Empty Doorway, empty mind

Empty Doorway blogs about a post:

For those of us who firmly believe that the direct influence of religion in politics is antithetical to genuine democracy, Bush's highly public Christian invocations, the presence of religious advisers in his administration whose sole purpose is to ensure that U.S. policy conforms to Christian doctrine (in particular, apocolyptic prophecies related to the nation of Israel), and his direct appeals to Catholic, and now Protestant, clergy to aid him in his bid for reelection, are extremely worrisome. Yet this is apparently not enough for some on the Religious Right, who feel that Bush has done too little, too late, to court their vote. Of course, most of them will still vote for Bush, but that's not the point. Bush hasn't done what they apparently thought he would, or at least should do: solidify conservative Christianity's central role in forming national policy.

What does this moron believe democracy is? Apparently the 5.3 percent of the population that is Southern Baptist are supposed to keep their mouths shut and not participate in the process, along with all the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and assorted non-denominational Evangelical Christians. Even if he is using the term "genuine democracy" incorrectly to refer to the Constitutional American republic, it's a weird argument to insist that the political system formed by Christian men to respect God-given rights should be sterilized of all religion.

He wants genuine democracy? So be it. The only reason that the insignificant secularist minority has any power at all is that it has been successful in using its sympathizers in the courts to use federal power to suppress the will of the majority. Fiat democrasia! Of course, if the Athenian model is any example, we'll also be voting to execute momentarily unpopular generals, but that's a known hazard of rule by mob.

What is truly frightening is not the sentiment expressed in such passages (especially the second one), but that groups whose members share these pernicious opinions have such a strong voice. They know how to make themselves heard, despite composing a relatively small minority of the U.S. population. They have mastered the technique of using appeals to emotion through faith and fear, to manipulate politicians and larger segments of the population into adopting their stances. Yet, it's not enough for them that our president's ear is ever open to their hateful nonsense, or that in decision-making, they are always in his mind. Scary stuff.

The Empty Mind is unsurprisingly more than a little weak on his math. The reason the Christian voices are so well-heard is that the Christian community is so large, a much larger "minority" than blacks, Jews or homosexuals. That's why the Left, for all its mantra of "democracy, democracy", fears the Religious Right and needs combat it through the courts instead of the ballot box. The secular Left is so unpopular and so numerically insignificant that it can't even win in the strictly limited democracy of the American political system and so is forced to have its "democracy" at a third remove, by unelected judges. I'd like to hear what this guy's definition of "genuine democracy" is, because as is clearly the case here, the use of the adjective necessitates a modification of the following noun. I suspect that in his usage, "democracy" has little to do with how historians and dictionaries have defined the term for centuries.

I'd be scared too, if I looked at the world with so little understanding of what was happening around me. And now there's more from the Vacuous One:

If you read his comments, keep in mind that I never implied Christians shouldn't vote based on their faith. Rather, I stated that religion should not have a direct influence on policy. Recognizing the difference is apparently beyond the author's mental grasp. I also recommend that someone buy him a dictionary, so that he can see that "constitutional republic" is a form of democracy. Naturally, I did not mean a "pure democracy," in which each person has one vote on every policy decision.

I'm curious to know how, in a democracy of any sort, religion can fail to have a direct influence on policy if 20 percent (Empty's estimate) of the population votes based on their faith? It's also amusing that he should think I need a dictionary, as he specifically used the term "genuine democracy" which clearly implies some form of distinction from our constitutional republican form of limited democracy. "Genuine" is not to be mistaken for "pure", okay.... And Mr. Webster says: "\Gen"u*ine\, a. [L. genuinus, fr. genere, gignere, to beget, in pass., to be born: cf. F. g['e]nuine. See Gender.] Belonging to, or proceeding from, the original stock; native; hence, not counterfeit, spurious, false, or adulterated; authentic; real; natural; true; pure; as, a genuine text; a genuine production; genuine materials.. I'm the one who needs the dictionary? Look, it's hardly my fault that he can't write with precision.

In addition, the author would surely benefit if someone explained the difference between Christian (general) and conservative Christian or Religious Right, the latter being a fairly small group that, if we use abortion as a rough measure (the author states that outlawing abortion would appeal to this group), comprises less than 20% of the population (we'd also have to subtract most Catholics who are strictly "pro-life" from that number for it to be accurate). At least the author demonstrates the un-Christian-like anger and condescension that characterizes his minority.

I have no conception of the difference between the broader Christian populace and the Religious Right? Oh, so that's what Ralph Reed was trying to explain to me when we were talking twelve years ago - before I was a Christian, by the way! Apparently in Empty's mind, this passes for a difficult concept. And if 20 percent is "fairly small" I wonder why we spend any attention whatsoever to those insignificant black, Jewish and homosexual minorities, which taken in their totality barely amount to 15 percent. I'm not in the least bit angry, but how can I help but condescend to someone who is this ill-equipped to reason or debate?

The truth is out there

Nate posts on TWA 800:

0
The number of ships or subs the Navy claimed were within 185 miles of the disaster.

4
The number of Navy ships or subs the FBI, in its final report, admitted were in "the immediate vicinity" of the disaster.

7
The number of days it allegedly took the Navy to find the black boxes in 130 feet of calm water off the Hamptons.

7
The number of hours it actually took the Navy to find the black boxes of a crashed Turkish airplane in 7,200 feet of water earlier in that year off the Dominican Republic.

4
The number of seconds missing at the end of both the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder.

3
The number of satellites in position to record the disaster.

3
The number of satellites reportedly broken at that very moment.

Since I'm well-versed in history and have learned how often the "official" story is a complete pack of lies, I usually appreciate hearing the government's explanation for an incident, as that eliminates one possibility right there. Interesting, too, that both John Kerry and George Stephanopolous have referred to the "bombing" of TWA 800. Nate's got more listed; check it out.

Mailvox: a first-generation Libertarian

AG writes:

I went over to visit my dad and grandmother last night, because she's in town for a few days and we haven't seen her in a while. Anyway, the two of them are big Republicans, and raised me that way as well. So, of course we got to talking about politics and the "war on terror" and so forth. After complaining about how the media aren't covering the goings on in Iraq very well, such that anything good for Bush is not shown, and anything bad for Bush is shown, I dropped the bombshell: I'm not voting for Bush, I'm voting for Badnarik.

Immediate reaction: well, if you want to throw your vote away, go ahead. Why are you not voting for Bush? Do you want to see Kerry elected?

1. If you want to throw your vote away, go ahead

Thank you. The fundamental point of even limited democracy is that every individual can choose to vote as he or she pleases.

2. Why are you not voting for Bush?

Because after 3.5 years of his presidency, I have learned that I do not support his policies. His policies bear more resemblance to those of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt than Ronald Reagan. I wouldn't vote for them either.

3. Do you want to see Kerry elected?

No, otherwise I would vote for him. However, I don't want to see Bush elected either. Since I don't support either one of them, I'm voting for neither.

I suspect that most Republicans who've never considered a third-party don't realize how similar Bush and Kerry are, as one cannot see this clearly until one takes into account the massive differences between Bush and Badnarik and Bush and Peroutka. The fact that Badnarik and Peroutka appear so similar only highlights this vast gulf that separates both Bush and Kerry from genuinely Constitutional government.

If you support either Bush or Kerry, you do not support the U.S. Constitution. It's that simple, and it makes no difference if we drive towards the cliff of Empire at 80 MPH or 65. (I used to say 55, but Bush has certainly stepped on the gas.) What I'm interested in hearing from pro-administration Republicans is how they believe supporting someone who is actively building larger government is going to lead to smaller government.

The evidence would seem to suggest that they don't support smaller government or constitional govenment at all. Turning things around will not be easy and in fact may not be possible. But surely it's not hard to understand that one will never turn around when one has no desire to do so.

Mailvox: self-righteous libertarians

Laurie writes:

No Child Left Behind Act-Complete failure and will continue to be until there is more funding. The fact is, Bush is a damn idiot and the only way this world is going to change is if each person keeps voting libertarian.

That's three silly statements in a row. 1. No Child Left Behind will continue to be a failure even if spending is increased 10x. See the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs or the very well-funded public school system for examples. 2. Bush is many things, but he is not an idiot. He has a higher IQ than most of the people who enjoy calling him an idiot. And I am manifestly not a fan of the man. 3. The world is going to change regardless of how people vote. How it will change remains a mystery, but change it certainly will and I suspect it will change faster and more dramatically than most people would believe possible.

And I have been doing sort of an experiment the past few months that might seem kind of.... immoral. I've been pretending to be a practicing Christian and what I've learned., is that they seem to be the most brainwashed people in the entire earth, on the opposite end of the spectrum of libertarians. It makes me sad to see so many young people throwing themselves into something just because most of them don't know any better. You tell them that something is in the bible, you could tell them ANYTHING is in the bible, because you can grasp anything in there in any concept just because there is so much random stuff, and tell them it means something... you could make them view anything. Do people think that Christianity will ever become a minority? Just asking.

