Sources, Please?

Okay, I was going to ignore Ted Rall and his rant against the “right wing” bloggers, Bloggers and the New McCarthyism, (February 22)

But the responses have been too much fun.

Ted enjoys deriding the bloggers in rec rooms, especially the 48-year-olds in their parents basements, as noted in Editor and Publisher. These personal attacks are a sign of the increasing panic I've noticed in leftie blogs. But, in Rall's ranting and raving--which he effectively demonstrates that lefties can do quite well--I noticed something else:

Ted isn’t much for quoting sources. Here are some examples from The McCarthy piece:

“Political bloggers…link to articles in traditional media. Then they rant and/or rave about them. "Great piece in the Journal." "The usual crap at CNN.com."

Would you cite your sources, please?

“…conservative blogs mirror their mainstream counterparts by applying a far angrier and more violent tone than that of their liberal foes. Here's a sample of online comments written by Republican bloggers: "Ted Rall should be beat to within an inch of his life with a baseball bat." "Every morning when I read the paper, I hope the headline will bring me tidings of [Ted Rall's] untimely demise. Untimely? Nah. Overdue." "When I flush the toilet, it isn't considered violence, is it? So killing Ted Rall should be no different."

Would you cite your sources, please?

"Ted Rall should be beat to within an inch of his life with a baseball bat." "Every morning when I read the paper, I hope the headline will bring me tidings of [Ted Rall's] untimely demise. Untimely? Nah. Overdue." "When I flush the toilet, it isn't considered violence, is it? So killing Ted Rall should be no different."

Would you cite your sources, please?

Death threats against liberal pundits are commonplace among, and essentially unique to, the right-wing blogs.

Would you cite your sources, please?

And the GOP thinks that's OK.

Would you cite your sources, please?

Bloggers are ordinary people, many of them uneducated and with nothing interesting to say.

Can you document that statement, Ted? (Quite possibly you’re wrong about bloggers having nothing interesting to say, since so many of them are developing growing audiences.)

They're sitting in their rec rooms…”

Again, sources, please?

"... regurgitating and spinning what real journalists have dug up through hard work. They don't have sources…”

Apparently, Ted, neither do you. Now, run along back to your rec room. And try to play nice with the blogger “wolf pack” at your door, because they aren't leaving.

Supreme Nonsense

Hugh Hewitt has a new blogger’s symposium in full swing:

Vox Blogoli 2.2: Does the Senate GOP Go McClellan or Grant if Harry Reid "Goes Gingrich?"

The growing angst in the Senate over future Supreme Court nominees warns of a Red vs. Blue battle that will be epic in its proportions. Democrats, still steaming over their resounding November loss, aren’t about to stop throwing their sore-loser tantrums. President Bush, never one to shrink from confrontation, has knocked the chip off the left’s shoulder by re-nominating former Interior Department Solicitor William Myers, a nominee who was blocked last year, and U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle, a nominee who has been waiting for his confirmation hearing since the beginning of Bush's presidency.

To answer Hugh’s question, “Should the GOP leadership in the Senate push to a confrontation with the Democrats over the filibustering of judicial nominees,” I say...

Of course! The president is right to be confident in resubmitting his choices. Not only have the voters endorsed his administration by returning him to office; more importantly, he has nominated skilled and ethical judges who deserve their appointments.

I’ve never studied law, but I don’t believe that the slightest violation of law or "Senate tradition" is at the heart of this bitter fight. Religion is the problem for the Democrats. They are terrified that a judicial nominee who believes in accountability to a Power higher than government will find a place on the bench.

To answer the second question, “…if the Dems filibuster even one judicial nominee, should the GOP move to the "nuclear option" of a rule change, even if Harry Reid threatens a Senate shutdown?”

Yes, again! Having forgotten that it was the human soul’s quest for religious freedom that gave birth to our country, the Democrat crusaders are committed to blocking any appointment of judges of faith. This blind and irrational dedication carries them far from their Senate duties, into the realm of the ridiculous (shutting down the Senate) and the irresponsible (during a time of war). Most Americans are tired of obstructionist Senate whiners and would like to see them dealt with firmly. Changing the rules in the midst of a Democratic tantrum would have an effect much like confiscating a spoiled brat’s toys.

It might shock them enough to be quiet and reevaluate for a moment. It might force them to acknowledge the majority rule that refuses to submit to minority tyranny any longer.

It's definitely worth a try.

The Spirit in the Web

Pope John Paul II is a man of advanced age, failing health, pure faith, and brilliant mind. His most recent Apostolic Letter, "The Rapid Development," is addressed to those who communicate through the Internet medium. So bloggers, pop open the link and get an eyeful. You are in for an enjoyable and insightful read, but you will also receive a reminder of your profound responsibility to act as a positive force in modern communications.

