President Barack Obama: 'I'm in Charge'

Kinda like former Secretary of State Alexander Haig, except that nobody shot the president. The One just gave it up for Bill Clinton. I know the Saturday address is prerecorded, but it's a relief to see the Obambi back as Commander in Chief:

And listening to POTUS, it's almost like he's had a religious conversion to supply-side economics. Except, well, not. For Obama, as everyone knows, the bipartisan tax deal was 100 times worse than pulling teeth. And of course at 3:30 minutes he confesses his solidarity with the soak the rich crowd, saying "I share their concerns ... I don't like those tax cuts either" ... those tax cuts on incomes over $250,000 annually. Kim Strassel nailed it at WSJ yesterday:

President Barack Obama wants the nation to know that he is on the verge of an important, bipartisan economic achievement. He'd also like the nation to know that he'd rather carve his own eye out with a blunt spoon.

Barring an outright revolt among House Democrats, Mr. Obama may well in the next week sign a tax package that demonstrates his ability to work with Republicans, that he notes will "speed up the recovery," and that two-thirds of Americans fully support, says Gallup. Compared to ObamaCare, this is political jet fuel.

Yet far from projecting bold and triumphant leadership, President Obama looks like a bitter, liberal Grinch. Call this the week of missed presidential opportunities, one that bodes ominously for whatever strategy this White House has cobbled together in the wake of its midterm defeat.

And see Peggy Noonan also at WSJ, "From Audacity to Animosity" (via Memeorandum).

Consensual Adult Incest

Is RepRacist3 Posting as Mr. Fluffy Pants at PuffHo? Because their arguments on "consenting relations" are strikingly similar.

Here's RepRacist3 commenting on Iowa's gay marriage ruling at The Daily Beast in April 2009:

I'm by no means a lawyer, but I'm of the opinion that, in the absence of a legal reason to forbid something, the state should allow it.

And Mr. Fluffy Pants:

It's consensual and between two adults. Let him go! Its none of my business. People have the right to live their lives out however they want so long as its not harming someone else. While I don't agree with incest, its really none of my business. He's not hurting anyone, his daughter isn't hurting anyone, let them go!

So long as they're not harming anyone else? That's the left's argument for gay marriage in a nutshell.

Dan Collins has more, "It’s a Family Affair." And Robert Stacy McCain at American Spectator, "But They Were Consenting Adults!"

RELATED: "A Columbia professor is arrested for incest — but isn't there a constitutional right to incest between consenting adults?"

President Clinton is Back!

Crusty Burgerhead was cracking me up on Twitter yesterday, snarking that "Obama is getting Clinton some coffee right now."

And folks were amazed that President Clinton kept holding forth, taking questions long after Obama bailed. Ann's got more, and at NYT, "Bill Clinton Holds Forth on Tax Plan, for Starters." More at Memeorandum.

The Powerful Corpse of Radical Progressivism

I've been dealing with death-chant progressives all week, so I thought I'd share a few comments on the left that have become available within a short time frame.

At the letters to the editor yesterday, at WSJ, "If Liberalism Is Dead, It's a Very Powerful Corpse":

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. declares that liberalism, as a political movement, is dead ("Liberalism: An Autopsy," op-ed, Dec. 4). Given the permanently expanding role of government, the effective rollback of key elements of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, the redefinition of marriage, ObamaCare and the explosive growth over just the last two years of thousands on thousands of government employees taking home six-figure salaries, it doesn't appear that liberalism's being "dead" makes all that much difference.

That the liberal label has an appeal to only 20% of the electorate is nothing to celebrate because it shows that even with its dwindling numbers, liberalism will nearly always win on policy. In the West Virginia Senate race, Gov. Joe Manchin trounced his Republican opponent by wrapping himself in the conservative label, something that is very easy to do as we keep defining conservatism down, to appeal to any and every viewpoint.

If he'll check the pulse of policy, I think Mr. Tyrrell will find that liberalism is alive and well, and that it is conservatism which has slipped way past rigor mortis and has started to rot.

Douglas Johnson

Chicago

More letters at the link, but Mr. Johnson's really sets the tone. Never underestimate the left's low hanging fog of death. It's hard to destroy.

Another interesting comment was at my post this morning, "Leftists Chant for the Death of Ann Althouse — UPDATED!!" Althouse linked, perhaps sending this fellow over:

Murgatroyd said...

Charles Krauthammer nailed it: "To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."

Anyone who disagrees with a left-winger is by definition evil. Anyone who disagrees with a left-winger and demonstrates that the left-winger is wrong is beyond all possible redemption, and must be hated with the white-hot intensity of the heart of the sun.

Yeah, well, this week sure proved it. Murgatroyd's reference is to Charles Krauthammer, "Speaking of stupid liberals, angry conservatives."

And then there's the big story on Columbia's David Epstein, who has been chared with incest following an alleged three-year relationship with his 24 year-old daughter. Robert Stacy McCain has the epic post on this, "Palin-Hating Columbia Professor, Huffington Post Blogger, Busted for Incest." Flopping Aces digs through the lefty comments at PuffHo. And there's a thread at Memeorandum. But Rob Taylor at NewsReal really exposes the zombie corpse of progressivism, "Leftism Causes Rape and Incest":

The breakdown of traditional morality and taboos, many of which have been a part of Western Civilization since pre-Christian times, is an essential part of leftism but it is naïve to think that it is the only driver of the normalization of sexual predation on the Left. Instead we must look to Marxism’s most fundamental value for an explanation of leftists’ acceptance and promotion of sex crimes – the abolition of private property.

