- The Washington Times - Monday, January 9, 2006

Forming Bush

“The Left that the ‘60s created tends to lose the battles: whether it is the push to erase the differences between the sexes, or to take away Everyman’s SUV, or to define down the terrorism of those who would bring their war into the heartland of this country. When they have the opportunity, the American people usually reject such ideas.

“But the Left wages a permanent war, and therefore often seems to be winning in the midst of its losses. Its survivorship comes from the fact that even as radicals were losing the decade-long referendum on their radical plans in the ‘60s, they seized cultural citadels that allowed them to continue a stealth fight later on.

“One of these citadels was the ‘elite’ media, whose commitment to leftish ideas is so complete that it has become a series of scandals: Dan Rather’s bogus ‘expose’ about George W. Bush’s National Guard service, for instance, or Newsweek’s fraudulent report that Americans guarding al Qaeda soldiers at Guantanamo desecrated the Koran. …

“Running for President in 2000, George W. Bush said that ‘Destructive Generation’ was one of the three books that had formed his worldview on how America veered off course in the postwar era.”

—Peter Collier and David Horowitz, from the foreword of a new edition of their 1989 book, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the ‘60s.”

Devolved Darwin

“Controversial scientist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, dubbed ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler,’ calls religion a ‘virus’ and faith-based education ‘child abuse’ in a two-part series … airing on the UK’s Channel 4. …

“Dawkins, using his visit to Colorado Springs’ New Life Church, criticizes conservative U.S. evangelicals and warns his audience of the influence of ‘Christian fascism’ and ‘an American Taliban.’ …

“‘Sectarian religious schools,’ Dawkins asserts, have been ‘deeply damaging’ to generations of children. … ‘The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist,’ he says. Dawkins then criticizes Abraham, compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and calls the New Testament ‘St. Paul’s nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin.’”

—From “Dawkins: Religion equals ‘child abuse,’” Jan. 8 in WorldNetDaily at www.worldnetdaily.com

Relatively pacifist

“In ‘Munich,’ [Steven] Spielberg appears to be ambivalent regarding his film’s central moral dilemma … but still he cannot help trying to force his characters, and us, to be ambivalent along with him, and the result is … condescending. …

“[T]he question is not whether revenge is morally justified … but rather, where does the cycle of revenge end? That is indeed the most perplexing question in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian struggle today, and had the film focused squarely on that question for two and a half hours, Spielberg may have produced something spectacular.

“Instead, ‘Munich’ slowly devolves into moral relativism and pacifism, which, whatever merits those two ideas might have, lend themselves neither to dramatic tension nor deep contemplation.”

—Eric Cox, writing on “Spielberg’s Take on Terrorism,” Jan. 6 in the American Enterprise Online at www.taemag.com

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide