No, the government won't parent your kids.

Judge tosses out California's law restricting sale of violent video games. Where are kids getting this kind of money in the first place? And in the second place, who cares what they do in their own apartment? If parents let this kind of stuff in their homes, they deserve what they get.

I wasn't fooled for a second

by the hoax. First, it sounded like a hoax. Who cares about Mao anymore? And second, I don't waste my time with the MSM. With their track record, anything offered as proof that conservatives want to violate everybody's rights is probably fraudulent or misrepresented. Until professional journalists learn to tell truth from propaganda, their industy will continue to be in trouble. Print media is on the skids in any event, and people are less likely to pay for internet content than for something tangible even if it doesn't turn their fingers black and fill up landfills.

Merry Christmas!

I must seem like a Scrooge to my neighbors, because I never put up any lights. I think it's easier to imagine that night without all the lights interfering with the stars.

I prefer to think that I'd offer my home to a traveler and his young wife expecting her first child. Maybe next year, I'll get a "Vacancy" sign and a single star.

One of my favorite scriptures for Christmas is this one:

And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.

And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.

And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.

Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.

And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.

And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.

This is why we celebrate his birth. The date and the pagan customs associated with it are not important. What they have come to mean is: "Peace on Earth. Good will to men."

Sorry, Virginia, that question is out of order.

The Deseret Morning News today republished the old chestnut from the New York Sun of 108 years ago. It occurred to me that the New York Times would these days have answered this little girl with, "No, Virginia, there's no Santa, but there is a Grinch and he lives in the White House."

The news you're not getting

is that Bush's approval numbers have been trending upward since he began to speak back to the accusations against him. Mickey Kaus speculates that another domestic spying scandal and he'll hit 60%.

Of course, the warrantless wiretaps of phone numbers found on Al Qaeda computers is not the same, in the minds of most Americans, as, say, the Watergate Burglary, or political dirty tricks. To call this domestic spying is at best a distortion, a "foolish consistency" which alarms civil libertarians who would burn down the building to keep a piece or two of furniture from being taken.

Liberties are not necessarily rights. Certainly, privacy, or that extreme conception of it that has become the enemy of normative values, has a lesser claim, being found only in the penumbrae and emanations of the Constitution, than the right to life mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. We've already sacrificed more than 3,000 lives to the denial in which the left has immersed itself. I don't believe that people who know they could be next are inclined to go back to the 1990's when such things were treated as mere crimes rather than acts of war.

We'll be told endlessly that Bush's moves to protect us are impeachable offenses, but keep your eyes on the "out of the mainstream" blogs, talk radio hosts and cable news networks to get a balanced account.

If you just want the liberal slant. anything will do. But remember the words of Justice Jackson, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." After 9/11, that statement seems pretty obvious, which is why it has been so roundly criticized by liberals, who also keep claiming that the Patriot Act will open our library records to be scanned routinely for interest in forbidden topics, as if the courts would be so dull that they couldn't distinguish such abuses from legitimate applications.

Today's Best -- Playing Dumb

of Best of the Web (Scroll down to the phrase We Didn't Have English Class):

Last week Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate minority leader, boasted to a Democratic gathering that "we killed the Patriot Act." Perhaps realizing that this was not the most appealing message to send to voters outside the Bush-hating base, Reid took to the Senate floor Monday and offered an apology of sorts:

Mr. President, maybe I didn't have the education of a lot of my friends. I was educated in a little school in Searchlight, NV. We didn't have English class. Maybe my choice of words wasn't perfect. Maybe I should have said we killed the conference report. But the fact is, that is what we had done. People can try to change the words and the meaning of it all they want, but that is what happened. I may not have the ability to express myself like the folks who were educated in all these private schools and fancy schools, but I understand the Senate rules. Everyone knows that cloture was defeated, killed, whatever you want to call it. That means that cloture was defeated and that bill is still before the Senate.

This is the same Harry Reid who, a little over a year ago, called Justice Clarence Thomas "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court" because "I think that his opinions are poorly written." If Reid's literacy is as defective as he himself claims it is, doesn't this make him, by his own standard, an embarrassment to the Senate?

Further, if Reid never even had an English class, what qualifies him to evaluate Justice Thomas's writings? Or was he merely stereotyping Thomas as unintelligent because of his race, in the manner of ignorant men throughout history?

