Pornography and proof

Happy day - the scientific proof just keeps on coming in. (As they used to say in "The X-Files," The truth is out there.) Now will anyone listen?

Here is a great article which describes testimony before Congress yesterday about the effect of pornography on the human brain. According to Dr. Mary Ann Layden, who is co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology program at the University of Pennsylvania, it has much the same effect as addictive substances like heroin and crack cocaine.

Another witness, Professor James Weaver of Virginia Tech, was quoted as saying:

"We're so afraid to talk about sex in our society that we really give carte blanche to the people who are producing this kind of material."

Uh. Not exactly. There can be all kinds of talk about sex - as long as it is the right kind of talk - which means, of course, glorifying multiple partners, advocating promiscuity and lack of commitment, handing out condoms to adolescents, mocking abstinence and monogamy, nudge-nudge-wink-winking about infidelity and adultery, and generally refusing to make value judgments about the type and nature of sexual activity in the name of "tolerance," "diversity," "equality" or (worse yet, in the case of youth) "education." And of course - holding up the Holy Grail of abortion as the consummate fallback position.

What people are afraid to do, is to speak up against these messages about sex. To do so is to risk being labelled old-fashioned, Puritanistic, fundamentalistic, extremist, bigoted, discriminatory, judgmental, uncool and anti-intellectual.

But as I continue to maintain, if something is true, then it ought to be scientifically demonstrable. If pornography is destructive, then we should be able to get psychological and sociological data to that effect. Sounds to me like the evidence is starting to come in.

Call me "anti-intellectual," if you will; it's hard to argue with facts.

Well, gee - young girls acting like whores - and you're surprised?

I'm currently working on a long post that discusses (further) the implications of adults acting like adolescents - and the fact that this forces children to act like adults. Or, more accurately, to confront what should be adult issues which they are not emotionally, physically or psychologically prepared for.

While I am working on that, here's a link you might want to check out in the same vein:

http://www.pittnews.com/1vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/28/418044f26b3ae

The article describes the rise of the preteen female "playa" (think "player" said with a thug accent) and "pimp." As you'll read, very young girls have taken the message of the extreme left feminist movement and Planned Parenthood to heart, to wit: sex has no meaning outside of power, boys use you for sex to have power, you are equal to boys, you too can use them for sex to have power. (Unspoken, but obviously behind all of this is that abortion is a fallback for unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy.)

So 13-, 14- and 15-year-old girls are now having sex with guys for pocket change and car rides. They pride themselves on their callous attitude about sex. And about their number of conquests. Even on the same day. And sexual assaults of boys by girls in schools has become an acknowledged problem. I did not say sexual harassment; I said sexual assault.

And - *gasp!* - Planned Parenthood is suddenly aghast. Why? Because, they say, of the rise and spread of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers and pre-teens, many of which cause infertility later in life. (What's the matter, PP - you afraid all that infertility is going to cut down on your business?)

Recall that I had a long post about the connection between promiscuity and infertility some time ago here.

Read the whole article. It's disturbing. Of course.

I'll have my own post up by this weekend.

The election: it was really about adolescents versus grown-ups

Oh, how the talking heads have been all abuzz for the past week. Bush was reelected!? And got a majority of the popular vote? Look at that swath of red! What could it all mean?

According to all news reports, the stunned Democrats (with the exception of dashing newcomer Barack Obama) have fallen back to regroup, lick their wounds, and try to figure out how on earth they could have lost despite two candidates with great hair, millions contributed by bored billionaires, major television and newspaper installations willing to shill for their side, a parade of rock stars and Hollywood actors, an army of academics and other intellectuals, and a one-man propaganda machine armed with a Palme d'Or.

A post-election poll seems to indicate that a majority of Americans thought the most important election issue was so-called "moral values." This has provided what is fast becoming the latest "conventional wisdom." If you're a Republican, that translates to: Religious Americans came out in record numbers! Americans are opposed to gay marriage! Voters reject the Democrats' vision for America! Hooray for our side!

And if you're a Democrat, this apparently translates to: Right-wing nutcases came out in record numbers! Red-state denizens are homophobic, gay-hating bigots! And/or too stupid to understand the Nazi ambitions of the Republicans! We're smarter, more sensitive, smarter, more creative, smarter, more tolerant - and did we mention smarter? It's Gavin Newsom's fault. And the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Hooray for our side! Now let's all move somewhere else before the Inquisition starts. But where? Someplace liberal. How about the Netherlands? (Well, gee, then Michael can't go.) Canada then?

