Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!

Wednesday, February 28, 2007
An Unwise Rush to Judgment
Posted by: Dean Barnett at 10:40 PM

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa! I spoke too soon.

Just as I was preparing to shut out the lights here at HH.com for the night, I checked back at that relatively sane Daily Kos thread about the attempt on Dick Cheney’s life. I was curious to see if any of the Kidz had given in to their Amanda Marcotte-like rage. Sad to say, they have. I guess some in the Kos community are uncomfortable relinquishing the “Angriest Progressive Website” crown to the Hufftards without a fight.

I started reading at the bottom of the thread. Lest you think what follows was cherry picked, all of the quoted comments were among the ten most recent comments when I checked in:

  • “Lamonth” says that he would agree that it were swell that Cheney survived “if that fat bastard did not cause so much death and destruction - sometimes its probably better for the world if someone gets killed ie Hitler.”

What a dummy! (That’s one for any “Sanford and Son” fans in the audience. I know the commenter has the extra “h” at the end of his handle, but work with me, people.)

  • “Bluecollarelitist” has a finely calibrated sense of moral justice: “Bottom line, when you play with fire you are bound to get burned. Cheney wanted war; he was in a war zone. He is a combatant. Death happens. He signed on the dotted line, like my brother in Afghanistan. He did more than sign on the dotted line, obviously. He wrote the paper that the dotted line appeared on, and he has been a part of this 'pulp/publishing industry' for many, many years. With Karma hanging over my head, I try not to wish anyone anything but decent thoughts--though this principle is typically better in theory than practice. Children didn't sign on any dotted line, and I lose more sleep when they die. I literally lose sleep when a child dies, no matter where he or she lives...and then dies an untimely death.” (Ellipsis in original)

It’s a good thing no kids die on most days, or else this guy would never get any sleep at all.

  • “Statistician” tells those condemning the attack to speak for themselves: “If they were trying to assasinate Uncle Fester, I am sorry that they failed and wish them better luck next time. I oppose the killing of human beings. Unfortunately graveyface doesn't get accorded that status. He is responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 people, certainly not in the same category as Stalin or Hitler, but certainly no less deserving of meeting his maker as soon as possible.”

Not as bad as Hitler? Someone better get “Statistician” the latest talking points!

  • And lastly, “Flashlass” doesn’t hold back: “I wish the guy got blown up. He deserves it. He's an evil P.O.S. who has helped put the world in this shambles it's in. Dead-eye Dick is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the sh***y condition of this country today. Why wouldn't I wish harm on the nefarious a**wipe?

When’s Nancy Pelosi writing her next diary for the Daily Kos? I wonder if she knows about any of this.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com






Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Giuliani & Partners
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 9:09 PM

Many conservatives, including myself, continue to be surprised and impressed by Rudy Giuliani’s poll numbers. To be sure, he’s a very likable candidate, but conventional wisdom insisted that, once he entered the race, his liberal social stances would doom GOP Primary chances.

In fact, a new poll shows Rudy Giuliani doing surprisingly well among Evangelical voters.

Still, it's early, and fair to say that most conservatives don’t know the extent of Giuliani’s positions. Most conservative voters probably don’t know, for example, that, as Mayor, Giuliani supported -- not just abortion rights -- but partial-birth abortion. (So far, when it has come up on the trail, Rudy has adeptly parried the questions by changing the subject to “safety and security,” or by pledging to appoint judges who will be “strict constructionists”.)

But while many conservatives continue to believe his past positions on social issues will eventually catch up to him, it is much more likely that his past associations will do him far more harm.

His support of Bernard Kerik to be head of Homeland Security was one such instance.

Kerik, of course, had two mistresses, an illegal nanny, and had ignored past arrest warrants (and those are, perhaps, the nicest things you could say about him). Still, Rudy Giuliani had no problem appointing him to be New York’s top cop – and (even worse) recommending him to head the Department of Homeland Security,

After embarrassing President Bush, Kerik was given a job with Giuliani Partners. (Last year, Kerik was fined over $200,000 for two misdemeanor corruption charges.)

So why is Rudy still so revered? As it turns out, Giuliani got out of office at the right time. His term expired in 2002 (although, as you might recall, he did attempt to stay on longer, for the sake of New York). By virtue of his term expiring in 2002, Rudy left on a very high note. As such, his 9-11 image as “America’s Mayor” has covered a multitude of sins. Whether you’re Jerry Seinfeld (who, by choice, ended his TV show on a high note) or James Dean (who died young), leaving the public wanting more is a good way to ensure a positive legacy. I’ve made the point before that if George W. Bush’s term ended in 2002, he would have been regarded as a great president, (but that’s another story).

