The culture war for the White House

Byron in Wahroonga

***he has been put off by McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin which, along with Christopher Hitchens, he thinks was a ‘bloody disgrace’***

Yes. More than a few elitists' masks dropped, with that one. These are the same people who thought Margaret Thatcher was a 'grocer's daughter.'

Margaret McCarthy

You "hit it out of the park" again, Melanie. I am in awe.

Hysteria

I agree with the general thrust - although as an atheist I take exception to your assertion that moral good can only come from a religious background.

Dave

"I can see Russsian from my house!"

Erasmus

Hitchens whines and complains about those stupid, nasty Christians......except that he chooses to live right in the middle of the most religious country in the world! Ironies abound. Of course his Jewish, Christian and Muslim neighbors treat him very well, love him to death, read his books, love to see him on the telly. One wishes for a moment Hitch could be time-warped back to a 1950s Politburo meeting to see how utterly banal and boring real atheists behave.

Bruno Pontes

Hi Melanie. I live in Brazil and I´ve been reading you since Olavo de Carvalho, a brazilian philopspher, wrote in one of his writings (that one: http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/semana/080221dce.html) about Londonistan. He praised the work you´re doing against this awful multiculturalism.

Anyway, carry on. This life and death culture war needs people like you. It´s truly scary that a marxist may get the White House.

Frank P

In the past you have been nominated by the supportive commentariat of this blog as a potential Home Secretary. How about the Archbishopric of Canterbury instead, Melanie? I wouldn't blame you if you considered both propositions as an insult, given the current incumbents of both offices.

There is certainly nobody else in journalism, politics or the church that could have analysed the current American dilemma and how that affects our own cultural texture as comprehensively as you have achieved in this post.

It is a seminal essay and we can only hope that it is disseminated as widely as it deserves to be. Inspirational!

Jill

I meant Segregation. (Sorry) Now, I have to give a full explanation:

You see, Republican Evangelicals have a long history fighting racism in the USA. They fought against Slavery first, then fought the Secessionists in the Civil War, then Jim Crow Segregation, and now Socialism. In each case, Democrats opposed Republicans.

For that reason, The National Association of Black Republicans calls the Democratic Party the party of four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and Socialism.

Visit this link for more info:
http://www.nbra.info/

Evangelical women also led the USA for women's rights, sufferage, and temperance.

Jill

"For me, by contrast, although the nature of her faith and the churches with which she has been associated certainly make me uneasy, they do not alarm me."

...Just some curiosity qs. Why does Melanie always qualify her comments about Evangelicals?

And why would she be uneasy if the electorate in another country chooses a person who goes to church and actually believes in Jesus for political office?

I'd be uneasy of one who doesn't, and I'm not alone. Name a single President or Vice President in history who did not attend CHRISTIAN Church. Even the Clinton's had to go...(There are photographs for doubters.) And if we are going to start naming the KINDS of Christians that are acceptable, we're breaking the principle about the separation of church and state that forbids consideration of one denomination above another. Also, it's plain bigotry to consider Palin's religion as a dis-qualifier for public office. Last time I read the Constitution, I didn't see anything that disqualifies Evangelicals from office.

You would have an easier time proving from the Constitution and historical documents that *only* Evangelicals are qualified.

Tom

Truly in awe. One of the best posts I've read in a very long time!

zoltix

For crying out loud Melanie, stop knockng the atheists. Your argument is seriously flawed.
The idea that atheists have no morals has absolutely no value whatsoever.
i have been a humanist since I was 15 and I'm 62 now. I have never stolen , defrauded, been violent towards or lied (other than minor tactful responses) to anyone. I even pay my TV licence. OK, it's anecdotal evidence, but I am not alone.
And let's face it, imams and ayatollahs are religious, Osama bin Laden is religious.
I and many other humanists defend "bedrock western moral values". We support Israel, we understand the power of the Enlightenment.
Wrong enemy Melanie, you need to re-think this.

Verity

Frank P nominates Melanie for Archbishop of Canterbury and I was going to write , "Oh, but the Archishop of Canterbury has to be a Christian!", then remembered Rowan Williams ...

Gilbert Belwether

It would be interesting to see what percentage of people who took out subprime mortgages are atheists. I suspect that number would be quite low, in which case your analysis of the causes of the present crisis seems unfounded, at best.

Also, as has been said before, you can start talking about 'militant atheism' when atheists blow up St. Paul's Cathedral. Until then the militancy is all on the side of the Judeo-Christian tradition (of which Islam is part).

Herbert Thornton

Melanie is profoundly right. Canada is another example of this. The degradation of values that she describes was very much accelerated in Canada with the election of Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau was the personification of Political Correctness while at the same time he greatly admired both Fidel Castro and Mao Tse Tung. Unfortunately he was also highly intelligent and charismatic which made him extra dangerous. Thanks to Trudeau, the degradation of Canada has continued inexorably ever since.

Trudeau's much vaunted Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for example has turned out to be full of hollow promises - so much so that even its guarantees of freedom of speech and conscience have been displaced by a growing regime of Thought Control Police, in the form of Orwellianly named Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals.

Family integrity and values too have all but vanished in Canada. This makes a stark contrast between Mao's Cultural Revolution and Trudeau's legacy. Mao's Cultural Revolution failed - largely, it can be argued, because it he was unable to destroy the rock of Chinese family values. Trudeau's equivalent Revolution on the other hand has been a brilliant success because Canadian family values have been largely destroyed. Marriage is despised, parents seldom remain together and our traditional family values and links have all but disappeared.

As well, Political Correctness in general has, under the false mask of perverted "Human Rights", infiltrated and corrupted all Canadian institutions quite as much as has happened in Britain - again a phenomenon that thankfully has not yet poisoned China.

The similarities between the rise of Trudeau and that of Obama, and the similar charisma surrounding each of them, give rise to suspicion that Obama may turn out to be America's Pierre Trudeau - and that prospect is far from comforting.

Ronnie

At last, a half-decent piece from Mel. For once sharing with us what she is for rather than scribbbling yet another bizarre tirade against those she opposes.

I am grateful for the restraint shown in most of this post. However, I dissent from the view that it is 'seminal'.

David

I find it odd that Melanie, author of "All must have prizes", noted critic of attempts to level down, complains about the 'elite.'

Matthew Hopkins

We really must find out where these militant atheists hold their meetings, find out who is in charge and in the name of God put a stop to them!

Mike

Unfortunately Sarah Palin wouldn't understand a word of what Melanie has written, and having read it twice, I'm still having difficulty in getting a handle on it.

What is all this stuff about Obama being a 'candidate of this cultural Marxist onslaught against western values'. The closest he gets to being a so-called Marxist is his belief in 'spreading the wealth around'........does that make Gordon Brown a Marxist?

And what 'western values'could Melanie be talking about? The values that have brought poverty, wars and the degradation of the natural environment to this planet?

Perhaps Obama is on the right side of history.....to lead the 'onslaught' on these values.

henry

A superb post, Melanie.

Conservative Cabbie

And yet it is the right that is accused of waging the culture War.
The fundamental reasoning behind the attacks on Sarah Palin is snobbery, intellectual snobbery. She may not be an intellectual, she is however someone with a real insight into a particular demographic in America. She will be ridiculed for buying her nappies from Wal-Mart, for being proud of her NRA membership, for her hunting, for her faith and stand on abortion. She is a rare politician, she hasn't come from the rarified atmosphere of a "good" family, a legal profession or an Ivy league education or 20+ years in the senate. She lives the life that a lot of Americans lead on a daily basis and that is why so many have responded so well to her.

I'm not a religious person but I really admire the evangelical Christian ethic mainly found in southern ,mid-western and western states. It is a can-do, self reliant, family-orientated and principled attitude. People see themselves not as victims, one of the main reasons they are derided so much by Liberals. After all, where would modern liberalism be without victims to patronise.

I'm curious as to why feminists hate her so much. She surely represents everything feminists wanted to achieve. She's succeeded in a male-dominated environment without having to compromise her femininity, she's combined work and family spectacularly well, she has an equal partnership with her husband, she's got where she has purely on merit. It's not just about abortion is it? Since when did feminism become a single issue campaign?

P. Rat

"One wishes for a moment Hitch could be time-warped back to a 1950s Politburo meeting to see how utterly banal and boring real atheists behave."

Didn't the Church of Stalin just copy the Christian method?

Hayward Maberley

Ms Phillips,
You should question more seriously why the public “threw away all notions of prudence”. Much of it is to do with the banks and other finance providers continually subjecting their own customers and the general public to a barrage of sales and spin concerning easy advances, credit cards and loans. Who has not, by email, mail, even when at the counter had offers from these organisations for a new loan , a line of credit, a new credit card, an increase on the current credit card limit. Often accompanied by shilling in one form or another for cars, holidays, home improvements, household items etc.etc. Then there are the over the top tv, radio and print campaigns by merchandisers of electronics, carpets,furniture, household items for goods that will require no repayments on them for anything up to 2 years. With everything concerned about the contract entered in small print.
Yes you can fault human nature here to a certain extent, but and it is a big BUT the people who mount these campaigns either in the finance or the retail industry are equally culpable.
The most culpable are the packagers of the debts created. For their wonderful "securitisation”, such a decent sounding word for an indecent practice what in truth is the selling of debt as an asset.
Once packaged up and securitised, the packagers, merchant banks/broker dealers say Lehmann Brothers, somehow have a ratings agency, say Moodys give what is actually debt a rating as though it were an asset. Then to cover their arses they, Lehmann Bros take this faux rating to an insurer, say AIG, and have them insure against default. Thus the round of mutual pocket pissing begins and continues.
Then someone from Goldman Sachs, say Hank Paulson, pushes a case to the SEC to allow a certain Five firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1. The SEC chief Steve Cox, a Bush appointee agrees. This exemption, only given to these Five firms, allowed them to leverage up to 30, even 40 to 1 Which Five received this special exemption? Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. The result after 4 years of big bonuses for the erstwhile Masters Of The Universe? Three of the special Five have gone to the wall and the Wall Street Debacle has swept around the financial world and is now hitting the real world.
Moral Hazard is ignored by those erstwhile MOTU. They know they will be bailed out by Governments or through government intervention. Just as in the S&L and LTCM. Now the WSD, whose cost could increase the US deficit, yet again to close to US$1.5 trillion and is sure to bump the National Debt past the US$9.5 trillion already forecast for 2009.
Yet for the erstwhile MOTU there is a Santa Claus, it is the long suffering taxpaying citizen of the USA, who gets to pay the bill for some more Republican Fiscal Irresponsibility.

Emmet

Once again, Melanie, you hit the nail right on the head. Although the atheist loonies have virtually taken over the media and academia, they haven't completely fooled the common man yet, who, since they live outside the ivory towers and have to work for a living, have a far more realsitic view of the world. There is hope yet.

Hayward Maberley

Mel et al.
Clive Davis @ The Spectator today has an extract from Joe Klein
"The State They're In"
The most vehement of the Republican faithful live in an alternative universe, fermented by decades of Rush Limbaugh's brilliantly meretricious baloney and Sean Hannity's low-rent bullying. As McCain's audiences went out of control, Hannity stoked the rage with a "documentary" about Obama that featured, without qualification, a poisonously flaky anti-Semite who claimed to know Obama was a Muslim.

JonnyMacsPlace

The problem that thinking people have with Palin, including plenty on the right such as David Frum, is not her Christianity or her pro-life views. It is the simple fact that she is stupid; and, as the Troopergate report shows, a bully who lacks judgement and self-discipline. In turn, this choice of VP reflects incredibly badly on McCain.

Jan Maciag

This is an extremely important article that reaches beyond everyday ‘politics’ by questioning where our politicians stand on the value of the western model of society. This is a very basic question but it is never asked for fear of offending someone. The result is that we have a political elite, regardless of faux left-right pretensions, that have become accustomed to seeing the construct of 3000years of progressive tradition slipping, grain by grain, through their fingers as betterment.

tired and emotional

Bravo!

Dominic L-R

If, as Melanie says, the current financial breakdown is a moral crisis, which she then attributes to "militant atheism", how is it that there is a financial crisis in the USA, which is still a deeply religious country? How come their bedrock Christian values didn't save them from this malaise? Or is the problem entirely due to atheist bankers?
And while she is answering that, perhaps she can give us a proper definition of "militant atheism". In fact, Melanie implies atheism is the same as nihilism, and lazily yolks together atheism with moral relativism and political correctness. Does she really think people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are moral relativists and nihilists? Of course not. The truth is more complex. What riles many religious people is the fact that it is possible to be an atheist and a decent, moral human being. For some reason, they find that thought uncomfortable and threatening.

cuffleyburgers

Kamm is right, you are wrong.

Bankers need to obey the law. The law needs to reflect our basic moralities.

The functioning of free markets should not depend on anything other than good regulation and the rule of law.

Dee Ranged

Melani

Another Tour de fource!

