What a Drag it is Gettin' Old

Taken from Famous Atheist Now Believes in God:

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God - more or less - based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

In one sense all this means very little to me. I'd never heard of Dr. Flew, as I've always considered atheism to be an intellectual exercise carried out in bad faith. Give me a good agnostic any day.

What I found depressing, and typical, about the story comes later on in the article,

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a ``minimal God'' and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's ``name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up,'' Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, ``apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal.''

The unspoken assumption seems to be that Dr. Flew, being 81 years of age, must be feeble minded or at least not what he used to be mentally. And thank God they asked a grad student to asess the potential impact of this development. You might have asked a philosophy professor, but some of them are in their 60's and 70's! (It's too bad they didn't have the time to ask a junior high student or two for their opinions.)

Like most people, I actually hope I get the chance to live a long life, but it depresses me to think that after a certain age you become largely irrelevant. Have all the thoughts worth having before you're 60. They'll be useless after that.

MoveOn's Hostile Takeover

Supposedly non-partisan MoveOn.org has decided that they are the rightful "owners" of the Democratic Party. MoveOn to Democratic Party: 'We Own It'


A scathing e-mail from the head of MoveOn's political action committee to the group's supporters on Thursday targets outgoing Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool of corporate donors who alienated both traditional and progressive Democrats.

"For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base," said the e-mail from MoveOn PAC's Eli Pariser. "But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers."

You can find as good a take on this as you will ever find over at The Moderate Voice. How To Destroy Your Political Party In One Easy Lesson

I will just add that the lunacy factor is an ever growing influence on the left. You can see it in the ravings of Al Gore or the persistant claims that ABC, CBS and CNN are out to get the Democrats. Why is that? Why, they are all run by corporations!! (*devestation* *shock* *awe* *horror*)

For a growing number of people on the left sounding like Coast-to-Coast AMers, Lyndon LaRoucheies, or mutant left-wing dittoheads is some sort of virtue.

Yeah, some virtue.

Sublimate My Love

There just might be too many different kinds of people: Gunman kills guitarist, three others at concert

The slain guitarist, ''Dimebag'' Darrell Abbott, 38, was a driving force behind the rock band Pantera, and police are looking into reports from witnesses that the gunman was a fan irate that the hugely influential group broke up.

Now, I've heard lots of crazy reasons for people descending to criminal violence but this is a new one. You start shooting someone because your favorite band breaks up? And, possibly more ominous, your favorite band is Pantera? Next thing you know someone is going to take hostages demanding that Dexy's Midnight Runners reforms.

The Great Blog Rush

Being the new kid on the block is never easy. The blogging world isn't any different. Getting the word about your great new blog isn't gonna happen easily. (Unless you are a new blogger who also works for the MSM. I always thought blogging was primarily an avenue for alternative voices, but maybe that's changing.) That is why I've started The Great Blog Rush. If you have a new (6 months old or less) politics or current events blog just email me at: iconicmidwest@usa.com giving me the name of your blog and your email address. Once a week I will send out an email with the new Blogs to be added to a seperate Great Blog Rush blog roll you will set up on your site. The goal will be to get a nice Blog roll of Great Blog Rush participants. And while you are at it make sure to register your blog on the TTLB Ecosystem.

Welcome to the Great Blog Rush of 2004!

Yeaaah, I'm the Tax Maaaaaaan!

Iowans might be seeing some changes in their taxes. Then again they might not. Vilsack heads in right direction on tax reform

You don't live in Iowa? So, why should you care?

Easy. Gov. Tom Vilsak (D) is widely seen as having some national aspirations. He may be poisitioning himself squarely in the center on fiscal issues with those aspirations in mind. If so, it's a pretty good first step.

Get Your Kyoto Out of My Face

Here is another piece on global warming exposing the nonsense masquerading as science in the debate, this time from the Australian ("We love you! Amen!"): Protocol is just lots of hot air

Global temperatures were higher in the Roman times when grapes were grown on British islands and Hannibal's elephants walked through the Alps into Italy. They were higher in the medieval period when the Vikings found and colonised the island that they have called Greenland and when Norwegians grew grain on the fields that are 300m in altitude higher than it is possible to do today.

Temperature variations in the course of the earth's history have been much greater than the increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the last century. In the past, the earth's climate was warmer, the global temperature rose faster, sea level was higher, floods were more severe, droughts lasted longer and hurricanes were more devastating than they were in the 20th century. Moreover, the best available temperature data from satellites show negligible temperature changes over the past several decades.

This is one reason why any anomolous outlying regional measure of temprature, such as those that produced the spate of "The Artic is Melting! The Arctic is Melting" stories, are seized upon with such ferocity. It's all they've got. Aggregate measures don't show the dramatic change that are claimed. Sure, the climate is changing, but the climate isn't a static entity. It always changes. It always has changed. It always will change. There is no single normal climate.

So if Kyoto isn't about science, what is it about? Politics and money.

