Better with Age

William F. Buckley Jr. once again shows himself to be one of the most intelligent columnists in the country.

What al Qaeda's up to

Debka has a couple of articles detailing al Qaeda's latest offensive here and here.

Note: Debka can be rather hit-or-miss. They list some of their correct predictions in the first article. They were also wrong about an assassination attempt on Colin Powell a few years back, and they wrongly reported that Tariq Aziz, Saddam's prime minister, had been captured prior to the invasion of Iraq. I'm not saying they're wrong, but the fact it's written doesn't make it so.

This Is Exciting

Accoridng to the New Scientist, there may be life on Titan, Saturn's largest moon.

Over at TCS

Frederick Turner has an interesting article on the obstacles creationists have to overcome in their attempts to disprove the theory of evolution, and Douglas Kern writes a thought-provoking piece on the long-term viability of the Fifth Amendment right prohibiting self-incrimination.

Christians and the Death Penalty

Joseph Bottum has a fascinating article in this month's issue of First Things on the proper Christian view of the death penalty in deomcratic society. I don't know that this will necessarily change my position- I'm mildly pro-death penalty- but this is the first argument I've run across that could bring my position into alignment with the view put forth by the late Pope John Paul the Great in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae.

It's Coming

My favorite time of year (i.e. football season) will soon be upon us. On the college level, the Big Ten looks to be the strongest conference, with four teams obviously capable of winning the title and the potential for another five teams to emerge as dark horses. Unfortunately, this may be its downfall because it could quite possibly prevent one team from emerging as a national title contender. Furthermore, even if a team emerges as a national title contender this year, the conference is so physical from top to bottom in a way no other conference can match that any national title contender might just have to go through much to actually win it all in Pasadena.

On the professional level, the big story is whether or not Terrel Owens will get a new contract from the Eagles (likely not at this point). I don't much care at this point, but I can't help but wondering if T.O.'s decision to demand a new contract stems at all from his injury he sustained last year against Dallas.

New Piece

I have a new piece up on tolkien-movies.com concerning the relationship between God and morality.

Hooray for France

No, that wasn't sarcastic. I may have my issues with the France, but when it gets something right, it really gets it right.

This May Explain A Lot

It would seem that a significant number of people who spend time in the EU Parliament are using cocaine. Of course, that's okay because, according to Parliamentary spokeswoman Marjory van den Broeke, "It seems the findings are in line with the findings in other public buildings." In other words, this just means that cocaine abuse is no larger a problem in the EU Parliament than in European society at large. Funny, I would have thought you'd want people working in a legislature to be less likely to abuse drugs like cocaine than society at large. Who knows. Maybe it helps them get more work done.

Ms. van den Broeke also gives a good non-denial-denial when she says "It is not a problem we are aware of at all." And of course, the EU Parliament also attepmts to duck the issue by saying that the German press' investigation may have been illegal because they didn't notify the EU Parliament before going forward with their investigation. What rot. The EU Parliament is a public institution, and the media have a right to investigate what goes on there. I know press freedom isn't the same in Europe as it is here, but holding government institutions to account is one of the primary functions of the news media, and if they uncover a problem like this, the EU Parliament shouldn't be able to deflect attention from the substantive problem by hiding behind a tissue-paper thin legal nicety. If there is a problem with drug abuse at the EU Parliament, the EU Parliament should fix it and publicly, not stonewall and try to turn attention away from an obvious problem. Although, if they did that, they wouldn't be the EU Parliament, would they?

(via Drudge)

He Must Not Have Been Able to Find Work

Omar Sharif: sucide bomber.

(Scroll down)

I Don't Think It's a Case of Being Politically Brain Dead

as much as it's a natural consequence of what Fr. Richard John Neuahus termed the Naked Public Square, a society in which religion has been pushed entirely into the realm of personal preference. It is the consequence of seeing man's moral end in the precepts of secualr humanism and ordering it accordingly. One of the duties of government is to see that those under its authority are free to pursue and fulfill their moral obligations and seek their moral end, and in a secular humanist society, the moral end of man is considered to be personal fulfillment because the individual is regarded as god of his own life, determining his own moral end. Hence, the greatest offense that can be committed in a secularist society is anything that inhibits the goal of personal fulfillment, be it murder or simply refusing to celebrate the choices made by others, even if we happen to think them wrong. Problems arise when the action person A believes will lead to his fulfillment is in conflict with what person B considers necessary for his own fulfillment. The law being proposed by tony Blair is an attempt to limit the extent to which person A and person B can obstruct each other's personal fulfillment by constraining the ability of each to find fulfillment in the realm of religion, something that may well be necessary if you consider the moral end of man to be the fulfillment of his desires.

