Wednesday, 4 April 2007


Martin Luther King Jr is one of my heroes. He died on this date in 1968, at the age of 39. He has been dead for as long as he lived. I like to think that if he were alive, we would long since have abandoned affirmative-action programs, for they involve judging people by the color of their skin rather than by the content of their character.

Hillary the Harridan

This woman wants to be your president (click to enlarge, if you dare):


Yikes! I prefer this guy.


Is K-Rod a cheater? See here. (Thanks to Mr Big for the link.)

Richard Swinburne on Prayer

Petitionary prayer for the bodily needs of others does indeed serve an earthly purpose, but it can only do it if there is a God who can intervene in human history in response to it. The activity only has a point if there is a God.

(Richard Swinburne, Faith and Reason [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], 140)

Best of the Web Today


From the Mailbag

Caught Rudy on Hannity & Colmes last night. Seemed on top of things and answered all questions to my liking—so despite his bald dome and lisp he seems able to chew gum and walk at the same time. The brain appears to lock and load and logically move from point A to B cogently without a political guise: he seems genuine. A debate with the Iron Maiden would favor him, but then it’s hard to warm up to The Hill when you gag whenever she’s on camera.

Note from KBJ: I saw part of the interview between innings of the baseball game. Rudy admitted to (1) having made mistakes and (2) not being a perfect human being. There goes his presidential candidacy.

Note 2 from KBJ: I like “Iron Maiden” as a monicker for Hillary. I also like “Hillary the Harridan.” Has anyone ever called the Clintons “HillBilly”? If not, why not? It’s perfect. They’re not two people, after all. They’re one, with two personalities. (And no, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. It’s less. Just as the intelligence of a crowd is less than the sum of the intelligences of its members, the moral character of HillBilly is less than the sum of the moral characters of Bill and Hillary.)


Once again, the editorial board of The New York Times rails against “income inequality.” Wouldn’t it be nice if the Times explained why this is a problem? I can understand concern for the poor. I don’t understand concern for the gap between rich and poor. It’s at best an indicator of how poorly the poor are doing. So why not look directly at how poorly the poor are doing? The only thing I can think of to explain the Times‘s concern with “income inequality” is envy. The Times simply hates it that some people have great wealth. The irony, of course, is that conservatives are said (by progressives) to be motivated by greed. But why would only one side be badly motivated? If conservatives are motivated by greed, then progressives are motivated by envy. Why don’t we forget about actual or suspected motives and focus on the problem at hand, which is helping the poor? Despite what progressives would have you believe, conservatives are as concerned about the poor as they are. They simply have a different view about how best to alleviate (and prevent) poverty. Progressives want to give (other people’s) money to the poor. Conservatives want to help the poor help themselves. Didn’t Jesus say something about teaching people to fish instead of giving them fish? Jesus was a smart man. Not even a progressive would dare accuse him of being greedy.

Addendum: I just did an Internet search and checked my Bible. (I own several Bibles, believe it or not. They were given to me by students.) Apparently, it wasn’t Jesus who uttered those famous words. One Internet site attributed the saying to Confucius. Does anyone know the origin? I’ll bet Mark Spahn can track it down.

Fake Wrestling

For the life of me, I don’t understand the appeal of this. That said, I’d rather watch fake wrestling than soccer, which is to sport as Musak is to music.

From Today’s New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Ex-Aide Details a Loss of Faith in the President” (front page, April 1):

What is so impressive about Matthew Dowd’s public confession of having misplaced his faith in the president is that it highlights the fact that George W. Bush does not and will not admit to any mistakes on his part. It also highlights the paradox in democracy.

We want a leader to lead and to attend to the will of the people at the same time. But you cannot have it both ways. Mr. Bush has certainly been a leader. But what do you do when the leadership is flawed?

In England, the party in power can be immediately voted out by Parliament when confidence in it has been lost. But here we have to wait four or six years until we can change the government. In that time, a lot of damage can be and has been done.

Sara Nicoll
New York, April 2, 2007

Note from KBJ: That President Bush doesn’t “admit to any mistakes” doesn’t mean, or entail, (1) that he hasn’t made any or (2) that he doesn’t believe he’s made any. In our vicious political culture, which emphasizes personality rather than principle or policy, admitting to a mistake is to throw oneself into shark-infested waters. Why would any sane person do that? President Bush should make no concessions whatsoever to those who hate him or to those who wish to undermine his presidency. If progressives were civilized, there might be more mistake-admitting. By the way, this isn’t England. We revolted against England; remember?

Hall of Fame?

Paul O’Neill. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

A Year Ago