Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Elizabeth has been advised by her doctors that further treatment of her cancer would be unproductive. She is resting at home with family and friends and has posted this message to friends on her Facebook page.
You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces—my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. And, yes, there are certainly times when we aren’t able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It’s called being human. But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn’t possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know.
I spent the weekend in Chicago, on behalf of the National Women's Editorial Forum, at a nonpartisan conference called BlogHer. There, Elizabeth Edwards took questions from an audience of women who blog ....
Every question asked of her seemed to be answered in an unusually open manner, especially when the topic of religion came up. Asked by Beth Corbin of Americans United for Separation of Church and State to explain how her faith beliefs inform her politics, Elizabeth Edwards gave an extraordinarily radical answer: She doesn't believe in salvation, at least not in the standard Christian understanding of it, and she said as much:
I have, I think, somewhat of an odd version of God. I do not have an intervening God. I don't think I can pray to him -- or her -- to cure me of cancer.
After the words "or her," Mrs. Edwards gave a little laugh, indicating she knew she had waded into water perhaps a bit deeper than the audience had anticipated. Then she continued:
I appreciate other people's prayers for that [a cure for her cancer], but I believe that we are given a set of guidelines, and that we are obligated to live our lives with a view to those guidelines. And I don't that believe we should live our lives that way for some promise of eternal life, but because that's what's right. We should do those things because that's what's right.
Wow, I thought. That sounds awfully like, "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try..." What's Jim Wallis gonna make of that? Haven't the campaign communications consultants schooled her in how to talk the God-talk?
This is interesting.
Clearly Elizabeth Edwards wants to put her faith in something, be it hope or strength or anything. But not God. I wonder if it's just bitterness, that she's been forsaken by more than just her estranged husband --- that she's been forsaken by Him. And imagine if she'd have become First Lady. Americans generally expect outward expressions of faith in our presidents, Christian faith especially, and thus in our First Ladies as well. The Democratic base obviously doesn't care, as we can see in the "wow factor" expressed by the author at the American Prospect. Being anti-religion is cool, so Edwards' non-theological theology gets props from the neo-communists. Still, at her death bed and giving what most folks are calling a final goodbye, Elizabeth Edwards couldn't find it somewhere down deep to ask for His blessings as she prepares for the hereafter? I guess that nihilism I've been discussing reaches up higher into the hard-left precincts than I thought.
President John F. Kennedy's retrospective public approval ratings have improved 27 points since the last months of his presidency. See Gallup, "Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest" (via Memeorandum and Weasel Zippers). Kennedy is the reason many young people become Democrats, myself especially. President Jimmy Carter, who's post-presidency rankings are tanking, is the reason many older people abandon the Democratic Party, and more recently Bill Clinton, myself included. And if President Carter's legacy has any inferential meaning for contemporary history, no doubt large numbers of young people today will also become alienated from the current Democratic president, who is likely to suffer from a disgraced public memory as well. That's why the current leadership has to prop itself up with a large population of recent immigrants and, in come cases, the undocumented. Democrats never ask what they can do for their country any longer, but what upper level income earners can do for them.
The idea of breaking up the currency zone raises at least three questions. First, why would a country choose to leave? Second, how would a country manage the switch to a new currency? Third—and perhaps most important—would leavers be better off outside the euro than inside it?
The main reason why a country might choose to leave the euro is to regain the monetary independence it sacrificed on joining and to set monetary policy to suit its own economic conditions. This could apply to the strong as well as the weak. Germans may long to have the Bundesbank in charge again. It would surely not take risks with long-term inflation, by keeping liquidity lines open to weak foreign banks, or with its political independence, by buying government bonds. And given the strength of the German economy, it might raise interest rates soon.
As it is, the European Central Bank (ECB), though based in Germany and modelled on the pre-euro Bundesbank, has had to react to the economic and financial weaknesses of the rest of the euro zone in ways that Germans do not like. Add to this taxpayers’ disgust at having to stand behind the public debts of less thrifty countries, and the idea of abandoning the euro looks enticing to some Germans. That appeal might extend to countries, such as Austria and Netherlands, with strong economic ties to Germany. They might prefer to join a new D-mark block than to stay with the euro, were Germany to leave.
