WSJ to Murdoch

So the Wall Street Journal, and Dow Jones, have a new owner. Rupert Murdoch.

You’ll forgive me, if I don’t get too excited about this.  Certainly, the I’m not going to become the full- goose- bozo- paranoid that the New York Times has become.  Certainly, the times and the reaction, is understandable, given that they now have for the first time serious competition in many of their markets. As the Journal says in their editorial this morning:

We like to think our readers buy the Journal because of the credibility built over a century, and we believe this is the heart of the “value proposition” that Mr. Murdoch is willing to pay $5 billion to purchase. No sane businessman pays a premium of 67% over the market price for an asset he intends to ruin.

>There are nonetheless critics, especially in the journalism world, who claim this is precisely what Mr. Murdoch will proceed to do. And they have certainly had a merry time bashing him and the Journal these past few months. Some of these voices, however, are commercial or ideological competitors who have their own interest in undermining the Journal’s credibility.

Both the New York Times and the Financial Times have been especially aggressive in assailing the potential News Corp. purchase of the Journal. These also happen to be the two publications that Mr. Murdoch has explicitly said he might invest more to compete against. Readers can judge if the tears these papers and their writers claim to shed for the Journal’s future are real, or of the crocodile variety.

Then, too, there’s the idea that I don’t share the Liberal paranoia about Rupert Murdoch in general.

The nastiest attacks have come from our friends on the political left. They can’t decide whose views they hate most–ours, or Mr. Murdoch’s. We’re especially amused by those who say Mr. Murdoch might tug us to the political left. Don’t count on it. More than one liberal commentator has actually rejoiced at the takeover bid, on the perverse grounds that this will ruin the Journal’s news coverage, which in turn will reduce the audience for the editorial page. Don’t count on that either.

From what I’m hearing, the largest changes going to be the color, may finally come to the Wall Street Journal.

I suspect that most current readers of the Journal will find that Murdoch and company, were the best fit for the role of new owner of the WSJ. Think about it; can you imagine what would happen to the editorial page of the Journal with the New York Times in charge?  Gannett? Better not to imagine it.  The stomach acid alone….

From the Jawa report, we see:

Via The Daily Mail: A group of Muslims have opposed plans for a pet food factory to be built as possible pork emissions will violate their religious rights.Butchers Pet Care could shelve plans for a factory in Coton Park, near Rugby, because angry Asian families have complained to their residents’ association about pork smells drifting into their garden.

Muslim residents in the area also claim the pork will effectively “rain down” on their homes and gardens after the factory’s 100ft chimney has pumped the meat extracts into the atmosphere.

The Coton Park Residential Association said they have received complaints from Muslims – who are directed to not eat pork by the Qur’an – and are taking the matter very seriously.

I suggest all non-Muslims protest the protest with a coordinated back yard hickory pork barbeque and beer bash. Ahh the sweet smell of boston butts roasting on a hickory fire. Mmmm, mmmm good. After the first few beers don’t forget to yell, “Yeeeehaaaa!”, or the British equivalent, really loud a few times, just for extra scaryness.

Personally, I have always considered that we should be bombing al-Qaida training camps with good barbecue.  Some of those skinny bastards look like they haven’t eaten a good meal in months…. and I know of very few folks, who can resist a good BBQ, particularly when they’re hungry. The suicides that will ensue, once they figure out what it is, will probably save many lives, ultimately.

There is an old adage, that I have made reference to in these spaces just recently, which says that PETA members are far more likely to dump red paint on rich ladies in furs, then they are to perform the same act against biker gangs wearing leather, because the former stand a far smaller chance of beating the living crap of you.

So it is with the ever anti religious Christopher Hitchens, when he says in part:

Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation.

Certainly, there is fear involved.  And why, seemingly, is a point missed by Hitch. Think, now, though… Can you imagine, terrorists trying to do what they do, here in America, 50 years ago?  Or 60?  I think we would find, that most such incidents would be taken care of of hand, by the average American citizen.

Of course, then again, and such citizens generally speaking, were armed.  Not so much, today.  Indeed, the mere sight of a gun in public, raises suspicion, bordering on panic, even when the gun bearer obviously holds no malice whatever toward anyone . So it is we are the equivalent of the rich women in furs, as opposed to the biker gang in leather.  We are much easier to intimidate.  easier, it turns out, that is for our own good.
Indeed… We have been so wussified as a people over the last 50 years or so that we don’t have the ability as individuals, to respond to a threat…  and individual responses… even up to and including deadly force, is the only way to deal with the kinds of terrorist threats we deal with today.

