Another Pen for Western Culture

Monday, August 25, 2008

Democrat National Convention

2008 Democrat National Convention
Schedule of Events
7:20 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton
Darryl Hannah
7:55 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
Al Gore
Rosie O'Donnell
8:35 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
John Kerry
Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon
Alec Baldwin
11:00 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
Barbara Streisand
Sean Penn
William Jefferson Clinton
11:45 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
Howard Dean
Presented to Dan Rather by Michael Moore
12:25 am Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
12:45 am NOMINATION OF Barack Hussein Obama-
Nancy Pelosi
1:00 am Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST To Obama
1:30 am Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST To Hillary Clinton
1:35 am Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home

Friday, August 01, 2008

The Only Fair is Laissez Faire: Ditch the Fairness Doctrine

So Democrats, unhappy that people won't just give them complete control already, want to reinstate the alleged "Fairness Doctrine."

An issue usually ignored is the fact that such "fairness" is as impossible as the utopia from which the idea springs.

Imagine being asked simply to count the number of opinions in an hour of radio. Even defining such statements is difficult. When is a statement pure fact, or "slanted" but mostly factual, or true, but misleading because of what it leaves unspoken?

If you could somehow overcome this impossible dilemma, perfectly sifting fact from opinion, you still have the Herculean task of deciding where each opinion fits on some spectrum, and what sort of alternate opinion is required to achieve "fairness." This is likewise impossible, because there are a dozen sides to every political opinion.

Sure, we talk about the left wing and right wing. But the bird/plane metaphor only addresses our two-party system. There are so many views available besides North and South. Perhaps the petals of a flower might better convey something of the points of view available on any subject. Yet this too fails. Opinions are more like the spines of a sea urchin--there's the 360 degrees of the compass, but there's also altitude, up and down . . . .

Like the tentacles of an octopus, opinions branch in any and all directions. They cannot be reduced to a mathematical quality, measured, predicted, and somehow "balanced." The notion reduces human thought to something so much smaller than it is.

Are broadcasters to balance conservatives with liberals? What about the libertarian view? Or the Green Party? Or PETA? Or American Communists? What do you mean by "fair" anyway?
Do we ignore religious opinion? The rule could easily make an exception for religious broadcasters, but does it?

Further, even Rush talks about God, Sean Hannity talks about his faith, and Laura Ingraham speaks of her conversion to Catholicism, and her admiration for the pope. Must these opinions also be cataloged and balanced?

What about opinions on the theory of evolution? Do you balance that with Intelligent Design? If one caller is an Old Earth Creationist, must the next be a Young Earth Creationist? Or can he be merely another atheist?

Opinions are as unique as the people who hold them. Where one point may have an obvious counterpoint, the combination of opinions contained in an hour or two of talk is as impossibly complex as a strand of DNA. There is no "opposite" in such a case. (Just as--with the exception of his ratings--Al Franken is in no way the "opposite" of Rush Limbaugh.) Such "Fairness" is a myth.

Real fairness is leaving radio alone, providing an "open mic" to all parties willing to pay the bill.
Fairness is letting the audience make the decisions, not further enlarging the suffocating hand of Big Brother.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Rambling about Reunions.

"Something Happened." That was a clever line for those who get the joke.

The Blast from the Past (see the link) was special. Several people I invited were there, and they made it richer for all of us. (And several deprived us of your company!) :-(

Reunions are funny. They make me think of good times and bad, and ask weird "what if" questions about ancient history. I guess most of all, they're just very special times, especially a reunion like this one, with all your closest high school friends remembering the excitement of growing together and discovering God's Word, and His love, and His plan (the "A Plan") together. And of course, we got into all kinds of mischief along the way. That's fun too--or at least the memory of it.

Nevertheless, I'm here thinking about the futility of life. Yeah, that's right. It's always been a default position for me when I face things that dwarf me.

Seeing all these old friends--now older, with kids of their own, and all of us talking about our boys playing baseball, our daughters riding bikes and playing with American Girl dolls, and about teachers, and jobs, and bills, and struggles of every kind.... and so many of us have gained weight, lost hair, turned gray. Here and there you see sadness in some eyes, a sort of chronic sadness that's left by the deepest hurts. And it can feel overwhelming.

