International Law Is an Ass

So says John Laughland in The Spectator.

The Ever Inflammatory Mark Steyn

This time he substantively questions the partiotism of Senate Democrats (and some Republicans by association). It would be far too easy to hem and haw and shout "How dare he?!?!", but Steyn's charge is more than political grandstanding. There is substance to the charge he levies, and those who are faced with it must refute it or find themselves convicted of it. The Dems have spent far too much time trying to make political hay out of Iraq and undermine President Bush, to the detriment of the war effort. It's about time they and their Republican fellow-travelers came out and expressed their commitment to the war effort until such time as it proves successful. We're doing too well over there to see things fall apart over here.

Priceless

This sort of thing makes me proud to be an American.

More ID

Charles Krauthammer nails it.

The Vatican Takes a Stand for the Truth

The director of the Vatican Observatory says Intelligent Design "isn't science even though it pretends to be."

Shot Down Again

Intelligent Design is shown to be moronic once again.

The sad thing is, I know otherwise intelligent people who have allowed themselves to be taken in by this dreck because they're desperate to find something that disproves evolution. Why? The most likely reason is that they've lumped evolution in with all of the other radically secular ideas and movements that have wrought so much destruction during the 19th and 20th centuries. Granted, many secularists have tried to use evolution to prove that there is no God, something evolution can neither prove nor disprove. But that does not justify rejecting one of the most successful scientific theories of all time out of hand and throwing up the drivel that is Intelligent Design in its place.

Oh well. At least the Pope seems to be on my side.

Price Gouging? What Price Gouging?

Iain Murray takes on the myth of price gouging.

Re:John L.

At this point, I would have to agree with you. John L. isn't the solution to what ails MSU's football program. However, he's not the problem either. Arguably, MSU's problem is its obsession with U-M. If MSU beats U-M, the season is a success, and it doesn't matter what happens afterward. If MSU loses to U-M, the season is considered a failure, and there's no reason to put forth an effort for the rest of the season. John L. almost got MSU over this hurdle at Ohio State, but the blocked field goal at the end of the first half caused things to revert to form.

Contrast this with U-M's approach. Their overarching goal is to win the Big Ten every year. The MSU and OSU games certainly loom larger than any others on the Big Ten schedule, but the outcomes of these games do not automatically make or break a season for U-M. Whoever MSU's next coach is (or John L., if he gets another year or two), he would do well to emulate U-M in this.

Of course, the centrality of the U-M game is firmly entrenched in the culture of MSU football, and MSU sports in general, with basketball being an exception because MSU has been able to establish itself as a national power. Still, there are ways to limit the negative effect of the U-M game on MSU's season. Most importantly, MSU needs to schedule the U-M game later in the season. Excepting Bobby Williams' last season, which suffered from the cocaine effect more than anything, and Nick Saban's tenure, prior to the U-M game, MSU has consistently played excellent football, with the wheels coming off afterwards. The later in the season MSU plays U-M, the later the wheels come off. Indeed playing U-M later in the season might also mitigate the effects of the U-M obsession by giving MSU some perspective, allowing them to realize that there's more to the season than the U-M game.

Now, I don't think U-M will agree to schedule the U-M-MSU game later in the season because the current set-up favors them nicely. They have ND or some other big non-conference game early, MSU mid-season and Ohio State to close out the year. There is no reason for them to schedule two big games so close together just to improve MSU's prospects. No, the only solution to MSU's woes is to find a coach who can avoid succumbing to the U-M obsession. Saban came close, but I can't help but think that the reason he left for LSU, the reason he felt he couldn't win with MSU long-term, is because he felt that he would end up succumbing to the U-M obsession.

Can anyone avoid succumbing to this obsession, let alone overcome it? I don't know, but it will probably take an outstanding coach at least ten years to get to U-M being the big game, as opposed to the only game. In the meantime, it would be a poor idea to fire John L. unless MSU has someone lined up who understands the root of MSU's problem.

I Wouldn't Call It War Yet

But that's certainly what it's starting to look like in France. I'm not surprised at this because I've been reading Mark Steyn for the past four years. What does astound me is the reaction of the French authorities to these riots. Aside from Nicolas Sarkozy, the French reaction has been to say "Please stop rioting so that we can address your grievances." It is astounding that the French leadership, who are supposed to be masters of realpolitik are so immersed in the airy sentimentalism that passes for multiculturalism these days that they do not recognize the fundamental truth that strength must be met with strength, not concessions. Where force is needed, they offer rewards for engaging in this violence and so show themselves to be weak, which will only encourage more violence.

Certainly these Muslims have legitimate grievances which should be addressed at some point, but that is irrelevant at this point for two reasons. First of all, in a society governed by the rule of law, as France purports to be, resorting to violence eliminates the right to redress of grievance. Only when order has been restored and those responsible for the violence severley punished can a redress of grievance be contemplated, lest the rule of violence be shown superior to the rule of law. Secondly, the rioters aren't interested in redress of grievances, they're interested in taking over, interested in establishing areas governed not by the rule of law, but by the rule of Islam. It would be foolish to think that this is anything but an attempt to bring the French government to its knees in these regions, to make the French government so desperate to stop the violence that they will effectively hand over control of these regions to the men who can stop the rioting with a word, the imams.

Who'd'a Thunk It?

I agree with Jimmy Carter on something. Actually, I can't say I'm surprised, but it is refreshing to see him publicly adopt a stance I can support after his asinine antics over the past few years.