Speaking for black folks

I feel bad. It appears I'm keeping AuntB up at night.

She is irritated ("Ned Williams is my favorite white person") by two recent posts of mine related to race--think of it as rhetorically rich food that she shouldn't eat so close to bed time given her Liberal sensibilities. Basically she says, "it's a black thing, you (Conservatives) wouldn't understand; so shut your pie hole." At least (as much as I can discern) she didn't accuse me of being a racist. Whew.

As you can imagine, I disagree.

To begin with, instead of responding to my actual opinions/posts, AuntB nicely--for her, paraphrases them to serve as a foil for how she would like to characterize my opinions. Well here's my response to the post AuntB wanted to write about race in America.

One of AuntB's main points is this:

You have a long row to hoe if you want to be taken seriously by black people. White people, especially white men, do not get to decide when a problem concerning black America is a “we” problem and when it’s a “they” problem, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.

Not to mention a "tough row," AuntB. But I don't pretend to know what it is like to be a black American or to be able to truly empathize with them, or to imagine that I will ever have "credibility" with them if "credibility" means endorsing the NAACP's Left-wing political agenda. That being said, Bill Cosby can and so can Juan Williams. And what those two men and I (and there are a lot more frankly, it's just that these two are particularly "dangerous" to the Left and warrant destruction) have in common is that we are willing to acknowledge unhealthy trends and/or counter-productive behaviors deleterious to any distinguishable community. Sorry, but I think it is a minority of the black American community that believes single-parent childbirth, education-bashing and illicit drug use is of no cultural consequence.

Next, AuntB writes:

"Our whole history has been a series of white people doing what they thought was best for black people, what they thought was right, and most of the s**t we’ve done has been dev[a]statingly bad (to put it mildly). So, see what I’m saying? We have no credibility. We have no room to turn around and say, “Oh, hey, this time we’ve been looking in on you and watching how you do things and this time we clearly see what the problems are and so this time you have nothing to fear from the steps we’ll take to fix it.” Because almost every time we step in to fix things, we f**k things up."

Screwing things up for blacks? Amen . . . I feel the same way about The Great Society and all other foolish (even though well-intended) Liberal "plans" to solve these problems. If only some Conservativish principles were given a try, then you could say "we," AuntB.

Otherwise, see above. But if being black is the prerequisite for opining, criticizing (or legitimately being concerned) then why all the hate for Cosby, Williams et al? Answer? The key is whether one dares to depart from enabling Liberal pablum.

Re. rap is nothing more than what whites want.
Well, since I criticize, don't consume and generally pontificate against such crap I can confidently say that I'm not a part of the scam. But I can also confidently say that such crap only exacerbates racism, the racial divide, glorification of such crap (even if only among whites). I also need to point out that there are more white consumers in general, and more white consumers who are not yet consumers of this crap to fuel the market. It is LUDICROUS to say that hip hop and rap media aren't pervasive in the black community, even though it is the potential for expanding the white market that drives the rap and hip hop biz.

Thinking she discerns a contradiction, AuntB writes:

So, which is it? Are black kids being ruined by rap music and lead astray into lives of crime or are black kids going to college? Or are they sneekily going to college to learn how to become better criminals, because they are smart enough to formulate such a devious plan but too stupid to not get that rap music you hear on the radio is describing a pretend world designed to appeal to and sell to white high school and college age boys?

No contradictions here, just us irrefutable facts. AuntB doesn't seem too interested in the statistics, but the socio-racial alarmism of John Edwards (I know, I know, he's running for the Dem nomination--who can fault him?) was the point of my post. I'm not "bashing" Liberals or John Edwards for being wrong, I'm bashing them for being "race baiters" (apparently my use of that term was a particularly indigestible bite for AuntB) . . . that is, people, who (as I use the term) foster racial controversy on a given issue for some perceived advantage.

Lastly, AuntB writes:

. . . we make no effort to actually understand real black people. We don’t search out their voices. We just assume that what hits us on the tv or the radio or even Time magazine must be the unfiltered truth.

And we’re wrong.

Well, speak for yourself. It is true that John Edwards et al frequently misstate statistics about male blacks vis a vis prison and college. It is true that the Lefty netroots (among others) demonize the Juan O'Cosbies of the world for daring to point out the obvious.

Lib talking point #753

This story was interesting in light of my Race-baiters in denial post from earlier today. Ironically, a Liberal will ignore an obvious crisis while dreaming up one that (perhaps) better fits their paradigm.

In response to John Edwards' latest whopper, Jim Geraghty has posted a rather simple rebuttal of the Liberal doomsdayism, there are more young, male blacks in prison than in college. Edwards said:

“We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

Well, not quite. Read Geraghty's post for the facts of the matter . . .

Bill O'Cosby must be destroyed!!

I hate to post again about a racial issue, because I don't want to seem obsessed with it, and I think almost any discussion of race is a proverbial minefield. That being said, I felt like going into this particular battle alongside Juan Williams (black, Liberal, journalist, Democrat (probably)) was less of a risk.

Apparently some people are vilifying Bill O'Reilly (what's new, right?) for comments he recently made on his radio show about his mother and her inaccurate views about race. Juan Williams was a guest on the show at the time the comments were made, and has written an open letter of sorts addressing the issue and explaining what really happened. What Bill O'Reilly Really Told Me - TIME. For the record, if I can avoid it, I don't watch, listen to or read Bill O'Reilly in any of his media packages. I think he is a faux populist-ic, sloppy thinking, arrogant personality, and I mostly view him as a useful lightning rod for Conservatism and FoxNews. But I don't think he represents me or my views.