And I can't escape the notion that we've become our parents. And there will be another reunion and all our kids will be getting married, and more of us will have moved on -- to Heaven, that is. And a generation comes, and a generation goes, right? The world keeps on turning.

But I want to look deeper. To remember how many lives were changed in that youth group. (And it's worth mentioning that while marriage may be challenging for everyone, there were far fewer divorced at that reunion than national averages might have indicated.) No church is perfect (you sort of have to say that, don't you?) but a lot of good happened at First Baptist.

I think a lot of good has also happened since. Many of us have continued to walk with God, however faltering our steps may sometimes be. We share our faith, we teach Sunday school (or we should, right), and we volunteer, and we coach sports and run Scout troops and invest in young lives all around.

We may be gray and fat and bald, but our hearts were changed under Johnny's ministry (thank you) and we won't ever be the same. Nor will our homes. We may have become parents, but we have not become our parents. Most of us still operate with one advantage they lacked--the years we spent in America's finest youth ministry. We were so blessed, largely by the efforts of our parents, that our lives and our families will forever be so much better off.

I loved hearing Johnny speak the other night. It was a highlight for most of us, I'm sure. He will forever command my deepest respect. I learned so much under him, and grew exponentially. And I discovered my favorite book of the Bible one day at camp when I sat down and read--for no particular reason--Ecclesiastes. It blessed me that day and I've loved it ever since.

One line particularly fits these thoughts:
Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth.

I am so thankful that we were so strongly encouraged to get to know God then, to not put it off. I am thankful for that youth group. What a blessing.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Judges, Politicians, and America's Game.

The great misfortune is that a notion obtains with those in power, that the world, or the people require more governing than is necessary. To govern too well is a great science, but no country is ever improved by too much governing . . . most men think when they are elevated to position, that it requires an effort to discharge their duties, and they leave common sense out of the question.

--Sam Houston.

Consider baseball. Chief Justice John Roberts has said that he sees his role like that of an umpire, calling balls and strikes. But Roberts didn't elaborate--so I will. The umpire-judge doesn't make rules. And he doesn't play the game.

The judge calls balls and strikes. What he does not do is redesign the strike zone.

That legislative decision was made elsewhere. Another body made the rules. The umpire merely applies them. A strike is above the knees, below the shoulders, and above the plate. Anything else is a ball. Sure, the umpire is imperfect. But he knows his role: to understand the law as it comes down to him and apply it to everything the pitcher throws at him.

What is an activist judge? He's the umpire who makes up a new strike zone. And activist judges are judges who step outside their proper role as judges. They are like the politicians who enter office seeking new ways to assert and grow their own power and authority. Or like the ones who think only of creating a legacy. In other words, these people, both judges and politicians, are the ones Sam Houston complained of: "they think when they are elevated to position, that it requires an effort to discharge their duties, and they leave common sense out of the question."

Our system requires a Separation of Powers. On rare occasions, the Executive Branch shares a legislative role, and the Legislative Branch shares an executive role. For example, the Executive takes on a legislative role when he uses his veto power. And the legislature takes on an executive role when it is required to ratify treaties entered by the president with a 2/3 vote.

But at no time does the Judicial Branch (at least as contemplated by the Constitution) share either. This third branch of our government is entirely different from the first two. The first two are made up entirely of politicians. They look at problems, search their hearts, talk to voters, and sponsor and draft laws. But the courts are entirely different. They (usually) don't run for office, they do not respond to voters, they do not listen to anyone's heart, and they do not create new law (other than "interstitially"). Moreover, the Founders described the third branch, the Judicial Branch, as being by far, the weakest of the three. . . .

Robert Bork put it this way: "There is not the faintest hint in the Constitution . . . that the judiciary shares any of the legislative or executive power. The intended function of the federal courts is to apply the law as it comes to them from the hands of others."

--The Tempting of America: the Political Seduction of the Law, 1990. 4.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Obama Akbar! All Hail Obama!

From The Times of London
July 25, 2008
He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
by Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

[For those of you in Rio Linda--it's satire.]

Thursday, June 26, 2008

The Sum of the Square Roots of Any Two Sides of a Right Triangle is Equal to the Square Root of ... Man-Made Global Warming?

This article is copied from the Wall Street Journal Online:
"Yellow Science"

June 25, 2008

In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers.

