Costa Rica

You will excuse, we hope, yet another long delay between posts. Finals and graduation necessitated the first long break, a two week trip to Costa Rica forces the next.

And, unlike James Taranto with Best of the Web, we aren't part of an institution (The Wall Street Journal) that allows us to send Political Diary to feed your need for an On Life and Lybberty fix.

In other news, we have been accepted onto programmes at Queen Mary and King's College--both part of the University of London system. University College (London) and Birkbeck remain unaccounted for.

While you wait for new installments, check out the archive. It is replete with pedestrian writing and plebian (some are pithy) comments. It may not be the intellectual and observational tour de force you were hoping (expecting?), but it is entertaining.

Read on.

Commencement

Last week we walked at BYU's graduation ceremonies. Though we wont officially graduate till after the completion of course work at the University of Cambridge later this summer, the history and tradition of graduation merits participation. Besides the usual graduation advice, the graduation ceremony harks back to a time when it was more than a changing of the tassel. Even today, instructors at institutions like Oxford and Cambridge wear their doctoral gowns as they teach.

At the Friday Convocation ceremony, retiring history professor, Dr. Frank Fox gave the main address. The following is a selection from that speech:

The unexamined life,” said Socrates, “is not worth living.”

Much of what you have acquired at BYU are the tools of examination. We have taught you how to examine the spatial world, the temporal world, the world of human relations, the world of thought and feeling, the world of ideas. And we have imparted gospel insights for keeping perspectives clear and priorities straight.

Yet it would surprise you to know how rare the examined life still is. Many of your predecessors have gone forth as pilgrims, never really examining anything, simply putting one foot ahead of the other, receiving whatever is offered by friends, by neighbors, by authorities, by the media, by those who are but pilgrims themselves—the blind leading the blind.

A few months ago, you put thousands of hard-earned dollars into a ponzi scheme that confidently promised to earn you 12% per day on your investment. Such are the wages of the unexamined life.

Others fall prey to different scams. Much of the academic world has embraced a view of life that asks only about gender, class or ethnicity—the things that divide us—ignoring the things that unite us, such as our common moral sense. A distinguished professor of bioethics recently stated that he saw nothing wrong with the killing of full term infants and the harvesting of their organs—yet saw plenty wrong with the eating of animals. The unexamined life strikes again!

The examined life literally examines everything. It questions everything—not in the corrosive manner that weakens faith but in the constructive manner that strengthens faith and gives it surer footing.

The examined life favors reality over appearance. Substance over style. Fact over opinion. It prefers universals to the partial, the fleeting, the fashionable—and the relative. It seeks to learn those truths which will in fact make us free.

It asks hard questions—and demands good answers. With the examined life it is never enough to say: “because someone told me so.”

Too much of what is presented in class, the news media, film, the books we read, etc., is accepted as fact. Skepticism and examination, critical thought and analysis are of the utmost importance. But they should not be mistaken for cynicism or pessimism. Cynics and pessimists produce nothing. They add nothing to the debate or discussion.

Skeptics--these are people who question the status quo. When they see a problem, they find a solution. Skeptics are not cynical or pessimistic. They are optimists.

A history degree teaches a good many things. It teaches one to read and write and think. But it does not require a degree in history to recognize and understand one surpassing truth. Optimists and skeptics shape history and make the world better, not cynics and pessimists.

The Puritan Regime

By Matt Berry, Guest Contributor

Last week's Hollywood Reporter contains an almost comical story. Apparently, film industry insiders are blaming the poor box office performance of Basic Instinct 2 on the same people who started Global Warming and planned 9/11:

Paul Verhoeven, director of the first "Basic Instinct" (which scored $353 million worldwide) as well as "Showgirls,” attributes the erotic-thriller genre's demise to the current American political climate.

"Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States," said the Dutch native. "Look at the people at the top (of the government). We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends."

Of course, Basic Instinct 2 would have done better if it hadn't been "banned." It opened March 31, 2006 nationwide and was shown in close to 2,000 theaters nationwide. How would Verhoeven explain the box-office failure of Showgirls (1995) during the Clinton years?

Scribe Nicholas Meyer, who was an un-credited writer on 1987's seminal sex-fueled cautionary tale "Fatal Attraction," agrees, noting that the genre's downfall coincides with the ascent of the conservative political movement.

We're in a big puritanical mode," he said. "Now, it's like the McCarthy era, except it's not 'Are you a communist?' but 'Have you ever put sex in a movie?"

OK.

Observation #1: Who says American culture is "Puritanical"? Have they been confined in the Gulags of Russia since “Leave it to Beaver” went off the air? Have they not watched Fox, CBS, NBC, or ABC every night of the week? We aren’t even talking about cable. Have they not taken up amateur Ornithology and typed woodpecker into a Google search on the Internet before? Or have they not glanced through their little-sister’s Seventeen magazine?

Observation #2: Maybe Hollywood is so screwed up that normal American life does seem Puritanical.

Conclusion: Of the top 25 grossing films of all-time in the domestic U.S. only one is rated R: The Passion of the Christ. The remainder of the list includes puritanically boring films like Star Wars, E.T., Shrek 2, The Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, The Lion King, Finding Nemo, and so on and so forth. Even the recently released C.S Lewis Christian-thriller The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe came in at #23.

Maybe America just doesn’t want to see erotic-thrillers.

While Verhoeven and Meyer and the rest of HollyWeird get their kicks watching Grandma Stone take her clothes off, I will churn some butter, get in my horse and buggy, and go see something a little more puritanical.

Global Warming: Blame Bush!

Care to read beyond the headlines and actually get at "the facts?" Those disenchanted with the current administration love to feed their blind hatred with the alarmist headlines of the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS and NPR with a little humor added from Jon Stewart, the Colbert Report, The Onion, and Paul Krugman.

We watch, read, and listen to them all. Sometimes we have a difficult time distinguishing between the humor and the headline because of their laughable nature and the shrill tone that dominates liberal media.

Unfortunately for these pessimistic purveyors of doom and destruction, the facts don't bear them out. The frustrating thing about facts--pesky little things--is that they always seem to get in the way of the liberal media-propagandized worldview that holds Bush responsible for everything from Katrina to 9/11. Oh wait, he was responsible for that, wasn't he?

In the 1970s environmentalists predicted a great "die off" of over 65 million Americans due to drought and global cooling. The 1980s and 90s saw them predicting "sahara like" conditions throughout the world. We think that makes the alarmists 0 for 3. If we are to believe "The Day After Tomorrow" then global warming will actually cause global cooling and force us all into Mexico. We're scheduled to be in Cancun in June, hopefully that will be soon enough.

Administration critics declare almost daily that the President is wrong about something. Exactly what that is in specific terms (backed up by evidence) remains to be seen. Simply saying that Bush lied, caused Katrina, induced 9/11, illegally wiretapped, leaked, etc. etc., doesn't make it so. And the OpEd page of the New York Times hardly represents a so-called American consensus about the current state of affairs. The politicians and mainstream media that parrot them present one version of reality. It is hardly the only version or the accurate one.

Here's one example:

The following is a piece by Rirchard Lindzen - Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT
__________

Climate of Fear

By RICHARD LINDZEN

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science -- whether for AIDS, or space, or climate -- where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less -- hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested -- a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences -- as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union -- formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists -- a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming -- not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

ConSource Connection

We attended the ConSource benefit dinner Friday night. Also in attendance were former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor (the featured speaker), Senators Hatch and Bennett from Utah, Senator Smith from Oregon, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, and Randy Quarles, Undersecretary of the Treasury. At our table sat members of the Eccles family--generous benefactors of the University of Utah and BYU whose name graces the U of U football stadium. We quickly disclosed that we attended BYU and after some good-natured razzing, enjoyed an evening of friendly conversation.