James Murphy

An admirable, profoundly insightful, deeply-felt and essentially true analysis from La Maestra Phillips. BUT! - I have to say quite simply that the very existence of Buddhist cultures throughout the last two and half millenia, with their axiomatically 'a-theist' conception of the human condition, prove QED that moral, aesthetic and spiritual excellence do not depend upon a belief in a creator God. Indeed, in one particular 'sutra' the Buddha contemns such a belief as deleterious to the development of man's spiritual understanding. Moreover, I would also cite the intellectual, artistic and spiritual glories of an essentially a-theist (neo)Platonism as further vital proof of man's capacity to achieve the Transcendental realm without reference to a Creator God. These not necessarily minor objections apart, a seminal must-read essay, Melanie, bravissima!

Worried - Of Slough

Millenial thoughts! First there was the Tech Bubble.We survived.Then there was the Credit Bubble.We survived. Third time unlucky - the Obamination Bubble.

Battling Brummie

A tour de force

Stu

Bruno - where is the evidence that Obama is a marxist? He's a centre-left politician.

JonnyMacsPlace

Further to SP being stupid - doesn't it give you pause for thought, Melanie, that David Frum (hardly a miltant atheist liberal) has said, at NRO of all places, that "Sarah Palin cannot speak three coherent consecutive words about finance or economics"? Are you really happy for such a person, whatever you consider her position to be in the 'culture wars', to be one elderly cancer-prone heartbeat away from the Presidency at a time of international financial meltdown? Hmmmmm?

Sergey

"anti-intellectualism, insularity, social intolerance and anti-rationalism"
These seem to be cardinal sins for modern intellectuals. But they do not strike me as something to be especially alarmed of, in comparison to traditional cardinal sins - pride, lust, imprudence, etc.
And is not this maligning of Palin and her likes examples of social intolerance and elitist insularity, as well?

Ronnie

So, now Obama is the new Pierre Trudeau!?

Within the first six months of an Obama administration, we'll all be learning French.

Oh la la!

Sarah

David, have you even read All Must Have Prizes?

It is nothing to do with elite in the sense written above and everything to do with helping talented children realise their academic potential.

THX1138

I Did find this an thought provoking post rather than the usual ugly rant but as an atheist I'm not going to except any responsibility for the financial meltdown.

Lest we forget Bush told the American people that the best response to 9/11 was I quote.

"And for God's sake keep shopping"

They did on money they didn't have and look where we are now.

Huw Thornton

A really interesting posting, Melanie. In particular, I think that it's time that Sarah Palin got some reassessment to counter-act the growing consensus about her.

I think that Zoltix has got a point in that atheists can certainly be as moral as those of us with religious belief.

It seems to me that you've conflated certain facets of the human character in talking about "militant atheism". There are a number of features which are relevant including:

religious belief - unbelief

religiosity - nonreligiosity

secularism - antisecularism

moral responsibility - irresponsibility

You seem to link "unbelief" with irresponsibility. I think that the reality is a little more nuanced.

The main problem I have with the famous atheists like Dawkins is that they seem to combine unbelief with a kind of religiosity. They adopt for themselves the worst features of particular forms of religious intolerance.

The recent Reiss affair at the Royal Society showed that certain militant atheists were also anti-secularists in that they argued that religious belief was an important criterion for suitability for apparently secular occupations.

Returning to your article, I think that it is important not to think too much in blocs. It is entirely possible to be a religious, responsible American voter who sincerely intends to vote Democrat in the Presidential election in full knowledge of Obama's strengths, weaknesses and background. Indeed there are millions of them! We cannot say from this side of the Atlantic that they are wrong, or even that they are misguided.

bob

This is a serious case of Care Factor Zero. What on earth does morality have to do with algorithmic trading? I suppose melanie doesn't realise that most trades nowadays are done by software and not humans.

Verity

Mike writes "Unfortunately Sarah Palin wouldn't understand a word of what Melanie has written, and having read it twice, I'm still having difficulty in getting a handle on it."

I don't know who you are are what your level of accomplishment is, but I baffled that you assume yourself the mental superior of the Governor of Alaska.

jonny macsplace: From your comments, it would seem that you don´t understand what you libel as Troopergate is about. You don´t seem to understand American law.

I saw Obama appearing on some high profile charity black tie even along with John McCain and Obama looked fairly pale - for him. Like a white person with a tan. So I guess he's not blacking up for formal events. He was a deep glowing ebony for his gig in front of the styrofoam pillars in Denver

Verity

Jan Maciag Bravissima!

Simon John McArthur

I could not agree more.

Robbit

Brilliant essay, Melanie!

Absolutely spot on.

And the cultural war is fundamentally about whether people in the West can maintain their freedom and responsibility for their own lives or whether they are going to take the Road to 21st Centuary Serfdom by being suckered by the rubbish peddled by the parlour-pink left and crypto-totalitarian progressives and socialists.

John Thomas

I think an important point that Melanie makes here is referring to '"authentic" liberal'-ism - because 99.9% of the liberalism that we are focred to live under is "liberalism" (inverted commas), or that should be "pseudo-liberalism" - not in the least liberal at all, in any real sense; the values of pseudo-"liberalism" in reality put people in chains; yet so often the self-designated Liberals are allowed to get away unquestioned with their euphemistic scam.

JR

"I don’t much care whether Palin believes in a hundred ridiculous things before breakfast -- because what she stands for is a defence of bedrock western moral values against the nihilistic onslaught."

Erm.....do you really think that? Really?

You think 5 years of having someone who believes a hundred ridiculous things a heart beat away from the nuclear trigger is entirely a price worth paying?

Robbit

Huw Thornton,

You said:
It is entirely possible to be a religious, responsible American voter who sincerely intends to vote Democrat ... Indeed there are millions of them! We cannot say from this side of the Atlantic that they are wrong, or even that they are misguided."

This is bizarre. Do you subscribe to the fashionable (non-)morality of non-judgementalism? If you regard yourself as a responsible moral agent at all then not only "can you say... they are wrong ..." - sometimes you have a bounden duty to do so! That is what it means to be a moral agent and a responsible human being. If not then you also cannot say that anyone is wrong or misguided to vote for Bush or McCain or the BNP or Hamas either... End of all debate and ethical exchanges and interaction.

Marian C

Yet another brilliant & thought provoking post Mel, well done.

Moxon

Let's see what Oliver Kamm says. The problem usually is that when it comes to the connection between christianity, and objectivity, moral values etc. the atheists, in denial, demand a sceptic-proof standard of evidence which they'd never dream of applying to their own views and their moral consequences.

John Birch

What a silly post. What role did "militant atheists" play in the Great Depression or in the major worldwide depression that struck in the late 19th century?

By the way, I'm pleased to see that Sarah Palin actually has some connection to the John Birch Society. It speaks volumes about her background and character and to Melanie's judgment.
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2008/09/early-signs-of.html

David

"So I guess he's not blacking up for formal events"

Here you go, Melanie. This is who your supporters are. Well done.

Oh and, to the person above - if you are going to educate each child to their potential, you will end up with elites, as some will be better than others. To then rail against those elites seems rather odd. Frankly, I'd want our brightest and best to be our leaders. Unfortunately, that rarely happens thanks to the efforts of people here who seem to view being intelligent as something wrong in a leader.

ahad ha'amoratzim

Gilbert writes "Also, as has been said before, you can start talking about 'militant atheism' when atheists blow up St. Paul's Cathedral." Gilbert, have you never heard of Lenin? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? All were atheists, and led some of the largest, longest and most brutal campaigns of sustained mass murder and enslavement ever known. And all of them were reserved particul cruelty for religious believers.

Huw Thornton

@Robbit

Fair comment! I didn't want to be morally equivalent - I just didn't phrase it well. What I was trying to say was that many Americans who would otherwise go a long way with what Melanie wrote in her posting do not see any conflict between what they believe and voting for Obama. They have heard of the conspiracy theories by now, have judged Obama on his character and have decided to vote for him.

I do not think myself that there is any logical link between the points which Melanie makes and her intense opposition to Obama - my point was that apparently this view is shared by many millions of USA citizens.

Gordon Neil

Well said Ms Phillips. Those who ascribe the cause of the financial crisis to stupidity and incompetence are really offering little more than shallow descriptive analysis. What we need is causal analysis identifying just WHY those inappropriate behavior patterns were displayed. Why did they act as they did ? What motivated them what individual and/or societal values and attitudes underpinned and shaped that behaviour ? Your argument that the deeper cause lies in the disintegration of the societal value system at least attempts to address the WHY question. Bravo !

Brennen Bearnes

This is a staggeringly dumb piece of writing.

Ganpat Ram

Unfortunately, all of you are gonna lose, because you have backed the wrong horse.

The worst enemy of sound traditional moral values is capitalism. How come you don't realise that?

Marx and Engels explain superlatively in he Communist Manifesto the effect of capitalism on morals: "All that is sacred is profaned, all that is holy vanishes into thin air." All morality is sujected to that cold determiner of moralityb under capitalism: the Cash Nexus.

Obama is no great man at all.

But he is going to win for the simple reason that his opponents were fataly flawed.

Hillary Clinton was loaded with all the baggage of her husband, and began to run strongly too late to overcome Obama's early lead.

McCain chose to run a right-wing campaign in a year in which right-wing ideas were doomed. He had the option, alone among Republicans, of claiming to be a progressive. He chose to turn his back on that strength. Well,it's his choice.

But Obama needs to do a huge, huge job now to create a new, regulated US capitalism in the middle of dire crisis. It's going to need sustained hard work, and Obama shows no history of capacity for this.

He is the smooth guy who takes advantage of others' follies to glide in.

He has won thanks to incredible luck.

But luck runs out.

JohnW

David, 5:53pm,

Remember - it was Obama that said "...and did I mention that I'm black?"

He's the one playing the race card and his supporters use it at every opportunity.

JohnW

Wonderful piece, Melanie. The best expose of the moral void blighting the thought process of our so-called ruling elite that I have ever read.

Dominic L-R, the US economic meltdown was due to the Fannie/Freddie scam and the massive fraud of the out of control subprime loans promoted with such alacrity by the Housing Finance Committee. The HFC Chairman is a Democrat (Barney Franks) and the Chairs and voting control of each and every one of the policy sub-Committees are all Democrats. There's your budget collapse and your militant atheist moral void in a nutshell.

Augustus

The majority of Americans need reminding that socialism did not dry up and blow away with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact it morphed and adapted, because old-fashioned Marxist Leninist doctrine had proved an historical failure. classical Marxist doctrine could not bring down a strong democracy with strong religious roots. In time, socialists adopted Antonio Gramsci's thinking. Gramsci's prison writings found fertile soil in the minds of America's modern day socialists with their innocuous sounding 'charities', political cover organizations, labour unions and church groups.
These writings have influenced countless untouchable
'progressive' college professors across America who were radicalized in the 1960s, and now seek to influence thousands of young Americans who will carry the banner of Gramscian socialism into the next century.

Intent on changing America by attacking its fundamental beliefs, economy, values, religions, concepts of marriage, attitudes about human life, and even its national sovereignty, intent upon turning it into something it was not, they seek to transform the United States into a secular humanist socialist state, whose sovereignty and constitutional rights are gradually to be ceded to international organizations such as the UN, the World Court, and the International Criminal Court. Gramscian theory - that capitalist democracies may be defeated by controlling mass media, mass organizations and public education, and transforming society gradually from within - is being implemented by an American insider progressive movement today. One has only to consider the attacks on religious traditions, a movement to redefine the concept of marriage, the rise of the culture of death, to see that it is so. One has only to consider the pervasive political correctness that stifles dissent, the shouting down of any speakers who espouse any views to the right of radical, the propagation of class warfare and the movement to redistribute wealth, to know that society is inching slowly, irreversibly, down the path of secular humanism and socialism. The sinews of common religion, traditions, values, language, and political intitutions that made America the greatest superpower, gave it the world's strongest economy, and shaped it into a beacon of liberty and hope, are being eroded away.

If in years to come, the United Socialist United States of America becomes a second-rate world power, or if its grandchildren speak Farsi and bow to Mecca five times a day as required by the government, it will all be because Americans refused to see the light and take control of their destiny. If their freedom, power, wealth, and national identity ever become a distant memory it will be because they failed to keep faith with the past, and the generations who fought to preserve America's greatness.

Michael B

Oliver Kamm is often an eminent example of sound, well articulated, cogent reasoning and opining. But his assumptions, blind spots and elisions - in areas of note - play their part as well. A tell-tale indicator here is that he can offer literally no irrefutable evidence in support of his anti-Palin assumptions, beyond arguendo via innuendoes and suspicions. There is nothing wrong with arguing on the basis of intuitions, after all that is something we all do to one degree or another and it arguably can be no other way. But the often eminent Mr. Kamm errs when he presents his intuitions as established fact, a fact itself which betrays a (partially) prejudiced mind and not an illuminated mind in a more complete sense.

That's not a niggling observation in this case because a great deal turns upon - is leveraged upon - those prejudices, assumptions and elisions.

Byron in Wahroonga

***until then the militancy is all on the side of the Judeo-Christian tradition (of which Islam is part)***

LOL! Don't ever change, Gilbert. Every forum needs one demented absurdist who amuses all factions.

Michael B

What Augustus said.

It all needs to be articulated in a yet more individuated and "nuanced" sense, after all entire volumes have been written on the subject from a multitude of vantage points. Nonetheless, what Augustus said.