Man has always had a healthy desire for knowledge, and it is the feeding of this hunger that ennobles journalism. Hearst and Pulitzer were acutely aware that man has a less healthy but no less voracious desire to believe that he has knowledge, particularly knowledge of something sensational. It is the feeding of this hunger that irreparably disgraced journalism, and a century later now threatens to do the same to science.

* * *
Scientists, like journalists, are called upon to plumb the depths of the unknown and to fairly and objectively report their findings to their own professional community as well as the general public. Scientists, like the journalists of yesteryear, have specific methods for ensuring that the public trust placed in them is not abused. The most fundamental of these methods is the well-known, if not so creatively named, scientific method. The essence of the scientific method is the formulation of hypotheses (ideas) and the using of these hypotheses to make predictions that can be experimentally tested. In the words of Sir Thomas Eddington in "The Philosophy of Physical Science," "Every item of physical knowledge must therefore be an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure."

Nevertheless, over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.

The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure." Global warming may or may not be "the greatest scam in history," as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an "item of physical knowledge."

Nevertheless, the acceptance of man-made global warming as scientific fact has become so prevalent that the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, recently declared: "The debate is over. It's time to discuss solutions." Leaving aside the question of the secretary-general's qualifications, that is certainly one of the most antiscientific statements ever made. The first question that this raises is why have so many scientists chosen to ignore this glaring failure of the global warming hypothesis to meet the standards of their own profession? The second question is what, if anything, can be done about it?

The first, and most obvious, temptation for this sort of willful blindness is financial. Hearst made only a fraction of his estimated $140 million in net worth from yellow journalism. Global warming, on the other hand, has provided an estimated $50 billion in research grants to those willing to practice yellow science. Influence in the public sphere is another strong temptation. It might not be as impressive as starting the Spanish-American War, but global-warming alarmists have amassed a large group of journalists and politicians ready to silence any critics and endorse whatever boondoggle scheme is prescribed as the cure to our impending climate catastrophe.
Finally, one should not underestimate the temptation of convenience. Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."

* * *

The layman might object that this is not his problem. Surely Joe Six-Pack should not be expected to monitor the findings of research physicists; if anything is to be done about this collapse of scientific standards, it must be done by the scientific community itself. Unfortunately, history has shown the inability of professional communities to police their own ranks. When it first reared its head, yellow journalism was roundly condemned by the journalistic community. In fact, it was these critics who coined the term yellow journalism. The condemnation of their peers was an insufficient deterrent for Pulitzer and Hearst, because it was the approval of the public that drove their circulation. Eventually the entire journalistic community acceded to the sensationalism that the public seemed to insist on.

In recent decades, the scorn of prominent scientists such as John Coleman has been similarly unable to stop the ascendancy of the global-warming hypothesis as the public has been increasingly drawn by its sensationalism. The scientific community as a whole is on the brink of acceding to Ban Ki-Moon's insistence that "the debate is over" and turning now to their grant applications.

Ultimately, it is only the public that holds the power to enforce professional standards, and therefore each of us must accept this responsibility. Most of us will not be able to comprehend the latest climatologic studies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but fortunately that is not necessary. However complex the information may be, the standards are quite clear. One need not be a Beltway newshound to know that whatever follows the phrase "unnamed sources in the capital" or "rumors in Hollywood are" is not real journalism. Similarly, one does not need an advanced degree in natural science to understand that whatever follows the phrase "most experts agree" or "no one can measure the exact effect but" is not real science. In fact, if there is no possible way that a statement can realistically be tested, it probably fails to meet the standards for any professional community and is of no real use to the public.

The long-term results of yellow journalism have probably been more devastating than the war it started. Journalists have lost the respectability of their profession, and the public has lost real journalism. We are in very real danger, as scientists and as a nation, of losing the respectability of a professional community that has done so much to make this country great in the past hundred years. If yellow science overcomes real science it will not only be on account of the greed, ambition, and cowardice of our scientists but also the sloth and cowardice of a public that is unwilling to stand up and demand professionalism. This is why, as the editors of the New York Press said in 1897, I "called them yellow because they are yellow."

Mr. Kerian is a mechanical engineer and small business owner in Grafton, N.D.

