Ford, Jr.'s financial life is an open book . . . so what?

Jon W. Sparks, in the Commercial Appeal, is claiming that Bob Corker is acting undemocratically by not releasing every detail of his tax returns over the past four years. Well, this standard will certainly be news to Phil Bredesen. But, according to Sparks, Corker should do it because Ford, Jr. has done it . . . Sparks opines:

"but [Corker] must remember that he's being measured against someone who was willing to disclose more than he has so far."

Big honking whup; "the Ford, Jr. Standard" of disclosure . . . what might Ford, Jr.'s returns show us? That he has been a successful businessman, job creator, entrepreneur, etc.?

But the fact that a political opponent demands some type of information from you doesn't mean you're avoiding accountability or not being "open" by refusing to provide it to him. Surely Mr. Sparks and Ford, Jr. can appreciate the democratic principle of privacy. If Ford, Jr. wants to release his returns, good for him, but it is neither dishonest--much less hypocritical (as in desiring the spread of "democracy"), to release the summaries of one's tax returns. If Sparks (or Ford, Jr.) has any suspicions, let's hear 'em; enough insinuating.

Five Minutes to Midnight

I urge you to read this excellent commentary at CoxandForkum.com (here) on the misguided spirit of appeasement--no matter how earnest, and the challenge we face with Iran.

Kudos to NYT re. Joseph Plame Wilson

I have to commend the New York Times for reporting that the (non)scandal of the Plame Affair may have indeed been . . . a non-scandal. According to the NYT:

"An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

"Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles."

And, as Bill Hobbs notes, lesser kudos to the Washington Post which has acknowledged that the whole affair was a waste of time.

And the Editors at National Review sum up the situation here.

One good reason I'll say "Islamofascist"

Kathleen Parker has a nice op/ed (at RealClearPolitics.com) about "the religion of peace" and reports a detail concerning the journalists recently kidnapped and forced to "convert" to Islam. According to Parker, the kidnappers had a list of demands including

". . . that President Bush cease referring to Islamic fascists as "Islamic fascists.''

It's not nice, and it makes the kidnappers mad.

"Yeah, they were very angry about that,'' said Wiig in an interview after his release.

That's at least one good reason to use the term.

Pray. Vote. Pray.

Blogger AC Kleinheider (at Volunteer Voters) has posted some friendly advice for "Evangelicals" and though I agree with various of his assertions, I have to take issue with a couple:

1. "An evangelical is a 'born again' Christian. Many folks who [were] "saved" were not Republicans before their conversion. They are not natural conservatives. They are conservatives because they are evangelical. They are not natural Republicans or conservatives. They are Republicans because their pastor told them to be essentially."

While AC is correct that one's worldview typically affects their policy priorities, it is insulting to assert that folks who became Republican after becoming "Evangelical" do so "because their pastor told them to be essentially."

2. "The Republicans may talk a good game on social issues but what do they ever do really? Nothing. Republicans have had the majority for a quite a few years now and nothing substantial has come from it."

As a commenter, Jay Bush, points out over at Volunteer Voters, originalist judicial appointments are perhaps the most significant return on Religious Conservatives' investment in the GOP. (As an aside, ironically, populists, democrats, etc. should be supportive of separation of powers and leaving legislating to accountable legislators.) But this comment is something I'm hearing more from those who are desperate to suppress interest among Religious Conservatives. Nice try. Most of us realize that Conservatives in our Federal gov't have hardly had a working majority over the past 6 years, and sending Ford, Jr. in Frist's place isn't going to bring us closer to seeing our policy views effectuated.

3. "Evangelicals have received nothing in exchange for their support of Republicans and they likely never will. Christians need to take in to account that politics is not spiritual activity.

"Faith should direct and influence a person[']s politics but it should not control it."

I'm not sure I completely understand AC's point (or that it is even understandable); is he conflating "faith" and "morals"? In any event, this is perhaps the greatest fallacy in the post.