When leftists talk about the abolition of private property, they extend that to your work, whatever that may be (including the “sex work” of adult entertainers and prostitutes), and even to your body. More dangerously the Left teaches that people have an absolute right to sexual gratification no matter how that gratification is achieved. Thus, men who are not having whatever perversion they’ve delved into satisfied are being “oppressed” by the withholders of the sex they crave. This is why groups like NAMBLA can exist on the fringes and be treated as legitimate political and ideological opponents.

But on the individual level, this idea that no woman should be off limits, that it is “selfish” to deny sexual pleasure to others, plays out in horrific scenarios of abuse and depravity. That David Epstein was a neo-Marxist can be gleaned from his occasional blog posts at Huffington Post, and that he thought it a fine idea to have sexual relations with his own daughter is ample evidence of his acceptance of the Marxist belief that the traditional family is outdated and in need of being dissolved. But he is not an anomaly.

Methodologically, we can't show that neo-Marxist progressivism is THE causal factor in the kind of incestuous deviance in David Epstein's case, but we certainly can infer powerful weight to the obliteration of morality and social taboos that is central to the left's nihilist program of death and destruction.

Interestingly, Ann Althouse links again, this time with the legal debate over adult consensual incest: "A Columbia professor is arrested for incest — but isn't there a constitutional right to incest between consenting adults?"

Yet even with that, the powerful corpse of radical progressivism lurks over the entire culture, leaving its deathly shadow of predation across the land. And thus it's good to hold tight to Douglas Johnson's words above, to stay on guard and keep the pressure on: "I think Mr. Tyrrell will find that liberalism radical progressivism is alive and well, and that it is conservatism which has slipped way past rigor mortis and has started to rot."

Scott Eric Kaufman Hates Beautiful Women

Even when they open up for him.

He's horrified of "nude images of women," so that blows it anyway.

Via Theo Spark (full-size image here):

Guilty Verdict in Elizabeth Smart Case

At NYT, "Verdict Is Guilty in Abduction of Elizabeth Smart."

And I noticed that Ms. Smart's rapist, Brian David Mitchell, bears a strong resemblance to my dangerous stalker, James Casper. Seriously. Grow the beard and hair at Reppy's pic and it's a spitting image.

Cancer Trending? Don't Tell Scott Eric Kaufman

Because he'll issue a decree for your death. But probably not for the editors at CNN, or Susie Madrak of Crooks and Liars, for that matter (link). No, SEK saves his evil derangement for right wing enemies (even when they haven't written that "cancer is trending"). You know, because wishing death on your political enemies is just what secular leftists do:

Why the Left Hates Sarah Palin

Another nice vlog from John Hawkins, and he pretty much nails it:

Jennifer at Cubachi has more: "Richard Wolffe mocks Palin and C.S. Lewis as just “a children’s author”." (Via Memeorandum.)

And Sarah Palin's op-ed at WSJ, "Why I Support the Ryan Roadmap."

Professor David Epstein, Columbia University Political Scientist, Charged With Incest After Three-Year Relationship With Daughter

Via Five Feet of Fury:

"Liberals Leftists: your moral and intellectual superiors! — Columbia prof, Palin hater and HuffPo blogger charged with incest involving 24-year-old daughter."

Seriously!

Where's the LGM academic decency brigade! This is an emergency!

404 error at Epstein's Columbia University bio-page, but the Department's faculty information page is still available (Screencap here.)

Epstein was the co-recipient of the American Political Science Association's 2005 Decade of Behavior Research Award. (Screencap here.) Plus, APSA has a special Decade of Behavior page here, with more information on Professor Epstein.

Five Feet links to Newsbusters and New York Daily News.

Elie Mystal at Above the Law is totally grossed out, "Columbia Poly Sci Professor Accused of Diddling His Daughter."

And at Gather, "Columbia Professor David Epstein Busted Following Three-Year Relationship With Daughter":

In Ivy League incest news, Columbia University professor David Epstein was arrested today on charges of incest in the third degree after it was revealed he and his now 24-year old daughter had a "consensual" three year relationship.

According to gantdaily.com, Epstein was actually quite well-liked at Columbia, and had a fairly prestigious and well respected career. It's always the ones you least suspect, right?

Epstein had authored several books, written pieces for The Huffington Post, and had previously acted as a political analyst for CBS!

Epstein was set to teach two classes this semester at Columbia; "Scope and Methods," and "Research Topics and Game Theory" ....

Sources say that Epstein's incestual [sic] relationship with his daughter began after some serious "sexting," which is somehow almost creepier than actually committing the act.

Esptein has taken a leave of absence and faces four years in prison if convicted.

And at PuffHo, "David Epstein Incest Charges: Columbia Professor Charged With Sleeping With Daughter." And a couple of Epstein's GOP-bashing essays at PuffHo, "Two Obvious Truths About the Torture Scandal," and "Palin Proves Voters Were Right in 2008."