As noted in the blog "Ninme," the Holy Father is "not just an old white man." He is keenly aware that the Internet presents a channel for good that is unlimited in its possiblilities. As John Paul states in the opening paragraph of "The Rapid Development," “Man’s genius has with God’s help produced marvelous technical inventions from creation, especially in our times." Pope John Paul II recognizes that the potential for expanding knowledge and education through the World Wide Web is infinite. Infinite, too, is the opportunity for "people of goodwill," in the Pope's words, to teach God's Word through this new technology that is exploding across the globe.

The awesome power of the written word bears with it a serious responsibility to use it wisely, especially in this age of instantaneous mass communications. Hugh Hewitt writes at length about The Rapid Development Apostolic Letter in his Weekly Standard column, with many excerpts quoted therein.

Hugh has his favorite passages, and I have mine:

"Do not be afraid of new technologies! These rank “among the marvelous things” – inter mirifica – which God has placed at our disposal to discover, to use and to make known the truth, also the truth about our dignity and about our destiny as his children, heirs of his eternal Kingdom."

John Paul II published The Rapid Development on the feast day of St. Francis de Sales, patron saint of Catholic journalists. For many years, I have considered St. Francis to be my personal patron saint. This is not only because I am a Catholic writer, but especially because his feast day, January 24, just happens to be my birthday.

The Pope believes that "The great challenge of our time for believers and for all people of good will is that of maintaining truthful and free communication which will help consolidate integral progress in the world. "

I agree, Your Holiness. And I promise to assist in whatever small way I can.

Do No Harm

Hippocrates would never recognize the practice of medicine if he could come back for a brief hour to view how modern Americans apply the science for their comfort and convenience, specifically in the Terri Schiavo case.

If one takes the time to read the famous Hippocratic Oath, it actually starts out as more of a prayer than a pledge. Invoking the gods of his civilization in his oath, Hippocrates specifically promises "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked...Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption."

Applying basic reading comprehension skills, that doesn't sound to me like Hippocrates would lean towards yanking Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Although he lived four centuries before Christ, the great Greek physician had a lot in common with those trying to protect her life today.

Some facts are timeless and absolute. The evil of deliberately murdering an ill, defenseless person is one of those facts. Regardless of modern technologies, inventions, progressive societies, and New Age philosophies, mankind does not have jurisdiction over life and death. Truth does not change. God has the ultimate power over life and death. Hippocrates knew it when he wrote his oath, and the good people trying to save Terri Schiavo know it. Long after our civilization is dust, protecting her innocent life will remain the right thing to do.

Judge George Greer was wise to stay this execution. It leaves time for prayer and action. May those who love Terri and seek to keep her alive find a way to keep her safely in their care.

Moving Towards Ludicrous

I watched ABC News tonight, a very rare activity for me. It’s just a personal thing; I’ve had enough of Pompous PJ to last me a lifetime. But I wanted to catch up on the rain-induced mudslides in Southern California, my home turf, so I tuned in.

There was a story on the Islamic American arrested for allegedly plotting an assassination attempt against President Bush. Of course, the word “torture” was bandied about. It seems his U.S. captors “tortured” him. Whether or not the charge has any veracity, it appears “torture” always applies to physical wrongdoing when the U.S.A. stands accused.

“Torture” never seems to apply when Al Qaeda is a perpetrator. Not even when they are sawing the heads off screaming hostages on videotape.

“Torture” has been exclusively reserved by MSM for supposedly mistreated enemies of America. How do you categorize a naked prisoner in a U.S. military prison with panties on his head? Why, that’s a clear case of “torture,” and occasionally its twin description, “atrocity.”

How do you describe a bound hostage with terrorists using an oversized machete to saw off his head? Oh, that’s a terrible thing, indeed, but never quite “torture.” They’re a tough crowd, those Old Media journalists.

But like the LA Times, I digress. Back to PJ and his evening info-tainment. In his usual ponderous fashion, Jennings moved through stories about the dangers lurking within fine print in contracts and the threat of bird flu. Finally, he came to a story on videogames designed to get children moving. The report claimed that video manufacturers are contributing to the ongoing efforts to reduce childhood obesity. Of course, there’s a healthy dollar side to this corporate altruism.

For $50-$100, parents can now buy videogames that will make children stand up and dance, play laser swords, or jump around chasing flying vegetables or some such objects. These seem like extraordinary measures to get children moving.

Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems the solution would be a lot easier, more sensible--and cheaper--if parents would just turn off the television set, hide the controller, and send the kids out to the yard to play. It worked for my kids, and it cost me nothing.

In these days of constant video play, whatever has happened to the traditional outdoor games of tag, hide-and-seek, kick the can, mother may I, red light, green light, hopscotch, jump-rope, stickball, swinging statues? How about riding bikes, skating, building forts and go-carts? What about football, softball, basketball, all the other balls?

