July 23, 2005 - July 16, 2005
Friday, July 22, 2005
Hockey -- which is an excellent way . . .
We did it! We now play
the hockey in the fall. I can not believe. Off my bike. On to the ices.
My father called me last night. My banker called me this morning. All were very happy at the time for me.
Even the guys at InstaPunk seemed really really happy though they don't seem to like the hockey
all the times.
Now you have to watch. Comcast
is looking to give us T.V. deal and you can get the anyshell Center
Ice from DirecTV satellite company. Get it right now that you think of it. I don't know why but they only
show 40 games a week but at least you can see some of the hockey with it.
And, no more of the poker on ESPN. You have to know by now that the Lebbannese Australian Chiropractor guy won
the World Series of Poker and the $7.5mm prizes. You can read all about it HERE.
You can even see all the 231 hands played in the final tables HERE.
Sorry, ESPN, now nobody watch they already know the winners. Now they watch the hockey.
Here is his picture with all the monies.
Here I go to the rink. Maybe I write in the season but it is very busy times but I will see.
Puck Punk covers the NHL for InstaPunk.com --
here are his previous posts:
7/13/2005 -- World Series of Poker
4/14/2005 -- Terry Schiavo and Pope John Paul II
2/23/2005 -- No Mini Season
2/1/2005 -- Money Problems; Looking for more $
1/6/2005 -- Christmas and a trip to the bank
12/13/2004 -- The NHL can learn from NASCAR
12/2/2004 -- President Bush gets involved
11/15/2004 -- The Bender
10/21/2004 -- World Series, big deal
10/12/2004 -- Lockout, not Strike
10/5/2004 -- First Post
Congratulations to the anyshell (we just had to) players, coaches, owners, sponsors, play-by-play announcers, color analysts,
and -- oh yeah -- the fans -- from all of us at InstaPunk.com.
A Can of Worms, Briefly
is a middle ground.
THE LESSONS OF SCIENCE
. Dangerous waters here, perhaps the most
dangerous in the whole wide world of the intelligentsia. It's called
the Evolution Debate, and it's being fought tooth-and-nail by
meticulously educated scientists on the one hand and harebrained
religious Luddites on the other. Or so the most illustrious reporters
of the conflict would have us believe. They are also the primary source
for telling us the available sides of the debate -- that one must
choose starkly between the Theory of Evolution as propounded by
generations of biologists or the fantasy called Creationism defended by
zealots who are armed with nothing but a tattered copy of the Bible.
This would seem to make it an easy choice, which is why we get regular
little reminders from the intellectual elite about the impossibility of
challenging the biologists. A current example of this occurs in a
column by Frederick
at TechCentralStation. I am moved to write on this explosive
subject because the column does a beautiful job of explaining what is
at stake and what constitutes the real power of the scientific
establishment. I am persuaded that it provides a means of demurring on
a few points in a format nearly as brief. Let's see if this is also a
fantasy. Turner's piece is a followup to a previous essay that upset
both sides, and he recapitulates his own beliefs thus:
In the essay I did state flatly that
the theory of evolution had been proved. I wanted it to be clear where
I stood. Much of the mail I received protested about that statement. I
hold to it, and hold to it not as my own opinion, but as a fact, like
the existence of Australia, which is not my opinion but a fact. But I
do know that there are many who sincerely, and given their range of
knowledge, rationally, do not believe in the theory of evolution.
Like the existence of Australia. Mark that. Turner also does what few
others do when manning these particular battlements: he offers us a
concise definition of what he believes to be fact:
By the theory of evolution I mean the
origination of new species from common ancestral forms by an iterated
process of genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary
transmission, whereby the frequencies of newly altered, repeated, and
old genes and introns in a given lineage can cross ecological,
structural, and behavioral thresholds that radically separate one
species from another. In one sense, this can be summed up in a
syllogism, which must be true if we make the basic and essential act of
faith that logic itself is true: survivors survive.
Further to his credit, Turner is economical but comprehensive in his
assessment of the stakes:
For biology is not the only field for
which the theory of evolution is an essential foundation. Geology,
physical anthropology, agricultural science, environmental science,
much of chemistry, some areas of physics (e.g. protein folding) and
even disciplines such as climatology and oceanography (which rely on
the evolutionary history of the planet in its calculations about the
composition of the atmosphere and oceans), are at least partially
founded on evolution.
In other words, the Theory of Evolution really does underlie the whole
story we are telling ourselves about who we are and where we came from.
The Creationists' dog in this hunt is easy to spot. The biologists tend
to be cagier about their agenda, but Turner conveys it clearly:
The angry evolutionists were especially
interesting, as they often wound up admitting implicitly that their
real agenda was atheism -- while denying that there was any social
policy message in that agenda.
