Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Delay, delay, delay.


"Gary," Mulholland explained, "I'm just not prepared to send my men into a place where we don't know the commander, lack significant intelligence and what we do know indicates a high probability that a small force could run into an extremely large force and be overwhelmed."

-Gary Bernsten, JAWBREAKER

Even in an Afghanistan lacking civil transparency I doubt that bin Laden and Zawahiri would have been able to avoid American forces this long on their own. Same with Saddam Hussein's unaccounted-for WMD. These people work around U.S. military and political standard operating procedure.

Perhaps I should try to illustrate the theory about the situation with a game called Command & Conquer: Red Alert. It is a strategy game in which there are areas covered in black on your radar screen which doesn't reveal terrain or what is going on there until you "go through it". And that's after you built a radar facility. If you don't, you can forget about having a good overview or increasing your effectiveness on the battlefield. The point is that these black areas must be denied to America's enemies: criminal corporations (i.e. terrorist networks, anti-American political economies/corrupt ideologies).

This is why it is critical that we produce a solution to the American Education Crisis which poisons civilization and the mind of man. I'm not yet comfortable with a formal presentation at the moment, so I won't make it available to anyone except in the form of a few outline copies for safekeeping in the unlikely case that I can't complete my thesis, which I was excitedly preparing to post here as those interested might recall from my last blog.

I'm torn between posting the working paper and delaying any further blogging until the completed work is ready for publication in the form of a book or report somewhere which would also be posted here, of course. It is likely that I'll post a working paper, but not any time soon.

I do believe that completing this dissertation may take a couple of years (everyone has to allow themselves room for personal adjustments) but I will work to cut it down to months. That's why I recommend only four visits a year at most, or one at best within two years. If anyone would like to share any ideas you can e-mail me at MisterBlacko-AT-yahoo.com. I sign in at least once a month.

Oh, and I almost forgot to say, happy valentines day my dear readers (whoever's left).

Thursday, October 13, 2005


[UPDATE: I'm a Centrist who left out his Poll Result for this post. Social-35% Permissive, Economic-43% permissive.]

I've been away, just doing some stuff and coming online a few times, finally deciding to play around a little bit with today's two posts and go a bit casual; taking an intermission, obviously. Anyway, for those who may not believe that I am really a moderate individual, just check out my results at OKCupid's Political Test. Did I do well?

I guess some of us will be coming to a point of no return with this blog after my next entry.

If you want to have an idea of where I might be going with this, to those of you who just found this place and want to know what I'm about, check out the last non-official post at 9:05PM (October 13, 2005) in the comments section of the STOP essay. I'm considering my next major post, which isn't going to be up for a good while as my "Final" in the sense that I could stop blogging after that and be satisfied with the time that I've spent here, graduating myself into whatever comes next, so to speak. My resources are very limited at the moment and I need to get on top of some things which are demanding more attention right now.

Basically, if you've been reading my posts, you know where I may be going on this little Blog. I expect everyone to have a sense of what I'm going to say on FORWARD next. And probably for some months to come, if there is a coming back at all. This is not a threat, be assured. Its funny that someone may consider it that way =) And this isn't a promise that I'll be the best guide for the rest (not to say that I ever was) of the journey, wherever that leads you. We're all students, so just think of this as one trying to help another out. That's what a good individualist is supposed to do, to touch upon a pretty familiar political philosophy here. There will be more ground to cover, whatever happens next. As Maximus might say, duty and honor.

I go where God leads me, and that's all I'm gonna say at this point. Don't read more into this than I'm trying to say.
Stay tuned, amigos.

Sample Origami

Of course I had to sample the lifestyle of the modern reclusive writer.

I Guess I should do modern reclusive writer-like things like post up some window peeks of this or that

The thing about this is, you don't have to be very good at it, so you can just kick back.

A general rule of thumb is that everyone doesn't have to get every single bit of it. Not everyone, sometimes.

Look at me, woah, I'm such a puzzle. All the kings horses and all the kings men will never be able to put me together again.


I have to give credit for this to a bright young lady who has introduced me to the paper folding fun otherwise known as Origami. Thank you, you dear girl. And thank you anonymous person and Anonymous holy warrior for living the truth that "All the darkness of the world cannot put out the light of one small candle."

And just to make everyone happy, here, I offer a belated Hat Tip to Japan for inventing suchinteresting and entertaining things to talk about.

So now I can make paper do something besides fly around and crash into things and people.
How cool is that? Cool like Ero.

(Technical problems, no Origami animal tonight. Sorry.)

Tuesday, October 11, 2005


Dang, he was a COMPTONERO, crazy. At least that's what HP reported at his blog.

I guess this lil hyna who has such a crazy nickname I can't say it is telling me the truth that she lived on the President's block back in the day.

