Obama's Rosie O'Donnell moment

Here's an interesting story in light of my recent viewing of "Iraq For Sale" about--among other baaaad companies, Blackwater. At the end of the article, "Blackwater protected Barack Obama in Afghanistan," Toby Harnden writes:

In his Washington Whispers column, the well-connected Paul Bedard reports that Obama was overheard saying that 'Blackwater is getting a bad rap'. A fairly startling alleged observation given his previous utterances about the company - though perhaps unsurprising given he was in a war zone and his life was in the hands of Blackwater guards.

A tight-lipped Anne Tyrrell, spokeswoman for Blackwater, said she could neither confirm nor deny that the company had been involved in the visits by the senators to Afghanistan or Iraq. My request to Bill Burton, Obama's national spokesman, for comment on the Bedard story - including whether the alleged quote or its sentiment was genuine - went unanswered.

But a source familiar with Obama's security arrangements told me that Blackwater, along with the Secret Service, did pull security for the three senators in Afghanistan, though not Iraq.

Deceiver describes this as Obama's 'Rosie O'Donnell moment' That's maybe a tad harsh but it will be interesting to see whether Obama's public position on Blackwater changes as a result of his up-close time with their personnel in Afghanistan.

(emphasis added).



Also at tennesseefree.com

At least one celebrity the Left won't respect

I was a bit shocked to read what actor Jon Voight (Oscar winning actor, mind you) had to say about Obama and the 2008 election. He makes some good points--nothing spectacular other than some admissions, but you gotta give him credit for sticking it out there for Lefty media types to hack away at. Washington Times - JON VOIGHT: "My concerns for America":

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Uh, Mr. Voight, I don't think Libs care what your concerns are, even though you are a bona fide celebrity.

Attempts at Darwinist dogpiling

I stumbled across Darwinism apologist John Derbyshire's post about an e-argument between folks at Little Green Footballs and The Discovery Institute. I'm not sure there is much substance to the dispute, but Derb thnks it is entertaining:

"Charles Johnson over at Little Green Footballs has been doing a few rounds with the Discovery Institute, in which the DI sleaze tactics come through loud and clear. It makes for entertaining reading."

Of course Derb is entertained, because the LGF crew are masters at pithy in the trenches combat (which I typically am pleased about) and the fact that Derb despises--desPISES, those who criticize Darwinism.

But I think it is hard to doubt LGF's intention in writing "radical Islamic creationist movement," and LGF ignored the reality that "Christian" is not an accurate description of the Discovery Institute.

Derbyshire spends a paragraph (though it seemed like two) accusing the Discovery Institute of disingenuously (I guess?) pretending to be "a pure-science institute" when it is "a Christian-proselytizing lecture agency, pressure group, and publisher." Derb also appears to have missed that DI is not "Christian," and naively thinks (or pretends) that other groups that he would surely feel comfortable labeling "pure-science" institutes also engage in lecturing, pressuring and publishing with a particular message.

What Derb and LGF seem not to appreciate is that many (on their side of this "debate") will knee-jerkedly dismiss as "unscientific" the scientific assertions or conclusions of anyone who might not share their naturalistic view. Derb, et al, are wont to cut intellectual/rhetorical corners in taking out them dishonest, unscientific, Covert Creationists. But those whackos deserve it, you know?

Re. the barackstar in Europe

Victor Davis Hanson analyzes Obama's Berlin speech. Here's one great paragraph from the blog post:

"When Obama shouts,

Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

it is the world, not the U.S., that needs to listen most. In this regard I would have preferred Sen. Obama of mixed ancestry to have begun with “In the recent tradition of African-American Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice,” rather than the less factual, “I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city.”"

Of course, Powell and Rice don't count because they're not Democrats.

And it is interesting to consider Obama's juxtaposing of "reject[ing] torture" and "rule of law" when I'm not sure there is a cut and dried legal definition of "torture." Nonetheless, it is fun to see Liberals getting all morally absolutist on something.

Dems and their "wedge issues"

John McCain has announced his support for the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, which Roger Clegg reports "would ban preferences based on race, ethnicity, and sex in the state’s public contracting, education (including university admissions), and employment programs." Clegg also report:

"Disappointingly, Senator Barack Obama immediately criticized McCain: 'I think in the past he'd been opposed to these Ward Connerly initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right. These are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.'"

Yep, if an issue doesn't help Democrats win elections, it's likely "divisive" or in the "wedge" phylum.