I’m glad I was a kid before the electronic age shackled childhood to the TV set. Videogames were standard during the later years of my kids’ childhoods, and they played their share. But the charms of the great outdoors and the fun of their sporting activities prevented them from becoming mired in the video wasteland.

I realize it’s a busy world for most families today, and it’s also more dangerous. I’m not advocating letting kids run wild in the streets. But backyards and schoolyards remain safe havens for most children’s active games. If parents are actually paying $100 for a videogame intended to get their kids off the couch, I can't help but think that we’re moving in a lazy and ludicrous direction.

A President of Faith

Readers old enough to remember know that initially, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln enjoyed separate holidays on their birthdays; February 12 for Lincoln, February 22 for Washington. Much like Christmas Day, the holidays were observed on those dates regardless of which day of the week they fell upon. During the Nixon administration, the holidays were combined into one, and thus lost much of their meaning. Many people today are unaware that the holiday is set aside to honor two of our greatest presidents.

So in honor of the father of our country, whose birthday is tomorrow, let's take a look back through history, to President George Washington's first Inaugural Address, delivered April 30, 1789, in New York. Take a few minutes to read it, and then ask yourself how such passages as the following would sit with the ACLU today:

"...it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good..."

Almighty Being? Great Author? Just imagine the left's reaction to such terms today. Obviously, they would conclude, some wild-eyed rightwing conservative evangelical fanatic is delivering this speech!

But read on. Washington was just warming up.

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."

What? "Adore the Invisible Hand"? This is a blatant violation of separation of church and state! Or is it? Actually, the term "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the official founding documents of the United States. The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." George Washington's thanks to God was in fact an expression of his personal religious views, "the free exercise thereof" is guaranteed by that very same document. But facts have never gotten in the way of an indignant liberal tantrum.

Perhaps even more outrageous to our modern lefties would be Washington's next flagrantly fervent statement:

"...since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..."

What's up with that remark? Is Washington trying to say that Americans are actually answerable to a Higher Authority for their actions? Is he implying that we can't make up our own rules without risking the loss of God's favor? What a crazed religious nutcase! How did he ever get elected?

President Washington apparently felt confident enough in the words of the Declaration of Independence that he concluded his first inaugural address with yet another prayer to our Creator:

"Having thus imparted to you my sentiments...I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity...on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the...wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend."

After reading the full text of George Washington's first inaugural address, all I can say is "Amen."

Disorderly Thinking

On February 18, World Net Daily posted an interview with Bill Maher that is a classic illustration of the secular arrogance Americans are dealing with in their Old Media.

Maher, host of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” thinks that religion “stops people from thinking.” He goes a step further and brands religion as “a neurological disorder.”

This “lack of enlightenment of so many Americans,” Maher intones solemnly, “means the nation actually has more in common with its enemies than one might think.”

This is heavy stuff. I'll need some time to absorb the profundity of it all. I mean, when you check back, it sure looks like most of the great minds in history believed in God. Did Augustine and Aquinas suffer from a neurological disorder? Were Shakespeare and Michelangelo unenlightened? Was DaVinci unthinking? Was Mother Teresa, and is John Paul II, “weak-minded people who need strength in numbers”? (On this last example, Bill quotes Jesse Ventura, that great modern thinker, to backup his position.)

Thank heaven—oops, I mean, thankfully, we have the towering intellect of Bill Maher to save us from the ignorance of religious simpletons.

Bill claims to be “embarrassed” that America “has been taken over by people…who do not believe in science and rationality.” He then proceeds to compare fairy tales to Bible stories, claiming that a child would never know the difference.

Hmm. I happen to think that children are much smarter than they get credit for, certainly much smarter than your average garden variety secular elitist media snob. For example, by the age of five, my kids were asking me quite probing, involved, and persistent questions about life, death, and God. Notice the triangulation here, Bill. My kids got the connection at a very early age. They never showed quite such sustained intensity of interest in Goldilocks or Hansel and Gretel. But then, religion was “drilled into” their heads at a young age.

Well, as a parent of faith, that was my job. As you so astutely observe, the children “can’t be responsible…for what adults put in your head.” But adults are very much responsible for putting good values and sound principles into their children’s heads. Maher thinks that suicide terrorists flying planeloads of innocent people into buildings full of equally innocent workers was a “faith-based initiative.” Compare that to the Western world’s religious organizations donating on-going tsunami relief. Do these two activities have much in common to a thinking person? If the scientific and rational Maher can’t see the difference between good and evil applications of faith, if he can’t see how very different we are from our enemies, then nothing I can write here is going to help him to figure it out.

