peralta. As long as we are a nation which breeds such men the Islamist savages will not win.

RLC

Dexter Filkins has a fine piece of reporting in the New York Times on the horrific conditions faced by our Marines in the initial assault on Fallujah. An excerpt:

You'll want to read the whole thing.

RLC

USA Today recently featured an editorial by Ralph Peters who wishes to persuade us that Islam is really not at war with the West. The people who are fighting against us, he argues, are not true Muslims. They are counterfeits parading under the banner of a religion whose basic tenets they consistently violate. He writes:

We'd be a lot more inclined to accept Peters' argument if those who are indeed orthodox Muslims would speak out more forcefully than they have against the extremists in their midst. We are eager to believe that we are not really in another phase of a war that Islam has waged against the non-Islamic world off and on now for seven centuries. We would love to think that those who desire nothing so much as to be able to slaughter our children are just a tiny minority of the Islamic lunatic fringe. But we can't. As long as the Islamic media, the Imams, and the entire cultural leadership of the Arab world continue to preach the most virulent hatred for the West, as long as the majority of Muslims feel a frisson of pride and pleasure every time an Israeli or American dies at the hands of a Muslim, the term moderate Muslim will continue to be seen by us as an unfortunate oxymoron.

Despite what President Bush would have us believe, a very substantial portion of the Islamic world detests the West and wishes to destroy all that it stands for. It is the goal of Islam to convert the entire world, by the sword if need be, to the Muslim faith and culture. The sooner we realize the nature and extent of the conflict we're in the more likely we'll be to successfully defend ourselves against it.

RLC

Chester directs us to this site for an e-mail from a Marine who just finished fighting in Fallujah to his dad at home. He concludes it this way:

RLC

The local newspaper runs a piece wherein a young mother, concerned about blurring the line between church and state, is quoted: "I do have a concern", she opines, "that one day a teacher will tell their [sic] students that something is absolutely right or absolutely wrong."

Perhaps the woman has a point. Imagine what our world would be like if teachers started lecturing kids that there is never any moral justification for, say, rape, or for damaging someone's property just for fun, or for committing genocide, or beating a child with one's fists, or sexually abusing a child. Who'd want to live in a world where teachers taught their charges that punishing people for crimes they are known to be innocent of, or driving while drunk just for fun or hurting someone for the thrill of it were categorically wrong?

In our community just last week, a young woman, five months pregnant and her husband serving with the Marines in Iraq, was visiting from out of state. Her hosts took her to get some groceries at a supermarket. As she was getting into the car in the parking lot a young man who later told police that he "just wanted to kill somebody" drove up beside her and shot her in the head with a shotgun. The victim and her child may yet survive this vicious attack, but one searches in vain for any imaginable circumstance which might justify someone doing such a heinous thing.

Maybe the mother who thinks it would be so awful for teachers to instruct their students that some things are absolutely wrong could help us come up with some real-world circumstance in which imbeciles who "just want to kill somebody" are morally justified in gunning down complete strangers.

Anyway, we don't think that the mother need be too concerned that teachers will one day lecture their students that such deeds are absolutely wrong. In order to posit an absolute one has to ground it in something objective, and the only sufficient ground for moral absolutes, as Viewpoint has argued on several prior occasions, is God, and we all know what would happen if teachers started invoking God as the foundation for moral judgments. The day that's permitted we know the country has gone completely to hell.

RLC

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has a profile of pastor and theologian Greg Boyd who has made a bit of a name for himself with his advocacy of a theory called "Open Theism". Essentially, this is the view that there are some things about the future that God simply does not know. As a perusal of the comment section following Carter's post will reveal, this is quite a controversial hypothesis among Evangelical Christians.

It is also an interesting hypothesis because it makes sense out of several puzzling issues. It provides a helpful understanding, for example, of petitionary prayer, the concept of which suggests that God can be persuaded to act otherwise than He would have. But, if He knows ahead of time what He will do, in what sense is He subject to persuasion? It also makes sense out of the numerous passages in the Bible which seem to suggest that God changes course, or changes His mind.

Most importantly, in our opinion, the Open Theism hypothesis offers an answer to the question why, if God knew how much evil and suffering there would be in this world, He chose to go ahead and create it anyway. God, after all, could have created any possible world, and a perfectly good God, we might assume, would have created the best world He possibly could have. A world in which people were free to choose and always chose to do right is surely a possible world. So the puzzle is why did God not create that world instead of one in which people so often use their freedom to do evil?

The Open Theism view says that when God made creatures with free will He purposefully divested Himself of a portion of Divine control over the cosmos. He granted to human beings the capacity to create the moral world in which they would live. He also accepted a measure of uncertainty in that since his creatures were free He would not always know what choice they would make. This does not preclude His acting in the world through an exercise of Divine sovereignty by overriding the freedom of some in order to bring about events that He wills to happen, but what it does mean, perhaps, is that prior to His creation of the world, He just didn't know for sure how man would handle his freedom.

Thus He created the best world He possibly could, given the type of world He wished to fashion, and inserted free beings into that world. Ever since then God has pretty much given us the right and the privilege to make as big a mess of it as we wanted.

The fact that Open Theism has a certain explanatory power does not, of course, mean that the theory is correct. There are other answers which have been given to these questions which preserve God's knowledge of the future and which may be closer to the truth.

One objection to Open Theism, however, that doesn't seem to hold much water is that if God does not know the future, then He cannot be omniscient. This objection fails both on Biblical grounds and philosophical grounds: Biblically, because the Bible doesn't insist that God knows every future contingency and indeed seems to imply prima facie just the opposite, and philosophically because omniscience simply means that God knows everything that it is possible to know. It may be logically impossible to know what free beings are going to choose to do in a future that hasn't happened yet. Just as God's omnipotence doesn't mean that He can create square circles, His omniscience may not entail that He can know what has not yet occurred in the mind of free agents.

Nevertheless, there is a certain comfort in the belief that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future. It assures us that He is in control and cannot be surprised by events. Whether the apologetic advantages of Open Theism are enough to offset its unsettling aspects and whether it can ultimately be reconciled with Scripture, we cannot say. We can only invite the interested reader to visit Boyd's web site and follow the links there to various elements of his argument.

RLC

It's hard not to sympathize with the Pacers' players on this one. Anyone who does what these fans did deserves to be slugged. The shame of it is they'll probably sue the NBA and garner a boodle. Anything these jerks win through litigation ought to be assessed in fines for behavior beneath contempt.

The video can be seen here.

We also fault the league for allowing beer to be sold at these events. The combination of moronic fans and alcohol is highly combustible and the result of that combustion has never in history exalted the human species.

The NBA, like MLB and the NFL, only allows the sale of beer because it's a cash cow, so it's as hard to work up sympathy for their tarnished image as it is for the cretins who threw the beer.

RLC

MEMRI, The Middle East Media Research Institute, posts this remarkable essay by the progressive Egyptian intellectual Dr. Amr Isma'il whose articles are regularly published on the secular Arab website www.rezgar.com. Dr. Amr Isma'il wrote an article condemning the Arabs' lack of self-criticism and the Islamists' abuse of the term "democracy." The following are just a few excerpts from the article, which appeared on the Arabic website www.elaph.com:

The obvious question raised by such refreshing reasonableness from an Arab is how many of his fellow Arabs agree with him? Is Dr. Amr Isma'il the voice of the Muslim majority or is his a voice crying in the wilderness?

RLC

This may be the first time that a president has rescued a secret service agent. We can't help think of the contrast between Bush coming to the aid of his agent and John Kerry calling his a "son of a bitch" because he collided with him while snow boarding, or whatever it was.

RLC

Viewpoint subscribes to a daily quotation service from Philosophers' Magazine Online and one recent quote we received is from Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery. Popper says:

What he means by falsifiable is that any claim that aspires to the status of a scientific statement must be capable of being empirically tested. There must be some imaginable result of such testing which, if it occurred, would disprove what has been asserted. The claim might be true and such a result might never be obtained, but at least we should be able to imagine a finding which would disprove our assertion.

For example, there seem to be no conceivable facts discoverable by empiraical investigation which would falsify the claim that God exists. Therefore the claim that He does is not a scientific, but rather a metaphysical, claim.

The problem with Popper's falsifiability criterion is that it removes from the realm of science, and places squarely in the category of metaphysics, a number of assertions which scientists would like to have us believe are indeed scientific claims. An example is the claim that life began as a result of purely natural processes in the inaccessible past, or that genetic mutation and natural selection are adequate mechanisms for accounting for the great diversity of living things we find on our planet, or that consciousness arises from inert matter. None of these claims is really empirically testable. No conceivable discovery of science could show them to be false. Yet they are taught as science in our public school classrooms every day.

Meanwhile, secularists fight tooth and nail to keep Intelligent Design theory out of the classroom on the grounds that it's a metaphysical theory and as such has no place in the science curriculum. Science, we are told, limits itself only to material or natural explanations. Intelligent Design invokes a non-material source of design, an intelligence, and is therefore a philosophical, not a scientific explanation.

This is very odd since the decision to accept only naturalistic explanations is itself the result of a philosophical predilection for materialism. Scientists simply assume that materialism, a philosophical theory, is the only reliable presupposition for scientific investigation. In other words, scientists don't really banish metaphysics from the practice of science or from the classroom, they only banish metaphysics which they don't like. Sounds very scientific, don't you think?

RLC

There's an interesting piece by Joel Rosenberg on Natan Sharansky, the famous Russian dissident who had been imprisoned in the Soviet gulag and is now a member of the Israeli parliament, in National Review Online.

Sharansky has written a book called The Case For Democracy which is being read by President Bush and his top advisors (Yes, contrary to what his critics report, the president apparently does read books). The Mr. Bush invited Sharansky to the White House for a visit and Rosenberg reveals this about the meeting:

Power Line has some more good reading on Sharansky. They cite an interview by Tom Rose of The Weekly Standard who asked Sharansky: "Were there any particular Reagan moments that you can recall being sources of strength or encouragement to you and your colleagues?" Sharansky answered:

One reads stories like these and can't help but be amazed at the largeness of the men they praise. Sharansky also, without saying a word about them, manages to make Reagan's and Bush's critics look mean and paltry by comparison, like ankle-biters nipping at the heels of giants.

Speaking of which, Time magazine will be coming out with its annual man of the year award in a month or so, and there is no one who deserves it more than George Bush. Nor, sadly, is there any world figure less likely to get it.

RLC

Despite the impression one might glean from the distressingly large number of reports like this one that seem to fill our newspapers, most teachers really are sensible, responsible and intelligent people:

Indeed. Perhaps this teacher will soon be starting a British chapter of the Dead Poets' Society in her school - that is, if she doesn't have her teaching credential pulled for gross numskullery. Thanks to Joanne Jacobs for the tip.

RLC

Everybody who matters probably already knew this but now the rest of us have public confirmation - Syria is harboring the terrorists who are directing the insurgency in Iraq. The World Tribune.Com reports this:

President Bush announced in his speech in the wake of 9/11 that nations which harbor terrorists will be dealt with as enemies. Will we demand that the Syrians turn these people over? Will we go in and get them? Quite possibly we will wind up doing both. We expect that the heat will be turned up on President Bashar al-Asad very soon and very high.

