7.30.2007 | Changing Venue

This blog is now published at Wordpress as Right Turns. You will be automatically directed there after a few seconds, or you may click http://jackrich.wordpress.com/.

Thanks for dropping by.

7.29.2007 | Feeling guilty, are we?

Nothing endures like white guilt. When the blacks living in poverty rioted back in the late 1960s, thence was reinforced the need for a war. We're always having wars; wars in name but not in effect. The so-called war on poverty is the classic example: we declare "war," we throw money at the problem, we feel guilty when that doesn't work.

The latest foray into white guilt is in today's WaPo Outlook section, one of the national headquarters for liberal white guilt. This time, it's the fortieth, yes, four-zero year anniversary of the 1967 Detroit riots. The article, by a member of the academy, has a classically guilt-inspiring title: The Fire Last Time.

The article's thesis? Nothing of any substance has changed. The solution? More money thrown down the well. More excuses made for people who won't help themselves. More white guilt. Here's a good sample:

Then, in the late 1970s and '80s, the national commitment to the urban poor unraveled, destroyed by a furious white backlash and a resurgent conservatism that vilified big government and sanctified the free market. With that shift in American politics, hope gave way to neglect. It has been 30 years since the federal government really invested in America's inner cities. The only time anyone talks about segregation is when the Supreme Court prohibits another school district from employing the mildest of racial remedies. The welfare state has been eviscerated, not expanded. Even progressives prefer to focus more on the needs of the middle class than on the burdens of the poor.

And on the streets of Detroit and in other urban cores, life grows inexorably grimmer.

This idiotarian from the academy is telling us that we need more government, more racial set-asides ("racial remedies" in liberal-speak), and, drum-roll if you please, maestro, an expanded welfare state. All of which haven't served to come close to solving the actual problem: individuals taking responsibility for their own education and securing their own future. Individuals not waiting for a handout -- that wait never ends.

Here's a better idea: remember how some of learned how to swim. We jumped off the deep end into a pond or a swimming pool, and swam. Or sank, in which case the clever among us would have checked just to ensure that there was somebody standing by to rescue us. But, for the most part, me and my buds didn't need rescuing. We just jumped in and did the dog paddle.

I have sympathy for the poor; having grown up in that condition. And, yes, we all need a helping hand now and again. But if our basic needs are provided, gratis, with nothing expected in return, we get fat and lazy. And never learn to fend for ourselves. This is the real lesson of the riots of 40 years ago: to end poverty, we have to do it ourselves. With help along the way, but that's the means -- not the ends.

A lesson which has yet to be learned by our liberalati.

7.28.2007 | Say Yes to a Full Pint

Sometimes you just gotta stand up and be counted. Seems like Nanny Britain has gone too far, by having a beer regulation but then not enforcing the requirement that when you buy a pint at your local pub, you'll actually get a bleedin' pint.

One may ask, what business is it of the government of a formerly powerful nation to worry about the measure of ale or bitters at a licensed establishment? Good question. Correct answer: it's exactly because Britain is toothless and has exchanged its manhood for dhimmitude that they get involved in nonsense like regulating, to a fare-thee-well, things like beer.

Evidence? You think the recent surrender to the Iranians was a fluke? Or the incessant worry that one of the poor royal princes might get shot at? Used to be, English monarchs were in front of the troops in the field, not whoring it up back home (can you tell I'm a republican Republican?). Good thing the Argentines don't ask for a rematch over the Falklands; they'd kick John Bull's ass all the way back to England.

Anyway, there's a group that isn't going to take this affront to British liberty (this is now a contradiction in terms, it seems...) lying down: "Say Yes to a Full Pint." There's also the related "Campaign for Real Ale." Oi, I'm in favor of real ale. But, how, exactly, has this become any kind of a problem?

As a side note, please understand two things: a) I love my British cousins, and, b) Brits generally drink much, much better beer than us Americans. I mean, Bud Lite? Natty Bo? Gah. But we don't need to have the insane regulations that permeate British life. If an establishment shorts me on a beer once, I'll mention it. If it happens the second time, there are lots of other places to get beer.

Perhaps for England, its the proximity to Ireland, which, as we all know, taught the English everything they need to know about brewing good beer and drinking it. Too bad the English are slow learners, and don't establish a free republic like the Irish.

| Obligatory Harry Potter Post

First, straight off, this: J.K. Rowling's latest book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is nothing short of brilliant. Yes, I suffer from having swallowed, practically whole, all six of its predecessors. In short, I've been suffering from Adult Onset Pottermania since the first book came out in June, 1997.

First, the obvious: this is a spoiler-free zone. Second, a complaint: why do some critics complain that the Potter series is suitable only for retarded children? Well, perhaps not quite so bad, but consider a sampling of what the uber-snob Harold Bloom had to say:

I have just concluded the 300 pages of the first book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," purportedly the best of the lot. Though the book is not well written, that is not in itself a crucial liability. It is much better to see the movie, "The Wizard of Oz," than to read the book upon which it was based, but even the book possessed an authentic imaginative vision. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" does not...How to read "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"? Why, very quickly, to begin with, perhaps also to make an end. Why read it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to read anything better, Rowling will have to do.

I might have some choice words for Bloom; I knew snarky kids like him growing up in the Bronx. They mostly came from upwardly-mobile households and had been trained, early on, to look down on anyone who's father earned his living with his hands (as mine did).

Bloom, and perhaps most others who advise us from the academy, in stentorian tones, to not read children's books if we're able to read "literature," have, to be gentle, lost touch with the magic. Magic, not of the literal sort of the Wizards and Muggles world of Harry Potter, but of serving the very best purpose of a book: engaging the reader, getting him to enter a world beyond the limits of his daily grind.

