One for the Gipper

The Chicago Tribune features a great article here about Indiana Congressman Mike Pence and the struggle for the soul of the GOP caucus in the U.S. House.

"One more expansion of the Department of Education, one more big expansion of entitlements, and that [Republican] coalition will be shattered," Pence said. "If Republicans keep answering every problem with an expansion of big government, eventually people are going to get the professionals, [the Democrats] the guys who do big government."

Rapidly making a national name for himself as a talented and positive leader for the conservative movement, Pence may very well be the "real deal" for conservative political activists (if you've watched the early West Wing TV show, you'll get the reference).

Hat-tip to old friend and fellow political warrior Jon for the story.

Audio Book Review

Reagan in His Own Voice: Ronald Reagan's Radio Addresses

From 1974 to 1979, with a short break in between for the failed 1976 campaign for the Republican nomination for President, then private citizen Ronald Reagan gave over 1,000 daily radio commentaries on stations across the country. Often forgotten, these daily radio segments provided a tremendous platform for introducing both Reagan's persona and his conservative ideas to a national audience.

The radio commentaries selected for the collection range from folksy, to populous, to bedrock conservative philosophies. Probably the most valuable thing to be gained from listening is the understanding that Reagan conceived and wrote all of these addresses himself, as he would later do the bulk of the work on most of his major speeches as President.

Reagan's historic speeches won't be found in this collection of short radio addresses, but it's an interesting collection from a purely historical standpoint.

Quote of the Day

"Courage is being scared to death . . . and saddling up anyway."
- John Wayne

Racism - White and Black

Thirteen year-old twins Lamb and Lynx Gaede have become poster-children of sorts for neo-nazi recruiting, carrying a message of white supremacy via early teen music and videos. Not exactly the Olsen twins, even if they look like them. Spewing forth nonsense ranging from basic white-supremacy to direct tributes to German Nazi leaders, this has to rank as one of the most outrageous examples of scary-stupidity.

But, they and their parents have that right as Americans. Unfortunately, they only recognize that those rights apply to white Americans.
_______________

Then, of course, there is the flipside of this racist coin. Dr. Kamau Kambon, a former affiliated faculty instructor at North Carolina University, said the following at a campus program also carried by C-SPAN:

“White people want to kill us. I want you to understand that. They want to kill you,” he said. “They want to kill you because that is part of their plan . . . And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. *tepid applause* Now I don’t care whether you clap or not, but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people."

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

The Retrosexual Code

A fun posting over at Hardcore Conservative on The Retrosexual Code, a handy teaching guide to those confused. Click "Comments" at the bottom to read the entire list.

1. A Retrosexual, no matter what the woman insists, PAYS FOR THE DATE.
2. A Retrosexual opens doors for a lady. Even for the ones that fit that term only because they are female.
3. A Retrosexual DEALS with IT, be it a flat tire, break-in into your home, or a natural disaster, you DEAL WITH IT.
4. A Retrosexual not only eats red meat, he often kills it himself.
5. A Retrosexual doesn’t worry about living to be 90. It’s not how long you live, but how well. If you’re 90 years old and still smoking cigars and drinking, I salute you.

Click the COMMENTS below to read the rest of the list.

Book Review

A Short History of Nearly Everything
Author and Narrator: Bill Bryson
Review from audio CD version

A catchy title for an intriguing book about the core concepts in science - space, atoms, evolution, biology, geology, and more. While not the exhaustive resource one might assume from its catchy title, the book has just the right balance of scientific rigor, balanced with a tongue-in-cheek style and good writing to make it an intriguing work.

The book gets started by drawing with words a picture for us of just how expansive our universe is. The shear scope of our universe - our own little solar system, for that matter - is explained in a manner no science book or lecture had ever before. It leaves one with an unshakeable "wow" factor.

In reverse, Bryson spends considerable time drawing readers/listeners into the atomic structure at such minuete levels that the reader is relieved to hear him confess that this is simply unimaginable to any human. One is so utterly taken by the tremendous complexities, inter-woven elements, and sheer scope in the large and small that I kept asking myself "how can this have become reality by chance, without a designer." Still, one is left with a healthy respect for science, research, and the great desire for knowledge.

The author deftly avoids an evolution vs. creation debate, sprinkling more than a few off hand remarks that "intelligent design" advocates will find comfort in. However, this is all discussed in terms of scientific study and the evolutionary theory, but with a recognition that science is fallable . . . but fascinating and important.

Bryson's piece is one of highs and lows in interest level, dipping into boredom at times as he recounts the histories of various discoveries, the scientists involved, etc. At these points, I found myself begging for a "tell me what we know now" moment, instead of telling me what the various historical figures from science thought (usually incorrectly). But he always brings you back to an interesting point.

This is a good read (or "listen" in my case) for anyone interested in science. You'll find it most interesting if you accept from the very beginning that, even today, we still really don't even know what we don't know about the universe, the atom, or our own beginnings as humans.

Bloody Hypocrites on Parade

CNN is reporting that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe have attacked the U.S. and British administrations in separate speeches at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization meetings in Rome.

Among the tirades, Mugabe labeled Bush and Blair as "two unholy men of our millenium" and compared them to Hitler and Mussolini's alliance during WWII. Chavez carried on with his typical anti-American ranting.

If not for the fact that these two control important countries and command world attention, they'd be laughable. But the truth is a bit scary.

Mugabe succeeded in bringing independence for Zimbabwe from Great Britain in 1980, but after decades of rule has turned his once peaceful country into a bloodbath. The bulk of the country's farms had been owned by white Zimbabwe citizens, but Mugabe succeeded in seizing most of their lands. Those who resisted faced Mugabe-backed gangs who indiscriminately slaughtered countless white men, women and children, while Mugabe smiled and said he had nothing to do with it. As white farmers were killed or driven from their land, Mugabe's thugs took charge and have failed miserably as farmers. The nation's agricultural output collapsed, plunging so many into starvation. This makes Mugabe's comments at the UN Food and Agriculture meetings all the more ludicrous.

Two years ago, Venezuela was in absolute turmoil as large segments of the country rose up against Chavez's dictatorial ways. Surviving the upheaval, Chavez has made American-bashing a top-priority since . . . in large part to have a villian to point to. This year alone, he has embraced Fidel Castro, hosted a world conference for young marxists, built alliances with China, and generally gone out of his way to try and be some sort of hip, anti-American hero to left extremists worldwide. Just last month, he was in New York telling audiences that he loved Americans and would attempt to improve relations with the U.S. Of course, this was after a meeting with Jesse Jackson, who encouraged him not to confront the Bush administration.

Bush's Yes Men

A President should have his choice of judicial appointments, absent obvious ethical concerns.

So goes the line of argument expressed thousands of times by Republicans and conservatives.

And even with all of the fighting between GOP regulars and conservatives over the Miers nomination, most right-leaners would argue that giving the President - any President - his nominees is preferred.

For many conservatives, the nomination itself was a serious enough disappointment bordering on betrayal. It smacked of one of those all-too-smug strategies cooked up by puffed-up political insiders over 7&7’s and filet mignon late one night in a dimly lit corner of a Georgetown eatery. “This is freakin’ brilliant, guys (pause for puff on cigar). We can’t lose this one. They can take this nomination and go {blank} themselves.” "Themselves meaning Democrats, conservatives, or whomever else might not think it such an inspired idea.

But what really set conservatives to sharpening their spears followed. First, the President and his minions seemed unable to muster little more of a case for Miers than: (1) trust me, I’m GWB; (2) she’s an evangelical Christian, so trust me; and (3) she’s one of the most respected and accomplished women lawyers in the country. A collective and nationally audible “what?” followed.

Second, with a haphazard ferocity bordering on rage, the administration dispatched its minions to attack conservatives who did not snap into line. Now, in all fairness, George Will, David Frum, Ann Coulter, and other conservative writers may have started the bloodletting, but they are pundits! That’s what they do!

But here is the thing about the Bush Administration and those who are associated with it – nothing is more important than loyalty to Bush. Nothing. That’s fine at times, but it tends to make the hero being worshipped think he’s invincible. It also tends to make the underlings, obsessed with preserving their access and power through demonstrating loyalty, a little too smart for their own good over time.

It also breeds distrust on the outside, even among strong allies. For many conservatives who have labored for decades, they would rather fight their way across bloody political battlefields, sacrificing so much along the way, before they would kneel to kiss the ring of the king.

What Bush and his yes-men have done is expect that conservatives kiss the emperor’s ring and trot off to be good little boys and girls. “Trust me” should be a good enough explanation in their minds.

And here’s the ultimate irony in all of this. Set aside the fact that some in the White House yes-man corps are going to look like idiots for having bungled the communication of this (not the strategy, but the communication), what it does achieve for the yes-men is provide another opportunity to demonstrate their own personal loyalty to the President.

Where the administration also dropped the ball was in not recognizing an opportunity to take a deep breath, do an “aw shucks, we are all on the same team here,” and let conservatives begin to focus on the negatives in not supporting her. They’d have eventually come together. Instead, the President’s yes-men strike back at critics.

Laura Bush is trotted-out, smiling to suggest that sexism might be at play. The White House unleashes religious zealots Dobson and Robertson (or better put, didn’t muzzle them) to turn try and turn religious conservatives against the critics on the right. If they just had faith in the President and in Miers’ Christian’s values they’d support her. Shame on you godless establishment conservatives!

