Saturday, September 11, 2004

Is Tom Osborne available?
My beloved Huskers fell today, surely payback from the football gods for daring to adopt the West Coast offense [Football gods? I thought you're an atheist? [It's a stinkin' metaphor!]]. Five turnovers? Cripes!

I long for the days when Nebraska would attempt, maybe, maximum, 6 passes and just run all over people. An offensive lineman's dream, no more.
The all-Kerry issue of NRODT,
although dedicating its primary space to its favorite liberal senator, does still contain the usual columns at the end, including a review of a book called The Twilight of Atheism by Allister McGrath. Atheism may or may not be in decline, and I could care less - it's not like I'm out to convert everyone. What upsets me about this review is how atheism is still so closely associated with Communism and, somehow simultaneously, an anything-goes mentality. Even better, atheism is a religion in its own right.

Phrases like these get me steamed (emphasis mine):
  • "atheism, the hallmark of that powerful intellectual trinity - Darwin[ok], Marx[grrr], and Freud[grrr again]"
  • "Atheism had once been a 'religion of the autonomous and rational human being'"
  • atheism delivered "the dreary uniformity of the Stalinist city and the Nazi concentration camp[!]"
  • "atheistic scientific materialism is the religion of a strong plurality, perhaps the majority, of the world's scientists"
Whatever. Listen, atheism in and of itself is nothing. It's not a religion, it's not a code of behavior, not even a set of beliefs. It's simply a non-belief and nothing more.

If you meet me on the street and I tell you that I'm an atheist, sure you can infer that my Sunday mornings are probably not very busy, but any other conclusions you draw would be entirely based upon your own preconceptions. "Atheist" doesn't really say anything substantial about me, about how I live, how I treat others or anything else.

Atheism is not a guide to life, it is not a political system, it is not an ethical code. There's not enough substance to it for it to be an "ism", really. Books like Twilight make atheism out to be much more than what it really is. Based on the review, it sounds like it should be called The Twilight of Communism, for that would be more accurate. Just because all Communists are atheists, it does not follow that all atheists are Communists. Far from it.
This week's issue of National Review
is entirely devoted to John Kerry, and that can't be good for him. The magazine is one article after another detailing how Kerry is, or would be, bad for the economy, bad for engorge independence, bad for national security, and, well, just plain bad.

This is all fine, but the issue is 100% anti-Kerry with hardly a mention of President Bush. I think it would be good of National Review to dedicate their next issue to why Bush should be reelected. Sure, they could say they give such reasons in every issue, but I still think it would be nice for them to do. Just a thought.

Friday, September 10, 2004

I used to read
Andrew Sullivan daily. The link over on the side of this page was well used by me. Sullivan, as readers know, takes the month of August off from his blogging, so I got of the habit of reading him. Now that he's back, I can't say that I missed him too much. The whining, the weirdness, the strange logic that he seems to employ at times.

Kerry is the true conservative? Zell Miller is a Dixiecrat? His recent posts just seem to annoy me more than anything. The Swift Vets are zombiefied purveyors of slime? Has he read the book? Seen John O'Neill on any of his T.V. appearances?
I just ran a news search
at for the words "Bush," "document" and "forgeries" and got back a slew of stories. The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, The New York Post and on an on are reporting about the likeliness that these documents were forged.

Of course, CBS stands by it's story.
More with Andrew: Cato and Bush.
So I'm spending a lot of time on Sullivan's site this morning. He quotes a piece about the Cato Institute's problems with Bush (see the "Cato Balks" topic). Some members are even considering voting for Kerry. Sullivan's analysis:
I have to say I'm delighted by Cato's stand. Bush is slowly destroying conservatism's small government credentials and commitment to expanding personal freedom. It isn't "going left" to abandon his big-government philosophy; it's staying true to conservative principles.
I hate to break this to you, but if they're voting for Kerry, they're not staying true to conservative principles.
Bin Laden is dead.
So says Andrew Sullivan, citing the latest Al Qaeda video as evidence. That'd be nice, but if he is really buried under tons of rubble in Pakistan somewhere, that actually makes things tougher for the Bush administration. How do you prove you got the guy, how do you know that you can stop the hunt for a specific person, when you can't find the body? We'll never hear the end of "What about Osama?"
I'm rolling my eyes at the radio
since the dimwits on the Good Day Show are using The Manchurian Candidate as proof that Bush, Rove, Rice and the rest are eeeevilllll. Sheesh.
Maybe Bush will sue Bill Gates
over the supposed forgeries (check InstaPundit for tons of coverage). Apparently they were produced using Microsoft Word. It's a vast Redmond conspiracy!

UPDATE: Little Green Footballs is performing his own experiments with Word.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Best of the Web
publishes some responses to their bit about Libertarians yesterday (see "The Libertarians String Back!" near the bottom of the page). As a pseudo-Objectivist-sympathizer type, I must say this particular response made a lot of sense to me:
Libertarian candidates generally provide the best match for my political goals, but I will not be voting Libertarian this year. Between the party's head-in-the-sand foreign policy (or absence of policy), and the readiness of the words "Legalize pot!" to spring from the lips of any Libertarian who finds himself in front of a camera--as if it were an attractive way to get people to listen to more of what he wants to say--I am afraid the party has gone up in smoke. It's not the environmental Angry Left, but there is a certain tinge of "green" to it.

I am more or less an Objectivist, philosophically, and a political independent. President Bush can alleviate a lot of the reservations I have about him by being more aggressive with the U.S. military in the war on terror, and by initiating tax reform that moves us toward a consumption-based tax system, as in the "Fair Tax" plan.
Sounds good to me. As for the "Legalize pot!" stuff, I don't have a problem with that, but it's not important enough to be one of the Libertarian party's key issues. Unfortunately, the party is going after drug users as part of a membership drive/marketing campaign. I attended a meeting of the Kansas Libertarian party (all 20 of us!) a year or so ago and this was discussed. Yeah, sure, in principle it makes sense, but there's something about being the party of drug users that irks me. Call me crazy.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Another reason this Libertarian is voting for Bush
can be found here (via Best of the Web). They (we?) just don't take national security seriously enough. We are at war for a reason, dammit. The black they plan to wear on the anniversary of 9/11 should be in the memory of those who died in the attacks that day, not to protest the efforts to prevent another one.
Is there such a thing as a near-Darwin Award?
For this guy.
Spilling over
For my job, I keep my eye on several programming blogs and forums on the chance I might learn a thing or two. These sites tend to be apolitical, so imagine my surprise this morning when I saw a post from someone saying: "I would be happy to see more American soldiers die...". Nice.
Lee sums it up
right here. Can we talk about something else now?