Surprised this got past the MSM censors

"Climate Gate is evidence that the science has gone to bed with advocacy, and both have had a very good time" at 2:09.

Stossel on who creates jobs

"Hong Kong got rich because Hong Kong’s rulers, stuffy British bureaucrats, practiced what I’ll call “benign neglect”: they enforced rule of law—kept people from stealing from each other, or killing each other--- but then sat around and drank tea. They left people alone, and free people, left alone, created prosperity."

The 'Why' of Climate Change

"Climate alarmists are trying to impoverish the world, ostensibly in order to cool it down but really, in my view, to achieve the liberal holy grail of government control over everything."

For Health Care Woes, a Capitalism Prescription - washingtonpost.com

For Health Care Woes, a Capitalism Prescription - washingtonpost.com:
Title says it all.

Lack of will is worse than lack of strength

The Belmont Club: The Usual Suspects
While the West may have the weapons and technology, the lack of will to use it to defend ourselves and our principles, makes us susceptible to defeat by a more ruthless foe.
Pope Benedict XVI made the same observation that a society of broad minded and peace loving people can be destroyed by a violent minority.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Next Capitalism

RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Next Capitalism
Synopsis
Capitalism has changed throughout the ages, and is currently undergoing another transformation.
Comment
The article lays out the past well, but doesn't offer even a straw man of the future. Regardless, it is worth a read for the questions it raises.
Money quote
When he died in 1848, John Jacob Astor was America's richest man, leaving a fortune of $20 million that had been earned mainly from real estate and fur trading. Despite his riches, Astor's business was mainly a one-man show. He employed only a handful of workers, most of them clerks. This was typical of his time, when the farmer, the craftsman, the small partnership and the independent merchant ruled the economy. Only 50 years later, almost everything had changed. Giant industrial enterprises -- making steel, producing oil, refining sugar and much more -- had come to dominate.

A message from Iraq

IRAQ THE MODEL

I am once again impressed by the level headed, commonsense of the bloggers at Iraq the Model. Mohammed and Omar provide the best source for anyone wanting an Iraqi perspective from downtown Baghdad.

Money quote:
There's no going back thirty years to the days of Saddam an there's no going back a thousand yeas to the days of the Caliphs.
It's over…
We have accepted the rough road and the outcome will not be in the benefit of the criminals. The war is tough, painful and hard but I have no doubt of the outcome that will mean the end for the supporters of tyranny and extremism.
Surrendering is much closer to them than it is to us and history will remember with pride those who sacrificed for the freedom of Iraq…
Maybe I will not live long to see that day but my children will certainly see it.
Sorry whiners, losers and pessimists. I only know to accept a challenge when I face one and I recognize only victory as an end.

The Moral Imperative for Toughness

The Moral Imperative for Toughness: By John Ashcroft
Synopsis
An extract from John Ashcroft's book "Never Again". Ashcroft argues that it is our responsibility to take the gloves off in our fate against islamic fascists.
Opinion
Pretty self explanatory, and an excellent rejoinder to the "lets be nice" or "civil liberties for terrorists" brigade.
Money quote
A moral imperative for toughness exists if we are asking America’s young people to go out and stand in harm’s way, to risk getting shot, or to lay their lives on the line. Then we are not eligible to be “nice guys” who will take a soft and easy approach to the enemy when we realize what is needed to preserve American lives.

Socialism for the Rich

Townhall.com::Socialism for the rich::By Thomas Sowell
Synopsis
Columnist Thomas Sowell shows how socialisms "concern for the poor" is used as a tool to screw the poor and make the rich richer.
The article provides a number of real world examples.
Opinion
Socialism steals the language of compassion, to masquerade its terrible deeds. Has it not always been the case from socialism as theory to socialsm as practiced. Pope Leo XIII in 1878 wrote the encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism) which addressed socialism as a "deadly plague". This was when socialism was merely an idea, some 40 years before it would ever be implemented. With great foresight the pontiff wrote "For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes , nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist".
Thomas Sowell and libertarian John Stossel have long done a great service to society by pointing out the contradictions that occur in socialist based legislation.
Money quote
The rich have learned to adapt socialist policies to their own benefit. For example, the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, is planning to demolish a working class neighborhood under its power of eminent domain, in order to prepare the way for a marina for yachts, luxury condominiums and an upscale shopping district.

