Odds & Ends

Calvin Freiburger http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
Here’s a global-warming debate on Boots & Sabers. If the issue is settled and the enviros have won, then why do they expend so much effort (well, mostly blood pressure) in trying to re-fight it?
–
Nun Wars: HUH?! (Kinda reminds me of Spy Hard…)
–
Cindy Sheehan lashes out at her own side again. Say, I though Cindy had retired from the antiwar movement a while back. Shouldn’t she…I dunno…shut up?
–
Herman Munster: accept no substitutes!
–
Rudy Giuliani’s commitment to the War on Terror—pretty much the only legit conservative reason to vote for him—faces new scrutiny, and it ain’t pretty.
–
(Hat tip to the Corner for the above two.)
–
And now for something completely different: a wild new ride for the next Batman film (because this blog hasn’t been quite nerdy enough lately).

Another God Debate

Calvin Freiburger atheism, Christianity, debate, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Newsweek, religion, Rick Warren
Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren. I’ve never exactly been wowed by, or paid much attention to, Rick Warren, but it is fascinating to see how Harris’ numerous logical fallacies still stick out like a sore thumb, even against one of Christianity’s less powerful defenders. For example:
–
“There is so much about us that is not in the Bible. Every specific science from cosmology to psychology to economics has surpassed and superseded what the Bible tells us is true about our world.”
–
Who ever said the Bible was supposed to be a science textbook? Its concerns lie primarily with what God did and why he did it, not how he did it. And I have a hard time believing anyone truly familiar with the Bible would be so quick to dismiss the truths “about us” and “our world” within its pages.
–
“We know that human beings have a terrible sense of probability. There are many things we believe that confirm our prejudices about the world, and we believe this only by noticing the confirmations, and not keeping track of the disconfirmations. You could prove to the satisfaction of every scientist that intercessory prayer works if you set up a simple experiment. Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God. I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting.”
–
Two points here: First, it’s hard not to laugh at Harris’ “simple experiment.” It’s a bit like moving the goalpost to maximize your odds. While I believe prayer is powerful, I don’t think it’s a simple matter of placing an order, then God handing you your Big Mac at the drive-thru. Moreover, it’s not “self-limiting” conditions we pray for; it’s conditions that are scientifically possible (God working through the laws of science He authored). Just think of how different Judaism or Christianity would be if prayer was as simple as “ask God to give you things/do things for you, and He will.” What kind of message would that send?
–
Second, I do think Harris has touched upon one mistake believers tend to make: just as unanswered prayers don’t disprove God, answered prayers are not sufficient to prove His existence. We don’t have a way of knowing whether or not the turnout of any event is due to divine intervention. The Lord is weighing a myriad of earthly conditions and factors that would make the most brilliant mortal manager’s head spin, not the least of which is what we truly need in life, rather than what we want. While I wasn’t fully satisfied with his response, Warren offered an important point: “God sometimes says yes, God sometimes says no and God sometimes says wait. I’ve had to learn the difference between no and not yet.”