RLC

Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail keeps us updated on goings-on in Fallujah and other exotic resorts throughout the Sunni Triangle. His latest post concludes with this assessment:

Roggio expects Mosul will be the next of the Aegean stables our forces will be tasked to clean out. There can be no doubt left in the mind of anyone not chin deep in the fever swamps of the Left that this is a humanitarian mission of unprecedented proportions. One need only to read what these pious Islamo-fascists did in the name of Allah to the woman whose body was found limbless and disemboweled on the streets of Fallujah, or to watch the video Buried in the Sand which visually documents the atrocities, the pure evil, perpetrated by the Baathists upon the Iraqi people, to realize that what our troops are doing in Iraq is a mission of mercy to those poor people.

The astonishing thing about this is not that America is attempting something good and wonderful for the oppressed people of the world, for this is not the first time for that. The astonishing thing is that the self-designated "champions" of the oppressed in the U.S. and Europe are so bitterly opposed to freeing these people from the cruel, bloodthirsty tyranny under which they groan and weep.

George Bush lifts the boot of the Taliban and the Baathists off the faces of fifty million people, and intellectually impaired non-entities like Linda Ronstadt call Bush another Hitler. This demonstrates either an inexcusable ignorance of, or an appalling indifference to, the plight of the Iraqi people and what we are trying to accomplish on their behalf. The Left is so blinded by hate, rage, and impotence that it can think no more clearly than it can see.

RLC

Chester has some good analysis of the coming conflict with Iran. This link takes you to part I, and this one takes you to part II.

From part I:

President Bush has been roundly ridiculed for acknowledging that he seeks God's wisdom when confronted with decisions of great moment. Rather than criticizing him for this we should be thankful that he does, and we should be praying with him and for him that God shows him the proper course of action in the very difficult months ahead.

RLC

There's talk at National Review Online's Kerry Spot that the Republicans may soon increase their majority in the Senate to 56/44. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat, is rumored to be contemplating either a defection or taking a position in Bush's cabinet. If he does the latter, Nebraska's Republican governor will doubtless appoint a Republican to replace him.

RLC

Bill passes along a link to an article by Hans-Herman Hoppe the author of Democracy: The God That Failed. Hoppe makes the oft-noted point that in a democracy people soon learn that they can, through judicious use of their ballot, seize wealth which belongs to others and distribute it among themselves. He also writes that:

Viewpoint shares the concern that demagogues find much fertile soil to till among the lower classes in democracies, but even so, Hoppe's statement here seems a bit hyperbolic. Contrary to what he avers, representative democracy in a structural context of checks and balances is the best system of those devised by man for avoiding the ascension of ruthless tyrants to positions of power. At least a search of the historical record doesn't offer much evidence that there's a better way.

Rather than quibble with Hoppe's claim, however, we wish to call our readers' attention to a great passage he quotes from H.L. Mencken. It's worth reproducing in full here:

We wish we would have come across this gem during the recent political campaign. It's a remarkably vivid description of one of the candidates in particular.

RLC

Hugh Hewitt points us to an article in The New York Times wherein the paper of record discusses the Democrats' religion problem. Unfortunately, it seems as if most of the people the Times interviews for the piece believe that the only changes the party needs to make are purely cosmetic. A number of the commentators seem to think that it's the Democrats' image that is the problem. They have to start speaking the language of middle America on matters of religion and clothe their positions on abortion and gay marriage in religious garb, the thinking goes, and the voters will then warm to them.

Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of Naral Pro-Choice America, is an example. She's quoted as saying that, "The party needs more religious language, but not new positions." Go ahead and dazzle the simpleminded with a few "amens" and "hallelujahs", Ms Cavendish seems to be saying, but there's no need to question any of our convictions.

Many Democrats and liberal Christians, the Times informs us, say privately that they may need to distance themselves more forcefully from the idea of same-sex marriage, standing instead near Mr. Bush in support of civil unions. This, however, sounds more like a tactic than a recognition that one holds a position that needs to be abandoned. It sounds as if the advice being dispensed here is do whatever it takes to get elected and then you can implement your real agenda. Here's how Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine puts it:

In other words, if they camouflage what they believe, call it by a different name, they can hoodwink the voters into a false sense of security until they manage to turn a red state blue. Then they can go ahead and push for the very thing that so many of the gullible resent. Wallis isn't recommending genuine change, he's recommending subterfuge.

Many religious leaders, the Times continues, are also pushing the Democrats to be more assertive in fighting poverty and promoting "social justice" but also to soften their stance on abortion. "There is an interest in finding a middle way," he said. "It predates the election year, but there is a little more willingness to listen to it now."

Evidently, Democrats see the need to adopt a more religious facade only because they can't win elections just by being themselves.

Here's a quaint idea: Let's have politicians and parties simply tell us what they believe and what they will try to do if elected, and let the voters decide whether that's what they want to vote for. Let's have no more attempts to fool and deceive the electorate through political posturing and phony image projecting. It's ludicrous, for example, that liberals refuse to identify themselves as such. If they're ashamed of the liberal label then don't be one, and if they're not ashamed of it then don't hide it or run from it.

Many voters may indeed be duped by clever make-overs into thinking that the Democrats share their values on particular issues, but nowhere does the Times article suggest that Democrats should actually be sincere in their expressions of faith, and nowhere does the article suggest that Democrats need to actually do or change much of any consequence, except perhaps around the margins, to persuade religious unsophisticates to vote for them. Evidently, a lot of Democrats still think politics is all a matter of packaging, advertising, and spin. Show the rubes what they want to see and tell them what they want to hear and you'll win their vote. It's as cynical as it is dishonest.

RLC

Apparently those who voiced concerns about the harmful effects of RU-486 before it was approved for use in the U.S. are being tragically vindicated. This report from Fox News is very disturbing. It begins with an anguished father wondering why the drug that killed his daughter is still on the market:

Viewpoint wonders how many people suffered serious life-threatening effects like these from Vioxx? It is unlikely that RU-486 will go the way of Vioxx, however, because the abortion pill has a certain politically correct pedigree that will insulate it from blame. At least for a while.

RLC

We had intended to write a piece on NBC's gross irresponsibility in airing the video of the Marine in Fallujah shooting the terrorist, but Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail says it all and says it better than we could. We highly recommend his essay to our readers.

The only thing we would add to what he has written is the question of motive. What good reason could NBC possibly have had for showing the video? Were they trying to instruct viewers that ugly things happen in war? That would seem a bit superfluous. Were they trying to discredit our troops and possibly the war? If so, their conduct is close to treasonous. Were they trying to win themselves acclaim among their peers in the news business? If so, they were seeking to aggrandize themselves at the expense of making our sons' and daughters' job in Iraq a great deal tougher, and they were exploiting a young Marine's conduct under extreme duress just so they could receive the plaudits of their colleagues. That is reprehensible.

In short, they had no good reason for showing the video and in doing so have acted with incredible recklessness. NBC has given our enemies a propaganda coup that they've been exploiting non-stop ever since the shooting was first aired, and the network has consequently disqualified itself, in our opinion, as a trustworthy repository of the public's confidence.

Update: Whatever you do don't pass up this e-mail from a Marine on the events surrounding the shooting in the mosque.

RLC

If a Conservative cartoonist had penned something as grotesque as this, as utterly void of wit as this, as despicably racist as this they'd be justifiably crucified by the liberal media. Unfortunately, the MSM is as hypocritical about race as it is about almost everything else, so they'll just yawn and roll over since these cartoons (See here and here ) were authored by kindred Left-wing spirits.

Neither of these "cartoonists" could carry Condaleeza Rice's briefcase, let alone match her accomplishments and character, which makes their cheap shots all the more disgusting. Where's the NAACP when they have a legitimate reason to be outraged?

RLC

Health care costs keep rising. Liberals blame greedy drug companies and Conservatives blame avaricious trial lawyers. Both may be right, but there's a third cause. As the amount of our health care that is picked up by insurance providers rises so does the cost of that care. Health care providers simply charge what the market will bear. As long as insurance companies pay the bulk of the expenses, providers will charge all they can get.

There's a chart here that shows the inverse relationship since 1960 between health care cost and out-of-pocket spending on that care.

Thanks for the tip to No Left Turns.

RLC

The old Leftist warhorse Nat Hentoff has always struck us as uncommonly fair to people who are his ideological rivals. In a recent column he praises John O'Neill and the Swift Vets for their grace under fire and for their ability to defend their attacks on both Senator Kerry's war record and his subsequent involvement with Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

The oft-heard claim that the Swifties had been thoroughly debunked and discredited is arrant nonsense. It's merely a way of dismissing them without having to actually confront their allegations. The claim that they were lying about the young John Kerry was itself never substantiated. Neither Senator Kerry nor his campaign ever really answered the Swiftees' arguments, and Kerry's refusal to release his naval records lent enormous credibility to the charges that he was not what he claimed to be.

Perhaps more than any other single factor, John O'Neill and the Swift Vet campaign undermined Kerry's pretensions to be qualified to serve as president and kept him out of office. That makes them heroes twice over.

RLC

Fox News has this interesting item:

How can this be? We thought the majority of Americans endorsed a woman's right to choose. If even pro-choice groups think that throwing the issue back into the state legislatures would threaten current abortion practice then they are implying that abortion rights don't have the support in this country that their advocates have been claiming for them. State legislators aren't going to ban a practice, after all, that most of the voters favor.

If, overnight, abortion-on-demand became illegal in 3/5 of the nation, shock waves would ramify throughout the culture, the Left would go ballistic, and the culture war in this country would escalate and intensify. None of which, of course, is a reason for not overturning Roe v. Wade.

The history of abortion jurisprudence is a good illustration of how the Left seeks to impose it's agenda upon the nation. They have been singularly unsuccessful in convincing legislatures to promulgate their nostrums, so they by-pass the democratic process, take the decision as to what laws we shall live under out of the hands of the people, and have autocratic and sympathetic judges do the work of legislating for them.

This is one reason the Left has been apoplectic about George Bush's electoral victory on November 2nd. If he appoints judges that hew to a strict constructionist view of the law, who see their task as one of interpreting the law, not creating it, the Left will be bereft of the only tool it has, beyond civil disobedience, for imposing its will upon the rest of us. Let us hope.

RLC

Captain's Quarters Puts the dart in the small circle with this post. Writing about the mutilation of a female Polish hostage and the execution of the female British hostage who had done so much good work for the Iraqi people, Captain Ed says:

In light of all that these savages have done in the last months it makes Chris Matthews' claim on Hardball last night that these are "not bad people, just people we disagree with" so extraordinarily obtuse as to leave one speechless.

And the Left impugns the intelligence of those who voted for Bush.