Bredesen: Buyout offers should have been sweeter on Nashville City Paper

This story caught my eye the other day, but I didn't have time to post about it. "Bredesen: Buyout offers should have been sweeter," on Nashville City Paper From the beginning of the story:

"If he had to do it over again, Gov. Phil Bredesen said Wednesday he might have “sweetened” his voluntary buyout package to state employees.

So far, with about two weeks to go before the Aug. 5 deadline, about 1,400 state employees have applied for the buyout, well short of the about 2,300 goal. The Bredesen administration had offered it to about 12,000 state employees.

Bredesen said he likely didn’t make the $50 million buyout package “quite strong enough” to attract eligible state employees."

What occurred to me the moment I heard the report was that this seems wholly predictable from my experience inside (and, like everyone else, as a consumer of) state government.

I'm not sure you can reasonably sweeten any buyout enough to lure state employees away from a secure job. The folks Bredesen et al are hoping will accept this buyout aren't typically the type to take risks or strike out into the unknown. Good thing for Tennessee Democrats that he won't have to lay off anyone until well after November.

Support impeachment! (virtually, if not otherwise)

This just in: erstwhile Liberal presidential contender Dennis Kucinich is getting a few minutes this Friday to further erode the Democrat-controlled Congress' low approval numbers argue in favor of impeaching the president. From the Democrats.com email:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has led the fight for impeachment since April 2007, when he courageously introduced 3 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 333/799) against Vice President Cheney. On June 10, Kucinich introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 1258) against President Bush.

When Speaker Pelosi refused to allow hearings on any of the 38 Articles, Kucinich returned to the floor of Congress to introduce one more Article of Impeachment against President Bush (H.Res. 1345).

Maybe Kucinich should add Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to the list of people who need impeachin' . . .

See also at Tennesseefree.com

Talk about offensive

A Federal Appeals court has overturned the FCC fine against CBS for Janet Jackson's purported "wardrobe malfunction."

This was a rich comment by one of the hangers-on attorneys (they filed an amicus brief) . . . I doubt the attorneys representing CBS will be caught grandstanding like this:

Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a group of TV writers, directors and producers, said the ruling "is an important advance for preserving creative freedom on the air."

"The court agreed with us: the FCC's inconsistent and unexplained departure from prior decisions leaves artists and journalists confused as to what is, and is not, permissible," Schwartzman said in a statement Monday.

Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake were employees of CBS . . . they willfully (and salaciously) exposed Jackson's breast during the half-time show of the most watched sporting event in the world. I guess "artists and journalists" would have had no way of knowing that this would be deemed offensive by the FCC? It is progress that this ruling will help "preserv[e] creative freedom" of this nature? Give me a break.

I hope the FCC doesn't let this die here. This whole episode is a (middle) finger in the eye of decent Americans.

Dems do religion

This AP profile of the person in charge of the 2008 Democratic Convention, Leah Daughtry, nicely showcases the role religion will play in this year's presidential election. Daughtry is an ordained minister, is no religious wallflower (she "carries a Bible in her purse"), was raised to believe Black Liberation Theology (BLT) (though noone thought to ask her if she subscribes to BLT), and splendidly--not to mention boldly, juggles her moral relativism and her religion.

Leah Daughtry has married faith and politics, holding positions in the Clinton-era Labor Department, working on the 1992 Democratic National Convention and heading her party's outreach to faith groups, Faith In Action. And she continues to lead her own House of the Lord Church of 20 or 30 people in Washington, D.C.

Daughtry considers it all "ministry - a way to give of yourself." Several of her party's positions, though, put her at odds with most evangelical Christians. That includes her support for abortion rights.

"Theologically, we believe that in the greatest decision of our entire lives - whether to follow God or not - God allows us to choose," she said. "If God is big enough to allow that choice, then who are we to dictate choices to other people? Your choices have consequences, but you should be allowed to make those choices."

(emphasis added) Which begs a couple questions: what does the Bible (like the one in Daughtry's purse) say about Big ol' God's opinion of when we do make the wrong choice? And what "choices" should we as a society not give people the freedom to make with impunity? Maybe the rest of the article can shed light on the subject.

Daughtry credited the party for changing the way it talks about abortion - "not just in terms of a woman's right to make her own health-care choices, but also in terms of society's responsibility to make sure women have the resources that they need to make appropriate decisions."

(emphasis added) Yeah; another way of saying that is, "the right to make society shoulder the blame and consequences for choices people make." Boy, I like this new way that Democrats are "talk[] about" issues.

And noted "liberal evangelical author and pastor member of the Democratic platform committee," Tony Campolo, is asked to expound on this new way of discussing the issue of abortion:

Campolo . . . said he and others hope to move the party toward stronger advocacy for reducing the number of abortions.

He declined to discuss specific proposals, but he mentioned ensuring that pregnant women are able to go on maternity leave without fear of losing their jobs, and making day care more accessible.

(emphasis added) Okay, first objective: Family and Medical Leave Act (passed in 1993!), check! Second objective: a little dicey, because a lot of taxpayers disagree that society owes it to underwrite others' choices to work rather than care for their child. I guess it's the charitable thing to do, though. WWJD and all.

But is the message resonating as much as Dems hope?

Daughtry believes the party already is making inroads with evangelical voters, particularly young ones sympathetic to Democratic positions on poverty and the environment.

But a survey released last week called that into question. Despite Obama's robust religious outreach, only about one-quarter of white evangelicals support him, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life - about the same number that supported Democrat John Kerry at this juncture four years ago.

As for those worried that Democrats are acting like Republicans when it comes to religion, Daughtry said: "The difference between us and the Republicans is, one, we don't claim a monopoly on God. We don't try to be dogmatic about this or make it a litmus test. For us, values come from different places."

(emphasis added) Glad we got that cleared up. The Republican message is flawed because even a fool realizes that "values" may come from different places but they're all equally valid. And even God doesn't claim a monopoly on truth.

You know, what other reason than racism could there be for white evangelicals not supporting Obama?


Also at tennesseefree.com

Don't blame the Puritans . . .

There's a great article over at Nashville City Paper--"Just do it" by Lindsay Ferrier, regarding the challenge of intimacy between husband and wife after children join the family.

Ferrier provides a great perspective on the issue, with one exception . . . Ferrier insinuates that "Victorian" or "Puritanical" values in American society are somehow to blame. Ferrier writes:

It doesn’t help matters that society isn’t exactly encouraging my mommy self to put on stiletto heels and channel my inner sex kitten. American mothers are expected to take on the persona of a woman entirely preoccupied with disinfecting her kitchen counters and baking the perfect cupcake, in addition to holding down a full-time job and heading up the Booster Club. While shows like Desperate Housewives seem to knock the notion of a sexless motherhood on its [hiney], just try wearing one of Terri Hatcher’s low-cut top/ tight jeans combos to your next PTA meeting and just see how many friends you make. ["Sexpert"] Raskin says this asexual mom image can be problematic for the whole family.

Ironically, this assertion contradicts all the data offered up in the first half of the article. As demonstrated by all the examples Ferrier supplies, there's no need for Victoria's Secret weapon (you know it just dawned on me that there might be a pun in the name of that store) to get a faithful husband (the subject of the article) interested in intimacy. I don't believe Ferrier or Raskin would assert that "showing off one's merchandise" somehow counters a mother's busy lifestyle or that the fires that need stoking (or ought to be stoked) are also going to be at a PTA meeting.


Also at tennesseefree.com

Oh' Blackwater, keep on rollin' . . . or not

Perhaps I'm on a roll. After the Kelo-bashing post below which drew bi-partisan support over at TennesseeFree.com, I thought I'd post about a movie I watched on Comcast "On Demand" the other night: "Iraq For Sale."

From the movie's website (IraqforSale.org):

Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers is the story of what happens to everyday Americans when corporations go to war.Acclaimed director Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed and Uncovered) takes you inside the lives of soldiers, truck drivers, widows and children who have been changed forever as a result of profiteering in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the decision makers who allow them to do so.

You can get an idea of the producer's (Robert Greenwald) "politics" by his filmography, and Iraq for Sale certainly has its share of MikeMoorish crocumentary gimmicks; nevertheless, I am troubled by the movie.

Not because I think we invaded Iraq as a sweet deal for Cheney's cronies. Not because I think the military industrial complex is running our government behind the scenes. Not because I think that the atrocities committed in the name of the U.S. are greater in number or more egregious than they were in other wars (as they say, "war is hell" and it often brings out the worst in a person--it's probably more accurate to say it manifests a person's true character).

Rather, the concerns the movie raised are whether we are able and willing to hold private companies going to war for us accountable, and whether the fact that the Pentagon is outsourcing so many services is a symptom of more than just valuing efficiency (indeed, it doesn't appear that these contractors are a better "value" for taxpayer's dollars. In sum, I don't think a policy of using contractors like this is immoral or indicative of some nefarious motive or inherently "Rethuglican"; however, it does not seem to be a policy that is working . . . to the degree that it may be a practice which is immoral to continue.

She says "goodbye," and they say "Kelo"

I regret that I missed this post (not to mention the story) by The Blue Collar Muse, but Nashville is in the news!!! Yikes, it seems that Kelo has come to town. Here's BCM's follow up post on the issue.

Gang, Joy Ford's fight with the MDHA (and Nashville government) is a stark reminder of (or lesson about) the difference between Liberalism/Statism and Conservatism. Do we believe in private property rights in our country anymore? I wonder how the "Conservative-leaning" SCOTUS would rule on this if they had another shot at it. Elections matter.





hat tip, Eagle Forum.

Tony Snow, RIP--updated again

I just read that Tony Snow has passed away from colon cancer. One thing from this AP article that I had forgotten was that Snow had replaced Scott McClellan,

Snow was working for Fox News Channel and Fox News Radio when he replaced Scott McClellan as press secretary in May 2006 during a White House shake-up. Unlike McClellan, who came to define caution and bland delivery from the White House podium, Snow was never shy about playing to the cameras.

"[C]aution"? "Deer caught in headlights" is more like it. As press secretary, Snow sure was a sight for sore Republican eyes.

May he rest in peace.

UPDATE: Here's a moving clip of former Snow producer (and current CNN "Situation Room" producer) Rick Dibella (after Bill Bennett interview).

And here's another example of a former colleague--Griff Jenkins, choking up in an interview about Snow.

And here's another clip (of Brett Baier) choking up when discussing Snow.

UPDATE 2:
Here's a moving David Gregory interview of Tony Snow. At one point in the interview, when talking about his family, Snow fights back tears and eventually utters, "It's great to love people this much." Hat tip: The Corner.

"Borking" but not "swift boating"

Democrats (particularly those in the MSM) have coined a term which means, for them, "to smear." That's right, "swift boating" has become synonymous with "smearing." This National Review op/ed pushes back against the Left-wing Media Machine on the issue. From the article:

. . . Barack Obama vows he won’t be swift boated.

And he won’t — at least not unless several close associates from his past, relying on personal, firsthand knowledge, get together to criticize his behavior at some key point in his life. Were that to happen, the swift-boat analogy might be apt. But otherwise, when it comes to the run-of-the-mill, day-to-day attacks that presidential campaigns launch at one another, can we please dispense with the s-word?

America is exceptional

Unfortunately, I didn't have much time or opportunity to post last week, so I didn't publish anything in honor of the our nation's birthday, but I came across this profound lecture about--among other things, what makes America exceptional.

Hold your nose, Liberals--the lecture is by Newt Gingrich and you have to visit the "In Touch" ministries website to view it. But I'm eager to hear any substantive criticisms you have of the lecture.

If the Democrat candidate flip flops in a presidential campaign . . .

. . . does it make a sound? Obama, er back-tracks on "change we can believe in" re. Iraq.

Standing on stare decisis

Samuel Johnson famously said "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels," well it's ironic that stare decisis--if it's all your standing on, may qualify as the last refuge of judicial activists.

Retiring TN Supreme Court Chief Justice William M. Barker has stated in a Nashville City Paper interview that he thinks Tennessee's most recent way of picking judges is best. From the article:

In an interview with The City Paper, Barker said that the state’s way to pick Supreme Court and intermediate appellate judges — called the Tennessee Plan — is the “best of all methods” that states have found."

That's his policy preference and that's just fine. (Incidentally, all the other states in the U.S. which replaced constitutionally-required elections with "merit selection" went to the effort of changing their Constitutions--something Tennessee voters rejected in 1977).

But Barker offers a legal basis for his policy preference by stating that two prior TN Supreme Court opinions have found the so-called "Tennessee Plan" to be "Constitutional" . . . Barker's basis is a legal principle called stare decisis and--in this case, I'd say it is the jurisprudential equivalent of vapid patriotism. (I'll save for another post whether those prior decisions even fairly qualify as "stare decisis").

Stare decisis (pronounced "starry deSEYEsus")literally means "to stand by things decided," and it expresses the principle that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedent. Supposedly, stare decisis is essential for lending predictability to the law.

One thing that really serves to make the law "predictable" is to adhere to what the plain text of the law--the Constitution in this case, says. The text of our state Constitution has painstakingly been arrived at by Constitutional Convention or by the arduous process (in Tennessee) of Constitutional amendment. That's "law" that deserves some deference, I'd say.

Indeed, Barker cites Brown v. Board of Education in supporting the idea of insulating judges from accountability for their rulings. That's a fair argument in favor of Barker's preferred way of picking judges. But it's a good thing that the judges in Brown v. Board of Education didn't hide behind stare decisis in reaching their decision, isn't it?




More on this debate at tennplandebate.org




also posted at tennesseefree.com