1 CommentGuardian responds to pressure
The Guardian has replaced the article cited below (A fen of stagnant waters) with this apology:
The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.
“Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action – an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind.”
The message, essentially is, “Can’t you bloody Yanks take a joke?”
I’m also less than mollified by their failure to apologize for their own lack of editorial oversight and to distance themselves from that sort of dangerous rhetoric. Instead they “associate themselves” with the less than remorseful statement attributed to Mr. Brooker.
James Lileks had this to say:
You got caught, in other words. Look, you lackwits: we’re not that stupid. Of course it was an ironic joke, at least if you define “joke†as “mirthless adolescent japery along the order of drawing a Hitler moustache on your teacher’s yearbook picture.†What’s noteworthy is that it got through in the first place. Slid through like mercury down a mirror, probably. No one gave it a second thought. Stands to reason any sensible person would want the tosser done away with, no?
Finally, I feel I need to issue an apology of my own. Despite my strong feelings on the subject, it was wrong for me to call Mr. Brooker an idiot and a spite-filled, little weasel. Also rather ironic, since I was, at the same time, criticizing his name-calling toward President Bush. Those labels were not necessary to the overall point, but purely a result of letting anger rule my tongue, or at least its online analogue. I will strive to set a better example in the future.
Proverbs 10:19 says, “When words are many, sin is not absent,
but he who holds his tongue is wise.”
Words every blogger should heed!
A fen of stagnant waters
Check out what this idiot has to say in Britain’s Guardian Unlimited. After rambling on about some wingnut theory that President Bush was receiving his debate queues over a concealed earpiece, he proceeds to label the most reliable ally his country has as a “lying, sniggering, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat.”
Fine. So he, along with every other rabid, hand-wringing liberal, doesn’t like the man and in typical liberal fashion resorts to juvenile name calling to make his point. That’s his prerogative. Then, however, he crosses a line that his editor should never have allowed him to cross.
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod’s law dictates he’ll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr – where are you now that we need you?
Now, this sort of thing has been hinted at by liberals in this country, too, but this is the most outrageous, blatant advocacy of assassination of our President that I have heard. It should never have been allowed to see print and, frankly, someone should be fired (oh, sorry… sacked, for our English “friends.”) It shouldn’t matter whether you like President Bush or not, or whether you support the war in Iraq or not. You may agree with nearly every single thing this columnist said. Even so, if you consider yourself an American, it should outrage you.
This piece is actually printed in Guardian Unlimited’s entertainment section called The Guide and the spite-filled, little weasel’s columnist’s name is Charlie Brooker. Let Chuck know what you think of his comments at charlie.brooker@guardian.co.uk.
The editor of The Guide can be reached at guide@guardian.co.uk.
Emily Bell is the editor in chief of Guardian Unlimited and can be reached at editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk.
I don’t know what the average Briton thinks about Bush and the war. Tony Blair has been one of our most resolute allies, but we hear frequently that he is under fire for his support of President Bush. I’m reminded of an article earlier this month in David Horowitz’s Front Page magazine by playwrite Carol Gould who recounts experiencing open, snarling hostility toward American tourists in London. I’m also reminded of this:
Milton! thou shouldst be living at this hour;
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
Thy soul was like a Star, and dwelt apart;
Thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea:
Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free,
So didst thou travel on life’s common way,
In cheerful godliness; and yet thy heart
The lowliest duties on herself did lay.
(hat tip: Drudge)
Why Kerry’s U.N. can’t fight terror
Short answer: they have no means for discerning a viable definition of terrorism given the conflicting ideologies of their member states.
Wretchard at Belmont Club, one of the most respected blogs on matters of the war and its conduct, looks at the U.N.’s attempt to define terrorism as part of a resolution condemning all terrorist acts. He points out that the language they use could just as easily be used to condemn Israel or the United States as it could Hamas or the Chechen thugs responsible for Beslan.
An article that Wretchard cites, by Joshua Muravchik at the American Enterprise Institute points to the fact that fifty-six of the 191 member nations of the U.N. are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which “defends terrorism as a right.”
I can see how that could make drafting meaningful anti-terrorism resolutions difficult.
Pro-Life Blogs
Following the lead of Blogs4God and the Blogdom of God aggregator (which I probably ought to join, come to mention it…), there is now an aggregator for weblogs that support the sanctity of life, particularly in relation to abortion.
