The sacred and the profane

I'd like to make fun of Britney Spears. She can't sing, and while she's cute, she's nowhere nearly as pretty as the media seem to think her. But some people are so gifted with self-parody that there's nothing you can do but quote them. From NRO's Corner, an excerpt from the Diane Sawyer interview. She's apparently talking about what she considers to be the sacrosanct nature of self-gratification.

Diane: "Sacred?"
Britney: "No, the song, 'Touch of My Hand' talking about indulging in yourself."
Diane: "And that's sacred?"
Britney: "It is sacred to me, but in a way, explaining, um, okay, I'm confusing myself right now."

My guess is that using an esoteric word such as "indulging" must have put her brain into synaptic overload. If nothing is required for pop stars but looks these days, can't somebody hook Adriana Lima up with a producer and some forgettable electro-pop?

So much for democracy

The president threw overboard the course that he and his aides had insisted for months was the only way to a stable Iraq: writing a new Iraqi constitution first, followed by nationwide elections. Instead, political power will be transferred to an interim Iraqi government of some type.

The change was prompted in part by the failure of the current 24-member Iraqi Governing Council to act effectively and by eroding Iraqi approval of the U.S. presence. A leaked CIA report concluded that Iraqis increasingly support resistance to the U.S. occupation.

I've written before that I don't believe in universal democracy. Nor, I submit, do most people who claim to believe in democracy. We already know that the EU doesn't, since it's fighting tooth and nail against allowing the people of Europe to vote on their new so-called constitution. Now, it's become clear that the president and his aides don't have much faith in it either. After all, what good is democracy when people don't vote the way you want them to?

Forget Bremer. Send Dean to run Iraq. This attitude sounds right up his alley.

Yes, the EU is antisemitic

Of course, the short-sighted lunatics at the Anti-Defamation League are more concerned about a Mel Gibson movie which is NOT antisemitic than the judenhassen of the second richest and third most powerful government in the world. Ealier today, I happened to glance at a friend's copy of the latest Panorama, one of the leading Italian cultural magazines, which featured an editorial titled "Si, l'Europa e' antisemita".

These are the children of the original Jew-haters, and they are building a new fascist empire on the ashes of the old. And yet, even America's Jews don't seem to think its worth worrying about. I used to wonder how on Earth it was possible that so many Jews didn't leave Germany when the writing was quite clearly on the wall long before 1941 marked the inauguration of the Final Solution. Now, I begin to understand.

For those who think that it can't happen here - or in this particular case, there again - remember that it is always happening somewhere!

This isn't news

A high-ranking intelligence official recently told me something startling. Our "enemy" in Iraq doesn't consist of just a few Baathist/Saddam remnants that can be easily rooted out, as Bush and our defense establishment have been constantly telling us. Rather, we are facing an actual guerrilla warfare effort being almost openly orchestrated against us by Syria, and in part by other Arab countries, including Iran. This official explained that almost half the guerrillas and terrorists entering Iraq come from Syria, where they are equipped with weapons and provided with the latest intelligence information, which is shared with them by Iran. Other militants are sent from Kuwait, Iran and even Saudi Arabia. There is little evidence that recent attacks against our troops are being orchestrated by remaining Saddam loyalists hiding in surrounding areas, he stated.

This is pretty substantial information. It changes everything about what lies ahead for our soldiers, and highlights a consistent mistake by the Bush administration of holding important things back from the American people. The picture being painted by the White House of a final resistance effort on the part of Saddam's regime may be inaccurate and misleading. And this will likely haunt President Bush in the very near future.

It's not only high-ranking intelligence officers who are saying this. The Coalition officer I spoke with this week told me the same thing; it's not Iraqis that are attacking them, but the imported jihadists from other Arab countries. And as I already wrote, they're not being aggressively pursued, for the most part, for fear of destabilizing the situation. This strategy is doomed to failure, as the entire goal of the foreign jihadists is to keep the situation unstable in order to keep US troops pinned down in Iraq and unable to open a new front in Syria, Iraq or Saudi Arabia. It appears that the strategists of the jihad learned something from Afghanistan, as their previous strategy of melting away into Pakistan and the mountains only freed up US forces to move onto Iraq.

