Lettermen Has a Gay 'ol Time with McGreevey Tome

David Lettermen's Top Ten chapter titles for former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey's new biography, "The Confession" via the NY Post:

10) "The Day I Got Caught Governing Myself;"

9) "How to Pretend to Like Girls for 47 Years;"

8) "From Schwarzenegger to Pataki: Governors I'd Like to Oil Up;"

7) "Another Confession - I Can't Resist Entenmann's Pound Cake;"

6) "At First I Just Thought I Was Bipartisan;"

5) "The New Jersey Budget Crisis - What Would Judy Garland Do?;"

4) "A Look at the Governor's Balls;"

3) "Politicians Who Left a Bad Taste in My Mouth;"

2) "How to Push Through a Bill - Or a Steve or a Larry;"

And the No. 1 chapter title - drum roll, please! -

"Why I Don't Like Bush."

A Philosophical Look At The Rise of Alternative Media

It is no secret that the legacy media has experienced dramatic losses in viewership and readership over the past few years. Undoubtedly, this is due, in large part, to the rise of alternative media. Today, talk radio, blogs, etc., have become supplemental data sources for information, which formerly went unreported in the MSM.

Gagdad Bob "considers the cosmic implications" of this new era of media from a philosphical angle.

There is absolute truth and there is relative truth. Ironically, contrary to what most sophisticates will tell you, it is possible to know absolute truth absolutely. Being that truth is another matter, but knowing it is a human birthright. For example, we may know absolutely that reality is One, that appearance is not the same as reality, that the world is intelligible, and that human beings possess free will with which they may choose good or evil. This is the realm of perennial religious truth, which expresses metaphysical knowledge in sometimes mythological language accessible to virtually everyone.

The philosophical tragedy of our day is that the postmodernists use this subjective opening--which is an inevitable artifact of our humaness--to come in with their wrecking ball and destroy the whole idea of objective truth, thus elevating relativity to an objective truth. In so doing, they promulgate the “false vertical” idea that there are absolutely no absolutes, a metaphysical absurdity if ever there was one. In other words, as soon as you say it is absolutely true that all knowledge is relative, you have disproved your own statement. You have actually acknowledged that humans may objectively know absolute truth.

In order to understand the relative world, we must begin with an objectively true framework or paradigm that puts everything in its proper place and allows us to “see” what is important or significant. But the secular assault on religion has badly damaged the extraordinarly bountiful framework ("fruitfulness" being an aspect of truth) that guided western civilization for hundreds of years , only to replace it with their own thoroughly secularized pseudo-religion that we know of as “leftism.”

I have heard estimates from reputable members of the elite media that the typical newsroom probably tilts fifteen or twenty to one, liberal to conservative. But at the same time, virtually every one of them believes that they can see beyond their own biases and report the news “objectively.” One wonders what they would say if the situation were reversed, and all newsrooms, not to mention universities, had twenty times as many conservatives as leftists.

[S]o few people trust the liberal media anymore because they will not admit their biases.

And this is why people flock to alternative sources of news such as talk radio, blogs, and Fox news--because they are transparent. I don’t pretend that I see the world through anything other than the lens of classical American liberalism. Viewed through that lens, the world is an entirely different place than it is when viewed through the lens of illiberal leftism. We literally see different things. We have different assumptions, different ideas about what is important, different values, different notions of good and evil, even entirely different ideas about fundamental causes.

For example, the typical liberal unreflexively believes that “poverty causes crime” (thus the New York Times' clueless headline, "Crime Down Despite Rise in Prison Population") whereas I believe that bad values cause crime.

Liberals will typically say that Israeli policies somehow have something to do with Palestinian terror, while I believe that Palestinian terror is caused by their psychotic death cult theology. After all, there are no Christian Palestinian terrorists. They are just as “occupied” as Palestinian Muslims, and yet, it doesn’t occur to the Christians to strap on bombs with pieces of twisted metal and rat poison in order to kill and maim as many women and children as possible.

If you unreflexively believe that poverty causes crime or that the cause of terror is fighting it, then all of your reporting is going to reflect those basic assumptions, something we constantly see in the liberal media. For them, these notions are simply “reality,” whereas the idea that bad values cause crime or an evil theology causes terror are “conservative” ideas. Neither point of view is absolutely true, but one is much more true.

Thus, we should not be surprised when liberals take things out of context and distort reality to fit their peceptions. For them to say “the war on terror causes terrorists” is simply a cherished assumption dressed up as a conclusion.