Thursday, June 19, 2008


Tuesday, June 10, 2008

"Obama is a Rock Star" by Matt Friedman

Here's a great article that touches on the pros and cons of the world's fascination with Obama:


from One News Now: Matt Friedeman - 6/10/2008

. . . . America seems to be gushing over a candidate with a certain appeal that is viscerally emotional and hard to contain.

Contain? A San Francisco columnist appeared ready to do the New Age faint the other day. He wrote about Obama the "Lightworker." Yes, capitalize that word. And then pile on top of it "isn't really one of us," "powerful luminosity" and "a unique high vibration integrity." But the starry-eyed columnist wasn't even close to done. "Rare kind of attuned being," "these kind of people actually help us evolve," "they are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."

More. "There simply is no denying that extra kick ... There's a vast amount of positive energy swirling about ... this energy has now found a conduit, a lightning rod ... People and emotions and ideas of high and positive vibration are automatically drawn to him."

You read this stuff and you think, My goodness, some people have finally found their god. But then you wonder if this god won't reach under his chin after the election, grab the edge of the mask and yank off the façade to reveal himself as the man who told us in language we weren't listening to and a voting record that was obfuscated by a cult of personality that I am indeed the One.

The One who promised to raise your taxes; buddy up with our sworn enemies over a latte; grow government in an attempt to assuage every conceivable un-addressed woe; appoint to the courts "moderates" who reflect the most liberal justices we currently have (thus re-redefining moderation); push further the boundaries of life by supporting partial-birth abortion and even refusing to protect children accidentally born alive because the abortionist missed; and redefine marriage so that marriage doesn't matter much anymore.

And here's what is wrong. To some people in this nation, that kind of a leader is god-like. Not really just one of us. A rock star. Lightworker. Their daydream.

Come hither, you who are googley-eyed. Snap out of it. Remember the lines out of the movie Broadcast News years ago? It was a Hollywood, Left-coast production, so maybe you might.

Aaron Altman (played by Albert Brooks) is talking to best friend Jane Craig (Holly Hunter) about her new love interest.

Aaron: "You can't end up with Tom, because it totally goes against everything that you're about. I know you care about him ... so don't get me wrong when I tell you that Tom, while being a very nice guy, is the devil."

Jane (disgusted): "This isn't friendship -- you're crazy, you know that?"

Aaron (defensively): "What do you think the devil is going to look like if he's around? C'mon, nobody's going to be taken in by a guy with a long, red, pointed tail ... c'mon, what's he going to sound like? 'AAARRRGGGHHH'?"

"No ... he'll be attractive, he'll be nice and helpful, he'll get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation. He'll never do an evil thing ... never deliberately hurt a
living thing. He'll just bit by little bit lower our standards where they're important ... just pokes along, flash over substance ... he personifies everything you've been fighting against."

The Candidate -- attractive, nice and helpful, just wanting to influence this great God-fearing nation. He pats his opponents on the head and tells them that yes, he understands their concerns. He mesmerizes the masses with speeches that the Hollywood crowd swears remind them of Kennedy and King. He is convincing; really likeable. People log on to their computers and can't help sending in millions. The light behind his head on the magazine cover produces that "powerful luminosity."

But bit by bit he lowers our standards. With his Lightworker, rock-star methods he slowly begins to change the way we think, feel, and act -- about everything.

It no doubt surprises some theological "progressives" that there are still people who believe in devils. Less astonishing is the fact that many of us recognize the reality of political devils -- specifically, those presaged in the words of a scriptwriter named Brooks.

Interesting P.S.--the article in the S.F. Chronicle, the hymn to Obama's New Age Goodness, a usually skeptical man's declaration that the energy and light is swirling about the Chosen One, as though he were Luke Skywalker, . . . well, that guy says JFK was killed specifically because he was one of those rare enlightened beings that step into our world from the more evolved future, and yearn to draw us toward the light. Or something:

JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.

So JFK was another Messiah. Not very powerful, of course. Forty years later you can't point to any teachings or doctrine that are now regarded as gospel. His own party--his kid brother even--has departed from his comparatively conservative positions on economics and national security. But more to the point--if Obama is another mini-Messiah, what is his message? (Does anyone have any idea? Has he uttered a single concrete statement of policy?)

I like how the Real Messiah once put it:

"Be innocent as doves, but shrewd as serpents."

