My own personal musings, wonderings, thoughts, and results of personal studies. Also, occasional comments on world events.

 

Well, I'm in the process of moving over to TypePad. From now on, I'll be posting at http://joyfulchristian.blogs.com/.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, September 04, 2003

 

I ordered Babylon 5: Season 2 a couple of days ago. I live in Oklahoma. The package was shipped from Anaheim, California. I just checked the UPS tracking and discovered that the package is currently in Ontario. Go figure.

Update - Steve e-mailed me to let me know that there is an Ontario, California, which also happens to be a major UPS hub. That certainly makes more sense.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, September 04, 2003

 

I found this question posted by Guy at a new blog called Damascus Road:

What would happen if we, who call ourselves socially conservative, collectively said that we were no longer going to support those in our party who refused to listen to us? What if we put our collective feet down and said absolutely no more? Would it cause a split amongst conservatives? Would it result in the election of more liberals?......I don't pretend to have the answer to any of these questions; but, they are certainly questions that we, as social conservatives, should seriously consider before stepping into the voting booth.

I fully understand the reasons for his frustration. I don't pretend to know what the long-term results would be if conservative Republicans refused to vote for liberal Republicans. In the short-term, I think that there's very little doubt that the Dems would start winning elections. There are really two questions here. The first is, "Would a massive protest at the ballot box that resulted in Democratic victories convince Republicans to move back to the right?" The second question is, "If this would actually work, would it be worth the short-term sacrifice to achieve this long-term gain?"
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, September 04, 2003

 

No, George Bush is not equivalent to Hitler, says Jonah Goldberg, and no amount of screaming can make it so:

I hate blue cheese. I mean I hate it. To me, it tastes like death or Al Sharpton's socks after they've been under the fridge for a year. But no matter how much I hate it, no matter how much I loathe its texture and smell and taste, it's still only blue or, if you must, "bleu" cheese. Even if you tripled my hatred for it, it would still just be a musky fromage from the land of cheese, long speeches, and short-lived loyalties. It would not, through the mysterious alchemy of hatred and bile, become poison. Sure, I could call it Sarin or Anthrax but that would not make it so. Because, you see, hating an object doesn't change an object. Only the most arrogant and solipsistic fool would argue or convince himself that his hatred of something increases the importance of that thing.

And that's how I think of all these people who e-mail me insistent that George Bush is a Nazi. They believe they are so important, so noble, their hatred and fear must be rooted things of Great Consequence. It's just so prosaic to hate Republicans. I am better than that. So, Republicans must be Nazis. They must be a threat to the whole world and to the sanctity of everything I hold dear because anything less would not be worth my time. George Bush can't simply be someone I disagree with. No, his popularity must be an indication of mass hysteria, of Nuremberg-style devotion to evil.

So desperate are these people to live in interesting times and play the hero, that they are willing — eager — to topple every significant moral and historical category so they can role play as the Heroes who Would Not Stay Silent. That would be fine if these losers were playing some multisided dice game in their basements. But they're not. There's a war going on and these guys are acting like we're the real enemy. That's not just shameful and stupid, it's unhelpful.

Read the whole thing.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, September 04, 2003

 

Burma is still holding political dissident Aung San Suu Kyi in "protective custody". In this case, they're protecting themselves from anything she might have to say. They arrested her and, according to Amnesty International, about 100 other people back in May. The U.S. embassy says they've received information that she's on a hunger strike, but that's difficult to confirm.

There are a couple of things that really concern me. The first is that while news organizations were all over this the first few days after she disappeared, this is the first story I've seen on the issue in the last 6 weeks or so. Sure, I've been out of commission during part of that time, but you'd think this would rate higher. Why has the news media not been playing this up more?

The other really bizarre part of this story comes from this quote:

Rangoon's foreign ministry issued a statement calling the hunger strike claim "groundless," a denial repeated by an official at the Burmese Embassy in Canberra, Australia Thursday.

Rangoon's ambassador to Britain has also reportedly denied the report, according to the Thailand-based Burma newspaper, Irrawaddy.

"How could anybody know that she's on hunger strike when you don't even know where she is?" ambassador Kyaw Win was quoted as telling the BBC.

The government is holding a political prisoner without charges for several months, they haven't allowed any international organization to see her in weeks, and now there are rumors that she's on a hunger strike. Yet, somehow, the government thinks it will make them look better to also point out that she's being held at a secret location. ??????????????

This is a bad situation. Someone needs to do something and that's only likely to happen if the press makes a big enough stink. Given that, why has the press been relatively silent on the issue? Is it just that no one can find a way to blame this on Bush? Does no one care becaause Burma isn'ta "sexy" enough part of the world? Is it because her people aren't being "persecuted by the EVIL JEWS^TM. I don't have a clue, but regardless, the lack of journalistic interest doesn't sit well with me.

Update-For full disclosure, I've got to admit that I'm pretty upset with myself for letting this one slide as of late.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, September 04, 2003

 

Eric Estrada has removed himself from consideration as an appellate judge.'

Correction - I got an e-mail from Ron who pointed out that it was Miguel, not Eric, Estrada who withdrew his name from consideration. That was a pretty pathetic mistake on my part. Sorry.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, September 04, 2003

 

Joshua Claybourn poins out that he didn't see any death-penalty opponents at the Paul Hill execution and wonders why that is?
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, September 04, 2003

 

That's one of the best things about the blogosphere.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

I just saw a Howard Dean add in which he pledges that if he's elected President, ever American is going to have health insurance. I shutter to think where he's going to find the money for that plan.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

Mark Byron says he doesn't know where the need for juries to order the death penalty came from. Actually, this seems pretty straight forward t me. The Sixth Amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Sixth clearly demands a jury for criminal trials. I don't think that demand ends once the guilty verdict has been reached, especially when you consider the demand for due process. Of course, if you use my logic, imprisonments aren't allowed under the Constitution either. I've not read the SCOTUS opinion, but I don't think it's an unreasonable decision in principle.

Oops. Dr. Byron pointed out to me that I was looking at the Fifth, not the Sixth. I don't know what I was thinking.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

The Kansas City Star has in intriguing story about a Cuban refugee who was forced to flee the country after trying to start an independent library.

Here was, to me, the sad part:

Cuban authorities, not surprisingly, saw Colas' efforts on the island as a counterrevolutionary ploy that enjoyed covert U.S. backing.

Roughly 15 independent libraries were shut down and their inventory confiscated during a broad-based crackdown on dissidents last March. The directors of each library were given long prison terms, including Colas' successor in Las Tunas.

"The independent libraries have ... demonstrated they are receiving money to subvert the institutional order of Cuba," said Eliades Acosta, Cuba's director of national libraries. The Bush administration denies Cuba's allegations of U.S. involvement.(Emphasis added.)

What? Why, exactly, did our government deny involvement? Either our government has actually refused to help these brave people, or it doesn't want to be associated with them. In either case, I'm ashamed. Ideas are one of the most powerful things in the world. Our government should be helping these people and it shouldn't make any apologies for doing so.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

CK Rairden explains what's wrong with the Democratic Party:

The left has long sought to “dumb down” America understanding that the more ignorant America becomes the less resistance liberals will meet as they push their agenda. Their plan has failed as liberals continue to lose elections one after the other. So now a new strategy has emerged--no longer satisfied with the failed results of attempting to “dumb down” America, Howard Dean has had early success of rallying the angry malcontents on the far left in what I have dubbed as the ‘Deaning down’ of the Democrat Party.

A classic example emerged as Massachusetts Senator John F(rench) Kerry finally got around to announcing his candidacy for the Democrat nomination for president on Tuesday. Newsweek analyst Howard Fineman made it very clear what the left believes it will take to win the nomination and recapture the White House. Anger. Appearing on the Today Show with Katie Couric, Fineman bluntly stated why Kerry is faltering amongst the left, “He has to get focused and he has to get angry.”

And that is the epitome of what Howard Dean has brought to his splintered party, resentment and anger. Misplaced anger, but nonetheless for the fringe left--focused anger.

--The anger must not be focused on the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11.

--The anger must not be focused on the terrorists who are attacking American soldiers in Iraq.

--The anger must not be focused on any foreign body or nation that desires to see Americans killed and America dismantled.

The ‘Deaning down’ of America requires anger focused on President George W. Bush and any American who dares support the President. This new “Deaned down” strategy requires resentment towards any hard working American who wants to see America kept safe and is willing to make the sacrifices and continue the will and power necessary to keep the American homeland secure by supporting the President.

Read the rest.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

Theosebes explains what's wrong with killing abortion doctors.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

Just read.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 
...they never do.

