T-12 Days and Counting: Why We Fight

Why does anyone fight for a cause? Generally, it's because the person believes the world would be a better place if the cause prevailed. The fight may be overt or covert, involving force of arms or force of ideas, and may benefit few or many.

Yesterday when I got home from work, I was greeted by this headline at Lucianne.com:

N.J. rules same-sex couples should get

same rights as heterosexuals

This represents a classic fight of ideas. Married couples have a whole bunch of ancilliary rights under state laws, many of which devolve from the fact that marriage is, among other things, an economic contract. Rather than fight state by state, statute by statute, to amend the laws to include other sorts of consensual living arrangements, gays and lesbians figured out that if they could have their partnerships labeled "marriage", then the rest of the subsidiary rights under law would automatically pertain too. It seemed much simpler to broaden the definition of marriage than to keep fighting the step-by-step legislative battles. So they took to the courts.

The art of politics is all about finding solutions to problems that are amenable to the majority of participants. This applies in any organization that depends on buy-in from its members in order to continue to function, whether it's a book club or a government. Hugh Hewitt complains that the NJ Supreme Court decision, like the decisions in Vermont and Massachusetts, subverts the political process by demanding that the legislators craft law to support the court's reading of the state constitution.

A similar argument is made against Roe v. Wade, that the US Supreme Court decreed a "right" and stopped the political solution-finding in each state dead in their tracks. The result has been acrimony and litmus tests for politicians and appointed officials for more than 30 years.

Last week in Philadelphia during the Townhall.com event, a woman asked how to convince someone who's pro-choice to vote for Senator Santorum, who is pro-life. Dennis Prager answered that politics is a hierarchy of values: "We will never have a party we totally agree with, so we have to compromise."

Do the Democrats, or the Republicans, or the Greens, or Libertarians better match your values and priorities? If you agree with a party on nine of ten issues, why would you vote against them for the sake of that one issue?

These are times when you may need to re-evaluate your values hierarchy. Which is more important, making President Bush a lame duck for the next two years (Nancy Pelosi's stated aim), or pressing the war against Islamic fascism?

Perhaps this soldier's email to Kathryn Jean Lopez, comparing the Cold War to the current war, can provide some perspective:

Sure there are differences between that conflict and this one and of course there are people who would love to tell me just how dissimilar the two conflicts really are, how you cannot really compare the two, etc., etc. But, I have seen firsthand the depths of evil to which the Muslim extremists can go and I can assure you that as a threat they are every bit as dangerous as the Communists were. or any enemy we have ever faced, for that matter. More important, as the president has said, they are patient and they are determined. They will not relent until they achieve their aims. I'm afraid we are in for another long, protracted ideological struggle. I really believe we will win this one, too, as long as we stay united. We have to. Our children and our grandchildren are depending on us.

What are you willing to fight for? Vote accordingly!

For more ammunition, read the transcript to President Bush's press conference yesterday. Also Thomas Sowell, and Dr. Sanity, and Hugh Hewitt, and the Anchoress.

For news on the military war, see DefendAmerica and Central Command (CENTCOM), plus Milblogging, Mudville Gazette, and Black Five.

Related posts:

• T-20 Days and Counting: Naming the Enemy
• T-21 Days and Counting: Rick Santorum
• Beware Creeping Tyranny

T-15 Days and Counting: The Propaganda War

The public's perception of how things are going in Iraq is shaped by what news and information makes it through the filters and biases of reporters, editors, and publishers. The bias problem is not unique to North American media either: BBC executives have actually admitted its leftist leanings. (H/T NRO Corner)

The revelation that CNN is a willing partner in broadcasting the enemy's propaganda should shock us, but it is just one more point of evidence that much of the main stream media is biased against the traditional liberal values that have made American freedoms the envy of the world.

Recently, President Bush made the point about the propaganda war that's being waged against us:

Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.

"He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election." (ed. - emphasis added)

"George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave," Bush said. "And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here's how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw." (ed. - emphasis added)

Tigerhawk provides the historical background:

At the time the media perceived and promoted the Tet offensive as a great victory for the enemy. In an age when the network anchors deployed truly awesome power, Walter Cronkite destroyed Lyndon Johnson's chances for re-election when he editorialized that we were "mired in stalement". President Johnson declared "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America," and withdrew from the 1968 presidential campaign.

Tet, however, was not a military disaster for the United States. Quite to the contrary, history has revealed that the Tet offensive was in fact a crushing defeat for the Viet Cong, and effectively required that the Communists conquer the South by invasion from the North, rather than by civil insurgency. The Viet Cong were only able to turn a military disaster into strategic victory by persuading the American media that the United States was mired in stalement. With the domestic political support for the war fading fast, the United States decided to withdraw from Indochina, even though it would take Nixon and Kissinger another four years to accomplish it.

Victor Davis Hanson argues that we're doing better in Iraq in particular, and the larger war against Islamic fascism, than most media outlets admit:

The odd thing is that, for all the gloom and furor, and real blunders, nevertheless, by the historical standards of most wars, we have done well enough to win in Iraq, and still have a good shot of doing the impossible in seeing this government survive. More importantly still, worldwide we are beating the Islamic fundamentalists and their autocratic supporters. Iranian-style theocracy has not spread. For all the talk of losing Afghanistan, the Taliban are still dispersed or in hiding — so is al Qaeda. Europe is galvanizing against Islamism in a way unimaginable just three years ago. The world is finally focusing on Iran. Hezbollah did not win the last war, but lost both prestige and billions of dollars in infrastructure, despite a lackluster effort by Israel. Elections have embarrassed a Hamas that, the global community sees, destroys most of what it touches and now must publicly confess that it will never recognize Israel. Countries like Libya are turning, and Syria is more isolated. If we keep the pressure up in Iraq and Afghanistan and work with our allies, Islamism and its facilitators will be proven bankrupt.

But victory won't happen if Americans believe the negative spin and vote the Democrats into power in Congress in two weeks.

Milblogger Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette puts the challenge succinctly:

But like it or not, Mr and Mrs Average American are involved in a propaganda war, the only battle of the war on terror currently being fought on U.S. soil - and those who choose not to be victims of that battle may wonder what the appropriate response should be. Perhaps just this - bear in mind the stated goal: "to throw fear into the American people's hearts", divide and conquer, weaken resolve, and defeat America. Be aware of the plan to reach that goal, and recognize it for what it is when next you see it in action, as you undoubtedly will. (And while you're at it, spread the word...)

Greyhawk has lots more commentary on the propaganda war:

• al Qaeda's "Working Paper for a Media Invasion of America" - the Media Responds
• al Qaeda's "Working Paper for a Media Invasion of America"
• Al Qaeda "A-list" Journalist Responds

Update: Also check out the President's radio address (H/T Mudville Gazette):

Another reason for the recent increase in attacks is that the terrorists are trying to influence public opinion here in the United States. They have a sophisticated propaganda strategy. They know they cannot defeat us in the battle, so they conduct high-profile attacks, hoping that the images of violence will demoralize our country and force us to retreat. They carry video cameras and film their atrocities, and broadcast them on the Internet. They e-mail images and video clips to Middle Eastern cable networks like al-Jazeera, and instruct their followers to send the same material to American journalists, authors, and opinion leaders. They operate websites, where they post messages for their followers and readers across the world.

