Lay Brings Out Some Honesty from Left

I'm always amazed when the folks on the left accidently lift the veil of what makes them tick just a bit and we get to see inside. Enron and Ken Lay (along with Bush and Cheney) are cases where they open that veil. As I heard on the NPR story, while the left has endless sympathies for terrorists and criminals of all stripes except Republican. Once their strange form of "morality", based on their own model of "what feels good is good" kicks in, they realize that revenge "feels good", so why not torture?

I know, some of you are thinking, he has to be making this up, but although the author decides to euphamize it as "chi-chi", he clearly comes to the conclusion that torture is what he would really have liked to see happen to Ken Lay.
Post:Ken Lay's Last Evasion

This quote shows that deep down, your average liberal understands. His own editorial should be more than enough to notice that yes, savagery isn't really below the surface at all when it comes to the folks that the liberals hate. They are ready to attack and torture as soon as they get their shot.

but so many people may well have responded to the news of Lay's untimely death by feeling cheated, by saying that death wasn't good enough for him, by sensing a frustrated craving for revenge burning in their backbrains like a fire in a tire dump.

Is it possible that a micron below the surface of our liberal and enlightened beliefs lurks savagery? Was the French Enlightenment wrong about our essential goodness, and were the medieval churchmen right about our innate depravity?

The liberal brain is focused on feeling. It is how things make them feel that counts as morality, and in general, the feeling impulse will take us back to childhood. They didn't like the idea that their parents, schoolteachers, or pastors had "power". Power to make them feel "less than perfect", or to force them to do things that didn't make them feel good. They also noticed that their parents and other in authority "had more". They built up feeling of resentment for people that they saw as "having more". Almost always they see however those people got more as "wrong". In a situation like Ken Lay, they find their feelings to be validated, so they are allowed to express their outrage.

Although liberals try to elevate feelings to the level of the spritual and sublime, feelings tend to be quite primitive. For the author of this piece to use the analogy of "a primitive tribe" to express his desire to torture Ken Lay is a pretty transparent symbol.

Note that the very same person would very likely abhor Abu Grahb, Guantanemo, the death penalty in the US, or any other treatment of other prisoners that they would find to be less than commendable. How can this be? They see Ken Lay (or Bush/Cheney) as "inhuman", but they don't assign that view to terrorists or other criminals. Why? The liberal is God, there is no higher power, and any inkling of someone that really is a "higher power" ... through political position, money, or something else, and isn't in agreement with the liberal is "evil" ... but a criminal or terrorist that isn't directly seen as attacking the liberal is not a threat. They are seen as "lower status", or even "victims" and thus worthy of good treatment, understanding, and compassion.

Liberalism is the essence of humanity. We are naturally liberals. We have to be somehow "saved" ... in some combination of a religous, intellectual, philisophical, or phycological way. Even then, we remain at core liberals and if left to our own devices will return to primitive feelings and rage, just like some "primitive tribe". Intellectual honesty is not a commoodity that is commonly associated with liberals, but cases like this column where the truth boils to the surface and is expressed directly allow us to understand why liberals behave the way they do.

Coleman

MN Senator Norm Coleman stopped by at work today and spoke to a large conference room with 150-200 people, packed to the rafters. Being a high technology company, the audience seemed to be 90%+ supportive. His 15min talk was pretty much centered on innovation, technology, education, and global competitiveness. He took questions for 15min, they were all courteous, and covered the topics of making the tax cuts permanent, intellectual property / China / India, health care, and American's willingness to continue to take risks as in the space program.

The most memorable part of his talk was as he mentioned that as he meets with Mexican leaders they complain about being undercut by China and India, as he meets with Chinese and Indian leaders they complain about being undercut by Vietnam, Brazil, and Russia. The point is that if one wants to race to the bottom as low cost producer for low skill and increasingly medium skill jobs, there are plenty of folks ahead in the race. We don't want to be in the kind of standard of living that the countries in that race are in, so we want to keep racing for the top of the best innovators with the best technology, it is a tough race, but the prizes are worth it.

As he answered the questions, the first thing that struck me was how non-partisan his comments were ... he talked about "working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle", or "my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are coming to understand this more and more". Yes, it could be taken as "patronizing", but certainly not as the mean and nasty that Republicans are portrayed at in the media or we regularly hear from Democrats.

The second thing is how good a job he did of sticking to the Republican value of taking responsibility and not blaming others. There was no "blame the media" from him, it was "we haven't done a good job of communicating on tax cuts and Medicare part D'. Never mind that the MSM is hammering away every day with every negative to Republican story they can come up with, Coleman understands that complaining about it isn't going to change it, and realizes that no matter how difficult it might be, guys like him have to do the job. Gratifying, one is happy to stand up and applaud that kind of understanding and acceptance of the way things are.