While the Bernard Kerik incident was embarrassing to both Bush and Giuliani, the Kerik faux-pas wouldn't be so alarming if it were a single instance of bad judgment. It is not. Giuliani’s pattern of continued questionable associations may ultimately be what disrupts his progress with Evangelicals, and undermines his credibility on safety and security issues, too (as they relate to personal appointments).

The story centers around a man you’ve probably never heard of: Alan Placa, another Giuliani associate, who, as a Priest, was accused of “groping” a student in high school in the mid-1970s.

As you will read, Placa is an extremely close Giuliani associate, who also just happens to be accused of molesting a child and, perhaps worse, using the system to cover it up. The story goes back to a 2002 Newsday article about a January day in 1975, when a teenager volunteered to help make banners for the annual Right to Life march in Washington.

According to the story, the student claims:

“(Monsignor Alan Placa) pulled out some posters in the deserted administrative area as if to show him something, and then began fondling him – all the while making conversation about the posters. Tollner said the incidents repeated every month or so for the next year and a half.”

First, let me explicitly state that Placa denies any wrongdoing – and he has never been charged with a crime.

But it is also true that the Diocese of Rockville Centre has removed him from wearing the collar and performing any official duties.

It should also be noted that a Grand Jury report paints a devastating picture of sexual deviancy and molestation in his Diocese -- the Rockville Centre Diocese. According to the National Catholic Reporter:

“The report documents allegations of the rape of cheerleaders and altar boys, of acts of molestation and seductions in churches, rectories, on camping trips, and in the homes of the minors who were abused. It tells of instances in which priests provided minors with pornography and alcohol, and of cases in which the diocese received allegations and didn’t report them to police, but instead transferred the accused priests to other parishes.”

While this report does not mention Placa, it is possible he was one of the 58 “abusive Priests” alluded to. This is particularly concerning, because, as head of the so-called “Intervention Team,” he was tasked with handling the sexual abuse allegations and protecting the diocese from liability, The grand jury found that Placa may have been involved in an attempt to sweep the allegations under the rug. Again, according to the National Catholic Reporter:

“ … The grand jury has charged that while the team tried to appear sympathetic to victims, its goal was actually protecting the diocese through discouraging lawsuits, persuading victims to not go public with accusations and assisting abusive priests in efforts to remain in ministry. Though the grand jury report didn’t name the team, according to Newsday, one of the members was, in all likelihood, Msgr. Alan Placa, the diocese’s former vice chancellor …”

IN THE SUFFOLK COUNTY SUPREME COURT GRAND JURY REPORT, Placa (by his own admission) is  referred to as “Priest F,” a Priest who engaged in pedophilia. Even after the grand jury testimony Rudy stood by him. And in another 2003 New York Times article, Placa described the zero tolerance policy on priests as “immoral and unchristian.”

That same year, the New York Times also reported that, “Placa was the architect of the diocese’s legal strategy, a national expert in the field and the crucial member of the intervention team. Several months after the panel was ended in April, he was suspended from the ministry after being accused of abusing children.”

Additionally, the 2002 Newsday story included a quote from Kevin Waldron, a fellow high school friend who corroborates Tollner’s story, saying Tollner told him of the events after they happened. The Newsday story goes on to say:

“A second former student, who asked that his name be withheld, said he described to Suffolk prosecutors what he called ‘the newspaper drill.’ ‘He always had a New York Times in his office. And he’d sit down next to you on the couch in his office and open it wide and, inevitably, his hand would brush your crotch,’ the man said. ‘He did it over and over again, I can’t tell you how many times.’ That man said he felt so violated that he wrote Placa an unsigned letter 20 years later, blaming him for his loss of interest in pursuing the priesthood.”

Despite the allegations, Giuliani hired Placa right after all this went down, and he remains with him today (based on news reports and my call to the Giuliani Partners office). And as the New York Times reported in 2002, amid allegations, Giuliani jumped to Placa’s defense, saying: “He’s one of the people I admire most in the world, and if most people did half the good that Alan’s done, the world would be a wonderful place.”

