Absolut Coulter

Ann Coulter opines about Cindy Sheehan.

excerpt:

Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks.

...

On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.

A Philosophical Fisking

Administered by Doug TenNapel.

Quip

From this financial article, which it is not necessary to read:

For our own part, we do not particularly care when or how we meet our end. We just wish to know where, so we can avoid the place.

The Obvious, Well-Stated

By Ace Of Spades:

Question: If we are to credit Cindy Sheehan's opinions on war simply because she lost a son and now wishes an end to war...

...should we also listen to those who lost husbands and wives in the 9/11 attack and whose emotion-driven response was to wish for nuclear strikes on major Muslim cities and holy sites?

Just curious. Because there's a lot of strong emotion on both sides of this. I wonder -- I wonder so much -- why the LMSM is only willing to publicize the Give Peace a Chance sort of emotionalism.


Criticizing Cindy Sheehan-- The New "Hate Speech"!!! Talk about chilling my right to dissent. Protein Wisdom notes that the left is attempting (rather unsuccessfully, as the title of my post suggests) to place any sort of criticism of Cindy "Mr. DeMille, I'm Ready For My Close Up" Sheehan as beyond the pale.

After all, she lost someone in the War on Terror.

I guess that means that Ted Olson, who lost a wife in the sneak attack that began the hot phase of the War on Terror, should be empowered to call for carpet bombings of Muslim cities if it strikes his fancy... and no criticism of his decisions will be countenanced.

Sounds Wretched

Depressing review of a the cable series "Over There" about the Iraq War. It's a quagmire. We're incompetent. We're evil. We're going to lose.

So, When Arguing Before Congress Or A School Board, Science Doesn't Imply Atheism, Otherwise, It Does?

Interesting round-up of quotes here. Among these is this gem from Richard Dawkins, uber Darwinist, staunch atheist, and hater of religion:

In any case, the belief that religion and science occupy separate magisteria is dishonest. It founders on the undeniable fact that religions still make claims about the world that on analysis turn out to be scientific claims….The Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the raising of Lazarus, even the Old Testament miracles, all are freely used for religious propaganda, and they are very effective with an audience of unsophisticates and children. Every one of these miracles amounts to a violation of the normal running of the natural world. Theologians should make a choice. You can claim your own magisterium, separate from science’s but still deserving of respect. But in that case, you must renounce miracles. Or you can keep your Lourdes and your miracles and enjoy their huge recruiting potential among the uneducated. But then you must kiss goodbye to separate magisteria and your high-minded aspiration to converge with science. – Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University

How dense. Of course these amount to a violation of the normal running of the natural world. That's why they are miracles. So theologians should renounce them why? A complete non-sequitor.

Dawkins position seems to be this:

1. The existence of God implies miracles.
2. Miracles go against the normal running of the natural world.
3. Nothing whatsoever can go against the normal running of the natural world.
4. Therefore there are no miracles.
5. Therefore there is no God.
6. Therefore religions are false.
7. Therefore the religious are morons.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think point 3 up there needs more clarification and support. What form could this take?

1. God doesn't exist (as proven by the above argument points 1-5).
2. Therefore only the natural world does.
3. Since only the natural world exists, the only things that can happen are consistent with the normal running of the natural world.
4. So, nothing whatsoever can go against the normal running of the natural world.

Case closed. A perfect circular argument.

Or maybe I'm being too cruel. Maybe the support for point 3 is this:

1. The only things that can happen in this world must be repeatable by experiment.
2. Miracles are not repeatable by experiment.
3. Therefore miracles don't happen.

But, now point 1 above needs more support. Last I checked, no Nobel prizes were ever handed out to anyone for establishing this scientifically. It's a pretty important principle. You'd think there'd be a proof for it somewhere, but I've never seen one.

Now the funny thing is, there is no scientific way to establish the impossibility of miracles, despite the non sequitor bullying of such as Richard Dawkins. However, there are pretty decent historical and courtroom-style arguments out there for believing that miracles have actually occurred (i.e. the Resurrection). If there weren't, I wouldn't be a Catholic. Generally, staunch atheistic Darwinists are unwilling to seriously address these, because they already know that God doesn't exist. I don't know how they know that, but they just seem to. They are a lot smarter than I am. That's probably it.

Sermonette

From Wittingshire:

Being Yourself

The same breath is blown into the flute, cornet, and bagpipe, but different music is produced according to the different instruments. In the same way the one Spirit works in us, God's children, but different results are produced, and God is glorified through them according to each one's temperament and personality (Sadhu Sundar Singh).

Following our own selfish desires--sinning--makes us, ironically, less ourselves; ask any doctor who, like my brother-in-law, works with addicts of various sorts. Their stories are all the same; the look in their eyes is always the same. By focusing on their own wants they have lost their individuality. They have lost themselves.