Here she is throwin up tha Dubayu, reminiscing of how it was.

Caption Contest

To see the picture and original caption, go here to Willisms Caption Contest Pt.25

Here's my entry:

George W. is overheard by the same photographer and sneaky news outfit that likes to dig for dirt on their political opponents, very, very badly, with really sneaky pictures telling rescue operators, 'I'm not really a people person, I'm not really a Christian.

'I just want to manipulate everything and everyone because of my materialist philosophy. No, we materialists never project our own neurotic notions unto others. ::wink wink:::'

OK, so maybe he didn't actually use the words and symbols '::wink wink::' but we have scientifically truth-enhanced this caption because actually treating people like adults and equals is a moral fabrication interferes with out desire to free 'us' from the silly notions that produces this horrible and oppressive nation that is too stupid to vote for a 'good' socialist, whatever we eventually decide that means. But 'trust' 'us,' we 'know' what 'we' are 'doing' this time... 'We' 'think.'

(Caption enhanced from original entry)

Monday, October 10, 2005

Still thinking this through

In Cruciphobia, Revisited over at Lt./Citizen Smash's blog someone suggested that "we are knocking our heads against brick walls" when we try to be reasonable with the left. I just think that that wall is really nothing but a smokescreen that we can't really find the right shut down button on, right now. We can't lose heart, for God's children have stood up to machinations more extreme in the past.

Outrageously irrational things like this are happening. I mentioned the incredible yet expectable attacks against William Bennett, also, in my last post. He is apparently waging a war against Black men, you see. So he deserves to be slimed. Below, I reproduced a comment that I made over at a blog called Vision Circle because the fact that someone had to make it is yet more proof about the larger problem that we all face and are currently contending with.

Apparently we're dealing with people trained to further the purposes of the coercive and irrational forces of manipulation, deceit, and disgrace rather than for the purpose of an uplifting and healthy education. How to deal with that and yet maintain grace? Not without faith in the Great Redeemer of Man -as always!

I don't believe that renewal is impossible or unlikely or out of reach for this generation. We just have to make the best of what we have. And I believe it's alot no matter where you are or where you've been, despite the way it seems sometimes.


CNULAN: Full context would take into consideration Bennett's role as a leader and architect of America's War on Black Men

Once the paper trail from this phase of his career is admitted into evidence, then we begin working with a properly contextualized ground on which to assess the meaning of his reflexive illustration.

As an academic, with full access to the data, Bennett is certainly equipped to know better than to pose such a specious linkage. However, as a hypocritical founding architect of the most damaging and hardline aspects of the War on Black Men it would be foolishly naive to expect him to express himself otherwise.

Bennett is a racist of the first order who has made a career off of twisting the truth to suit his ends - one of which has been maximum havoc and damage in the black community.


Yes, more people are being locked up for longer periods. That's the reason that the crime rate has gone down and no, the problem is not the laws themselves as tempting as it may be for you to say so. There is something more worth considering than shifting numbers and objects that depend on our choices. Had our laws been as relaxed as in times past we would see an explosion of crime like you wouldn't believe.

To illustrate the point:

"In 196o, for every 1,ooo violent crime arrests, 299 arrestees were eventually imprisoned. But by 197o that number had fallen to 17o.* ...From 196o to 197o, violent crime rates rose 126 percent. In the next decade, they jumped another 64 percent."

The cultural and social disfunction has not been alleviated since then, it has in fact become worse in many ways. The rate of single-parent households has actually gone up. Criminality and decadence is not as frowned upon as it was, even then.

"From 198o to 199o, the violent crime rate went up again, but at a slower pace: 23 percent. Then violent crime rates actually began to fall- there was a 6.4% drop between 1990 and 1995.** Why did violent crime rates begin to drop? Because communities all across the U.S. started to roll back the destructive liberal policies of the sixties." In 199o there were 773,919 prisoners, by 1994 there were 1,o53,738 of them. And of course the moral insoucients behind such trends say that we need more of their "medicine" and brand of "progress"; but it is becoming obvious to anyone that escapes the echo chambers of madness that it is poison.

The problem in terms of our current social maladies is that while people have been coming to their senses in terms of policies, the ideological and systematic impetus behind them remains deeply entrenched in academia. The embrace of obscenity, common in criminals, has widely been shared and cultivated by libs. Pretty much, the body has been healing itself, despite what should be the brain. But it cannot survive for very long that way. Solving this problem is going to be a little tricky considering its nature.


[NOTE: for all comments in CNULAN SIRC_VALENCE debate go here]

(Quotes from Ch. 26, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy by David Smith)

*U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 199o, NCJ-129198

**U.S.D.o.J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1994, NCJ-151654

Umm, Stop.

