Iraqis vote

and the Leftists get unhinged. This is really beyond parody. When Saddam Hussein got something like 99.7% of the “votes” (+/- a few basis points), with the rest of 0.3% who voted against him literally getting the ax, the Leftists thought that he was legit. And now we have a real (though by no means perfect) multiparty election, and the Leftists are crying and pouting. What more proof need we that the Leftists are in a league with terrorists, who prefer tyranny and dictatorship to democracy? Oh, by the way, it’s all the fault of that great idiot, George W. Bush.

BDB in the mail

Just got the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, known commonly as BDB, today. According to my Hebrew teacher, this is the greatest achievement in scholarship in the Western world.

RNC asks for my money

and I could not give any this time, because I was hit by the nefarious AMT, big time. I wrote the chairman, Ed Gillespie, an email explaining why I would have liked to contribute, but could not, and hoped that the Republicans would do something to repeal the AMT. I wonder if I would ever get a response.

Robert Byrd opposing Rice

I’m probably the last person to note this irony (see e.g., commentators Lorie Byrd and Mark Steyn), that we have a former KKK Kleagle opposing the first black woman to become the Secretary of State. The hypocrisy of the Democrat Party is just stunning.

My idea for fixing Social Security

Since Leftists believe that you don’t need more than about $40,000 a year to live a reasonably comfortable life (why else would Taxifornia levy 9.3% on anything above that?), there seems to be a lot of private wealth out there that is unnecessary. Let’s begin with John and Teresa Kerry. By their own Leftist argument, they really don’t need all those billion dollars. Let’s be generous and leave them with $10 million, which can easily generate $500,000 (more than six times $80,000 which is enough for both of them) without depleting the principal. The remaining $990 million should be given to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Apply the same to every Leftist—politicians, Hollywood jokers, et al.—who is effectively worth more than $10 million (“effectively” because they may have a great deal of their wealth hidden in trusts and foundations that they largely have control over), and we can probably make Social Security last a little while longer.

Passion of the Christ

The kerfuffle over whether Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ should win awards quite annoyed me. It reminds me of Karl Barth’s reflections on two occasions. On his 70th birthday (1956), there was to be published a Festschrift in his honor, entitled Antwort, as well as

... a series of further Festschriften from his Basle colleagues, from young Swiss theologians, from America, from Japan, from Lutheran theologians—and a volume of sermons by Rhineland pastors edited by Martin Rohkrämer. Barth was highly pleased with all these assessments, and with the flood of good wishes, but was bothered by the question ‘What would Kierkegaard have said of such an occasion? How does it compare with the New Testament? What will it look like in the light of heaven?’ ‘The prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New couldn’t have seventieth birthdays like this.’ (E. Busch, tr. John Bowden, Karl Barth, 417)

On yet another occasion in 1963,

... In the middle of April he travelled with his son-in-law to Copenhagen. From there he had received ‘the utterly unexpected news that he had been chosen to receive a prize previously awarded to such illustrious names as Winston Churchill, Albert Schweitzer, Igor Stravinsky, and Niels Bohr because he, too, had made his contribution to the spread of European culture’. ‘How fortunate that Kierkegaard no longer lives there and cannot object that real prophets were usually remembered with stones and not with such prizes.’ (Busch, 467–468)

I shall pass no judgment on Mr. Gibson or his supporters. But one does well to remember Kierkegaard’s words and Barth’s reflections. It might as well be that the movie meets not with prizes but with stones.

Derb and Teresa

Can it be that they actually think along similar lines on the question of contribution to the tsunami relief?

Here is Teresa Heinz-Kerry, winning this week's “LimoLefty” Award from the Federalist Patriot:

This week's "LimoLefty" Award: "Obviously, our philanthropic focus is here in America and in Pittsburgh, but the astronomical proportions of this disaster demand that we act." --Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry on a $450,000 contribution in aid to Asia by the Heinz Endowments and the Heinz Family Philanthropies

And here is John Derbyshire on National Review Online:

The problem is, that until the wave function collapses at a personal encounter, strangers in remote places are an abstraction.

The only difference was that Derb did not write a check. I shall pass no judgment for or against either.

And when I go to heaven ...

I just read about this story in James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today; as always, Taranto’s titles for his entries are humorous:

Be Careful What You Wish For
"A Presbyterian minister collapsed and died in mid-sentence of a sermon after saying 'And when I go to heaven . . .,' his colleague said Monday."--Associated Press, Jan. 10

The pastor, Rev. Jack Arnold, was minister of Covenant Prebyterian Church in Oviedo, Florida, a member church of the Prebyterian Church in America (PCA). My condolences to the Arnold family.

