To echo Captain Ed's post on the subject, the idea of evolution does not threaten my Christian worldview. I myself do not believe in a six-day creation--though God is certainly powerful enough to have done it that way, and I do not believe in human evolution. As it is currently constituted, I do not think that intelligent design "theory" is a valid theory for teaching; it does not provide a model that makes predictions that can be disproved through testing. There are important models embracing the Christian viewpoint that do make such predictions--notably the Reasons To Believe model.

I do, however, find the dogmatism and ruthlessness of the philosophical Darwinists in academia to be disturbing because of their lack of interest in real free inquiry. So here is a fantastic TV commercial for Ben Stein's documentary, Expelled:

Iraqi Army Takes Down Mahdi Stronghold

Ed Morrissey relays the news:

Despite the news media’s apparent insistence on clinging to their narrative of defeat and disaster in Basra, Nouri al-Maliki’s operation to restore control of the city to the elected government achieved its major goal today with the fall of the Mahdi militia’s stronghold in the city. An early-morning offensive against the Hayaniyah district of Basra netted dozens of arrests as the central government took control of the area for the first time...

And Captain Ed notes the way things work in mainstream media these days:

Of course, others will likely continue to spin this as more disaster because “violence” has occurred. At some point, though, the central elected government had to displace the militias and ensure that they had an indisputable monopoly on force in the nation if they expected to remain credible and keep Iraq in one piece. They gave the Sadrists at least four years to disband on their own, and they refused to do so. Maliki’s confidence in his armed forces appears to have been justified, while the Mahdis look more like the paper tigers the IA was supposed to be.

There are only four reasons, as I see it, why one might want to withdraw from Iraq immediately:

1. You don't know crap about what's going on there. This is a side-effect of Bush-hatred or of using only news gathered from the New York Times and CNN.
2. You're rooting for the jihadists. This applies to a very, very small percentage of the American population, including both native jihadis and long-time anti-Americans like Bill Ayers.
3. You're a pacifist. I disagree, but respectfully: pacifism has a long and honorable tradition within Christianity.
4. You have political reasons for doing so, i.e. you think you can win an election. This applies to a large-ish number of American politicians.

Anyway, perhaps you simply disagreed with the Iraq War at the beginning. (Though that's a pretty poor reason for wanting to get out now. In fact, it's just about the worst possible reason for wanting to get out of Iraq, in logical terms, since...well...the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Just saying.) Michael Yon, an independent reporter and the best correspondent of this war who has been there for most of its duration, has something to say to you:

"We can win this war," Yon declares. "And if we do it will be a victory of the same magnitude as the fall of the Soviet Union. It will not be a victory for the Republican Party. It will not be a victory for America and Great Britain and others 'against' Iraq. It will be a victory for freedom and justice. It will be a victory for Iraqis and for the world, and only then will it be a victory for us."

(This is Yon quoted in the New York Post, itself quoted on PowerLine Blog. Read both articles in their entirety; the Post article is a review of Yon's book, Moment of Truth In Iraq--$29.95 at Amazon.com.)

RedState.com offers this little bit of humor about a cop in our very own home state of Michigan--Dearborn, to be precise.

The Company You Keep

We do it all the time, sometimes unconsciously. If you want to know more about somebody, you look at his friends. Whom one surrounds oneself with is important, says a lot about you. And I don't think that anybody should come under as much scrutiny in this regard as a president or prospective president of the United States.

Suddenly, Democrats disagree. And no wonder: Barack Obama has been shown to have friendly ties to so many vile, America-hating radical leftists that he's being legitimately called "out of touch" by a woman who once embarrassingly affected what she must have considered a "black accent" to appeal to African American voters. Alan Colmes last night tried to suggest that Republicans were using only a few relationships in the Obamessiah's life to characterize the man as a whole, then went on to talk about how he grew up in Kansas. Newt Gingrich immediately pointed out that Barack Obama grew up in an expensive private school in Hawaii, had a brief stint in boarding school in Indonesia, went to (I think) Columbia and then Harvard Law, then attended a black separatist church in South Chicago and became a state senator. His relationships with the racist, anti-American Jeremiah Wright and with the socialist, anti-American Bill Ayers aren't outliers, they are part of a pattern.

