Iran Seeks Space Technology

Iran wants a space program (with possible military applications?) ASAP. The Russians are happy to oblige. If I were you, I'd read about it over at Cox & Forkum. You'll need the comic relief.

Nomination of Harriet Miers

The moment has arrived, and reactions vary:

Rick Santorum is cautious. according to Katheryn Jean Lopez at Bench Memos. John at Powerline is disappointed, Redstate profoundly so. Hugh Hewitt is more optimistic, and recommends a look at Olasky's posts here, and points us to Beldar, and to Kurtz, who sees the glass as half-full. The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is, well, snarling over the nomination, and at Hugh Hewitt's optimism.

As for me - I dunno. I'm going to wait and see.

Terrorist Attacks in London

The death toll from the train and bus bombings stands currently at 37, with 700 injured.

Blogs with info, and many more links: Tim Worstall, Dodgeblogium (London), Counterterrorism Blog, Samizdata.net (London), and as always, Instapundit.

Our sympathy to the British people. The victims of this cowardly atrocity are in our prayers.

Dick Durbin, I'm Ashamed to Share My State With You

The latest inexcusable idiocy, courtesy of Boortz, (via Instapundit):

On Tuesday, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois took to the floor of the Senate and had this to say, speaking about FBI accounts of what allegedly took place at the Islamic terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

That's right...a United States Senator has just compared our men and women in uniform to Nazis, Soviets running a gulag and even Pol Pot. This makes what Amnesty International said look tame.

Oh, yes, I agree. Boortz is philosophical, pointing out that the Nazi epithet is standard in the democrat vocabulary these days. That may be true, but this rant of Durbin's is inexcusable on so many levels, and to my mind is entirely different from the usual name-calling hyperbole. This is malignantly self-serving, and morally blind.

To equate the physical discomfort of a terrorist with the starvation, torture and death of six million innocent people, more than half of the Jewish population in 23 European countries is an astonishing trivialization of one of humanity's darkest hours. Can you believe that anyone needed to say that?

There are cludgy thinkers and jihadists that find such things plausible. I don't know what the reason is. Maybe those who have no aspiration beyond self-promotion can't comprehend the essential nobility and courage of our fighting men and women. Maybe the accusations come of jealousy - that vicious jealousy the small minded and narcissistic often have - of the honor that our soldiers rightly receive. I do know it's time (oh, is it ever time!) for change in Illinois.

Fedora 3 upgrade + CDROM Failure = Long Blog Absence

The title says it all, really. My CDROM failed in the middle of an FC3 upgrade. Kernel panic, yada-yada. I've had better days.

But, after some time invested in fixing and tweaking, all is well - better than ever, actually. (Linux is sweet, sweet, sweet!)

Judicial Nominations - Big Deals, Big Heads, and the Gang of Fourteen

Seems both sides are steamed about the "deal" struck by the so-called "gang of fourteen". Andrew C. McCarthy of the National Review Online is, shall we say, less than impressed with the syrupy and self-congratulatory rhetoric about "mutual trust" (they've got to be kidding) and defending senate tradition:

Let's say, instead, that they simply gave us the bottom line: (a) three of the president's nominees get an up-or-down vote (i.e., exactly three of the pending seven left standing after the Democrats, in that spirit of compromise, whittled down from the original ten); (b) the Democrats remain free to filibuster (but only on the strict condition that, uh, well, that the Democrats feel like filibustering); and (c) the Republicans, on the brink of breaking four years of obstruction, decide instead to punt (and on the eve of a likely battle over a Supreme Court vacancy, no less).

You can read the rest of McCarthy's column here. I got no great sense of victory when I watched the much touted moment unfold in the news conference announcing the agreement. What struck me was the euphoric self-congratulation of the "gang of fourteen", who were announcing that they had essentially postponed the problem. Grand moment. Celebratory claps on the back. But for what? Peggy Noonan (as usual) says it better than I can:

Listening to them I thought of some of the great and hallowed phrases of our Republic. "The rooster who thought he brought the dawn." "The only man who can strut sitting down."

I know they're centrists, but there is nothing moderate about their self-regard. And why should there be? I personally was dazzled by their refusal to bow to the counsels of common sense and proportion, and stirred that they had no fear of justified insult ("blowhard," "puffed up popinjay") as they moved forward in the halls of the United States Senate to bravely proclaim their excellence.

Yeah, I wanted to see an end to the Democrats' collective apoplexy. Would any deal have accomplished that? I'm guessing the answer is no.

Confederate Yankee's Comment on the "Religion of Peace"

Yup. 'Nuff said.

What has it got in its pocketses? The Truth in Filibuster Polling

Did you ever hear poll results, and ask yourself, "Who the hell are they asking?" Get the feeling there must be something wrong with this picture? Brian at The Blue State Conservatives is exploring polling . . .tricksy polling. . .

Pure Genius: Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons

Take a look at Cox & Forkum today. Go now, and browse. You'll thank me.

Kyoto Protocol - Maybe We're Not Dooooomed After All

There's been a fair bit of discussion lately about the monotonously singular nature of political discourse at universities. Guess the scientific community is infected with the same drone-like mentality on the issue of global warming. If you think you might adopt the "let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" strategy for dealing with our impending demise, you may want to pop over to Right Wing Nut House and take a look at what we've been missing - and why. There's more at LGF.

Escalating Viciousness of Anti-Christian Rhetoric

It was irritating enough before, this anti-Christian flap, what with police dramas depicting every ax-murdering wife-beating kidnapping pedophile as a twisted "Christian", quoting the Bible for justification. Or documentary "revelations" of "recent discoveries" of the secret sex life of Jesus Christ. And, of course, the sniggering attitude of superiority of a seeming hoard of news commentators presenting Christians as pitiable and addled. But lately, well, in case you've lived in some extraterrestrial place for the last year or so, here are some snippets:

Religious Divide In Politics Grows Venomous,
Richard N. Ostling shares this little gem in what is (in my opinion) a very fair-minded article in The Day (New London, CT). He's referring to the academic conference at the City University of New York on the real agenda of the religious far right:

At the CUNY conference, the central threat speakers raised was theocracy...Though one speaker lamented Roman Catholicism's new fundamentalist pope, the weekend's chief targets were evangelical Protestants whose tactics were compared with those of Machiavelli, Hitler, Stalin and Jim Jones of mass suicide fame.

HUMANISTS: US = DANGEROUS THEOCRACY = LIKE TALIBAN
J. Grant Swank, Jr. of MichNews.com puts his take on this new wave of left-leaning hysteria this way:

The United States is on the verge of destruction because of Christians. Christians are now the concerted enemy out to do in the nation. There is no doubt about it. Five hundred humanists gathering in New York said so. They are vehement. They are frightened.

I know. You picture the gentle and frail octogenarians on the steps of your local church, and you're tempted to laugh. But this is more than liberal looniness. Another snippet:

The Enemies of Religious Liberty, James Hitchcock:

The liberal state, Sadurski argues, should discriminate among religious groups on the basis of how progressive each is thought to be, and Rogers Smith insists in Liberalism and American Constitutional Law (1990) that religion can only enjoy constitutional liberties if it undergoes a basic transformation to make itself more rational or self-critical. Going further, Steven Macedo, who explicitly identifies his view as comprehensive, defines liberalism in The New Right Versus the Constitution (1987) as a permanently educative order for the preservation of liberal values and argues that the power of government can be legitimately used against illiberal churches because doing so promotes greater overall freedom.

Along the same lines, Smith asserts that society may overide people's commitments to particular religious groups if these commitments seriously restrain their members capacities and opportunities for reflective, independent choice. In other words, some private organizations, such as churches, should be restricted because their beliefs can be a danger to liberal values.

Aaahh. So the pointy-eared, dripping-fanged Christians aren't the only ones with an agenda, it seems.

The Left's "Dominionist" Demons
Don Feder of FrontPageMag.com reports Ken Salazar's revelation on the identity of the beast:

Last week, Colorado Senator Ken Salazar (a Democrat, naturally) told a radio interviewer that Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family "are the Antichrist of the world" for urging citizens to demand their senators vote to end the filibuster of Bush judges. (Aside: Imagine the furor if Jerry Falwell had called Hillary Clinton "the Antichrist.")

Salazar later amended himself to say Focus and Dobson's "approach was un-Christian, meaning self-serving and selfish." In effect, Salazar is saying that for a Christian group to attempt to get government to reflect Christian values is "un-Christian." If you say so, Senator....

And then Mr. Feder says something that I've been saying for awhile (only he says it better):

What The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion meant to anti-Semitism, Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism are for the anti-Christian Left an attempt to stir up hatred by seeking to convince the unwary of a dark plot to take over the world or nation.

I've wondered which will happen first - outbreaks of violence against Christians, or revulsion on the part of fair minded people. So, needless to say, I was encouraged (and comforted, for the sake of the gentle and frail octogenarian on the steps of the local church) by James Taranto's column in the OpinionJournal, Why I'm Rooting for the Religious Right. He says he is neither a Christian, nor religious at all, and lays claim to the political middle. But in his column I heard - yup! - outspoken revulsion. Here he's speaking of the use of the filibuster to subvert the voting process for judicial nominees:

After following long-established rules for at least a quarter-century, they [Christian conservatives] can hardly be faulted for objecting when their opponents answer their success by effectively changing those rules.
This procedural high-handedness is of a piece with the arrogant attitude the secular left takes toward the religious right. Last week a Boston Globe columnist wrote that what he called "right-wing crackpots--excuse me, 'people of faith' " were promoting "knuckle-dragging judges."

So why is he rooting for the religious right? He says,

I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism--all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right. . . And the religious right includes not only Christians of various stripes but also Orthodox Jews and even conservative Muslims. Far from the sectarian movement its foes portray, it is in truth a manifestation of the religious pluralism that makes America great. Therein lies its strength.

Do you remember what it was like to have a dialogue, a stimulating and spirited exchange of opposing ideas, instead of this mindless and potentially dangerous escalation of hate? I hope this is the beginning of a trend, don't you?

Chinese Christians and the UNCHR

An article by Jason Lee Steorts in the NRO today demonstrates what is surely an abysmal - and instructive - lapse for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Christians in China have been persecuted for their faith for many years. I'm talking about the old-fashioned definition of persecution, not the current American one. That is, they are being arrested, jailed, tortured, or killed, not being disagreed with, made fun of, or ignored. But Bob Fu, the president of the China Aid Association, got a taste of UNCHR-style persecution when he gave a presentation at their 61st session in Geneva. Mr. Steorts writes:

One of the Chinese police's favorite torture devices, and one that has probably been used repeatedly on Cai Zhuohua is a kind of electric baton. Bob Fu owns such a baton, smuggled out of a Chinese prison. He took it to Geneva after obtaining permission from the secretary of the UNCHR to conduct a demonstration of it during his testimony. This demonstration consisted of Fu's holding it in the air over his head and turning it on for six seconds.

Predictably, the Chinese delegation went berserk, its members claiming that the demonstration made them feel threatened. (One is left to wonder how they would feel if the baton were actually used against them.) They then demanded that Fu be booted from the proceedings. The commission's chairman, obliging chap that he is, agreed. Fu was escorted from the building and stripped of his U.N. badge. His baton was also seized, and has not been returned.

[Cai Zhuohua is a pastor jailed for printing Bibles without Chinese government permission.]

According to a news release on the China Aid website, the Chinese delegation was "insulted". Well, there are worse things. Like the things that hoppened to Bob Fu, for example. From a press release on China Aid, in which Mr. Fu describes the incident, and addresses the chairman of the UNCHR:

Mr. Chairman, as a former Chinese Christian prisoner, I have held great respect and high expectations upon the UNCHR which is supposedly the highest authority and institution on this earth with the stated mission "to protect and promote human rights for all". However, given what I have experienced and testified, I think that certain countries with the poorest of human rights records and worst violators have managed to seize control of and cripple the functionality of the UN Commission on Human Rights and its Secretariat. The issue of reform of various UN bodies is being discussed in the U.S. and internationally. The time is ripe to consider fundamental reforms to restore the focus of this Commission to its original purpose and to remove control of the Commission from the worst violators.

Mr. Chairman, about nine years ago, I was forced into a police car and taken from my home to prison by the Chinese Public Security Bureau in Beijing for alleged "illegal religious activities." Sadly, this is the second time I have been put into a police car and it was done by UN security guards. The only reason I was treated like that was because of a complaint filed by representatives of torturers. That very torture device is being widely used even today, at this moment, against hundreds of thousands of victims of conscience. As the device is described in its specifications it is an "an ideal tool for the Chinese law enforcement officials."

Human rights violations, including torture against those prisoners of conscience and religious beliefs in China, should be stopped immediately. Before we can accomplish that, we must first reform the very institution designed to protect human rights for all. An institution that even now is intolerant of demonstrating the torturers' cruel device.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
­­­­­­­

In all my life, I've never heard a 'thank-you' that has reverberated with more irony than that one.

lgf: France Backs China on Taiwan

Just when you thought you'd run out of reasons to dislike the French...
France Backs China on Tiawan. Well, business isn't so good in Iraq these days. Guess Reffarin's trying to drum up new unholy-alliance weapons deals. But, of course, the fault will be with the U.S., no?

Filibuster for the "Protection of Minorities"?

Only when it's convenient, evidently. According to Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times:

Liberal Democrats, who now extol the filibuster to protect minorities, were in the forefront advocating strict majority rule through most of my nearly 48 years as a reporter covering Congress. As recently as 2000, architects of the filibuster strategy to block President Bush's judicial nominees -- with Democrat Bill Clinton still in the White House -- were demanding straight up-or-down votes on judges.

(Via RealClearPolitics)

(True confession: I used to have a big dog. Every so often, I'd go to the yard to pick up dogshit. No matter what you do, if you have a dog, there it is, this distasteful chore. In the same way, I'm finding it hard to attend to the blatently self-serving, hypocritical, character assassinating lies of the left. The difference? Well, there's the obvious upside to having a dog, and on balance, dogshit is only moderately offensive.)

More Minuteman Project Fuss: The Rottweiler Sniffs Out ACLU Antics

The Minuteman Project, ("a citizens' neighborhood watch along our border") has had its share of opposition, including threats from terror-connected gangs. Now there are accusations, albeit unsubstantiated, that volunteers for the ACLU, having decided to "monitor" the Minuteman Project at the border, is actually assisting those attempting to cross the border. See The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: More ACLU Antics. (Question: Now that the ACLU is concerned with Mexican civil rights vs. the interests actual American citizens - do we call 'em the MCLU?? Or maybe the A in ACLU referred to the continents of the Americas and not the U.S? The C./M./U.S./S.A.CLU? Oh, nevermind.)

Cuban "Healthcare" - Viewer Discretion Advised

The Black Informant exposes a very different view of Castro's so-called "excellent [free] healthcare" than the official Cuban description leads us to believe, in The miseducation of American Negroes on Cuba. (The photos are shocking. Brace yourself.)

On the Subject of Anti-Christian Bigotry (again)

Hugh Hewitt is looking for outbreaks of "religiousrightitis", a term evidently coined by Mr. Hewitt himself (I may be wrong about this - if so, comments are open) to describe the vitriolic verbiage aimed at Americans who dare to adopt a Judeo-Christian value. Surely you know the kind of thing he's talking about, but in the event that you don't, he gives examples. I'm not quoting any of it, because I want you to GO READ HIS POST! (Pushy, no?)

