May 24, 2004 by s.z.

Carnival of the Inanities Sadly, No! lets us know what it means when InstaPundit says that somebody has done a "useful summary of the Iraqi blogs." So, in honor of Insty, I offer this useful summary of the nation's conservative pundits.  We'll start with one Sarah Alexander, whose work appears in Intellectual Conservative.  In a piece  entitled "This One's For the Children - On Gay Marriage," she writes: "Through my research, and based on what I believe as an evangelical Christian, I feel very strongly that gay marriages will have a devastating effect on our nation’s children."  And while I'm sure she does strongly believe this as an evangelical Christian, she never offers any of that research to back up her assertion.  For instance, she claims that: It is not only the evangelical Christian community that believes homosexual marriages will have an ill effect on children. Leading educators also agree. Then she cites research that purportedly shows that children do better when they grow up with married parents.  The studies say nothing about gay marriage (and would seem to indicate that having married same-sex parents would be better for kids than unmarried same-sex parents).  So, I'm afraid that Sarah is putting words in the mouths of those leading educators. But here's the cruxt of her argument:  A home with two Mothers in it will have a difficult time showing their children how to love someone of the opposite sex. If you look at homes where one parent abuses the other parent, especially if the child is a girl, she will grow up to pursue guys who abuse her. My prediction is that if two lesbians raise a little girl/boy, the child will have a very high chance of either committing suicide or turning homosexual himself. Yup, if two lesbians raise a boy, he will probably turn gay (although it seems that if a girl who sees her father abuse her mother later pursues men who abuse her, then it would follow that a boy who sees his mother love his other mother would pursue women who love him).  Or he will commit suicide.  Or both.   (Although the gayness would probably occur before the suicide.)  Especially if one of the parents has been artificially inseminated. Consider the amount of adopted children who feel insecure and feel a piece of their life is missing because they don’t know their real parents.We are harming our children's well-being by allowing gay marriages. Well, it seems like Sarah is saying that if really wanted to protect children, we wouldn't let them be adopted -- because they might later commit suicide. Here's another way gay marriage hurts kids: Teenagers will also suffer from the effects of homosexuality. When you are a teenager, you want to try everything out. You are not very sure of yourself or what is good for you, and you long to be accepted by your peers. When you are not accepted, you start to wonder if something is wrong with you. You begin to explore different things in order to find an answer. Many young men have been led down to the path of homosexuality during this crisis time. The homosexual lifestyle leads to high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. Gay marriage may cause children to think, “I have another alternative if I get rejected from my girlfriend.”  Again, if we really want to protect our kids, we must order girls to never reject teenaged boys.  Otherwise, they could turn gay.   Like I said, Sarah doesn't offer any research to back her argument that gay marriage is bad for children.  While she seems like a nice enough woman (she apologizes for any offense she may have given), and while she seems properly conservative, she just doesn't seem all that  intellectual.  So I wondered why she had the lead column at Intellectual Conservative until I read her bio: "Sarah Alexander is from Washington State and is currently a Children's Pastor. She is the younger sister of IC co-editors Rachel and Andrew Alexander."  And presumably Mom made Rachel and Andrew let Sarah play Intellectual Conservative too. Or next leading conservative pundit is Gary Aldrich, whose topic is also gay marriage , and how it and the movie The Day After Tomorrow are distracting us from what's really imporant: the atomic bombing of our cities. First, he reminds us of what could happen if we get distracted and the terrorists nuke one of our cities and our civiliation collapses: A new Dark Age could set in.  Do we really want to take that risk by losing our clarity now? So, anything that distracts us from the War on Terror is bad.  Turn off that computer and focus on terror, kids!  Think of nothing but terror from now on. We may not have a choice. Our nation's newspapers and television networks have placed themselves in charge of what is "news" and what needs to be reported. They are drunk with power since CBS' 60 Minutes kicked off the Iraqi prison scandals. President Bush's poll numbers have sunk to an all-time low, and the Left-leaning mainstream media is in gleeful celebration. Their recent power "fix" will only fuel similar muckraking before the election.  Well, if we don't have a choice and the Dark Ages are coming, I guess it wouldn't really matter WHAT the gays do, would it?  But Gary says it does: Front pages host circus sideshow issues above the fold. Consider the wall-to-wall coverage of the few gender-confused Americans now jumping on the marriage benefits gravy train in Massachusetts. This development is sure to enrage the Dark Age Assassins who consider America the Great Satan. Newspaper editors may be overjoyed about the opportunity to poke Conservatives in the eye by amplifying this minuscule matter, but the larger question of our moral decline is not lost on the terrorists. They hate us for it. Wow, a few gender-confused Americans who get married just to jump on the "marriage benefits gravy train" (a train which should be reserved only for Americans like Gary) will enrage the terrorists, who will be sure to nuke us now, because our moral decline really, really bugs them.  