What that means, in essence, is that a moral bedrock and ordering are in fact at play. There is no getting around that fact. Likewise, human agency was and is at play relative to the financial/credit crisis.

It goes without saying that truly regressive and reactionary impulses need to be checked. It also goes without saying that merely superficial and petty moralizing preachments need to be eschewed. Nonetheless, the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water and bedrock moral considerations are in fact at play.

I.e. Melanie's articulation is an entirely sound meditation on much of what ails us, when those bedrock considerations are brought into full view.

Byron in Wahroonga

***people see themselves not as victims, one of the main reasons they are derided so much by Liberals. After all, where would modern liberalism be without victims to patronise***

Your insightful observations are one of the best things about this forum, CC.

Hayward Maberley

Augustus,
You obviously have read Antonio Gramsci's writings, unlike the many who post here using Gramsci as well as Marx and lately Foucault in the adjectival.
If as you say the seeds of Gramsci's ideas are finding fertile ground you must then consider from whence the fertiliser came. The latest noisome outpourings from the financial world are making people in the real world reassess what is being done by Big Government in cahoots with Big Money.
Whether Democrat, Republican, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Tory, Labor, Liberal or any combination of the above all major political parties are in thrall to Big Money in one way or another.
You complain of international organisations, yet have no complaints about the way Big Money eagerly assisted by Big Government has gone out and internationalised business, finance and trade. Shipping jobs, manufacturing and plants offshore.
Concerning the suppression of free speech there is plenty of freedom and very little suppression. Any one in North America can look and listen with Fox, listen to the myriad of syndicated radio programmes, write letters to The Editor, participate in blogs/websites, read blogs or start their own blog/website on the topics that you seem to think are suppressed.
Not quite the same in the UK but if you have cable and a computer not that much changes. The same in Australia where interestingly enough the vast majority of the daily press is controlled by Murdoch's NewsCorp.
You do at least present a cogent and reasoned argument for your point of view. Unlike many other posters who can only seem to abuse and rant.
For that, we the more rational posters, thank you.
Regards,
Hayward

john doe

Augustus: Brilliant comment above. This should be spread far and wide. Thanks for the passion and gratitude for what is of real value in this world.

Wayne Robinson

I am completely in awe. I am used to gibberish from the Left, but to get equally good gibberish from the Right is deeply inspiring. The trouble with McCain choosing Sarah Palin as running mate is not that she isn't a pleasant person, but that she isn't qualified to be president of a nuclear armed state, if worse comes to worse and John McCain were to die in his first term as president

Dr John Montgomery

Mr Maberley, in your otherwise good account of securitisation you inexplicably left put the role of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson who bought the loans and packaged them in the first place. THe root cause was stupidity by Democrats. I suspect you are just a leftie really. By the way, the Security Service has investigated claims that people shouted 'Kill Him' at McCain/Palin rallies and found that what people actually said was 'tell him'. Obama very likely is a Marxist, as indeed was Gordon Brown - author of The Red Book for Scotland.

Matt

blaming the financial crisis is the silliest idea I have ever heard. Grow up!

ThomasR

Kamm didn't say that the banking profession doesn't require an ethical dimension. He merely said that the current crisis doesn't stem from moral failure.

I think he believes that although a few bankers have behaved unethically, by surreptitiously passing on hot potatoes (toxic debt), the crisis itself is an unintended consequence of regulation.

In my worldview, problems like this occur continually in all areas of life. We solve them and discover new problems.

John A Anderson

Atheists make up a tiny percentage of Americans, perhaps 5%. There are virtually no atheists in prisons. We caused all these problems? Get a life.

Tim

You are attributing blame to militant atheism for causing the financial world-wide crisis? In the US, every administration has been profoundly religious during which the formative periods of depressions and recessions.
It's easy to sling mud, but your article is notably absent of specifics.

What Palin believes is critical to her ability to lead insofar as can we trust a person who looks at evidence and rejects logical conclusions because it conflicts with religious world-view? If a religion thought that blacks and American Indians had that skin color because they bore "the mark of cain" wouldn't they make rather poor jurors? How is Palin's rejection of evolution any different?

mercator

In spite of Melanie Phillips' desire to pin the blame for the worlds woes on 'militant atheists', the fact remains that our world leaders who presided over the creation of this mess were all pious god-botherers.

Rational thinking does not appear to be her strong suit.

Insightful Ape

I see. So if Ms. Palin's daughter becomes pregnant out of wedlock- that is the fault of atheism?
It is lovely to see commentators here talk of the Soviets as "the real atheists"-turns out, replacing a heavenly god with an earthly one named Stalin and building a religious style personality cult around him qualifies you as a real atheist.
You may want to look up the word "atheism" and check under etymology.

Charlie

Mel, a major cause of the success of the far left in achieving so much in the cultural wars is not because of the correctness of their views, the erudition of their argument or their insights but because only the left middle class have taken an interest in influencing society. Only the middle class left wing have tried to create a coherent and all encompassing view of society and the indvidual's role within it. No working class labour, Liberal or Conservative view of society has been attempted.Therefore the mddle class leftwing have been successful by default.

The left wing middle class have dominated the arts departments in universities, teacher training colleges and state schools together with local government, much of Whitehall( Depts of Education, Welfare, Health and now Home Office ) BBC, the Guardian. As the Police have been accused of institutional racism many of the above organisations are guilty of a sub-conscious left wing white collar, metropolitan middle class view of life.

What is interesting is that many of the working class and lower midle class who live and work within the inner cities have a much more traditional view of life. The vast majority believe criminals should be caught and punished because crime is a moral issue, a result of a moral defect which cannot be excused by socio-economic conditions. One has to only look at the low crime rates during the Depression; even among the poorest industrial areas to realise crime is a moral issue. The refrain "I may be poor but I am honest " was commonly heard and keenly meant.

I believe many of the middle class left views which originated in the 60s are the result of inferiority complexes. Those young adults of the 60s were children of those who fought in WW2 and the grandchildren who fought in WW1. The rebellion against authority was largely a result because they could never match up to their fathers. How could a young left wing middle class student in the late 60s and early 70s measure up to a father who had fought in the Battle of Britain, fought on the seas or fought through the Normandy beaches in 1944.

When it came to the influential French intellectuals such as Sartre none actually fought the Nazis. Most intellectuals are fairly useless, by that I mean they lack practical skills, physical and mental strength or any qualities one needs to survive through disasters or tough times. How many intellectuals would of use if a plane crashed in a remote part of the World and the survivors needed to use skills to survive? This nihilism is the attitude of the runt and weakling who refused to play sports because they were no good and hated being ridiculed because they were inadequate. This is why the middle class left wing were so antagonistic towards competitive sports. The attitude better "Better red than dead" was in fact the attitude of so many middle class intellectuals when faced by the Nazis and the Communists.

The middle class left wing anti-American ethos is similar to the middle class child who has been over-indulged by the parents; even in the late teens they complain their allowances are not large enough yet refuse to work. Many middle class left wing types remain in education until their mid 20s which means they have avoided responsibility. In WW1, officers as young as 18 or 19 led their men over the top, for example John Kipling. During Nelson's days midshipmen as young as 14-15yrs old led boarding parties. Much left ideaology can be reduced to an immature, narcissistic, self -centred refusal to stand on one's feet and take responsibility for one's actions; a sort of Peter Pan complex.This immaturity puts the individual at the centre of the universe; places their happiness at the apex of achievement, is incapable of deferred pleasure, lacks the resilience and mental strength to cope, let alone cheerfully with boredom, discomfort or any sort of pain.Hitchens is correct, personality is important. The left wing have mocked such qualities as chivalry, fair play, good sportmanship, patriotism, reserve, the stiff upper lip,gentlemanly and laddylike conduct,my word is my bond integrity etc,etc

Eric-Odessit

Ganpat,
Have you ever lived under Socialism? It always amazes me that pampered Western leftists dream of Socialist paradise.
I was born and grew up in the old Soviet Union. Let me tell you, Socialism is no picnic. And it screws up any society it is ever tried in. But go ahead, believe that it was simply not implemented correctly in the Soviet Union. Try it wherever you live (is it England?). But leave my country (USA) alone.
Eric.

Anon

Thank you, Melanie and Augustus.
I don't know that it'll make any difference - but someday, somewhere, maybe someone will see how right you are and pull us all onto a safer track.

It's difficult, though - In the US as in the UK the universities are full of this socialism and 'Marxism' - and they've been turning out students from all disciplines who are dedicated to the cause. They won't hear a word against it...

Robert Davidson

Can you really be serious? Morality is so obviously improved by atheism, as Norway and other predominantly atheistic nations demonstrate. The places with problems are those who cling to superstition. Morality is impaired by religion, not the other way around (Palin is a great example of this).

Nick

so you blame athiests for all of societies problems? what about the molestation of little children by priests and other religous figures? its that because of athiests too?

brandon

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? … Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions.

A VP that can for complete sentences would be nice. Must have been one of those "gotcha" questions.

[Verity] - "I baffled that you assume yourself the mental superior of the Governor of Alaska."

It took her 4 different colleges and 5 years to get a degree in communications. Not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

charles soper

Regrettably, I have to differ, Melanie.

In my recent encounter with Oliver on the subject of creationism, I'm afraid I found him far from cogent.

He dealt with historical source data sloppily, censored a critical post, made false attributions and hastily jumped to false conclusions.

Conservative Cabbie

David,
you said "Unfortunately, that rarely happens thanks to the efforts of people here who seem to view being intelligent as something wrong in a leader."

It depends how you define intelligence. Woodrow Wilson was an academic, Ronald Reagan was not. For a lot of people, Reagan was by far the better President.
Intelligence doesn't have to mean a love of Proust or a high IQ. It can also be about knowing instinctively how to react to a situation, or understanding the peoples wishes and needs.

I have no problems with elites (I don't know if you were referring to me in your post), just the people who automatically assume that they are superior people to non-elites.

Ronnie

Dr John Montgomery,

'Obama very likely is a Marxist'

When you were studying for your doctorate, didn't you have to provide proof through evidence of your assertions?

Jorg

Gawdz forgive me, I just came home from a brilliant musical offering, and I may be slightly intoxicated by both the music and single-malt scotch, but--gawdz forgive me--this is really stupid.

JohnW

Well said, Cabbie. I'm sure the housing Finance Committee had more than its fair share of Ivy League graduates in its ranks - and look where their policies ended up.

HarleyDavidson

Today, Friday, I watched Laura Ingram utterly rip Hitchens apart on the Fox Channel using his own written words from his previous books. Hitchens was left a blubbering idiot unable to answer his own material when used against him.

Melaine, you do indeed have a flaw in your argument when tying morals and values into the American presidential race as Obama believe himself to be the Messiah. His friend Farrakhan even said Obama was the Messiah which is available on the internet for those who currently find themselves in need of a new religion. Which explains why Hitchens of "Why God is not Great" fame suddenly found himself supporting his new Messiah, Obama. Apparently the other God couldn't quite live up to the comparison.

Reference, culture wars. This aught to be downright interesting when one mixes Hitchens, and Oprah's and Obama's and Farrakhan's and Reverend Wright's politics together. Throw in a little Hollywood starlet botox, tummy tucks, and face lifts and none of us on this side of the pond will even know whether we're smiling or crying as none of us will be able to use a face muscles again. Somewhat like Joe Biden better know as Botox Joe. He can't move anything from his eyes up. Which means we can't tell when he's lying as his mouth is not connected to his brain anymore.

But never fear dear Europeans, after the Messiah remakes America in his own image, he says he will then transform the world next. Well, He is the Messiah!

Byron in Wahroonga

***I may be slightly intoxicated by both the music and single-malt scotch***

Brilliant, Jorg! 'Single-malt scotch.' You just nailed the pretentiousness of the Sarah-haters.

Unless.... but you couldn't have been serious. Could you??

Frank Pulley

Let's inject a little satirical humour into this thread, which started so well, but unfortunately has become a little leaden as it has evolved:

>"Give a man enough rope line, and he'll hang himself. There was His Serene Majesty President-designate Barack the Healer, working the crowd at some or other hick burg, and halfway down the rope up pops a plumber to express misgivings about the incoming regime's tax plans.

Supposedly, under the Obama tax plan, 95 percent of the American people will get a tax cut. You'd think that at this point the natural skepticism of any sentient being other than 6-week-old puppies might kick in, but apparently not. If you're wondering why Obama didn't simply announce that under his plan 112 percent of the American people will get a tax cut, well, they ran it past the focus groups who said that that was all very generous but they'd really like it if he could find a way to stick it to Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and whatnot. So 95 percent it is.

By the way, like the nightly news shows, this column now has an exclusive lavishly funded Fact Check Unit set up at great expense (a colorful graphic with the words "FACT CHECK ALERT!") in a lame attempt to pass off our transparent political bias as some sort of scientific exercise. Our accredited credentialed licensed expert Fact Checkers from the University of Factology in the Czech Republic are standing by to rigorously Fact Check the candidate's claims. We check facts so you don't have to. All you have to do is sign up to our Fact-Check-Me-Now! Service, and we'll send you a daily Fact Check on your Facts Machine, which costs only $79.95 from Radio Shack (sorry, no checks).