I also wonder, if he's that ignorant, how did he get through law school? Shouldn't the people of Nevada take more care in selecting its senators?

The change is complete

The NYTimes has morphed into the Daily Kos.

This is not a legal or political issue!

Intelligent Design, that is. It should be part of science that nothing is ever completely proven. There have been occasions where people announce the end of science because everything there was to know had been discovered. It never turns out to be true, though.

Science like other fields of endeavor is subject to fads, and our system provides doctoral students lots of incentives to debunk old theories. There are all kinds of cases where the scientific dogmatists of one era have poured abuse on some new idea or theory, only to have it verified over time, making them look like fools.

That point should be taught to science students. All students should be taught critical thinking skills, including logic, fallacies and rhetorical tricks. All you'd need for a textbook would be a typical evening of broadcast tv. Intelligent design is based on the common sense that when you find a pocket watch on the path, you don't assume it just self-assembled there. The argument has been made against evolution that the variety of life on earth is like blowing up a print shop and producing the King James Bible. However, that view should not be taught as proven or true, but merely as a question or a setting into which Darwin's theories came forth.

I personally believe that evolution is the means by which creation takes place, i.e. that God's power is scientific. That he is limited by laws and principles in the same way we are, but not necessarily all of the same ones.

It's Mr. Bill Time: Oh, N-o-o-o!

Hugh Hewitt is interviewing Eugene Volokh about this report in US News & World Report about the FBI watching mosques and homes of Muslims for radioactivity which could be related to a dirty bomb or a fission bomb.

I don't know what the FBI knows, but I'm certainly in favor of their taking this threat seriously.

The pipeline that feeds the moonbats.

Are reporters whiney or what? This will be sucked up and recycled as an instance of Cheney's disdain for the good of the nation.

Instapundit links to a a debunking of the Little Red Book story, but you can rest assured that it will continue to be a staple of the Democrat rant.

Not limited to reporters

Claudia Rosett:

It’s an old rule of thumb in the reporting trade that when someone answers a good question with a bad attitude (especially someone as seasoned as the chief diplomat of the world), there is probably something there that deserves a closer look.

It's a good rule in any kind of argument or investigation. I've noted a similar hostile response to people who ask why scientists don't talk more about the holes in evolution theory. It seems that scientists should always be openminded, especially when they're probing the fabric of the universe and talking about other dimensions, branes, black holes, etc.

They readily resort to Intelligent Design argument when they claim that some rock found in an archeological site is an "artifact," i.e. a man made tool. Nobody is bothered by that, but to say that nothing found in nature can be said to show engineering or design strikes me as odd, especially when they refer to evolution "designing" things or attributing reasons for a particular structure of function as they do incessantly in science documentaries.

Another example of this phenomenon, rage masking embarrassment or guilt, seems to be the reason why the moonbat left is so full of rage, hatred and profanity toward George Bush and his policies. These people proceed from a lot of a priori assumptions that narrow the rules to help their side. "All wars are evil. For Americans to engage in war is evil, but killing Americans is understandable and excusable. Socialism is the best system. America is cruel and greedy. Conservatives like to see the poor suffer and are cruel, as well as stupid. The debate should focus on these assumptions but the angry left just spout them as though they were obvious. It's easy to argue when you get to pick your own facts. We see the same tropes over and over coming from the left, with never a shred of evidence or proof. Only suspicions and assumptions. Once an accusation is made, it is immediately accepted as proven, without reservations.

The Scientific Method is a myth?

According to Professor Alexander George it is. There is no exclusive path to knowledge. To the extent Intelligent Design argues that the existence of a creator is proven, it is as inadmissible as the claim that science proves there is none.

What's wrong with Muslims?

Stephen Schwartz points to a number of reasons, such as the threat of being expelled from their mosques.

One of the things that has always polluted religion is the tendency of clerics to resort to strongarm tactices to enforce their views of doctrine. That's why the Catholic Church became a worldly power and kept its people ignorant and its scriptures in Latin. It's why the Rabbis dominate Judaism after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and the priests who had officiated there no longer had anything to do for a living. Rabbis are what the New Testament calls "scribes" and "lawyers." They have no real authority from God as the Levites and the Sons of Aaron had. They saw a vacuum and moved into it. The same thing happened in the Christian churches when the Apostles, who were the source of revelation and guidance from God, disappeared. The remaining bishops, who were all local authorities with equal powers argued and wrangled over doctrine for many years accusing each other of heresy until the strong won, and the weak were burned at the stake. Is that how God operates?