But it's no wonder that he won't seem out of touch to people in college. To them, it will seem mainstream, seem like common sense. Sadly, he also won't seem out of touch to a large portion of the Democratic electorate, who don't see America as specially good or extraordinary. Hopefully voters do realize that Barack Obama does not share their belief, and mine, that America is an exceptional nation in the history of the world. Judging by some recent poll results, I think that they will.

Possible New Cure For Bush Derangement Syndrome

Michael Barone helpfully reads Douglass Feith's new book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism (Amazon.com, $18.45) and notices some interesting points. Here is an excerpt from the book that he posts on his blog:

Readers who have invested time and faith in the current public affairs literature may find it jarring to discover that key Administration figures—Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, myself, and others—made arguments and advocated policies that run directly counter to the positions usually associated with them. For example:

• It was the Pentagon "neocons" who continually urged the President to tone down his democracy rhetoric.

• The most powerful analysis of the downsides of going to war in Iraq came not from the State Department or the CIA, but from Donald Rumsfeld.

• The Pentagon-CIA dispute over the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship began with objections by Defense officials about the CIA's politicization of intelligence, not the other way around.

• The work of the State Department's Future of Iraq project on post-Saddam political transition was opposed not by Defense officials, but by Colin Powell and Richard Armitage.

• It was CIA officials who predicted that Iraqis would launch pro-U.S. uprisings after the start of the war.

• It was State Department officials who advocated a multiyear U.S. occupation of Iraq.

What would Bush-haters have if it were not for preconceptions? Not much, one suspects.

Not Just Sports Journalism

Bryan at MGoBlog says something interesting about sports journalists:

This might also be the place to relate that when Michigan was in Denver preparing for their semifinal against Notre Dame, they made it clear Billy Sauer didn't really want to talk about the North Dakota game last year. The first question (from a knob at the Denver Post) was basically "how do you feel about being such a g**d*** failure in the North Dakota game last year?"

It's one thing to ask a "tough question" when there is the possibility of an enlightening response or someone has undertaken ethically questionable activities. Tough questions in the context of the Ann Arbor News' investigation into independent study and the like are fine. (That the Ann Arbor news passed on the opportunity to ask those questions because they didn't want an email interview is another matter entirely.) A "tough question" to a 20-year-old kid when the answer to that question is going to be the standard athlete cliche boilerplate about taking it one game at at time is just being a dick.

But journalism has this weird machismo thing going on where that's prized: see any anti-blogging screed that claims the basement-dwellers inferior because they don't say rude things directly to the players themselves. I've always found it interesting that said screeds contain the implication that bloggers are wantonly negative because they don't have to face repercussions. Newspapers, meanwhile, are full of people who are wantonly negative because they like being wantonly negative even in the face of social approbation.

Ummm, yes. Dare I say this problem isn't just in the area of sports journalism?

Anyway, blogging is the ultimate in-touch news reporting by actual normal people. There's no pretense of objectivity--for pretense is all it ever is--just news reporting and commentary. It works better in sports reporting than in politics; after all, it's always more fun to read a sports article or column by someone who's fired up about their team, like Bill Simmons. But political news is also placed into a larger narrative, and anyone who thinks that narrative is objective is fooling themselves. Blogging is especially valuable for understanding others' narratives, while the national media gets stuck in whatever narrative favors its own (liberal) bias.

But because they're in print or on TV, the mainstream media has become proud and arrogant. It was only a matter of time before a Rathergate happened, or any of the other media debacles that have occurred in the last half-decade or so. For many, "fake but accurate" said it all. There will always be snobbery attached to print, to national syndication, and to prestigious journalism schools, but bloggers will inevitably play a larger role in national politics from here on out.

The Green Religion

Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses," suggesting that rulers used religion to keep the lower classes from realizing they were being exploited. Well, his successors--or usurpers, if you choose to look at it that way--found out that it's a pretty powerful drug, as Pope John Paul was one of the trio of world leaders (the others being Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan) who brought down the Soviet sphere. His outspokenness, his survival of their assassination attempt, and the courageous, historic mass he gave in Soviet-dominated Poland inspired millions who longed for the freedom to practice their religion.

