Just a Mittcommunication?

There's an interesting interview (transcript, mp3 and video!) with Gov. Mitt Romney over at HumanEvents.com. Romney seems to believe that his square jaw and ultra-religiousness will transcend his contradictory stances on a variety of social issues over the course of his political career.

For instance, in answering a question about potential criticism from Religious Conservatives concerning his 1994 asking for the endorsement of the Mass. Log Cabin Republicans, Romney states:

No, actually, my view on marriage has been entirely consistent over my political career. And that is that I oppose same-sex marriage. I also oppose civil unions.

There are some people who feel that is inconsistent with also encouraging the elimination of discrimination against gay people as well as others of differences. I’m very much opposed to discrimination. I also recognize that it’s not wise to create a special class and establish new rights for any particular group. But I’m opposed to discrimination.

Well, that sounds good, and I agree; but then there's the actual letter in question. The letter repeatedly states that Romney is committed to "establish[ing] full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens" and he even asserts that he can and will outdo Ted Kennedy and his "considerable record on ciil rights" if elected. What exactly did he mean by "full equality"? He's either duping us now or the Log Cabiners then. Read the letter for yourself.

Incidentally and amazingly, Romney also attempted to out-Lib Ted Kennedy on the issue of abortion during that campaign. See this article.

Then Romney attempts to explain away past criticisms of Ronald Reagan (and Jesse Helms) by saying, "I’ve said since, and continue to reiterate, that one of my heroes is Ronald Reagan." Oh, okay. That kind of reminds me of U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr.'s confidence that a record established with a view toward the next constituency is wholly credible.

Next in the inerview:

One of the other things you accomplished as governor was a healthcare plan for Massachusetts, which has been both lauded and criticized by some libertarians and conservatives. Is this something you would consider proposing for the federal government as well?

My current thinking on that is that the states as laboratories really play a very useful role for the nation. There are some aspects of what we proposed and put in our health plan that actually could be helpful for the entire nation and may well figure into national legislation. But there are others that really are peculiar to the state of Massachusetts, and I’d like to see how they work in Massachusetts, and frankly to see what other states do. Because I wouldn’t be surprised if some other states came up with ideas, borrowing from our own experience, that could be better than ours.

I don’t think we’re ready as a nation to adopt a Massachusetts plan for the entire nation. I’d like to learn more from other states, perhaps take some things that we found and get them under way right away. (emphasis added)

This is disconcerting; it might qualify as the understatement of the holiday season to say that we're not ready to follow Massachusett's lead on much of anything. And it sure sounds to me like he thinks that following Mass. on this issue wouldn't be a bad thing.

I certainly understand that Romney's rhetoric running in 1994 and in Massachusetts had to be different than running for the GOP nomination, and he is to be commended for faring as well as he did in that context, but Massachusetts is not representative of America--maybe 20% of America, and I'm not sure that a non-squishy winning candidate in Massachusetts could ever represent my interests absent the political equivalent of a Damascus road experience. I don't perceive that happened here.

Suitable to Teach until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt

Just read a report in The City Paper about a Metro (Nashville) Schools substitute teacher who has both a criminal record and a recent arrest, yet the HR person at Metro Schools can't say whether the sub will be spending the day supervising school children come January 8th.

What's interesting about the article is the apparent equivocation of the Metro officials . . . the HR director appears to give a "non-responsive" answer to the question of whether a background check was ever done on this sub before hiring him; the Metro spokesman (McMillin) seems to assert that a teacher with pending criminal charges (and these don't seem as if they could be misdemeanor charges) is presumed suitable-for-supervising-elementary-schoolchildren.

I understand taking care in responding to a journalist's questions and being careful not to speculate about a situation, but that doesn't appear to be what is happening in this case--they don't appear to have been reached for comment (2 different officials!) while vacationing on the slopes, and they had time to look up the guy's file before speaking with the reporter. How hard is it to determine whether the guy's CRIMINAL CONVICTION over the summer (for which he is currently serving probation) was ever reported to Metro Schools? I don't think conviction for every drug offense necessarily warrants draconian punishment, but a drug conviction should probably disqualify a person from supervising elementary students in the upcoming semester . . . don't you think?

Obama is no Colin Powell

I am still not sure why anyone's so excited about Sen. Barack Obama--perhaps it is a reflection of discomfort with Edwards and Hillary.

But I have to disagree with the thesis of this Dick Morris and Eileen McGann op/ed (via VolunteerVoters.com via straighttalkalabama.com). For the record, I think Morris is a master marketer but he is often too cute by half in his assertions that politics is a solvable puzzle or anything near a science.

