Hillary's Fact Hub

I think most (objective) persons will agree that the so-called MSM has given favorable coverage to Obama (over Hillary) during the Democratic Primary.

Well, I stumbled upon a Hillary "Fact Check" website today (Rush encouraged me to encourage Hillary to stand strong in pursuing the nomination), and though Obama may have something similar at his website, it is interesting to read the inaccurate reports/quotations etc. coming from the Media about Hillary. For example, quoting Bill Clinton as saying that Chelsea "bawled" rather than that she was "appalled," or that Hillary used the term "Wall Street money grubbers" rather than "Wall Street money brokers." One or two such mistakes a week seems awful sloppy.

Here's the site: The Fact Hub.

Now the howitzer that is the MSM is going to train its sights on the GOP nominee. Fun.

McClellan finally learns to work the press

Jonah Goldberg credits Scott McClellan with coming into his own as a press secretary/propagandist: ("Self-serving McClellan throws out the ‘P’ word" on Nashville City Paper Dot Com):

This all bespeaks a level of sophistication few ever credited McClellan with when he stood at the podium looking like a McDonald's cashier flummoxed by an order. He's hawking books by making people think he's charging the Bush administration with wholesale dishonesty when he's not even making that case at the retail level. He's claiming the role of insider with behind-the-scenes insights, but he admits it never occurred to him that there was any dishonesty at work until he left the White House and began ruminating on what he could put in his book.

If only he'd been this good at working the press when it was for someone's benefit other than his own.

Some commenters over at The City Paper are dismissing Goldberg's op/ed because he hasn't read McClellan's book. Well, interviews and direct quotes are enough to go on, for the point that Goldberg is making--did you read the op/ed before commenting?

May I say that you weren't a very good press secretary, Scott?

It takes a family . . .

. . . unless you're Murphy Brown (wink-wink). In this WSJ article (which was linked in this NRO piece) about the Religious Left, was this profound point about the importance of "collectivism" on the family level. Too bad that the Religious Left eschews traditional definitions of family:

"Religious left clerics also ignore the evidence that much poverty in prosperous, opportunity-rich America results from dysfunctional—dare one call it 'sinful'?—behavior. Around two-thirds of poor families today are single-parent households, largely dependent on government subsidies and headed by women with little education. The entry-level, low-wage work for which these mothers are qualified makes it hard to support large families. And the time they must devote to raising their kids makes it hard to climb the economic ladder. Poverty is increasingly about the irresponsible decision to have children out of wedlock. In many inner city communities where poverty is entrenched, 75% of all children are now born out of wedlock."

Ouch; this'll probably leave a mark

Stanley Kurtz (of National Review Online) has a meticulous op/ed ("No Liberation") matching up Obama's (at-least-previously-expressed) views with the radical views of Trinity United Church of Christ. Some will claim it is old news, because it is based on a 1995 Chicago Reader piece, but I'd say this information that has gotten almost no attention from the MSM to date. Wow, that's a shocker ("Media Shilling you can believe in!!").

Being "Green" just another "ism"

This quote from Charles Krauthammer nicely summarizes my basis for major skepticism toward the Left's Environmentalism: (at National Review Online):

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts, and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (Communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher’s England to Deng’s China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual Left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but — even better — in the name of Earth itself.

Dem delegate debate, how do I love thee?

Looking in on the DNC's fight over seating delegates, it is amusing to watch as Democrats beat each other over the head with classic fallacious arguments. Today, Hillary Clinton's supporters were appealing to "inclusion" and faux disenfranchisement ("count all the votes!!") in arguing that the results of the FL and MI primaries should be included even though the DNC plainly threatened any states that held primaries prior to a certain date would forfeit the right to vote on the Democratic nominee.

Now, I have been wishing Hillary success (or at least wishing for a looooong Democratic primary), and I would like for her to challenge Obama all the way up to the convention, but it's not wise (much less fair) to blow off rules or to change the rules in the middle of the game. Frankly, too many people parent the way that Democrats govern.

The deal was reached after committee members met privately for more than three hours, trying to hammer out a deal, and announced in a raucous hearing that reflected deep divisions within the party.

"How can you call yourselves Democrats if you don't count the vote?" one man in the audience shouted before being escorted out by security. "This is not the Democratic Party!"

. . . .

Proponents of full seating continuously interrupted the committee members as they explained their support of the compromise, then supporters of the deal shouted back.

"Shut up!" one woman shouted at another.

"You shut up!" the second woman shouted back.

Jim Roosevelt, co-chair of the committee, tried repeatedly to gavel it to order. "You are dishonoring your candidate when you disrupt the speakers," he scolded.

. . . .

Tina Flournoy, who led Clinton's efforts to seat both states' delegations with full voting power, said she was disappointed by the outcome but knew the Clinton position had "no chance" of passing the committee.

"I understand the rules. ... I can tell you one thing that has driven these rules was being a party of inclusion," Flournoy said. "I wish my colleagues will vote differently."

(emphasis mine). If the Dems' delegate debate can sensitize some (half?--the Obama faction) of the Democratic Party to respect for order/law, it will have benefits beyond drawing down the bank accounts of Big Democratic campaign donors. ;)

Yes he can!

Well, from reading the news today, it appears that Barack Obama actually can disown his spiritual mentor and his "family of faith." ("Changes"--Peter Wehner). From the post at National Review's "the Corner":

"Barack Obama’s resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ over, in part, “a cultural and a stylistic gap” raises additional doubts about him. The obvious question is what “cultural and stylistic gap” exists now that hasn’t existed during the last two decades, when Obama was a member of Trinity United and an intimate friend with its pastor, Jeremiah Wright Jr.? The answer, of course, is none. Trinity United and Jeremiah Wright are what they have always been; it is Obama — or more precisely, Obama’s political interests — that have changed."

Now that's change that's believable.

Show me the alien!

Can't . . . ignore . . . this . . . asinine . . . story (or the idiots at the center of it). (Denver Post--"Alien video: Puppet or real E.T.?")

According to Alejandro Rojas, "education director of MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network": "If it was a puppet, it would be a very elaborate and sophisticated puppet,[!!!!!]"

It doesn't look "elaborate or sophisticated" to me.

Referring to the guy who recorded the original video, Stan Tiger Romanek, and who claims to have had more than 100 encounters with aliens, and has a website (with photos!!): "I don't believe they have the ability or the motivation to fabricate a hoax."

Whatever you say, Director Rojas.

May I say that you weren't a very good press secretary?

I think Rich Lowry accurately sums up Scott McClellan and his book in this op/ed: (here). From the article:

Likable, but maladroit and plodding, he was the perfect spokesman for the administration of Harriet Miers, Michael Brown, and Al Gonzales. For anyone who doubted that President Bush too often valued loyalty over talent, there was McClellan stumbling through daily briefings to embody the point more eloquently than he ever could have stated it.

McClellan’s book has all the inherent interest of one of his briefings. He tells of an incident that was one of his “favorite moments” from working with then-governor George Bush in Texas. He stumbled upon Bush making sandwiches. McClellan picks up the tale from there: “For the next twenty minutes or so we munched on the sandwiches and talked about a variety of topics, few of which had to do with politics.”

How will the Establishment Media respond?

Via BillHobbs.com, an intriguing article about how BigInk (wink-wink) is responding to the challenge from new media (e.g., bloggers). These paragraphs were particularly insightful, I thought:>bt: Peering into the Psyche of the Establishment Media:

Although there are bloggers who have done excellent first-hand reporting, most bloggers are not equipped to compete with the core competency of large news-gathering organizations. Instead, bloggers tend to function as filters, amplifiers, analyzers and fact-checkers for stories that have been reported (and under-reported) by the establishment media.

To put it not-so-flatteringly, we bloggers are parasitic; we synthesize our product by relying on output from the establishment media. But we’re symbiotic parasites, and our existence benefits the media in numerous ways, not the least of which is by driving traffic (and therefore ad revenue) to media websites.

Unfortunately, as this CJR piece shows, some in the media view bloggers as the enemy, a tormentor that must be defeated. By seeing bloggers as direct competitors, outlets put themselves in a position of competing on their greatest weakness while at the same time undermining their greatest strength.