RLC

Hugh Hewitt makes an interesting point:

Quite so. In fact, many of the religiously motivated liberals we know refuse to identify themselves as Democrats, preferring instead to call themselves Independents or to align themselves with a third party. They are people who generally adopt a "seamless garment" approach to life issues, oppose war as a matter of principle, identify with the poor and the working class, hold a high view of traditional marriage and sexual morality, and eschew a politics of personal destruction. They certainly don't feel at home in the current Democratic party.

RLC

How do the Iraqi people feel about Americans in general and President Bush in particular? Here's an anecdotal piece of evidence from IraqTheModel. It's a letter circulating online in Iraq, and Iraqis are invited to sign it. As of the time it was posted on IraqThe Model over one thousand Iraqis had signed.

George Bush and the American military have given these Iraqis hope. And not only these but there are doubtless millions of people in Iran and elsewhere who are ruled by theocratic tyrants who are hoping that the freedom that has come to Afghanistan and Iraq through American force of arms will somehow come to their lands as well. America is the hope of the oppressed everywhere in the world and the irony is that the Left, the self-proclaimed champions of the down-trodden, is bitterly opposed to what has been done and has fought it every step of the way.

Make no mistake. If the Left had had their way Afghanistan would still be groaning under the Taliban and Iraq would still be a giant torture chamber run by the Hussein family. Libya would still be working toward the production of nuclear arms, Pakistan would still be allied with the Taliban, and all of these places would still be safe havens for al Quaida.

Another four years like the first four and George Bush will go down in history as the greatest liberator of all time as well as the man most despised by tyrants and their Leftist enablers ever to hold the office of president of the United States.

RLC

The self-marginalization of the Left continues. This essay from The Stranger is an excellent case in point. The editors write:

There's lots more peace and love at the site. Sadly, the good folks at The Stranger don't seem to understand how a democracy is supposed to work, nor do they understand the concept of a nation. Either we agree with them and vote for their candidates or they take their marbles and go home. Their vision of America is of a mosaic of interest groups fractured by hatred for each other, an America riven by difference rather than united by values shared in common. Real Americans, in the minds of The Stranger's editors, are secular liberals, everyone else is a moron.

Whatever happened to liberal tolerance of difference of opinion? Whatever happened to the liberal ideal of celebrating diversity? Whatever became of the notion of "United We Stand"? Don't look for any of these sentiments at The Stranger.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the tip.

RLC

Conservatives who oppose affirmative action as a general principle are often portrayed by their opponents as bigoted and racist. President Bush was even called an extremist because he harbors doubts about the utility and justice of affirmative action. Yet the evidence keeps piling up that the President's reservations are well-founded. Joanne Jacobs has this report on a recent study:

African-American writers like Shelby Steele and Stephen Carter have been saying for years that black students are hurt by affirmative action more than they're helped by it. Conservatives have been saying for years that race-based preferences are inherently unjust quite apart from any deleterious impact on the supposed beneficiaries. For our part we just wonder how many generations must come and go before we can assess the success or failure of this experiment. Will there ever be a time when we can say that the unequal playing field established by slavery and Jim Crow has now been evened out and we can all now compete against each other on the basis of our ability, or is affirmative action an entitlement to preference in perpetuity?

RLC

Viewpoint has frequently visited the topic of the moral sterility which results from the secularization of a society. Wretchard at Belmont Club takes up the same theme quoting Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia:

Wretchard's comments on the Cardinal's words are worth reading. He says for instance, that:

In other words, whatever can be done by those who wield the power, ultimately will be done if it suits their purposes. Might makes right in a religiously eviscerated society. This is the moral default position and a thoroughly secularized democracy will find it almost impossible to avoid it.

When a democracy secularizes it inadvertantly creates self-doubt and national drift. Relativistic assumptions come to prevail. Eventually no one believes in anything very strongly, certainly not the principle that we should do what's best for the country rather than what's best for ourselves. Society becomes self-centered, egoistic, fragmented and disconnected. There's no metaphysical glue to hold competing groups together, everyone looks to his own parochial interests and sees no reason why he should care about the common good. Society becomes weak and effete. The national will to survive erodes. Law must be piled upon law to ensure behavior that was formerly governed by the inner law rooted in the conscience of each citizen, and which received its sanction from God. Government perforce becomes oppressive, and conditions become auspicious for a tyrant.

The process is well along in Europe, but European nations have had the advantage, until recently, of being ethnically and culturally homogenous. Now that's changing and democratic principles will be severely tested as large numbers of Muslim immigrants challenge the traditional assumptions of Europeans who will almost certainly discover that, having pulled the metaphysical chair out from under them, those assumptions fall flat on their backside.

Democracies require a shared ethnicity and culture or shared principles of governance. If a polity doesn't have the former, as in Japan, then it better have the latter, but a secularized society offers no basis for such principles. It can only hope for an arbitrary and transient consensus. As secularization proceeds apace in both Europe and America, and as both become ethnically more variegated, freedom will groan under the burden placed upon it. It's already happening in European countries with large Muslim populations, and the creaking and cracking of democracy's timbers as they strain under the load in Holland, France, and Germany, for example, are now being heard all the way to this side of the Atlantic.

RLC

Looks like Ramadi is the next snake pit on the military's list.

By the way, what does 1200 terrorist corpses rotting in the streets of Fallujah do to al Zarqawi's recruiting efforts? Hard to imagine that there'd be too many guys eager to wind up like those fellows.

Which leads us to a theological question. What sorts of strains does the debacle in Fallujah place on available resources in Paradise? It can't be easy for Allah's quartermaster general to produce 72 virgins with which to reward each of those "martyrs", can it?

RLC

Joanne Jacobs cites a piece from the Chronicles of Higher Education by Max Bauerlein on the paucity of intellectual discourse among some faculty on American university campuses. The article confirms the widely held suspicion that many university professors aren't really interested in either thinking or truth but simply in promoting their prejudices. Jacobs writes:

Excluding and ignoring dissenting opinions is a symptom of intellectual insecurity. It's the preferred tactic of those who realize, if only subliminally, that their ideas simply can't withstand the challenge of open debate. Leftist ideas can only survive on campus if they are insulated from scrutiny and immunized from criticism. Many of our universitites have long ago ceased to be part of the marketplace of ideas. Today they are ideological monocultures, heavily laced with a wide variety of politically correct herbicides employed to kill off any unapproved idea which might otherwise take root in this intellectually sterile soil.

RLC

Laer at Cheat Seeking Missiles (Great Name!) has two posts that we recommend to our readers. The first is a tally of approximately 130 instances of attempts by the MSM to skew voter perception of the candidates in the recent election in Senator Kerry's favor. This list should serve as a valuable reference for anyone who writes about media bias for years to come. It's also a damning indictment of the sheer dishonesty that reigns in the organs of the Left in this country. Honesty, as we recall, is one of those values that Bush supporters were looking for in a presidential candidate. No surprise that those who find an emphasis on values in the electorate alarming would hold integrity in such low esteem.

The second is an account coming out of San Francisco State University:

We'd like to add that attacks like this are abetted by pusillanimous university administrators whose failure to act decisively against the thugs only insures that there will be more thuggery. If conservative white students had said anything like what the Arab student is reported to have said they would've been thrown out of school before they had finished the sentence. Unfortunately, the list of courageous university administrators is as short as the list of instances of MSM bias is long.

RLC

The philosophically and theologically minded might wish to visit Evangelical Outpost where Joe Carter presents William Lane Craig's attempt to reconcile God's foreknowledge with man's free will.

Craig's argument is clever, but a little convoluted. Perhaps there's an easier way to think of the problem.

In a post titled God and Time last July Viewpoint suggested that the problem Craig is addressing arises because we tend to think of God as inhabiting the same time that we inhabit. God, however, is transcendent. He exists outside of the space-time world that He created. Thus everything that happens in our time - our past, present, and future -reside continually in God's present.

We might think of it this way: God is like a vast sphere or ball, and time is a thin line segment drawn in ink across the surface. Every part moment in time, like every point on the line, is in contact with God simultaneously. God is continually conscious of every moment in our time. He stands in the same relation to our past and our future as he does to our present.

It follows that God knows the choices we made yesterday. Yet we don't have to think that because he knows what choices we made yesterday that He therefore caused those choices. Nothing about God's present knowledge forces us to conclude that our past choices were determined by Him any more than our knowledge of past events somehow caused those events. Knowledge after an event doesn't cause or determine the event.

Prior knowledge of future events is different, though. If we knew, genuinely knew, that a particular event would occur tomorrow, then we might be tempted to think that tomorrow's event is inevitable, that it must occur. This, however, is because we are embedded in time. God is not. Our future is in His present just as our past is. His knowledge of the future is similar to his knowledge of the past, and, if the two really are like mirror images of each other, His knowledge of an event or of a choice we will make tomorrow does not cause us to make that choice.

His foreknowledge would be no more determinative than His post-knowledge. Indeed, it would be more correct to say that just as our free choices yesterday caused God to have the knowledge He has about those choices today, so, too, our choices tomorrow cause the knowledge He has about those choices today. Our choices determine His knowledge. His knowledge doesn't determine our choices. Thus God can have foreknowledge of our future and humans nevertheless remain free to create it.

RLC

No Left Turns posts an excerpt of an article appearing in the next issue of The New Republic. The article is written by Brad Carson, the losing Democratic Senate candidate in Oklahoma, who reflects upon his defeat and the contemporary culture war. Carson writes:

As long as the Democrats continue in their state of denial about the meaning of November 2nd they will be in special need of men with Carson's understanding. Unfortunately, to the extent that they pay people like him no heed and remain fixated on stolen votes, secession, and stereotypes of red state (or more accurately, red county) voters they'll continue their slide into political irrelevance.

RLC

Readers interested in how American technology is put to use on the battlefield will find these two reports here and here from Bing West at Slate very interesting.

Thanks to Chester for the tip.

Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail also has some good commentary on the last couple of days in Fallujah as does The Strategy Page.

Three items especially worth noting are these. First from The Strategy Page:

We wondered how our troops were able to distinguish civilians from fighters in the exodus from the city.

And these two from The Fourth Rail:

Perhaps the biggest mistake of the post-war was not having more troops available, and we have been paying for the apparent misjudgment for over a year. We are not military experts and we fear asking a foolish question, but how many combat troops do we still have stationed in Europe, South Korea, and Okinawa, and what purpose are they serving there?

Secondly, another well-known Iraqi militant group, Ansar al-Sunnah Army, claimed in a statement on its Web site Friday to have joined forces with al-Zarqawi's group and the Islamic Army in Iraq.

Time is not on the terrorists' side in Iraq. As the Iraqi military gets stronger, elections get closer, and terrorist forces continue to be depleted their prospects for success continue to dim. Barring a catastrophic strike against the United States' homeland, the only hope Islamists have in Iraq is for their allies in the American left to wear away at the patience and will of the American people. Doubtless they'll continue to do their best.