In one recent message, the Global Islamic Media Front -- a group that often posts al Qaeda propaganda on websites -- said their goal is to, "carry out a media war that is parallel to the military war." This is the same strategy the terrorists launched in Afghanistan following 9/11. In a letter to the Taliban leader Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden wrote that al Qaeda intended to wage "a media campaign, to create a wedge between the American people and their government."

The terrorists are trying to divide America and break our will, and we must not allow them to succeed. So America will stand with the democratic government of Iraq. We will help Prime Minister Maliki build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. And we will help Iraq become a strong democracy that is a strong ally in the war on terror.

For more positive news about the war efforts, check out http://www.defendamerica.mil/.

T-18 Days and Counting: "Great Americans"

A colleague sent me the paper below, entitled "Great Americans," written by his grandson Peter Floyd, and gave me his permission to post it here. His grandson's class at his USAF technical school was given an assignment to write a paper about why they joined the military. Peter's paper was one of two that were chosen to be read during the graduation exercises. After you read it, I am sure you will understand why it was chosen.

GREAT AMERICANS

When your grandfather is a retired chief master sergeant, your dad is a Sgm your mom a Staff Sergeant in the Army, both of you older brothers are Corporals in the Marine Corps, and all of your Aunts and Uncles are a part of the military. It's very clear what they want you to do with your life. Join the military. As a 17 year old kid who was just about to graduate High School there was only one thing to do Rebel.

I was determined not to follow that line. I wanted to go to college and have fun and just be a normal teenage college student that has to beg his parents for money. Little did I know that a new awaking and new determination that would open my eyes? But it wasn't my own strengths and determination NO it was my middle brother Lcpl Brian Floyd.

15 days before my High School graduation my brother was very severely injured from an I.E.D explosion in FALLUJAH , IRAQ. His hands and head where impaled by shrapnel from what was his HUMMV. He was immediately transferred to Bethesda Medical Hospital. Seeing what was done to him, how bad he was my whole world fell apart. When you grow up as an Army Brat your family is all you really ever have. I wondered how someone could do this to my own brother. They have no idea of the pain they put my family threw. It only reinforced my thoughts that the military just wasn't for me.

I left my brother's side to attend my graduate High School only to come back to find him up and walking down the hall way on his own. It was so amazing to see that because, one week before they didn't know if he was going to live or not; and then to see him walk, I swear in that moment I saw god in him. I knew he would be ok

Two months later he got to come home. Still on I V. and without a STRUCTURED Forehead he was in need OF A FRIEND. I put my dreams of College on hold to be the one to stay with him. Being with him 24/7 we talked just like old times and relied on one another. One night we were up real late and he was talking about how miserable he was. I asked him well does your head hurt what you need. He said, "I need my team". And my team needs me back over there". I said, what are you crazy; you just got hurt and you're not going to get out. He said, Peter I raised my hand up and swore that I was willing to give up my life for this country. I'm still alive so im going to keep on fighting until I can't anymore. What we talked about that night struck me threw the heart like a knife. It made me think maybe there is something more to the military than what I see. If my brother almost lost his life and he is willing to get back up and do it all over again than either he took one too hard to the head, or he has experienced on of the most amazing events of his life.

Seeing him get his purple heart was amazing I was so proud of him. And I realized then that I wanted him look at me the same way I look at him. I didn't want him to see his little baby brother. I wanted him to see the fighter and the Warrior in me. He was one of the first people to return to full active duty after suffering a serious brain injury. He reached his goal by returning to his team and going back to Iraq Sep 5 2006. Looking back on our conversation a year ago I completely understand why he didn't quit. He didn't do it just for himself he did it for those he left behind. Instead of having sympathy for what happened to him I have a fear of not knowing what his limits are. So what inspired me to join the air force? It was the determination of another during his struggle that changed my life and I'M proud to call him my brother and my teammate.

Peter Floyd
U.S. Air Force

Related story and pictures from Marine Corps News:

It’s all in the family for Jacksonville Purple Heart recipient

Nov. 22, 2005; Submitted on: 11/22/2005 10:02:18 AM ; Story ID#: 2005112210218

By Cpl. Mike Escobar, 2nd Marine Division

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. (Nov. 22, 2005) -- Whether wounded on the battlefield or resting in a military hospital back home, injured Marines have always relied on the support of their fellow service members and loved ones to motivate them on the often rough road to recovery.

Nineteen-year-old Lance Cpl. Brian Floyd received more than a few words of encouragement from his family, but a unique understanding of the trials he faced as a wounded combat veteran of the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq.

“It’s a family tradition to serve our country, no matter what branch of the military we do it in,” said the infantryman with 1st Combined Anti-Armor Team, Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, explaining how every member of his family is or has been a member of the nation’s armed forces. “We’ve always supported one another, and it feels great to have them by my side when things like this happen.”

The Jacksonville, N.C. native referred specifically to the encouragement his loved ones have given him throughout the past six months, a period of time marked by numerous surgeries and physical therapy sessions.

Floyd, a 2004 graduate of Terry Sanford High School in Fayetteville, N.C., was wounded in action on May 1 near Fallujah, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.

“I’d been manning the gun turret at the time,” he explained. “The armor shield right in front of the gun broke (during the blast), and a shard of metal slipped underneath my Kevlar (helmet). I ended up taking shrapnel to the head and in my left hand. I got knocked out, and the next thing I remember was waking up at (the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.)”

From that time on, Floyd said his family was there to lend him a helping hand.

His father, Army Sgt. Maj. Willie Floyd (retired), pinned the Purple Heart Medal onto his son’s chest here Nov. 16.

“I’m so proud of Brian’s dedication to duty, and also extremely grateful to his corpsmen and command for taking care of him,” Sgt. Maj. Floyd said after the ceremony. “They did what they had to do to get him off the battlefield that day, and they’ve given us back that fighting spirit that Brian possesses.”

Also present at the ceremony were Lance Cpl. Floyd’s mother, Army Staff Sgt. Georgette Floyd; two brothers, Lance Cpl. Willie Floyd and Peter Floyd; and two of his aunts, Army Sergeants First Class Elizabeth German and Ta’Juanna Denmark. They had traveled from bases in Fayetteville and Fort Benning, Ga., to see their wounded Marine presented his medal.

“After what he (Brian) has been through these past few months, I’m the one who looks up to him now,” said Floyd’s older brother Willie, who is also based here and serves as a machine gunner with 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment.