I had completely missed this tea-pot tempest until I read Juan Williams' article today, and it was interesting to see Juan Williams' views on thug-apologism. I agree with his views (on this) and it is disturbing to see persons who dare to speak the truth on the matter being eviscerated by the usual suspects. It occurred to me that the truth of what happened in the exchange is much less important than spinning it however possible so as to delegitimize anyone who challenges the school of American Liberalism. As Juan Williams wrote:

But this is an attempt to take down O'Reilly and dismiss anyone offering him support — me. This is along the lines of telling anyone who calls attention to the excesses of hip-hop culture a "self-hating" black man and skewering anyone who dares to say there is a crisis in black America because of the high dropout rates, high crime rates and high out-of-wedlock birth rates.

Indeed. To be clear, there are a myriad of social problems in America (heck, Southern Beale reports that women in America have it just as bad as women living under the Taliban), and--for lack of a better phrase, "black America" is like every other segment of our population in that it faces unique challenges. But while some were quick to engage in character assassination here, this recent example doesn't bode well for solving serious social problems. If we can't even agree on (or get the Left to acknowledge) the problems . . . how can we expect to come to any solutions?

MSM: Huckabee, we hardly knew ye . . .

This kind of thing will get you uninvited on "The Daily Show" . . . Huckabee slams Clinton on Petraeus vote. Oh well. Not many GOP primary voters tune in anyway.

Here's the money quote:

"'If you can't get your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to use those lips to say it's wrong to declare a sitting general ... guilty of treason, how would you ever expect to have the support of the very military you might have to send into deadly battle?' Huckabee told the Times."

And speaking of Soros, I guess you've heard that he has been shoveling money to a NASA-employed, vocal scientist and global warming alarmist. What's that about BigOil financing faux science about global warming?

More on second-stringer sucker-punch

The irony of this is very nice. David Shuster is "apologizing" because he incorrectly identified the last serviceperson from Marsha Blackburn's congressional district to die in Iraq. MSNBC's Attempted Political Assassination of Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) | Redstate I'm even more annoyed at Shuster's church lady imitation the more I hear from him about it. As you read the transcript from the incident, Shuster employs the old "some people would say . . ." trick to, he claims, emphasize what he perceives to be misplaced priorities. Well, especially in an all volunteer army, troop morale is an important factor to success . . . and a moveon.org (for the record, that's a stupid name) and NYTimes media campaign calling the commanding officer of troops in Iraq a traitor undoubtedly affects morale.

Shuster's irrelevant gotcha question has suddenly lost its lustre because even Shuster and his staff got the detail wrong. Using the standard being used (by Lefties) to judge Blackburn, I guess this proves that Shuster et al were only using soldiers killed in combat as fodder for their war against Bush? What are your "priorities," Mr. Shuster; what's your focus?

Negrophobia?

Roland S. Martin, "a nationally award-winning, multifaceted journalist and CNN contributor," has written an op/ed for CNN entitled "Why is the GOP scared of black voters?". (Blogger William directed me to the article in a recent comment).

I won't deny that the GOP's relationship with black Americans is strained. Frankly, I struggle with the balance between "outreach" and "treating-someone-differently-because-they're-of-a-different-race." And it was interesting the example that Martin chose--for a published op/ed likely to be widely disseminated, of what's wrong with the GOP in relationship to blacks. Here's the story:

"Several years ago, a Republican in the Dallas-Fort Worth area was trying to unseat then-Rep. Martin Frost, a heavily entrenched Democrat. That summer, a series of black churches were being burned. My good friend, Michael Williams, a third-generation black Republican, was planning to hold a fundraiser at his home for the GOP candidate.

He called the campaign and said it would be a good idea for the candidate to make a statement on the burnings, condemning them and saying it didn't make sense. The campaign said no.

Williams called back and made the suggestion again, and the response was they didn't want to seem as if they were pandering to the black community. He laughed at that because the campaign was bringing then-Rep. J.C. Watts, a prominent black Republican, to visit black churches with the candidate. Hello! That's pandering.

So Williams told his wife, Donna, what the candidate said. She replied, 'Any man who is such a coward that he can't speak against churches being burned is not welcome in my home.'

The fundraiser was called off. Here was a simple opportunity to actually show that he cared, but the candidate was so scared to say something, he turned off a campaign donor."

Sorry, but that only "speaks to the issue" or "speaks to the heart" if you already have your mind made up about the negrophobia of Republicans.

If you have much experience working with campaigns (Georgie Soros excluded) you ought to know how insular, reactionary, conservative and stubborn they are. Outside input is heard but not welcomed. They're the experts. They've got a grand vision for the campaign and your idea likely doesn't fit with it. If it does fit, then they're not inclined to give you credit for it. So, "thanks for your interest in I Eta Pi and we wish you the best." That's just the way campaigns are, so it is foolish to read anything into this anecdote of a person getting the brushoff from a campaign, on any subject, for any idea, regardless of the respective skin colors of those involved.

Lastly, it is pandering to "speak out" against church burnings.* Who is "for" church burnings? Who is for racial intimidation or terrorism? Who isn't willing to support the victims of such acts? If black Americans presume I (as a candidate) am racist if I don't call a press conference to denounce abhorrent behavior like that, I'm not sure that I'll ever be able to convince them that I'm not harboring racism. If someone equates my opposition to fomenting racial division (for example, via affirmative action or otherwise cultivating racial classifications) with being a racist or being prejudiced, then I'm not sure I'll ever be able to win their confidence (if not their vote).

I define "pandering" as saying or promising something that you may or may not believe but know that will be pleasing to a certain audience, and that knowledge in and of itself motivates you to make the statement or promise.