I hate to be the one to rain on everybody's parade and/or pity party, but I think both sides have oversimplified the election results. As David Brooks remarked recently, "moral values" could mean anything you want it to. And it does not explain the large number of people who voted for Bush, including Libertarians and those who do not view themselves as particularly religious. A more accurate way of phrasing it, in my opinion, is that "moral values" are simply a subcategory of the larger debate that determined this election.

In my view, this election was about grown-ups versus adolescents.

This is both good news and bad news. Unfortunately for the Democrats, my take on things is still mostly bad news for them. But the good news for the Democrats (if they'll listen, which I doubt) is that it will be bad news for the Republicans if they blunder badly by misunderstanding the mood of the 58 million-plus that voted for Bush this time.

The Democrats are losing elections because they have become the party of perennial adolescence. Note I did not say "youth." An "adolescent," as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is "a young person who has undergone puberty but who has not reached full maturity." And Merriam-Webster online defines "adolescence," as "emotionally or intellectually immature."

One need only look at the Democrats' conduct after the election to see what I mean. Sullenness, moping, melodramatic posturing, temper tantrums, profanity, threats, name-calling, ridiculous and baseless accusations, insults, insults and more insults, and threats to leave the country. If you've ever raised a teenager (for that matter, if you've ever been a teenager), this conduct should seem painfully familiar. It's as if every left-leaning citizen of this country got grounded by their parents, screamed, "I HATE YOU!" and stormed up to their rooms in a fit of pubescent pique.

But the larger issue is the nature of the Democratic Party's positions in general. Which is to say, the platform they were running on during the election. Because it was this that the American public rejected. And will continue to reject.

Before we examine the specifics, let's consider the general differences between adults and adolescents: Adults make responsible decisions. And take responsibility for their decisions. Adults pay their bills, and don't ask others to pay those bills for them. Adults appreciate the difference between self-sacrifice and self-indulgence. They also understand the difference between liberty and license.

Adults understand that actions have consequences, and adjust their conduct accordingly. Adults might well expect polite tolerance for their differences - whatever those are - but they do not need others' approval. Adults don't mind making unpopular decisions, especially where other people's well-being is concerned. For that matter, adults don't need to be popular. Or "cool." Adults understand that all too often, the people deciding what is considered "popular" or "cool" are just using a crowd to hide their own insecurity.

Adults are capable of having a conversation - or an argument - without resorting to insults, profanity, baseless allegations or nonsequiturs. Adults aren't interested in how many parts of speech one can create using the word "f**k." Adults have long since realized that their generation did not invent the various methods of sexual congress, and so they do not need to flaunt their personal predilections in other people's faces.

Adults also understand human nature. They know that when people are offered something for free, they'll use more of it, whether they need it or not. They grasp that some people are unreachable through reason, and must simply be avoided or protected against. Adults understand the difference between prudence and cowardice, between caution and corruption. Adults understand that the truth is not always a matter of opinion.

So - in that vein, what policies did the Democrats run on? What are their messages?

1. They want ever-higher taxes for those who produce, grow businesses, create jobs. And as if that weren't bad enough, insult - literally - is added to injury by demonizing these people as "greedy," "selfish," or "exploitative."

2. Those taxes are necessary to fund social programs that undermine restraint and reward destructive behavior.

3. They want to teach your school-age children sexual license with no consequences. Sexually-transmitted diseases are simply a failure to spend enough of your tax dollars on research, or to distribute enough condoms. Abortion is a backup for unintended pregnancy. Abstinence is unrealistic. Everyone's doing it. All sexual activity is equal.

4. It is not enough if you have gay friends and/or family members, love them, support them, would be perfectly happy to see them in committed relationships, have no objection to however they wish to convey their property, create a power of attorney, or designate a beneficiary. You must approve of their sexual activity. You must teach your children about their sexual activity. You must pay taxes so that government schools can teach your children about their sexual activity (in a value-neutral fashion, of course). You must subordinate your belief in God, your faith and your responsibilities to your children, to adhere to their dictates.

5. For that matter, Democrats insinuate that if you believe in God, and try to conduct your affairs accordingly, you are an ignoramus, a Neanderthal, an inbred retard. (Unless, of course, the only thing you use God for is to be non-judgmental or to justify higher taxes for social programs. In which case, that's okay.)

6. Despite the exposure of all of the lies that gave rise to abortion in the first place, and in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of the humanity, the separateness, the development of the unborn human child; despite exposure of the barbaric brutality of all methods of abortion; despite the growing number of women who admit that abortion was disastrous for them, Democrats scream shrilly that killing her unborn child is a woman's civil right, if not the high water mark of her identity.

7. They insist that African-Americans cannot perform at the same academic levels as whites, Asians or other minorities, and that they must be held to lowered standards. Then they call those who believe in the unlimited potential of all children "racists" and "bigots."

8. They think you can believe bullies who promise not to hit you again as long as they can extort something from you, or if you're willing to sit by while they attack someone else. And they purport to trust the United Nations to protect our security despite its historical reluctance to make decisions, its vacillation in the face of slaughter, its under-the-table deals with despots, and its corruption.

And as if further proof were needed that the Democratic Party is the party of adolescence, just look at the way the campaign was run. Hey, lookie here! Rock stars! Wow - a guy who makes movies! Here's good idea for a "get out the vote" effort - let's encourage people to have lots of meaningless sex with registered voters.

Pathetic.

The thing is, in a booming economy, in peacetime, facing no threats from without, Americans are a live-and-let-live enough bunch that they are willing to tolerate a bunch of adolescents running things.

But this is a war, folks. Time to put the adults in charge.

Were "moral values" an important issue? Of course they were. But the larger issue is that we are under attack. If Republicans understand those things, they will remain the party in power.

And if the Democrats don't like that, and want to change it, then I have just two words for them:

Grow up.

Legal protection for life: "tenets of faith" versus scientific truth

I have been meaning to comment for some time about Senator Kerry's frequent admonition that while he believes certain things as a member of the Catholic Church, he cannot "legislate his morality" or "impose those beliefs" on persons who are not members of that faith. This is the bait-and-switch that is often used by pro-choice Catholic politicians (and probably pro-choice politicians from other faiths as well) as a reason why they do not advance or support legislation to protect unborn children from abortion, human embryos from stem-cell research, or the elderly or sick from euthanasia.

There are any number of gaps in this argument, all of which are large enough to drive a fleet of tanks through. Here are just a few:

1. This is a straw man argument most notably because all law is a reflection of a moral judgment. Something as apparently secular as having red, yellow and green lights at traffic intersections reflects a moral judgment. Not just about the niceties of order or taking turns at intersections. But because lack of such order will result in injury and loss of life - something we decide, morally, is a "bad" thing.

2. This is further demonstrated in that a whole host of other laws, all of which reflect moral judgments, do find support amongst "pro-choice" politicians. Laws against theft, for example. (Unless the government does it in the form of taxation or eminent domain. But that's a topic for another day....) Are politicians and legislators unwilling to create or enforce laws against theft, because they legislate morality?

3. Furthermore, these same politicians and legislators explicitly refer to "morality" when arguing in favor of economic policies. And in so doing, they often cite the very "authorities" (the pope, the Vatican, prominent religious philosophers or Protestant ministers) whose religious beliefs they disdain in matters of personal or sexual morality.

4. But the most important reason that the whole I-can't-impose-my-religious-beliefs-on-others argument regarding abortion turns on the distinction between a statement that is purely a matter of religious belief (or what I have called a tenet of faith), and one which is demonstrably - even scientifically - true, from which certain legal or moral positions can be derived, regardless of one's particular religious faith, or lack thereof. This is an oft-overlooked distinction, but a terribly important one.

Since Kerry is a Roman Catholic, it is instructive here to compare these two types of principles in the context of Catholicism. (Side note: I would welcome information on comparable principles from other faiths!)

A tenet of the Catholic faith - which is to say, a belief unique or distinctive to the Catholic faith - would be something like transubstantiation: the belief that the ordained Roman Catholic priest presides over the transformation of the bread and wine at a Catholic Mass into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Or the belief in the inherent and eternal sinlessness of Christ's mother Mary, which Catholics refer to as the "Immaculate Conception." Or the related belief that Mary's body, by virtue of having been a vessel of God in the form of Jesus Christ, was incorruptible even after death, and thus did not decay, but was assumed intact into Heaven.

Such beliefs are tenets of the Catholic faith, and as such only Catholics are asked to believe them. Therefore, it would be sensible for a Catholic lawmaker to state that he or she would not draft or support legislation which required all Americans to adhere to such beliefs, any more that he or she would support legislation that required belief in Odin, or the existence of Nirvana (the state of being, not the band), or practices of ancestor worship.

But there is a vast difference between those beliefs, which are matters of faith and scientifically unprovable (at least at this juncture), and principles which have a basis in scientific fact.

The terms "embryo," and "fetus" are simply designations for what are undeniably, scientifically, human beings at a particular stage of development (just as we might say, "baby," "toddler," or "teenager" at later stages of development). So, too, is someone who is chronically or terminally ill, or simply old, still scientifically a human being.