Currently, Floyd resides at Camp Lejeune’s Wounded Warrior Barracks while he receives what he said will be his last surgery. He said he eagerly waits to return to full duty to once more fight alongside his brothers in 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, and that he never lost his passion for the Marines.

“I’ve wanted to be a Marine since I was 12 years old,” Floyd stated. “I’m hoping to do 20 years in the Corps, and maybe even more, because there’s nothing else for me to do in this world.”

-30-

Photos included with story:

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. - Lance Cpl. Brian Floyd, fourth from the left, poses for a group photo alongside several of his relatives and his friend, Petty Officer 3rd Class Micah Selcer, far right, after being presented his Purple Heart Medal here Nov 16. The 19-year-old infantryman with 1st Combined Anti-Armor Team, Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment and Jacksonville, N.C. native said every member of his family serves, has served or is waiting to serve in the nation's armed forces. Photo by: Cpl. Mike Escobar

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. - Lance Cpl. Brian Floyd, an infantryman with 1st Combined Anti-Armor Team, Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, is presented his Purple Heart Medal here Nov 16 by his father, retired Army Sgt. Maj. Willie Floyd. The 19-year-old Jacksonville, N.C. native was awarded this medal for injuries sustained after a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle while he and his teammates had been conducting security and stability operations outside Fallujah, Iraq in May. Photo by: Cpl. Mike Escobar

T-19 Days and Counting: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

A number (pardon the pun) of recent stories would seem to be bad news for the Republicans:

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths (Cnn.com)

War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq."

Poll Signals More Republican Woes (WSJ.com) (H/T Real Clear Politics)

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll illustrates the political toll Republicans are paying for rising discontent over the Iraq war, as well as a spate of scandals including the disclosure that Republican House leaders knew of inappropriate emails to House pages from Florida Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned late last month. Voters' approval of Congress has fallen to 16% from 20% since early September, while their disapproval has risen to 75% from 65%.

Warm winds of change hit the Antarctic (news@nature.com)

[...] The stronger winds cause warming mostly in the summer. Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula has actually been most intense in winter, but in summer a large part of the extra heat goes into melting ice. This has dramatic consequences.
Percolating meltwater enlarges crevasses and leads ultimately to the disintegration of floating ice shelves.

The largest and most prominent such event happened in March 2002 when the Larsen ice shelf, with an area of 3,250 square kilometres, collapsed. Overall, more than 13,500 square kilometres, an area larger than Jamaica, of floating ice shelves have broken up in the past 30 years. This is expected to speed the flow of inland ice to the coast, accelerating global sea level rise.

The 2002 event can now be pinned down to a specific change in climate, which is in turn linked to human-induced global warming, the authors say. Some argue that this is the first single event proved to have been caused by manmade climate change. "It's close to being evidence," says Ted Scambos, lead scientist of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

What's wrong with these stories? The authors make inferences about causality that may or may not be valid. My mother, who studied statistics in the 30's at Columbia University, liked to relate a tale told by one of her professors to illustrate the difference between correlation and causality.

It seems that a certain researcher had found that older women were more likely to walk with their toes pointed outwards than younger women. He concluded that women's feet turned more outward as they aged. A later researcher took another look at that study, did some anthropological digging, and concluded that age had nothing to do with it: older women were more likely to have been taught as young girls to walk with their toes pointing out. The correlation was solid, but what caused the condition was open to debate.

Some counter-arguments for the stories above:

655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties. (OpinionJournal.com)

After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don't get me wrong, there have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone's measure; some of them have been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%--not 1200%.

An email to Hugh Hewitt (a followup to Hugh's earlier post):

Thank you so much for bringing attention on the all the faulty polling being done. You are not crazy, you are absolutely, 100% spot-on on this. I have worked my entire adult life, 25 years, processing market research and public opinion surveys. I know enough about surveys to be able to construct one that shows people prefer Pepsi over Coke, 60%-40%, or vice versa, and you would have no idea how I got either result even if I gave you the internals and methodology. You don’t have to take it on faith that there is a media conspiracy to misrepresent polling, they admit it in their own poll results. I have yet to see a general population poll that did not show adults 2%-4% more liberal than registered voters and registered voters 2%-4% more liberal than likely voters, and yet the media has no qualms about citing adults or registered voters when they want to give the Dems an added boost. Likewise, most 7 day tracking studies show a liberal 2%-4% bias when collecting over the weekend, yet the weekend seems to be the favorite time to poll. But the most important flaw is the one you have been talking about, the fact that every poll seems to over sample Democrats by 5%-10% consistently.

Climate of Fear (OpinionJournal.com)

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

Advertising copywriters know that having "factual" numbers in their stories lend credibility; most people lack the technical or scientific knowledge to know how to refute them, or recognize when they've been manipulated. Furthermore, people remember the bold headlines on page one, but not the corrections buried inside in tiny print. So it's an uphill battle to counter the erroneous perceptions people get from the mainstream media.

T-20 Days and Counting: Naming the Enemy

Last night, Dennis Prager talked about the Orwellian world we live in, where liberals can slander Christians with impunity, decrying the coming theocracy, but conservatives aren't allowed to use the term "Islamic fascists" because it's not politically correct! Dennis noted that critics willfully misconstrue English grammar to imply that the term impugns all Muslims. Not so: "Islamic" modifies the word "fascists" to describe a particular sort of fascist. During WWII, people understood that "Italian fascist" applied to a particular sort of fascist, but did not apply to all Italians.

Osama bin Laden* and Iranian President Ahmadinajad are both fascists, for they have both stated publically that they are striving to bring about an Islamic theocracy, one that would make the Taliban look like pikers. Historian Victor Davis Hanson explains:

Make no apologies for the use of “Islamic fascism.” It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist” appeasers in the West is just too bad.

First, the general idea of “fascism” — the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology — fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.

Senator Rick Santorum is likewise adamant that "words have meaning," and that we must be more precise in our terminology. Calling the enemy cowards, or militants, or insurgents, or describing our battle as the "Global War on Terror," has led many Americans to be in denial about the threat: Complaints that the Administration is really creating a climate of fear for political purposes continue to be aired.

The irony is that many liberals consider themselves to be part of the "reality-based community," but their "reality" doesn't match the world that I and many others perceive. Dr. Sanity provides a diagnosis:

Denial can make otherwise intelligent individuals/groups/nations behave in a stupid or clueless manner, because they are too threatened by the Truth and are unable to process what is perfectly apparent to everyone. People who live in this Wonderful World go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--and I mean NOTHING--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason or logic; or their own senses will make an individual in denial reevaluate that world view. All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact.

It is an uncomfortable truth that there are radical Muslims who don't want to share the planet with infidels at all. They've been probing the West's defenses and psyche for decades. The Army maintains a Timeline of Terror that starts in the 1960's. This is not a dark fantasy of the Bush Administration!