Miers Nomination - Noonan Nails It

Peggy Noonan's column in today's Wall Street Journal provides a useful view of the split between many conservatives and the Bush Administration over the Miers nomination. However, I seriously doubt Bush will withdraw this nomination as Noonan would hope for.

Besides the Administration's vicious attacks on conservative dissenters - sexists, elitists, etc. nonsense - the President bungled this by making Miers religious views front and center in defending her, right along side "trust me." As Noonan admonishes the White House message team:

And next time perhaps the White House, in announcing and presenting the arguments for a new nominee to the high court, will remember a certain tradition with regard to how we do it in America. We don't say, "We've nominated Joe because he's a Catholic!" A better and more traditional approach is, "Nominee Joe is a longtime practitioner of the law with considerable experience, impressive credentials, and a lively and penetrating intellect. Any questions? Yes, he is a member of the Catholic Church. Any other questions?"

That's sort of how we do it. We put the horse and then the cart. The arguments for the person and then the facts attendant to the person. You don't say, "Vote for this gal because she's an Evangelical!" That shows a carelessness, an inability to think it through, to strategize, to respectfully approach serious facts--failings that, if they weren't typical of the White House the past few months, might be called downright sexist.

Will "Intelligent Design" Supplant Darwinism?

An interesting point-counterpoint on the current battle to legitimize "intelligent design" between Douglas Kern's Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win and Max Border's response Creationism Is Evolving ... It Has No Choice can be found at Tech Central Station.

Kern's thesis holds that, regardless of the validity of the intelligent design holdings - that an intelligent force must have designed the tremendous complexities found in nature . . . basically a compromise, pro-"God" position with science - the religious, social, and political power of the idea as a trump to evolutionist dogma will eventually take hold. Border's response raises several very valid points that actually confirm the core of Kern's thesis - that I.D. is bound to win because it cannot be disproven. That is, science cannot disprove an intelligent design hand. Also, as science learns more, it finds an ever-evolving complexity that plays into the hands of ID advocates - that is, that "it had to be designed."

The I.D. campaign is a very welcome approach to the debate about science and "creation." There really hasn't been a debate in some time - just a lot of yelling. Evolutionists have become absolutely intractable in their defense of their THEORY to the point of the most vicious, insulting and elitist language to be found. It really begs the question: What are these supposedly intelligent people so upset and mean about? To Kern's point:

"Ewww…intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads."

There. I just saved you the trouble of reading 90% of the responses to the ID position. Vitriol, condescension, and endless accusations of bad faith all characterize far too much of the standard pro-Darwinian response to criticism. A reasonable observer might note that many ID advocates appear exceptionally well-educated, reasonable, and articulate; they might also note that ID advocates have pointed out many problems with the Darwinist catechism that even pro-Darwin scientists have been known to concede, when they think the Jesus-kissing crowd isn't listening. And yet, even in the face of a sober, thoughtful ID position, the pro-Darwin crowd insists on the same phooey-to-the-boobgeois shtick that was tiresome in Mencken's day. This is how losers act just before they lose: arrogant, self-satisfied, too important to be bothered with substantive refutation, and disdainful of their own faults. Pride goeth before a fall.

A funny observation, but not entirely wrong. Still, ID advocates/creationists have to resist the urge to couch their victories as proof of the Bible's truth, thereby turning away from the very reasonable questions/assertions in the I.D. campaign that bring them credibility. The I.D. debate has a lot of potential if it is able to resist the urge to be more than a front for religious doctrine, prettied up with scientific language and generous applications of quasi-reason.

The evolutionists and their scientist armies – on most any issue or question in science, the most vocal opponents of radical ideas - have a lot to answer for in their religious-like faith in Darwin's theory. They've stretched it to cover every hole in our understanding, dismissing any questions about their assertions as the ramblings of Bible thumping religious zealots. An idea, a supposition, a guess, made within the context of an evolutionary argument does not make it fact. It shouldn't even give it automatic respectability, which is exactly how scientists treat them to protect their position in an outright war against creationists. They aren't doing any service to science by stamping down free thought, valid questioning, and the proper application of the principles of scientific observation and deduction.

Evolution is a theory - a set of concepts, rooted in scientific observations. It is not proof. Hypotheses must be tested, changed, evolved, and otherwise subject to the rigors of scientific principles. Otherwise, it's pure faith . . . a religion in science, cloaked behind the closed doors of scientific arrogance and elitism.

This is not to argue that there is a God, that creationism is valid, or otherwise to defend religious institutions. Quite to the contrary. My point is that both sides of this debate are at times so closed-minded and employing the same tactics that they look like flip sides of the same dogmatic approach. The ID campaign is a threat to evolutionists because it is "intelligent" and, to the extent it can stay focused, set separate from particular religious beliefs beyond the notion that there is or was some intelligent designer.