It's actually rare for a member of the scientific establishment to come
so close to admitting that this has become as much a religious war
as a scientific debate: devout theists vs devout atheists. It's no
surprise that Turner finishes by handicapping the opponents. The
measure he uses, though, is more instructive about the contemporary
scientific mindset than it is accurate:
The work of the biological teams
is required to be backed up by exhaustive experiment and observation,
together with exact statistical analysis of the results. There is a
continuous process of search through all these articles by trained
reviewers looking for discrepancies among them and demanding new
experimental work to resolve them. Since every one of these articles
relies on the consistency and truth of the theory of evolution, every
one of them adds implicitly to the veracity of the theory. By my
calculation, then, opponents of evolution must find a way of matching
and disproving, experiment by experiment, observation by observation,
and calculation by calculation, at least two million pages of closely
reasoned scientific text, representing roughly two million man-years of
expert research and perhaps trillions of dollars of training, salaries,
equipment, and infrastructure.
This sounds a formidable obstacle, and it would be if the logical error
Turner commits earlier in the piece were not an error, but it is.
Remember this passage, quoted above, which I have stripped of its
obfuscating flourishes: "By the theory of evolution I mean the
origination of new species from
common ancestral forms by an iterated process of genetic mutation,
natural selection, and hereditary transmission
... which must be
true if we make the basic and essential act of faith that logic itself
is true: survivors survive." [emphasis mine].
I would suggest that the fact Turner believes to be as incontrovertible
as the existence of Australia is actually "the origination of new
species from common ancestral forms," not the precise mechanism by
which changes occur. I further suggest that the "genetic mutation,
natural selection, and hereditary transmission" part of the
evolutionary puzzle is responsible for the religious component of the
scientific perspective. Yes, they have a lot invested in their
description of the process by which changes occur, but that does not
mean that science has actually solved all problems about process. Do
not forget that there is still no satisfactory explanation by science
about the origin of life on earth in the first place. Nobel prize
found this riddle so impossible of resolution that he
proposed the concept of panspermia -- introduction of life from an
extraterrestrial source -- to account for the astonishing complexity
and similarity of DNA across species. it would seem there are still
some sizable holes on the process side of evolution.
I'll clarify the point I'm making by explaining that I believe the
Creationists are dead wrong in their whole approach to the problem, and
I believe the evolutionists are substantially wrong about process. And
if I'm right, I do not have to disprove each and every experiment
performed by biologists since Darwin first stated his theory. What I
have to do is discover an additional agency which resolves the logical
paradox employed by all evolutionists in their descriptions of adaptive
What am I talking about? You can see examples on every nature show
broadcast on television. We are shown an example of an attribute some
species has developed to better its chances for survival. I saw one
last night on the National Geographic Channel in a program titled
"Hornets from Hell." The hornets are Japanese, extra large and deadly
to humans, smaller hornets, and honey bees. In particular, European
honey bees imported to boost honey production are helpless against the
super hornets. Thirty hornets can slaughter a hive of 30,000 European
honey bees in about three hours. Interestingly, though, the less
honey-productive Japanese honey bees have an amazing defense against
the hornets, which must send a scout to mark the target hive with a
pheromone so that the hornet death squad can find it. The Japanese
honey bees detect the scout's arrival and lure it into the hive. When
she attempts to leave, the honey bees swarm the invader. Hundreds of
bees surround the scout and become a squirming pulsing entity. Are they
stinging the invader to death? No. Unlike hornets, honey bees die after
they sting. Instead, the honey bees are vibrating their abdomens,
increasing the body heat of the mass to precisely 117 degrees. A honey
bee can survive temperatures of 118 degrees; a hornet, only 115 degrees.
The scout hornet dies, the hive is safe from attack, and no honey bees
Now when an evolutionist describes this or some other trait or physical
characteristic which serves as a defense mechanism, he speaks in terms
of purpose. This trait or feature was developed in order to increase
the chances of survival against some predator or environmental
condition. This makes it easier for us lay people to understand. When
we have understood the value of the change, the biologist retraces the
steps of his argument and subtracts the purpose from the process
altogether, because it must be -- according to current theory -- a
blundering series of genetic accidents and a slow cumulative sequence
of minor and meaningless changes that eventually add up to a feature
which works so well that it has the appearance of design.
This is a bait-and-switch use of logic. Purpose is employed to appeal
to native common sense. Then purpose is removed and, along with it, the
persuasiveness of the process description.
With respect to our honey bee example, it's important to remember that
each bee brain consists of only a few hundred neurons. Actual learning
is not a capability of such primitive brains. The behavioral
change acquired by Japanese bees to deal with the super hornet must be
hardwired into those few neurons. How did that happen?