Would they ever report that terrorists are the cause of the American military that liberals so despise, and that if terrorists would only appease America, our military would stop trying to harm them? Or that Islamo-nazis have to stop their unwinnable war on the west, because it will only create more George Bushes and Tony Blairs and John Howards?

Or that they themselves must stop mindlessly attacking conservatives, because it will just make us stronger?

More from Regensberg on Reason and Faith

Awhile back I mentioned a lunch conversation that touched on (among other things) the beneficial impact that the confluence of reason with Judeo-Christian religious belief has had on the development of Western Civilization. I wrote:

There is often tension, and sometimes outright hostility, between the scientific and faith communities. However, this tension, in my opinion, is a net gain--a source of strength for our society.

This is, in my opinion, undeniably true. However, it leaves unanswered the question of how reason and faith found their way to co-existence in Western society in the first place. This thought-provoking article by Lee Harris at The Weekly Standard (a portion of which is reproduced below), which examines Pope Benedict XVI's now controversial address at the University of Regensburg, helps to explain the origins of the providential encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought.

Benedict argues that the "inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history." For Benedict, however, this event is not mere ancient history. It is a legacy that we in the West are all duty-bound to keep alive--yet it is a legacy that is under attack, both from those who do not share it, namely Islam, and from those who are its beneficiaries and do not understand it, namely, Western intellectuals.

Modern reason argues that questions of ethics, of religion, and of God are outside its compass. Because there is no scientific method by which such questions can be answered, modern reason cannot concern itself with them, nor should it try to. From the point of view of modern reason, all religious faiths are equally irrational, all systems of ethics equally unverifiable, all concepts of God equally beyond rational criticism. But if this is the case, then what can modern reason say when it is confronted by a God who commands that his followers should use violence and even the threat of death in order to convert unbelievers?

If modern reason cannot concern itself with the question of God, then it cannot argue that a God who commands jihad is better or worse than a God who commands us not to use violence to impose our religious views on others. To the modern atheist, both Gods are equally figments of the imagination, in which case it would be ludicrous to discuss their relative merits. The proponent of modern reason, therefore, could not possibly think of participating in a dialogue on whether Christianity or Islam is the more reasonable religion, since, for him, the very notion of a "reasonable religion" is a contradiction in terms.

Ratzinger wishes to challenge this notion, not from the point of view of a committed Christian, but from the point of view of modern reason itself. He does this by calling his educated listeners' attention to a "dialogue--carried on--perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara--by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both." In particular, Ratzinger focuses on a passage in the dialogue where the emperor "addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness" on the "central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

Ratzinger's daring use of this provocative quotation was not designed to inflame Muslims. He was using the emperor's question in order to offer a profound challenge to modern reason from within. Can modern reason really stand on the sidelines of a clash between a religion that commands jihad and a religion that forbids violent conversion?

Modern reason, to be sure, cannot prove scientifically that a community of reasonable men is ethically superior to a community governed by violent men. But a critique of modern reason from within must recognize that a community of reasonable men is a necessary precondition of the very existence of modern reason. He who wills to preserve and maintain the achievements of modern reason must also will to live in a community made up of reasonable men who abstain from the use of violence to enforce their own values and ideas. Such a community is the a priori ethical foundation of modern reason. Thus, modern reason, despite its claim that it can give no scientific advice about ethics and religion, must recognize that its own existence and survival demand both an ethical postulate and a religious postulate. The ethical postulate is: Do whatever is possible to create a community of reasonable men who abstain from violence, and who prefer to use reason. The religious postulate is: If you are given a choice between religions, always prefer the religion that is most conducive to creating a community of reasonable men, even if you don't believe in it yourself.

Modern reason cannot hope to prove these postulates to be scientifically true; but it must recognize that a refusal to adopt and act on these postulates will threaten the very survival of modern reason itself. That is the point of Ratzinger's warning that "the West has long been endangered by [its] aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby." Because it is ultimately a community of reasonable men that underlies the rationality of the West, modern reason is risking suicide by not squarely confronting the question: How did such a community of reasonable men come into being in the first place? By what miracle did men turn from brute force and decide to reason with one another?

It is important to stress that Ratzinger is not repudiating the critical examination of reason that was initiated by Kant. Instead, he is urging us to examine the cultural and historical conditions that made the emergence of modern reason possible. Modern reason required a preexisting community of reasonable men before it could emerge in the West; modern reason, therefore, could not create the cultural and historical condition that made its own existence possible. But in this case, modern reason must ask itself: What created the communities of reasonable men that eventually made modern reason possible?

This was the question taken up by one of Kant's most illustrious and brilliant students, Johann Herder. Herder began by accepting Kant and the Enlightenment, but he went on to ask the Kantian question: What were the necessary conditions of the European Enlightenment? What kind of culture was necessary in order to produce a critical thinker like Immanuel Kant himself? When Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, methodically demolished all the traditional proofs for the existence of God, why wasn't he torn limb from limb in the streets of Königsburg by outraged believers, instead of being hailed as one of the greatest philosophers of all time?

Herder's answer was that in Europe, and in Europe alone, human beings had achieved what Herder called "cultures of reason." In his grand and pioneering survey of world history and world cultures, Herder had been struck by the fact that in the vast majority of human societies, reason played little or no role. Men were governed either by a blind adherence to tradition or by brute force. Only among the ancient Greeks did the ideal of reason emerge to which Manuel II Paleologus appeals in his dialogue with the learned Persian.

A culture of reason is one in which the ideal of the dialogue has become the foundation of the entire community. In a culture of reason, everyone has agreed to regard violence as an illegitimate method of changing other people's minds. The only legitimate method of effecting such change is to speak well and to reason properly. Furthermore, a culture of reason is one that privileges the spirit of Greek philosophic inquiry: It encourages men to think for themselves.

For Herder, modern scientific reason was the product of European cultures of reason, but these rare cultures of reason were themselves the outcome of a well-nigh miraculous convergence of traditions to which Ratzinger has called our attention as constituting the foundation of Europe: the world-historical encounter between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry, "with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage." Thus, for Herder, modern scientific and critical reason, if it looks scientifically and critically at itself, will be forced to recognize that it could never have come into existence had it not been for the "providential," or perhaps merely serendipitous, convergence of these three great traditions. Modern reason is a cultural phenomenon like any other: It did not drop down one fine day out of the clouds. It involved no special creation. Rather, it evolved uniquely out of the fusion of cultural traditions known as Christendom.

A critique of modern reason from within must recognize its cultural and historical roots in this Christian heritage. In particular, it must recognize its debt to the distinctive concept of God that was the product of the convergence of the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman traditions. To recognize this debt, of course, does not require any of us to believe that this God actually exists.

For example, the 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was an atheist; yet in his own critique of modern reason, he makes a remarkably shrewd point, which Ratzinger might well have made himself. Modern scientific reason says that the universe is governed by rules through and through; indeed, it is the aim of modern reason to disclose and reveal these laws through scientific inquiry. Yet, as Schopenhauer asks, where did this notion of a law-governed universe come from? No scientist can possibly argue that science has proven the universe to be rule-governed throughout all of space and all of time. As Kant argued in his Critique of Judgment, scientists must begin by assuming that nature is rational through and through: It is a necessary hypothesis for doing science at all. But where did this hypothesis, so vital to science, come from?

The answer, according to Schopenhauer, was that modern scientific reason derived its model of the universe from the Christian concept of God as a rational Creator who has intelligently designed every last detail of the universe ex nihilo. It was this Christian idea of God that permitted Europeans to believe that the universe was a rational cosmos. Because Europeans had been brought up to imagine the universe as the creation of a rational intelligence, they naturally came to expect to find evidence of this intelligence wherever they looked--and, strangely enough, they did.

Osama bin Laden is Dead?

MSNBC is reporting that a French publication printed a report by Saudi security services making this claim, although no official government organization has confirmed it yet. Although he's been more of a figure-head than a strategist over the past few years, it would still be very welcome news should it turn out to be true. Here's to hoping.

The Great Hole of History

British philosopher Roger Scruton writes that Islamism is driven by "transferable grievance." (via The Corner).

Like every transferable grievance, that of Islamism is often right in its judgment of the things that it hates. Who among us is entirely pleased with McWorld? Who among us does not wish that some kind of lid could be put on the licentiousness of modern societies? But that is not the point. Most of us recognise that there is an organic connection between freedom and its abuse, and that licentiousness is the price we pay for political liberty.

Muslims want that liberty as much as non-Muslims do: and to obtain it they migrate in their millions from the places where Islam is sovereign to the places where it is not - America being the longed-for final haven. And that is the source of the grievance. Radical Islam is cut off from the modern world: its revelation and its law are by their nature fixed and unadaptable, and the sight of people successfully living according to other codes and with other aspirations is both a cause of offence and an irresistible temptation.

More On Hugo's UN Address

Captain's Quarters provides some further analysis on the impact of Hugo Chavez's rantings at Turtle Bay yesterday.

