Steyn has been on a writing/media hiatus since the first week in July, and it's so good to have him back in the game.

Jonah Goldberg of The Los Angeles Times and National Review has a brief, splendid piece on the 8/28 event that I found at RealClearPolitics.com.

An excerpt:

One striking feature of Saturday's rally was how deeply religious and ecumenical it was. It seems like just yesterday that everyone was talking about how Christian evangelicals were too bigoted to vote for upright and uptight Mormon Mitt Romney. Yet Christian activists saw no problem cheering for - and praying with - the equally Mormon but far less uptight Beck, who asked citizens to go to "your churches, synagogues and mosques!"

The inclusiveness transcended mere religion. While the crowd was preponderantly white, the message was racially universalistic. That was evident not just on the stage, but in the crowd as well. When Reason TV's Nick Gillespie asked a couple whether as "African-Americans" they felt comfortable in such a white audience, the woman responded emphatically but good-naturedly: "First of all, I'm not African, I am an American . . . a black American." She went on to explain how "these people" - i.e., the white folks cheering her on - "are my family."

I confess, if Beck wasn't a libertarian, I would find his populism worrisome. But his message, flaws and excesses notwithstanding, is that our constitutional heritage defines us as a people, regardless of race, religion or creed. Is that so insulting to Martin Luther King Jr.'s memory?

I concur with Mr. Goldberg's assessment in that Beck, while susceptible to over-the-top emotional outbursts on his show, is genuine in his desire to see a predominantly religious nation restore many of the Judeo-Christian values that we've lost.  How about you?  Did you watch any of the coverage?  Did you even hear about the event before this blog-post?

So how did Tavis Smiley, Michel Martin, and Chris Cuomo make such morally egregious statements?

The answer is not that these are bad people, or that they are not repulsed by terrorist violence.

The answer is leftism, the way of looking at the world that permeates high schools, universities, and the news and entertainment media. Those indoctrinated by leftist thinking become largely incapable of making accurate moral judgments. They once regarded America and the Soviet Union as morally similar. Today, they claim that the people they call Christian “extremists” (who are they?) and Islamist terrorists and their supporters pose equal threats to America and to the world.

That is how bright and decent people become moral relativists and thereby undermine the battles against the greatest evils — Communist totalitarianism in its time, and Islamic totalitarianism in ours.

The only solution is to keep exposing leftist moral confusion. One problem, however, is that in countries without talk radio, an equivalent to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, conservative columnists, and a vigorous anti-Left political party, this is largely impossible.

The other major problem is that the media that dominate American life have little problem — indeed, they largely concur — with the foolish and dangerous comments made by their mainstream-media colleagues. That is why these comments, worthy of universal moral condemnation, were ignored by the mainstream (i.e., left-wing) media. Instead, they directed mind-numbing attention and waves of opprobrium toward Dr. Laura.

Those who don’t fight real evils fight imaginary ones.

Read his full column here.

This week I found not a written excerpt, but a dramatic re-creation of a debate that G.K. had with famed American lawyer and secular-liberal activist Clarence Darrow.  The topic: Is religion good for society?

I'll admit the laugh-track they put over the actors' dialogue is a bit cheesy, but listen to the points both men make and enjoy their wit, humor, and intelligence.

E.J. Dionne is a columnist for The Washington Post and his latest effort is scathing critique of the current conservative movement in the United States.  Dionne beings by pointing out that the Democrats' mantra that the GOP is the "party of no" may not work as well as it has in the past.  Even a committed progressive liberal like old E.J. can read the "stop spending us into oblivion" writing on the wall.  However, the logic Dionne employs to explain why this is so is, shall we say, lacking.

With more than a third of conservative Republicans declaring that our Christian president is a Muslim, just saying no to him is a more than adequate motivation to spend a few minutes with a ballot.

And "no" is certainly more powerful than the mixed messages Democrats are putting forward. In their sweeping victories of 2006 and 2008, Democrats picked up dozens of seats in very conservative districts. Many of these incumbents don't want to be associated in the least with the remarkable record their party has built in this Congress for fear of tying themselves to Obama or the party's congressional leadership, or both. But this means that Democrats are defending their achievements half-heartedly, while Republicans are assailing them without mercy and, often enough, without much concern for accuracy.

No evidence cited for the claim that "more than a third" of Republicans believe President Obama is a Muslim, but why get bogged down in the messy details when their is a great opportunity to bash conservatives, right?

Notice also the tone-deaf nature of Dionne's praise for "the remarkable record their party (the Democrats) has built."  I understand that someone on the far-Left would look at the unprecedented levels of spending, debt/deficit accumulation, and political chicanery to ram through 2,000 page bills that the majority of Americans do not want that have typified this Congress since the beginning of 2009 and be pleased, but is he joking when he condemns moderate Democrats for running as far and as fast as they can from a president with a hovering-around-40% approval record and a congress with a 16% one?

Here is the thrust of Dionne's piece:

The principled case that must be made is that the brand of conservatism seeking power this year is irresponsible, incoherent and untrue to the best of its own traditions. That's clear enough at the most basic level of policy: Conservatives can say that they are deeply worried about deficits, or they can insist that tax cuts matter most. But when they say they can reduce taxes and trim deficits at the same time, they are either deluded or deceptive, and they are playing voters for fools.

But there is something far more troubling at work: the rise of an angry, irrational extremism -- the sort that says Obama is a Muslim socialist who wasn't born in the U.S. -- that was not part of Ronald Reagan's buoyant conservative creed. Do Republican politicians believe in the elaborate conspiracy theories being spun by Glenn Beck and parts of the Tea Party movement? If not, why won't they say so?

He concludes with:

What the current right has on offer is far worse than anything Bush put forward, which means that this election isn't even about whether we'll go back into the ditch. It's about whether a movement that's gone over a cliff will be rewarded for doing so. A victory for this style of conservatism will be a defeat for the kind of conservatism the country needs. And that's a worthy matter to put to the voters.

The brand of conservatism seeking power is "dangerous" and "incoherent"?  Which part?  The "Let's get back to the adhering to the Constitution" part, or maybe the "Let's stop spending irresponsibly" part, or could it be the "Let's protect our borders" aspect of the modern conservative movement that frets E.J. so much?  I know that most conservatives (and many Democrat-voting Americans) want to see marriage remain the same institution it has always been (one man-one woman), so it might be that "radical" view that keeps progressive liberals like Dionne up at night.

I agree with him though when he says we need to put this entire matter to the voters.  I'm sure he'll have a wonderful excuse why it is the Democrats take a wood-shed beating come November, something about how the Right has "tapped into the anger" of Americans and how the surge in support for conservatives and Republicans will be short-lived.  But for now, we can agree that November is very important to the fate of the nation and to the very different, divergent worldviews liberals and conservatives have.

I thought it worthwhile to fill this past week with all things Sowell, but I promise to have an original column of my own out this upcoming week.  Stay tuned!

Part 3's description: '"Thomas Sowell says a loss of personal responsibility is at the heart of the decline of American society"

Part 4's description: "Thomas Sowell states that if the Obama agenda is not stopped in the November 2010 elections, he doesn’t know how it will ever be stopped."

Take the few minutes required, and really listen to what Dr. Sowell has to say. Let me know what you think!

I won't say anything else about the debate and let the words of the participants speak for themselves.

Part 1:

Part 2:

I'd love to hear thoughts on these clips. Feel free to weigh in below by clicking "Comments."

For more Sowell, check out his latest syndicated column, just out this morning.