Scientists love to haul out Occam's razor -- the simplest idea is
probably right. I'll haul it out here. It's far easier to explain the
process by which Japanese bees acquired this defense mechanism through
the inference that some kind of intelligence exists within the species
as a whole which does explicitly recognize the hornet threat and
responds appropriately by reprogramming the brains of Japanese honey
This kind of intelligence does not have to be God. But the
evolutionists resist it because the appearance of any kind of
intelligence within their materialistic system opens the door to the
possibility that intelligence, and therefore consciousness, and
therefore possibly some supreme consciousness, is an intrinsic
attribute of the universe. This is unacceptable not for scientific
reasons but for religious reasons. The atheists can't stomach it.
It's important to remember that evolution is one of the earliest
examples of systems theory -- that is, how minute changes in input
change the output of the entire system. Another simpler example is
mechanical systems theory, such as the description of how changes in
input to a manufacturing system affect changes in output. In the
mechanical world, the relationship is linear: increase input by a unit
and output increases by a unit. This is the core of the incrementalism
which drives the evolutionists' process description of one genetic
mutation, one improved unit of survivability, one more generation of
improved survivability, and so on.
But now we live in the age of systems theory as it has been changed by
computer technology. Our new models, which probably relate better to
organic life, demonstrate that tiny changes in system input can result
in huge changes in system output. The power of this theory is that it
has led to computer simulations of artificial life and artificial
intelligence, in which the system begins to write and rewrite its own
rules. This has led to new speculations, including one called complexity
, which proposes that systems are driven to the "edge of
chaos," where some kind of capability to receive new information from
outside the system is created. This is not a discipline in which the
evolutionary biologists have much interest, though, because no matter
how independently an artificial system evolves through time, all such
computer systems begin with a programmer who writes the initial set of
rules and sets the process in motion. Danger, danger, danger.
Note, too, that the basic Darwinian theory is also much older than the
field of quantum physics, which is also flummoxed to the point of
despair over the seeming evidence that consciousness directly affects
outcomes at the particle level.
I am not proposing an answer here. I am proposing that the Creationist
vs Scientist debate has been oversimplified to the point of nonsense
for the purpose of preventing any reopening of the antique assumptions
underlying "state-of-the-art" evolutionary theory. The chief mechanism
of oversimplification is an obviously duplicitous bit of illogic which
falsely equates the given that "survivors survive" with the still
theoretical working explanation offered by science about how survivors get
better at surviving.
I'll close with a quick explanation of the graphics at the top of the
page, which represent another realm of trickery by evolutionary
biologists. They're fond of explaining speciation and adaptive response by using
the example of dog breeds, whose stunningly varied attributes reflect
changes made through breeding to improve capabilities in certain
specific areas. This kind of example is supposed to help us understand
the process by which nature makes changes in species, although
biologists are always careful to remind us that the difference between
dog breeding and nature is that man breeds dogs deliberately and nature
breeds species by accident. As if this were a completely trivial
One thing the biologists never talk about is where the vast realm of
potential changes in dogs might come from. Oddly enough, members of
individual breeds when released to the wild almost immediately revert to
a completely standard dog design -- same size, same conformation the
world over. So why and how is it the case that it is possible to
develop extraordinary capabilities -- of sight, of smell, of fleetness,
of intelligence, of strength, of size, of appearance -- if that
potential were not already part of the basic dog gene pool? It really
does seem as if that gene pool were in existence for the purpose of
being invoked in response to the demands of environment and other
factors, as if it were a system equipped with all the latent potentials
that might be called upon by a conscious reprogramming effort. Cambrian
Of course, in a final bit of irony, all dogs are still part of the same
species, theoretically still
capable of breeding with one another, size discrepancies
notwithstanding. Does this make anyone nervous about the scientific
definition of what a species is? Why is it that lions and tigers can
mate and produce offspring? Are they not different species? Or are all
the big cats somehow merely breeds of the same super-species, like
Boston terriers and Borzois? And if this might be the case, can we not
glimpse the possibility that what the evolutionists call
macro-evolution, which is the weakest and most unproven of their
theory's components, is really nothing but a radical version of the
micro-evolution science has indeed proven to exist?
