The Bosque Boys

An ancient Coptic monastery in Egypt threatened. Link.

An Iranian Muslim convert to Christianity arrested. Link.

From Jihadwatch.

A Waco Farmer has weighed in before on Executive Signing Statements and the ABA document. Here. The lawyers at Powerline have this to say this evening.

I was a huge science fiction fan growing up in the 60s and early 70s. Asimov, Heinlein, Anderson, Clarke, et al not only entertained me, but helped to shape my view of the world. (That is not true today. When science fiction took its turn toward fantasy writing, I did not go with it; I also read one too many dystopian future stories in the 70s.) I not only read stories and novels written in the 60s and 70s, but also devoured sf written in the 30s, 40s, and 50s.

One of the things that strikes me in retrospect about the science fiction I read is this fact: of the hundreds and hundreds of imaginary futures I read about in stories and novels written in the 40s and 50s and into the early 60s, very very few imagined a society in which men and women were equals. Not too many imagined a society in which traditional sex roles were no more. These writers anticipated a lot of things, but seem to have been taken by surprise by the women's lib movement of the 60s.

Perhaps a lot of us were. Born in 1956, growing up in a rural area, I do not remember any women ministers then; female doctors were the exception; high school principals and school superintendents seemed to be all men. I think now that I assumed that was the way it would be.

Now consider our society. Lots of changes in 50 years in the role of women. Society is not static; things can change radically in a relatively short period of time.

This realization, that unexpectedly radical change can occur rapidly, is part of what gives some of us concern about redefinitions of marriage.

How do you kill an octopus? I don't really know, but I assume that rather than cutting each tentacle you go for the head.

It is becoming more and more obvious each day that Iran is a serious combatant in the Middle East against Israel and against U.S. interests. Iran arms Hezbollah, has Revolutionary Guards fighting in Lebanon, and threatens to exterminate Israel. Iran is working to undermine U.S. progress in Iraq, especially in the Shiite south. So far Israel and the U.S. have hacked at the tentacles.

Should we attack Iran? That course of action has great risks. Our present policy also has great risks. We have invested 2500 American lives in Iraq. Not doing anything has great risks. At a minimum, I would think we should be actively undermining the Iranian regime and blocking their ability to build and acquire weapons and to fund terrorists.

Iraq has been compared, usually ill-advisedly in my opinion, to Vietnam. One comparison does bother me: allowing the enemy to maintain safe sanctuaries and to receive patronage from outside the theater of combat.

From the Washington Post:

"HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 8 -- In a stark repudiation, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary here Tuesday night, falling to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont in a campaign that became a referendum on the incumbent's support for the Iraq war."

Read the full story here.

Post staff writers, Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray, conveniently set off the lead sentence in the above news story with a passive clause: "In a stark repudiation, Joe Lieberman narrowly lost...." Historians learn in grad school to avoid passive voice whenever possible for reasons of clarity. For example, in this case, who did the repudiating?

An aside: I will forego (or at least suspend) my quibble with the clumsy and inconsistent adjectives: "stark" modifying "repudiation" and "narrowly" modifying "lost." Was it "stark" or was it "narrow"?

Back to my main question: Who done it? Who repudiated Lieberman and his support for the Iraq war? The Democrats? That is more accurate--but still misleading. Actually, 146,587 Democrats voted against Joe Lieberman, which is less than five percent of the population of CT (which is approximately 3.4 million residents, with approximately 2 million registered voters).

During the next few days, Joe Lieberman will face intense pressure from the media and Democratic operatives to "bow to the will of the people" (for example: "The People have spoken; why isn't Joe listening?").

However, it is disingenuous to conflate this primary election with the definitive "voice of the people." If you do the math, the 146,587 Democrats who voted against Joe Lieberman last night amounted to less than 10 percent of the eligible voters in the state. Joe Lieberman has every right (some of us would say "duty") to defend his seat, his positions and his eighteen-year record in the Senate before a much larger and more representative pool of voters.

I agree with his eloquent statement in defeat:

"I am, of course, disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged. I'm disappointed not just because I lost but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."

He is right: this is an extremely important decision that demands clarification.

Democracy? Remember that neither parties, primaries or even democracy were envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. The party primaries have been with us for approximately 100 years. They work well--but we should not confuse them with Constitutional government. The primaries are extra-constitutional tools, which the parties (extra-constitutional institutions) employ to facilitate order and intra-party loyalty.