Instead of competing in the arena of gathered facts, many in the traditional media have responded to the rise of online outlets by deciding that they need more opinion in their product, not less. The problem with that is, the news media has been insisting for decades that they’re “objective.” Personally, I don’t think true media objectivity is even possible, but the claim of objectivity becomes even less credible as the media adds more and more opinion to their product.

Yet under the guise of “news analysis,” “putting things in context,” giving “perspective” and “helping you understand,” the news media insists on wrapping what should be its unique product—hard-to-gather facts—in packaging that makes their product look similar to everything else that’s available online for free.

How can media outlets get themselves out of this predicament? They should either embrace opinion journalism fully and drop the pretense of objectivity, or they should get out of the opinion business altogether if they insist on being seen as objective.

Indeed.

Meanwhile, back at Obama's church . . .

Sorry, but unlike some folks, we don't talk politics at my Evangelical church:

Wright's Trumpet magazine reported last year [Father Michael] Pfleger "manages to weave into the midday homily at Trinity … his deep and abiding dislike for President George W. Bush. And with this mostly African-American congregation, Pfleger is in good company."

According to a profile of Pfleger in Trumpet, the pastor "counts the mighty as close confidants and friends," specifically Wright, Farrakhan and Obama.

And thanks to the reporting of WorldNetDaily we're aware of what they believe at Obama's church.

Coulter on modern-day appeasing

Ann Coulter brings some scathing funny in an op/ed about Obama's plans for dealing with Iran. ("You Can't Appease Everybody"). From the article:

"The only explanation for liberals' hysterical zealotry in favor of Obama's proposed open-ended talks with Ahmadinejad is that they seriously imagine crazy foreign dictators will be as charmed by Obama as cable TV hosts whose legs tingle when they listen to Obama (a condition that used to be known as 'sciatica').

Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?"

Soros' credibility gap

Via Knoxviews, ("George Soros is always right . . .Rats!"--you in the back there, stop laughing), this "story" about the Global Godfather of the Left's predictions about the global economy.

George Soros: 'We face the most serious recession of our lifetime' - Telegraph:

"Such apocalypticisms would be less worrying were it not that Soros was among the few prominent experts who warned of the dire consequences facing the American economy years ago, when the housing bubble was still inflating."

Actually, the "apocalypticisms" would be more worrying if they hadn't--then and now, been motivated by rabid anti-Republicanism.

From the "if cleverness only translated into governance" Dept.

I just read over at TennViews that,

"MoveOn.org is organizing a 'Bush-McCain Challenge' in cities across America at noon tomorrow May 28th. People on the street will take a 'Pepsi-Coke' style challenge to see if they can identify who said it - Bush or McCain."

Ha. I was thinking of organizing a similar "taste test" for Dubya v. Most-Democratic-Senators. Of course, seeing as Barack Obama is rated by non-partisan National Journal as Most Liberal U.S. Senator, his comments are likely to be "out there" a bit.

That being said, I thought the Democrats were swearing off of "guilt by association" . . .

Get Obama on the phone . . .

Sharon Stone--who appears to have endorsed Barack Obama, is positing that recent earthquakes in China may be the result of Chinese oppression of Tibetans.

Not exactly the simile that comes to mind . . .

While some of my closest friends are members of Unions . . . this simile--offered by a NASA scientist in an article about America's "Phoenix" Mars Lander (here), seemed to miss the mark:

Mission co-scientist Ray Arvidson of Washington University in St. Louis was pleased with Phoenix's progress so far.

"Like a union worker, it went right to work," he said.

Is this scientist trying to get the Democratic Party nomination for something?

Barack Archuleta Obama?

I don't watch or "follow"

American Idol

, but from the unavoidable buzz over the past few days (about the season finale), am I the only person who sees similarities between what I've heard about the David Archuleta phenomenon and what I know about the Barack Obama phenomenon?

This Entertainment Weekly piece is what made me start thinking this.

D'oh! Environmentalist conundrums

There's a fascinating series of articles in Wired magazine ("Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green" about a myriad of contradictions in modern-day Environmentalism. Hat tip The Corner.

Here are the 10 "Green Heresies":

-Live in Cities
-A/C Is OK
-Organics Are Not the Answer
-Farm the Forests
-China Is the Solution
-Accept Genetic Engineering
-Carbon Trading Doesn't Work
-Embrace Nuclear Power
-Used Cars — Not Hybrids
-Prepare for the Worst--Climate Change is Inevitable

Wilder deserved to lose his "last stand"

Woody Woodruff offers perspective on Wilder's last stand in today's Tennessean. ("Wilder's place in history is secure, but his backing of Tennessee Plan stains it a bit") From the article's opening:

"Larry Daughtrey performed a valuable service for readers of The Tennessean in his column last Sunday about state Sen. John Wilder ('Tennessee will never see another lion king like John Wilder').

His article was a reminder of some of Sen. Wilder's great accomplishments during his decades of public service as Tennessee's lieutenant governor. No doubt, Tennessee is a better place to live because of many of the laws that Sen. Wilder helped to pass. It's sad, however, that the final chapter of his long career was spent in service of a poor cause."

In the remainder of the op/ed, Woodruff demonstrates the kiddie-pool shallowness of Daughtrey's take on the issue.

The AP knows what Republicans want!

I came across this intriguing article (via DrudgeReport) about John McCain's Memorial Day guest list (seeming VP short list). The subject--and some of the facts, were useful, but I'm intrigued by how clueless the writer seems about Republican ideals.

The writer fawns over Charlie Crist, dismisses Bobby Jindal and all-but-ignores Joe Lieberman. From the article:

Crist, 51, provided a major boost to McCain prior to Florida's Jan. 29 primary with a well-timed endorsement.

Elected governor in 2006, Crist has been seen as a moderate Republican. He has championed efforts to curb climate change, and was praised by former President Clinton for his efforts to restore voting rights of felons who have completed their sentences.

He also pushed for a law that requires a paper trail in state elections, a measure that bans the electronic voting machines his predecessor, Gov. Jeb Bush, sought after the 2000 presidential election. That election ended in a hotly contested recount, which President Bush won by 537 votes.

Jindal, 36, son of Indian immigrants, was elected governor of Louisiana in October 2007. He had served as secretary of the state health department.

Among other guests expected were Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., close confidantes of McCain.

D'oh! Forgot to mention that Jindal was a 3-term congressman and atypically (for LA) won a governor's race going away.

Charlie Crist will get all the buzz he is getting for one reason . . . the so-called MSM likes him.

Constitutionality of (what used to be known as) "the Tennessee Plan"

Several blogs have raised the question about the "constitutionality" of "The Tennessee Plan" and the ramifications of it ever being held "unconstitutional." (Bill Hobbs, Kay Brooks, commenters/TN plan apologists). Of course, the constitutionality issue is important in swaying public opinion, but is there a potential for legal mayhem if some court held that judges seated via the Tennessee Plan were holding their seats illegally?

First, in light of several TN SCt holdings that "selection-followed-by-uncontested/ retention-election" equals "election," it is incorrect to state that the Tennessee Plan is unconstitutional--at least unconstitutional in toto. Certain aspects of it have been held "constitutional" but various aspects of it's consistency with our state constitution have not been (more here) so it is fair to argue that aspects of it may not be "constitutional." While as an attorney I have to admit that such holdings qualify as "legal authority" for "merit selection" advocates, I have to note that said authority would also support the conclusion that it would be "constitutional" to pick state legislators and the governor by a system of appointment and uncontested retention referenda . . . so the "authority" is pretty weak, in my estimation.

As a result, could the system by which we have seated our state Supreme Court Justices* since 1994--if found to be "illegal," render all decisions by judges so selected to be "illegal" and therefore reversible? Not likely.

To begin with, it could take a while before our state Supreme Court could bring itself to accede that "the Tennessee Plan" was unconstitutional. Selecting judges by "The Tennessee Plan" since 1994 has pretty effectively ensured a jurisprudentially Liberal majority on our supreme court for decades to come. Without some different "legal authority" on the question of what "election" meant to the framers of Tennessee's constitution in 1852, there will be no controlling authority to which an attorney could appeal. And given that this is an issue of interpreting a state constitution, most Federal courts will defer to the interpretation of the given state's highest court.