Pro-Life Blogs states its objective as follows:
The objective of this site is to raise awareness and support for the pre-born and the sanctity of human life by communicating pro-life news and materials and by enabling a community of pro-life bloggers to promote their sites, interact with one another and influence internet readers.
I think that’s a great idea and I have jumped on the bandwagon by linking the site and adding the Pro-Life blogroll to my site.
Abortion on demand is a scourge that has cost this nation more than 44 million lives since the unconscionable Roe v. Wade decision was issued in 1973. Only God knows fully what we have lost as a result of these murders, but to be sure, a part of our humanity has been extinguished with each tiny life.
I pray that President Bush is re-elected and that he does, in fact, fulfill the deepest fear of the left in installing pro-life justices onto the expected vacancies in the Supreme Court. Further, I hope and pray that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and that we can end the slaughter of the most innocent among us. To date, I have done very little personally to affect these efforts. I do not advocate violence against the clinics or the butchers doctors who perform the murders, but I plan to devote time and material resources to alternative pregnancy centers and legal efforts to effect the needed change.
Finally, I pray that through the efforts of the blogs at Pro-Life Blogs and other like-minded sites, hearts might be touched and minds changed to see what a monstrous evil the so-called “pro-choice” position really is.
Christian Inclusiveness
Since I’m too brain-dead (sharing that state with our President, according to Sen. Joe Biden) to post on any of half a dozen subjects that have caught my attention in the last few days, I’m just going to link to a thought-provoking series of articles by Pastor Mark D. Roberts on Christian Inclusiveness.
The context is a conflict within the Episcopal Church USA over their rejection of Biblical authority on the issue of homosexuality.
Pastor Roberts uses this as a springboard to argue the Biblical position that Christ’s acceptance of “all who come” was in fact predicated on repentance. At the same time he criticizes the Church for a hypocritical view that often places homosexual offenders in a special category of “super-sin” (my term) and exhorts the Church to greater efforts to include homosexuals in our outreach efforts.
Therefore, to interpret the unconditional love of God in Christ as some sort of “absolute inclusiveness†is a mistake. God invites all people into relationship with himself. But entry into this relationship and maintenance of this relationship depend on such things as repentance, faith in Jesus, and a life of “walking in the light†(1 John 1:5-9). To say that, on the basis of Jesus’s own practice, the church should include all people just as they are is simply wrong.
In point of fact, the advocates of inclusiveness within the Episcopal Church don’t actually practice the sort of inclusiveness the seem to promote. They don’t, for example, say to those they label as homophobic, “Y’all come. It’s just fine if you continue to act unlovingly towards gays and lesbians. We practice absolute inclusiveness here.†In fact many of the strongest proponents of inclusiveness in the Episcopal Church are increasingly moved to exclude those in their own denomination whom they label as fundamentalist because of their commitment to the authority of Scripture. Now I would in fact defend this notion of limited inclusiveness, because I think absolute inclusiveness is both impossible and wrong. The church needs to be more precise and discerning when it comes to inclusion (and exclusion). Of course, though I defend the idea of limited inclusiveness, such as practiced by the Episcopal Leaders who would include gays and exclude “fundamentalists,†I think they’re making precisely the wrong choices about whom to include and whom to exclude.
Yet, having said this, I must add that the church’s zeal to exclude gay and lesbian people has, sadly, far outstripped its commitment to Christ-like love. Many Christians practice a double standard, whereby homosexual sin is worse than heterosexual sin, the one unforgivable, the other easily overlooked. A father once admitted to me that he continued in relationship with his daughter, who was living “in sin†with her boyfriend, while he had completely broken relationship with his son, who had chosen a gay lifestyle. This sort of double standard is indefensible. The church needs desperately to reach out to all persons, including gays and lesbians, with the forgiving, healing, renewing love of Christ.
That’s a fair summary in his last few paragraphs, but I would encourage you to read the series from the beginning as he relates some examples from his own experience that challenged me to consider how I approach this issue.
Ah, they’ve found me
I fear the comment-spammers have found me at last.
It hasn’t gotten bad yet… just a dozen or so randomly applied to various posts in the last hour. I’m playing with my WordPress settings to see if I can manage this without a plugin, but I will likely try moderation first.
This means that if you leave a comment there may be a delay before it appears as I will have to see it and approve it. I plan only to disallow spam, though obscenity and other such undesirable behavior is always subject to deletion.