It is to the point now, were we simply don’t know how to deal with those who threaten violence against us, because it is so far removed from our daily lexicon.  We have no idea how to respond to it, and therefore the chances are much greater than we won’t survive actions taken against us, both on the individual level, as well as the cultural level.At this point, as usual when Hitch starts in on the topic of Religion, Hitch starts going astray a little;

Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the “moderate” imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?

What Hitch clearly doesn’t understand, or perhaps is glossing over by omission, is the idea that Islam alone, assumes that those who fall outside the faith deserve no respect at all, and actually ACTS on that assumption.  That he doesn’t understand, or refuses to understand that rather central point, should not surprise anyone who understands that Hitchens is anti religious, nearly to the point of violence. That lack of understanding, I think, distorts the large picture for him.
Once we make it past his railing against Religion, of which he clearly has no clue, however, his points become somewhat more salient.

The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.

This is pretty much what I’ve been saying since 9/11.  Indeed, I have taken it a step farther, by saying that our move toward pluralism was going to be our undoing.

If you look closely, you’ll notice that many of the arguments Hitchens makes in this area, are not purely anti- religious, per se’, but they make the point that there is an inequity involved.  There’s a headlong rush here in the west, to have great respect for Sharia law…indeed, providing funding for prior periods for Muslims in public airports, for example, while we also paying for figurines of Christ on the cross immersed in a small vat of urine, and a figurine of Mary, made of Cattle Dung.

Liberals are forever angry at Jews and Christians for actually speaking their mind, as regards moral issues, and accusing them specifically because their statements on those moral issues happened to coincide with the religious belief.  Apparently, freedom of speech doesn’t count, if you happen to be a Christian or Jew… and Gaia forfend that you should ever actually vote in accordance with those Judeo Christian ethics. Meanwhile, these same liberals are rushing headlong into “pluralism” which apparently only encompasses religions not of the Judeo Christian ethos.

There is, I think, an important point to be discussed here , that most of the discussions I’ve seen on the topic, including that of Hitchens haven’t dared to broach; the cultural angle. Are we to assume, as Hitchens apparently does, that the dominant religion and culture, and the culture, are wholly separate items?  The point is one I’ve brought up in these spaces several times.

The link, here, is this: Politics, and the law resulting from politics are supposed to be reflections of our deepest values, and both the cultural and a personal level.  This is why morality and law are so often linked.  Indeed, I have made the point that they are inexorably linked. So, too, is religion linked. That’s because religion, is supposed to be DRIVING our deepest values.
If we understand (as I have argued for years) that the purpose of government is to codify and enforce the values of the culture that gave it life, and also to hopefully extend the influence of that culture within the world… then the influence of religious values in our government will be a product of the degree to which religion is a part of the culture itself. This is not mandating religion; it is simply reacting to, and holding respect for the culture, as government should; this is the proper relationship.
So, before you get started with me on this sub-point, this is not a matter of chruch and state (And the mythical seperation thereof) as much as it is a discussion about the culture, and the influence of religion in it, which is another matter altogether.
Consider the words of John McCandlish Phillips, a former reporter at the NYT:

“The fact is that our founders did not give us a nation frightened by the apparition of the Deity lurking about in our most central places. On Sept. 25, 1789, the text of what was later adopted as the First Amendment was passed by both houses of Congress, and subsequently sent to the states for ratification. On that same day , the gentlemen in the House who had acted to give us that invaluable text took another action: They passed a resolution asking President George Washington to declare a national day of thanksgiving to no less a perceived eminence than almighty God.
That’s president , that?s national, that?s official and, alas, my doubting hearties, it?s God?all wrapped up in a federal action by those who knew what they meant by the non-establishment clause and saw their request as standing at not the slightest variance from it.”

While other religions (Or for that matter, atheists, which I will include as a faith unto itself) are accepted, by both law and the tradition of western culture, they were never intended to be more than a minority influence in our culture. And that seems ot be to be the most troubling to Hitches of the world and to the Randians as well.
Look; Like it or not, our nation was founded on a culture which was largely Judeo Christian into its morality.  Its laws, were so constructed.  Its procedures and its goals are all based on an written to operating within that morality. Because they were so written, because we were so founded, our laws, our government, and the reality that we operate inside of, means very little to those who do not share that morality.  The more we tear down that morality for whatever reason, including being “pluralistic” means that we give up more and more of what we are.  Even if, and I say again, even if we separate the religion from the morality, the Design of our nation, and indeed our culture itself, is around that morality.  If that morality is superseded by another, what happens to our morality also happens to our nation which was founded on it?