Morris asserts that Hillary ought to be thankful for Obama's presence in the Dem primary because Obama clears the playing field of other candidates even though he'll never be able to beat Hillary. As evidence, Morris points to Colin Powell's potential candidacy in 1996. While I agree that Powell and Obama were similar inasmuch as they were attractive, projectionable figures, but Barack Obama has nowhere near the creds of Colin Powell.

Morris states, "Having the right opponent is one of the essentials to electoral success.” Of course “the right opponent” (a loser) is the key in any campaign, but I don’t see the legitimacy of any substantive comparisons between Powell and Obama, nor Dole and Hillary; and Powell’s purportedly long shadow didn’t keep Phil Gramm from raising $20m prior to Jan 1, 1995.

I do think Hillary can be thankful that Obama is keeping her from being under the magnifying glass at least for now.

Americans, religious folks, conservatives more generous

Here's a great report (here) about the book Who Really Cares by Arthur Brooks.

Conclusions? Religiously devout people are more generous than those who are not religiously devout. Accordingly, Americans, Republicans and Conservatives are more generous because each of these groups has a larger percentage of devout members.

Why is that? I believe a large part of it is simply buying into a philosophy and publicly identifying oneself with a philosophy helps one to live by the philosophy. It also helps to socialize in and "belong to" a community where a higher standard is extolled, not to mention, modeled.

In any event, the study refutes the Left-wing characterization of Americans, Republicans, Conservatives--particularly the Religious Right, as heartless or stingy.

Philosophy of Santa Claus

Thank you (and curse you) ABC Family Channel for your 25 days of Christmas programming this month. Almost every night that channel has broadcast a baby-boomer-era Christmas program (typically stop motion animation) and my kids have enjoyed seeing them.

But it occurred to me on Christmas day--when my middle child asked me a question about Santa Claus, that maybe I should reconsider playing along (hook, line and sinker) with the whole Santa enterprise. Why? Because it seems pretty obvious that I undermine my credibility in urging my children to believe spiritual truths--which I think are true, when I unreservedly or without qualification promote a belief in a concept which requires "faith" but which I know is untrue. I think I haven't been careful enough to talk about Santa with the twinkle in my eye that typically signals to my kids that I'm using my imagination.

My wife had already handled the issue a couple years ago with our oldest (I wasn't aware of that) but we agreed that we'll wait for an opportune time to break the news to the littler ones. And, don't worry, we'll go easy on them . . .

Warrior v. warmonger

Channel surfing while ESPN was showing a commercial, I came across Patton, starring George C. Scott. I've never watched the entire movie, though I've been familiar with it since childhood. Even the small portion that I watched was fascinating--though I have to admit I probably missed "the point" of the movie. And I don't know if this is "cliche" or not, but Patton's dog was a pitbull.

Anyway, in the movie, a Nazi is looking over a dossier of Patton as Allied forces are overrunning their HQ, and says, "he (Patton) will be destroyed, too, for a warrior can't suvive without a war" (or something along those lines). It reminded me of traveling home through north Alabama this evening and passing by the city/town of Warrior. I told my wife--as I have on previous trips, that "Warrior" is perhaps my favorite city name.

I guess that's because war seems to be an inevitable part of human existence and a warrior is a person willing to stand in the deadly juncture of civilization and the alternative. It should go without saying that I'm thinking of those who serve with honor, not those prone to atrocities.

Now I'm watching another "classic" war film I've heard of but never seen . . . A Bridge Too Far.

A natural selection near-miss

An interesting story from today, from the AP: "California Man Sets Himself, American Flag, Christmas Tree on Fire to Protest Religious Names." The man survived!

My sober holiday

We're visiting "the cousins"--my sister and her family in Alabama, and one of the best things about the holidays is having more time for activities like baking cookies, visiting family, etc. Actually, I guess we just make time for such things during the holidays.

Yesterday my four-year-old nephew brought me a stack of picture books to read to him. After the truck and tractor book, he handed me a "plane" book which was a picture book about the Pearl Harbor battle.

As we skimmed the book, he was most interested in the explosions, uniforms and military vessels, but I was struck by the details of the battle and the casualties--for example, 1,177 sailors died when the Battleship Arizona exploded and sank in 9 minutes. Many of the American victims were just waking on the only day they could sleep in, and some would die less than 10 minutes later--by drowning or being burned to death.