Anyway, our Fact Check Unit ran the numbers on the Obama tax-cut plan and the number is correct: "95." It's the words "percent" immediately following that are wrong: that's a typing error accidentally left in from the first draft. It should read: Under the Obama plan, 95 of the American people will get a tax cut.

Joe the Plumber expressed his misgivings about the President-in-waiting's tax inclinations, and the O-Man smoothly reassured him: "It's not that I want to punish your success," he told the bloated plutocrat corporate toilet executive. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

In that sentence about you spreading the wealth around, there's another typing error: that "you" should read "I, Barack." "You" will have no say in it. Joe the Plumber might think he himself can spread it around just fine, but everyone knows "trickle-down economics" don't work. So President-presumptive Obama kindly explained the new exquisitely condescending "talking-down economics." Put that in your pipe and solder it."<

There's more, lots more, if you enjoyed it thus far at:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/joe-plumber-fact-2198643-obama-check

Andrew Neil: Bring back Mark Steyn! And appoint him editor while you're at it, as ours seems to have gone AWOL if some of the crap from some of the 'associate editors', that has been accepted as worthy of acceptance for the printed version of the Speccy, is anything to go by.

raymond joseph douglas

Melanie,we as a society,are in a state of mass denial of our own responsibility over not only our financial problems,but our moral breakdown as well!Try to suggest people should honour the responsibilities that come with getting married and staying married and you are howled down!Dare to suggest that married people who have their own biological children,form a better family that all the step-families or never married single parents,then boy,watch out!Yet the facts speak for themselves!In abandoning our christian faith,we are abandoning the moral constraints that went with it1And we dare to call this freedom!

fellow traveller

Verity: "I saw Obama appearing on some high profile charity black tie even along with John McCain and Obama looked fairly pale - for him. Like a white person with a tan. So I guess he's not blacking up for formal events."

I started to write a reasoned reply to this - and then I thought: "what was I thinking?!" Absolutely jaw dropping.

Kiwi

brandon, you are, of course, assuming the Couric/Palin interview to be unedited - look it up.

Ganpat Ram

ERIC ODESSIT:

Make a new habit of reading carefully what you are going to attack.

I never recommended totalitarian Soviet "socialsm" as the answer to the crisis of US capitalism. The answer to severe pneumonia is not plague.

Read this excerpt from what I wrote:

"But Obama needs to do a huge, huge job now to create a new, regulated US capitalism in the middle of dire crisis. It's going to need sustained hard work, and Obama shows no history of capacity for this."

A call, then, to seriously regulate capitalism, and hardly a ringing endorsement of Obama.

The US is just going to have to put its cussed ideological vanity aside.

It is going to have to reform its boasted economic system, not out of love of Marx, but the simple need to save American jobs and savings and homes.

Unfortunately for you and all of us, the system you moved to from the USSSR, capitalism, has proved to be fundamentally flawed.

In th end, the US will adopt something like the style of capitalism they have in Sweden or Finland - profoundly regulated capitalism. Even more regulated than that, in fact.

Call that socialism if you like.

There is no alternative. Your boasted economic system is BUST.

McCain lost a golden opportunity to reconcile the US to socialism, and play the role of a new Teddy Roosevelt, a man he admires.

Unfortunately, he chose instead the frivolous strategy of running as a second Bob Dole plus some jokes. In a year in which US capitalism crashed, that was not enough.

I would have far far far preferred Hillary Clinton to win.

She is a serious worker and policy wonk. Just what we need.

Obama is a cunning expoliter of other people's follies and his own insane good luck.

He is severely overated.

He seems to me a man of smooth talk, good for election campaigns, but little delivery.

Which means Hillary or Gore in 2012 in a bitterly disillusioned USA!!!!

Verity

Fellow Traveller, pick your jaw up before someone steps on it.

Look at the difference in Obama's hue between his natural look in the debate with McCain, which is what used to be called in Texas "high yaller" and his ebonised makeup while addressing the Denver multitudes and lo, commenters on the internet noted how he looked very dark, and how his cheekbones appeared to have been emphasized.

Compare and contrast.

This is a man who spent 12 years sitting in the Illinois Senate doing absolutely nothing - not even voting. But using his position as a sentator to get around the alleys and biways of Chicago a little. Supported on a comfortable salary of taxpayer dollars for 12 years and giving nothing in return. And three years in the US Senate also doing nothing except using the Congress to launch himself.

You think he wouldn't slather on black slap if he thought it would advance his purpose?

Harley Davidson, re your remark about Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)is also a major believer in the cult of Boxtox.

The Biologista

"family breakdown and mass fatherlessness, educational collapse, widespread incivility, unprecedented levels of near psychopathic violent crime, epidemic drunkenness and drug abuse, the repudiation of all authority, the moral inversion of victim culture, the destruction of truth and objectivity and a corresponding rise in credulousness in the face of lies and propaganda -- and intimidation and bullying to drive this agenda into public policy."

Is there any actual hard evidence to tie the above to "militant atheism" (whatever that is)? Was this also the root cause of the Great Depression?

Are you able to show us numbers- hard data, that ties atheism to reduced morality? More to the point, is there any evidence that society is really in decline as you suggest? We're certainly talking about it all much more, but the the media has unprecedented reach today and reporting rates of many phenomena (such as violent crime) is at odds with their rates of incidence.

Trek

Melanie approaches moral problems from a set position: the religious position. She is not open-minded. She knows what her answers are going to be before the questions arise. It's a beautiful piece of writing but it is, really, garbage. As if the whole of society's problems arise from people not being steeped sufficiently in all that biblical (and other mythical works) stuff that was surely undermined long ago when The Enlightenment ... well, enlightened us all.

Bd

Herbert Thornton : "Trudeau's much vaunted Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for example has turned out to be full of hollow promises - so much so that even its guarantees of freedom of speech and conscience have been displaced by a growing regime of Thought Control Police, in the form of Orwellianly named Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals."

Yeah, right....

Verity

Ganpat Ram - I too agree that Hillary would have been an infinitely more qualified candidate. She believes in socialised medicine, but she's smart, she can listen to an argument, and she doesn't have the destruction of capitalism and handing the advanced West over to radical deconstructionists.

Svetogorsk

Don't be silly, Biologista. Numbers and hard evidence are merely "scientism", which as we all know is another word atheistic liberal nonsense that is undermining Western civilisation as we know it.

Robert Jones

Oh here we go again, that same old dribble from Erasmus that those nasty Commies during the Soviet era were like that because they were atheist. Wrong! atheist is just a description of a person who does not believe in a god or gods. Stalin also had a moustache, does that make all men with moustaches banal and boring? What made the Soviet empire 'evil' and corrupt was not their lack of belief in a sky daddy, but their 'faith' in a political ideology which they treated as a 'religion'! As for Melanie's 'banal' article, then she's welcome to the land of mythology. Give me rationalism and scientific methodology any day. Go for it Obama, and save us all from the hellfire of the Evangelicals!!

Spike

To Hayward M. and others of his gentle persuasion,
I do recommend that you follow this link:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/crush-the-obamedia-narrative-look-whos-gripped-by-insane-rage/

See, Melanie was spot on as ALWAYS. Well.....almost!

Spike

Verity to Fellow Traveller:

Obama is half white. Not half black! Strange, isn't it, how he's trading on his blackness?

Craig

"And the root cause of that erosion is ‘militant atheism’"

Yes, because people of faith aren't greedy at all.

Daniel Heslop

The church (both the conservative and liberal wings) are responsible for "militant atheism". They appear to be divided into those who are anti-science and those who are anti business. They object when scientists trespass on their teritory and argue on theological matters about which they know nothing. Yet by fudging the fact/value distinction in order not to rock the boat too much in a way that might make their existing passengers seasick, they leave spiritually hungry souls who value intellectual integrity drowning in the water. For me to go near the church, I have no quarrel with judeo-christian values, but for me to go near the church, I would need an explicit, plainly spoken renunciation of the tendency to make incredulus factual, scientific, propositional, truth claims, which are completely unnecessary for a morally and spiritually fulfilling life.

A Naturalist

If Melanie thinks she knows a witch-hunt when she sees one, try this:

The Times: Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter

"The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells.
...
According to accounts of the witchhunt circulated on evangelical websites such as Prayer Links Ministries, after Pastor Muthee declared Mama Jane a witch, the townspeople became suspicious and began to turn on her, demanding that she be stoned. Public outrage eventually led the police to raid her home, where they fired gunshots, killing a pet python which they believed to be a demon.

After Mama Jane was questioned by police – and released – she decided it was time to leave town, the account says.

Pastor Muthee has frequently referred to this witchhunt in his sermons as an example of the power of “spiritual warfare”. In October 2005, he delivered ten sermons at the Wasilla Assembly of God, the audio of which was available on the church’s website until it was removed around the time Mrs Palin’s candidacy was announced. The blog Irregular Times has listings and screen grabs of the sermons.

It was during that these sermons that Mrs Palin, who was then preparing for her gubernatorial run, was anointed by Pastor Muthee. His intercession, she says, was “awesome”."

That's the kind of morality Sarah Palin is involved with - a mob wanting to stone an innocent woman, based on supernatural beliefs, that ends up with her pet shot dead, and her driven out of town. Opposing that isn't 'nihilistic' - it's common sense, and common decency.

Gareth Roberts

"Yes. More than a few elitists' masks dropped, with that one. These are the same people who thought Margaret Thatcher was a 'grocer's daughter.'"

Thatcher was a shrewd experianced politician with a mind like a razor and a spine of steel. Palin is an idiot who's primary talent appears to be bloody minded enthusiasm

Jorg

Byron; I was actually drinking well whiskey sours (single-malt was a jest: I love it but rarely can afford it...at least in quantities I am used to...;)), but my point on the lack of any redeeming features in the above article still stands.

Hayward Maberley

Poosh,
“....strong sympathies for these twisted creatures but none-the-less there is a consistency of him ’paling’ around with them...”
There is the consistent example of President Reagan “paling” around with the Taliban and a later “paling” around with the Contras and expressing strong sympathies for these “brave freedom fighters”
“...by personally sitting down with their pseudo-Islamic leaders without preconditions...”
President Reagan invited the Taliban leaders to the White House in 1985 and introduced Mujahideen, in fact the leaders of the Taliban, to media on the White house lawns with this statement.
“These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers.”
These examples seem to be more that just “paling” around, Poosh.

Philip

Yes an excellent essay but it misses a fundamental point. Palin is intellectually limited and utterly incompetent either to hold the post of VP which she intends to increase in scope even beyond the ambiguous space Dick Cheney has taken it into, let alone that of President.

Palin is running a disorganised shambles of an administration in Alaska which is revealed in such shocking detail in the Troopergate report that for anyone reading the full document eclipses the adverse ethical findings against her.

The Salt Lake Tribune, which supported George W. Bush in 2004, commented that "out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously under-equipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain's bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency." The Kansas City Star, in turn, described Palin as "unqualified."

If her overwhelming inadequacies can scare the leader writers of conservative America into endorsing Obama, Melanie Philips article is reduced to merely a stimulating debating point.

In the final analysis, Melanie's penultimate paragraph effectively dismissing Obama's Christianity as some sort of Marxism is utter buncum. Barack Obama will come to the Presidency a more profound Christian through having found God in his maturity and with a far deeper understanding of faith and ethical grounding than any of his three immediate predecessors.

Dr John Montgomery

Ronnie, that is the second time you have questioned my doctorate. Do you have a chip on your shoulder?

Obama met Ayers, a Marxist, in the 1980s in New York. They both moved to Chicago. Ayers still decsribes himself as a communist. Obama became a 'disciple' of Saul Alinksy, Marxist community activist. More than one of Obama's mentors were Marxists. ACORN is a Marxist group. Obama is on the far left of mainstream politics in the USA, he is a tax and spend socialist. Having been a Marxist myself, I know what they are like and how they cover their tracks. My opinion - assertion if you like - is that Obama is a covert Marxist along the lines of Stuart Hall or Eric Hobesbawm or Will Hutton or indeed Gordon Brown.

As for you, I suggest you learn some manners. I am too polite to suggest you also need to read more.

Byron in Wahroonga

***what about the molestation of little children by priests and other religous figures? its that because of athiests too?***

Of course. Wearing clerical garb doesn't make you a Christian. Christ specifically proscribed paedophiles. No-one who believes in Him would dare ignore that admonition.

Dr John Montgomery FRSA

Ronnie of the superior intellect, yes I was taught to marshall evidence and come to a conclusion. My conclusion from what little we know of Obama's background is that he is an old Marxist, possibly stills believes all that guff about class warfare and inequality. If not, he is a communist with a small 'c', like his pal Bill Ayers. He is certainly not a moderate. He is also either a sleeping Muslim or a member of a very dodgy black separatist church. WHy is he so coy about his background? Maybe you should do a bit more questioning yourself instead of being taken in by spin.

Paul from Florida

Have you noticed how comfortable the lives of the lefty notion slinger are? No decades of working out of a truck cab, no drowning at sea to bring them low fat fish. It's just them, their ideas, and the mob and a vast money/tax churning machine that keeps them in Volvos.