Not to mention, I doubt you could find many trial lawyers (although lawyers who litigate the crap out of the Death Penalty could be an exception) who would be willing to argue in an appellate brief or otherwise that the Tennessee Plan is unconstitutional anyway.

In sum, one can argue that the Tennessee Plan is/was "constitutional" and some justices might hold that there is controlling precedent to that effect. In reality, however, it's constitutionality is very suspect, and the TN Plan's house of cards has pretty much collapsed . . . because whether or not the TN Plan is constitutional is insignificant when one considers that it does not enjoy popular support, as evidenced by recent events. Isn't democracy great?








*I left out intermediate appellate judges because there is a fair argument that such judges--having been created long after election of judges was put into our constitution, were therefore not contemplated by the framers of our constitution and operate under different guidelines. I disagree with this argument, but . . .

Now that's progress: "Tennessee Plan" not reauthorized

Sen. John Wilder's effort to revive his Tennessee Plan reauthorization bill failed in the senate just before 8 p.m. this evening. Sen. Rosalind Kurita (D-Clarksville) and Sen. Mike Williams (I-Maynardville) joined all Republican senators in voting not to bypass the Government Operations committee and bring Wilder's bill directly to the floor of the senate.

What this signifies to me is that there is potential for change in our state. Some of you may think, "Merit selection was better . . . it was the best way for us to pick judges . . . and this is a step back for our state."

Perhaps you're right, at least about the best way to pick judges. But this is progress for our state, because despite months of soul force, personality-driven arm-twisting, and teeth-gnashing from the most powerful lobby in the state ("trial lawyers," et al), a majority of state senators did what was right this evening.

Folks, the sky isn't falling. In the coming year we can and will have a debate about what is the best way to select judges in our state. If the "Tennessee Plan" is not reauthorized (newsflash: reauthorization can be achieved by a simple majority vote in both houses), then we'll simply revert to the system we relied upon from the time it was established by Jacksonian Democrats in the mid-1800's until 1994. No biggie.

At the end of the debate, State legislators may conclude that elections are the best way to select judges; but if they conclude otherwise, they need to change the constitution to reflect that preference.

Let the debate begin.

www.tennplandebate.com


From around the state (and beyond):

Terry Frank
VoluntarilyConservative
Dan Pero
Bill Hobbs

Rule of Law vs. Rule of Man--Judicial Selection in TN

If you missed Larry Daughtrey's op/ed in yesterday's Tennessean, I encourage you to give it a read . . . it provides a vignette of the Liberal comfort with "rule of man."

The underlying issue is the so-called "Tennessee Plan"--a blatantly contra-constitutional way of picking judges that (conveniently) has allowed TN Liberals a choke-hold on judicial selection for the past 14 years. Whether you think elections (as required by our constitution) or "merit selection" (as instituted in 1994) is the better way of choosing judges, there's no question which way is mandated in our state constitution. Daughtrey has written off and on about his preference for "merit selection." (He needs to take that up with the ghost of Andrew Jackson).

But in this piece, Daughtrey laments that former "lion king," and Lt. Governor, John Wilder has been reduced to "begging" before an "inconsequential" senate committee when in Wilder's heyday, a "nod or a gesture" would have gotten Wilder whatever he wanted--legislatively speaking.

What a contrast, no? I, for one, am glad that some Tennessee legislators--ones on an "inconsequential" committee (acc. to Daughtrey), are seemingly indifferent to whether John Wilder's feelings might get hurt if they oppose his policy proposals in favor of what our Constitution requires. Daughtrey and his ilk like the present system because they like who is picking the judges . . . and they trust these folks to make the decisions outside the public's view. He may deride opposition to Wilder's pet legislation as veritable elder abuse or actions of a "hard-right breed savor[ing] political power" . . . I'd characterize it as rule of law.

A must-read for any WFB fan

Ross Douthat, writing for The Atlantic, gives a charming, peeking-Tom-ish account of an excursion with William F. Buckley. "We're On Our Way Home Now, Duckie!"

McCain on SNL

Well, John McCain appeared on SNL last evening and his campaign has to be thrilled about the exposure and the message . . .

Here's the first segment, wherein the writers made light of McCain's age (no biggie, when you're making the joke) and his reputation as a fiscal conservative (never a biggie). Though the segment was skimpy on humor--noone would blame that on McCain, and the long spans without a joke only emphasized the frugality message.

Here's the second segment (during "Weekend Update") in which McCain delivers great lines and comes off as a lovable rascal (well, kind of lovable).

I think effective humor typically has some nugget of truth in it. And unlike some other comic appearances by politicians, the nugget of truth in the context of McCain's SNL appearance last evening does not reflect poorly on McCain.

"Sweetiegate" and taffy-like feminism

Nice report about the media's response to Obama's use of "sweetie" in dismissing a female reporter's question (and dismissively addressing various women at campaign events). From the article:

"I don’t think Sweetiegate matters so much for what it says about Barack Obama, whose use of this came precisely as a dismissal to the WXYZ reporter. It says much more about feminist activists and their remarkable flexibility when presuming to know the interior dialogue of the minds of men."

Be sure and watch the SNL sketch linked in the article.

A hit (yellow) dog howls--update

Interesting Mark Steyn op/ed about Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset, and offense taken by various Democrats.

Update: speaking of howling (not to mention hit dogs howling), this is a funny op/ed from Ann Coulter on the subject. I especially liked the line about Wal-Mart.

A couple things . . .

. . . about the Democratic Presidential Primary.

I was just reading a Robert Novak article on the Dem race, and several things came to mind:
--Though I disagree that Hillary's WV trouncing of Obama reflects any "momentum" for her campaign, it certainly reflects Obama's general election weaknesses.
--Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) has just announced that he is switching his super delegate vote from Hillary to Obama. Call me old-fashioned, but it seems like majorly bad form for someone to pull that maneuver.
--Obama seems prepared (according to a story in Politico and reported by Novak) to proclaim the nomination his after he reaches "the pledged delegate majority not counting Florida or Michigan." It's not clear how Obama will handle such an announcement, but it seems a bit disingenuous for Obama to--in any way, diminish the significance of super delegates in deciding this race. There's no denying that the Democrats have a blatantly elitist system of selecting a candidate for president.

Update: The sympathy vote and how we seat judges in TN

Sorry, but sympathy (for another member's ego) is no basis for supporting a particular policy in the state senate ("Wilder’s judicial plan on rocks as Senate tempers ignite" on Nashville City Paper).

From John Rodgers' report:

One of the signature achievements of former Lt. Gov. John Wilder’s legacy — Tennessee’s method for selecting judges — took another step toward extinction today, causing tempers to flare and accusations of mistreatment to fly.

Wilder (D-Mason), a member of the Senate for 44 years and lieutenant governor and Senate speaker for 36 of those years, is retiring this year from the Senate. The state’s current method for picking judges, called the Tennessee Plan, is one of his top achievements.

. . . .

Tempers flared after the legislation was effectively killed.

Senate Democratic Leader Jim Kyle of Memphis was seen in a hallway confrontation with Sen. Rusty Crowe (R-Johnson City), a member of the government operations panel.

. . . .

Kyle said the Republicans mistreated the 86-year old Wilder by “essentially making John Wilder beg them to vote for the bill.”

“I thought it was a real sad day to treat a member like that,” Kyle said afterwards. “The manner in which John Wilder was treated today would be inappropriate for any senator, particularly a fellow who’s been here for 40 years.”

Sen. Dewayne Bunch (R-Cleveland), another GOP member of the committee, called Kyle’s accusation “ludicrous.” "

Way to go, senate Republicans.

UPDATE: Ironically, TN Democratic Party is complaining that Republicans are trying to reform our judicial selection process so as to appoint activist judges to the state bench. Yes, Dems, and up is down. Oh, and they're outraged at how Sen. John Wilder was treated, too. Give me a break.



Prior posts on this issue here.

Winning the war, losing a battle

In light of the GOP's loss of a House seat in Mississippi yesterday, Mark Rose points out, Conservatives may be winning the war (of ideas) but losing the battle.