Considering Giuliani’s relationship with the guy (he annulled his wedding to his 2nd cousin and was best man in his first wedding) it is not surprising that he has a certain amount of loyalty to him. According to last week’s Newsday story:

“... despite the controversy, Giuliani gave his old friend Placa a job at Giuliani Partners, and Michael Hess, a partner at the firm and the ex-mayor's corporation counsel, handled Placa's legal matters.”

If Placa is, in fact, innocent, this may be one of the most heroic lines I’ve read; if he’s guilty, it’s one of the most disturbing.

So how does this play into the 2008 race? Leaders are entrusted to make decisions. In essence, leaders are often in the business of saying to the public: “trust me on this one.” But this is a dangerous business to be in. If President Bush was wrong about Russian President Vladmir Putin’s character (even after looking at his soul), it is plausible that Mayor Giuliani made an honest mistake about Placa.

During the Clinton Presidency, Rush Limbaugh often made the point that an unusual number of Bill Clinton’s friends were either dead or in jail. If a man is truly known by the company he keeps, then Rudy Giuliani’s associations may imply something about his character. At the very least, they may imply something about his judgment.

One of the most important things a President does is appoint people to perform various important jobs.

It is entirely possible for a leader to be a very good and trustworthy person, yet still lack judgment in other people. Now, if you’re a middle-manager at a retail store, this could be written off as a “quirk.” But at the presidential level, where your appointee’s wield so much power over the lives of others, this lack of perspicacity is both damning and disqualifying. Rudy Giuliani – whom I like and admire – has teetered dangerously close to this line.

Whether or not Kerik or Placa are innocent or guilty, it is still interesting that Giuliani has surrounded himself by so many people who have, at least, questionable backgrounds. What is more, he has invited both of them to be part of his business -- in spite of the evidence and allegations. It’s one thing to stay friends with someone with a past, and it’s quite another thing to do business with them.






Wednesday, February 28, 2007
K-Lo On The Big Two
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:32 PM

From her most excellent column today:

The bottom line? The guy who will clearly stare down the jihadists will ultimately earn conservative votes. That may be Giuliani. For now, however, I'm holding out for a leader who comes with even more than that — the one who knows not only that we have a civilization to fight for, but also understands that marriage and the preservation of human life are essential to keeping that civilization going. That may be Romney.








Wednesday, February 28, 2007
FAQ - The Goracle (and Our Rotten Comment Boards)
Posted by: Dean Barnett at 6:15 PM

1) Are you crestfallen now that it turns out that Al Gore is a Chickengreen, willing to talk the talk but unwilling to waddle the waddle?

Not quite. I have to admit, he had me fooled. All that ranting, all that yelling – he convinced me that he was a true believer in the flouro-boro electro climatic global warming crap. I guess he wasn’t quite as committed to the cause as I thought he was.

2) Does this mean we can at last dismiss him from the public conversation?

No. Definitely not.

3) Please. I’m begging.

No. You’ve actually stumbled on one of my pet issues. Since Al Gore has left politics, he has been a public intellectual. Like all public intellectuals, we should judge him by the qualities of his ideas. The fact that it turns out that he personally has feet of clay doesn’t make his ideas any less accurate. Now, I’ve never been a big believer in the stuff that he was selling but I’ve also been candid enough to confess that I’ve never bothered to develop a fully informed opinion on the matter. But still, Gore’s personal shortcomings don’t diminish his intellectual output. (Using the terms “Gore” and “intellectual output” in the same sentence just caused my hard drive to explode.)

4) Back up a second – you say haven’t cared enough about this issue to develop a fully informed opinion on it. What kind of imbecile are you? The fate of the world is at stake and you won’t read a few books and studies on it? Idiot.

Hold on there. I go where my curiosity takes me. I’ve never been a science guy. Sorry. If I were running for president, I’d make a study of it because it would be my personal responsibility to do so. If I were even writing stories on why Gore is wrong or why he’s right, I’d make a study of it. Again, it would be irresponsible of me to address the subject from a position of ignorance. The subjects that I do address I actually take the time to personally understand.

5) But don’t you think you should take the time to get a handle on this and should write on it?

“Should?” What am I, a public utility? I’m telling you, you want to get on my bad side, tell me what I “should” write about. Really, I don’t care if you’re doing this from the right or the left. Either way, it will bug the crap out of me. If you think I’m spending too much time discussing trivialities like Al Gore now and therefore wasting precious pixels that could be better spent on discussing the burgeoning troubles in Pakistan, wait until baseball season begins when I devote at least one column a week to either the ascendancy of the Boston Red Sox or the continued pathos of the Cleveland Indians. Besides, it’s a big blogosphere out there – if I’m not writing on it and Hugh’s not writing on it and even if the new guy isn’t writing on it, you can bet someone else is.