They are the corrupt church and royalty of middle ages rolled into one.

They sense rebellion amongst the unwashed. They are right.

Conservative Cabbie

This is interesting from Volokh. As the media go after "Joe The Plumber's" possible tax difficulties, no-one thought to have a look at Obama claiming speaking fees whilst a senator in Illinois, an ethical breach of their rules.

"Joe and Barack's Tax Problems. I was stunned to see some document showing Joe the Plumbers' tax problems on my 10pm (CT)newscast on the local NBC affiliate in Chicago on Thursday night. They have very little time for any national news and they actually spent time on Joe the Plumbers' tax problems. Amazing!

But when an actual candidate — Barack Obama — released his tax returns, which on their face seemed to show an ethics violation of Illinois law, the press couldn't care less.

Just to remind you, Illinois prohibits state legislators from taking speaking fees, and Barack reported "speaking fees.":

Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.

But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?

2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”

2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking).

2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”

These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.

The Illinois Governmental Ethics Act (apparently last changed in 1995) provides:

(5 ILCS 420/2-110)

Sec. 2-110. Honoraria.

(a) No member of the General Assembly shall accept any honorarium.

(b) As used in this Section:

"Honorarium" means a payment of money to a member of the General Assembly for an appearance or speech . . . .

I really don't blame Obama for not addressing this; he released his tax returns after all. The problem is the press, which seems to be having more trouble than usual doing its job this season.

As I've said before, the best solution to the problem is integrating the newsrooms politically. "

So the media let another Obama story pass them by. Is the US media the worst in the western world? I'm starting to wonder.

Free Thinker

Well there's ten minutes of my time i can't get back. What a waste of bandwidth.
When the world is free of religion and dogma, we will all be better off.

Sergey

GUNPAT RAM:
There is no such thing as non-regulated capitalism: all markets need regulation to be efficient. But regulation is not the same as government intervention and management of economy, it means only existence of some rules applied to everybody. The credit crunch which is in the epicentre of the present crisis was caused by wrong regulation which compelled bankers to give house loans to inreliable borrowers, and giving government insurance to these junk mortgages, against banker's discretion. So it is the result of incompetent government intervention, not of absence of regulation. USA economy is still the most competitive in the world, while all overregulated EU economics is on the brink of stagnation.

EC

Frank P: "Fact Checkers from the University of Factology in the Czech Republic ..."

An institution generously endowed by the original Fact Check we hear using the proceeds of the Mirror pension fund.

Lorenzo

Melanie, the economic meltdown was not initiated by greedy people living over their heads, but by business interests and their paid for politicians who attacked and destroyed prudent regulations so that business could carry on unimpeded.

Steve

Thank you for a well-reasoned and thoughtful piece.

Frank P

EC

LOL.

Ahhh! The floating voter who went belly-up, had a whale of a time in the Atlantic - and then went belly-up again: the daddy of all bouncing Czechs.

I'm surprised that Mark Steyn didn't use that allusion - and your pun! He obviously needs some match practice after his sabbatical.

Frank P

I see that Colin Powell has now turned the campaign into a two-horse race issue.

So much for his colour-blind credentials.

Defence Secretary? God help us all! All we need, a turncoat in charge of the hardware.

JF An enlightened former democrat.

When I get discouraged like today with the horrible thought of Ayers, etc. in an Obama White House I come here and read your sane big-picture wisdom. Then I read some of Jacques Barzun's 'From Dawn To Decadence' and I'm better. The big 'small-picture' lie is being sold well by the prevailing media. Thank God for you and Fox TV and others. Don't give up the fight for us. Pray for America.

OreGuy

All four of the candidates for executive office in the US are Christians. Contrary to your general assertion that atheism is ascendant, it would be impossible for an avowed atheist to win the office of President in the US today.

The "problem" with Palin is not her Christianity; it is the complete lack of nuance in her world-view. She supports an extreme version of American exceptionalism that leads to the same "go-it-alone", "the US is always right" policy that has led the country in the last 8 years to the brink of ruin.
Read Andrew Bacevich's "The Limits of Power" for a principled conservative's view.

The argument in this article is that the candidates with the most extreme Christian views are best qualified to lead the US. This is simply ridiculous.

Verity

Paul from Florida - The nail hit squarely on the head. Perfect.

Philip - Could you give us a list of McCain's "history of health problems", please? I'd say anyone who survived five years in a prison camp in SE Asia, never knowing when he was going to be hauled out and tortured, and then survived 30 years in the bear pit of the US Congress probably has a stronger constitution than you do. You shouldn't take everything you read so seriously. McCain's "health problems" were two skin cancers that were removed years ago and the prognosis at the time, which has proved correct, is that they would not recur.

Does he have some other "health problems" that we don't know about?

Sarah Palin is a bit of a handful - an original - with a steely mind and a powerful ambition. If she can face down a charging moose, and fly her own seaplane over remote areas of Alaska without human help around for at least a hundred miles, and land it on those chill northern waters, alone, she is hardly under-equipped to think quickly - and effectively - in an emergency. Rather her than the poncy, preening, self-adoring argula-loving, destructive Marxist "intellectual" Obama. I think you need to do a little more research, Philip.

Charlie, in his excellent post above, asks: "How many intellectuals would of use if a plane crashed in a remote part of the World and the survivors needed to use skills to survive?"

Good point. If you crashed in the wilderness in a light plane, who would you rather have as a fellow passenger: Obama or Sarah Palin? I know which one I would pick as my leader.

steve

Now Obama has been endorsed by another left-wing Marxist:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/powell-endorses-obama/?hp

logdon

'A heart beat away from the nuclear trigger'.

So called intelligent readers dumbed down into meaningless cliche. What utter crap. We have been manipulated by Nu Lab's ridiculous soundbites for so long people actually believe in their meaning. Then the lazy, look at me. How cool I am using these terms, migrates across to general useage and thus we witness this utter rubbish about Palin. Grow up. Develop own thought. Forget BBC indoctrination and PC spin. This is precisely the intellectual and moral decay Melanie talks of.

Ann

"the root cause of that erosion is ‘militant atheism’"

Utterly bonkers.

Ann

"The trouble with McCain choosing Sarah Palin as running mate is not that she isn't a pleasant person, but that she isn't qualified to be president of a nuclear armed state, if worse comes to worse and John McCain were to die in his first term as president"

Nonsense. She has 1000 times more executive experience than Obama.

Ronnie

Dr John Montgomery FRSA, I am currently resisting forming conclusions based on spin. Your spin.

As I have said many times, Obama's apparent coyness about his background is suspicious.

If you could all stick to one thing, be it Obama's membership of that dodgy church, or his relationship with William Ayers you might start to overcome my scepticism. You can blame Blair and Campbell for that, along with Limbaugh and his ilk.

At the moment you are coming out with a lot of 'probablies', 'looks likes', 'maybes' and 'this shows' and you are accusing Obama of being Marxist, a racist Christian and a sleeping Islamist. Forgive me if all that doesn't hang together. Its just a collection of all the things you seem to be afraid of, in the absence of a rational narrative. And what on earth is a communist with a small 'c'?

I hardly think that either Stuart Hall or Eric Hobsbawn are covert, they have nothing to hide. If you think Will Hutton and Gordon Brown are Marxists of any kind, whether covert or 'unrepentant', then I really do think that you are the one needing to undertake further reading (although it wouldn't do me any harm either).

There is simply no point in labelling everyone to the left of your position as Marxist. It makes it utterly impossible for you to understand what is going on around you because the world isn't that simple.

I'm afraid that you will have to do better than that. I have every respect for your academic status , I would simply like you to apply your training to this issue and not assume that if you use 'Dr' in front of your name your opinions will go unchallenged. I have no more need of good manners on this blog than you or anyone else.

Dr* Dave (*are we all mentioning our PhDs now?)

Dr John Montgomery FRSA... Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce? Kudos!

As for Mel's "post". Oh dear. Is the arguement that people of faith are somehow better because... erm they have faith?

Let's point up the singularly most depressing word Mel has ever committed to screen;
"scientism"

For a woman who argues that elites are good, have their place, the the best should strive to achieve all they can... it seems so strange Mel now puts in place this artifical barrier to what humanity can do.

So remember. Use thought, be rational, apply the scientific method... but if that leads you to the conclusion there is no God... or even that Sarah Palin is an idiot, well then Mel has news for you Western Civilisation.

Stop right there!

sbnative

AGREE: The majority of Americans need reminding that socialism did not dry up and blow away with the collapse of the Soviet Union." AGREE:
Antonio Gramsci's prison writings found fertile soil in the minds of America's modern day socialists with their innocuous sounding 'charities,' political cover organizations (ACORN?), labour unions and church groups (REV. WRIGHT?) These writings have influenced countless untouchable 'progressive' college professors across America who were radicalized in the 1960s, and now seek to influence thousands of young Americans who will carry the banner of Gramscian socialism into the next century. SO AGREE!!!

Hello to my fellow citizens: if you think "spread the wealth around" works consider: Tony Rezko--Obama's politica patron--who took MILLIONS for low-income housing and left African-Americans FREEZING in a Chicago winter? Obama didn't KNOW this when his law firm worked for Rezko (on housing project cases?) Obama didn't KNOW this when he made a sweet real estate deal with Rezko's wife? Give us a break. Spread the Wealth? You betcha: to Democratic politicians! Where would modern liberalism be without victims to patronize? AGREE! NBA star, Charles Barkley, said black folks have been voting Democratic for 50 years, and they're still poor.
Subject: Top 10 Poverty Cities
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954;
Cincinnati, OH (3rd)..hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984;
Cleveland, OH (4th)..hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989;
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis, MO (6th)..hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949; NOTE: Obama drew 100,000 for his rally yesterday in St. Louis, No. 6 on list.
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th)..hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908;
Philadelphia, PA (9th)..hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952;
Newark, NJ (10th)..hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.
Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'
It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are still disadvantaged.
The Disadvantaged remain disadvantaged because they are looking for a Liberal Democratic Government to give them something, when all they have to do is work for it.
(How can a person be 5th Generation Disadvantaged in this Country?)
From all the Joes and Janes in America: GET A JOB--NOT A TAX REBATE (WELFARE CHECK.)

detoxed_democrat

Dead on observation, Melanie. Palin is an anecdote to the nihilism and she must be destroyed at all costs. Gov. Palin knew what was coming and she's standing up to it beautifully. Poor "Joe the Plumber" just asked a question and look what's happening to him. At long last, these people have no decency.

If we can get our votes to count and not be overwhelmed by the fraud, I think we can beat this back though. I truly believe there is a silent majority, a quiet army who will defeat Obama in the end.

Jack B

So, Dave, you saw Tina Fey. So did millions of others. Just repeating verbatim someone else's joke that's been looped for weeks isn't very funny or very bright, is it?

You're right Melanie, Sarah Palin has the core values that underpin Western prosperity, while Barry OhBummer has spent his whole life trying to tear them down. What a disaster it will be if OhBummer wins.

Darren

Melanie

A friend of mine related the following pertinent observation of his favorite professor from a Mennonite college in the US, that there is a loose but clear relationship between the basement of a nation's money by monetary authorities, and the levels of moral turpitude observed in those nations. Based on the experience on both sides of the Atlantic, he seems to have been on to something!

Michael B

"Kamm didn't say that the banking profession doesn't require an ethical dimension. He merely said that the current crisis doesn't stem from moral failure."

Obviously banking requires an ethical dimension, it would be silly to suggest otherwise. But Kamm's proposition seems to advance a type of determinism wherein human agency is given an essentially passive role. In emphasizing the sheer amount of credit that China and some other players made available and without also emphasizing human agency at virtually all levels of the wholesale and retail credit market, it serves to avoid niggling or petty moralizings about different sectors of the credit and financial markets, but in doing so the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

It's perfectly understandable that members of the commentariat wish to avoid petty, finger-wagging moralizings, in part because such pettiness is itself tiresome and in other part because the present realities need to be dealt with regardless of the specific causes. But despite the difficulties involved in coming to a sound and better grounded comprehension of the moral/ethical dimensions of the overall set of problems, it's irresponsible to fail to do so. The sheer volume of credit that was available is of course a huge and necessary factor, but in and of itself it's not a sufficient factor; the sheer volume of available credit represents the seedbed within which the crisis occurred, but (with apologies for the extended analogy) the seeds that were planted in that seedbed are a direct reflection of human agency and responsible.

Hence, to speak only in the most general terms, it would be silly to assign culpability to the Chinese for saving so much per capita, but it would be equally silly to forego scrutiny of, for example, members of the U.S. Congress such as Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks, Lacy Clay and others. But that serves to reflect merely on one of the more prominent set of actors involved, those political elites in the U.S. Congress.

But to paraphrase Forest Gump, silliness is as silliness does.

leigh

The killer line from Melanie is the reference to Palin keeping their (not her’s: note ) Downs Syndrome baby and loving the baby/child. This is the moral bedrock that rejects the culture of death peddled by Obama and some of his obvious admirers here. Yet not a peep from them about Palin’s dignity and respect for a baby they would have rejected or aborted. The culture wars indeed.