Hypocrisy writ large

I don't know Bernie Ward from Adam, and I am sad for his family (and victims) but this was too rich to pass up. ("Bernie Ward admits to child porn in plea deal") From the article:

Bernie Ward, the most prominent liberal voice on Bay Area talk radio for more than two decades, admitted Thursday to distribution of child pornography by e-mail in a plea deal that will send him to federal prison for at least five years.
. . . .

Ward initially pleaded not guilty and said he had downloaded a few pornographic images over several weeks as research for a book on hypocrisy among Americans who preach morality in public. But he was confronted by a federal law that flatly prohibits possessing, receiving or distributing child pornography - regardless of intent - and requires at least five years in prison for each conviction.

His hopes of maintaining a defense based on a constitutional right to research taboo subjects appeared to be weakened further when police in Oakdale (Stanislaus County) released transcripts in February of a series of online sex chats between Ward and a dominatrix in December 2004 and January 2005.

The transcripts quote Ward as fantasizing about naked children with no apparent reference to any subject he was researching. Police said he had sent photos to the woman that showed children engaged in sexual activity.
. . . .

After the priesthood, Ward worked as a schoolteacher, served as legislative assistant for then-Rep. Barbara Boxer for three years and was hired by KGO in 1985. As an investigative reporter, he won a national award for a series of stories in the mid-1990s, in partnership with the San Francisco Examiner, that exposed financial and sexual improprieties in the San Francisco Archdiocese.

(emphasis added)


And there's even another level to this story. abc7news.com: Sexual complaints against Bernie Ward date back to priesthood 5/10/08: "Ward's guilty plea brings some comfort to (alleged sexual abuse victim Rosanne) Schwab. She says it's important for people to know that someone who criticized the Catholic church for so long on the radio had his own complaints of misconduct when he was a priest."

Rule of Law on trial in Tennessee

Today's WSJ has a splendid overview of Tennessee's sausage-making scene--the legislature. The struggle is over the scheduled-to-sunset process of placing intermediate appellate court and supreme court judges on the bench. A concern for "rule of law" is a concern for "consistency, transparency and predictability" of the law, and--as the op/ed demonstrates, "rule of law" is at the center of this debate in Tennessee.

And, as the WSJ editorial board hints at but doesn't quite say, the right course--the course that honors rule of law, at this juncture on this issue is to simply do nothing at all.



See also these prior posts (here, here, here and here).

Here's a website (www.tennplandebate.org) with more (pro and con) on the issue of this debate.

Tragic, yet heroic, story from Chicago

I just saw a story about a vehicular homicide (drunk driving) in Chicago. Follow this link for a video report of an heroic father's actions.

Disenfranchising Democrats

While I am rather pleased to see the Democrats take their nomination fight all the way to Denver, here's a little moral support for keeping out the Florida and Michigan primary results. As a Conservative, I listen half-believingly to Democrat cries of "voter disenfranchisement" as we're hearing from the Clinton camp.

That being said, this situation might fit the category of "disenfranchisement" as the voters of these two states had no other choice in the matter and--because of foolish, knowing decisions of their state legislatures, will be denied a vote in the Democratic primary if the DNC stands by its prior pronouncements.

Which highlights another strength of the Clintons' argument, that this is merely a dispute over the internal rules of a political party. As a result, the situation is a little bit different than in Florida2000 and NJ2002 where Dems expediently ignored state statutes to reach a desired end.

Oh well, I guess this post isn't all that supportive of the Obama position . . . Fight on Democrats!!

Get thee to a polling place

Via knoxnews.com | No Silence Here, reports of some nuns making a point (or attempting to) in Indiana:

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters . . . because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway. (emphasis added)

It's interesting stuff, so I encourage you to read the entire article. Interestingly, the nuns contend that it was impossible for them to cast a provisional ballot and then get around to visiting a DMV within the next ten days to get a proper (and free!) photo ID, but they weren't too busy to stage their mini-protest.

Nevertheless, we can all say a prayer of thanks that the world appears not to have ended as a result of Indiana's implementation of the new law. From the article:

Elsewhere across the pivotal state, voting appeared to run smoothly, despite the fears of election experts that the Supreme Court's recent refusal to strike down Indian[a]'s controversial photo identification law could cause confusion at the polls.
A voter hot line set up by the secretary of state's office had no complaints regarding photo IDs as of 3 p.m., said spokeswoman Bethany Derringer. In a primary expected to draw record numbers, most calls concerned precinct locations. (emphasis added)

I guess the nuns didn't have access to telephones? In any event, who needs a telephone and a hotline to the Secretary of State when you've got the MSM to do your bidding?


Here's the AP report.

Evolving standards of dispassionate scientificness

Lately I've been intrigued to observe how the issue of Evolution is deeper than science for Lefties. After seeing Expelled and thereafter having a couple of battles on the subject (here, and here). I started wondering how it is that--despite the Left-of-center stranglehold on the opinion-shapers of public education, Academia and the so-called Mainstream Media--a majority of Americans are still skeptical about Neo-Darwinism.

To begin with, I'm a Neo-Darwinism skeptic; in sum, I do not believe that all living beings have a common descendant.

I won't pretend that I have a deep understanding of science, much less that I'm an expert. However, there are people who do have a deep understanding of science who agree that Neo-Darwinism is shot through with holes.

Nor will I pretend that Evolutionists aren't (typically) well-credentialed and well-armed with impressive-sounding evidence supporting their theories.

Lastly, I won't pretend that my views on this issue aren't deeper than science . . . too bad most Neo-Darwinists aren't willing to acknowledge the same. But the fact that a majority of Americans intuitively disbelieve Neo-Darwinism is worthy of consideration. Here are several reasons I perceive Neo-Darwinists struggle to proselytize.

Neo-Darwinist defensiveness is rather suspicious.
It's often said that the best defense is a good offense, and Neo-Darwinists live by that principle. Challenging the existing presumptions of "science" is what any genuinely altruistic, objective, apolitical, dispassionate scientist does, but Neo-Darwinists are vigilant to shout down those who would raise questions about Neo-Darwinism.

One of the challenges of this debate is that the term "Evolution" is a little ambiguous. Just because someone accepts that--for example, some species go extinct and animals within species change over time--often as adaptations of some sort, doesn't mean that s/he believes in Neo-Darwinism. And that's where a lot of the controversy comes: Neo-Darwinists rely on a fairly broad acceptance of evolutionary principles to inject their views on "Origins" into "science" curricula.

Evolutionary theory is an historical science--we're never going to observe (unless the "scientists" also solve "death") inter-species Evolution. Evolutionary theory offers plausible explanations for some questions about how living things got to be the way they are, but Neo-Darwinism leaves many questions unanswered. Pardon me (us . . . in the majority) if the failure of your theory (to offer plausible explanations for crucial questions) inclines me to disbelieve other tenets of your theory. It hurts your cause even more when you disingenuously ignore the weaknesses of your theory.

And the lengths to which Neo-Darwinists are willing to go in defense of their belief system is well-documented and troubling. Read Survival of the Fakest for some of the more notorious examples. It kind of undermines the "dispassionate scientist" shtick when there is such evidence of deception.

Moreover, given the evidence put forth in the movie Expelled--not to mention the oppressive know-it-all-ism demonstrated by many who call themselves Evolutionists, one can fairly wonder if anything that doesn't comport with secular Neo-Darwinianism could ever get a fair hearing within the scientific community.

(Aside: there's an impressive website that has been put together to bash Expelled, called www.expelledexposed.com. I was intrigued to read all the rebuttal evidence offered to say, "The persons featured in the film were never mistreated, ostracized, unfairly penalized, etc. etc." If you've ever gone up against the HR in a big company it is almost laughable how unquestioningly the apologists accept what appears to be run-of-the-mill corporate or bureaucratic wagon-circling. Butt-covering personnel memos or press releases are hardly compelling evidence of what did or did not happen to an individual who challenged corporate/bureaucratic conventions.)

I guess it comes down to objectivity, and the majority of Americans have real doubts about the objectivity of the "scientific" powers that be. As stated at intelligentdesignnetwork.org

Government and public education Institutions supporting Origins Science should also strive for Objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.