It was a great opportunity to see a US Senator at close range, and he lived up to every expectation. A different and enjoyable way to spend 30min of the work day.

Short History of Bush the Divider

The following quoted from
Frontpage discussion between David Horowitz and Peter Beinhart relative to "soft and hard liberals". The discussion is a nice short synapsis of how difficult it is to support the typical Democrat / MSM synthesis that "Bush is the divider, and Iraq is the dividing point".

In your view, the problem we are discussing is not really a problem created by liberals and leftists. It is – like many other problems as you see them – a dilemma created by George Bush.

You regard Bush as the divider, and the declaration of war in Iraq as the division point. But how much reality is there in this claim? The use of force in Iraq was authorized by both parties and by UN Resolution 1441, which was a war ultimatum. (This is not a conservative view. It was so described by Hans Blix, who of course is a Swedish socialist, in his book Disarming Iraq). 

The ultimatum deadline for Saddam was set for December 7, 2002. Saddam failed to meet the deadline, in fact did not take it seriously (again, this is the judgment of Blix). This was the 17 UN Security Council Resolution he had basically ignored. The United States and Britain felt that 17 was more than enough and to fail to enforce a war ultimatum would have created a very dangerous situation. But three of the veto powers on the Security Council refused to join America and Britain in enforcing the ultimatum they had signed, leaving it to Bush and Blair to go it alone. These are the facts.

The reason there was no Security Council support for enforcing the ultimatum is that France, Russia and China were actually allies of Saddam who had armed him to the teeth and probably helped him to squirrel his WMDs to Syria just before the war broke out.

Nancy Pelosi began the Democratic attacks on this war on April 13, 2003, six weeks after it started, and just four and a half months after the Democrats in Congress had voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force against Saddam. By June, the Democratic Party leadership was in full attack mode over the trivial Niger issue, calling the commander-in-chief a liar who had gone to war on false premises. In fact Jimmy Carter and Al Gore had already launched attacks on Bush’s foreign policy that were unprecedented in their harshness in September 2002, even as Bush was attempting to bring Saddam to heel and going to the UN General Assembly for help. So how can Bush be blamed for being the divider and using the war as a wedge issue, when the Democrats who betrayed their own votes to authorize force were clearly the aggressors?

You have invoked Truman, as an exemplar of Cold War liberalism to distinguish him from the conservatism of George Bush. I have already dealt with this in relation to the nuclear threat. But even on the conventional front it is hard to see any difference between the positions of Truman and Bush. Did North Korea’s attack on South Korea pose an “imminent threat” to the United States? Hardly. Did Truman get UN support? Yes. But how was he able to do that? Because Russia had previously walked out of the UN Security Council and was unable to exercise its veto. If Russia had not denied itself the veto, Truman would have been in the same position as Bush was in regard to Iraq following the Security Council war ultimatum. In other words, he would have been faced with the decision to go to war without UN approval or let the North Korean Communist aggressors conquer the South. Is there any doubt in your mind as to what decision Truman would have made?

If Truman had come to the aid of the South Koreans without UN support how many Democrats do you think would have opposed him? We can only speculate on the answer but the fact is that Vito Marcantonio, a Communist fellow-traveler, was the lone vote in Congress against the Korean war. Whereas more than 100 Democrats voted against the use of force to topple Saddam Hussein, not only in 2002, but in 1990 following his invasion of Kuwait. Only six Democrat senators voted to oppose Saddam’s aggression in 1990. One of those was Al Gore who has now joined the anti-war camp. What a different party the Democrats became after 1972. Surely you cannot lay all this at the feet of George Bush.

So, yes, the question before us, as you put it, is flagging Democratic support for the anti-jihadist struggle. You and I both think that there are too few Democrats committed to this cause. But you attribute this to the divisive incompetence of Bush. I don’t, and my critique of your book is that you fail to examine how the Democratic Party went from a Party in which only one of its members voted against the Korean War, to the party of 1980s which in its majority opposed the anti-Communist struggle in Central America, and the party of 1990 which in its majority opposed the anti-Saddam war, and the party of 2006 which is virtually united in its opposition to the war against al-Qaeda and its allies in Iraq.

Normal Left Treatment

On the way home tonight I had NPR on and they got into talking about the death of Ken Lay. The announcer casually mentioned that "Former Enron employees and stockholders are holding parties to celebrate". Now I know that we have all been told to hate Ken Lay more than any terrorist or child molester, even though most actual business and financial analysts would point out that nothing he did was illegal at the time he did it. It was some combination of hyper-aggressive, stupid, imprudent, greedy and wishful thinking, but then Social Security and Medicare are pretty much that, just bought into by a larger group of people. Enron crashed, the public wanted a pound of flesh, so Ken made a good target and took the hit.