6) But back to Gore – if he runs for office, should his house and his apparent hypocrisy be an issue?

Of course. Besides, I have a question about one of his defenses – he says he’s having solar panels installed. He’s been on this environmental crusade for six years. How long does it take to install solar panels? He must have hired the same contractor I did to renovate Soxblog Manor’s kitchen. The Big Dig will apparently be completed before Al gets his solar panels or I get my new countertop.

7) I’m very troubled by all of this. He’s a ChickenGreen! Why should I listen to him?

You should listen to him if his ideas are good. Seriously, I don’t like this ChickenGreen talk anymore than I like this ChickenHawk type.

Let me give you an example of how it should work. I just read an excellent book by a guy named Nathaniel Fick called “One Bullet Away.” Fick is a Marine who served as a Recon Lieutenant in Iraq. He was the tip of the spear. Some of you might remember him from Evan Wright’s excellent “Generation Kill.” He is a thoroughly admirable guy who wrote a terrific book on his experiences. (It was going to be this Sunday’s book review, but I never got around to writing it. I had friends in from out of town.)

Captain Fick wrote a more recent article about why the surge can’t and won’t work. Obviously, I respect his opinion and I respect the fact that he has firsthand knowledge that I don’t. But other people with the same firsthand knowledge feel differently about the subject. If Fick and I were to have a debate, his superior biography shouldn’t make him an automatic winner.

8) Of course you’d say that, being a Chickenhawk and all.

Hey, I’m a deeply flawed human being in a million other ways besides not serving in the military (which never was an option open to me for obvious reasons). If you’re looking for a saint, you’ve come to the wrong blog. Actually, the book’s still out on Ruffini, but both Hugh and I fall short.

Fortunately, I’m not running for office so I’m not seeking anyone’s validation of my character. If you’re going to posit that imperfect souls can’t have ideas worth hearing, then you won’t have to spend much time listening to anyone’s ideas, even the people who are positing ideas that you might find to your liking.

9) Chickenhawk! Chickenhawk! Chickenhawk!

Which reminds me – we’ve got some serious problems on our comments board. I think we may have the worst comment boards in the entire blogosphere and considering there are 6 trillion blogs, that’s saying something. There are some people who contribute worthwhile observations (Reynolds, Pasadena Phil and HNAV spring to mind but I know there are others) but they are drowned out by the shrill, the obtuse, the offensive and, worst of all, the repetitive.

So, I have decided to dedicate a modicum of effort to sprucing things up on our comment boards. For people who can’t follow the new rules, the bannings will come fast and furious.

First, if you wish to comment here, you will engage with other people’s ideas, not their persons. For instance, “I disagree with the post because…” is a good, constructive start. “You’re an idiot!” is not. Second, you must stay on topic. If there’s something you really want to say to me, send me an email. If it has nothing to with the comment thread, common sense dictates you leave it out of the comment thread. Third, if you leave three comments in a row and thus engage in a conversation with yourself, this is annoying and pointless. Get your own blog if sharing your thoughts with the world is what you really want to do. If it doesn’t suck, I might even link.

Lastly, and most importantly, do not repeat yourself over and over again. Even if I like what you’re saying, I guarantee you this will get you bounced.

10) You lay out these rules, and “Jeffrey” is still allowed to comment? How? Why? Won’t you rid us of this meddlesome pest?

America is the land of second chances. Because we at HH.com are red, white and blue to our core, we will be the blog of second chances. But now that the rules have been clearly spelled out…

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.






Wednesday, February 28, 2007
"Our Big, Big God"
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:33 PM
Author-blogger Jeff Atwood has his first children's book out, Our Big, Big God.  He and the touching story behind the book are profiled in today's Tennessean.






Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Why Liberals Are Right To Hate The Ten Commandments
Posted by: Michael Medved at 5:02 PM

The left’s fiery obsession with removing Ten Commandments monuments from public property throughout the United States may seem odd and irrational but actually reflects the deepest values of contemporary liberalism.