Epstein's Twitter page is still available as well, although he's not currently using it.

Added: Robert Stacy McCain has more: "Palin-Hating Columbia Professor, Huffington Post Blogger, Busted for Incest."

And now an Instalanche!

Totalitarian Faith

I've noticed lately that radical progressives get particularly pissed when you call them out as nihilist. I discussed this recently in a lengthy essay, "Anti-Intellectualism and the Marxist Idea." At issue there were some of the objections of BJ Keefe from September, and he reissued them just last week, and I responded again, "Navigating Past Nihilism." While BJ claimed I had "twisted" the meaning of nihilism, he never did actually offer his own definition. The issue has popped up again, as Amanda Marcotte has gotten peeved at my descriptions of leftists as nihilist, and she's spouted off her frustration on Twitter and in at least two posts at Pandagon. She has, for example, attempted to smear me as a "moron" who "pretends" to know what nihilism means. It's fair to say that nihilism is deployed with a range of meaning, although it's not fair for leftists to attack me for ignorance while simultaneously refusing to provide a counter exegesis. As noted, my traditional usage focuses on leftist abandonment of historical norms of morality, along with the concomitant campaign of destruction on Judea-Christian ethics.

In recent posts I've focuses more narrowly on Friedrich Nietzsche's thesis of the social obliteration of God. And unbeknownst to poor Amanda, I've provided a dictionary definition at "Navigating Past Nihilism," and the link there goes to Professor Sean Kelly's recent piece at New York Times. So basically, leftist lamebrains cited here and elsewhere can just STFU.

In any case, I'm reminded of David Horowitz's The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future. He writes, at pages 28-29, on a June 1990 forum held by the Organization of American Historians. The prominent author Christopher Lasch announced that the West had "won the Cold War," upon which he was immediately denounced --- with "outrage and scorn" --- by the radical historians in attendance. Horowitz indicates how the episode reveals the left's epistemic closure on the failures of revolutionary socialism:

The refusal to confront the past meant that leftists could resume their attacks on the West without examining the movements and regimes they had supported, and thus without proposing any practical alternative to the societies they continued to reject. The intellectual foundations of this destructive attitude had already been created, in the preceding decades, in a development that Allen Bloom described as the "Nietzcheanization of the Left" --- the transformation of the progressive faith into a nihilistic creed.

Nihilistic humors have always been present in the radical character. The revolutionary will, by its very nature, involves a passion for destruction alongside its hope of redemption. While the hope is vaguely imagined, however, the agenda of destruction is elaborate and concrete. It was Marx who originally defended this vagueness, claiming that any "blueprint" of the socialist future would be merely "utopian" and therefore should be avoided. The attitutude of the post-Marxist left is no different. Since the fall of Communism, radical intellectuals have continued their destructive attacks on capitalism, as though the catastrophes they had recently promoted posed no insurmountable problem to such an agenda. "I continue to believe," wrote a radical academic after the Soviet collapse, "that what you call 'the socialist fantasy' can usefully inform a critque of post-modern capitalism without encouraging its fantasists and dreamers to suppose that a brave new order is imminent or even feasible."

But how could a responsible intellect ignore the destructive implications of such an attitude? The socialist critique is, after all, total. It is aimed at the roots of the existing order. To maintain agnosticism about the futures that might replace the reality you intend to destroy may be intellectually convenient, but it is also morally corrupt ....

To raise the socialist ideal as a critical standard imposes a burden of responsiblity on its advocates that critical theorists refuse to shoulder. If one sets out to destroy a lifeboat because it fails to meet the standards of a luxury yacht, the act of criticism may be perfectly "just," but the passengers will drown all the same. Similarly, if socialist principles can only be realized in a socialist gulag, even the presumed inequalities of the capitalist market are worth the price. If socialist poverty and socialist police states are the practical alternative to capitalist inequality, what justice can there be in destroying capitalist freedoms and the benefits they provide? Without a practical alternative to offer, radical idealism is radical nihilism --- a war of destuction with no objective other than war itself.

And from page 57:

Totalitarianism is the possession of reality by a political Idea --- the Idea of socialist kingdom of heaven on earth; the redemption of humanity by political force. To radical believers this Idea is so beautiful it is like God Himself. It provides the meaning of a radical life. This is the solution that makes everything possible; the noble end that justifies the regrettable means. Belief in the kingdom of socialist heaven is faith that can transform vice into virtue, lies into truth, evil into good. In this revolutionary religion, the Way, the Truth, and the Life of salvation lie not with God above, but with men below --- ruthless, brutal, venal men --- on whom faith confers the power of gods. There is no mystery in the transformation of the socialist paradise into Communist hell: liberation theology is a satanic creed.

Amanda Marcotte has offered no definition nor defense of nihilism. She has however attacked those of faith as insane, citing atheist phenomenon Richard Dawkins as her source of authority: The God Delusion. It's easy to understand why, for by rejecting the eternal goodness of God, she can justify the destructive radical progressivism that drives her ideological program. That program is nihilist. It is, following Nietzsche, the utter abandonment of the social commitment to morality and right. She, like her fellow radicals, rejects morality in favor of hedonism and license, and hence rejects any larger meaning within a body of faith that is God.

