THIS is news?

I'm surprised that the Politico blog wasted the time reporting this poll. ("Clinton would cream Giuliani, poll finds" - David Paul Kuhn - Politico.com):

"One year before voters go to the polls to select the next president, the Republican Party is as weak as it has been in a generation, a detailed new poll suggests.

In a hypothetical match-up between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, bloc after bloc of traditionally Republican voters break for Clinton:

She wins the South.

She polls evenly with voters who attend church at least once a week.

She splits families with a household income above $100,000.

She loses rural voters and men — but only by a narrow margin.

All are constituencies Republicans have dominated for decades; George W. Bush won each by double-digit margins."

The poll was taken of "adults." Who in the world considers this information relevant in predicting who will win an election? We've all heard of "push polling" . . . this article could be classified as "push reporting."

Cultural concerns

Newsweek discusses the sexualization of girls in this article about Halloween costumes. From the article,

These new "edgier" costumes are simply reflections of pop culture, says Jackie MacDonald, a costume buyer for catalog giant Lillian Vernon. "Girls today seem to like a little pizzazz. The same old princesses aren't where it's at anymore," she says, before carefully noting, "We don't want to say they're sexier, just more confident."

Not that there's anything patently wrong with young girls wanting to look pretty. Child psychologists agree that embracing and understanding their attractiveness is a key part of early-adolescent development for girls. But when sexiness and body image become the sole criteria by which they judge themselves and each other, "That's when we start to see problems," says Dr. Eileen Zurbriggen, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who last year chaired the American Psychological Association's (APA) Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Their report, issued in February, declared that, "Throughout U.S. culture, and particularly in mainstream media, women and girls are depicted in a sexualized manner."

Sorry, but "sexy" isn't just another word for "confident" or "pretty."

I may have been mistaken to draw this discussion toward public policy ("politics"), but it is difficult for me not to "connect the dots" of culture and worldviews. I hope that folks like SouthernBeale and William will agree with me about slutty Halloween costumes, but whether they do or not, I'd say that this trend should be at least as concerning as a "declining lack of aesthetic" in music.

Tip o' the Hat to Instapundit.

Ode to parity

I am not really a baseball fan, though I usually tune in around the divisional playoffs and to varying degrees "watch" most every game (much to my wife's chagrin) during the league championship series and World Series. I pretty much do the same with the NBA, and of course I closely follow "March Madness" and a lot of college and pro football. I'm not sure what the fascination is, but it's probably because a sporting event provides a microcosm of life--opportunities to start fresh, face challenges, adapt to situations, maintain focus and deal gracefully with winning or losing. That's why I think sports are such an emotionally and physically healthy pastime. Oh, and I enjoy the "live," unpredictable aspect of watching athletics in real time. But back to my point . . .

Sweeps, and the domination they typically manifest, really disappoint me. Though I don't really care about the Rockies or the Red Sox as teams, I am interested in watching them square off because of the potential drama--and drama mainly consisting of one team getting thumped gracefully isn't much "drama." This is probably the reason that I don't really enjoy watching dynasties, even when said dynasty is my team. I'm just not sure how "healthy" it is to get pleasure out of watching my team pummel a lesser foe. Which is why I felt sorry :) for Nebraska football fans all those years and teased my father-in-law about Duke BBall's dominance during that stretch of years . . . who cares to watch someone else's team dominate every game and how many contests can you endure just waiting for an unlikely upset?

While the World Series was a disappointment, I have enjoyed this college football season like none before it. It seems that almost every game could be interesting and the opinions of pundits or even computers is almost irrelevant. To be clear, I am not saying that the seeming dominance of the Red Sox or the Patriots (maybe it is a Blue State problem I'm having), but I do want to go on record as saying that I don't mind a bit of fiddling with formulas in sports to achieve something approaching parity.

So, here's to you "parity" . . . even though thwarting the natural ascendancy of superior talent requires significant manipulation of sports leagues, I think you're worth the trouble.

If Kucinich had a campaign, this would sink it . . .

Shirley MacLaine claims Kucinich had UFO encounter - cleveland.com From the article:

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has claimed to have seen a UFO, according to Shirley MacLaine in her new book, "Sage-Ing While Age-Ing."

Kucinich "had a close sighting over my home in Graham, Washington, when I lived there," the actress, a close Kucinich friend, wrote. "Dennis found his encounter extremely moving. The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him.