Friday, May 30, 2008

Gasoline Economics: Low Supplies = High Costs

It's simple economics:

When Supply drops, Demand (and thus price) rises.

Guess who controls the supply? Exxon? Texaco? Chevron? Consider this chart Chevron presented to Congress recently.

(Nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia control 94% of the oil that's being pumped.) Of course, the US has plenty of oil--it's just off limits thanks to out-of-control state and federal regulations.

For a larger view, click this link to the Powerline blog.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Pro-Gay Writer is Anti- "Gay Marriage"

Why does the state endorse marriage--because two people feel strongly about each other, or because we wish to promote solid homes for having and raising children? It is the latter, according to this liberal writer. Marriage is not about coupling. It's about promoting a healthy atmosphere for healthy children. The strength of Rosie's and Ellen's and Mr. Sulu's feelings are not the point.

Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.

See the complete article here.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

More from Michael Ramirez, winner of the Pulitzer Prize

See more at Investors Business Daily.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Midnight at the Casino: Something Wicked This Way Comes.

This is the best article I have ever read about casinos. Incidentally, the only casino I have been to is one of the ones featured in the story. (This would make a great documentary.)

Friday, May 16, 2008

Newest Propaganda Machine? WIKIPEDIA


Wiki-Whacked by Political Bias

May 14, 2008 - by Matt Sanchez

With the presidential elections looming, Americans will query the Internet to make a decision on the candidates. Now more than ever, accurate information is key. For almost any query, the chances are that the search engine will turn up a Wikipedia article — and that’s where the problems begin.

In 2001, Bernard Goldberg wrote his groundbreaking book Bias to confirm what we already knew: the media colored the news according to a liberal ideology. Today, Wikipedia, the “world’s largest encyclopedia,” has the potential of becoming the liberal left’s largest [1] propaganda machine.

Volunteer editors scour the Internet for “reliable sources” (RS in Wiki-speak) and the typical Wikipedia article is better sourced than most subscription-based encyclopedias, according to several studies. But it’s the choice of how to source an article that really shades the news. Drawing from a mostly liberal media, a controversial figure like Senator Obama’s “spiritual guide,” the [2] Reverend Jeremiah Wright, becomes almost a scholarly man presaging the woes of our time.

Most editors take their work very seriously, and are meticulous in following the Wikipedia rule book. But many editors pursue childish agendas with a perverted glee. Control, influence, and prestige — which escape many Wikipedia editors in the mundane brick and mortar world — are what some Wiki-addicts can establish in the virtual realm, except here they mostly remain anonymous and irresponsible.

Editors Gone Wild

“Every year a couple of editors go crazy and deface the Wikipedia main page,” says Lise Broer, a Wikipedian with over two years of experience in the Wikipedia project.

“Wikipedia has redundant systems for eliminating much of the vandalism, but the more subtle stuff can get through,” said Lise in a phone interview. “That’s where I come in.” Broer has adopted the screen name Durova, the first female Russian officer.

An historic female military figure is a fitting name because Lise Broer has involved herself with the toughest and most contentious articles on Wikipedia. Ms. Broer/Durova worked to ban an editor who claimed to be the descendant of Joan of Arc and was intent on inscribing his shoddily sourced lineage on the saint’s Wikipedia page. “Wiki-drama” is as subtle as using “sock puppets” to pretend you’re more than one editor, to outright stalking. Through hours of incessant emails, text messages, and chats, Broer has dealt with these headaches with great professionalism — and she does it all for free.

Liberal Bias?

Conservative figures are subject to both outright vandalism and the subtle hostility of activist editors with an enormous ideological agenda and no scruples. If several editors collaborate to block or stonewall an article, they can stall well-sourced information or just entirely skew the presentation. For some reason conservatives are an especially appealing target.

“Is he best known as a (political) ‘commentator’ or as a ‘TV presenter’ or a ‘lying sack of sh*t?’” asks one irate editor of the Wikipedia Bill O’Reilly article.

Conservative radio personality and activist Melanie Morgan has had her Wikipedia article defaced for several years by editors who have lobbied to have false information included in her Wikipedia article, including changing her name.

[3] Michelle Malkin’s article is typically peppered with racial epithets.

Ann Coulter’s article is on a permanent lockdown status, where only the most trustworthy editors preside over the smallest of changes that have to reach some type of peer consensus. I can’t even reproduce much of the comments and criticisms on the Coulter article.