My thoughts drifted toward the sophomore biology teacher at DeLand High School, Mr. Tribble Dicks, who was the only person I've ever known who was actually there for the battle. He still sported a flat-top though I doubt he had served in the Navy long after WWII. Despite the haircut, he was a gentle and somewhat stoic man.

We viewed him as an antique, and we would laugh--amongst ourselves, at his imitation of a cranking Harley-Davidson. We also thought it was funny how he would choke up whenever someone could get him to talk about his experience at Pearl Harbor. We thought it was funny how he would get almost speechless, so emotional about an event that was long in the past and an incident which, to us, was a rich memory of America's resolve and America's ascendancy. All's well that ends well, right?

Yes, we were juvenile and "sophomoric" and such behavior is almost expected these days. When my nephew wanted to read that book, I hesitated because death and dying and enemies and war are all such grave subjects. However, there is a need for me to teach my children--while still preserving some innocence, the horrors of war and the steep sacrifice paid by veterans then and now.

Faith-based or reality-based blogging

Like me, you may have noticed the term "reality-based" being revived in discussions about the Iraq Study Group's report. Well, I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, but though I had heard the many sniffling, disparaging references from Liberals about "reality-based" policy over the past few years, I was not clear about its source (I plead guilty to being generally indifferent to petty, partisan criticism).

Well, today I read the article where the phrase debuted--thanks to a link from "commient" (sic) regular, elliemay. There it was, in the NYTimes Magazine. As I read the article, this adage, often attributed to Robert F. Kennedy, came to mind:

"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"

Suskind (the author of the article) seized upon the term "reality-based" as a contrast with what he terms GWB's "faith-based" presidency. By "faith-based" Suskind means basing policy decisions on "faith," which he defines as "believ[ing] things for which there is no empirical evidence." Was RFK a "faith-based" politician?

The article makes much of the now-common accusation that Bush is cock-sure and unwilling to yield, but that argument is ironic because it only arguably "works" if the subject is Bush's Iraq policy. Sure, Bush has determined that there is no negotiating with or appeasing Islamists, but I'd say there's plenty of "empirical evidence" for that conclusion.

On the other hand, Bush has been rather willing to compromise with Liberal pols on a host of domestic issues: the Medicare Prescription program; NCLB; BCRA; spendthriftiness, etc. etc. Speaking of "faith-based" policy . . . where, for example, is the empirical evidence that public schools in America are effective at educating our children?

Mittamorphosis

I thought I checked my messages all weekend, but somehow I missed my invite to meet Mitt while he was in Middle Tennessee. Oh well, accidents happen.

In any event, the '08 Presidential nomination campaign has already started so I'm planning to do a great deal of deep thinking* about folks like Mitt Romney in the coming week or so.

Terry Frank is predicting that Mitt isn't the likely GOP nominee, and I tend to agree. Why? Because of this startling Boston Globe story about Romney's morph from trying to bump aging Liberal warhorse Kennedy out of office to trying to right-elbow out moderate Republicans to garner the support of social Conservatives.
The article opens as follows:

In Governor Mitt Romney's metamorphosis from social moderate to self-styled conservative presidential candidate, Nov. 9, 2004, stands out as a seminal date.

On that day, Romney and two aides met in his State House office with renowned Harvard University stem cell researcher Douglas A. Melton. In Romney's retelling, Melton coolly explained how his work relied on cloning human embryos.

" I sat down with a researcher. And he said, 'Look, you don't have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days,' " Romney recalled on " The Charlie Rose Show " last June, characterizing the meeting as a watershed moment for him. "That struck me as he said that."

Melton remembers the session differently.

"Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it," he said in a statement last week. "I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases."

This article exemplifies how difficult it would be to get elected, much less govern, as a Conservative in such a Liberal state. I like the willing naivete of the Globe writer is casting the differing views of the consultation/conversation as contradictory. After all, the reporter implies, Dr. Melton said he has a "deeply held respect for life."

But the article also exemplifies Romney's ability to convincingly articulate his testimony about "seeing the light." To be clear, I think those compelling arguments are there for the making, and I'm glad to see this candidate willing to make them. But I have to say that I wonder how contemplative or sincere Romney is if these rudimentary principles dawned on him only after he set his sights on the GOP nomination for president? The same thing goes for his morphing views on abortion and homosexualism.

And Romney is presenting himself, wittingly or not, as someone who is very impressionable: on embryonic stem cell harvesting, he is disturbed by a harvester's dispassionate discussion about ending human life, on abortion he states, "I have learned and grown from the exposure to the thousands of good-hearted people who are working to change the [abortion] culture in our country."