Unfortunately, many Institutions of Science and government employ unyielding preconceptions that favor certain explanations of origins over others and thereby take sides in this important controversy. The establishment of an “orthodox” explanation of origins impairs good Science, restricts freedom, disturbs peace and offends laws requiring government to be religiously Neutral.

A majority of us don't agree that intelligent design theory is non-scientific.
In any discussion on Evolution, Neo-Darwinists are quick to assert that Intelligent Design theory is not scientific, and that it (ID) is controversial only because "Creationists" are attempting to teach religion as science. Wrong. Here's a good description--I'd say, of what most Americans think on this issue,

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Questions lead to hypotheses, and there are lots of legitimate questions about Evolutionary Theory. While we cannot "prove" or "disprove" irreducible complexity in a lab, we can--using math and statistical analysis, deduce that the odds of some seemingly irreducibly complex organs or organisms "evolving" or happening by chance mutation are beyond belief. In the face of that assessment, it seems a true scientist would want to keep looking--with an open mind, to find a more plausible explanation . . . that is, unless that scientist has too much vested in the paradigm or over-arching theory already in place.

Interestingly, once you can get a Neo-Darwinist to stop sniffing and start talking, they begin to offer scientific "proofs" or reasons that Intelligent Design, for example, isn't good science. Such "proofs," dear reader, are testable, which makes them scientific, which kind of hurts Neo-Darwinists' argument. That may be part of why they'd rather sniff than talk.

No doubt, there's more to the debate about Evolution than science. If Neo-Darwinists could ever admit that fact, they might have more success at persuading us that they're only "following the science."

Reports of speedy justice in East Nashville

I know I'm late in posting about this, but I had to comment on this story from East Nashville. ("Liquor store customer kills would-be robber"--The Tennessean). From the article:

Two men entered Sinkers Wine & Spirits on Gallatin Road around 10 p.m. and attempted to rob the store with handguns, Capt. David Imhof said. During the robbery, a customer in his early 20s took out a handgun of his own and began a shootout among the three men, Imhof said.

One of the robbery suspects ran off, but the other collapsed outside the store due to his injuries, Imhof said. He was taken to Skyline Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Robber #1 reaped what he sowed. Robber #2 is going to think twice before perpetrating on someone else. The Hero, who reportedly had a right to carry permit and was in his early 20s, "was interviewed and released by police. He has not been charged."

In other Nashville news, too bad this loser couldn't have picked the "wrong" victim. Kudos MNPD.

Even Stevens (agrees on ballot integrity)

Great article (here) about the Supreme Court's Voter ID ruling this week. Here's an article excerpt--related to what could fairly be termed a bi-ideological decision:

Six months before the presidential election, the issue of ballot integrity is already a partisan battleground. The 2005 Indiana law was backed by Republicans, opposed by Democrats, and the decision is widely described as having given the Republicans an election-year victory. "The GOP for years has been actively pursuing a campaign against what it calls 'voter fraud,' and the Court's ruling Monday appears to validate that effort, at least in part," Lyle Denniston on the SCOTUS blog maintained. . . . Fraud is seen as a (misguided) Republican concern, while Democrats are credited with concern about equal electoral access — with the two viewed as mutually exclusive.

If the poor and elderly find it too hard to obtain photo IDs, voting is not their only problem. They can’t take advantage of a cheap airfare when they want to visit a new grandchild; they have no access to their elected representatives in a building with a security check; they are unlikely to get into a Social Security office.

“Democracy was the big loser in the Supreme Court on Monday” the New York Times editorialized. Democratic government requires a certain tolerance for fraud, our “paper of record” implies. Somehow, I don’t think so. And neither does Justice Stevens.

Voters--and consequently (in this case) a majority of state legislators strongly support a photo ID requirement . . . the Supreme Court was right to let this law stand.

Brendan Loy charts Obama's post-candidate "calling"

I just read a post from Brendan Loy ("Obama rejects, denounces & disowns Wright"-- via ACK at "Post Politics") that raises several issues. Loy writes:

"Right now, at this very moment, we have an African-American candidate for president who commands overwhelming support within the black community, who has just explicitly and firmly denounced the radical and hateful nonsense that is all too often accepted and repeated without question within that selfsame black community. That's a very good thing. Wright will undoubtedly dismiss Obama's comments as, in Al Sharpton's words, 'grandstanding in front of white people,' but the truth is that Obama is speaking to black people, too -- he's speaking to everyone -- and he is sending a very clear message: enough with the bulls**t. Haven't conservatives been waiting for a black leader to do that for, like, forever?

. . . .

You can parse his words and question his timing, and you'll find plenty to criticize. But ultimately -- again, big picture, people -- he's doing the right thing, and it's a very important 'right thing.' Either his heart's n the right place, or, if you want to be all cynical about it, he's pretending that it is, and his overall message demands that he continue to do so, which is almost as good. Either way, the Barack Obama who spoke today is the natural ally of anyone who has ever despaired over the blame-whitey victimhood culture within the black community. No, he's not quite channeling Bill Cosby. He wouldn't be in this position if he were. No, he didn't throw Jeremiah Wright under the bus last fall. It's a delicate and difficult tightrope he's walking. He's not perfect. But no one is, and Obama is trying harder than anyone else has, on this stage, ever before. Be reasonable!

I'm not saying how we got here is entirely unimportant, but I think recognizing where we are now is vastly more important. And I think it would be a shame if Obama is now effectively crucified by both sides: the political right (and its newfound ally, Hillary Clinton), for not saying this sooner; and radical elements of the liberal-black community, for saying it at all. Rightly or wrongly, the takeaway lesson, if such a two-front assault destroys him, would be that a black politician cannot succeed on the national stage, at least until the baby boomers die off. Conservatives ought not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. (That's liberals' job!) Obama is doing the right thing here, and if he's a little late to the party, slap him on the wrist and then defend him against the coming Wright/Sharpton/etc. onslaught. And then beat him in November on security issues or whatever. But he's on the right side of this issue, and if he loses because of it, it will be a shame for everyone -- principled conservatives included."

First, I see that he also is referring to this as Obama's "Reverend Wright Moment" (a term I'm also hearing from other, various quarters this a.m.), and I also noticed that he predicted folks like me would say "better late than never." I think he's right on both points.

That being said--here's point number two, I think that Loy is not fully appreciating the meaning behind the term "Sister Souljah Moment." It is the Clintonian, purely-political-posturing aspect of the SSM maneuver that saps it of credibility--not to mention honor. While I commend Loy for his novel proposition, as a Conservative, I'm not buying it. With me at least, this one press conference has not established Obama's "speaking truth to (black) power" bona fides. I'm more than willing to cheer him on in this new calling after he--like Al Gore, becomes the man who used to be the "next President of the United States."

Oh, that Reverend Wright!?! Updated

News today that U.S. Senator Barack Obama has denounced reiterations, er, statements made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright yesterday. (here) Obama is denouncing the (previous but persistent) statements as being "divisive and destructive" . . . tell us about it, Senator.

It seems that the final straw may have been the Reverend's "politician" swipe. Apparently Wright doesn't realize that Obama is a new kind of leader . . . not a politician.

As for Obama's stance today, better late than never, I guess.


Update: I'm sorry, but I'm incredulous. I just watched Obama's statement concerning his Reverend's Monday TV appearance. If Obama has "spent [his] entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different types of people," then he must have been sleeping in church his entire adult life. As I said over at Music City Bloggers, this may go down in (political) history as Obama's Brother Wright* moment.

If you can't beat 'em, denigrate them.

Thomas Sowell nails one of the more common Lefty fallacies:

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Rule of law and ruling out Presidential candidates

After reading this poignant Thomas Sowell quote about the McCain candidacy,

"Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain,"

this Jonah Goldberg op/ed ("Courting Disaster" on National Review Online) was pretty timely:

"What is staggering, or at least should be, is that Stevens freely admits that he no longer considers “objective evidence” or even the plain text of the Constitution determinative of what is or isn’t constitutional: “I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty” is unconstitutional.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a blistering response, justifiably exclaimed that, “Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat.”