David Frum has some advice for CNN.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

David Heddle takes on a couple of really difficult passages. His conclusions seem to be generally reasonable. I'd try to add my thoughts, but I'd doubt it would do any good; I've got to admit that try as I might, I really don't understand either passage very well.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

Oh, isn't this cute:

BERLIN (Reuters) - Hollywood star Johnny Depp (news) said on Wednesday the United States was a stupid, aggressive puppy and he would not live there until the political climate changed.

[...]

"America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive," he said.

"My daughter is four, my boy is one. I'd like them to see America as a toy, a broken toy. Investigate it a little, check it out, get this feeling and then get out," said the star of the off-beat films "Edward Scissorhands" and "Dead Man."

Depp slammed George W. Bush's administration for its criticism of French opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites).

"I was ecstatic they re-named 'French Fries' as 'Freedom Fries'. Grown men and women in positions of power in the U.S. government showing themselves as idiots," he told Stern.

Well, he would know, wouldn't he? Still, this seems to be at least one celebrity who's keeping his word and staying out of the country.

Update - Rachel Lucas adds her two cents in her own indubitable style.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

Kevin Patrick links to this interesting article about the purpose of American troops in Iraq and fighting terror written by Wolfowitz.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

While people continue to carp about how world opinion is against our actions in Iraq, Poland, leading a 17 nation force, has taken control of south-central Iraq.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, September 03, 2003

 

I hate slow news days. Just thougth I'd share. I suppose I could actually go looking for interesting news that didn't show up in my usual rounds, but I didn't get to sleep until after 5 this morning. (Yeah, that was fun.) More later.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, September 02, 2003

 

While I was trying to suppress my wonderfully horrible headaches, I missed this post by Philip Murphy about the continuing inability of Europeans to understand American thinking.

I won't deny that I am totally incapable of understanding the prevailing political thought in most European countries; in fact, it often appears to me that they are living in a fantasy land. As Murphy points out, the reverse is also true; Europeans don't get us either.

The difference is that most Europeans, at least the ones who make the most noise, seem quite confident that they understand American political thought and therefore know conclusively that we are wrong. On the other hand, most Americans simply don't seem to care what the Europeans think at all.

The result, I think, is that the rift between America and the (non-English speaking) rest of The West, will continue to widen.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, September 02, 2003

 
Tacitus obliged me.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, September 02, 2003

 

I'm not sure this one actually qualifies as satire.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, September 02, 2003

 

Frank J. has posted some of his poll results. I've got a problem with the Iron Man v. Green Lantern pie eating contest; he forgot to take into account the month when Marvel and DC published comics for the Amalgamated Universe. That month Iron Man and Green Lantern were merged into the new hero "Iron Lantern." Wouldn't that screw the whole thing up?

Yes, I have no life.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, September 02, 2003

 
... but Misha's solution seems a tad extreme. Maybe.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, September 02, 2003

 

[sarcasm]Hey, did you know John Kerry served in Vietnam?[/sarcasm]
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, September 02, 2003

 

But of course, you already knew this rule, didn't you?
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, September 02, 2003

 

It's for THE CHILDREN ^TM!

Rich Lowry argues that runaway immigration seriously damages the interest of low income wage earners.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, September 02, 2003

 

Specifically, he's talking about the doctrine of Total Depravity:

Today I just want to point out quickly (what many others have already pointed out) that in fact there is just one point of Calvinism: Total Depravity. From that one doctrine, all the other four are natural consequences.

I think there can be little doubt that Total Depravity is the cornerstone around which Calvinism is built. If you remove that doctrine, Calvinism doesn't really make a lot of sense.

However, I can't agree with David about the nature of depravity however. Any one who tries to argue that we are not all depraved and, therefore, all sinners, has got to throw out tons of scripture. Try as I might though, anytime I examine the scriptures that Calvinists put forward as justifying their doctrine of Total Depravity, I just can't see it. I don't want to examine them at this time; I just want to state that I am simply incapable of seeing what they see when looking at the same passages. I don't even know why this might be, but I do know that many times a Calvinist has put forward a few scriptures to me on this topic and not even tried to explain why they believed those verses supported their doctrine. This was not, I might add, because they were using poor debate techniques; rather they clearly believed that the verses stated their position so clearly that no explanation was needed whatever.

This has been the point of endless frustration to me. In fact, any time somebody I respect points out evidence to support a position I hold and I simply cannot see what they see, I am terribly frustrated. The reason for this is that I know that we are unlikely to ever agree on the topic. Disagreement is unlikely in these cases, not because we are having a disagreement about logic, but about fact. If I believed the same facts they do, their conclusions would be perfectly reasonable; since I don't see the same facts that they do, it is highly unlikely that we will ever agree about the conclusions that those facts are based on. ¹

David also had this to say about God's sovereignty:

Interestingly, the other four points do not have to be merely accepted as consequences of Total Depravity. They can be postulated as stand alone doctrines and then independently supported in scripture. To me, this is one of the great comforts of the doctrines of grace and sovereignty. If the bible proclaims Total Depravity, then our only hope is Unconditional Election (predestination). Anything else and all man are damned. Lo and behold, that is what the scriptures teach. And if scripture teaches Unconditional Election, them it had better teach Irresistible Grace otherwise the whole system collapses on itself since, without Irresistible Grace, man can thwart God's plan, rendering Him sovereign no more.
(Emphasis omitted.)

This is one of the major problems I have with Calvinism. It seems, to me at least, that Calvinist do not give God's sovereignty nearly enough credit. My view of God's omnipotence is, I would say, more robust. I believe that scripture irrefutably teaches both the Free Will of man and the total omnipotence of God. Therefore, I believe God allows man to have absolute control over his actions, but He has structured the universe in such a way that He will always know which decision the man would make at any given time. In this way, God's will always be done through man's absolute Free Will. (I've previously referred to this concept as Temporal Engineering.)

I have another problem with Calvinism which is more general and not reserved solely for that system of doctrine. The problem is that it is, in fact, a system. David has frequently referred to me as an Arminian; I am not. It may be true that many of my views line up with the Arminian system of doctrine, but I no more subscribe to Arminianism than I do to Calvinism.

The reason for this is that I reject, on principle, the whole notion of systematic theology. When I read scripture, I find a great number of apparent paradoxes. So many, in fact, that if I did not believe that there was clear and convincing evidence of The resurrection, I would probably have rejected Christianity outright. Because I do believe in The Resurrection, I accept the doctrinal teachings in scripture to be true. Once I accept them as true, I also accept the idea that these apparent paradoxes must not, in fact, be contradictions even though they appear to be. I believe this to be true even if I can find no convincing reconciliation of these different doctrines.

If I were to attempt to fit these apparent contradictions into any system of theology, I would be forced to accept one or the other of the paradoxical doctrines in order to make my system flow in a rational manner. Because I believe them both to be true, I find this unacceptable. Instead, I evaluate each doctrine based on the scriptures that teach it independently of any other doctrine.

I should clarify that it is my belief that I do this not because I believe that these doctrines are truly contradictory, but because I believe the minds of mankind are too puny to resolve the conflict. When the end of time comes and we live in full communion with God, we will understand the resolution of the conflict.

It's not that I don't believe that scripture lays out a systematic theology; I just don't believe Fallen Man is capable of understanding the system.

¹C.S. Lewis made a similar point about morality. I believe it was in his discussion about universal morality in The Abolition of Man, but I'm to lazy to look up the exact passage at the moment. Lewis argued that mankind had always had a relatively constant morality throughout time; he believed that the only thing that changed was the emphasis certain societies placed on individual parts of that morality. His critics often pointed out that we no longer burn witches at the stake. Isn't that, they argued, a change in morality?

Lewis's response was that it was not a difference in morality at all; it was a difference in fact. We don't burn witches, he argued, because we don't believe there is such a thing. (At least not in the sense that the people in Salem used that word.) He pointed out that if you believed that someone had sold their soul to the devil in order to gain unholy powers which they used to torment others, and further believed that the only way to save these peoples' souls was to purify their bodies through fire, then it is perfectly sensible to burn such people at the stake. We don't burn such people because we do not believe any, or at least most, of these "facts" to be true.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, September 02, 2003

 

I couldn't get to sleep last night. On top of that, my headache is much worse than normal today. There may be some posting this evening, but I'm not making any promises.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 27, 2003

 

I've been looking for stuff to talk about, I just can't seem to find anything. Maybe more later.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, August 26, 2003

 

Irwin Stelzer thinks he knows how to fix the electric grid:

We will never eliminate the possibility of human error or equipment failure. But we can reduce both the frequency of such events and their consequences. All we have to do is surrender some due process protections, replace local with federal control of where transmission towers and lines may be sited, and add several billions to our electric bills.