Are they really holding parties to celebrate? Maybe, I'd be pretty ashamed to hold a party to celebrate the death of anyone short of at least Bin laden, and as a Christian, I'd certainly want to be making it a private party even then. The point is that the NPR announcer obviously enjoyed the idea and would be happy to attend. These are the people that think that Ann Coulter is "coarse and nasty". Yes, Ann can be caustic, but people of the right pretty much understand she is being caustic when she is. I honestly don't think the lefties even see their coarseness since they are all so certain of their lefty moral superiority.

One if by land

Powerline had that great fake NYT at LINK. It is solidly done, and humor gets the point across very well. They hate Bush so much that they can't help but see him as a greater enemy than any terrorist.

Godless

I finished Ann Coulter's "Godless, The Church of Liberalism a few days ago, and enjoyed the book very much. It was my first Father's Day present purchased with my son's own money and carried out with his own Amazon account, so that may have biased me a bit!

My first reaction is how the MSM and even many folks on the right treat Ann as a pariah and either don't mention her at all, or point out how "divisive" she is. Meanwhile, on the left, Al Franken has moved back to MN and is considering a run for Senate, and at least local lefties are writing him up as a legitimate candied. Michael Moore sits next to former president Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Dem convention. At best, both these guys are equivalent bomb-throwers to Ann and I'd argue far worse.

I have a bit more authority to say that than something like 99% of people, since I've actually read them both, as well as Ann. I don't claim to unbiased, but I'm willing to see what the other side puts out. To the extent Ann is less than perfect on her facts, the MSM and the left is very happy to air anything that is even a potential issue, even though it may not actually affect the truth of her conclusions. (To whit, a lot of time spent by Franken on the fact that the NYT reported Dale Earnhardt's death, but Ann said they didn't ... BUT, the point is that the NYT and the folks on the left miss the importance of NASCAR and things like values ... which is pretty much true, even though she got a fact wrong).

However on the left, the book points out again and again how "fake but true" is pretty much as true as anything ever gets from the left. The fake Bush National Guard documents used as support by CBS are the clearest recent example, but Willy Horton, Anita Hill, the Kerry Military record and defense thereof and even a significant portion of the "evidence" in support of evolution are also in that camp. The left is the bastion of "if it is repeated enough times, it will become true". Thus there are certain phrases like "the failed economic policies of the '80s" or "the discredited charges of the Swift Boat Veterans" that are uttered enough times so the left and a huge chunk of bleating MSM sheep in the masses believe them simply because they are certain that it MUST be true.

I was most surprised to see her takedown of evolution evidence that has been finally reported in the NYT as being a hoax, only because they are concerned that the number of hoaxes out there in evolution textbooks make evolution look pretty bad as it is challenged by Intelligent Design. It is pretty clear that in order to claim that there ISN'T any intelligence behind the universe is at least as big a "faith statement" as to claim that there is. Ann makes the point that evolution is the creation story of the state religion of liberalism, so no discussion can be allowed in the schools whose primary purpose is to convince young minds of the unnatural path of liberalism.

I loved her start to chapter 8; "Even if evolution were true, it wouldn't disprove God. God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution. It's not even a daunting challenge to a belief in God. If you want something that complicates a belief in God, trying coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God's special creatures."

Having been hammered with the fundamentalist view as a child, it took a long time to move my own puny picture of "how big is God" beyond the little fundamentalist view from either the left or the right, that "if evolution is true, there is no God". We tend to spend a lot of time listening to fundamentalists from the left wing that control the MSM and the educational institutions of America bluster from the "evolution is true, there is no God"! Side of that equation. We spend less time, but still a significant amount listening to some Kansas fundamentalists of the right scream "God is real, therefore evolution is false"!

Her first statement is that "Survival of the the fittest" is a better statement for some pseudo-science like astrology than for something that claims to be actual science. It is a tautology. How would one disprove it? Find a species that wasn't fit that was still alive? Have the humans all commit suicide? But wait, I guess that would make us unfit. It is like saying "Tallness of the tallest", it doesn't add a single thing to the discussion, yet it is repeated as holy writ.