–
That’s a powerful difference. Indeed, I’ve experienced it. I’ve pleaded with God for dreams to come true, and I’ve been angry & confused when they didn’t—until I realized those dreams were based on incomplete facts and serious misconceptions. Had my dream come true, I later found, it would not have been the blessing I envisioned. The “mysterious ways” in which God works only seem mysterious to us because, again, we cannot possibly fathom all the factors in play, not the least of which is the fact that God knows us and our neighbors better than we know ourselves. To Him, there’s nothing mysterious about it.
–
“This really is one of the great canards of religious discourse, the idea that the greatest crimes of the 20th century were perpetrated because of atheism… The killing fields and the gulag were not the product of people being too reluctant to believe things on insufficient evidence. They were not the product of people requiring too much evidence and too much argument in favor of their beliefs. We have people flying planes in our buildings because they have theological grievances against the West. I’m noticing Christians doing terrible things explicitly for religious reasons—for instance, not fund-ing [embryonic] stem-cell research. The motive is always paramount for me. No society in human history has ever suffered because it has become too reasonable.”
–
First, notice how, in distancing atheism from historic horrors, he posits “atheism = reason & careful skepticism” as a given. Here Harris displays a classic trait of bias: the inability to compartmentalize separate elements of an overall issue—in this case, “Is God real?” and “Is God good for society?” Try to focus on the second one right here, Sam. Second, the crux of the question (and Sam “I’m-doing-my-PhD-in-neuroscience” Harris is smart enough to know this) is not skepticism, naiveté, reverence for the Sabbath, or any of the benign differences between belief and unbelief. It’s all about the belief that human rights are non-negotiable because they come from an authority higher than man. The danger atheism poses to society is not an automatic leap to death camps (indeed, every believer I’ve ever heard or read concedes that atheists are fully capable of morality, and applaud the moral clarity Harris and Christopher Hitchens display on some issues, most notably Islamofascism); it’s that national atheism is a vacuum in which all manner of “divisive dogmatism[s],” as Harris puts it, can thrive. And how can anybody possibly bemoan opposition to embryo-killing stem-cell experimentation in the same breath as 9/11? I guess it’s easy…if you’re inclined toward dishonesty.
–
“The idea that somehow we are getting our morality out of the Judeo-Christian tradition is bad history and bad science.”
–
Uh, no.
–
“[Y]ou see a variety of claims there that aren’t backed up by sufficient evidence. If the evidence were sufficient, you would be compelled to be Muslim.”
–
Sam likes to deploy varieties of the idea that the large number of incompatible claims about God’s nature somehow suggests we should dismiss all of them in favor of atheism. In fact, here’s another example of failing to compartmentalize an issue. “Is there a higher power?” is a separate question from “What form does that higher power take?” Answering “yes” to the first question still leaves us with many possibilities: one God, many gods, a good God, an evil God, an indifferent God, God of Abraham, Allah, a God who’s real yet different from known religious descriptions…all possibilities that deserve consideration, but disproving one certainly doesn’t lead to disproving all.