I may end up backing him in a general election, but he's got some convincing to do. I urge you to read the whole article if you consider yourself a social conservative.


More soon on the impact that Romney's religious beliefs could have on his candidacy . . .




*A Deep Thought I just read: "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."

Christmas Warrior reporting for duty...I guess

Christmas Warrior reporting for duty! (Please retrieve from memory banks the embarrassingly lame salute of John Kerry in accepting the DNC nomination).

I just came across a link to a Slate article (here) via Anne's StupidStuffIWitness blog about why "conservatives" and "Christianists" despise the phrase "happy holidays."

For the record, I don't despise the phrase "happy holidays" or need affirmation from a store greeter/shoplifter-cop as I rush into a brick and mortar. As a result, I only skim over assertions that there is a war on Christmas and have never read the book so named.

That being said, I am bothered by a patently secularist agenda to strip all mention of devoutness in the public square, and an emerging trend to never utter Christmas (other than in a laundry list of Winterish celebrations) is certainly evidence of said agenda.

But to the article. I like how the author harkens back 17 years--seventeen years!!!--all the way back to midway in the GHWBush administration!!, to establish how long the LANDMARK!!! Supreme Court holding that any religious display on a public venue is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (see previous post on how Libs are BIG time advocates for stare decisis after nosing their Liberal agenda--via even only a plurality of judges, across the finish line).

I also like how Greenburg writes that in the 1950s, "the Holocaust had made the merits (indeed the necessity) of religious toleration all the more compelling." I'm not sure why Greenburg chose "toleration," and I'm even more surprised that he used that as an example of religious intolerance. Maybe this would explain folks like Greenburg's problems with "Religious Conservatives" and evangelicals. As noted in an earlier post, NOW I know what Liberals think I think.

And Greenburg can't be serious in presuming that uses of the term "Season's greetings" in the past (all the way back to Eisenhower's Christmas Cards!!) were intended to mean "season-which-includes-Channukah-Kwanzaa-Ramadan-witch-winter-solstice-etc.-etc." as opposed to Christmas and new year's eve and Hannukah.

But hasn't Christmas sufficiently been secularized/commercialized/spiritually-dumbed down so as to obviate the need for marketers to begin advertising "Holiday Trees" for sale?

Lastly, I can appreciate that Lefties despise that conservatives despise anything, but can't we agree that consumers have every right to complain, organize, boycott, threaten (in an economic sense), pressure, etc. any company they darn well please? If you're so right, Greenburg et al, let boycotters across the globe continue to make fools of themselves.

And remember, Jesus is the reason for the season.

What a Loser

I am a supporter of Protest Warrior which I think epitomizes Free Speech--as opposed to flaunting it.

Thus I have followed (somewhat) the story of this FREAK who criminally (on a Federal scale) sought to undermine Protest Warrior by stealing credit card numbers of thousands of Protest Warrior members with the intent of using them.

Well, Loser has been convicted and sentenced. But what interested me this a.m. about the story is the LAMEness of the judge's sentence and rationale for said sentence.

First, I think it is ironic that Loser, who brags of being an anarchist appears to do all his speaking through his daddy and the lawyer his daddy probably hired for him. I love how the reporter writes, "According to [Loser's] lawyer, Hammond ("Loser") has extreme left-wing political views."

And I was impressed with several profound statements from the judge. For example, those who advocate for hate crime laws should be appreciate this nugget,

Hammond (Loser) was "more interested in countering speech he found wrong rather than picking the pockets" of political rivals, the judge said.

And when Loser's dad noted his son was 19 at the time of the offenses and had used "poor judgment":

U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel picked up
on the point, but used more blunt terms.

"You were an idiot when you did it," the judge said. "At the
perspective of my age, all 19-year-olds are idiots."

Also according to daddy,

Though he faulted his son's judgment, the elder Hammond said his son's "basic inner moral code is good."

Uh, I guess we'll take your word for it . . .

I'd encourage you to read the whole article before piping off about this.

Gobbledy greetings from the Guv

There is a buzz in the blogosphere about TN Gov. Phil Bredesen's "Christmas" card. (As an aside, it is intriguing to watch Liberal bloggers--you know who you are, create a buzz by raising an issue and ascribing to all Conservatives the sentiments of a single Conservative blogger; oh well).