In other words, Catholic Church (to use, again, Senator Kerry's religion) does not ask Catholics to believe that human beings in an embryonic, fetal, diseased or geriatric state are human beings simply because it says so, despite the absence of scientific proof. Quite the contrary, in fact. The Catholic Church recognizes the scientific reality of the human being.

Pro-choice activists have tried to deceive the public on this point, originally referring to unborn children as only "products of conception," or a "cluster of cells," (each one of us is a cluster of cells) or "uterine contents," as if this disproved their humanity. This is scientifically false. And as with all scientifically false statements, was disprovable, and has been disproven. As have the claims that human beings in the fetal stage of development do not have brainwave activity, feel pain, move, smile, sleep, etc. Ultrasound and other medical advances blew a hole through those fallacious claims.

From there, then, pro-abortion activists and their pawns in public office have attempted to make distinctions between types of human beings - those that get legal protection for their lives, and those that don't. They argue as if such distinctions are commonplace in our legal system.

While such distinctions have been and are made, they are the exception to the rule, and have been shameful and/or hotly contested, and I would bet that most pro-abortion activists don't want to be associated with them. Slavery was just such a stain on this country's past. Slaves were not defined as non-humans; just humans that didn't have the same legal protections as other people. Similarly, people convicted of heinous crimes and given the death penalty are deprived of their lives by the law.

Do abortion activists really want to associate themselves with this precedent? Does John Kerry? I doubt it.

But that's the only legal precedent they have to stand on. Because otherwise, in our legal tradition, all human beings, regardless of their state, stage, or condition of life, are entitled to a certain minimum of legal protection.

It is important to note here that law and morality intersect most closely at a level created to ensure minimum standards of behavior. (Some would argue that the Ten Commandments are a good reflection of such an intersection. ) Beyond that rock-bottom level of basic decent conduct, however, the law rarely ventures. There, in the aspirational realm, morality holds more sway.

Thus we view the purpose of the law as to insist upon certain minimum standards of conduct. And while it is true that these standards of conduct do reflect a moral judgment (it is bad to injure others, it is bad to kill, it is bad to steal, it is bad to make promises and break them); they could just as easily be discerned through the application of self-interest. In other words, I don't kill because I don't want to be killed; I don't steal because I don't want anyone stealing from me; I don't stab someone with a knife because I don't want to be stabbed with a knife.

Such promises reflect a social compact as much as they do a moral judgment. We insist upon certain minimum standards of conduct from others that mirror our own desires and fears. The law - at a minimum - enforces that social compact.

The legal protection of all human life is one of the most fundamental principles of American law. Indeed, I would argue that it is the most fundamental principle, since nothing else comes into play without it.

Laws protecting human life, therefore, simply acknowledge the scientific reality of the human being, and impose a corresponding necessary minimum standard of conduct (do not kill) required for a civilized society. There is a fundamental truth present in such laws. And religions whose beliefs match these laws do so by virtue of their commitment to that same truth, not some aspirational morality or unique, obscure religious tenet.

If belief in the basic legal protection for all human life were merely a tenet of Catholicism, you would not expect to see this belief outside the Catholic faith. (Just as you do not find many other Christians who adhere to the Catholic belief in the infallibility of the pope on some matters, in transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.)

But the fact of the matter is that belief in the necessity of giving legal protection to all human life is not limited to a particular religious tradition. Or even to people who follow any religious tradition. (Here is a good article in that respect.) This isn't surprising, given the self-interested nature of such laws. (And the fact that one can find religions which or individuals who do not advocate protection for human life does not disprove it. You can find pockets of people who don't believe in all kinds of scientifically demonstrable facts.)

So here's the bottom line: It is specious for John Kerry or other politicians to claim that support for laws which protect all human life is purely a matter of religious faith. It isn't. And they know it. Now you do, too.

The next generation of Democratic voters???

I asked in the last post where the Democratic Party will get its supporters, assuming (as I do) that they continue their heedless march leftward.

Here's my take on it...

People in recent months have speculated about the so-called "Roe effect" - the theory that pro-abortion Democrats are in essence killing off their future base by aborting their own children. I think this theory is nonsense. Its underlying assumption is that pro-abortion parents are more likely to raise pro-abortion children. But this ignores the ugly reality that, over the past thirty years, a huge percentage of pro-life parents have raised pro-abortion children. How did that happen?

The answer to that question is also the answer to where the ultra-Left Democrats are going to get their future base. They don't need to have their own children. Because they have yours.

They control the media, they control the entertainment business, and, most significantly, they control the content of the government schools and most colleges and universities where you are sending your children to learn.