I believe that casting a vote and being involved in the political process is very much a spiritual activity in the sense that God cares what I do and in the sense that I ought to vote and politic in a fashion consistent with my espoused beliefs or convictions. Indeed, I view politics as a broad application of the Golden Rule and believe that as a citizen in a republican political system I have an obligation to "rule" justly, because public policy has an impact on my neighbor.
To sum up, I like the bumper sticker I saw in 2004: "Pray. Vote. Pray." I believe Christians should pray first for wisdom and character to do what's most consistent with God's character (as with many, if not most, decisions in life, I don't think we can expect God to write His will on a wall). Casting a vote is merely the most elementary form of political involvement, and we should do what we can as "rulers" in a republican form of gov't. At the end of the day, Christians should pray for God's will to be done and for us to accept whatever His will is. Above all, I think this process moves Christians toward having a clear conscience that we have done what we can and we are leaving the results to God.

Here's an interesting op/ed on this issue (from a Catholic, not "Evangelical" perspective) that I came across this evening. I like how she urges Christians to "ponder the principles that inspire our activism." Amen, sister.

Re. judicial nominations

The author of this story (first reported in a Pennsylvania paper?) about judicial nominations mistakenly left out the term "Bloody Red Meat" in her title. Oh well, it appears the President is not going to shy away from a Conservative strong suit in the run up to the election.

But Ann Coulter has a great line in this week's column (raking Sen. Lincoln Chafee over the coals) regarding Democrat judicial blockades:

Democrats subscribe to the Brezhnev doctrine: "What we have, we hold." Their interpretation of elections they win by a plurality is that they have a mandate for Ruth Bader Ginsburg; their interpretation of elections they lose is that this means they get to block all Republican nominees.

Breaking news: Ford, Jr. missed a media opp

Reports from Shelbyville indicate that telegenic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.--who is vying to replace Bill Frist in the U.S. Senate, may have passed up a media appearance. According to witnesses, "[telegenic, tenacious Ford, Jr.] spent so much time with the crowd, in fact, that he had to cancel a planned radio interview."

Weather forecast raining on Dems' political parade

Blogger Mark Rose over at Right-minded has some good stuff about the underwhelming weather news of late. Unfortunately for the Democratics, there's little sign of the perfect (political) storm.

The Plame game

In this Slate articleChristopher Hitchens drives a stake through through the Lefty meme that "thuggish" Bushies outed CIA Employee Valerie Plame.

Maybe "Democratic" Party is appropriate

This is an interesting post/quote over at No Quarters Blog. Maybe it isn't inaccurate to refer to the other political party as "the Democratic Party."

Kerry rewriting history, again

It appears, after all, that Kerry's presidential aspirations did receive more than an abrasion on the forearm in the jungles of Ohio in 2004.

Damned if you do . . .

This law--overturned by a Florida judge on behalf of Left-leaning political types, is the type of law that would deter groups from destroying voter registration forms as is alleged of late. Obviously the law could be abused in its enforcement. But prosecutors always have discretion and I don't suspect they would hammer/bankrupt the League of Women Voters if they failed to timely turn in registrations due to a hurricane.

This law is an example of efforts to strengthen election oversight because you don't readily get "do overs" in elections, so those who are prone to break the rules need to be motivated not to risk getting caught. But it bothers me that every attempt to deter fraud in elections is treated by the Left as an infringement of a Constitutional right or an effort to disenfranchise people.

Free Market v. Statism

Two articles about the Free Market from brandchannel.com that caught my eye this a.m. Gotta love the Free Market.

In France, food marketers have eschewed trying to get certified as "Organic" (actually, they say "agriculture biologique"--as Steve Martin used to say, "Those French have a different word for everything"). Rather, grocers are simply selling stuff that is pretty healthy rather than try to jump through the gov'tal hoops (which are attentively controlled by the environmental Left, no doubt) to have the "Bio" label . . . and consumers are satisfied.

In the U.S., AOL's gig appears to be up as its value has dropped from a high of $200billion to now only $20billion, but here's the best paragraph from the article.

AOL’s original success, by design or providence, was based solidly on the naiveté of web users. If it figures to tie the future on the same assumptions, its obituary can probably be put into the rush-to-publish pile right now. The idea of AOL (or any portal) as a user’s only conduit to experience and find online content is dead. If AOL is to cheat death, it will need to embrace the idea that its users are far past the idea of needing an Internet nanny to help them through this crazy, newfangled computery thingy.