Islam's prophet, Mohammed, may or may not have been a true prophet, but either way, we have his revelation through a long period of oral transmission and editing by scholars who themselves had no authority. Such people invest everything in their own interpretations and fear authentic revelation. They use the worldly powers of censorship, money, personal attacks and even violence to hold on to their influence. It is no surprise then that when the Saudis became fabulously wealthy, their Wahhabism began to spread throughout the world's Muslim communities, through training Wahhabi imams and building Mosques and furnishing literature to be read by young Muslims.

Islam teaches that there is nothing especially sacred or holy about a mosque. It does not have the concept of a priesthood or any true central authorities as the Jews once did or as the Catholics do today. By what authority then do Wahhabist imams threaten people and exclude them from mosques? The only authorities in Islam turn out to be their version of Rabbis and Bishops, people who obtained educations and were able to cite philosophy and learning to support their positions.
Mohammed taught that all Muslims are equal, but it hasn't turned out that way. When there is a vacuum of power, it will be filled by those who desire power.

The Muslims, Jews and Christians need to turn to God personally, pray to him from their hearts and ask what they should do, not in prayers written by others, but speaking their own words to him and listening to their feelings. God communicates through the spirit which is decribed as a still, small voice, dreams and visions, but those revelations only come when one is persistant is being humble, penitent and virtuous. There are some easy ways to recognize truth, however. It doesn't come through people who exclude others from their churches or assert that without learning people are less worthy of esteem. Anybody who calls upon his followers to kill people as infidels or to deprive others of their freedom to choose what to believe or how to worship is not from God.

For this eternal truth is given,
That God will force no man to heaven.

I believe that if Muslims could read the Book of Mormon without being intimidated, they would find that revelation has not ceased. Prophecy has not ceased. God's love and involvement with mankind has not ceased. False prophets abound, but he will show those who approach him sincerely and humbly where to find his truth.

Reports of the death of the Patriot Act

seem to have been exaggerated.

Center for Citizen Media

It's too soon to tell for sure, but I don't like the idea of Academia getting involved in blogging. Like all these conferences where prominent bloggers get together in L.A. New York, Washington, Boston or San Francisco and present papers to each other, I wonder what they hope to accomplish other than establish themselves as authorities on the phenomenon. I don't trust the idea that I need to go to Berkeley for guidance on blogging.

I have nothing against Dan Gillmor. I don't know him personally, but he seems like a perfectly good guy. Nevertheless, I worry that projects that start up "to study, encourage and help enable" a new thing in the world will end up co-opting it. The rest of the media goes to the new Institute to get information, and bloggers like me who aren't connected to the coastal Establishments and the academic networks will be ignored or marginalized. I might be wrong, but if blogging is truly "emergent" it doesn't need any guidance, encouragement or enabling. It will find its own course. I would hate it if blogging were to become the new MSM.

Another concern I have is that I and other rural bloggers not directly in contact with primary news sources, who only comment on news, will be seen as quaint, odd or irrelevant. I'm not a self-promoter. Whenever I try, I find it intimidates me. I don't want to be an authority, just a voice. I'm very aware of my limitations. Sometimes I post things, and then learn that I didn't understand what was going on completely. I did that once about a post by Jay Rosen. By the time he contacted me about my initial post, I had caught it and corrected it, fortunately. I was actually quite amazed to learn that he had read my comments. Ah, the power of Technorati, Memeorandum and Google.

If they want to help bloggers, they could encourage better searching tools. I'm somewhere on the level of a liver fluke in N. Z. Bear's ecosystem, but I don't plan on making a living by blogging. I'd like to see something along the lines of Memeorandum with a little broader reach to highlight bloggers who have something interesting to say, but don't get 20,000 hits a day.

I just hope that "Citizen Media" doesn't end up sounding like The Democratic People's Republic.

The Media Today

Andrew Sullivan seems to have taken his testosterone recently. If President Bush has been getting "a free ride," I'd hate to see what all out resistance looks like.

