Dr. Helen discusses what a girl might do.

Patterico gets a tad vulgar to asks if Ann Coulter is anti-semitic? Also in Patterico, filed under Morons, 'Are those who believe in evolution brainwashed?' This is an Ann Coulter assertion. My comments are there.

The metal hawk brings Zarqawi to ground.

Considering Berg's view, a respectful interview with whom was the first item on the Michael Medved radio show, is a way of shrinking from joy at our victory. It should be tempered not by deluded masochism but by consideration of some good men who fought lawfully to achieve it (realize it is standard on a mission of this sort to have an Air Force combat controller on the ground).

Perhaps the tragedy just referred to suggests why Zarqawi felt free to prance around Iraq. He may have had agents in our allies. Perhaps this was an example of a suicide crash or sabotage by one of his agents who knew of a mission to kill him. Surviving like that could give you some bravado. For whatever reason he had it, the scourge of his life is finally at an end.

Aint that a shame

Kesher Talk has addressed the issue of an anti-Israel policy appearing as a sophisticated, caring and encouraged gesture among well to do teenage students. Right Thinking Girl has brought up the issue of whether or not to be for Homosexual marriage in a manner reflecting that of many considerate people. Somehow, when I get to this point I think of the "it" recently divorced female physician at the VA, and me the cockroach that has avoided Raid, who would always put in her notes "..no homocidal ideation..." The reason for both 'caring' behaviors which their advocates are trying to induce is in the interest of shame reduction. The usual argument is over whether or not homosexuality is natural. A really more fruitful enquiry would be over whether shame is natural in homosexuality. I think it is as well as masochistic or sadistic satisfaction. For me, it is an anal level sexual identity and there is shame in anal level expressions. To leave this beginning of psychodynamic enquiry, look at political level expressions. 30 years ago we had the demonstrations to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. I think this was in large part, by it's proponents, to protest against shame. If this was all society's problem, then I think this would have solved it. Now we have another step to 'normalize' homosexuality, which I think betokens an internal shame rather than social stigma. For the Muslim, whose proxy here is the Palestinian, submission to Allah yields, according to the Koran, dominion over all nonMulims. WTF, the Israelis appear to have more money and don't even have Allah's gift of oil. The Israelis have stayed in land they have the nerve to claim rather than joining the sea fishes as the Arabs and Allah, of course, would have seemed to prefer. What a terrible narcissistic insult. How shameful that the Arabs do not have the status granted by Allah. If dominion is what Allah grants to men who are Muslims what part of this equation, description, are they not? So to be pro-Palestinian is to fight against Palestinian shame. Let's all be nice.

Memorial Day

'Mine eyes have seen the glory of the Coming of the Lord....as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.' Sometimes one does make an attempt to live up to that view perhaps partially with pride and arrogance and one's life may be injured or cut short. The soldier preserves civil society. In science, that sacrifice can be in promoting knowledge and health. In law, it can be serving as a warning to antisocial behavior, as in the government's pursuit of Lay and Skilling. It is good that this day accepts the sacrifice for the main motive and brings peace from recrimination at ancillary error. A patient whose forbearer fought in the Revolutionary War said, 'I could never turn my back on the flag as General Lee did.' May we accept the peace of Memorial Day with him.

'Empirical claims are at the heart of Christianity.' Events in Christ's or Christian history can be looked at, I am happy to hear you imply, in the light of continuing observation of similar phenomenon and their interpretation. Empirical science requires that one repeat an event and see how outcomes change in association with varying inputs, something rather difficult with the Resurrection.

A rabbi said that one of the oldest prayers is 'May the face of God shine upon you.' A book 'The Hidden Face of God' develops the idea that new religions emerge as a sense of the face of God being unrecallable or distant occurs. Marxism can fall into that view. A recent Wall Street Journal article remarks that what Adam Smith called civil society, capitalism in the Marxist critique, empiricaly gives better outcomes for the poor, viz. all the Mexicans in the U.S., than a statist or Marxist society. Yet Marxism, as recently promoted by Eva Morales in Bolivia, surely persists because it brings an experience of the face of God to people with ideas of 'brotherhood,' 'fairness,' e.g. those damn rich men not getting their camels through the eye of a needle, and 'from each according to his means,' which is necessary in a family. All in all a present Messianism which, for some, represents the face of God and which can have some empirical validation by Pres. Chavez delivering free food and medical care (from nationalizing oil resources).