But if we die to ourselves, as Christ calls us to do, He does what we cannot and makes us more sharply and brightly ourselves, beautiful, distinct. With his help, we find our truest and best selves.

Worship Rules-Of-The-Road

By and large, we Catholics do not have to worry about such things, but Doug TenNapel has some etiquette tips for proper Spirit-filled Pentecostal worship. Let's be safe out there.

excerpt:

During worship, to make things look spooky, church culture says you must:
1. Slightly tilt head.
2. Gently close eyes...lift head a bit.
3. The hand goes up and the arm follows the hand.
4. Keep hand open, fingers lightly held together.
5. Tilt at wrist so that hand matches angle of head.
6. Now comes the body...the body is sewn to the arm which is sewn to the supernaturally lifted hand.
7. Once standing, gently drift side to side as if in a spirit-induced trance.

8. NEVER STAND FIRST. If you make this move and you're the only one, you will either look like the holiest one in the church or you'll look like a poser. Skip to step 11 for the bail out.

9. Start with just lifting the arm. If others follow with the arm, then it's a good sign to know that if you stand up so will others. If someone beats you to standing up then they have just stolen your limelight...they are the enemy and next time, beat them to the punch.

10. If the song is really hooky and rockin' you can probably ride the congregational emotion when the verse goes to chorus and just jump up. Others will usually jump up too and if they do...you the spiritual man! If they don't follow, then...

11. You're screwed, you stood up first and now you need to find some way to sit back down. Grab your pocket like your nursery beeper is vibrating, or slowly reverse the steps that got you here as if the spirit sat you back down then caused you to drop your arm.
11a. You could double-down and cry while standing to show that you're standing because you're REALLY upset. Now everyone looking at you hating you is going to feel bad. You give them a hearty, "Screw you Philistine! I'm REALLY upset and that's why I'm carrying this burden alone!"

12. If you become one of those authorities in the church who can usually get others to stand when you stand then you might want to 'mind-jack' everyone and sit back down when the whole crowd is up. This tells them that something is wrong, and there is just as much spiritual clout to gain by correcting the gifts as there is in practicing them in the first place.

[more follows]

Another good TenNapel post here.

Excellent Bob Dylan Quote

From this TenNapel post.

"I know a lot of y’all out there think y’all are rebels, but let me tell you something, you ain’t no rebel until you rebel against the devil." -Bob Dylan

Darwinism Has Nothing To Do With Atheism? Good. Take The Salamander Off Your Car, Then.

Excellent post over at Telic Thoughts.

Words of Wisdom

In all honesty, I haven't been attending to the news much since I got back from Oshkosh. So today is the first I've heard about the Cindy Sheehan deal. Via The Anchoress, this Varifrank post probably says about all that needs to be said.

Asking The Wrong Question

Nice piece on the Iraq war by John Hawkins, who notes:

[The question is] not, "Why would anyone think we can win in Iraq," it's, "Why would anyone think we could lose?"

Hollywood Finally Starts Making Some War On Terror Movies

Siding with the enemy, of course. For a depressing list of what's in the pipeline, here's yer article.

Faith Of Judges Not An Issue When They Simply Do Their Jobs

Good David Limbaugh column.

excerpt:

[T]he Left's loyalty isn't to the Constitution, but to certain policies that have been grafted into it by liberal activist judges who, in the process, have exhibited an abiding disrespect for the document.

If everyone shared the strict constructionists' judicial philosophy, concerns over how a judge's faith might influence his decisions would be moot, because strict constructionists don't make policy.

To demonstrate how this would play out in practice, strict constructionists, irrespective of their personal views on abortion, would conclude there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion and that the legality of abortion should be left to the states. Thus, strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, being effectively neutral on the policy of abortion, would not -- on the basis of a mythical constitutional privacy right -- vote to invalidate state laws that either legalized or outlawed abortion.

But it is axiomatic that those who don't play by the rules are always suspicious that the other side won't either. Since liberals have routinely exploited the judiciary to implement their policy agenda they fear conservative-oriented judges might do the same. Actually, they're horrified at the prospect that conservative judges might simply reverse precedent established through liberal activism, such as Roe.

Mario Cuomo gave voice to this liberal fear during the debate. Kmiec asserted that Pope John Paul II's admonition to public officials to work legislatively to limit abortion did not apply to judges, because they are not legislators. Cuomo vehemently disputed this, saying, "The law today, as we all know, is Roe against Wade. That was made by judges and it can be overturned by judges. To say that the [pope's] rules that apply to legislators shouldn't apply to judges is, it seems to me, wrong."

Quite a damning admission by Cuomo. That he so adamantly rejected the legislative-judicial distinction reveals that he fully embraces the idea that courts are a third policymaking branch.