Inviting J.C. Watts (a black Conservative) to campaign with me is much more of an investment of time and energy, and much more of an outreach effort than holding a presser. Maybe we're using the word "pander" differently, but seeking a dialogue on issues, meeting in small venues with leaders of a community, enlisting the help of someone with shared experiences . . . is not "pandering."

Regarding, "fear of black voters" as reflected by none of the "top-tier" candidates showing much interest in Tavis Smiley's debate . . . get in line, Tavis. The top-tier GOP candidates are particularly calculating about how they spend their time, and it seems much more like pandering to clear ones schedule for a debate that (a) will be viewed by a very small percentage of Americans, (b) will be viewed by an even smaller percentage of Republican primary voters (I'm talking REALLY small), (c) can only provide more opportunities for your trailing opponents to "ding" you. If it weren't black voters, would Martin be so convinced that such a decision by a campaign was proof of fear? I doubt it, but I regret that Martin and others (perhaps even J.C. Watts) seem eager to use this innocuous situation to promote distrust between the GOP and black voters.

*I'm kind of assuming that these burnings were happening within the Congressional district, and if they weren't, I think the pandering is even more pronounced.

Is something "wrong" with the Religious Right?

W. James Antle has written an op/ed asking, "What's wrong with the religious right?" and it's getting some attention in the Nashville blog-world. I perceive that Antle's title is merely a pun, but I'm not sure I'm willing to concede (or that Antle really believes) that the current state of the Religious Right is troubling or unfortunate.

I have to say up front that I am not interested in being a "special interest." I go back and forth on the subject, for example, I enjoy the freedom (speaking movement-wise) that comes with not being too closely aligned with a given political party. Unfortunately, however, Democrats don't leave me much choice. That being said, rhetoric such as that coming from people like Harold Ford, Jr. and Heath Shuler (on abortion) and behavior such as that of Congressman Jerry Lewis and a number of Rockefeller Republicans (on spending) changes the landscape to some degree. And I am encouraged that Democrats (and even candidates like Giuliani) have toned down their Liberal rhetoric (at least for public consumption). Which leads me to the point of this post.

Sure, I would like for those who agree with me on policy issues (and who share my worldview) to be able to call the shots in crafting policy in America. But the seeming ineptitude or impotence of this movement doesn't constitute a crisis. Indeed, power can lead to excess and wrong priorities (or right priorities subjugated to wanting power) can dilute idealism and virtues. And being a "special interest" looks a lot different than being part of the mainstream of a party.

As a Republican and a Religious Conservative, I'm not sweating this "story" because,

The GOP is a consensus party, not a coalition party.

I have often argued this point (here, here), but Republicans agree on a set of core policy views, while Democrats' various sub-groups agree on one thing--being in power. Union workers and open-borders-types and "gays" and Black Evangelicals and feminists and Union workers and Environmentalists make an odd assortment, and the only thing they have in common is that they want a seat at the table and must subvert their own interests to get there.

The GOP is a big tent party, not a line-toeing party.

The fact that the GOP's front-runners have diverse views on bread and butter GOP issues is something that will confound the Liberal Media. Who'd of thunk that the narrow-minded, intolerant, bigoted Conservative-ish party in America would allow more dissent? And this is not a recent phenomenon, as Democrats have little tolerance for a pro-lifer in their midst, certainly not on a national ticket.

The Religious Right is more diverse now than it was in its "heyday."

It is a positive development--and one that is inevitable with expansion of your "tribe," that the Religious Conservative movement has expanded to include a broader range of views. As Antle notes, "moralists" make up the largest single bloc of Republican voters, with an increase in size (and age?) a movement is bound to "lose a step," and that is what I think has happened with the Religious Right . . . I think disagreement within the movement over issues like how to respond to the illegal immigration problem is a good example.

Religious Conservatives--and the GOP, are no longer the only ones doing grassroots mobilization.

Certain Democrat coalitions had always been strong grassroots-wise--African Americans, "Labor," Peaceniks, Greenies--but they began to atrophy and diminish in number/influence for a variety of reasons. Accordingly, the previously unorganized, unmotivated "moral(ist) majority" experienced unprecedented clout (as far as the GOP was concerned). Now that Democrats are pouring funds into their own 72-hour campaigns and have re-energized some of their coalitions (many years in the wilderness can have that effect), the grassroots advantage from Religious Right support has been mitigated.

In sum, reports of the Religious Right's death have been greatly exaggerated, inasmuch as its "power" is being called into question by recent GOP primary dynamics. And I'm not sure it is a bad thing--at least for a time, to trade in the "special interest" label for "pillar" status.

Second-stringer sucker-punch

Via Tennessee Politics Blog I hear that TN Congressman Marsha Blackburn got blind-sided by a seemingly irrelevant (though I am open to a rebuttal) question:

"Marsha Gets Embarassed on TV -- MSNBC's show 'Tucker' had a substitute host David Shuster the other night with the guest TN Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Marsha was on the show to criticize the New York Times for running an ad sponsored by MoveOn.org criticizing Gen. Petraeus. Shuster turned the table on the conversation when he asked Marsha if she knew the name of the last solider from her district to die in Iraq. She couldn't, but it turns out it's 18-year-old Jeremy Bohannon."

Turning the proverbial table is all well and good, and as skilled as Blackburn is at getting/using air time, I doubt she'll allow this to happen again, but I'm not sure that she ought to have been able to answer that question; what do you think?