UPDATE: I’ve installed two plugins that hopefully will alleviate the bulk of the problem. I won’t go into details (unless you want to know, in which case you can leave a comment), but it doesn’t involve registration yet and most comments won’t require moderation by me which means they’ll show up immediately.
Afghanistan update
Arthur Chrenkoff’s latest on the good news from Afghanistan.
See my sidebar for direct links to all of Mr. Chrenkoff’s fantastic articles providing news of Iraq and Afghanistan that is in stark contrast to what you’ll get in any mainstream news broadcast.
(belated hat tip: I should give credit to the folks at Opinion Journal. They publish each new installment by Mr. Chrenkoff on their editorial page and I’m made aware of it by their daily e-mail. To receive these updates for free, follow the link above and look for E-MAIL SUBSCRIPTION->Free Updates in the sidebar to the left.)
How long will Election Day last?
After the debate last night, my wife said to me, “At least it will all be over in three weeks!”
I asked her if she remembered how long it actually took for the election to be over last time.
In 2000 and, I fear, to a greater degree in this election, the left has seriously undermined the public’s confidence in the process by which we elect our nation’s leaders. If George Bush wins in November (or December or January… whenever the inevitable lawsuits, appeals and various assorted Constitutional crises are concluded) it would not surprise me in the least if there are riots and acts of violence and mayhem all over the country. The loons (moonbats, if you prefer), have already stormed and fired shots into GOP offices in several parts of the country, inflamed as they are by their media-fed hatred of George W. Bush. I don’t think it’s a stretch to predict that we will see at least one assassination attempt within the first year of his second term.
If, on the other hand, Kerry is determined to be the winner, even if fraud is evident, the right will likely suck it up and accept it “for the good of the country,” though I doubt that good will result. Not that we won’t try to redress any grievances in court, but once the legal process has run its course we would likely resign ourselves to a sour taste in our mouths every time we uttered the words “President K…”
I can’t even type it.
Maybe I’m being too alarmist here, but it seems that the worst case for the election is that Kerry wins and our sovereignty gets further eroded if not entirely abrogated, plus terror strategists are emboldened knowing that a Kerry administration can be strong-armed. The best case, on the other hand, is that a large percentage of the population, whipped into a rabid frenzy of misguided rage by four years of Democrat lies and rhetoric aided by media distortions, forces President Bush to deploy National Guard troops to restore order. Kent State will likely be mild in comparison.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it hard to believe that all this anti-Bush fervor will just dissipate should he win. And the tactics of the Gore campaign in 2000, coupled with the endlessly repeated mantra of the left, that Bush stole the election and disenfranchised voters, will be in large part responsible for the fallout.
A Beslan of our own?
UPDATE: The original story from which I quoted below is no longer at the link provided. A search on ABCNews’ website yielded this article instead, basically saying that there’s no connection between the Iraqi with the school plans and any terrorist threat. Never mind that in the original report cited below, the man was described as “an Iraqi insurgent involved in anti-coalition activities. I’m still trying to find the original story, but in the meantime, I find it curious that the information about the school plans was discovered in July. Why is that significant? Because of this:
U.S. security officials are investigating a recent intelligence report that a group of 25 Chechen terrorists illegally entered the United States from Mexico in July. [emphasis mine]
Is it possible that these two pieces of information had the same source?
I lament with Michelle Malkin that our border situation has become a casualty of politics.
Originally posted: October 08, 2004
Does anyone doubt anymore that the people we are up against would love to give us our own Beslan here in the United States?
From the ABCNews article linked above:
Schools in six states in particular are being watched closely based on information uncovered by the U.S. military in Baghdad this summer, law enforcement and education officials told ABC News.
A man described as an Iraqi insurgent involved in anti-coalition activities had downloaded school floor plans and safety and security information about elementary and high schools in the six states, according to officials.School officials in Fort Myers, Fla.; Salem, Ore.; Gray, Ga.; Birch Run, Mich.; two towns in New Jersey; and two towns in California have been told to increase security in light of the discovery.
Officials in the New Jersey towns, Franklinville and Rumson, were notified by counterterrorism officials last month that their schools had been possibly singled out.
On Wednesday, the federal government warned schools nationwide to look out for suspicious activity that might signal terrorist activity, and told school officials to be on the lookout for anyone spying on their buildings or buses, expressing interest in obtaining site plans, and other types of suspicious activity.