If there were some middle ground between the two poles of thought on
evolution, wouldn't we all benefit from the process of studying it
seriously? We might evolve
a better theory that doesn't require such contortions of logic to
POSTSCRIPT: I'll predict that if any evolutionists read this piece,
they'll attack me in one or more of three ways. 1) They'll get personal
immediately, calling me an idiot, a moron, a religious nut, etc. 2)
They'll deny my right to discuss the subject at all because I don't
have a degree in evolutionary biology, as if freedom of speech were now
subject in the scientific world to a kind of poll tax. 3) They'll find
one or several errors, or anything that might be interpreted as an
error, to argue that this makes the whole discussion invalid. But it
isn't. They can patronize and condescend to me all they want, but not
one of them can persuasively explain the process by which wild plants
became useful domestic crops. I'll keep my powder dry on that one till
Another briefer response to Turner's column can be found at Rand
's site (HT InstaPundit). There's also a considerable body
of comments which are amusingly similar to what you'd expect.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Hubris is a sin. You can get away
of it, but there's a line you can't cross without
experiencing consequences. Lumpy, author of the Lump on a Blog website
posted a heretical challenge to the orthodoxy of the Center Right
Blogosphere on July 19 at 3:52 pm. The whole post
disrespectful, but here's the most serious blasphemy:
Civilization is a thin veneer that
separates us from the hardships of raw survival. While Western
civilization has provided us with the opportunity to enjoy the more
heady pursuits, our love affair with our own minds often precludes us
from taking concrete steps to ensure our continued survival, and often
blinds us to the obvious.
Nowhere is this thinking more prevalent than in the consciousness of
the liberal. But it is also present in the consciousness of those who
choose to deny the evident. Whatever its intention, such a mind
provides an avenue for our enemies to ensure restraint in our response,
transforming the goal of success into certain failure. It is the
unsharpened mind of complacency. In times of peace, such a mind may
have much to offer, but in a time of war it is a hindrance to victory.
In the struggle for life and death - when civilization itself is at
stake - there exists no greater potential for failure than worshipping
an idea which aids the enemy in his quest for our destruction. All that
I ask of the detractors of Rep. Tom Tancredo is that they take a moment
and think on what I have written. Hugh Hewitt’s admonishment of those
who disagree with his position is clearly reactionary and does not
contribute to a reasonable debate on the issue. I hold Hugh in the
highest regard and he is a man who has earned the respect of bloggers
everywhere. He is one reason that I started blogging. The few times
that I have found his posts to be reactionary are far outnumbered by my
own amateurish oversights. From Hugh’s post:
I want to be very clear on this. No
responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war
with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and
would-be bloggers and writers have to choose sides on this, especially
if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the
problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream
thought because it is factually wrong.
Mr. Hewitt, at the risk of ending my blogging career prematurely, I
challenge your assertion that my belief is factually wrong. This is not
a war on terror to me – it is a war of civilizations. Convince me that
I am wrong.
You say my belief is “on the fringe”, but you fail to note that this
has no bearing on its truth. Perhaps you are right, but I have yet to
see any real data which settles this dispute one way or the other.
You claim a majority opinion, but how informed is this majority
opinion? Put this question to a poll but first ask yourself how many of
the respondents could claim any knowledge of Islamic history, the
current war on terror, contemporary Islamic society, the proclamations
of the Koran, and the current strength or weakness of the fascist
movement within Islam?
That's going too far, Mr. Lumpy. You were willing to risk ending your
blogging career prematurely? Consider it done. At 12 noon, Pacific
Daylight Time, Hugh
formally excommunicated you
from the Internet. From this moment forward, you are banned from
blogging. You may not sign onto the Internet under any user name
whatsoever on any computer. For the rest of your life. In a release
issued to the press by the Office of Center-Right Blogosphere
Orthodoxy, Mr. Hewitt said:
"It pains us to be compelled to take
such an irrevocable decision, but we have made it clear in our
encyclicals that we are not to be disputed or questioned on these
matters. We have therefore had no alternative to imposing punishment."
Let this be a warning to all who dare to disagree with the
pronouncements of the CRB, which was officially organized a few days ago
authority is absolute, and it brooks no dissent among the faithful.
Lumpy. Requiescat in pace.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Couldn't happen. Couldn't happen.
Sure it could.
. I hate to disagree with Hugh
two days in a row, but that's the way the cards fall
sometimes. Congressman Tom Tancredo has apparently suggested that if
America experiences a truly major attack, we should respond by bombing
Mecca. Hugh Hewitt condemned the remarks immediately and then added the
other bloggers had weighed in:
The remarks he made are a positive
disservice to the United States, for all the reasons Durbin's
were. He has to retract them. And he ought to apologize to every
Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way
to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith.
I have been hearing from people who urge that Tancredo is just voicing
the updated version of the MAD doctrine which kept the USSR at bay
through the long years of the Cold War. That's silly. Destroying Mecca
wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across
every country in the world where Muslims lived.
Let me be blunt: There is no strategic value to bombing Mecca even
after a devastating attack on the U.S. In fact, such an action
would be a strategic blunder without historical parallel, except
perhaps Hitler's attack on Stalin. Anyone defending Tancredo's
remarks has got to make a case for why such a bombing would be
I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse
the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and
wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have
to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger.
The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion.
It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually
wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then
you do not understand the GWOT.