I really don't know what to say to this.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, August 26, 2003

 

That's the basic gist of this column by Rachel Ehrenfeld. Here's one of her illustrations:

It takes an expert like Isaac Yeffet, the former El Al airline-security chief, to highlight the depth of U.S. airport-security problems. Recently, while traveling in the U.S., Yeffet was randomly chosen for special screening. After the security agent had swept his body with a hand-held metal-detecting wand and declared him "clean," Yeffet pulled a cell phone from his pocket — to the agent's amazement. A second screening also detected nothing. At this point, Yeffet suggested that, if the screener were to turn the device on, he might be able to detect suspicious objects. Needless to say, the agent was unsettled, but Yeffet was even more upset. "How many similar incidents happen every day in our airports?" he asks.

Unfortunately, this joke isn't very funny.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, August 26, 2003

 

When I heard about Lugar's idea to dispatch troops to control the violence in Israel, my initial thought was, "Why not just get out of the Israeli's way?" But before I even got a chance to post my thoughts, John Hawkins posted pretty much what I was thinking.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

Lucent has just won a big contract to restore phone service in Baghdad. I hope they hurry. Our goal is to create a modern democratic country in Iraq. If that's going to happen, the Iraqis are going to have to have a modern communications network.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

Fidel Castro isn't very happy with us. (Still.) At the moment, he's concerned with the U.S. governments television and radio broadcasts directed at his country.

President Fidel Castro predicted that a new U.S. government attempt to use a satellite to broadcast news and talk shows hosted by exile leaders will fail.

Cuba calls the broadcasts by TV Marti an attempt by the U.S. government and Cuban exiles to impose their political views.

He says we're trying to "impose [our] political views" by putting them broadcasting them on television? This must be some new definition of the word "impose" that I was not previously aware of.

Of course, redefining twisted redefinitions of words is one of the hallmarks of a communist government.

posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

Bryan Preston has the scoop.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

There's good news, and there's bad news. The good news is we may know where Iraq's WMDs are. That's also the bad news.

U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.

Unfortunately, getting to them will be nearly impossible for the United States and its allies, because the containers with the strategic materials are not in Iraq.

Instead they are located in Lebanon's heavily-fortified Bekaa Valley, swarming with Iranian and Syrian forces, and Hizbullah and ex-Iraqi agents, Geostrategy-Direct.com will report in Wednesday's new weekly edition.

Isn't that lovely? Now here's the part that really hacks me off:

U.S. intelligence first identified a stream of tractor-trailer trucks moving from Iraq to Syria to Lebaon in January 2003. The significance of this sighting did not register on the CIA at the time. (Emphasis added.)

EXCUSE ME!!! How could they not have thought of this at the time? How did that happen? Wouldn't you think that would be the obvious conclusion?

What on earth is wrong with these people?
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

In the hope that DNA research will eventually reach the point that they can be properly identified, all the unidentified remains are going to be placed in Ground Zero memorial.

I don't know if this is a good idea or not. On the one hand, preserving the remains gives the hope of more complete closure at some point in the future, but on the other this seems like an awfully morbid move. I just don't know.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

Another day, another lawsuit.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Supporters asked a federal court Monday to block the removal of a Ten Commandments monument (search) from the Alabama Judicial Building while the judge who put the marker there said he's up against those who "are offended at looking at God's words."

People, people, please stop now. It's time to end this while everyone still has some semblance of dignity left. Check that, it's too late for that. Regardless, the issues been decided. It's time to stop beating a dead horse.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

Jared at Exultate Justi has some thoughts on Justice Moore worth reading. Here's his conclusion:

The bottom line is this: I agree with Justice Moore that there is no legitimate reason to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from the gounds of a governmental building. Our nation's foundations are utterly religious, and it is patently ridiculous to assert that the Framers ever intended to found a government free from any religious influence or reference. However, when the courts rule in such a way as to subvert our beliefs or opinions, we have been provided with a means of remonstrance - the ballot. I would prefer to see those who are currently flailing away on the side of Justice Moore's protest spend their energies on efforts to elect leaders who share their beliefs, and will nominate judges who do, as well. We, as conservative Christians would be far more well-served by fighting the efforts of the Left to submarine President Bush's judicial nominations than we are by aligning ourselves with an effort that so apparently carries the odor of a publicity stunt.

posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

John Hawkins has posted his questionaire results on the 20 worst figures of the 20th Century.

When I saw the list, I realized that I had forgotten to vote for the Rosenbergs. Also, I chose not to vote for bin Laden because while he is a horrible man, he was really only small time during the 20th Century.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

I've heard several people say that those fighting to keep the 10 Commandments monument in that Alabama courthouse are fighting the wrong battle and wasting resourcs. (I've even said it myself.) Now, John Derbyshire argues that liberals have also chosen the wrong battle.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

Only this time Ledeen isn't talking about Iran. This time he's calling for American spy masters and diplomats to open their eyes faster. Like, before it's too late.

Reading Ledeen isn't likely to make an optimist out of you.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

Not!

That's just one of many misconceptions people have about Satan. Satan tempts us, but he can't actually force us to sin. David Heddle has a very interesting essay about angels and Satan in which he addresses many misconceptions.

One of the things he points out is that while man has most often portrayed Satan as being in a battle with God for our souls, that this is not accurate. The truth, Heddle says, is that Satan wants to diminish God's glory. He doesn't really care about our souls per se; our souls are just the means Satan uses to attack God's glory.

I think this is an important point, but it's not one I'd really thought about before. It did get me thinking though. What, I wonder, makes us believe that Satan is after us when the truth is that Satan only cares about us in as much as our souls are a means of attacking God's glory? Is it possible that this misconception is part of a subtle attack by Satan against God's glory? Is he puffing us up? Is he trying to convince us that we are more important than we really are? Is this pride in our own importance something we've done all on our own, or is it just one more avenue of attack by Satan?

I don't know, but it's something worth considering.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 25, 2003

 

You'll never guess!
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

Well, not quite, but the New York Times is reporting that the US government is setting up a police academy for Iraqi recruits in Hungary. It's probably a good idea.

I did notice one thing about this story. It's the next to last sentence:

He said said that although he would be returning to the United States, he expected to be engaged for some time in helping his successors.

[sarcasm]And I thought the primary difference between "Big Media" and blogs was the editing staff.[/sarcasm]
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

... and like wow! (Via Cold Fury and LGF)

It will never happen, but WOW!
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

An autistic boy died during a prayer service. I just have no way of knowing what to make of this.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

This column might do it.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

For those who are both politically and religiously conservative, the brouhaha in Alabama is likely to produce a variety of conflicting emotions. David Limbaugh seems to have navigated the various danger pretty well. His conclusion is worth repeating:

The federal courts have greatly eroded states rights and religious freedoms through renegade decisions in the most cynical tradition of judicial activism. So while our federal law is certainly entitled to supremacy, at what point do citizens stand up and say that federal courts have claimed supremacy in areas over which they were never given authority? What can be done about their obscene misinterpretations of the Constitution?

Congress could selectively limit the Court's jurisdiction. And, we should fight for constitutionalist federal judges with the courage to preserve our religious liberties. In the meantime, we should honor the Court's rulings.

posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

Jack Rich has this to say to the people of Virginia:

My advice to my former state-mates, now that I've moved out: Watch out, here comes some misery in the form of higher taxes, likely all gussied up with some pretty labels having no bearing on the truth. That truth being, state governments, like most other governments, just love to separate you from your money and call it progress.

Indeed. ¹

¹The use of the phrase "Indeed" should not be construed to mean that I am taking sides in the Blog War.^TM
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

Finding a story like this on Google News. How intelligent do you have to be to know that a web site called "Jihad Unspun" isn't a legitimate news outlet?
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

I just found a story about baptisms in Iraq.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

Here's a story about how modern forensic science is causing some problems for Iraqis.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

As you've probably noticed, I've put up the news box from the GeorgeWBush.com site. I've got to say that I'm a little unhappy with it at the moment. The current top headline says, "Oregon supports President Bush." However, if you follow the link, you find a speech by President Bush in Oregon. He does thank people for their fundraising support and mentions record-breaking numbers. He also thanks a lot of people for their support. However, I don't find anything that supports the statement made in the headline.

When I saw the link, I assumed I was going to see poll numbers or some other kind of evidence that a majority of people in Oregon supported President Bush's re-election. I found nothing of the kind. I'm very annoyed at the moment. If this keeps up, I may have to take it back down.