I believe that the war must be fought, since it will be waged against us regardless of what we do. However, I am increasingly of the opinion that George Bush is the wrong man to lead the war effort. He has not publicly identified the enemy, followed the Constitution or told the American people the truth about the difficulties now facing the occupation. Kneejerk Republicans should note that President Bush has actually been worse in this regard than FDR, the worst President that America has ever known.

Thus spake Ralph Wiley

The man knoweth of what he speaketh " (and to think, this used to be Page 2, where people like yours truly and the scurrilous, scandalous Hunter Thompson came for political and prosaic asylum)"

Now it's whiny chicks, Hot or Not lists and gossip about Paris Hilton. As TMQ - formerly of ESPN Page 2 - would say, ye gods!

The godless party

Since we've been on the topic of God, it's a good time to mention this piece by Rod Dreher. Mr. Dreher, formerly of National Review and now an editor with the official favorite newspaper of VD - sounds a lot better when TMQ says that, doesn't it - the Dallas Morning News, wrote this excellent article on why the Democratic party is becoming increasingly marginalized. It also explains why the Republican party is getting so many new members whose commitment to smaller government and traditional values is slim to nonexistent, as they're basically Democrats at heart who simply can no longer stomach the militant atheism of the new and improved and purified Democrats.

On this war

I am very sympathetic to those fellow libertarians and lovers of freedom who suspect that we have been led by the nose into this war, primarily for the purposes of destroying more American liberties and weakening our national sovereignty. However, I am also aware that while it takes two to tango, it does not take two to fight.

The jihad was not declared by America or the West, it was declared on America and the West. This is not a propagandistic fiction any more than were the Islamic invasions of Spain, France, Italy and Austria imagined. The war will be fought, whether we engage or not. Since it will be fought, I would much prefer to see the West - even the globalist, socialist godless West - win instead of the Islamic jihad. Those who have not spent time in Europe probably cannot imagine how it could ever be possible that Islam could become a serious force in the USA, but no one who has lived in France, the Netherlands or the UK has any problem doing so.

One-world government or sharia. Not much of a choice, is it? And yet, we will persist in upholding freedom and liberty to the best of our ability.

God of the machine

Reader DS writes: In your friends game if one of the characters committed an evil act how could your friend judge them as he is the one who created them to commit the evil act?

First, it's not like our game had any sort of moral structure to it. That's really taking the analogy too far. But if we insist on exploring this nontheless, then we should keep in mind that he didn't program them to commit the evil act, he programmed them in such away that they were allowed to choose to commit evil, or to commit good. It is the quality of the decision that is being judged, which then determines the nature of the deciding character.

If you'll excuse me going off on a judgment tangent, I'm not so sure that Hell should be seen primarily as some kind of punishment. The parable of the wheat and the chaff seems to suggest that those cast away are simply not useful or somehow worthless for God's purposes. Again, I'm not saying that this is the case - obviously, I don't know - only that this is the way it appears to me. And, of course, I have no idea what God's purpose for us might be beyond this world, though I suspect it has little to do with sitting around playing harps.

The paradox of knowing everything

Reader TD writes: I am incredibly curious as to how you resolve the paradox of free will and absolute omniscience. If the Judeo-Christian God construct is absolutely omniscient and has temporal insight into said omniscience, how does free will actually function? This is, of course, the paradox of Calvinism.

I see two obvious flaws with this apparent paradox. First, omniscience does not imply omniactience. (probably incorrect - I want the word for all-acting). A being who is all-knowing and all-powerful still has the ability to choose not to act, or even, so to speak, not to look. Let me give an example. I designed a computer game with a friend which was never released, but possessed a sophisticated AI-system which is still more advanced than any game available today. As the programmer, my friend had complete control over, and complete knowledge of, each of the AI-controlled characters. His powers in that computer world were god-like, as at any moment, he could see precisely what was going through the character's head and know not only what it was doing, but why it was doing what it was doing.