"It hovered, soundless, for 10 minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind."

Open Letter to MusicCityBloggers bloggers (and commenters)

There has been quite a bit of discussion at MusicCityBloggers recently about community blog decorum. I have been thinking for several months about the immense challenge of maintaining a "blog community" when it is so easy to be an "electronic tiger" and so tempting to clique up. Anyway, I thought I should link to this article as a first pass at the matter.

I won't deny that Conservatives can be obnoxious, but I couldn't help but think of a handful of local Libs when read this "advice" column entry over at Slate.com. Advice on manners and morals. - - Slate Magazine. The (Liberal, Slate regular reading) advice-seeker wrote:

Hi Prudence,
I'm an office manager at a very small company, where I work with three other girls. In short, I am much smarter than my co-workers. When one of them asks a dumb question (i.e., "What's so bad about Fox News?"), I try to be sensitive and explain without making them feel stupid. Sometimes, though, I get very frustrated, and it's difficult to hold my tongue. Yesterday, my co-worker's sister came in to visit and announced shamelessly that she had never heard of Craigslist. After she left, I exclaimed to my other co-workers, "I can't believe she's never heard of Craigslist!" My co-workers defended her, saying they had never heard of Craigslist until they moved to New York City. I find this preposterous. I didn't say anything else because I didn't want to come off as a snob (which is probably how I'm coming off in this e-mail; my apologies). How does one handle working with people like this? I could keep my mouth shut and go with the flow, but it makes me feel dumb when I don't speak up—I feel that if I don't acknowledge their stupidity, then I'm not doing my duty as an informed young woman.

—Dumbed Down

You need to read what "Prudence" wrote in response . . .

"Traction"

From the folks at Rasmussen the folks at Rasmussen Reports™:

"Rudy Giuliani remains precariously atop the pack with support from 20% of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide. Fred Thompson is close behind at 19% while John McCain enjoys a second straight day in third place with 14% of the vote. Huckabee continues to gain ground and is just two points behind McCain at 12%. This is the first time all year that Huckabee has surpassed Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts Governor slipped another point and he is now at just 11% nationally. No other Republican attracts more than 3% support while 18% are undecided. (see recent daily numbers).

Given Huckabee’s progress in the polls, Rasmussen Reports will add his results to the daily tracking history table starting on Monday."

(emphasis added). While I think the poll numbers in early primary states are more significant, Huckabee is polling in a virtual tie for second with Thompson in Iowa.



HT: race42008.com

"Peace-loving" nut assaults Rice

I know Ann Coulter really grates on some of you dear readers, but reading today about the assault of Condi Rice by an anti-war freak ("Protestor painted in 'blood' accosts Condoleezza Rice") reminded me of these choice bits from Coulter's column this week ("Have You Hugged An Islamo-Fascist Today?" - HUMAN EVENTS):

Conservative speakers are constantly being physically attacked on college campuses -- including Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and me, among others. Fortunately the attackers are Democrats, so they throw like girls and generally end up with their noses bloodied by pretty college coeds. But that doesn't make it right.

Michael Moore can waddle anywhere he wants in America without fear of violence from Republicans. But we still have to hear about every testy e-mail Paul Krugman ever
receives as if liberals are living in the black night of fascism. Any time Krugman wants to get into a "Most Vicious Hate Mail" contest, just say the word. You don't hear me sniffling.
. . . .

If liberals want to face real fascism, try showing up on a college campus and denouncing fascism.

I know that "Islamo-fascist" is particularly annoying (for some odd reason) to you folks on the Left (you poli sci puritans!) and I have pretty-much resolved not to use it (I'm thinking that Ann is stepping up her use of it for that very reason). That Coulter is surely abrasive (whaddya mean I thrown like a girl!?), but you got to admit she's prescient.

You're forgiven; now resign and cooperate w/ investigators

Just today I came across the verse, "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap," and the verse came to mind when reading Rob Briley talks about his struggles with alcoholism, personal life on Nashville City Paper. From the article, Briley says:

“I’ve been an exercise in how much public humiliation one person can endure and still be able to hold their head up high,” Briley said. “I’m not proud of what I’ve done, but I’m proud of who I am today and for the way that I’m trying to deal with the problems that have confronted me today.

“And I’m looking forward. I’m not going to live in the past. I’m trying to live my life today in the way that God directs me, and God’s forgiven me for what I did. I would hope that us mere mortals would find a way to forgive me too.”

Briley asked the public to forgive him and thanked God that the police officers were not hurt and that “no one else was injured” as a result of the incidents.

and regarding his relationship with a lobbyist to the house committee he chairs?

"The Nashville attorney and former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee until he recently resigned that post would not comment on the Nashville Scene’s allegation that he had an affair with the trial lawyer’s ex-lobbyist, Mary Littleton, who was involved with lobbying the Judiciary Committee. “I think that as a public figure, I think people have a right to pry into my life,” Briley said when asked for comment on the allegation of marital infidelity. “And over the past four years, I’ve been living my worst nightmare … and at some point in time, I have to be willing to draw the line and say, even though I’m a public figure, there are certain things that are private.”"

Frankly, I'm not sure whether he has reason yet to "hold his head high," and I'm skeptical of the motivation for this interview given his resolve in maintaining decorum and privacy only with respect to details of his life that would hurt his case in the court of public opinion or in real court.

The Democratic divide

This story ("ABC News: Gay Rights Group to Obama: Drop Singer") highlights the delicate balancing act of the modern Democratic Party.

Barack Obama's view on homosexuality is at odds with that of one of the gospel artists--Rev. Donnie McClurkin scheduled to perform at an Obama campaign event in SC this weekend. The problem for Democrats is that the views of McClurkin, not Obama (or any of the other Democrats running for President), are representative of the majority of Black Americans. In particular, Black Americans aren't keen on comparisons between racial discrimination and opposition to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

Huckabee second by a hair in on-line poll, first by a mile on-site

Jonathan Martin reports from the "Value Voters Summit"("A tale of two polls" - Jonathan Martin's Blog - Politico.com) :

Mitt Romney was announced from the podium Saturday afternoon as the winner of the Family Research Council’s “Values Voter Straw Poll,” narrowly edging Mike Huckabee.

. . . .

Although the audience at the Washington Hilton was not told, the crowd favorite among the 952 attendees who voted in person turned out to be Huckabee by a mile. He got 51 percent of the in-person votes, compared to just 10 percent for Mitt Romney.

Even in the on-line poll, Romney merely edged Huckabee by .47%. That's less than half a percent.

AuntB v. KayB

Kay Brooks has caused a stir with a post (What cowed men aren't allowed to say") about a recent rape in Nashville's Bicentennial Mall area. AuntB--as John Hutcheson says "takes what Brooks said and draws a chalk line around it, if you know what I mean." Yes, I know what you mean, but I think there is third way to view the issue.
Here's ("Who Does Kay Brooks Hate More–Men or Women?" « Tiny Cat Pants) some of what AuntB says on the matter:

"Those of you who’ve been reading me a while can, I presume, point out the ways in which Brooks thinks women should just suck it up and accept their status as second-class citizens:
–According to Brooks, we are not to go outside alone after dark, especially not to public places, like parks.
–Being raped isn’t merely a crime, it’s a “lesson” (presumably in what happens to us if we forget that we don’t have the right to walk around in public).
–If you are raped, you have to accept personal responsibility for it. In other words, though Brooks tries to say that she thinks the victim doesn’t “deserve” what happened to her, she’s also turning right around and saying that she bears responsibility for it. This stuff is pretty vile. But look at how Brooks talks about men. –Men who won’t blame rape victims for their rapes are “cowed.” (Yes, America, I swear to god, Kay Brooks manages to hit the trifecta of misogyny there. Let’s count it out, shall we? 1. Women are to blame for their rapes. 2. Being called a female [a cow] is an insult. 3. Men who don’t agree with her are acting like women, which, of course, is an insult of the highest order.)

–Men are monsters who cannot help but rape. She even calls them monsters.

–And there’s nothing other, non-rapist, men–like police officers–can do to make women safe in public."

AuntB,
I'm not sure what to think about Kay's post--at best it was merely insensitive to the victim, but I think it is wrong to place any responsibility on her. The victim may have acted carelessly or foolishly, but fault has a moral element.

And I don't think Kay "hates' men or women. While Kay is a friendly acquaintance, and I generally agree with her on issues, I think she may have breezed by the tragic, horrendous and personal aspect of this particular crime--as well as the tragic, horrendous and personal aspect of the "institution" of rape, and jumped to the policy considerations of trying to rid Nashville of the threat of rape. Law enforcement requires resources, and resources are limited; thus, there are limits to what we can spend to remedy this problem and exhorting women to avoid situations like this is "free."