So the Marxists realized they needed to use religion rather than scorn it, and the results have been stunning. But at least some whose minds are truly trained for skepticism--sadly, I'm not now talking about many scientists--are sounding alarms after initial enthusiasm. Here is an excerpt from Simon Jenkins writing in The Guardian:

Farewell the age of reason, welcome the idiocracy. Only George Orwell could have invented - and named - the government's Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) that came into operation yesterday. It is the latest in a long line of measures intended to ease the conscience of the rich while keeping the poor miserable, in this case spectacularly so.

The consequences of the RTFO have been much trumpeted on these pages. It says enough that one car tank of bio petrol needs as much grain as it takes to feed an African for a year, or that a reported one-third of American grain production is now subsidised for conversion into biofuel. Jeremy Paxman pleaded the cause of this latest green wheeze on Monday's Newsnight, while the United Nations food expert, Jean Ziegler, screamed for it to stop: "Children are dying ... It is a crime."...

If all these fancy subsidies and market manipulations were withdrawn tomorrow and government action confined to energy-saving regulation, I am convinced the world would be a cheaper and a safer place, and the poor would not be threatened with starvation.

Just now, for reasons not all of which are "green", commodity prices are soaring. Leave them. Send food parcels to the starving, but let demand evoke supply and stop curbing trade. The marketplace is never perfect, but in this matter it could not be worse than government action. Playing these games has so far made a few people very rich at the cost of the taxpayer. Now the cost is in famine and starvation. This is no longer a game.

Read the whole fantastic column.

Conservatives have known for years what this man is only discovering: almost no matter what the issue is, the government is worse at solving problems than free associations of people. Michael Crichton points out in his well-researched novel State of Fear that human efforts have failed nowhere more spectacularly than in trying to control environments. Moreover, the green movement is creating a massive new opportunity for lobbying that is currently being used by Toyota to destroy American manufacturers and by the agribusiness lobby to raise corn prices and profits to the detriment of American consumers. Americans are wealthy and will muddle through, but the true crime is the grinding poverty Africa is being kept in because of enviro-fads. But it's all wrapped in a cloak of secular piety. Disgusting.

Global Warming, A Friendly Riposte

My good friend, Mr. 42, left a comment on my last post that I think raises an interesting and a key point, to which I would like to reply. Here is the comment, in full:

First off, let me say that I completely agree with you that the science of global warming is at best debatable, and that we really don't know exactly what is going on. However, I feel we must be prepared for all circumstances.

I think the point you are missing is that in this case, the freedom exerted by these businesses could possibly be infringing on the lives and well-beings of countless other people. People, especially businesses, need to be responsible in controlling how much they contribute to the environment. Will it completely stop global warming? I don't know. Do we, as consumers, also need to be less wasteful? Probably.

If these businesses cannot see that the improvements can not only help them, maybe the government should be involved. The government's primary job is to protect it's citizens. If that means that they have to place laws to protect the environment, then it should.

I think 42's concern is one that is widely shared; it is a legitimate one that cannot be dismissed out of hand. The problem comes at several points, which I would like to outline.

The argument can be sketched out in this way: 1. There is a possibility that businesses' practices are contributing to the incidence of global temperature increase in such a way that other people may be hurt. 2. The government's primary job is to protect its citizens. 3. Therefore, government may have to step in to limit businesses' range of activity.

I realize that my argument will make a departure from current mainstream thought (though not from the classical liberal tradition on which our Constitution was based). However, the problems are with the second premise and with an unstated assumption built into the argument.

The premise that "the government's primary job is to protect its citizens is false. The government's primary job is actually to protect its citizens' freedoms. The point in my bringing up the statement "Give me liberty or give me death" is to say that freedom is more important than life, and that that is a defining and founding creed of our republic. The truth is that the Constitution does not authorize the government to take any action regarding environmental concerns--not even the actions the government has already undertaken. The reason is that the Founders were more concerned with liberty than with life; that's why so many of them risked so much to gain their freedom. In fact, I believe that morality requires us to choose freedom over life, if such a choice becomes necessary.