First, I believe the guy's not a bad artist, but I have some interesting illustrations that may be purty and still may not make sense on a Christmas card. Which leads me to the inane statement/explanation that Bredesen put on the back of the card. According to the Tennessean,

"May the peace and joy of this Christmas season be with you and your loved ones throughout the coming year," the card reads.

"While it may seem odd to put a portrait of a young Muslim woman on a Christmas card, this Season reminds us that He loves His children most of all," Bredesen stated on the back of the card.

I think his comment, though sort of true about Christianity, (i.e., what does it mean to say “[God] loves His children most of all”?] appears to be a stab at a multi-culturalist "Christmas" card (is that an oxymoron?).

But the back verbiage reminds me of those blog posts that require a lot of ex-post facto explanation. To wit, if they needed that much explanation or back-filling they probably shouldn't have been posted.

Politically-interested comedians take themselves too seriously

I read over at the NY Times (via Drudge) that Al Franken is contemplating a U.S. Senate run.

I believe that politically-inspired comedians take themselves too seriously (certainly more seriously than the average voter). Accordingly, the quality that makes them so "charming" to a live, studio audience of people (who get their knowledge of current events from late night talk shows) would wither and fade under the glare of political krieg lights.

So, I think Franken is kidding himself (pun intended) if he thinks he's cut out for elected office. I think the same thing applies to "Man of the Year" inspiration Jon Stewart.

Young(er) Vince

This youtube montage of 2004 Vince Young Highlights is really fun to watch. Seeing as I only watch a couple of Big 12 football games in a season, my primary memory of Young was his men-among-boys finale in last year's Rose Bowl. The footage of his humiliating a team dressed in Michigan uniforms (at the end of the clip) is particularly impressive.

Crichton: discernment biggest challenge for mankind

Here's an interesting speech (here) delivered by famed author Michael Crichton.

The speech is entitled, "Environmentalism as Religion." I agree with most of the speech, though I disagree that there is no factual basis to Christianity. Go read for yourself.

Shut up and be pretty

Matt Damon is promoting a new movie (here) and has an opinion (one that is ill-informed and ill-mannered) that he wants to share. (Hat tip, Drudge) Damon is recommending that Jenna and Barbara Bush be sent to fight in Iraq.

"I don't think that it's fair as I said before, that it seems like we have a fighting class in our country that's comprised of people who have to go for either financial reasons or, I don't think that that is fair," said Damon, 36. "And if you're gonna send people to war ... then that needs to be shared by everybody, you know, and if the president has daughters who are of age then maybe they should go too."

I say, shut up and be pretty.


**I know, I know; acting is a difficult skill--certainly more difficult than looking good, but it didn't sound as "catchy" to say "shut up and act"

Bush "staying the course"

It appears that Dubya intends to "stay the course" in Iraq, as discussed in this Fred Barnes piece (here). (Hat tip to reader elliemay).

But wait, “stay the course” means keep using American troops as fodder for the “war for oil/Halliburton,” doesn’t it?!? Well, no.

Even though the phrase became a favorite club by Dems during the 2006 campaign, I guess it means persevering in a worthy cause, even though people are dying.

Clintonesque Emanuel

I cruised through this Washington Times article (here) about how Congressional Democrats (particularly Rahm Emanuel and his underlings) handled the reports about Mark Foley's potentially-inappropriate contact with House pages . . . most of it seemed like old news.

But there's something interesting in the report:


Read the rest at my new blog address.
And please update your aggregator or bookmarks if you haven't already.

Been there, Dunn that . . .

The news that Jason Mumpower has defeated Bill Dunn for House Minority Leader is disappointing, because I know and respect Dunn.

On a variety of levels, I doubt Mumpower will be featured in a Conservatives of the House 2007 Calendar. See House Directory Mugshot here and a non-Conservative review here.

Read the rest at my new blog address.
And please update your aggregator or bookmarks if you haven't already.

Even with Liberals at the helm?

Some on the Left will surely pooh-pooh this general's statements (here) about the war on Islamism. He says that it could take 100 years to prevail.

It appears he didn't get the memo that Liberals are going to be calling the shots on foreign policy from here on out.


Read the rest at my new blog address.
And please update your aggregator or bookmarks if you haven't already.

Peace through mensa

I'm not sure what to think about this Congressional Quarterly report (here), also reported at CNN (here) (hat tip, Drudge); however, I know that it certainly blunts Democrat/Liberal assertions that all will be well as soon as we get the party of Elites at the helm.

read the rest at my new blog address here.