Max Boot wonders where all that indignation about revealing classified information, such as Valerie Plame's name and occupation, went?

Indeed.

According to Opinion Journal's Political Diary, Harry Reid's giddy claiming credit for killing the patriot act may not have been so smart, in hindsight:

What is clear is that Democrats are starting to worry they will pay a political price for their obstructionism. President Bush may be facing difficulties over the war in Iraq, but there's no doubt that when the subject turns to protecting the American mainland against terrorism, he's playing on a home field.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid didn't do his party any favors last Friday when he openly boasted to a group of political supporters that by their successful filibuster Senate Democrats had "killed the Patriot Act." When he was then asked if defeating the Patriot Act was a reason to celebrate, he replied: "Of course it is."

Apparently a lot of Americans still remember the sight of airplanes flying into the WTC and Pentagon. I remember the sickening realization that what looked like debris falling from the towers was actually people who had jumped to avoid burning to death. I'll never think of 9/11 without feeling it in my gut. I really did think that everybody who saw those images would have been changed by them. I guess I was wrong.

Harry Reid is a fanatic.* He and his colleagues don't seem to realize that using the filibuster to block votes on important legislation, thus holding it hostage, doesn't look as heroic as they think. George Bush does. I know the elites in the press and academia don't get that, but most of us do. Frankly, I trust his judgment more than I do most judges I've known. Harry Reid and the others (cough, RussFeingold) seem to have forgotten that the President has more power as the head of another branch of the government than any of them alone has.

While I'm on that, it should be mentioned that the belief that all searches and seizures without a warrant are per se unreasonable and violations of the Constitution. But that's not what the Fourth Amendment says.

Richard Posner blows away the fog surrounding the Domestic Spying issue.

* "one who redoubles his efforts after he has forgotten what his aim was" according to George Santayana

They can't handle the truth

Ed Koch speaks truth to the Demorat powers:

I wish The Times and members of Congress were not so eager to demean the President of the U.S. and his advisers, holding them up to scathing denunciation when we are at war. They should realize that the President feels very strongly his obligation to protect us from terrorists overseas and their supporters in this country -- in World War II, such supporters were called Quislings. The critics have short memories. In the 1993 and 9/11 (2001) attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. suffered nearly 3,000 deaths and more than 1,000 injured.

The Times has every right to disagree with the President’s action in dispensing with the court set up for this purpose. But it harms the country when it treats the President unfairly with the language and contemptuous tone it now regularly employs.

The President is not a dictator which, in effect, Congressman Charles Rangel called him when comparing him with disgraced Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. Nor is he a criminal intentionally violating the U.S. Constitution and the civil liberties of our citizens, . . ..

For several years Republican and Democratic leaders have been briefed on what the President was doing and declined to protest or bring the disputed procedures to the attention of the House and Senate. They could have done so using closed sessions so as not to alert the enemy. Instead, they allowed the President to continue the surveillance.

Now the press and some of those members of Congress by their public revelations have alerted the enemy to the surveillance program. And the media and some members of Congress have forgotten or don’t care that we are at war and their disclosures may have prevented the administration from obtaining information otherwise available that would help military and law enforcement authorities to deter acts of terrorism here and abroad.

Koch doesn't agree with going the warrantless route, but the President does have that power, and it doesn't appear to me that he abused it. As I've said before, let those who were harmed come forward and make their case, because the New York Times and all the critics here have no standing to complain about a program which benefited them and did them no harm. We've become used to metaphysical arguments about civil liberties adapted from philosophy but with no real legal basis.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board has more sense. It expressses thanks to the President for protecting us and singles out Russ Feingold for his liberal stupidity:

The usual assortment of Senators and media potentates is howling that the wiretaps are "illegal," done "in total secret," and threaten to bring us a long, dark night of fascism. "I believe it does violate the law," averred Mr. Feingold on CNN Sunday.

The truth is closer to the opposite. What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.

And there is continuing evidence that the press can't be trusted with this kind of information.

Legalizing more misery

Glenn Reynolds on election of Evo Morales in Bolivia who plans to legalize coca production:

Legalize the stuff, tax it like tobacco, and let the trial lawyers sue sellers for any product defects or dangers. Morales won't know what hit him.