Chavez apparently thought he could adapt Cindy Sheehan's protest rhetoric to impress New Yorkers, but it takes more than warmed-over Chomskyisms and a dash of religious hallucinations to shock people in the Big Apple or the United States. Unfortunately, the gathered representatives of governments around the world are more easily impressed by lunatic rantings -- or perhaps just more amused.

Chavez did more harm than good despite the resounding applause given to his speech. Venezuela has been strong-arming Latin America to get its seat on the Security Council. Up until yesterday, Chavez had made inroads with his neighbors, some of whom share his distaste for the Bush administration if not his paranoia. After his performance yesterday, though, analysts stated that Venezuela had little chance of allowing such a diplomatically inept regime control their representation.

It did more extensive damage than that. Chavez' rant went a long way to prove conservatives correct about endemic anti-Americanism in the United Nations. Even other nations appeared stunned by the ferocity of the remarks, such as China's foreign minister, who had to ask for confirmation of his remarks out of disbelief. The warmth of the reception of these remarks provided a stunning look at the hostility that the non-democratic nations have for the United States, especially in the General Assembly. It will add fuel to the fire for conservative skepticism of the body's effect on spreading freedom and liberty around the world, which is supposed to be one of the UN's core missions.

Instead, we see that the organization has increasingly been hijacked by petty petrocrats and hallucinating dictators as a vehicle for hatred and obloquy. When the leader of one sovereign nation uses the UN dais to issue thinly-veiled demands for the annihilation of another nation, and gets followed by a circus act that makes him look like a moderate, then we know that the inmates are running the Turtle Bay asylum. Yesterday, Chavez proved that all the UN is missing is enough straitjackets to go around.

UNholy II

I don't know why I even bother posting on this, other than just to vent a little. Today was another shameful day at the poisonous well of incompetence, corruption, cowardice, anti-Americanism and Jew hatred, also known as the United Nations.

Today, the august body of world diplomacy was treated to an address/comedy routine by the tinpot Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez. Here's a portion of the transcript from Musing Minds (via Pajamas):

"I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. (crosses himself) Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today."

Quote of the day from James Taranto at Best of the Web referring to Chavez' sulfur comment (via Wizbang):

"He who smelt it..."

Allah has video of the all the lowlights and summarizes:

"He praises Castro, recommends Chomsky’s book, and calls upon the world to grant him a seat on the UN Security Council so that he can help usher in the type of peace and prosperity for which the Arab and Latin American worlds are so well known and loved. It’s vaudeville, revolutionary style."

Chavez's address is risible and would be easily dismissed--fodder for the dustbin of history--if not for his interest in forming and strengthening alliances with leaders of other oil-producing countries (e.g. Iran, Russia) who someday could disrupt oil supplies in order to coerce political concessions and/or exact economic punishment against America.

This guy is no stranger to political theater. Every public appearance is intended to stick a finger in the eye of the administration and to elevate his stature among America-haters around the globe. An article I included in this post makes the salient point relative to the unwarranted recognition provided by the platform at the UN.

"Participation in the UN confers on them an unearned moral legitimacy. That the leaders of such regimes are routinely invited to speak before the UN rewards them with an undeserved respectability."

Indeed, Chavez's contemputuous comments were hailed by leftists in this country and around the world as sagacity in its purest form. Sadly, but not surprisingly, his adolescent tirade was greeted with snickering and applause from many of the "diplomats" in attendance. So, this is what passes for diplomacy today, huh? No, it is simply what we have come to expect from this moral sewer.

I guess it's a testament to our commitment to free speech that we allow these shameless kleptocrats--people for whom the demise of America is a wet dream--to spew their hatred and historical revisionism to a televised audience around the world. To think that America is by far the largest financial benefactor to this piece of crap adds insult to injury.

Well, that's my rant for today.

UPDATE:

It's very heartening today to see some Democrats criticize Chavez's remarks. Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), no friend of the president's, reportedly said "You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president." Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) critcized Chavez's intemperate remarks.

UNholy I

Gagdad Bob on the president of Iran's address to the UN:

Ahmadinejad’s words were a precise mirror image of truth, again highlighting the fact that one must on some level know the truth in order to lie about it. In Ahmadinejad’s case, one was struck at how frequently he made appeals to specifically Judeo-Christian principles and rights that he and the dictators of Syria or Libya or the Saudi entity would never dream of granting their own enslaved peoples.

I wonder if he was "glowing" when he served up this hot steaming pile of propaganda.