"This is not simply a fight against terror - terror is a tactic. This is not simply a fight against Al Qaeda, its affiliates and adherents - they are foot soldiers. This is not simply a fight to bring democracy to the Middle East - that is a strategic objective. This is a fight for the very ideas at the foundation of our society, the way of life those ideas enable, and the freedoms we enjoy."

-R.L. Brownlee, Acting Secretary of the Army
-General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, United States Army

How do we break through people's defense mechanisms so we can engage in thoughtful debate about the best way to win the war for Western Civilization? We thought that the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were a wake up call. Plus the attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Egypt, Mumbai, and elsewhere around the world since. But their shock value fades ever more quickly, and people return to their habitual world-views.

I don't know the answer. I wish I did.

* H/T to In The Bullpen for the timeline of OBL's pronouncements.

T-21 Days and Counting: Rick Santorum

That's how much time is left until the general election on November 7th.

Tonight, Senator Rick Santorum spoke at a townhall meeting in Philadelphia. The event was sponsored by WNTP (990 AM) and the Philadelphia Federation of Young Republicans. Featured guests were talk show hosts Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager.

The crowd was hushed as Senator Santorum came to the end of his speech, and then burst into loud applause and gave him a standing ovation. Let me share my notes from his speech and Q&A:

• The country needs people who can stand up in difficult times and confront the issues and the American public.
• "Greatest danger facing America is Islamic Fascism." Important that we know who the enemy is. Americans are wavering on the war because we don't understand the enemy.
• Words matter. "War on terror" brings images of men hiding in caves — so Americans think, How could we lose to them? President Bush kept referring to the enemy as cowards for a time after 9/11, but that's a misrepresentation. "These people people are not cowards; misguided, sick, but not cowards." We don't call them what they are, so we don't understand them.
  
• Enemy's favorite movie is watching the two Fox news reporters submitting to Islam. They see us as evil, corrupt, not willing to die for anything, weak materialists.
  
• Iran is where the action is, our principle threat right now. We've already dealt with two major enemies: the Taliban and Al Qaeda (which are radical Sunnis), and Iraq which under Saddam Hussein was being opportunistic in aiding terrorists. Iran and the radical Shiites are now the third problem.
• Iranian President Ahmadinajad is our threat and our opportunity. Rick sees parallel with 1930's and Europe's approach to Hitler: they didn't take him at his word, and assumed he was someone they could negotiate with. Same story now with Ahmadinajad, who has designs far beyond running his little corner of the world. He's more dangerous than Hitler because he's also a religious zealot who sees his duty as to bring the end times, when Islam wins its final battle over the infidels and the 12th Imam returns. He's dangerous because he has resources (oil, for example) and ability to aquire nuclear weapons thanks to the A.Q. Khan network and N. Korean scientists.
  
• We're dealing with a man/country/movement that wants to change the world. We sit by and play political games, and do nothing.
  
• This year's Senate races will determine the course of our national security policy for years to come. If the Democrats take power, they will say, We can negotiate with him. We will delay and delay, and then wonder why Iran has nukes.
  
• If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the world will no longer be the same. That day is sooner than we've thought, given N. Korea's test last week.
• Rick thinks that our intel in the Middle East is deplorable. Exiles tell him that there is strong pro-U.S. sentiment in Iran among the people. He thinks we lost credibility after the Administration's decision to work with the Europeans and negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program at behest of State Department.
  
• Touted his work to pass the Iran Freedom and Support Act (S.333), saying the Administration finally realized that some policy on Iran was better than none. He feels we need to foster peaceful revolution from within Iran — soon. If not, have to consider other options, including military.
• "On matters of principle, people deserve your best."
• "Don't let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi fool you into thinking that under their leadership the country would become more conservative!" I.e., get out and vote Republican; don't be cowed into staying home on election day.
  
• National security, American culture, and economy would be at risk under Democratic leadership.
• Our war efforts have had three major components. First, going after the enemy in their lairs and destroying them. Second, stepping up intelligence efforts and stopping plots before they hatch (several hundred stopped so far around the world). Third, "fortress America" — which is the Dem's first priority and exactly backwards — beefing up government to keep us safe, spending billions of dollars but not the best way to defend America.
• US has been on offense since 9/11 and Rick wants us to stay on offense!
• Q. about putting an end to gun violence. Rick said it was a multi-dimensional problem, requiring a number of approaches, such as tougher enforcement, intervention programs for juvenile offenders, and programs from community- and faith-based organizations. Violence comes from neighborhoods where common denominators are lots of violence, broken homes, and absentee dads. Need to promote marriage, reconnect fathers with kids. Liberals say that we can't moralize or judge people's families. Problem is that children get hurt by that ideology. Need to build healthier families and communities.

Dennis Prager preceded Senator Santorum, speaking for thirty minutes to a rapt audience.

• Dennis is here in Philadelphia because of Rick Santorum, not being paid to appear. "This is a race worthy of your money, time, and effort."
• We are in a battle for the soul of America. Ironic that many Republicans don't understand that, while many Democrats do.
• Liberals are foolish, but not bad, often mean well. To liberals, essence is about feeling good (rather than actually doing good).
• "American Trinity" is his way of describing our distinctive value system, and it's found on every US coin: In God We Trust, E Pluribus Unum, and Liberty. Uniquely American, what it's all about in the final analysis.
• In God We Trust means we're grounded in a moral framework with Judeo-Christian values. Unlike the Europeans, our American forebears were grounded in "Judeo", although there's no such thing as Judeo-Christian theology. Talking values here, not theology. US is not a secular country, but does have a secular government.
• E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one". Liberals endorse multi-culturalism, which is the antithesis of E Pluribus Unum, "un-American". Multi-culturalism means every culture is equally "celebratable", which is demonstrably false. Americans have always made culturable judgements, keeping that which is good.
  
• US has only culture that has put together religious society with liberty, understanding that God wants us to be free. Deeply religious people asserting that libery is at center of God's command.
• Question that matters is, who is dominant in a society? Most Germans were peace-loving before WWII, but the Nazis were the ones in power.
  
• Enemy understands that US is greatest threat to Islamist vision of world-wide caliphate under sharia.
  
• Rick Santorum is up against an opponent who is just there to try and unseat him. Dennis is here to help him fight the good fight.

Hugh broadcast his first two hours from the next room (so of course, we missed his show!), and then joined us at 8 pm, after Rick Santorum's speech. He was introduced by Dennis Prager.

• Pennsylvania Republicans have saved Union before (with Lincoln nomination), and can save Senate this time.
• Many Democratic candidates are empty suits. Wrong and clueless, many incurious about issues. This is a crucial moment in the history of the Republic, but Democrats are fielding light-weights.
• Related story of Mother Teresa receiving Medal of Freedom at Rose Garden, and when invited to speak, said "Mr. President, I need more money!" Moral: ask for what you need. Rick Santorum needs your time, money, and energy if he is to win in November.
• Had Scott Rassmussen on his show this evening, who is a prominent pollster. Hugh talked to him about the models pollsters use to predict turnout. Lesson is that turnout models are garbage-in, garbage-out, so polls aren't all that accurate. Best indicator of what's really going on is to see where the parties are spending their money. Dems know that Rick Santorum has come from behind to win 3 of 4 times on election day, so they're spending lots to defeat him.
• Rick is an unusual politician because he will answer questions that are asked, and respond with a well thought-out and articulate position. He has a coherent world-view. It's always necessary to understand what we stand for.
• Need truth-tellers, and Rick Santorum is one.