Update - I should note that I've received an e-mail from the web site addressing this issue. I think they're taking care of things adequately for the moment. In retrospect I realize that this post was probably a bit of an over-reaction. I have no current plans to drop the news feed.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

Dale Amon reminds us of some terrorism related stories that seemed to have slipped through the cracks.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

Bobby Bonds has died.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

So not enough people voting in your elections? What should you do? Let non-citizens vote of course! His Royal Imperial Highness has the goods.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, August 24, 2003

 

Well someone please tell me why so much of the world accepts as an article of faith that it's the US's responsibility to end the warfare in Israel.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

I'm always worried when I click on a Guardian link, but this article by Latif Rashid, an Iraqi Kurd, seems quite reasonable.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

They're friends again!
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

If you're looking for a more detailed look at how the Equal Time rules affect the Florida election, I think you'll find this Michael Dorf column worthwhile.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

Those of us who enjoy Eugene Volokh's writing in the blogosphere, shouldn't be surprised to find that he has other fans as well.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

... to appeasement. Here's a slightly humorous, but very pointed post on that subject by Bjørn Stærk.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

Jack Rich has an interesting look at Just War theory as it relates to nuclear weapons. He concludes that under some circumstances, the US would be justified to use nuclear devices against terrorists.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

Frank J has put out what is probably his best "In My World" yet.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

You've got to watch this.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

I'd have trouble arguing with this letter to the editor.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

As if the "peace process" wasn't in enough trouble, we now have this:

Arafat asks Europe to help save peace process

Yeah, that will help.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

David Carr has a great piece about Bush taking advantage of being hated.

I'm not going to pull any quotes because it's all good. I suggest you read Carr's piece before reading the rest of this post.

If I understand Carr's premise, he's basically saying, "Hey, they already think you're Satan. You might as well do what you want to do. I think it's a great point.

For as long as I can remember, conservatives have been afraid to say and do what they really think. The reason for this seemed to be that they wanted everyone to think they were nice and kissed puppies. Therefore, every time a liberal accuses a conservative of doing anything mean, rude, or insensitive, the conservative drops everything and panders like crazy to try to convince the liberal that he's really a nice guy.

One of the many flaws with this approach is that history shows that you'll never be able to convince a liberal that you're a nice guy. Most modern liberals only know two sins: insensitivity and conservatism. ¹ That's it. And those two are generally considered to be synonyms. Consequently, there is almost no chance of convincing liberals you don't drink puppies for breakfast. (Unless, of course, you become a liberal.)

If you plan on being a conservative in America, you just need to get used to the fact that a certain percentage of the population believes you're Satan. The only way to change that is to abandon your beliefs and adopt theirs. There is nothing you can do to change this.

Consequently, you might as well do what you think is right and ignore the people who want to burn you in effigy. (And especially those who would prefer to leave "in effigy" out of that sentence.) It probably won't change anything. It really doesn't matter if the people who think you're Satan decide you're really Satan-squared. Those who don't think you're Satan are going to make their decision based on whether or not they think you did the right thing. The best way to please those people is to do what you believe is the right thing.

¹Some liberals have come to acknowledge being a Christian as the third sin.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

... to equal time. So says Martin Devon. He's upset that CBS cut a parody of Arnold Schwarzenegger from Craig Kilborn's show.

Apparently we've reached a point where the hassle of litigation is so onerous, and the law is so unclear that a network would rather cut a funny political bit then risk legal hassles. I find this appalling.

The supreme court has ruled that all sorts of dubious and obscene material (ask Larry Flynt) is protected by the first amendment just to ensure that there is no "chilling effect" on free speech. Well, these supposedly goo-goo campaign laws are clearly having a chilling effect on political satire, and political speech is at the heart of the first amendment. The equal time law should be ruled unconstitutional.

I've always found the equal time law to be morally and legally dubious. I wouldn't shed any tears if it was struck down.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

Imagine being in a Texas hospital recovering from surgery, only to find out that you're also apparently being held hostage in Iraq.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

That was my Dad's response to this headline:

Palestinian Officials Say Crackdown Against Militants on Hold

Yeah, I'd say it's on hold. It's been on hold since about 1993. As soon as the PA was given the responsibility to prevent terrorists, they've taken a, "We'll get around to it someday," approach.

Palestinian officials say they have put on hold plans to crack down on militants after Israeli forces killed a Hamas leader in response to a suicide bombing in Jerusalem earlier this week.

Palestinian security officials say Thursday's targetted killing of Abu Shanab took place just as they were about to launch a campaign to arrest militants and confiscate weapons. They say the effort was aimed at disarming Hamas and Islamic Jihad - the two groups who claimed responsibility for the Jerusalem attack that killed 20 people.

Funny, I would think it would be easier, not harder, to disarm people Hamas now. I mean it's not like they're going to sweet-talk them out of their guns. If you're going to have to take their weapons by force anyway, while they're distracted would be a good time.

Of course, if you actually have no plans to disarm them, this is as good an excuse as any.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, August 23, 2003

 

Sgt. Mom has an entertaining essay on the wonders of the hidden rank.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, August 22, 2003

 

Sgt. Mom has an entertaining essay on the wonders of the hidden rank.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, August 22, 2003

 

For those of you waiting breathless to find out what The New York Times has to say about the California recall, Martin Devon has a roundup. Since I don't live in California and don't much care what people at the Times have to say, Martin's summary is good enough for me.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, August 22, 2003

 

If I'm reading Josh Claybourn correctly, that's what he thinks the 10 Commandments monument battle is.

The 10 Commandments debacle currently going on in Alabama is an unfortunate example of Christians fighting the wrong battles. Does Judge Moore and his supporters think that by keeping the commandments in place they're converting people to Christianity? Do they think someone will see their rallies and ponder, "Wow, now that I know our country's founders were Christian, maybe I should be too"? Having the 10 Commandments at a courthouse will convert few people, if any at all. The rallies, fighting, and protests will likely turn off more people than it will convince.

I think he's right about that. Getting in people's faces and yelling is rarely an effective way of convincing them to see your point of view.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, August 22, 2003

 
"Tattered"

That was polite.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Angela Phelps has an excellent article on the price of freedom.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Last month I stayed at a DoubleTree Club Suites in Jersey City. I wasn't all that happy with my service. It wasn't this bad though. (Download may be required. Link via Donald Sensing.)
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Now that's a truck. (Link via Dave Barry.)
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Perhaps the UN should be more careful about who they hire.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 21 — American investigators looking into the suicide bombing of the United Nations compound on Tuesday are focusing on the possibility that the attackers were assisted by Iraqi security guards who worked there, a senior American official here said today.

The official said all of the guards at the compound were agents of the Iraqi secret services, to whom they reported on United Nations activities before the war. The United Nations continued to employ them after the war was over, the official said.

The official said that when investigators began questioning the guards, two of them asserted that they were entitled to "diplomatic immunity" and refused to cooperate. Diplomats working in foreign countries are often entitled to immunity from prosecution by local authorities, but the official said the two guards could make no such claim.

Investigators are continuing to question the guards, the official said.

Of course, I'm sure it's still America's fault.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

I think the road map is getting torn to shreds:

Hamas Fires Rockets into Israel

Hamas militants have fired three rockets into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip after vowing harsh retaliation for Thursday's assassination of a senior Hamas leader by Israel.

The Israeli army said two of the rockets fell harmlessly into a field, but the third damaged a house in the town of Sderot. No injuries are reported.

I know what we'd do if terrorist fired rockets at American houses. I don't know why we continue to restrain the Israelis.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

After arresting numerous dissidents over the last few months, Casto's government now claims that one of the few remaining dissident leaders is actually a government spy.

In a fresh blow to Cuban dissidents reeling from a year of mass arrests and jailings, Fidel Castro's regime has announced that one of the last opposition leaders still at liberty is a police spy.

Elizardo Sanchez, a leading source of information for overseas human rights groups, angrily rejected the allegation that he has been a government informant for six years.

"I deny it absolutely," said Mr Sanchez at his home in Havana. "I have confronted this regime for 35 years and my own history denies this frame-up."

I really don't know enough about any of this to comment intelligently. However, I will say that this seems a little suspicious. After all, if you had an effective undercover operative in place, why suddenly expose him? Of course, I don't know for sure, but it does seem a little odd.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Yeah, this ought to work:

Powell asks Arafat to help stop killing

Washington turned to Yasser Arafat yesterday, a man it had sought to marginalise and sideline for months, to help the so-called Middle East road-map after the Jerusalem bus bombing and Israel's killing of a senior Hamas leader threatened to wreck the peace plan.