History's treatment of Bushitler

I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation from Cal-Berkeley (Boalt Hall) Law Prof. John Yoo at a meeting of the Federalist Society--Nashville Chapter this evening. Yoo has worked in all three branches of the Federal Gov't, and--though he is a lawyer and legal scholar first, you probably at least know of him if you've been paying attention to politics over the last decade. From his bio:

[Yoo] was a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on national security and terrorism matters arising from the September 11 attacks. He served as general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee under Chairman Orrin Hatch. Upon graduating from law school, professor Yoo served as a law clerk for Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court.

His thesis tonight was that almost all of the "consensus" great presidents have pushed the envelope on executive powers, generally in response to great challenges.

Whether or not his thesis is true (I think it is), his lecture provided splendid historical context on the issue of how fascist or dictatorial or autocratic (or unprecedented?) George Dubya Bush's executive actions aren't.

For example, did you know that FDR authorized the wire-tapping every single phoneline in America, without a warrant, prior to WWII (here, here)? I figured not.

As I said above, Yoo argues that the American presidents viewed as "great" aggressively used their executive powers to defend America's interests during exceptionally challenging periods. Despite a 24/7/365 Left-wing demolition effort from the first Wednesday in November 2000 till today, it is interesting to consider how history will treat George W. Bush and his way-paving in the war against global Jihadists.

Rebuild or moveon?

I received an email from the Twin Towers Alliance this a.m., and I am curious to hear what others think about what should be built at "Ground Zero." (as an aside, I think their current logo is cool--see above)

I really haven't kept up with the debate about this, and it appears to be pretty heated in the NYC area. The website reports that NY Gov. Spitzer has called the current plan (or the process of selecting the current plan?)--not to (essentially) rebuild the Towers, "an Enron-style debacle." In any event, I suspect that a person's view on this subject may track his/her view on a lot of things. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

I personally think that we ought to rebuild the towers, more or less as they were before 9/11, with modern adaptations.

What do you think should be done with this hallowed piece of real estate?

Is marriage sacred or isn't it?

As a result of this post (What Marriage is For--which was more of a link than a full-fledged post), I and familiar middle-TN blogger/commenter dolphin have been going 'round about homosexuality and same-sex marriage and other things.

In what may be the end of his wit (with me, at least) dolphin made the following comment:

This is the funny thing when you push anti-equality folks long enough. For all their lofty talk about marriage as a "sacred institution" they really feel that it's nothing more than some vicious man-trap to either force men into having kids with their wife or not having kids at all. Really sad, because if that is what your most intimate relationship really means to you, you're missing out on a lot.

This started me to thinking, and it seemed to merit a post of its very own.

I don't know how common dolphin's perception is among those who share his view on this issue. I suspect, however, that most homosexuality apologists don't have dolphin's religious training/history or his interest in spirituality. Regardless, I think it is worth addressing.

On the issue of marriage's "sacredness," I perceive that dolphin is using the word "sacred" in some ethereal sense where it means something akin to "really, really meaningful in ways beyond description to someone/somewhere/somehow" as opposed to meaning "holy" or "of God." For me, my marriage is sacred in both senses, but that double-sided fact isn't particularly relevant in a discussion about what government policy should be on the subject, is it?

Marriage--as Maggie Gallagher's asserts, is not something unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition (or religion). I do believe that God designed marriage, and that marriage is an essential institution/element within any thriving society, but I realize that--like Nobel and his invention dynamite, God has not been responsible for how His idea has been used by mankind.

Yes, the institution of marriage is sacred, regardless of how poorly it is lived out or how slender is the cord connecting it to its author. Is it special--really special, for two people to be fully committed to one another in a love relationship? Sure, but it is not necessarily "sacred" and it is insufficient justification for a government to recognize/create and overtly favor an institution.

What Marriage Is For

I've just come across the definitive piece, in my humble opinion, on the issue of What Marriage Is For. Maggie Gallagher addresses this heavy question in the context of the battle of same-sex marriage. Here are some excerpts from the article:

. . . Marriage is the fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male-female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers. Marriage is inherently normative: It is about holding out a certain kind of relationship as a social ideal, especially when there are children involved.

Marriage is not simply an artifact of law; neither is it a mere delivery mechanism for a set of legal benefits that might as well be shared more broadly. The laws of marriage do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage.

. . . .

Some who criticize the refusal to embrace gay marriage liken it to the outlawing of interracial marriage, but the analogy is woefully false. The Supreme Court overturned anti-miscegenation laws because they frustrated the core purpose of marriage in order to sustain a racist legal order. Marriage laws, by contrast, were not invented to express animus toward homosexuals or anyone else. Their purpose is not negative, but positive: They uphold an institution that developed, over thousands of years, in thousands of cultures, to help direct the erotic desires of men and women into a relatively narrow but indispensably fruitful channel. We need men and women to marry and make babies for our society to survive. We have no similar public stake in any other family form--in the union of same-sex couples or the singleness of single moms."

. . . .

"People who argue for creating gay marriage do so in the name of high ideals: justice, compassion, fairness. Their sincerity is not in question. Nevertheless, to take the already troubled institution most responsible for the protection of children and throw out its most basic presumption in order to further adult interests in sexual freedom would not be high-minded. It would be morally callous and socially irresponsible."

I encourage you to read the entire article. And feel free to disagree.

You gonna believe me or your lying eyes!?!

Here's an interesting story about an Israeli land and air assault on Syria.

The Israelis claim the raids were to destroy nuclear materials, the Syrians claim, uh, not anything, really. Gee, I wonder why the Syrians aren't complaining (or are delaying their complaining) about this?

From the article:

"But why would nuclear material be in Syria? Known to have chemical weapons, was it seeking to bolster its arsenal with something even more deadly? Alternatively, could it be hiding equipment for North Korea, enabling Kim Jong-il to pretend to be giving up his nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid? Or was the material bound for Iran, as some authorities in America suggest?"