R. Green

Thank you Melanie for this excellent article.

fellow traveller

Verity: "If you crashed in the wilderness in a light plane, who would you rather have as a fellow passenger: Obama or Sarah Palin?"

But millions of Americans aren't about to crash in the wilderness in a light plane, are they? They do, however, have more urgent needs. I don't have the stats on this, but he ability to pilot small aircraft isn't statistically a signifier of readiness for great office.

Meanwhile, I'm still wondering, considering that it's a disadvantage to be black when standing for election, why Obama would wear black makeup for a national speech? I'd love an answer to that.

We'll ignore the alternative explanation for the difference in apparent skin colour (TV lighting and camera colour balance settings) because it doesn't have any elements of conspiracy or racial radicalism, and so doesn't play well in blogworld.

I'm sorry,

Conservative Cabbie

Verity

You were spot on with your comment about Sarah Palin. Have you heard this story, it speaks exactly to what you were saying:

"But Chuck has seen his daughter handle herself in other perilous situations and come out all right. A few years ago, he watched her pilot husband Todd Palin's commercial fishing boat in a storm. Todd was working at his oil-field job on the North Slope, and Palin and her father had been fishing on Bristol Bay. "It was the toughest work I've ever done, and it wasn't only hard, it was dangerous," Chuck says. At the end of the run, they had to get the boat on a trailer amid crashing surf. As cold, metallic-sheened waves tossed the trawler around, Chuck quailed.
"I'm not doing that," he said.

"Get out of the way," Palin said. "I'll do it."

I think those like Fellow Traveller just don't get why those are good characteristics for a potential President, it speaks to decision making and making bold choices. Obama on the other hand famously said "that question is above my paygrade" when asked about when a life achieves "personhood" at the Saddleback Church 'debate'. Wow! Real courage in decision making demonstrated there.

Read the whole piece on Sarah Palin, Verity, a fascinating insight on her childhood.

http://tinyurl.com/55o5b3

P.S. I note that Bobby Jindal is going to Iowa as soon as the election is over, perhaps preparing for possible GOP primary in 3 years. I can see us going head to head, Jindal v Palin. I'll have to start researching him.

Conservative Cabbie

Dr Dave

I'm afraid I don't have a PhD so please feel free to discount this post from a humble Cabbie.

What is so wrong with Scientism? It is a perfectly legitimate term to define the intellectual arrogance of those, particularly of liberal persuasion, who assert the absolute truth of science over possible competing explanations for the world around us. We see it applied when it comes to global warming, debates about intelligent design and many others. Take the Theory of Evolution. That is all it is, a theory. It may be our best explanation for explaining the origin of the species based on our current level of human understanding but that doesn't mean it is absolutely true. And yet if someone were to argue in favour of I.D., they are accused of being dumb or a redneck or a whole bunch of other insults. Scientism is a dogmatic religious equivalence. It has it's own dogmas, it's heresies and it's high-priests (think Richard Dawkins).

Mark

Sorry Melanie but a "militantly atheist" country would hardly be likely to make the kind of idiotic concessions to Islamists that you so rightly slate on this site and with which I heartilly agree.

Conservative Cabbie - repeat after me there is nothing ncessarilly liberal of leftist about a belief in what you term "scientism". I can think of many conservatives who share the view that in its own matrerialist realm science should eign supreme . of course outside that ralsm - the som called metaphysical, arts, love, the srpitiual side of religion, - its all up for grabs.

Pete M.

So you blame the financial crisis in the US on 'militant atheism.' But how can this be? This crisis originated in the country that has the highest levels of religiosity of any fully industrialized country.

This claim that atheism erodes morality has been made by many people, and it has always been wrong. The two or three best worked out philosophical systems of ethics in history do not rely on a God to justify their substantive moral principles. These include Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism, and some form of virtue ethics. So please, stop making the absolutely absurd claim that we can't have morality without some God to punish us when we do wrong! Give humanity credit for being mature enough to figure out that hurting others is a bad thing without a magic man in the sky to tell us so.

David Joyce

Your suggestion that atheists are to blame for the troubles in the world - financial and moral - is outrageous to say the least.
You seem to be forgetting that, for example, we now live in a society where there are so many people, we don't know our own neighbours. Gone are the days of knowing everyone in your village, and this, amongst many other factors you're completely ignoring, is a key difference between the now and then. You say there are more drunkards and drug users, but there are vastly more people, so of course we will see a rise in every aspect of life. you're saying no christians are alcoholics?
If you're suggesting that humans will only be good if living in fear of god and no other reason, then you're simply using today's problems to aid your christian agenda and it speaks volumes about your own morality. People are tending not to believe in god anymore because we are moving on as a species and realising just how inaccurate and ridiculous books like the bible are.
You Christians claim to have invented morals. Have you actually read the bible??? 'God' is the worst moral role model this world has ever seen. You speak of slavery - check your bible for its advise on slavery, or how to treat women, or which neighbouring tribes you're allowed to murder...
Christianity is a joke and so are your reasons for criminalising people just because they don't buy into it.

Hereford

Colin Powell said that Sarah Palin was not fit to be President. But nobody asked him, "OK Colin, but is Joe Biden any more so?"

I think there is an inherent sexism in this debate. No one is asking the same questions of Biden (White Male) as they are of Palin (White Female).

Nobody in the media seems to be interested in balance anymore.

Conservative Cabbie

Mark

"in it's own materialist realm science should reign supreme". What's that all about? In my own realm I should reign supreme too.

I take your point that scientism is not strictly a liberal creed although I never said that. I said "particularly liberals" which I stand by. That was not meant to be insulting, I just recognise that modern liberalism values science particularly highly and that the more dogmatic the liberal, the more dogmatic their view on science tends to be. The converse is true in conservatism. The more dogmatic the conservative (really talking about American conservatism here), the more dogmatic their religious views are. Of course there are exceptions to every rule but I feel on fairly safe ground making those assertions.

Verity

"superlatively". Ganpat Ram, look this word up in the dictionary. Just because some ignoramus wrote it into a movie script does not change the meaning and etymology of the word. You can't understand a simple word with a well-explained provenance, yet you think you understand American politics.

Verity

zoltix orders Melanie to "stop knocking the atheists". Maybe if the atheists would shut the hell up for 10 minutes, people would leave them alone.

It is your right to deny the existence of God, but let me ask you this. Do you really think that in this whole, unimaginably vast, complex, universe where everything fits in with everything else with awesome precision, you're the apex?

You think it doesn't get any more powerful or grand than you? You're it?

phil

fellow traveller at 12.32 to say that I was shocked that this `person verity has been allowed to make quite the most disgusting comment I have ever seen on these threads would be an understatement .She makes continual nasty remarks about all and sundry which some might find amusing but speaks only of their own character., followed by claims for which she never will provide provenance -unless of course the broomstick is jet powered and she can appear at all these places that she claims she has seen the next president of the USA

.She never has managed a sensible reply to anything I have posted because of course she cant -she even posted to me recently that she hadn't read what I wrote -that's just about the quality of her nonsense. I sincerely hope that most people will also feel the shame that I do that I have been involved in a debate that has sunk as low as this has.

Conservative Cabbie

This is interesting from CBS News.

"It was less than two weeks ago when Sarah Palin astonished her traveling press corps by lifting the curtain (literally) and journeying to the back of her campaign plane to answer reporters’ questions for the first time after 40 days on the campaign trail. But the candidate who has been criticized for having a bunker mentality when it came to the national media can now lay legitimate claim to being more accessible than either Joe Biden or Barack Obama.
In the past two days alone, Palin has answered questions from her national press corps on three separate occasions. On Saturday, she held another plane availability, and on Sunday, she offered an impromptu press conference on the tarmac upon landing in Colorado Springs. A few minutes later, she answered even more questions from reporters during an off-the-record stop at a local ice cream shop.
By contrast, Biden hasn’t held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn’t taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September."

and from Hotair

"Palin, meanwhile, has begun to charm the media. Scott Conroy reports that Palin has improved substantially over her poor performance in the Katie Couric interview on his network, both in poise and detail. Palin has no hesitation in answering nuanced questions on policy, especially on economics. She’s enjoying it so much that Palin’s press secretary now has to intervene to pull the candidate away from the press, rather than the other way around."

Mmmm, doesn't really fit in with the Palin-haters meme does it.

Ganpat Ram

Verity:

Since you seem to like indulging in linguistic pedantry, here is what I found about the meaning of "superlatively":

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7
"
superlatively
adv : to a superlative degree

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Superlative \Su`per*la"tive\, a. [L. superlativus, fr.
superlatus excessive, used as p. p. of superiorferre, but
from a different root: cf. F. superlatif. See Elate,
Tolerate.]
1. Lifted up to the highest degree; most eminent; surpassing
all other; supreme; as, superlative wisdom or prudence; a
woman of superlative beauty; the superlative glory of the
divine character.

2. (Gram.) Expressing the highest or lowest degree of the
quality, manner, etc., denoted by an adjective or an
adverb. The superlative degree is formed from the positive
by the use of -est, most, or least; as, highest, most
pleasant, least bright. -- Su`per*la"tive*ly, adv. --
Su`per*la"tive*ness, n."

I meant simply that Marx and Engels have explained the moral nihilism of capitalism better than anyone else.

I don't measure my ability to understand anything on whether I always get some word or other right. I am a bit like Sarah Palin in that respect.

Obama undoubtedly uses the language well. Do you support him?

Or is it that linguistic pedantry is the last resort of the terminally baffled?

Verity

Logdon 6:23 "But millions of Americans aren't about to crash in the wilderness in a light plane, are they?"

Depends how good you are at analogies. I think millions of Americans are indeed in danger of crashing and burning due to an arrogant pilot who is ignorant and who has no experience of flying anything, even a kite.

fellow traveller

Verity: yet again. "Do you really think that in this whole, unimaginably vast, complex, universe where everything fits in with everything else with awesome precision, you're the apex? You think it doesn't get any more powerful or grand than you? You're it?"

It's not an either-or choice though, is it? The idea that we're not the most important thing in the world doesn't immediately imply religion is true.

Indeed, arguably some religions make humans far more special (universe specially created for us to live in, sending only son etc) than a god-free point of view (we're just one chance product of all the stuff that happens and will happen).

You're not very easy to debate with, I find, because while you always have a proposition and a deduction in each post, they often come from different arguments.

To me it's a sort of: "all penguins are black, Obama is black, therefore Obama is a Marxist" type of debate style.

Conservative Cabbie

Reasons to be cheerful No8:

1. In 2004, the Washington Post had John Kerry up by 10 (53-43) in a survey of 13 battleground states. According to Ann Coulter (I know, I know), polls routinely favour democrats over republicans until votes actually have to be cast.

2. The race is tightening, Rasmussen has Obama up 50-46. What is interesting is that Obama has been at around 50% for a couple of weeks now. That means in a tightening race, it is the indeoendents breaking for McCain. My untrained eye suggests that independents are probably people not sure about Obama, if they were serious about voting for him, wouldn't they be there already.

3. The most compelling reason saved for last. The Philadelphia Phillies baseball team have just made it to the world series. The last time they did that was 1980 when Carter led in the polls but Reagan won in a landslide. Damn compelling if you ask me.

Verity

Fellow Traveller, I didn't bother to read your whole post because it was overwritten and repetitive. However, in reference to this, "To me it's a sort of: "all penguins are black, Obama is black, therefore Obama is a Marxist" type of debate style.

See, here's where we differ. I don't care what it is to you.

BTW, as you were reaching very hard for an Obama analogy, it would have been cleverer if you had written, "All penguins are black and white ....".

Mike

Phil: Verity, and others I could name, are the reasons you haven't seen me around for a time. Roll-on the first week of November!

Ganpat Ram

Verity:

You ask:

"Do you really think that in this whole, unimaginably vast, complex, universe where everything fits in with everything else with awesome precision, you're the apex?

You think it doesn't get any more powerful or grand than you? You're it?"

Are you always as much a philistine as these questions suggest or are you making a special effort today?

No, I am very very very far from being the best the universe could produce. Even on Earth, I am sure Einstein, Newton, Marx, Shakespeare, the unknown Hindu who invented our number system, et al, were considerably more exalted.

Still, I do what I can.

Nor do I have any exaggerated respect for God, should he exist. After all, even he is apparently powerlesss to prevent unimaginable human misery.

Buddha, another guy who was miles above my head, put the aetheist case very well:

"If God is All Powerful He Can't Be Good.

If He is Not All Powerful He Can't Be God."

It's no good saying he simply leaves us to do what we can, on purpose; that only means he is irrelevant to us even if he does exist.

fellow traveller

Verity: leaving aside your obsession with the colour of Obama's skin, I'll rephrase:

You're really rubbish at logic.

Short enough?

Verity

Ganpat Ram - I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing someone called Zolitex or something like that. I often agree with your posts, actually.

BTW, I watched Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live, a show that went into hospital for an urgent sense of humour bypass around 15 years ago and it worked, and she was aces.

The woman who impersonates her was way OTT (although she does resemble the governor to a startling extent).

And the show got its highest ratings in FOURTEEN YEARS. Even the lefty audience loved her and cheered her responses. She is just so cool.

I'd say she won a few million votes in those few minutes.