Months after the United States demanded that the Palestinians elect a Prime Minister in an effort to reduce the authority of Mr Arafat, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, asked him yesterday to help stop the cycle of violence.

At this rate, why don't we just skip the middleman and fund the bombing ourselves.

Ok, maybe that was overly snarky. But seriously, anyone who still, at this late date, believes that Arafat has any desire to stop the violence has some pretty serious delusions.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

I found this at Right Wing News:

The reparations lawsuits are of course completely ridiculous. But, you want to know what would make them even sillier? Imagine if white people were suing blacks because their ancestors carried away some farming tools when they were freed from slavery. Well, here's something that's just as laughable as that...

Sorry, but you'll have to follow the link to find out what's that ridiculous.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Eugene Volokh has an interesting look at the meaning of this phrase.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Timothy Lynch has a list of questions that he wants John Ashcroft to answer about the PATRIOT Act. I think he's got some good points.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Tacitus has quite a bit to say about the UN and Iraq. I don't really have an opinion about his larger point, but the last paragraph makes a very good point.

On the subject of the bombing of the UN compound, let me also say that a great deal of the rhetoric coming from the blogospheric right -- mostly from self-described "anti-idiotarians," which is a self-nullifying label if there ever was one -- was a pathetic disgrace. If your first reaction was to crow about it, or to whip up a monologue on the irony of it all, you have my pity. I spent part of my day yesterday drafting condolence letters to the families of the dead; let me assure you that whatever the glaring flaws of the United Nations, those folks there were doing more for a free Iraq than you and I hunched behind our terminals stuffing our faces with Cheetos. So quit with that crap.

He's right; whatever you may think of the UN in general, the UN people on the ground in Iraq went there because they want to help the Iraqi people. Even if you think their methods were misguided, they were there to do what they could to aid people who have been oppressed for decades. They risked their lives to do good and they ended up getting killed for it. That's not funny, or ironic, or "just deserts." It's tragic. Those who died in the bombing should be honored, not looked down on.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Somehow, I don't think this version of the movie would do as well. (Link via Ghost of a Flea.)
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Jack Rich makes an interesting point about the Alabama Supreme Court monument honoring the Ten Commandments.

First, there appears to be a plaque (I'm not certain of its exact form; that's not the important thing, it's the contents that count) in the SCOTUS, right behind where the Chief Justice sits, that contains...the Ten Commandments. Two questions for consideration:

1. Is the Ten Commandments a constitutionally acceptable display in the U.S. Supreme Court building?

2. If it is acceptable, in what substantive way does this display differ from the display in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court?

I think he makes a good point. I don't know what secession has to do with anything though.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

... and acronym.

Nick Gillespie points out some of the aspects of the "Victory" act.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, August 21, 2003

 

Filling his usual post as pessimist at NR, John Derbyshire writes that he doesn't want to live forever. Of course, neither did Bilbo Baggins.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 20, 2003

 

As you can see, I've added the News Box from GeorgeWBush.com. I can't say for certain at this point that I'll vote for Bush, but I don't see any other viable alternatives at the moment. For now I'll have to say I'm going for Bush.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 20, 2003

 

Once again, Christopher Johnson is explaining some problems of the Anglican church. This time, he does it by illustrating the difference between Western Anglicans and their African counterparts.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 20, 2003

 

David Heddle has an interesting post about "Carnal Christians". I don't really have anything to say about this larger topic, but I did have a thought about this:

No model of the free will is, in my opinion, completely satisfactory. However, as an explanation of the gross features of free will I follow, as I have written about many times, the basic Augustinian, Lutheran, and Edwardsian (and hence Reformed) notion that free will means not only are we free to choose what we want, but in fact we always choose what we want most. ¹

I would agree with David that no model of free will is completely satisfactory, but I question the statement that we always chose what we want the most. I have certainly done things which I didn't think was what I most wanted at the time. Was that just an illusion?

¹I'm aware that David is using this in relation to the Calvinistic ideas of total depravity and election. I'm not trying to address those issues at present.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 20, 2003

 
I just saw this story on Arutz Sheva:

Three Foreign Ministers are visiting in Israel this week - and all of them are adhering to Israel's request not to meet with Yasser Arafat. They represent Japan, Ethiopia, and Nicaragua.

Good for them. Of course there was also this:

Israel has a standing request from European Union leaders not to meet with Arafat, but the EU has so far not agreed.

Shame on them.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 20, 2003

 

I got this in the mail and I thought I'd share.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 20, 2003

 

Stephen Schwarz takes a look at the failure of media commissions in Bosnia and Albania and worries that the same problems may occur in Iraq.

It's hard to argue with his conclusion:

Let Iraqi journalism flourish, with as many newspapers and broadcasters as can survive in the marketplace, and let Iraq journalists learn as they work.

posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 20, 2003

 

You might notice that I've taken down the flags to the left. That's because I've always hosted them and any other pics on this blog on my AOL webspace. I've decided to discontinue AOL service. That means that any and all pics will not be accesible.

BTW, if anyone knows of someplace that I could host pics for free, please let me know. (I thought I could do it on Geocities, but that doesn't seem to work.)
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 20, 2003

 

James Robbins explains why the U.N. was such a compelling target for terrorists:

Thus far international reaction to the bombing is universally condemnatory. There are no signs yet that the U.N. will use it as a pretext to leave Iraq. And this tragedy, like the Bali bombing in 2002, or the 9/11 attacks, serves to clarify both the high stakes for which the war is being fought, and the intensity of the enemy’s hatred for all that is not them. Despite what one might think about the U.N. as an organization, the victims of the Baghdad bombing were humanitarian workers on a mission to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. From the terrorist point of view, this is why they had to die. When the radicals say they loathe everything the civilized world stands for, believe it.

Of course, the terrorists don't come out and say that they oppose civilization. They use words like "crusaders" and "westerners". The reality is that they don't just attack people from the "West". They certainly don't target only "crusaders" or even Christians. They just attack anyone in their way.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 20, 2003

 

Tim Blair has pointed out many instances in which members of the left are trying to shut down debate.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, August 20, 2003

 

I've been hunting around looking for something to post for, and I can't seem to find anything. More later.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, August 19, 2003

 

Well, I've got my computer up and running. It seems my video card crashed. I took it in to be repaired, but they told me belatedly that the tech was on vacation. (If I'd known that earlier, I could have gone elsewhere.) Any way, I'm up and blogging. It may take me a couple of days to get up to speed as I've been intentionally ignoring the news.

More soon.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, August 19, 2003

 

I'm sorry for the absence as of late. I realize I've been offline for a while. It wasn't planned, but there it is. My home computer has crashed which has made updating problematic. It's in for service, but things are going a bit slow. I've also had some interference from real life. The new medication that gave me at Mayo helped with my headaches a lot, but they really threw me for a loop. I ended up sleeping. A lot. And when I say a lot, I mean like 12-14 hours a day.

Anyway, I seem to be over the worst of the side effects from my medication and my headaches are much reduced. As soon as I can get my computer back, blogging should resume a more normal schedule. In the meantime, I can't promise much.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, August 11, 2003

 

I'll be in New Jersey until Friday. I'd like to say that I'll post some in the meantime, but previous experience doesn't seem to make that all that likely. When I leave town, I have a tendency to isolate myself from the world. Still, it's a possibility. I suppose that if I do post, you can just consider it extra-free ice cream.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 16, 2003

 
... yes, I'm the panderer. I pander around, around, around, ar-ouuuuuuund.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, July 15, 2003

 

In an post about how the French went out of their way to annoy the Cubans, Juan Gato had this little morsel:

International relations, it turns out, is little more than junior high with really pointy sticks.

Not that, in this instance, there's anything wrong with that.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, July 15, 2003

 

... Not a Herd. (As Glenn Reynolds like to say.)

One of my favorite scenes in all of moviedom is from Spider-Man. Near the end of the movie Spidey is hanging by a web from a New York bridge, Mary Jane is hanging from around his neck, and with another web, Spidey is holding up a cable car full of small children to keep them from plummeting into the river below. The Green Goblin is on his glider swooping back and forth trying to kill Spidey. It's clear that Spidey is done for ... and then, out of no where, a crowd of ordinary New Yorkers starts throwing stuff at the Goblin, thus allowing Spidey the time he needs to save Mary Jane and the kids. As they are throwing you hear one guy yell, "You mess with Spidey, you mess with New York!" and another scream, "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!"

It's a great scene in the movie, but it also illustrates something great about the people of this country. Most of us, when the chips are really down, will go out of our way, even risk our lives, in order to save others.