It followed an analysis by the FBI and the Homeland Security Department of the school siege in Beslan, Russia, last month, in which nearly 340 people, many of them children, were killed.
Law enforcement officials said they had no easy explanation why an insurgent in Baghdad would be gathering such specific information about American schools, some of them in small towns.[Umm... duh? -SCP]
And though the information was recovered in July, it was not given urgency until the attack in Beslan.
I don’t know if cells in the U.S. have the wherewithal to pull off this sort of thing or not at the moment… scratch that. If Klebold and Harris could do it at Columbine I don’t think a cell of highly motivated Islamo-fascist fanatics will have any trouble. After all, they wouldn’t even have to hide their cache of weapons under the bed to keep their parents from finding out.
The one advantage Klebold and Harris had that the terrorists may not was an intimate familiarity with their school. May I suggest that if you see persons of middle-eastern descent lingering around schools for no apparent reason that you might want to let someone in law enforcement know about it? You might catch some grief, depending on the mindset of the person you reach. You might be called bigoted or intolerant. Then again, you might just prevent this.
Chrenkoff: Part 12 of Good News from Iraq
The opener of this installment is brilliant:
I struggled to find some good news.
The picture painted by the news stories was bleak: another suicide attack, a shoot-out with armed militants, soldiers dying in an ambush, a man accused of collaborating with the hated occupiers executed by parties unknown, property destruction causing resentment among the locals, hostile noises from the neighbors, another condemnation from international community, and at home political instability and accusations of corruption at the highest level. There was hardly anything about economy and enterprise, nothing about culture and civil society, barely a glimpse of any positive development or an indication that something, somewhere might be going right.
After about ten minutes I gave up trying to find some good news from Israel.
I think Arthur Chrenkoff’s Good News articles are so valuable that I’ve decided to link to the entire series in my menu bar. If it’s not over there when you read this, it will be in short order.
While you’re there, be sure to go to the front page where you’ll find some great perspectives on Australia’s recent election and other insightful commentary.
Bill Whittle’s DETERRENCE
One of quite a few prominent former liberals that found their worldview radically altered by certain events in September of 2001*, Bill Whittle of Eject!Eject!Eject! is one of the most admired writers in the blogosphere. His regular readers return day after day to a site that will often be blank for weeks on end in the hope that the silence will be broken (Mr. Whittle puts a great deal of thought and care into the pieces he posts and , unlike myself, is not willing to slap any old thing out there just to have fresh content). Taking a look at the comments he gets just for putting a quick note out to say that he might write something soon lets you know how appreciated his writing is.
All that being said, he’s got a new, two-part piece out that’s already getting rave reviews. I haven’t even finished reading this yet, but I already know it’s worth linking. Of course, by now you’ve probably seen it elsewhere, but I don’t mind being a follower as long as I like the direction.
Eject! Eject! Eject!: DETERRENCE (Part 1)
* Not entirely accurate: As Bill says in Part 1 above, “We like to say that the world changed that day. What a ridiculous, self-centered thought. The world didn’t change. Our illusions about the world changed. The scales had (mostly) fallen from my eyes in the years leading up to that morning. But many, many conservatives (as I define myself) were born precisely at 9:17 am EDT, when United 175 flew past the burning North Tower – an accident? – and exploded through the second, on the morning of September the 11th, 2001.”
One report-two slants
On Wednesday, Chief weapons inspector* Charles A. Duelfer delivered testimony concerning his comprehensive report on Iraqi WMD to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Today, I saw two headlines that, along with their accompanying stories, presented the information from this report in completely different ways.
Matt Drudge linked to the AP News version, the headline of which read “U.S. Report: Iraq Didn’t Have WMDs.”
The Washington Times, on the other hand, covered the report with this headline: “Saddam worked secretly on WMDs.”
Here is the actual testimony from the Senate Armed Services Committee website. The report on which the testimony was based can be read on the CIA’s website.
Keep in mind, of course, that whatever the truth about whether Hussein did or did not have WMD at the time of the U.S. invasion has no bearing on whether the President had good reason to view Iraq as a threat.
If the police officer tells a suspect to show his hands and lay down on the ground, and that suspect instead reaches into his jacket or behind his back, the officer’s gotta drop him. If you say that Hussein allowing inspectors into the country (though not everywhere in the country and never without restriction) invalidates this analogy, then feel free to change it. Say instead that the suspect pulls one empty hand from behind his back and says, “See?” Asked to show the other, he puts the one back behind and pulls the other out empty.
It’s funny when I’m playing that game with my three-year-old, but in this situation, again, the perp gets dropped and I don’t shed a tear if it turns out he was unarmed.
*Special Advisor to the
Director of Central Intelligence for Strategy Regarding Iraqi
Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
VP Debate
I saw more of this one than the last one. Enough to know that John Edwards’ smirk makes one desire to slap him silly.
Let’s say it slowly one more time (at least):
There were ties between Hussein and terrorists.
There were WMD in Iraq.
We did have a multi-national coalition.
Halliburton is not the devil.
There is, however, legislation in Congress to reinstitute the Draft…
…but it was introduced by Democrats and is opposed by the President.
Finally, for the moment anyway, does it amuse anyone else to hear John Edwards talk about the rising costs of healthcare and health insurance when it’s scum-sucking, ambulance-chasing vermin like him that have helped drive up those costs with frivolous lawsuits?
Iraqi intelligence docs appear to bolster Bush’s case for war
UPDATE: The CNSNews links in this article are being redirected to their front page. The headlines are Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties for the main item and 42 Pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service Documents for the journalistic methodology.
Even today I had a coworker repeat to me the canard of the left that Saddam Hussein had no ties to terror and that Iraq had no WMD. Adding to the evidence to the contrary is a CNSNews report revealing the contents of 42 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents provided them by a ” senior government official who is not a political appointee.”
According to the report, the documents reveal specific directives from Hussein to hunt American targets in, among other places, Somalia, and written nine months prior to the events of the book and film Blackhawk Down.
Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.
Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world’s most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.
And on the WMD…
They detail the Iraqi regime’s purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, filters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes sterilization and decontamination equipment. (See Saddam’s Possession of Mustard Gas)
The documents show that Iraqi intelligence received the mustard gas and anthrax from “Saddam’s company,” which Tefft said was probably a reference to Saddam General Establishment, “a complex of factories involved with, amongst other things, precision optics, missile, and artillery fabrication.”
“Sa’ad’s general company” is listed on the Iraqi documents as the supplier of the sterilization and decontamination equipment that accompanied the anthrax vials. Tefft believes this is a reference to the Salah Al-Din State Establishment, also involved in missile construction. (See Saddam’s Possession of Anthrax)
The Jaber Ibn Hayan General Company is listed as the supplier of the safety equipment that accompanied the mustard gas order. Tefft described the company as “a ‘turn-key’ project built by Romania, designed to produce protective CW (conventional warfare) and BW (biological warfare) equipment (gas masks and protective clothing).”
“Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended,” the senior government official and source of the documents said. “This should cause us to redouble our efforts to find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs.”
CNSNews details the process by which they investigated this story in a seperate article here.
America’s moral decline aids our enemy
For your perusal on a Sunday morning. Jeffrey Bell & Frank Cannon write in the Weekly Standard on the impact of “moral values issues” on the political landscape. I hope to add some personal perspective later today, but likely not until late in the evening because after church I will be headed here. The Dirty Birds will not be undefeated for long, by golly!
10:31PM (EST): Moving on quickly from football (“Nothing to see here, folks! Move along.”), I want to juxtapose the article linked above with another one I saw this weekend. First, note the following from the Weekly Standard piece:
In recent presidential cycles, post-election polling found that social issues like abortion, while invariably a mild plus for Republicans, were cited by a relatively small segment of the electorate as a prime motive for voting one way or the other. Moreover, social conservatism was seen as good in the South and heartland and bad on the coasts, making it dubious as a national theme or as a subject of campaign commercials. Conventional wisdom among GOP political consultants has been to mobilize socially conservative voters by a stealth strategy of quietly “passing the word” to “our people.”
New polling by Time and MSNBC/Knight-Ridder suggests that all this has changed. The proportion of voters who say they are keying their vote on “moral values issues like gay marriage and abortion” has gone up sharply–to a level of 15 to 18 percent, according to five national polls commissioned by Time and conducted by Schulman, Ronca, and Bucuvalas since July. More important, the profile of such voters is no longer definable in the vocabulary of polarization and divisiveness. The most recent Time poll (taken September 21-23) has George W. Bush winning socially driven voters by a lopsided 70 to 18 percent. If not for these voters, according to the poll, Bush would be trailing John Kerry by 5 points instead of leading by 4.
