Cox & Forkum: USS Ironic

Cox & Forkum have applied their formidable talent to one of the most ironic events of the year. Don't miss their USS Ironic!

Blogosphere Challenge

JustOneMinute has offered a challenge to the blogosphere. I think it's brilliant! (via Instapundit)

To Feminists from a Female - Thanks for Nuttin', Honey

Larry Summers, president of Harvard University gives voice to some evidently volatile speculations on why women are not as well represented as men in fields of science and engineering, and in so doing committed an utterly unforgivable, deadly and despicable sin against the femi-zealots and their sympathizers at Harvard (and elsewhere). Some called for his resignation , while others adopted the suspected of one is guilty of all philosophy:

Carrying signs and chanting, ``Racist, sexist, anti-gay! Larry Summers, you must pay,'' about 60 protesters greeted faculty as they filed into the meeting.

Warning: Do NOT voice that thought. Don't play dumb with me - you know what thought. The thought that this neurotic and hypersensitive reaction of certain women serves to prove his point, and is in fact harmful to women everywhere. You Can't Say That. Got it?

Social Security Choice

If you're looking for more info on the Social Insecurity issue, you may want to have a look at Social Security Choice. It was recommended last month on Redstate (yeah, I know I need to pick up the pace). I personally have decided that my opinion is pretty well represented here.

And speaking of Social Security...

I thought I was in favor of personal accounts, but Ken at Chicago Boyz makes this argument (a good one, I think) against that approach:

First, it's not really yours if it can be used only at the sufferance of the Social Security administration. Second, having the government direct the flow of that large quantity of investment capital, however indirectly, is just asking for trouble. The reason that our investment system works is that people attract investment by convincing people not only that their investment will make money, but that their investment is the best possible use of the investor's money, better not only than "approved investments", better not only than any other investment, but better than any other possible present use of that money including consumption. Let bureaucrats who won't even be gaining or losing their own money have a say, and (much more) money will start flowing to enterprises based on pull rather than merit and profitability, and a lot of the money that would otherwise have gone to fund growth and technological advancement will instead go to waste.

The whole article is here.

Definition of Terms, Pelosi on Social Security

It's hard to have a productive discussion without a clear definition of terms, or so I'm told. (Well, so I was told a long time ago. Discussions I've heard lately have their substance in shrieking accusations of dubious credibility, fantastic assertions of conspiracy, and so forth. Nuff said. We've all heard 'em.) Today, for want of clear definitions, I'm confused.

The subject of my current muddled state begins with House Democratic Leader Rep. (D-CA) Nancy Pelosi's Legislative Briefing on Thursday. In the spirit of a fair exchange of ideas, I transcribed the whole thing. Did my very best to be accurate, except I removed a lot of the uh's and um's. (I think leaving them in makes a speaker look stupid, even when they represent the natural hesitation of a person who is speaking off the cuff. And if a person is verifiably stupid, you just don't need to do that, do you? Parenthetic lecture is now over.) Here's the transcript:

Last time we met - I began our session here - by commenting on the sadness we all felt in losing our colleague - Congresswoman Bob Matsui, to - hoping that the next time - we came together - we could start on a happier note ...

Am I confused about the gender of Congressman Bob Matsui? No. She misspoke, of course. A little freudian slip, possibly because she was thinking of this.

...but sadly, yesterday was the deadliest day in the Iraq war. So many of our young people lost. - we must always express our gratitude for their courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifice that they are willing to make. Of course we all join in sending our deepest sympathy to their families. I know that the State of Hawaii is particularly hard hit in this time. California has had a large, large number of casualties and injuries so - we have felt that - and now Hawaii is feeling a large number as well. Of course we also observe today the sixtieth anniversary of the freeing of Auschwitz and the camps and - we must always remember - that - man's cruelty to man has no place in a civilized society, outside the circle of civilized human behavior. That's why I'm so pleased that all of the attention is being placed on Rwanda now - past tragedy - but focusing on Darfur - which challenges the conscience of the soul, and gives us no excuse for taking the appropriate action.

We're not touching any of this. Don't even go there.

The subject of - of our conversation today is going to be social security. Democrats are very proud of social security. Just to remind some of you who are here that - social security came from a very entrepreneurial approach to how - on how to meet the needs of the American people. It came from the tradition of Roosevelt which was constant, persistent, experimentation. Risk taking, being bold, and entrepreneurial.

Now, this is where I get lost - this new twist on the word entrepreneurial. (entrepreneurial: adj. 1. of or relating to an entrepreneur; 2. willing to take risks in order to make a profit.) Am I to understand that Roosevelt took risks in order to make a profit? Clearly not. He himself took no real monetary risk. Who took the risk? Evidently, American people did. Did they profit? Well, yes and no. Americans who had already profited had their profits appropriated and given to other Americans, who did profit from other Americans' profits. Very confusing, trying to explain redistribution of wealth in terms of the entrepreneurship, risk taking and experimentation of Roosevelt. My head spins.