Robyn

Yes, because we've never had immoral bankers, depressions, or economic collapses before the 1950s.

You know, except for the part where we have. Come on, are you serious?

Ganpat Ram

Verity:

Sincere apologies.

Looks like there has been some confusion here. I also often agree with you.

Disagreements are natural and can lead to interesting debate. I rather like barbed comments and hope people won't take them too seriously.

There is a rather sarcastic comment I made which hasn't appeared. If it does, apologies.

Yes, I much enjoyed SNL with Sarah Palin. I always enjoy any appearance by her.

It says a lot about the miserable degeneration of the US media in our time into PC-ridden fatuity and pettiness that they are unable to appreciate her intelligence and wit and courage. They give Obama the benefit of every imaginable and unimaginable doubt, yet treat Palin with not an atom of generosity.

Still, there IS one great consolation in these events.

At least we can now believe in God.

The complaint that HE never appears to us has been put to rest.

God so loved the world that he took upon Himself the form of a crooked Chicago politician, and now walks among us.

Just ask the press boys.

phil

Mike-we managed our disagreements without recourse to racial remarks and insults ,but times have changed this parody of a woman massages her ego by disgusting insults and a severe lack of intelligence -perhaps she will go on holiday when November arrives -her invective has no limits unlike what passes for a brain -I SUPPOSE THE CONSOLATION IS SHE MAKES HERSELF MORE FOOLISH BY THE HOUR .

Tina

Do check out this astonishing television documentary on Barack Obama (Hannity’s America; ‘Obama & Friends: History of Radicalism’).

It is quite simply jaw-dropping.

This is the first time I have even heard what the subject of his still undisclosed senior thesis: it’s about Soviet nuclear disarmament.

It was written in 1983 when Ronald Reagan ignored all the advice he was given to back off the Russians and instead of listening to Milibland-type wonks who spend their whole time writing self-aggrandising cowardly essays, squared up to them and - via the ‘star wars’ programme - broke the back of Russia’s aggression.

No wonder Obama wants to cosy up to Iran without preconditions.

There is plenty here that we already knew about but I was unfamiliar with the speeches of the disgusting Khalid al Mansour who lobbied to get Obama into Harvard.

What’s more, we also learn no copies of the Harvard Law Review bearing any bylines with Obama’s name have been released, either.

Part I
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YVIl-yrfmpU

Part II Obama says he didn’t quite know what community organising was:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hQA43HiYbhU&feature=related

Let’s face it, Barack, if you answered that question by saying you did, you’d be in a lot of trouble. Again, this has already been covered on this blog for those who might have thought it meant making cakes for the village fete.

Part III
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=snYOtr4Ykk4&feature=related
Part IV
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=57upSFkq_8c&feature=related

Part V
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JJAFLfcK2FU&feature=related

Part VI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=46Zouxm2MEI&feature=related

Frank P

For those here who would like to read a cerebral debate on the subject of Obama and his extremist chums I recommend David Thompson's blog:

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/10/a-commonplace-e.html

Terrific post captioned "A commonplace Extremisim" David quotes KC Johnson and widens the ambit of concern: Extract:

>"For the GOP attack [on Obama] to work, Ayers and [Columbia professor Rashid] Khalidi have to be viewed as exceptional figures - wholly unlike nearly all other professors.[…] Yet the truth of the matter is that the basic pedagogical and academic approaches of Ayers and Khalidi fit well within the academic mainstream. Ayers is, after all, a prestigious professor of education (hardly a field known for its intellectual diversity, as I have explored elsewhere). Khalidi was of such standing that Columbia hired him away from the U of C, and named him to chair its Middle East Studies Department. From that perch, he presided over a wildly biased anti-Israel curriculum, even as he informed readers of New York that students of Arab descent - and only such students - knew the “truth” about Middle Eastern affairs.

I agree with Palin that there’s a scandal here - but it’s not that Obama, among his hundreds of associations with academic figures, was acquainted with, and received support from, Ayers and Khalidi. The scandal is the evolution of a groupthink academic environment that has allowed figures such as Ayers and Khalidi to flourish. The tolerance for extremism is on one side and one side only: the academy doesn’t offer carte blanche endorsement to some types of unrepentant domestic terrorists or to figures who suggest that politically incorrect ethnic groups know the “truth.” Imagine the chances of someone who had bombed abortion clinics in the 1980s becoming a prominent education professor. Or consider the likelihood of a man who claimed that Jewish and only Jewish students knew the “truth” about Middle Eastern matters becoming chairman of a major Middle East Studies Department"<

Commentary excellent too. Read it all.

Hayward Maberley

Verity
The Plane Crash Test is the best way to judge suitability for candidates for the POTUS and VPOTUS?
To extend the analogy that presumes when boarding the plane that the engineers have done their job and carried out the maintenance programme correctly and as scheduled, that the ground staff and refuellers have done their job correctly. That when the plane taxis out and takes off the air traffic controllers are doing their job.
The problem that exist now is that the plane is not in a very good condition due to poor maintenance, there have been many errors and omissions by the ground staff and the air traffic controllers are not sure what the situation is in the airspace that they control.
Flying Republican Airlines with Captain Dubya as command and Five Deferment Dick in the other seat, the plane seems to be in serious trouble.
By the way where is Five Deferment Dick, for to continue the flying analogy, he seems have disappeared off the radar?
Enjoy the Flight!

Dave

@Conservative Cabbie.

"Dr Dave

I'm afraid I don't have a PhD so please feel free to discount this post from a humble Cabbie."

Oh no need to be humble. After all if you need a lift home just try hailing a scientist!

"Take the Theory of Evolution. That is all it is, a theory."

Well, no. You're wrong. Scientists use the word theory in a slightly different way. Look it up on Wikipedia, it's a very useful explanation of the difference.

But this illustrates the wider point. On here we can debate away about politics and I'm interested in what you say. I hope you are interested in my contribution too.

But in the lab, or indeed debating say climate change you don't know as much as I do about how the science works. Why should you? I trained for years. Mel is the same. She makes the same mistakes discussing science over and over again, climate change, mmr and so on.

So yes, then I will discount your opinion. That's not "scientism"

I just know what I'm talking about.

(I should say that's not to say the non-scientist can't make a contribution. And indeed over the data for climate change one or two have. But to be really brutal you can pretty quickly tell they have a good grasp of some complex maths, and they certainly know what a scientist means by theory)

absolutely true. And yet if someone were to argue in favour of I.D., they are accused of being dumb or a redneck or a whole bunch of other insults. Scientism is a dogmatic religious equivalence. It has it's own dogmas, it's heresies and it's high-priests (think Richard Dawkins).

Hayward Maberley

sbnative,
Benjamin Franklin said
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Einstein inserted stupidity for insanity

Andy M

Dear Moderator

I am curious to know why the comment I submitted last night to this article has not been published. I'd be very grateful to learn on what grounds my comment was excluded, so that I may strive to do better in future. I note that you warn commenters that their comment may not be published immediately. Perhaps you should add the rider 'or indeed at all'.

Thanks for your time.

John Montgomery

Ronnie, I was not aware that you have called Mr Obama's dodgy associations into question. The point of my original post - sticking to one thing at a time as you say - was that Obama is likely to be a Marxist. I still think that is likely. I also mentioned Gordon Brown, author of the Red Book for Scotland, who proposed state takeover of shops and cafes, as in the old Czechoslovakia perhaps. Now Gordon is cheerfully nationalising the banks instead.

I mentioned Stuart Hall and the others as I used to go to Marxism Today parties with them in the 80s. They are mostly slightly loopy, live in a fantasy world. I remember the discussions turning to getting rid of the Union Jack, changing the national anthemn and abolishing the Monarchy as ways to usher in 'class conciousness'. These people operate within a network and still come up with ideas for bringing down 'capitalist hegemony'.

My point about Obama is that he also is in a network made up of Ayers, Davis, Wright, ACORN,Dohrn and others. HIs views are at the very least socialist.

I also said that Obama is either a sleeping Muslim or a black separatist Christian, not both.

As for not all people to my left being Marxists, I concede your point. In my field, however, I would say that about 80% of academics are firmly to the left of mainstream poltics. It is even worse in History and English.

Gramsci was certainly a different sort of Marxist from Lenin or Mao or even Mussolini, but he was a Marxist nonetheless.

Frank P

John Montgomery

My arrow-down scroll key has a label on it marked 'Ronnie'. I find it very useful, as every time I see that name to the left of the commentary my finger reacts immediately. That is a good thing because I know from past experience that it saves much time, not to mention unnecessary wear and tear on my ageing mince pies for no gain whatsoever.

As I have enjoyed your posts and recognised a man of discernment and wisdom when I read their content, I thought that, as I had noted that he had engaged you in conversation, I would just let you know that you are wasting your time taking the bait. He is a troll and here to disrupt the flow of common sense that Melanie engenders by her posts and others of like mind amplify.

You are, of course absolutely right about the shill and front man Barack Hussein Obama. You are also correct about the infiltration of the academies of the West by disciples of Antonio Gramsci and his modified Marxist theories of counter-culture hegemony. These apostles have very successfully infiltrated the corridors of power of all Western democratic governments, particularly so in the United Kingdom, where despite their transparency to anyone with half an eye, they have been voted into highest office three times here. They may even make it again in 2010 despite their outrageous antics and chicanery, because it seems that the British public are extremely gullible and in the thrall of the Big Media who are, as you know, riddled with agents of the Left.

Now it seems that the Long March is within easy walking distance of the White House and the American electorate, to a large degree blinded by rage at the nasty turn of events with their (and our) economy, and goaded by the same Big Media, are about to elect a man as President who is fronting several malign interests - an unholy alliance - despite the divers purported religious affiliations of some of its elements - that has combined in a common aim to bring down Western Civilisation and capitalism in particular. To be honest, it needs only a light nudge for it to succeed, now. So many people are to blame for this. In fact we must all share some responsibility for our somewhat louche acceptance of the ‘good times’ and failure to oppose this ever expanding subversive conspiracy mit blut und eisen.

But there it is. What to do? I am now of an age where I shall merely watch as things unfold and chuckle as Melanie’s prognostications emerge as written - as they have so often in the past. I shall try to avoid the twaddle of the likes of Ronnie with my auto-scroll finger.

Mind you, I almost girded my loins today when our electricity bill arrived, but my dear wife hid my walking stick and muttered, “Leave it to the youngsters, dear. They’ll sort it out. You’ve done your bit, already.”

Mr Montgomery I hope she’s right and that you are one of the youngsters!

Cantaff

I'm a big fan of your writings, Melanie, but as an atheist of some 50 years, I had no idea I was responsible for the worlds ills, including violent crime, drunkenness, and drug abuse. I'm off to the nearest church to atone for my wicked ways.

Verity

Ganpat Ram writes, re Governor Palin's appearance on SNL, "It says a lot about the miserable degeneration of the US media in our time into PC-ridden fatuity and pettiness that they are unable to appreciate her intelligence and wit and courage."

But that is not correct. The lefty audience - the American equivalent of 'Any Questions' - was cheering her on.

Frank P

Btw Mr Monty

Just in case you have not yet encountered this source:

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/

Trevor Loudon, an anti-Left campaigner from down under has compiled an extremely comprehensive intelligence file on Obama and friends. Much of it is cross-checkable and it does show a somewhat disturbing if not indeed exotic set of antecedents for a man who has recently been 'endorsed' by a previous US Secretary of State under the incumbent President.
Hell, it seems, has no fury like a S of S scorned! He may well be the turncoat that opens the gates for the Trojan Horse. Oh my!

Hayward Maberley

The Australian October 21, 2008 12:46pm AEDT
Party recruiter accused of voter fraud
The owner of a company hired by the California Republican Party to register voters was arrested over the weekend on charges of voter registration fraud and perjury, officials said today.
Mark Jacoby is accused of fraudulently registering himself to vote at a Los Angeles address where he no longer resides - his boyhood home - to meet a state law requiring all signature gatherers to register or be eligible to vote in California.
He did this twice, in 2006 and 2007, according to the California secretary of state, Debra Bowen.
A spokeswoman for Ms Bowen said investigators found the home at the address where he registered was no longer owned by Jacoby's family.
Authorities also are investigating complaints that Jacoby's company, Young Political Majors, or YPM, improperly registered voters as Republicans, said Ed Miller, a deputy district attorney for Los Angeles County.
The Los Angeles Times has reported that dozens of voters claimed they had been duped by YPM employees into switching parties and registering as Republicans when they were asked to sign a petition seeking tougher penalties against child molesters.

Ronnie

John Montgomery, thank you for your response.

Maybe Obama was a Marxist, who knows, but I genuinely see no evidence of it now.

Gordon Brown did write the 'Red Book for Scotland' but in the context of Scottish politics that is not an outrageous thing to have done. At the time he wrote it a significant proportion of the population in Scotland would have happily seen every proposal implemented. It wasn't the Red Book for the Home Counties after all.

I certainly see no evidence of Gordon Brown being Marxist and there is absolutely no point in using bank nationalisation as evidence. Is George W Bush and the Republican party also Marxist?