J.K. Rowling has done that famously. My only request of her is that she continue to write. I. Want. More.

7.27.2007 | Confessions of a disloyal Republican

I used to consider myself a stalwart Republican. With rare exceptions over my voting life, I have voted the straight Republican ticket. My confession? I am disgusted with the performance of the Bush administration and with Republicans in Congress. Disgusted.

Not so disgusted that I could bring myself to vote for a Democrat last year. No, I held my nose and voted for George Allen against now-Senator Jim Webb. And I would never, under any circumstance, vote for Jim Moran. For anything. But he won handily without my vote, thank you very much. Idiots in Northern Virginia who think they're New Yorkers.

But my votes for Republicans, now, and in the foreseeable future will be solely because the other guys are worse. Along the lines of parting company with the Republicans, consider this list of points of disappointment if not disgust made recently by CrunchyCon Rod Dreher:

1. Having been absolutely certain that the war was the right thing to have done, and that we would prevail easily, I am no longer confident that I can discern when emotion is affecting my judgment unduly.

2. I no longer implicitly trust governmental institutions, including the military -- neither in their honesty nor their competence.

3. I no longer believe the Republican Party is superior in foreign policy judgment to the Democrats.

4. I no longer have confidence in the ability of our military, or any military, to solve deep cultural and civilizational problems through force alone. I mean, I thought nothing could stand in the way of the strongest military fielded since the days of ancient Rome. No more.

5. I have a far greater appreciation for how rare and fragile liberal democracy is, and a corresponding revulsion at the American assumption that it's the natural state of mankind. Which is to say, the war has made me rethink my ideas about human nature, and I'm far more pessimistic now than I ever was.

A lot of this litany translates into a simple statement: Woodrow Wilson was dangerously naive. George Bush is the new Woodrow Wilson, albeit with ugly ties to the Saudis. Of course, Wilson was a Confederate sympathizer and a stone racist, which Dubya is most certainly not. But in foreign affairs? Both have presided over disastrous presidencies.

There's only one point of Dreher's I would seriously dispute: that Republicans are not superior in judgment to the Democrats. Listening to the likes of Obama and the others, this is not supportable in logic.

The central problem? Neither party, under current leadership, can be trusted to do the right thing. I have high hopes that Rudy, or John McCain, or Fred Thompson would serve true American interests better than Bush.

Let me put this differently: the only Democrat who seems to have a clue is Hillary. And I wouldn't trust her with busfare, let alone as commander-in-chief.

| President Al Gore

Ah, a man can dream, can't he? "President Al Gore" has such a lovely sound to the ears of liberals living near that river in Egypt. As in, living in denial that George Bush was elected in 2000. Apparently, the NutRoots are still in denial.

Just imaging what a President Gore would have done: signed surrender papers with al qaeda; imposed a "carbon tax" that by now would have caused 50% unemployment, making the Great Depression look good; apologized, profusely, to Saddam Hussein for doubting his word on anything, and helping restore the lost Iraq province of Kuwait to his tender mercies. Oh, the list goes on and on of the liberal goodness that Tree Boy could have accomplished.

The Hillary bemoaned the absence of a President Gore during the recent Donk "debate." As cited by Cruella of the VRWC herself, Ann Coulter, Hill said, to applause, "I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000. I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election, but ..."

Ha. Ha. Very funny, Hill. And they said you had no sense of humor. As I wrote, she is pandering to the NutRoots in the Donk primary crowd. But facts can be very pesky things. Consider these from Ms. Coulter:

On Nov. 12, 2001, The New York Times ran a front page article that began: "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward."

Another Times article that day by Richard L. Berke said that the "comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots solidifies George W. Bush's legal claim on the White House because it concludes that he would have won under the ground rules prescribed by the Democrats."

To which Donk activists, very much in a post-modern mode, might say, "Facts? We don't need your stinkin' facts!" Facts, to quote a certain inventor of earth, air, water, fire, and the internet, can lead to an "inconvenient truth."

The more one hears about the leading Donks, the more it becomes evident that they lack what it takes to be president. Or dog catcher.

7.26.2007 | Nanny Strikes Again

It's easy enough to find many pictures showing how evil McDonald's is. This theme was even turned, by a polemicist, into a feature-length movie in 2004 (Super Size Me). The common thread? Blame McDonald's for, among other things, weight gain if one eats nothing but Big Macs and fries and sugared soda for a month. Who knew that overeating could cause health problems?

Also, please don't spill any hot coffee on your lap; that could hurt. The point is that our culture has no shortage of nannies; well-meaning pedagogue who assume that we are all stupid lemmings, running as fast as we're able towards that cliff of early death from heart disease, stroke, cancer, or just general poor health. All not our fault, but because the major purveyors of heart disease, etc., especially McDonald's, has fooled us all into buying their junk food. Again. And again. And again, world with an abrupt end, amen.

The theme, or perhaps trope might be a better word, is explained in this matter-of-fact piece in the Gray Nanny, er, New York Times:

It wasn’t too long ago that the only thing McDonald’s seemed good at was making people fat. Staggered by overexpansion, listless sales and a barrage of negative publicity linking its food to obesity, the chain’s glory days appeared to be fading.

In 2003, company executives set about reinventing McDonald’s by focusing on getting better rather than bigger. In the last few years, McDonald’s has seemed to do just about everything right. The chain has spruced up its restaurants, improved its advertising and introduced menu items that have helped to reshape its image and reinvigorate sales. Premium salads and apple dippers brought moms back. Chicken wraps lured people during off-hours; higher-quality coffee turbocharged breakfast business.