I assume he's saying this tongue in cheek. The theory of legalizing drugs is that it would take the profit out of the trade by allowing addicts to get drugs as low prices at clinics, thus eliminating the crime associated with use of illegal drugs.

What would be the incentive for suing over the product quality of legalized drugs? If nobody is making money from selling them, what's left for the trial lawyers? Suppose businesses were marketing various brands of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, etc. Surely the government would require them to put warning notices on their products. Unless the businesses committed fraud by claiming that their products were safe to use, or not addictive, the trial lawyers would have no case. The government would have to absorb the social costs, as it does with alcohol--social costs like child abuse and neglect, broken families, deaths and property damages due to drug use. Would insurance companies agree to cover such things? Possibly, but what would their rates have to be?

I just don't understand how exchanging crime costs for the effects of currently illegal drugs being as widely available as tobacco and alcohol works out as a good tradeoff. One thing I am sure of, though, is that there wouldn't be a whole lot for the trial lawyers to go after.

I'll bet his mother would be proud.

Harry Reid on Friday: "Think of what happened twenty minutes ago in the United States Senate. We killed the Patriot Act." If I had just succeeded in putting America back to the rules that were in effect prior to 9/11 which prevented our security agencies from sharing information, I wouldn't be bragging about it.

George Santayana is quoted: "A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim." I can't think of a better description of the Democrats at this stage. They have no proposals or alternatives. They don't seem to care about the threat of terrorism or even remember what happened on 9/11/2001. They only hate George Bush and want to make it harder for the majority to govern. After all, isn't that the ony reason for a filibuster?

The President is not the enemy

Ed Koch speaks truth to Democrat powers:

I wish The Times and members of Congress were not so eager to demean the President of the U.S. and his advisers, holding them up to scathing denunciation when we are at war. They should realize that the President feels very strongly his obligation to protect us from terrorists overseas and their supporters in this country -- in World War II, such supporters were called Quislings. The critics have short memories. In the 1993 and 9/11 (2001) attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. suffered nearly 3,000 deaths and more than 1,000 injured.

The Times has every right to disagree with the President’s action in dispensing with the court set up for this purpose. But it harms the country when it treats the President unfairly with the language and contemptuous tone it now regularly employs.

The President is not a dictator which, in effect, Congressman Charles Rangel called him when comparing him with disgraced Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. Nor is he a criminal intentionally violating the U.S. Constitution and the civil liberties of our citizens, . . .

For several years Republican and Democratic leaders have been briefed on what the President was doing and declined to protest or bring the disputed procedures to the attention of the House and Senate. They could have done so using closed sessions so as not to alert the enemy. Instead, they allowed the President to continue the surveillance.

Now the press and some of those members of Congress by their public revelations have alerted the enemy to the surveillance program. And the media and some members of Congress have forgotten or don’t care that we are at war and their disclosures may have prevented the administration from obtaining information otherwise available that would help military and law enforcement authorities to deter acts of terrorism here and abroad.

Koch criticizes Bush for not having these orders submitted to a FISA court, but you have to remember that even this critical top secret ended up being leaked to the press. Nothing that goes on in Washington, apparently, can be kept secret. Every disgruntled fool who convinces himself that what the administration is doing is wrong feels justified in leaking secrets to the press.

Personally, I think the Justice Department should have a grand jury subpoena everybody at the NYTimes from the publishers and editors on down and if they refuse to tell how they got this leak, toss them in jail until they do. The press is not above the law. And when it violates the law it should be held accountable. We cannot have classes in this country who aren't accountable for anything they do, whether it be Justices who usurp the right to make policy or media who place their political views ahead of national security. We know now that every president since Reagan has authorized warrantless surveillance like this.

Sic Transit Gloria Unioni

Why are unions losing public support? Because they don't care about the people they claim to be serving. In my experience, that often includes their own workers.

I gotta get more books

Just read this quotation (under heading "Wile E. Coyote") from George Sanayana:

A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim.

Remind you of anybody? Or any particular group? (Actually, I'm assuming that most Americans are interested in not being subjected to more terrorist attacks. Some Bush-hate-lers might welcome new terrorist attacks, if they thought it might help Democrats' chances in the next election.)

It goes nicely with the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

Listen Up!