But I'm still having trouble understanding your point about not being able to prevent rapes, as if any efforts to avoid being a victim represent a concession to rapists or are not wasted effort. I don't think that's true, and I think it can be deterred. I think that rapists are as cowardly and self-preserving as any other perpetrator (perhaps they are the worst), and I think they can be deterred. I kind of doubt that anyone on this thread could outdo me in severity of punishment I would support for rapists--and I bet Kay feels similarly. If I were the DA as well as the father/husband/brother of this victimized woman, I would seek to crush this rapist and hope my daughter/wife/sister would do as much as is reasonable in the future to avoid scum like this rapist. In my estimation, entreating women not to be easy targets is FAR from promoting burqas or female curfews.



**And this is a minor point, but "Cowed" has nothing to do with women, unless one uses it with the intent of asserting that women are more likely to be subdued or intimidated. Women, or men, can be "cowed."

Whew, glad she's lookin' out for us . . .

I and thousands of other (ahem) supporters of "People for the American Way" heard today from Kathleen Turner via an email . . . Turner says she is ". . . sick and tired of the Religious Right trying to tell me how I ought to live my life." It's interesting to learn that Turner and her ilk don't tell others how to live their lives or aim to impose their views on others through law.

It's good to know that Ms. Turner is looking out for me and my interests.

Liberal jaws dropping 'round the world.

Well, it has been less than a week since Liberals appear to have first realized that Jesus was intolerant of other gods (and that Christians believe what Jesus said!!), but here's another newsflash:

Conservative persons of faith believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong, even if it is "safe." Sexual intercourse with someone infected with an STD is very dangerous, even when a condom is used.

In an awkward response (here) to a question about whether he would support giving $50 billion toward a-moral condom distribution to less-than-first-world countries beset by AIDS and other sexually transmitted disease, Mike Huckabee responded as follows:

"If we really are serious about stopping a problem, whether it's drunk driving...we don't say "Don't drive 'as drunk'?" ...This is an illogical thing that we apply to that one area that we don't apply to any other area. And I'm open-minded to all the arguments, if someone can convince me a little reckless behavior is OK. Maybe that's the message. But it would seem to me that if we're consistent in saying reckless behavior is undesirable we should ask people to move their behavior to the standard and not move the standard to the behavior...We don't say that a little domestic violence is OK, just cut it down a little, just don't hit quite as hard. We say it's wrong."

Though Huckabee is pretty-much known (to persons other than rabid Libs) for non-threatening and reasonably-framed policy statements, he seems to mishandle this question by failing to hide his tough pill (response) in peanut butter or flavoring it like cotton candy.

Granted, wife-beating is more than "reckless behavior" and drunk-driving victims rarely have consented, but when the question is related to a proposal to throw condoms at persons living in an STD-permeated context, Huckabee's answer is not quite as jaw-dropping. Ironically, the UN has a poor record on combating AIDS, and the organization seems more interested in defending a worldview than in saving lives.


hat-tip, huffingtonpost.com.

You gotta believe!

A Conservative Jew takes on (Omri at "Mere Rhetoric") the Ann Coulter "Scandal." Read the whole thing, but his/her(?) thesis is: "Disagreement is not tantamount to aggression and insult." And here's a memorizable quip for Jews in any healthy debate with an Evangelical Christian:

"Our gut check would have been to try to reraise with something like 'thanks, but we'd rather stick with a Messiah who's powerful enough to get the whole 'peace on earth' thing right the first time.'"

Hey William, start counting . . .

I've heard "William" state in a variety of blog threads that he "can count the number of anti-choice agnostics on one hand." After reading that quote this evening, I thought I'd google the subject and lookie what I found. Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Member List. Well William?

Maybe they're right about Coulter . . .

Yikes. Ann Coulter has turned her high-caliber pen on GOP candidates Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. ("Fred Sawyer and Huckabee Finn"). Coulter raises some fair criticisms of Huckabee and Thompson, but they seem much less fair absent the prospect that she will provide withering critiques of each of the candidates. It doesn't appear that she has that in mind, closing her piece thusly:

"If you're bored with our top candidates, go see a slasher movie. Don't take it out on a presidential election."

I believe Ann Coulter is exceptionally gifted as a thinker and communicator, but I am incredulous about her assertion that interest in Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee amounts to boredom with the "top candidates."