Claudia Rosett describes the speech:

Standing in front of the dais manned by high UN officials, the whole scene set against the stage’s sweeping golden backdrop and UN emblem, he began speaking in a soft voice. He quickly got louder and louder, declaiming, ranting, and finally almost chanting, shaking his finger, slicing his hands through the air, delivering a speech packed with “truth,” “peace” “virtue” “justice” — but inverted, twisted, indifferent to facts and emptied of meaning. He lied his head off about Iran’s nuclear bomb program, he rewrote history in his continuing campaign to erase the state of Israel, he blamed on others the terrorist atrocities underwritten by his own regime. He told us that together we can “pave the road for human perfection,” and that peace and justice — as he imagines it for all of us — will sooner or later prevail, “whether we like it or not.”

Presumably, that would involve the entire world converting to Islam under his leadership.

What a Game!

I just saw one of the most amazing baseball games in my life. My favorite baseball team since childhood, the Los Angeles Dodgers, just beat the San Diego Padres in dramatic fashion to regain possession of first place in the National League West.

The night started off on the wrong foot, as the Padres scored 4 runs in the first inning off of the Dodgers ace, Brad Penny. The Dodgers retained their composure, though, and chipped away at the lead, scoring runs in each of the first 3 innings to finally tie it in the 3rd. I thought for sure the Dodgers were going to lose when, in the 6th inning, they failed to score with the bases loaded and no outs. The Padres scored two runs in the 8th and three more in the 9th to take a commanding 9-5 lead.

Then, in the bottom of the 9th, the Dodgers did something that hadn't been done in more than 40 years--they socked four consecutive solo home runs! An amazing feat, particularly since the Dodgers rank last in the league in home runs hit. It's more amazing considering that two of the home runs came off of one of the best relievers in history, Trevor Hoffman. Hailing from Bellflower, California, Hoffman had been virtually unbeatable against the Dodgers, saving 55 games in 57 tries. He's three saves away from attaining the record for most saves in baseball history. This guy is dominant. Surprisingly, the Dodgers nearly hit two more homers off of him before the inning was over.

Momentum was hugely in the Dodgers favor going into extra innings. Unfortunately, their bullpen imploded again and gave up the go-ahead run. But, in the bottom of the 10th, the new relief pitcher for the Padres (a former Dodger) walked the lead-off batter. The next hitter was Nomar Garciaparra, who had struck out in the 8th inning with runners on second and third. With the count at 3-1, Nomar hit a massive bomb to left field bringing home the tying and winning runs, and with it, sole possession of first place. As soon as the ball left the bat, Nomar pumped his fist, knowing it was out of there.

An unbelieveable game. Hopefully, the momentum from this game will carry them through the rest of the season and well into the post-season.

Here's another great take on that amazing ballgame.

Musings From Lunch

I enjoy going out to lunch with people with whom I work. They're smart and funny (well, most of them anyways). A typical discussion at lunch can cover politics, traveling, music, pop culture, 9/11, Dwight K. Schrute and Jim+Pam, as well as a host of other interests. Today, over Thai food, Mike, Yadira and I discussed in vitro fertilization (Yadira has a couple of friends who are going to try it); the ethics of stem-cell research; and our brain types. I'm an ENTP, she's an ENFP, and we think Mike is an INFP, which stands for Introversion, Intuitive, Feeling, Perceiving. Since I know Mike checks in on my blog from time to time, I figured I would post the character traits of an INFP:

"Idealist"

deep internal values; idealistic; romantic, appears calm; generally reticent; creative; avoids conflict; sensitive, aware of others' feelings; sacrificial; welcomes new ideas; flexible; interested in learning and writing; composer; language skilled.

Sounds about right.

We also briefly discussed the notion that Western Civilization in general, and America in particular, have greatly benefited from the confluence of its (predominately) Judeo-Christian religious foundation with scientific advancements (as well as its secular governmental institutions, among other things). I believe this idea was popularized by Leo Strauss, who asserted that Western Civilization evolved due to the convergence of "Athens and Jerusalem," or reason and revelation.

There is often tension, and sometimes outright hostility, between the scientific and faith communities. However, this tension, in my opinion, is a net gain--a source of strength for our society. A contemporary example from today's lunch discussion touched on the important role religious morality can play in informing issues such as genetic engineering--the ethical dilemma posed by the amazing scientific advances that enable babies to be designed (i.e. choosing their gender, eye/hair color, etc.).