The unstated assumption is that government action could potentially protect citizens in this area. Increasingly, real world experience tells us that the answer is an emphatic "no." I'll link to a column from Britain's Guardian paper today that will elaborate, but the fact is that government action has contributed to economic stagnation and even deaths throughout Africa, and that government action has done little more than create an enormous new lobbying arena that inevitably leads to inefficient and outright destructive actions, such as ethanol subsidies, restrictions on oil drilling and refining, and promotion of wind power over nuclear.

Bush Prepares To Pass Around Global Warming Kool-Aid

Michelle Malkin directs readers to this post by Iain Murray on The Corner on National Review:

We're hearing some very bad things about the President's likely unconditional surrender on global warming today. One senior source suggested that the last line of sound defense had been breached and that "It will be very bad." I'd imagine he will request, against all evidence from Europe that this does anything but make consumers poorer and utilities richer, a cap and trade regime for energy utilities.

This is the last straw regarding President Bush's conservatism. No one can rightly be called a conservative who supports government intervention for global warming. Heck, even if the science is solid--a dubious assertion--and the anti-warming measures will actually curb warming--significantly more dubious--what ever happened to freedom? What does "Give me liberty or give me death" mean, anyway? USA, you've come a long way.

Christian morality has played a significant part in presidential politics of the past, but it will have been nothing compared to the coming Green morality.

McCain has bought in too, and you can bet that both Democrats are in. So we likely have another eight years of this madness to deal with. This only underscores the extreme importance of electing Republicans to Congress who can stop this religious movement from destroying our economy and more importantly, our freedoms.

Academic Tyranny (It's Not Just At Marquette)

Michelle Malkin tells the story of a student at Marquette University who stood up for police in class, saying that he saw police officers being called "racist" by a Hispanic driver they'd pulled over for a traffic offense. The professor then chastised him in class and pulled him aside after class to inform him that his comments could have been interpreted as offensive and made him apologize to the class.

In my last post, I mentioned that the sort of thinking that Obama displayed, surprising to many, is simply not uncommon on college campuses. Similarly, this is totally unsurprising to me. I have heard innumerable instances of professors here at State abusing their power to promote a certain agenda; my philosophy class, for example, was once given a guest lecture by one of our resident feminist philosophers. One student spoke up to disagree with what she said, and she verbally abused him in a way I've rarely heard before in a classroom. Interesting coming from someone who decries power inequality based on social arrangements. It's the only time I remember considering speaking to the ombudsman.

But the Left has long considered it their job to use higher education to indoctrinate students. They pay lip service, sometimes, to honoring both sides of debates, but in the end what they teach as fact is often simply liberal dogma. I think a lot of people would be surprised at how many college professors simply take for granted that George W. Bush is a criminal, that opponents of affirmative action are racists, and that America is a basically evil country. The best way to draw looks of derision or of mystified curiosity is to say that you disbelieve in anthropogenic global warming, that you voted for George W. Bush, or that you approve of the Iraq War.

The best part is that they don't even think of themselves as radicals.

SNOB-ama? (Let Me Know What You Think On This!)

The more I think about Barack Obama's statements and the more I hear from other people what they think about it, the more it seems to me that Barack Obama has revealed something very deep, very important about himself. He has said and done things before that sounded questionable--we'll remember his "punished with a baby" gaffe, his politically radical mentor Jeremiah Wright, his "typical white person" misstep--but I think that that this comment is the most revealing of his real beliefs.

Anyone who has spent much time on a college campus will tell you that if you ask the average college liberal, student or professor, what's wrong with America, they'll gladly tell you: Religious people. People with guns. People who dislike illegal immigration--racists, as far as they're concerned. Obama's implication was that the real problem is economic--people don't have enough money, enough medical care, enough food, enough housing--and that people are seeking false comfort in God, guns, and people like themselves. The average college liberal, if you asked him, would probably agree that that is what's going on. It's never been a wonder to me that Barack Obama enjoys such immense popularity on college campuses.