9/11 Truth - The Obvious Argument

The Loose Change Backgrounder
Synopsis:
If there was a 9/11 conspiracy, why would you do it and how would you go about it. Lefty commentator Matt Taibbi provides the most lucid and realistic scenario.
Opinion:
The stupidity of 9/11 Truthers would be laughable, if it wasn't so offensive to the memory of those who died on the day. I'm not talking about those who only know bits about the conspiracy theory and have never taken the time to investigate it further. I am talking about those who promote the conspiracies. It is interesting how so many of these nutbags come from the anti-religious left, however they exhibit a fanaticism that makes the majority of believers look like lapsed atheists. Theirs is a religious fervour, requiring a fundamentalist's ability to ignore inconvenient facts, logic and reason. Matt does a good job of showing how truly ridiculous this new religion is.
Money quote:
CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.
BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?
CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.
BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?
CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.
BUSH: Oh, OK.

Socrates vs Muhammad

Socrates or Muhammad? Joseph Ratzinger on the destiny of reason, by Lee Harris
Synopsis:
No, this is not some Monty Python skit.
It is a very good exegesis of Pope Benedict 16th's (B16) "Reason" speech that inflamed our brethren in the religion of peace.
The main thrust of the article is how advocates of "modern reason", are not capable of saying one religion is better then the other because in the secularists mind you can't compare imaginary Gods in the first place (my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend).
B16's approach was to use reason only (not an appeal to religious beliefs) to show you can differentiate between two imaginary constructs and discern that one is better than the other by the resulting societies they logically produce.
Exhibit A is a God constrained by his own nature (he cannot change what is good or bad), who wants humanity to follow him through their own free will.
Exhibit B is a God unconstrained by his own nature (e.g. an act that was once evil can now declared to be good), who wants humanity to follow him by either free will or violent compulsion.
The question raised is which group would a non-believer be better off living in.
Opinion:
What I like best about the article and B16's approach is that it provides a non-religious argument for society to be modelled on Judeo-Christian ethics. This approach is, in my opinion, far preferable to the religious arguments made by christians when debating public policy. Religious arguments do not work on non-believers, yet so many christians persist in quoting scriptures to make their points. What B16 has done is to argue his point from a reasonable and logical point of view, making an argument that makes sense to believer and non-believer alike.
Money quotes:
Modern reason says that all ethical choices are subjective and beyond the scope of reason. But if this is so, then a man who wishes to live in a community made up of reasonable men is simply making a personal subjective choice--a choice that is no more reasonable than the choice of the man who wishes to live in a community governed by brute force. But if the reasonable man is reasonable, he must recognize that modern reason itself can only survive in a community made up of other reasonable men. Since to be a reasonable man entails wishing to live in a community made up of other reasonable men, then the reasonable man cannot afford to allow the choice between reason and violence to be left up to mere personal taste or intellectual caprice. To do so would be a betrayal of reason.
...
If the individual is free to choose between violence and reason, it will become impossible to create a community in which all the members restrict themselves to using reason alone to obtain their objectives. If it is left up to the individual to use violence or reason, then those whose subjective choice is for violence will inevitably destroy the community of those whose subjective choice is for reason. Worse still, those whose subjective choice is for violence do not need to constitute more than a small percentage of the community in order to destroy the very possibility of a community of reasonable men: Brute force and terror quickly extinguish rational dialogue and debate.
...
Modern reason cannot hope to prove these postulates to be scientifically true; but it must recognize that a refusal to adopt and act on these postulates will threaten the very survival of modern reason itself. That is the point of Ratzinger's warning that "the West has long been endangered by [its] aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby."