When next you hear someone opine that America should get out of Iraq at once, ask them if they've been reading Arthur Chrenkoff's series of posts titled Good News From Iraq. Of course, the answer will be that they have not, for if they had they wouldn't be uttering such fatuities.

Chrenkoff's 24th installment is now up and the posts keep getting longer and longer as the news from Iraq keeps getting better and better.

There is so much good happening there that Iraq bids fair to become not only the political, but also the economic, envy of the Middle East. It will be increasingly difficult for the tyrants in neighboring states to keep their citizens down on the farm once the transformation that's taking place in Iraq begins to sink in elsewhere, and the citizenry begins to ask why they can't have some of the freedoms and advantages that they see their Iraqi neighbors enjoying.

Freedom is on the march. Tell your liberal friends it ill-becomes them to be so glum about it.

Thank goodness the likes of Paul Krugman stand sentry at the gates of society to warn us of the approaching horde of Vandals and Visigoths who threaten all manner of rapine and mayhem. Krugman sounds the tocsin in this New York Times column:

Interpretation: The extremists (guess who they are) are a threat to democracy and should not be tolerated.

Interpretation: The dangerous extremists are white, conservative Christians (bet you knew that).

Interpretation: Let's tell America that Christians have been trying to save Terri Schiavo's life and liberal Democrats have been trying to have her tortured to death. That'll be a sure-fire winner in the 2008 elections.

Interpretation: The spokesperson for the Schindler family knows someone who committed murder, therefore Judge Greer needs bodyguards. Everybody knows how violent those Christians are.

Interpretation: Unelected political appointees are sovereign in Mr. Krugman's United States, and the representatives of the people have no business exercising their constitutional prerogatives over them.

It should be pointed out, in this connection, that Gov. Bush sent his agents to rescue Ms. Schiavo because there was a lack of clarity as to who, exactly, had jurisdiction in the matter. When the local police said they would enforce the judge's odious order, the Governor pulled back. Where's the dire threat to democracy here? It's purely in the fevered recesses of Mr. Krugman's paranoid mind.

Interpretation: Parents and school boards are trying to take some control over what their children are taught. Democracy is imperiled! The sky is falling!

Interpretation: No medical professional should have the right on religious grounds to deny a woman an abortion if she wants one. If a woman presents herself as a patient for an abortion, a doctor should be obligated, under pain of having his license revoked, to perform it even if he or she thinks a murder is being committed. Now that's "pressure and intimidation."

Interpretation: The senate, in keeping with the constitution, intends to change a procedural rule which has been abused by a minority of senators in order to prevent the full senate from voting on the president's judicial nominees. Mr. Krugman's idea of religious extremism is the conviction that in a democracy the majority should get to pick the judges as it had for two hundred years until the last congress. That is indeed extremism of the most insidious kind.

Interpretation: Mr. Krugman implies that those best positioned to thwart people motivated by religious conviction are the Democrats. This is evidently because he thinks that Democrats have no religious convictions themselves. This is a stunning admission which will not be welcomed by beleaguered Democrats in red states.

The United States is pretty much just like Israel where religious extremists have killed a prime minister and threaten another. Yes sir, the U.S. is just like that. It was, after all, religious extremists who killed JFK and tried to kill Ford and Reagan, or maybe not, but if it wasn't, it could've been. We'll just bet that Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, was a Christian. After all, he was named after a book in the New Testament. And besides, white, conservative Christians have the highest crime and political assassination rates of any demographic group in the world. You can look it up.

Yes, indeedy. It doesn't happen here, but it darn well could. Just let doctors refuse to perform abortions, return majority rule to the senate, and let people fight to save a woman from being starved and dehydrated and the next thing you know the religious nuts will be assassinating our presidents.

Instead of mocking Mr. Krugman perhaps we should show a little compassion for a man clearly in the advanced stages of psychosis. Let's hope he's getting treatment.

There are those who say that Terri Schiavo is not being killed, rather the state of Florida is simply letting her die by not feeding her. Of course, if a mother chose not to feed her infant we wouldn't call it "just letting" the child die, we'd call it murder.

Nevertheless, perhaps the argument has more merit than it might at first appear. It certainly suggests a novel solution to the vexing debate in this country over capital punishment.

With the reasoning of those who favor "letting Terri die" in mind Viewpoint proposes that we abolish the death penalty altogether. We recommend that every electric chair and gas chamber around the country be immediately dismantled and that we, as a nation, foreswear ever executing another murderer.

The only penalty we should impose upon them is to confine them to their cells...and withhold food and water until they die.

Belmont Club tips us to a survey done by the BBC which asks readers to answer the question "What are your hopes for Iraq's parliament?"

Replies came from all over the world. Many were supportive of American efforts there, some were critical, and some were like that of Nina from Toronto:

Nina pretty much shines the light on the dark places where the Left's priorities are concealed. She's willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands, maybe millions of Iraqis, just to keep Bush from looking good. She's so committed to the idea that peace can't come through the use of force that she'd rather see millions suffer than have her belief be proven wrong.

One tragic irony offered by people like this (there are several) is that they are moral imbeciles who are convinced that they're morally superior to anyone who sees things differently than they do. Sadly, there may be many more like Nina out there who secretly hope for failure in Iraq for the same reasons she does, but who realize that it would sound terrible for them to say it.

What ugly, twisted, hate-filled lives they must live.

The Democrats and others on the Left have been repeating the vacuity that Republicans have been using the Terri Schiavo case for political gain. The charge is moronic on its face but especially so now that Jesse Jackson has gone to Pinellas Park in solidarity with Terri's family and such right-wing Republican journals as The Village Voice are excoriating the judicial murder of Terri Schiavo.

Nat Hentoff, who no one will ever mistake for a Republican, unloads both barrels at those who have brought Terri Schiavo to the brink of death.

The whole tragic affair hinges on Michael Schiavo's testimony that Terri told him once that she wouldn't want to be kept alive if she were in a persistent vegetative state. There is no corroboration, however, that Terri ever said this, only the memory of her husband who recalled it seven years after she suffered her brain injury. But even if she had said it, it's not clear that she's actually in a PVS, and even if she is, it's not clear that she would want to die the way the state of Florida is killing her.

There is absolutely no good reason, no good argument, for doing what is being done to Terri Schiavo. None. The judge in this case is either an incompetent buffoon or a moral pygmy. The husband is utterly contemptible. The MSM has been irresponsible and disingenuous, as is its wont. Polls which show large pluralities of Americans siding with Michael Schiavo are going to soon begin showing those numbers swinging the other way as more people learn how Terri Schiavo's tragic situation unfolded.

If they don't, then we are no better than Sodom and Gomorrah.

It was the late Murray N. Rothbard who said "fiat currency by any other name smells just as sour". He may very well have been talking about the Euro.

The Euro was conceived as a new and "different" currency that would ultimately compete with and perhaps replace the US dollar in its role as a world reserve currency primarily because it was "backed", although not redeemable, by the 30% gold holding of the ECU whose singular mandate was currency stability.

Well, it looks like that mandate has caved to political pressure and now that...

See this link for the full story.

So it appears that the ECU, too, succumbs to Mr. Rothbard's proclamation and the Euro is on track to follow the way of the US dollar into unlimited inflation. Note that nothing is said regarding the 30% gold "backing" which ultimately will have to be reduced as the Euro is inflated into oblivion.

The take home message is that all of the individuals who acquired Euros, in the belief that they would represent a stable currency, have been defrauded by the ECU since now the ECU will produce as many Euros as necessary to accommodate economic growth, diluting the value of each individual Euro. Is anyone really surprised?

As the article from the link above points out, this is good for gold advocates because the price of gold will undoubtedly rise against all currencies as, once again, there is no alternative unit of measure that represents true wealth.

WSC

ABC News reports that:

Somebody ask Ted Kennedy and his portside colleagues how they're liking the Iraqi security forces now. It was just a few short months ago, we recall, that there were no words disdainful enough to capture the contempt the Dems sought to heap upon the Iraqi effort to police themselves. There were too few troops and police, we were advised, and what there were of them, the stalwart warriors of Capitol Hill scoffed, turned tail and ran at the first sign of danger. We would be bogged down protecting people who wouldn't fight for themselves for years to come, they whined.

Our military cautioned us to be patient. They told us that training takes time, and that the Iraqis were brave and talented and that eventually they were going to prove it. Now they are. We'll wait patiently while the Democrats cobble together an admission that they were wrong, again.

Three stories mentioned by Arthur Chrenkoff's article in the WSJ of Iraqi civilians taking up the fight against terrorists themselves are more evidence that the insurgency is doomed. When insurgents lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the people they cannot win. The terrorists in Iraq lost this battle when they turned from the militarily suicidal practice of targeting Americans to the politically suicidal practice of targeting Iraqis.

Here's an excerpt from the first account:

Another sign of failure for an insurgency is when it ceases to be indigenous and is forced to rely on alien forces. The presence of so many foreigners among the dead is an indication that popular support among Iraqis for the terrorist effort is waning. Indeed, when the bulk of the adversary is foreign it really is no longer an insurgency, and perhaps it's time for the media to stop referring to it as such. No doubt a lot of the Iraqis who are left among the opposition are thinking that it's time to get out or to cut a deal.

Mark Steyn is always worth reading. He is especially so in this column on Terri Schiavo. His article is a bracing splash of common sense and needs to be read by everyone who thinks that Terri Schiavo ought to die.

There is a remarkable piece by the Albanian ambassador to the U.S., Fatos Tarifa, in the March 27th edition of the Washington Times. Tarifa writes:

Tarifa brings his essay to a moving conclusion:

These are powerful words. Who, in 1970, at the height of the cold war between America and totalitarian communism, would ever have thought an Albanian spokesman would be writing columns like this? Who, we might ask, is writing columns like this today about, say, France?

You might recall the news reports of an MP unit that was ambushed in Iraq last week and how they handled the fight. The After Action Report is here and it makes very interesting reading. It describes the engagement in considerable detail and concludes with this:

After reading the whole thing there's little wonder the insurgents have turned their attention to marketplace crowds and elementary schools.

Frank Rich of the NYT offers up a buffet of anti-Christian delicacies for the Christophobes among us to savor. Rich applies the broadest of brushes, painting both the deserving and undeserving as hypocrites and frauds. He's an equal opportunity slanderer. You don't have to be really guilty of any moral fault to fall prey to his self-righteous inquisitorial judgments, you need only be a Christian trying to do what you believe to be right.

For Rich, being a Christian is prima facie dispositive of guilt, and he's far from alone. Thursday night on Scarborough Country lawyer Jeffrey Feiger dismissed the testimony of a doctor in the Terri Schiavo matter ostensibly because the man was a Christian.

The Left despises Christians, although it doesn't scruple to exploit them if the believers take positions of which the Left approves. As soon as someone takes a stand for life, or traditional sexual standards, or traditional marriage, however, or as soon as someone expresses doubts about Darwinian orthodoxy, the Left's big guns are quickly brought to bear on the hapless soul who is subjected to a barrage of vituperation and contempt. For Rich, to take a stand against the tide of our culture is to prove oneself to be an "extremist", a "fundamentalist", a jihadist, the American equivalent of the "Taliban", a "bullying mob", a theocrat, and, of course, a hypocrite and a fraud.

The Left demands tolerance of everything and anything, no matter how degenerate or dysfunctional, except conservatives, Republicans, and Christians. Combine them all in one person and it becomes a burden too great for even great-souled liberals like Frank Rich to bear.