Well, certainly Hans Blix et al could give us definitive answers on all these questions . . .

Thanks for asking, William

William at Nashville is Talking is astounded (astounded I say!) by a recent Nightline story about families who believe in the "full quiver" which is to "family planning" what the so-called "see food diet" is to weight management.

In any event, William (along with some commenters) proceeds to belittle large families, belittle women who aspire to motherhood (and husbands who concur!?!) and--predictably, belittles Christian faith and the conviction that Jihadists won't go away if we pull out of Iraq.

I only have three kids, William, though I know many Christian, politically conservative couples who have more than three. But a large family is rather consistent with a worldview that values child-rearing, acknowledges that sex is more than a recreational activity and consciously places family roles and responsibilities over professional or other responsibilities. I just don't hear them vocalizing or demonstrating worry about how children might interfere with their career or their standard of living or their free time. That could amount to a lack of ambition or patriarchal oppression, but I doubt it.

Lastly, it is interesting that William and "jtg" raised the issue of sexual satisfaction among Christian wives . . . it seems to be a common preoccupation of Liberal guys, frankly (see MCB of late). Not that it is any of Willam's business, but I and some Christian friends were out at Opryland on Friday morning for a meeting with Clifford Penner--author of The Married Guy's Guide to Great Sex. The meeting wasn't remedial and the info wasn't particularly novel, but I'm very concerned about my wife and what my wife wants in life and otherwise. In fact, by God's grace and through His power I strive to "love her as I love my own body" and to "love her as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her." (Ephesians 5)

In all candor, I'm astounded that these Liberals are so presumptuous about--and intolerant toward others. Some women are content--even pleased, to be not-chief-among-equals. Some women are content--even pleased, to "waste" a college degree or sacrifice a career (or anything) to be a homemaker for a bunch of children. From what William and Rick Maynard have said in the past, they're both shacking up and they both pooh-pooh those who don't subscribe to sexual libertinism. That may be fine for you and yours, William, but my wife assures me she's very happy with her situation.

Nonetheless, I sure appreciate your concern . . . really.

Apologize Sen. Fill in the blank!

Here's a great ad against Hillary from the Giuliani campaign (via The Corner). Maybe the other Democrats may not have made such bold statements about their votes on Iraq, but I think the same ad could be run against every Democrat running for President except for Obama and (maybe) Kucinich.

Who's the authority?

Recently a number of us have been discussing homosexuality and what constitutes "flaunting" it and what is legitimate "pride" and other things over at Music City Bloggers. Okay, it is more of a debate than a discussion. But--as with any debate (any legitimate debate), much of the discussion is focusing on "authority": basically "who says"? Authority can be rooted in, for example, personal experience, authorship, expertise (a form of experience, I guess) or reason. The more authority you can marshal for your argument, the more weight your argument deserves.

In the discussion mentioned above, one commenter made the familiar argument that homosexual acts are forbidden by Judeo-Christian law. Well, "nm," whom I only know from comments I've read here and there appears to be an observant Jew or at least a student of Judaism. S/he asserted that s/he wished that Christians wouldn't misstate or mischaracterize Jewish law (and especially in support of Religious Right positions, I'd suspect). S/he then offered examples of alternative (s/he would assert, the correct) interpretations of the homosexuality-forbidding references in Hebrew law. S/he also adamantly asserted that Hebrew law, like any other law, is an accumulation of interpretations. In sum, s/he asserted that--as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Marbury v. Madison the law is what the Court says it is. S/he also asserted that Jesus implicitly adopted Jewish oral and written tradition during His ministry.

nm asserted that God's revealed law (meaning that it was given--in actual words, to man and recorded directly from God) is somehow expounded upon or further developed or further revealed by interpretations or applications of His (God's/Yahweh's) followers. nm even said (more or less, as I understand it) that the meaning of law is only discerned by interpretation. We can all debate what the actual meaning/application of "the Law" (Hebrew Law) is, but--unlike with human-sourced law, "God's law" isn't based on or bound by the religious versions of precedent or common law decision. I don't have to be a Jewish law scholar to know that is true. So, no person is the authority on what Hebrew law means or meant, even a Jewish person or a Hebrew law scholar. While an understanding of the Jewish context and, of course, the Hebrew language is valuable for discerning what the actual words meant, "interpreting" these actual revealed words is not the same as interpreting a human-produced organic or "living" Constitution.

Now, regarding Jesus. Jesus referred to contemporary understanding/interpretation of the Jewish law, which, as I understand it, was the same thing as the Jewish religion. That doesn't mean that He endorsed the contemporary understanding or interpretation, and I think any objective person considering what we know about Jesus (whether or not you believe His deity claims) must agree that Jesus had a different interpretation than the prevailing view among Jewish religious leaders at the time . . . and that was my point about "interpreting the Law differently" and "challenging the old construct."

nm eventually summarized my statement about Jesus' mission on earth thusly:

So if I understand you correctly, with respect to this thread, Jesus died to release humanity from the burden of not hating homosexuality enough?

S/he also stated:

I also know what you personally, in the course of this argument, claimed was the reason for Jesus’s mission: there’s a reason that Christ came and challenged the old construct of the Hebrew faith . . . He obviously would and did interpret much of Hebrew law differently than rabbis then and now and differently than nm’s then and now. That is a statement that his mission was to give a proper interpretation of the Law, which you had spent a couple of earlier comments mischaracterizing.

Well, not exactly. I never said and didn't mean to imply that Jesus' "mission" was to increase the number of permissible executions under Mosaic law or expand the category of prohibited sex beyond temple sex to include homosexual sex. But the obvious import of His ministry and message was to challenge what the prevailing religious views were.