Nevertheless, most of the time, my friend chose not to look or to control. Instead, he sat back and watched what resulted from the interactions of his characters. He was certainly capable of working out all the probabilities beforehand, but he seldom did. I am not saying that I am sure God really opts to act in this manner, only that it is dangerous and borderline blasphemous to say that He cannot. Given the evil state of the fallen world, I would submit that this point of view is consistent with both the Scriptures and what we perceive as the world's reality. To know is not to dictate, and by the same token, to be able to know is not to make the decision to know.

Second, I increasingly suspect that God is trans-temporal. I theorize he stands outside of time as well as our physical space, seeing both as a sort of small, self-contained structure. This may account for the strange "I am" terminology used by both the burning bush of Moses as well as by Jesus Christ himself. This would necessarily require some implications which are generally not taken into account by either side of the Calvinist question.

I am no theologian, and I don't know the great theological thinkers anywhere nearly as well as I know the economists, philosophers and historians of yore. My lack of interest in this regard is mostly because Jesus and Paul both tell us that not only do we not understand God, but that we are not even capable of understanding God. I am content to put my trust in Jesus Christ, with the hope that one day, he will not only shield me from the righteous judgment of God with his grace, but also explain it all to me.

We lost the initiative

That's how one Coalition officer, in the US after a recent tour in Iraq, described the situation after the deadly attack on the Italian compound in Nassirya. He believes that everything will have to change, since the Coalition forces had previously attempted to avoid offensive actions that risk destabilizing the situation. Instead of actively targeting the many foreign jihadists from countries such as Bahrain and Yemen, the forces have primarily been tracking and monitoring them. Now that the situation has been destabilized despite this restraint, this officer expects that it is now necessary to hit the Sunni triangle hard, while at the same time going after known guerilla fighters in various local hot spots.

He could not talk about the upcoming response, either from the US troops or the Coalition contingents, but he left me with little doubt that it is not only the US troops who are now ready to "kick ass". My conclusion is that the talk about speeding up the process of turning Iraq over to the Iraqis is not to bring our troops home, but to free them up to move on to the next stage of the war, which is more likely to be in the direction of Iran instead of Syria.

Is this desirable? I am of two minds on the subject, which is why I have written very little about it. But in any case, I believe it is inevitable, as I have ever since the morning of September 11th, 2001.

In ogni caso, gli occhi del mondo piangono per il sacrificio dai giovanotti italiani.

Yes, I love a black man

Daunte Culpepper is the best QB the Vikings have had since Fran Tarkenton. By the time he is done, he may well have done what our much-loved Georgia Peach couldn't do, which is lead the Mighty Purple to a Super Bowl victory. How anyone can blame a quarterback with a 107.1 rating, 15 TDs, 3 INTs for three straight losses in which the defense leaked like an upwardly mobile Pentagon staffer is completely beyond me.

By the way, Howard Dean and the rest of the Southern-hating crew running for president might want to note that these idiot racists hail from one of the most liberal states in the country - and about as far North as it gets.

It's insane. Donavan McNabb throws for 1 TD and barely more than a hundred yards while the Philly D stones the opposition, and he gets the credit. Daunte throws for 370 yards and 4 TDs while the defense gives up 42 points to a lousy Chargers team, and he gets the blame. Do these guys actually watch football?

You can call me, Al

Can't find the link, but Mr. Franken was running off at the mouth the other day, as usual, crying out about the need for the American left to fight this and fight that. And yet he still hasn't said a word about fighting ME, unfortunately.

If anyone has Mr. Franken's email, do let me know and we'll see if we can get a direct answer from him with regards to my little challenge.