Jon Meacham of Newsweek, perhaps chastened by the criticism he received following his foray into Christian theology over Christmas, pens a much less offensive column about the Resurrection of Jesus in the current issue. He notes that the tomb of Christ was almost certainly empty that first Easter morning. If it were not, he observes, the opponents of Christ had only to produce the body to abort the religious turmoil that the sect of Christians was beginning to arouse. This they did not do, a startling historical fact, really, which leads us to the obvious conclusion that they couldn't do it. This leads us in turn to ask why not.

No naturalistic explanation of the empty tomb makes sense. The most common of these is that the disciples stole the corpse, but this hypothesis is credible only if one assumes a priori that non-natural explanations are impossible. To believe that the disciples stole the body one must believe that a band of terrified fishermen overpowered an armed military guard, a crime for which they were never arrested or charged, stole the cadaver, and eventually underwent torture and martyrdom for preaching around the world what they knew to be a lie. People will die for a lie they believe to be true, but only men suffering from some form of dementia would die for a lie they knew to be a lie, and there's no reason to think these men were demented.

Surely, if the authorities believed the disciples had stolen the body they would have brought irresistibly persuasive techniques to bear to coerce them into divulging its whereabouts. Yet there's no indication whatsoever that this was even attempted.

The skeptic says, as was noted above, that no matter how implausible a given naturalistic explanation may be it is still more believable than the claim that a man rose from the dead. This objection, however, rests on the assumption that there is no God, an assumption that is much easier to make than to defend. If, contrary to the skeptical view, it is possible that God exists then miracles are indeed also possible, and if they are possible, we have to examine the evidence for an alleged instance of one, especially one as significant as the resurrection of Jesus, to determine whether it is, in fact, credible. The evidence for the historical, physical revivification of Christ, many scholars have concluded, is at least as powerful as that for any other event in antiquity.

Other attempts to avoid the conclusion that a miracle actually occurred are equally unimpressive. Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code adopts a version of the swoon theory, that after some thirty six hours without medical care, Jesus somehow recovered from his wounds, including the spear thrust, with sufficient vigor to roll away the heavy stone blocking the tomb. He accomplished this astonishing feat without being detected by the Roman guard, and subsequently appeared to the disciples and dozens, even hundreds, of others, looking so hale and hearty that they believed that he had conquered death and was the very Son of God.

Even if something like this could have happened, the disciples would have known that Jesus had not "risen from the dead" in any theologically significant sense. He would have eventually died (or, as Brown has it, absconded to France with his beloved Mary Magdalene), and his dead body would be proof that he was not the Messiah. This, then, brings us back to the question above: Why would so many have been willing to be tortured and martyred for a man they would have realized was a false messiah?

Skeptics scoff at miracles, but the most important miracle in the history of Christendom is one which defies any attempt to explain away. The most plausible explanation for the empty tomb, unless one holds an a priori commitment to atheism, is that God actually did raise Jesus from the dead just as we are promised that we will be. Because death did not result in the annihilation of His being we have the hope that neither will it result in ours.

This is the wonderful significance of the event Christians celebrate every Easter. Happy Resurrection Day.

Kathryn Lopez of NRO interviews David Klinghoffer about his new book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. It's a fascinating interview. A couple of excerpts:

Klinghoffer is a Jew who doesn't resent being surrounded by expressions of Christian devotion and indeed believes that the best for Judaism is a healthy, vibrant Christian orthodoxy. As you might expect, he's not fond of Abe Foxman or the Anti-Defamation League.

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent overview by Carla Anne Robbins of the reasons for U.S. concern over Iran's nuclear weapons program. It is a history of Iran's deception and dissimulation that the world needs to be made aware of.

I sit at my computer on this Good Friday listening to Bach's St. Matthew's Passion and Henryk Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs looking forward to this evening when I have a "date" with my daughter to watch Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, and I wonder. I wonder if I, or anyone, can possibly understand the significance of Good Friday. Can I ever comprehend what it means that God, the creator of worlds, would care enough about me to endure what He did, so that I could have the hope that death does not have the final word about human life.

My existence, the existence of each of us, is astonishing enough. That mere matter could be so arranged as to generate a consciousness, a self-awareness, a rational mind, is, when one thinks about it, a truly amazing thing. That this consciousness might survive death in another reality, another world, is even more astounding. For some it's too astounding to be credible.

And yet if it's true...if it's in fact true that our eternal survival is a gift from God, purchased by Jesus Christ at a cost we may never be able to fully appreciate, it is a breath-taking, ineffable truth.

Some people think the Christian narrative is simply the apotheosis of an ancient myth, that a truly sophisticated, omniscient God would have found some way other than a primitive blood sacrifice to usher us into eternal joy. I don't know if there were other means at God's disposal or not, but it seems to me that the way the Bible tells us He chose is perfect for what He wanted to accomplish.

In the Christian account, God made us as an object of His love. He desires to live in a love relationship with us, but for whatever reason we often want no part of such a relationship. It's too confining, it involves too much self-abnegation, it entails too much of a constraint on our Dionysian appetites, it's too much of an affront to our pride, reason and dignity. Confident in our independence, we don't need God. In our autonomy we distort God's purposes and design plan for human life in order to suit and pursue our own selfish ends.

Nevertheless, God would not be dissuaded or put off. He persists in His relentless attempts to show us that all of our rationalizations for demanding our Promethean emancipation are just so many childish and foolish masks we put on to conceal the fact that we just don't want Him in our lives. He chooses to woo us to Himself not with threats or fear but with love. He chooses to demonstrate in an extraordinarily vivid way that His love for us is deeper than we could ever imagine.

To this end he does something totally unexpected and supererogatory. He becomes a man like one of us, shares in our humanity, our sufferings and joys, and ultimately endures the pain and terror of crucifixion. His life and death is the price that He is willing to pay, for reasons that we cannot understand this side of eternity, to secure eternal life and to make it available to everyone. He didn't have to do it, He could have left us alone to destroy ourselves and our planet, to fade into the cosmic oblivion that rejection of our Creator would have warranted. But because He did do it, He shows us not only that He is not simply some abstract deity, too transcendent to matter, but that He is personal, immanent, and that His love is not just a theoretical exercise, it has consequences which can change a life now and forever.

Charles Dickens captures something of the Divine love in the climax of his Tale of Two Cities when he has Sydney Carton, moved by his deep love for Lucie, smuggle himself into prison to take the place of Charles Darnay, the man Lucie really loves, knowing full well that his love is ultimately going to bring him to the guillotine. Carton substitutes himself for Charles and goes to the death to which Charles was sentenced in an expression of almost superhuman love.

Out of the depths of His love, God substituted Himself for us, enduring torture and humiliation at the hands of His own creation, and going to a death so that we could live. He asks of us in return only our love.

We are in the position of a man clinging by his fingers to the edge of a cliff and slowly, inexorably losing his grip. The abyss of nihilism, of meaninglessness, emptiness and death, lies far below, but because of the cross there's a chance to be rescued. God stands above the struggling man, kneeling down and holding out His hand, urging the man to seize it. It's up to the man about to die, it's up to us, to accept the rescue that God offers. God has done all He can to persuade us, but He won't force us to grasp His hand. He won't override our will. He allows us to make the final decision whether to live or die.

That, at any rate, is the best I can do to explain my own wholly inadequate understanding of the Christian story and the meaning of Good Friday.

Michelle Malkin offers further evidence, if any were needed, that the MSM in this country is either incompetent or dishonest or both. She looks at the recent ABC poll that shows large numbers of people supporting Michael Schiavo's wish to kill his wife and asks if maybe the poll question wasn't a smidgeon disingenuous:

Little wonder that people hold the major news outlets in such low esteem. So many of them seem to have accepted Rather-fication.

This is going to sound to some as though I've taken leave of my senses, perhaps, but I feel it needs to be said. In fact, I'm a little surprised that I haven't heard anyone else say it.

How many men, listening to the facts surrounding the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, have not wondered what they would do if they were the father of a girl whose husband was doing to her what Michael Schiavo is doing to Terri? Suppose a man is convinced that it was an act of physical violence at the hands of her husband that put his daughter into this terrible condition. Suppose the father is convinced that in the years following, the husband has treated his daughter callously and cruelly, exploiting her condition for financial gain and then abandoning her to start another family. Suppose the husband refuses to relinquish custodial authority over the daughter so that he can retain the right to insist that she be killed. Suppose the father loves his daughter deeply and both father and mother are distraught at what has been, and is being, done to her. Suppose, finally, that the courts side with the husband and refuse to save the life of this man's precious "little girl" opting instead to let the husband kill her through a long slow process of starvation and dehydration. I don't know that all of these suppositions actually obtain in the Schiavo case, but suppose they did.

I don't wish to sound overly Clint Eastwoodian, but how many men have had the thought cross their mind in recent days that if their daughter were in such straits the contemptible husband would have long ago been given an ultimatum: If she dies, he dies.

The threat alone might effect a better circumstance for the suffering woman, but, on the other hand, perhaps the husband would be unmoved. In that event, I wonder how many fathers could stand by and watch another man who has no love whatsoever for their daughter, who only wishes her to be gone, coldly starve her to death. How many men would stand by helplessly watching their little girl's life ebb away knowing she could be saved if her killer's life were taken? What are the moral implications of such an act? If it would be wrong, precisely why would it be wrong?

Surely it is not an option open to a Christian, but then why isn't it? A Christian might enjoin us to ask what would Jesus do, but that's a poor guide in the present situation. Jesus would probably heal the woman. The father can't. A Christian might say that violence is not a legitimate option, but that's only true if one is a pacifist. What is the salient difference, given all our suppositions, between what is happening to the daughter in this instance and the case of a man using deadly force to protect his family?

Perhaps it could be argued that eliminating the odious son-in-law, so far from being an act of unjustifiable violence, would be, in fact, an expression of deep self-sacrificial love. At the cost of spending the rest of one's life in jail, or maybe even incurring the death penalty, one could insure by one's action that custody of the impaired woman would revert to the family who could then give her proper care and possible rehabilitation.

There's an outside chance that a jury wouldn't even convict a father who so acted to save his daughter's life, if it were the only recourse left to him. Jury nullification saved O.J., it might well work in favor of a man willing to sacrifice his freedom and risk execution in order to see his daughter's life saved. Indeed, we should ask ourselves whether, if we were on the jury, we honestly think we could vote to convict in such a case.

Just wondering if this solution ever occured to anyone else.

Which is a better measure of a president's commitment to the rights and status of women, guaranteeing them the unfettered right to kill their unborn children or liberating 25 million women from tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq and appointing women to positions of power and influence in government?

As long as liberal democrats think the answer is the former they'll continue to see their support among women erode until all that's left in their camp are a few embittered members of NOW and a motley collection of radical professors.

Christianity Today has a piece by Alistair McGrath which he excerpts from his book The Twilight of Atheism. McGrath argues that atheism reached its zenith sometime before WWII and has been in decline ever since. The reason for its appeal is disapproval of the moral temper of Christianity, but Christians have done a much better job of representing Christ to the world in the last sixty years than atheists have in presenting a plausible alternative. McGrath says:

The battle, however, is far from won:

In other words, Western culture finds implausible and repugnant the conviction, widely held among evangelicals, that no matter how much in love with God a person might be, if he or she has not accepted Christ as Lord, God rejects them, and they are eternally damned. McGrath, in fact, believes this doctrine to be the major reason why people who become atheists abandon theism.

I'm not sure he's right about this. I think that most people who reject theism simply don't want there to be a God even remotely like the God of the Bible and wouldn't embrace Him regardless of what the Church taught about salvation.

Even so, McGrath is doubtless correct that there are many who find Christian exclusivism morally incomprehensible if not repellant and reject the Gospel because of it. It is on behalf of these that the Church, in our view, should revisit its thinking on this very important issue. If the doctrine is clearly and unambiguously taught by scripture then so be it, but if scripture admits of other ways of thinking about what it means to be saved and what it means to be lost, then it would be a worthwhile project to reconsider some of the arguments, some of the exegesis, and some of the theology involved in deciding exactly what God's plan of redemption involves.