Students Attack Royal Couple in Violent London Protests

And just minutes before, while in route to the Royal Variety Performance at the London Palladium, Prince Charles joked, "Hopefully we’ll be able to brave our way through, get there and be all right."

Added: From Glenn Reynolds, "ANARCHY IN THE U.K." And at WSJ, "Violent Protests Follow U.K. Fee Vote."

Leftists Chant for the Death of Ann Althouse — UPDATED!!

God have mercy on us all, for there is evil in the world.

I love Ann Althouse. She is my friend and I look up to her in many ways. I am thus horrified to see calls for her death at a leftist message board discussing recent responses to the death of Elizabeth Edwards:

I can't fucking wait for Ann Althouse to die. The only thing that would make that perfect would be if her husband cheats on her beforehand.

While I've already posted on all of this at length, I'm still shocked at how brazen are some of the leftist death chants, for Althouse — and for me too, from the genuinely demonic Tintin at Sadly No!, as just one more example:

RELATED: Recall that RepRacist3 has been retweeting all kinds of vile hatred like this, which once again demonstrates that his claims to Christian compassion are all just poorly executed acts of deception. God have mercy on him.

**********

UPDATE: Racist Repsac3 tried to comment, alleging that "no conservatives are behind you" on this. Not true, obviously — and hilariously so, since no sooner than I deleted RepRacist's comment did I find Althouse at the Sitemeter, linking with "Oh, the violent ideation of the lefties!"

It's so hypocritical!

Word.

I've been receiving praise and thanks all week, and it's just killing the nihilists, who have responded to my honest and very straightforward reflections on faith with an extremist jihad. So yeah, hypocritical, but typical for these Godless freaks.

Americans No Longer Think U.S. Economy No. 1

From Ronald Brownstein, at National Journal, "Down From The Pedestal" (via Memeorandum):

In the global race for jobs and economic prosperity, the United States is No. 2. And it is likely to remain there for some time. That’s the glum conclusion of most Americans surveyed in the latest Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll. Henry Luce famously labeled the 20th century the “American Century.” This survey suggests that most Americans now doubt that this new century will bear that name.

In the poll, only one in five Americans said that the U.S. economy is the world’s strongest—nearly half picked China instead. Looking forward, Americans are somewhat more optimistic about regaining primacy, but still only about one in three expect the U.S. economy to be the world’s strongest in 20 years. Nearly three-fifths of those surveyed said that increasing competition from lower-paid workers around the world will keep living standards for average Americans from growing as fast as they did in the past. Ruben Owen, a retired Boeing engineer in Seattle who responded to the survey, spoke for many when he said, “We’re still in a reasonably good place … but it’s going to get harder because other places are growing stronger.”

Across a wide range of issues, the poll found the traditional American instinct toward optimism straining against fears that the nation’s economic struggles may extend far beyond the current slowdown. On many fronts, particularly the quality of higher education and scientific research, large majorities of Americans still believe that we lead the world. And most say that the U.S. can remain a manufacturing leader.

RTWT.

We discussed exactly this topic in the conclusion to my World Politics course on Wednesday. China still has quite a ways to catch the United States on a number of measures. China's GDP in 2009 was roughly $5 trillion. The U.S. economy was nearly three times as large, at rougly $14.2 trillion. And while breathtaking, I doubt China can maintain its growth trajectory indefinitely (see, "China Is Not Another Ascendant Superpower"), and the nation's quality of life is still mired by its Third World standard of living for much of the population (see, "Cost of Living Increasingly a Struggle for China's Poor").

Especially problematic is Chinese authortarianism. I noticed today this piece yesterday at NYT: "China Moves to Block Foreign News on Nobel Prize." And earlier at WaPo, "On eve of Nobel ceremony, China cracks down and lashes out." The research on democracy and economic productivity suggests that non-democracies perform as well as democratic states, but given the information-driven nature of coming first-mover industries, I doubt China will compete effectively against the United States as long as it remains a closed, repressive regime.

That said, there's always the potential for increased conflict in U.S.-Chinese relations. The Economist reported on that this week: "The dangers of a rising China," and "Friends, or else: A special report on China's place in the world."

More on all of this later.

RELATED: "The Road to Ruin? American Profligacy and American Power."

Explaining Women's Taste in Men

Interesting piece, at The Economist, "Sexual Selection: Hunkier Than Thou":

WHEN it comes to partners, men often find women’s taste fickle and unfathomable. But ladies may not be entirely to blame. A growing body of research suggests that their preference for certain types of male physiognomy may be swayed by things beyond their conscious control—like prevalence of disease or crime—and in predictable ways.

Masculine features—a big jaw, say, or a prominent brow—tend to reflect physical and behavioural traits, such as strength and aggression. They are also closely linked to physiological ones, like virility and a sturdy immune system.

The obverse of these desirable characteristics looks less appealing. Aggression is fine when directed at external threats, less so when it spills over onto the hearth. Sexual prowess ensures plenty of progeny, but it often goes hand in hand with promiscuity and a tendency to shirk parental duties or leave the mother altogether.

So, whenever a woman has to choose a mate, she must decide whether to place a premium on the hunk’s choicer genes or the wimp’s love and care. Lisa DeBruine, of the University of Aberdeen, believes that today’s women still face this dilemma and that their choices are affected by unconscious factors.