This essay has been adapted from comments that I've made around the net while debating and playing defense in the issue of Harriet Miers' nomination and to offer a defense for the horribly maligned William Bennett. The post was going to be "Enough Already", but I decided to echo Mr. Buckley, as a sort of a hat tip from a blogger to one of his teachers. I noticed that it was Columbus day, by the way. To all who appreciate it, I raise the glass for a toast. To a new generation, huh?

Lately I've been thinking about the old and the new. This is a good place to make a note, that I'm sure I'll repeat again another time, central to my understanding of Conservatism, aka neo-liberalism/classical liberalism. That is that the appropriate educational aim should have been a progression from the Founding Era - and not a fundamental deterioration and departure from it.

In his lecture, The Rise of The West, Professor Raico, which I cited in my post on National Review's 50th, makes a sobering remark which far too many students in America's most prestigious education institutions are no longer be hearing today in calumnies and condemnationsn of their own civilization rather than defenses and elucidations about it:

The very fact that European man was able to inflict atrocities from time to time, besides other things, came from the fact that he had the power to do it. The question is, where did this power come from?... When we look around the world and see the crimes that European man is guilty of [; They] come from and reflect the essentially fallen nature of all men. European man happened to have the power to sail ships around the world starting 500 years ago, with firepower that no other people could match, and did terrible things from time to time. As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The cruel and oppressive inherent evils of the Soviet mega-state resulted from the fact that "if there is no truth, there is only power." I think also that the fact that there were and are unwise men and women, ourselves at one time or another inevitably, only validates the value of wisdom. When we throw it out of the window, as Mr. Raico would say, we become like the flies of the summer. The fact that men and women sin, does not mean that sin does not exist but some people have decided for themselves to buck the truth. It really comes to that. (II Ch 7:14- "If my people, which are CALLED BY MY NAME, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek MY FACE, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.") Any living relationship is one that demands mutual engagement from its parties. And as someone pointed out to me, the relationship between God and Man as Christianity teaches, is not one of brother and brother as some people demand it to be due to romantic intellectual misconceptions, it is one of Fatherhood and Sonhood; between the "Bride of Christ" and the vanquisher of Her mortal enemies. Especially the ever beguiling Prince of Nihilism and Falsity.


Google "Bennett + racist" (or racism) for an instance of this falsity at work.

The confusion about what he said vanishes when people are informed that he was making the reductio ad absurdom argument to show a caller on his show that an argument which the caller thought was a good one, really wasn't.

That caller was trying to base the argument against abortion on demand on practicality rather than on morality; thinking that it would impress the left enough to change its mind about the deliberate destruction of an innocent, totally dependent, and helpless human being in its mothers womb. The suggestion was made to Mr. Bennett that if it wasn't for the deliberate destruction of future Americans, the Social Security system wouldn't be in as bad a shape as it is.

People have to ask: what is Mr. Bennett actually saying and commited to which causes the left to slander and to create such malignant hysteria about him? This might help people understand where the malice and or ignorance (and the two things often compliment one another) is really coming from.

As far as the President and other people reacting to reports about Bennett's alleged plan to abort Black babies (and who is really most responsible for this actually going on!?), I can't really blame them very much if that is the way that libs in the media distorted Mr. Bennett's actual point.

Did Mr. Bennett lie? All he did was point out what selfishness and materialism leads to.

Anyone with doubts right now should purchase the September 28, 2005 tapes or cd of that show from to find out for themselves by finding a radio station which carries his program, and digging just a little bit on the net for info on how to request a copy of that days "episode". I'll make it easy. 1. Go to the station guide, and 2.Search the name of the station most convenient to you.


I would urge patience when dealing with the paranoid and confused. It appears to be a quality that is pretty lacking these days. Even among political economic and social conservatives. Our little coalition appears to be in a bit of turmoil as some feel betrayed and hyper-anxious because of the President's recent announcement on a particularly contentious domestic matter, which we are pretty familiar with by now.

I think that critics should at least wait until Miers' confirmation hearings to make a better evaluation of the President's choice. The boat is still slowly turning around in the right direction on that matter, anyway, IMHO. Here I'll confess to this good public that I admire Ms. Miers' background and think that President Bush's argument in support of his decision to select her as his appointment to a long vacant seat (can I kid a little bit?) is a good one. Ms. Miers carries with her very important practical experience in terms of business, law, and the war on terror.

Yet I keep running into the same ridiculous argument that the President's Supreme Court nominee is one that lacks substance. I find that claim to itself be lacking in the substance department. And as long as we're on the topic of the terms of this debate, the word intellectual has been thrown around too lightly, I think. So much so that it has become unavoidable for me to use it more than I usually like, because some pretty formidable intellectuals have been running out of gas intellectually in trying to maintain their position that Ms. Miers doesn't have the "right stuff" to handle the job that she's been selected to carry out.