She points out that a random process would throw off TONS of "unfit or less fit" intermediate forms in it's unordered, undirected, non-striving way. There are no such forms in the fossil record. There are a lot of attempted excuses as to why not, and some hoaxes attempting to create some since the lack of such fossils is an extreme embarrassment. It would be as if Einstein did E=MC**2, pointed out what it should mean when we measured things to prove it, but then the things DIDN'T come to pass. For Einstein, the "theory" DID bear out (and still does) as more data could be gathered. For Darwin, it has not ... BUT, the godless liberals are left with no other creation story, so they keep using only one they have, and defending it harder.

She goes in detail through Piltdown Man, peppered moths and Nazi Earnst Haeckel with his drawing of the stages of embryo development mirroring the stages of evolution. His drawings are a hoax, but what is always funny to me is how often the left chooses to lift ideas that they like from Nazi's, then cover up that they are Nazi ideas, while in parallel trying to create links from people on the right to Nazis even where they don't exist, or are weak at best. They know what evil is, they want to use it when they can without taint, yet link the innocent with it whenever they can.

She closes off the book with a discussion of the obvious point that if there is no God, then there is no morality at all beyond the current whim of whomever can get power, and "survival of the fittest". Peter Singer, Princeton "ethics" professor that believes in infanticide and killing the "unfit elderly" for humans, "equal rights" for apes, not allowing humans to eat meat, but allowing beastiality; is used as an example of what "anything goes" really means. The MSM ignores that this man has written books on all these topics and still sits in a position at a major US university in spite of a few courageous folks like Steve Forbes stopping any of their funds from supporting the school as long as he holds his position. In the church of liberalism though, the only God is "anything goes", and Singer is an example of where we are headed if we don't heed the warnings that Ann Provides in this excellent (and fun) book.

Scientists Agree With Gore

"Climate Experts: Gore's Movie Get's Science Right", with the sub-headline, "The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy".

Really? I hope these scientists don't use statistical methods like the AP, and who by the way picks "the top scientists"? Is there a referreed list provided by vote, or do they all do a ranking each year? I don't think so.

In the first paragraph, they admit ..."mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.". They mention this is out of over 100 that they contacted. So, you take a self-selecting sample, use only that sample, and draw a conclusion.

So can I poll scientists walking out of Baptist Churches and ask them if they believe that God created the earth, and then run my headline saying "Scientists Agree: God Created the Earth"? Why not? Same logic entirely.

This is a press that is unbiased? Well, if it IS unbiased, I'd hate to have to defend it's intelligence.

Prosecute the NYT

In his column
Barone: NYT at War With America Michael Barone stops short of saying that it is time to prosecute the NYT for publishing national secrets in time of war. Why? This is the second time for sure that they have broken stories that are classified and have had a negative impact on tracking terrorists. The idea that financial transactions being tracked internationally is "a concern" is laughable. What DOMESTIC private transaction isn't tracked by some government agency when one considers all the federaal and state taxes as well as sales taxes? Other than buying soemething for cash, I assume that every transaction that I do has a record that is likely to be accessible by the government (not to mention the credit card company, which I KNOW is more than happy to sell information). So? Are we out to create a "terrorist shield" so that every US consumer is mercilessly tracked UNLESS they try to buy something that may be used for terrorism?

It should be obvious by now the that the NYT is far more conserned with damaging Bush than they are with anything about reducing terror. They have generally staked out their target market on the far left of the political spectrum, but that ought not be confused with "freedom of the press". The press isn't free to break the law. When they breech national security, as they did in this case, someone ought to go to jail.

Of Course Iraq Had WMD

Next to the party of Jim Crow and the KKK being re-branded as the party that protects the black man, and Alger Hiss being innocent, the "Where are the WMDs" charge is fast on it's way to going down as to one of those "myths of faith" that is part of the liberal religion.

Anyone with a brain knew Saddam had WMD, because he had used them, and he was documented by everyone to have them. Not long after the war, 30 shells with sarin in them were found, along with 100s of other shells only used for chemicals and equipment to load them. Those stories made it out, mostly in the right-wing press, but the MSM and the Democrats have kept up the "where are the WMDs" drumbeat anyway since it fits with their myth.

Any honest person would admit that the "unbelievable surprise" was that "no WMDs were found". Everyone knew he used them, everyone knew that every intelligence agency in the world had him listed as possessing him. If you hate Bush and think he is the most evil guy ever, it has to be surprising that he wouldn't plant some. After all, if Bush knew Saddam didn't have WMD, he would know they certainly wouldn't be found, so would have to "manufacture some". Not much of a trick for level of evil that most of the left assigns to him, but it never happened. He faked 9-11, then he forgot to plant some WMD? Oh, I forget -- W was both as evil as Hitler and as dumb as a stump!