I say “justifiably” rather than “accurately” because I think we hear purer expressions of the principle that “good” judges are those who make it up as they go along all the time. Consider Barack Obama. The Democratic front-runner and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago has explained his thinking toward judicial appointments thusly: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

When defending his vote against Justice John Roberts’ confirmation, Obama explained that the standard for a justice must be “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”

Now that is a pure expression of the principle of judicial fiat."

. . . .

Five of the last seven presidents have been Republicans at least nominally committed to appointing conservative justices. Some have fallen short in that department (though not President George W. Bush), which is why the Supreme Court today hangs in the balance. John McCain could conceivably make the mistake of appointing a Souter or a Stevens or some other justice who sees the Constitution as an ink blot. But the key difference between McCain and his Democratic rivals is that he promises not to appoint such justices. Clinton and Obama consider it among their top priorities. That’s at least one reason for saying this is one of the most important elections in a very long time.

At least one reason for a Clinton supporter to support the Surge

Sidney Blumenthal was driving while intoxicated on the night before the NH primaries--and police say he was traveling 70 mph in a 30 mph zone.
Clinton aide, Blumenthal, accepts deal in DWI case:

"Blumenthal pleaded guilty March 28 to a standard, misdemeanor DWI charge. He was fined $900, and his driver's license revoked for 10 months. Blumenthal can seek to get his license restored after 120 days, however, if he completes and alcohol education program in Washington, D.C., court records show.
. . . .

Police negotiated a plea bargain in part because the arresting officer, Christopher Ditullio, was called up for service in Iraq, and would not have been available to testify, [Capt. Peter] Segal said."

Redstate of mind

Here's some good news for Tennesseans, and it reflects what is becoming apparent to me: that McCain's strengths match up well with the weaknesses of either Democratic candidate. Rasmussen--Tennessee: McCain Leads Both Democrats by Double Digits."

AirAmerica and Rhodes rage

You've probably heard that AirAmerica (yes, it's still broadcasting . . . somewhere) hostess Randi Rhodes has been suspended for calling Hillary "a f***ing whore" in the context of shilling for Barack Obama. As is noted at National Review Online, this is reflective (perhaps) of political activists in general, but it is definitely true of Liberal political activists, who fight for keeps, baby.

There's something rather heartening about this for those of us on the right who've been on the receiving end of the left's vehemence: Apparently there really is nothing personal about it. You can be a chickenhawk warmonger racist homophobe mysogynist Bush shill or a pro-feminist pro-gay pro-black icon of progressive politics for a generation, but, if you cross the likes of Randi Rhodes, you're all the same and you merit the same four-letter words and KKK slurs. The left's Discoursometer is like one of those shower units where the slightest nudge turns it to scalding.

pocket change we can believe in

Here's an interesting comparison of charitable giving of the self-identified "Progressive" Obamas and their cousins the self-identified "Conservative" Cheneys ("Arthur C. Brooks on Charitable Giving & Barack Obama"--National Review Online). The article reports that the Obamas gave in the low single digits until the last two years (for which we have returns) when they gave 5% and 6%. From the article:

"The Obamas got rich in 2005. Their income increased sevenfold from 2004 to 2005, mostly because of Mr. Obama’s book royalties, and stayed very high in 2006 for the same reason. In 2006, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney’s books and the couple’s investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)

This last fact does not generally square with the well-cultivated liberal trope of the blackhearted Cheneys. Unless, that is, you believe that private charity is not an important value that defines one’s character, compared with government taxation and welfare spending (which Mr. Cheney generally opposes, despite the profligate ways of the Bush White House)."

Wow. The article continues:

In 1996, the General Social Survey asked a large sample of Americans whether they agreed that, “The government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.” Those who “disagreed strongly” with this statement gave an amazing twelve times more money to charity per year, on average, than those who “agreed strongly.” People disagreeing strongly also gave nine times more to secular causes than those agreeing strongly, and even gave more to traditionally progressive causes, such as the environment and the arts.

The article has a "charitable" explanation for the differences.

How is this not "newspeak"?

Just perusing my daily email from the City Paper, I noticed a story that seemed "new" because I hadn't heard anything about it previously. "Dean-backed nondiscrimination bill passes" on Nashville City Paper. Despite Dean's seeming ambivalence about homosexual issues when running for Mayor, I thought that perhaps he had pushed a bill making persons-who-engage-in-homosexual-acts a protected class." Well, it turns out that "non-discrimination" (related to "procurement" programs) means "affirmative action." From the story:

"The Metro government non-discrimination bill — the first key piece of legislation supported by first-year Mayor Karl Dean — was passed into law by Metro Council at its meeting on Tuesday.

The bill amends Metro Code to establish a procurement non-discrimination program within Metro, which aims to give minority- and women-owned businesses an equal opportunity to secure contracts on Metro projects.

. . . .

Dean appointed an advisory council last October to identify initiatives Metro could take to help minority- and women-owned businesses receive a fair share of Metro contracts."

(emphasis added). And how do we decide what is the "fair share" of these contracts?

Politics as usual

From Gore's 60 Minutes interview, Lesley Stahl reports (Al Gore's New Campaign, Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat - CBS News):

"[Gore] says he's fallen out of love with politics. He's selling a cause now, and there are no consultants telling him what to say or how to dress."

A "cause" vs. "politics"? Give me a break. Wait, Gore's derisive view of "politics" may explain a lot about how he lived out his prior profession.

History lesson for Stahl

Lesley Stahl, in her 60 Minutes interview with Al Gore this past Sunday (Al Gore's New Campaign, Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat - CBS News), mistakenly implies that Al Gore hardly had time to get his boxes unpacked in his Belle Meade Mansion before the nattering nabobs started in:

"They bought an 18-room mansion in Nashville. After they moved in, they were criticized because the house 'Mr. Global Warming' lived in used 20 times more energy than the average American household. Since then, they have retrofitted everything, including installing 33 solar panels on the roof."

Actually, the Gores bought the house soon after he lost in 2000 and 6+ years later the report about his obscene energy consumption came to light.

Civics lesson for Stahl

Lesley Stahl, in her 60 Minutes interview with Al Gore this past Sunday (Al Gore's New Campaign, Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat - CBS News), ignores the inconvenient truth of the Electoral College, not to mention the fact that Gore didn't win the popular vote in Florida:

"Tipper says that Al's survival after his defeat in 2000 depended on his immersing himself in the climate cause. The year 2000 was of course when he won the popular vote, but lost the presidency when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of George Bush."

Somehow I missed that about Rev. Wright

In his Oprah appearance this week Obama asserted that,

"[Rev. Wright] . . . acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were (sic) inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the, the greatness of this country with all its flaws . . ."

I'm Barack Obama and I have four quarters

I just happened upon this funny political website (from the team who brought you Mystery Science Theatre 3000). Here's a funny one about Obama.



Here's a good one about Hillary. (Maybe these guys are for McCain--his aren't as funny).

Reforming culture of corruption

In this story about newly-elected La. Governor Bobby Jindal (R), the list of recent impressive ethics reforms was followed by this paragraph:

"Some pills, however, proved too bitter for legislators to swallow. A bill that would have stripped those convicted of public corruption of their state pensions went down to defeat."

Which reminded me of our little slice of the political world in Tennessee. I don't know if discussions of how to treat the pensions of Tennessee Waltz convicts ever went anywhere, but it is a shame to me that this issue doesn't get more traction. Granted, most people are unaware of the long-term perqs of public "service," in particular, the pensions. So that cuts against action or reform.

But coupled, with the white-collar-slap-on-the-wrist treatment of legislators convicted of abusing the public trust, and the ready-made defense of partisanship (and in the case of our Fords--charges of racism) I'd say there is insufficient disincentive to play fast and loose with "ethical guidelines," not to mention morals, for elected officials.

McCain and same-sex marriage

Uh, explain to me again why we don't need federal legislation/action on the homosexual marriage issue? From the St. Joseph (Mo.) News-Press, "Same-sex breakup perplexes courts":

"A lesbian married in Massachusetts has filed for an annulment from her partner in a Buchanan County (Mo.) court, creating a legal challenge in a state that overwhelming[ly] voted four years ago that marriage is only between a man and a woman."