Because it is a guaranteed benefit, it provides economic security and therefore independence for America's seniors, disabled and those unfortunate that - to have become widowed and - and orphans. So it's a very positive - with a very positive attitude - that we say we must subject all that we do to meet the needs of the American people, and to - anytime we're spending tax dollars - to the scrutiny that it needs so that it's always operating in the best possible way. In the 1980's President Reagan and Tip O'Neill came together to address the challenges faced by social security, and they came up with a bipartisan, sustainable approach that will make social security fine until probably - oh - 2040 or 50, depending on the numbers. And that's from [?] of 60 or 70 years.

Am I confused about how a plan can be sustainable, and still, well, be expected to collapse? No, and neither are you. We all know that the dictionary definition of terms like "sustainable", and the political definition (sustainable: adj. 1. Unlikely to implode in time to damage my political career, meaningless to my constituancy) are two very different things. Am I confused by the "economic security and therefore independence" thing? Yup.

Now the president is saying - he had been saying we have a crisis - I think he's toned down to saying its a problem - that he wants to address it before it becomes a crisis, and I accept that, and Democrats accept that characterization. We said to him all along we want to go to the table in a bipartisan way, to - no preconditions - except that we don't want to add to the deficit or harm the middle class or begin by cutting benefits or go to the table and consider all the options that are available to us. The president has said he wants to act in a bipartisan way, and yet he has invited the Republican senators to the whitehouse to talk about social security and the Republican house members. So we're waiting for the call to act in a bipartisan way with him. [At this moment, the TV lights go out. She says,] Do you think that could have been the call? (Laughter.) He acts in strange and mysterious ways, but uh - (More laughter. From a member of the press "it doesn't sound like the right message." ) In any event, Democrats are united - we stand ready to receive the president's plan. He has said three things. What I just said when we did meet with him in a joint leadership meeting [two shafts of light - apparently spotlights - play across the room. She says:] Uh-huh. A very important light. (Laughter.) In the joint leadership meeting he said it's not a crisis it's a problem that we should address before it becomes a crisis, and then he went out and said it was a crisis. Now he's back. Secondly that we should be - many of us suggested - Democrats and Republicans at the table that we should be dealing from the same set of numbers. Can't call it - deal with one set of numbers that prove a case and the rest of us dealing with another set of numbers. Let's stipulate to a set of facts so that we can go forward in a realistic way. And he said, give me a chance. Wait until you see my plan, before you go forward. So we're waiting for his plan, but - but the part of the plan - the first part of the plan that was leaked from the Whitehouse was - that forty percent would - call for a forty percent cut in benefits - for recip...beneficiaries. I don't think we should start there - so if that's their - their first proffer to those of us who are concerned about social security I don't think that's a good place to start. A good place to start is to say how do we honor our fathers and our mothers. How do we give them the independence that they deserve? Money that they put into the system and now being there. Again, when you have a guaranteed benefit, you as a young person or middle age person can be very entrepreneurial because you know at the end of the day you will at least have social security. And that, I think, contributes to the entrepreneurial spirit in our country for people to take more risks and be more successful. With that I'd be pleased to take any questions you may have...

Still confused? Me, too. But I think I'm beginning to understand. You do bold risk taking entrepreneurial experimenting on your own. And then, when your enterprise is bled white by over-legislation and redistribution of wealth (that would be the Rooseveltian governmental experimental entrepreneurship), well, don't you worry. You'll always, (always: adv. 1. beyond the day that Nancy Pelosi's retires to ample benefits paid for by you) always have Social Security.

I also understand that there will be no bipartisan discussion, call or no call. Social Security, broken or not, has been redefined as "entrepreneurial" and "independent" and good. (In line with the Ten Commandments, even. Remeber the honor our fathers and mothers thing?) The gauntlet and the verbal smokescreen have simultaneously hit the ground. Looking for productive discussion? Mmmm. Nice thought - but don't hold your breath.

Another Transatlantic Voice

Ray D. at Davids Medienkritik takes on the anti-Americanism of SPIEGEL ONLINE, when they apparently conclude that because one individual with past terrorist connections had difficulty obtaining a U.S. visa, all of Germany, the doors of the U.S. have now slammed shut for all Germans. (The SPON article in question is titled AMERICA'S NEW ENEMIES: Why a German can't travel in the USA.) Now, it may be hard to believe that any thinking person would expect to find a credible article under a headline like that one. If I had been asked to guess its source, my first thought would have been The Onion, but I digress unnecessarily, because Ray D. does a beautiful job of addressing this nonsense. He says:

SPIEGEL staff have openly admitted that they exploit anti-Americanism to please their millions of readers. If pleasing your readers means taking advantage of a personal tragedy, stirring up hatred and damaging transatlantic relations, well, than SPIEGEL ONLINE is entirely prepared to do just that...