But the problem is that this attitude, this belief, is revealing of certain seriously negative traits. It smacks of elitism; after all, elite values in the United States tend to center around the importance of money and comfort, whereas middle- and lower-class values tend to focus on religion, individual rights, and the rule of law. In Marxist terms, it would be an imposition of upper class ideology onto the lower classes. As such, it also reveals a deep arrogance--an arrogance widely shared by college students. Ultimately, what Barack Obama said was that he knows better than you what is wrong, and that he is the only one who can fix it. And that's precisely what typical college students of all political stripes believe; they ARE the college students, after all. Doesn't that make them more qualified to make political decisions? (Emphatically, no. Experience, personal experience, seems to me the most important thing in forming political beliefs. I don't think it's a mistake that people tend to become more conservative as they grow older, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the saying goes, "If you're a conservative when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're a liberal when you're 40, you have no brain.")

This arrogance leads them to a stunningly heavy-handed paternalism. Unsurprisingly, Obama's solution is a government that can espouse the values you aren't smart enough to embrace. It isn't too much of a stretch from there to see that Americans just aren't intelligent enough to govern themselves; instead, they need a body of wise, intelligent, educated people to take care of them, to make society go. To make the trains run on time, if you will. And that's the danger: it's philosophically near to Fascism--real Fascism, the kind Mussolini wrote about and Hitler spoke about, the government as a religion of state.

Don't get me wrong here; I don't think Obama is about to start putting people in concentration camps. (That's not what Fascism was centrally about; it was just a natural result of the Nazis' Darwinian beliefs.) I think he's a pleasant and honest person. Way too honest about what he really thinks of America, and what he really wants to do with it.

Wow, Finally Back

Well...okay, so I've been extremely lax about posting. But I'm back! Also, I'm suspending the "Cedar Fest" issue...it's been a week, so it's old news. Such is our modern world.

Plus, there's something far more interesting happening. The Obamessiah lashed out recently at what Democrats really think is wrong with America: people who can't get it in their thick heads that government handouts are more valuable to them than family, church, guns, or national security:

...each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Predictably, McCain and Hillary blasted the comments--which simply provided more proof that Barack Obama is one of the most unfortunate off-the-cuff speakers in presidential election history--and the Obamessiah responded with this:








The best comment was Allahpundit's, calling Obama is a "crypto-Marxist." That's exactly what he is, but if you listen closely the "crypto" part seems to go away. His conception is an America in which a powerful elite exploit the disadvantaged many for their own gain. He promises to use government to fix this. But it isn't only religion that's the opiate of the masses--it's also guns, God, nationalism, family. You can see exactly the stereotype that Obama has in mind, and if you really press them it's one that most liberals have. Obama promises a newer, better opiate, much more powerful than any of the ones before: government, and lots of it. And its track record is a bit less than questionable.

Rush Limbaugh is correct in this: Mr. Obama is the most far-left candidate that the Democratic Party has ever--EVER--run. No one compares to this man.

Cedar Fest 2008: Mentor's Perspective

Wow, I've been terrible about posting lately! But, as promised, some stuff about Cedar Fest (hopefully not too late for anyone to be able to get excited about it anymore...)

I am a mentor in Snyder Hall, which is basically the east wing of Snyder-Phillips Hall. It lies across Bogue Street and somewhat northward from Cedar Village apartments, and one can see the apartments from the window in the outside door on the east side of my floor. Because of our proximity to the party, our senior staff thought it prudent to ask for two volunteers to augment the normal contingent of three mentors on duty for the night; I was one of them. At 7:00 PM, when we signed in for duty, the on-duty assistant hall director and the hall director met with us to discuss the night's order of affairs. They had decided to lock down the hall an hour early, at 11:00 PM, in order to block the free flow of party-goers into our hall.

We met at 8:30 to go on rounds, and again at 10:30. There was a bit more drinking activity than usual, but nothing at all spectacular. Nevertheless, there was an air of something important coming; the tone in the senior staff members' voices, the extra mentors on duty, and the shouting and chanting that could be distinguished even from a distance all contributed to the sense that something would happen at some point. Eventually, the senior staff ordered the mentors to watch the doors to make sure that no one was letting anyone in through doors that should be locked. This became an important enough task that three mentors were sent on duty while two others, myself included, watched the front side doors. The AHD and several night receptionists who had volunteered patrolled the outside of the building to make sure windows were not being used to enter illegally.