Sure, he said "I came to fulfill the law," but I'd assert that His view--not the view of a human, frail, sinful religious leaders was "the law" that He was speaking of.

Now, does that mean that we should now stone people for eating shellfish or, on the other extreme, that everything forbidden in the Mosaic Law is now "okay"? I'd say not. And I doubt even nm would say that Jesus' message was that there was no longer any "sin."

One significant impediment to the forward advance of the moral avant garde is the general deference by many (I'd say the majority of) Americans to Judeo-Christian moral traditions. I don't believe that most of these same Americans really know or understand what Judeo-Christian tradition (much less "law") is, nor do I believe that they are inclined to pursue a fuller knowledge or understanding of it. Accordingly, one means of removing this hindrance (of deference to Judeo-Christian moral tradition) is to at least call into question customary understandings of this tradition.

This tactic has great potential because it challenges people to make the effort to understand the subject, but it is also shrewd because it implies a respect for "tradition," and a respect for the religious forebears of Christianity, and a respect for "religion" in the abstract. I definitely think that this is a tactic, reflecting a commitment to the secular political agenda more than scrupulous exegesis, whether or not that was/is nm's intent in raising it in this particular thread.

Are you disagreeing with Jesus, whom you claim to revere?

Are you an expert in Jewish law or tradition?

In any event, who are you--as a "Christian," to question what Jewish religious leaders said Jewish law meant?

No, not really.

No.

I don't need to be.

God, not religious leaders, is the authority on what God's revealed law "means." And I can assure you the law is not as nuanced or complicated as some would have us believe. How religious tradition or "law" bears on public policy is a whole different discussion, but very often I have to admit that understanding God's law is less difficult than just obeying it.

So, let the debate continue . . .

That settles it!

According to, Arianna Huffington, (here--I wanted to link to Nashville City Paper but it's too cumbersome) if Democrats running for President believe it and 40% of Americans believe it, "it" must be true.

In an op/ed I first saw published after the president's address, Huffington writes:

The stated purpose of the surge was to provide the stability and security necessary for political progress to be made by the Iraqi government — progress that, as the GAO report made clear, is unequivocally not happening. The problem for the White House, and Gen. Petraeus, and the go-along members of the press, is that the public isn’t buying it anymore. According to a recent poll, only 40 percent of Americans expected Gen. Petraeus to give an accurate picture of Iraq. The time has come for the media to stop acting as if there are two sides to the story of what’s happening in Iraq when there is only one.

The reality is that this question (or these questions) aren't black or white. How much progress is acceptable? How much risk or loss is acceptable?

It is nice to see a Liberal coming out of the closet on behalf of absolute truth, though. Maybe I need to read a book by her or something, but Arianna Huffington has zero . . . zilch . . . credibility to me when I hear her espouse a political view. Like Ann Coulter taking the helm at an unrepentant DailyKos; sorry, authenticity-meter is flat.

But can I say that it always cracks me up to hear nutrooters complaining about the bias in media? Whatever Arianna.

We can REALLY use your organs down here

This WaPo article ("New Zeal in Organ Procurement Raises Fears") reports on an emerging dynamic in the field of organ donation, as we become more efficient, more business-like (and less interested in non-economic "soft" values):

"'It's like they're vultures flying around the hospitals hovering over beds waiting for them to die so they can grab the organs,' said Michael Grodin, a Boston University bioethicist. 'That's the impression you get sometimes.'"

It's an intriguing article.

Thompson on education

Via The Corner I read that Fred Thompson has recently criticized "No Child Left Behind" (he voted for its passage). Thompson Criticizes No Child Left Behind - washingtonpost.com. From the article:

"We've been spending increasing amounts of federal money for decades, with increasing rules, increasing mandates, increasing regulations," Thompson said. "It's not working."

He added that there are problems with Bush's No Child Left Behind program, which requires annual testing and punishes schools that don't make progress.

"No Child Left Behind _ good concept, I'm all for testing _ but it seems like now some of these states are teaching to the test and kind of making it so that everybody does well on the test _ you can't really tell that everybody's doing that well. And it's not objective," Thompson said.

Instead, he said the federal government should be providing block grants as long as states set up objective testing programs.

He said his message to states would be, "We expect you to get objective testing done and publicize those tests for the local parents and for the local citizens and suffer the political ramifications locally if things don't work out right."

I agree with most of Thompson's observations/criticisms on the matter, but it seems to me that the OBVIOUS answer is to not have education dollars routed through a Federal Educational bureaucracy, right?

I'm wondering if Thompson's middle-of-the-road tendencies will be the biggest drag on his primary campaign.

Considering today's Tennessee execution

This is a great report ("Daryl Holton's final words before facing the electric chair: 'I do.'") on Nashville City Paper regarding Tennessee's most recent execution.

Daryl Holton surely isn't a poster boy for the anti-DP folks--he murdered four children (three of them his; one of them a step-daughter) in cold blood; and I do mean "cold-blood" . . . imagine the fear of children as their "father" pointed a high-powered rifle at each of them and their siblings then shot them.

But the details of this story are intriguing: the Alfred-Nobel-like opposition from the guy who made the electric chair from a prior Tennessee chair and wood previously used in Tennessee's gallows; Holton's hyper-ventilating; Holton's cryptic "I do" (I would posit he was making some form of faith profession); Defense Atty. Raybin's lame excuse-making and his helplessness with a client who didn't want to "play ball"; the physical impact of the electric charge on Holton.

It is a sobering act for the state to put someone to death. This report--without the distraction of oft-disingenuous opposition to the Death Penalty, was consistent with the serious subject matter.