I understand the excitement here, I really do, but people are pouring it on very liberally and that doesn't appear very judicious. What can I say, there's quite a bit of clowning going around, sometimes its hard not to joint the party. Please excuse me, good citizens. Not to compare apples to oranges here (and I don't mean that in a qualitative way), but there was a similar problem that we had with the nomination of Judge Roberts, wasn't there? That was that he hadn't been a particularly publicly ideological activist. We really are upset because neither is Harriet Miers, apparently. But the President has viewed her as a valuable asset in the highest levels of government and I think that that should count for something.

People shouldn't continue to allow themselves to be wearied or agitated at this point by the use of the term "mediocre", especially as it is coming from those with the inflexible attitude that leads some otherwise erudite and well tempered friends to accept nothing more than ideological or political carbon copies of the confirmation debate expectations that they/many of us had about taking the left, intellectually, to the woodshed for all of its abuses and offenses by serving them up Ann Coulter or Chris Hitchens in a robe. So some of our intellectual warriors were pumped but obviously not always going on with President Bush. They should remember that just as George Bush is not always right, they aren't either. Right now would be a pretty good time.

It's safe to say that his temperament is a bit different from theirs, and ironically, he appears to have unintentionally gone over the heads of our little political Einsteins. Its difficult to see eye to eye with someone when you are consumned only by what you want, I guess. Not all firebrands are identical or play the same roles. I think that a good understanding of the economic concept of the division of labor might be useful because I don't see a substantial political divide on the right here. Just a noisy tactical battle that some people took too far and now must slink away as gracefully as they can. I think this is just a case of some well intentioned and usually credible people being too eager to dig themselves into holes of philosophical speciousness.


Useful information which supports previous arguments that Ms. Harriet Miers does indeed have "the right stuff" continues to become available. No one can deny, for long, that she is a professional and exceptional woman, and maintain their credibility.

Quote: (via liberal loather to Beldar)

"In Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc., 981 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.), the key issue was whether a wholly owned Disney subsidiary incorporated in Delaware could be subjected to the personal jurisdiction of the Texas courts. That in turn took the case into a thicket of both constitutional and nonconstitutional issues — including an analysis of whether there were sufficient 'minimum contacts' between the subsidiary and Texas so that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would not be violated by forcing that subsidiary to respond to a lawsuit in the Texas courts. And that in turn depended on a complicated mix of factual and legal issues involving both agency and contract law. Ms. Miers lost on the personal jurisdiction issue at the trial court level, but then took an extraordinary interlocutory appeal, and won in the San Antonio Court of Appeals. Although her opponents tried to persuade the Texas Supreme Court to hear the case, Ms. Miers apparently persuaded that court to decline to hear it on jurisdictional grounds — meaning, in all probability, that she filed a persuasive brief in the Texas Supreme Court, and then did not have to appear for oral arguments on the merits (and risk losing) precisely because her brief was so persuasive.

"What does it say about Harriet Miers and her intellect and her skills? Some may say that this was 'meat and potatoes' stuff, even on the constitutional issues, and it's not the sort of case that was likely to make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT OBVIOUSLY WAS COMPLICATED ENOUGH TO PERPLEX THE TRIAL JUDGE, WHO (ACCORDING TO THE APPELATE COURT) GOT IT WRONG. It was a close enough case that Ms. Miers' opponents thought they had a shot at getting the Texas Supreme Court to hear it, even after losing at the court of appeals level. The facts and law were complicated enough that this case would have made a reasonably good law school exam question. And I'm reasonably sure that to Ms. Miers' corporate client, getting this six- or maybe seven-figure fraud case thrown out of what it would have regarded as a hostile, pro-plaintiff venue — the famously dusty streets of Laredo in Webb County, Texas — was a pretty significant victory.

"But what do they know? They're just cartoons and stuff."

Some of us righties just have no patience when it comes to pulverizing the left. But discipline is very important in any campaign or battle. And President Bush, not Bill Kristol (nor any other intellectual champion of the right), is the Commander in Chief at the moment. All in due course.

It is helpful, for those who don't know, to understand that this is an important issue to "W", and he knows that millions of Americans have put alot of energy into making sure that we don't get burned again, here. They are less steeped in fanciful and taudry social notions and interested more in just going to work and getting things that need to be done, done. Such is life in a free republic. Some people might actually view the selection of that sort of person to the United States Supreme Court as refreshing, actually. We need remind those who are forgetting, or behaving as if they have, that some very influencial people who were not not judges made some of the most drastic "contributions" to what is taught in law schools today through the Supreme Court.