RLC

Jonah Goldberg tells us why he thinks John Ashcroft's departure is a big loss for America. Despite his despisers and those who gasped at the threat to civil liberties every time the Attorney General sneezed, this nation is deeply indebted to John Ashcroft for his service. Goldberg sums up why in this paragraph:

Elsewhere in the column Jonah takes on the major criticisms that have been relentlessly levelled at Ashcroft over the last several years and shows them to be utterly without serious merit. He neglects to mention, however, that with all the foaming-at-the-mouth allegations of how Ashcroft was infringing on civil liberties, never once was there an episode during his tenure comparable to the immolation of dozens of women and children in Waco, Texas, or the shootings of other innocent women and children by federal agents in Idaho under Janet Reno. Nor was there anything nearly as shameful as the Elien Gonzalez episode in Florida.

He might have noted, too, that Ashcroft became Attorney General after losing a bid to retain his senate seat. He lost the election because he chose not to campaign after his opponent was killed in an airplane crash. His opponent's wife allowed her name to be placed on the ballot and, in an outpouring of sympathy, she won. Ashcroft's decision not to campaign against her was an act of graciousness that's hard to imagine his detractors duplicating.

Goldberg also declines to mention the real animus behind the vilification of this dedicated public servant. Ashcroft is seen as a threat by, and to, the secular left chiefly because of his strong Christian convictions. The left cannot abide the thought that someone in power would take Christianity seriously. Ashcroft does, and consequently nothing he could have done short of resigning would have mollified the attack dogs in the press and elsewhere.

The left, whether consciously or not, wishes to make it as difficult as possible for a man or woman of faith to serve in the upper reaches of government. They ultimately may be successful in making public service so personally unpleasant that many good people will simply avoid it, but, if so, our government will suffer grievously from the want of most of the virtues without which any government becomes corrupt and ineffective.

Men like John Ashcroft are the salt of the earth, his Justice Department was a breath of fresh air after the Janet Reno interlude, and he will be greatly missed by those who admire rectitude, integrity, and common sense in their leaders.

RLC

Viewpoint sheds no tears over the death of Yasser Arafat. More than any other single figure in the region he bears responsibility for the crisis between the Palestinian and Israeli people. He was a thug, a thief, and a mass murderer with the blood of hundreds of Israelis, dozens of Americans, and countless Palestinians on his hands. The Palestinian people languish in misery and poverty today largely because of this man's personal corruption and psychotic obsession with destroying Israel. Andrew McCarthy composes an excellent overview of his venal and blood-stained life at National Review Online. We decline to mourn.

RLC

Morton Kondracke writes a lovely essay on what the Democrats need to learn about religion, specifically evangelical Christianity. We commend the entire piece to the reader but would like to highlight a couple of paragraphs which are particularly good and a couple of others which merit comment. Kondracke writes:

Friedman's vaunted intelligence evidently abandons him when it comes to thinking about religion in the public arena. Why is it okay for Kerry to say that he's motivated by religious principles when it comes to fighting for equality and justice and for the environment, all of which involve imposing his values on other people, but it's not okay for Bush's positions on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and the importance of freedom around the world to be informed by his religious principles? Why are Bush's positions on these issues divisive, when roughly half the country agrees with him, but Kerry's positions are not divisive even though half the country opposes him? For people like Friedman being divisive means proposing policy that Friedman doesn't like, being intolerant means not tolerating different things than Friedman doesn't tolerate.

Kondracke goes on to say that:

This is a fine piece of writing and we're reluctant to quibble with it. Everything he says about Christians and Christianity would be plain to anyone who really tried to get past media stereotypes, but we have to disagree with Kondracke on his belief that gay marriage would not jeopardize traditional marriage.

As Viewpoint has noted on previous occasions, once the gender of the spouses is no longer a matter of law there will no longer remain any non-arbitrary basis for legal limits upon the number of wedded spouses. If legislatures no longer establish the gender, there will be no logical ground for establishing the number, and perhaps even biological relatationship, of the betrothed. Once society has set a tentative foot onto this slippery slope it will quickly find itself tobogganing downhill, unable to stop its plunge until marriage has been transformed into a union between any combination of people (and why limit it to people?) who desire to join together in wedlock for whatever purpose and for whatever length of time.

When this comes to pass marriage will cease to exist in any meaningful sense. The left has always seen the abolition of marriage, and thus of the family, as a progressive desideratum. Many Christians disagree, and in the minds of their critics that makes them bigots and homophobes. So be it.

RLC

An article on the Democrats' "religion predicament" by Jonah Goldberg is worth calling to our readers' attention. He writes that:

Goldberg puts his finger on something very important in the penultimate sentence. Liberal secular Democrats scorn "traditional morality" largely because they disdain the religion through which it comes and ultimately the God upon which it is based. In their rebellion against God they insist that they can create their own morality based upon reason, but such attempts are chronic failures. Reason, by itself, cannot invent an ethics. It can only help us to see where our ethics leads us given a particular starting point. Unfortunately for the Democrats, if we start from a position of secularism or naturalism then, if we follow our reason, we must end up as either subjectivists, egoists, or nihilists, or some combination thereof, and none of these are conducive to a healthy polity.

Subjectivism says that right and wrong are a matter of one's own individual preferences and tastes. We prefer some behaviors for the same reason we prefer some flavors or colors - we just like them. Subjectivists recognize that if right and wrong are matters of taste then no one's morality is any better than anyone else's and we should not pass moral judgment upon others (which is, by the way, a self-contradictory claim since it itself implies a moral judgment on others). We need to be tolerant of others' values, the subjectivist insists, unless, of course, the values in question are abhorrent to the subjectivist, like racism or homophobia, etc.

In discussions about morality subjectivists can be depended upon to utter inanities like "that's just your opinion" or "who's to say what's right or wrong", or "If it's right for him then it's right". Each of these statements assumes that moral disagreements are simply disputes about matters of taste, but this is a pretty shallow assumption when one thinks about it. Most subjectivists, for example, would be reluctant to say of Adolf Hitler that if killing millions of Jews was right for him, then it was right.

A subjectivist outlook leads inexorably to egoism, the conviction that we should put our own interests ahead of the interests of others. If this life is all there is then I might as well make the most of it, and if whatever I feel is right is right, then there's no good reason why I shouldn't seek to maximize my own good regardless of the effect that conduct has on others.

Whatever other ethic men might try to live by, whether the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill or the duty-based ethics of the Kantians, or any other, there is no satisfactory answer to the question why one should adopt that particular system. Why should I seek the greatest good for the greatest number, as the utilitarians propose, rather than seek the greatest good for me? Why should I accept the idea of acting in a way that I could want everyone to act, as the Kantians teach, rather than acting in a way that benefits me regardless of its effects on others? Once we step away from the idea that there is a transcendent moral authority we no longer have any satisfactory answer to the question of why I shouldn't just live for myself.

Some will reply to the previous assertion by saying that I shouldn't live egoistically because people get hurt when we only look out for ourselves, but why should I care if people get hurt as long as I don't? The response to that is often that I wouldn't want people to do things that hurt me, and that's true, of course, but that's not a reason why I shouldn't do something that hurts others if it benefits me, and if I can get away with it.

The third possibility, not really very different from the first two, actually, is to simply acknowledge that in a world without God moral right and wrong don't even exist. People just do what they do and there is no moral dimension to it, anymore than there's a moral dimension to a cat's torturing a mouse. Where, after all, does something like moral obligation come from if not from God? Can nature impose moral obligation? Can evolution impose it? Can society impose it? Reason tells us that in the absence of God moral right and wrong are empty concepts. Man is his own creator of values (subjectivism) as Nietzsche wrote, and there is no wrong in choosing to live for oneself (egoism). This is nihilism and it is where our reason eventually brings us if we start from a position of atheism and follow it all the way to its logical conclusion.

Secular man often makes his starting point the principle that we should not harm others and employs his reason to arrive at the best way to implement that principle in his life. But it's his starting point which is in question. If his first principle is challenged he has no satisfactory answer. He cannot give a compelling explanation of why harming others is wrong. To many people, of course, it just seems self-evident. It's wrong to harm others, they believe, because, well, because anyone can see that harming others is wrong. In fact, the starting point is not self-evident at all. It is an arbitrary assumption, and it is quite indefensible.

This is the liberals' dilemma. They wish to secularize society, to construct a secular value system based upon our shared humanity and the harm principle, but the whole enterprise is an exercise in walking on water. By declaring religious reasons to be illegitimate in the realm of public discourse they have neutered all ethical defenses of any public policy proposals. State secularism gives us no foundation for moral obligation or moral judgment. Every time a secular ethic is tried it collapses, as it has in communist countries around the globe.

The Democrats wish to push Christianity out of the public square and yet hold on to the concept of morality, but that's like trying to remove the foundation from a building without having the building collapse. It can't be done in the moral world any more than it can be done in the physical world, and a lot of people just aren't going to trust the Democrats to run the country as long as they keep trying it.

RLC

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost calls our attention to this rather bizarre result of a compilation of surveys of atheists done by the Barna Group.

Yikes! And atheists criticize and scoff at Christians for not practicing what they profess to believe!

RLC

Andrew Sullivan directs our attention to an article by Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker on prescription drug costs. The essay, which is ostensibly a book review, actually does an excellent job of explaining how prices get set and what factors influence them.

Most people tend to believe that pharmaceutical companies bear the entire responsibility for high prices, but, in fact, according to Gladwell there are plenty of guilty parties. Not just manufacturers but the FDA, insurance companies, doctors, and even consumers all share much of the responsibility for driving prices up.

Nexium provides us with an example of how the pharmaceutical manufacturers manage to boost the price and increase their profits. The story is fascinating so we'll copy a portion of it here:

Gladwell goes on to explain how consumers almost always have cheaper options but often doctors don't inform them of those choices. The over-the-counter Prilosec is almost identical to prescription Nexium and virtually as effective, and it only costs twenty dollars a month, one sixth the cost of Nexium.

There is much else of interest in this article. Gladwell points out, for instance, that it is a myth that the U.S. has the highest drug costs in the world. In fact, our overall costs are just about the cheapest if one excludes name brands and calculates costs on the basis of generic equivalents. Moreover, patents on many widely-used name brands are scheduled to soon expire, which will open the market to generics and cause overall costs to drop even more. Good news, indeed.

RLC

For the latest on Fallujah check out The Fourth Rail, Belmont Club, and Strategy Page. They each have excellent analyses of the fighting and pull together all the latest news reports from the city.

RLC

Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times that, "President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is." Carl Bernstein repeated a similar allegation on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Tuesday night.

The assertion is either absurd or dishonest, or both, and those who make it are either fools or knaves, or both. To see why let's look at what the claim is based upon.

George Bush is said to be a radical because he opposes gay marriage and proposes a constitutional ammendment to prevent it. Bush is accused of trying to impose a religious belief on the rest of the nation, but this is silly. He is not trying to impose anything, rather he's seeking to preserve a two thousand year old institution which is essential to the well-being of our children and of our society. Indeed, it is his opponents who are attempting to impose a radical change upon society by by-passing state legislatures and having judges override the will of the people on this matter through the exercise of judicial fiat.