The evening was fun, and I enjoyed getting to meet Dennis for the first time, and Hugh for the second time.

**********
Local campaigns I'm supporting: Jim Saxton for Congress and Tom Kean for U.S. Senate.

[Update 10/18 1046] Welcome Hugh Hewitt readers!

And for those people who haven't read his take on last night's events it's here.

Mike Douglas, RIP

A true gentleman died yesterday. Mike Douglas, whose legendary TV show started when KYW was Channel 3 in Cleveland, always made me laugh. I would often watch the first 20-30 minutes when I was home for lunch from elementary school, since it was on live 12:30-2:00 on weekdays. I missed my daily dose of Mike when the station and the show moved to Philadelphia in 1965, and moved its timeslot as well.

From the Plain Dealer:

Daytime talk show pioneer Mike Douglas, who got his start in Cleveland, died Friday at a hospital in North Palm Beach, Fla. He was 81.

The “Mike Douglas Show” aired every weekday for two decades, bringing a mix of talk, entertainment and information to millions of American households. During more than 4,000 shows, Douglas used his easy charm and self-effacing manner to bring out the best in actors, comedians, musicians scientists, athletes, authors and politicians — including seven presidents — as well as delight his wide audience.

For an entertainer, success came late in life for Douglas. Before landing the “Mike Douglas Show” at age 36, the singer worked with big bands and in nightclubs. He performed on radio and in a series of television shows. And he was the singing voice of the prince in Walt Disney’s animated “Cinderella.”

He had two hit songs when he was singing with Kay Kayser’s Kollege of Musical Knowledge, “The Old Lamplighter” and “Ole Buttermilk Sky.

In 1960, KYW television producer Woody Fraser had an idea for a live talk and entertainment show. All he needed was the right host. He remembered Douglas from a short-lived Chicago television show on WGN called “Hi Ladies.” The Cleveland station was getting killed in the ratings by “The One O’Clock Club,” which starred local broadcast legend Dorothy Fuldheim and radio personality Bill Gordon.

Douglas was on the West Coast working nightclubs when he got the call from Fraser. At the time, Douglas was considering getting out of show business and into real estate. He flew to Cleveland to tape a pilot show for the Group W Westinghouse station. Several more auditions followed. “The Mike Douglas Show” began airing Dec. 11, 1961. The first show featured a banjo-playing priest as a guest. Douglas was paid $400 a week.

Within months the show was No. 1 in its time slot and airing in several major markets. A year later the show was syndicated. In two years the 90-minute show was No. 1 in daytime ratings all across the country. Douglas never looked back. For the next 20 years everybody who was anybody appeared on his show.

In every field of endeavor Douglas interviewed the giants. In comedy it was Bob Hope, Jackie Gleason and Bill Cosby. In dance it was Rudolf Nureyev, Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. In jazz it was Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and Dizzy Gillespie. Female vocalists Pearl Bailey, Barbara Streisand and Aretha Franklin all shared an afternoon or more with Douglas. So did actors Marlon Brando, Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro.

From the Courier-Post (Gannett News Service):

For decades, much of America whiled away its afternoons with Mike Douglas.

Douglas, who passed away Friday morning on his 81st birthday, ruled afternoon TV for 21 years as the singing host of "The Mike Douglas Show."

Airing in syndication from 1961 to 1982 and topping the daytime ratings for many of those seasons, the 90-minute show offered a non-taxing combination of music and talk, held together by the blue-eyed host's ready smile and almost unfailing amiability.

Douglas' show, which began in Cleveland and ended in Los Angeles, became a victim of changing tastes and syndicator Group W's belief that they could do better with a younger host. (John Davidson, and they were wrong.) For the bulk of its run, however, Douglas came to us from Philadelphia -- and that 13-year stretch from 1965 to 1978 is the show most people remember.

A former singer with Kay Kyser, Douglas would croon to his largely female audience in his light, pop style. (He provided the singing voice for Prince Charming in Disney's cartoon classic "Cinderella.") He would chat with his guests and encourage them to perform if appropriate -- famously getting Judy Garland to sing "Over the Rainbow" at one of the points in her life when she was reluctant to do so.

That was part of Douglas' appeal -- you didn't want to say no to him. The show traded on his geniality, and it was a rare afternoon when controversy or confrontation ruled the day. Douglas came across as one of TV's nicest guys, and his efforts to make guests comfortable were usually rewarded.

Not that Douglas did it alone. One of the show's signatures was Douglas' use of co-hosts who would sit by his side for the entire week and help question the other guests. Most memorably and least typically, perhaps, was the week in 1972 when John Lennon and Yoko Ono filled the role, helping the studiously non-hip Douglas connect to such guests as George Carlin and Jerry Rubin.

But then, pretty much everyone who was anyone in show business or politics showed up on the show, joining an eclectic roster that included Bill Cosby, Red Skelton, Marlon Brando, Malcolm X, Prince, Richard Nixon, Rose Kennedy, Mother Teresa, Mick Jagger, Ray Charles and Zsa Zsa Gabor (whose off-color insult to Morey Amsterdam in 1965 made the show switch from live broadcast to tape).

Rights & Wrongs

The UN Small Arms Review Conference continues to generate controversy. MSM stories tend to take the UN's official line that the meeting is only concerned with illegal small arms, e.g. Reuters:

Ahead of the U.N. meeting, the U.S. National Rifle Association, a strong supporter of President Bush, warned its members of a July 4 plot to finalize a U.N. treaty stripping citizens of all nations of the right to own guns -- a charge with no basis in fact.

Americans mistakenly worried about the U.S. Independence Day conspiracy have flooded the United Nations with more than 100,000 letters demanding the nonexistent treaty's defeat.

ANGRY OVER ILLEGAL WEAPONS

Annan again reassured the conference that no global gun ban was under consideration.

"Nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws," he said "Our energy, our emphasis and our anger is directed against illegal weapons. Our priorities are effective enforcement, better controls and regulation, safer stockpiling, and weapons collection and destruction."