Libertarianism would not exist were it not for Christianity. The foundational concepts of individual freedom, personal responsibility and human rights can all be traced directly to Biblical Christianity. There is no inherent contradiction between Christianity and libertarianism, indeed, the God of the Bible would appear to be more than a bit of a libertarian in a) promising to set people free, b) allowing individuals to suffer the consequences of their actions, and c) refusing to use His power to force people to obey Him.

Will Christianity ever become a minority? It has always been a minority in what, after all, is a fallen world ruled by an evil being.

The short-sighted secularist

I've been thinking about this today, as to why the godless secularists in our midst continually refer to the Religious Right as some sort of imminent danger when a) a large percentage of the Religious Right is contemptuous of politics; and b) the historical Religious Right showed little inclination to impose its beliefs on anyone.

The key to their thinking can be found in their common comparison of the Christian Right to the Taliban and other Islamic theocracies. There is no question that these Church-State marriages are oppressive, anti-liberty and more than willing to commit violence against the insufficiently obedient citizen. The flaw in the secularist thinking is to place the blame for this on the Church half of the equation, instead of the State.

Consider, if you will, those nations which are/were fervently secular, but where the State wielded the same degree of power as the aforementioned theocracies. Every Socialist country, from Albania to Zimbabwe, has seen more oppression, less liberty and more violence against the people than in even the worst theocratic state with the possible exception of the Sudan. Even if one leaves aside the obvious differences between Christian and Islamic culture, it is clear that it is placing too much power in the hands of the State that is the heart of the problem, not the religion professed by those in whose hands that power is placed.

Christianity, from the beginning, found itself in fundamental opposition to the State. The first Christians were persecuted for their unwillingness to bow before Caesar while the American revolutionaries fought under the slogan "No king but King Jesus." Compromise with the State has always weakened Christianity, as the history of the Papal States and the Anglican Church clearly shows.

Secularists who turn to the State to protect themselves from Christian cultural domination are playing a fool's game similar to that played by Cambodian intellectuals in the early 1970's, who found themselves being executed for the crime of being able to read. Iormungandr is circular; the dialectic always turns around to devour those who give it birth.

Faith of the Founding Fathers

I'm thoroughly sick of the historical revisionism of the secular separationists. Not only is their position manifestly absurd in light of the congressional prayers, inscriptions on the various Federal buildings and the wording of many historical speeches and documents, but they've twisted the concept of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" wherein "Congress" means "anyone" and "make no law...." means "shall neither speak nor write any word in public relating positively in any way to the Christian faith."

Among their cornucopia of errors, they insist that the Founding Fathers were mostly Deist. That's true, if you cherry-pick from amidst the most famous names and ignore all those men who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and were heavily involved in the Revolution from the start. The known Unitarian/Deists were: Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The known Christians were: George Washington, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Governor Morris and John Jay. And Deist is not atheist anyhow, as the Paris debates between Thomas Paine and French atheists should suffice to show.

In fact, there were more Christian Bible translators signing the Declaration of Independence than there were Deists. Charles Thompson translated the Greek Septuagint into English, Dr. Benjamin Rush founded the first Bible Society and Francis Hopkinson put together the first American hymnbook. The religious affiliation of the Signers was as follows: 34 Anglicans, 13 Congregationalists, 6 Presbyterians, 1 Baptist, 1 Roman Catholic, and 1 Quaker.

Now, the mere fact of church membership is not certain proof of an individual's Christian faith, but as no one but God can judge the heart, it is the only reasonable method of determination available to us. One thing that is absolutely certain, however, is that none of them were godless secularists pledged to moral relativism. On this subject, as always, the Left resorts to the perversion of language in order to attempt to build a weak case from nothing. It is amusing that they should uphold the Deists while simultaneously attempting to strike out all references to the Deity.

I am a Christian and a libertarian. I, too, do not wish to see the State create a Church, but not because I care what it would do to the godless. (Nothing, most likely, considering the English example.) Instead, I fear what has happened in England, where the State has corrupted the Anglican church and sucked nearly all the Christianity out of it. If the Church is to thrive, it must never allow itself to be polluted by compromise with the State. But really, in the long term, the entire debate is almost irrelevant. When the American Republic is as dead and dimly remembered as its Roman predecessor, the Christian faith will still be strong, as implacable, inexorable and ineradicable as ever.

None can stop the Dark from rising

The Original Cyberpunk writes in alarm:

I have some shocking news about the upcoming and final Star Wars movie. Annikin Skywalker does *not* turn to the dark side! Rather, he's *dragged* over to the dark side against his will by the evil, scheming, and power-mad Padme Amidala! Here's the proof! My God, I just realized: maybe Luke and Leia's mother didn't die, and maybe the Emperor is not Senator Palpatine. Maybe Luke's mother *BECOMES THE EMPEROR!*

That certainly would be a more interesting plot angle that what Lucas has got going now...