So, all of that rambling comes down to this:

When we see Muslims working to get Sharia law adopted in the west, while making no concessions on the existing culture in the west, what we are in essence talking about is not just religion, but a cultural takeover.  Because of the bass-ackward approach to pluralism taken by many on the left in this country and elsewhere in the west, this cultural takeover is given added strength beyond anything it could do alone. This point seems to me and unavoidable conclusion and I think it’s one that Hitchens should be more vocal about. It is, I think, the bigger danger. After all, destroying our culture, destroys us , as well, and just as surely as atomic weaponry would.

The response is ours.  The ball’s in our court.

Randall Hoven, American Thinker, gives s short primer in how to kill babies and spread disease:

Good intentions and the urge to get something done can lead to disastrous policy. This is true for everyone. But add the power of government to compel obedience and the need for politicians to harvest votes and champion causes, the “obvious solution” can as often as not make the problem worse. When “compassionate” government “needs to do something”, watch out.

If you are dead sure that you already know all the answers to all the world’s problem, you need not bother to read the article.  You are the subject of it.

?

The Jawa Report:

I was going to make some snarky post about this:

Many residents of the southern city of Basra have convinced themselves that the British Army has loosed savage cattle-eating badgers onto its unsuspecting populace as a final gesture of ill intent before it departs the city later this summer.Throw in, for good measure, the fervent belief that British soldiers have planted snake eggs in waterways and unleashed bomb-sniffing dogs purposefully infected with rabies.

Then two words popped in to my head.

Art Bell.

Two words popped into my head, as well.

Monty Python.

Seriously, I fully understand the rumors are going to get started, with particularly when people are uninformed.  But occurs to me that the rumors Jawa speaks of here, aren’t all that different from some of the stuff we’ve been hearing about that region of the world from our own left.

Frankly, that the comparison holes as well as it does, I consider more frightening than amusing.

No sex, please, you’re a carnivore.  A new phenomenon in New Zealand is taking the idea of you are what you eat to the extreme.  Vegansexuals are people who do not eat any meat or animal products, and who choose not to be sexually intimate with non-vegan partners whose bodies, they say, are made up of dead animals.

So reports Rebecca Todd, of The Press in New Zealand.

Well, that’s good. I wouldn’t want vegans polluting the bloodlines, anyway. I mean, the health problems alone, would be enough to want to separate myself from such people. But if Michael savage is correct that liberalism is a mental disorder, then we must give serious consideration to the concept that vegans are, almost universally, liberals, and usually among the most extreme of liberals, at that.

I would call this “Vegansexual” movement, Darwinism in action.
Meanwhile, you’ll pardon me, I have a few steaks I need to marinate.

Others Blogging

Astute Bloggers, 

My Pet Jawa
Junkyard Blog

In the dog bites man department, New York State Senate republicans want Eliot Spitzer to appoint a special prosecutor.  Joel Stashenko reports: 

ALBANY – State Senate Republicans called yesterday for Governor Eliot Spitzer to designate Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as special prosecutor to investigate Mr. Spitzer’s own office over the misuse of the State Police to track one of the governor’s political rivals.

In the man bites dog department, is that the Senate republicans want a democrat, state Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo appointed.  James T. Madore reports Spitzer has denied the request:

ALBANY — Gov. Eliot Spitzer set the stage Monday for a battle royale, rejecting the call of Senate Republicans to appoint Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as special prosecutor.

Some senators responded with a vow to launch their own probe into misuse of the State Police by gubernatorial aides in a plot against Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, Spitzer’s chief rival.

Spitzer’s polls numbers are sinking and the media is turning on him.   By suggesting a democrat be named, the Senate republicans have the appearance of seeming bipartisian.   By denying the request, Spitzer denies himself the same appearance.

And Spitzer has done this all in just sevens month in office.   The forty-one months could prove to be quite amusing.
?

One of the more amusing reads this morning is from today’s Daily Express, wherein we find:

HATE preacher Abu Hamza has complained of the tough conditions behind bars, it was revealed yesterday.