Our reason/revelation discussion proved to be rather timely, as it came just a day after a papal address delivered to the University of Regensburg in Germany. In it, the Pope stated:

The vision of St. Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) — this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am."

This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Psalm 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.

Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria — the Septuagint — is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: It is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of Revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II [the Byzantine emperor] was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.

A Look At al Qaeda From Inside Out

The New Yorker has a long and interesting article that traces the ideological roots of al Qaeda. It's a fascinating insight into the intellectual underpinnings of the movement, much of it from the point of view of some of its progenitors.

A Remembrance

The first thing that struck me upon my arrival in New York in late November 2001 was all the flyers/posters that lined the buildings, telephone poles and fences. Pictures of anonymous people, lost to their families, seemed to crowd every inch of wall space in sections of the subway tunnels.

The next day, December 1, 2001, we took a taxi downtown and, as we approached ground zero, traffic became more and more congested from people flocking to glimpse the wreckage. We exited the taxi a few blocks from the site and walked to a building across from St. Paul's Chapel where I was to be introducd to a friend of a friend, who would be our tour guide for the day. I was surprised that there was still dust and ash everywhere.

My new friend and tour guide, Kevin, worked for Merrill Lynch on that awful day (and still does, as far as I know) and was able to get us access to areas around ground zero that were off limits to anyone without a security clearance. He took us up to his office in Four World Financial Center, which overlooked the New York Harbor (with a perfect view of the Statue of Liberty) and, on the other side, ground zero. As I looked out upon the devastation from high within the building and tried to soak in the enormity of it, Kevin began telling me how he witnessed the second plane hit the tower and how massive the resulting fireball was (he estimated it was at least 20 stories high).

He told me how the Twin Towers titled so far that he was incredulous that they didn't topple sideways. From his vantage point he said he could see the fear on the faces of people descending dozens of flights of stairs to escape. But, he was more amazed by the orderliness of the evacuation.

He tried to describe the surreal, nightmarish feeling that enveloped him as he attempted to evacuate his own building through an all-white hallway with no visible signage, and his confusion as he opened door after unmarked door desparate to find an exit. Once he finally got downstairs, he opened another door--this one into a world that looked as though it was coming to an end. Panic and confusion were everywhere as people ran in all directions to get away. He followed hundreds of people to a dock nearby, which was for the ferry to New Jersey. He watched in panic as the dock began to sink under the weight of all the people, causing many to jump into the water to save themselves.

Meanwhile, the pastor of my church was sitting in an airplane on the tarmack at Newark Airport, noticing smoke coming from the Twin Towers while awaiting flight clearance that would never come. He later told me the story of his former secretary, who had taken a job at the World Trade Center, as she rode the subway to work that morning, just like every other morning. I still recoil when I recall her story and try to imagine the horror she must have experienced emerging from underground to see people falling out of the sky, some of whom were on fire. I won't report what Kevin said it sounded like when they hit the ground.

I remember feeling so many emotions walking around downtown that day: incredible sadness for those who died, a sense of loss for the families of the deceased and those still desparately clinging to hope of finding their loved ones, tenderness for the makeshift memorials of stuffed animals, candles, notes of sympathy and prayers, which lined the chain-link fence around the perimeter of ground zero. And I remember the Anger. A slow, burning Anger that ebbed and flowed throughout the day...and sometimes still does.

Kevin told me that, until 9/11, he had kept a journal. Because he was still in shock from the traumatic events he witnessed that day, he hadn't been able to write a word since. Although I had never met him before, I could tell he was distant--emotionally detached. Because words failed him, he documented what he saw at ground zero by taking hundreds of pictures (35mm film). He couldn't explain why, but it was the only thing that seemed to help him cope. He had so many photographs in his office that he gave me a stack of dozens, which I still possess today. I appreciated Kevin's candor as he recounted the horrors that haunted him to me--someone he hardly knew. I told him I was thankful for his first-hand insight into an historic event, which I will one day recount to my children.

I got back to my hotel room late that night, physically and emotionally exhausted. I just wanted to zone out, so I turned on the TV. That night the news was covering a vigil in Central Park being held in remembrance of George Harrison, who had died earlier that day. One of my musical heroes was dead. I couldn't escape sadness.

So much has transpired since then, but it's important for me to remember what I learned that day. Tonight I found this website that shows some pictures from 9/11, which reminded me of Kevin and his photos. These are just small reminders of a few more of the thousands of stories like Kevin's that I will never know in detail. I am keenly aware that my feeble attempt at relating some of the stories I heard that day in New York is totally inadequate. I just wanted to blog in honor of him and all those who lived through the terrible events of 9/11.