In a paper published earlier this year Dr DeBruine found that women in countries with poor health statistics preferred men with masculine features more than those who lived in healthier societies. Where disease is rife, this seemed to imply, giving birth to healthy offspring trumps having a man stick around long enough to help care for it. In more salubrious climes, therefore, wimps are in with a chance.

Hmm.

There's hope in the world (and RTWT at the link).

Twitter Hatred

From James Urbaniak, and re-tweeted by stalking hatemaster RepRacist3. And this filth for expressing my opinion? So much for Christian love. Nihilist freakin' hypocrites:

We All Shine On...

Well over 100 comments at the big post this week. Sadly, they reflect little of His grace: "The banality, platitudes and cruelty of the comments reflect who and what we are."

And food for thought this evening: "John Lennon vs. Bono."

Who's the better activist role model? I'll take Bono, for ultimately we need pragmatism over inauthentic idealism.

Westboro Baptist Church to Picket Elizabeth Edwards Funeral

At least David Gibson's honest enough to make distinctions, although he still comes awful close to conflating mainstream Christians with Westboro Baptist Church, which will protest Elizabeth Edwards' funeral tomorrow.

Westboro's press release is here: "ELIZABETH EDWARDS IS IN HELL."

And to be clear: I reject Westboro's extremism.

WaPo has a report, "Westboro church to protest Elizabeth Edwards funeral." (And at Memeorandum.)

Please pray for Elizabeth Edwards.

A roundup of my previous entries is at Right Wing News.

And at Zion's Trumpet: "Donald Douglas Receives Hatred For His Compassion Towards Elizabeth Edwards," and in the mail from the author:

I agree with everything you said and I too am deeply saddened by her death and her seeming removal of God out of her life - especially at the end of life when it is most crucial. The reaction from the libtards towards you was pretty intense - though not surprising. Keep on speaking the truth. I appreciate all that you do and proud to call you my friend.

Hate Mail

From another member of the enlightened, tolerant left:

From: Kyle Lindskog [klindsko@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 6:51 PM
To: Donald Douglas
Subject: Elizabeth Edwards

Mr. Douglas,

People like you make me sick. You consider it a flaw that Ms. Edwards omitted "God" from her final correspondence? No. She is to be praised for this. Unlike you, she probably believed that her human experience on Earth was the best platform for happiness and fulfillment. You, on the other hand, are probably obsessed with saying the right words to the right "God" so that you can secure for yourself a spot in "heaven."

Also, for you to call someone a nihilist merely for omitting "God" in a "death letter" is disgraceful. I wish there were a hell for you to go to. But unfortunately, unlike you, I appreciate science and evidence, and do not accept such farcical, obviously man-made ideas.

With utmost contempt, I am

Kyle Lindskog
St. Petersburg, FL

Nihilism and Progressivism

Bosch Fawstin illustrated my recent essay, "Navigating Past Nihilism," which is cross-posted to NewsReal Blog.

And now I'm re-reading Sean Kelly's original essay at New York Times, but this time in light of the left's response to my thoughts on Elizabeth Edwards' rejection of God. Citing Nietzsche, Kelly suggests that those who have abandoned God are living in "self-deceit." The deceit is to hold out the possibility of the good life. The solution, suggested by Kelly, is to adopt an alternative set of commitments, as Melville would say, in a smaller, more local set of values. I don't doubt many could find a pleasing and satisfying life. But it would be materialistic and autonomously derived, i.e., without a greater nobility found in the eternal. This is, then, an inferior substitute to God. People would find meaning not in self-denial, abstinence, and penitence, but in engorgement on worldly pleasures. Spiffing this up in fancy sounding language won't do (these "many new possible and incommensurate meanings," for example). It's a jumble of nothingness in the end. Nothing higher to seek, and hence little to be attained. It's metaphor for progressivism. Excellence and attainment are for the selfish and greedy. And the response to that alleged greed is redistribution of wealth and the organization of society into hierarchies of recrimination. Appropriate ways of thinking are enforced. Truth is deemed hate speech, and expressions of faith are excoriated as theological fascism. Hence the response to my commentary on Elizabeth Edwards. It took a day or two, but just to speak out boldly for a vision of God in full awesomeness, God at our moment of complete and utter vulnerability, was just too much for the progressive nihilists. It's a rare thing, but shock-proof demons of the leftist netherworld were indeed shocked. The attacks followed. I was "Donald Dick" for refusing to embrace Elizabeth Edwards' non-belief. Another gleefully exclaimed that someone needed "to take a shot at Donald Douglas." And of course SEK blew his wad before he'd even consummated the information I'd posted. And upon receiving my response (linked to LGM), SEK proceeded to swiftly threaten death. It's always that way with progressives:

The Donalde, I am absolutely serious here: try to drive traffic to your shit site one more time on this thread and I will end you. Remember, before I taught composition, I taught journalism, and some of my former students are very, very intrepid.

So I’m only going to say this once: diminish the experience of cancer to a cancer survivor again and you’ll learn exactly how great of a teacher I am. That’s the deal: you be a fucking human being and allow that scoring points by writing “trending” instead of “dying” is a cheap tactic that makes you a terrible person, and no one I’ve taught will prove you’re a terrible person. This is your first and only warning.