Open Letter to Michael Medved

Calvin Freiburger apologists, conservatism, demagogues, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, immigration, Medved, talk radio
Dear Michael Medved,
–
Thank you for the fine work in your recent Townhall column, “Capturing the Language to Assure Liberal Dominance.” The piece eloquently and effectively tackles one of the chief pollutants in the national discourse. However, I cannot help but notice a little irony here—in the wake of the latest immigration bill’s announcement, you have employed the very same pollutant in the Republican establishment’s defense.
–
You asked, “Why did [Senator John Kyl] oppose immigration reform, but this time he’s in favor of it?” Just as “pro-choice” is a technically-accurate-yet-biased term for abortion advocacy, labeling the new legislation “reform” suggests it to be inherently good, and even worse, calling Kyl a one-time opponent of “immigration reform” dishonestly suggests he opposed doing anything to change the system, suggests that we oppose reform itself, rather than a particular type of so-called “reform.”
–
This is a deception you’ve put forth repeatedly. You claim we “want so desperately to preserve the status quo of the current broken system, with all its obscene costs, hypocrisy, and security threats to our country.” You cannot possibly believe that we somehow approve of the status quo, so why write it?
–
Most troubling, however, is the stunning ease with which you dismiss the serious, substantive criticism of this bill as “the hysterical (and increasingly dishonest) denunciations of ‘amnesty’ on talk radio.” On your show you said “That’s political posturing, that’s sloganeering by people who, it seems to me for their own political interests, are telling people what they want to hear. I don’t know why people wanna be upset about this.” It’s clear that you’ve made an active, concerted effort to demonize & trivialize bill opposition as fanatic, sinister, and dangerous, culminating with the obscene, demagogic characterization of Tom Tancredo as “racist” (yet Lanny Davis is OK? What a disgrace.). It’s stunning to juxtapose the Medved spin with the American reality (although I do have to thank you for one thing—your tactics provided the inspiration for a book I’d like to write someday: When the Right Goes Left).
–
The following is an exhaustive (but rest assured, not definitive) list of people who, according to you and Linda Chavez, are apparently a bunch of racists, liars and/or fools. Click on each name and you’ll see or hear their stance on the latest immigration developments. Most are strong “comprehensive-reform” opponents, while some are open to the general concepts of guest worker programs & amnesty (by the way, they’re at least honest enough to call what they support by its real name), but all are united on one point: the flaws in this bill are far more severe than you are willing to admit.
–
Glenn Beck
Bill Bennett
Tony Blankley
Robert Bluey
William F. Buckley
Tammy Bruce
Amanda Carpenter
Ann Coulter
Jim DeMint
John Fonte
David Frum
Newt Gingrich
Sean Hannity
Hugh Hewitt
Duncan Hunter
Laura Ingraham
Terrence Jeffrey
Mickey Kaus
Charles Krauthammer
Mark Krikorian
Bill Kristol
Mark Levin
David Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh
Kathryn Jean Lopez
Rich Lowry
Heather MacDonald
Michelle Malkin
Andy McCarthy
Edwin Meese
National Review Editors
Peggy Noonan
Kate O’Beirne
John O’Sullivan
Ramesh Ponnuru
Dennis Prager
Robert Rector
Mitt Romney
Phyllis Schlafly
Jeff Sessions
Thomas Sowell
Mark Steyn
Andrew Stuttaford
Cal Thomas
Fred Thompson
George Will
–
Read that list again. You’ll see a great many of your colleagues in writing, blogging & talk radio, including some enormously distinguished & admirable Americans, and conservatives whose work you personally have extolled in the past. Just like you, they’ve spent years passionately fighting for conservative values in the court of public opinion. Just like you, they’ve gone to tremendous lengths to defend President George W. Bush from liberal demagoguery. But unlike you, they’ve reached their breaking point as far as how much bull they’re willing to tolerate from this ineffectual White House and Republican Party. After just a few of their detailed, thoughtful commentaries, you ought to see that there’s no “racism” or “hysteria” in their sincere concern. Our devotion to America’s future is sincere, and it deserves better than the cheap demonization which seems to be your stock in trade.
–
Calvin Freiburger

CFO Giuliani Archive

Calvin Freiburger 2008, blog, conservatism, GOP, Guliani

The following is a list of links to all of my commentary on Rudy Giuliani, for easy access on CFO’s “Just say NO” sidebar to your right (listed in chronological order):
–
“An Apologist for Giuliani”—dissecting Deroy Murdock’s “pro-life case for Rudy”
–
“2008 Presidential Lineup”
–
“Ann Coulter, Rudy Giuliani & the Republican Crossroads”
–
“The Party of Values”—observation on Giuliani’s dubious marital history
–
2 Headlines: “Rudy Judges Leaned Left” & “Many Unaware of Rudy’s Social Liberalism”
–
“This Is Your Brain on Drugs”—dissecting another “socially-conservative case for Rudy”
–
“Terror Warrior?”—Rudy’s chief strength may not be all it’s advertised as
–
“America’s Mayor Aborting Own Candidacy?”—Rudy all-but-giving social conservatives the finger
–
“Tidbits from the Republican Primary”
–
“First Republican Primary Debate”
–
“The Latest on Rudy”
–
“Second GOP Debate”
–
“Liberal Leanings as Conservative Credentials?”—the difference between Giuliani-support and Romney-support
–
Bishop Thomas Tobin’s RSVP to Mayor Giuliani
–
“GOP Round 3: Full Impressions”