Now, some Republicans in Congress are starting to force the CIA to release information on the over 500 munitions filled with sarin and other chemicals that have been found to date. Why would the CIA not want information out that shows that their own pre-war intelligence wasn't nearly as bad as it has been made out to be? Your guess may well be as good as mine.

Ever since the "Plame Game" fake "outing" I've been convinced the CIA is more interested in running operations on Bush than on terrorism. Like all big government organizations it is mostly populated by liberal union members with lifetime employment who think that Republicans are some combination of evil and stupid. Having Reagan prove them to be completely wrong on the USSR was no doubt painful.

Having 9-11 happen had to be embarrassing, and no doubt they didn't like having a guy that they saw as mentally inferior working to mold them into shape after they had proven that they couldn't predict even a major event like 9-11 was simply "over their pain tolerance". If they could manage to take Bush down as disgraced, maybe folks would forget the intelligence agencies that completely failed us prior to 9-11.In any case, the following from WSJ is something that the MSM will not doubt not want to talk about.

Saddam's WMD
Why is our intelligence community holding back?

BY PETER HOEKSTRA AND RICK SANTORUM
Monday, June 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

On Wednesday, at our request, the director of national intelligence declassified six "key points" from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The summary was only a small snapshot of the entire report, but even so, it brings new information to the American people. "Since 2003," the summary states, "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent," which remains "hazardous and potentially lethal." So there are WMDs in Iraq, and they could kill Americans there or all over the world.
This latest information should not be new. It should have been brought to public attention by officials in the intelligence community. Instead, it had to be pried out of them. Mr. Santorum wrote to John DeFreitas, commanding general, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, on April 12, asking to see the report. He wrote, "I am informed that there may well be many more stores of WMDs throughout Iraq," and added, "the people of Pennsylvania and Members of Congress would benefit from reviewing this report." He asked that the "NGIC work with the appropriate entities" to declassify as much of the information as possible.

The senator received no response. On June 5, he wrote again, this time to John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, "concerning captured Iraqi documents, data, media and maps from the regime of Saddam Hussein." He mentioned his disappointment that many captured Iraqi documents had been classified, and that he still had received no response from Gen. DeFreitas. Some 10 days later, still with no response, he shared his dismay with one of us, Pete Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, who on June 15 wrote to Mr. Negroponte, urging him to declassify the NGIC analytic piece. Mr. Hoekstra was also dismayed because he had not been informed through normal intelligence channels of the existence of this report.

To compound matters, during a call-in briefing with journalists held at noon on June 21, intelligence officials misleadingly said that "on June 19, we received a second request; this time asking that we, in short order--48 hours--declassify the key points, which are sort of the equivalent to key judgments from something like a National Intelligence Estimate, from the assessment." The fault was their own; we had been requesting this information for nine weeks and they had not acted.

On Thursday, Mr. Negroponte's office arranged a press briefing by unnamed intelligence officials to downplay the significance of the report, calling it "not new news" even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was reiterating the obvious importance of the information: "What has been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them, and sarin is dangerous. And it's dangerous to our forces. . . . They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found. . . . And they are still being found and discovered."
In fact, the public knows relatively little about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Indeed, we do not even know what is known or unknown. Charles Duelfer, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated that the ISG had fully evaluated less than 0.25% of the more than 10,000 weapons caches known to exist throughout Iraq. It follows that the American people should be brought up to date frequently on our state of knowledge of this important matter. That is why we asked that the entire document be declassified, minus the exact sources, methods and locations. It is also, in part, why we have fought for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of Saddam-era documents.

The president is the ultimate classifier and declassifier of information, but the entire matter has now been so politicized that, in practice, he is often paralyzed. If he were to order the declassification of a document pointing to the existence of WMDs in Iraq, he would be instantly accused of "cherry picking" and "politicizing intelligence." He may therefore not be inclined to act.

In practice, then, the intelligence community decides what the American public and its elected officials can know and when they will learn it. Sometimes those decisions are made by top officials, while on other occasions they are made by unnamed bureaucrats with friends in the media. People who leak the existence of sensitive intelligence programs like the terrorist surveillance program or financial tracking programs to either damage the administration or help al Qaeda, or perhaps both, are using the release or withholding of documents to advance their political desires, even as they accuse others of manipulating intelligence.

We believe that the decisions of when and what Americans can know about issues of national security should not be made by unelected, unnamed and unaccountable people.

Some officials in the intelligence community withheld the document we requested on WMDs, and somebody is resisting our request to declassify the entire document while briefing journalists in a tendentious manner. We will continue to ask for declassification of this document and the hundreds of thousands of other Saddam-produced documents, and we will also insist on periodic updates on discoveries in Iraq.