My Isaac

Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac on the altar—he drew the knife. Were it not for an angel who came at the last minute to stop him, he would have sacrificed his son—an act that would have been unethical by biblical standards (in a time and place where among the pagans child sacrifice was not uncommon), yet that was in full, unquestioning obedience to God’s command. The significance of this act was elucidated in Hebrews 11:17–19 (ESV):

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

Thus, typologically speaking, Abraham sacrificed his son—he drew the knife.

For Kierkegaard, this was a tremendous event, of which he wrote extensively in Fear and Trembling. In regards to ethics, it is a paradox: how can God’s command be contradictory to what we know to be wrong, even through his specific revelation? How can the obedience to God mean the “suspension of the ethical”? But Abraham drew the knife! (Fortunately, now that God has completed his revelation through the written Word, we do not have to suffer such gut-wrenching tension as Abraham did, though still oftentimes we have to make tough decisions in ethically complex situations. But we don’t have to draw the knife—Abraham did.)

Kierkegaard saw his breakup with Regina as a parallel to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. He loved her deeply, yet he felt his vocation was to bring reformation to the established church, and for him that required the sacrifice. In his day that act was a great scandal, as his society had expected conformity to certain norms. Yet he was willing to bear society’s reproach, to sacrifice his beloved in obedience to God’s calling. He, too, drew the knife.

Do I have an Isaac that I need to sacrifice? Do I have the courage to draw the knife?

Democrats’ infinitely recursive self-delusion

Dan Gerstein, an independent consultant in New York, was communications director for Sen. Joe Lieberman and a senior strategist for the senator’s presidential campaign, writes in an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal, on “The Terry McAuliffe Syndrome.” The first paragraph seems reasonable enough, reprimanding the national Democrats for self-delusion:

When John Kerry ripped defeat from the jaws of victory last November, losing to a wounded president with a failed record, a few of us Democratic outliers took some solace in thinking that his campaign's dismal performance might actually force the party to own up to its mortal electoral weaknesses. Turns out we grossly underestimated the national Democrats' capacity for self-delusion and self-defeat.

But I almost choked on the second paragraph:

Yes, it's only been two months, and it's not realistic to expect the party to remake itself even before Inauguration Day rolls around. But consider the head-scratching choices that Democrats have made so far since hitting close to political rock bottom. (That being defined loosely as losing in 81% of the nation's counties with a war hero running against a draft-avoider who has bungled both Iraq and our national finances).

Mr. Gerstein just repeats the Democrats’ talking point that “John Kerry is a war hero” and “Bush is a draft dodger,” when reality is much more complicated. Of course, John Kerry fought in combat during Vietnam, but to many of his fellow veterans he was not only not a hero, but a traitor. There is evidence (quoted even in the recently-released Rathergate report, e.g., pages 61 and 130, though nobody can really substantiate this beyond doubt) that Bush did volunteer to serve in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots. Whether Iraq is a success or failure depends on one’s perspective. For the intellectual Democrat who has no proper historical perspective, even one casualty would be an indication of failure. But when considered in the entire history of warfare, Afghanistan and Iraq were tremendous military successes (see, for example, Victor Davis Hanson’s numerous articles, e.g. this one). Of course, there are still difficulties to overcome, and the Democrats’ whining about the treatment of terrorists only make them even more difficult. As for national finances, I would agree that Bush shared some of the blame, but let us first hear some Democrats in legislature putting forth proposals for spending cuts.

If Gerstein, who calls national Democrats self-deluded, is himself self-deluded, I can see little hope for them to recover any time soon.

Mary Mapes still in denial

From an email piece sent to Mr. Very Careful and Honest Jim Geraghty (of TKS, fka The KerrySpot, at National Review Online).

Good stuff received recently in the mail

• Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (tr. G. Bromiley) on CD-ROM. (I gave my ten-volume set as a farewell gift to a friend. So for about two years I have been TDNT-less.)
  