Senator Hatch introduced Justice O'Connor. Among the many anecdotes, we were interested to learn that before meeting and marrying John O'Connor, the future Justice O'Connor briefly dated a young William Rehnquist.

Justice O'Connor's life serves as a wonderful example to aspiring jurists--male and female. Suggesting that her accomplishments--or those of any woman--are only an example to other women is a shibboleth, limiting the scope of their influence and impact of their achievements. We were struck by the sheer volume of Justice O'Connors accolades. What she has done would be impressive for any person--male or female. She isn't just "good for a girl," she is a powerhouse.

She gave a strong speech in favor of ConSource's effort to "democratize" Constitutional documents by making them available to everyone. Though she just turned seventy-six, her age clearly has not slowed her mind or wit as she delivered one-liners with ease. She spoke at length about Justice Warren Berger. He gave up his post as Chief Justice to lead a commission commemorating the bicentennial of the Constitution. A strict constructionist (other than Roe v. Wade), he argued for the importance of Constitutional structures like separation of powers and checks and balances. His love of the Constitution inspired Justice O'Connor and she in turn argued forcefully for the importance of teaching the American founding in public schools. She suggested, and we agree, that ConSource presents an excellent opportunity to expand national knowledge of the Constitution.

Many criticize Justice O'Connor for her "case by case" approach to Supreme Court rulings. Justice Scalia has been particularly unforgiving in his assesment of her rulings which he characterizes as inconsistent and contradictory. The Wall Street Journal took to calling her a "walking amendment." This is no doubt due, in part, to her "swing vote" status on the Court and her unpredictability in decision. Still others appreciate the individualized way in which she approaches each case. Every case is different, they reason, and therefore requires new interpretations of the law which do not necessarily follow precedent.

Following her address we met Justice O'Connor and thanked her for her rousing speech. She did not have time to field any questions--including ours. There are few times when someone meets or exceeds expectations. This was one of those rare moments. The same was also true of Elder Oaks, whom we had not before met.

Thanks and congratulations to Matt Berry who invited us to this event. Mr. Berry is one of the original Founders of ConSource and plays an important role in its continued success.

"Purple Haze" - Protest for Hendricks

Today we received an email from our friends at BYU Political Review. Editor Zach Davis and co. are putting their weight behind a protest to be held tomorrow at 1 pm. in the quad immediately adjacent the Wilkinson Center.

At first we thought this was an April Fools joke, then our brother Matt reminded us that March has thirty-one days. Thanks Matt. Maybe they are a day early?

Mr. Davis included a copy of their reasons for protest written by Ms. Ashley Sanders. We support Ms. Sanders, Mr. Davis, et al. to the extent that they protest the ridiculous dismissal of Mr. Hendricks. On Monday we explained our critique of BYUSA and their handling of the situation. However, we have a tough time extending full support to this protest, in part because some of their stated reasons are nonsensical. Says Ms. Sanders,

We are protesting serveral [sic] things: one, that BYU espouses the virtues of honor and integrity unless those virtues find fault with its own policies and practices.

When was the last time "virtues [found] fault with anything (hat tip: Matt Lybbert)? Perhaps she meant to say that 'BYU espouses honor and integrity unless they don't jive with their own policies and practices?' She goes on:

two, that BYU students have no legislative voice in their own governmental organization (which is merely a social planning organization and has no real power to affect [sic] change) and therefore have no legitimate avenue to express dissent and to make suggestions.

Lack of a legislative voice for students is not the issue in Hendricks termination kerfuffle. It may be a problem--we'll save debate there for another day--but BYU will never permit such student involvement. Considering what University of Washington students have done with their legislative body, maybe it's a good thing.

The third issue Ms. Sanders raises is tough for several reasons:

three, that the emphasis on honor and integrity--being codified and formalized through a system of codes and consequences--hinders critical thinking and expression of conscience against the majority.

We assume this is a shot across the bow of the Honor Code. How or why what started as a protest of Hendricks' firing turned into an attack on the Honor Code is not clear. In our original post about this issue we state clearly our support of the Honor Code and continue to believe that the two are disparate issues.

Furthermore, attacking the Honor Code will not win much support and is such an extreme position that many who may have been supportive otherwise, will simply tune this group out. We've never participated in a sit-in, but we imagine that Protest 101 must teach that messages should be simple and clear--and hold broad appeal. When was the last time the Honor Code kept someone from writing a letter to the Daily Universe complaining about the prohibition of facial hair?

Reason #4 and the big finish:

that these same codes and consequences create and [sic] environment where image is more important than reality and in which unscrupulous things are done to maintain that image despite all evidence to the contrary. In short, we believe that students should be able to express their opinions without fear of punishment (if these opinions are stated in a mature, analytical way[analytical?]) and that there should be a legitimate political avenue to provide for and safeguard these expressions. Without these safegaurds [sic], the administration will continue to be able to do whatever it wants without informing the students, being responsible to the campus community, or providing clear arguments in order to obtain student consent.

On Monday we focused our criticism on BYUSA. The wording of this letter, and the protest tomorrow, attacks more than just BYUSA, it attacks BYU and the Honor Code. We share their disappointment in the BYU administration for standing by, but we are convinced that the bad policy and decisions came from BYUSA.

BYU contains too many departments, schools, colleges, etc., for President Samuelson to personally oversee personnel decisions at every level. Ideally, the fallout caused by this incident will bring about fundamental change to BYUSA. It's easy to ignore meaningless student elections for meaningless positions, but when tempered efforts to effect change are met with termination of an excellent employee, one hopes President Samuelson would take note.

#100 - On Life and Lybberty on TV

Last night we were a guest on the local TV show, "Talk it Up Provo." Our friends Caroline Christiansen and Emily Clark asked us on to discuss blogs and their effect on mainstream media. For iProvo subscribers, it will be broadcast tomorrow (Thursday) night at 6 pm on channel 1.

We recently joined the provopulse community (Hat Tip: Mason Konkle). A summary of our most recent post about the Todd Hendricks kerfuffle and link has increased the OL&L traffic.

The Hendricks story seems to be generating a lot of good discussion on campus. If you aren't familiar with the story, scroll down and read "If You Can't Beat 'em (or shut them up)."

On Friday we will attend a Consource dinner reception. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will attend and give some brief remarks. We've been promised an introduction and with a little bit of luck may be able to ask Justice O'Connor a question or two. Watch for the after-action report.

This is the 100th post we've made to OL&L. Some have been bad, many have been fair, and one or two have been good. Many thanks to the loyal readers and an extra measure of gratitude to those making regular comments. As any smart blogger will tell you, the comments make the blog.

If You Can't Beat 'em (or shut them up)

Last week we read with dismay about the termination of BYU Student Leadership Coordinator, Todd Hendricks. His firing resulted from a letter he wrote regarding the recent BYUSA elections. His letter ran in the 10 March 2006 edition and described the convoluted system used to monitor student elections.

As a coordinator with student leadership and adviser with BYUSA, I share my concerns about the BYUSA student body elections and the recent disqualification of candidates. Each year, a full-time employee takes a turn rewriting election regulations, then appoints a student to chair the elections committee that will ensure candidates' compliance.

Conflict of interest and anonymity can hamper the committee. The committee comprises 10 students who are anonymous to the student body but, through associations in BYUSA, generally have strong ties to one or more of the candidates or to a full-time employee. The committee meets every evening prior to and during elections to discuss reports of "infractions" - complaints filed by candidates against one another, often anonymously, in hopes of securing penalties for the opposing team.

It is a system that rewards collusion and exaggeration. In addressing alleged infractions, the committee's anonymous identities and confidential proceedings sometimes cloud judgment. Special interest, rather than actual student votes, may thus determine the BYUSA presidency.