This is no small matter. It is not--as a few self-proclaimed experts have declared--a spat over ancient history. It involves life and death for American soldiers on the battlefield, and it involves the ability of the American people to evaluate the actions of their government, and thus to render an objective judgment. The people must have the whole picture, not just a shard of reality dished up by politicized intelligence officers.

Information is a potent weapon in the current war. Al Qaeda uses the Internet very effectively and uses the media as a terrorist tool. If the American public can be deceived by people who withhold basic information, we risk losing the war at home, even if we win it on the battlefield. The debate should focus on the basic question--what, exactly, we need to do to succeed both here and in Iraq. We are dismayed to have learned how many people in our own government are trying to distort that debate.

Limbaugh Harrassment

The same CNN that always pointed out it was a "private matter" for a president under investigation for sexual harrassment to have sex with an employee at the office finds it national news if a conservative commentator is detained for having viagra in his possession that may or may not be without a perscription. The only reason this is news is to harrass a voice that doesn't tow the left wing party line and has an audience.

The position of the left and the MSM in this country is clear and has been for a long time. They will seek any means possible to suppress voices that disagree with them, legally or illegally. They will claim "free speech", but it is "free" only as long as the speech agrees with their view of the world. If it is conservative, religious, technically accurate on a subject where that damages their cause, or in any other way out of step with liberal orthodoxy, they will harrass, legislate, suppress, shout down, or take any other action that they can to suppress the speech. The leadership of the left understands that they can't openly state most of their beliefs, or they will suffer worse at the polls than they already have. In most cases, they also realize that legitimate debate has toe be suppressed or they will simply lose in the marketplace of ideas as well.

To people of the right, none of this should be any surprise, but sometimes the media goes out of it's way to make their positions crystal clear, and it is important for people that believe in truth and facts to take note so that the "everything is a shade of gray" crowd is faced with some specifics that show their primary colors.

Eagle

My eldest son's Eagle Scout ceremony was this past Saturday. I've been busy this spring doing digital slide shows to music for both his high school graduation and this ceremony on my Mac previous using iPhoto. Very impressive software, the "Ken Burns effect", done automatically by the program really does a lot, and the ability of the Mac to hook up to a projector, get the resolution right, ask you if you want to clone your screen, and "just work" is very impressive. Very much more impressive than all the time I've spent setting resolutions, hitting Alt-PF7 over and over, and then looking at a micro screen on the laptop while projecting off my Thinkpad.

Since I put the slides together and picked the music, one would think that a grown man without a reputation for emotion could avoid tears during the ceremony, but apparently not. It seems to be a pretty common problem, when we see pictures of our children growing up over a short period along with some evocative music like Pachelbel Canon in D, the sweeping realization of love, pride, shortness of time, blessing, our finitude, the joy of having been a part of their lives and a host of other things too difficult to name just comes flooding over me. It is enough to make me believe there is more to life than the material world, but apparently not for some. It gives me a shiver of awareness for the infinite.

As I reflect on the Scouts and the rank of Eagle, I'm utterly amazed at what percentage of our country has decided that "the Scouts have got to conform or go" on two issues. The first being that gay men ought to able to be scout leaders. Simply brilliant, and straight men would seem to be great girl scout leaders for girls from 12-17. Sure. "North American Man-Boy Camping Association"?

Second issue of course is that a scout is "reverent". Can't have that with about 50% of our current society, can we? Well, they haven't won yet. Another Eagle Scout goes into the fray. Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Brave, Thrifty, Clean, and Reverent. The liberal ranks used to like to fog the issues, but when they take on the scouts, their true colors become more visible.

The left lie of what they ACTUALLY think of real freedom and diversity of thought is laid bare.

I was never an scout at all, let alone an Eagle, so the path of exceeding dear old Dad is well under way and I couldn't be happier. Apparently I missed bursting with pride, but the thought crossed my mind. On new wings and our fervent prayers, a young eagle prepares to leave the nest for college come fall.

 I pray he can stand strong for the values that can give him a wonderful life and eternity!

"Bellweather"

For regular NPR and general MSM followers, there was a lot of anticipation for the special election in Californias 50th congressional district, formerly held by Randy "Duke" Cunningham, forced to resign after admitting to taking bribes. The MSM and the Democrats have done all they can to create "a culture of corruption" around Cunningham,Jack Abramoff, and Tom DeLay. Not neccesarily all related in any way, or even "corrupt", but facts have never been huge issues for either the MSM or Democrats.