The article goes on to use polling data to show that, where he leads, Bush tends to lead Kerry in only two areas: 1) the moral issues, i.e. abortion and gay marriage and, 2) terrorism and homeland security. Interestingly, some believe that these two issues are linked and that, in striving to reclaim the moral landscape of the nation, we also stand to weaken our terrorist enemy and increase our chances of ultimately beating him back.
Chuck Colson and Anne Morse make that very argument on the Breakpoint site of Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries.
CT managing editor Mark Galli made the same point soon after 9/11. Islamic militants are angry at the West, he said, for exporting “hedonism and materialism into their very homes through television, enticing Muslims to become religiously lazy and morally corrupt.” Galli quoted a 1985 communiqué from the terrorist group Hezbollah: “Our way is one of radical combat against depravity, and America is the original root of depravity.”
Anger at Western decadence fueled the writings of the radical Sayyid Qutb, which so influenced Osama bin Laden. These people see themselves not as terrorists, but as holy warriors fighting a holy war against decadence.
We must be careful not to blame innocent Americans for murderous attacks against them. At the same time, let’s acknowledge that America’s increasing decadence is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. When we tolerate trash on television, permit pornography to invade our homes via the internet, and allow babies to be killed at the point of birth, we are inflaming radical Islam.
So, all the while the liberals claim that Western imperialism and U.S. foreign policy toward the Israeli/Arab conflict have invited the attacks on our soil it may, in fact have more to do with the perversions of unrestrained personal liberty that they have been championing for the last fifty years.
The authors then connect the dots, making the case for the Federal Marriage Amendment essentially a national defense initiative.
Preserving traditional marriage in order to protect children is a crucially important goal by itself. But it’s also about protecting the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us. We must not give up simply because the Senate voted down the FMA. It took William Wilberforce and his allies 20 years to shut down Britain’s slave trade; it will take years to win the battle for traditional marriage.
The lessons of history are a warning that the church must not fail to engage these moral battles. Comparing U.S. decadence to the fall of Rome is an old chestnut that culture warriors have used for years. In the past, I dismissed such comparisons because of America’s enormous economic and military strength. But the tactics of terrorists changed that equation.
Recall that Rome’s destruction came about not only through its decadence, but because the Rhine River froze, allowing barbarians to cross into Roman territory. America is vulnerable not only through its decadence, but because the vast oceans that once protected her from enemies protect her no more.
This makes reversing U.S. decadence an urgent priority, not just for Christians, but for all Americans. If our cultural rot continues unabated, a Talibanized West may no longer be a joke, but grim reality.(emphasis mine)
I think this last point is overreaching, but the parallel is worth noting. There are numerous reasons for the enmity borne us by Al Qaeda and their ilk. The pumping of our degenerate values into their homes via MTV and other media does not create the mindset that causes one to believe it is a righteous act to murder civilians. It does, as Colson and Morse claim, give them ammunition in the form of moral outrage and the sense that, whether militarily or not, the West is assaulting their culture with the inevitable spread of our immorality.
What America must realize is that Kerry and the liberal Democrat party, should they reclaim majority political power will hasten the spread of radical Islam, not defuse it. They will hasten it by enacting their liberal policies, serving to weaken America militarily and morally at the same time.
My non-coverage of the debate
I went to bed. Yep. Didn’t watch it, didn’t listen to it and haven’t even read much about it this morning. I could say that part of the reason was that I was exhausted from sleeplessness the previous night and just had to crash, but I might not have watched it anyway.
At this point, do you not feel like both candidates are known quantities? What did they say in the debate that truly illuminated their positions in a way we hadn’t heard previously?
You don’t know because you didn’t watch it!
You’re exactly right! I don’t know, but I’m reasonably confident in my guess that no one who has paid any attention to this point knows any more today about Bush or Kerry than they knew yesterday.
I’m particularly disinterested in anyone’s opinion as to who “won” the debate; a completely academic exercise with no bearing on whether any voters’ opinions were changed or in which direction.
As the complete partisan that I am (at least until after the election) I was content to let the Bush folks give their perspective on Kerry’s answers in the newsfeed to the right. If you want more thorough and, possibly, balanced coverage I suggest starting with Instapundit.com. Professor Glenn Reynolds’ eyes are everywhere and he’s linked more than a dozen sites that have transcripts, scorecards and commentary ad nauseam.