Scripture may be inerrant, but our understanding of it surely is not.

ABC has run a story that claimed that Republicans were using the Schiavo tragedy to further their political agenda, and they adduced as evidence an alleged "talking points memo" that they claimed had been circulating among Republicans in congress. The memo was said to have contained claims as to how the issue would benefit Republicans and hurt Democrats.

Well, a lot of questions have been raised about the origin of this document and PowerLine has been right on top of it. It looks suspicious. Check them out to get brought up to speed on what may turn out to be yet another black eye for media trustworthiness.

There's a not so quiet groundswell building in the blogosphere, just beneath the MSM radar, concerning the practice of rendition or returning suspected terrorists and sympathizers to their country of origin for interrogation. There are certain advantages to this practice, but there are numerous legitimate concerns as well. There have also been tragic mistakes and abuses.

For insight into why rendition is done see Michael Ignatius' column in the WaPo. There is much to dislike about Ignatius' piece, but he does explain the rationale for rendition fairly.

For a tragic illustration of the potential for abuse of rendition and why many are calling for restricting it or eliminating it see here.

We imagine that we'll be hearing a lot more about this issue in the weeks and months ahead.

There's a revealing special airing on HBO on March 31st that will be of "must see" interest to any Air America fans out there. Drudge has the inside scoop on the documentary.

A story in The Guardian points out that Jeff Weise, the 16 year-old who went on a killing spree in his Red Lake, Minnesota high school was, according to those who knew him from his posts on a Nazi web site, fairly mature given his age.

Perhaps he is as mature as many twenty year olds. But even though he killed wantonly and cruelly his crime did not rise to the level of a capital offense.

One of his victims was 14 and four were aged 15. At least three were girls. A student, Sondra Hegstrom, heard shooting from an adjoining classroom, she told the local newspaper, The Pioneer.

Horrific, but nevertheless, due to the wisdom of Anthony Kennedy and four fellow Supreme Court justices, if Weise hadn't taken his own life he would never have had to worry that it would be taken from him. Killers under 18 are not mature enough to be fully responsible for their actions Justice Kennedy opines in Simmons.

What Weise did would not have warranted punishing him with death. No matter how many fourteen year-olds he would have murdered, the loss of their lives is not sufficient to justify the taking of his. Their loss just isn't significant enough to merit the imposition of the severest punishment. Weise's life has more value in the eyes of the law than do the lives of his victims.

Meanwhile in Florida, other judges deem it perfectly appropriate to let a woman starve to death just because her husband, whom there is reason to believe may be directly responsible for her condition, wants her dead.

What a country.

Cheat Seeking Missiles sums up Terri Schiavo's case pretty well:

Good question. Here's another: Why are liberals so determined to have this woman killed?

A friend passes on this list of things we probably didn't know about Iraq gleaned, it says here, from the Department of Defense website:

If this is the first you've heard about these achievements you might ask your local MSM news outlet why they so assiduously publicize every car bombing in Iraq but never seem to get around to letting us know this sort of information.

Instapundit links us to a note from Arthur Chrenkoff about how to read the casualty reports coming out of Iraq. It turns out that we must read beyond the headline. If we do we learn that over half of the reported casualties are insurgents. Chrenkoff writes:

But they are, of course, which is why the insurgency may well be dying.

This story from the Guardian reports that two doctors approved a late term abortion because the child suffered from a cleft palate. Charges were brought and dropped.

Of course, in this country charges would not have even been brought because a woman can abort her child at any time for any reason. Even so, we have a question for the doctors in England. If the child had been born with the cleft palate would they have agreed to kill it if the mother requested it? If not, why not? If having this particular defect was reason enough for them to think the child should be killed before it was born, wouldn't it be equally sufficient to justify killing the child after it was born?

Peter Singer the Princeton bioethicist who has achieved much notoriety for his advocacy of infanticide divides into three groups the newborns for whom decisions about ending life might be made.

It is this third group, Singer says, that creates the controversy because their lives cannot be ended simply by withdrawing intensive care.

Whatever one's assessment of Singer's distinctions if we are coming to the point where a cleft palate warrants inclusion in the third group then the culture of death is even further advanced in its march through the western world than we had thought.

Parenthetically, here's an interesting piece on Peter Singer's unwillingness to draw the full implications of his ethics in his own life.

The March 20 installment of Strategy Page has some interesting commentary on the war being fought in the Sunni neighborhoods against al Qaida. The Strategy Page folks discuss the players and what their various motives. Give it a look.

Mickey Kaus at Slate reports that John Kerry is planning on finally signing the Form 180 that he refused to sign during the campaign and which would have released his full Vietnam service record. Kaus says:

This really is strange. Why now?

According to polls Iraqis are upbeat about their future:

No doubt the Left is as downcast about this poll as the Iraqis are enthusiastic. Will Bush get any credit from his critics for this turnaround or will their response to news like this be more like: "Bush slips in a hog pen and comes up smelling like rose water" We'll see.

A former student who is studying theology wrote not long ago to ask my opinion on the nature of the soul. I'm not a theologian, and I freely acknowledge that my guess is no better than anyone else's, but rushing in where wise mean fear to tread, this was my reply:

Some people think of the soul as a sort of "ghost in the machine", as Gilbert Ryle dismissively described the dualistic view of mind. Some people identify the soul with the mind. Some say the soul is our personality plus our body. In other words, for them the soul is the entire self.

It certainly could be that any of these is indeed what our soul is, although I think that if we include the body in the concept we run into a difficulty since bodies age and deteriorate. We might wonder whether our soul is what we are at ten years of age, or seventy, or at death. Despite the difficulty, however, I'm not discounting the idea.

My own view, though, is that our soul is really the totality of information which describes us: our personality, our life history (whether remembered or not), our values, knowledge, character, aspirations, etc. This information is not "in" us in any way, but rather it resides in the mind of God, like a file in a vast database, and is thus eternal. When our bodies die, this information, or at least some of it, is instantiated in another format (a body or body-like entity) in another world so that we are capable of experiencing another existence. We can think of it as a kind of download of information which creates the phenomena of "body" much like the software we load onto our computers creates the images we see on our screens.

This view is compatible with both materialism and substance dualism since regardless of which, if either, is true it has no bearing on the existential status of the soul. If it should turn out that mind is just the word we use to describe the functioning of the brain then the existence of the soul is no more jeopardized by that discovery than if it turns out, as I think it would, that the mind is something related to, but other than, the brain.

Even many materialists would acknowledge that a complete description of every person exists, although they could certainly add that the description is inaccessible and useless. They would doubtless point out that such a soul only exists in the same sense that numbers or logical relations exist even if there were no minds to apprehend them. They would exist but be utterly useless. The set of propositions which gives an exhaustive description of someone still exists after a person's body dies but would only be useful if it could be somehow conjoined with consciousness and another "body" of some sort. The possibility of this happening most (though perhaps not all) materialists would deny.

On the other hand, if there really is an omniscient God, then when my body dies, all is not lost. I, the set of propositions which describes the essential me, the information that comprises my identity, continue to exist in the mind of God. I may have no conscious awareness of my existence, it may be like being placed into a deep coma, but I exist nonetheless. I am not gone. If and when God decides to download the information (or the greater part of it) to some "body", the file marked with my name and containing a complete description of my self, infused with a spark of consciousness (mind?), becomes a revivified person. At that point I will have been resurrected, returned to life.

This has been the grand hope of Christianity and other theistic religions down through the ages, and it is this hope, this opportunity, that God held out to the world in prototype on the first Easter when He raised Christ from the dead.

I've read several articles lately that mention the possibility of March 16 being a "tipping point". This is a term given to an event or events that mark a significant point in time where, in hindsight, it becomes apparent that things will no longer be what they were.

Here's one of them from Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach.

Tipping points are a great concept, but virtually impossible to identify ahead of time -- let alone when they are occurring. It is only with the great luxury of hindsight that we can look back and know that the proverbial bell has rung. In my view, March 16, 2005 could end up in the running as a possible tipping point for America. Suddenly, the US has taken on a very different aura in an increasingly unbalanced world: The confluence of a record current account deficit, a disaster from General Motors, and yet another new high for oil prices all speak of an increasingly precarious role for the global hegemon. World financial markets have barely begun to sniff that out.

...

But the message from overseas is that this game is just about over. One by one, Asian central banks -- America's financiers at the margin -- have dropped the not-so-subtle hint that they are saturated with dollar-denominated assets. From Korea and Japan to China and India -- not to dismiss Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore -- there is a growing protest to massive dollar overweights in official reserve portfolios. The standard American response borders on arrogance: "What choice do they have?" The presumption is that the US has externally driven Asian economies over a barrel -- unwilling to accept a deterioration in export competitiveness that currency appreciation might bring. This misses a key cost-benefit tradeoff -- weighing the hit to exports against the fiscal cost of a portfolio loss on holdings of dollar-denominated assets. The bigger the build-up of dollar reserves, the more this tradeoff is likely to tip toward dollar diversification -- spelling the end of America's cut-rate foreign financing.

WSC

The service which provides us with a quotation each day from various philosophical sources sent this one from Thoreau's Walden the other day:

We were just wondering what proof Thoreau had that no way of thinking can be trusted without proof.

Following up on the troubles at General Motors, check this link where you will see that GM has $300 billion in debt. More importantly, you can also see that GM has a debt to equity ratio of over 10.

The significance of a debt to equity ratio as high as 10 can be found at this link to www.investopedia.com where we learn that:

Foreign nations are plenty nervous and have been announcing that they will be selling U.S. bonds to diversify the holdings of their central banks: Russia, India, China, South Korea, and Japan.

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and the US are truly in a no-win situation. Greenspan must raise interest rates to stem inflation and make Treasury bonds more attractive to foreign countries. If he doesn't raise rates, the US will continue to lose the financing from foreign countries that has been fueling our economy. Yet if he raises rates, GM and others will go belly up. Note that for every one point that interest rates rise, refinancing GM's debt will cost an additional $3 billion in annual interest payments.

If GM fails, it would mean default on their debt of $300 billion dollars. That would make the Enron, World Com, and LTCM debacles look like a tea party in comparison.

Given the above, my initial reaction was to expect two possible outcomes, that GM would eventually file bankruptcy or they would become a takeover candidate by the likes of China. But after further consideration, I couldn't see a reason why any thinking investor would be interested in buying GM at any price with the excess baggage of $300 billion in debt. Upon further reflection it becomes apparent that it would be much more expedient to simply stand by and let GM enter into bankruptcy proceedings and then buy them at a discount. After bankruptcy, the stock holders lose everything and the bond (debt) holders might be lucky to get pennies on the dollar.

In any event, GM will be well worth watching as the end-game is sure to unfold over the next twelve months.

WSC

According to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, relatively few Americans are generally familiar with the phenomenon of blogging, in which individuals, ranging from famous to anonymous, post running narratives of their thoughts and observations on whatever interests them:

There's lots of interesting data at the link, but the article promotes a misconception. Many of the most popular blogs are not really news disseminators. They're not in the same category as newspapers and the evening news. They are more like the op-ed page of the paper or the commentary at the end of the news report. As such, the comparison of blogs to news outlets is a little like comparing hammers to screw drivers.

Power Line notes, too, that the low percentage of blog readers is actually a promising statistic since it indicates that there is still a vast untapped market out there for bloggers to tap into.

Instapundit posts a series of e-mails from readers connected in some way with servicemen serving in Iraq. They're worth reading. The whole link is good, the e-mails start several paragraphs from the top.