Prior to Tuesday the chops were being licked over the prospect that Francine Busby would defeat Brian Bilbray in this heavily Republican district. Wednesday AM, the hopes had all been dashed and the story was gone, no "bellweather" here, no need to look at the story anymore. Yet another evil Republican took the district, even with a conviction on the previous congressman, and the MSM telling us every single day that everyone should hate Bush. A sad day for America.

Some MSM definitions need to be kept straght:

"Bellweather" - An election going in a way that looks bad for Republicans.

"Stolen" - Any election closer than double digits that a Republican wins.

"Whistle Blower" - Anyone that says anything that ought to be a secret but looks bad a Republicans.

"Leaker" - Anyone that says anything that is bad for a Democrat. Even if it was public knowledge before, soemone ought to go to jail for saying something bad about a Democrat.

Good - See Democrat

Evil - See Republican

Swiftboating - Anything said by a military person that isn't complimentaty to a Democrat.

Keeping the definitions straight can really help the understanding of the news!

Democrats Fight On

This is a spoof off Scrappleface.com, but gives a good indicator of where bias in the media is at. The MAIN STREAM media, actual Democrat Senators and Congressmen have made statements like:

"It is all about Oil, Bush is in Iraq only for oil" - even the most out of touch idiot with a brain could realize that lifting the sanctions on Saddam would have netted far more oil than going to war.

"The Iraq war was cooked up in TX to get Republicans in power" - Going to war is a bad way to get votes, ask Lyndon Johnson, and look at the current polls. The Iraq war is a DRAG on polls, not an add.

"We support the troops, just not this unjust war" - Witness Haditha, tons of folks in the MSM and the left are very anxious to convict Marines with no evidence beyond hearsay. It is hard for them to ever accept guilt for a murderer in the US no matter what the evidence. Half the time a confession won't even cut it.

The sadness was palpable on MPR as the news came out this past week. It was quickly pointed out that "it didn't make any difference" of course, and "it may be worse" since he may be seen as a martyr (they hope, they hope), and of course he had been "demonized by the Bush administration". al-Zarqawi has always been tough for the MSM and Democrats, because one of their favorite stories was that "many Americans had been misled that "Iraq and al-Quaeda had connections", and then occasionally had to report that al-Zarqawi fled their from Afghanistan in 2002. They also occasionally liked to chide the Bush administration for "not even being able to capture or kill al-Zarqawi".

For the "consistency isn't an issue" crowd, none of this makes much difference. They can forget about this news as fast as good economic news, lower casualty number and elections in Iraq, and anything else that might look like "good news". The Democrats aren't in power, so it all sucks.

If the right to center right press was putting out a story that claimed all this to be true, then we would be pretty close to a "balanced press that was equally as idiotic as the current MSM and left-wing press". If we could ever get tot he point where we talked about actual facts from at least two points of view and potential alternatives rather than poll numbers and name calling, then we would have a press that could let more people make informed decisions and have a national discussion.

The "fighting on in the war on the ware on terror" is pretty darned close to being actual truth, and they certainly had a lot more respect for this particular head-chopper than they do for any old US Marine or member of the Bush administration.

Innocent Unless Proven Military

It is sad to listen to the left fulminate and hope against hope that Haditha becomes synonymous with My Lai and brings American troops home in disgrace. The current left likes to claim "support for the military", but they look at their actions with a lot different view than their usual criminal constituency. Any brand of child molester, murderer, drug addict, or any criminal not "white collar" must receive the full protection of law, numerous trials and re-trials in order to be even nominally be called "guilty". Even then, the real "guilt" is usually due to injustice, poor childhood, societies corrupt values, or other mitigating factors.

Marines faced with daily combat in situations where their buddies are blown in half receive no such consideration. They are declared guilty instantly, and in the most sensational terms possible.

Molly Ivins declares;

So, Haditha becomes another of the names at which we wince, along with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and My Lai. Tell you what: Let's not use the "stress of combat" excuse this time. According to neighbors, the girls in the family of Younis Khafif -- the one who kept pleading in English: "I am a friend. I am good" -- were 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1. What are they going to say? "Under stress of combat, we thought the baby was 2"?

Molly knows all about "stress of combat", her bravery is pretty much confined to writing, and it is pretty easy to see the joy in her column as she thinly raises the classic liberal epithet for the military "baby killers". She isn't alone, the left gets very excited about every chance to discredit America, and the military is a part of America that they especially love to soil. No use of letting something like "due process" get in the way of that as there would be with a cop killer. No, with Marines, a "patriot" like Molly can rush directly to judgment and point out her expertise and understanding of the stress of combat instantly, and the MSM stands back and applauds.

What happened at Haditha? I'm sure we will know pretty well at some point, and if it was wrong, there will be penalties. What penalties will there be for Molly? Sometimes "free speech" is worth just as much as free advice.

Rousseau:Restless Genius

Finished this biography of Roesseau by Leo Damrosch. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (JJR) is considered by many to be one of the key fathers of modern liberalism, and many of the key tenants of liberalism shine through. The one stated by JJR many ways and in many forms is "men are wicked, but man is good". One of the prime acts for the liberal is to locate the source of good within the individual, so at the core, the self is "good, true, perfect", no matter what the outward behavior or result might be. JJR has no formal education, lives a life of no great virtue as understood by any philosophical system, yet simply declares his life to be virtuous because it is "authentic", "true to himself", with the self as the ultimate judgment of goodness.

At the start of "The Confessions", JRR opens with this statement that any Christian will recognize for the sad empty wish that it is:

" Let the trumpet of the Last judgment sound when it likes; I will present myself with this book in hand before the sovereign judge ... Eternal Being, assemble around me the numberless throng of my semblables; let them hear my confessions, let them groan at my disgraceful actions, let them blush at my wretchedness, but let each of them reveal his heart with the same sincerity at the foot of your throne, and let a single one say, if he dares, "I was better than that man."

Sadly, JRR worshiped in and took communion at various times in both Catholic and very conservative Calvinist Protestants Churches, yet somehow missed the core of Christianity that any works of man, confession, or otherwise, are of no use in the covering of sin. One can hear the sound of liberalism though, nobody is any "better" than anyone else, BUT, MY works point out that I'm really the best. Certainly nobody is any better.

The first JJR work that was widely noted then, and is still well known is "Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality among Men". His breakthrough thought is that primitive man with "no socialization" (whatever that means) is "good", and there would be no evil or "inequality", which to JJR and the liberals who follow is basically the ultimate evil. This is one of these points at which a conservative thinker must return for nearly childlike thought patterns to gain anything but laughter for what a significant number of people find to be nearly holy writ. Conservatism is grounded in reality, and believes that there is such a thing as objective truth, and it is the same for all. All may not find it, or be able to comprehend it even when faced with it, but it exists.

For the liberal thinker, such is not that case. What is a "human" without "society"? What is a bee with no other bees? Well, nothing of course, they don't exist. They don't exist because man is a social creature just as bees are social. In order to function, we come together in groups. Reality is never going to get in the way of liberal thought however, so JJR decides that "solitary man" is "good" (as defined by each solitary man), and "men", groupings right down to the family are "bad" ... because they breed "envy", "inequality", the potential and the reality of "evil".

Unsurprisingly, JJR was uncomfortable in social settings, had a urinary tract problem that caused him to need to relieve himself extremely frequently, and was plagued with depression, psychosomatic illness, and was unstable to the point that he bordered on being paranoid. He never married, but had a couple very long term affairs. He had 4 or 5 illegitimate children which he consigned to the orphanage, a death sentence in his day, yet he is considered a foundational thinker for liberal education,  especially "Emile". He never really held a steady job, didn't believe in income inequality or aristocracy, yet regularly availed himself of living arrangements and sustenance from the elite of the day. Liberals have never believed that consistency was of any interest, and JJR fits that very well.

Part of his "genius" was "emotion over reason", and "the personal confession and childhood events as key to psychological understanding". If the self is God, and the ultimate good, we can see where "understanding the self" is of primary importance and interest. "It is all about you". JJR is one of the founders of "be true to yourself", and the search to find out where "events", or "family", or "society" have damaged this believed innate goodness and happiness of the almighty individual. The task for the liberal life is to discover your own unique good and perfect inner plan, and live according to your own personal dictates. If you ever do wrong, it is the fault of your family, society, organized religion, corrupt politics, or inequality, anything but yourself. JJR was one of the original "victims". He was never treated fairly, and was constantly pursued and hounded by governments and enemies.

In truth, he did manage to ruffle enough feathers to have enemies, and some sanctions against him, but he also received enormous patronage and kindness, often from the very same aristocracy and governments that he maligned. I never fully realized his fame in Europe, a fairly major street named after him in Paris, and a number of historic sites. He was one of the key figures looked up to and admired by many of those that instigated the French revolution, and was read by many of the American founders as well.

The book has a lot more detail on his life than I would likely care to know, and in many ways I would have been better served by going directly to his writings than this biography, however the insight into "what kind of person often becomes a liberal" is also worthy. For whatever reasons, they choose to believe that their lives are not their own, and they are "victims". They see the "specialness of their feelings", and assume that their feelings and their thinking is of special use and merit over that of others, and believe it to be "good" by their own standards, rather than any outside standard. It becomes easy to see why conversation between liberals and conservatives can be quite difficult.