McDonald’s stock price has quadrupled in the last four years, and the company has reported positive same-store sales, an important industry measure, every month since April 2003.

Given those results, a new McDonald’s menu item is a bit of a stunner. Remember Supersize sodas? They’re back, except this time the chain is trying a new name. Meet the “Hugo,” a 42-ounce drink now available for as little as 89 cents in some markets. A Hugo soda contains about 410 calories.

McDonald’s might as well have called it the Tubbo.

We consumers, of course, are too stupid to know that a 42-ounce soda might contain quite a few calories. And, natch, we'll get a super-size fried with that. It's hard to know what aggravates the Times more: the fact that McDonald's, a purveyor of death, is doing well as a corporation, or that they sell such a bountiful drink as the Hugo at such a low price.

Regardless, the Times represents the very best of the Nanny State: always looking out for what they consider to be our best interests. Always assuming that we are simply too stupid to figure it out for ourselves. And, just as in affirmative action devotees, patronizing, to the max, the intended recipients.

It's the new version of the White Man's Burden. But this time, the natives are restless...

7.25.2007 | So that's what a president does

Seems as though Obama doesn't quite have a grasp on what the president's duties might be. That's president of the United States, not president of the local meatpacker's union, or whatever.

According to Nothingburger Obama, the duties for the Leader of the Free World, and Commander in Chief of the mightiest armed forces in the world, would feature walking a picket line with some union workers.

From a TownHall story we learn from NBO (NothingBurgerObama):

"I stood on the picket line and marched with workers at the Congress Hotel in Chicago last week," Obama said. "I had marched with them four years earlier and I told them when I left that if they were still fighting four years from now, I'd be back on that picket line as president of the United States and we'll get the Congress Hotel organized."

"I won't just vote the right way with you, I will stand with you," he said.

That's really special, BarackBaby. The more this guy speaks, the less he looks like a credible presidential candidate. Keep talking, 'cause that's all you seem to know how to do.

7.24.2007 | Outrage of the day

When can a man rape a seven-year old and walk away? Why, when he can claim to not understand English. Of course, that should be the politically correct "alleged" rapist. Yes, we are all innocent until proven guilty, blah blah blah.

This particular defense hinges on another allegation: that the court system could not find an interpreter who could translate from English into an obscure language called Vai. The accused is originally from Liberia, where at least three people speak this dialect. Perhaps more than three, but, hey, who's counting?

The outrage? The judge, in Montgomery County, Maryland (which runs a violent shade of blue on the political spectrum), dismissed the charges. Something about a speedy trial, and other alleged constitutional requirements.

From a WaPo story, the basics:

Prosecutors in Montgomery County said yesterday that they intend to ask an appellate court to overturn a judge's dismissal of a case against a Liberian immigrant charged with raping a young girl. The judge had ruled that repeated delays caused by the court's failure to find an interpreter fluent in the accused man's native dialect had violated his right to a speedy trial.

Now, what's missing from this little story about a politically correct judge is this little fact, not reported in the WaPo story but heard on Fox News: the perpetrator is a graduate from a high school in...drum roll please...Montgomery County, Maryland. Which prides itself on having really, really good schools.

Assuming that this is true, on what planet was this judge living? And what is the obligation of a court to provide translation assistance when the accused has graduated from one of the best school systems in the country? One must also assume that the perp was not taught in his allegedly native language of Vai, although, given that it's MoCoMd, he could have been taught in Spanish or in ASL.

I'd say that political correctness has become more important than justice, at least in Montgomery County, Maryland. Perhaps I'll rob a bank, and, when caught, claim that I can only understand Martian.

7.23.2007 | "a politically correct primate"

Ah, shades of Margaret Mead . We have the bonobo apes, close cousins to the chimpanzee, and a prototype for how feminazis would organize us. From the July 30, 2007 New Yorker (as previewed in today's Wall Street Journal), the essence:

Bonobos seem to organize themselves without the use of hierarchies, have more sex than is necessary for reproduction, and share food. For many, writes the New Yorker's Ian Parker, bonobos are a more palatable human ancestor than their close relatives, the chimpanzees, who struggle against each other for status and occasionally divide into civil war. They have attained an image in the media and among conservationists that is "equal parts dolphin, Dalai Lama, and Warren Beatty," he writes.

What a bunch of sweeties those bonobos are. But wait, there's more, screams the feminazi infomercial:

However, a large part of bonobos' good reputation comes from their behavior in captivity. Indeed, the bonobo expert most quoted in the media, Frans de Waal, a professor at Atlanta's Emory University, has never seen a bonobo in the wild. Mr. de Waal says that while captivity can change an animal's behavior, captive bonobos' behavior can still be usefully compared to captive chimpanzees's behavior. "The bonobo is female-dominated, doesn't have warfare, doesn't have hunting," he says.

"The bonobo is female-dominated." Hillary, your time is near...

Unfortunately for those who envision a female-dominated, peaceful, sharing and caring society (unofficial motto could be: no running with scissors, boys...), it all ain't quite what it's cracked up to be:

There are also many anecdotes of violent bonobo behavior. Jeroen Stevens has seen five females attack a male and gnaw off his toes. While zoos keep bonobos in small groups, they might behave more violently in larger groups. During a recent experiment studying bonobo diet in Frankfurt, a male surprised researchers by becoming aggressive after his calorie intake was reduced -- successfully fighting against females who had dominated him. Gottfried Hohmann, who has studied bonobos in the Congo since 1989, has seen a group of females attack a male for 30 minutes straight.