I've said it before and I will say it again. If you haven't read the OC's Headcrash, you are seriously missing out.

It's a little late, George

President Bush, seeking to mobilize religious conservatives for his reelection campaign, has asked church-going volunteers to turn over church membership directories, campaign officials said on Thursday. In a move sharply criticized both by religious leaders and civil libertarians, the Bush-Cheney campaign has issued a guide listing about two-dozen "duties" and a series of deadlines for organizing support among conservative church congregations.

A copy of the guide obtained by Reuters directs religious volunteers to send church directories to state campaign committees, identify new churches that can be organized by the Bush campaign and talk to clergy about holding voter registration drives. The document, distributed to campaign coordinators across the country earlier this year, also recommends that volunteers distribute voter guides in church and use Sunday service programs for get-out-the-vote drives.

"We expect this election to be potentially as close as 2000, so every vote counts and it's important to reach out to every single supporter of President Bush," campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

If the president had signed an executive order banning abortion, refused to sign the McCain-Feingold act gutting the First Amendment, declined to actively campaign for the liberal Republican who blocked Robert Bork from the Supreme Court, avoided publicly embracing Islam and openly declared his opposition to the fictional equation of any public mention of anything even remotely Christian with the written statement that "Congress shall make no law....", he might have a shot with the Religious Right. But he's done nothing except make the occasional pious statement. Bill Clinton did as much.

Perhaps, too, he should have refrained from criticizing Americans for speaking "in an ill-informed and insulting manner about the Muslim faith." This, after the beheadings of Nick Berg and Paul Johnson. I can't even think of a response to that that is either Christian or printable, so I shall say nothing except to say that I am very pleased to be voting for Michael Badnarik this fall.

I had thought Karl Rove was supposed to be some sort of political genius, instead, the president's campaign lurches randomly about, devoid of principle and pinning its hopes on the self-destruction of its opposition. The president is lucky he's running against a candidate as incompetent as John Kerry, because Bill Clinton would be wiping up the floor with him by now. When Massachusetts created homogamy, I wrongly assumed that Karl Rove and company would be all over the Democrats for pushing the homosexual agenda, but apparently they'd rather be PC than win. You know Lee Atwater would have created an ad showing John Kerry in a dress getting married to Ted Kennedy and blown Kerry out of the water by August.

This should settle it

As you may recall, I have insisted from the beginning that the current war is unconstitutional, that it has never been declared and that the Bush administration is operating outside the law in its use of military force around the world. There are those who have argued the opposite, insisting that the Congressional authorizations of the use of force is a "virtual" declaration of war tantamount to the real thing.

Perhaps the Secretary of Defense can settle the issue:

I think basically what we have is we’ve had over our history since World War II basically an idea that we were either in war or we were in peace and that we were in peacetime constraints. And of course, since we don’t have a declaration of war and we’re not in World War III, all of those peacetime constraints and procedures and auditors and contract rules and competitive bidding, all of that pertains. And the effect of it is that you end up in a war on terror, like we’re in, losing lives and yet you are still required to adhere to the rules of peacetime, because we don’t have gradations of between war and peace and therefore we need to find a way to live in this 21st century where threats can come at you from the shadows and from ungoverned areas in ways that are not predictable, as they were, for example, during World War II or during the Cold War, for that matter.

Or maybe, Donald, you might try actually paying attention to the Constitution and ask your boss to request a declaration of war from the Congress. Remember that oath of office you took a few years ago? By the way, this statement should also put to rest the notion that the administration is quietly implementing a secret strategy for waging war against expansionist Islam as well.

Portugal v Greece

I don't even know what to say about this. It's as if the NFL somehow wound up with a Super Bowl of Detroit vs. San Diego - in the Ryan Leaf era, no less. Greece was a worthy winner, although the Czech Republic had numerous chances that it simply failed to put away. Rosicky, Koller and Barros all had excellent chances, and while the Greek defending was solid, the Czechs were clearly the better team even without Nedved.

The Greeks have had an unbelievable run, but I have to believe that it will all come to an end on Sunday. Scolari seems to have driven Portugal past its tendency to choke, they're playing at home and it's probably the last chance for their Golden Generation to win a major tournament. So, I predict a Portugal victory, 2-0.

A lot of great players are closing out their international careers with Euro 2004. Jap Stam, Philippe Cocu, Marc Overmars, Marcel Desailly, Lilian Thuran, Alessandro del Piero.... Other greats who may bow out include Luis Figo, Zinedine Zidane, Christian Vieri and Pavel Nedved. It's hard to imagine international soccer without them, and yet, the sport always moves inexorably on as the old lions step off the stage and are replaced by tomorrow's stars.