Ironically, it is only nominees of the type Cuomo would prefer -- liberal activists -- whose faith or lack thereof, might influence their decisions on the bench, because they would not consider themselves strictly relegated to a law-interpreting function.

Of course, if you can't win elections, and judges are all ya got...

There Are No Heroes. What? It's Just A Blindfold.

The NYT has an article about the curious lack of heroes in the Iraq war. Ace of Spades wonders whether this might have something to do with the NYT. Ace has a good quip:

The NYT can't find any heroes in Iraq because it has decided, as editorial policy, that Iraq is an unheroic war. Talk about killing your parents and then whining to the judge that you're an orphan.

The Little Engine That Could

Excellent ID article in the American Spectator. It starts thusly:

IMAGINE A NANOTECHNOLOGY MACHINE far beyond the state of the art: a microminiaturized rotary motor and propeller system that drives a tiny vessel through liquid. The engine and drive mechanism are composed of 40 parts, including a rotor, stator, driveshaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller. The engine is powered by a flow of ions, can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm (ten times faster than a NASCAR racing engine), and can reverse direction in a quarter of a rotation. The system comes with an automatic feedback control mechanism. The engine itself is about 1/100,000th of an inch wide -- far smaller than can be seen by the human eye.

Most of us would be pleasantly surprised to learn that some genius had designed such an engineering triumph. What might come as a greater surprise is that there is a dominant faction in the scientific community that is prepared to defend, at all costs, the assertion that this marvelous device could not possibly have been designed, must have been produced blindly by unintelligent material forces, and only gives the appearance -- we said appearance! -- of being designed.

As you may have guessed, these astonishingly complex, tiny, and efficient engines exist. Millions of them exist inside you, in fact. They are true rotary motors that drive the "bacterial flagellum," a whip-like propulsion device for certain bacteria, including the famous E. coli that lives in your digestive system.

Oddly enough, this intricate high-speed motor is at the center of a controversy that has been kindling in scientific circles for a decade, and is now igniting hot debate outside those circles. That's because, even more oddly, the implications of whether this little engine was designed are incalculably profound. They involve questions such as: What constitutes science? Did living things "just happen" by natural causes or were they designed by an intelligence? And what follows from those two competing alternatives -- in morality, education, culture, and science itself?

Update: See also this.

Bottom Line

From Ace of Spades:

You think Bush's war in Iraq is a good recruitment tool for young angry Muslim men willing to die for Allah?

Imagine the recruitment benefits of an American defeat in Iraq.

Immutable Science That Dare Not Be Questioned

A David Limbaugh column about Bush's statement re:the teaching of the ID/Darwinism controversy. Column contains these quotes from scientists:

"Our willingness," confessed Lewontin, "to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. … materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

...

[T]he prestigious Russian biologist Vladimir L. Voeikov said, "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism, which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology, seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field's real problems."

[Please, no comments from the Darwinist peanut gallery about quote mining. Heard it. A million times. Doesn't hold water with me. Bug someone else.]

Where The Rubber Meets The Road

The Anchoress has an excellent post on Catholic sexual morality. If only more people understood and put it into practice!

Back From Oshkosh

I'm now back from my epic small airplane journey to Oshkosh and back. Haven't looked at a stitch of news or a single blog for almost two weeks, so I have no idea whatsoever what's been going on. It'll take me a day or two to get back into the swing of things, so please bear with me...

Take a look at the photo above (click to zoom). I used the very shiny propeller spinner of a very shiny vintage airplane as a mirror. I'm the guy in the cowboy hat. Behind me is Adam, one of the owners of the plane we flew out there, and further in the distance to the right (wearing a blue-green shirt) is Py, the other owner. We had a heck of a time, fueling in Ogden, Utah, being stopped by thunderstorms in Casper, Wyoming, where we spent the night, then touring Mt. Rushmore by air and ground. After this it was into Oshkosh where we camped for 5 days, giving us weather including sultry humid and hot, violent torrential thunderstorms, and finally cool, clear, brilliant brisk weather which I expect from California in late October, not Wisconsin in July. The flight back had us refueling in Lincoln, Nebraska, and stopping for two nights in Boulder, Colorado. We rented a car and drove to the top of 14,110 foot Pike's peak. On Saturday we flew over the Rockies at 16,500 to Durango, Colorado. The next day it was on to Laughlin, Nevada; we didn't see much of the Grand Canyon on the way as we had to get an IFR clearance to fly through clouds and rain. At Laughlin we enjoyed Jet Skiing on the Colorado River, as well as plenty of Casino Buffet cuisine. Finally, it was over Death Valley and Mt. Whitney back to Tracy, CA and home!

I'll try to post a photo essay at some point...