God is a libertarian

Reader TT asks: Do you ever find your libertarian views of personal freedom conflicting with the idea of the Kingdom of God, or the Kingship of Christ in our lives as Christians?

No, I really don't. The way I see it, God has the ability to force us to behave however He might like. And yet, He doesn't. He says, look, here's My Son. He's the only way to Me and My Kingdom, but I'm not going to have him pick you up by the scruff of the neck and drag your butt over here, even though I'd really like to do that. Your freedom is so important to me that I'm going to leave the decision completely up to you, even though it breaks My heart to know that a lot of you are going to blow Me off.

Is that characterization in accordance with Scripture? I think so. And if so, does it sound more like the view of a Democrat, a Republican or a Libertarian deity.

I am free to do whatever I want. But if I want to please God, then I must choose what He says is right. No one ever said that freedom was without consequences, in fact, Jesus Christ said quite the opposite. The wages of sin are death. To argue that this is not a real choice is simply stupid, as all you have to do is look around you to see men and women making terrible, self-destructive choices every single day. The fact that the choice should be glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain doesn't mean that it isn't real.

Can't recommend Fedora

In addition to the bizarre problems I've been having with my wireless card - it works when the loader says FAIL and doesn't work when it says PASS - a friend of mine has now had grub eat his new Linux partitions and the boot loader can't find anything but his old Windows XP partitions. I'm sticking with RH9 for my work machines for the nonce, and I'm going to give both SUSE and Mandrake 9.2 a whirl on Guinea Pig, she of the broken USB interface.

OS News expresses the opinion that Fedora Core 1 was released sooner than it should have been. From what I've seen as a new Linux user, I would tend to agree.

It started long before that

Marine DH writes: "Being a former Marine from the "Old Corps" (before kevlar, humvees, and "sensitivity training"), I concur with your contentions completely. It is sad that we are allowing hollywood to cultivate society in believing that any woman can beat any man. The "Women in Combat" issue has always been one of my pet peeves, and will continue to be until this nation wakes up and recognizes the error of its ways. I'm sure you have witnessed the plethora of info on the issue (both pro and con). There may be one absolutely stellar piece on this subject that you may or may not be aware of. I came across... this essay titled Women in Combat: Exploring the Issues by Rev. Leroy Vogel, Chaplain, US Navy (Retired). Being a marine, I felt an immediate affinity because marine chaplains are US Navy. This piece is an absolute gem. Probably the best essay on the current issue that I have come across so far.

What I find even more fascinating with Fr. Keefe's dialogs, is his introduction of John Stuart Mill. Probably one of the original earlier feminists of the mid 19th century. (a man no less) What you begin to realize here is the direct connection of the issue of "women in combat" to pure (neo)liberalism. "Women in combat" is simply the epitome of the entire egalitarian movement. This really illustrates the entire elitists mind-set, and their convoluted understanding of liberty. That is, for them, liberty is for the "elite"; and slavery is for the common man to be so grateful to them to be led to the "way". Now you begin to understand why elitists in power when they pass laws for "the governed", but exempt themselves from these same laws."

Good points throughout, to be sure, with only one minor omission The concepts of women in combat and an elite beyond the laws guiding society were developed long before John Stuart Mill was pushing the idea. You'll find both notions articulated explicitely in Plato's Republic, and I'll even be touching briefly on the latter point in next week's column on atheism.

Email from my Marine readers is always in-depth, thoughtful and articulate. Doesn't surprise me in the least.

Calling a feminist a feminazi is an insult to National Socialism

AT writes again: Why is it when its about sex, men seem to only reap the benefits and none of the consequences - the burden of the female sex, apparently. What nazis perceived to be a deadly enemy was pure, unadulterated brainwashing - kind of like men that think that women have abortions to get promotions and orgasms..... Are your parents like this to, or did you join a cult? I am just curious.