Impressed?! Wait 'til you hear the facts . . .

This article, entitled "Major black candidates at record high" is intriguing because it glosses over the fact that this "record" year is far and away a Republican phenomenon. The article states,

From Maryland to Tennessee to Ohio, the 2006 elections already hold a place in the history books: More black candidates from both major parties are mounting serious campaigns for upper-tier office - senator or governor - than ever before.
Even more noteworthy, three of the six men are Republican, a party that has struggled to boost its black affiliation above 10 percent.

And even MORE NOTEWORTHY is that two of the Democrats included in this story are likely to lose their respective primary . . . the Republicans being counted are all the GOP nominee (notice how the reporter even insinuates that the GOP worked to defeat a black nominee in Michigan by recruiting a white candidate to run against him).

In sum, after the primaries, this story would be much more difficult to write without undermining the "Republicans are racist" myth which must be perpetuated to keep the Democrat Party electorally competitive.

Here's an earlier post to similar articles on this subject.

What we have here is a failure to communicate

E.J. Dionne (okay, I skimmed through his archives in one sitting the other night--catchy titles!!) has written a glowing article about Australian PM John Howard and how he is working a strategery that would benefit the GOP in America. But what I got from the article is that Howard is simply an excellent communicator.

This article from NationalReview.com highlights Bush's challenge (both personally and subject-wise) in communicating a compelling vision for his strategy in the GWOT. Because of the laziness of the audience (the American public), the President has to be a great communicator--to be able to cause the audience to learn. Dubya certainly will not get any assistance in communicating his vision from the so-called MSM.

(Incidentally, as I've observed the candidates vying for Bill Frist's seat, I believe that Harold Ford, Jr.'s potential in this race is owning to his excellent communication skills--vacuous ideas, when communicated or delivered well, will often win a popularity contest over simple truths poorly stated.)

Culpability v. concession

E.J. Dionne made the following comment in a piece about the Ned Lamonting of the Democrat Party and it reminded me of the principle the Left overlooks concerning its opposition to the GWOT (The Iraq Phase):

". . . if being against the Iraq War makes you "extreme left,'' then the administration has succeeded in pushing 60 percent of Americans into that camp. That's the proportion opposed to the war in the new CNN Poll."

Well, the Bush Administration knows there is the "extreme Left" which is intent on undermining Bush and demagoguing the War in Iraq without regard for troop morale or inspiring our Country's enemies, and the Average American who is understandably influenced by the incessant drumbeat of how bad things are in Iraq and how there was no reason (other than Oil, Lies, Vengeance, Neo-Conservatism, Globalism, Imperialism, Zionism, etc. etc.) for addressing the problem of Saddam's Iraq.

The "cut and run" characterization is so fitting, because if people dying warrants "cutting and running," there is no war that the Left will support in our struggle with Islamofascism.

Impressive candidate and campaign

Twice in the last week I've heard interesting and flattering news stories about Michael McGavick's campaign against incumbent U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

First was a story about how to handle a campaign "tracker" which came to light following Macaca-gate, and though I don't think that George Allen has anything substantive to apologize for (by substantive, I mean he meant no offense to Sidarth, the tracker), I believe that McGavick provides a great model in that context.

Today it was a story about McGavick going public with admissions of personal and professional mistakes. This seems like an excellent way to pre-empt character assassination--an attack which is inevitable, frankly. Better to present the mistakes in a light most favorable to you and far enough in advance to make them "old news" by election day.

Ahem . . . Bredesen NOT on "Campaign Trail"

The headline on this NewsChannel5.com article reads more like a press release (from Bredesen's campaign) than it does a report: "Bredeson's [sic] Illness Not Slowing Down Campaign Trail," (note: they probably wouldn't have misspelled his name in a press release). Understandably the campaign would want to put the most positive spin on a fact--that Bredesen has an unknown ailment warranting investigation by physicians at the world-renowned Mayo Clinic. But why should NewsChannel5?