I'm reminded of the construction and iron workers in New York on 9/11 who, realizing that a) lots of people were in trouble and b) they had skills that might be useful, dropped what they were doing and rushed to ground zero to help. It's true that many policemen and fireman risked, and in many cases, lost their lives that day. They are true heroes and nothing can detract from that. What interests me today though is not the people who had dedicated their lives to helping people, but the ones who hadn't. Those people who, having no obligation to do so, dropped everything and ran off to risk their lives.

I'm not suggesting that this type of self-sacrifice only exists in America, but I know it exists here in ways and extremes that sometimes give me chills.

It's just one of those things that makes me proud to be an American.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, July 15, 2003

 

Kay Daly wants to put Ronald Reagan on the two dollar bill. Heh.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, July 15, 2003

 

Joshua Claybourn has some thoughts about Gibson's newest film about Jesus.

One of his points echoes something that bothered me when I first heard of the project; Gibson decided to do the film entirely in Latin and Aramaic, but truthfully, some of these scenes probably should have taken place in Greek as it was a language spoken both by the Roman rulers and most of the Jewish subjects.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, July 15, 2003

 

Chris Regan has this to say about the latest non-scandal:

Whoever advised Bush and everyone else to apologize for a completely truthful State of the Union Address should apologize to Bush and resign. That was the worst political advice I've seen in a very long time -- much worse than the original advice to include the 16 (now infamous) truthful words. It may be that the apology damaged the credibility of the President far more than the original statement.

He's right of course. In this instance, the best thing to do would have been to stick by your guns. Now the Democrats smell blood and they're just going to keep circling.

The rest of Regan's post is pretty good too. Read the whole thing.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, July 15, 2003

 

If anything, it seems to be escalating.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, July 15, 2003

 

Or something like that.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, July 14, 2003

 
Ahem:

A Palestinian attacker stabbed three people in Tel Aviv early today, police and rescue workers said, the first terror attack in an Israeli city since Palestinian groups called a truce on June 29.

The attacker tried to enter the "Tarabin" restaurant along the seacoast in south Tel Aviv in the early hours of the morning, said police spokeswoman Shlomit Hertzberg.

He struggled with a security guard and stabbed him in the neck, she said.

The owner of the restaurant threw a chair at him, and the attacker began to flee along the seaside promenade, with the guard and owner in pursuit.

The attacker stabbed two more people before the guard shot the Palestinian in the legs, Hertzberg said.

Stabbed? Are these guys running out of guns and bombs? If so, I guess that's a good sign.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, July 14, 2003

 

That's GedankenPundit's response to the estimated cost of the war in Iraq.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, July 14, 2003

 

Yes, I've talked about this before, but it can't hurt to do it again. After a lengthy post on the lack of conservatism in the GOP, Tacitus had this to say:

What's there going to be to vote for in '04 if the choice is between two unrepentant statists with similar policies on the war? At least the Democrat will presumably be better able to wheedle troops out of the Europeans. I'm purposefully overstating things (looks right now like the Dems are heading for the land of the shrill, which may well produce candidates who are soft on the war, in which case the decision is easy), but this isn't a hypothetical danger. I want my Republicans to be Republican, not redefine what Republican is and expect me to follow. In a case like that, my response is the same as Reagan's when his hitherto-beloved Democratic Party lurched too far left for his conscience to bear: I'm not leaving you -- you left me.

I share Tacitus's frustration with the current state of the Republican party. (See here and here.) I say again though: What's the alternative? When Reagan became a Republican, the choice, it seems to me, was rather obvious once he finally realized he couldn't stomach the policies of the Democratic party any longer. Alas, the situation is different now; this time, the more conservative of the two major parties is starting to shift too far to the left. If they leave me, where do I go?

Tacitus is by no means alone in this frustration. I've seen many voice similar concerns lately.

I'm long since convinced that we have a problem. What concerns me is that I can't think of a viable solution and I haven't seen one proposed by anyone else. Should we withhold political and monetary support from the Republicans? Will that really gain us anything but Democratic victories? Should we switch parties? To what exactly? The Libertarian Party in America is a bad joke. The Reform party died a quick death. Where can we go.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't imagine myself voting for any Democrats on the national level anytime soon. (The only time that I can recall voting for a Democrat was in a state senate race in which I had learned something rather unsavory about the Republican candidate.) As bad as the Republicans have gotten, the Democrats are far worse. The only Democratic Presidential candidate that I think I could possibly vote for is Lieberman, and I doubt I could vote for him. (The difference between the man who ran for Vice-President and the one currently in the Senate convince me that he's something of a political chameleon. That doesn't exactly lead me to trust him.) In fact, the only Democrat on the national scene that I could seriously see me voting for is Zell Miller; I often disagree with him, but he's fair minded and, above all, trustworthy. (His continued refusal to switch parties, even when offered handsome incentives considered in light of the fact that he's not all that popular among many in his own party has caused me to hold him in high regard.)

So, once again, I ask: If conservatives must leave the GOP, what's the alternative? I really want to know.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, July 14, 2003

 

I just noticed this post by Jonah Goldberg:

Simply because I can't imagine there will be another opening anytime soon, I must get something off my chest: I think Stratego is one of the greatest board games ever invented. Obviously, it doesn't rank in the top tier with such timeless classics as chess, Monopoly and Scrabble (and please, let us not have a long discussion of chess -- a game I love but despise reading about). But Stratego definitely deserves high placement in the second tier. It is certainly better than Life and I would argue it is even be better than Risk, since Risk is too dependent on dice.

I haven't played Stratego in (roughly) 12 years. I loved it as a child, but it's often a long game requiring a great deal of strategy I had trouble finding people to play with me. I had one friend about my age who I played with as well as my grandfather. The friend moved away and my grandfather died when I was in eighth grade. Based on my experience, I'd have to say Jonah's right to place the game so highly.

On a related note, it always seemed that the harder it was for me to find someone else to play any given game with me, the more enthusiastic my grandfather was about playing that game. Looking back from a more mature stand-point, I'm not sure if it was because we genuinely had similar tastes in games, or just that he wanted to spend time with his grandson. I suspect it was some of the former and a lot of the latter.

Regardless of the reason, he would play anything with me. We played chess, Stratego, Atari 2600 games. Any and every game I was interested in, he'd play it with me. If no one else wanted to play, he dove in all the more eagerly.

I remember setting up my Atari at my grandparents house and playing some alien invasion game. He was convinced that something would happen when we reached 100,000 points. We took turns playing for what had to be at least 6 hours one night handing the joystick back and forth when our hands would get too tired to play. We played, and played, and played. Finally, after hours, we got 100,000 points and ... absolutely nothing happened.

I don't know if he really thought anything would happen, or if he just wanted an excuse to spend time with me. Either way, for a ten year old kid, what better way was there to spend time than playing a game you love with your grandfather.

Of all the things I miss about my grandfather, probably the thing I miss the most is the time. The time he would set aside that was just for me was the kind of gift that no amount of money could buy.

Yes indeed, I miss that a lot.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, July 14, 2003

 

Some days, Pearls Before Swine is just a great strip.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, July 14, 2003

 

Diana West takes a look at the world. Well, the way it was a century ago.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, July 14, 2003

 

Peter Brookes makes a pretty good case that the sky isn't falling.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, July 14, 2003

 

I'm not sure I agree with all of John Leo's newest column (it seems a bit alarmist), but I've got to admit that I liked this line:

Here's a useful rule of thumb about international conventions, U.N. documents and the findings of foreign courts: Any time an American judge cites one in an American court, something alarming is probably about to happen.

True.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, July 14, 2003

 

An IRA terrorist has been captured. In Israel.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, July 14, 2003

 

Disney is preparing to release a movie called "Buffalo Soldiers" which is expected to paint the military in a pretty bad light.

What bothers me far more than the content of the movie is the name. The original Buffalo soldiers were the 9th and 10th Cavalry. These were the first black cavalry soldiers in the U.S. Army. Just a few years after the Civil War, these brave men fought to defend a country that wasn't even sure it wanted them yet. For the title these brave men fought under to be debased in so petty a way makes me ill.

For more information on the Buffalo Soldiers, look here.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, July 13, 2003

 

One of the (intentional) sticking points in any negotiations to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians is the so-called "right of return". The idea being that a lot of Arabs were displaced in the 1948 war and they, or their descendants, should be allowed to reclaim their old property.

That sounds perfectly fair until you consider that a) the Arabs started the war and b) the number of Arabs who would end up "returning" is now something like 3 million. That's important because Israel is a fairly small nation; it only has a population of about 6 million. An influx of an additional 3 million people in a very short amount of time, the majority of which have at least some antipathy towards Israel would essentially destroy the country. It's simply not practicable.