George Bush is called a radical because he opposes abortion on demand and would probably appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would roll back Roe v. Wade. At least three justices on the Court today believe that Roe is an extra-constitutional overreach on the part of the Supreme Court in 1973 and that it was very poorly decided. Even many liberals, Michael Kinsley comes to mind, who do not want it overturned have said the same thing. Maybe half the country agrees that it should be reversed and the decision as to whether abortions should be legal returned to each state so that the people of that state can decide the issue for themselves. Why is that radical?

President Bush is called a radical because he opposes the use of federal tax dollars to subsidize embryonic stem cell research. His policy is essentially an extension of the state of affairs as it was under Bill Clinton. He believes that the embryo is a living human being and, therefore, if it is going to be sacrificed for scientific research, taxpayers should not be compelled to pay for its destruction any more than they should be compelled to pay for abortions. If private industry or universities wish to carry out this research, Bush has put no barriers in their way. He has only declared that such research will not be funded by tax dollars. How does that make him radical?

President Bush is called a radical because he believes that God grants world leaders wisdom if they seek His will, and he believes that God acts in human history. This belief places him in the company of a long line of great presidents including George Washington and Ronald Reagan. It also puts him in the company of some Democratic presidents like Jimmy Carter. Most of the people in this country, whether they are Christian or not, believe pretty much what George Bush believes. In fact, the convictions George Bush embraces place him in the historical mainstream in this country, so what is radical about that?

A radical is one who seeks to overturn the settled practice and norms of a society. A conservative seeks to preserve them. A radical is a member of a minority who is well out of the mainstream of social and political thought. A conservative may be in the minority, but usually he is not. George Bush either does not wish to overturn settled norms, or, if he does, as in the legal acceptance of abortion on demand, his position is not out of the mainstream. Fifty percent of the country agrees with him. Krugman and Bernstein know this, but it suits their purposes to simply paint the President as an extremist even though they're fully aware that he's not. That's why their claims are both foolish and dishonest.

RLC

We hear that some Democrats, Lawrence O'Donnell for instance, are recommending secession of Blue states from the union as a viable response to Bush's election. Presumably, these desperate souls hope to form a country where women will be able to abort their babies willy-nilly, unhindered by the sort of qualms voiced by those dreadful pro-lifers; where gays will be able to marry freely and marriage will mean whatever "enlightened", "reality-based" people want it to mean; where entertainment celebrities will decide how the police and military will be employed, if at all; where no Christians will be admitted to the public square, in order to insure social tranquility; and where 70% tax rates, or higher, will be imposed on the wealthy to insure social equality. Sounds like heaven on earth.

RLC

Atheist Christopher Hitchens recognizes an important difference between left-wing atheists and the Christian George Bush: The left apologizes for religious fanatics. The President fights them. In an excellent essay for Slate Hitchens delivers an indictment of his erstwhile allies on the ideological left. A couple of salient excerpts:

Now if Hitchens were only willing to see that the strong sense of moral purpose and judgment which inspire his writing are without any substantial foundation in a universe without God, perhaps he would abandon not only the left but also the left's atheism. After all, a consistent thinker like Mr. Hitchens must recognize, once he reflects upon the matter, that one cannot be both an atheist and a moralist. Ultimately, one or the other must be thrown over.

If there is no God then there is no right or wrong apart from our subjective tastes or preferences. Our personal predilections, however, offer us no ground at all upon which to stand while passing judgment on the behavior of others, and Mr. Hitchens has built his career upon the passing of such judgments.

RLC

Arthur Chrenkoff's 14th edition of Good News From Iraq is on-line, and there's a ton of it. One wonders how many Democrats know about this site. Surely they aren't aware of it at ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN else their reportage on Iraq wouldn't be so consistently gloomy and pessimistic.

Speaking of Iraq, and more particularly, Fallujah, Belmont Club is on top of military developments there.

RLC

Captain's Quarters offers some pungent thoughts on the self-absorbed snifflings of Florida Democrats who are seeking therapy for what's being called Post Election Selection Trauma:

The symptoms of the disorder make the sufferers sound like spoiled, self-centered brats who are so used to having their way that they can't believe they didn't get it in the election. One wonders how many of Mr. Schooler's clients beat their legs with their fists and stomped their feet when they realized that George Bush was going to win.

RLC

Hugh Hewitt has been arguing persuasively against denying Arlen Specter the chairmanship of the judiciary committee. His latest on the subject is here. He asks a number of pointed questions of those, like us, who think that Specter's intemperate and ungrateful remarks at a press conference last week make him unfit to serve. We find his argument compelling and are willing to abide a Specter chairmanship until the moment the Senator shows any sign of wavering with regard to a qualified Bush nominee.

Hewitt asks the following questions:

The answer to the last question, of course, is that he as much as said he would, but nevertheless, Hewitt is correct that bumping Specter could be counterproductive, especially by making an enemy out of him and hence his liberal Republican allies in the Senate.

Even so, the outcry that Republicans heard in Washington about Specter's pending selection is salutary. It sends a message to both the Republican senators in general and Specter in particular that the base back home is watching their every move and the good folks who comprise that base expect that the President's agenda will not be unfairly impeded, especially by members of his own party.

RLC

Excerpts from the fourth rail, a milblog which is providing good analysis of the Fallujah battle:

We haven't seen anything to suggest that there are simultaneous operations going on in Ramadi and other Sunni cities. Apparently, the commanders on the ground have decided that they would deal with these cities seriatim rather than all together as had been thought a possibility a couple of weeks ago.

RLC

Belmont Club has a fascinating anecdotal account of U.S. capabilities in Fallujah. Here's part of it:

Stay tuned.

RLC

Ever since the day after the election despondent Democrats have been casting their aspersions far and wide across Red America. Bush voters, we're told, are "stupid" and "ignorant". A headline in the London Daily Mirror asked the question that many American Democrats were asking, "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?". Kerry voters by contrast are "reality-based" i.e. they are too sophisticated and smart to embrace all that religious hokem that the Bush people in their unbelieveable stupidity actually think is true. The spin on the election is that there are just too many dimwits out there voting for Bush and not enough of the enlightened crowd who voted for Kerry. The spin, however, collapses as soon as we start asking some questions about it.

Let's ask who's more stupid and who's more grounded in reality.

Is it those who believe that Kerry would have made a good leader, or is it those who in vain searched his twenty year record in the Senate for some scintilla of evidence of a predisposition to lead and an ability to do so?

Is it those who took him at his word when he claimed to have a plan for every contingency, economic, social and military, or those who asked to no avail to see those mysterious plans or to be told how, exactly, the plan differed significantly from what the President was already doing?

Is it those who believe he would stick it out in Iraq until the insurgents were defeated, or those who believed that since Kerry said that it was wrong to ask a man to die for a mistake in Vietnam and since he believes that Iraq is also a mistake, he could not be expected to ask soldiers to continue to die in Iraq any more than in Vietnam?

Is it those who believe Kerry would've been able to persuade the French and Russians to join us in killing the goose that was dropping golden eggs into their avaricious and unscrupulous hands, or those who believed that if something is right to do then it's right to do even if you have to do it by yourself?

Is it those who believed that Bush would end Social Security for the elderly, reinstate the draft, and suppress the black vote, or those who demanded evidence that any of these allegations was true?

Is it those who believed that Kerry could lower the deficit, keep all his spending promises, and yet not raise taxes on the middle class, or those who believed that this was all political posturing and flummery?

Is it those who believed Kerry's claims to piety, or those who thought these claims just as phony as his Ohio goose hunt?

Is it those who believed John Edwards' claim that he and Senator Kerry would have quadraplegics up and walking within a few years of being elected, or those who laughed in derision at such asininity?

Is it those who didn't believe any of the Senator's twaddle but voted for Kerry anyway knowing he didn't mean a word of it, or those who didn't believe it and refused to vote for someone who was so obviously untrustworthy?

Is it those who believe that anyone who refuses to go along with their sage plans to reform American society and culture is an intolerant bigot, or those who believe that it's wiser not to tinker with millenia-old institutions whose stability is crucial to our social and individual well-being?

Is it those stuck in menial jobs earning less than $30,000 a year who voted overwhelmngly for Kerry, or those who have the talent and drive to earn over $50,000 a year who voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

Is it those who received their education in blue counties where schools are often abysmal and drop-out rates are the highest in the nation, or those who received their education in red counties where public schools are often excellent and drop-out rates are low?

Is it those who paid money to see Michael Moore's patently dishonest and spiteful movie and came away thinking they'd just learned something profound, or those who saw the movie for what it was?

Is it those who based their vote on hate and spite for a candidate, or those who based their vote on respect and admiration?

Is it those who saw Teresa H. Kerry as a potentially impressive first lady, smart and sassy, or those who saw her as a self-absorbed whiner who's pretense at profundity was evidently delusional?

Is it those like George Soros who saw millions of dollars of his personal fortune spiral down the toilet of his foolish hatreds?

Is it those like Dan Rather, who, in his obsession to unseat the President, got taken in by an amateurish fraud, and, like Ahab in pursuit of the great white whale, sacrificed whatever credibility and integrity he had as a journalist that he might heroically slay George Bush's candidacy with forged documents?

Is it those who are so despondent and angry that they've cancelled family visits because their families live in red states?!

We here at Viewpoint may not be the brightest lights on the Christmas tree, but we don't think it's hard to see in this instance who's smart and who isn't and who's been grounded in reality in this past election and who hasn't.

RLC

Mark Steyn favors us with another enjoyable column on the Democrat's seemingly invincible inability to face up to the fact that the reason they're rapidly fading into oblivion is that their message is frozen in the 1960s like a wooly mammoth in the arctic permafrost.

Steyn writes:

The rest of the piece is just as good.

RLC

The Monterey Institute of International Studies offers an analysis of difficulties and consequences of an Israeli or American preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and concludes that the negative long-term liabilities of such a strike would negate any short-term benefit. It's the best argument we've seen for essentially doing nothing about Iran's imminent nuclear weapons capability.

The problem is that many of the dire consequences the above report cites as reasons for declining to attack Iran's nuclear facilities are already upon us. They argue, for example, that Iran would certainly work hard to undermine the nascent democracy in Iraq and bring our efforts there to grief, but as this article makes clear, Iran is already doing pretty much whatever it can to destablize Iraq.

It seems likely that whatever Iran can do to hurt and thwart the United States it will do whether or not we take out its weapons-making capability.

Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for the tip.

RLC

We never would have guessed, but apparently it's an open secret that Yasser Arafat is homo/bi-sexual and is currently dying from AIDS. The cause, if it is the cause, of his grave condition is shrouded in secrecy because such a lifestyle, and such a denouement, would be an intolerable affront to Muslim piety. If word got out that Arafat was a homosexual it would severely tarnish his image in the Arab world. There is, nonetheless, considerable evidence that he is, in fact, dying from AIDS. See here for the scuttlebutt, so to speak.

RLC

The assault on Fallujah has begun. For analysis of events visit Adventures With Chester:

There's much more at his site.

RLC

Readers who thought that perhaps Viewpoint was overstating the case somewhat when we expressed our concern that Europe is hurtling toward a religious civil war might wish to check out a pair of AP articles in the Washington Times. The first is titled Netherlands Braces For 'Jihad' and the second covers some of the same ground but provides a little more detail.