This headline is misleading--the story is that Bredesen is NOT on the "campaign trail," a term used to refer to the candidate's travels and not to the delivery of a ton of signs to a candidate's headquarters. And is it news that worker bees at the HQ are keeping busy and that Bredesen said--through a spokesman, that they should keep on keepin' on?

If you think about it, this awkward headline is just about the only one that would diminish the seriousness of this illness and communicate to readers, "Move along. There's nothing to see here."

Cross-posted to JIMbrysonforTNGovernorBlog.

The CRAT's out of the bag . . .

It appears that folks are noticing that some Republicans do not use the adjective "Democratic" to refer to the Democrat Party. (It has gotten some local "Democrat" upset, too--the self-monikered Music Row Democrats, in particular).

To be frank, I hadn't noticed that many others using the word "Democrat" in lieu of "Democratic"--but according to Hendrik Hertzberg (and boy did he ever get to the bottom of this issue) Republicans all the way up to the titular head of our party--Dubya, are beginning to use the term "Democrat" to modify the other party. Indeed, I have over the past year encouraged a couple of nationally-known pundits in email correspondence to use the more accurate term--"Democrat," but I had not observed my movement getting any traction. I had no idea that I was a part of such a well-disciplined conspiracy!

Ironically, Democrats seem to be complaining about the use of "Democrat" even though they want us to accommodate their preference of using "Democrat" in some contexts and "Democratic" in others. My view is that "democratic" is a (positively) loaded term and it is too much trouble to qualify things as "small D democratic," so if Dems want me to call them "Democrats" as opposed to "Democratics," then I will be consistent and call them the "Democrat Party."

It depends on the definition of "politics"

John Rodgers of The Nashville City Paper is reporting that Environmental Activist and local attorney Joe Prochaska asserts his lawsuit against "the Corker Defendants" (Prochaska's words) is not political. OK, I'll take his word on it, but only inasmuch as it relates to this particular senate race at this particular moment.

The fact is that for the Left's "environmentalist" faction, Wal-mart is target A-number-one (pun intended) followed closely behind by the subspecies of "developer." And the clash between two worldviews is perpetual: Preservationists think that development is usually bad, that nothing should change to accommodate man (because man is simply a higher order of "macaca"), and that land development is driven by either greed or speciesism. Non-Preservationists disagree.

You can see why the clash is perpetual.

Pro-immigrant and Anti-illegal immigration?

Here's a great op/ed about the simplistic assertion that one is "pro-immigrant" and "anti-illegal immigration." I try to temper my pronouncements on this subject because I think immigration is fine as long as immigrants buy into what makes America great and otherwise assimilate.

Interdependency and gov't policy

Here's an interesting report from Gail Kerr at The Tennessean about how Kentucky's lax (in relation to Tennessee's) helmet law is affecting Tennesseans.

Actually, when I think of how interdependency breeds (gov't) intervention, the example I've always thought of was motorcycle helmet laws (a close second is seatbelt laws, but that is different because it involves a duty to care for children, in my opinion).

I urge you to read the article, but Kerr's thesis is,

A moronic Kentucky law [allowing people to ride motorcycles without helmets] is costing Vanderbilt University Medical Center — and that means Middle Tennessee taxpayers and the hospital's paying customers — millions of dollars.

This is part of the reason that economics is so valuable for crafting public policy . . . too often politicians ignore potential or actual unintended consequences in the interest of expedience or pleasing a particular constituency. And too often, citizens will demand to have their cake and eat it too. That's why pandering to "voters" is so tempting but so distasteful.

Re. Israel and Lebanon

I had a fascinating discussion with a close friend last evening about the current Israeli/Lebanese conflict and, as a result, I am both less apathetic about the situation and more sympathetic to criticisms of Israel. This friend and I agree on most political issues, but he has deep roots in that region of the world as well as extensive military experience . . . both of which may contribute to his different perspective on these matters.

In particular, I am persuaded (for the time being, at least) that Israel over-reached in the recent conflict. But I have to say that I think Israel is often frivolously criticized for whatever it does because of deep partisan opposition, rather than legitimate, even-handed disagreements. Thus, as with Dubya's plainly-less-than-perfect administration, I am inclined to defend Israel from harsh and disingenuous criticism.