Articles like the one below make me feel like I'm not "a voice crying in the wilderness". Or if I am, at least I'm not alone.

America's Has-Been Economy

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

A country cannot be a superpower without a high tech economy, and America's high tech economy is eroding as I write. The erosion began when US corporations outsourced manufacturing. Today many US companies are little more than a brand name selling goods made in Asia.

Corporate outsourcers and their apologists presented the loss of manufacturing capability as a positive development. Manufacturing, they said, was the "old economy," whose loss to Asia ensured Americans lower consumer prices and greater shareholder returns. The American future was in the "new economy" of high tech knowledge jobs.

This assertion became an article of faith. Few considered how a country could maintain a technological lead when it did not manufacture.

So far in the 21st century there is scant sign of the American "new economy." The promised knowledge-based jobs have not appeared. To the contrary, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a net loss of 221,000 jobs in six major engineering job classifications.

Today many computer, electrical and electronics engineers, who were well paid at the end of the 20th century, are unemployed and cannot find work. A country that doesn't manufacture doesn't need as many engineers, and much of the work that remains is being outsourced or filled with cheaper foreigners brought into the country on H-lb and L-1 work visas.

Confronted with inconvenient facts, outsourcing's apologists moved to the next level of fantasy. Many technical and engineering jobs, they said, have become "commodity jobs," routine work that can be performed cheaper offshore. America will stay in the lead, they promised, because it will keep the research and development work and be responsible for design and innovation. Alas, now it is design and innovation that are being outsourced. Business Week reports ("Outsourcing Innovation," March 21) that the pledge of First World corporations to keep research and development in-house "is now passé."

Corporations such as Dell, Motorola, and Philips, which are regarded as manufacturers based in proprietary design and core intellectual property originating in R&D departments, now put their brand names on complete products that are designed, engineered, and manufactured in Asia by "original-design manufacturers" (ODM).

Business Week reports that practically overnight large percentages of cell phones, notebook PCs, digital cameras, MP3 players, and personal digital assistants are produced by original-design manufacturers. Business Week quotes an executive of a Taiwanese ODM: "Customers used to participate in design two or three years back. But starting last year, many just take our product."

Another offshore ODM executive says: "What has changed is that more customers need us to design the whole product. It's now difficult to get good ideas from our customers. We have to innovate ourselves." Another says: "We know this kind of product category a lot better than our customers do. We have the capability to integrate all the latest technologies." The customers are America's premier high tech names.

The design and engineering teams of Asian ODMs are expanding rapidly, while those of major US corporations are shrinking. Business Week reports that R&D budgets at such technology companies as Hewlett Packard, Cisco, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Ericsson, and Nokia are being scaled back.

Outsourcing is rapidly converting US corporations into a brand name with a sales force selling foreign designed, engineered, and manufactured goods. Whether or not they realize it, US corporations have written off the US consumer market. People who do not participate in the innovation, design, engineering and manufacture of the products that they consume lack the incomes to support the sales infrastructure of the job diverse "old economy." "Free market" economists and US politicians are blind to the rapid transformation of America into a third world economy, but college bound American students and heads of engineering schools are acutely aware of declining career opportunities and enrollments. While "free trade" economists and corporate publicists prattle on about America's glorious future, heads of prestigious engineering schools ponder the future of engineering education in America.

Once US firms complete their loss of proprietary architecture, how much intrinsic value resides in a brand name? What is to keep the all-powerful ODMs from undercutting the American brand names? The outsourcing of manufacturing, design and innovation has dire consequences for US higher education. The advantages of a college degree are erased when the only source of employment is domestic nontradable services.

According to the Los Angeles Times (March 11), the percentage of college graduates among the long-term chronically unemployed has risen sharply in the 21st century. The US Department of Labor reported in March that 373,000 discouraged college graduates dropped out of the labor force in February--a far higher number than the number of new jobs created.

The disappearing US economy can also be seen in the exploding trade deficit. As more employment is shifted offshore, goods and services formerly produced domestically become imports. Nothink economists and Bush administration officials claim that America's increasing dependence on imported goods and services is evidence of the strength of the US economy and its role as engine of global growth. This claim ignores that the US is paying for its outsourced goods and services by transferring its wealth and future income streams to foreigners. Foreigners have acquired $3.6 trillion of US assets since 1990 as a result of US trade deficits.

Foreigners have a surfeit of dollar assets. For the past three years their increasing unwillingness to acquire more dollars has resulted in a marked decline in the dollar's value in relation to gold and tradable currencies. Recently the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans have expressed their concerns. According to Bloomberg (March 10), Japan's unrealized losses on its dollar reserve holdings have reached $109.6 billion.

The Asia Times reported (March 12) that Asian central banks have been reducing their dollar holdings in favor of regional currencies for the past three years. A study by the Bank of International Settlements concluded that the ratio of dollar reserves held in Asia declined from 81% in the third quarter of 2001 to 67% in September 2004. India reduced its dollar holdings from 68% of total reserves to 43%. China reduced its dollar holdings from 83% to 68%. The US dollar will not be able to maintain its role as world reserve currency when it is being abandoned by that area of the world that is rapidly becoming the manufacturing, engineering and innovation powerhouse. Misled by propagandistic "free trade" claims, Americans will be at a loss to understand the increasing career frustrations of the college educated. Falling pay and rising prices of foreign made goods will squeeze US living standards as the declining dollar heralds America's descent into a has-been economy. Meanwhile the Grand Old Party has passed a bankruptcy "reform" that is certain to turn unemployed Americans living on debt and beset with unpayable medical bills into the indentured servants of credit card companies. The steely-faced Bush administration is making certain that Americans will experience to the full their counry's fall.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: pcroberts@postmark.net

WSC

Judge George Greer has ruled that the feeding tube nourishing Terri Schiavo must be removed and she must be allowed to starve to death. Imagine for one moment that authorities ruled that food must be withheld from someone on death row, or from a suspected al Qaida detainee, until the prisoner starved to death. The left would be incandescent with rage. They would be screaming about the cruelty and inhumanity of the ruling. They would be shouting at the tops of their formidable lungs about egregious violations of human rights and the Geneva accords. Calls would go out from every organ of liberalism demanding the ouster or impeachment of every and any official who could be tied to this reprehensible decision.

But in the case of a completely innocent woman who is neither a criminal nor a terrorist, the Left is almost preternaturally silent. They seem perfectly content to let Terri Schiavo be killed through a long slow process of starvation and dehydration. Even worse, some democrats are allegedly attempting to exploit the tragedy of this woman and her family by turning it to partisan political advantage.

Rush Limbaugh said today that an editorial in a national newspaper (I missed the name of the paper) asserted that we are not actually killing Ms Schiavo by removing her feeding tube, we're simply allowing nature to take its course by not forcing her to live. This statement, if I heard it correctly, is uncommonly dumb even by liberal standards. If a mother refuses to feed her infant would that editorialist argue that the mother wasn't really killing the child, but was rather simply letting nature take its course? Anyone who doesn't wish to care for either the very young or the elderly need only withhold food from them and let them die and they bear no guilt. Welcome to our Brave New World.

The next time you hear someone from the Left say that capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment and should be abolished, or that torturing a suspected terrorist violates his human rights and demeans us as a nation, ask this person where he or she was when an American judge unilaterally sentenced Terri Schiavo to starve to death while her parents stood by legally helpless. Anyone who is indifferent to Ms Schiavo's plight and that of her family has no moral credibility on any other human rights issue.

Contrary to recent reports, the Italians are not abandoning Iraq, or us, after all. The Left must be disconsolate:

Quite clearly, Italy isn't Spain.

Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail has a very interesting analysis of the future of Chinese/ American relations. He considers the prospects of a Chinese assault on Taiwan and finds them improbable. He also considers Chinese prospects in a conventional military conflict with the U.S. and finds them dismal. His arguments are compelling. Check them out.

The senate has voted 51-49 to open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling. It's not, however, a done deal:

Nevertheless, environmentalists have lost a superb opportunity to capitalize on what was, or is, inevitable: that drilling would take place in ANWR. Our preference would have been to leave ANWR alone, but given that the thirst for oil would not be quenched and no other practical solution to our energy problems is currently available or economically painless, environmentalists should have seen this coming.

What they should have done, instead of fighting extraction of ANWR's reserves with all their energies and resources, was cut a compromise years ago. They should have agreed to no longer stand in the way of drilling in ANWR if the Interior Department would guarantee that another (or several) large wildlife refuge would be created somewhere else in the United States and if guarantees could be put in place that the oil companies would leave ANWR as much like they found it as is technologically and economically feasible.

Because of the environmentalist's insistence on total victory on this issue those who care about conserving wild lands and natural beauty wind up with nothing when they might have preserved another new refuge from the depredations of developers. With foresight like this, it's no wonder the environmental movement is dying.

This isn't the only tactical mistake the environmentalists have made in this contest. For years they've fought oil drilling in ANWR, contending it would lead to "a spider web of drilling platforms, pipelines and roads that would adversely impact the calving grounds of caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the refuge's coastal plain." No one knows if this is true, of course, but the experience we have in other places is that wildlife adjusts and in some ways even prospers. By staking their credibility on dubious arguments and indemonstrable assertions the environmentalists succeed merely in squandering their credibility.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. claimed that it is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist." But it is certainly as foolish to say that they can't. One of the jewels in the National Wildlife Refuge system is John Heinz refuge in Philadelphia which is bounded by Philadelphia International Airport, oil storage depots, a busy interstate highway and other scars upon the land. We ardently wish this weren't so, but as long as the refuge has been allowed to maintain something of a land buffer against encroachment the impact of these stressors seems to have been minimal.

Our dream is to see as much land as is possible permanently preserved from development, but sometimes one must take a step back in order to move forward. Yielding a relatively small tract of land in the midst of an inaccessible wilderness in order to acquire more critical habitat elsewhere would have been a fantastic trade-off, benefiting both wildlife and humans. Environmentalists had a chance to do this before the 2004 elections when the oil advocates were politically weaker, and they refused to do it. Now those who care about land preservation must take a step back at ANWR with no good prospect of any step forward anywhere else.

This was not the environmental movement's finest hour, but as Ted Stevens suggests above, perhaps they still have a chance to salvage a victory for preservation when lawmakers hammer out a final budget. Our suggestion is that the oil companies who will profit from ANWR oil be required to purchase and donate land in the lower 48 to the Department of the Interior for use as a refuge, or that their leasing fees be put to this purpose so that valuable wild lands can be incorporated into the National Wildlife Refuge system and preserved their for generations to come.

Viewpoint has been arguing ever since our first post last May that legalizing gay marriage will have the ultimate consequence of destroying the institution of marriage altogether. The rationale given for the recent decision by judge Richard A. Kramer of San Francisco County Superior Court overturning California's marriage laws provides all the confirmation of the validity of this concern that one could ask for.

According to the New York Times judge Kramer stated that "the denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary," thus violating the equal protection clause of the state's Constitution. In other words, defining marriage as a bond between one man and one woman is unsupported by anything more than cultural habit and preference.

The fact is, of course, that any secular definition of marriage is going to be arbitrary. No matter how a legislature chooses to define marriage, if religion and tradition are ruled to be inadequate grounds for the definition, it can be based on nothing more than sociological fashion. Thus if marriage cannot be limited to one man and one woman because that would be an arbitrary restriction, on what grounds will we be able to limit marriage to just two people?

If the gender of the spouses is a matter of cultural caprice why is not the number of spouses? If two thousand years of tradition isn't enough to eliminate what is seen as the discretionary nature of heterosexual marriage, how will courts be able to uphold laws establishing marriage as a union of just two persons?