Nevertheless, Arab leaders have always insisted that there can be no peace without the "right of return". Since they know that this is one of a very few items that Israel simply cannot allow, or even compromise on, all such proclamations are essentially say that there can be no peace as long as there is a nation of Israel. To put it another way, the idea of the "right of return" is one of the weapons in the arsenal that Arab leaders intend to use to destroy Israel.

That's why this story isn't terribly surprising:

A mob of about 100 Palestinian refugees stormed the office of a Ramallah polling organization yesterday to stop it publishing a survey showing that five times as many refugees would prefer to settle permanently in a Palestinian state than return to their old homes in what is now Israel.

The protesters pelted Khalil Shikaki, the director of the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, with eggs, smashed computers and assaulted the nine staff members on duty. A female worker was treated in hospital for her injuries. "This is a message for everyone not to tamper with our rights," one of the rioters said.

Dr Shikaki, a leading West Bank political scientist, was undeterred. He said he was still putting the survey results on the centre's website and seeking the widest possible exposure. "These people," he said, "had no idea what the results were. They were sold disinformation."

The poll, conducted among 4,500 refugees in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Jordan, was the first to ask where they would want to live if Israel recognised a right of return.
<>Only 10 per cent of the refugees chose Israel, even if they were allowed to live there with Palestinian citizenship; 54 per cent opted for the Palestinian state; 17 per cent for Jordan or Lebanon, and 2 per cent for other countries. Another 13 per cent rejected all these options, preferring to sit it out and wait for Israel to disappear, while 2 per cent didn't know.

So let me get this straight, a group conducts a poll that finds that only 10% of Palestinians would exercise this "right of return" if they were given a choice and a mob storms the building assaulting both person and property? And why? So that no one can "tamper with [their] rights". Uh-huh.

I suspect that the real reason is that if it actually becomes common knowledge that almost no Palestinians actually want to exercise this so-called right, Arafat will lose one of the major excuses which have been historically used to avoid signing a peace treaty.

On another note, if a people is capable of leveling this kind of violence against someone who dares print something they don't like, do they really deserve a state?

I'm just asking.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, July 13, 2003

 
... just about covers this.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, July 13, 2003

 

Jimmy Carter has found a use for the U.S. military he can get behind.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has urged the Bush Administration to commit 2,000 U.S. troops to an international peacekeeping force for war-torn Liberia.

I'm still undecided about whether we should deploy troops, but this doesn't make me feel any better about the idea.

posted by jeffrey at Sunday, July 13, 2003

 

... but he's not. Josh Claybourn had this statement in the middle of his post on the absurdity that is the coming lawsuits against the food industry:

Show me a culture that blames its obesity on addiction and I'll show you a culture in decay.

Yes, our society is in decay. I don't think we're on the edge of the abyss, but we're heading in that direction. The lack of personal accountability is one of the signs that we're on that path.

All things come to an end. The American Republic is no different. The question isn't whether our country, as it stands now, will fall, but when this will happen. Truthfully, I don't expect it to happen within my lifetime, but if we don't have a renewal of the values (I'm not getting in to listing them, that's another post entirely) that got us to where we are, the end will come far before it needs too.

Yeah, I know that's not very encouraging, but I call them as I see them. By the way, I know that's not exactly where Josh was going, but it's where I ended up.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, July 13, 2003

 

I just saw this in the Guardian:

Iran's President Mohammad Khatami, facing rising public anger over the pace of democratic reform, said yesterday he was prepared to resign if the people willed it.

'We are not masters of the people but servants of this nation. If this nation says we don't want you, we will go,' Khatami was quoted as saying by the government-owned daily, Iran. 'That is the way a society should be.'

That sounds all well and noble, except for one thing: While the Iranian people are frustrated with Khatami, he is not the primary problem.

Blocked by conservative clergy who have vetoed his reformist agenda under the country's theocratic system, Khatami has struggled to reassure an increasingly frustrated public that his cautious approach will succeed.

That's the problem. Iran may have the form of a republican government, but it doesn't have the substance. All the important decisions are made by unelected religious leaders who overrule any law, reform, or even hobby which they deem to be "un-Islamic." You can have all the resignations you want from people further down the ladder, but it won't mean anything. Until the Ayatollah and his mullahs go, the people of Iran will not be free.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, July 12, 2003

 

According this article on Canada.com, the new Belgian government has realized that Belgium does not, in fact, have jurisdiction over the whole world. What I mean is this:

BRUSSELS (AP) - Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt took office as head of a new liberal government Saturday and immediately agreed to replace a war crimes law that has soured Belgium's relations with the United States.

The 15 ministers headed directly from a swearing-in ceremony at King Albert's royal palace to a first meeting that agreed to supplant the 1993 law which has been used to target leaders from the United States, Britain, Israel and other countries.

In new bill, which is expected to be approved by the legislature in the coming weeks, only cases with a direct link to Belgium will be considered, ruling out complaints like those filed after the Iraq war against British Prime Minister Tony Blair and leading U.S. officials headed by President George W. Bush.

There's more, but the gist is that the new government seems to think good relations with Britain and the U.S. is more important than trying to prosecute the world. Since the law was pretentious in the extreme anyway, this is a good thing.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, July 12, 2003

 

Well, I just got back from LXG. It was actually pretty good. I'm not sure how to do any sort of a review of this movie without spoilers, so I won't try.

I will point out a couple of things. Literary references abound, as you might expect. Sean Connery in a movie with a character known as "M" was amusing. People spent a lot of time talking about the digital Hulk, but I hadn't heard much about the effects for LXG. I still haven't seen Hulk, but from what I've seen, the digital effects for Mr. Hyde were equally impressive.

I've got to admit that there are a couple of plot points I had trouble following and the editing for some action sequences was so jumpy that it was hard to follow at times. Regardless, if you're looking for a fun action movie, you could do much worse.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, July 12, 2003

 

Steve Den Beste has posted about his e-mail overload.

I don't have anywhere near his readership, but on the plus side, 4 site related e-mail is a heavy week for me.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, July 12, 2003

 

I'm hoping this is a parody, but it's hard to be sure anymore. (Link via Tim Blair.)
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, July 12, 2003

 

I've enjoyed Star Trek since I was a child and I've liked all the spin-offs. However, there are some things that bug me. One of them is the Roddenberry inspired antipathy toward religion. Religion is rarely mentioned, and when it is, it is usually an alien religion. Even then, religion is rarely looked on with a friendly eye. The only religion I can think of that is usually treated with a friendly eye is that of the Klingons. That's not to inspiring either. In one episode of TNG, Worf explains that the Klingon's gods were killed by Klingon warriors because, "They were more trouble then they were worth." Perhaps the Klingon religion was only looked on favorably because it was atheistic in nature." Actual Earth bound religions were rarely mentioned and almost never favorably.

I bring this up because right now I'm watching the Voyager episode "Good Shepard." The name was chosen because Janeway tells Seven the parable of the Good shepherd. Even then, she didn't call it a parable, didn't mention Jesus, didn't say that the story came from the Bible. Why is it that in Star Trek, even when they want to use a biblical illustration, they can't bring themselves to mention the Bible favorably?

Just asking.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, July 11, 2003

 

Fox has this report:

WASHINGTON Agriculture Department (search) employees used government credit cards to pay tuition for bartender school, to buy Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, lingerie and tattoos and to make a down payment on a car.

Based on a random audit of 300 cardholders, the department's inspector general estimated that 15 percent of the 55,000 USDA employees who carry the government credit cards or 8,250 employees made a total of $5.8 million in purchases other than for bona fide travel expenses. The audit covered a six-month period from Oct. 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002.

Mind you, this was in a random audit. That means they weren't looking for anyone in particular, yet they found all this. Oh the joys of governments and bureaucracy.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, July 11, 2003

 

One of the local TV stations has a consumer reporter who is on, to the best my knowledge, every night. I just saw an ad for his report tonight. It said he had gone "undercover" to find a business selling fake IDs. Now I haven't watched the report, but if the story is as advertised, the criminal in question has got to be very stupid. I personally find all the local news broadcasts insipid and hardly ever watch them, but even I could recognize this guy. How can you get caught by an "undercover" reporter who's on TV every night?

I'm amazed.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, July 11, 2003

 

Josh Claybourn seems to think that I'm reading too much into the NR column I linked to yesterday. He writes:

It seems most people are viewing this statement in black and white terms, when it shouldn't be. Alternatives do not have to be joining another party altogether. It can be withholding activism for a candidate, not giving financial contributions, and perhaps even using a protest vote on occassion. One can abandon the Republican party while still voting for the best of all evils.