Better explanation needed for war in Iraq

I read a moving op/ed by Joel Belz at World Magazine (here) yesterday and it truly resonated with me. In sum, Belz argues America owes our troops a better explanation for the war in Iraq. In an open letter to a future serviceman and family friend, Belz writes,

I looked in your 22-year-old eyes yesterday morning, and I wasn’t prepared for
my own reaction. I’m having more and more difficulty asking you to put your life
on the line for a cause wrapped in so many ambiguities.

Read the rest at my blog:
http://nedwilliams.wordpress.com/2006/12/11/better-explanation-needed-for-the-war-in-iraq/

And please update your aggregator or bookmarks if you haven't already.

Justice, justice shall you pursue . . .

I just was watching a livestream video (the internet is amazing) an interesting a forum with Justices Breyer and Scalia called “A Conversation on the Constitution.”


Read the rest of this post at my new blog address, here.

Blind-sided by baby

You've probably read reports that Dick Cheney's daughter (the one who prefers women) is pregnant. I'm most interested by the reporting of "the story" surrounding "the story."

read the rest at my new blog address, here.

I propose a truce . . .

Though I am willing to do my part in consistently providing Brittney at Nashville is Talking with a “quote of the day,” I think that we can take steps toward promoting reasoned discussion about moving forward as a country and as a blogospheric region.

READ MORE . . . http://nedwilliams.wordpress.com/2006/12/08/i-propose-a-truce/

And please, PLEASE update your Aggregator with my new blog address . . . your readers need the entertainment/enlightenment (as the case may be) that comes from seeing what is posted here, right?

Winning elections more important than winning wars

Please go to my new blog address to read and comment on this post (here)

If you have a blog aggregator, please include my blog and update/add this address:
nedwilliams.wordpress.com

Do soldiers of fortune constitute an “insurgency”?

Please go to my new blog address to read and comment on this post (here)

If you have a blog aggregator, please include my blog and update/add this address:
nedwilliams.wordpress.com

Saving Franklin Cinema, losing all sense

The City Paper is reporting (here) that the Franklin Cinema is closing it's doors in January because it can't afford the rent increase when its current lease expires. I've never been to the cinema, but I like seeing it when I drive through downtown. It's quaint, and it harkens back to the good ol' days. End of story for me because I have neither the resources, nor the contacts, nor the fire in the belly to preserve a movie theater.

The report is even-handed in my opinion, but the interesting thing is the comments to the story. I learn that the place is a dump and that maybe it's not able to turn a profit because it is a "dump." Too bad more Wal-Mart hit pieces don't have comment-on-the-story features.

If you don't feel close to Obama, guess who moved . . .

My mom used to have a little framed thingamajig that sat on a table in our living room that read, "If you don't feel close to God, guess who moved." E.J. Dionne would have us believe that Barack Obama provides a similar type of measuring stick.

AACK at VolunteerVoters highlights a RedState.com post about a recent E.J. Dionne op/ed (here). Dionne is fantasizing about Presidential Timbarack Obama and his potential draw for Evangelicals. I generally agree with the RedState.com post and think that Dionne's creepy electoral leering at we Evangelicals makes me feel dirty.

Bringing it home, AACK seems to agree with the statement that "never really been fans of narrowly partisan politics," but then takes it a bit further to assert--wrongly, I believe, that Evangelicals have been "trained to believe that blind support of the GOP is in their interest." First, I think that Evangelicals have legitimately concluded that the Democrat Party is not "sensitive" or "interested," heck, even "tolerant" of Evangelicals' issues; and until the Democrats make a move, that conclusion is of continuing legitimacy.

Next, the same characteristic--relative indifference to political gamesmanship, that makes them not "have a thirst for partisan politics" makes them less politically savvy and less apt to "make each party bid for [their] attentions." Thus, I disagree with the assertion that Evangelicals "are starting to wakeup to the usefulness of this strategy." Evangelicals may sit out an election, but I don't think they are flirting with the Democrats except in rare, localized races.

Frankly I'd say Evangelicals are more than willing to meet Sen. Obama half way. Dionne touts how ". . . Obama took on the moral message of evangelical AIDS activists -- and then challenged them . . . "; I'll look forward to the day when a Conservative is given the same treatment, such as when someone should point out the irony of "pro-choice" Obama charging, "[w]e're dealing with flesh-and-blood men and women, and not abstractions."

Though he is certainly welcome to the cause, Obama is joining Dubya and other Republicans have been concerned about this epidemic for a long time. And I'm not sure how savvy it would be for Evangelicals to let a slick Democrat politician co-opt their issue, muddy the waters on their principled stances, or to pose as the moral leader on the issue.