Hmm, tasty. Male bonobo toes...The conclusion is to be wary of global expectations based on one's political philosophy and not backed by adequate data. The author of this article quotes the academic "expert" (sorry for the scare quotes; I have great difficulty envisioning an academic who is truly expert in anything that goes on in the wild) with this note of caution:

"Those who learn about bonobos fall too much in love," says Prof. de Waal. "All of a sudden, here we have a politically correct primate, at which point I have to...calm them down: bonobos are not always nice to each other."

How very understated: the gang attack and biting off of toes is "not always nice." Who knew?

| "wet-foot, dry-foot"

This is the name of a self-conflicted policy from the Clinton administration. The policy is well-known to anyone who lives in or near South Florida, or who has Cuban relatives or friends.

In simplest terms, our policy allows Cubans fleeing communist tyranny to stay in the United States only if they make it to dry land. If a Cuban is caught offshore, it's back to Fidel's gulag. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The policy's basic flaw? Allowing a technicality of location to trump freedom. We're not speaking of millions of illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants slipping across our land borders, although, of course, they do. But hey, they're all "dry-foot" aren't they?

Cubans are fleeing the Western Hemisphere's worst tyranny for freedom. Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and others are not fleeing tyranny -- they're merely trying to make a living. Can't blame them, but the United States of America first and foremost must stand for liberty.

The shame of the "wet-foot dry-foot" policy also results in tragedy beyond sending innocent Cubans back to Castro's hell. An example was provided on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, in an article by Robert Block. Our Homeland Security aces, now including the Coast Guard, killed a young woman. Killed for the crime of seeking freedom.

Shame. Shame on us. This needs to be changed. Every Cuban, wet or dry, must be given a chance for asylum. Detain them; vet them to ensure that Castro isn't pulling another Mariel Boatlift, when Fidel gave us his criminals and mentally ill.

But numbers are important, and it's useful to note that even that floodtide of Cubans amounted to 125,000. A pittance when compared with the literally tens of millions of (primarily) Mexicans.

If liberty is to be more than a slogan, we must start by offering any Cuban who wishes asylum to be granted it. Now is not too soon. Tomorrow is too late.

7.22.2007 | Hope for Islam

There is an essay in today's Washington Post Outlook section that gives some hope for a better, more tolerant future for Islam. It is "Losing My Jihadism" by Mansour al-Nogaidan, a Saudi native.

The essence of his charge to his co-religionists? Reinterpret the Koran; learn to live in peace with others. From the essay:

Muslims are too rigid in our adherence to old, literal interpretations of the Koran. It's time for many verses -- especially those having to do with relations between Islam and other religions -- to be reinterpreted in favor of a more modern Islam. It's time to accept that God loves the faithful of all religions. It's time for Muslims to question our leaders and their strict teachings, to reach our own understanding of the prophet's words and to call for a bold renewal of our faith as a faith of goodwill, of peace and of light.

The author is looking for an Islamic Martin Luther, which perhaps shows he hasn't truly thought this through. Luther's central theme wasn't that the Roman Catholic Church was theologically wrong, but that it was corrupt. Perhaps a better analogy would be for Islam to seek its own John Calvin, perhaps the single most influential Protestant theologian in history.

In a very few words, the true reformation wasn't merely denying the Pope's authority as the "first among equals" Bishop of Rome. The true reformation was in redefining salvation in terms of sola fide. This is what was radical, and it was based on a thorough reconsideration of Scripture. This is what Islam appears to need.

Regardless, kudos to Mr. al-Nogaidan. He is a brave man, and while his hope for an Islamic reformation may be faint and wan in its chances for success, there is hope. And that's always a good thing.

7.21.2007 | Democrats side with the bad guys

Leave it to the Donks. As reported by the Washington Times, some House Democrats removed protection given to people who report suspicious behavior. The original legislation was put in place, with broad bipartisan support, in response to the obvious provocation of the Fabulous Flying Imams, who rather intentionally acted like...terrorists.

Now, out of some misplaced sense that it is somehow better to allow nuisance lawsuits and thereby discourage reporting of suspicious activities, the Democrats have come down, rock solid as ever, on the side of our enemies.

From the Times, some Republican response:

"That language was put into this bill with broad bipartisan support making it clear that having Americans protected from silly lawsuits if they notice suspicious behavior and report it is just plain common sense," Mr. Boehner said. "And why would they remove that language, and I think they are asking for serious trouble if the language is in fact taken out."

Mr. Pearce said Democrats made a choice as to "whether they are going to side with the American people or with the terrorists."

Florida Rep. Adam H. Putnam, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said failure to enact the provision will hold "the threat of endless litigation over the heads of the American people."

"Democrats are discouraging citizens from reporting suspicious behavior. And that, simply, leaves America vulnerable to terrorist attacks," Mr. Putnam said.

"Just plain common sense." Indeed, it doesn't get any plainer. As for the bizarre notion that, according to the Donk who is chairman (!) of the House Homeland Security Committee, reporting suspicious activities "would lead to racial profiling," well, this is political correctness run amok.

If a group with a distinctive "racial" profile is about to blow up an airplane (golly, I wish I could think of some group, but it's just sooo hard...), would it not serve the national interests, the interests of all of us, black, white, or brown, to...stay alive? In other words, we need to encourage folks to report suspicious behavior, and to err on the side of caution.

Without the threat of a lawsuit from some Johnny Edwards Tort Whore Clone.

| Hope springs eternal

...for the black widow spider from Hope, Arkansas, now a carpetbagging senator from New York: The Hillary. The latest poll conducted by Fox (which I trust much more than any conducted or even touched by the New York Times or CBS News) shows what many would interpret as the inevitability of Hillary as our next president.