Joe Lieberman's decision to take his case to the people of Connecticut on appeal is wise and valiant. By the way, the Framers would have loved Joe Lieberman, for they wished for statesmen who put principle over party and self interest.

More to come on what this might mean for the modern two-party system and how Providence might play a role in this campaign...

Years ago Poul Anderson wrote a science-fiction story entitled "The Horn of Time the Hunter." (Great story, check it out.) In the story Anderson has a line of poetry something to the effect (I'm going from memory): he heard the Horn of Time the Hunter, pursuing a quarry that weeps as it runs. I've often thought of this title, and the imagery it creates in the mind.

Many in the West regard time as a hunter to be eluded; perhaps with enough gym time and the right hair coloring we can fool ourselves, and others, into believing we still are young. In the increasingly deperate flight from aging some are willing to do anything to look a bit younger, even make use of death to continue a semblence of younger life. This article tells of clinics that use stem cells harvested from aborted babies to give clients a younger look. (Scroll down the linked page for this part of the article.) Humans, trying to retain the bloom of youth, becoming ghouls.

For my argument against abortion, see this post.

Sometimes its hard to be too paranoid. Now seems to be one of those times. In earlier posts I have called attention to the apocalyptic world-view of the mullahs of Iran. In one post I linked to a possible reason to think that August 22, the day the Iranians have said they will answer the West regarding nuclear weapons, may hold terrible significance. Now, the dean of Middle East scholars, Bernard Lewis of Princeton, warns what may be in store on that day. (Link from Drudge.) We live in interesting times. For my previous posts see here and here. Everything we know about Ahmadinejad, the ruler of Iran, indicates that he is driven primarily by religious motivation.
Here is the full text of Dr. Lewis' essay.

This study (report here) affirms a relationship between sexually themed music and teens having sex. While distinguishing correlation and causation is difficult in the social sciences, this study helps confirm what many of us think: that ours is a culture inimical to raising healthy, resposible, moral children and young people. (On the degradation promoted by MTV see this column by Crouch.) Links from Drudge.

In 1996 Bob Dole responded to Hillary Clinton's slogan of "It Takes a Village" by countering that it took a family. While by "village" Hillary meant a larger more intrusive federal government, Dole's answer was simplistic and wrong. We do not raise children in a vacuum. As a parent I needed churches, 4H, Scouting, summer baseball with responsible coaches, good schools with mature, responsible teachers. I needed neighbors who would watch out for my kids (and watch my kids). I needed good families with good kids for my children to play with. And I needed family-friendly entertainment. (When my children were growing up, Friday was TV night with Perfect Strangers, Family Ties, etc.) In other words, I needed a village to support my wife and I in rearing our children.

The sad part is that Bob Dole knew better. He is the product of a small town in Kansas. His personality and his values were shaped by that village.

The performer Madonna has made a career by mocking traditional values. Her shows cross the boundaries of good taste and morality, shocking or titillating audiences. She first came to national attention during her slut phase, dressing like a cheap hooker and performing post-modern burlesque. But, the problem with building a career out of crossing the line is that the very process helped move the line. Trangression became harder and harder for Madonna as mall stores in mainstream America sold slutty outfits in imitation. So, she incorporated more simulated sex in her shows, including bisexuality and sadomasochism. But now it's 2006. MTV, which she helped to popularize, has helped obliterate any sexual lines to cross, any boundaries to transgress. What is a can't-sing performer to do? Find another line to cross. Her recent show, now causing the uproar she needs, mocks Christianity. See this article. How original. But, still with the power to shock. What next Madge? Is there another line to cross beyond this one? You know you need one. Transgression is your only talent. You've helped create a culture that can't be shocked by sex any more, no matter how depraved. You tried offending Hindus a few years ago, but I guess that did not sell enough CDs. What will you do when the furor over your latest show dies down. Why don't you try building your next show around images sure to offend Muslims? Now there's an audience that can still be shocked into response.

Once again, wise and winsome words from Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sidney, Australia. This speech from the Groundbreaking Ceremony of St. Vincent’s Research & Biotechnology Precinct.

Contrary to popular false mythology, Christianity is not the intrinsic enemy of progress, nor the roadblock of science.