Fortunately for me, Mr. Hewitt is not alone in his dudgeon. Captain Ed
Morrissey -- and I'm sure dozens of others -- have expressed similar
views. Here's an excerpt from Captain
I think the "ultimate response" to
Tancredo's apolcalyptic fantasy is that we don't bomb civilians in
response to terrorist attacks, no matter how seductive such a response
might seem. The idea that the US would retaliate in such a manner
should be repulsive to any rational person, no matter where they fall
on the political spectrum. The war on terror targets the terrorists and
the governments which fund and/or shelter them, not the civilians who
happen to live there.
Besides, who is Tom Tancredo to make these threats anyway? He doesn't
have anything to do with the military chain of command or the national
security systems that would make those kinds of recommendations. He
certainly doesn't speak for the President, who has to make the final
determination in loosing those weapons on any target. Tancredo does,
however, lend a false sense of credibility to such threats in
international circles, thanks to his position as an elected Republican
In response to some criticism, Captain Ed also elaborated on his first
I have no problem with unleashing the
awesome power of the American military, but I don't want to be stupid
about it. Destroying Mecca automatically gets us one billion overt
, where now we face around 20,000 active and a couple of
million covert at best. Even threatening to do that puts us at a
disadvantage when arguing that we are not attempting an existential war
against Islam. How can any intelligent Muslim believe that while we
threaten Mecca, which has no military value whatsoever and sits in the
middle of a country with which we are not at war?...
Here's what we should make clear will happen if we suffer
another major attack in the US, especially one that uses WMD or causes
1. Take out the air forces of the two nations we know to support
terrorists -- Syria and Iran.
2. Destroy all nuclear facilities in Iran, to the best of our
3. Bomb all known militarily-related manufacturing facilities.
That response not only provides a significant deterrent, but
actually addresses the threats arrayed against the West. Without any
air defenses and with their production capabilities reduced to rubble,
we will leave them in a position where we can easily pick them off at
our leisure. It also will give them something to do with their money
other than handing it to terrorists for the next decade or so.
I'm going to respond to a few specific statements of both these
HEWITT: Anyone defending Tancredo's
remarks has got to make a case for why such a bombing would be
MORRISSEY: Besides, who is Tom Tancredo to make these threats anyway?
have anything to do with the military chain of command or the national
security systems that would make those kinds of recommendations.
Mr. Hewitt is wrong because Mr. Morrissey's question undermines both
their arguments. Tancredo is not going to be making military policy,
and so one can defend his remarks without having to defend their
strategic military value. The question then becomes: what harm is
really done by saying what a hell of a lot of people are thinking? I'll
get back to this later.
HEWITT: The idea that all of Islam is
the problem is a fringe opinion. It
cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually
wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then
you do not understand the GWOT.
MORRISSEY: Destroying Mecca automatically gets us one billion overt
enemies, where now we face around 20,000 active and a couple of
million covert at best.
Mr. Hewitt does have the occasional difficulty differentiating the
facts as he counts them up from reality. Mr. Morrissey is having
problems with counting period. Let me correct Mr. Hewitt this way: All
of Islam is not the
but it is a
problem and a
mighty big one. That is not
fringe opinion. It is a very widespread and deeply held opinion,
simmering under the surface while many angry Americans abide, in the
name of reasonableness and prudence, the many statements offered by our
president in praise and exculpation of the muslim faith as a whole.
What so many of us fringe idiots perceive -- and cannot overlook -- is
the continuing absence from the so-called mainstream muslim
community here and abroad of an unequivocal, untemporized, undiluted
denunciation of Islamofascism and the terrorism it spawns. The reality
is that Islam, the Koran, and the words and deeds of Mohammed are
uniquely, shall we say vulnerable(?), to being used as the
justification for barbarous acts against those outside the faith. This
vulnerability is unique among the world's religions. (And don't try to
peddle thet Evil Christians vs Enlightened Saracens meme about the
Crusades here; that's a PC rewriting of history that won't wash and
shouldn't be employed by conservatives of any stripe.)
So permit me to correct Mr. Morrissey's figures as well by adding in
the hordes of innocent civilians who cheered in the streets on 9/11,
the double-dealing Saudi princes and their subjects who smile as they
take American petro-dollars and send their tithes to the madrassas, the
millions of young muslim men made militant by the fact they will never
find wives because the muslim antipathy to women results in a permanent
scarcity of female births, the prosperous American muslims who drive
their BMWs to the TV studio so they can dodge questions about the
terrorist status of Hamas and Hezbollah and utter their giant "BUT"
after delivering the standard rote pseudo-condemnation of Wahabi
murders, the sullen millions in Egypt and other "friendly" Arab states
who watch al jazeera and believe every word of libel about America and
every rehashed lie about Jews feasting on blood in accordance with the
fraudulent protocols of the elders of Zion, the moderate mainstream
peaceful God-fearing muslims throughout the Arab world who dream of the
day they can finish what Hitler started and slaughter the very last
evil rat of a Jew. By my count, the new number adds up to just shy of a
billion. Maybe they're not suicide bombers, and maybe they're not
really evil, but how many of them don't have a secret place in their
hearts where they cheer for Osama bin Laden as a kind of Arab Robin
Hood? And how many wouldn't leap into the streets in joy if somehow
American power were annihilated, and the muslim nations survived alone
on top of the heaps of rubble that used to be a world civilization?