Let me be clear who I am speaking about here. I am not talking about your local Democrat state representative, senator or precinct committee chair. I am not talking about your garden-variety schoolteacher or administrator. And I am certainly not talking about the average American who votes Democratic. I am speaking about the elite, the privileged few, the self-appointed "visionaries" behind the scenes.

These "visionaries" of the Left are not worried about the party losing this or that election. Nor are they in a lather to "pull Right." They believe - and I think they are right - that the real battleground for hearts and minds is NOT in the polling booths, but in the books your children read, the music they listen to, the actors and singers they idolize, and in what they learn in school.

And the messages they want your children to be taught are crystal clear: Belief in God is anti-intellectual. There are few rules (except for the ones they make up from time to time). There is no such thing as truth. All morality is relative. Sex should be easy, casual, devoid of emotional commitment and divorced from its consequences. Everybody's doing it. The worst sin is to be "judgmental." Disapproving of anyone's conduct on moral grounds is discriminatory, ignorant, bigoted, and possibly even criminal. Killing your children is, alternately, a civil right, a blithe choice, an unfortunate necessity, a way to be cool, a joke (read the lyrics to one of popular singer Usher's latest songs), or even a sacred ritual.

According to their view, America is not a bastion of freedom and opportunity, a country whose sons and daughters have been willing to fight and die to liberate others, but an evil oppressor of the poor, and an exploiter of other countries. Freedom and opportunity are illusions. Tolerance for diversity is the only universal value (as long as it is not a conservative or traditional viewpoint that is being tolerated). Corporations are not the greatest distributors of wealth in the history of human civilization, but the root of all evil. Entrepreneurs and innovators are not creative people who have raised the standard of human living all over the globe, but are greedy, selfish robber barons. Private property and ownership should be regulated, heavily taxed, minimized, or abolished. Big government is the answer to all human problems. And they, of course, should control the government. (As you might have noticed after Election Day, Left-wing intellectuals are all in favor of "the people" deciding, except when "the people" decide differently than they would have them do.)

These leftist ideologues, like many revolutionaries, are patient. They know that they do not have to change their views to appeal to those of us who see their lies for what they are. We will grow old and die. In the meantime, they have enormous control and influence over what our children believe. Those are tomorrow's voters. And they have tomorrow's voters in the palms of their hands.

Many have complained over the past few decades that movies and music have become insipid, profane, excessively violent, and sexually depraved. And that schools have abandoned the real work of education, and replaced it with brainwashing, intimidation and indoctrination. Do you think this is an accident?

So - Election 2004 is over. Now what? For those of us with children, the stakes have never been higher. Here are my suggestions. Some are doable for everyone, some are not. But everyone with an interest in their children's future should be able to do something.

1. First and foremost, take control of your children's education. This means doing your homework. As follows:

(a) Know everything you can about the programs and activities sponsored at your children's school, the texts used, the classes taught. Don't be fooled by bland names like, "Safety training" or "health education," which can be masks for social or moral indoctrination with which you don't agree. Ask to preview texts to be distributed, or insist that the school have screenings of new educational films for parents in advance.

(b) Read your children's textbooks when you help them with their homework. Be on the lookout for fallacies, specious arguments, unprovable assertions (especially social and political ones) and subtle - or even overt - attempts to politicize the class content. Point out bias and falsity to your child. (It is a good thing for children to learn to question what they read, in any case.)

(c) Become an active member of your PTA/PTO.

(d) Run for the school board.

(e) If you can't do that, then at least involve yourself in the election and operation of the school board. Know every single issue that comes before the board each year. Attend as many school board meetings as you can. Many parents who attend school board meetings are shocked to discover the policies that are being considered and implemented.

(f) Push for charter schools and for vouchers in your state. These allow lower-income parents to choose better public schools or even private schools for their children.

(g) While we're on the subject, don't assume that because the school you've chosen is private that your children are receiving an education that is consistent with your values. Your chances may be better, but there is no guarantee. The major difference is that if you challenge a practice, text, course or program in a private school, you are not being forced to take on the state government, and so you have a much better chance of making your case successfully.

(h) If you're considering a private school for your children, Don't be afraid to check out schools with a religious affiliation that is different from your own. I have (for example) many Protestant and Jewish friends who are quite comfortable sending their children to Catholic schools. They simply do not participate in the religious instruction.

(i) Then of course, for the most ambitious among us, there is always the option of homeschooling your children. But whether you choose this option or not, support homeschooling in your town or city however you can.