It is important to scrutinize candidates during election week, but it is also important to scrutinize the methodologies of the election's sponsors. I encourage the campus community to work with next year's BYUSA president and Student Advisory Council to establish clear election criteria and procedures. The elections committee must be housed outside BYUSA so the election outcome will not be decided by student leadership, full-time staff and volunteers with special interests. Proceedings of the committee must be fully transparent and, with few exceptions, disclosed to the press. Decision makers must be held accountable before the student body, whose election this is.

Todd J. Hendricks
Coordinator, BYU Student Leadership

Published reports in Provo's Daily Herald and subsequently in BYU's student newspaper, the Daily Universe, report that Hendricks was fired because his letter was "very disloyal and not helpful." In other words, 'we don't like constructive criticism.' Compared to most whistleblowers, Hendrick's letter is tame.

For the uninitiated, a summary. BYUSA's most recent presidential elections marked the third election in as many years that an election committee decided the outcome rather than students. This time, the front-runners--Linford and Romney--were disqualified for exceeding limits on spending. According to the Daily Universe, the student campaign cheated by finding a cheap printing company which allowed them to print more handbills and fliers than their competitors. The reward for their cost conscious compulsions was elimination from the contest.

Each team is given $500 to pay for campaign-related costs. We will ignore for the moment the obvious free speech issues associated with caps on campaign spending. In ruling against the cost-conscious team, the "clandestine" campaign committee ruled that Kinko's costs should be applied to their printing. This ex post facto accounting put them over the $500 limit. Yeah, that makes sense. Punish the candidates for smartly seeking cheaper alternatives.

We should disclose that we personally know the chair of this moronic committee, Greg Moody. Moody was the Vice President half of a team that started the "win by default" trend three years ago.

According to unofficial reports (unofficial because the results were never released), Jason Smith and J. Griggs received some 80% of the popular vote in the final runoff of last year's election (Full disclosure: Jason Smith is an erstwhile colleague). A landslide if we ever saw one. On the eve of their win, an anonymous accuser reported that Griggs had violated curfew and thus, the Honor Code. We endorse the Honor Code, however, its application in this instance was excessive. Griggs was waiting for a ride home and reportedly stayed some 15 minutes past the deadline. Though all campaign infraction and Honor Code accuser's identities remain confidential, indications are that this person was a friend of last year's winners by default--Adam and Chrissie (we don't remember their last names). BYUSA rules dictate that competitors monitor each other's campaigns. This has been taken to its Puritan Salem Witch trial extreme as we personally know of instances where friends of candidates have followed their opponents, hoping to detect an Honor Code violation or some other campaign infraction.

Back to the matter at hand. By all accounts, the fired BYUSA official, Todd Hendricks, was a model employee. University spokeswoman Carri Jenkins claims that the letter "was only part of the reason Hendricks was terminated." In the Daily Herald report, Jenkins is quoted as saying that "there were certainly other issues involved" while the Daily Universe iteration reports the Hendricks was told the other reasons were that he "wasn’t happy at [his] job," whatever that means.

Hendricks rebuttal is easy and makes BYUSA look foolish. His most recent performance review, undertaken in January, reported that he was "meeting or exceeding expectations for performance." Additionally, BYU did not follow the normal termination procedure which requires a verbal and written warning. Apparently his tempered critique of BYUSA elections warranted fast-track termination.

Hendricks and his wife felt strongly enough about the stand they are taking that they declined BYU's settlement offer. The offer included a month's pay and insurance through the delivery of their baby in June. In exchange, the deal required that Hendricks discuss this matter only with close family, write a retraction letter, and list the names of those with whom he discussed the letter previous to the agreement.

That he would turn down the security promised his family and expectant wife is a strong argument in Hendricks favor. In other words, if he weren't sure his termination came as response to his letter, he wouldn't take this principled stand mere months before the birth of his child.

Jenkins' assertion that "there were certainly other issues involved" smacks of a smear campaign after the fact. Realizing how foolish the story would play in the press, she claimed there were other reasons justifying his termination. We wonder if this was Jenkins' spin or the creation of BYUSA officials.

This affair is just another example of inept, criticism-averse culture that exists over at BYUSA. According to both articles, Hendricks tried to engage in a dialogue meant to reform the election process, but was met with the pat, bureaucratic response that, "well, there's only so much we can do." "Everything [they] could do" has resulted in winners by default in the last three elections.

The candidates for these elections are not parolees just let out from the state penitentiary, these are BYU's best and brightest. They are smart, hard working, service minded overachievers who for some strange reason want to kill themselves serving long hours. This do-gooder zeal is then run through the ringer that is the BYUSA election process and results in disqualification and Honor Code violation. Those who, like Hendricks, Griggs, and Smith, critique the system hoping to improve or reform it, are met only with obloquy.

If nothing else, BYU administration should wonder at an organization that divides its best overachievers into two camps: sycophants and cynics.

Pandering to Scientologists

I've never been a fan of Southpark, their humor has always been just a little crass for my taste. One thing I have to give them credit for; they are equal opportunity in their harassment of every niche of human existence. Apparently one of their frequent collaborators, Isaac Hayes, doesn't appreciate their fairness in distribution as he recently quit in response to an episode "exploring" Scientology. From the Associated Press:

There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said...

Last November, "South Park" targeted the Church of Scientology and its celebrity followers, including actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta, in a top-rated episode called "Trapped in the Closet." In the episode, Stan, one of the show's four mischievous fourth graders, is hailed as a reluctant savior by Scientology leaders, while a cartoon Cruise locks himself in a closet and won't come out.

Stone told The AP he and co-creator Trey Parker "never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin.

I think it was Dennis Miller (MJ, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it from his rant on "Civility"?) who said (paraphrasing, of course) that if someone made fun of you, rather than going home and crying to your mother, you should 'kick start that weed whacker of a brain and come back with a comeback.' Isaac Heyes had no problem helping Southpark make fun of everyone else on God's green earth, why now turn into a conscientious objector?

James Taranto's observation is right on:

Well, after all, it's one thing to mock Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals, blacks, gays, whites, Mexicans, Asians, Canadians, Frenchmen, people with birth defects, women, transsexuals, Democrats, Republicans, lawyers, cops, cows, people with red hair and freckles, goths, the handicapped and fat kids. But satirizing Scientology--that's just intolerant!

I hope you, dear readers, see the parallels between this double standard and the one addressed in "Pandering to Muslims." I suppose it is human nature to want to be excluded from the school-yard name calling.

I continue to think of the West's response to the Muslim uproar in response to the printed caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. In my last post I raised two issues I still haven't seen raised anywhere else.

The first was the fallacious Muslim claim that their religion is somehow "more sacred" or that they are "more serious" about their religious devotion. This has been parroted by moderates in the West who, perhaps because they themselves are not religious, nod their heads in agreement. "Of course," they think to themselves, "these people are more serious about their religion." I rejected this claim and noted that it would be difficult to assess until that time when God, in His great wisdom, decides to air publicly His views on which religion is best. Until then, we should all be content worship how we may and respect the rights of others to do the same.

My second observation was that the moderate pandering was just the latest iteration of liberal condescension towards Muslims. The imagery that comes quickest to mind is that of doting parents and an ill behaved child. Confronted with the child's tantrum, the parent, rather than punishing the child for bad behavior, encourages it by satisfying the every want of the child. It is all too clear that the liberal press and academics see themselves in this role. Rather than rebuking Muslim leaders who inflame the public with their violent rhetoric, they castigate those who embrace the freedom of the press for "causing" the violence.

Pandering to Muslims

Nearly a month ago I wrote about the fallout resulting from the printing caricatures of Mohammed. To summarize, I wrote that the Muslim "street" response was due in large part to promotion by tyrannical rulers who wished to focus public discontent on the 'depravity of Western Civilization' rather than human rights abuses in the Middle East. This was a predictable and understandable response.

Commentary from "moderates" in the US and Europe seemed to suggest that the freedom of the press was limited to lampooning Jews and Christians. I remain dumbfounded at this editorial double standard. Have "moderates" been scared into submission by violent elements in the Muslim world?