And Mr. Hewitt, do not
all the people who count as I do that they do not understand the war on
terrorism. It appears they understand it better than you do. What they
understand is that it's impolitic to demand that Islam confront its own
virulent strain of original sin, that part of their sometimes pacific
faith which compels them to seek out infidels and cut their heads off
without mercy, guilt, or apology. They DO understand the measured
response you gentlemen propose:
HEWITT: I have been hearing from people
who urge that Tancredo is just voicing
the updated version of the MAD doctrine which kept the USSR at bay
through the long years of the Cold War. That's silly. Destroying Mecca
wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across
country in the world where Muslims lived.
MORRISSEY: Here's what we should make clear will happen if we
suffer another major attack in the US, especially one that uses WMD or
causes significant losses:
1. Take out the air forces of the two
nations we know to support terrorists -- Syria and Iran.
2. Destroy all nuclear facilities in
Iran, to the best of our intelligence.
3. Bomb all known militarily-related
That response not only provides a
significant deterrent, but actually addresses the threats arrayed
against the West. Without any air defenses and with their production
capabilities reduced to rubble, we will leave them in a position where
we can easily pick them off at our leisure.
The problem is that Mr. Morrissey's response would fail for the same
reason that defeating Saddam's army in the field didn't end the
violence and terrorism in Iraq. Fanatics are not reasonable people by
definition. Those who advocate restraint on the basis of retaining the
so-called support of so-called moderate muslims lack the imagination to
foresee that those who are currently sitting uneasily on the fence may
well jump to the other side of the fence if the West can be forced into
a massive depression by a sufficiently devastating attack. It's hard
for western capitalists to believe that there are others in the world
who don't mind an increase in their own suffering if the wealthy can be
made to suffer more. What is unthinkable to us is far more thinkable to
even the average moderate muslim than you'd like to believe.
That's a serious weakness of approaching every situation from a
completely reasonable standpoint. Case in point: the sudden hysteria
afoot about even mentioning the word 'Nazi' in the contemporary
context. There are still things we can learn from that experience. Does
anyone remember the long-ago debate about whether Hitler was an
aberration or a natural outgrowth of German culture? Probably not. In
our reasonableness, we have excused the Germans for starting two world
wars in the space of 25 years, and we have forgotten that Hitler's
philosophy was inspired by a long German tradition of anti-semitism and
delusions of racial and cultural superiority. Germans who loathed
Hitler cheered when he conquered Europe. The number of Islamic enemies
of the United States will increase not with every American victory or
display of power, but with every American humiliation and defeat.
Barbarians do not respond to forebearance but to strength. Fear they
understand. Tact they ignore or contemn.
O but they are not barbarians. Let's sing it one, two more times. O
but they are not barbarians. O but they are not barbarians. We cannot
treat them that way. Why? Surely, the onus is now on all the moderate
mainstream peace-loving muslims to stand up, now that they command the
world stage, and convince the civilized that they are not barbarians.
They could do it in words, loudly and clearly spoken from a thousand
minarets, they could do it in deeds, by abstaining from the stoning and
imprisonment of their women, by ceasing to hate and condone the murder
of Jews, by participating in the relentless hunt for those who cut off
heads on TV and butcher children in schools and baby carriages.
These things they haven't done. How might they respond to the
decimation of the air forces and bomb factories of their despotic
governments? With their usual rage. Would Syrian national military
vulnerability stem the flow of young braindead barbarians to the
madrassas and terror schools of those who would further humiliate the
Great Satan? No.
The measured response would embolden the terrorist mind. If a
nuclear attack is successful in America, the measured response you
propose would serve only to "enrage and unify" the hundred million or
so Americans who have thus far remained patient with moderate
responses. It would do absolutely nothing else to defeat terrorism.
Imagine. Imagine not 2200 American dead and the wave of grief and
anger that inspired. Imagine 100,000 Americans dead or horribly mangled
and stricken by radiation. Islam's militant minority has openly
targeted our highest cultural symbols. At what point do we fight fire
with fire and seek victory over an implacable enemy? Have you really
thought about the question?