Europe, like the United States and Israel is confronted with an implacable enemy which believes that it is doing the will of God by destroying Western civilization. Those who see the war in Iraq as disconnected from the war against Islamic terror do not see things the way the Islamo-fascists do. For them there is only global jihad. They do not think in terms of national boundaries which are, in any event, artificial constructs imposed upon them in a time of weakness by the infidel nations of the West. Amsterdam and Fallujah, Madrid and New York are just different theaters in the global war that all Muslims everywhere are obligated to wage against the infidels.

One of the shortcomings of Senator Kerry's candidacy for the presidency was that he showed no indication that he grasped this crucial fact. His insistence that the war in Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time reinforces the impressison that he is oblivious to the Islamic threat to the West. He seemed to think that terrorism is merely the product of difficult or unjust economic "root causes", and that the way to end terror was to negotiate better living conditions for poor Muslims. This would reduce terrorism to the level of a "nuisance". The Senator's plan, of course, is as naive as Neville Chamberlain thinking he could negotiate peace with Adolf Hitler by conceding Czechoslovakia.

As Bernard Lewis, perhaps the foremost scholar on Islam today, reminds us, for Muslims there is only Dar al-Islam, the House of Islam in which Muslim law prevails and Dar al-Harb, the House of War, which is the rest of the world. In Dar al-Harb jihad will continue, interrupted only by temporary truces, until all the world either adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule.

The Netherlands has long been regarded as one of the most tolerant of nations. It will be instructive to see how far their tolerance can be stretched.

RLC

NewsMax.com reminds us that religious bigotry is alive and well in America, but except for a few marginal folks no one listens to, the bulk of the hostility comes not from the right, but from the left and is directed specifically at Christianity and Christians.

Catholic League president William Donohue has compiled the following examples from newspapers and Internet sites after Bush's victory. Viewpoint thinks it appropriate to note that we don't think that all of these are examples of religious intolerance. Several of them evince an intolerance of common sense, perhaps, and others simply seem to be merely the ravings of the paranoid left, but here they are with our comments:

We're sure he does, Mr. Albom, so you're free to wonder about something a little more weighty, like why, as a reporter, you don't exert yourself a little more to understand better the people you write about.

Why should Mr. MacArthur be offended because George Bush and John Kerry claim to be subservient to Christ? And why should Mr. MacArthur's tender sensibilities be permitted to exercise a veto over a Christian politician's right to acknowledge that subservience when asked? And who is Mr. MacArthur that he thinks a man's religious freedom should be constrained by what he personally finds offensive?

Perhaps most people find a miracle engineered by a Divine mind to be much more plausible than a miracle engineered by Chance and mindless matter. The fervency with which the former is believed has nothing to do with how "enlightened" one is but rather with the implications of the belief. If the virgin birth did in fact occur it suggests that Jesus was in some sense divine. If evolution, or macroevolution, which is what Wills has in view here, did occur, it suggests that God is superfluous, life is a meaningless accident, death is the end for both individuals and ultimately the human race, moral obligation is a delusion, and nothing really matters. It may be "enlightened" to believe all that, but people can hardly be faulted for not being overly fervent about the depressing consequences of the belief.

If someone can explain what this means please be so kind as to explain it to us via our Feedback Forum. Meanwhile, we recommend Ms Dowd limit herself to decaf for a couple of days.

Imagine. Wanting to extend the boundaries of religion. How unspeakably insensitive and ignorant these yokels must be. And how tolerant of Mr. Friedman to refuse to tolerate it.

We feel we're given a taste of hell whenever we're subjected to Ms. Carlson's tortured cogitations and witless slanders on CNN's Capital Gang. Sartre said that "hell is other people." We suggest that hell would be having to read the confused outputs of Ms Carlson's ruminations for eternity.

How so, Ms. McCarthy? How is it pandering to people's fears and prejudices to propose a constitutional ammendment that would codify what "enlightened" people have believed for over two thousand years, that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? Why is it somehow all of a sudden now disreputable for people to be concerned about the consequences of tinkering with the institution of marriage? Presumably Ms McCarthy would praise the president if he were to recognize the legitimacy of people's concerns about, say, corporate outsourcing of jobs. Why does she think it shameful of him to recognize people's concerns about the state of perhaps the most important institution in our cultural and social life?

We need to thank Mr. Blumenthal for clearing this up. We had been led by the "old media" to believe that "theocratic" and "Republican" meant the same thing.

Again, we stand corrected. We thought John Ashcroft had planned to resign.

It may be that some of the new senators have made some rather intemperate comments in the past, but this is not anything new in American politics. The problem for the secular left is that they are terrified of anyone who takes their faith seriously unless it is faith in the superstitions of the left such as the inherent justice of high taxes and the salutary effects of government regulations on small businesses, etc.

The lefties are in a panic over the prospect that there may be a couple more prayer groups and Bible studies on Capitol Hill now that a few more of the dreaded Christians are moving in. They recoil in horror from the nightmarish future they imagine these evil dolts have planned for us. Imagine the obscenity, they cry, of not being able to kill one's child as it's being born, or of not being able to marry however many people one wishes. Imagine how ghastly it will be if manger scenes turn up in the public square this Christmas and people start praying again at high school football games. The Republican jihadis doubtless have an odious secret plan to uphold their standards of decency on television. The trend toward cutting edge performances like that of Justin and Janet will surely be reversed. Creativity in the arts will be suffocated. Ads for male enhancements will lamentably no longer be able to provide essential and explicit information about how long their particular effects might be enjoyed. Women will no longer be portrayed as sex objects in beer commercials if these horrid Bible-thumpers have their way. The very thought of all this stifling, regressive censorship is enough to make one resolve to move to Canada, or France. Anywhere one can get away from people so stupid and ignorant as to actually believe in God, for heaven's sake.

RLC

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.com includes this in an article she writes on despondent democrats who plan to move to Canada in the wake of George Bush's reelection:

We also heard that Robert Redford had promised to move to Ireland if Bush won. Unfortunately, these people are no more likely to leave the country than were Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand who promised us in 2000 that a Bush win would cause them to take up residence elsewhere. These people are secular liberals and keeping one's word is not a trait one associates with secular liberals. It's too bad.

RLC

Slate.com has been running a series of very interesting essays written by Democrats on the topic of what their party needs do to gain back some political clout. Some of these, like the ones by Timothy Noah and Katha Pollitt are quite perceptive. They acknowledge that in fact there's not much the Democratic party can do without prostituting itself. For example, as Pollitt observes, the party simply can't try to win over pro-lifers without alienating the pro-choicers that comprise so much of its base. They can't sidle up beside the anti-gay marriage folk without causing serious distress among the gay rights crowd from which they draw economic and electoral sustenance. Nor can they become more hawkish on foreign policy without earning the ire of the Michael Moore/Howard Dean wing of the party. Noah and Pollitt acknowledge that the party is in a very bad way.

Then there are other essays in the series, like that which emerges from the pen of novelist Jane Smiley, a screed which reads like something from a rejected Saturday Night Live script. One suspects at first that it is a parody until it becomes gradually clear that Ms. Smiley is, to put the best face on it, non compos mentis. Perhaps the polite course is to avert one's eyes while she delivers herself of one embarrassing fatuity after another, but since she apparently insists on being taken seriously let's resolve to wade through her sophomoric rant wherein she delivers claims like the following:

In other words, conservatives are stupid, dishonest, and cruel. Let's set aside the fact that she offers no empirical support for her allegations. She simply asserts them and expects her readers to accept them uncritically, an expectation which demonstrates that she attributes to her leftist audience precisely the same intellectual weakness for which she condemns conservatives.

But as we said, let's not dwell on the logical incoherence of her piece. Let's look instead at the three vices she imputes to the political right. She accuses them of being ignorant and stupid, but take a moment to study the vote-by-county map here. Even a cursory examination shows that Democratic strength in the United States is concentrated in precisely those sectors of the country where schools and education are the worst, where the population is the most poorly educated and often barely literate. This is the Democratic base. Remember, it wasn't Republicans who couldn't figure out how to use a ballot in Florida in 2000.

She alleges, further, that conservatives are dishonest. Apparently, she is unaware of the howlers Senator Kerry's supporters tried to fob off on the public during the campaign. Almost everything they said, from their candidate's war service to their charges that the Bush team had banned stem cell research, planned to take away social security from the elderly, suppress the black vote, and reinstate the draft, was a total fabrication. Likewise the Democrats' allies in the media, like CBS, did not hesitate to press fraudulent documents into service to discredit the president. ABC's Mark Halperin urged his staff to abandon objectivity and tilt toward Kerry in their political coverage. No one in the MSM ever bothered to ask the Senator why he refused to release his military records so that the controversy over his service could be laid to rest. Evan Thomas at Newsweek wrote that the media would be worth 15 points to Kerry on election day and they probably were. When it comes to dishonesty the Republicans are light years behind the competition.

In the middle of her muddled piece Ms. Smiley launches into an extended discursion on the wild west, and, to the extent that her point can be deciphered, it seems to be that people in red states are mean. Perhaps the reader can bring more exacting exegetical skills to bear on the relevant paragraph and offer an alternative interpretation. Here it is:

This sounds like the maunderings of a drunken sot, but to the extent that there is some allegorical significance buried in the text, she seems to be implying that conservatives are a violent and brutal lot. Yet where is there any evidence to substantiate such a libel? Whatever evidence there is from the last campaign points the finger in the other direction. Almost every instance of campaign thuggery that occurred over the last several months was perpetrated against Republicans. It is not Republicans who hoped for "a thousand Mogodishus" in Iraq. It wasn't Republicans who made a movie about how to assassinate the president. It wasn't Republicans that pined for Lee Harvey Oswald and John Hinckley "now that we need them". It wasn't Republicans who've been arrested in Michigan for slashing the tires of their own GOTV vans, and on and on.

The Democrats are in a tough spot. They're stuck with an ideological message that does not resonate with the majority of the population. They can either abandon their message, or they can try to convert enough people to their message that they become a majority, or they can follow Ms Smiley's example by taking leave of their senses and accuse 59 million people of being stupid, dishonest, and cruel.

Fortunately for the public perception of the Democrats, not all of the essays in the series are so mindless. Some of them are very thoughtful. Viewpoint will take a look at some of those in the days ahead.

RLC

More insight into what the Coalition is, and has been, facing in and around Fallujah can be found at the Strategy Page:

There's more at the link.

RLC

Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, a descendent of the famous artist, was shot and stabbed to death on a Netherlands street last week by a young Dutch Muslim because Van Gogh was an outspoken critic in his films of Islamic misogyny and bigotry. His murderers pinned a note to his body with a knife. It read in part:

The note concludes by threatening several Dutch politicians with death.

As Andrew Sullivan asks, "What part of that do we not understand?"

More pertinently, perhaps, what part of that doesn't the left, both in Europe and in the American media, understand?