He has directed me to some sites that offer a more balanced view of the flaws of current Israeli policy:
www.nkusa.org
www.jewsnotzionists.org

I've only skimmed these sites, and am not persuaded of their credibility (to me) yet, but we'll see.

Whaddya know? Bigot at Wal-Mart . . .

I hesitantly clicked on the link reading "Wal-Mart envoy quits after racist remarks" because I wasn't eager to read a story legitimately or illegitimately (especially the latter) bashing Wal-Mart. Well lo and behold, it was a racist series of comments from Andrew Young! Is it even possible for a Liberal icon to be a racist?

Of course, this story will taste bittersweet to many on the Left who will say it was more offensive that he worked for Wal-Mart (the company the Left loves to hate) than that he made a bigoted statement.

Willy Wonka would be outraged

A chocolate factory employee recently became trapped waist-deep in the product.

"F" for federal decision prohibiting surveillance of Al Qaeda phone calls

You probably won't want to read all of this op/ed by attorney Bryan Cunningham about the recent Federal decision declaring surveillance of phone calls with Al Qaeda "unconstitutional."

Nevertheless, it is a scathing analysis of the legal "reasoning" and baseless conclusions of District Judge Anna Diggs-Taylor.

"Overcoming Adoption's Racial Barriers"

This is an intriguing NYTimes article about transracial adoption in America. The report is interesting because I have a half-dozen friends who have adopted children of african-american descent. But it is also interesting because of the blatant racism of Left-leaning groups who oppose or have until recently opposed trans-racial adoption (read: "children of color" being adopted by "white" couples). So much for the melting pot. So much for "not caring about children after they're born." So much for not prejudging a person based on the color of their skin.

"Petitioning for Life"

Here's a moving abortion op/ed about choosing life over death. Changed hearts will change law.

Timberlake a sad, strange, little man

This article about Justin Timberlake's continuing push to matter to somebody. And would someone please give that man a razor?

maCaca es suCaca

I suggest you check out Commonwealth Conservative's coverage of this "incident." I'm catching flak for hinting that tracker dude was "freaky"--above is a pic of the tracker from Commonwealth Conservative.

Sorry, but out here in real America, that's freaky.

I'm unconvinced

The "George Allen/Macaca Incident" story is picking up steam. Dems/Libs in the blogosphere (hat tip, AC Kleinheider) are asserting that this alleged slur (which, prior to now, noone in question had ever heard of, much less been offended by) was uttered by Allen as "code" to his White Power Brethren while looking into a video camera filming him uttering the said alleged slur. Oh, and they are linking to a Liberal's blog as etymological authority for their assertion that the word "macaca" (phonetic) is a racial slur.

Maybe, gang; but you'll have to do better than that to convince someone other than a hard-core Republican-hater. In fact, I think that this whole "story" reflects a weakness of the blogosphere as journalistic venture. This is a "story" because enough people want it to be a story and can rant about it with little to no editorial control.

Sounds like Patrick Kennedy's fateful tale . . .

This story from NJ--about the state Attorney General's improper intervention in a traffic stop, sounds an awful lot like Congressman Patrick Kennedy's preferential treatment in DC. Yikes.

I'm glad she (the NJ AG) has resigned, but I can't help but wonder if this relates to "issues" Liberals have with rule of law.

Magnanimous sign

I like the attitude of this sign:


You can purchase it and other nice signs at VictoryStore.com, if you want.

"Hang up and drive"

An interesting study about what we all observe (that is, unless we're continually distracted from such observations because we're talking on a mobile phone) while driving: talking on a cell phone while driving affects our driving. It doesn't matter that it is hands free. From my time as a prosecutor, I learned that we test for impairment by giving suspects "divided attention tasks" because driving epitomizes multi-tasking and "substances" impair our ability to do it. Involvement in highly-engaging conversation compounds the challenge of driving/reacting-while-driving.

Now; if I could only discipline myself not to use my mobile phone while driving, I could get a "hang up and drive" bumper sticker.

(ma)Caca is right . . .