But I do think it’s kind of humorous that someone who compares the tales of the Brothers Grimm to the Bible considers “science and rationality” to be his trump card. Fictional children’s stories, written a scant few hundred years ago, compared to holy and historical scriptures that have been recorded and handed down through several millenniums, along the way serving as the foundation of major and enduring world religions.

Think about it, Bill. Religious people, for the most part, view human intellect as a gift from our Creator—you know, the same One who endowed us with “certain unalienable rights,” according to the Declaration of Independence. From his statements, it appears that Maher believes that rationality is just another neat idea human beings dreamed up for themselves.

The Founders knew that our rights come from God. So, too, does reason. Maher and the liberal elites like him prefer to think that mankind is the last word in its own accountability. That way, they can make up their own rules with impunity, and do so while feeling smugly superior to all the little religious “crazies” who work hard to walk the steep and narrow path of faith.

So Bill, who fed you that fairy tale about how “enlightened” you are? Who got you to “stop thinking” long enough to believe the U.S. is like Syria and Iran? It sounds to me as though you’re suffering from more than one neurological disorder.

Dormez Vous?

Frère Jacques,
Frère Jacques,
Dormez vous?
Dormez vous?
Sonnez les matines,
Sonnez les matines.
Ding Ding Dong,Ding Ding Dong.

As many of you know, that's a lovely French ditty children all over the world learn to sing. The words ask "Brother John" if he's sleeping. Morning bells are ringing, morning bells are ringing....

...Time to wake up, country of France. Men described as "Islamic militants" by the Kansas City Star have been arrested in your midst, plotting to blow up the Eiffel Tower--sacre bleu! This story even appeared in Le Parisien, a daily French newspaper. We didn't see much of this story in L'Etats-Unis, but what else is new? Our MSM isn't interested in corroborating the worldwide dangers of militant Islam; they might risk appearing to support our president during a war. Such a faux pas that would be for the Fourth Estate in the elitist global village!

But ecoutez moi, good citizens of France. Listen up. You may want to consider taking this whole terrorism thing a tad more seriously. You are, after all, part of "Western civilization," a member of the "infidel" population. Like it or not, you're at risk for an attack--no matter how many francs and Euros Saddam Hussein sucked up from you.

France has the most stirring national anthem I've ever heard. Did you ever watch "Casablanca," with Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman? That scene where Paul Henreid leads the orchestra in playing La Marseillaise to drown out the singing Nazis--well, if you can watch that without getting goosebumps, you have no soul. The song starts out:

Allons enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé !

Which means:

Arise, children of the fatherland
The day of glory has arrived.

Are you sleeping, citizens of France? Time to wake up, time to arise. With the news of the plot against the Eiffel Tower, those morning bells are definitely ringing. And they sound very much like an alarm.

Blog Flash

Do you ever wonder how things are going for the Iraqi people?

I’ve heard that they have 38 new schools have been built. I also heard that 25 Iraqi students came to the U.S. in January 2004 for the re-established Fulbright program. On that subject, the 2006 Iraq Fulbright competition is due to begin in March.

And the Iraqi Navy is operational, you know. They have 5- 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a navel infantry regiment.

Who knew? Not MSM fans, that’s for sure.

There are plenty of other positive and encouraging Iraqi facts to learn. I wonder if MSM will ever get around to mentioning them? It doesn’t really matter whether they do or not, since you’re finding out about them, anyway, on my blog.

Gee whiz. Not bad for an amateur. And I’m not even in my pajamas yet.

A Call To Cyber-Arms

Roger L. Simon thinks that bloggers can make a difference in Iran. I don't know if that's true, but it's certainly worth my two sentences worth.

Good things do seem to be expedited via the blogosphere lately. The troop-trasher at CNN, Eason Jordan, "resigned" rather abruptly last week in the midst of a blog swarm. MSM saw to it that those destructive bloggers immediately became the story, rather than Jordan's inexcusable slander against our soldiers. His accusations of journalists killed and tortured by U.S. troops remains unexplored, except on the blogs--which are relentless on the subject. Oh yes, we were an electronic lynch mob out for blood, sitting around in our bathrobes tearing poor, defenseless Eason to shreds. The Wall Street Journal even called the bloggers "salivating morons." Never mind what Eason actually said, it's "the price" he paid that has MSM's knickers in a twist.

Ah, yes, the price. The cost of accountability is truth. Some journalists find that too steep a tab to consider paying. Why else would the video of Jordan's infamous remarks remain unreleased?

Now, a premier blogger asks members of the blogosphere to channel their collective energy in a quest to rally public support, domestically and internationally, for regime change in Iran. Some blogs have already started. More will take up the call, and who knows? After Trent Lott and Jayson Blair, after Dan Rather and Eason Jordon, it's not so incredible to believe that maybe blogs can make a positive difference in Iran.

It's worth a try.