Power Line cites the New York Times opinion on the murder and highlights the Times' penchant for turning the wrong way on every one way street. Power Line writes:

Power Line has more here, and there is a Dutch blog which is focussing almost exclusively on this episode here.

The New York Times' pleas for cultural comity notwithstanding, the fact is that unless moderate Muslims soon start speaking out against the radicals in their midst, unless they soon begin to purge their mosques and communities of these savages, there will result a war of extermination in Europe and perhaps even in North America.

In Europe one of two situations is likely to obtain given the evident indifference of the larger Muslim community to the cancer in its midst. Either the European people will be so cowed by the terrorists that, emboldened by the weakness of their prey, the Islamists will launch a holy war on European soil to hasten the Muslim eschaton of world Islam, or the Europeans, in an uncharacteristic fit of resolve in the face of evil, will begin mass deportations and violence against the Islamic communities within their borders. Such aggressive self-defense will itself precipitate a violent reaction from the Muslims and religious civil war would likely ensue.

Given the silence of the "moderate" Muslims, if such there be, and the aspirations of the radicals, one of these two outcomes is almost inevitable. To paraphrase George Orwell, if you want a picture of the future as the Islamists see it, imagine a knife sawing at a human throat, for ever.

RLC

Inside glimpses of the Kerry campaign are starting to leak out. My brother Bill passes along this one by Tim Reid of the U.K. Times Online. Here are a few interesting excerpts:

None of this is very flattering to either the Senator or his campaign. There's more at the link.

RLC

John Miller of The National Review wrote an article last spring which concluded that Arlen Specter is the worst Republican Senator in the Senate. His reasons were numerous, but chief among them, perhaps, was the fact that Arlen Specter joined Teddy Kennedy in killing the nomination of Robert Bork. Even so, at a time when Specter was fighting for his political life last spring in a tough primary fight against Pat Toomey, President Bush weighed in to lend his support to Senator Specter.

Specter ran the President's endorsement in his ads over and over, but once he had defeated Toomey, solely because the endorsement of the president and his fellow Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum persuaded a lot of Republicans to ignore their better judgment, Specter never again identified himself with George Bush. His gratitude to Bush didn't extend to mentioning the President in any of his ads for the general election. Having exploited the President's endorsement to garner him a win in the primary, he didn't wish to risk defeat in the general election by being too closely identified by liberals with the despised George Bush.

For some reason that we'll leave to the psychiatrists to fathom for us, Republican voters reelected him to the Senate and now he shows his true character by essentially warning the President that sending up pro-life judges to the judiciary committee he is in line to chair would be pointless. He as much as told the president that he will personally kill the nomination of any judge who might be less than enthusiastic about Roe v. Wade. This is as incredible an arrogation of power as it is a monumental act of political ingratitude. One Republican senator is threatening to thwart the will of 59 million Americans who voted for President Bush's agenda.

His arrogance has created a storm of criticism and he has subsequently backtracked, but the man is not to be trusted. Once he is ensconced in his chairmanship he can do pretty much whatever he wants. He needs to be prevented from being elected to the chair in the first place.

The Republican caucus may vote on committee chairmanships as early as next week. If you feel the same about Senator Specter as does Viewpoint you can do something about it by contacting your senator (if you have a Republican senator) by phone or e-mail (check here for numbers and e-mail) and tell them you believe Arlen Specter is unsuited to be chairman of the judiciary committee. If you don't have a Republican senator, (or even if you do), contact Bill Frist the Senate majority leader and make your concerns known to him. Let them know that this is a very important matter to those of us who comprise the base of the Republican party.

There's a lot more on Arlen Specter at NRO's The Corner.

RLC

This Reuter's report pretty much puts the kibosh to the left's complaint that the economy under George Bush is in such miserable shape:

If things get any "worse" under the evil Bush we'll have to bring our troops home just to guard our borders to keep the rest of the world from pouring in.

RLC

If you're a political science type or just a junkie you'll find Jay Cost's analysis of the recent election well worth reading. You can read it at Horserace Blog here

RLC

Chester at Adventures With Chester explains how we are shaping the battlefield in Fallujah. An excerpt:

The analyses we've seen point to a commencement of battle within days if not hours.

RLC

There's a lot of buzz on talk shows and the internet about how Christian Evangelicals turned out in big numbers to swing the election for George Bush. Something like 25% of Ohio voters, for example, identified themselves as Evangelical Christians and they voted three to one for George Bush. Similar numbers prevailed throughout the country, and the Democrats are now commencing an extended season of self-examination to determine why so many of these people, especially in states which had been traditionally Democratic, have defected to George W. Bush.

The very fact that they have to ask the question, of course, reveals part of the problem. Democrats, at least liberal Democrats, which is almost all of them in the leadership, are tone deaf when it comes to religion and morality. They just don't get it. They can't understand why people who hold a Christian worldview, especially one which is theologically conservative, would feel alienated by the Democratic party. In an act of graciousness in the wake of victory Viewpoint offers them the following brief tutorial.

There is a second Civil War taking place in this country, not a war fought with guns but a war fought with ideas and the artillery of culture. Indeed, it is a culture war, a war that has riven this nation more deeply than anything since the first Civil War, and surprisingly, some people on both sides are just now coming to realize it. For at least three generations the secular left, the "progressives", concentrated in Hollywood, the academy, the television and music industries, and in the legislatures and judiciaries of government have been assiduously undermining and assaulting the traditional values that much of the rest of the country holds dear. The traditionalists, for their part, have complained about these attacks on their values but felt impotent to do much about them. The progressives controlled the levers of power and it just seemed to many, especially among the progressives, that their ultimate victory is inevitable. Maybe it is, but in this election the traditionalists finally felt they had an opportunity to stand against the tide, if only for a moment, and shout "enough."

Now the political organ of the progressives, the Democratic party, is stunned. They had fallen victim to an overweening confidence in their own inevitability, concocted in equal parts by their past success and their present ideological incestuousness. They are astonished that there are still so many people out there who can't see the obvious rightness of their cause and who were able to muster sufficient political energy to thwart them on their way to establishing a completely secular polity. What some Democrats are beginning to realize, as if awakening from a slumber, is that their party has sold its soul to the ideological far left and is in thrall today to the Michael Moores and Al Frankens of the world. It has become the party of rich and powerful men like John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy and George Soros who patronize and pander to the working class but who have nothing in common with them. It is the party of academics and intellectuals who see the masses of people only as an abstract entity residing in remote frontiers that they themselves have only personally observed from an altitude of 35,000 feet. It is the party of those who hold in contempt the values and religion which that 25% of the voting public cherishes and which an even greater number respects. And now this party sits in wonderment at their repudiation by the heartland of this nation.

Concerned Democrats might do well to reflect on the fact that their party has had exactly two presidents in the last thirty years. One was an unabashed Evangelical, Jimmy Carter, and the other, Bill Clinton, at least made a pretense of being devout. John Kerry's awkward attempts to appear pious were transparently phony and, in any event, his high church style of piety did not much impress the Christian conservatives who turned out for Bush.

So the political post-mortems are concentrating quite a lot on the party itself and questions are being raised about how Democrats can regain some purchase among the people on the moral values issue. Pundits are asking why there can't be some unity between left and right on core values. The assumption seems to be that there must be common ground somewhere and that it's just a matter of finding it. What so many don't seem to understand is that there is no common ground. The relentless advances of secularism and our silly infatuation with "diversity" and "tolerance" have swept it away.

In our grandparents' day most people, whether they were Christian or not, accepted the moral authority of the Church and of the Bible. They may not have lived by it, but they somehow knew they should. There was a shared platform upon which to stand to discuss and debate moral issues and disagreements. That is much less the case today. Today the platform has been razed to the ground in the interest of "maximizing a diverse mosaic" of views and consequently we're like people adrift on rafts that have floated away from each other and are too far apart for us to join hands, to reconnect.

People on one raft base their values upon the Bible and/or Christian tradition, while the another raft is occupied by people who are, at the very least, skeptical of those as sources of moral authority. Many on that raft are openly hostile to the Christian worldview. Much, if not most, of the gulf between the red staters and the blue staters has resulted from this fundamentally disparate way of grounding moral truth. Since the two sides lack a common vision of what is ultimately right, their goals and means will rarely converge. Indeed, those who ground their values in God's revelation are seen by the secularists as superstitious fools whose benighted ideas deserve to be sent to the nearest landfill.

It is not that we simply disagree about the best way to get from A to Z . The two sides disagree about whether Z is where we should go at all. Traditionalists see marriage, for example, as a sacrament ordained by God. The left scoffs at this and views marriage as an oppressive, undesirable social structure evolved by ancient man and obsolete in today's world. Traditionalists believe that we should protect marriage from innovations and inroads, like easy divorce and gay marriage, which would eventually prove its undoing. The left sees any rules that would limit people from doing whatever they want to do as unjust and confining. There is no common ground here upon which a debate can be held. The only course is to resort to the exercise of power by one side over their antagonist and to secure for their values the force of law. The progressives have been doing this for fifty years, and the traditionalists have been fighting a rear-guard action against them, trying to preserve their way of life until they could amass sufficient political and judicial clout to undo some of the damage.

Lacking a common set of metaphysical assumptions upon which to base our moral judgments, both political parties have long ago given up trying to convince their opponents by argument and logical persuasion. They have realized, if only subliminally, that if we aren't starting from the same basic assumptions we'll never wind up at the same end point. Thus the parties find themselves engaged now in a mining operation, trying to extract votes from people who already agree with them, but who typically don't vote. The Republicans registered millions of people in this election over the age of 40 who were voting for the first time in their lives. But what neither party will be able to do with any significant success, in our opinion, is convert many voters. The politicos may fool the uninformed into believing that they're on the same side of the worldview divide as the people are, but, because there is so little common ground between the party elites and those whose worldview they disdain, they won't be successful in convincing those people to change their minds about what they believe. They will continue to just talk past each other. Better to spend one's resources on energizing those who already agree with you.

If this is true the prospects for national comity between red state/blue state folks are dim. The civil war will continue, perhaps in an increasingly uncivil fashion, and the gulf between the two groups will only widen as resentments are nourished and reinforced by new outrages. It is an interesting coincidence, perhaps, that the electoral strength of both sides lies pretty much along the same lines as the national division in 1860. Senator Kerry's blue states lie almost completely north of the Mason Dixon Line (Maryland and California are exceptions) and George Bush's electoral college strength lies predominantly south of it. Let's hope that this is indeed a coincidence and not a portent.

RLC

Megan McArdle at Instapundit has some good advice for all of us who are delighted with Bush's victory:

Having endorsed Ms McArdle's plea for civility Viewpoint has to confess that we did, though, laugh at Glenn Beck's riff on the radio this morning. Beck is, in our mind, the most talented, the most entertaining, talk radio host on the air and that includes Limbaugh and Hannity. If you can find him on the dial give him a listen. In the Harrisburg, PA area he's on WHP 580 at 9:00 a.m. Sometimes you just have to laugh even though you know you shouldn't.

RLC

Yesterday's election brought the Republicans a coup of four net Senate seats, including that of Tom Daschle, which puts the count at 55 R, 44 D, and 1 Independent. There are two things about this that bode well for Bush's agenda.