More Grist for the Mill: Social Security for All

Americans for Prosperity Foundation has launched a new website, Social Security for All, to "give individuals an opportunity to become more involved in deciding the future of their Social Security" and to educate citizens on the issue, according to Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of Americans for Prosperity. Their position on Social Security reform is this:

# Permit workers to invest their payroll taxes in individually directed Personal Retirement Accounts (PRAs);
# No increase in payroll taxes;
# Guarantee a "safety net" for all retirees;
# Preserve the benefits of retirees and near retirees;
# No government investment in the stock market;
# No general revenue transfers to Social Security without structural reform;
# Reform Social Security to reduce the burden it will place on future taxpayers and the federal budget.

There are some who appear to be more frightened of reform than the systemic failure of Social Security, as evidenced by the panicky retreat to the past to cling to the neck of a statue of F.D.R. The problem for us as citizens is a perennial one. For a member of the My-Political-Survival-Is-Paramount party, any problem with a time horizon that extends beyond their likely tenure is - must be - ignored. Why spend political captial on a problem for which one cannot take credit? Only political pressure from an educated citizenry can move this sort of political narcissist toward the "third rail" of American politics.
At this point in the debate, I believe I agree with the principles in the list above, but I'm not sure that phasing out Social Security altogether isn't better. I'm still thinking, still reading. I'm adding links on the subject of Social Security to the sidebar so you can do the same.

Darn Frenzied Piranha!

Today Neil Steinberg, columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times offered his opinion on a CNN report on blogs, and on blog(er)s in general. Evidently the CNN report featured a blogger who was "accredited and given access to a White House press conference". Mr. Steinberg writes:

Yowza. Though they also let in a turkey at Thanksgiving, CNN found this particular entrance highly significant, perhaps some kind of turning point, and as the protracted, painful segment unfolded, the reporter tried to present the usual piranha frenzy in the so-called "blogosphere" by actually scrolling down, on air, blocks of verbiage on her computer screen.

(Piranha frenzy. Wow. I dream of being a piranha one day, But I'm still trying to fit into my "so-called blogosphere" pajamas.)

So why was CNN fooled? I know producers have time to fill, but they stumbled onto a common misperception that deserves note. Stuck as always in the jail of the present moment, we mistake White House or presidential involvement for a sign of importance or respectability.

Okay, Mr. Steinberg, we're noting. Here's the logic. Premise: A blogger is by his nature an unknown, unimportant individual (just look at me) and he cannot be respectable. Therefore, since this blogger got Whitehouse news conference access, any slob can have "White House or presidential involvement". All of us - unimportant un-respectable hoi polloi that we are - should take Neil's word for it, pop in at the Whitehouse, and have a little chat with the President. Why nobody has done this since the Lincoln administration is just beyond me. Who knew?

And blogs will, unless I am very much mistaken, be this decade's CB radio since, like CB radio, they are a cacophonous expression of the unvarnished and unedited psyche of the American people, God bless them, once again mistaking a new technology for the New Jerusalem.

There we go again. Poor "unvarnished and unedited" savages, mistaking advancement for magic, falling down to worship when the missionary strikes a match. (For a minute there, I thought this was the haughty and insulting condescension of an elitist. But having reflected on his insight for a moment, I believe I really do need to have my psyche edited. Can anyone recommend ... Oh, nevermind.)

Are Little Green Footballs and Powerline and Instapundit a CB-style fad? Time will tell. But time has told us a few things already. Dan Rather's little swim with the piranha ended well, I think, or rather (no pun, I swear) will end tonight. So did Daschle's. Will the unwashed masses, God bless us, prefer to sift our information from an unvarnished and unedited cacophony, or a pablum of whitewash and spin? If it's true that news today is entertainment, which do you think it will be? Feeding piranha or puffed-up pontificating elitist? Well, I can't tell the future any better than you - but I'm guessin'.

[Thanks to youch for the heads-up via email. Cross-posted on the Chicago Bungalow]

Feeling Guilty?

Every once in awhile, some original thinker considers the cultural landscape, and with ray-of-light acuity, describes the view for us all. If you like that kind of stuff, 4 Mile Creek has a great post for you today.