How DO they do it?

Recently my wife and I were discussing how amazing it was that Jihadists have not successfully struck in the U.S. since 9/11. It occurred to me how seemingly easy it would be for Jihadists to simultaneously (and dramatically) assassinate a bunch of U.S. elected officials out of session and attending townhall meetings across the country.

I guess there are a host of factors involved, but this regrettable story from today ("Qaeda Goes Dark After a U.S. Slip" - October 9, 2007 - The New York Sun) gives some insight into the work that America is doing and has been doing to undermine the Jihad:

"Al Qaeda's Internet communications system has suddenly gone dark to American intelligence after the leak of Osama bin Laden's September 11 speech inadvertently disclosed the fact that we had penetrated the enemy's system."

Until I know more about the circumstances surrounding this leak I shouldn't say more than how much of a disappointment this is.

A surrogate sister souljah?

Tennessee attorney and Conservative media personality Steve Gill has written an op/ed (Nashville City Paper--"Dobson's Choice") criticizing James Dobson for recent (and past) critical comments about GOP candidate Fred Thompson. In particular, Gill takes offense at a past statement by Dobson that Thompson didn't appear to be a Christian and Dobson's recent criticism of Thompson's opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment (oh, and Gill also derides Dobson for responding to critics through a spokesperson . . . Gill couldn't be reached for comment--just kidding). At the risk of appearing to be a Dobson apologist (though Gill doesn't appear too concerned about appearing to be a Thompson apologist), I want to comment on Gill's op/ed. You know, to make sure that there aren't illegitimate points of contention between Thompson, Thompson supporters, Dobson and Dobson's "supporters."

Even assuming the best intent of the statement about "being a Christian," I was surprised that Dobson, who is typically media savvy, would make a statement that is so easily misinterpreted. The statement is somewhat understandable to an Evangelical Christian, because our conviction is that "being a Christian" is both more than a cultural category and--this will shock some of you, it is more than the way a person acts. While Scripture says a tree is known by its fruits and "faith without works is dead," whether a person is a Christian or not--according to an Evangelical, has something to do with what said person is willing to profess (e.g., Jesus' words in Matthew 10:32-33 are that "if you confess me before men, I will confess you before My Father"--what constitutes "confess" and what doesn't is probably better left to another post). So an Evangelical Christian is alert to whether a person is willing to confess Christ before men. It doesn't mean that you have to preface every post-game interview or campaign appearance with, "First of all I'd like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," but it is something that should probably be more prominent than a footnote to your life. (I need to clearly state that I don't purport to speak for all Evangelicals; please feel free to modify or challenge any of these characterizations. That being said, I think I have a pretty good perspective on the species.) So that's one angle on the statement.

Another mitigating factor (treating the statement's utterance as a crime) is that Dobson (or his spokesperson) has said that he was using "Christian" interchangeably with "Evangelical Christian." If the statement was in answer to a question like, "Do you think that Thompson is a Christian?" then the questioner is setting it up as something less than a "disparaging" remark. Such a remark could be somewhat disparaging in the Evangelical Christian context, but it is more of an observation than a judgment, again, because we Evangelicals assume that a Christian is someone who is more than casual about their spiritual status and more than casual about their association with Jesus. To be clear, "being a Christian" is not synonymous with being a "good" or even "moral" person (by societal standards). All that being said, while I am heartened when I can pull a lever for a qualified candidate who shares my worldview and faith, that is not a prerequisite to me caring about an election, working in an election or supporting a given candidate.

Now on to Gill's more substantive (in my opinion) criticisms. Gill makes much of the Constitutional position on the issue of same-sex "marriage." Gill writes:

Recently, Dobson launched another drive-by attack on Thompson – before once again ducking behind his spokesmen for cover. This time Dobson, who has still never met or talked with Thompson, declared in a mass email: “Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson then, not surprisingly, declared that Thompson is not the man for him.

What inspired Dobson’s vitriol? Apparently, it is Thompson’s belief that citizens in the individual states should make important public policy decisions -- like defining marriage, restricting abortion and setting education standards. Dobson disagrees, and prefers that the Federal government be the repository of absolute power and decision-making in the country. It is a debate that has raged since the inception of our nation, but Thompson’s view is the one adopted in the Constitution.

I haven't seen the communique in question, but one major flaw in Gill's analysis is that Dobson is talking about support or non-support of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to protect the institution of marriage. As a result, if an amendment were passed, then treating marriage as a federal issue would be wholly Constitutional.