The answer is, of course, that they won't. If judge Kramer's reasoning is accepted by the appeals courts the door will have swung wide open for redefining marriage any way some judge finds agreeable. There will certainly be no difficulty in finding courts sufficiently sympathetic to those who wish to push the social envelope by demanding the right to participate in group marriage. But when marriage means whatever anybody wants it to mean then it will really mean nothing at all and will cease to exist, at least in the form we recognize today.

The addled and myopic reasoning which afflicts judge Kramer's opinion is not untypical of contemporary liberal jurisprudence, which is why it is imperative that conservative judges be appointed to the federal bench and Supreme Court. The Left knows its ideas, such as they are, would not prevail in state or national legislatures so it circumvents these by enacting its agenda through judicial fiat.

If Democrats are allowed to continue to obstruct and block President Bush's nominees, who are the only hope we have of turning back this "judicial usurpation of democracy", we will continue to get more sophomoric judicial opinions such as the vacuous judgment handed down by Justice Kennedy in the recent Simmons case and the witless nullity delivered by judge Kramer in this one.

Why is it that the MSM and especially the cable news shows have given us every sordid detail of the cases of Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart, and Robert Blake, but seem singularly uninterested in Terri Schiavo? Is it because Terri Schiavo just isn't glamorous?

A woman is about to be deliberately starved to death over the horrified objections of her parents, simply because her legal husband, who has long ago abandoned her for another woman with whom he's had a couple of children, wants her dead, as does the judge in the case. The legal and cultural implications of Ms Schiavo's plight are immeasurably more significant than those of the stories receiving all the media notoriety and scrutiny, but she is neither rich, famous, nor attractive and so the media can't be bothered to do any real reporting on her awful circumstances.

It's much more important to the television news "journalists" that we see video every ten minutes of Jacko showing up in court in his pajamas and that we check out the ensemble Martha is sporting as she leaves her prison gig behind. What incredibly shallow people they must be who put together the stuff that America watches every night. Do they really take their work and themselves seriously?

Marshall McLuhan noted some forty years ago that television was a vast wasteland. He should see it today.

Here's a twist. White students, offended by a lecture given by the secretary of state for New Jersey, an African American woman, walked out of school and refused to go to classes. Evidently, the speaker, Ms Regina Thomas, accused students in ungentle accents of being ignorant of black history and being racists. The students refused to take the insults meekly and walked out of school, essentially shutting the place down for the day.

Imagine that. White kids finally getting tired of abasing themselves whenever some minority spokesperson takes it upon herself to lecture them about what evil racists they are and how guilty they should feel about it.

If more audiences would just get up and walk out when race hustlers like Ms Thomas take the stage maybe there'd be a lot less racial hectoring and consequently a lot less white hostility and a lot more racial comity. No one likes being insulted because of their race, after all. Surely Ms Thomas should understand that.

See here for more.

For 2004, the current account deficit surged to a new high of $665.9 billion from the 2003 gap of $530.7 billion, the Commerce Department said. Given my rants in the past about this issue, I doubt if any of our readers are actually surprised with this news but there is an interesting observation to make.

Historically, international trade accounts were settled with gold bullion. In other words, there was no "credit" in international trade. If you ran out of gold, you didn't do business. Since those days of good sense are gone, and in today's world of fiat currencies, it has been customary that when a country would run a trade deficit that spiraled out of control, their currency would devalue against the currency of other countries. This devaluation would raise the cost of imports making the debtor countries exports more competitively priced. This would create demand for the goods they manufactured causing their manufacturing sector to hire more people to meet the demand. This would stimulate the economy and the trade deficit would return to a more balanced state. Manufacturing was essential to the economic health of a country.

Since the year 2000, our currency has devalued against the currencies of other foreign countries by over 20% as a result of the mechanics mentioned above yet we see that our trade deficit continues to explode. Why? For two reasons, first, China and Japan won't allow our currency to devalue against theirs as they will purchase US dollars on the open market which strengthens the dollar in relation to their currencies and secondly, because we have no manufacturing sector of any significance anymore. As it was being dismantled over the last ten years we were told that it didn't matter because we were transitioning into a "service" economy.

Well, it does matter. There used to be an old expression, "As GM goes, so goes the country". Today General Motors abandoned projections of a break-even or even slightly profitable first quarter and slashed its full-year earnings outlook by more than half, citing poor North American business. Its share price tumbled to its lowest in more than a dozen years, from its old high of 94, General Motors closed just above 29 today -- a total loss of 70%. If it wasn't for their financing division - GMAC, they'd probably be out of business by now.

If one were to conspire to destroy this once great country, they could think of no better plan than to enact the fiscal and trade policies our politicians have promoted over the last decade. The terrorists don't have to do anything to destroy our country, we're managing quite nicely without their help.

Americans need to turn off the TV, stop believing what their told and start doing some critical thinking about what they see happening. These issues need to be core platform issues of candidates running for office and I'm not talking about Al Gore's lame "medicare lock box" drivel and then they need to be held accountable to ensure their implementation.

Slavery was never really abolished in this country, the criteria simply shifted from the color of one's skin to the amount of debt that they have. The master is now the banker and people in debt are enslaved to them. That reminds me, congress recently passed new legislation that prevents individuals from filing chapter 7 bankruptcy. That means your debt will be restructured in a way that you can pay it back but make no mistake, you will pay it back unless you'd rather be living in a cardboard box in an alley somewhere.

Trade deficits like we have today mean our children will inherit the responsibility to pay for them. Five percent interest on $665 billion dollars is $30 billion dollars a year. That's just the cost of the interest and that's just one obligation we're leaving to our children not to mention the cost of all of the other un-funded liabilities they will incur. We are a country with a "service" economy alright. We have become a country of people whose life's work will be to "service" the interest on a debt that can never be paid back. Personally, I'm truly ashamed to be part of a generation who's legacy was to enslave their children in poverty.

WSC

The 23rd installment of Arthur Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq is up. The installments keep getting longer and longer as the good news keeps building. Iraq is in every way undergoing an amazing transformation. The economy is growing, the infrastructure is improving, and the security situation is steadily improving. Even some of President Bush's critics are now admitting that maybe there is cause for optimism after all.

We read that the Italians are planning to withdraw their troops from Iraq in September. We're also told in the same article that fourteen other nations have withdrawn their forces in the past year, and that twenty three nations besides the U.S. still remain there, contributing almost 23,000 troops.

Huh. And here we thought from listening to Chris Matthews that our "go-it-alone" president had us there all by ourselves.

Some 75 Americans have been killed in hostilities so far this year in ..... Philadelphia. There have been five people murdered in the last six days in York, PA. It's safer to be an American soldier in Iraq right now than it is to be a resident in America's cities.

Dr. Greenspan's latest testimony was thoroughly disturbing and I would like to respond to it more completely but for now I can only post the following in response to the link:

So what is Dr. Greenspan saying here? Relative to the rip off of the public by their employers, the government rip off isn't as bad?

It looks like the link I've posted several times in the past interview (requires Real Player) with Mr. Lawrence Kotlikoff turns out to be quite acurate.

What I read here is that Dr. Greenspan is suggesting that congress tell the people that the government isn't going to keep its promise of return on the investment workers have made all of their working lives and the sooner the better. Yet our government fully intends to continue taking our dollars out of every pay check to fund the promise that they now can no longer keep.

In other words, we the government made a promise to you, the poor working sap, that we will take your money and give it back to you when you need it. But now we see that there is no way we can keep our promise so we have a responsibility to tell you that you are screwed as soon as possible so you can adjust your expectations. But we're going to continue taking your money. Where's the outrage?

If Dr. Greenspan is so concerned about our "personal resources being sufficient to meet our retirement goals, then why does the government continue to take them from us? Why does the Fed maintain a policy of low interest rates that encourages further debt rather than savings? Why is there rampant inflation as a result of Fed policy that encourages people to spend today because tomorrow their dollars will be worth less? Why has the Fed created the biggest housing bubble in history so people can take out home equity loans that enables them to consume more stuff and at the same time, acquire further debt?

During the first Bush administration, Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neil commissioned a study to determine the extent of the unfunded liabilities of the US and discovered it was $44 trillion dollars (today it's about $55 trillion). Upon making the administration aware of this crisis, he was dismissed. Paul O'Neil was a good man (ex CEO of Alcoa) but a lousy politician. You see, were his findings to become public knowledge, Bush may not have been reelected.

Now that Bush is in his second term, the timing is more appropriate to let the word out in a "kinder and gentler" way. According to Dr. Greenspan, the shortfall in Medicare is calculated at "several multiples of the one in Social Security". Good luck America.

WSC

The Iranian legal system continues to impress us with the wisdom and mercy of Koranic justice:

Hamid Pourmand's life is in jeopardy, but it could be worse. He should be thankful he's not a thirteen year old rape victim, for instance. The Iranians condemn these poor waifs to flogging or death for the crime of seducing the rapist. Allah might beam with pride at the moral purity and crystalline logic of Iranian justice, but for our part, we think Allah would prefer to see the people rise up and kick these cruel, narrow-minded mullahs in their holy posteriors.

The India Daily has a report about naval movements that sound ominous:

This last sentence is a masterful bit of dry sardonicism. Iran and Syria appear indeed to be about to get a very serious lesson in the benefits of democracy. One of those lessons is that if you are a functional democracy you spare yourself a visit from the American fleet. Let's hope that force is not needed to get Syria out of Lebanon and to turn over Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Let's also hope that force is not needed to persuade Iran to give up it's nuclear ambitions. If suasion should fail, however, let's further hope that the administration is better prepared for the aftermath of a military strike in those two countries than they were for the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Little Green Footballs links us to this site for a breakdown of which ships are being deployed.

Photos from today's massive anti-Syrian demonstration in Lebanon can be viewed here. Also, Hugh Hewitt has an interview with a journalist on the scene.

The message seems pretty clear to the former ophthalmologist in Damascus. Lebanon is on the verge, it appears, of rising up and throwing the Syrians out of their country. It will be interesting to see if Assad seeks to suppress this nascent revolution by force with the American navy sitting just offshore and 100,000 troops on his eastern border. In any case, it seems clear that Bush 43 is not going to make the same grievous error his father made when he allowed Saddam to massacre thousands of Iraqis who sought his overthrow after the first Gulf war.

Our guess, and our hope, is that Assad will choose retreat rather than confrontation. Either way, though, it appears he will be seriously weakened politically and may not survive in office, or in any other way for that matter.

The Times OnLine has released a story that claims that Israel is planning a joint air/ground assault on Iran's nuclear facilities:

This is not looking good. It appears that the Mid-east is moving ineluctably toward another conflict. If Iran refuses to stop producing nuclear weapons how else can things turn out? Iran has stated that if they ever acquire such weapons they will use them against Israel, so Israel clearly cannot allow them to have them.

We wonder how the paleo-cons and the anti-war Left will react to an Israeli attack. We're curious, too, as to how the Times got the story. Was it leaked? If so, by whom and why? It will also be interesting to see whether the publicity will cause Israel to abort their plans. We doubt it.

Nicholas Kristoff has a fine essay in the NYT on the decline of the environmental movement in the U.S. Much of what he says is on the mark. Kristoff is a lefty so his criticisms of the contemporary environmentalist movement, which is comprised largely of leftists, are the more telling. Here are some of them:

Kristoff hints, though he doesn't say it explicitly, that part of the problem with the environmental movement in the U.S. is that it has come to be seen as too ideological. It gives people every reason to think that the real agenda is not so much saving the environment but rather the destruction of corporate capitalism and private property. As a result they've alienated a lot of people who would otherwise share their environmental goals. Kristoff finishes with this:

No, but we do have some very laudable environmental organizations. Our money goes to The Nature Conservancy, an organization which works quietly to preserve the Last Great Places, as they put it, by buying them up. There's a lot more out there to buy and a lot of nature to protect, so perhaps some of our readers might be inclined to give them a hand.

