Month: May 2005

We always hear that the religious Right is a great demon bent on lying and destroying our world, but what about the equally fanatic religious Left, that shapeless army of Buddhists, Christians, and observant Atheists who make up their own reality from moment to moment? One of their house organs is Sojourners Magazine, the source of a a big fat lie about abortion:

Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

This claim is false. It’s based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is “significantly better” than his own.

Oops – busted.

But lying about abortion and Bush isn’t as bad as excusing the Tienanmen Square massacre, is it?

What’s the more significant recent election, France’s rejection of the European constitution, or Beirut’s election of Saad Hariri and his slate to lead the new democratic government?

France gets more play, but I’d go with Lebanon, one of the immediate consequences of the Bush policies in the Middle East. Besides, countries like Lebanon are the future, and France is the past.

Mark Felt, age 91, says he was Deep Throat:

SANTA ROSA, Calif. – A former FBI official claims he was “Deep Throat,” the long-anonymous source who leaked secrets about President Nixon’s Watergate coverup to The Washington Post, his family said Tuesday.

I’ve got no reason to doubt him, but I’d like to hear it from Woodward.

Here’s the Vanity Fair story.

UPDATE: OK, Woodward has confirmed Felt was DT. He’d been coy about it because he’s got a book to sell. Given J. Edgar’s use of FBI information to keep politicians in line throughout his career, the leaking of info by the FBI’s number 2 isn’t so weird, is it?

the Vdare Blog offers a simple and cogent explanation for recent Republican victories:

The key reason why some states vote Republican, I’ve found, can be summed up in the three-word phrase:

Affordable Family Formation.

In parts of the country where it is economical to buy a house with a yard in a neighborhood with a decent public school, you’ll generally find more Republicans.

You’ll find less in regions where it’s expensive.

It’s a stereotype that a mortgage, marriage, and babies tend to make people more conservative.

But it’s a true stereotype.

It makes more sense than the Air America theory: false consciousness instilled by the right-wing New York Times.

There’s been a lot of whining about the filibuster deal on conservative web sites and blogs. Folks, you need to get over it. Politics is all about compromise and that’s exactly what this is. You get Owens, Pryor, and Brown, and the other side gets to spike a couple of people nobody’s heard of. The real filibuster fight gets put off until there’s a Supreme Court vacancy, and John McCain gets some points at the expense of Dr. Frist.

Practice saying “President John McCain.” Do you like the sound of that better than “President Hillary Clinton?”

I thought you would. Now buck up and take it like a man.

Comments from Democrats on the Keith Thompson essay lead me to believe that they see themselves as more virtuous than Republicans. Isn’t it odd that the political process, which is first and foremost a discussion of policy alternatives to meet common ends, would degenerate into an opportunity for assertions of personal moral virtue?

I don’t think there’s a great difference in moral values between Democrats and Republicans, because we all believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where we disagree is over the tactics and policies that make these desirable ends available to the greatest number of people. Democrats (and others on the left) want to soak successful individuals and corporations and transfer their wealth to the less successful. They want to impose heavy regulations on business based on a “precautionary principle” that makes it hard to accumulate capital. They want quotas or preferences to create the illusion of equality of talent and motivation where it may not actually exist. They’re more concerned about the size of the gap between rich and poor than they are with the objective state of the poor.

Republicans see these policies as punishing virtuous behavior and rewarding indolence, ignorance, and jealousy.

So who has the moral high ground?