Be a man, Briley--Updated

Drunk people acting stupid is nothing new, and neither are theatrics by drunk driving idiots, but this story about Rob Briley is intriguing on a couple of counts("Police video shows Briley cursing cops, asking to be shot") on Nashville City Paper.

First, it is seriously reprehensible for a person who is driving under the influence to further endanger innocent people by evading police at speeds over 100 mph. That is and should be a felony, and is perhaps the worst offense Briley committed.

Next, it is seriously laughable how readily Briley resorts to Fascist!! and even nativist slurs against the officers . . . I guess we can see what is really going on in a person's head when alcohol lowers inhibitions, huh?

Lastly, I love how the officers told Briley to "be a man." He plainly needed that encouragement--even though it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. It is hard to know whether Briley was just trying to manipulate the officers when requesting to be shot for a mere DUI arrest, but based on his very selfish, very reckless conduct in evading arrest, it is clear that Rob Briley was very committed to not getting arrested for DUI. Yeah, there can be serious consequences for a drunk driving-related conviction (especially if you're a professional politician) but for heaven's sake, Briley, be a man. It will be interesting to see how responsible and courageous Briley will be going forward in the case.

Update: Thanks to Christian of NashvilleisTalking for providing a link to the actual police video of Briley's arrest.

Update II: The Nashville City Paper opines on the issue today:

There are plenty of good, quality people and public officials in this state who are Democrats and do not participate in the kind of professed and alleged acts enumerated here. Certainly, the allegations against Cooper and Briley are not as serious the Tennessee Waltz charges. It is not a direct comparison.
Yet, after a certain point, the question must be asked as to whether the behavior of these public officials has been damaging to our state and its communities. The Democratic Party should take some measure of accountability for its members, as should the state GOP. They are certainly there for them when they try to win office. They should also know when enough is enough.

I think that's about right (though vigorously disagree with the "e-paper" format NCP is now using for much of their articles).

Thompson's alternative view on homosexual marriage

This is actually the first time that I'd heard this proposal, and I'll hand it to Thompson--it won't please any of the activists on the issue. That might be the secret to Thompson's appeal: blunting controversial issues with unorthodox proposals and a trustworthy demeanor. Thompson: Let states decide on gay marriages - USATODAY.com:

Thompson was asked during a campaign stop in Sioux City if he supported a federal ban on gay marriage, which most but not all of the candidates seeking the 2008 GOP nomination support.

He responded by suggesting the U.S. Constitution be amended to bar court decisions in one state on gay marriage from being recognized in another. The provision is part of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Thompson voted for in the Senate.

. . .

"In the Register's May poll, 73% of likely GOP caucus-goers said it was 'extremely important' that, when choosing a candidate, that their preferred candidate feel the same way they do about gay marriage. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain oppose a federal gay marriage ban. Most of the other candidates, including those campaigning aggressively in Iowa such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, favor the amendment."

As I mull over the proposal, I am definitely open to a states' rights argument, but the reality is that a law on marriage has ramifications far beyond something like the speed limit or right-to-carry laws. I'll have to disagree with him on this.

Look to post-Christian Europe?

Boy, these two stories will surely irritate the secular Left. ("On religion, Europe out of step with rest of world"). The article first caught my attention for the Lefties-in-a-bubble angle, but it does raise at least one interesting question:

- Why are fertility rates linked to the fervency of religious beliefs? "The most secular parts of the world have the lowest fertility rates," he noted, "and the most religious have the highest fertility rates."

And then there's this news from Murfreesboro . . .

Get Soros' think tanks working on ways to "regulate" fertility and religiosity!

Globally, gaily pushing the agenda

Sorry, but this "reporting" in Newsweek is biased, not to mention stupid. ("Gay Rights Gain Ground Around Globe"). Fine, Newsweek is eager to report that the moral avant garde is all the rage around the globe, but several comments early in the piece are laughable. Joseph Contreras writes:

"The growing maturity of the gay-rights movement in the West is having a marked effect on the developing world. In the United States, the Republican Party is in trouble in part because it has made a fetish of its opposition to gay marriage. . . . And now, the major developing powers of Asia, Latin America and Africa are following the liberal road—sometimes imitating Western models, sometimes not—but in all cases setting precedents that could spread to the remaining outposts of official homophobia."

I don't know the basis of the GOP reference--it isn't reflected in any electoral result (save the Arizona anomaly), besides, I'd assert that GOP hardballers like Karl Rove are much more interested in results than gay-baiting. And you have to appreciate use of the term "fetish" . . . you know, the GOP's opposition is sexual . . . get it? And of course, Contreras makes liberal use of the term "homophobia" to predictably argue the criticism-or-opposition-to-the-homosexual-agenda-is-a-psychological-disorder line.

"Too cute by half" = unconstitutional (frequently)

I appreciate that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research often takes principled stands that it could easily (or pragmatically) shirk. For example, TCPR has been a critic of Tennessee's so-called "crack-tax" that statutorily provided a means for the state to levy a tax on people engaged in illegal activity.

Well, a division of the Tennessee Court of Appeals has concluded that the law violates Tennessee's constitution, and that sounds right. ("Court finds state drug tax unconstitutional" on Nashville City Paper). It seems that many clever--even overwhelmingly popular, legislative ideas don't square with constitutional principles. And courts are tasked with fairly discerning if a law fits in this category . . . regardless of how popular or "necessary" a law may be.

And this reminds me of a phenomenon that often happens in the bidding contest also known as a Presidential campaign. It is a serious temptation to "unveil" some novel pandering strategy for fixing everything, and it only enhances a candidate's credibility with me if s/he resists that urge.