If John McCain expects Conservatives (heck, non-Liberals given the success of Marriage Protection Amendments across the country) to back him in November, he had better make clear his intentions on this issue.

Let's windfall-tax the crap out of this group!

It appears there are some bright spots in the Bush economy:

A new annual report from Planned Parenthood shows the nation's largest abortion business has made over $1 billion in profit for the first time in its history. The non-profit pro-abortion group shows the historical gain in its new annual report covering 2006-2007.

While Planned Parenthood made $972 mil[l]ion in its 2005-2006 annual report, last fiscal year it brought in $1.017 billion.

(emphasis added) And speaking of corporate welfare . . .

Of concern to pro-life groups, Planned Parenthood acknowledges the receipt of over $336 million in government grants and contracts from both state and federal governments. . . .

And from the look of things, PPFA seems intent on preserving their "corporate welfare":

For Planned Parenthood, weighed down by new criminal charges and legal suits, the best defense seems to be a good offense. The organization is sinking $10 million into its PAC, hoping to load the Congress with abortion allies who would help protect–if not increase–its multi-million federal funding stream. The amount allocated for political races is triple what the organization has spent in past elections. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is even wading into local politics, a scene it had previously ignored. NARAL Pro-Choice America and PPAF will spend a combined $20 million in the 2008 election cycle on contests for the House, Senate, and White House.

Yeah, what Hillary said.

The strategy of Obama supporters is now obvious . . . declare as off limits or divisive or whatever any further discussion of the beliefs/teachings of Obama's long-time pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Yeah. What Hillary said.

Update: For some reason, a significant part of Hillary's comments are being left out of most of the reports. Here's a boat load of info on the statements. She also said,

"You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."

(emphasis added)

For the record . . .

. . . I am pleased to have Hillary and Obama fight it out all the way to the DNC Convention, and I think voters certainly have the right to cast a tactical vote for whomever they want (e.g., crossing over to vote in the other party's primary); however, I heard today that a Rush Limbaugh listener from Texas had "caucused" in the Democratic primary, run as a Hillary delegate (or perhaps allowed himself to be elected delegate) and was elected. I think that's wrong, and I think Rush's rationalizations on the matter are intellectually insulting.

PLEASE don't stop talking

Did McCain hire Rove? Keep up the trash talk, Chavez. Per Reuters, "Chavez says U.S. relations could worsen with McCain".

If only kings didn't have to be elected . . .

Former GOP presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee is talking more about his failed campaign. In this Washington Times article Huckabee describes how Evangelical leaders' desires to play kingmaker had fractured the Religious Right voting bloc. From the article:

"Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson backed Rudolph W. Giuliani; American Value President and former presidential hopeful Gary Bauer endorsed Sen. John McCain; and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins remained neutral, even as Mr. Huckabee was wowing their supporters and winning the values voter straw polls they organized.

. . . .

Mr. Bauer says Mr. Huckabee 'ran an honorable campaign, but in spite of his successes I saw no evidence that he could bring together the three main parts of the Reagan electoral constituency — defense, economic and social conservatives."

Although I wouldn't agree that Huckabee was the no-brainer choice for Evangelicals, I do think that tentative pragmatism on the part of some Evangelical leaders produced a candidate that fails to inspire Evangelicals. I won't despise Gary Bauer for his early endorsement of John McCain, but it is almost humorous to hear him say that he was most concerned about his candidate's ability to unite the Reagan coalition.

Accused murderer commits suicide

Here's an interesting story from Knoxville ("Sheriff releases info on suicide of Johnia Berry's accused killer"--Knoxville News Sentinel). Interesting because I know Greg Isaacs (the defense attorney), because of the defense's theory that is likely to cloud the issue/story, because I don't feel much remorse that someone involved in a capital murder has done himself in.

From the story:

(The victim), 21, was stabbed to death in her West Knox County Apartment in December 2004. The case went unsolved for nearly three years before a DNA test linked blood found in Berry's apartment to Olson (the guy who just committed suicide), who has a record for theft.

But the defense had someone ("Augustine Joseph Leon") who claimed someone other than Olson had confessed to the murder:

"According to Leon's statement, Olson broke into what he thought was an unoccupied apartment when Berry, who heard an intruder and armed herself with a knife and wounded Olson.

Cox then ran to Olson's aid and killed Berry as Olson, bleeding, ran from the apartment, according to Leon's account."

To be sure, I want to make sure we get the actual killer in this case, but I noone will shed any tears over Taylor Olson's death. Apparently Olson had "apologized" in the past for what he called an "accident." It's sad to say, but Olson likely saved us all a lot of trouble by taking his own life. He was plainly guilty of capital murder (even assuming the promised defense witness' account is true). And I seriously doubt this young woman (the victim) was the aggressor with Olson (or anyone) before she was killed.

Enclave Mike kicking butt and taking names

Wow. "S-town Mike" at the Enclave Blog is having none of the Tennessean's non-judgmental story about businessmen . . . purporting to be followers of Jesus . . . who go to a religious event at a church located in ritzy Brentwood . . . and who--Mike presumes, hypocritically ignore certain Biblical principles. According to Mike's interpretation of a Bible verse he cites, wealthy people can't get into heaven. Mike calls the group (CEO, for Christian Executive Officer) "the Brentwood Baptist CEO Rationalization Fellowship."

Mike, I don't know you, but I do know that simply by virtue of living in America you are "wealthy" compared to something like 90% of the world's population. Rationalize that.

And Happy day after Easter, btw.

Iraq and 9/11

I'd say you need to be vigilant in defending political truth when your ideological opponents control Academia, the dominant Media Complex and both houses of Congress. So here is a bit of vigilance for this week.

It is not stupid for Americans to believe that there were links between Iraq, Saddam Hussein and those who attacked us on September 11th.

Andy McCarthy has opined about the issue on National Review Online.

From the article:

But they (democratization, etc.) are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.

That is why we are in Iraq.

. . .

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

What is the big deal with Reverend Wright?

Many folks (mainly Democrats supporting Barack Obama for president) are eager to see the Rev. Wright story in the rear-view mirror. I, on the other hand, don't care about guarding Obama's political image, so I think it is worthwhile to answer the question, What is the big deal with Reverend Wright?

First, it certainly matters what is being taught at the church that a candidate attends. Especially if the candidate has been attending the church for 20 years, and especially if the candidate has emphasized the impact that said church has had on his/her life.

Second, Wright was certainly the heart, soul and voice of the church he pastored. And I think it is pretty clear that Wright (as well as Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago) adheres to Black Liberation Theology. So it is worthwhile--heck, it is essential in considering this matter, to ascertain what BLT is.

Here is what seems to be a good article about Black Liberation Theology. To non-Christians a consideration of BLT may seem like inside baseball. To secularists taking any person's religious views too seriously--unless that person is a Religious Conservative, of course ;)--might seem like a waste of time. Oh well. I kind of believe that a person's worldview is very important--especially if a person claims to have carefully chosen his worldview.

Speaking of guilt by association

I just saw on the CBS Evening News (note: I am accidentally watching it because it is on during a break in the NCAA tourney) that the Obama campaign provided a photo to the NYTimes proving . . . PROVING . . . that Bill Clinton and Rev. Wright were in the same room in 1998.

And the Obama campaign has also attempted an acquittal-by-association today, staging a rally in which it announced that Gov. Bill Richardson was endorsing Sen. Obama.

Huckabee on Rev. Wright: “Cut Him Some Slack”

This was an interesting, and not surprising, report about statements from Mike Huckabee on Rev. Wright. (Huckabee on Rev. Wright: “Cut Him Some Slack”)From the story:

"“I grew up in a very conservative south, and I think that you have to cut some slack, and I think I’m probably the only conservative in America who is going to say something like this, but I’m just telling you, we’ve got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie you have to go in the backdoor when you go the restaurant,” he continued.

“Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and have resentment, and you just have to say, I probably would too.”"

I completely agree in one sense, but I think it is a form of "soft bigotry" to leave such expressions or movements or systems of belief unexamined or uncritiqued. And there's an ugly point at which resentment is fostered, nursed, exploited. But Huckabee demonstrates again his exceptional empathy.