The Strategy Page puts the recent carnage in Iraq into broader perspective.

It would be nice if the evening news would provide a little of this context along with their reports of car bombings and assassinations. By largely omitting the background they leave their viewers with the impression that all is chaos and carnage in Iraq, and that the situation is hopelessly out of hand. This is not fair to anyone involved and certainly not fair to the viewers. The fact that people have to go elsewhere for a fuller understanding of this conflict is one reason why the evening news in particular and the MSM in general is going the way of the dinosaurs.

For the truly troubled libs even a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker is like a strobe light to an epilectic:

Yes, he does, and he's not alone. Thanks to Little Green Footballs for the tip.

Some time ago, I learned that my daughter's boyfriend had been "kicked" out of his home by his father. I don't know the reason why but the fact was he was "out of doors". He had nowhere to go and his prospects where dim. I lent him some money to make a down payment on an apartment and he paid the loan back monthly.

Today, while in church waiting for the service to begin my daughter related to me a particularly disturbing story of two friends of hers - one child who's father had married the mother of the other child and both children have recently been "kicked" out for no better reason than the parents wanted time alone with each other.

While my daughter and I were working on her application for room and board for the college she will be attending this August, there was a section where she could indicate a roommate if she had a preference. My daughter had planned to room with a friend of hers from high school but she informed me that she might not be attending college because she, too, had recently been "kicked" out of her home and would have to be responsible for her college expenses.

I'm just one person who has learned of this sick phenominon in which four children are "out of doors". What does that extrapolate to nation wide?

I have a degree in psychology yet I simply cannot understand what enables a parent to abandon their children. What possible rationale can someone construct that enables them to justify in their own minds such behavior?

I have wondered why America isn't referenced in the book of Revelations in the events that unfold at that time. I've come to the conclusion that we, as a nation, will simply be irrelevant by the time those events unfold. We will have been judged, long before then for our selfishness, greed, and avarice, and found woefully wanting.

WSC

The good professor's troubles keep mounting at the University of Colorado:

Meanwhile, university officials pull long faces and ponder gravely what they should do about the old Lefty warhorse - academic freedom and all those other cherished values of the academy must be respected, don't you know. Nevertheless, there are some teachers that even the most tolerant institution cannot abide, and one of those is Dr. Phil Mitchell who appeared last Wednesday night on MSNBC's Scarborough Country.

Dr. Mitchell who teaches in the history department at a major American university was informed by his chairman recently that his teaching contract will not be renewed in the Fall because his teaching is not up to university standards.

It's about time, you say. More universities should clear out the deadwood, you declaim. But Dr. Mitchell received an award in 1999 recognizing him as an outstanding teacher. He's also been acknowledged by his colleagues as an excellent instructor. So why is his teaching not up to university standards? It turns out that he is a racist and, worse, a theist.

In one of his classes, apparently, Dr. Mitchell, the father of two adopted black children, cited the opinion of Thomas Sowell, a black economist, who holds a dim view of affirmative action. This offended some students and, of course, the last thing that universities want on their faculty is a professor who offends people.

He also committed the unpardonable offense of quoting from a text on 19th century liberal protestantism, and, in the course of the discussion, made reference to G_d. Apparently, the reference was not part of a profanity, which would've been protected free speech, but was instead respectful, which evidently is not.

For these crimes against the spirit of political correctness and Left-wing orthodoxy his university decided he had to go. The announcement aroused no student demonstrations on behalf of academic freedom, as did the kerfuffle surrounding the martyr Ward Churchill, the ACLU found themselves otherwise occupied and unable to come to his aid, and faculty petitions castigating the administration for the "chilling effect" their dismissal of Dr. Mitchell would have on the spirit of open inquiry on campus were notable for their absence.

Even so, the administration later relented, but still prohibited him from teaching in the history department.

Which university is it that maintains such rigorous standards that anyone who gives offense or shows signs of having a favorable view of religion risks being cashiered? Which university is it that will not tolerate the likes of a Dr. Mitchell? The University of Colorado. The exact same institution which is currently wringing its hands over what to do about an academic fraud and bully who managed to offend just about the entire nation with his comments about 9/11. Evidently, Dr. Mitchell's mistake was being fond of his country, being religious, and not making up a story that he was part Indian.

The taxpayers of Colorado are presumably pleased at the vigilance displayed by university officials in the case of the unfortunate Dr. Mitchell and also with their diligence in making sure that only instructors of the finest character stand before the young minds in Colorado's history department.

For more on this travesty go here.

Dennis Prager's series of columns on The Case for Judeo-Christian Values continues with Part VI and Part VII.

Part VI addresses the contemporary emphasis on the appeal to feelings rather than to external moral authority in determining how one should act. He writes:

His examples are guaranteed to raise eyebrows... and perhaps blood pressure. For example:

He closes Part VI with this:

In Part VII he considers the concept of evil and how this concept creates a great divide between the Judeo-Christian view of morality and other, competing, conceptions:

This is an excellent series of columns. If you missed any of the first five installments you can link to them by going to Prager's archive which you will find here.

Guiliana Sgrena's story, like a species in thrall to the pressures of Darwinian natural selection, undergoes slow gradual modifications until finally something completely new appears to emerge. Whereas she originally said that hundreds of rounds were fired at the car, photos show only two bullet holes in the vehicle. It also develops that the firing was from the side and rear of the car, consonant with the claim that the vehicle did not stop and instead tried to pass through the checkpoint. Not only did the U.S. military not know anything about Sgrena's release, neither, apparently did the Italian military.

The woman is turning this tragedy into a national embarrassment....for the Italians. No wonder they want her to just shut up.

Captain Ed has the details.

Well, the trade deficit figures have been announced for January and they're the second highest in history at $58 billion dollars.

The largest contribution to the trade gap was trade with China (no surprise there) and we're told it was mostly because of an increase in the import of textiles. Gee, since we gutted the textile industry in North Carolina, I guess we have to buy our textiles from somewhere else so it might as well be China, right?

I'd like to direct your attention to the article at this link.

Perhaps this is why, in part, Warren Buffet suggests that instead of the "ownership society" proffered by the Bush administrations we're more likely to be a "sharecropper" society.

From Warren Buffet's Annual Report to the Berkshire Hathaway Stockholders (the good stuff starts on page 19 under the heading of "Foreign Currencies").

So, why would Buffet invest about $20 billion in foreign exchange contracts spread among 12 currencies? Simply because he has little confidence in the US dollar yet he can't put all of that money anywhere else. Also, he faces the same dilemma many countries are confronted with. They have more U.S. dollars than they want, they know they're diminishing in value, but there is no market that is liquid enough to absorb them (other than the U.S. treasury bond market which is happy to sell bonds at the expense of Americans).

Consider that the US Treasury has perhaps $11 billion in gold reserves. If Buffet were to attempt to purchase $21 billion dollars worth of gold, the price of gold would rise so quickly he wouldn't be able to take delivery. In addition, his actions would probably collapse the financial markets around the world.

Note that several years ago, he did acquire several million ounces of silver when it was selling for around $3.50 an ounce.

Interestingly, Buffet laments

Ok readers, here it is from one of the richest people on the planet, and he says he can't find anything to invest in. So why is the real estate market in a buying frenzy? Why have the stock markets boomed in the last three years? Why do so many people apparently disagree with him? The simple answer is that Buffet is a value investor. He only makes investments in propositions that represent value i.e. a reasonable chance for a return on one's investment. And, presently, he doesn't see any market to invest in that represents an opportunity for value. I wonder what that makes all those people who are currently jumping into real estate and the stock markets (like they did in late 1990s) with both feet ?

By the way, if any of our readers are interested in purchasing shares of Berkshire Hathaway, the class A stock - BRK is currently selling for slightly over $90,000 per share.

So, you might ask, what does all of this have to do with me? I don't have billions to invest so it's irrelevant. Well, the simple fact of the matter is that you, and I, are faced with the same problem as Mr. Buffet, the holding of a currency that's at extreme risk of loosing value, but unlike Buffet, we can protect our wealth in it's entirety. While the gold market is too illiquid for Buffet to invest in, we are able to purchase gold as a safe haven against the possibility of a debacle that may unfold.

In the final analysis, it all comes down to this simple message from Dr. Alan Greenspan written in 1968 that is more relevant today than ever.

At my Gold Page, I list a variety of ways one may protect their savings and future through investments in gold and gold-related investments. Personally, I prefer physical gold in hand. It's the equivalent of true wealth. Note that this page is purely a public service. I receive nothing whatsoever from any entity listed on this page.

WSC

"So: make a smash hit film about a guy who allows himself to be killed to redeem the world, don't get nominated. Make a modestly successful film about a gal who asks to be killed because she can't bear to live as an invalid, win Best Picture." Noah Millman.

Thanks to Evangelical Outpost for the tip.

George Soros, the sugar daddy of the Democratic Left, wants the U.S. to fight the war on terror after the manner of Spain, presumably by withdrawing within its own borders and letting others carry the burden of the conflict elsewhere. Here are a few excerpts from his recent remarks:

Exactly why or how Spain's is a "healthier response" Mr. Soros doesn't say, nor does he tell his listeners who he would nominate to take the United States' place in carrying the burden of the GWOT abroad should the U.S. follow Spain's example. Perhaps he believes that no one should take our place, that the Middle-East hell-holes that breed Islamic fanatics should just be allowed to fester and suppurate and ooze their deranged spawn across the globe. Such a policy would almost certainly make it necessary to fight the orcs in New York and Los Angeles rather than in Baghdad and Ramadi, just as Spain is having to fight them in Madrid, but if that thought disturbs Mr. Soros he gives no indication of it.

Perhaps Mr. Soros should stick to making vast sums of money and squandering it, if he wishes, on the political campaigns of such as John Kerry. He should definitely leave the war on terror to more qualified individuals.

This report on the state of the Church in the UK and the reasons people give for leaving it contains a number of lessons for the Church in the U.S. would do well to heed (Emphasis is ours thoughout):

It is a mystery to us why it is a mystery to the mainline churches that their memberships are plummeting. Services in which the ministers and priests seem bored with what they do and give every appearance of not really believing what they say, do not incline people to return to the pew on the following Sunday. Services in which sermons seem dry, lifeless, uninspired, disorganized, superficial, and pointless, where there is no enthusiasm for the Gospel or for bringing truth to the larger culture, are simply not going to compete with those of churches which offer the opposites of these things.

Churches which have abandoned hundreds, or even thousands, of years of traditional moral and theological teaching in order to embrace the fashion of the times will hold on, perhaps, to their elderly but will find their middle-aged and younger parishioners looking elsewhere for spiritual nourishment. Why bother attending a church, after all, that's just floating along on the current of political, social, and cultural popular opinion and remains tethered to traditional Christianity by only the most nominal and tenuous attachments?

Many mainline churches in the U.S. have forgotten what they are and why they exist. Having long ago abandoned the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and practice, they've convinced themselves that they're fulfilling their calling by undermining every moral and theological conviction in the Christian tradition. They suffer from a kind of institutional Alzheimer's disease and can look forward in their dementia to nothing more hopeful than continued decline until they eventually surrender up their last ecclesiastic breath.

If they wish to see the future they need only look at the Church in Europe.

More Muslim leaders are apparently beginning to do what we wish they all had been doing since September of 2001:

The gratuitous and ludicrous swipe against the United States' response to the deaths of three thousand citizens at the hands of Muslim fanatics notwithstanding, one hopes to see more such indications that European and American Muslim leaders wish to join the civilized world.