GOP Round 3: Full Impressions

Calvin Freiburger 2008, CNN, conservatism, debate, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Gilmore, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Huckabee, McCain, romney, Ron Paul, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson
Now that I’ve had the chance to give the full Republican debate a listen, I’ve got some impressions (I’ll start with the lower tiers just for fun):
–
Ron Paul: He only seemed sane because he wasn’t asked about the war as much. But I hear Mike Gravel is looking for a running mate…
–
Tommy Thompson: Pi-ti-ful.
–
Mike Huckabee: I’ve been surprised at how well he’s carried himself, and Round 3 was no exception. Not amazing (especially when mixing up Reagan’s birthday & anniversary of death), but a good performance. Too bad it’s all for naught.
–
Sam Brownback: “Three-state political solution,” “comprehensive reform,” blah blah blah. No thanks.
–
Tom Tancredo: Blunt talk, but pretty unpolished. His biggest flaw, though, is that he doesn’t get it on Iraq. Congressman, this war is about preventing the jihadists from becoming Iraq’s dominant force, which would have disastrous ramifications beyond her borders—not merely what the Iraqis will make of our sacrifice. But he definitely had the ‘whoa’ moment of the night when he said, as President, he’d have no choice but to ask George W. Bush not to “darken the door” of his White House. No arguments here.
–
Jim Gilmore: I’m sorry, but who are you again?
–
Duncan Hunter: Another job well done. If we were to totally throw away the “who can win” factor, Hunter would be my man, hands down (if only Hunter had been the guy to trade DC for Hollywood for a few years!). But he’s gotta be in the running for VP. At 58 years old, he’d be in a pretty darn good position after 8 years of a good conservative White House. (I was disappointed that he didn’t give Scooter Libby’s plight its proper consideration, though.)
–
John McCain: I liked his answer about the disastrous alternatives to the troop surge, plus his line about making pork spenders “infamous.” Overall, McCain has managed to lock down the tone issue of his past performances—instead of angry & unhinged, he came across as passionate, confident & in control. Too bad this development comes on the heels of Amnestygate.
–
Rudy Giuliani: An interesting show. Once again his abortion answer was indefensible (I’d think long & hard about that lightning, pal), and while his immigration answer was carefully worded to sound harsh, his only beef is with identification—no concern whatsoever for the fence, for the effects of amnesty, etc. But I have to admit I was surprised at how much his answers about the war impressed me. In none of Rudy’s past speeches, TV appearances, etc., have I seen the fiery leader others are smitten with. Last night was the first time I saw a hint of man who takes this fight seriously. He also gets points for his Libby defense. So can you count me among the smitten? Not by a long shot. I still can’t respect Rudy Giuliani the man, and I still believe Rudy Giuliani the nominee will have devastating effects on the party, movement & nation. Hear me, conservatives: THIS MAN MUST BE STOPPED (by the way, did you notice my Stop Rudy sidebar?). But if worse comes to worse, what about Rudy in a general election? He’ll have to do a lot more than this to show me that his terrorism and free-market answers aren’t just a repeat of his immigration answer: all style, no substance.
–
Mitt Romney: Well done, but not without a few bumps in the road. What I liked: terror remarks, Libby answer, “I’m not going to apologize for becoming pro-life,” the perfect answer to the Mormon question, immigration sentiments, the “three-pillared stool” analogy for the Republican coalition (free markets, strong defense, & family values), and lip service to ANWR drilling. Not so hot: I bet some viewers will still be understandably-unsure how his healthcare plan differs from Hillarycare, his answer about oil company profits was unclear (I won’t contest his grasp of where they’d be best spent, but you’re not talking about government forcing them to spend their own money a certain way, are you?), and any 6-year-old could’ve told Team Romney that running Spanish ads would come back to bite ‘em before long.
–
BONUS CANDIDATE—Fred Thompson: He’s got an appealing demeanor, and I applaud his answer about Libby (even better than Rudy’s & Mitt’s). But did anyone else in the “conservative alternative” crowd notice how weak his abortion answer was? But Fred’s biggest flaw was that his sparring partner was Sean Hannity—not the ten men who, whatever else may be said of them, have dived into the fray and put their reputations on the line in three debates so far. Besides Fred’s other conservative deficiencies (McCain-Feingold, impeachment, etc.), doesn’t anyone else find his lateness in declaring just a bit smarmy? (Apparently not.)