Instead, you are icily superior about the words of one minor
politician who has spoken what many think. Yet his words are a kind of
safety valve for the endlessly patient supporters of the war on
terror. It may enable them to go one more month, one more year of
watching grinning two-faced mullahs stand on podiums accepting the
praise of American politicians while they laugh up their sleeves and go
back to another meeting of their cell.
But it will horrify and distance the good muslims? Maybe. It might
also frighten them just a little. Is it so very unthinkable that the
fence-sitting muslims of the world should begin to appreciate that
there is an American volcano after all, one that will erupt in a fury
every bit as implacable and much better armed than theirs if they carry
their wishful thinking too far?
As Mr. Morrissey points out, Tancredo is not in the military chain
of command. He is not making real strategy. But he is mentioning
possibilities that could become very real on the day that 100,000
American mothers have to place flowers outside the contaminated square
mile where the obliterated bodies of their children swirl in the
On that day it WILL be Mecca, and Medina, and every other spot on
the globe where terrorists may be lurking or plotting new atrocities. I
am not proposing such a strategy, I am predicting its inevitability.
And I suggest that it does more good than harm if the muslim world gets
a hint of this possibility -- even from a lowly congressman -- before
their errors of judgment and faith lead them to a final catastrophe.
Remember that there is legitimate anger. And it will increase.
UPDATE: Thanks to Michelle Malkin -- welcome to
MichelleMalkin.com visitors. Feel free to take a look around.
Also, La Shawn Barber's Corner took note -- thanks.
And thanks for the nod from Donald Sensing.
UPDATE: Continued analysis HERE
It's a Boy!
Another judge who hasn't written or
said anything determinative about abortion.
THE ABORTION THING
Everybody thought George Bush the Elder was so shrewd for nominating
David Souter because he had practiced law for many years without
leaving any record of it but a few doodled napkins. He was the "stealth
Stealth means undetectable. Or is
Or indefensible. Something. But it
really blows things up, don't it?
That didn't prevent the Dems from getting alarmed, but when the dust
cleared the Supreme Court had one more liberal
on the bench. Just like George planned!?
Now it's a bunch of years later, and George The Younger has an
absolutely golden -- no, make that platinum -- opportunity to do what
his father and even Ronald Reagan couldn't. He has a solid majority in
the senate, a half bushel of ancient judges to replace on his watch,
and so what does he do? He reaches into the old trick bag and pulls out
another name with a barely visible record, the only shock being that
the candidate doesn't wear a skirt (He's supposed to replace the nonentity
in a skirt
nominated by Reagan, the one who turned out to be yet
another liberal weenie mediocrity.)
Nominee John Roberts sounds wired in to the DC establishment, though,
according to the Post
In his years as a lawyer, Roberts, 50,
proved himself an affable and measured member of the Washington legal
establishment. But his short tenure on the bench has meant fewer
written opinions that can be parsed for his philosophy.
"He is a Washington lawyer, a
conservative, not an ideologue," said Stuart H. Newberger, a lawyer and
self-described liberal Democrat who has argued cases against Roberts.
He put in his time advising the Bush
legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential
election and has often argued conservative positions before the court
-- but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.
That includes a brief he wrote for
President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in
which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade
was wrongly decided and should be overruled.
Roberts won the case -- Rust v.
Sullivan -- in which the Supreme Court agreed with the
administration that the government could require doctors and clinics
receiving federal funds to avoid talking to patients about abortion.
When the D.C. Circuit refused to
reconsider a three-judge panel's ruling protecting a rare California
toad under the Endangered Species Act, Roberts dissented -- gently.
"To be fair," he wrote, the panel
"faithfully applied" the circuit court's precedent, but a rehearing
would "afford the opportunity to consider alternative grounds for
sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with
Supreme Court precedent."
That's about all we have to go on for now. Few written opinions, an
engaging manner, liked by liberals, tactful to excess (if verbiage
counts), and no footprints leading to anything as damning as a
philosophy. Does the word "stealth" still seem ominously
? Oh. And did we mention he went to Harvard and Harvard?
Pardon us for being cynical. We really should have listened to Neal Boortz
once, who told us that Roe v. Wade would never be overturned because
the abortion issue is boring, or old hat, or not cool, or doesn't have
big tits, or whatever it is that turns Neal on these days besides
semiliterate summer interns. How did he put it?
Many "conservatives" are already taking
shots at any potential Bush nominees whom they think might not vote to
overturn Roe v. Wade. Well .. here's a hint for you. You
can yell, scream, write, march, protest and threaten all you want
to. You can hold your breath until you turn blue and stomp your
feet. Hunger strikes? Go for it! Chose [sic] your
favorite form of protest and social activism, and while you're doing
all of that you can go to the bank on this: Abortion is never
going to become illegal in this country again... You can destroy
appointees who might vote to stem the ever-widening powers of the
federal government ... but you will never succeed in making abortion
illegal in this country; unless, that is, you somehow manage
somewhere down the line to get the dictatorial theocracy that so many
of you so earnestly desire.