Last week the carnage continued. This time, the victim was a student newspaper in Corvallis, Oregon (Oregon State University).

A student's column in the Oregon State University campus newspaper has prompted protests by Muslim students, who say it is offensive to their faith.

The piece headlined "The Islamic Double Standard" was written by OSU microbiology student Nathanael Blake and published in the Daily Barometer on Feb. 8.

The column accused Muslims of expecting special treatment after a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Riots over the cartoons amounted to "savagery," Blake said. "Bluntly put, we expect Muslims to behave barbarously," his column said. . . .

At the Daily Barometer, editors said e-mail and phone calls poured in. Senior editors have met with the Muslim Student Association.

"The pain that it caused . . . did not subside with time," said DD Bixby, the Barometer's editor-in-chief. "It kind of just festered."

She said editors have been checking copy with Muslim students, and on Tuesday deleted one paragraph from a piece scheduled to be published the next day.

From James Taranto of Best of the Web,

So let's see if we have this straight: Muslims are upset over being accused of "expecting special treatment," and they respond by agitating for the newspaper to allow them to censor material they find offensive. What's wrong with this picture?

I feel I need to repeat something I've mentioned before, lest someone accuse me of being anti-Muslim. I do not condone ridiculing religion. However, this expected double standard is ridiculous.

This suggests an attitude that somehow Muslims are more serious about their religion, or that their faith is more sacred. I reject that thesis outright. It may be possible to suggest a superiority of one religion, nevertheless, barring a widely publicized heavenly visitation, it is impossible to establish such a claim.

Here again, a trend that defies understanding. This argument hasn't been limited to my few Muslim acquaintances. It has been popular among many who, inexplicably, feel it necessary to explain away the violent Muslim response.

I'm beginning to think this is just another manifestation of a common belief from intellectual "elites" that the Muslim world is incapable of embracing liberal democracy, liberty and freedom. If that's the case, then their pander is just the latest iteration of condescension from the same groups that always thinks they know best: liberal press and academics.

Wait for it...

Between grad school applications and skiing Targhee and Jackson, I've been distracted from my goal of global dominance by way of this blog. I'm still not finished with applications or caught up from ski days, but I thought I'd make a quick post before I tended to the tedium of school work.

Though I haven't posted since the end of February, the discussion and debate in the comments section of my last post was great. I hope everyone reads the comments. I have said before and re-state it here--comments are the best part of the blog.

The last post examined the misguided efforts of the UW Student Senate. Like many in the U.S., they mistakenly conflated any war (in this case WWII) with Iraq. Because they hate Bush and the war in Iraq, they look for any opportunity to protest. This ridiculous outburst against Boyington is just one example.

I understand the critique about blind loyalty to President Bush. I wonder if the liberals who make this accusation are aware that they are at least as blinded by their hate.

Besides, my blind loyalty isn't that blind. Off the top of my head I can think of several issues where I've been at odds with President Bush--Harriet Miers, McCain-Feingold, prescription drug benefits, immigration--to name a few. However, on the issues most important to me--the war, courts, and taxes (in that order)--Bush has, for the most part, performed well.

What complicates the debate about Iraq, Supreme Court nominees, or anything political, is the liberal slant purveyed ad nauseum by the press. Exhibit #5,467,342 from James Taranto of Best of the Web
__________
What's for Desert?
The U.S. military's desertion rate "has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001," USA Today reports:

The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001. That had declined by 148 in 2005.

The desertion rate was much higher during the Vietnam era. The Army saw a high of 33,094 deserters in 1971--3.4% of the Army force. But there was a draft and the active-duty force was 2.7 million.

Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.

Accompanying the story is a chart that shows Army desertions have declined every year since 2001.

So how does USA package this good news for the military? As bad news: The headline reads "8,000 Desert During Iraq War," and the first paragraph begins:

At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although . . .

Many in the press seem determined to follow their Iraq-as-Vietnam script, whether or not it's consistent with the facts.
__________
I discussed the gross infatuation the press has with Vietnam at length here in the concluding paragraphs. Writers and talking heads who cut their teeth reporting on the war or Watergate are hungry to once again attain what they see as the zenith of their power and influence.

They think they got the U.S. out of Southeast Asia and brought down a president. To read their Op-Eds and slanted news reporting, it seems they would like a repeat performance and return to the "glories" of Watergate and Vietnam.

When news first broke about "illegal" wiretaps, the predictable knee-jerk response from members of the press who called for impeachment was almost laughable.

For the sake of the country, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., lets hope the press is unsuccessful in its bid to return us to the Watergate/Vietnam era.

University of Washington student senate: Embarrassment to the Greatest State in the Union

As I recall, one of my best friends from high school was a member of the great deliberative body that is the UW Student Senate. I don't think his generation of student senators would have undertaken a misguided protest like the one described in the following paragraph.

From John Fund of the Wall Street Journal:
__________

'Pappy' Shot Down by Campus Ignoramuses

It's well known that college students today aren't as educated in our nation's history as they should be, but it's still hard to grasp the mind-bending political correctness just displayed by the University of Washington's student senate at its campus in Seattle.

The issue before the Senate this month was a proposed memorial to World War II combat pilot Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a 1933 engineering graduate of the university, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service commanding the famed "Black Sheep" squadron in the Pacific. The student senate rejected the memorial because "a Marine" is not "an example of the sort of person UW wants to produce."

Digging themselves in deeper, the student opponents of the memorial indicated: "We don't need to honor any more rich white males." Other opponents compared Boyington's actions during World War II with murder.

"I am absolutely bewildered that the Student Senate voted down the resolution," Brent Ludeman, the president of the UW College Republicans, told me. He noted that despite the deficiencies of the UW History Department, the complete ignorance of Boyington's history and reputation by the student body was hard to fathom. After all, "Black Sheep Squadron," a 1970s television show portraying Colonel Boyington's heroism as a pilot and Japanese prisoner of war, still airs frequently on the History Channel. Apparently, though, it's an unusual UW student who'd be willing to learn any U.S. history even if it's spoonfed to him by TV.

As for the sin of honoring a rich white male, Mr. Ludeman points out that Boyington (who died in 1988) was neither rich nor white. He happened to be a Sioux Indian, who wound up raising his three children as a single parent. "Colonel Boyington is luckily not around to see how ignorant students at his alma mater can be today," says Kirby Wilbur, a morning talk show host at Seattle's KVI Radio. Perhaps the trustees and alumni of the school will now help educate them.

-- John Fund
__________
Is this what people mean when they discuss--in reverential tones--great, open-minded, liberal universities?

I think UW profs need to teach less of the "white male screwed everyone" critique of history and more history. I understand the discontent over the war in Iraq, what I don't get is the venom directed to WWII heroes. Is their knowledge of that war limited to repeated screenings of "Pearl Harbor"?

Note to UW students: America was not the aggressor in WWII. The Japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor. Fascists in Germany, Italy, and Japan caused the death of millions. Heroes like Boyington helped bring that war to a successful conclusion and end that fascist threat. I repeat the call I first made on Pearl Harbor Day 2005. Resist the urge to rent, for the umpteenth time, fanatical conspiracy theory based movies like "Syriana" (come on, do you really think the CIA is that good? give me a break), and pick up "Band of Brothers." US Armed Forces were made up of men like these and Boyington who joined because they believed in America and hated Hitler and Tojo. On the lines in Europe or in the skies over the Pacific, these men fought for each other.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court stuck it to schools who maintained Vietnam era bans on campus recruiters. They ruled that schools receiving federal funding had to allow military recruiters on campus. Makes sense, right? This hasn't stopped these schools and their students from protesting most vigorously the recruiters presence on campus. I love the irony of a group that protests the very existence of an organization that maintains their freedom of speech. Time and again soldiers in Iraq are quoted as saying that they don't agree with anti-war protesters, but that they still fight for their right to publicly disagree. Do you think the islamifascists would allow them their right to free speech? Lest you think 9/11 was anything other than a part of an ongoing attack on our way of life and right to freedom and liberty, think again.