Moving my blog

I have changed my blog server in pursuit of more advanced features and I hope you will proceed on over there and look around . . . there's a new category function that I'm happy to have, and I didn't want to wait any longer for a beta blogger "invitation."

I hope you'll bookmark my new address and maybe you can leave a snarky comment.

New address:
http://nedwilliams.wordpress.com/

Ignoring Noah's Ark

Aunt B is sounding off (here) about a post at Jamey Tucker's "Faith and Ethics" Blog. In lambasting Tucker for reporting on recent archaelogical investigation into a possible discovery of Noah's ark, Aunt B writes:

I said I was going to complain a tiny bit about Christians, and here's where I'm going to do it. Folks, you are practicing a religion. The Bible is not a checklist of archaeological digs you must fund in order to prove that your way is right.

There's supposed to be mystery and wonder and confusion. There's supposed to be awe and stuff beyond knowing.

I'm not saying you shouldn't go looking for whatever it is you want to go looking for.

I'm just saying that, when you put all your hope in fact, you're conceding the terms of the debate to secularists who, first of all, love to frame religion as a question of whether or not it's "real" just because it's so cute to watch you guys get all wound up and go off; and second, aren't going to be convinced even if you showed up tomorrow with the ark, a piece of the one true cross, and a tuft of Jesus's hair from which DNA tests could prove he had no earthly father.

And Kat Coble from a less-cynical perspective commented on Tucker's site thusly:

I've said this in another context and shall repeat myself here for good measure.

The time for idolatry of relics is past. Faith, as we are told in Hebrews 11:1 is
the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Christianity is about faith. Which is about believing in the unbelievable, in the things you cannot see. We serve a risen Saviour. How idiotic is that when you think about it? That is FAITH.

Hunting for old wood and the pinkie fingers of saints is a misguided attempt that cheapens the beauty of simple faith by attempting to tie it to bits of dust.

There is no majesty in these quests.

First, I think folks are confusing scientific proof with historical proof. While it might be futile to ask whether scientific principle supports a Biblical miracle, but it is relevant to ask whether evidence supports that a Biblical miracle occurred. If you accept the supernatural, you accept that it is possible for God to supercede natural law; that being said, if the Bible is inspired by God and it says that Noah used "gopher wood" to construct the Ark, then it calls into question the Bible's truth claims if the evidence contradicted that factual assertion. Sure there are many things about "faith" that we must take on "faith," and it could be a waste of resources to seek authentication for Biblical accounts of events. But unless you believe in some form of Universalism (and basically ignore Jesus Christ's exclusive truth claims) then it matters whether Biblical assertions are true or not.

But reading Aunt B's post I felt a bit like Harold Ford, Jr. likely felt sitting in campaign strategy sessions with Liberal Dem leaders prior to his senate run; thanks for the advice.

It's not "mainstream" Christian denominations that are causing traffic jams on Sunday mornings or buying up vacant acreage in visible locales. Likewise, it's not evangelical churches that are saying, "this doesn't have to be true to be educational/inspirational/motivational!!!"

And as I read Aunt B's comments about the Red Sea Miracle from the Bible, it occurred to me how those Jewish rubes sure went overboard with the whole "sea of reeds" story, seeing as it was just a wetland that their "God" helped them breach.

By the way, did you hear the one about the guy who decided to go to seminary? One day an Old Testament professor, teaching about the nation of Israel and the Red Sea, was explaining that the Red Sea was really the "Sea of Reeds" and that it was merely a swamp with shallow water. The children of Israel could simply wade across the swamp. Suddenly from the back of the room, the guy shouted, "PRAISE THE LORD!" The professor--unaccustomed to such outbreaks in class, asked the student what all the excitement was about. The young man replied, "PRAISE THE LORD! My God is so great that He could drown the entire Egyptian army in a few inches of water!"

Hot air, on a global scale

Some frequent visitors of late have been using me as a punching bag on the issue of "global-warming-climate-change-the-greenhouse-effect-whatever-it's-called-this-month." Here and here, for example. (Free advice to friends to the Left--derision is not a great way to win friends or influence people). Well, they've been calling me out on this issue, so I guess I need to respond or risk losing their undying respect and fawning appreciation.