The Kyoto protocol requires a supranational bureaucratic monster in charge of rationing emissions and, therefore, economic activities. The Kyoto-ist system of quota allocation, mandatory restrictions and harsh penalties will be a sort of international Gosplan, a system to rival the former Soviet Union's. This perhaps explains why it finds such ready support in some quarters. But that's why it should be a warning signal for those who value economic and political freedom.

The Kyoto protocol is nothing less than a disingenuous attempt to dismantle the engine of economic prosperity in the name of science. I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the article's most dire warning:

The message for Australians is clear: continued economic growth and rising living standards or make your future and the future of your children a victim of Kyoto-ism, one of the most aggressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism.

Hopefully the Aussies will get the message. And afterwards I hope they pass it on to the United States.

Prepare to Raise a Glass

Attempting to triagulate the opinions of the Supreme Court based on the oral arguments can be a tricky undertaking. However, after reading newspaper accounts I'm comfortable in saying that small wineries and consumers will win their fight with liquor wholesalers on direct wine shipments to customers. The Washington Post's story (Justices Hear Dispute Over Interstate Wine Sales) begins:

Winemakers who want to ship directly to consumers across state lines got a sympathetic hearing at the Supreme Court yesterday, as the justices considered oral arguments in what could be the most significant test of states' constitutional power to regulate the alcohol trade since Prohibition.

The Post further recounts a telling moment in the oral arguments.

Yesterday's argument was not entirely one-sided. Some justices, while sympathetic to the argument in favor of direct shipping, expressed concern that it might lead to a general erosion of state control over sales not only of wine but also beer and spirits.

"Your case is very narrow, but your rationale is very sweeping," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told former Stanford law school dean Kathleen Sullivan, who was representing the group of wine journalists and connoisseurs challenging Michigan's law.

Sullivan replied that the states and wholesalers were the ones making a sweeping argument, because "they are saying that if you wanted to bar all California wines you could do that."

This bodes well. I was a bit afraid that this case would be argued and decided so narrowly that it couldn't be more broadly applied. Lord know there are many small microbrew beers I'd like to get shipped in as well. Maybe I shouldn't get too far ahead of myself.

I'm also a little surprised that the state's case is as weak as it is. The argument that the 21st Amendment should be considered as taking precedence over the Commerce Clause barely sounds plausible let alone compelling. And it looks like I will not be calling for the immediate impeachment of any of these justices as they made short work of the states argument that this protectionism is acceptable as a means to prevent underage drinking. (From the NY Times story, Justices Pick Apart Ban on Wine Sales From State to State

Justice David H. Souter observed to Mr. Casey, Michigan's lawyer: "Your opponents argue that there are no clear countervailing interests here, so by process of elimination you get down to nothing but protectionism. What's your answer?"

The law really does enable the state to protect minors, Mr. Casey replied.

"You say that, but how?" Justice Souter persisted.

Mr. Casey's response that state regulators could punish a state-licensed business left Justice Souter clearly unsatisfied.

Go Souter Go!

Now, we just have to sit back and wait for June to roll around.

Just keep the champagne chilling.

Europe Ruminates

Here is another piece on Europe's response to the Islamofacists: Stoned to death... why Europe is starting to lose its faith in Islam

Reluctantly, some intellectuals have lately concluded that the model for Europe should be the US. On Tuesday a writer for Libération, the French left-wing daily, noted that immigrants in the US threw themselves into “the American dream” and prospered. “There is no French, Dutch or other European dream,” she noted. “You emigrate here to escape poverty and nothing more."

It is strange that everything comes back to the "melting pot" theory of integration, which is largely discounted (rightly? wrongly?) here in the States. What doesn't seem to be understood is that in many ways first generation immigrants are no different in the U.S. then in Europe. It's in the resulting second and third generations of those immigrants where the differences emerge. There seems to be more of a culture of opprotunity for the children of immigrants in the United States. It is unclear to me if the lives of second or third generation Turkish immigrants in Germany, for example, is substantially different from those of the first generation. Without avenues of cultural and economic mobility you wind up with stagnant sub-classes of immigrants who, though they may have escaped third world poverty, will never quite enjoy first world prosperity.

It does seem that Europe recognizes some of these dificulties (See for example, The Political Economy of Anti-Americanism ), but they may not have the will to impose the necessary corrections.

Better Late Than Never?

At the last moment the Washington Post has decided to weigh in on the intelligence reform bill. Reform in Haste

That shake-up, driven by an odd combination of election-year politics and the determination of the Sept. 11 commission to leave a mark, may improve the quality of intelligence information supplied to the president and other key policymakers; we have our doubts. Like the passage of the USA Patriot Act or the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, it has been mandated hastily and with scant consideration of its long-term consequences.

All fair enough maybe, but why are they waiting until now to speak up about it? One would think that a newspaper such as the Washington Post could do better than merely issuing report cards on congressional action. It isn't as if this bill was under the radar screen and sprung on people at the last second. Why not raise concerns all along about the direction the bill was taking in the hopes that public pressure might force congress to do a better job? I always figured that was a large part of a newspaper role as a public advocate.