The president has decided to step out of the scholarly and theoretical (think Souter and FDR's "Brain Trust" gang) and into a more practical world in his decision. Many, including myself, didn't expect that. And that doesn't seem like a very bad idea in a deeply politicized academic environment which would mean that the President has a good understanding about what he is doing and is seeking an intellectually well-grounded, rather than unhinged, person to carry his torch when he is no longer in the White House.

This is one of the things that he wanted to make an impact on, as I understood, when I voted for him in 2000 and 2004, though I didn't agree with some of his early "Compassionate Conservative" platform items; I think that people would be cheating themselves of actually knowing what's going on by assuming that the weakness is married to the strength in that context. One can exist without the other, and in this case they definitely do. The assumption and basic argument that they don't here is to assume that President Bush is a retard.

The president has decided to step out of the scholarly and theoretical (think Souter and FDR's "Brain Trust" gang) and into a more practical world in his decision. Many, including myself, didn't expect that. And that doesn't seem like a very bad idea in a deeply politicized academic environment which would mean that the President has a good understanding about what he is doing and is seeking an intellectually well-grounded, rather than unhinged, person to carry his torch when he is no longer in the White House.

This is the reason why I believe that it is most likely that Harriet Miers has some out of the box and not necessarily un-intellectual insights to contribute to the 9 member body that is the third branch of the American government.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Hindrocket is right on the money regarding that awful Earthquake

A large majority of earthquake fatalities and injuries occur because buildings collapse. In one horrifying instance in Pakistan, 250 girls died and another 500 were injured when their school collapsed. In developed countries like the United States, earthquakes take far less of a human toll because of superior construction techniques... There is no mystery to sound construction and clean water; the only requirement is prosperity. And the only requirement for prosperity is freedom. This isn't the most important reason why our foreign policy should be centered on promoting freedom abroad, but it is certainly on the list.

Helping promote free enterprise in the underdeveloped world will do far more good than any amount of foreign aid.

--John Hinderaker, at PowerLine

At least 20 magnitude 5 aftershocks. Wow.

Whenever I post on a Sunday

I'm going to leave a line from scripture as the point for a good meditation.

Today it will be Hebrews 10:11,
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

I say no.

Yesterday I expressed ambivalence about Harriet Miers' nomination to the USSC.

In the title of that post I asked the question, "to withdraw, or not to withdraw?"

The answer has settled in my mind. I think that the opponents should chill, at least until she gets to the nomination hearings. I would be very disappointed now if President Bush caved to the pressure from the right, here. I really don't expect that to happen.

To repeat myself, for my blog, I'm not going to base my judgement about his decision here on his fiscal and economic weaknesses, which he ran for election on. It's a given that he wasn't the strongest candidate when it came to economic policy proposals. But the boat is still slowly turning around in the right direction on that matter. That being said, I expect the President to back and pass some strong economic reforms in the next 3 years. So get those contributions to CATO, the AEI, and Heritage flowing, people.
Back to the topic at hand, I say that the best assumption to make here is that President Bush understands that this is an important issue for us and that it is a major reason for why the Republican Party has been winning elections. So he is not about to appoint another David Souter and destroy the political and economic progress and reform that we have been working towards.

Thomas Brewton made the argument (in Marshall vs Miers) that I am sure is close to where the President is on this issue, which is basically "that deep immersion in the socialist cesspools of Harvard or Yale law schools ought to be viewed more as a disqualification than a recommendation for responsible office. The fact that Ms. Miers attended Southern Methodist University at a time when it still was a school influenced by religious principles and the fact that she is a born-again Christian suggest the possibility that she, like [Justice] Marshall, may be influenced by sound general principles."

I have become an admirer of Ms. Miers and think that President Bush's argument in support of his decision is not as bad as I thought it was, initially. She carries with her very important practical experience in terms of business, law, and the war on terror.

So, I'm O.K. with the prospect of a Justice Miers and I believe that people should give her and Mr. Bush more credit than they've been getting, this far.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

For the record, I'm rooting for Roy Jones Jr.

He's bad.

Both of these guys are. Just check out them mugs.



I don't want to miss anymore of this fight of so I'm not going to live blog on it.



Mr. Jones lost the fight on a decision. He couldn't be the best forever, I suppose.

So, Mr. Tarver is still the champ, he still wears the crown.

Apparently he threw around 300 more punches than Jones, but Jones was sharper in there in the ring in terms of what he did. Both of them were in excellent conditioned and I expected to see a bigger collision and more sparks in the ring because of that.

Jones is my favorite boxer, and I noticed that I still wear my Trunner LXs which I bought after I saw an ad in a magazine with Roy in them back in Highschool. The first time that I saw him in the ring I was impressed at such skill combined with the explosive speed of his once ceaseless and accurate blistering punches.