My article, [4] Matt Sanchez, is one of the most hotly contested articles on Wikipedia and has been shielded from editing for the better part of a year.

There are hundreds of thousands of blogs and articles on the Internet, so what makes Wikipedia any different from much of the dubious information one can find on the World Wide Web?

“Take the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, and Fox News. Put them together and the traffic going to [5] Wikipedia is easily 10 times that amount and growing,” Durova said. If you do a search, any search, there’s bound to be a Wikipedia article among the top three results. The culture wars have found a new battlefield; it’s named

[6] Matt Sanchez is an international journalist and war correspondent. After a year of cooperating with Wiki-editors he is currently [7] banned from contributing to an article based on him at Wikipedia, due to protests of bias.


Article printed from Pajamas Media:

URL to article:

Monday, May 12, 2008

Why Do Voters Always Swoon for the New Guy?

You know the old story--a new girl moves to town and every boy in school wants her number, each one hopes he'll be the one carrying her books home, tutoring her in chemistry, being the perfect host and winning the damsel's heart. But then reality sets in: someone gets the brush-off, she chooses a few girls to confide in and suddenly she has her friends, her clique, her place and role, and most of the boys know she'll forget their initial kindnesses soon enough. Still, the infatuation was fun while it lasted.

But maybe choosing the leader of the free world ought to be different. Maybe we should consider wisdom, experience, a voting record, a lifetime of service. Maybe some things matter more than a charming face and voice you're not bored with.

Yet Americans keep leaping for the new guy, for young blood, for "change." They were infatuated with Carter and Clinton. Those one-night stands turned out really well. (Remember that song, "Oh, the Girls All Get Prettier at Closing Time"?)
After Democrat Carter we had Democrats Bill and Hillary, whose own rise from nowhere was greeted with the same numbskull adoration that the media are now ready to bestow on Obama.

Consider another great article.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Wikipedia isn't.

The people at Wikipedia want you to believe the online reference book is some sort of collaborative, democratic townhall, where users pass the wiki, (the conch, the talking stick, the candle, choose your own metaphor), and everyone gets to say their piece. The idea is that there will be a lot more voices, and the cream will rise to the top.

But this is the internet. What cream?

Not only is Wikipedia open to all sorts of ridiculous bias, lies, and propaganda. Not only is it one of the most consistently unreliable sources of information because so little is known of the contributors. But apparently the whole wiki idea is a sham.

Wikipedia employs monitors who watch over the entries and wield content-related editorial control. Every decent reference book has quality control editors. But Wikipedia is not a decent reference book. It has never pretended to be. It is some sort of on-line, "living document," where anything goes. Except things of which the thought police disapprove. (And remember--the website would like you to think there are no thought police. It's collaborative--allegedly.)

I have seen Wikipedia close its entries on Israel because those who wish to abolish Israel (and wipe the people off the face of the earth) had been filling the entry with propaganda. Sounds like a good decision, right? But what about every entry for every Jew who ever lived? How can Wikipedia keep out all the propaganda?

And what if you disagree with Wikipedia? Are the secret, trolling editors going to be fair on the facts surrounding gun control, or the Clarence Thomas hearings, or the Kennedy assassinations, or Greenpeace, or abortion proponent Margaret Sanger's ties to eugenics and her desire to rid the world of lesser races?

Here is an excellent article on Wikipedia's biased editing of all things related to global warming.

As I say so often, the article is better than what I have been rambling about. Trust me! You need to read the author's account of his struggle to correct facts about which he had first-hand knowledge.

Don't waste your time on Wikipedia. The handy categories, the nice layout, the tendency to have more information all in one place--it will lull you into credulity. I know it does me. My grandmother used to believe that people wouldn't put something in a book if it weren't true. "But it's in print!"

