Adopt a Soldier: they like mail

My Soldier Program Home page looks like a cool little service where you can sign up and send letters to soldiers serving abroad to show them some support and kindness.

Encompassing extremism corrupts what it tries to save

Johnathan Rauch in the new Atlantic (paid subscription required) concludes his piece with the following paragraph:

On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.

It is interesting to contrast intended messages versus actual communication, because some of the implied messages in this paragraph when viewed alone include comparison of religious conservatives to extremists like Michael Moore specifically. While the comparison is not direct, it can be infered.

The problem with this comparison is it denys the fact that the vast majority of America IS Christian in one variety or another. While it's true there are some extremist nuts who DO throw molotov cocktails at abortion clinics, but those acts are universally denounced by every conservative Christian group of any significance, wheras the violent protests of Vietnam are almost universally embraced by the more liberal portion of the country.

If taken in it's most general form, the arguement that extremists should feel like they have a voice probably IS good for the social peace. I contend that peace in and of itself should not be an end, only a desired side effect of a harmonious society. "Peace" and "Harmony" are often used interchangably, but there should be a distinction between the two when used to describe society.

Peace, some would argue is nothing more than the abscence of armed conflict. If that is true, then embracing extremist political positions within the parties can further that goal by giving an orderly outlet to extreme voices. Most justification I have heard behind violent protest is "we have a right to be heard". Which, while that may or may not be true, is very rarely attained by the means of violence. Yes, their voices are heard, and then dismissed just as quickly on account of the contempt reasonable people have for destruction and disorder. When these actions and ideas are dismissed, those behind them usually come to the opposite conclusion: that they aren't being loud or violent enough, and the cycle escalates. If those with extremist or violent tendancies are allowed to feel like they have a real voice, they will naturally step away from their violent and disruptive tactics because those tactics become unnecessary.

This is a bad thing.

While violence and disruption are to be condemned, accepting the ideology that promotes them as a means of reducing disorderly behavior will inevitably lead to the corruption of the encompassing organization or philosophy. There is no further proof of this needed than to observe the moral confusion and total disarray that is the modern Democratic party after it embraced the liberal movement from the 60's and 70's.

Naysayers and pessimists

I just can't imagine what would have happened to this country if today's democrats were around during the civil war. John Kerry might have said something like this about Abraham Lincoln with few intentions other than to draw attention and stand in the way. This piece is particularly haunting both because of how well it fits the character of John Kerry, yet it fits so well with the time it represents.

Fortunately, the American people are stronger than this, and they have spoken, choosing to re-elect George W Bush and continue the steadfast and principled legacy of Lincoln, FDR, John Kennedy, and Ronald Regan.

It's interesting how absolutely absurd some of the points raised in this piece are, which mirror what people like Kerry have actually said. For example, what is this business about a plan to win the peace? Can ANYBODY cite ONE war in which the United States has been involved, in which action was delayed until we had a plan to "win the peace"? I would venture no, because it's never happened. What certain Democrats don't understand (including those who voted for the use of force) is that sometimes decisions must be made based not on what will happen if you act, but on what the consequences will be upon failure to act. John Leo has this to say regarding the danger of forgetting about the consequences:

In my ceaseless efforts to discover how liberals think, I have a great advantage: I live in Manhattan, where everybody is liberal, so opportunities for fieldwork are boundless. Over the holidays, I discovered that a relatively new argument about terror is becoming popular: the next terrorist attack on America, if it comes, will likely be minor and tolerable. I was assured that a dirty bomb is the most likely weapon, and that it would probably do no more damage than an industrial accident. So not to worry. The real problems are fear, panic and violations of civil liberties--not terror. We had a fair amount of fear-is-the-real-enemy rhetoric during the presidential campaign, combined with almost airy dismissals of the terrorist threat here.

Read the whole column if you have time.

With Americans like this, who needs terrorists?

Special Report - Presidential Inauguration Security Information Turned Over to Anti-American, Terrorist-linked Group; D.C. Says Judge's Orders Threaten Public Safety - January 19, 2005

WorldNetDaily: Jimmy Carter linked to oil-for-food scam

WorldNetDaily: Jimmy Carter linked to oil-for-food scam

Do-Gooders: How liberals hurt those they claim to help

Dennis Prager had the author of Do-Gooders on his show today. This sounds like a very good book, as it explains why liberal social programs really do more damage than they fix.

Conservatives celebrate as liberal death-spiral continues

Jerry Springer (A self proclaimed liberal democrat) has joined talk radio in Cincinnati. With yet another psychotic, incoherent rambling spokesman for the Democratic party, their fall from relevance will only continue. With voices like Springer, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Michael Moore, they must retreat or end up as insignificant as the green party.

Irrelevant protests

Powerlineblog Saturday makes an interesting point about people protesting President Bush's inauguration, and asks the question, what's the point?

Protests, in my mind at least, are only useful if you actually have some degree of influence over what you're trying to protest.

Power Line: If a tree falls in the forest. . .

Tolerance: The means by which all dissent is silenced and crushed

I feel sorry for liberals. How does it feel to be consistently wrong, and wrong about it? It must be terribly frustrating, no matter how much you hate conservatives, they just won't agree with you?

Michelle Malkin: MINORITY CONSERVATIVES AND THE SELLOUT SMEAR

Eye on the Fleet - Love thy neighbor

Navy NewsStand - Eye on the Fleet

Mike S. Adams: From each according to his need

Mike S. Adams: From each according to his need