Some of the bottom on my Trunners is missing in both of them and the toe tip on both shoes sort of have a "mouth" which opens and closes when they lift from all the years of wear and tear that I've put on them but I just can't throw them away. I would have taken some pix and posted them up but someone borrowed my camera and the cameraphone which I borrowed tonight wasn't compatible with this laptop which I should go ahead and replace now.

A toast, to the next generation.



I expected something more after the mold of

...Winky vs. Tito (last May)

...or Pacquiao vs. Marquez (2004)

..and other great matches.

I have to say that in Tarver v Jones III, neither fighter unleashed his full potential, but they got kind of close to crossing the threshold at some moments.

Happy 50th Birthday National Review

"It is an honor to be here to thank you for your service. I want to thank you for leaving us a magazine and a group of thinkers that will help make the advance of liberty over the last 50 years look like a dress rehearsal for the next 50 years." --G.W.B. to W.F.B.

Early this week the 50th anniversary of the launch of William F. Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW magazine was celebrated, as most political conservatives probably know. It definitely played a central role in politically changing the direction that the nation was heading in, which was down. It played a key role contributing to the victory of the true forces of progress in the heated and arduous intellectual and spiritual warfare between the Evil Empire of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Empire of Liberty, the United States of America. It is easy for many to take for granted that the struggle would ultimately be won by the right side. Its pretty easy to dismiss the whole painful struggle as being something that was inevitable and to discount the possibility that things could have turned out very very differently.

The Cold War was not always such for those in the middle of the battlefield, in the gulags, in the forced labor camps or in the dangerous and covert missions and confrontations by proxy that characterized this period of history. For those that do not really understand the phrase, it is nothing more than a hollow cliche, such as patriotism, and truth, but "Eternal Vigilance is The Price of Liberty." This suggests that one has to actually know what to look out for in the first place. This suggests that there is something to actually know, an actual basis upon which everything in the universe depends.

How did George MacDonald put it? "So long as we have nothing to say to God, nothing to do with Him, save in the sunshine of the mind when we feel Him near us, we are poor creatures, willed upon, not willing.. And how in such a condition do we generally act? Do we sit mourning over the loss of feeling? Or worse, make frantic efforts to try to rouse them?"

In God & Man At Yale, on the fourth page of the preface, William F. Buckley very insightfully wrote, "I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level." Bingo.

Here I recommend that people give a listen to Professor Ralph Raico's The Rise of the West lecture available by clicking here as well as his third lecture in The Struggle for Liberty series. I think that doing so would help anyone interested get a pretty good background on when liberalism (the soil out of which free markets and democracy developed) became defective and wedded to socialism, which is what "liberals" push for today. Usually, liberalism, in its unadulterated sense, is referred to as neo-liberalism or classical liberalism. Today, in the United States it is known as Conservatism.

As Professor Raico has explained, John Stewart Mill's argument "leads to pitting liberalism against non-coercive traditional values and arrangements... it also forges an offensive alliance between liberalism and the state..." Mill played an integral role in what Prof. Raico described as the fateful "linking of liberalism to an adversarial stance vis-a-vis tradition and social norms..." resulting in a "liberalism" that "is expressive of the ANTINOMIAN, lawless, normless, mentality of contemporary chattering classes than of liberalism historically."

It is ironic that Mill appears to challenge the censors (no doubt they existed in his day), but he really isn't part of the solution to political correctness or defeating the unholy alliance of the base and intellectual core, so to speak, of the left and Islamofascism. Its not surprising that today most people ignorantly would assume otherwise.

Norman Cantor, quoted by professor Ralph Raico, which I paraphrase here, expressed another crucial understanding that remains under assault from academia today, which is that In the model of civil society, most good and important things take place above and outside the universal level of the state [just as is the case with any other purely materialistic mechanisms and considerations of quantitativeness]. The family, the arts, learning and science, business enterprise, and technological processes, these are all above and outside the state level. These are the work of individuals and groups and the involvement of the state [should be] remote and disengaged.

Though civilization is still under a heavy assault from abroad as much as from "within" it is safe to say that today at least the political tide has significantly shifted in a positive direction to a noticeable extent. Now we need to focus on the academic corruption which produced the current epidemic of adolescents trapped in adult bodies as evidenced by the hopeless nonsense and moonbattery of the left today, collectively.

We're now dealing with this because "The West" lowered its standards educationally and morally by "teaching" that they were a burden upon modern civilization. Jan Paul Burr, commenting on Tom Brewton's "What Does It Mean To Be An American," pointed out that before the left dominated many of America's most important institutions,

We judged behavior and not the person. Since all “fell short” of the standard, we couldn’t very well judge the person since we were as guilty. We may not have been guilty of the same thing, but we were still unable to reach the mark set by the standard. Thus, we only judged behavior, including ours and whether it met the standard or not. We based our laws, mores and culture on that standard.