However, this whatever-floats-your-boat view of religion can only hold up if the principles of secualr humanism are assumed, something that adherents of religions other than secualr humanism cannot assume and still hold to their faith. This is why the mainline Protestant churches and many Catholic parishes are experiencing a decline in membership and church attendance. If the members of churches see the underlying principles of their church to be those of secular humanism, there is no reason for them to take part in the activities of their church unless they somehow find participation in their church more fulfilling than sleeping in on Sundays. People practice a religion because they believe it is true, not because they find it personally fulfilling, and if it is true for one, it is true for all. The religious "hatred" bill being pushed by Blair misses this point. Religion is not about feeling good, it is about finding the Truth, and because religions disagree with one another on what that Truth is, debate and sometimes conflict must necessarily occur. However, the debate between religions is a necessary one because when it's all said and done all religions seek the moral end of man, which can only be found by finding the Truth. Secular Humanism says that personal fulfillment is the moral end of man, and this is the assumption under which Blair is proceeding. In effect, he is promoting the superiority of secular humanism and telling everyone else to play nice.

And People Complain About the PATRIOT Act Here

Tony Blair tries to curtail the freedoms of speech, press and religion in one fell swoop, all in the name of "tolerance".

Another Thought

The view put forth by Lee Harris in his most recent article, if it is correct, may help illustrate why it is so important that we succeed in Iraq. What do Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, et al seek to gain by carrying on a feud of this sort with the West? Prestige. Fame. Respect. Loyalty. Power. Their long-term goal may be the destruction of the West, but they want to be the ones to hold power when the new Caliphate rises from the ashes. They know they cannot conquer militarily, but they can gain political prestige and power by showing an ability to harm the West. Al Qaeda are looking to command the loyalties of Muslims by showing that they and their followers and imitators can accomplish great things. They want to use these loyalties to secure their own political power throughout Europe and the Middle East. Ultimately, al Qaeda's attacks on the West have more to do with Middle East politics than with any issue of Islam vs. the West. They seek to rise to power by showing the Muslim world a path to greatness. To do this, they have to show that their Islamist ideology is superior to our Western way of life. During the 1990's and until 9/11, they could do this by attacking the West and watching as we did little or nothing. After 9/11, we decided to get into the game, driving the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and now we are working to establish democratic societies on both places that can stand the test of time. It is through succeeding here that we will prove that the way of al Qaeda, politically, is inferior to our way.

If we succeed in establishing stable democratic societies in Iraq and Afghanistan (no sure thing), especially in spite of the best efforts by al Qaeda to stop us, we will have shown that a) democratic government is superior to the Islamist tyranny offered by al Qaeda, b) stable democracy is possible in the Islamic world, and c) the path offered by al Qaeda leads to defeat. Nobody likes to follow a loser, and if we can overcome the likes of bin Laden and Zarqawi on their home turf, we will have shown them to be incapable of delivering on their promises. On the other hand, if we pull out of Iraq, they will have shown themselves to be superior to us, and their prestige, clout and power will only grow. Furthermore, emboldened by our retreat, they will continue to use this feud to advance their agenda until they have enough power to challenge the West on the same level we can challenge them. Right now, they can only win of we throw in the towel. We cannot afford to allow things to progress to the point where they can win in spite of our resolve. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam was justified or not, we're in it now, and the only way we can afford to emerge from this is victorious.

Right now, we're powerful enough to fight this as a war. They can only fight this as a feud. Are we going to wait for them to level the playing field before we commit to doing what is necessary to win, or do we muddle through now, brushing off their attacks as the annoyances they are and crush them with our superior might and purpose?

An Interesting Idea

Over at TechCentralStation, Lee Harris wonders if we're engaged in a blood feud with the likes of Al Qaeda, as opposed to a war. It's an interesting idea to be sure, but I don't know that I can say what the practical implications of this are. Whether al Qaeda wants a war or a feud, our aim ought to be the same: victory. That is, whether we view this as a war or a series of tit-for-tat exchanges that taken as a whole make up feud our goal has to be to get them out of the fight either by exhausting their will to fight or their ability to do so (i.e. kill 'em all). It may be easier for us to understand why al Qaeda and its allies do what they do when and where they do it, but looking at them as the Hatfields to our McCoys (or vice versa, if you prefer) doesn't change the fact that our ultimate aim is to win. Granted, it is kind of cool to be able to think of ourselves as being the Don Corleone to their Don Barzini, but it doesn't change our central aim. Besides, Michael Corleone ultimately took out the mob families who lined up behind Barzini.

Italy Makes a Big Move

You have to wonder how long Italian authorities have been planning this.

(via lucianne.com)

Saddam-Al Qaeda Links

Non-existent, huh? Well, what about this?