The cleric, serving seven years for inciting murder of non-Muslims, says he is the victim of a prison bullying campaign.

And he has even complained about the lack of soft furnishings in his cell.

An Islamic group has taken up the hook-handed preacher’s cause and is demanding human rights organisations help him.

Let’s recall what’s what, here, shall we?

And let’s also hear from this thug in his own words:

It is not called suicide… this is called martyring, because if the only way to hurt the enemies of Islam except by taking your life for that then it is allowed”

“Don’t go to the man who is selling a wine shop and tell him please why you selling the wine shop, come to the mosque? Make sure that the man who gave him the licence for that wine shop does not exist anymore on the Earth. Finish him up”

“Jihad is their fight and it is also an obligation. But some people call this terrorism. Jihad is the only way to protect believers. Jihad comes first.”

The solution to me seems rather simple; 3oz. of lead.

Continuing last night’s conversation with regards to “whoops, maybe we can win in Iraq, after all ” comes Hewitt with an interview with John Burns, he of the house organ of the democratic party, otherwise known as the New York Times.

JB: I think there’s no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference. They’re definitely making a difference in Baghdad. Some of the crucial indicators of the war, metrics as the American command calls them, have moved in a positive direction from the American, and dare I say the Iraqi point of view, fewer car bombs, fewer bombs in general, lower levels of civilian casualties, quite remarkably lower levels of civilian casualties. And add in what they call the Baghdad belts, that’s to say the approaches to Baghdad, particularly in Diyala Province to the northeast, to in the area south of Baghdad in Babil Province, and to the west of Baghdad in Anbar Province, there’s no doubt that al Qaeda has taken something of a beating.

HH: Now when General Petraeus returns in September to make his report, do you expect Petraeus to be completely candid with the American people about the good news and the bad news in Iraq?

JB: I think there’s no doubt that he’ll be candid. As a matter of fact, every time I’ve spoken to him about it, he talks about the need to be forthright, and as he puts it, he said we’re not going to be putting lipstick on a pig. I think that’s a fairly, that’s military jargon which most Americans will understand. David Petraeus is a man who’s had a remarkably distinguished military career, and he is very clear that he thinks his responsibilities lie not to the White House alone, but to the White House and the Congress conjointly, and through them to the American people. I don’t think that this is just a profession, a claim. I think he really intends that, and he’s been very careful not to make commitments at the moment as to what he’s going to say, though we may guess it. And I think he’s going to say that the surge is having its effects, it hasn’t turned the tide of the war, there’s been too little time for it, and I think he and Ambassador Crocker, who will be his partner in that September report, are going to say one thing very clearly, and that is a quick, early withdrawal of American troops of the kind that is being argued by Nancy Pelosi, for example, would very likely lead to catastrophic levels of violence here. And in that, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will be saying something which is pretty broadly shared by people who live and work here, I have to say. The removal of American troops would very likely, we believe from all indications, lead to much higher, and indeed potentially cataclysmic levels of violence, beyond anything we’ve seen to date.

The timing of all of this coming from the usual leftist outlets, smacks to me of a coordinated effort.  To my mind, that goes directly to the point that I made yesterday, that the left is now seeking an escape route from the political games it has been playing with this war since about a month after the invasion started. Seeking it desperately, in fact… the way someone inside a burning building seeks the exit.  Within the last few weeks, there is a recognition on the left that the game they’ve been playing isn’t getting them anywhere politically speaking.  That the “defeat of America at any cost” mantra, is extraordinarily unpopular with the American people.  So it is, that we see this effort to reverse that trend. The house they’ve built, is burning down around them.  This is a clear sign, that they know it.

Don Surber agrees, and quotes James Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina:

“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us. We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.”

Wait a second here: Who is the enemy to Clyburn? The Republican Party or al-Qaeda?

I think that was established a long time ago, Don.

Addendum:

When even Keith Ellison is saying ‘progress is being made’…. Oh, wait. He’s just a dupe of the Bush administration, right?

It is amusing to see so many people who were so overly concerned about the FBI investigation of William Jefferson, he of the the “cash in the freezer” ploy, now doing a victory dance of sorts, over the similar investigation of Ted Stevens .

Not that I think there is a defense of Mr. Stevens at all, mind you…  I just find the different reactions of the lefty blogs this morning, amusing.  Particularly, those who were so staunchly defensive of William Jefferson.