Business as usual

Did many mutual fund managers break the law again Wednesday? It sure looks as though they did. Just as they have at the end of countless previous calendar quarters, it appears as though a number of fund managers on Wednesday engaged in illegal activity right before the close of trading. This had the effect of boosting their standings in the quarterly mutual fund rankings. The fact that fund managers resorted to such desperate tactics should not come as a surprise. Several finance professors discovered the behavior several years ago, and I wrote a column in the New York Times about it at the time. In addition, over the past year have devoted two of my MarketWatch columns to the topic.

Yet funds show no sign of giving up their wicked ways. Maybe fund managers think that New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has bigger fish to fry. Or maybe those managers thought that, since all eyes Wednesday afternoon were focused on the Federal Reserve's rate-hike decision, no one would notice. Regardless of their reasons, the consequences are clear: The mutual fund industry on June 30 achieved what would otherwise seem to be a mathematical impossibility. Like the children of Lake Woebegon, the bulk of them were above average.

Don't believe it? Take a look at the chart below, which shows the performance on June 30th of the 13 Lipper mutual fund indexes that reflect the performance of different sectors of the U.S. equity market. Each of those indices reflects the average performance of the funds in its sector. Twelve of these indexes outperformed the S&P 500 on that day. And the 13th lagged the S&P 500 by just one basis point. This is a huge contrast to funds' typical performance on all other days, of course. On average on those other days, around 80 percent of funds lag the market.

It's just a coincidence, of course, not unlike the recent decision of the British bureaucrat responsible for the UK's CPI equivalent to remove housing from the inflation equation. (Housing is already removed from the US CPI, as, increasingly, is food and energy.) This was necessary because the UK CPI was showing rampant inflation as housing prices increased 20 percent in the last year, and since the central banks have declared that no inflation exists, obviously the equation required changing.

You thought Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Anderson were bad? Just wait. The coming frauds, scams and bankruptcies coming to light in the next two years will make those disasters look like prudent financial management. How am I so sure? Because government-related fraud is always an order of magnitude worse, and we haven't begun to see any exposure of them yet. But we will.

The corruption isn't capitalism. It is the twisted mutation of semi-capitalist corporatism created by the constant and innumerable federal interventions in the free markets.

Drudge accuracy rate

ABC News opines:

Please don't call and e-mail us for confirmation every time Drudge runs something; his 37.8% accuracy rate and quirky sensibilities (that's a euphemism) can have a disproportionate impact on the election, if y'all let that happen.

Over a third is pretty good by mainstream media standards. I'd guess that's a good 5-10 percent higher than ABC would be able to manage. I'm interested, though, to see how they came up with that number. 37.8 sounds like a pretty tricky number for math-challenged liberal reporters.

Odds are that as with the degree of global warming, the acreage of timber being logged in the Amazon and the lethal results of carry laws, it's just a number someone dreamed up out of thin air.

Queer as Volk

Evangelical Outpost posts some interesting quotes from what would appear to be an astoundingly politically incorrect British homosexual:

"So the idea of a gay fascist seems ridiculous. Yet when the British National Party – our own home-grown Holocaust-denying bigots – announced it was fielding an openly gay candidate in the European elections this June, dedicated followers of fascism didn’t blink. The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was – including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich.

With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay. It’s time to admit something. Fascism isn’t something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It’s a gay thing, and it’s time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music."

[British journalist Johann] Hari, who lists “seducing straight men” as one of his favorite things, can’t be dismissed as another gay-bashing conservative homophobe. Nor should his detailed explication of the connection between gays and fascism be taken lightly. Beneath its homophobic veneer, European fascism has a long history of gay leadership. From Ernest Rohm, one of the founding fathers of Nazism, to the anti-Muslim Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, homosexuals have found a home at the top of fascist political organizations.

I don't think Mr. Hari has all his details straight, as the ideology of the List Pim Fortuyn is rather less fascist than the American Democratic party, and Hari clearly fails to grasp the political spectrum as defined by the relationship between State and Individual. But his assertions are interesting, as one must note that the terms "faggot" and "fascist" share the same etymological roots, and certainly Freudians such as Camille Paglia would see the link between the homosexual's eternal search for the father and the over-the-top authoritarian symbolism of historical German and Italian fascism.

I expect Hari's statements will inspire more than a few hissy fits among the whitewash-prone gay community, but as always, the truth is simply what it is. And one can easily point out fascist tendencies at work in the homosexual activist community in their complete disregard for the truth, rigid enforcement of a party line and ruthlesss determination to completely redefine long-held concepts of good and evil.