I allow nothing short of indicating SEK's Stalinism.

I'll have more later, in any case.

Why Elizabeth Edwards Left Out God

According to David Gibson, at Politics Daily, "Why Elizabeth Edwards Left God out of Her Last Goodbye." (My initial post is cited.)

Read it all at the link.

Gibson basically apologizes for Mrs. Edwards' rejection of God. But he allows himself a key admission:

Whatever Elizabeth Edwards believed at the hour of her death is known only to God ...

And here's this from the comments:

Wow David, you have gone to great lengths to try to convince us that non-belief is belief. Perhaps we can all agree that now Elizabeth knows the truth ...

Word.

Religion Writers Ponder Elizabeth Edwards' Faith

Some of my musings are finding their way around and about, in a winding fashion at least: "Elizabeth Edwards’ Faith in ... What?"

The link there goes to GetReligion, "‘Power of Resilience and Hope’."

If you’re looking for reflections on God and religion in mainstream news coverage of Elizabeth Edwards’ death, the hunt may take a while.

Mentions here and there of faith, grace and religion punctuate major obituaries reviewed by your GetReligionistas. But in general, the reports stop short of meaty details on what Edwards believed and even if she had a particular religious affiliation.

Religion ghosts, anyone?

Following the links at the post takes us to a number of other writers, as well as the Christianity Today post cited here earlier. Folks are making a lot out of the Adele Stan piece I dug up from the American Prospect, and as noted Ms. Stan wasn't too thrilled that I cited her work. But the issue of Edwards' faith is obviously an important one. People with mature sensiblities on religion aren't shirking from the topic, although perhaps some MFM types aren't that mature. And the constroversies continue around the 'sphere this afternoon, with a bunch of hate tweets on Twitter and a death threat in the comments at LGM.

I'll have more on all of this later.

Elizabeth Edwards Died Before Leftists Could Figure Out WTF Was Going On

Folks at Lawyers, Gays and Money are all about "close reading skills," so no doubt the fellow hatemasters at LGM will nudge SEK toward a correction:

I repeat: the first words Donald Douglas writes about the death of a mother of three is, and I quote, “[t]he story’s trending.”

I repeat: “[t]he story’s trending.”

That’s what death is to him: an opportunity to capitalize, via traffic, from the death of a political opponent. That Donald Douglas doesn’t even go through the motions–can’t even fathom that her acceptance of her fate was hers own, and accomplished with dignity, says something more terrible about Donald Douglas than anything I could write.

She wasn't dead, Scott. Better get back to that "great" teaching you're boasting about. You obviously don't have time to blog.

And while I got a kick out of Adele Stan at AlterNet, you, Scott, have made my day: "Dancing On Elizabeth Edwards' Grave?"

Dancing On Elizabeth Edwards' Grave?

I wrote my entry on Elizabeth Edwards Monday afternoon. Edwards had just released her final statement. She died the next morning. I have prayed for her. As noted, I was surprised she made no mention of faith in God. The post got some attention from the nihilist fever swamps yesterday, but we're in pure gold territory this morning. Turns out Adele Stan picked up on my commentary at AlterNet, and she bungles it: "Righties Dance on Elizabeth Edwards' Grave -- And Use My Reporting to Do It":

Elizabeth Edwards, who died yesterday, has not yet been buried, but that hasn't stopped some from attacking her for being true to her personal theology even to the very end: a theology that does not include the concept of Christian salvation. They're using a column I wrote three years ago to make their case in a most uncharitable manner.

Essentially the Christianity Today, representing the respectable, serious side of the religious right -- picked it up. And that's just nasty. Or bitter. Or nihlistic.

I'm not sure how "august" Christianity Today is, but it was actually Wonkette that sent the post viral. And lots of folks have been snarking about "staying classy," which is of course what Demon TBogg does at his post: "Donald Dick." But the best so far is the pathetic racism-enabler BJ Keefe, who does an awful imitation of Sadly No! See, "Wingnut Taste."

In any case, I'm not "dancing on Elizabeth Edwards' grave." And I'm not holding my breath for a correction either.

BONUS: I've got a Memeorandum thread from my previous updates.

Imagine There's No Hatred

From the comments at Wonkette: "Would it be too much to wish this guy a painful cancer of the asshole?"

But hey, these folks are from the enlightened left. No doubt John Lennon would be proud. See "'Imagine' - A Lasting Hymn to Controversy."

And FWIW, at Rolling Stone, "John Lennon's Last Days."

Opiate of the Masses

This guy, at the demonic ridicule machine, while crude, is about the only one over there with any brains:

I couldn’t resist leaving a comment (along with several dozen other folks), and was surprised to see that it appeared almost immediately. This is a little creepy – comments must be approved, and he’s apparently approving ‘em as quickly as they come in. The guy is digging it, people: Donald Dick is without shame; he’s feeding on the negative comments, and no doubt every nihilistic, atheistical comment he gets just reinforces his twisted religious beliefs.

Word.

I've been getting hella kick out of these God-hating freaks:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

-- Karl Marx, "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right."

Walmart's New Homeland Security Monitoring Program?

The Walmartization of national security, or something.

CNN reports: "Homeland Security Teams Up With Walmart for Safety."