It's gonna break up. I've suggested this a couple of times already, but I sense it's more than economics that's driving the shift, especially if it's Germany that first abandons ship.
Back during the racist Pale Scot episode, BJKeefe rejected David Horowitz's equation of leftist ideologies with the doctrines of epistemological nihilism. Of course such references are common, so I responded in the comments:
The left has recycled Soviet Marxism-Leninism, giving a pass to the murder of 100s of millions. When those apologies for totalitarianism --- what leftist refer to as "actually existing socialism" --- become a defense of a failed ideology, all you have left is utter nothingness, hence nihilism.
In response, BJ babbled something about my attempting to "twist the definition of nihilism to fit your own preconceived notions."
1a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.
2a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination
I tend to focus on the rejection of moralism (1b), which is clear in my longstanding discussion of the anarcho-socialist and the neo-communist left, but also the left's ideology of death and destruction (2b).
No doubt there's a long body of Western philosophy that examines the impact of nihilism on scientific developments and social thought. Thus, folks into these more refined discourses on nihilism --- that to which I suspect BJKeefe alludes, but does not elaborate --- may find the discussion from Sean Kelly interesting, at New York Times, "Navigating Past Nihilism":
“Nihilism stands at the door,” wrote Nietzsche. “Whence comes this uncanniest of all guests?” The year was 1885 or 1886, and Nietzsche was writing in a notebook whose contents were not intended for publication. The discussion of nihilism ─ the sense that it is no longer obvious what our most fundamental commitments are, or what matters in a life of distinction and worth, the sense that the world is an abyss of meaning rather than its God-given preserve ─ finds no sustained treatment in the works that Nietzsche prepared for publication during his lifetime. But a few years earlier, in 1882, the German philosopher had already published a possible answer to the question of nihilism’s ultimate source. “God is dead,” Nietzsche wrote in a famous passage from “The Gay Science.” “God remains dead. And we have killed him.”
There is much debate about the meaning of Nietzsche’s famous claim, and I will not attempt to settle that scholarly dispute here. But at least one of the things that Nietzsche could have meant is that the social role that the Judeo-Christian God plays in our culture is radically different from the one he has traditionally played in prior epochs of the West. For it used to be the case in the European Middle Ages for example ─ that the mainstream of society was grounded so firmly in its Christian beliefs that someone who did not share those beliefs could therefore not be taken seriously as living an even potentially admirable life. Indeed, a life outside the Church was not only execrable but condemnable, and in certain periods of European history it invited a close encounter with a burning pyre.
Whatever role religion plays in our society today, it is not this one. For today’s religious believers feel strong social pressure to admit that someone who doesn’t share their religious belief might nevertheless be living a life worthy of their admiration. That is not to say that every religious believer accepts this constraint. But to the extent that they do not, then society now rightly condemns them as dangerous religious fanatics rather than sanctioning them as scions of the Church or mosque. God is dead, therefore, in a very particular sense. He no longer plays his traditional social role of organizing us around a commitment to a single right way to live. Nihilism is one state a culture may reach when it no longer has a unique and agreed upon social ground.
More at the link, but that sounds fair enough to me, if a bit minimalist. Basically, societies that have lost an agreed upon consensus of the appropriate, of the boundaries of social mores and values, have become nihilist in the sense Sean Kelly offers. It's not just a matter of religious faith but the social construction of moral right and political order. To the extent today that radicals attack traditional values as extreme --- attacks on proponents of heterosexual marriage, for example --- we've clearly lost a good deal of the decency that derives from a more fundamental set of commitments. The left not only rejects those commitments, but is intent to literally destroy those who stand in the way. Recall Diana West's essay following the passage of Prop 8 in 2008: "The State is Being Set." And the left's dishonesty and anti-intellectualism continued in the federal courts. See Michelle's, "Judicial activism + far Left radical activism = Courtroom intimidation."