I wonder if, prior to the election, intelligence reform was viewed by the Post as primarily something to bludgeon the President with, (e.g. "He's done nothing to implement the findings of the 9/11 commission!") and not so much a matter of good public policy. If so, its a shame. During any campaign cycle we get all the electioneering we can handle without the Post's two cents. Good public policy debates are useful at all times, even during the political season.

A Middling Debate

Just following up on the Left2Right blog. I've been engaged in a running conversation over there concerning liberals dislike for those yellow ribbons you see that proclaim "Support The Troops." See Supporting The Troops?

In general I would say that there is some goodwill there, but its a scarce commodity.

A Great Debate?

I've come across an intersting attempt at a new blog by some academics, Left2Right. It has the somewhat didactic subtitle "How can the Left get through to the Right?", but there is still hope that it might turn into more of a conversation and less an intellectual crusade.

But, of course, lots of people are not comfortable with the "two way street" character of real conversation between people of goodwill. In such a situation one will find that they are influenced just as much as they influence. People who are already convinced of their moral superiority hate that.

It will be fun to see what happens.

(Of course all of this begs the question: Why did they have to start a blog to do this? Why not just engage with their conservative collegues? Oh....I forgot.)

Liberal's Sensitive Side

I thought I'd link to this, admittedly commonplace, conservative complaint about present day liberals ( Blue America: The land of the easily offended), because it does recount this wonderful exchange:

Liberal American Indian spokesmen and other liberals regularly tell us how offensive Indian names of sports teams are. The latest polls show that most Indians have no problem with such names, but liberals are still offended on their behalf. To make the point of how offensive the name "Indians" is for the Cleveland baseball team, one liberal caller once asked me, "How would you feel if a team were named 'Jews'?" I told him that it would be a great day in Jewish history -- for 3,000 years, Jews have been looking for fans.

Those Darn Reporters

Here is another media view of the current reporter/informant confidentiality controversy: The Loud Fight Over Reporters' Silence

This is more of fluff piece than anything else, so it isn't terrible informative. It does have the virtue of at least implying that there may be another (non-media) side to the story. But, once again, those intrepid reporters are our heroes. (They're "puckish!" Isn't that swell?)

Aren't there limits to this journalistic duty? Ramsdell said he could talk only if "released from my promise" by the source — and some reporters have testified in the Plame investigation when sources have given waivers. Absent a waiver, reporters occasionally maintain that they must keep silent though the heavens fall. In 1857, James Simonton of the New York Times said that even if a confidential source disclosed plans to blow up the U.S. Treasury, he would be obliged to keep the person's identity secret. Floyd Abrams, the lawyer representing Miller and Cooper, wouldn't extend the principle that far, but he does maintain that "the law can't distinguish between good leaks and bad."

Why doesn't this fill me with confidence in our nation's journalists? Terror, maybe, confidence, no.

December 7th, 1941

At 7:55 Am Honolulu time, 63 years ago today the first of two waves of Japanese attack bombers began dropping bombs on the Hawaiian islands. Flying off of the aircraft carriers Akagi, Hiryu, Kaga, Shokaku, Soryu and Zuikaku, Japanese aircraft ended their attacks at 8:25 AM. In a mere thirty minutes over 2400 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were killed, the battleships Arizona and Oklahoma were sunk along with sixteen other vessels, and over 180 aircraft were destroyed.

The United States was now a World War II combatant.

Remember Pearl Harbor.

"Why Can't I Bash Your Church on TV?"

I hadn't payed too much attention to the decisions of CBS and NBC not to broadcast a new commercial from the United Church of Christ. What little I had heard of the issue made me think that the networks were being a little arbitrary. But then I read this from Leonard Pitts: CHURCH'S CALL FOR UNITY TURNS OFF NETWORKS. Now I'm convinced that the networks did the right thing by their stockholders.

A key moment of the ad shows:

It shows two bouncers working a rope line in front of a church. They turn away a gay couple and what appears to be a Hispanic man and a black girl. A white family is allowed to pass. The text onscreen says, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." A narrator closes the ad, speaking over a montage of old people, white people, black people, Hispanic people, lesbian people, human people.

The message is clear: If you belong to another church you are a racist, a homophobe, hate old people, and basically "white bred" trash. No wonder the networks didn't want to touch this drivel with a ten-foot poll. What is more surprising is that Pitts and others cannot see how such an ad could be viewed as deeply divisive.

Or maybe it isn't so surprising. Early on in his piece Pitts relates:

I joined the UCC -- a little-known denomination out of Cleveland -- about five years ago. It was the first church I'd ever seen that seemed to take seriously the idea that inclusion is a Christian value. It was also the first that actively sought to resolve divisions of culture, class, race and sexual orientation.

It seems that Pitts views his choice of Church as an extension of his personal ideological world view. In short he didn't want a church that might challenge his political beliefs but only confirm them. One result of this effort is to view everyone elses choice of church as a de facto political statement. So an ad that plays more like a MoveOn.org ad than anything else shouldn't come as a great shock.

I have to wonder how Pitts misses the irony here. The church he praises for seeking to "resolve divisions" has launched an attack ad against other Christian demoninations. How loving.