Media whores and gossip queens

Marc Cuban writes on his blog:

Let’s just hope the accountants for the Tribune Company have a higher regard for accuracy in reporting than Sam the Sham does. Perfect example of Sam in action is Jerry West going on the air during the draft saying the Grizz can’t afford to trade for Shaq. Then Sham chimes on the show saying Shaq is going to Memphis. Sam then does his daily rip on the Mavs and, in particular, our new draft pick, Pavel who he calls a stiff.

How about this for a challenge Sam the Sham Smith?...I will donate 10k dollars to the charity of your choice if you can prove that you have ever seen Pavel play in person or on tape — excluding the footage on the ESPN draft shows. Two minutes of ESPN tape doesn’t qualify as scouting. If you lose, you change your business card title and Tribune byline to “Sports Gossip Columnist”. I will even pay for the cards. Doesn’t the Tribune Company realize that you are a blight on the entire company? I brought this up to an exec I met who works at the company. He told me they knew it, but that you were like the crazy old uncle they had learned to live with. Great support from your company, Sam.

If they only knew how many times I have told brokers and possible investors that they shouldn’t buy Trib stock because if they can’t get simple details on their sports pages right, how can you trust their accountants? Corporate culture either values accuracy or it doesn’t. The Tribune Company obviously doesn’t.

******** Stop The Presses ********
No lie: After I wrote this blog entry, I sat down to read the NY Times and there in the business section is an article accusing (among others) the Tribune Company for inflating audited subscriber numbers…Maybe the company encourages Sam to lie…who knows…Is lying pervasive at the Tribune Company? Corporate culture is amazingly powerful…
******** We now return to our regularly scheduled blog entry ********

Brilliant stuff. I only wish there was someone like Cuban writing a blog about Wall Street.

The Passion of the Corpulent

At least if Michael Moore had asked us to eat of his body, we would have all eaten well. My friends at Fraters Libertas point us to these paired quotes from movie reviewers who seem to have overwhelmingly preferred the Corpulent One's testimony of faith to Mr. Gibson's. An example:

Jami Bernard, NY Daily News:

F9/11: I was in tears after first seeing "Fahrenheit" at Cannes.
Passion: The most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.

Michael Moore is the Sweet White Savior who waren't never a Jew for the ignorant hicks of the global Left. Large, fat and loud, Europeans love him because he personally confirms their view of the ugly American even as he provides cover for their political cluelessness. When I was in Venice a few years ago, I complimented an artist on how his work had captured the city's moody, mouldering ambience, in contrast to the many nearby watercolorists whose cheerful, brightly colored paintings could have easily been mistaken for Florence had they only lacked the famous Venetian landmarks.

The artist asked from whence I came, and his eyes literally widened when I told him I am an American. "No, you cannot be, you are too cultured," he said. Which is ridiculous, but demonstrates rather clearly that it is not only the European elite that has no understanding of America and Americans. Their portly pied-piper allows them to preserve an outmoded view of a world that is passing them by, as they blithely stroll towards the deep waters of Islamic electoral majorities.

The blindness of innocence

Ben Shapiro writes on WND:

In the last few years, the Supreme Court has written sodomy into the Constitution of the United States; affirmed that affirmative action was constitutional, citing a broader need for "diversity"; refused to rule on whether or not "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was constitutional; and ruled that campaign-finance reform laws restricting free speech do not actually restrict free speech.

The saddest part of this judicial tragedy: Seven of these justices, including O'Connor, Stevens and Souter, were appointed by Republicans. While legitimate conservative Robert Bork promotes his books, Justice Kennedy decides cases. Chances are good that at least one justice will step down during the next term. There's no guarantee President Bush would appoint a hard-line conservative to the court, but the chances are certainly better with Bush than with Kerry. Republicans must strengthen their control of the Senate to ensure that a real conservative reaches the court.

Conservatives would do well to remember what liberals ignore: The court is liberal, not conservative. And unless Republicans strengthen their hold on power, it's going to stay that way.

Let me make sure I've got this right. Republicans have nominated 78 percent of this insanely liberal Supreme Court, seven of the nine sitting justices. Ergo, the solution is to elect more Republicans so they can nominate more justices in the future.

This is mind-numbingly stupid stuff. The Republican Party was founded as a big government pro-State party and except for a brief period of time when Ronald Reagan wrested control away from the party grandees, (to ultimately little effect), it has always been a big government pro-State party. It is nothing more than a brake on the Democratic party, it is not an engine for driving in the opposite direction.

The sooner conservatives and others who respect the US Constitution as written realize this and abandon the party, the sooner they can begin moving the country towards the freedom and liberty that are our national birthright. Shapiro's not dumb, he's merely inexperienced. I predict in ten years, he'll be as disgusted with the Republican Party as I am.