This may come as a surprise to some of you, but our country faces far
more important legal and constitutional issues far more crucial and
important than giving government the ultimate power to exercise that
kind of control over a woman's ovaries. Come on, folks.
Don't you think that you can figure out a way to turn your obsession
over controlling your women-folk into something a bit more constructive?
Let's read the beginning of that last paragraph again. Our country faces far more important legal
and constitutional issues
far more crucial and important than giving government the ultimate
power to exercise that kind of control over a woman's ovaries.
[Ever hear of editing, Neal?]
Important. He says it twice, so he must be thinking of something, well,
important. Important? Since abortion was found to be a constitutionally
granted right in the United States by a 7-2 Supreme Court decision on
January 22, 1973, more than 45,000,000 U.S. citizens have been
eliminated. For those of short attention span, that toll is up by
600,000 since January of this year.
It took awhile before Americans began to consider these numbers
seriously. After all, it's a very difficult quantity to comprehend, a
population of the dead unborn so large as to be almost unimaginable in
a country that storms and shrieks and weeps for weeks over the fate of
one missing teenager. Lack of imagination is probably the most
charitable explanation for Neal's attempt to portray abortion opponents
as archaic crackpots -- as loony as the flat earthers and UFO
abductees. He can only blink his eyes unseeingly at a number that's too
big for his mind to process and proceeds instead to imply that those
who purport to care about it are men who like to control women. Which
seems a mite disrespectful to all the women in the pro-life movement.
Or don't they count, Neal? What with being women and all? No good for
anything but skimpy tanktops and summer jobs at the radio station?
Well, here's the reality of abortion rendered in terms that even the
math-challenged might appreciate. Americans killed by cash-only
OB/GYNs in 32 years outnumber all the war dead of the United States
since 1776 -- by a factor of about 40 (that means 40 times as many,
Neal.). More Americans are killed every single day that Roe v. Wade
remains in force than were killed in the World Trade Towers on
September 11, 2001. The total number of aborted babies exceeds the
population of California, including however many illegal aliens are
wandering around there today. The oldest of them would be over 30 by
now, having children of their own, and in the economic terms that seem
so key to attracting everyone's interest, they'd be adding to the GDP,
reducing the budget deficit, buying stuff, and contributing valuable
goods and services. On a more personal note, if we had them all here
with us, alive, and some terrorist wiped them out in a catastrophic
attack, when would the tears ever end?
But they are silent because they never were, and the only tears that
are shed are the secret, shamed ones of the women who discover too late
that for them a fetus really is a baby and no clinical or activist
vocabulary can erase the fact of what
was done. But they cry into their pillows, not the TV cameras, and so
what do we hear instead? We hear the yawping of the hateful hardass
feminists who can suck up to Bill Clinton but can't stoop to speak
about the fate of unborn children. We hear the cackling of
bombastic oafs like Boortz who will launch a vendetta
to persecute smokers but can't stomach the expression of anyone else's
moral principles. And we hear the sing-song women's rights mantra of
the mainstream media, who have apparently hypnotized almost everyone
into visualizing the issue of abortion as a half-deflated political
football to be kicked around every time a Supreme Court starter goes on
the disabled list.
Well, there are still a lot of people out in the wide empty wastes of
the America between the coasts who hear the phantom heartbeats that
will be silenced tomorrow and the day after, and they worked hard to
elect a president who would finally nominate some judges smart enough
to recognize the "right to life" articulated in the document that gave
this country birth.
We hope, on the occasion of this nomination, that George Bush heard the
voices of the people who voted for him -- if not those of the people
they're trying to protect. We hope that if it comes to a fight, some
hardy volunteer will stick a sock in Neal Boortz's mouth before he
begins braying like an ass again. Patricia Ireland and Eleanor Smeal
were bad enough. But those who call themselves libertarians should
realize that only the rule of law separates libertarianism from anarchy
as a philosophy, and a law that cannot remember its primary founding
principle cannot preserve any liberty in the long run. And those who
call themselves conservatives or Republicans should remember that
there's no point in governing if winning the next election is more
important than fighting for an unchanging principle that's gone out of
Who are you, John Roberts? Tell us how you feel about the number. You
know the one. 45 million.
Nealz Nuze is already trying to trivalize the abortion aspect of the
Roberts nomination. See here
It might not hurt to let him know how you feel by email. Mind you watch
your spelling and grammar better than he does, though, because he likes
reproducing the letters he can ridicule and pretending that all of his
critics are rednecks.