Trish has an awesome short story. A pious Catholic is excited that the Da Vinci Code movie will lead to learning. I'm led to this post by his response to my comment about Mary Magdalene. We Catholics evolved this view that Mary was a prostitute really with little evidence. He happily chirps away that it doesn't matter because she quit, but when I commented in his post mentioning 'his fornication' that it wasn't good to brag, well I didn't comment, because it was blocked as not being on topic. Who knew that the (Catholic) male was the more modest of the sexes? As a middle aged lady told me, 'You can't rape a man' which goes to show you.

Rule # 1. The boss is right. Rule #2. When the boss is wrong, refer to rule #1.

O'Grady's blog reports on the good police and military being killed in Mexico and the damage to their emerging free market and democratic institutions secondary to the U.S. market for drugs of abuse. One day, driving back from Dallas after our weekly lunch out, I kidded my appointment secretary, 'You can tell Irving is a holy place. It (being dry for which she, Baptist, of course voted) is surrounded by temples of liquor stores.' We were about to cross one of, semi-originally, the Tres Rios. There were 2-3 liquor stores on either side of the road, one with a cantilvered 2 story appearance (like a Church or synagogue). Similarly holy America is surrounded by cocaine warehouses. I think it is OK to tell society "no" to marijuana, cocaine, etc. but really only until you get to and past a Tipping Point. Then such a simple rule is no longer appropriate. As Ronald Reagan said when he withdrew our forces from Lebanon, on to ships, 'We have moved to a more defensible position.' That position, in my view, is to monitor people, in various situations, for use.

Not like Captain Renault in Casablanca, I was shocked to read that the Mexican legislature had voted to decriminalize possession of limited quantities of typical drugs of abuse. I felt more like Captain Renault on learning that 'our government objected' and the legislation was halted. We, as individuals, may not have official rights to speak of in Mexico but practically our government vetoes legislation there. OK. I'd be more thrilled if this worked out to be pro-democratic, pro-competitive, or even pro-public order in Mexico. The 'our government objected' remark suggests Mr. Bush has more stroke in Mexico than one might have thought. I would be interested in knowing further about how this measure was turned back.

The NSA Controversy

Trish brought up the question of the day, which is about the NSA records. Just happened to run into an article in the Washington Post which supports it and explains it, I was going to say "well," but agreement is elusive.

To me this follows, as Aldous Huxley so poetically puts the general argument in the Grey Eminence, as a logical follow on to our intelligence failure re: 9/11. One thing I would somewhat prefer not to feel isolated on is the trial of Moussaoui. Should America rise to the artistic rigor of a Three Stooges movie? There, Larry will appear to do something stupid and Moe will hit him over the head with a wrench for it. Then Larry will tell Moe what Moe doesn't know about the deal in question, which shows that Larry is smarter than Moe, perhaps yucking it up in the process, 'Ahh, ahh, ahh!' Moe goes and finds that this is true and says, 'You think you're so smart, huh' and hits Larry over the head at which point Curley will comment and Moe will get aggravated, push Curley, and yuck it up himself. In the current American analogy, Moussaoui = Larry does something stupid. He trains to fly but not to land. Moe = FBI gets wise to this and tells him it's stupid. Larry doesn't tell Moe that he should have looked on his computer, cf. 9/11. Now Moe, speaking for us, is all mad that, as Trish said, he 'was out to lunch' and so Larry should really get hit over the head. No offense, but we seem to be saying, "Mr Mossaoui, we know you have only been in this country a short time but we really expect you to abide by our 3 Stooges convention. We know Moe is stupid (deperately wants to abide by privacy rights so everybody can feel uninhibited about being as obscene as they can possibly get to as Dr. Freud told us was abolutely necessary for our mental health) but PLEASE you are supposd to tell Moe what is really going on so that Moe doesn't appear 'criminally stupid,'" not that that would be reason enough to want a change in OUR behavior. Yes we can! WE can get the role of Curley!