The prison rape continues

FOX News Channel (FNC) garnered more than 50% of the cable news audience in primetime and total day during 2Q'04, according to Nielsen Media Research. In contrast, CNN and MSNBC both attracted less than a third of the same market share in 2Q '04. In primetime, FNC commanded 55% of the cable news market share, averaging 1.4 million viewers, while CNN claimed just 32% of that audience with 828,000 viewers. During Rick Kaplan's first full quarter as president, MSNBC's primetime line-up attracted a paltry 13% of the cable news audience with 321,000 viewers (down 41% in viewership year to year).

FNC's Total Day average of 820,000 viewers made up 54% of the cable news pie, nearly doubling CNN's 31% (468,000 viewers) and more than tripling MSNBC's 15% share (226,000 viewers). In the key 25-54 demo, both CNN and MSNBC lost more than half their 25-54 audience in these day parts over the same period last year. FNC averaged 457,000 persons in primetime and 291,000 persons in total day, exceeding CNN and MSNBC's combined totals of 344,000 persons in prime and 231,000 persons in the total day time periods.

In addition, FNC sustained its programming dominance capturing nine out of the top ten shows in cable news, as CNN's heavily promoted primetime lineup continued to flounder. CNN's only show in the top ten, Larry King Live, remained stagnant at number four with 1,291,000 viewers, trailing FNC's The O'Reilly Factor (2,051,000 viewers), Hannity & Colmes (1,492,000 viewers) and The FOX Report with Shepard Smith (1,339,000 viewers) respectively. Since launching in September 2003, Paula Zahn Now and Anderson Cooper 360 have yet to rank within the top ten cable news programs -- Zahn currently ranks at 16th while Cooper is languishing at number 21.

Obviously there's no market for right-wing commentary. Six months ago the St. Paul Pioneer Press turned down my column - for the second time in five years - despite the fact that I'm one of the only writers in their history to have been nationally syndicated. In thematically related news, the Pioneer Press's readership just dropped below 200,000 for the first time in a long, long time and a (ahem) restructuring was announced last week.

Now, I understand that newspaper editors have probably studied less economics than the average NBA draftee, but you wouldn't think it would take a rocket scientist to understand that if your dominant competitor does X, then you have to do Y if you want to compete. Offering more of X simply means that you'll eventually be run out of business or acquired. Rupert Murdoch, on the other hand, saw the huge market left unaddressed by the ABCNNBCBS cabal and is cleaning up with a monopoly position in the rightward 50 percent of the political spectrum while he leaves all the others to fight it out for the leftward half. Surprise, surprise, guess who's winning?

I wonder how Eric Alterman explains this. I suppose he thinks the number of stupid people is growing every day. No doubt it's George Bush's fault.

Eco on the end of democracy

Big Chilly once told me that he greatly respected how I often use my public platform for mysterious and seemingly nonsensical purposes. In that light, it gives me great pleasure to present more of that for which no one is asking, a translation of an article by Umberto Eco which appeared on June 25th in L'espresso: Apparire piu come essere.

To appear more than to be
Sixty-four years before Christ, Marcus Tullius Cicero, already a celebrated orator but the epitome of a New Man, estranged from the nobility, decided to declare himself a candidate for Consul. His brother, Quintus Tullius, wrote for him a manual in which he was instructed how to make an impression. In the front of the current Italian edition, (Manuele del candidato – Istruzioni per vincere le elezioni, editore Manni, 8 euros), are comments by Luca Canali, in which he lucidly describes the histoical circumstances and the personalities of that campaign. Furio Colombo writes the introduction, with a reflective essay on the First Republic.

In fact, there are many similarities between our Second Republic and this Roman Republic, in the virtues, (very small), as well as the defects. The example of Rome, over the course of more than two millenia, has continued to hold much influence on many successive visions of the State. As Colombo records, the antique model of the Roman Republic inspired the authors of the Federalist Papers, which delineated the fundamental lines of the American Constitution. They saw in Rome, more than in Athens, the example of what was truly a democracy of the people. In their pragmatic realism, the neocons around Bush were inspired by the image of imperial Rome and many of their actual political discussions gave recourse to the idea of an empire, that of a “Pax Americana” which makes explicit reference to the ideology of the “Pax Romana”.