(j) Finally, rigorously screen any college or university that your child is interested in attending. Do not assume that because it is highly ranked, the education your child will receive there will be excellent. At most highly-ranked colleges and universities, an excellent education (and by that I mean challenging, rigorous, and devoid of vapid sociopolitical indoctrination) is still possible, but it will depend on the major, unit, or program in which your child ultimately enrolls. Engineering may be outstanding, while sociology is a joke. Determine what your child's academic interests are. Get information about the school's programs in that area. Read the course descriptions. (You'd be surprised how much you can determine just from the title of the courses.

2. Second, you need to protect your children from the all-out media assault on your values that permeates our culture.

(a) Listen to the CDs they want before you allow them to purchase them. (You can usually do this at most record stores and bookstores that sell CDs.) You can also look up the lyrics on the internet.

(b) Don't let your children see R-rated movies. Go to PG-13 rated movies before they do, or read reviews in reputable media outlets.

(c) Limit your children's exposure to TV. Ideally? Throw out your television. Prime-time television has virtually nothing to offer children and adolescents. And while there are some wonderful channels on cable, a lot of it is garbage. Have family book, game or puzzle night instead.

(d) And while we're on the subject of cable television, call your U.S. senator or Congressman and ask him or her to sponsor a bill that would allow consumers to purchase only the cable channels they want. Can you imagine what control this would give parents over their children's exposure to unwanted content?

(e) Treat TV, music and computers in other people's homes the way you treat guns in other people's homes. Call the parents of your childrens' friends and ask - do their children have a TV in their room? Cable? Or a computer? Ask what controls they have on their computer, or how they monitor their childrens' channel surfing or computer use. If the answer is that they don't, or they don't know, or they're otherwise vague, or defensive, or for any reason you're not satisfied with their answers, then insist that the children play at your house, or else they don't play together at all.

All of this takes work, admittedly. But the question is not whether your children will learn their values, but what values they will learn, and when, and how, and in what context, and from whom?

Will your children learn the truth? Or falsehoods? Will they get their values from you? Or from someone else? Will the left-wing ideologues be able to make your children easy prey for their lies, deceit, manipulations and distortions?

Will they be able to create the next generation of angry, dissolute, profane, amoral slobs who vote the way they're brainwashed to? Or are you going to do something about it?

Political post-mortems: Now what for the Democrats?

I am trying to get up at ridiculous hours of the morning and blog. We'll see how this goes. But it doesn't do me much good to send out my blog address to people if I'm only going to post monthly. So I'm going to try for something a bit more frequently, but still doable. Weekly, perhaps? Or even twice a week. My problem, of course, is that I am an editorial writer, really, and so just posting a snippet with a cross-link or two just doesn't cut it for me. I am used to sitting down for an hour or two, composing my thoughts and writing them down.

So those of you who have taken the time to visit here, bear with me! I will do the best I can to write as much as I can. I'd like to make it worth your while to type this URL into your web browser.

Ok, that nonsense being dealt with, let's get on with the business of political post-mortems.

I reviewed Instapundit yesterday and came across guestblogger Michael Totten's list of links to left-wingers' blogs, where some prominent (at least in the blogosphere) Kerry backers offered their reactions to Bush's reelection. I went to every single one and read each one's entry for the day. What an education that was. I have never read such a pile of stinking vitriolic slop in my life. Think of it as the web-browsing equivalent of being in that Chicago sightseeing boat that passed under the bridge just as a tour bus opened up its sewage storage tanks. Insults, profanity (of course - always profanity), condescending and degrading remarks. Those who think you can "reach out to" people like this are deluding themselves.

And let's be clear about just who is being degraded and insulted here. Bush and Republican politicians? Of course. But that's not the real story. It is those of you who comprise the 54 million-plus Americans who voted for Bush. Most (not all) of the people writing the entries on the blogs I read yesterday loathe you with a fanatical hatred that makes Osama bin Laden and Al-zarqawi look like a couple of Mormon missionaries.

Describing them doesn't do them justice. Here's the link to the Instapundit archive where you can read them yourself. Scroll down until you come to the November 3rd entry that begins with the title, "Left Wing Blogosphere Reactions." Do yourself (and me) a favor and peruse a few of them before you continue here ....

...

Now then - let's ask ourselves a couple of questions. Do you really think that there's going to be any "healing" for people like that in this country over the next four years? I personally believe that millions of people voted for John Kerry because they are good, decent people who are frustrated with the economy, feel angry about being in a preemptive war in Iraq, and were desperate to believe someone who said he had a "plan" to fix those and other problems despite the fact that he was less than forthcoming about what those "plans" would be, exactly. People who fall into that branch of the Kerry camp are reachable. They are open to argument, receptive to facts. I am not referring to them.