In brief, she's in the lead over Obamarama, 39-23 percent, with a 3 percent margin of error. But wait, shrieks the Hillary Infomercial, there's more! Two salients should be noted. The first is that Hill and Obama are much closer when the question is, "Which Democratic candidate would be your second choice?"

This is a pretty good indicator of who has deeper appeal within the Donks, and when one adds first and second choices, the difference between these two shrinks to within striking range of the margin of error: 56 percent for Hillary, 51 percent for Obama.

Translation: it's a horse race. But there is one small detail in this poll that could be telling, and may be the salvation of whoever the Elephants run: Hillary's high negatives. This is reflected by the poll's question, "Is there one candidate you would never vote for under any circumstances?"

Answer for Hillary: 29 percent. The next highest is Rudy Giuliani, with a mere 8 percent. This, and this alone, is what may sink the Donks. Oh, the party elders, still wearing their beads and smoking their bongs, still protesting the Vietnam war over the millions of skulls from the killing fields of communist Southeast Asia, will go with Hillary (Dominoes? We don't want your stinkin' geopolitical theory...)

It's the politically correct thing to do, and Obama may be half-black, but hey, he hasn't paid his dues. Even the Donks have some sense of propriety.

7.20.2007 | The lunatic fringe just got broader

I'm assuming that a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a mainstream media outlet in guess where, would be considered, likewise, "mainstream." But it appears that the NutRoots run deep, and have infected at least one columnist. The newly-annointed NutRoots columnist is one Dan Simpson, and he gives obeisance to the Cindy Sheehan wing of the left wing of the left-wing party in this column.

Simpson's thesis appears to be that Dick Cheney has, somehow, ruined the 2008 election. Not by running -- but by not running. Then the man goes on to insult the Republicans running:

Instead of having an obvious man-in-waiting with bona fide White House experience to put forward with a decent prospect of winning in 2008, they have instead a large collection of flawed, unconvincing characters, three of whom don't believe in evolution, with a television actor who hasn't even declared as their great white hope.

Only a secularist would write that someone like Sam Brownback doesn't "believe" in evolution.

Some fact checking is in order. Here's what Sam Brownback has written recently about evolution:

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

Now, I'm hardly a fundamentalist, but I am a believer in God. And this statement by Senator Brownback is both logical and consistent with science.

But, hey, when you're a newly installed member of NutRoots, logic doesn't count for much. Finally, here's where Simpson joins the conspiracy branch of the NutRoots. Seems that George Bush and Dick Cheney are planning a coup:

There is also the late-at-night, eerie concern that Mr. Bush has in his head some sort of scenario where, for reasons of national security -- real or drummed up -- the '08 elections will have to be postponed and he will get to stay on. My suspicions have at their base the feeling I have that, given their operating style now, this bunch will not leave the White House easily in 2009.

To the barricades! NutRoots, grab your weapons. Oh, that's right. I forgot. You don't have weapons; only us members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, us knuckle-dragging troglodyte believers in God have weapons.

Note to the NutRoots: go away, go someplace where they might appreciate you. Iran, perhaps? Understand that Cuba has some nifty health care if you've got U.S. dollars.

7.19.2007 | "a duty to lead a full and happy life"

A little something from Richard Pipes, via Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus:

The main effect of the Holocaust on my psyche was to make me delight in every day of life that has been granted to me, for I was saved from certain death. I felt and feel to this day that I have been spared not to waste my life on self-indulgence or self-aggrandizement but to spread a moral message by showing, using examples from history, how evil ideas lead to evil consequences. Since scholars have written enough on the Holocaust, I thought it my mission to demonstrate this truth using the example of communism. Furthermore, I felt and feel that to defy Hitler, I have a duty to lead a full and happy life...

Living well, insofar as "well" doesn't mean material wealth, but, rather, enjoying one's liberty to the fullest, is indeed the best revenge on those who would deny liberty to us.

By the way, I had the privilege to have had Richard Pipes as a guest lecturer when I attended the War College at Fort McNair. Impressive, and inspiring.

| vox populi

One must hope that this poll is as biased as the "news" organizations that ran it. Which were the Fake but Accurate CBS News, and the Jayson Blair Times. The latter sometimes referred to as the "We don't need to fact check our precious young staff hired without regard to merit" Times.

Anyway, this poll, whose results are reported here have, no surprise, Hillary Clinton being anointed president. Among the not-too-surprising results, these little tidbits:

On specific issues, a majority of voters thinks Clinton would make good decisions on health care (74 percent) and foreign policy (68 percent), while 58 percent think she'd be effective as commander in chief. But many (52 percent) are "uneasy" about her ability to handle an international crisis.

All of which shows that the people they asked haven't been paying close attention to the HillaryCare fiasco, or perhaps they mostly live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Polls can be entertaining, but I'd like to think they've little bearing on what will happen when Hillary has to face a live opponent. As opposed to Nothingburger Obama and the other dwarves running on the Donk side.

Rudy Giuliani still leads among the Elephants, but Fred Dalton Thompson (love the ring of that name...) is breathing hard down Rudy's neck. And he's not even announced yet. And don't forget the smartest man in the lot, who may or may not toss his fedora in the ring: Newt Gingrich.

Any and all of these gentlemen will not hesitate to tear Hillary a new one. I can't hardly wait until some feminazis complain bitterly that the Republicans are being just beastly against the good gentlewoman from IllinoisArkansasNewYork.

The point? A lot can happen between now and a year from now, when the real campaign can get geared up. And a real campaigner will be tossing live grenades into the Clinton camp.

A little Whitewater Julep, anyone?

| Mesopotamia

Mesopotamia is the classy name that pretentious folks have for Iraq. And, at the head of the class, polishing those apples for some great, liberal teacher, is the Gray Lady. The Times seems to refer to some terrorist group now operating in Iraq as "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia."

Well, I checked the CIA Factbook, and, wouldn't you know it, there's no "Mesopotamia." Ah, Wikipedia to the rescue. Mesopotamia, as all of us history buffs know, was an ancient empire situated in what became Iraq. Unfortunately, Mesopotamia hasn't existed as an entity for roughly 2,500 years.

But, somehow, al-qaeda is still there. Perhaps they were there in the beginning, way back in the Iron Age? Could be; some things never change. But the Times is hardly a defender of the way things used to be. No, they're a progressive lot, and, perhaps, there's a different agenda being spun here.

Well, as they say, your mileage may vary, but the references in their stories and opinion columns (a redundancy, here), such as this story concerning the "home-grown group with some foreign involvement" that is slaughtering Iraqis. And, when they get lucky, some of our men.

But, wasn't it an article of religious faith, a dogma, for the Times and others on the left that there was no involvement of al-qaeda with or in Iraq? Of course, all it took was the first American boots on Iraqi soil to cause a fully-formed "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" to spring up.

Seems pretty clear that the Iraqis were already pretty cozy with al-qeada before we invaded. Also seems pretty clear that folks like the Times are more concerned with sounding learned than with reporting the facts. And simply ignoring any facts they find contravenes their religious dogma.

7.18.2007 | Pride goeth before the fall

The quotation is taken from the book of Proverbs (16:18):

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. (KJV)

I'm mindful of this particular proverb, simply because pride is considered by some to be the father of all sins.

But what's the use of being a sinful critter if, every now and again, you can't take some pride in what you or your family accomplishes? It's daughter number one, this time: she just successfully completed her PhD, and may now be called "Dr. Rich." Now she goes on to a professorship, with a tenure track, at the University of Scranton.

My daughter is the first in my family to get a doctorate, just as I before her was the first to ever graduate from college. It's a grand feeling, to have one such as her to call me "Dad."

Actually, she calls me "Daddio," and I call her "the one who lived." But that's just 'tween she and I.

7.17.2007 | Football

Interesting piece at NRO by Geoffrey Norman today about the latest British invasion: Beckham, David, one each, plays what the euros call "football." Which we call "boring."

Ever since I raised my kids and took my son to play baseball, soccer was going to the The Next Big Thing. We were all touted on the virtues of soccer: the rest of the world's favorite sport, after all. How could we resist? Resistance is futile, we will be assimilated...

Never happened. Pele, the (apparently) great soccer dude from Brazil, came to the States. Who the hell is Pele? Could he block and tackle? Didn't think so. Who's playing the Monday Night Football game?

Likewise with Beckham. It won't make any difference how great a soccer star he is. It's still soccer. In baseball, we've got action punctuated by stillness (pitcher's windup, for example) that only accentuates the drama. In soccer, it's a bunch of wiry guys running around a grassy field.

Rather watch paint drying. Without a rooting interest, or a need to beat up anyone who doesn't root for your hometown team, why on earth would anyone watch soccer?

| Total war?

Time and time again we are reminded of the fact that we are not fighting a war. Yes, the president calls it a "global war on terror" -- GWOT, a most unsavory acronym. And, yes, unfortunately, far too many of our best young men have died in the futility that is "nation building" in Iraq.

But are we at war? Have we been since 9/11? I say we haven't been. The most obvious reason we are not at war? We are not serious about identifying the enemy. We dance around the subject, and we either lie about it or are blind to it.

Our president, within mere moments of the heinous 9/11 attack on our soil, an attack motivated and fueled by Islam, tells us that "Islam is a religion of peace." Yes, and I'll be the next Pope.

The other principal reason we aren't really at war? We are not spending nearly enough on defense. On our armed forces. Rather, we spend billions to bring "democracy" to an ungrateful and incompetent collection of sectarian primitives in Iraq.

What should we be doing? For openers, increasing the combat-ready divisions in our Army. Doubling, at the least, our carrier battle groups. Very, very expensive, but the very best tool available for projecting force without having to invade some far-off shitistan of a place.

A little plussing-up of our intel community wouldn't be a bad thing, either. Actually, a lot of plussing-up. What did Bush do? Add another layer of bureaucracy. Yes, that helped, George. Helped the sycophants who strive to become principal deputy assistant directors with a large staff and no real responsibilities.

As far as the home front? Stop letting foreign Muslims enter our country, except with thorough vetting. Deport any and all foreign Muslims who fulminate their usual stew of anti-Semitic, anti-Western, anti-Christian crap in their mosques and Islamic centers. They are the enemy.

As for the home-grown, citizen Muslims? Watch them. Carefully. Shut down their charities that fund terror. Treat them as fifth-column traitors should they spout sedition and support for jihad.

Ugly thoughts? Yes, but necessary. What about their constitutional rights? Firstly, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. In wartime, we must do what we must do to survive. We will not survive the kind of "tolerance" exhibited by the weak-minded spouting of pap like "religion of peace." Secondly, no one, Muslim or otherwise, has the right to espouse violent jihad against Jews and Christians and those with other (than Islam) or no faith at all.

War is hell, and unless and until we recognize that Islam as it is now constituted is the enemy, we might as well fly the white flag of surrender.

| Drop those nuts!

You just can't make this stuff up. Iran's just busted some squirrels, claiming they were spying. From Y-Net:

Iranian intelligence operatives recently detained over a dozen squirrels found within the nation's borders, claiming the rodents were serving as spies for Western powers determined to undermine the Islamic Republic.

"In recent weeks, intelligence operatives have arrested 14 squirrels within Iran's borders," state-sponsored news agency IRNA reported. "The squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence services."

Clearly, the Iranians are a fearsome adversary; we should be quaking in our boots. That was sarcasm. Unfortunately, Iran also has some smart folks. Smart folks who work to produce nuclear weapons to be used against us infidels.

Perhaps we should de-nut them? Just asking...

7.16.2007 | Nanny on the rampage

This kind of makes me nervous. Nothing that Mitt Romney says is objectionable, precisely. Yet taken as a whole, I get the distinct whiff of goody two-shoeness. Yes, not an actual word, but it's a feeling of having some overbearing nanny peering over your shoulder while you live your life.

Pornography, sex and violence on the tube and silver screen, vile "music" such as rap and hip-hop. the list of depravity to which we are exposed is virtually endless.

Then there's that "war on drugs," which has worked well to enrich the distributors of coke and other products whose impact on health seem far less than tobacco or alcohol.

As for enforcing any kind of public morality, let's make this crystal clear: this is not something our government should be about. Morality is best handled at the local level; the extreme local level: the individual. The sources for right behavior? The Bible is a great place to start.

Any time a public person such as Romney starts to fulminate about morality, watch out -- nanny is on the rampage. It's not just Romney, although as a Mormon he's well-situated to preach about living a clean life. It's just that I'd feel so much better about Romney if I didn't get the creeps whenever I'd go to a Mormon town out west, and see all the jack Mormons drinking, whoring, and, generally, acting just like the rest of us: but maintaining that oh-so-pure façade.

Let me be clear: Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and many other denominations do very much the same thing. That's because we are all human, and, therefore, sin.

All I ask is that government not get involved in our private lives. Period.

7.15.2007 | Useful idiot

There's a little story in today's WaPo by a man who illustrates the concept "useful idiot." This man has supped with the devil, and confesses himself "a little sad" over the recent demise of one of the worst of the worst of the jihadis.

The moke's name is Nicholas Schmidle, sounds like "schmuck." The piece is titled "My Buddy, The Jihadi" and may be found here, if you've the stomach for it.

Here's a sample from this useful idiot who befriend enemies of civilization:

When I heard that Abdul Rashid Ghazi, the gregarious pro-Taliban cleric in charge of Lal Masjid, or the Red Mosque, died last Tuesday, I surprised myself by feeling a little sad. Over the past year, I'd gotten to know Ghazi quite well. Every few weeks, I would visit him at Lal Masjid to chat about everything from jihad and the Islamic revolution he planned to lead to our preferred vacation spots and his favorite English authors. We rarely agreed about anything substantive (such as his admiration for Osama bin Laden), but we talked for hours over tea, fruit and an occasional belly laugh.

Cute. "An occasional belly laugh." There is simply no excuse for this, unless you're on the other side of the war against us.

| one month vacation

Must be nice, to have those infidels over in your country fighting for your right to take a one-month vacation. This is what the Iraqi parliament will be doing. Poor souls, they don't get the two months that seems to be the norm in lazy places.

The puppet head of the Iraqis, prime minister Nouri al-Maliki said, according to this AP story, that Iraq really doesn't need us anymore:

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

Well, fine. Let's leave, and see how long this moke stays in power. As for their shortened vacation (in real countries with real economies, folks don't tend to get even one month of vacation...), this is beyond belief. Yes, it's a hotter than hell in Iraq in August, but I did not notice that our troops there will be on vacation.

We should be screaming at any Iraqi in power, "Listen up asswipes, it's your country. You need to do the heavy lifting. If you can't, f*** you and the camel you rode in on. We're outta there." But we won't do anything so undiplomatique.

It also appears that the situation on the ground isn't quite as rosy as some would have you believe. From that AP story:

On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi batallions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.

Let's leave before any more Americans have to die so that some Iraqi politicians can take a month off.

7.14.2007 | NIMBY

Ah, the bloviating of insincere politicos. Pictured is one of the worst of the worst, the ultra-liberal Jim Moran (D-VA). Moran represents, among other places in deep blue Northern Virginia, Old Town Alexandria.

What is Moran doing in the picture? Doing what he does best: bloviating, this time against anything that furthers a lefty cause. In this case, the lefty cause is to have a pristine environment while still being able to drop by one of the ten thousand or so Starbucks in Old Town and order a double mocha fat free latte. And sip it in air-conditioned comfort whilst cruising the internet on free WiFi provided by public tax dollars.

Can you smell the hypocrisy? Hmm, almost as delicious as the aromas wafting from those Starbucks outlets. The focus of Moran's ginned-up ire is the Mirant power plant, which has become a crusade for the City of Alexandria (unofficial city motto: we can waste your tax dollars better than anyone else).

In a recent issue of The Weekly Standard, Jonathan Last has a brief essay on the battle royal being fought by the hypocrites to root out the power plant. After all, it uses coal (gasp!) and thereby pollutes what should be a perfect little community.

Mr. Last provides a brief overview of the lawsuits that the city has engaged in; losing all of them, because of simple common sense: the power plant was there a long time before Alexandria became an egotistical enclave of affluent hypocrites.

One thing I recall from the time I lived in Alexandria was that some residents of the high-rise condominium built right next to the plant would complain about how dirty the air was. Which one might sympathize with, except for one inconvenient fact: the plant was there when the condo was first built. It takes a certain kind of an idiot to complain about something that should have been evident before they moved in.

But, then, the people who complain the loudest about alleged environmental problems do tend to not notice large facts -- even when they move in right next door to a coal-fired power plant.