That aspect aside, I think that Gill is either ignorant of or disingenuous about the Religious Conservative position on same-sex "marriage." Gill implies that Dobson is less Federalist than Thompson on the marriage issue as well as abortion or education (for some reason, Gill doesn't reference "campaign finance"). I'm pretty sure this conclusion is not true regarding abortion or education policy, but even on the issue of marriage, I think that a careful analysis of the issue demonstrates that there is no obvious Federalist answer. The existence of differing definitions of marriage from state to state in our republic would be a serious problem given marriage's institutional importance in America and given the Constitutional principle of comity. The absence of a single definition of marriage would intractably disturb almost every sphere of the law (e.g., inheritance, adoption, perhaps Criminal is excluded). Of course, advocates of same-sex "marriage" likely say, "bring on the disturbance," but some traditions, values, principles are worth saving.

I generally agree with Steve Gill, and I generally agree with Fred Thompson. I haven't picked a GOP primary candidate yet (though most acquaintances know "I like Mike"), but depending on how the GOP primary plays out, I and many others may end up backing Fred Thompson--indeed many Religious Conservatives already are. Accordingly, while healthy debate on issues and policies is constructive, there is little benefit (to me and my Party) in picking a fight or failing to reconcile when disagreements or misunderstandings arise. Not every Republican will agree on every issue or on who should be the GOP standard-bearer, so some degree of conflict is inevitable in this process. But this dust-up between Thompson and Dobson is not a reason to cast aspersions or burn bridges or gather the ingredients for a crow casserole, is it?

I know that James Dobson is routinely demonized by the Left and some of that spills over into the MSM, but I don't advise Thompson (or Thompson's supporters) to unnecessarily (note: Clinton's gesture was legitimate) seize or "stage" a Sister Souljah moment during the GOP primary.

Theological exercises

Over at MusicCityBloggers there is an aged post (about Church marketing) and frequent MCB participant nm asserted (as s/he has before) that Jesus quoted (purportedly in an approving fashion) the Jewish theologian/Rabbi named Hillel in much of the New Testament.

That's fine, as far as I'm concerned, because I think the New Testament text typically reflects that Jesus--typically speaking to a Jewish audience about Jewish tradition and Jewish "law," quoted Hebrew sources and traditions and sayings so as to either expound upon or challenge the sources, traditions or sayings. But I have never done much (any?) study on that subject (whether and how Jesus quoted Hillel in the New Testament), so I did a quick search today and came upon this interesting blog post. Random Observations: Celebrating Pesach Seder; Notes on Hillel, Jesus, and the Golden Rule. The whole post is worthwhile, but I thought this was a poignant observation in the beginning of the post:

"Last night I was honored to be invited to join Jewish friends in celebrating the the Pesach Seder, the Passover feast. The Seder is the basis of the Christian idea of communion -- it is this meal that Christians refer to as 'the last supper'. . . .Christians believe this was also a 'type' (physical representation) of things to come . . . among those who accept Jesus as the [M]essiah, this act is a procla[]mation of the forgiveness available through his death.

My friends are, shall we say, rather toward the liberal end of the Jew[i]sh belief spectrum. At one point a young participant asserted the bit about expecting Elijah's return was wrong, and nonsense. There was hearty agreement around the table, but it was observed that what we were doing was a tradition, and we should continue anyway.

That created an interesting kind of mental dissonance for me: Here I am, the only non-Jew at the seder, and I might also be the only one around this table who actually believes most of this stuff."

This is an irony that has struck me before in a couple conversations with nm (who seems to represent the views of many modern-day Jewish believers). I don't think that such conversations are a waste, but like my undergrad "Bible as Literature" course, such exercises are fairly limited in their usefulness. You can certainly learn from history and from literature, but . . .

Pretend to Be All That You Can Be

Dang; I know this will irritate my Liberal friends, and it is about as pointed as cactus croissant in Crawford, TX, but this week's Ann Coulter column is the perfect rejoinder to the whole Limbaugh-faux-controversy story. Pretend to Be All That You Can Be.

This statement, like so many of Coulter's pointed rejoinders, tends to be a real argument-ender:

We've been waiting more than 20 months for Kerry to make good on his "Meet the Press" pledge to sign form 180, which would allow the military to release his records.

Are Republicans Crazy? Is Doug Bandow a Republican?