But the "elites" - the media, Hollowwood, and the self-proclaimed intellectuals in our country will never relinquish their death grip on hatred and fury. In terms of "reaching out" and "healing," they are a lost cause; don't waste your time.

Having said that, however, there are things that can be done. In that vein, I was listening to Sean Hannity interviewing Newt Gingrich last night, and Sean asked what direction the Democratic Party would take, given its sound trouncing at the polls two days ago. Sean and Newt discussed various options - would the Dems try to pull back to the center? Would they abandon their ultra-left trajectory? Would they try to change their message to re-appeal to their traditional base (farmers, union workers, middle and lower-middle-class Americans)?

Here's my opinion: No way.

Any current pragmatic party leaders are facing the greatest challenge of their political careers. Because the Dems have become the party of irate, populace-loathing "intellectuals" and Big Lefty Money (George Soros and Hollowwood), they have sold their souls to a group of people whose two major issues are unabashed Marxism and abortion. They cannot, at this point, come back to the center, because to do so would be to lose their wealthiest, most vocal, and most active supporters. This is what I meant when I said in yesterday's post that the Democratic Party has lost the South for good, and that organized Labor would not be far behind.

That's why you will never, ever see the Democratic Party put up candidates like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman for president. Their biggest backers hate virtually everything that traditional Democrats like that stand for.

So where is their future support going to come from?

My views on that question in the next post.

Observations about the election ...

There are a number of things that I think can be said about the 2004 election at this point. These are not in a particular order of importance:

1. President George W. Bush was diplomatic and gracious in his not calling the election until John Kerry conceded. Yes, his operatives spoke, but he waited behind the scenes.

2. John Kerry was gallant and statesmanlike in conceding in the face of (admittedly overwhelming) evidence that there were no statistical chances that counting provisional ballots in Ohio (or any other state) would make any difference at all. Some may challenge me on this, but I think it is a point worth mentioning. After the 2000 election, the contentiousness of this campaign, and the "hordes" of attorneys poised to challenge any apparently questionable result or practice (not to mention the shrill threats and exhortations by the left-wing PACs and 527s), I think all of us can easily contemplate John Kerry or his advisers having made a different decision. I would submit that his conduct today is more "presidential" than anything he did during his entire campaign.

3. The Electoral College is a vibrant and necessary device in our representative democracy. One need only look at the vast swaths of red, versus the tiny corridors and isolated pockets of blue, to see that from a geographical perspective, the Electoral College affords states with smaller populations the sort of voice and participation that does make - and should make - presidential candidates stand up and take notice. The popular vote, as significant as it is, should not be enough to elect a president. Let's hear it for the "winner take all" arrangement.

4. Fox News is, far and away, the best news organization of any of the major networks. I watched from 7:00 p.m. last night until nearly 3:00 this morning, and I was impressed with the entire panel. Brit Hume is the best news anchor on television. Last night he was thorough, suitably prudent and realistic. He governed his panel with a light but firm hand. Bill Kristol, Juan William, Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes offered a broad spectrum of insights into positions and possibilities and did so without sounding insulting, condescending, or as if they were in shock or denial! (And we thought it couldn't be done.) Their observations were equally insightful, complimentary to and critical of both President Bush and Senator Kerry. They debunked the "exit polls" before any of the other major networks did. And Michael Barone deserves an MVP award for keeping up with and tossing out more statistical information on precinct demographics and voting projections than I thought was humanly possible.

Fox did all of this for hours without compromising the integrity of the polls that had yet to close, superimposing their personal political views on the election, or casting aspersions on members of the electorate with whom they disagree.

In sum, Fox demonstrated itself to be worthy of its oft-maligned slogan, "Fair and Balanced." Never has it been more obvious that they report and we decide. Bravo to that entire team.

5. Much has been made of Bush now having a "mandate," having garned both an electoral majority and a majority of the popular vote. With all due respect to this president, I think that is an overstatement, understandable as it may be in the heady rush of victory. What I think this election gives President Bush is legitimacy in the eyes of many of his detractors. Finally. Make no mistake, this is no small accomplishment. Some claimed that despite the contested election in 2000, Bush got legitimacy after 9/11. But as people like George Soros, Michael Moore, ACT-UP, Moveon.org and others made abundantly clear, a significant and vocal segment of the American population continued to believe that his initial election was "stolen," and his presidency was illegitimate. As such, they felt free to make the claim that his tenure was an aberration which this election would demonstrate not only to the United States, but to the world. They can still moan and complain about 2000, but their arguments will have lost all of their persuasiveness (if not their fervor) after yesterday. They continue to maintain these specious claims at the expense of their credibility.