This arrangement gave me the ideal opportunity to figure out what the situation was with the party. I heard that police were intervening at times to arrest students who were becoming problematic or exposing themselves and that there were EMTs on site ready to cart away anyone who needed medical help. As the night passed, it began to look like there would be no rioting or large-scale police action of any kind. That was good news, of course, but--truth be told--a little anticlimactic.

That wouldn't last long. Mentors were told to split up and complete our last set of rounds at around 2 AM, but before that the complex manager from Shaw Hall, volunteering to help us, informed us that City of Lansing police in full riot gear were moving to seal Grand River from the party--a likely prelude to a dispersal action. As we moved through the upper-level floors of the building, we began to hear the loud thudding of tear gas canisters being fired across the street. We rushed down in time to see crowds streaming out of the various streets leading to the middle of the Cedar Village apartments and billowing white gas following them. Looking for any haven from the tear gas, many approached our building and were rebuffed, as per the regulations regarding housing complexes. Among them were an older man and woman wearing "ACLU Observer" T-shirts. Perhaps fifteen or thirty minutes later, police fired a second volley of tear gas and completely cleared out the apartment complex.

Once the crowds dissipated, mentors were given permission to go to sleep. That was at about 3 AM. Although we were tired, I for one felt like we had done something truly constructive in our role as mentors, a feeling that I have often lacked while on duty. Our reward was uninterrupted sleep, as the rest of the night passed without event.

Cedar Fest 2008

As you may or may not have heard, residents of the Cedar Village apartment complex decided to revive the Eighties' tradition of Cedar Fest, which is basically an all-day event at which people get really drunk and cause a disturbance. Back in 1985, a local judge banned the event, but apparently that's all over now.

Afternoon turned to evening, and evening turned to night. East Lansing and Michigan State police were on the scene, periodically hauling away people committing indecent exposure and becoming violent. EMTs were on hand, treating people who needed medical attention. (Sounds like fun, Cedar Fest, doesn't it?) Full cans and bottles of beer were being thrown up in the air, sometimes landing on the streets and sometimes on people. Police used the tactic of trying to target trouble spots in the crowd, launching harmless flash bombs to scare people away and arresting only a few people who were causing trouble. Late into the night, it became apparent that the crowd was becoming a mob. That mob began hurling bricks as well as full bottles and cans. East Lansing police ordered the crowd to disperse through a loudspeaker and then gave several warnings, telling partiers that they had the authority to use chemical agents if they disobeyed the dispersal order. This move only produced cheers of "Tear gas! Tear gas!" Then they tried to fire a shot across the bow, using more flash bombs and fireworks. City of Lansing police were brought in to seal off Grand River Avenue, and the order was given. I have no particular loyalty to Michigan State as an institution, but it must have been inspiring to hear students chanting, "Go Green! Go White!" to the beat of launched tear gas canisters. Revelers poured out of the various exits from a Cedar Village now obscured through a toxic haze.

This time around, I was able to see much of what was going on. You see, as an on-duty mentor in Snyder-Phillips Hall, literally just across the street from Cedar Village, I and four other mentors, as well as other staff members from the hall and from around campus, had the task of securing the building and helping anyone who needed medical attention.

The events, and various students' responses to them, tell an interesting story about the attitude of my generation toward politics, morality, and life in general. That is a story I intend to tell, in the next few posts, from various perspectives.

I'd Rather Be Blogging...

...but it's the end of the school year, and you know how it is. And it's not just the end of the year, but also of my time on campus at Michigan State, so I have lots of people to catch up with, stuff to do, and a thesis to write. *sigh*

Anyway, I thought I'd at least offer up one post for the weekend. (There may be more, but I can't make guarantees.) And anyway, this is just a little too juicy.

Neil Stevens at Redstate.com reports that Ron Paul has proclaimed public support for...the John Birch Society. Yes, the Birchers, whose anti-Semitic and conspiracy-theorist ilk William F. Buckley unapologetically ejected from the conservative movement. Is this a big surprise? Not to those of us who understand where people like Dr. Paul come from. I can't say that his domestic policy of decreased spending and low taxes is unattractive, but it's the isolationism, the veiled anti-Semitism and white supremacism, the paranoia that should always tip you off. Endorsements from neo-Nazis and the KKK...the discovery of a long string of newsletters filled with racist rants...now, this endorsement of the JBS should be the final indication of who we're dealing with here. It's the same ugly paleo movement that produced Pat Buchanan's later presidential runs, David Duke and his trip to the Holocaust-denial conference in Tehran, and LewRockwell.com.

This says it best: A "Ron Paul for President" sticker on one of the bridges across the Red Cedar River, which bissects MSU's campus, was written on by a jokester: "LOL No."

But For School, I Would Write A Post To Thee

Instead, I'll leave you with this tribute to Bo Schembechler I found on YouTube. It brought the same tears to my eyes that Bo's death did about a year and a half ago. Here at Michigan State, people don't understand what he meant to us. His death was like the end of an era; it was like the last hero of a forgotten age had passed. Everything about him was larger than life. After losing twenty or thirty players because of his hard workouts, he posted a sign that said, "Those Who Stay Will Be Champions," and he delivered in Year One. He beat the 1969 Buckeyes, probably one of the best college football teams of all time, 24-12, in a game that many, including my own father, have said made them shed tears of joy. He was a superhero with an archnemesis, his friend and mentor Woody Hayes, a legend in his own right. He made the Wolverines chant, "The Team! The Team! The Team!" before taking the field. And he wasn't just a coach; he was also like a father to so many on his team, even after they'd graduated. When they heard of his death, several players bought tickets back to Ann Arbor immediately, without pause. Former players from a period of more than twenty years came back to share their experiences with Bo, and grown men who had made our most violent sport their life came back to weep and laugh and remember one of their dearest friends. And in fitting legendary style, he died the day before one of the biggest Michigan -- Ohio State games in memory.

Rich Rodriguez is being compared to him because of the intensity of the workouts and Michigan football's recent struggles, but no one could ever be who Bo Schembechler was, and no one ever will be. I'm just glad that we had him while we did--that we, no one else, had been lucky enough to have him with us.

Chinese Spy Caught, Too Late

Washington Post reports: (If this doesn't disturb you, there's a problem.)

Prosecutors called Chi Mak the "perfect sleeper agent," though he hardly looked the part. For two decades, the bespectacled Chinese-born engineer lived quietly with his wife in a Los Angeles suburb, buying a house and holding a steady job with a U.S. defense contractor, which rewarded him with promotions and a security clearance. Colleagues remembered him as a hard worker who often took paperwork home at night.

Eventually, Mak's job gave him access to sensitive plans for Navy ships, submarines and weapons. These he secretly copied and sent via courier to China -- fulfilling a mission that U.S. officials say he had been planning since the 1970s.

And it seems that there have been a whole slew of recent arrests of Chinese agents, posing as students, scientists, and more. Some of them have been here for years, seemingly totally assimilated to American culture.

The president, both the current one and the next, must deal with this situation. There needs to be a lot more caution about Chinese nationals in the United States and a lot more caution regarding classified technological information. Mostly, we need to use, publicly, language of moral reproach toward the People's Republic. Call them by name; tell the world what they are. Perhaps there is also an opportunity here to kill two birds with one stone: for example, cancel $500 million in federal debt to China for every spy that is discovered. We need some concrete way of phasing out economic ties with them, or more moderately to use economic pressure to achieve the goals of releasing political prisoners, ending the persecution of Christians and Falun Gong, backing away from Taiwan, and giving incrementally more autonomy to Tibet.

Now that I think about it a bit more, I think the Beijing Olympics are going to be a good thing. We need to use them to continue to step up reporting on China's crimes against humanity, their imperialism, their aggression. Drew Sharp mentioned that we failed to recognize the British monarchy a hundred years ago in the Olympic Games in London; let's go, show them up, and have our athletic contingent publicly disrespect China's overlords for their heinous crimes.