Some fundamental premises on the general issue:

1. Big Wedge of Green Lettuce: It's becoming par for the course that Liberal bloggers mock Conservatives of being rubes for sticking with the GOP based on issues like abortion and they accuse the GOP of pretending to care about such issues with no intention of doing anything about them. Well, so-called "Environmental Issues" are their "wedge" issues. Issues they will not ever give up on and which they will ad infinitum use to mischaracterize their opposition. These "Environmental" issues seemingly pit Republicans/Conservatives against the "Englightened" elements of the culture.
   
2. Suspect messengers: sort of related to #1; Democrats and Liberals have a political motivation to fan the flames of environmental doomsdayism, and "Scientists" typically have at least a "naturalist" bias. And this Naturalist perspective is the deciding factor on the issue of "Origins."
   
3. Statist Paganism: I may be a man of faith, but--unlike my Liberal counterparts, I have serious doubts about Statism's ability to adequately protect the environment. (By the way, the history of all socialist/communist countries prove my point.) Thus, I have to err on the side of the maxim that massive regulation/market interruption/restraint of liberty ought to be motivated only where a compelling state interest is involved. And let the debate begin . . . more along the lines of John Stossel and less those of Michael Moore. Some sources of information reflecting skeptically on the Environmental Left's assertions are TechCentralStation and the Heritage Foundation.

So, where do we stand? I'm not an expert, so I have to discern whom I will trust on the issue (and I perceive that the people calling me out on this issue are not experts either.) I've been told that there is evidence that surface temperatures are increasing ever so minimally. There is debate about whether this is a cyclical phenomenon or a long-term phenomenon.

Next, some people have concluded that these rising temperatures are the result of human actors. And others are less convinced. Seeing as all the proposed solutions for "global climate change" involve serious restraints on freedom and serious expense, it is important to reach a consensus on this issue. If Republicans/Conservatives are the roadblock to solving this problem, then explain the 90-something vote in the U.S. Senate not to approve the Kyoto Protocol.

Next, some people have concluded that the consequences of this phenomenon are dire. While I concede that it may be wise to err on the side of caution on the issue, I describe Environmentalism as "doomsdayism" because Environmentalists are "Preservationists," believe that the earth is more fragile than I think it is, and conclude that there is no way the earth can adapt to these small environmental changes. Assuming that Macro-evolution is true, it's a good thing that the Green Movement wasn't around early in the process. (Incidentally, I say we should err on the side of caution in the question of whether a child in the womb is worthy of protection). But I think it is clear that Democrats/Liberals have an incentive to exaggerate the threat.

So, based on the motives, biases, worldviews of the messengers, I'm skeptical. Liberals expect me to come down on the same side as they have on all of these close questions. That's not reasonable.

Inconvenient smoking guns

I posted earlier (here) about the Happy Feet "controversy" and was working on relatively few facts; I was merely defending the right to criticize a movie for overt political messages in traveling in trojan animated horses.

Well, this article reports that there was intent and motive (sounds "criminal" doesn't it?) on the part of the those involved in directing, distributing and promoting, etc. this movie to influence young viewers. I thought this quote was ironic, yet candid:

The green theme "was hard to shoehorn into the ad campaign," says Dawn Taubin, president of domestic marketing for Warner Bros. . . .

Sorry if I don't appreciate that.

"Inconvenient entertainment"

Bill the blogger--AACK (at Volunteer Voters) and Southern Beale (at MrDTalk) are up in arms that others are, uh, up in arms about the Earthinthebalance message featured in the new animated film Happy Feet. Well, I haven't seen the movie, and from what I can discern, neither has AACK or SouthernBeale, so I guess we can only speculate about the outrageous outrage surrounding this film.

From what I can tell, AACK doesn't have any children, which might explain his glib response to the possibility that the Liberally-biased entertainment industry might be writing plots with a Liberal political message. (I'm still bitter about the screen-writer of Madeline for making the heroine a vegetarian and the anti-heroine a bratty meat-eater.) So, stick with universal "truths" or values in writing a screenplay; be responsible with the platform I give you to "speak" to my children.

But possibly most amusing is Southern Beale's insinuation that CNN, USAToday CNN-Headline News, and FoxNews are all part of a Conservative cabal's coordinated campaign to creat "controversy." Obviously she has no problem with the movie's apparent environmental doomsdayism, but she plainly doesn't speak for me. Ticket-buying parents don't have a right to care what bees Liberal movie producers are putting in kids' bonnets?

Is it, as AACK alleges, "inherent hypocrisy" to complain about a movie's message? Not as hypocritical as getting bent out of shape for someone else caring enough to get bent out of shape.