Hey, how 'bout next we have "If you see an illegal alien reconquistador, say something." That'd be a lot better than DHS stumping for the DREAM Act.

Progressives and Obama's Tax Cut Deal

There's talk of progressive defection from the Democrat coalition in 2012, but I guess the alternative isn't too appealing: "Some People Are Ready to Vote for a Caribou Killer in 2012, If Necessary." That said, maybe Obambi'll be primaried in 2012? I used to totally discount the possibility. Now not so much. See, Mara Liasson, "Democrats Frustrated Over Obama Tax Deal With GOP," Jennifer Rubin, "The Democrat Blame Game," Katrina vanden Heuval, "Obama: On the way to a failed presidency?", and Dave Dayen, "President Lashes Out at the Left: “This Country Was Founded on Compromise”."

And especially, Matt Bai (FWIW), "Murmurs of Primary Challenge to Obama" (via Memeorandum).

Rest in Peace: Elizabeth Edwards Dies of Cancer at 61

Pray for Elizabeth Edwards. Pray for her soul. We need to, since lefties won't do it. My good friend Cheri on Twitter has been praying for Mrs. Edwards, and we will continue to pray for her in eternity and for her family today:

Cheri decided to pray after I sent her this post and a following tweet: "She's very outspoken on being anti-God... And leftists are mad I pointed it out, amazingly." And Cheri replied: "Oh YES! I am sure the lefties will chase you around for that. Very sad...It is an eternal not PC issue!"

Exactly.

It's not a PC issue whatsoever. At death's door, Elizabeth Edwards lost her faith. I was taken aback when I read her statement yesterday. She had put her faith in hope, but not in God. And it's sad that there was no greater body of spirit upon which Mrs. Edwards could draw. But it's also sad that her supposed champions have descended to the putrid depths of recrimination. Yet, I welcome this. Look at the vile hatred spewing from my comments. They hate the truth of Elizabeth Edwards' rejection of God, her nihilism in the face of the awesome unknown. And they hate not only that I have stressed it, but also the fact that one of their own partisans applauded it --- yes, applauded it just as radical progressives applaud John Lennon's irreligious anthem, "Imagine." But again, let us pray. We pray for those so injured by the truth of their revealed anti-religious doctrines, for those who espouse fake references to the Word of God. It is on this ideological plain where we meet hatred with heart. Let us pray for those who hate. Let us raise our hands to Him so that he will lead them to love and not vengeance. Pray so they will rejoice in something good and righteous. So that they will relinquish that which drives them to rage. Let us hope to Heaven that they will reject their nihilism.

We pray for those like this wounded soul at Wonkette:

I stopped praying a long time ago. God does not seem to be too interested in my life or my problems. Evangelicals have perpetrated a huge fraud on the unsuspecting masses. The bastards on Wall Street giggle and guffaw while the masses are on their knees praying to be able to make ends meet, feed the kids or not get evicted from their apartment.

Of course, Elizabeth left God out of her statement. She's lost a son. She's lost her health. Her husband humiliated her and continues to do so. Of the big three, Love, Health and Family, that Elizabeth had she was screwed out of all of them in some way.

The world belongs to those who lie, cheat and steal. Just ask Julian Assange.

If there is a God, it is not compassionate. The best argument that God doesn't exist is that republitards believe in one wholeheartedly and with a passion that borders on hysteria.

New York Times has the obituary (via Memeorandum).

Julian Assange Arrested

At ABC News, "Wikileaks' Julian Assange Arrested in Britain for Sex Crimes: Assange Had Warned 'Doomsday Files' Will Be Opened If He Is Detained."

Also at Telegraph UK, "WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Arrested by Scotland Yard." Updates throughout the day.

6:30 AM: We've got a huge thread at Memeorandum. And video c/o Gateway Pundit and Google:

12:15 PM: At NYT, "British Court Denies Bail to Assange in Sex Inquiry," and at National Journal, "Assange Arrested; What Will U.S. Do Now?"

And Assange himself has an essay at The Australian, "WIKILEAKS deserves protection, not threats and attacks." And from the anti- anti-WikiLeaks clown Glenn Greenwald, "Anti-WikiLeaks lies and propaganda - from TNR, Lauer, Feinstein and more."

Plus, tabloid fodder at London's Daily Mail, "The Wikileaks sex files: How two one-night stands sparked a worldwide hunt for Julian Assange."

69th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor Attack

The main story's at USA Today, "For a Few, Pearl Harbor Still a Vivid Memory."

Jim Morgan was sleeping a little late on the morning of Dec. 7, 1941.
His mother, Beryl, had tried to wake him up at about 7:30, but the 9-year-old, whose family lived at the Navy base at Pearl Harbor, didn't stir until she came back about 25 minutes later.

He got up just in time to witness history out his bedroom window.

"I said, 'Look, Ma! There's a fire at the submarine base.' "

At that same moment, Russell Meyne was sitting down to a plate of pancakes, bacon and eggs in the mess hall at Pearl Harbor's Hickam Air Base, 2 miles away. He was hoping to revitalize himself after a night of drinking beer with his buddies, celebrating their selection to a group that would be heading to the mainland for flight training.

Suddenly, everything changed.