The Path To Hypocrisy

Via Reuters:

Amid an election-year debate over who can best defend America, U.S. congressional Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the September 11 attacks that is critical to former Democrat President Bill Clinton and his top aides.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the five-hour television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as "a work of fiction."

Reid and other leading Senate Democrats wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC's corporate partent, the Walt Disney Co., urging him to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program."

ABC responds that the movie is a "dramatization, not a documentary."

Sound familiar? It's the same thing that was said in response to criticism about Michael Moore's false and defamaory Fahrenheit 9/11.

Yet Democrats were delighted when Moore's deceptive "documentary" was unleashed in an election year. Remember the snide smiles pasted on the faces of former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe and his cohorts as they emerged from screening Moore's movie? Jonah Goldberg reminds us that Democrats embraced Michael Moore's movie at the highest levels. Daschle hugged Moore at the premiere. Carter invited him to sit with him at the convention. Now he wonders, "Are they claiming that F9/11 is more accurate than the ABC miniseries? If so, I'd like to hear them say it."

So would I.

But for now, we have to endure the whining of Clintonistas, such as Sandy Burglar and Madeline Notsobright, who have their collective panties in a bunch about a few scences that weren't to their liking. Reportedly, the creators of The Path to 9/11 were meticulous in their research, using numerous source documents and consulting closely with former 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Keane (unsurprisingly Richard Ben-Veniste is complaining--it's anybody's guess when Jamie Gore Lick will unload) in an effort to fairly and accurately portray events in the run-up to the terror attacks of that day. While the dramatization contains some fictional characters and situations, most critics indicate that it is a pretty clear historical account--free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling, where neither the current nor former administrations are spared from criticism.

On the other hand, Michael Moore completely fabricated stuff in his piece of sh...er...propaganda. And Democrats (and Jihadis) LOVED it.

Christopher Hitchens, leftist columnist for Slate and Vanity Fair, reviewed Farenheit 9/11. Here's a sample of his devastating critique:

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Democrats are all for freedom of speech when it libels Republicans. But try to accurately portray historical events and they throw a tantrum--even to the point of lobbying ABC to cancel it! What a bunch of frickin' hypocrites.

UPDATE:

Hugh Hewitt observes:

In the self-serving complaints about this scene or that take delivered by Richard Ben-Veniste and other proxies are replayed again the deadly narcissisms of the'90s. The program's great faults are --they say-- in the inaccurate portrayal of Bill Clinton and his furrowed brow and continual efforts to track down bin Laden.

It is all about them, you see. Just as it was in the '90s. To hell with O'Neill or the victims of 9/11, and forget about the worldwide menace that continues to nurse its hatred, though now from caves and not compounds.

Not a word from these critics about the program's greatest strength, which is in the accurate rendering of the enemy, and the warning it might give about the need for continual vigilance.

Iranian "Reformer" Disgraces National Cathedral

The National Cathedral’s invitation for Khatami to participate in a “dialogue” on the role of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims to achieve peace is absurd and reprehensible. I can't believe they actually invited this "political reformer" to lecture anybody about religious toleration when, under his presidency, Iran was designated by the United States government as a “Country of Particular Concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act — that is, one of the world’s worst religious persecutors.

According to the Rev. Keith Roderick, Christian Solidarity International’s Washington Representative, and secretary general for the Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights, and Episcopal Canon for Persecuted Christians, the Anglican Church and its leadership in Iran all but disappeared during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami.

Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House, reports that all of Iran’s religious minorities — Bahaiis, Assyrian Christians, Catholics, Anglicans, Armenians, Evangelicals, Mandeans, Jews, and Zoroastrians — have suffered. Their numbers have steadily dwindled as they have fled religious oppression in their homeland; the presence of the ancient Assyrians and Mandeans is approaching statistical insignificance.

The other Abrahamic faiths, officially “protected” by the state, are forced to abide by Islamic rules and live in great insecurity. Christian and Jewish grocery shop owners have been required to post their religion on their store fronts. Jews, whose numbers have been reduced to about a third of their pre-1979 population, have faced relentless state-sponsored anti-Semitism. Some were arrested and put on trial for spying for Israel under Khatami, until being later freed after international protest. Christians have been vulnerable to apostasy charges, with some imprisoned and others killed by government-linked death squads.