I pounded out some paragraphs responding to his objections and expanding on my thoughts. Originally I wrote it as a comment for his site, but by the time I was done I decided it needed it's own post. Anyway, here it is.

Here's my problem: It seems to me that even if conservatives don't outright join another party, any support they hold back from the Republican party increases the likelihood of victory by the Democrats.

No matter how infuriating I find many Republican politicians, they are still, on the whole, far better then their counterparts in the Democratic party. Unfortunately, I can't find a viable alternative to supporting the Republican party that doesn't increase the chances of the Democratic party. If I knew of one, I'd jump on it, (as I've said before, I'm a movement guy, not a party guy) but given our system of government, I just don't see it.

Our winner take all system has the advantage of insuring victory by one party or the other which avoids the problem some parliamentary systems have. Those systems often find it difficult to create a majority coalition to run the government; even when a coalition is formed, it is often composed of parties with radically different long-term goals who are only allying temporarily out of convenience.

On the other hand, our system stymies the rise of new parties as many people are reluctant to leave a party they despise to form a new party because they know that a) the new party has no chance of winning and b) doing so increases the chances of a party whom they absolutely abhor coming into power. At least under a parliamentary system, a new party has a chance of getting some of what they want very quickly, thus allowing them to establish a political foothold.

Overall, I prefer our system to all the others, but it does tend to favor the existing parties.

On a related note, let me give one example that highlights my frustration. Paul Cella pointed out a Robert Novak column about President Bush's stance on a prescription drug plans. Here's the portion Cella quoted:

The White House has made clear the president will sign any prescription drug bill arriving from Capitol Hill. Bush thereby has removed himself as a player in an epochal battle over this country,s health care, undermining the optimistic scenario. No realistic conservative can devise a way to kill this bill. The question is whether Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's inexorable march toward a government-controlled health care system can be slowed.

Cella responded:

This must be why I voted for a conservative presidential candidate: so I can reap the glorious benefits of socialized medicine, and an expansion in the size of the federal government unlike anything since Lyndon Baines Johnson.

I've got to go with Cella on this one. I like President Bush, but on domestic policy he's often wrong. I'm afraid that's because he's more concerned with perception than policy. Whatever the reason, the result is that our domestic policy often comes out looking like Democrat-Lite.

Furthermore, I don't understand why the President is unwilling to use the veto. The veto, or even the threat of it, can be a powerful policy tool. Too often though, the President forfeits this tool as he has in this case by declaring in advance that he will sign whatever version of the bill that hits his desk. As far as I know, the President has yet to use his veto on any bill, no matter how bad it is.

What good is it to have a President who is supposedly on your side if he refuses to veto bad bills?

The upshot of this is that conservatives have every right to be extremely frustrated with the Republican party, including, in some instances, the President. The problem is, as I said before, I just don't see a viable alternative.

Note:I fixed some spelling and grammatical errors.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, July 11, 2003

 

Bryan Preston thinks the Democrats have lost their minds.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, July 11, 2003

 

John Hawkins raises an interesting question about the ethics of using military technology now coming down the pipe.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, July 11, 2003

 

I loved this quote.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, July 11, 2003

 

Juan Gato aptly points out that when evil things are done by people, it is because of their humanity, not in spite of it.

He wasn't trying to make a theological point, but I will. Christians see someone who decides to shoot up his fellow workers in a plant and know that is the result of The Fall, that time in our past when Man walked away from God. Ever since, humanity has been doing horrible things to each other. It is this fallen state of mankind that necessitated Christ coming to earth, dying, and rising from the grave in order sanctify us and allow us to return to God.

Gato says:

There is this foolish notion that bad, evil actions should not be attributed to the person. They are things that happen and the person was carried along by external influences that had little to do with their humanity. Nope. Sorry. Waking up in the morning and choosing to shoot a bunch of people has everything to do with this man's humanity. He made the choice. To try to ascribe it to victimization, or even to call him a monster, is an attempt to excise the icky from humanity to make ourselves feel better. This is why I cannot call someone a monster when they do extreme evil. No, they are a human as much as me, responsible for their choices.

Attempts to separate horrible deeds from the humanity of the one who performed it aren't just wrong-headed, they're dangerous. If we refuse to see our Fallen State as part of who we are, then we won't be able to see the necessity of being saved from it.

One of the steps toward salvation is to recognize that you are a horrible sinner capable of the worst kind of monstrosities. As long as you remain in denial, you can never confess your sins and can never repent of them. If those things are left undone, you will die in your sins.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, July 11, 2003

 

Tim Blair points out an interesting use of "diverse".
posted by jeffrey at Friday, July 11, 2003

 

Brian Micklethwait has a very enlightening post on the current state of New Labor in Britain.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, July 10, 2003

 

Joel Mowbray has another article outlining the horrors of the State Department when it comes to kidnapped children in the Saudi entity.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, July 10, 2003

 

The National Review editors argue that it may be time for conservatives to abandon the Republican party. What they don't do is tell us what the alternative might be.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, July 10, 2003

 

What on earth?
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 09, 2003

 

... I start to wonder if the Bill of Rights isn't too long. I mean maybe they should have cut the whole thing off after the first five words. (Think about it.)

Just thought I'd share.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 09, 2003

 

... but I'd be hard pressed to think of one off hand. This one was hard for even me to believe. (Link via Kevin Whited.)
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 09, 2003

 

Somebody doesn't understand his job description very well.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 09, 2003

 

Dustin at LegalGuy has a good essay describing why libertarians should not be happy with the decision in Lawrence. (Via How Appealing)
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 09, 2003

 
... have been greatly exaggerated. It seems that a Florida radio host announced the death of Congresswoman Katherine Harris on the air. One problem: She was speaking on the house floor at the time. Oops.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 09, 2003

 

Max Boot argues that the U.S. needs a colonial affairs office. He may be right, but I doubt it would ever happen. Just think of the stink that would be raised. Boot himself admits that you couldn't use that name, but let's be honest here, people aren't stupid. If we do as Boot suggests and set up an agency based on the British Colonial Office, things are going to hit the fan. Choosing a different name isn't going to change that.

All of that is very sad too. How many good ideas in Washington are shot down because of how many people would over-react? I suspect a great many.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 09, 2003

 

I read this Roger Carstens article hoping it would convince me that we should intervene in Liberia. It did not. Which is not to say that I oppose. I'm still on the fence. I could go either way.

Still, to read an article in hopes that it would convince and be disappointed, that's pretty bad.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 09, 2003

 

And what would a day of support for Iran be without a column by Michael Ledeen.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 09, 2003

 

Today has been singled out as a day for bloggers to raise awareness for the issue of Iranian freedom. I'm going to try to do that by pointing out some articles that I thing shed light on things.

The religious leaders in Iran have assumed so much power for themselves, that some in Iran have accused them of making themselves out to be gods.

More than 250 dissident intellectuals and clerics have mounted an unprecedented challenge to Iran's ruling mullahs, all but accusing them of heresy by portraying themselves as God's emissaries on Earth.

Their one-page open letter, issued after nearly a week of student-led protests in Tehran, is an extraordinary attack on the founding doctrine of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.

The late Ayatollah Khomeini instituted a system known as velayat-e-faqih, or "rule of the Islamic jurisprudent", whereby religious leaders took over temporal rule of the country on the grounds that they were best qualified to apply Islamic law.

But the dissidents' letter, published in the reformist newspaper Yas-e-nou, declared: "Considering individuals to be in the position of a divinity and absolute power . . . is open polytheism [in contradiction to] almighty God, and blatant oppression of human dignity. People [and their elected legislators] have the right to supervise fully their rulers, criticise them, and remove them from power if they are not satisfied."

The 252 signatories included two aides to the reformist president, Mohammad Khatami - Saeed Pourazizi, an official in the president's office, and Saeed Hajjarian, who is widely regarded as the architect of the president's reform program.

Religious minorities are often impressed in Iran. Take, for example, this article detailing the treatment of Baha'i who want an education.

Let's not forget that the Iranian government supports terrorist organizations.

Media is so tightly controlled in Iran that the best way for many people to get news is from a station in California.

That's all I've got for now. I think it would be an understatement to say that I will be very glad when the day comes for the mullahs to fall from power in Iran. I'll be much happier, in fact, then when we liberated Iraq because it looks like the people of Iran will do this on their own. If they are able to establish a free society under their own power, it will be that much better. After all, liberty is much better cherished when it is won than when it is given.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, July 09, 2003