Sleeper Pick

I really don't have a good idea who the President will nominate to the Supreme Court, but a name I haven't heard mentioned that deserves consideration is former Solicitor General Ted Olson. He's a brilliant lawyer who has argued many times in fromt of the Supreme Court and has an 82% success rate. Furthermore, while he is demonstrably conservative, he would be very difficult to attack personally because his wife, Barbara, was killed in the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11.

Re: The Precision Revolution

Have the terrorists won the precision revolution? From a technological standpoint, no. To apply Helen Hunt's quote from Twister to our smart bombs, "You've never seen it miss this house, and miss that house and then come after you!" Our ability to take out a target with minimal collateral damage is unparalleled. The problem is finding the target and taking it out within the window of opportunity. This requires good intelligence, especially human intelligence, and efficient communication. Right now, we can verify targets in something like twelve minutes, which is pretty doggone good. The problem is that we need better sources, and we need to be even faster in order to take full advantage of this precision, which will undoubtedly only grow as time passes.

I will agree that for the time being, we are also too concerned about collateral damage and the bad press that comes from it. This is war, and mistakes will be made inevitably. We cannot be so concerned about this that it limits our ability to take action against those who, frankly, need to be killed. Ultimately, while we should not deliberately target civilians, the concern that trumps all others is winning, including concerns about collateral damage and unintended civilian casualties. What's more, we need to proceed under the premise that any civilian population/facility being used by terrorists is made a legitimate military target by their presence in that population/facility.

Fortunately for the United States (along with Israel), she has never ratified Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions from 8 June 1977, so her hands are not tied in the same way as other nations when dealing with terrorists (see Article 44 esp.). We can take out terrorists any time, anywhere without legal ramifications, and we need to take full advantage of this to limit the advantages to waging asymmetric warfare.

Incidentally, asymmetric warfare didn't do the NVA and Viet Cong a whole heck of a lot of good. Granted, they fared better than they did in a straight up fight, but it was public discontent at home as opposed to Communist military genius that led to our defeat there. NVA General Giap has said as much. Plus, if you look at casualty figures, the NVA and Viet Cong suffered something like 2 million killed as compared with our 50,000. There was no way we should have lost that war. Even if we had only continued to provide air support for South Vietnam it may at least have remained free instead of under the Communist tyranny under which it currently resides.

What Is the Proper Response?

After the bombing in London yesterday, our response was a combinaton of sorrow for the loss of innocent life and outrage at those who perpetrated the attack, and rightly so. However, I can't help but think that at some point our sorrow and outrage should turn to smug laughter at the sheer stupidity of such tactics. I mean, really, what have they accomplished by this attack? Is the British military hampered in any way by this? Is Britian's industrial capacity in any way lessened by this? Will even the portions of London's public transportation system directly affected by the bombings be shut down for more than a couple of days? Let alone the whole of it? What have they actually accomplished beyond getting us angry again? It makes no sense because what these tactics accomplish is not determined in by what they do, but rather what how we react to what they do. On a certain level, shouldn't our reaction be something along the lines of, "Dude, you guys are morons. We just thought you might like to know that before we kill you."

An Outrage, Plain and Simple

That's what today's bombings in London were. Our prayers are with those who have died and with their families and friends.

The cowards who have perpetrated this outrage must justice visited upon them swiftly and finally, wherever they may be. Let there be no doubt that those who have perpetrated this attack and those who have abetted it are committed to the destruction of Western Civilization and must not be allowed to succeed. Those who would suggest that this is about Iraq or Afghanistan are missing the point. Al Qaeda and its Islamist supporters view the whole of Western Civilization as weak and decadent and seek its destruction plain and simple. Of course, the reason they view Western Civilization as weak and decadent is that in many ways it is. Plunging birthrates and elites who loathe their own societies, along with stagnant economies, an unwillingness to assimilate those from other cultures into society, an excessive reliance on the state, not to mention the collapse of high culture and religion are signs of a civilization in its death throes. The West, and Europe in particular, have thrown off the things that have made it great and have thus lost any vision of the future. Now is the time to look back at the past and to take up once again the things that have made Western Civilizaton the greatest in the history of mankind. Only by taking up the mantle of Western Civilization can the West hope to survive the onslaught of radical Islam. They are convinced of the rightness of their cause, and we must be convinced of the rightness of ours.

The Subsidies Have to Go

This is true irrespective of their effects on the African economy, which have not been good, to say the least. Of course, I would say that the CAP subsidies provided to European farmers, especially French ones, have done greater harm for two reasons. The first is that Europe's proximity to Africa makes it a more natural market for African produce. Also, European farmers are paid to grow, while American farmers are paid not to grow, preventing a collapse in prices due to excessive supply.