Though his name seems to evoke "Conservative Pundit" from my memory banks, I have to admit I had lost sight of Doug Bandow. But over the transom today came this op/ed ("Are Republicans Crazy?") about the prescience of Ron Paul and the ignorance of all the "other" Republican candidates for president. I say "other" because I think Paul is a fair-weather Republican and his candidacy, if Republican, is quixotic.

If the title doesn't give you the gist of the article, the fact that the article's google pole position is held by antiwar.com should. But here's the thesis of the article:

"The bell is tolling for the GOP warmonger caucus. Unless the leading Republican presidential contenders join Ron Paul – soon – in detaching themselves from the failed Bush policies, many more Americans are likely to conclude that the Republicans are crazy. And to vote accordingly."

Bandow is beside himself that Republicans (not just the GOP presidential candidates) don't agree with him and Ron Paul and Usama Bin Laden about the Global war against Jihadists, and he r_e_p_e_a_t_e_d_l_y proclaims that Paul is not "blaming America" when he says that we are the subject of the Jihad because we have a military presence in that part of the world and because we have been bombing Iraq for the past decade. It sounds to me like Paul is saying that we are causing Jihadists to hate us or that we are forcing them to defend themselves, doesn't it to you?

But that is a semantic game Paul is playing and it isn't really the issue. We have interests in a stable middle east. Israel deserves our support. Oil is a commodity that we need to be able to buy. We cannot allow Jihadists to plot, scheme, train, and arm themselves unhindered in their war against us. A decisive number of GOP primary voters understand this; ergo, it stands to reason that all (save one) persons seeking to win a GOP primary understand (or at least pretend to understand) this.

But even a Republican candidate for president who doesn't view foreign affairs the same way as George W. Bush (or W's zionist neo-con puppetmasters!!!!) can appreciate that Republican voters balk at suggestions that Bush's motives for this war were nefarious; that the mistakes or misjudgments made in this war--as opposed to every other war in history, were extraordinary; or that we will be safe from Jihadist designs if we simply pull our troops out of Iraq (and are on our best Jihad-neutral behavior indefinitely).

Maybe if GOP primary poll samples included Liberal journalists and other pacifist-lite Americans Ron Paul would be polling higher than 2%. Maybe.

Favorite movie clips

Here's one of my favorite movie clips (stumbled upon while wasting time youtubing this evening).

If you haven't seen the movie, I recommend it; but this is the scene where Richard Gere's character ("Mr. Clark") realizes that he has been finding "life" in something other than his most important thing in his life . . . his relationship with his wife. In this case, it's ballroom dancing (which Clark has secretly taken up as a hobby), but it can be a lot of things, even "good" things, that distract us.



What's your favorite movie clip, and why?

Person from same state as Bush pleads guilty . . .

Although I'm not sure that his state of residence belongs in the lead paragraph, it is good to see some this man and others being held to account for crimes against America.("In Surprise, Oilman Admits Iraq Kickbacks" - New York Times):

"Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., the Texas oilman accused of cheating the United Nations oil-for-food program, pleaded guilty yesterday to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s government in 2001 to gain access to lucrative Iraqi oil contracts."

I sure hope he gets the maximum sentence of 24 months (he could've received 70 years if he had not entered a plea agreement).

But the phrasing of the first paragraph is odd because from all indications the United Nations (as an organization) was up to its elbows in the criminal activity. And speaking of tangled webs, I came across this report of another American businessman who paid Saddam for oil contracts:("The Sanctions: Report Cites U.S. Profits in Sale of Iraqi Oil Under Hussein"):

"Mr. Khafaji financed a controversial film about Iraq by Scott Ritter, the former United Nations arms inspector who opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq."

Academic freedom and doers vs. talkers

Mark Steyn op/eds today about the Ahmadinejad (aside: I'm hoping that I never get beyond having to looking the proper spelling of his name) appearance at Columbia. ("But Enough about Iran, Let’s Talk about Me!").

There's a lot of good stuff in there (e.g., Steyn invents the term "Hoogivsastan"--Southern Beale will find plenty of uses for that, I'd bet), but the last line (in the context of Liberal academe patting itself on the back for hosting the little fella) is really good:

"The pen is not mightier than the sword if your enemy is confident you will never use anything other than your pen. Sometimes it’s not about “freedom of speech,” but about freedom. Ask an Iranian homosexual. If you can find one."