FoxNews.Com has a regular feature called Tongue-Tied that chronicles the looniness of the politically-correct Left. Here are some excerpts from today's installment:

For more examples of utterly astonishing boneheadedness go here, but don't do it unless you have a high tolerance for stupidity. Otherwise, the visit might drive you to despair.

"Heteronormative"?! Are they kidding?

Democrats find themselves in an unenviable position in the current political climate. They can't advocate the things they are for - higher taxes, weaker military, more deference to the U.N., gay marriage (whatever happened to that?), etc. - because they know that pluralities of voters will never buy what they're trying to sell. So they're reduced to talking only about what they are against, which is pretty much anything George Bush supports. Their gloomy rhetoric, however, is equally unhelpful, and just pushes them further toward the political margins. People, as Reagan knew, don't like negativity, but that's, unfortunately, all the Left has to offer.

Listen to political spokespersons like Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, Reid, and Pelosi. Visit web sites like Democratic Underground, Truth Out, and Move On. Listen to the MSM news outlets. All one hears from any of these pols or venues is just relentless, teeth grinding, mind-numbing negativism. It's all about "yes, buts", "remains to be seens", "on the other hands" and "neverthelesses". Reason after reason is adamantly put forward as to why we shouldn't do this or can't do that, accompanied by sophistical discourses on why this demarche or that program will never work and why everyone in the Bush administration has nefarious motives and intentions.

Meanwhile the world is changing under the nay-sayers feet, and they find themselves in the insufferable position of being irrelevant to that change. The blow to their egos produces resentment and the resentment spawns an inveterate pessimism and cynicism. The Bush administration's detractors are left pathetically scrambling to salvage their sense of self-importance by insisting that since they themselves had no hand in what is happening, since they opposed it from the start, it therefore is doomed to failure.

They're like sportswriters who never strapped on a helmet but who constantly criticize everything the coaches and players do even though their team keeps winning. They wholly unwittingly offer themselves up to the public and to future historians as objects of amusement and curiosity. For that role, sadly, they are well-suited.

Jon Leo makes a similar point with humor and style beyond the abilities we have at our command, and we commend to you his column titled Time for a Dose of Dr. No.

Strategy Page provides us with a scorecard for marking progress in the global war on terror (GWOT).

The Cold War against the Soviet bloc lasted seventy years. The GWOT, despite the successes noted above, will probably last as long, unless the West decides it lacks the will to fight it. If this happens, though, the West will cease to exist as a cultural entity, and Islam will stand on the cusp of achieving its dream of a worldwide caliphate.

Australian Broadcasting Company's News OnLine reports that an intense search for Abu al-Zarqawi is underway in Samarra north of Baghdad:

Sounds like even if they don't get the big rat lots of lesser vermin are being taken out of service which can only further erode Zarqawi's ability to project terror. Let's hope, though, that they find the big rat as well.

A friend of mine, reflecting on his father-in-law's cancer as well as a couple of our posts on the Culture of Death, was moved to write a beautiful meditation that deserves to be placed before all of our readers:

John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice writes:

Rawls may be certain that cruelty is wrong and that extirpation of a species is an evil, but where on earth does his certainty come from? Exactly why is cruelty to animals or humans evil? Because it's wrong to cause gratuitous pain and suffering? Why is it wrong to do that?

Rawls seems to be asking us to consult some sort of moral sense that is hard-wired into the human species and which condemns such acts, but we might well ask where such a sense comes from and why we should pay it any heed.

There are really only two plausible accounts of the provenience of such a sense. Either the moral sense is instilled in us by an intelligent, omniscient, perfectly good creator, or it is the product of physico-chemical forces which blindly and purposelessly selected them to suit us for life in the environment we found ourselves in during the paleolithic period of human history.

I don't know which of these Rawls would opt for, although I suspect he would choose the latter. Whatever his choice, why should anyone who holds that our moral sense is the product of some purely physical Darwinian process believe that cruelty to animals is evil? Why should they believe that anything at all is evil? If our moral sense is simply an epiphenomenon of our evolutionary history then there is no such thing as evil.

If human moral values are somehow a genetic phenomenon which evolved to assist us in the survival of our species, if that's all they are, then why should anyone feel bound by them? Why should an individual person care about the survival of the species? More to the point, what does the survival of some animal species like the snail darter have to do with the survival of humans?

A reader might reply that an individual should reject all forms of cruelty for the simple reason that he wouldn't want himself to be treated cruelly. It is no doubt true that most people wouldn't want to be treated cruelly, but that is not a reason why the individual in question should not be cruel to others, especially if he can get away with it, and it is certainly not a reason why he shouldn't be cruel to animals.

Rawls' belief that cruelty to animals is evil is intelligible only if our moral sense was "written on our hearts" by God. Otherwise, it is completely illusory and might just as well be treated like some vestigial appendix whose retention is purely optional. Absent a transcendent moral authority, moral judgments such as Rawls makes are utterly meaningless except that they reveal something about the subjective states of the person who makes them. They are not unlike declaiming that it is evil to prefer chocolate ice cream to almond swirl.

It is ironic to read naturalists like Peter Singer, and perhaps John Rawls, condemn the mistreatment of animals while simultaneously rejecting the only plausible basis they could have for making such moral judgments. Naturalists frequently perform a moral piggy-back on theism, tacitly using the assumptions of theism to support their moral claims, while at the same time declaring in vociferous accents that the belief system they're exploiting in order to smuggle in their asseverations that cruelty is wrong, is really just myth and superstition.

Naturalists are like heavy cigarette smokers. They know their habit is killing them but they just can't give it up. Naturalists know that they can't live with the logical entailments of their atheism, but they refuse to quit. Instead, like parasites unable to provide their own moral sustenance, they fasten on to the hide of theism and ride it as long as they can, sucking their nourishment from it. Then, just before they have to admit to what they're doing, they leap off and proceed to boast about what free-thinkers they are and how unnecessary the steed whose life they've been depending upon is. They act as if neither they, nor anyone else, recognizes the metaphysical free-loading they've just been engaged in.

And these folks teach at places like Princeton and Harvard.

A Syrian blogger shares his fears and hopes for the future of his country and his people. The courage of the people in the Middle-East who yearn for freedom and are willing to risk their lives for it is astonishing. In an atmosphere of arrests and imprisonments this man makes it just too easy for the Baathist thugs to find him and his family. He fully identifies himself on his blog. It's hard to find words to express the depth of one's admiration for this kind of bravery.

Consider by contrast the number of times we've heard someone in this country, someone for whom there is no risk of anything except becoming rich and famous, called courageous merely for expressing a dissenting political opinion. People who, at no cost to themselves, buck the political powers that be are deemed brave, bold, and heroic for doing something which places them in no jeopardy whatsoever.

It took courage, we were informed, for Michael Moore to make Fahrenheit 9/11. It took courage, his supporters told us, for Ward Churchill to blame America for the 9/11 attacks. If Moore and Churchill are exemplars of courage then the word has become so debased as to mean nothing at all, and the genuine courage of those who live defiantly under real tyranny is trivialized.

Those who are complicit in this trivialization should be deeply ashamed and embarrassed.

Jeffrey Bergner at The Weekly Standard argues that the military strike option against Iran's nuclear production facilities is the least bad of several bad options. It entails numerous risks that the other options don't, but, unlike them, it also has a singular benefit: It is the only course of action, short of a military invasion, that has any chance at all of ending or delaying Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

Here's the story of the brutal murders of the Armanious family in Jersey City, New Jersey late last year. It turns out that fears, including our own, that this horrific crime was committed by Muslims for religious reasons were unfounded. The perpetrators were two low-lifes looking for easy money. Both of them should have been in prison at the time but were out on the streets. The New York Post reports that:

So why were they not in jail? The story doesn't tell us, but it prods us to make a suggestion. Perhaps one of the legal reforms Republicans ought to enact this session is the establishment of civil liability for any official who releases a convicted felon from prison prior to the conclusion of his sentence, if that individual commits another felony before his sentence would have expired. If the victims of felons who were granted early releases could sue the people responsible for turning these predators loose, two things would ensue: It would hold the bureaucrats accountable for their decisions and force them to be much more thorough and circumspect in selecting the people to be returned to the streets, and it would, therefore, severely reduce the number of criminals living among us.

It would also, of course, please trial lawyers whose universe of potential litigants would expand handsomely, but that's an unfortunate and unavoidable side-effect.

The Post's story has details of the crime and explains who the two slugs were who perpetrated it. Thanks to Powerline for the tip.

Adventures With Chester tips us to an article in The American Thinker titled The Next Domino. In the essay Douglas Hanson discusses elements of the United States' war on terror that the media apparently know nothing about. There are interesting operations afoot both in the Horn of Africa and Abu Musa Island off the coast of Iran in the Straits of Hormuz. Here are some highlights from the article:

Bush's critics often seem to assume that because they're not informed by the MSM of any developments in the GWOT that therefore the administration must not be doing much. One might think that they'd learn not to "misunderestimate" the man, but in the hearts of some of them there is an invincible hope that he'll turn out to vindicate all their declamations of his utter ineptitude. Nevertheless, the dominos keep falling. Let's pray that that happy state of affairs continues.

The Supreme Court will spend several months deciding whether it wants to ban the ten commandments from all public property. It apparently will take that long for them to check with the European Union to get their opinion on what our laws should be.

Some commentators have envisioned phalanxes of bulldozers unleashed all across the land this summer smashing existing monuments to powder, while others think this scenario is too alarmist:

Christopher Arntzen has a point. If we allow the Ten Commandments to grace our public spaces as we have for the last two centuries, why, then the wall of separation between Church and state will surely crumble. Indeed, it's a miracle that it hasn't collapsed before now since all sorts of people have been inspired to turn this country into a theocracy by public displays of the Ten Commandments.

Why, we heard of a gentleman on a tour of the Supreme Court building where, ironically enough, the Ten Commandments are in evidence, who upon seeing them with his own eyes fell to his knees and swore an oath that he would single-handedly, if necessary, restore Christendom to the throne of government. We've also heard of countless schoolchildren who have let their gaze fall upon the Ten Commandments and consequently reverted to thumb-sucking and bed-wetting at night. We simply can't tolerate this sort of thing in a pluralist society.

Once the Court has banned the Ten Commandments, of course, there will be no stopping it. It will have no grounds for failing to abolish the under God phrase in the pledge, it will certainly have to ordain that all currency bearing the motto In God We Trust be removed forthwith from circulation, and it will perforce be compelled to prohibit all prayer, all mention of God, in public spaces and public events.

Thus will the secularists have succeeded in imposing their vision of a sanitized public square, scrubbed free of all residue of religious belief, upon the rest of the nation. A glorious future awaits us.

Little Green Footballs is all over the Guiliana Sgrena story, a story which seems to be something of a work in progress.

Segrena had originally insisted that the car in which she was traveling was moving at "normal speed", but now she acknowledges that they were swerving to miss puddles and going fast enough that they had almost lost control of the vehicle at one point.

She had also earlier denied that there were any lights or signals from the troops who opened fire, but now admits that the Americans had shone a flashlight at them as they approached the checkpoint.

She also claims that the soldiers fired 300 to 400 rounds from an armored vehicle at their car, but that many rounds would surely have shredded the vehicle and killed everyone inside.

If this keeps up her story and the account we've been given by American authorities (that the vehicle was rapidly approaching the checkpoint and failed to respond to commands and signals to stop) will be indistinguishable.

That an Italian secret service agent died in the horrific events on the road to Baghdad airport is tragic. That Giuliana Sgrena, the released hostage and journalist who works for the communist daily Il Manifesto, is saying the things she is is execrable:

She thinks she might have been the target. To what end? On whose authority? How did the soldiers know that she was in that car? If she was indeed the target then why did they let her survive and why did they render her first aid? Why does she credit the vague words of terrorists who kidnapped her and threatened her life, but discount the explanation of the Americans.