I feel sorry for Sen. George Allen (R-VA). He is running for re-election and I think he has a lot of potential as a presidential candidate . . . I've always thought he had "Charisma" which has become nigh unto essential on the national level.

But he is in the news today because of an off-handed remark that is being twisted to appear nativist or racist or just plain ol' mean-spirited.

He is being trailed at every campaign appearance--even to the boondockish towns and hamlets of the state, by an operative for his opponent. The operative happens to be dark-complected as he has Indian heritage, and Allen pointed him out at a rally with comments that are being spun as nativist (and I have to admit, out of context they sound that way). You need to read the whole article, but you know being trailed and constantly recorded would get annoying. And of course a freak dressing operative would acquire a nickname in the campaign. And you know it would be hard not to mock a lone operative for "crashing" every event you hosted . . . and you still have to control your tongue in a campaign. I think this is the downside of the folksy charm and swagger that generally accompanies "Charisma."

Here's a good report about it . . . be sure and read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Here's actual footage of the alleged racial/nativist/mean statement by Sen. George Allen. It is even more obvious after watching it that Allen is calling out the campaign tracker's boss for being out of touch with real Virginians. The tracker is following them around; they're going all over Virginia; places that Allen's opponent won't go; his opponent is from inside the Beltway and is currently at a fundraiser in Hollywood; the tracker should show the tapes to his boss to let him know what real Virginia is like, etc. Watch it yourself. What a non-scandal.

Blogging for JIM Bryson

Some of you may know, but I am a contributor over at JIM Bryson for Governor (the unofficial blog). We've undergone a bit of a redesign and it is heating up as more attention shifts to the governor's race. Jim rose to be the go-to Conservative leader while only a freshman in the state senate. He is a successful businessman (though he didn't hit the jackpot like Businessman Bredesen . . .) and someone with red-state values . . . qualities we'll want if and when the economy is faltering.

Check out the blog for timely news and analysis regarding the Tennessee governor's race.

"Talking issues"

One of the things that get's tiring during election season is candidates complaining about their opponents' purported unwillingness to "talk about issues." (see below).

Well, over at Jim Bryson's official website they're offering podcasts of Jim discussing various issues in on-the-record interviews with the Media.

If you are tired of 30-second airpuf TV ads, these are tasty and nutritious treats.

Democrat party's "self-image problem"

E.J. Dionne asserts in this op/ed that the Democrats have a self-image problem and will be unable to build a "durable majority" until they find a solution.

I disagree. The problem with the Democrat Party is that it is a coalition of narrow special interest groups with scant overlapping interests. Thankfully for them, Bush-hatred has provided somewhat of a common cause these past six years (of course, they've also had the "it sucks to be out of power" cause for a bit longer). But a party which pieces together a coalition whose members' only common objective is keeping/obtaining power is fragile; and the "coalition" will tend to fade from view in all but Presidential elections or campaigns with rock-star candidates (as Dionne asserts happens to Dems).

A Foreign Policy Rorschach Test

I was thinking the other day of the current fighting going on in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah and it occurred to me that this "conflict" is a sort of microcosm of Civilization's conflict with Islamofascism. Accordingly, I believe that an informed person's view of the situation might serve as a sort of foreign policy Rorschach test.

Bill Bennett has has written an op/ed along those lines. Key quote:

Let Kofi Annan condemn Israel. Let ex-State Department officials wring their hands. Let the Security Council issue its condemnations if it must. But at the end of the diplomatic doublespeak and the denunciations of editorial writers here and abroad, let the countries on the frontlines, fighting for their existence, act like any normal country would under attack and save themselves. In so doing, they will save those who also strive to be normal, democratic, and free.

Harold Ford, Jr.,other Dems, changing their tune

Interesting to see that Ford, Jr. was double-talking about the scuttled terrorist attacks in Britain; he appears to be trying to get out in front of this issue:
"Lets figure out how the Brits foiled the attack, what tools prime minister Blair has that President Bush has not had. And let Congress immediately give those to our president. . . . "

Wow, he wants to give more "tools" to Dubya--that's news to all of his [Ford Jr.'s] "netroot" supporters. But I also hear the Schumers and Feingolds are hunky-dorey with giving the President more authority "just as long as it is consistent with the Constitution." Well, of course we won't agree to that, senators.