Hopefully someone at UW with more sense than the student senate will step up and push through the Boyington memorial. As a part of the ceremony to dedicate the memorial I suggest a short history lesson about Boyington. Maybe then the students will understand the honor associated with serving this country in the United States Marine Corp. Seriously, who would you rather have represent you--this fatuous student senate or Medal of Honor winner Colonel Gregory "Pappy" Boyington?

I'll take Boyington.

BYU Football - Mike Holmgren & Brian Mitchell

With the Superbowl now weeks behind me, the only connection to football comes through our intra-apartment Madden 2006 tournament. My team is (predictably) the Seahawks and so far Shaun Alexander leads the league in rushing. Matt Hasselbeck would be doing a better if he hadn't been hurt for the first five games of the season and then another one in the middle. Grant Wistrom leads the league in sacks with an eye popping 39--through 12 weeks. In a game against the Cardinals, Alexander set the league record in rush yards with 330. In another game Wistrom set the single game record for sacks with 9, and the Seahawks defense set the record with 15 sacks in a game.

Last season my Seahawks lost to Kent from Louisiana's Colts in the Superbowl. I had beat him in the regular season but fell apart defensively in the game that mattered. This year I will get my revenge--assuming Kent's Colts make it that far. Matt's Chargers look good. I'm not worried about Marc's Falcons.

BYU Football coaches get some help from Holmgren and the Seahawks

On the 19th the Deseret News ran this article about a visit BYU football coaches made to the Seahawk training facility in Kirkland. Does this happen every year? If it doesn't, it should. The Seahawks were generous enough to allow the Y's coaches full access to their video and some consultation with the Seahawks coaches. It seems they all came away with something.

Reynolds wanted to learn more about the Seahawks' quick tempo from huddle to hike, see how fast Seattle's plays develop and the consistency with which personnel perform. Anae was interested in blocking rules, use of the tight end, schemes and plays. Doman wanted to find out how Matt Hasselbeck refined his quarterback skills and enhanced his accuracy and productivity, setting club records and an NFL mark for completion percentage in December.

Higgins researched Seahawk special teams play. Grimes delved into secrets of Seattle's offensive line.

It's unfortunate the defensive coaches didn't go along, they might have learned a thing or two on training young players in a new system. Rookie LB Lofa Tatupu lead the team in tackles and should have won rookie of the year. Rookie LB Leroy Hill had seven sacks. Second year safety Michael Boulware made big play after big play.

The quick tempo from huddle to snap should help the offense, perhaps this year John Beck wont have a delay-of-game penalty called on him. Yeah, right, that'll be the day.

Either way, I'm glad to see this sort of help and collaboration from former assistants like Mike Holmgren. He is a class act and this is just one more example.

In other news...

Cornerbacks coach Brian Mitchell leaves BYU for similar position at Texas Tech

Was it the shouting matches he had with fans after they would complain about poor coverage? I know some tried to cast him as the scapegoat for BYU's defensive problems this year. I don't think that was a fair accusation. There was very little experience or talent in the defensive secondary. That's what happens when something like 5 DBs get kicked out of school in less than a year. Shannon Benton, James Allen, et al. were supposed to provide help to the secondary the last couple of years. You can't blame the coach when projected starters get the ol' Honor Code heave-ho. That's not true, you can always blame Gary Crowton. Thank the football gods for that guy.

Anyway, back to Mitchell. Sometime back I wrote a piece entitled White Cornerbacks and Black Conservatives. I wouldn't call them oxymorons but they are definitely outside the societal norm. Here's the thing. Mitchell was the only African-American coach on the football team. He replaced another African-American coach. Will he be replaced by another African-American coach? Should Bronco feel any pressure to hire another one? Does not having one decrease our chances of attracting African-American football players? Do they care?

People seem less willing to talk or comment about this type of thing. Nobody felt as though they were walking on egg shells when they mentioned that hiring Steve Kaufusi would help us tap into so called "Polynesian Pipeline." Can you imagine the uproar if someone came up with a similar name for African-American student-athletes? Perhaps we should be a little more Poly- sensitive.

BYU acknowledges no racial preference in hiring or student admittance. Sure, I've heard rumors, but nothing official. It will be interesting to see how the new hire shakes out.

What do Mike Holmgren and Brian Mitchell have in common? They are both former BYU assistant coaches.

BYU Football - Jason Munns

I haven't written much about BYU football since the disappointing end to the 2005 season because, quite frankly, there hasn't been much to write.

Signing Day for recuits has come and gone and by all indications it was a smashing success. But then, what school from the University of Idaho Vandals to the University of Southern California Trojans doesn't call their recruiting class the "best ever?"

Here's the first of several topics/articles that have caught my attention.

Jason Munns of the Southridge Suns
(subscription required or email me with article requests)

I first wrote about this high school QB last fall and as a disclaimer I need to mention that Southridge is my high school alma mater. Suns football was the #1 4A team in the state for much of the year last fall and they were led by one of the best QB's in junior Jason Munns.

Unfortunately they met an early end in the first round of the playoffs. My sources tell me overconfidence played a pretty big role in the loss. It was a classic case, they had been so good all year they thought they could show up and win.

Total Blue Sports printed a good article about Munns about ten days ago soon after BYU offered him a scholarship.

His stats are impressive: 2,300 yards, 32 touchdowns, 8 interceptions, 5 rushing touchdowns, and 62% pass completion. After the good year he has heard from the likes of SC, Notre Dame, Arizona St., Washington, Florida, Michigan, Washington St., and BYU. Thus far only the last two have officially offered scholarships.

Fortunately for BYU fans, Munns isn't in love with Utah like he seemed in his last interview.

“My family is split between Utah and BYU fans,” Munns said. “I have family in Utah, but I’ve never been to a BYU football game. I don’t have a favorite between BYU or Utah, I just enjoy all good football.”

One source said that Coach Tyrone Willingham (UW) was in attendance at Southridge High School's fall sports awards banquet. My brother and sometime OL&L contributor Matt thinks Munns will end up deciding between the two state schools with his most likely destination being UW. Munns doesn't seem set on a mission so some schools who might be scared away by 2 year church service are still interested. In my humble opinion, Munns is at least as good as "the Clausen kid from California." He just doesn't get as much hype.

Caricatures of Mohammed, Voices of Reason, and the Contagion of Liberty

I missed this story when it first broke. There's nothing like a little arson, boycott, and violent threats to call the attention.

First the background

Last fall a Danish newspaper--Jyllands-Posten--printed numerous caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. Editors at the paper had wondered at the lack of political cartoon lampooning of Muslim fundamentalists who justified their suicidal tactics by invoking the name of Mohammed. After doing a little investigative reporting, they found that most political cartoonists were wary of drawing such cartoons because they feared reprisals from radical Muslims in their own country. Their fears were not without justification, the murder of Theo van Gogh by a jihadist is just one example. Jyllands-Posten then invited some 50-60 cartoonists to sketch drawings making fun of these extremists.

The response of many in the Muslim world justified their original fears.

Along with Martin Luther King Jr. style boycotts of Danish goods, many Muslims have protested the printing of the aforementioned caricatures by storming the Danish embassy. Several cases of arson and numerous threats to cut off heads and hands have joined the peaceful boycott.

Enough background, here's my take:

I don't condone making fun of anyone's religion. I respect the right of others to worship however or whatever they wish. In a perfect world, all people would respect this right and newspapers would avoid publishing pictures offensive to any church, organized or otherwise.

However, my belief in freedom of the press trumps my desire to avoid seeing caricatures of my own religion in the Op-Ed page, comic section, or even a popular film. Any news source or media outlet should avoid a double standard in printing offensive material. For years US and Euro news has reported and printed material offensive to the Christian and Jewish world, why should their treatment of Islam be any different? Will they (will we?) allow fear of reprisal to cow us into a fetal position of subservience?