Just because the official purpose doesn't infringe on legal gun ownership, that hardly means that some participants don't have hidden agendas! Sundry opinion pieces point out those agendas, such as this one by Joseph Klein in FrontPage Magazine, referring to Rebecca Peters, who is Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA):

Peters’ strategy, with the help of the chairman of the UN review conference and the Parliamentary Forum, is to enshrine international norms against civilian gun possession in an interpretive document that gun prohibitionists can label ‘customary international law.’ Such a document would legitimize Peters’ dogma that “gun ownership is not a right but a privilege.” IANSA can then use the international norms in our own courts to attack the notion that an individual right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment. They are counting on sympathetic federal judges, right up to the Supreme Court, to interpret the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections by deferring to ‘international norms’ against individual gun possession. In short, the stealth strategy here is for IANSA to drive the UN review conference’s agenda, obtain the wording they seek on curtailing private gun possession in the review conference’s official Outcome Document that they can point to as an ‘international norm’, and then argue that this ‘interna­tional norm’ should be incorporated into our courts’ interpretation of the Second Amend­ment -- converting a constitutionally protected individual right into a government-bestowed privilege.

Ironically, IANSA is headquartered in London. One of its UK-based member organizations called International Alert showed no compunction at all in boldly declaring that “the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee individuals the right to possess or carry guns.” Apparently some British folks have forgotten from whom we won our freedom — and why we sought it in the first place. We should as a nation celebrate our Declaration of Independence by telling the gun prohibitionists who are assembling in New York from all over the world during our Independence Day holiday to either stay out of our business or stay out of our country.

(Italics in original).

Speaking of Britain, there's a debate on whether they need to legislate a "Bill of Rights" to counteract the more pernicious aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the BBC:

Tory Bill of Rights bid slammed

The Conservatives' plan to replace the Human Rights Act with a US-style Bill of Rights has been described as muddled and dangerous by the government.

Tory leader David Cameron says current legislation is inadequate and hinders the fight against crime and terrorism.

He believes a British Bill of Rights would strike a better balance between rights and responsibilities.

But the Lord Chancellor says Mr Cameron is trying to rewrite human rights because "they seem inconvenient".

In a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in London, the Tory leader argued that the Human Rights Act had prevented Britain deporting suspected terrorists whatever the circumstances.

It was "practically an invitation for terrorists and would-be terrorists to come to Britain" he said.

One argument is that unless Britain withdraws from the European Convention on Human Rights, the legislation won't really accomplish much. The Daily Mail comments:

[H]uman rights law is a veritable article of faith (and rich pickings) for the many lawyers at the core of New Labour.

Now, however, even Mr Blair seems to be dismayed by its perverse effects — or perhaps it is more accurate to say he is dismayed by the mounting outrage among voters, who are horrified by the way it is thwarting attempts to deal with crime and protect this country against terrorism.

But because human rights are so totemic, he refuses to repeal his own law — not least because we would still be signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, and so English law could be overturned as a consequence of rulings made by the Strasbourg court.

And he is certainly not prepared to countenance leaving the Convention.

So he has taken refuge instead in the weaselly excuse of blaming not the law, but the way it is being interpreted.

This cop-out has given David Cameron a headline-grabbing opportunity. ...

Mr Cameron's criticisms of human rights law are very well made. But his proposals for dealing with it seem to owe more to the impulse to strike a political pose than to produce a workable policy.

Previous post: Beware Creeping Tyranny

Thwap!

Nothing like a successful test of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system to make North Korea's Dear Leader nervous.

From MDA's press release:

22 June 2006

Missile Defense Test Results in Successful “Hit To Kill” Intercept

Air Force Lieutenant General Henry “Trey” Obering, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) director, announced the successful completion today of an important missile defense “hit to kill” intercept test conducted jointly with the U.S. Navy off the coast of Kauai, Hawaii. The test involved the launch of a Standard Missile 3 (SM-3 Block IA) from the USS Shiloh, an Aegis-class cruiser, modified to perform the ballistic missile defense mission, and a hit to kill intercept of a ”separating” target, meaning that the target warhead separated from its booster rocket. It was the seventh successful intercept test involving the sea-based component of the nation’s ballistic missile defense system in eight attempts. “Hit to kill” technology uses only the direct collision of the interceptor missile with the target, totally destroying the target using only kinetic energy from the force of the collision.

“We are continuing to see great success with the very challenging technology of hit-to-kill, a technology that is used for all of our missile defense ground and sea-based interceptor missiles,” said General Obering.

At approximately 12 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (6 p.m. EDT), a target missile was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. USS Shiloh’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 3.6 Weapon System detected and tracked the target and developed a fire control solution. This was the USS Shiloh’s first missile defense test since completing the necessary modifications and upgrades to its SPY-1 radar and advanced communications system to make it capable of serving as a sea-based missile defense platform. It was also the first time the new weapon system configuration, ballistic missile defense 3.6, and a new missile configuration were used during the intercept mission.

Approximately four minutes later, the USS Shiloh’s crew fired the SM-3, and two minutes later the missile successfully intercepted the target warhead outside the earth’s atmosphere more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai.

Three Aegis destroyers also participated in the flight test. One Aegis destroyer, equipped with a modified version of the Aegis ballistic missile defense weapon system, linked with a land-based missile defense radar to evaluate the ability of the ship’s missile defense system to receive and utilize target cueing data via the missile defense system’s command, control, battle management and communications architecture. Two other Aegis destroyers, including one from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, stationed off Kauai performed longrange surveillance and track exercises. This data can also be used to provide targeting information for other missile defense systems, including the ground-based long-range interceptor missiles now deployed in Alaska and California to protect all 50 states from a limited ballistic missile attack. Another U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser used the flight test to support development of a SPY-1B radar modified by the addition of a new signal processor, collecting performance data on its increased target detection and discrimination capabilities.

This event marked the first time that an allied military unit participated in a U.S. Aegis missile defense intercept test.

The Lockheed Martin press release is here.

Beware Creeping Tyranny

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis Brandeis, 1928

Liberals in the US have been decrying the "erosion" of constitutional rights under the Bush Administration, arguing loudly against the NSA surveillance program and the renewal of the Patriot Act. Yet Conservatives and Libertarians see a quite different erosion — one due to left-leaning courts that create "emanations and penumbras"or cite other countries' laws to interpret the United States Constitution, and legislation that restricts political speech, gun ownership, property rights, and freedom of religion. (Go read the Bill of Rights!)

The European experience with well-meaning legislation has, over time, produced chilling results. Consider this WSJ Op-Ed (subscription required) on the legal lunacy in the British criminal "justice" system:

How did things come to a pass where law-abiding citizens are treated as criminals and criminals as victims? A giant step was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, making it illegal to carry any article for an offensive purpose; any item carried for self-defense was automatically an offensive weapon and the carrier is guilty until proven innocent. At the time a parliamentarian protested that "The object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy." The government countered that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them."

The trouble is that society cannot and does not protect them. Yet successive governments have insisted protection be left to the professionals, meanwhile banning all sorts of weapons, from firearms to chemical sprays. They hope to add toy or replica guns to the list along with kitchen knives with points. Other legislation has limited self-defense to what seems reasonable to a court much later. [...]