Man, who would have thought that those few aberrant misfits could be so powerful.  Maybe we should intern them or something, before they cause the End of Civilization As We Know It. But marriage-minded gays aren't our only distraction.  No, there are also disaster movies (especially ones about global warming).  Meanwhile, Hollywood makes movies about what might...happen...someday. These movies always favor the Left, which gives undue credibility to the fantasy world Hollywood producers live in. Yeah, remember how The Poseidon Adventure projected the leftist fantasy about how cruise boats could capsize?  Man, I bet it's responsible for what happened on the Achille Lauro! We don't need science-fiction or small, fanatic factions, even if they are in love, to distract us right now. We are continually under terrorist attack, regardless that our own cities don't explode every day. But in our national state of ADD, if destruction doesn't occur every five minutes, we turn our backs to the ongoing dangers and redirect attention to bizarre amusements. We're losing our clarity, people  Personally, I blame that small, fanatic faction of lesbians in love who made Towering Inferno.  If only we had been more focused in the '70s, we probably could have kept Godzilla from destroying Tokyo. And lastly, here's our pal Doug Giles bashing our other pal, Ben Shapiro, for being a whiny crybaby: Have you been hearing some of today’s conservative college crowd crying out about how thorny life is in the university classroom?  If they want to see what difficult is all about, maybe they should move to the Sudan, or maybe Tibet.  Or perhaps attend a Jewel concert. In what way is attending a Jewel concert like life in the Sudan?  It doesn't really matter -- what matters is that Doug has heard of Jewel (you know, that singer who was popular about 6 years ago).  Doug then claims to be responding to some emails he got about a previous column, but it sounds to me like he made them up in order to bash Ben (who, in that FrontPage Mag interview, advised young conservatives not to speak up in class if it might hurt their grades, and said that if you didn't go along with the liberal ideas, you wouldn't be invited to go drinking beer with the gang). 2. What is with the “Get your grade and get out” mindset?  Look, I took my share of C’s from liberal professors who would dock my grade because I blasted their bovine scatology.  Such a C is an A to me, especially when it’s clearly because of my differing opinions, not sloppy work.  Y’see, if I’m going to get a C, I’m going to get a good one.  3. When duty demands you say or do something--something that may just turn around an opinion or two--obsessive grade concern is pathetic.  Hey, if you’re Jones-ing for an A, I’ll give you three right now: one for apathy, another for appeasement and still another for abnegation.  There you go--now you have three more A’s.  Now you’re even more of a FOUR POINT ZERO!  4. So what if you get criticized or ostracized for something that you believe is right?  Welcome to the jungle.  God never promised us carefree no-conflict living inside some idyllically cushioned wonderland.  Let the critics bash you; it’ll do you good.  It’ll make you or break you.  Criticism will force you out of your amniotic Kool-Aid filled sack and make you investigate what you believe, either strengthening your beliefs or causing you to adjust them dramatically.  On the other hand, if you really want to keep from being criticized, take these three strategic steps: do nothing; say nothing; be nothing. Then, at last, you’re safe! Whoa, pretty strong words directed at young author Ben (and there are more, like "Polly-pusillanimous-Anna," "Pauvre pelele" [?], and "Rad Magnum" [???].  I hope they do him some good. Oh, and speaking of Ben, here's what the last part of a Christian Science Monitor piece about Ben's book, and charges of conservatives being repressed on college campuses: Of US professors in general, Shapiro makes sweeping - and many would say absurd - charges that they promote atheism, absolute sexual freedom (including pedophilia and statutory rape, which are crimes), and rampant environmentalism to the point of urging the annihilation of the human species. However, the debate is not new, says Jonathan Knight, director of the program in academic freedom and tenure at the American Association of University Professors. "Faculty are seen as more liberal than the general population," says Mr. Knight. "They have described themselves that way at least since the 1960s." He points to William J. Buckley Jr.'s "God and Man at Yale," first published in 1951, which covers similar ground. And, asks Knight, if overly liberal college professors and administrators have long indoctrinated students, "how do we explain then that [the US] is the way that it is" - fairly balanced between liberal and conservative views? One of the criticisms leveled against Shapiro is that despite disparaging elite and Ivy League schools in his book, he will attend one this fall - Harvard University Law School. That fact makes it hard, says Knight, to accept either Shapiro's scorn for elite universities - or for the UCLA education that helped him gain admission to America's most prestigious law school. Well, I'm still betting that Ben will turn down the spot in Harvard Law and join the Marines.  You know, to put his principles in action, like Doug recommended. 7:16:19 AM

comment [] trackback []

