One of the more perverse products of the secularization of the Western hemisphere is the morally toxic notion that all species are equal.  But that, of course, is the logical and therefore inevitable conclusion--that humans are an accident of nature and therefore can't be held in higher esteem than the lowly reptile of your choice.

That, in the view of these arch radicals, justifies all means to achieve their ends, one of which is to stop  scientific research at our universities.  An article in U.S. News & World Report documents the weekend attack on two researchers at the University of California at Santa Cruz, one of whom's home was firebombed, and the other, whose car was firebombed and destroyed.

These terrorists post the names and addresses of scientists in public places along with blatant threats to them and their families.  But beyond the savagery of their methods is a moral cowardice of epic proportions, which highlights the fragility of their claims, for instance, that a rat ought to enjoy the same legal protections as a human being.  Indeed, it's the intellectual insecurity of their beliefs that leads them to the kind of violence on a par with Islamic extremists.  People with credible differences of belief in a pluralistic society such as ours are welcome at the debate table.  But those with fantastic claims, be they the domestic terrorists who perpetrated these heinous acts or the radical Islamists, hide in fear in the civic shadows, because their ideas are so delicately framed and susceptible to rebuttal.

The abdication of religious belief, of God as the agent of our creation and existence, underlies these terrorists' actions.  When you subtract Him from the equation, moral anarchy is sure to follow because the only laws that remain are those produced in their own self-referential world.  In that context, every act, regardless of how vicious, is justified, from petty larceny to capital murder.  So, regardless of the fact that these scientists, and thousands like them, are in pursuit of cures and advancements to better our lives, the use of animals in experiments and testing is so abhorrent to these terrorists they are willing to kill those whose works might one day save their lives.

It's a convoluted morality that leads one down this path because the average American is deeply compassionate concerning the treatment of animals.  That begins with the humane treatment of animals that are used for food.  It's no surprise that record numbers of Americans choose beef and poultry that are raised in natural settings and brought to market with a measure of care and concern.  Our pets, whether dogs, cats, or birds, have a special place in our hearts and lives and are part of our family.

And, although most of us eat meat, poultry, and fish, it's absolutely true that we're far more tolerant of vegans than they are of us.  Indeed, there's nothing so smug and arrogant as someone who parades his sanctimonious behaviors before us, be they the recycling fanatics or those who call meat-eaters murderers.

One of the pet entreatries of the left is for us common folks to "evolve," to move beyond our conventional lives, to join the rarefied few whose exquisitely refined sense of the universe places them on a higher plane--or so they assert.  They're welcome to any plane they wish inhabit, so long as they obey the law.  But those responsible for these hideous crimes should be hunted down like the vermin they are, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

For those who are aware that the federal income tax wasn't formally sanctioned until 1913, it's a uniquely dispiriting experience to see the deficit ballooning under a presumably Republican Administration.  Writing in today's Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby laments the sorry state of our fiscal affairs, in particular that neither presidential candidate is talking about it, at least not substantively.

Jacoby chronicles the fiscal debacle that's developed and its political contours, noting that either taxes will have to be raised or spending cut, and, even among putative Republicans, the latter is highly unlikely.  Indeed, here in Colorado, Governor Bill Ritter is proposing confiscatory taxes on the oil and gas industry with the goal of using the money for college scholarships.  It's the kind of classic modern liberal-socialist tax scheme that has absolutely no foundation in our Constitution, but is so firmly embedded in our cultural thinking that many, perhaps, most will enthusiastically support it.

At the federal level, as Jacoby notes,

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation, tallying the promises made by the presidential candidates, calculates that Obama 's "investments" would cost taxpayers another $344 billion a year. McCain's add up to an extra $68.5 billion.

Stipulating that candidates must distinguish themselves with policies that will garner support, it would be as refreshing as it would politically suicidal for a credible candidate to argue that less is more.  Rep. Ron Paul made such an argument, and were it not for his blinkered foreign policy nostrums and his profound lack of charisma, he might have become the Republican nominee.

It's important to note, however, that his many other quirks notwithstanding, McCain, in sharp contrast to Obama, does understand that the government that governs least governs best.  Presuming he wins in November--and the odds are looking better all the time--there is at least the chance that spending will be curtailed.

The conflagration of programs and initiatives, at the federal, state, and local level, that redress problems and ills that were historically the charge of the individual has become intolerable.  Many, perhaps most, are efforts to resolve problems in the aftermath of poor judgment, which begins with people having children who haven't the financial means to support them, and that's both out of, and in wedlock.  But also caught in its broad--read indiscriminate--sweep, is everything from our health care 'crisis' to environmental regulations, which either skew market variables or inhibit economic growth.

For those who yearn for the days when government kept its distance, when success and authority weren't stigmatized, when religion wasn't banned from the public square, and American exceptionalism was unquestioned, this is an unequivocally difficult time to be alive.  It's only compounded when an urban activist, who, less than four years ago was a back bencher in the Illinois legislature, is a presidential nominee.