"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Why do I make this charge?!
This attack is like the wife-beater who blames the battered-wife for her beatings: "It' her fault; she doesn't effin' listen!"
Which should surprise NO ONE; after all, Islam condones wife-beating. Oh. Excuse me. That is NOT "true Islam." Yeah. Right.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Iain Murray (from today's NRO/Corner, describing George Galloway's most recent derisive use of the word "Israeli"):
There is a word for the belief that you should judge something more harshly when you discover that it is produced by Jewish people. It’s simple anti-Semitism. I’m sure George will want to denounce it the next time he hears it."
The Vatican should recant and repent for its recent anti-Semitic statements. If the Pope and the Vatican fail to do so, Pope Benedict will neutralize his moral authority, authority he needs in the urgent battle against moral relativism and in the struggle to save the Church. If he fails to recant and repent, he condemns his Church certain to extinction - for a Pope with no moral clarity has no moral authority, and becomes merely a seat-warmer with no noble mission leading a Church with no transcendent purpose.
The Pope's currrent position would lead the Church in the anti-Semitic path of the Presbyterians and the Anglicans. Maybe this is what the Vatican wants. But the Pope's prior efforts at rapprochement with Judaism and his clear attacks on moral relativism would have argued against it. That's what is so puzzling about his recent statements. And why it is a moment of truth for the Church. I am praying for the best result.
Monday, August 01, 2005
The Democrats do not have philosophies, they have constituencies. And the Democrats and their constituencies are coming apart at the seams. ...
The Democratic "platform" has several odious components. Primarily, the Democrats are totally lacking on ideas on governance. They are unwilling or incapable of stating the simplest political position. Of the many important problems facing the nation, the Republicans are left to carry on alone: Social Security, foreign affairs, War for Democracy, reform of the UN. You name it, and try to find a coherent Democratic position on any of these matters. No such position can be found; no such position exists. In place of considered policies on governance, the Democrats have adopted an unrelieved negative position on all political questions. For example, Social Security is a known problem area, and has been for years; President Clinton was warning about the need to address SS problems a decade ago.
Today, Democrats largely deny that any problem exists, and if they are willing to talk about Social Security at all, they want to raise taxes (of course!) In addition to being extremely negative, Democrats are dishonest in talking about political positions. Some of the Democrat dishonesty is farcical; Bush is stupid, Bush is a liar.
Beyond that, the Democrats have adopted three dubious propositions, elevated them to iconic status, and repeat them endlessly, long after they have been utterly disproven.
It seems to me that the controversy is complicated enough without critics leaving out the KEY word: EMBRYONIC.
Bush has authorized more money for stem cell research than any other president EVER - (which was easy because he was ther FIRST to ever pledge a penny for it)!
So the criticism he gets for "being against stem cell research" is totally uncalled for!
The only form of stem cell research Bush put any limits on - LIMITS ON FEDERAL FINANCING ONLY (and he has not put ANY limits on ANY research which is NOT funded by the feds!) - was EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH - a subset of the larger field STEM CELL RESEARCH, which studies uses for stem cells from many sources.
I do not think that every Bush critic is DELIBERATELY obfuscating the issue, though many undoubtedly are. It's merely sloppy and lazy criticism which is- ultimiately - a disservice to Bush AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO THE DEBATE.
ASIDE: Why is it that sloppy and lazy journalism ALWAYS seems to go against Bush? COULD IT BE BIAS? Yup. Even Glenn is BIASED against Bush's position, so he uses (and links to) a cartoon which obfuscates the issue by using of the overly broad term (sans "embryonic") - when ONLY the narrower term is truthful. Shame on you, Glenn!
Stem cells from non-embryonic sources have just as much - or more - potential as the controversial embryonic stem cells. So the bias is uncalled for.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
As to whether or not Carter’s comments provide rhetorical cover for the terrorists—of course not! Carter is simply voicing his dissent, and if a former US president can’t openly criticize his government—publicly, overseas, during wartime, and on the basis of a narrative of events that an investigative panel has already concluded simply does not represent the facts on the ground—well, then the terrorists have already won.
When will the USA get as tough?