Having heard the explanation of how the NSA eavesdropping programs worked, everybody who is seriously worried that his/her communications with Al Qaeda have been illegally intercepted raise your hands! You may register by filling out the forms available at the exit.

Have your rights been violated by the NSA? You may be entitled to big bucks! Contact our firm at the number below to pursue your claim!

Any takers?

The turnaround

The revelation that the President authorized NSA monitoring of Al Qaeda communications with cells in the U.S. Has been out for a few days. Why did the NYTimes hold it for a year before releasing it? Maybe because it's promoting a new book by the story's lead reporter. Maybe it was timed to torpedo the extension of the Patriot Act. It certainly has brought out plenty of the usual angry posturing about "spying on American citizens.

But this time, it feels different. Bush came out swinging. We've never seen him so . . . so outraged, so assertive, so combative. He made the case that this disclosure was a scandal not for him but for the Times, and though he didn't say it in so many words, much, much more violative of national security than the penny ante Plame revelation. He didn't duck the fact that he had authorized this monitoring, and he wasn't the least abashed by it. He made a strong case that he had the authority to do this as part of his oath of office, which is set forth in the Constitution and his role as Commander in Chief. He has made a logical, and reasonable case for the need to take such actions. And who can argue that his concerns about this being leaked were not well-founded. It would have been much more difficult to keep secret if it had to go through other offices and branches. He confided in some high level members of Congress, but somebody blabbed. And so they will have to start over to find out how Al Qaeda communicates. If it succeeds next time in an operation here, and kills more Americans, it will be an easy case to make that the New York Times bears part of the blame.

There's a sense that Bush's shaking off his passivity in the face of overheated rhetoric from the Democrats. His refusal to answer in kind has led many to see it as an admission.

No more. His anger and forceful logic are reminding people of the seriousness of this struggle and explained why we have had no repeats of 9/11 for four years. I think that anyone with common sense would know that the war was being fought in secret; we had been told so. But this confirmation that it was so should prove sobering, and his poll numbers, which had languished below 40%, have been rebounding.

We see the kind of concerns he has been living with as President, and can sense the pressure and worries of the job.

I, for one, am glad, and feel my faith has been confirmed.

The Fat's in the Fire

And the Bush pushback is proceeding apace. The president has tried for 5 years to refrain from returning the bile of the Democrats and the negative spin from the media. He's finally decided that such restraint doesn't work in Washington. When people show there is no limit to what they'll accuse you of for political gain, you have to slam it back in their faces.

I've been saying for the last four years that this obsession with privacy and libertarian extremism that would prevent the agencies we've created to protect us from doing so, when we know that there are terrorist cells operating in this country, is madness. There has to be a balance, and the resistance of those who would like to destroy the state and those who are paranoid about Big Brother government is endangering our safety. When you're dead, the fact that you maintained your privacy won't matter that much to you. If anything our courts are excessive in their protection of the rights these people obsess over. I am for democracy, meaning the right of the people to establish the laws under which they live, and, with the exception of invidious discrimination, the court's have no business imposing their own policies over those established by the people throught democratic measures.

If the founders had wanted a general, absolute right to privacy, they would have said so. What they did say is that the people have the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." What, you may wonder, is a reasonable search or seizure? It is one founded upon "probable cause," as determined by a judge in advance after reviewing a sworn affidavit stating the grounds for the warrant. However, the courts recognize that there are emergencies when you can't wait while an affidavit is typed, signed and notarized and a magistrate found to rule and issue a warrant. The typical case is an automobile in which the officer has probable cause to believe that a crime is being or has been committed and that the offender or important evidence is in the car. The courts allow the vehicle and people to be detained while a warrant is obtained. Reasonableness is the key.

I love this post!

Dr. Helen points to the psychological profile of activists.

Earlier, I started a post based on the theory that the reason Democrats are so full of rage and hatred toward George W. Bush because his performance contrasts so strongly with their own most recent occupant of the White House. In other words, they know their party has failed and that Bush has succeeded and they can't stand it. I didn't post it because I didn't have any psychological authority to back it up.

BTW, did you know that Dr. Helen's husband is also a blogger?

In the mood to watch an old fashioned fisking?

Then read Thomas Lifson's review of Howell Raines' latest opinion piece.

Who is this?

And what have you done with the real Washington Post editorial board?