"The table almost bounced up and down, and all the pots and pans in the kitchen started falling on the floor," said Meyne, an Army private at the time, now 91 and treasurer of the South Carolina branch of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association.

"Then the bombing got really exciting."

Meyne and Morgan are among a dwindling number of people who can talk firsthand about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. As the 69th anniversary is marked today, it coincides with a week-long meeting of the national Pearl Harbor Survivors Association.

The group's numbers have dropped so low, the possibility of shuttering it was discussed at the Honolulu convention, which runs through Friday. Association President Art Herriford on Monday said about 100 members decided against disbanding. Instead, the association will have four district directors around the country instead of eight.

Out of 60,000 military personnel on the island during the attack, the association estimates only about 3,000 survivors still participate in chapters scattered across the country.

"This convention is all-important for the Pearl Harbor survivors," U.S. Army Air Corps veteran Jim Donis, 91, of Palm Desert, Calif., said before Monday's meeting. "This is going to be the first time we talk about when we want to shut down the national organization."

And also earlier at LAT:

The view from the San Diego-bound Amtrak Pacific Surfliner on Saturday was Americana 2010. Morning garage sales, youth soccer games, joggers on the beach and surfers in the ocean all flicked past at 80 mph.

Inside it was pure 1941, right down to the 1940s-era first-class lounge car, vintage Navy blue uniforms, Yank magazines and packages of Clove chewing gum.

Sixty-nine years after the attack on Hawaii's Pearl Harbor, veterans and their families, railroad buffs and World War II reenactors in period dress took to the rails Saturday to mark Tuesday's anniversary.

For passengers on the Pearl Harbor Day Troop Train ride — an annual event organized by a pair of railroad enthusiasts for the last eight years — it was a chance to hear firsthand accounts of the war from the people who fought it.

RTWT.

Also at LAT, "Two Neighbors, Both Pearl Harbor Survivors, Are Decades-Old Friends."

Review of Jamie Glazov's Showdown With Evil

By David Solway, at Pajamas Media, "The 'Unholy Alliance' Between Islamic Jihad and Utopian Socialism."

We recall that old parlor game: if you could take ten books with you to a desert island, what would they be? Obviously, the list is something of a “moveable feast” and may be modified as our tastes and intellectual needs change over the years, but this is a time in which certain books have become essential to our understanding of the tumultuous era we live in. Jamie’s Glazov’s Showdown With Evil, a selection of FrontPage interviews that he has conducted for the site over the last eight years, is one of those “desert island” books, meant to illumine and accompany us in discretionary solitude.

And the forward by Richard Perle is at Frontpage Mag.

And the book is here: Showdown With Evil: Our Struggle Against Tyranny and Terror.

Bush Beats Obama in Gallup's Latest Presidential Ratings

At Fire Andrea Mitchell, "George W. Bush Job Approval Rating Now Higher Than Obama’s on Gallup."

RELATED: "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You."

Robert Gates Says 'Don't Ask' Repeal Unlikely This Year

At LAT:

The Defense secretary tells sailors that if courts overturn the law banning gays serving openly in the military, the Pentagon will have less flexibility to transition.

Also at Politico.

Wal-Mart Gender Discrimination Case Heads to Supreme Court

This thing is huge.

At NYT, "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wal-Mart Appeal":

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal in the biggest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history, one claiming that Wal-Mart Stores had discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women in pay and promotion. The lawsuit seeks back pay that could amount to billions of dollars.

The question before the court is not whether there was discrimination but rather whether the claims by the individual employees may be combined as a class action. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability.

If nothing else, many pending class actions will slow or stop while litigants and courts await the decision in the case. Arguments in the case are likely to be heard this spring, with a decision expected by the end of June.

Wal-Mart, which says its policies expressly bar discrimination and promote diversity, said the plaintiffs, who worked in 3,400 stores in 170 job classifications, could not possibly have enough in common to make class-action treatment appropriate.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has granted review in this important case,” Wal-Mart said in a brief statement. “The current confusion in class-action law is harmful for everyone — employers, employees, businesses of all types and sizes and the civil justice system. These are exceedingly important issues that reach far beyond this particular case.”

There has been no ruling yet on the plaintiffs’ claims that they were discriminated against, and the ground rules for how those claims will be heard have not yet been determined. Resolution of the merits of the plaintiffs’ case will now await a decision about whether it may go forward as a class action.

In their brief urging the justices to deny review, the plaintiffs said Wal-Mart’s objection to class-action treatment boiled down to the enormous size of the class. But size is “legally irrelevant,” the brief said.

“The class is large because Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest employer,” the brief said, “and manages its operations and employment practices in a highly uniform and centralized manner.”

Brad Seligman, the main lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Monday that plaintiffs welcomed the court’s review of the limited issue and were confident that the justices would rule in their favor.

“Wal-Mart has thrown up an extraordinarily broad number of issues, many of which, if the court seriously entertained, could very severely undermine many civil rights class actions,” Mr. Seligman said.

In April, an 11-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled by a 6-to-5 vote that the class action could go forward.

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, writing for the majority, said the company’s policies and treatment of women were similar enough that a single lawsuit was both efficient and appropriate. He added that the six women who represent the class, four of whom have left Wal-Mart, had claims typical of the other plaintiffs.