Here's some more context on the statement.

"Guilt by association" hooey

One of the assertions from Obama supporters (and Right haters, generally) in the midst of this story about Rev. Wright is that folks who are bringing it up are guilty of the "guilt by association" fallacy. That's just stupid.

There are contexts in which trying to impugn a person's ideas/character/beliefs by pointing to ideas/character/beliefs of someone with whom they merely associate is wrong. It is not a fallacy to consider a person's church--and the beliefs of that church, when trying to assess that person's qualifications for leadership.

On that subject, here's something to whet your appetite about Black Liberation Theology.

Obama on race

I just read Sen. Barack Obama's speech in its entirety (here), and I have to say I'm impressed. He is good, and I predict that this speech is perfect for what Obama is focused on right now--winning the DNC nomination.

Various things crossed my mind as I read the speech, but I have two particular observations that I feel I need to share. Aren't you lucky? I have two major misgivings about what he said.

First, related to this statement:

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

I agree. I'm thankful that this issue has come up, and that, as a result, Americans may more openly expose our ideas on race to the light. That being said, I regret that Rev. Wright (Obama's "former pastor") has not heard this message until today. And I regret that Sen. Obama voted with his feet all those years--more than two decades.

Second, related to this statement:

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

Sen. Obama mustn't conflate Liberalism with "seeking a more perfect union." While such rhetoric will likely rouse Democratic superdelegates and, for example, hardcore, white Education unionists, it is offensive to Americans who may need to hear a difficult word about race but are sensitive to the Democratic Party's race-exploiting rhetoric.

D'oh! Obama's church believes THAT?!

I have just realized that Francis Schaeffer's son (whom I always knew as "Franky") has found a new marketing niche. For some time--it appears, he has been on a Left-wing penitence media tour; which (using the word "penitence") kind of assumes that he really believes what he is now saying. Who knows.

So Franky burst back into my e-consciousness today with his timely and earnest defense of Barack Obama's church's beliefs (here). Schaeffer no doubt gets ALL the attention he can stand these days, though he was selling something else back in the day. (Schaeffer is in good company with Arianna Huffington who carries her own foot locker full of embarrassing about faces.) However, his full-throated defense make more sense in light of pro-Obama stuff he's been hanging out there in recent months--stuff like this (Frank Schaeffer: "Why I'm Pro-life and Pro-Obama"):

"The real solution to abortion is to change the heart of America, not the law. We need to stop seeing ourselves as consumers. We need to stop seeing ourselves as me and begin to think of we. Our country needs someone to show us a better way, a president who is what he seems, someone with actual moral authority that our diverse population can believe in who has the qualities that make us want to follow him. Obama is that person."

Well, we're now seeing that perhaps Obama is less about unifying and seeing above divisions than he is about appearing to see above divisions.

I hope to write more later about the difference between the statements of Francis Schaeffer being used by Franky to diminish the seriousness of Wright's jeremiads, but just so I'm clear on this, am I hearing from all you Lefties that it is now okay to say "God damn America"?

Old School Social Engineering

This is good news. State Rep. Mike Turner has a bill that will do away with forced busing in Nashville* ("Committee to discuss neighborhood schools bill March 19"). But I am amazed at the audacity of the Social Engineers who oppose such an idea . . . they've had nearly half a century to put up, now they need to shut up:

"Opponents of neighborhood schools cite the importance of racial and economic diversity in schools, as well as academic research showing that isolation of students in communities of poverty can be harmful."

"Neighborhoods" can be drawn so as to include racial and socioeconomic diverse populations.

I'm not sure there is a better example of social engineering than forced busing. I know it's hard to admit you were wrong, but folks, busing . . . is . . . a failure. Mr. Turner, good luck facing off with the "educators" who seem more committed to their models than to the realities.







*For the record, I think it is plainly unconstitutional to limit a bill's application to a single county, but . . .

Leading to . . . preconceived notions

I just watched the ostensibly anti-war movie Leading to War (here) and it is very well done. Unfortunately for its producers, however, they fail to make a convincing argument against the war. Ah sure, it gives bushaters multiple opportunities point to Bush's use of the term "nukular" as evidence of his incompetence or stupidity. And if you think that Rumsfeld was too big for his britches, there's plenty of footage to support that perception. But the producers fail to establish anything that impugns the Bush Administration.

Somebody's clueless about the definition of a crime

In today's email from my friends at Democrats.com . . .

Today Gov. Eliot Spitzer apologized again to the people of New York for his personal failings and resigned, just 16 months after winning an historic landslide election with 70% of the vote.

But Spitzer's resignation was not entirely voluntary, because Republican leaders were busy drafting Articles of Impeachment.

What was Spitzer's impeachable offense? The "lowest" crime in the book.

As we know, the Founding Fathers wanted Impeachment to be used for "High Crimes" like treason, bribery, war crimes, and subverting the Constitution itself.

Eliot Spitzer committed no "High Crimes" - but George Bush and Dick Cheney most certainly have, and they continue to do so with absolute impunity.

It's time for Congress to impeach them for it.

16 months ago, we posted a petition listing 10 High Crimes which justified their impeachment:
(1) Starting a "war of aggression" (2) torture (3) arbitrary detention (4) war crimes (5) warrantless wiretapping (6) signing statements (7) election fraud (8) outing a covert CIA operative (9) the "unitary executive" (10) gross negligence for Katrina and global warming.

Each one of these crimes is as unacceptable today as it was then. After 5 years in Iraq (see below), Bush has killed nearly 4,000 Americans and over 1 million Iraqis and incurred $3 trillion in costs. And there are many more crimes we could add, including Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence to stop him from testifying about the crimes of Bush and Cheney themselves, and Bush's ongoing threats to bomb Iran. And each one makes Spitzer's "crime" utterly insignificant by comparison.

Yeah, whatever Democrats.

A couple things . . .

. . . about the Memphis murders. (Sibling argument led to Lester Street mass murder, police say).

--it's disturbing that this report could have been about NINE victims if the perpetrator had done what he intended; it's hard to believe that one of the victims that this idiot tried to kill--by stabbing, was a TWO-MONTH-OLD baby.

--it appears this is one instance where the death penalty (the apparent perpetrator was guilty of a 1994 drug murder) would have saved six lives.

What Will Rogers said . . .

Michigan and Florida are considering do-over primary elections. Do-Over in Michigan and Florida?:

"Florida and Michigan moved up their dates to protest the party's decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by South Carolina and Nevada, giving them a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process.

But no one predicted the race would still be very close this late in the year.

Ironically, Michigan and Florida could have held crucial primaries if they had stayed with their traditional later dates. They may yet do so if they decide to hold new contests as Clinton and Obama compete to the wire."

What Will Rogers said.

Tasty AND nutritious

Have I mentioned how fun it is to watch the Clinton Machine lead the way in the Democrat Circular Firing Squad?

But the not-stopping-anytime-soon Democratic primary contest also provides the valuable service of popping the bubble (deflating the hot air balloon?) of any potential Obama candidacy, and it very well may hand Republicans a Hillary nomination. As Lowry and O'Beirne wrote in a recent edition of National Review,

Hillary Clinton has earned the vocal disapproval of the liberal elite; if she wins the nomination, she will be forced to court the party’s angry-Left base at a time when she would be better served by reaching out to the center; she has used Bill as an obvious crutch, weakening her own image; and her feminist allies have made it clear they will do all they can to define her candidacy as an exercise in vintage 1970s-style feminism. For Republicans, the choice is clear: Go Hillary!

That's why I say that posts like this one over at Tennessee Guerilla Women are a healthy (Republican) snack.

Si se puede, but probably shouldn't

I heard Obama say from his Texas HQ this evening, "si se puede." I wonder how wise it is to wield that slogan given its prominence in the pro-illegal-immigration marches of several summers ago.

Meanwhile, over at MusicCityBloggers . . .

It just occurred to me that some folks who visit here routinely may not know that I am an editor/contributor over at MusicCityBloggers.com. I hope you'll pay us a visit over there, and be sure and tell 'em Ned sent ya'!