Does my heart good to know that somebody is standing up for sanity over there.

From the other side of the Atlantic . . .

The EU Referendum has some Very Interesting Stuff on issues involving the the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. Check out the Thoughts of a European security expert, part 1 and part 2.

Yes, Virginia, there's good news too...

You thought the news from Iraq is all bad? No, the media thinks that only bad news is news. So, if you want the good part, you've got to look elsewhere. Chrenkoff is a good place to start - check out his Good News from Iraq, Part 16. Yup, sixteen parts. Read 'em all. You'll feel better.

Lest We Forget. . . .

It isn't our intention to devote this blog to a continual discussion of the left's response to (or attempts to communicate with) evangelical Christianity. But at the moment there's just so darn much material, as democrats grapple with the peculiar lingo of evangelical Christian faith, as Bruce Reed does here:

The good news is, we have done this before. We don't have to learn to speak in tongues, join the NRA, or start thinking like my evil twin Ralph Reed.

Whew. I'm sure that's a relief, Bruce, and probably no more likely than the rebirth of the entire party:

"The underlying problem here is, there is no call to arms that the Democratic Party is making to the country," Carville told reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "We've got to reassess ourselves. We've got to be born again."

But certain things just wouldn't be feasible, would they? They're just so darn back-woodsy. Then again, in the circumstances, potential candidates do (and say) what they must:

We welcome back to the area Senator Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.), who has been spending so much time here in Little Rock lately that she's practically joined the church choir! "I'm here spending time at my husband's library," she told the Lamp when we caught up with her after a Sunday camp meeting, "and of course, I always take time to worship God in as evangelical a way as is feasible, given time and location constraints. As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative, if you want to know the truth, so it's nice to be 'home' again in the South, which I really consider my quote-unquote home even though I live in New York most of the time. Well, Washington, D.C., most of the time, actually, but if I'm not there I'm in New York, of course, but always thinking about being here, in the South, my spiritual home, where I shared so many wonderful evangelical . . . moments and . . . events. Can you read that back to me?"

(Via National Review)

(There's been some discussion about whether this is a legitimate quote. My question: Does this guy often use words like "apocryphal"?)

Despite the comedic value of the early attempts at framing liberal agendas in Biblical terms, we should remember the underlying gist:

Let's face it; the South and the American heartland still hold to the often selective moral values of our parents and their parents. While mainline Protestant religions are shrinking, evangelical churches are thriving. There's no way liberals can change that fact, at least not in the immediate future.

Yikes. What does this ominous reference to the future evangelical churches mean? It could be that William L. Anderson over at LewRockwell.com has a clue:

To be honest, most Democrats that I know are absolutely ignorant about evangelicals, and they are incensed that they even go to the polls. Their first inclination, unfortunately, is to try to find ways to suppress that brand of religion. As James Hitchcock notes, many Democratic intellectuals already claim to have "discovered" that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution actually encourages the suppression of conservative Christianity. He writes:

According to Kathleen M. Sullivan of the Stanford University Law School, the "establishment clause" actually establishes a culture from which there can be no legitimate dissent in which religion is tolerated only "insofar as it is consistent with the establishment of the secular moral order." She candidly admits that "the religion clauses enable the government to endorse a culture of liberal democracy that will predictably clash over many issues with religious subcultures." But believers "must pay for the secular army which engineers the truce among them" for the sake of civil peace. Critics of the theory of evolution, for example, are accused by Sullivan of being in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, which, she claims, has been "shaped by an argument honoring Galileo's defense of empirical rationality against the abuses of Bible interpretation." Hence the state is obligated to encourage "scientific rationality."

It follows logically that churches should be denied the right to be fully self-governing. Thus in A Wall of Separation (1998) Ted Jelen accuses a Catholic bishop who threatens religious sanctions against dissident church members of being guilty of "a religiously based threat to the prerogatives of democratic citizenship." The same charge would be brought against religious officials who express or enforce opposition to homosexual marriages or abortion. Sullivan thinks that churches can be allowed to exclude women from the ranks of the clergy only so long as this does not "impede the functioning of the civil public order." In Please Don't Wish Me a Merry Christmas (1997), Steven Feldman goes so far as to argue against allowing the major Christian denominations to proselytize among non-Christians.

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. He urges "the right sort of liberal partisanship in all spheres of life," and, despite the Constitution's explicit prohibition of any religious test for public office, he argues that certain religious believers (notably Catholics) can justly be excluded from certain public functions, such as serving as judges.

Read all of James Hitchcock's article here.

We can chuckle at the fumbling attempts to understand and speak "evangelicalese", and the idiotic accusations, and utterly unfounded paranoias. But I would hope that whether you are a member of an "illiberal church", or not, you find this bigoted agenda of suppression as offensive and sinister as I do. So laugh, yes. Poke fun - who can resist? But let's not lose sight of the underlying ideology. It's deadly.