Photo below from Gateway -
This quiet Interpol decision of the O prompted Anchoress to re-post The Art of the Painless Coup
Post Copenhagen: Is Man-Made Global Warming a Dead Issue? I tend to think so, because it was such a big joke.
Change… Obama Now More Loathed Than Bush at End of His Second Term
The Saudis take a stroll down J Street
Bet you didn't read Page 148 Of Health Care Bill
Now livestock are 50% of global warming. What global warming?
An argument for bombing Iran's nuke facilities - in the NYT
"Divisive" means you don't go along with the Left. Powerline
Newt video with "red meat." Doesn't sound like red meat to me - just logical and reasonable. Too bad he never comes across like a Teddy Bear on TV.
Grinch of the Year: Mr. Sutley. What a putz.
"Huge storm"? A commenter observes "Sounds like winter to me."
Liar in Chief: If you like your insurance you can keep it. Not
One of our favorite smart dudes, David Gelernter, on a new book about Darwin. A quote:
David Berlinski, one of the most impressive Darwin dissenters, quotes (in a Commentary essay) a smugly childish pronouncement by the journal Nature: "With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." But what makes these ignoramuses so sure they know what the Bible means by "create"? How do they know that "evolution by natural selection" is not exactly what the Bible does mean? And how do they know that man is not "in the image of God"? Yes, we all know about the Bible's famous seven days, but has Nature never heard of a parable? It's not such a difficult concept. Does Nature fault the Bible for not starting with an account of Darwinian evolution?--right after the verses dealing with the Big Bang and astrophysics, which in turn follow the verses that brush everyone up on the necessary algebra, geometry, and calculus?
"The Torah speaks in the language of man," say the rabbis, and when the Bible emerged, men did not speak Darwin's language. But they did care about right and wrong, good and evil, justice and mercy, sanctity and man and God, and these (not biology or astrophysics) are the Bible's topics. Charles Darwin was a great thinker who taught us not only about science, but about religion--specifically, about what religion does not teach, and (for that matter) does not care about. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, at England's Christian heart. Darwin rejected the church, but the church didn't reject him. What does that mean? Berra has no comment.