Sgrena states in the article that she thinks she may have been the target because the Italians apparently paid a high ransom for her release and the American policy is to not negotiate with terrorists. Does she think that therefore she was targeted for assassination? What would be the point? Does she really think Americans were willing to kill agents of an allied government, one which has been fairly steadfast in its support of the American effort in Iraq, out of pique?

Even if someone in the American chain of command did resent her and knew she would be in that vehicle, does Sgrena really think they would be so stupid as to risk being exposed by the troops who carried out the order? Does she really think that an American commander would be willing to risk an international incident by killing her? Does this woman even think at all?

She's a woman of the Left so we expect her to be eager to discredit the U.S., but to slander American military personnel with no evidence and without offering any answers to the above questions is simply beneath contempt.

There was a time when everyone, even the pro-choice proponents of abortion on demand, agreed that abortion was unfortunate, perhaps even tragic. They would nevertheless argue, of course, that the mother should have the right to terminate a pregnancy to avoid even greater tragedy. The victim, they maintained, was just a blob of tissue. It wasn't as if an actual child were being destroyed. They would never support such a horrific practice as infanticide nor would anyone but a moral monster ever imagine doing such a thing.

Well, times have changed. Now we're being told that abortion should no longer be seen as a necessary evil, nor even something regrettable. Instead, it is, the pro-choice spokespersons now declare, meritorious, something to be celebrated, a deed worthy of boasts.

The culture of death is metastasizing through the body politic. Read these excerpts from a piece by George Neumayr of The American Spectator and reflect upon how children are being dehumanized, delegitimized, and stripped of their worth:

Whatever happened, we wonder, to the Clintonian rhetoric of making abortion safe, legal and rare?

Sanger's claim that "The unborn child is not just an innocent life," but a "liability, a threat, and a danger to the mother and to the other members of the family," is shocking and repulsive, but it's also an expression of the logical evolution of the culture of death. His words are like distant thunder presaging the coming storm, a storm which will bring with it a concerted assault by the Left on the right to life of newborns, infants, and the elderly.

Alexander Pope penned these lines in his Essay on Man some two hundred and seventy years ago, and they are as apposite today as they were then:

Evangelical Outpost tips us to an extensive collection of MP3 audiotapes of past lectures at the MacLaurin Institute available for free download. These lectures cluster around themes dealing with the reliability of the Bible, philosophical and scientific issues which bear upon religion, faith in the marketplace, and what they call the heart of the matter. The speakers are mostly A-list, and the topics are intriguing. Check it out.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters offers this assessment of the developments in Lebanon:

Let's hope that the Lebanese army has had its fill of its Syrian masters and are signaling that they've overstayed their welcome. A Syrian retreat in Lebanon will reverberate across the entire Arab world, giving oppressed people throughout the region genuine hope that they too can breathe free.

We bet that Osama never envisioned the magnitude of the fallout he was bringing upon the Islamic world when he was planning his attack on a couple of American skyscrapers.

If you've ever wondered why George Bush lists North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil check out this report from the U.S. Commission on Human Rights in North Korea. Following is just a small portion of the total report:

The report goes on to say that these conditions go back to the 1950s, and that most of the prisoners receiving the harshest treatment are political opponents of the regime.

Of course, these atrocious conditions are ignored by the Left around the world. They are perfectly content to pretend that they don't exist while working themselves into a lather over Americans photographing humiliated Iraqi terrorists at Abu Ghraib and shackling other terrorists at Guantanamo. We can imagine what they would say if they took the trouble to read this report:

"If one wishes to see real abuse one need only look at the Americans who use methods like sleep deprivation and sexual insults, for heaven's sake. They actually threaten people sometimes and, if you can imagine it, deny them access to their Korans if they misbehave. Before we condemn the North Koreans for their unfortunate system we better first remove the log from our own eye." And so on.

Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for the tip.

Wretchard at Belmont Club tips us to an an article in the Chicago Tribune that describes a new device developed by scientists at Los Alamos to detect fissile material in shipping containers and vehicles. Use of the detector would take only twenty seconds per shipping container or truck, and it is expected to go into production this summer at a cost of one million dollars per unit. We expect they'll have trouble keeping up with demand.

Strategy Page offers some insight into how a suicide bomber was able to get a car close enough to a crowd of police recruits to kill 125 of them last week.

Michael Ledeen gives us a good lesson in the recent history of democratic revolutions and urges that we pick up the pace:

These are exciting times, but we must not lose sight of the fact that success is far from assured. It will take perseverance and steady resolve to carry us through the inevitable setbacks ahead. Yet who can doubt the rightness of the cause? Who can seriously argue that we should give up, turn around, and go home, that a free and democratic Middle East and a severely truncated terrorist threat is not worth the cost? Who can today insist that our intervention, as clumsy as some aspects of it may have been, was a mistake?

If things fall apart, of course, then there will be recriminations aplenty, but if freedom really is "on the march" and if down the road Iran and Syria become true democracies at relative peace with their neighbors, the Bush administration, despite its mistakes, is going to go down as the most visionary, the greatest, administration in the history of this country.

The more things change with the Palestinians the more they stay the same. This article in the Jerusalem Post suggests that everything in the Middle-East is back very nearly to square one. Syria and Iran are sponsoring the murders of Israelis, and the PLO isn't inclined to do much about it:

So much for the hope that somehow now that Arafat is gone things would be different for the Palestinians and Israelis. The only way genuine change will occur in the Middle-East is if the tyrannical regimes in Syria and Iran are overthrown and replaced by functioning democracies. The end of the Baathists in Damascus and the mullacracy in Tehran is a necessary condition for peace in the region, and it's the only hope for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Everything and anything else is simply a snare and a delusion.

David Adesnik at Oxblog has a good analysis of what was going on between Bush and Putin in Bratislava the other week. A lot of commentators said that Bush buckled under to Putin on the matter of Putin's indifference to democratic principles in Russia. I like Adesnik's take, however:

Adesnik's take on the press conference makes far more sense to us than the commentary we read and heard last week to the effect that George Bush, who hasn't flinched from much of anything in the years he's been president, caved to Vladimir Putin. It's much more likely that he was very diplomatically telling Putin that the whole world now knows what he has committed to. It pretty much locks him in to it, at least psychologically, and makes him look very bad if he reneges.

In a post a few days ago titled Skewering Academic Feminists we had written that it is distressing that so many students, particularly females, take umbrage when their views are challenged or when they're asked to support them with reasons. We noted that:

A reader e-mailed to share his thoughts on this phenomenon. Adam C. writes:

There's a lot to what Adam says. Ignorance of intellectual history deprives us of an awareness of the best that has been thought and written so we are oblivious to how banal, or insightful, our opinions are relative to the conclusions of those who have thought most deeply about things. Students who lack this intellectual reference point have no way to judge the worth of their opinions nor do they understand that good opinions are often the product of a kind of Darwinian selection that involves testing and challenge.

This lack of understanding leaves us susceptible to the attitude that as long as I feel strongly about an idea it is valuable in its own right. My idea is respectable simply by virtue of its being mine. For a teacher to challenge my opinions on politics or morality or whatever, is like challenging my opinion of my boyfriend or girlfriend - it's somehow impolite, disrespectful, and offensive.

No doubt this is partly a by-product of the relativization or subjectivization of truth. When truth is seen as a matter of personal affinity, when it's regarded as solely a matter of one's personal perspective, then challenging or questioning it is an odd thing for an instructor to do. It's like questioning someone's taste in ice cream flavors or the color they chose for their new car.

So it is unfortunate but unsurprising that students get a little miffed and flustered when they're asked to explain why they believe what they believe. Their opinions are based less upon reasons and more upon feelings that they can't easily articulate or explain. To ask them for reasons why they believe what they do is like asking them why they like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla. There's no satisfying way for them to answer other than to say that they just do.

Little Green Footballs tips us to this outstanding essay by a Bay Area writer named Cinnamon Stillwell who eloquently describes her political conversion from Left/liberal Naderite to conservative Republican. Her story is captivating and we copy it here in its entirety:

The only question we have is what is it that motivates those who have treated her so shabbily? What kind of people are they?

For the past several months I've been telling anyone who would listen (an audience made up mostly of house pets and young grandchildren) that I thought the best candidate the Republicans could offer for the presidency in 2008 is Dick Cheney. I know, I know, he doesn't want it. All the more reason to urge him to accept. As Plato writes in his Republic anyone who actually wants the job should be suspected of base motives. Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard agrees:

Cheney should not commit to run, in our view, but the party should ask him, behind the scenes, to be its candidate in the event no one else of comparable consequence emerges. Right now, no one on the Republican horizon has the star power, expertise, credibility, and "gravitas" (forgive me) that Cheney has. He would be a shoo-in for the nomination, and perhaps best of all, a Cheney candidacy would drive the Left to stratospheric altitudes of hate-inspired insanity and heretofore unplumbed depths of political depravity. It would be great fun to watch.

A reader offered a personal experience of his own in response to our post the other day titled Watching Our Kids Self-Destruct. He writes:

Sometimes we misinterpret other people's responses to us, of course, but if the counselors in this instance did indeed respond as insouciantly as our correspondent perceived them to, then their indifference is no less disturbing than that a 14 year-old girl would find Eric Harris worth quoting. Perhaps more.

This will bring tears to your eyes. It's a voice mail recording of a call from a motorist who witnessed a fender bender and the subsequent kerfuffle. Make sure your sound is turned on.

Thanks to Little Green Footballs for the tip.

The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 in Roper v. Simmons that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute people for murders committed before they turned 18. They maintain that because many foreign nations don't execute those under 18 and because many states have banned the practice that therefore it is "cruel and unusual."

For the most part, however, the reasoning of the Court is based on precedents (e.g. Atkins, 2002) which found that the diminished capacity of juveniles is similar to that of the mentally retarded. Like mentally retarded criminals, juveniles lack a fully-developed sense of right and wrong and therefore are not as responsible for their crimes as adults and should not be subject to capital punishment, or so the argument went:

Justice Scalia's dissent eloquently filets the majority's flimsy rationale for their decision. He writes, for instance, that:

There are other flaws in the Court's ruling, as well. Among them, it sets a precedent for lawyers whose adult clients have committed murder that would enable them to escape the death penalty simply by showing that the client didn't really understand that murder is wrong. The lawyer could argue that his client was perhaps unduly influenced by the Nietzschean plea to transcend the concepts of good and evil, or believed that some murders are not bad acts, or that had the emotional maturity of a teenager, etc. It is, after all, not his age which exculpates the juvenile but the emotional and rational disabilities the majority sees as inherent in his age. But these "disabilities" are not unique to teenagers. By what logic, then, will the Court be able to deny to others the protection those "disabilities" confer on juveniles?

The decision also establishes the premise for effectively banning any long-term punishment for juvenile killers. If they should not receive the same penalty as would an adult what justification is there then for life sentences? If they're just kids, why not simply get them counseling and keep them out of prison altogether? The Court's decision, written by Justice Kennedy, says this:

The above, of course, makes it sound as if these juvenile murderers are just a bunch of scamps out soaping car windows. In fact, they are often hardened, cruel savages. Here's the account of Mr. Simmons' crime:

I wonder if the victim's family feels that this young man "has a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in [his] whole environment." I wonder if the family is concerned about the awful "reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity" or if they much care that Mr. Simmons might not be "irredeemably depraved." I wonder about the fear of the poor woman who probably knew she was about to die in this completely senseless act of unspeakable barbarism and cruelty. I also wonder if Justice Kennedy and the rest of the majority would have written these words and decided as they did if that had been their wife or daughter who was thrown off the bridge. Somebody should ask them.