6. And this is probably a good place to insert my observations about the media elite, intellectuals, Hollowwood (oops, sorry - Hollywood) and the Democratic Party in general. I have said this before (in my last post for example), but this election makes the point undeniable and unmistakable: the Democratic Party has lost its base. If, even in an election as contentious as this one was, with an economic struggle and an unpopular war and a bitterly divided electorate, the Democrats lose seats in both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency, something is desperately wrong. Look at the results:

(a) The Democratic ticket with a contender for Vice President from North Carolina cannot even carry that state for the presidency. Not only that, but the Democratic senate seat he vacates is filled -- by a Republican.

(b) The State of Louisiana - as traditionally Democratic as they come - sends a Republican to the United States Senate for the first time in the state's history. And, he garners over 50% of the vote in a three-way content, eliminating even the need for a run-off.

(c) The incumbent United States Senate minority leader is defeated -- for the first time in decades.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but the number one reason is that the Democrats have completely abandoned even the thinnest pretense of morality. By way of example, everything is negotiable with the Democratic Party except for abortion. The Democrats are in thrall to NARAL and NOW, and have never seen a reason to kill babies that they don't like. Abortion? You bet. For any reason? Sure. For all 40 weeks? Yup. Even if elective? Of course. Partial-birth abortions included? Partial-birth abortions especially. If a child happens to survive an abortion, we want to allow doctors to let that child die - or even take affirmative steps to kill it outside the womb. And while we're at it, let's allow criminals to attack pregnant women, gravely wound or kill their unborn children, and allow them to walk away with less of a penalty than they would have gotten for killing a beloved pet or taking out a mailbox. Oh yes, and let's not forget - let's spend taxpayers money to create and clone new, genetically distinct human beings and destroy them to harvest their tissues.

I could go on, but you get the idea. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, these are at best, issues fraught with deep emotional conflict and profound reservation, and at worst, grave evils. And science - that bastion of Democratic rationalism - rather than weakening the moralists' arguments, is only strengthening them, as ultrasound enables people to see unborn children in the womb, as viability is pushed to earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy, as fetal surgery offers hope in more and more cases of disabilities, as we learn more about the perils of cloning, and the genetic makeup of each human being.

And this is not even mentioning the issue of gay marriage, which brought so many voters to the polls yesterday.

Democrats ignore, deny and belittle the seriousness of these issues at their peril. And their ignorance (deliberate or negligent) is further proof of their staggering arrogance and detachment from reality.

This morning, I listened to Andy Cohut on NPR describe the Democrats' surprise upon discovering that, "moral issues were the sleeper issues of this campaign." I heard that comment with stunned amazement. If the Democrats thought that moral issues were sleepers, then they were absolutely not listening.

This, however, is not altogether surprising. Because guess what, middle America? Democrat higher-ups are not listening to you; they are listening to each other. When one examines Karl Zinsmeister's and Tom Wolfe's recent essays, it is abundantly clear that Democrats have become the party of entertainment and media elites who have long since ceased to believe that the rules of polite society or the tenets of stable families apply to them. And although it is bad enough that they conduct themselves with this sort of amoral abandon, this is made worse by the fact that that have the audacity to preach to the rest of us, and treat us like knuckle-dragging cretins for daring (duhhhhh) to think differently.

The Democratic Party has lost the South. For good. And although there are still pockets of loyalty in the Rust-Belt midwest, these are tied largely to labor. And as Reagan proved, labor votes also have core values to which Republicans, increasingly, can appeal. The South has fallen; Labor will be next.

And after that, I predict, the African-American vote. Forty years of blaming the "rich," insulting black potential, and snatch-and-grab tax policies with no accountability are starting to take their toll. Manifestly bad government schools in inner cities further weaken Dem's hold on black voters. And some commentators are saying that Democratic support for gay marriage will be the straw that breaks the camel's back here. I suspect that this is a ways away. But stranger things have happened. And as yesterday also proved, Democrats can no longer either count on African-American support, or win even when they have it.

7. Bravo, bravo, bravo to the American public. For coming out. For staying out. For speaking out. For the biggest voter turnout in years. Perhaps ever. Early, late, in the dark, in the rain. For voting quietly, calmly, without violence, vandalism (for the most part) or lawyers!

8. And a big raspberry to those members of the "international community" who thought they could influence our election by insulting us (the Guardian) or threatening us (OBL). We stick our collective tongues out at you. We offer a few other succinct gestures, as well.

We have much -- MUCH -- to be proud of here. And now, much work to do. Let's do it.;