Patriotism

RedState has this offering:

In fine Obama is a Creedalist in his patriotism; and he may have (we cannot yet know) evaded a crippling political blow by means of the vulnerabilities of this theory. Put another way, Obama managed to escape the fact that he and his family have sat under the teaching authority of an openly anti-American preacher, by means of an appeal to the ideals of America.

Read the whole thing.

The difference between creedal and non-creedal patriotism is one I have never encountered before, but I have to say that my gut reaction is to be a non-creedal patriot. My strongest earthly loyalties, such as those to the Wolverines or the state of Michigan in general, are not due to their inherent material superiority, but simply because they are, in a sense, "mine." Ancestrally, in a way. And I think there is a certain virtue in showing loyalty to something simply for loyalty's sake--in fact, it seems as though there is something self-seeking in a loyalty rooted in the superiority of the thing to which one is loyal.

Fish Bowl Effect

There is some news today regarding family issues of a certain Michigan politician whose beliefs I disagree with profoundly. Every family has issues, has secrets they'd like kept, things they wouldn't want anyone to know about and that are no one else's business anyway. One of the unfortunate things about being a politician is that the truth will always out, even truths that are irrelevant to public service.

If you happen to notice who this politician is or what happened, consider keeping that person in your prayers. But it is important anyway not to attribute morality or immorality to someone based on their political beliefs, whether you're a liberal who thinks Bush is "evil" or a conservative who thinks Hillary is the Antichrist.

Sissy Handwringing Over Serious Problems

My first instinct when I saw this was: It sure is nice for SOMEone on the Left (or, really, even on the Right) to notice China's human rights abuses--although merely persecuting Christians hadn't been enough:

Sen. Barack Obama said he is conflicted about whether the U.S. should be a full participant in this summer’s Olympics in Beijing because of China’s human rights record.

“I am of two minds about this,” the Democratic presidential hopeful said in an interview aired Wednesday on CBS’s “The Early Show.” “On the one hand, I think that what has happened in Tibet, China’s support for the Sudanese government in Darfur, is a real problem.”

Still, Obama said, “I am hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it’s partly about bringing the world together.”

Awww. That reminds me of an old Coke commercial. Anyway, then I thought, who the heck cares? Ominously, Drew Sharp:

It's time for people to see the separation of sports and politics as it really is -- an Olympic myth.

And it's time the U.S. tells the Chinese government that it will not tolerate the heightened subjugation of government dissidents in the months leading up to biggest moment in recent Chinese history -- the Beijing Olympics.

And if it continues, the Americans must boycott the Games.

Our state's worst sports writer goes on, naturally, to moralize about the evils of corporations, Big Macs, and Coca-Cola. Maybe he and Obama should chat.

In any case, it's maybe not such a good idea for Obama's foreign policy to hearken back to Carter's. Jimmy Carter, of course, is our best ex-president (in the sense of having been the person most qualified to be made an ex-president) and the last president to boycott the Olympic Games. They were held in the Soviet Union; the USSR had just invaded Afghanistan. Carter figured, hey, the Soviets will probably feel really bad if we deprive our hard-working athletes, who have been waiting for this moment their whole lives, of the chance to earn an Olympic medal. So bad that they'll probably give up that whole war thing! It worked so well that Americans decided to give Carter a nice, long vacation and turned to Ronald Reagan to maybe finish the job. He, famously, armed the native Afghanis, leading to the USSR's demoralizing defeat there.

No one loves a good symbolic act more than liberals, but it's hard to say what exactly the effect is on Communist regimes, who have always tended to be ends-justify-the-means types. On the other hand, it's fairly easy to tell what the effect will be on American morale. Oh, good, no Olympic games for us this year. Guess we'll wait for our star tracksters to age another four years. Too bad there's only a short window for a lot of these players, who have remained amateurs solely to earn the Olympic gold, to compete at the highest level.

Of course, we notably slapped an infamous tyrant in the face during the Olympic Games in 1936, when black athlete Jesse Owens won four gold medals on Aryan-supremacist Adolph Hitler's home court. But you're right; boycotting is much better.