7.13.2007 | future orientation

From my native burg, the latest in the nanny impulse from Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Mr. Bloomberg appears to be a well-meaning and fairly competent mayor, as much as anyone can be in the suicide stew that is New York City.

But Mayor Mike has a fatal flaw: he's a white limousine liberal, sort of like the man who bears the burden of sending the city into its death spiral: John Vliet Lindsay, elected mayor in 1965, and who served as the poster boy for the term "limousine liberal."

Lindsay, may he rest in peace (d. December 19, 2000), was a gawdawful mayor. He pandered, he socialized, he caved in to every special interest group that could get some poor, suffering minority to front for them. Lindsay served as panderer-in-chief of the city for eight years, by which time the damage was done. And wasn't undone until Rudy became mayor in 1994. (don't blame me; I voted for Bill Buckley...)

Getting back to Mayor Mike, now he's unveiled what is to be the Next Big Thing in welfare: paying people to do what they should do as human beings and parents. The concept is to pay welfare queens for things like sending their kids to school, getting them library cards, getting the little bastards (hey, just stating a fact here) free health care, etc.

Heather Mac Donald lays all of this out in an article in the Weekly Standard. The basic problem facing the underclass? Something Ms. Mac Donald reminds us in not new:

After the urban riots of the 1960s, political scientist Edward Banfield observed that the central trait separating the poor from the prosperous is future orientation. His insight has never been improved upon. The middle and upper classes defer gratification and invest effort in self-improvement, Banfield wrote in The Unheavenly City: The Nature and Future of our Urban Crisis; were the underclass to do so, they would not long stay in the bottom economic tier.

It's not race; it's not ethnicity; it's not religion. What is at the root of multi-generational poverty is this lack of a "future orientation." Yes, prosperous Baby Boomers are notorious for indulging in instant gratification. But most of them are able to keep up that Pottery Barn - Whole Foods lifestyle despite this.

The urban poor stay down because of folks like John Lindsay and Mike Bloomberg who govern with the assumption that po' folks 'jist too dumb to do anything on their own, and need rewards for what the rest of us do.

Ms. Mac Donald summarizes by noting that this idiotarian scheme of Bloomberg's is, basically, a bribe to the bottom-dwellers:

Should the Bloomberg payment experiment go large-scale, as its architects hope, it will create a bizarre caste system, in which one part of society bribes the other to behave in ways that the paying class regards as basic to responsible human life. So far, the Bloomberg administration has not articulated any principle for distinguishing who is in that paying class, and who in the payee class, other than a crude income test. The program will enroll families at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level. How will the administration explain to parents at 140 percent of the federal poverty line that their children should attend school simply because it is in their long-term self-interest, when their neighbors are getting paid for the same behavior?

If this is the sort of thing that Mayor Mike has in mind should he run for president, I'd say let's invoke the ABM Treaty: Anyone But Mike.

7.12.2007 | "unsupported and incredible"

There is something more than a little surreal about the legalistic standards used by the mainstream media to judge the rightness of our actions in Iraq. The media, or at least the liberal-leaning elements of it (which is to say most of it) seems to think that we ought to fight terrorists and tribal insurgents the same way we track down bank robbers and grifters.

Gather evidence; arrest them in a calm, civilized manner, with probable cause, and read them their "rights." Likewise, our troops are held to the pristine standards of the world of prosecutors and defense attorneys. Case in point is the ludicrous prosecution of a marine doing what marines do in war: cruise the countryside, risking their butts, searching for and killing terrorists.

One such prosecution of one of our men doing what he was supposed to be doing is reported in this WaPo story. The story relates how Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt was accused of heinous crimes against humanity while taking care of business. For some reason, our government took the side of terrorist sympathizers in Iraq; Arabs for whom lying is second nature. Especially when trying to get our men in dutch.

The outcome of this wasted exercise? The government, and that's our government, spent over 18 months investigating this non-event. Yes, some Iraqis were killed. Boo hoo. They were carrying weapons. Were women and children killed "in cold blood?" Bullshit. Arab lies.

The outcome? From the WaPo story:

An investigating officer in the case against a U.S. Marine accused of murdering civilians in Haditha, Iraq, has recommended that charges against him be dropped, concluding that the government's allegations that the Marine executed a group of men are "unsupported and incredible."

You don't say. The Bushies have totally screwed up what was a picture-perfect invasion of Iraq. We didn't bomb mosques used as terrorist weapons depots and ops centers; we left one of the head shiite terrorists, al-Sadr, live another day. We didn't bomb Falluja flat; we didn't shoot looters on sights.

The list is long, and it all comes down to this: we were not, and remain, unserious about winning in Iraq. We should either start to get truly serious, and to hell with any tender feelings the Iraqis may have, or leave now.

Of course, were we to leave Iraq now, they'd all start to kill each other with gleeful abandon. Somebody tell me how we intend to stop shiites from killing sunnis from killing Kurds? Never happen, with, or without us.

All of Iraq is not worth another American life.

7.11.2007 | What's in a name?

After four years of writing under "LiLPoH," enough. I'm not really much of a libertarian, and while I consider myself a patriot, I'm hardly what you might call Daughters of the American Revolution material. So, I'm changing the name of this blog to Wrong Side of the Tracks. Which kind of describes where I was born and raised, in the Bronx, New York.

A little more culture, or perhaps I should write "culture." Just love to shoot tuna in a barrel, and there are so many juicy targets out there on the culture front. For example, why does Fox News have to spend 23 hours, 58 minutes each day on the latest kidnapping victim? So long as she's a white girl, preferably from a middle-class of better family, of course.

Anyway, that's my story, and I'm stuck with it.

Do come back.