Captain Ed suggests, that this is directly tied to earmarks, and the ease with which funding is secured, and re-routed. I tend to agree.  However, given that the Democrats have downplayed the importance of fixing that particular problem, I wonder what the reaction is going to be now?

Don Surber points out that Stevens isn’t alone up there.

I am not a fan of the National Association for the Advancement of [Liberal] Colored People.  While I respect their goals, I abhor their methods.

The NAA[L]CP is publically arguing that Micheal Vick be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Errin Haines, Associated Press:

ATLANTA — Georgia leaders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on Monday urged the public not to judge Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick before he has his day in court.

Atlanta NAACP President R.L. White said during a brief news conference that while he recognizes the seriousness of the dogfighting allegations against Vick, he is deeply concerned about the way the case is being handled. White said Vick has been vilified by animal rights groups, talk radio and the news media, and was prematurely punished by his team and corporate sponsors.

The NAA[L]CP position is fine in of itself.  The problem is that the call for patience and due process is in complete contrast with the NAA[L]CP rush judgment in the Duke Faux Rape case.  Statement by Dr. William J. Barber II.  If the NAA[L]CP wants a color-blind society, big if, they need to practice being cclor-blind.  Sure Michael Vick is entitled to the legal presumption of innocence, but then so were Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty, and David Evans

Hat Tip, Marc Sheppard, American Thinker.
?

“Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed”

Wonkette.

Hat Tip, John Hinderacker, Powerline.

Just to demonstrate how fair I am, if a reader can provide a analogous quote in reference to lliberal justice, I’ll post it.

?

Update: Patterico has a great discussion going on this topic.

SAN FRANCISCO -AP via ESPN- Bill Walsh changed the look of the NFL with his offensive innovations and legion of coaching disciples, breaking new ground and winning three Super Bowls with the San Francisco 49ers in the process.

Nicknamed “The Genius” for his creative schemes that became known as the West Coast offense, Walsh died at his Woodside home Monday morning following a long battle with leukemia. He was 75.

If I recall rightly, whilst it even become an NFL coach until age 47.  He was only on the San Francisco sidelines for ten years.  In that ten years, he took the team to the Super Bowl three times.  No small feat, that.  Those numbers, perhaps, say it all.

I was camping over a long weekend, and am just getting back up to speed.

I wondered how long this was going to take… Mchael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack have posted a piece in the in the New York Times, called “A War We Might Just Win”. The attitude of the article he is exactly as expressed in the title.  Needless to say, this is getting an awful lot of argument around the Sphere just now. mostly, the commentary appears to be nothing but spin.

An angle that did not come up in my reading of some of the other comments about this Op-Ed, was exactly the first one that came to my mind upon reading it.  After all, I reasoned, why say anything like this at all, if you’re a democrat, who’s been pounding the table about withdrawing our troops, four years, now?  The reasons, to my mind, are simple he indeed.  That being that Pollock and O’Hanlon are attempting to create an escape route for the democrats.  The democrats, as you know, have been telling us all along that we’ve lost in Iraq already, there’s no point going on, we may as will our troops out now, etc..

But now, suddenly, after years of our being told the whole thing was lost and the democrats costing themselves huge numbers of voters in their eyes of “defeats for America at any cost” comes these two prominent democrats saying in effect ” Oops… perhaps we CAN win this thing….”

frankly, I wonder if this angle hasn’t been too long in coming, since just about everybody else on the planet is notice that there’s some surprisingly good news coming out of Iraq these days.

Now that this new ground as been broken, the next logical question to ask is how many of the Democratic party presidential candidates are going to be singing the same song between now and November ’08?  Personally I would estimate all of them, with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich.

Others noting the story:

Hot Air, The Swamp, Lawyers, Guns and Money, Weekly Standard, , baldilocks, Right Wing Nut House, Townhall.com, Power Line, Q&O, and a particularly good bit on the topic at Dave Schuler’s place, The Glittering Eye

 San Francisco -AP- Tom Snyder, whose smoke-filled interviews were a staple of late night television and an inspiration for Dan Aykroyd on “Saturday Night Live,” has died after a struggle with leukemia. He was 71.

Snyder died Sunday in San Francisco from complications associated with leukemia, his longtime producer and friend Mike Horowicz told The Associated Press on Monday.