In the last five years alone, the tireless fanatics at the ACLU have invested tens of millions of dollars and countless hours of legal time in lawsuits to yank the Commandments from long-standing displays in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Montana, Georgia, Iowa, Washington State, Nebraska, Texas, Pennsylvania and Florida. In one of the most recent battles, they delayed their litigation in Dixie County, Florida, because they couldn’t find a single local resident to lend a name as plaintiff in a drive to dislocate the tablets from the local court house.

Even for militant separationists like the ACLU, this ferocious hostility to innocuous and generally uncontroversial monuments looks excessive, even self-destructive. The overwhelming majority of Americans instinctively accept the Commandments as a timeless, cherished summary of universal moral precepts. A closer look at the specifics of the Decalogue, however, suggests that it makes good sense for leftists to hate The Big Ten: each one of the commandments contradicts a different pillar of trendy liberal thinking.

For the purposes of this discussion of these conflicts, I’ll cite translations from the original Hebrew in the excellent Stone Edition of the Biblical text (Exodus 20; 2-14), and I’ll use the traditional numbering favored by Jews and Protestants. (Catholics group Commandments 1 and 2 together, and make two separate Commandments--9 and 10-- out of the prohibition on “coveting” that Protestants and Jews identify solely as number 10.)

First Commandment: I am the Lord Your God, Who has taken you out of the Land of Egypt, from the house of slavery…..

This one makes liberals obviously and instantly uncomfortable. According to political correctness, it’s rude and insensitive to proclaim God’s existence in public—and especially not in public schools! Faith is supposed to remain a private matter, an individual habit or quiet commitment, leaving plenty of room for doubt and uncertainty. Secularists therefore resent the notion of an open, out-of-the-closet Deity who shows off in such a noisy, flashy way, staging the Exodus from Egypt with all its plagues and sea-splitting, then announcing himself in a voice from the mountaintop heard by hundreds of thousands of people. For those who worry about too much religion in the “public square,” it doesn’t get much more public or communal or unequivocal than this opening proclamation.

Second Commandment: You shall not recognize the gods of others in My presence. You shall not make yourself a carved image nor any likeness of that which is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the water beneath the earth. You shall not prostrate yourself to them nor worship them…..

Talk about intolerance and judgmentalism! This commandment denies the very essence of multiculturalism and diversity: by what right do we dismiss and disrespect the gods of others? Didn’t that wild-eyed, bearded guy who went up the mountain realize that it’s a demonstration of wrong-headed cultural imperialism to express such cruel, callous contempt for deities like the Aztec Quetzcotal or the Canaanite Moloch? Moreover, when it comes to worshipping idols, twentieth century leftists continued the noble traditions of the ancient cults of Baal or Astarte: in the old Soviet Union, every town boasted monumental statues of Lenin or Stalin (usually both) and to this day, the image of the divine Fidel graces every pathetic hovel in Cuba. Refusal to “prostrate yourself” and to “worship them” can lead to big trouble in such enlightened societies.

Third Commandment: You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not absolve anyone who takes His Name in vain.

For liberals, this rule highlights the right wing’s eternal, anal-retentive obsession with proper language and dirty words. Isn’t old Moses here sounding a little bit like the benighted FCC with its seven words you’re never allowed to say on the air? Cutting edge artists and entertainers love using holy names in shocking and disrespectful ways. Liberals supported the National Endowment for the Arts almost unanimously in its funding for the controversial Andres Serrano collage “Piss Christ,” and activists on the left are always more eager to defend any divine designations (like “God Almighty!” or “Jesus Christ!”) if they’re pronounced as curse words (protected speech) rather than with reverence (violating separation of church-and-state).

Fourth Commandment: Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it. Six days shall you work and accomplish all your work but the seventh day is Sabbath to the Lord your God….

Most liberals are okay with the Sabbath stuff, but they squirm over that part of this directive that says, “Six days shall you work….”?!! What kind of exploitative boss would dare to demand a six day work week from today’s unionized laborers? In enlightened nations like France, they’re working to get it down to a three day week--which ought to be enough to keep every citizen well-stocked in snails and frog legs. This commandment fairly reeks of the old-fashioned, restrictive Anglo-Saxon work ethic. In the Twenty First Century isn’t it time we moved beyond that outmoded notion that people should prefer labor to leisure?

Fifth Commandment: Honor your father and your mother….

And ignore the scintillating and liberating ideas of the younger generation? Are you kidding? The expectation of honoring your elders burdens youthful free spirits with the dead, oppressive influence of tradition and the past. Progressive thinkers understand that in defining proper standards of dress, grooming, music, entertainment and sexual mores , it’s kids (and particularly adolescents), not parents, who really know best.