Oopsie As you already knew, Brandon Mayfield, the American convert to Islam who was being held on a material witness warrant because his fingerprint was said to be on a plastic bag found in the van used by the Madrid bombers, has been released from custody.  Here's part of the Newsweek story: Mayfield had steadfastly maintained his innocence. And Spanish law-enforcement agencies had publicly expressed doubts that the fingerprint was definitely Mayfield's. But U.S. officials had insisted the fingerprint was, in the words of one, an "absolutely incontrovertible match." Now they're not so sure. Last week a federal judge set Mayfield free and Spanish investigators concluded that the fingerprint belonged not to Mayfield but to Ouhnane Daoud, an Algerian living in Spain. Mayfield isn't totally off the hook, though -- he's still being called a material witness, although a gag order prohibits anyone from saying why ("It could mean that the judge still has suspicions about Mayfield—or just wants to make sure he is available while they clear up the confusion surrounding his arrest.")  Or, as we found from the Yee case, it could mean that while the authorities didn't find evidence of espionage, they did find porn on his computer.  The FBI isn't yet ready to concede that it misread the fingerprint. One law-enforcement official told NEWSWEEK that the bureau is still confident of its initial analysis but was at a loss to explain how Spanish investigators came to such a different conclusion. "We're still trying to work through this," said the official. Another official added that even if the print is Mayfield's, they still have no answer to the biggest question: "How the hell did it get there?" As to how Mayfield's fingerprint could have been misread, an A.P. story has a possible scenario: a computer mismatch and human examiners who wanted the print to be Mayfield's. In theory, no two fingerprints are the same, but some can look similar, according to the Web site of the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, a group for fingerprint examiners. No statistics exist on false fingerprint matches in the United States, but mistakes are believed to be rare, in large part because all fingerprints are checked by human examiners who make the final decision on a match. But the federal database that tied Mayfield to the plastic bag in Madrid holds tens of millions of fingerprints. The computer compares curve angles and patterns to produce a list of possible suspects.  "Obviously, the larger the database, the greater the possibility of two fingers having roughly similar sets of coordinates," Wertheim said. "It's an issue that has troubled some of us in the business." Once a computer identifies possible matches, the science of matching is much the same as it was when fingerprints were first used in a U.S. courtroom in Chicago in 1911: It is up to humans to review two blobs of squiggly lines and decide if they are the same. [...] FBI agents probably saw the match as plausible because Mayfield is a Muslim, and the bombings were linked to Islamic terrorists, and because Mayfield had represented a terrorism suspect in Portland two years ago, Wertheim said. Spanish authorities first cast doubt on the match, saying they found only eight points of similarity between Mayfield's print and the one on the bag. The FBI said it found 15 coinciding points. Wertheim said that discussion was perplexing, because fingerprint analysts have largely abandoned the 16-point method of comparing prints after a 1989 British study cast doubt on its reliability. So, there's a partial fingerprint match to guy who looked like what a terrorist would look like, per the FBI.  An arrest is made in the absence of firm evidence because investigators feared the story had been leaked to the media.  Two weeks later the print from the plastic bag is identified as sombody else's, and the guy is released.  But FBI still claims they did everything right and the guy may still be guilty of something, but they're not saying what.   Maybe it's just me, but this story doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence in the professionalism of those involved in this case. While it may be too soon to say that Mayfield has absolutely no involvement with the Madrid bombings, I think it sure looks that way.  And I don't think it's too soon for some pundits to devote a moment of introspection as to why they were so eager to believe that Mayfield was guilty, and why his case proved to them that there was a Growing Crisis of American Islam, as Stephen Schwartz put it in his Tech Central Station column.    Let's review a few paragraphs from that piece -- and let's also wonder if Schwartz wishes he could change anything now:  While the attention of most Americans, and much of the Islamic world, has been focused on the scandal of American soldiers' conduct at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, other events signal a deepening and dangerous crisis for American society and its relationship to Muslims who live within the borders of the U.S. [...] As so often these days, media find ordinary Americans anxious to swear to the normality of Brandon Mayfield -- just as other reporters in other heartland communities found relatives and friends that sprang to declare the soldiers accused of abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib to be nice people. However, Mayfield's relatives appeared awfully anxious to declare the case to have proven the USA Patriot Act a failure; their response was not exactly nonideological.  Mayfield has yet to be charged with anything, and must be considered innocent until proven guilty.  If he is found to have had a link with the Madrid conspiracy, nobody anywhere should be surprised.  With the implication being (at least to me), that if Mayfield is found innocent, everybody everywhere should be surprised. Oh, and just for fun, let's say that Stephen, for instance, was arrested in connection with a horrific crime.  While there isn't any real evidence he was involved in it, he seems like the type who would be, so the investigators use a provision of the Patriot Act to hold him while they do further investigation, and while he is smeared in the press.  And let's say that his family knew that he hadn't left the country for years and were convinced that he was innocent of any wrongdoing.  Thus, in this case, if Stephen's family objects that the Patriot Act is being used to hold an innocent American citizen in a way that seems to violate his constitutional rights, then obviously they are ideologues, and we should just ignore anything they might say, because, you know, it's just what the family of a terrorist would say.  After all, the families of the soldiers accused of abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib also said that their loved ones were good people, so the two cases are completely comparable, even though there are photos and an Army report attesting to the guilt of the Abu Ghraib soliders.  But you know what -- we should all stop worrying about Abu Ghraib and focus a little more on Stephen and the other traitors in our midst.  You know, if Stephen is found guilty -- which shouldn't surprise anybody one little bit. 5:14:56 AM