Out.Of.The.Park

I just saw Fred Thompson's appearance on The Tonight Show and he knocked it out of the proverbial park . . . articulating the Conservative message in a "hostile" environment . . . showing he's comfortable in his skin . . . cracking a joke or two.

My wife was really impressed (though she thought he didn't look "well"--I told her it was his new exercise regimen and a "before"/baggy suit).

Investigate AG firing!

Shouldn't we demand an investigation into the most recent firing at DoJ? Reno 911 - HUMAN EVENTS:

"This week, congressional Democrats vowed to investigate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of himself. Gonzales has said he was not involved in the discussions about his firing and that it was 'performance-based,' but he couldn't recall the specifics."

Thompson doesn't make news

I was reminded of John Edwards' latest news-making comments when I read this somewhat dated report about the Thompson campaign ("Thompson effort loses another top aide") published on the heels of Gonzales' resignation:

"Questioned at the Minnesota state fair Monday about the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, Thompson said the attorney general's enemies were piling on and he didn't think Gonzales did anything wrong. But he said Gonzales didn't handle the situation very well."

Big contrast in style and one reason for Thompson's appeal.

I think that is a key characteristic for a successful politician--magnanimity coupled with principled resolve . . . so you can get elected but still govern effectively.

The DLC/DailyKos rivalry

I didn't realize until this summer that the Liberal netroots were so bitter about the DLC. But it has been interesting to watch the soap opera as the Democrats ramp up for a run at the White House--an office not held by a DLC-hating Dem in almost 30 years.

This article ("The Lopsided Netroots")--about the reasons for a Liberal netroots advantage, provides some interesting perspective on the DLC v. DailyKos rivalry:

"Contrary to popular belief, the Netroots aren't particularly liberal. Opposition to the Iraq war aside, they're nonideological. They will happily support centrists like Virginia's Jim Webb or Montana's Jon Tester so long as those centrists are 'proud' Democrats. One of the things that most animates the Netroots is the belief that the kind of politics practiced by centrist organizations like the DLC is best described as 'loserism.' If you're getting the sense that the main difference between groups like the DLC and the Netroots is one of style, you're warming to the scent. The Netroots are passionate and in your face. They may not know what they like, but they know what they don't like. Their turn-offs include Republicans, conservatives, and George W. Bush. Their turn-ons are politicians and pundits who don't shy away from exposing and excoriating these turn-offs."

Brace self for Hollywood surge

From The Weekly Standard comes this Left-wing debunking--stay tuned, Hollywood is surging this Fall:Hollywood Hates the Troops:

"'We've killed over 400,000 of their citizens.' That's what actor Tim Robbins thinks U.S. troops have been doing in Iraq. He made the claim last week in an appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. He's wrong, of course. American soldiers have not been slaughtering 300 Iraqis a day for the last four years. Even for one of Hollywood's most feculent personalities, this is an appalling slander of U.S. troops. The Iraq Body Count is an antiwar website that tallies all civilian deaths in Iraq as reported in the news media. Theirs is a comprehensive count that seeks to hold the United States and Britain accountable for a wide range of civilian deaths. As explained at iraqbodycount.org: 'The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.' The antiwar group's 'maximum count'? At the moment, 77,555. That's one-fifth the number concocted by Robbins's overactive imagination."

Couldn't have said it better myself . ..

Last week there was a battle royale over at MusicCityBloggers about the Craig story (and a post by Sharon Cobb). Well, here's a great summation of my argument from Jonah Goldberg writing about "hypocrisy" in this op/ed over at National Review Online ("Craig's List of lessons"):

"The point is simply this: Hypocrisy is bad, sure. But it’s a human failing that should fall upon the individual in question. What the left wants to do is use hypocrisy as a cudgel to declare that conservative ideals are categorically illegitimate because some conservatives fail to live up to them. But we all fail to live up to our ideals sometimes (just ask John Edwards, who wants get rid of everyone’s SUV, save the one in his driveway). That’s sort of why we call them “ideals.” Most of us don’t fall as far as Larry Craig seems to have fallen, but that’s not necessarily an indictment of his arguments, it’s an indictment of the man."

The nature (or nurture) of marketing

When I saw this advertisement/newsletter from Disney ("The Eternal Allure of the Disney Princess"), it reminded me of a surprising conversation I had some years ago. After sharing with a new co-worker that my daughters loved some Disney story or another (one of those polite water-cooler kinds of conversations) she got a dour look on her face and then told me she had issues with the portrayal of the heroines in Disney films. In particular, she thought they taught girls to think that somehow women always needed to be rescued or that it was normal for a woman to pine for a knight in shining armor. I was surprised that someone would be so troubled about that issue that they would be so forthright with that view in perhaps a maiden conversation.

The subject is interesting because it deals with the issue of nature vs. nurture and why little girls are attracted to princesses. Disney has sure capitalized on the attraction, even though (I would bet) many of the upper-level muckety mucks at Disney share my co-worker's sentiment. Which leads us to the article; here's the first paragraph:

"Ever since 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' first graced the screen in 1937, little girls everywhere have been enchanted by Disney Princesses. But don't be fooled into thinking that these ladies, with their sparkly dresses and long cascading hair, are just another bunch of pretty faces. They make strong choices, help those less fortunate, and ultimately champion the underdog."

It is amusing to read the article because, try as they might, the authors could get little more than the "traditional" answer from the girls they interviewed. As demonstrated by the interviews in the article--not to mention my personal experience, the "allure" of princesses isn't their decisiveness, charity or "champion[ing] the underdog." Frankly, the Disney folks (driven by the forces of Capitalism) probably strike a proper balance between acknowledging nature but seeing the potential of nurture.