It may be crass to point out that the British people, stripped of their ability to protect themselves and of other ancient rights and left to the mercy of criminals, have gotten the worst of both worlds. Still, as one citizen, referring to the new policy of letting criminals off with a caution, suggested: "Perhaps it would be easier and safer for the honest citizens of the U.K. to move into the prisons and the criminals to be let out."

A similar sentiment republished in the Brussels Journal caught my eye, "Why Citizens Should Be Allowed to Bear Arms:"

The right to keep and bear arms for defence is as fundamental as the rights to freedom of speech and association. Anyone who is denied this right – to keep and bear arms – is to some extent enslaved. That person has lost control over his life. He is dependent on the State for protection.

The default reaction to this argument is to cry out in horror and ask if I want a society where every criminal has a gun, and where every domestic argument ends in a gun battle? The short answer is no. The longer answer is to say that more guns do not inevitably mean more killings. There is no evidence that they do. What passes for evidence is little more than an excuse for not trusting ordinary people with control over their own lives.

Why is gun control an issue in Britain? The fact that the UN will convene the "Small Arms Review Conference" next week probably has something to do with the surge in opinion pieces. The official Conference website is here. The conference program sounds benign:

Five years after the adoption of the United Nations Programme of Action to address the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, some 2,000 representatives from Governments, international and regional organizations and civil society will meet at United Nations Headquarters from 26 June to 7 July 2006 to review progress made; to address future cooperation and activities; and to assess challenges on the road ahead.

By unanimously adopting the Programme of Action in 2001, the United Nations Member States committed themselves to collecting and destroying illegal weapons, adopting and/orimproving national legislation to help criminalize the illicit trade in small arms, regulating the activities of brokers, setting strict import andexport controls, taking action against violators of such laws, and better coordinating international efforts to that end.

The small arms Review Conference should reinforce the momentum for action among Member States, civil society, international and regional organizations. The Conference is also expected to welcome the establishment of a group of governmental experts who will meet in November 2006 to tackle the issue of reining in illegal arms brokers.

Not everyone is sanguine about the conference. Mary Katharine Ham interviewed Wayne LaPierre, author of “The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the U.N.’s Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights.”

The philosophy of these groups, LaPierre said, is that the right to own a gun should be solely the right of governments, and they despise the fact that the United States remains a country in which private citizens can keep a handgun at their bedsides.

In a recent debate LaPierre did with Rebecca Peters, who is heading up the NGOs’ gun-ban efforts, Peters told him that Americans need to give up on the notion of self-defense because it’s something that only happens in movies.

The problem is, of course, that a disarmed people can do nothing when its armed government or militias turns on it. The U.N. has no response about what to do about that, LaPierre said, citing the Tutsis in Rwanda, the people of Darfur, and the Muslims of Bosnia.

“All they offer is a global socialist fantasy…If there were no guns, there would be no poverty, there would be no child hungry, there would be no violence. It’s the same global socialist fantasy we saw in the 20th century, “ he said. “Under the U.N. gun-ban policy, they have no solution for when the government goes bad; they have no answer for how to be liberated from a tyrant or a dictator; they have no answer for what oppressed people should do…Their whole philosophy is give up your arms and your freedoms and we’ll protect you.”

The pernicious influence of UN group-think on traditional freedoms isn't confined to gun control. Another piece from the Brussels Journal discusses the state of homeschooling in Belgium (HT Instapundit):

The fact that a growing group of children seems to be escaping from the government’s influence clearly bothers the authorities. Three years ago a new school bill was introduced. The new bill refers to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and it obliges homeschooling parents to fill out a questionaire and sign an official “declaration of homeschooling” in which they agree to school their children “respecting the respect [sic] for the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others.”

The declaration does not specify what “respecting the respect for the fundamental human rights and the cultural values of the child itself and of others” means. It states, however, that government inspectors decide about this and adds – and here is the crux of the matter – that if the parents receive two negative reports from the inspectors they will have to send their child to an official government recognized school. [...]

Under the Convention severe limitations are placed on parents’ right to direct and train their children. Under Article 13 parents could be subject to prosecution for any attempt to prevent their children from interacting with material they deem unacceptable. Under Article 14 children are guaranteed “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” – in other words, children have a legal right to object to all religious training. And under Article 15 the child has a right to “freedom of association.”

[Update 6/22: The author above has a follow-up post, "Crackdown on Homeschoolers: It’s the UN Wot Done It"]

While idealists consider democratic governments a bulwark against tyrannical dictators, democracies are not immune to the tyranny of the well-meaning. Democratic governments around the world are falling prey to socialist-tainted liberalism that elevates the interests of the state above those of the individual citizens. There's a kernel of truth in the assertion of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his letter to President Bush that,

"Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."

Dr. Sanity diagnoses the pathology thusly:

Those glory days when the Left believed in freedom and individuality; and that the content of one’s character was more important than the color of one’s skin-- are long gone. Nowadays it seems that the Left only pretends to believe in those values and feels it necessary to mouth the words.

But my observation is that today’s Left pretty much stands for nothing—not freedom, not equal opportunity; not individual rights; not even peace. Trying to right the wrongs and injustices of the world is truly ethical and noble goal, but something happened on the road to that beautiful utopia. The Left made a wrong turn and got lost--somewhere in the vicinity of Vietnam, I think. [...]

At this very moment, every issue supported by the Left, and almost all of the behavior exhibited by the Left is completely antithetical to classical liberal philosophies. There is no longer a commitment to personal liberty or to freedom. The Left is far too busy to promote freedom for the common man or woman, because their time is taken up advocating freedom for tyrants who oppress the common man; terrorists who kill the common man; and religious fanatics who subjugate the common woman.

The intellectuals who once promoted the IDEA of freedom, now are ensnared in an IDEOLOGY that depends for its very existence on the silencing of speech; the suppression of ideas; and the persecution of those who dare to refute its tenets.

Patriotism and love of one’s country is mocked by those who once fought to bring the American Dream to all American citizens; and who once championed those who were prevented from sharing in that Dream. Slowly and inexorably those idealists who once shouted, “we shall overcome,” morphed into a toxic culture promoting a never-ending victimhood that cannot possibly be overcome. Love of American ideals and values was transformed into the most perverse and vile anti-Americanism –where all things originating or “tainted” as American are uniquely bad; and where America became the source of all evil in the world.

The classical liberal tradition is now almost exclusively upheld by what are called “conservatives”. Once “liberal” was synonymous with the “left”. No longer.

A final pithy quote from Freedom Keys:

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do." -- Edward Everett Hale

Earth's Climate Is Always Warming or Cooling

From the WSJ Letters page today (subscription required):

Earth's Climate Is Always Warming or Cooling

Roger C. Altman ("The Beltway's Energy," editorial page, June 16), a Treasury official in the Clinton administration, says he is no climatologist, but then calls for energy policies that assume catastrophic global warming from carbon dioxide emitted in fossil-fuel burning. He doesn't reveal his sources of information -- perhaps they are just various "experts" quoted in the press, or perhaps even Al Gore. But Mr. Gore, in his movie and elsewhere, never asks the key question: How much of current warming is due to natural causes? And how much is really human-caused? Anthropogenic warming is simply taken for granted as part of a claimed but nonexistent "complete" scientific consensus.