First is that it will now be much more difficult for the Democrats to stonewall Bush's judicial appointments, most importantly to the Supreme Court, on which there may be as many as four vacancies over the next four years. This will reverberate through our polity for the next two generations. Secondly, some Democrats may well lose enthusiasm for serving in the minority for the foreseeable future and may soon choose to retire (or even switch). This could well produce an even larger Republican majority in 2006 and 2008.

Eleven states had a referendum on the ballot yesterday that would amend their constitutions to ban gay marriage. The measure won in all eleven states bringing to seventeen the number of states whose constitutions prohibit legal recognition of such unions.

Californians approved a $3 billion measure to fund stem cell research. How a state which teetered on the brink of insolvency a year or two ago will pay for this is not yet clear.

George W. Bush received the highest vote total ever awarded to a winner. He is the first candidate to win over 50% of the vote since his father did it in 1988. The Clinton years are looking more and more like an aberrational interruption of an otherwise steady march toward a political hegemony of traditional and conservative values that began with Reagan in 1980. The long march through the institutions continues, and there is still a long way to go, but it's conservatives which are doing the marching and it's the left which is finding itself on the wrong side of history. At least we can hope.

RLC

With word that Senator Kerry is prepared to concede the election to George Bush, Viewpoint sees a number of winners and losers in the aftermath of this national exercise in democracy. Perhaps readers might wish to add some of their own (or delete one or more of ours:

RLC

A brief respite from the election coverage takes us to the Strategy Page which predicts a preemptive series of strikes by Israel against Iran in the not too distant future. Some excerpts:

Another question is what reaction would an Israeli strike against Iran elicit from the Islamist extremists in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere? And what effect would it have on public opinion in Europe and the U.S.? There's probably no way to answer these, but these questions don't really matter anyway. The only important question is should the world stand by and let the mad mullahs in Tehran start churning out nuclear weapons. If the answer to that is "no" and if negotiations fail to dissuade the Iranians from building these weapons, as they almost certainly will, what other options are there?

RLC

Exit polls during the day were showing a big move toward Kerry, but evidently they were very misleading. To get better analysis try HorseRace Blog and Kerry Spot throughout the evening.

The early good news is that Tom Daschle appears to be sinking in South Dakota.

RLC

Readers interested in the military tactics being used in Iraq, and especially those which will be employed in the impending takedown of Fallujah, might want to bookmark The Adventures of Chester. In his current post Chester gives his reasons why he believes the fight for Fallujah will last less than two weeks. It's very informed and very informative stuff.

RLC

Yigal Carmon, the president of the highly respected Middle East Media Research Institute, calls our attention to the correct translation of bin Laden's words on the video which was made public last Friday:

In other words, bin Laden joins Kim Jong Il and a host of other tyrants, terrorists, and lesser whackos around the world in telling Americans that it is in our interests to elect John Kerry as our president. Vote for Kerry, the terrorists' choice.

One of the most interesting aspects of MEMRI's analysis is this:

This strongly suggests that George Bush's strategy for fighting terrorism is working. Al Qaida is demoralized and hoping to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat by effecting a change in the way the United States is fighting the war against him. Their best hope, evidently, is to get John Kerry elected. Good grief.

RLC

Charles Krauthammer refreshes our memories regarding one of the greatest feats of liberation in the history of world civilization. We refer to the victory over the exceedingly repressive regime imposed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Krauthammer writes that:

The liberation of Afghanistan is quite literally an astonishing feat, one that could not have been accomplished apart from force of arms, a fact that those on the left who say that war never settled anything might do well to ponder. Nor could it have been accomplished without extraordinary leadership from the Commander-in-Chief on down. It is almost impossible to imagine this achievement, for which Americans should be extremely proud, having occured under a Kerry administration. Senator Kerry's whole approach to terrorism and his disdain for the military make an expedition such as the Bush team put together in Afghanistan quite unthinkable under a President Kerry.

Krauthammer's essay, which has a lot more to say than the excerpts quoted above, implicitly reminds us of how much is at stake in tomorrow's election. Tomorrow we will decide what kind of nation we will be for the next decade. Will we continue to be the hope of oppressed peoples everywhere as we were under Ronald Reagan and as we have been under George Bush or will we be a nation fashioned after the image of Michael Moore? Will we continue to be the hope of those who live in fear of Islamo-terrorism as we have been under George Bush or will we withdraw from the fray and become a reactive force, as John Kerry has suggested he prefers, rather than the proactive force we have been under President Bush? Will we continue to be a nation that does what is right even if others refuse to join us or will we be a nation which must pass John Kerry's "global test", i.e. get approval from the French, before we can act to oppose terrorism and other threats against our security? Will we be a nation whose president has the endorsement of most of the world's worst tyrants and anti-semites, will we be a nation whose president is the man Osama Bin Laden has recently tacitly endorsed, or will we be a nation whose president is a threat to tyrants and terrorists everywhere? We'll know in thirty six hours.

RLC

Saint Augustine speaks in his Confessions of his eagerness to meet and hear the Manichean hero Faustus who had a great reputation for eloquence. Upon finally hearing him explain the Manichean philosophy, however, Augustine was disappointed, not in Faustus' agility with the language, but rather in his ideas. He writes:

These words come to mind as we reflect upon the political campaign which is heading for its denouement this Tuesday. John Kerry has said much these last twelve months and much of it he has delivered with great oratorical flourish and skill. President Bush, on the other hand, will never be considered to be the second coming of Demosthenes. Even so, eloquence has nothing to do with either truth or wisdom, and we shouldn't be blinded to the import and truth of one's words by the raiment in which they are attired.

To assess whether Senator Kerry has the "Right Stuff" to be president one needs to attend not merely to what he says or how seductively he says it, but rather to what he has accomplished in his public life.

In the early seventies the young John Kerry played a significant role in getting the United States to abandon the South Vietnamese to the armies of Ho Chi Minh resulting in the slaughter or imprisonment of tens of thousands of people who had placed their hope and trust in the U.S. to defend them. John Kerry's efforts to end our involvement in the war included defaming the American military and indirectly making life worse for the P.O.W.s being held in North Vietnam. For his contribution to an eventual N.V.A. victory he has had his photograph placed on a wall of honor in a North Vietnamese war museum.

We may argue about the quality of his judgment, or whether his behavior was actually treasonous or not. But what seems to be beyond dispute is that the North Vietnamese saw him as an ally, or, in Lenin's terms, at the least a "useful idiot", in their struggle against the United States.

Moreover, Mr. Kerry saw that war as a colossal mistake, a tragic blunder, and his prescription was to pull out immediately. Today we're engaged in another war which Senator Kerry regards as a colossal mistake and a tragic blunder. He says that as president he will nevertheless prosecute it until we win, but what in his record gives us reason to believe he's being truthful? If he was right about Vietnam he has no reason to treat Iraq any differently, and if he now thinks he was wrong about Vietnam he has never said so. If personal history is a reliable guide, a President Kerry will pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as he can, and the Iraqi people will be at the mercy of the brutal thugs who circle like hyenas waiting for the opportunity to destroy the Iraqi experiment in freedom and all who have put their trust in America to see that experiment through.

In the eighties Mr. Kerry was elected to the Senate where he compiled a record noteworthy only for it's un-noteworthiness. After twenty years of service he has no significant legislation to his credit, he has served in no real leadership capacity, he amassed a voting record that has placed him among the most left-wing members of the Senate, and his attendance at committee meetings has been abysmal. He voted consistently to raise taxes, diminish the military, and weaken our intelligence gathering capabilities. There is nothing in his tenure in Congress which exhibits the grain of presidential timber, which is doubtless why his acceptance speech at the convention last July doted so lovingly on his Vietnam service and hardly at all on his Senate career.

Since the convention he has spent the campaign blaming George Bush for everything from vaccine shortages to alleged missing explosives in Iraq, as if Bush worked in the lab that produced the vaccine and was himself standing guard at al Qaqaa. His campaign has been marked by charges and allegations which have either a very tenuous hold on, or are completely divorced from, reality. He has faulted "this president" for a terrible economy despite the fact that unemployment is lower now than it was during the Clinton years. He has faulted "this president" for invading Iraq without the blessing of the French, even though the French had been bought by Saddam and nobody could have persuaded them to join the coalition that was about to derail their oil-for-food gravy train. He faulted this president for botching the post-war in Iraq even though the Iraqi economy is strengthening almost daily, Iraqis are on track to hold the first democratic elections in their history in a few months, and 25 million of them are free of state terror for the first time in generations. Moreover, the insurgency in Iraq is in its death throes as the Iraqi military and police gain in competence and numbers and assume the delicate task of killing the Islamo-terrorists without antagonizing the Muslim citizenry.

Mr. Kerry's attempts during the campaign to appear pious and "manly" seem contrived and spurious. He has made it a point to attend church services every Sunday the last few months, but this is in stark contrast to the pattern he has established throughout his adult life. His goose-hunting foray was made risible by his purchase of the required license when he asked a clerk if he could "get me a hunting license here."

He repeatedly gives the impression of being willing to say or do anything in order to squeeze an extra vote or two out of his audience. His eagerness to castigate the President over the al Qaqaa story without knowing whether the reports were true or not is but the latest example of a reckless opportunism that goes back at least to his military days.

The Senator has manufactured crises where no crisis exists. He has accused this administration of blocking stem cell research, of planning to suppress the minority vote, of planning to deprive the elderly of social security, of planning to reinstate the draft, but none of these allegations is even remotely true, or even plausible. Similarly untrue are claims he has made for himself such as the claim to have met with the members of the Security Council for in-depth discussions prior to the invasion of Iraq, a claim flatly denied by the relevant U.N. representatives.

John Kerry himself promises us that he has a "plan" for every ill besetting our polity, but either his plan looks very similar to what the President is already doing, as in his plan for Iraq, or the numbers in his plan don't add up, as in his plan to rollback the Bush tax cut and to use that revenue to pay for all the programs he has promised. Or, most often, the plan goes unarticulated and remains a mystery.

Mr. Kerry can lay claim to only a single qualification for the presidency, if it even be a qualification: He is an eloquent and persuasive speaker. But as Augustine pointed out over 1600 years ago, eloquence has nothing to do with truth. Nor does it have anything much to do with leadership. Like pumice stone which gives the appearance of possessing weight, but which, upon hefting, one is surprised to find so airy, John Kerry's rhetorical graces mask an inner lightness that is totally inadequate for the stresses and tests which lie ahead of our nation.

In these times we need a president who has demonstrated both leadership and character. George Bush is not perfect, but he possesses those two particular virtues in abundance. John Kerry, by contrast, is a "hollow man" who has never evinced either. He offers no compelling reason to elect him and numerous reasons to blanch at the thought of a Kerry presidency. Viewpoint urges its readers not to base their votes on Tuesday upon superficial eloquence but rather upon each man's character and the capacity each has demonstrated to lead us in the continuing war against Islamo-fascist terrorism.

RLC