Since the standard came from a “higher authority” we couldn’t question the standard as being “some man made goal,” by someone who was no better than we were. No, it was set and agreed upon, that a “higher authority” had set down the “laws of nature” and “common sense” and “order.” and [whether considered] fair or unfair, they were to be the standard.

Now, we have decided that since we can’t reach the standard, we need to lower the standard. We have already done that in education and have seen the sad results of that. Now we are “hell bent” to lower the standards of morality, and ethics, and even common sense. We will “allow” behavior that spreads disease or mistrust, or abuse or mental stress and call it “normal” so we can reach the standard.

Yet, at one time we were much “happier” as a “nation under God,” even though we couldn’t reach the standard, but at least we knew what the standard was and we knew that we weren’t alone in not reaching it and knew that we had to help each other come as close as possible to reaching it. It was that helping one another that united us and strengthened us and taught us the discipline we needed for work and family and community and nation.

Just and equal application of laws based on the “standard” set by a “Higher Authority” [God] was what made this nation so strong and is the only thing that will make it strong again.


I'm not actually in the withdraw Miers camp. It is a close call for me, but I'm willing to give her a chance. It is a mistake to say that President Bush made the best decision here, although he may genuinely feel that way.

Ms. Miers appears to be a great person and a good lawyer. The question continues to be, is she good enough for the Supreme Court? If the President wants her for a candidate, I believe that there might likely be a good reason for it. I don't think that he's always right, and neither do the people that voted for him, despite what some people may have been led to believe.

She has to be both personally and constitutionally trustworthy to have been selected but it would have been nice if the rest of us were provided a more reassuring basis to make that evaluation for ourselves. Some people are actually bothered that a legal scholar such as Judge Robert Bork has called the nomination of Miers to the Supreme Court a disaster. Including myself.

So the point that I want to make here is that although it can be entertaining, we should resist the cartoonization of some very dedicated patriots who are. As involved and informed constituents I think that they are right while in terms of actually changing the President's mind and having him accept their gloomy and skeptical view about his decision, they are likely to be wrong. I'm not very interested in fighting for or against the President in this case. Either way, I don't know enough to get very worked up by this move. It wouldn't be a far stretch to say that Robert Bork does, though.

This appears to be a major missed opportunity for us to put some pretty major intellectual firepower available in this country to good use. Of course whenever someone points this out, people cry "elitism." OK, I confess, I am a proponent of the elite. That shouldn't be confused with supporting elitists. I've said it before, this country has been producing too many elitists and not enough elites. There is a very substantial difference between the two things operating there. America has suffered too much from the problem of "educated fools." To quote Mr. Lewis, "Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make a man a more clever devil." And we have to be prepared to defend life and liberty at every level and recognize any deficiencies in both defenses and defenders.

As I wrote to Patrick Johnston after reading an IC article of his: The sort of pyrrhic victory that Jay Sekulow has pushed for here is what worries me with Harriet Miers [and] Mr. Sekulow in my view would have made a better Supreme Court nomination than Ms Miers!

As good or even great as this pick may end up being, it leaves us with reason to wonder. Its obvious that the President has a very good relationship with this White House Counsel appointee but she would probably not be on the short list of candidates for the Supreme Court of the United States if it weren't for her relationship with the President. It's bothersome to think about all the reliable constitutional legal scholars out there who would without question make better all around nominations.

Some big guns on the right have really unloaded on the president's choice, here; take the hard-hitting double-barrel of Bill Kristol and Ann Coulter, for instance. They could derail her nomination. Part of me hopes that they do, just to shake things up and improve upon the chances that the courts become more faithful to their duties and the legal profession, the industry of lawyers, be elevated in quality and performance.

I can't shrug my shoulders again in terms of "understanding" that President Bush campaigned on "compassionate conservatism" rather than a more reliable form. I guess this would be a good place to mention that I was a supporter of Steve Forbes during the GOP primaries for its presidential nomination for the 2000 election. Yeah, he was and is the flat-tax man and I think that he would have at least put up a fight against all of the pork barrel spending and government waste that is going on today. And I can't imagine that he wouldn't have rejected the euphemistically titled socialistic restraint on freedom of speech and expression known as "campaign finance reform." He would probably have made a better case for Social Security Reform, also.