• Alvin J. Schmidt, The Great Divide
• Thomas Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades
  

CBS releases Rathergate report

Finally, the long-awaited report has arrived. Contrary to the cynical expectations of blogosphere, a full, 224-page report was released, and on a Monday morning (not late Friday evening). That shows at least some seriousness on the part of CBS. Also noteworthy is the fact that three executives were asked to resign, and Mary Mapes, the producer responsible for the fake memos, was terminated. Dan Rather, however, got away with a “retirement.” (Whatever infamy he escapes on paper, he’ll be forever remembered for Rathergate. Everything else is whitewash and self-delusion.) Wizbang thinks, however, that Rather might have been fired as well had he not announced his retirement. He bases his thinking on this bit from page 114: “Heyward also told the Panel that Rather said he had not ‘been involved in this much checking on a story since Watergate.’” I am not sure that such a conclusion can be drawn this way.

In any case, I think this is a good critical juncture for CBS to salvage any reputation that it has left. Perhaps it can even start rebuilding!

Boxer and the Airline Pilot Security Alliance

I am no fan of Barbara Boxer (duh), but I was quite surprised to learn this bit from Townhall’s C-Blog. Apparently Senator Boxer is an advocate for providing pilots with arms in the cockpit. Wow, this from the more leftist Senator of California!?

Congress passes bill allowing for 2004 deduction of donation to tsunami relief

We stingy Americans have lawmakers who create incentives for us to make charitable contributions by way of deductions from taxable income. For someone in a high-income-tax state such as California, this could mean that a net cash outflow of $265 on the part of taxpayer generates $500 of donation to charity: i.e., $500 * (0.35 + 0.093) = $235.

Congress has just passed HR 241, which allows taxpayers making tsunami-aid contributions in January to deduct those donations from their taxable income for 2004. I do hope that this will further encourage people to give toward the relief effort.

Demos and torture

Are the Democrats really against torture, or are they trying to score political points by grilling the AG nominee, Alberto Gonzales? Heather MacDonald has written a good article on the current kerfuffle.

I guess, for Democrats, torture is all right if it is inflicted on American soldiers: to wit, the testimonies given by Vietnam veterans in the film Stolen Honor. They suffered real torture under the Viet Communists, while John Kerry was giving the enemy aid and comfort by his antiwar activities back home. Was not John Kerry at least indirectly responsible for the torture that these veterans went through? Why were the Demos trying to suppress this film?

Of course, the torture/Abu Ghraib issue is just some concocted connection. The purpose of the Justice Department memos was to study the extent to which the Geneva Convention would apply to illegal combatants, if at all; and to study what interrogation techniques could be applied without constituting torture. No policy that led to torture was actually approved or implemented.

Besides, for all their ability to see nuances, the Demos seem incredibly blind to the negative consequences to American lives if we treat the terrorists too nicely. And they want to be the ones holding executive power during this difficult war?

What about my retirement?

James Taranto reports on a number of nearly identical letters to various papers protesting W.’s “plan to dismantle Social Security”, remarking that “great minds think alike”:

Great Minds Think Alike
Today's Arizona Republic carries the following "letter" from Nic Karlsson of Avondale:

President Bush is endangering my retirement and the retirements of millions of Americans by taking the first step in his plan to dismantle Social Security.

Recently, White House sources revealed their plan to cut promised benefits to retirees by nearly a third. And these cuts are guaranteed, whether you opt in to the Bush plan or not.

For those entering the workforce today, that means more than a 25 percent cut in the retirement benefits they're counting on; for their children, it guarantees a 46 percent cut.

We can't stand by and let George W. Bush and the Republicans cut our promised retirement benefits--especially when so many of us are counting on Social Security to help us lead a happy, healthy life when we retire.

Nearly identical letters appear in the Fargo (N.D.) Forum (from Faun Durni of Ellendale), the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette (Sandra Martin of Hurricane), the Tullahoma (Tenn.) News (William Brown of Manchester) and the Ventura County (Calif.) Star (Refugio Mata of Simi Valley).

Question to the authors of these letters: what about my retirement? Why is it all right for the government to endanger my retirement by taking away from my earnings from gainful employment just to “help” you lead a happy, healthy life?

What’s with the Left’s romantic dreams with Che Guevara?

Jay Nordlinger, who often writes about Cuba, noticed a recent surge of images of Che Guevara in fashion. How can this mass murderer become so much idolized in leftist circles? Granted, there is much ignorance associated with this (so much for their claim of intellectual superiority). Reading the letters that Jay received from his readers made me all the more disgusted.

Closer to home, there is an antique shop that sold paintings and portraits of Mao Zedong (I don’t know if they still do). Just as disgusting.

Where are the scare quotes?

One of Reuters’s latest headlines on the tsunami disaster reads:

Tsunami Aid Lands for Survivors and Unborn Babies

Unborn babies? Hmm ... aren’t they supposed to be called fetuses?