comment [] trackback []

"Christians look to form 'new nation' within U.S.   Same-sex marriage called last straw, prompting plan for 1 state to secede"   Yes, that's today's top headline at WorldNetDaily.  Which lucky state gets to be flooded with Christians who are sick and tired of living in a nation where sodomy is not denounced as perversity, children can't pray in schools, and gay marriage is going to be foisted upon everyone?  And which state will, once there are enough goodly fundementalists in place, secede from the union and form its own country where such practices will not be tolerated?   To find out, you could read the article; or, you could just read Pete's treatement of it at Darkwindow.  (We recommend the second option.) In any case, you'd better find out if it's YOUR state (hey, the article says that already 1500 emails of support have been received, so you know that secession is inevitable).   We'd also like to point out that we already assigned this state to the United Church of Christ and Martha Stewartentalism, as part of our Official State Religion program (well, I guess the fall of Martha does leave the state vulnerable to takeovers  by other groups.)  3:03:53 AM

comment [] trackback []

Write Your Own NRO Blurb As "NRO Drive Days" continue, the rhetoric is notched up from " immoderate" to "extravagant" to  "mega fanatic extreme to the max!"  Here's Peter's Kirsanow's effort: "MOST INFLUENTIAL" [Peter Kirsanow] NRO is the most influential website in America. I'm constantly amazed at how many of the nation's leaders and decision makers read NRO's commentary daily. K-Lo is the conductor of the finest orchestra of thinkers and writers in all of blogdom. They provide intelligent analysis and reporting unseen anywhere else. And the Corner — raucous, irreverent, erudite — is an Algonquin Roundtable of rocket scientists with a sense of humor. Posted at 01:58 PM Here's mine: NRO is unquestionably the best website in the galaxy (I don't care what the Alpha Centaurans may claim)!  You would probably be astounded to learn the names of the many world leaders and decision makers who read NRO's commentary daily: Dick Cheney, Pope John Paul, Bill Gates, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, William Casey, Adolph Hitler . . . see, I told you that you'd proably be astounded.  KJL (that K-Lo appellation is soooo last week, dude) is the 5-star general of the finest army of thinkers and writers to be found in this or any other universe. (Well, she's not really their boss, she's more like that secretary whom everyone in the office jollies along by telling her that she's the most important person in the office so that she'll keep putting the toner in the Xerox machine, bringing in the ice-cream cakes for birthdays, and cleaning the break room fridge -- so that the less important people don't have to be bothered.)  Remember, there is a war going on, and how ever will we win it without Supreme Commander Kathryn, Kaiser Rich, Grand Marshall Jonah, Lord High Executioner Derb, Leftenant Ramesh, French Lieutenant's Woman Meghan, and the rest? And the Corner -- squawky, ungodly, pretentious -- is a Truman Capote party made up of brain surgeons, nuclear physicists, and Nobel Prize-winning geneticists with whoopee cushions, plastic dog doo-doo, and books of knock-knock jokes.  Try to imagine a world without it, and then try to imagine yourself giving it money.  Almost impossible to do, n'est-ce pas?  But I think Atrios will still accept donations. 2:09:57 AM