What really gets under the skin are what Charles Krauthammer calls "voices of reason." These are non-Muslim "moderates" who suggest that Jyllands Posten abused freedom of the press and was out of line. They acknowledge, and rightly so, that the vast majority of the Muslim world rejects the violent acts of these few Islamofascists. As Krauthammer points out, "A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths." Unfortunately, most of the Muslim moderates who decry the printing of these caricatures ignore this double standard. Again, from Krauthammer:

Have any of these "moderates'' ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy in order to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?

Why "voices of reason" in the US or Europe would pander to people espousing such a hypocritical standards is beyond me. I can understand the difficult position of moderate Muslims living in tyrannical regimes, but the behavior of moderates in liberal democracies surpasses understanding. William F. Buckley Jr. (WFB) explains the American tradition.

Iconoclastic expressions in America are broadly condemned as being in bad taste. However, there is certainly freedom in America to deride Christ. This is done every day on Broadway, and every other day in Hollywood. Americans do not take up arms in protest. Derisory material at the expense of Jews is permitted only if the executioner is a Jewish comedian. Care on this front is a welcome legacy of the Holocaust: No jokes are told by visitors to Buchenwald.

American newspapers print what they will about Christians and Jews because they aren't afraid the Christian Coalition (whatever you may say about them) would burn the offices of the New York Times or threaten to chop off their collective head and hands. Why defend the actions of a radical Muslim minority? To avoid printing such things is almost a tacit acceptance of their legitimacy in attacking the West. I hope that's not the case, as it suggests a sort of self-loathing. A topic for another day, and another post. The position of moderate Muslims is less neurotic and more easily understood.

Let me explain. Most Middle Eastern states are autocracies. Even the UN, champion of tyrants and terrorists (Hugo Chavez, Yasser Arafat, et al.) has criticized abuses of human rights in these countries. In order to avoid the natural human predicament response to tyrannical rule (remember, tyranny-->revolution-->anarchy-->competing groups-->tyranny), the various heads of state instead use their pocket priests to preach a doctrine of hate. Their focus? All things Western--especially the US. It is much easier to get a restless populace to hate and blame Western civilization than it is to solve the ills associated with years of neglect and abuse.

So I can understand Muslim moderates. Better to preach the tyrant-approved criticism of the West than to speak out against violations of Islam in their own countries. Such a campaign would no doubt result in Saddam-style punishment--unfortunately Hussein wasn't the only crazy head of state in the region.

Moderate Muslims aren't ignorant of abuses in their homeland.

"Why today we see all this solidarity to protest the cartoons. . .as if only these pictures had insulted the Prophet Mohammad," Ali Mahdi wrote in a letter published in Lebanon's left-wing daily As-Safir.

"Don't you think that injustice, torture, illiteracy and the restrictions on freedoms (in the Muslim world) are also considered an insult to the Prophet . . . who called for the respect for human rights?" . . .

Several Arab Web logs posted the cartoons and hosted online debates about them. Many left-wing and secular-minded Muslims also circulated the cartoons by e-mail.

"What is the use of getting angry for the sake of the Prophet when I have a thousand poor people in my neighborhood?" wrote one Egyptian blogger on his Web site "Justice for Everyone."

"What is the use of writing a million letters (about the Prophet's greatness) when I wet my pants every time a police car passes by my house?"

There is a reason the US believes in the separation of church and state. Catholicism was used by European states during the middle ages to control the masses. It was probably in observation of this that Karl Marx uttered his famous "opiate" statement. The same thing is being repeated in the Muslim world.

I don't believe there is anything fundamentally violent about Islam. I haven't read the Koran, but excerpts I've seen, reports I've read and people I talk to indicate it is a peaceable religion. In one instance it is being used to subjugate the people of the Middle East and in the other it is used to justify violent attacks against the West.

The quote above from Ali Mahdi is valuable and powerful. It shows that many Muslims are aware of the depravities of these tyrannical theocracies. As James Taranto points out, this quote serves as "a useful counterpoint to those who say Islam and democracy are incompatible--a common position on both the anti-Muslim right and the anti-democratic left."

Fortunately for liberal democracies in the West and the subjugated masses of the Muslim world, both groups are being proved wrong by the successes in Iraq. Just this week, Ibrahim al-Jaafari was elected as candidate to serve as Prime Minister for the next four years. As the Wall Street Journal notes, this is just

the latest positive step in Iraqi political development -- which includes two elections, negotiations to write a new and liberal constitution and a successful referendum on that document. We'll let the cynics decided if this qualifies as "Jeffersonian," or merely Iraqi pragmatism, but whatever it is we'll call it progress.

A successful democracy in Iraq puts regional tyrants on notice. In the past they may have been able to control the flow of information. The internet, with bloggers like Mr. Mahdi, are beginning to end that monopoly. What Revolutionary era historians call the "contagion of liberty" will begin to take hold in those countries and they will agitate for freedom and democracy.

Ode to Alta: A Valentine's Love Sonnet

Every so often, I lose the vision
Of the more important things in life;
I need a storm t’help see with precision,
So that I can stride smoothly through the strife.
The storms, you see, come and bring clarity,
Through them I can define my existence,
As our God, in an act of Charity,
Provides much-needed, powd’ry white assistance.
Whether hiking the Castle, farming turns,
Or making powder laps in Supreme Bowl,
Ski Sugarloaf once more as th’day adjourns,
Last run, High-T to Gunsight, out Keyhole.
Skiing’s Mecca, Medina, Holy Land,
Alta’s got soul, experience firsthand!

Defeaticrats - Conclusion

"Who knew a post about 12daily Pro would lead to a lengthy discussion of Mormon doctrine?" (hat tip: Morgan Habedank) Not me. Some interesting and important questions were raised. Thinking politics were controversial enough, I had tried to avoid writing religious posts.

Historical questions maintain a central position in the development of the debate. Our friend the Raisin has called for a "reasonable" response from the humble dictator of this blog--me. So I will succumb to these populist demands and give the people what they want. Stay tuned for my considered response.

In the meantime, here's Mark Steyn with what remains of an downright humorous and entertaining treatment of the Democrats ridiculous position on Iraq.
__________
The Defeaticrats
Of hearts and minds, at home and in Iraq

MARK STEYN

REALITY CHECK

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, even the media are occasionally obliged to explain the disconnect between received wisdom on Iraq and the actual physical territory that goes by that name. “85 percent of people in the capital are looking to the future with great enthusiasm,” noted Der Spiegel, as impeccably anti-Bush as any publication on the planet, but nonetheless reporting the economic boom, rising incomes, etc., now enjoyed by many Iraqis. The magazine went on: “How does this happily expectant mood fit in with the bloody scenes of bombings and shootings, the reports of kidnappings, curfews, and shortages?” How indeed? Over to you, media-ethics professors.

It’s not difficult: I said a year and a half ago that the way to look at Iraq is that the Sunni Triangle is Northern Ireland, Kurdistan is Scotland, and the Shiite south is England. Don’t let a pub bombing in Ballymena prevent you from investing in that privatized telecom company in London.

I’m not one of those fellows minded to defer to Jack Murtha because he was a hero in the last war. You could have said the same of Marshal Pétain, and Churchill never listened to him. But I carelessly assumed Murtha did, in fact, have something to say. Instead, as he told Newsweek — in one of those “Bush in the Bubble” stories — he’s piqued because the president didn’t reply to his memo, which, rather than getting hoots of derision, is now regarded as the greatest affront to constitutional propriety since Jim Jeffords failed to land an invite to the White House’s Teacher of the Year reception, for which slight he flipped control of the Senate to Tom Daschle. (Remember him?) If Murtha and Newsweek weren’t trapped in their own bubble, they might understand that a “principled stand” has to be more than a guy whining that the president of the United States won’t return his calls: “The White House has made no attempt to reach out to Murtha since then. ‘None. None. Zero. Not one call,’ a baffled Murtha told Newsweek. ‘I don’t know who the hell they’re talking to. If they talked to people, they wouldn’t get these outbursts. If they’d talked to me, it wouldn’t have happened.’”