Sixth Commandment: You shall not kill

On the surface, this sounds reasonable enough to liberals, but they can’t stand the context: just one chapter later in the same book of the Bible (Exodus, 21:12),God and Moses give orders to break their own rule: “One who strikes a man, so that he dies, shall surely be put to death.” The next verses stipulate capital punishment for a wide variety of causes (like “cursing your father and mother”) so the no-kill commandment really begins to sound like no-murder. In other words, the Bible makes a clear distinction that liberals emphatically deny. The left loves slogans that declare that that execution is murder, war is murder, meat is murder, and so forth, but the God of Exodus who emphatically bans murder also specifically authorizes execution, war and meat.

Seventh Commandment: You shall not commit adultery

To which the post-modern left would quickly add: unless you really, really love her. It’s not just Clinton apologists who have a problem with this inconvenient taboo on extra-marital involvement: when people take their vows by pledging to remain committed “as long as our love shall last,” the Seventh Commandment begins to look incurably outmoded.

Eighth Commandment: You shall not steal

For lefties, this prohibition smacks of the right’s selfish emphasis on private property. Back in the glory days of the 1960’s, the beloved hippie hero Abbie Hoffman penned a liberationist manifesto called “Steal This Book.” Radicals and revolutionaries have always devised comfortable euphemisms to describe the act of theft: “liberating” or “boosting” or “collectivizing” or “nationalizing” private property, or simply “taxing the rich.” If you believe it’s virtuous for government to seize by force the majority of an individual’s earnings (remember the pre-Reagan, top income tax rate of 70%?), you ought to feel somewhat uncomfortable with an absolute ban on stealing.

Ninth Commandment: You shall not bear false witness

Some liberals may endorse this commandment, but only when it’s applied to Scooter Libby. Otherwise, there’s a problem with the ancient Jewish understanding of the deeper meaning of this verse. Our sages suggest that a secret to understanding each one of the Big Ten involves the parallel structure of the two tablets. In other words, the first commandment corresponds to the sixth, the second to the seventh, the third to the eighth, and the fourth to the ninth. That means that this “no false witness” order connects to the imperative of keeping the Sabbath. The association relates to the basis for Sabbath observance stipulated in the text: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and the sea and all this is in them, and He rested on the seventh day.” In other words, the Sabbath bears witness to God’s role in creation, and the Rabbis say that the denial of divine creation represents the ultimate in bearing false witness. On this basis, today’s libs insist on false witness, the whole false witness, and nothing but false witness. The very idea of questioning a random, materialistic origin of the universe makes them crazy with rage and contempt: they strenuously condemn the mere notion of suggesting in schools that it was an Intelligent Designer who must have “made the heavens and the earth”

Tenth Commandment: You shall not covet your fellow’s house. You shall not covet your fellow’s wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your fellow.

Among many other problems, this commandment outrages PETA with its unacceptable suggestions like animal companions like oxen and donkeys can ever “belong” to their human friends. Meanwhile, the ban on coveting involves a restriction on a feeling, a desire, and it’s politically incorrect to suppress or deny or stifle authentic emotions, Blaming yourself for coveting can only undermine self-esteem, and the emergence and liberation of your precious inner child. Moreover, the entire leftist project is largely based on covetousness: resenting the “filthy rich” for what they’ve earned, rather than feeling grateful for your own achievements. The implacable liberal focus on the “gap between rich and poor” – as if impoverishing the wealthy worked in any meaningful way to actually enrich the poor – represents covetous attitudes at their irrational worst. The sacred leftist goal of “redistribution of wealth,” mandating heavy taxes on “haves” for the purported benefits of “have-nots”, depends on coveting for its energy and rationale. On the other hand, the Bible’s unmistakable emphasis on the sanctity of private property (“You shall not covet your fellow’s house”) clearly contradicts the left’s emphasis on a communitarian and collectivist outlook, in which the state becomes the ultimate owner of everything.

Reviewing the Ten Commandments one by one exposes their irreconcilable conflict with the demented and dysfunctional philosophy of today’s left.

In other words, in contrast to most aspects of Twenty First century liberalism, the implacable hostility to the Biblical Big Ten actually ends up making perfect sense.






Wednesday, February 28, 2007
100-Year-Old Man Beats Three Would-Be Muggers
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 4:40 PM
Inspiration:

"I pushed one and kung-fu kicked the other one between the legs."