The current warming trend is not unusual: Climate is always either warming or cooling, and ice is either melting or accumulating. But thermometers can't talk and tell you the cause of climate change. This requires a comparison of the patterns of the observed warming with the best available models that incorporate both anthropogenic (greenhouse gases and aerosols) as well as natural climate forcings.

Fortunately, the U.S.-Climate Change Science Program, funded at $2 billion annually, has done just that in its first report: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm.

It is based on the best current information on temperature trends. So how well do observations confirm the results of greenhouse models? The answer: not at all. The disparity between theory that predicts a climate disaster and actual data from the atmosphere is demonstrated most strikingly in the report's Fig. 5.4G (p. 111), which plots the difference between surface and troposphere trends for a collection of models and for balloon and satellite data.

Allowing for uncertainties in the data and for imperfect models, there is only one valid conclusion from the failure of greenhouse theory to explain the observations: The human contribution to global warming appears to be quite small and natural climate factors are dominant.

This conclusion should have a crucial influence on shaping our energy future. We hope that Mr. Altman, and the Bush team in Treasury, will pay attention to the science before advocating drastic energy policies that would kill economic growth.

S. Fred Singer
Arlington, Va.

(Mr. Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.)

Stifling debate?

This afternoon, Michael Medved had on Harry Knox (of Human Rights Campaign) who was expounding on the Democrat's talking points about the Marriage Protection Amendment. The guest went off-script, however, commenting that a Constitutional Amendment was a bad idea, because it would stop the debate, which was still developing "nicely" around the country.

Stop the debate? What does he think the Massachusetts Supreme Court did when it mandated that the Commonwealth's legislature rewrite the marriage law to suit the judges?

Mr. Knox obviously forgot that approving Constitutional Amendments can take years, with debates in each state. Lots and lots of debate, all across the country, with no guarantee that the Amendment will ever pass. Remember the Equal Rights Amendment?

And if the Amendment passes, it can be nullified later through the same process. Think Prohibition.

[Updated 6/6/06, 1730 EDT, with correct name of Michael Medved's guest and bio link.]

Rationing by any name

There's an Op-Ed in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required) by Martin Feldstein entitled "Tradeable Gasoline Rights". He gives his basic thesis in the first paragraph:

The rapid rise in the price of gasoline has produced calls for tougher fuel economy standards on new cars and trucks. Although reduced gasoline consumption would be good for the environment and for national security, such a regulatory change would be a mistake. A far better approach would be a system of tradeable gasoline rights, or TGRs. These could be distributed in a way that actually raises the income of a majority of households while giving everyone an incentive to reduce gasoline consumption.

I about jumped out of my chair when I got to the third paragraph and read this:

The government would decide how many gallons of gasoline should be consumed per year and would give out that total number of TGRs.

Why in the world does Mr. Feldstein believe that inserting more government bureaucrats and regulations into the gasoline market would improve life for Americans? Oh wait, he throws in a sweetener: the TGRs will be tradeable, leading to the assertion that they could raise "the income of a majority of households."

Right. Let's appeal to greed to push a really bad idea.

He claims that TGRs are a better solution for reducing consumption than legislating higher fuel economy standards, and more palatable than higher gasoline taxes. TGRs would raise the effective cost per gallon like a tax, but "the TGR system creates winners as well as losers." Meanwhile, he says that "[h]igher gas mileage standards would reduce gasoline demand in a very inefficient way by focusing exclusively on the rated mileage of new cars." But he also says that car companies have been known to respond to changing consumer tastes by changing their product mix.

What Mr. Feldstein doesn't discuss are the social and economic costs of implementing such a system. A rationing system, which is what the TGRs really are, requires new regulations, new government organizations to administer the program, and more law enforcement to counter the inevitable black market. Those costs have to be paid out of our taxes too. At least a higher gas tax has the merit of just making the existing tax bigger without adding a new bureaucracy; it would merely change the marginal cost of buying gasoline.

For the oil companies, they will incur compliance costs such as modification of their pumps to deal with double transactions for each purchase: the TGR "debit card" plus your actual payment. Those business costs will, surprise, raise the cost of gasoline too. And do you doubt that the legislation and complex TGR allocation rules will become a bonanza for litigators?

I don't see that TGRs accomplish anything that high prices aren't already encouraging: less driving, focus on conservation measures like keeping one's tires properly inflated, and a preference for better gas mileage when replacing one's vehicle. (Fuel economy standards may be misbegotten economic policy, but they have led to major improvements in technology since they were first implemented that perhaps would have come more slowly without the regulatory prod. Because of this, the average fuel economy of all cars in the US has increased over time as older cars are replaced with newer, more efficient models.)

TGRs may "raise the income" for many, but the implementation costs will eat away at that tiny raise. This proposal deserves a rapid burial!

I want my country back!

I want my country back. The country we used to sing about:

My country tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died!
Land of the Pilgrim's pride!
From every mountain side,
Let freedom ring!

My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love.
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture fills
Like that above.

Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song.
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.

Our father's God to, Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King!

I want my country back. The country President Reagan envisioned, even as he gave his Farewell Address:

And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thng. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.

I want my country back. The country where a shared idealism leads us forward, rectifying the sins of the past, calling us toward greatness. From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."²

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

Amen.

Demographics is Destiny

Hugh Hewitt is urging all his listeners and readers to read Mark Steyn's article that appears in today's OpinionJournal.

This article originally appeared online in the January issue of The New Criterion, and expands on themes Steyn developed in his column on Christmas Day.

Steyn writes:

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers*, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths--or, at any rate, virtues--and that's why they're proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

There are other factors that can drive birth rates, even within secular non-Christian states. When I toured the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union in 1984, I was struck by the difference in their social support networks for children.

China was even then implementing their one-child policy, so each child was cherished. In Shanghai and Beijing, our tourguides informed us that babies could be put into childcare as early as 56 days post-partum, provided by the factory or apartment complex. Since women could retire in their 50s, many families had extra in-laws, aunts and cousins who could also provide childcare for the working parents.

In the Soviet Union, we visited Moscow and Leningrad. Our Leningrad Intourist guide commented to that most of her married friends had no children, a few had a single child, and none had more than one. It was just too hard! Despite the proclaimed desire of the government that its citizens procreate, the realities of unrelated families sharing apartments, a dearth of caretakers, kindergarten only available for about 1/3 of the kids, and children not starting primary school until they turned 7, were tremendous disincentives for having children.

Although both countries boasted Communist governments, their policy decisions, their history, and their underlying cultures created very different outcomes.

* I grew up in Shaker Heights, Ohio, so learned about the Shakers in school. You can find out more at the Shaker Historical Society.