Marxism Today parties! Respect, that was a 'hot ticket' in those days. I agree, from their writing, they seemed a bit loopy but entertaining. I suspected at the time that quite a few of them had simply stopped being Marxists and were looking around for something controversial to write. My point about Stuart Hall, Martin Jaques et al is that they were not covert. Its not illegal to read Marxist writing, find it interesting, agree with and then go around talking about it. Its a system of ideas and analysis every bit as valid as any other. There is no need to hide.

My more general point on these blogs concerns the general and childish use of words like 'covert', 'unrepentant',
'sleeping', 'militant' etc . The idea being that whatever Melanie and her fans disagree with isn't just a different opinion, its downright evil. I find that hilarious and also disturbing.

Someone commented on another blog recently the Rowan Willaims shouldn't even have read Marx never mind be commenting on his work. I think it is extremely sad that we still have to put up with that kind of narrow-mindedness.

If someone is a Marxist then they are a Marxist, if someone is an atheist then they are an atheist, if someone is a devout Christian then they are a devout Christian. Its not difficult. If someone directly threatens your way of life then you are obliged to do something about it but continually and vicously attacking others because they think differently is another matter.

Similarly you talk about 'networks' as if there is some huge conspiracy at work, sucking in all of the isms that you are afraid of. If you can find enough people on the left to agree with each other long enough to form a network, I'll buy you an ice cream.

The idea, expressed by Melanie a few weeks ago, that Obama is the nexus of a network of Marxists, Islamofascists, Arab financiers and God-knows-what-else is utterly ridiculous and fantastic.

Obama may be at least a socialist to you and others because you are actually quite far to the right. He, if anything is somewhere in the middle, as he must be in order to win an election in either the US or the UK.

If Obama can be either a sleeping muslim or a black separatist Christian, he might just as easily be a Martian. Honestly, trust me, if you want to attack a candidate's character effectively keep it real or everyone will laugh. Except, that is, the nutters on the extreme wing of your political constituency who then reduce your credibility even further, as we have seen in the last few weeks.

As I said, its not a crime or un-Godly to be on the left but you are right about History and English, and so unrepentant. As for Gramsci, he was exactly the same kind of Marxist as Lenin and Mao. Only his means of achieving revolution were different.

We genuinely disagree John, that's life.

Conservative Cabbie

Dave

I take your point on theory, I was under the impression theory fell short of law, I was wrong on that. Also as a scientist I bow to your greater knowledge on the subject, I was such a dummy on science at school, I scraped through with a general science 'o' level, didn't even sit physics and chemistry seperately.

I do not think that you discounting my ideas because you know more on the subject than me is 'scientism'. What I would consider 'scientism' to be for example would be you discounting my values on say religion (I'm not religious but just as an example) or abortion because you consider those views unscientific and that you consider such unscientific views to be unworthy of debate.

Similarly, I have a problem with science being represented as an absolute truth. As I said in my previous comment, science only represents the sum total of human knowledge at this particular point of time. Therefore at best, it can only be a best explanation for something and part of a debate, not an end to debate.

Ronnie

Ah, my friends.

What perfection
there would be
if we would only think
like Frank P.

Conservative Cabbie

Ronnie

Agree with some of your last post to John Montgomery.

However I did notice you said use of the word "unrepentant" was childish whilst going on to say "As I said, its not a crime or un-Godly to be on the left but you are right about History and English, and so unrepentant".

A deliberate attempt at irony or a gaffe of Biden-esque proportions?

I disagree on "unrepentant". I think that's an important matter when discussing a persons character. Who would you be more likely to let in your house, a reformed burglar or an unrepentant one?

Ronnie

Hi Conservative Cabbie, I was trying to be funny but I agree I could have made it more obvious.

The biblical connotations of the word 'repentant' make me smile when applied to political situations and actions. I can't think of many people, never mind politicians, who haven't changed their minds on certain issues over the years, Yet on other issues we can remain resolute during our entire lives. Other people may not agree with us but if we feel strongly enough about something then there you are.

The use of 'unrepentant' on these blogs is supposed to accentuate the supposed gulit of the intended target. As if their being bad (i.e. disagreeing with 'us') is compounded by their unwillingness to confess their guilt.

When we are talking about what people think or believe I just think this whole subjective judgement thing is a joke. Its like circling the wagons.

I once sat on the same train as Tony Benn. Worse, I travelled on the same plane as Tony Blair once. Now how closely does that tie me to either of these two unspeakable demons; whether I repent or not?

Actually, it reminds me of the stoning scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian. John Cleese yelling 'blasphemer...!'

If people read lots and agree with some of it to the point where they want to explain it to others, should they repent?

Let he who is without sin...

Frank P

ConCab

"Who would you be more likely to let in your house, a reformed burglar or an unrepentant one?"

Letting either in would be ill advised, but surely with their particular skill they don't need an invitation to enter?
They do it surreptitiously or by guile.

Any, once a thief, always a thief; it's just that with experience the thief becomes more accomplished at concealing his dishonesty or gulling the victim into handing over the wherewithal after promises as to the future. Which reminds me ...

Frank P

Gerard Vandeleun over at American Digest:

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/5minute_arguments/powell_endorsem.php#008894

Extract:

"POWELL ENDORSEMENT OF OBAMA MEANS... EXACTLY NOTHING

" I want real loyalty. I want someone who will kiss my ass in Macy's window, and say it smells like roses."

-- Lyndon Johnson

The problem with the daily buzz is that it buzzes. It whines in the ear until many people cannot hear themselves think... if indeed they think at all.

Today's buzz is all about the endorsement of Colin Powell of Barack Obama. Pinhead punditry on all levels is agog in glee and rapt in wonderment. Well, what for many is a big buzz for me remains a big "ZZzzzzzzzz."

What exactly is the surprise here? Did anyone really think that when it became clear that Obama was going to have a real shot at the title, people like Powell would come out and announce themselves as a race traitor? Some might have hoped so, but for Powell and his Republican fellow travelers what decides these things is their social reality, not the integrity of their intellect or even gratitude for favors past.

What we all need to understand when contemplating the turncoat moves of people such as Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, or Chris Buckley over the last few weeks is that they are merely triangulating their fortunes for a possible future world. It is just cynical positioning.

This positioning is done with the knowledge that there will be no consequences for them if the O-world does not come to pass, but there will be adverse consequences for them if it does. Turning the coat, if you are a conservative or a Republican at this juncture, is a win-win for all of them."<

Blunt speaker! Read it all.

routemaster

an example of 'militant atheism':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising

although, so as to comply with the Trades Descriptions Act, they've pinched the 'probably' from Carlsberg

Mon seigneur Aghast

Lazy arguments and gibberish conclusions- this article is total drivel from start to finish. What's worrying is that you represent a portion of the UK's (nay the world's) thinking (or should that be 'thicking'?)

Dave

@Conservative Cabbie
I am firmly of the opinion that it is our teachers who are the ones that really excite us about certain subjects. I was lucky, at my comprehensive I had great science, maths, english and music teachers giving me the start to life long passions and a job I love.
So in the end it's the luck of the draw, but if the subject still excites and interests you then do try and return to it. From the OU to the free physics lectures from MIT and Harvard on the web, it's never been easier to try and learn more about the great science of our age.

I fully appreciate and agree that sometimes people use apparently scientific language to close down debate. That's wrong. But the idea of "scientism" is just as bad. It's closing down debate by appealing to "common sense" and distrust of elites. (Of course scientists are elitist! That's the point!)

As for absolute scientific truth. Well yes. But in the end science is the best knowledge we have right now. That doesn't mean there aren't emeralds that won't turn red sometime in the future, but in the end we can't work like that.

Science is a tool. Challenge the methods or the conclusions. But only by standing on the shoulders of other scientific geniuses.

Just railing at it because you don't agree with it's conclusions doesn't add to our sum of human knowledge. It doesn't help

Tim Hollis

Sarah Palin. It seems to me that the reason she has sparked such an unprecedented campaign of lies, smears, abuse and dangerously unhinged hatred

Only someone who has themselves joined in the deranged, shameless, year-long smear campaign against Barack Obama, could suggest that the much smaller and lighter campaign directed at Sarah Palin is unprecedented. I hate to think how outraged you would be if Palin were to face anything comparable to the battery of lies and distortions you and your allies have engaged in against the Democratic nominee. But how typical of the political right that it absolutely cannot stand it when the left makes it swallow its own medicine, even just a little bit.

Conservative Cabbie

Dave

I agree with almost everything you said. I should have pointed out that I don't believe that it is scientists responsible for scientism per se (apart from that horrible Richard Dawkins).

Scientism is a political arguement used (and i'll probably be shot down here) predominantely by liberals to attack the values of those who oppose them by taking a superior line and seemingly appealing to logic and rationalism.

My concern with your view is that you don't seem to acknowledge that other disciplines can explain the world and our position in it. I believe religion, philosophy, theology and of course science all have a roll to play in both explanation but also establishing a value set.

I'm afraid science is beyond me as an activity, my brain is just not wired that way - history and philosophy for me. I tried reading that Bill Bryson book. Completely lost me when it came to particles, string theory etc. I'm never going to be standing on the shoulders of scientific giants.

Conservative Cabbie

Tim Hollis

Your post is somewhat lacking in any evidence for your assertion.

Please demonstrate an example of comparable smears levelled against Obama in relation to:

Liberals accusing Palin of not being the mother of her youngest child.

A democrat politician saying that her only qualification to be VP was that she didn't have an abortion.

A Democrat politician stating that blacks and jews should be "very afraid" if she gets to the Whitehouse.

An Obama supporter saying that if she came to New York that she should be gang-raped.

An Obama supporter going to a Palin rally and shouting "stone her".

I've only gone for the really outrageous ones because I realise that some attacks on Obama have been over the top but none compare to those above. Nice try with your moral equivalence.

Hayward Maberley

Mr Hollis,
Thank you
Admirable sentiments, well expressed.

keith Bryer

Melanie does not rant. She speaks for those of us who cannot match her brilliance. She gives us hope that we are not alone.

phil

Tim and Cabbie it seems to me that you are both agreeing that the filth and smears have no place in the politics we prefer.The only difference is the choice of candidate who you wish to support ,so I applaud you both for that .The idiots who use insults to persuade will never change anyones mind ,sadly they persist and raise our blood pressure .Hopefully the most able man will win and we will definately not fall out over it.Ref calls a draw .

A. Thea

Hmm. Could it be that your beloved Conservative Christian types went ahead and threw the economy into the toilet because they firmly believed their flying spaghetti mon -- um, I mean God, would take care of everything for them? Self-delusion can do wonders, especially when you're thinking this way but allowing "personal responsibility, personal accountability" to flow unimpeded from your lips.

Emily

First of all, atheists are not nihilists and we are not relativists. Morality is human, not religious, and you should know better than to suggest that religious people have the corner on moral values. Or perhaps you have honestly never heard of humanism. You may want to look that up.

Then you call liberals bigots and witch-hunters, but also blame "militant atheists" for the breakdown of the country's morals? You haven't presented one piece of evidence showing that atheists either have no values or have wrong values. You only assume this. Then you wonder how anyone can dare call you irrational.

Chingford Man

Three cheers for Melanie. This is a superb essay which sets out the real fault lines in society. It's such a contrast from the lazy guff of Boris or the tedious anti-Palin bitchiness of Liz Hunt, one of the least able journalists ever to have been given a column in the Telegraph.

I have also been disgusted and unsettled by the vicious and disturbingly abusive treatment of Mrs Palin. It's unsettling to see that Mrs Palin's Christian world view is deemed to make her as unfit for office, in the eyes of many.

Keep up the good work.

James Stephenson

Christianity in America has been infected by materialism. The American Dream is a pursued by many in a religious manner.

It is less about achievement and more about being able to make lots of cash. In that sense it is antithetical to Christianity where the basic (relevant) components are thrift and admonishments to ensure that material goods are made subordinate to relationships. 'Do not hoard and store' - 'Give all you have to the poor' etc.

The current financial crisis is a result of a monetary philosophy that is anything but Christian, and has been perpetrated by the kind of greed that Jesus targeted.

It is a red herring to point out that the people in charge of this in America are Christians. You mean like Tony Blair was a Christian? He may well have been, but Christian tennets hardly entered into his thinking or actions. The USA is full of politicians that nod towards Christianity to ensure the Christian vote.

Sue Jacobs

Ms. Phillips, I've never read your editorials before this night, election-eve in America. I came here from a link on another site, where your fabulous paragragh about it apparently being "impolite" to mention the very questionable nature of Barry Sutoro's (aka, Obama) associations.

I've read through serveral days worth of your wonderful and insightful writings, all with tears flowing down my face. Because I was thinking of all of those who so bravely gave their lives to fight for this country. ~ I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment concerning the vicious assaults on Sarah Palin. It isn't her, it's Who and what she represents because she is an evangelical Christian... the bane of the atheistic/hedonists.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful, and articulate exposes on the demise of my dear country. Well stated, though heartbreakingly sad.

Stan

"Palin poses a threat to the established amoral order which must be resisted with all the ferocity they can summon. That is why she has been the target of this astonishing campaign of lies and smears"

What arrant nonsense. Palin condemns herself every time she opens her mouth. Her astonishing ignorance is there for anyone to see who chooses to see.