And of course this is true in so many other areas, on issues of war and peace, the science of climate change, and the existence of Israel. The anti-intellectual foundations of the today's left --- foundations that are in essence nihilist as discussed --- are destroying individuals and societies. Melanie Phillips' book covers much of this ground as well: The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power.
Back over at Kelly's essay, the discussion assesses whether societies can reach accomodation over values, perhaps so that the ideal of faith in God is not the sine qua non for a life of virtue. Specifically, we could reject the notion that non-believers are automatically nihilist, and Kelly cites the great American novelist Herman Melville for inspiration. So yes, the debate might continue. But for me it's not so much faith per se, but that of commitment itself to the pursuit of the good, and what we've seen repeatedly is how the left rejects that goodness, and when leftists can't win fair and square they resort to dishonestly, intimidation and violence. As Kelly notes earlier in the essay: "The threat of nihilism is the threat that freedom from the constraint of agreed upon norms opens up new possibilities in the culture only through its fundamentally destabilizing force."
And one of those agreed commitments is that we treat those of different races with respect --- that is, we don't abuse them with racist attacks and, even worse, defend those attacks with the most reprehensible evasions and distortions of truth imaginable. But unfortunately, that's the going program at RepRacist3's dungeon of nihilist hatred, where folks there think of me as the opposite of albino Johnny Winter. Nope, no colorblindness at RepRacist3's stalking nihilist asshat central:
These are bad people, well outside the accepted normative commitments of decency and right in society.
This sustained, collective inaction exemplifies the Obama administration's all-too-common attitude towards threats to America's international interests. The president, unlike the long line of his predecessors since Franklin Roosevelt, simply does not put national security at the centre of his political priorities. Thus, Europeans who welcomed Obama to the Oval Office should reflect on his Warren Harding-like interest in foreign policy. Europeans who believe they will never again face real security threats to their comfortable lifestyle should realise that if by chance one occurs during this administration, the president will be otherwise occupied. He will be continuing his efforts to restructure the US economy, and does not wish to be distracted by foreign affairs.
The more appropriate response is to prosecute everyone associated with these leaks to the fullest extent of US law, which the justice department at least appears to be considering. Next, we must stop oscillating between excessive stove-piping of information, as before 9/11, and excessive access, as demonstrated by WikiLeaks. There is no one final answer, but the balance must be under constant analysis. Finally, the Pentagon's cyber-warriors need target practice in this new form of combat, and they could long ago have practised by obliterating WikiLeaks' electrons. Had we acted after the first release in July, there might not have been subsequent leaks, and lives and critical interests would have been protected.
In case you missed it, there's the global environmental summit this week in Mexico, "UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun." Al Jazeera has your requisite climate change alarmism update:
Over 15,000 participants traveled by fossil fuel-burning jets to a conference where no real progress is expected. The Mexican government refused to provide an estimated "carbon footprint" for the event, and naturally the fabulous resort location at Cancun was once a pristine tropical mangrove forest, now destroyed, along with miles of corral reefs that formerly sustained ocean wildlife. And of course, this kind of bankrupt profligacy and hypocrisy hasn't escaped public notice. See Doug Powers, "Climate Change Scheme in Jeopardy: Scramble on to Retool Messaging Effort":
The number of Americans who believe that global warming is a scientific fact has been dropping, and environmental groups and climate scientists who say the evidence for warming is clear are scratching their heads over this reversal and scrambling to find a new strategy.
Three years ago, former Vice President Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for publicizing the threat of climate change with his book and documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth. After that, scientists rejoiced, says Dan Lashof, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
“We in the scientific community by and large said OK, the science debate is over, we are moving our efforts into what we are going to do about it. And that left the science debate in the public largely untended,” he says. “That has been recognized as a strategic error.”
A plot to redistribute the world’s wealth based on a movie produced by a guy who profits greatly from the solution to the “crisis” — why would anybody have a problem with that?
This sounds like the Democrats excuse going into the elections last month when it was clear their takeover ploys were being resoundingly rejected by the voting public: “It’s not that our plan is bad, it’s that we’re not communicating it well enough.”
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.