I know who the hell they’re talking to: On Iraq, the White House is talking to rather a lot of people. They’re called “Iraqis.” But Murtha is now the lion of the moment, Cindy Sheehan and Joseph Wilson IV merged into the Murtha of all anti-war heroes. So what if there’s no crushing of his dissent, only a sad man who was crushed by being dissed.

But let’s take it as read that I’m a neocon hack clinging to my feeble Wolfowitz-Perle script as Kurdistan secedes and Shiite theocrats seize the south and Zarqawi commands overwhelming support from the Sunni people. Assume that John Kerry is right that “young American soldiers” are “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women” and that those rampaging Rumsfeldian torturers have brutalized so many of the Iraqi people that they’re unified against us.

Even so, even as crude political finessing, will this pitch work for the Democrats? No. Listen to Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi. They didn’t become leaders because some freak accident took out the other contenders. They head the party because they speak for it. It’s one thing to be defeatist, but the perverse triumphalism of Dean’s defeatism will keep his party mired in the minority through 2006 and 2008. Even if they were right, what’s the “meta-story,” as they say, of Mad How’s soundbite? We’re the party that glories in defeatism? “Vote for us. We told you Americans were losers and we’re right.” Even as shameless self-interest, the Defeaticrat position is a flop.

Unlike those depressed Continentals, Americans are not a pessimistic people, especially when they’ve got nothing to be pessimistic about. The tragedy is that, on so-called “liberal” terms, this is a war Democrats ought to be gung-ho for: More Iraqis participate in the democratic process than Americans; Afghanistan has more women in electoral politics than Canada. Meanwhile, in the most powerful nation on the planet, the two-party system is seizing up because one party’s gone nuts. From Murtha’s “We’re all doomed unless we quit by Tuesday” to John Kerry’s “I was against setting deadlines before I was for them,” the Defeaticrats simply have no serious contribution to make to the most pressing issue of the age. Shame on them, trapped in a quagmire of the mind with no exit strategy in sight.
__________
With all the opportunities Republicans are giving Democrats to take the Senate and House this fall, I'm surprised they still insist on being the pessimistic party. With Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and Co. running the show, I guess I really shouldn't be all that surprised.

My prediction? Republicans will maintain a majority in both houses--thanks entirely to the ineptness of the Democrats.

Defeaticrats - Part III

Law blogger Ann Althouse had an interesting observation about the blog tendencies of conservatives and liberals (hat tip: James Taranto of Best of the the Web)

What I've noticed, over and over, is that the bloggers on the right link to you when they agree and ignore the disagreements, and the bloggers on the left link only for the things they disagree with, to denounce you with short posts saying you're evil/stupid/crazy. . . .

I'm struck by the way the right perceives me as a potential ally and uses positive reinforcement and the left doesn't see me as anything but an opponent--doesn't even try to engage me with reasoned argument.

The irony is in the similarity between the accusations of the left and the stereotypes they use to prop up their fatuous claims. Blinded, or at least distracted, by an ever present anger--sometimes driving them to apoplectic attacks (see Dem. Chairman Howard Dean, also Hillary Clinton) they refuse to see the successes that have taken place in Iraq (read: three democratic elections).
___________

The Defeaticrats
Of hearts and minds, at home and in Iraq
MARK STEYN

DAZED AND CONFUSED

I’ve never been one for “winning the hearts and minds” of Iraqis. Heart-wise, an awful lot of them dislike infidels and Jews and American soldiers, and, while one may deplore that, it’s just a fact of life. But, in their minds, as those poll numbers indicate, the Iraqis are rational enough to work out where their best interest lies. And, quite reasonably, they figure it doesn’t lie with a psychotic death cult that nowadays mainly blows up Muslims on buses, in shopping markets, schools, and even mosques. That’s the worst corporate diversification since Seagram’s bought Universal Pictures. And at least Seagram’s still made whisky; Zarqawi isn’t killing a lot of infidels these days.

So Iraq’s hearts and minds are operating far more rationally than the Democrats, who these days are both heartless, in their indifference to the aspirations of ordinary Arabs, and mindless, in their calculation of their own best interests. I find Chirac-Schroeder obstructionism easier to understand than the Dean-Boxer variety. For EU politicians, as those French and German poll numbers indicate, there’s not a lot of good options when half the babies in your maternity wards are Muslim. But what’s the thinking behind what the Democrats are doing?

Easy, you say: It’s naked partisan politics. And, to be sure, the broader culture has kind of internalized it as such, to the point where, for example, Dan Balz can publish a huge piece in the Washington Post that from its headline down — “Hillary Clinton Crafts Centrist Stance on War” — assumes that it’s perfectly natural to talk about the foreign policy and national security of one’s own country entirely in political terms. For Balz and for everyone he quotes in the piece, the point of a “policy on Iraq” is not to have a policy that affects Iraq in any real sense but to have a policy that advances domestic political fortunes. “Iraq” might as well be a board game you’re in the national playoffs of.

Example: “Her refusal to advocate a speedy exit from Iraq may reflect a more accurate reading of public anxiety about the choices now facing the country.” Note that Balz takes it for granted that Senator Rodham Clinton should have no principled position on Iraq, no strategic view of the Muslim world, no philosophical preference as to America’s mission abroad, no genuine concerns about security, etc. Indeed, he’s implicitly arguing that the greatest strength of Hillary as a viable Democratic presidential candidate — poor Joe Lieberman’s “Joementum” won’t even place him in the Top Ten in the Iowa caucus — is that she’s the least encumbered with anything that will prevent her from agreeing with whatever the 10 p.m. internal polling numbers are showing.

Take that headline: What would a “centrist stance” be on, say, the Second World War? Every few days, some media outlet or other runs a piece about how Bush is “in a bubble” — and no doubt he is, to one degree or another, as busy world leaders tend to be, by definition. But the American media raging that Bush is in a bubble are the equivalent of that famous British newspaper headline: “Fog in Channel. Continent Cut Off.” Whatever bubble Bush is in, it’s a vast jostling metropolis of diverse peoples stretching to the horizon compared with the shrunken little bubble the Democrats and the media inhabit, reinforcing each other’s illusions, like two madmen playing Chinese whispers. No serious person — by which I mean a fellow who’s aware there’s a real country called “Iraq” and it’s in a part of the world called “the Middle East” — could read that Balz analysis without weeping with laughter. Pseudo-policies are soberly considered as if they had any meaning in reality: Should we withdraw from Europe six months after D-Day? Or commit ourselves to a phased drawing down over three to nine months? Clearly, if we announce we’ll be leaving the Continent by October 27, that might embolden Herr Hitler. But, if we say 10 percent of our forces might remain until February 1947, that will give us a more flexible exit strategy with strong centrist appeal.
__________
There exists a sycophantic symbiosis between Democrats and a liberal dominated press. They are constantly parroting each other's talking points. For a liberal generation of politicians and press, whose political history mother's milk was Vietnam and Watergate, they are constantly trying to conflate those two experiences with George W. Bush and Iraq. Think I'm wrong? Pick up a newspaper or other periodical and read any commentary by any liberal writer about the current situation in Iraq or the overblown non-scandal that is the anti-terror wiretapping conducted by the Bush administration.

The points is, too many Democrats (not all, thank you Joe Lieberman) don't hear anything else other than their own ideas because they are repeated back to them by the press. Conservatives can't help but hear them. By and large, American universities (BYU excepting) are dominated by liberal professors who knowingly and otherwise push their ideas onto an eager and naieve young student body--a student body full of world-problem solving zeal. Unfortunately, many of these trusted gatekeepers simply use their students as tools to further their own agenda. Talk about indoctrination. It may not be organized religion, but secularism and liberalism have all the same characteristics. Are their proponents any less zealous than the "seminarians" at BYU?