Don't think the same about Wikipedia. A source is either credible or it isn't. And Wikipedia isn't. Anyone can change a letter here and there and state as fact preposterous lies and distortions. Consider Wikipedia--at best--like the inadmissible evidence in a criminal investigation. It cannot be used to prove anything. But it "might" point you in the right direction.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Great Words for a Great Man, a Eulogy for Charlton Heston -- or -- Why George Clooney is a Moron

BEVERLY HILLS, California, April 7, 2008 ( - In his legendary film career he played saints, geniuses, prophets, soldiers and even the occasional bad guy, but in real life, Charlton Heston was a genuine hero for his defence of civil rights for blacks and for the unborn. His death on Saturday, at age 84, was met with an outpouring of admiration and tributes on the internet and television news and on countless blogs. Admirers lauded him as one of the last of the old-time Hollywood movie stars, and as a man who also embodied in his off-screen life the integrity, patriotism and honour he often portrayed in films.

"If Hollywood had a Mt. Rushmore, Heston's face would be on it," Michael Levine, Mr. Heston's publicist for twenty years, said. "He was a heroic figure that I don't think exists to the same degree in Hollywood today." . . . .

Ride on, El Cid. Ride On!

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Hillary Wins Four Pinnochios from the Washington Post.

Remember Al Gore inventing the internet? John Kerry claiming he was some kind of sharpshooting Rambo? Bill Clinton saying he wandered the streets of Harlem, worrying about the troubles of black folk? Obama saying he never heard Wright's racist comments, in twenty years of sermons?

Then there were Hillary's claims of being named for Sir Edmond Hillary, only later to learn he was not yet famous, and had yet to scale Everest or be knighted when she was born.

Hillary does it again. You have to see this to believe it.

This is shorter, and more fun.

I think I'm going to like this fact checker site....

Monday, March 24, 2008

When Will Obama Drop the "Vague Generalities"?

Why is Barry Obama's campaign rhetoric so vague?

In seventh grade we used a Social Studies text that talked about the problem of "vague generalities." Politicians love to tickle your ears and avoid the details. But none so much as the-lawyer-formerly-known-as-"Barry" Obama.

I read an article today in which an Obama defender actually argued that his campaign is vague because he's waiting to hear from the people about what kind of "change" they want most. Wrong.

His campaign is vague because he is running as another utopian messiah, promising every buzzword of 60s-Marxist radicalism: "Change," "Hope," "A New America," "We Are the Change We Seek," "Power to the People," "Equality of Opportunity," "Equality of Condition," "Free to Be Me," "Unity," "Hope You Can Believe In," and on and on it goes.

Such a candidate must remain vague as long as possible; once he becomes real, and takes unpopular positions, he will be unable to represent everyone, to be the "I'm Every Woman"--(and Man)--candidate.

Such a candidate, once elected, will find his efforts to bring about utopia through the law thwarted. Utopias are always thwarted. And the thwarters are never tolerated. Marx believed in a Utopia. So did Stalin. Ditto Chairman Mao and Pol Pot.

Insist on concete language from the Messiah of the Secular Humanist Party. The vague promises he offers at present are at best illusory, at worst, grist for the mill that grinds up human lives.

Obama's rhetoric is dangerous.

...Not to mention is lack of discernment in choosing advisors and mentors. And then there's his honesty. Oh, and the fact that he claims to speak for both whites and blacks, because after all, he is one. (Two?)

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Obama and Black Nationalism

Investor's Business Daily does it again.

White House challengers such as Clinton think Obama's childhood brushes with Islam will make Americans nervous. But it's his adult conversion to black nationalism and socialism that makes this otherwise attractive minority candidate unfortunately so unattractive.

Read more.

Reagan on Obama

Michael Reagan on Obama's race speech: It was brilliant oratory, but....

Nobody expected him to declare Wright anathema and cast him into the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and the gnashing of teeth -- one simply doesn't do to that sort of thing to a longtime friend, benefactor and mentor even if he has been shown to have slipped the rails time after time.

What was not expected was Barack H. Obama's use of a litany of America's past racist offenses to justify not only Wright's blatant hatred of white America but his suggestion that it was a sentiment shared by most African Americans. And that is simply not true.

Nor was it true, as Obama charged, that the Reagan coalition was created out of white resentment for affirmative action or forced busing. He charged that "anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime. talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse

Poppycock! These are not only outright falsehoods, but echoes of what Obama learned at the feet of Jeremiah Wright and now preaches as his own beliefs. He learned his lessons well. When he suggested that my father's coalition was based on anger over affirmative action and welfare he was peddling blatant falsehood as egregious in its falsity as Wright's charge that whites created AIDS to wipe out the black population.