Another problem is the EU's paranoia about GM foods. Their ban on GM foods has prevented the sale of higher yield crops that are more resistant to disease and pests.

Of course, the greatest problems for the countries of Africa are still domestic. Political corruption, ineptitude and tyranny are the greatest obstacles facing the countries of Africa, especially places like Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Question for Ted Kennedy

Did the Viet Cong ever turn on the NVA?

Is Gay Marriage Dead?

Not really. It certainly isn't in the forefront of the public debate right now, but it also isn't going away any time soon. Indeed, it may come up as an issue during the upcoming confirmation hearings for Justice O'Connor's replacement. After all, part of the reasoning behind the Federal Marriage Amendment is that the Defense of Marriage Act is of dubious Constitutionality.

Who Says I'm Baiting You?

Considering we're running a debate blog, I rather figured we'd be able to tear each other to shreds on hot-button issues intellectually, while carrying ourselves in a courteous and dignified manner (i.e. no ad hominem attacks). I'm just bringing up topics for discussion. Of course, it's entirely up to you to decide whether or not to respond.

The DC Problem

Washington DC's situation is one that is both unique and problematic. On the one hand, as has been pointed out, DC has no voting representation in the United States Congress. On the other hand, as can be found in Sections 2.1 and 3.1 of Article 1 of the Unites States Constitution, representation in Congress was granted, not to the people en masse, but to the States. Needless to say, Washington DC is a city, not a state, nor is it part of a state. The reason for making this arrangement was to prevent one state from gaining too much power by virtue of being the seat of the national government. Granting statehood to DC, or the priveleges of it (which I suspect would be unconstitutional) would make it the most powerful state in union, in addition to being the most powerful city in the union. What other city in the United States has three electoral votes and a non-voting member of Congress?

Of course, this would probably be a non-issue were it not for the Federal Income Tax. If the original system of taxation whereby States taxed their people and the Federal Government taxed the States had been preserved, this would be a non-issue. Now, the slogan of "No taxation woithout representation." becomes legitimate, and there seems to me to be no good solution to the problem.

The Other Issue This Week

Earlier this week, the Spanish parliament recognizing homosexual marriage, and the Canadian parliament appears ready to follow suit, all in the name of "equal rights". What's more, all of the equal rights rhetoric has drowned out any serious conversation/debate over the effects such a policy will have on the institution of marriage and on society as a whole. More importantly, it has overshadowed any discussion of what exactly makes a right a right.

What is often overlooked in the discussion of rights is their inherent connection with morality. Man is a moral creature, and as such, his purpose is to live a moral life, that is to fulfill his moral obligations. The rights of man are rights because without them, he would be unable to fulfill his moral obligations. This is why the breach of the rights of man, even by a legitimately constituted authority, is wrong. Furthermore, this is true whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, secularist, atheist, Scientologist, or whatever. Therefore, any discussion of the rights of man must be preceded by a common understanding of man's moral obligations and his moral goal. Needless to say, variations in belief provide for variations in the understanding of man's moral purpose, even within individual credos, never mind between them. For this reason, the Founding Fathers declined to establish a national church, settling for a lowest common denominator approach that enabled individuals and groups to seek freely how to fulfill their moral obligations. Furthermore, the Founders recognized the inherent link between religion and the fulfillment of moral purpose, which is why religion is the first issue addressed in the first article of the Bill of Rights (i.e. the First Amendment).

So, is there a right to homosexual marriage? As an orthodox Catholic who holds orthodox Catholic views on morality, I can see no plausible moral case for it. Others disagree, and they are free to do so. However, to justify the notion of a right to homosexual marriage, they must explain how homosexual marriage advances the moral end of thise who choose to enter into it. Furthermore, they either must show how the moral end of homosexual marriage is consistent with the moral end of marriage as it is now defined throughout most of the world or show how the moral end sought in homosexual marriage is superior to the moral end of marriage as it largely now is.

This doesn't even begin to take into consideration the potential effects of homosexual marriage on the institution itself, which Stanley Kurtz has done yeoman's work documenting here and here.

If I Had My Druthers

The President would re-nominate Robert Bork to take O'Connor's place on the court. However, I don't think that will happen because Bork likely won't want to go through the confirmation process again after what happened last time.

O'Connor Retires

Justice Sandra Day O'Connnor has announced her retirement from the Supreme Court today, and the discussion over her replacement has begun in earnest. Aside from who her replacement will be, the most common question being asked seems to be whether her replacement should be a woman. What a bunch of hooey. There may be practical political considerations at play here, but ultimately, judicial philosophy and temperament are more important than sex or race in determining who will replace Justice O'Connor. If the most highly qualified candidate to replace Justice O'Connor is a woman, the President should nominate that woman, and the same holds true if it's a man.