If BYU pushes a certain bias they are hardly alone--though they may be alone in pushing a conservative ideology that includes elements of faith. I am a teaching assistant for a course that incorporates American history, politics, and economics and teaches a certain level of American exceptionalism. God may not have hand-delivered the Constitution to the delegates at Philadelphia, but everything I've read seems to indicate involvement of a higher power. This much I am familiar with and believe in. At the same time we teach these things, we acknowledge the hypocricies of American history. We recognize and teach about the incongruities of 'all men created equal' and the owning of slaves, treatment of Native Americans, and the less than equal status of women. We don't gloss over or ignore any of these issues. I think it is a mistake to assume that any dissenting opinion is based on brainwashing or stupidity.

The Defeaticrats Part II

Most nights I lie awake wishing one of two things-- a larger liberal readership and that everyone at BYU didn't agree with me. No wait, I wish I had a larger readership and I would love it if more people agreed with me. Or, I wish I really knew everything while now I only think I do.

Sometimes I think everyone should let me run their life. I'm a heck of a lot more decisive than the girl in front of me at the Cougar Express, trying to decide between the orange and the bag of potato chips. She knows she wants the bag of potato chips, who does she think she's fooling? And the next time anyone (sorry girls) pays for a $0.59 candy bar with a check, I'm going to slap that Snickers out of their hand so fast that for some reason they'll wish they'd bought the orange instead.

I'll tell you one group that definitely should be letting me make their decisions for them, all those who thought 12DailyPro was a great money making opportunity. Regrettably, some of my friends got caught up in that scam. Seriously guys, didn't your fathers tell you about their own rough encounters with earlier pyramid schemes?

Enough of the crazy autocratic rants; without further delay I give you the next in a series of conservative but not--unfortunately--religiously fundamentalist posts.
__________
The Defeaticrats
Of hearts and minds, at home and in Iraq
by Mark Steyn

INSURGENCY AND ITS DISCONTENTS

On the other hand, this does belatedly prove the anti-war crowd’s long-held view that Saddam’s secular Baathists and Osama’s theocrat terrorists would never collaborate, even if it took until last month for the participants themselves to get wise to it. And, alas, unlike the Dems with Hillary, in the Sunni Triangle there’s no Sunni triangulator to craft a more nuanced position to hold both the Lieberbaathist and Pelosama wings together.

So the Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, the Arab street, and the Baath party have figured Iraqi democracy’s winning. That leaves al-Qaeda. Well, not exactly: Ayman Zawahiri, the number-two honcho in al-Qaeda while they’re maintaining the polite fiction that bin Laden’s still functioning, recently rapped terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on the knuckles and called on him to cut out killings that “the masses do not understand or approve.” (The twitchy Mr. Zawahiri was presumably thinking of, for example, the assassination of the septuagenarian grand imam of Fallujah for urging Sunnis to get out and vote.)

So the Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, the Arab street, the Baath party, and bin Laden’s deputy think the insurgency’s a bust. Hands up, who thinks it’s winning?

Well, there’s Howard Dean: “The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.” And look over there, it’s Jack Murtha, and he’s a veteran, and he thinks we need to scramble for the last chopper over the embassy compound right now! “There’s a civil war going,” he says. “Our troops are the targets of the civil war. They’re the only people that could have unified the various factions in Iraq. And they’re unified against us.”

By “us,” I think he means him and Zarqawi. And no, I’m not “questioning his patriotism”; I’m questioning his sanity. It was famously said that the Vietnam War was lost on television. In this instance, the Iraq War’s being lost only on television. In Iraq, it’s a tremendous victory. Indeed, it has the potential to be one of the most consequential, transformative victories of the modern age; but even if it doesn’t ever fulfill that potential, it’s still a huge success.
__________
I guess what I really dont understand is why there has to be a Democrat or Republican position on the current state of affairs in Iraq. I understand that many thought the war was wrong in the first place. We can agree to disagree on that point. However, that doesn't change reality and I think a reasonable analysis of our position must logically lead to the conclusion that success, not immediate withdrawal, is the best possible outcome.

By all means, let us debate the alternatives in Iraq and even future strategy in the war on terror. Pulling our troops out now or before Iraq can defend itself from enemies abroad and within will have disastrous consequences. Then Iraq will turn from a promsing young democracy into the terrorist haven that many liberals believe it to be now.

The Defeaticrats Part I

With the Superbowl having sucked all the creative energy out of me, I'm left to find other sources for my online content. I decided to shift gears from sports to my other great love, politics.

Then it hit me, I'd serialize an article by one of my favorite writers, Mark Steyn. He usually writes the back page article for National Review, kind of like Rick Reilly does for Sports Illustrated. Only, I think Steyn is a much better read than Reilly.

I'd been trying to figure out how to work this article into my regular posting--but selective quotation just wont do it justice.

We haven't heard from some of my more liberal readership in some time. I'm guessing/hoping this article will bring them out of the wood-work.

So here it is, "The Defeaticrats: Of hearts and minds, at home and in Iraq," by Mark Steyn
(note: subscription to National Review Online required)
__________
Hands up, everyone who thinks Iraq's a quagmire.

Not the Iraqi people: According to the latest polls, 70 percent think "life is good," and 69 percent are optimistic that things will get even better in the year ahead. For purposes of comparison, they took a similar poll in Europe a while back: In France, 29 percent said they were optimistic about the future; in Germany, 15 percent. Sixty-three percent of Iraqis say they feel "very safe" in their own neighborhoods, which is more than the residents of Clichy-sous-Bois can say.

Well, okay, those cheerful Iraqis are probably Shiites and Kurds and whatnot. How about the Sunnis? For a small minority group that held a disproportionate and repressive grip on power for decades, they've been getting a more solicitous press from Western "liberals" than the white Rhodesians or South Africa's National party ever got. But it turns out, after their strategically disastrous decision to stay home in last January's vote, the Sunnis are participating in Iraq's democratic process in ever greater numbers.

Oh, okay, so the Shiites and Kurds and Sunnis are feeling chipper, but in the broader Middle East the disastrous neocon invasion has inflamed moderate Arab opinion against America. Well, it's true the explosive Arab street finally exploded the other day--with 200,000 Jordanians protesting in Amman, waving angry banners and yelling, "Burn in hell, Rumsfeld," and, "You are a coward Bush." Whoops, my mistake: They were yelling, "Burn in hell Zarqawi," and, "You are a coward, Zarqawi." If you want to hear someone yelling, "You are a coward, Bush," you've got to go to Cindy Sheehan's stakeout. And, in fairness to the network news divisions, it may be because so many of their camera crews have taken up permanent residence at the otherwise underpopulated Camp Cindy that they were unable to cover what was the largest demonstration against terrorism ever seen on the streets of the Middle East.

Oh, well. So the Shiites and the Kurds and the Sunni Iraqis and the Arab street are all on baord, but come on, what about the insurgents? Everybody knows they're winning...but, er, apparently they don't. The Baathist diehard insurgents have split from the foreign al-Qaeda insurgents. While the latter denounced the Iraqi election as "a Satanic project," the Saddamite remnants urged Sunnis to participate and said they'd protect polling stations from attacks by the foreign terrorists so that citizens could vote for their approved candidates (the leftover bits of Uday and Qusay, now running on the Psychotic Dictatorship Nostalgia Party ticket). This division between the foreign nutcakes and the domestic nutcakes is the biggest strategic split over the insurgency since Joe Lieberman respectfully distanced himself from Nancy Pelosi.
__________
So while I get caught up on homework put on hold for the Superbowl, you all can sit back, relax, and get caught up on what's really going on in Iraq.