Wikipedia notes:

Despite its long history in Iran, Christianity has often been seen by Islamic Republic as sympathetic to western ideals. The persecution of the Protestant churches has perhaps been more severe for this very reason. Government intrusion, expropriation of property, forced closure and persecution, particularly in the initial years after the Iranian Revolution, have all been alleged. Most prominent has been the death of Haik Hovsepian Mehr, bishop of the Jamiat-e Rabbani, in 1994. Recently the continuing imprisonment of Hamid Pourmand a lay pastor of Jammiat-e Rabboni and the murder of Ghorban Tourani, the pastor of an independent evangelical church have created international concern.

Other than being vehemently opposed to the use of taxpayer funds to finance his visit to Harvard, I couldn't care less if he speaks at that institution. In fact, I'm pretty sure he would get a more respectful reception there than President Bush would. But, letting this fascist desecrate a Christian house of worship is utterly offensive and an insult to all those persecuted for their faith in Iran. Sickening.

Pakistan Surrenders to the Jihadists

This is REALLY bad news.

I'm a Lumberjack And It's (Not) Okay

What do you get when you mix big brother with environmentalism? This:

LOS ANGELES Sep 6, 2006 (AP)— To prosecutors, Robert "Roy" van de Hoek is a vandal with pruning shears. To supporters of native California shrubs and trees, he's a martyr.

Once again, he's in court.

The Los Angeles City Attorney's office says the former park supervisor cut down non-native plants in one of the largest coastal wetlands in Southern California, killing a ficus tree and myoporum shrubs.

He is facing six misdemeanor charges that include injuring vegetation without permission. Each count could bring jail time and thousands of dollars in fines.

"Trimming and landscaping isn't done without authorization from government agencies," said Frank Mateljan of the city attorney's office.

Jonah Goldberg at The Corner asks,

Can you imagine answering your cellmate's question "What're you in for?" with "I injured vegetation without permission."?

Femtroopers

There are some serious (but lovable) geeks that work at my office. You know the types. The ones who:

--have read Lord of the Rings every year since Junior High/Middle School and take every opportunity to remind anybody in earshot that the books were definately better than the movies

--have memorized the Elvin languages and geneologies of Lord of the Rings

--excel at powerleveling in Dungeons & Dragons

--are connoisseurs of special effects technology in the latest films

--debate if the extraterrestrial being in the movie Alien could win a fight against a ring wraith, among others.

The new thing for geeks to get excited about are "Femtroopers." According to this article, this new breakthrough in Sci-fi fandom "is perhaps the most celebratory development for horny Star Wars fans since Princess Leia became Jabba the Hutt's barge ho."

Femtroopers are a wet dream for Sci-fi nerds. (h/t Instapundit)

Romney Denounces Khatami

I don't know much about Mitt Romney, other than he is the Republican governor of Massachusetts who is rumored to be considering a run for president in 2008. I know very little about his politics and, thus, don't know whether I will support his candidacy--it's a pretty long way out and not all the candidates have declared their intentions, after all. However, Governor Romney released a statement today that has my full support.

From the statement issued by his office:

Governor Mitt Romney today ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area, where he is scheduled to speak at Harvard University.

“State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel,” said Romney.

Romney’s action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town. The federal government provides security through the U.S. State Department.

Romney criticized Harvard for honoring Khatami by inviting him to speak, calling it “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.”

Said Romney: “The U.S. State Department listed Khatami’s Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism. Within his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of dissidents who spoke out for freedom and democracy. For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple.”

Remembering Beslan

This post at American Digest is a moving discussion of the author's visceral reaction to a particular photo taken during the aftermath of the Beslan massacre. The September 1, 2004, massacre, which took the lives of 344 civilians, 186 of whom were children, is one of the most despicable of the many atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists to date. It's powerful, especially for parents.

Sarko On The Rise

This is interesting:

French politician Nicolas Sarkozy has declared that he will break with the culture of entitlement and the legacy of the 1960s in his upcoming election against Socialist Segolene Royal for the presidency:

A French politician railing against the entitlement mentality would have done so only to commit political suicide, even just a few months ago.

Why has this occurred? Perhaps it comes naturally from his opposition, the Socialist nominee Royal. Sarkozy may have decided that he needed a clearer delineation between Royal and himself. However, the weeks of riots that took place earlier this year, first with Muslim youth in the ghettoes and then with students regarding employment contracts, may have convinced more French than just Sarkozy that the 1960s have turned into a plague on the French body politic, and not just in terms of economics.

We'll see what happens. But, it's kinda shocking that the French (of all people) would consider electing someone campaigning to diminish their entitlements.