Let's just count the flaws:

1. Yes, pregnancy is the burden of the female sex. This is news to you? Did you miss health class?
2. By AT's absurd fairness-based logic, unless a man has the equal right to rip a baby out of his impregnated lover's womb and kill it, he should not be held responsible for the child.
3. Yes, the National Socialists brainwashed the German population into believing that Jews were not humans, in much the same way that the murderous feminist movement has brainwashed a portion of the American population into believing that an unborn child is not a human.
4. Most women get abortions simply because they don't wish to deal with the hassle of a pregnancy. And while a pregnancy is inarguably a physical and emotional strain, the abortionettes can't even argue that the decision to kill the baby has anything to do with the burden of raising the child, since adoption is a perfectly reasonable alternative. Bringing side issues such as rape and health of the mother is irrelevant, since only a tiny percentage of abortions have anything to do with either. In any event, we don't kill the children of criminals, so the fact that a child is the product of a rape is no justification for taking an innocent human life.
5. There are millions of people across the country who believe that killing babies, born or unborn, is murder. The fact that AT thinks it is necessary to be a member of a cult to believe this just shows how far removed from reality or any sense of morality she is.

I wonder how long the abortionettes would hold to their position that an unborn baby is simply an inhuman mass of tissue if someone started taking a baseball bat to the bellies of pregnant women who have supported abortion rights. Because, by abortionette logic, that's nothing more than a simple case of battery, after all. Not even a felony. No wonder the Connor and Laci Peterson case empties their intestines.

We think we're better than Nazi Germany, because we haven't killed 6 million Jews. We've only murdered 40 million babies. Future civilizations will not only judge us, it will despise us more than we loathe Nazi Germany.

The triumphant return of TMQ

Hurray! ESPN delenda est!

Mailbox: the golden rule

Reader HR writes: As a Christian who remains staunchly in favor of our involvement in Iraq, I do want to say that I think you missed the point when you said:"My opinion on the optimal way to wage war on Iraq should no more be considered a Christian position than is my opinion on the likelihood of the Minnesota Vikings finishing 8-8 this season." Many think that Jesus told us to be pacifistic, whereas most will agree that he did not instruct us to shun athletic prognostication, however worldly that might be. So your two examples aren't equal, and a stronger case can be made that Jesus would have us oppose war.My own view is that Jesus told us unequivocally to love our neighbors, and I can think of nothing I'd want more, if I were an Iraqi living under Sadam, than for someone to come and free me and my family. I'm glad we could do unto others what I'd want them to do for me.

Of course, Jesus also said that there would be wars without mentioning anything about trying to stop them. But the basic point remains, since nations are not individuals and so Christian principles cannot always be applied to them. Still, I agree that there is a very strong case to be made for the war on Iraq from the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" perspective. I know if I was living under totalitarian rule, I too would desperately pray for an army of liberation, however flawed its motives. An excellent point.

Mailbox: Zero

AT writes: GIVE ME A BREAK... why do you think the statement "runs/throws/hits like a girl" IS an insult. How many women athletes out there could kick YOUR ass? Many, I am sure. Men create these hackneyed phrases to keep women down in every sense. To run, throw or hit like a girl is not in and of itself an insult. It is our society - and specifically men - who make it such. If not - why don't you put your money where your mouth is and pitch yourself up against some solid female athletes? I am sure you would be the one who 'throws/runs/hits' like a girl. Perhaps we should change that last part to throws/hits/runs like a close-minded right wing mania instead?

How many? Zero. I'm a former full-contact fighter and NCAA D1 sprinter. My bench max is 325 pounds. Only Marion Jones or the late Flo-Jo would stand the slightest chance of lasting more than 30 seconds in the ring or the back alley. Unless you have plenty of rounds under your belt, you can't possibly understand the fullness of how being weaker and slower always equals being toast.

Put my money where my mouth is? Okay, I'll be happy to meet any woman who's interested in a full-contact match and willing to put up $1,000. It wouldn't be the first time I'd beaten down a woman.

How to make a difference

See, principles do matter. If you know the truth, then STAND YOUR GROUND.