I don't want to oversimplify, but for lack of a better way to make this point and crystalize the objection: YOU COULD NOT NOMINATE A JUDGE SUCH AS SCALIA OR THOMAS (I'm very tempted to say the only two good Supreme Court Justices, but all of them deserve respect for their service) BASED ON PERSONALITY AND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS ALONE. You can't select judges like them through a big government philosophy or overcompromising realpolitik. As much as I appreciate our President's leadership, this definitely seems like a case where grassroots intervention and criticism is called for.

And that doesn't always look pretty.

I don't think that anyone doubts that the President made SOME mistake with this nomination. The infighting caused by the President's nomination here, is really about what exactly that mistake was. Some say that it was the actual selection itself, which means that there's no room for acceptance, and others say that the mistake was a political miscalculation in terms of the disconnect between the GOP base and its leadership in terms of the way that Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement was selected; apparently without regard for the legitimate concerns of Americans with reason to worry when it comes to domestic issues and the court.

My view is that the President just is not always on the same page, fundamentally, as the government and cultural reform movement known as Conservatism, in the United States.

Note, the following argument in the Weekly Standard, for instance:

[The President] has put up an unknown and undistinguished figure for an opening that conservatives worked for a generation to see filled with a jurist of high distinction. There is a gaping disproportion between the stakes associated with this vacancy and the stature of the person nominated to fill it. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders.

One should add that some of the defenses of the president have been spirited as well--and in fairness to the defenders of the Miers nomination, they really were not given all that much to work with by the White House. Consider this game effort from one former Bush staffer:

Harriet used to keep a humidor full of M&M's in her West Wing office. It wasn't a huge secret. She'd stash some boxes of the coveted red, white, and blue M&M's in specially made boxes bearing George W. Bush's reprinted signature. Her door was always open and the M&M's were always available. I dared ask one time why they were there. Her answer: "I like M&M's, and I like sharing."

Bush has made this unfortunate nomination. What is to be done? The best alternative would be for Miers to withdraw. Is such an idea out of the question? It should not be. -Bill Kristol

Pretty persuasive. Still, I think that the court will be better off with a Justice Miers, or anyone else that President Bush selects to take the place of Justice O'Connor (President Reagan's appointment). Basically, we are likely to see a net improvement upon the USSC whether or not President Bush withdraws his nomination or if she withdraws herself.

Mark Noonan over at BlogsForBush wondered aloud: "The President has asked us to trust him on this nomination - and some of my rightwing friends seem downright insulted by this request."

The truth is, we didn't expect the President to play a Rorschach inkblot game with us, and it appears to be one, on this very consequencial and widely and long contemplated issue regarding the drift of the court away from the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as evidenced by horrendous judgements such as Kilo, Roe, and some others that I can't seem to recall off the top of my head.

Here's that disconnect again that I mentioned earlier. Sometimes Conservatives, just as President Bush's main political opponents, have to be reminded that he won the election in 2000 and 2004. If you didn't support Steve Forbes during the GOP primaries and were eligible to vote, I don't want to hear what you have to say right now. People think that their intelligence is being insulted while the President thinks that he's doing something other than disappointing! This is pretty funny, actually. This thing can get pretty polemical on both sides of this issue, but they are both reasonable positions to have, at this point.

I much prefer the country to be moving in the direction where debates are more worthy of a free republic. I think that this right vs. right argument is a good example of where this country as a whole could be as well as a healthy break from the debates provided by the currently irrelevant the left.

(Cartoons via Pookie18 at Free Republic)

Friday, October 07, 2005

The Abiogenesis of Moral Relativism

Interesting little column at NoDNC.com. Excerpt:

The idea of “abiogenesis” expects one to accept on blind faith that life just “magically appeared” from some accidents with rocks, water, and a few base chemicals. [Pretty much a Supernatural claim from which attacks against consciousness and awareness of the Supernatural are launched; nonsensically, of course.]

Evolutionary theory [today] demands that only physical/material properties can be evaluated. This notion completely ignores the fact that human beings have the ability to reason, to think through things, to make value judgments, to make decisions, to choose right or wrong, to have order and structure or to have disorder and chaos.

This is another point of conflict, if you accept [materialists'] premises, only natural selection is valid and all of our morals, values, and social structures aren’t valid. But they exist and their very existence proves that [materialism] has [fatal flaws].

The “law of the jungle” part of evolution is a glaring defect and a strong demonstration that evolution misses the mark. There is something more to human life than just “kill or be killed.” [see Deut 8:3]

Over and over again, architect, electrical engineer, physicist, chemist, veterinary, and any number of professions routinely cheat “natural selection” with intelligent design. Over and over again evolution’s “accidents” and “natural selections” are overcome by intelligent design.

Look into the eyes of one of God's creatures, of someone that you love. And there you will see the fingerprints of God.

Genesis 2:17 basically traces the statement "to see through everything is to see nothing" to its absolute meaning.