 






Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The latest campus outrage
Posted by: Jonathan Garthwaite at 3:25 PM

Mike Adams uncovers a Kent State University professor cheering on the sidelines for Osama bin Laden:

Associate Professor Julio Pino – a Muslim convert who teaches at Kent State University. The heading for the site used to read "The Worldwide Web of Jihad: Daily News from the Most Dangerous Muslim in America." Now it reads "Are You Prepared for Jihad?" IN THE NAME OF OBL. 2007: THE YEAR OF ISLAMIC VICTORY!"

UPDATE:  Drudge is on the case.

KENT STATE PROF PROMOTES BIN LADEN VICTORY AGAINST U.S....






Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Campaign '08: Let the Sock-Puppetry Begin!
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 3:25 PM
Danny Glover notes that shilling will undoubtedly be coming soon to a comments thread near you.

Being that it's politics, I'd bet most of the young campaign staff charged with sock-puppeting probably won't even know that it's considered gravely unethical in the blogosphere. To a lot of campaign operatives, it'll just look like good messaging and communications until they're walloped with a Patterico beat-down ala Glenn Ellers Ellensburg Greenwald III.

And, by then, it will be too late. It'll be important for campaigns to have smart blog-gurus on board who know that Patterico and Goldstein and others will go all Carnac the Magnificent on your IP addresses. You will not hide from them.





Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Republicans to Block Jefferson’s Appointment
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 2:57 PM

Another reason the GOP's image improves when Democrats are in power ... 

From Politico:

"Republicans plan to force a floor vote on Rep. William Jefferson's move to the Homeland Security Committee in an unprecedented maneuver to force Democrats to go on the record supporting their embattled colleague who is the target of a federal bribery investigation."

Yeah, let's let the Democrats defend this guy. 

Good luck on that.






Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The New York Times Asks A Question
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 2:39 PM

David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times called  my publisher today and requested an interview with me about A Mormon In The White House. I called him back, and the conversation began with the history of the project and my experience filmg Searching For God In America in the mid-90s.  As is my practice, I invited him to conduct the interview on my show so that America could hear how the MSM goes about its work. He declined.

Then Mr. Kirkpatrick asked me how much my advance had been, which I declined to state.

He then asked if I was aware of a Boston Globe story from last year about Romney's spreading money around the conservative movement.  I had not heard of or seen that story.

And shortly thereafter he asked if I or any entity related to me had been paid by Mitt Romney or any organization affiliated with him to write the book.

The answer is, of course, no --"Absolutely not" is how I put it to him-- and I went on to express in no uncertain terms my disgust with his asking the question, which he defended as based on chit-chat he had heard, and he defended the asking of the question in private as a way of debunking the rumor.

"Have you stopped beating your wife" questions are part of gutter journalism, and asking them without any predicate other than rumor astounds me.  As any reader of this site or any of my books knows, I have beliefs about MSM and its many biases and the flaws in its coverage, but I have never believed that any journalist of any stature would take secret payoffs in exchange for writing a story or a book. 

The invitation to Mr. Kirkpatrick to appear on the program and defend his journalistic method remains open, and I have invitations out to other MSMers.  Mr. Kirkpatrick believes they will all defend his asking of the question.  Perhaps they will, but embracing slander as an excuse to go fishing for a story has not been a practice I associate with quality journalism.






Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Government Moves to Protect Us from Nasty Words
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 2:23 PM
Like, the n-word and the entirely equally offensive and insensitive "illegal alien."

Nanny State 911.

I'd like to ban "journal" and "dialogue," when used as verbs. Can we do that, too? I don't care who you are. You ain't dialoguing with me. And, you're writing, not journaling.






Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Why Indeed?
Posted by: Dean Barnett at 1:53 PM

Not that this has anything to do with anything, but Jim Treacher is running an interesting poll over at the DailyGut site:

Why does Al Gore's Nashville mansion use more than 20 times as much electricity as the national average?

  • Entire east wing is walk-in fridge for snacks
  • Tipper says there's no point listening to Cannibal Corpse if you don't TURN THAT $#!+ UP
  • Bush stole all the off-switches
  • Needs to run the AC non-stop to keep his daughters from burning the place down with their hotness
  • He's building a Death Star

Click over to see the results! And as Treacher says, “If you don’t vote you can’t complain.”

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.





« Previous123456789103031Next »