I must note that the image of electoral competition that emerges in the 20 pages of Quintus is of extremely small virtue compared to that which had inspired the federalists of the 18th century. Quintus does not seem to even consider the possibility of a political man who boldly confronts the electorate in the face of dissent with a courageous project, with the hope of conquering the voters on the powerful strength of a utopian idea. As Canali also notes, totally absent from these pages is any notion of debating ideas; instead, there is recommendation to never expose oneself on any political issue, so as to avoid making enemies. The candidate envisioned by Quintus must only be sure to appear fascinating, doing favors and other self-promotion, never saying no to anyone but leaving everyone with the impression he will do what they want. The memory of the electorate is short, and before long they will forget old promises....

At the end of the letter we ask: but is democracy truly only this, a form of conquering the public favor that is founded on nothing but appearances and a strategy of deceit? It is certainly so, and it cannot be differently if this system, (which, as Churchill said, is imperfect, but is less imperfect than all the others), allows one to arrive at power only through consensus and not through force and violence. But we must not forget that these instructions for a political campaign were written at moment when Roman democracy was already in crisis.

It was not long after when Caesar definitively took power with the assistance of his legions, and with his life Marcus Tullius paid the passage from a regime founded on consensus to a regime founded on the fist of the State. But one cannot avoid the thought that Roman democracy had begun to die when its politicians understood that they no longer had to be serious about their policies but had only to engineer the obtaining of the sympathies of those we might well call television viewers.

This demonstrates that there is truly nothing new under the sun. In our modern arrogance, we believe that we are different, that our pseudo-democracy, (as false in every way to the democratic ideal as was its Roman predecessor), is a light illuminating all mankind. Quintus Tullius might easily have been Dick Morris or Karl Rove, advising hollow-suited frauds such as Bill Clinton and George Bush.

The laws of history are not as easily discerned as the laws of physics, but they are every bit as inexorable. Eco gives us one more reason to believe that we are living in the last days of the American Republic.

Dayan wouldn't be surprised

The American marine who is being threatened by his kidnappers with beheading had deserted the military because he was emotionally traumatized, and was abducted by his captors while trying to make his way home to his native Lebanon, a Marine officer said Tuesday. The officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he believed that Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun was betrayed by Iraqis he befriended on his base and ended up in the hands of Islamic extremists.

The officer said Corporal Hassoun, a 24-year-old Marine linguist who was born in Lebanon, was shaken up after he saw one of his sergeants blown apart by a mortar shell."It was very disturbing to him," the officer said. "He wanted to go home and quit the game, but since he was relatively early in his deployment, that was not going to happen anytime soon. So he talked to some folks on base he befriended, because they were all fellow Muslims, and they helped sneak him off. Once off, instead of helping him get home, they turned him over to the bad guys."

The Israeli general Moseh Dayan was once asked what made him so successful. "Fighting Arabs", he is said to have replied. Hassoun's desertion would seem to suggest that even the USMC can't make warriors out of them. A Marine deserting? I can't even imagine what my Marine grandfather would have to say about that. I think he'd be torn between leaving the guy to his fate and, as he liked to say, giving the guy a fair trial and hanging him.

In World War II the 442nd Regiment (of American-born Japanese Nisei) were sent to fight in Europe because it was considered unwise to put them under the psychological stress of fighting the Japanese. They acquitted themselves heroically, taking tremendous losses in rescuing the surrounded Lost Battalion and ended up as one of the most decorated units of the war. So, it's not a new problem and it should hardly come as a surprise to learn that using foreign-born Muslim troops to fight other Muslims in a Muslim country doesn't work out well.

This is yet another suggestion that this administration is hopeless when it comes to war-fighting. Foreign auxilaries can certainly be useful, but not within your own elite units.

Where's my bottle?

Urs Meier, the referee who single-handedly knocked England out of Euro 2004, has the nerve to say:

I’m absolutely shocked by what’s gone on and the attacks from The Sun, the supporters and the other newspapers. I’m really shocked because the decision was 100 per cent correct and the whole world saw this decision was correct.

Meier certainly doesn't deserve the death threats he's been getting, but all the stick he's been receiving from the English press is absolutely justified. Their outrage would probably be significantly mitigated if he simply admitted that he made an honest and all-too-typical mistake of awarding a phantom foul in the box. But instead he flings this "100 percent correct" nonsense around and makes even lukewarm England supporters like me want to punch him in the face.

The truth of the matter is easy to ascertain. All that's required is a simple review of all the fouls called in the penalty box when there is a chaotic situation and the referee can't see exactly what is going on. I'd be willing to bet that at least 90 percent of the whistles blown are fouls called on the attacking team. This defies belief, and the unfair bias can be proved by comparing the ratio with the ratio of fouls called in the open field of play.

The only thing I hate more than phantom fouls in the box are diving strikers and phantom offsides calls. UEFA has done a good job dealing with the latter two, it's now clearly time to do something about the former.