Harold Fraud, Jr. sounds a lot like Ed Bryant . . .

I just learned from a Chattanooga Times Free Press pipe bomb . . . er, editorial that Bob Corker's primary spending was as bad as Ford, Jr.'s (laughable) and that Harold Ford, Jr. believes we should really, really try hard to find an energy breakthrough:

In Congress, Rep. Ford has consistently supported legislation to reduce the U.S. addiction to oil, and he sees the opportunity before us. "We need to go back to the kind of big ideas and bold thinking that made this country great," he says, "We need to create this generation’s moon shot by becoming energy self-sufficient by 2025."

This reminds me an awful lot of Ed Bryant's frequent proposal during the GOP primary (which the CTFP thinks was a cakewalk akin to the primary of the Democrat Party). From a weeks old Commercial Appeal story:

Saying he believes oil prices will continue to rise, Bryant also renewed his call for a project -- as strong he said as World War II's Manhattan Project and President Kennedy's push for a moon landing -- that would "commit America to developing and (mass-)producing alternative-fuel vehicles in five years."

I knew that Ford, Jr. was going to try and sound like a Conservative during this campaign but an impersonation of Ed Bryant is a surprise.

I wonder if he can do a good W.C. Fields?


I can't find the actual op/ed online, but Ford, Jr. has it at his website . . . hey, it may have originated over there from the way it reads.

Uh oh, did Bushitler violate British Islamofascists' rights?

Kudos to American intelligence for their part in foiling the most recent terrorist scheme.

UPDATE: As Rich Lowry states in this NRO op/ed, the Left routinely ignores the implications of their efforts to impugn this administration's every effort to wage the war on Islamofascism.

That Karl Rove is busy, busy, busy . . .

Even while the President is on vacation, that evil Karl Rove appears to have been busy strategizing about how to scare Americans into a "unitary executive"!!! Or, at least that's what Dems are thinking today . . .

Despicable "parents"

This report of a family using children to steal jewelry reminds me of the Irish/gypsy woman caught on a video surveillance camera a couple years ago slugging her "mule" daughter after a mother-daughter shoplifting outing. Remember that case? Despicable people.

Black GOP candidates a "novelty"?

In an attempt to illustrate the persistent American racial divide, Stuart Rothenberg, the author of this online article pulls the hackneyed stereotype off the shelf . . . "Legitimate Black Republican" is an oxymoron. Here's the main quote:

Strong black GOP candidates remain something of a novelty, and national Republican strategists are thrilled when they can find an appealing black to run for a high-profile office.

That assertion was only a paragraph after stating that nationally there were four Republicans (three of whom had the GOP nomination) vying for statewide office who happened to be black.

You know what is truly a novelty? A Democrat candidate for a statewide office; but I guess that didn't fit with the article's thesis.

Here's another post about a racism-mongering article.

Republicans "soft[ening] on crime"?

Zack McMillin in today's Commercial Appeal is incredulous that Republican candidates for Memphis DA and sheriff (both of whom won convincingly last Thursday) spoke during their campaigns about "root causes" of crime and seeking "comprehensive" answers to soaring crime rates.

This is where the Left misses the boat on Conservatism (particularly so-called Social Conservatism) . . . I have a very comprehensive view of crime issues, but I believe (as do a majority of Americans--these two Conservative candidates won by 62% and 63%, respectively) that most Liberal "solutions" actually exacerbate the problems. I don't think that poverty leads someone to crime; I don't think that amoral education is the key to eradicating poverty or crime; I don't believe that gov't policy of punishing success (through confiscatory tax policy) and subsidizing irresponsibility will encourage responsibility; and on and on and on.

Don't you wish the Left would stop legislating it's failed morality?

"History" in the making . . . certainly for the Dems

In today's Tennessean Dwight Lewis opines on the "history" in the making in Tennessee's U.S. Senate race. Ironically, I learned from a Democrat acquaintance who attended the rally that the "1500" folks who paid $150 to stand on the asphalt parking lot in the August afternoon heat didn't even have water available to them. So much for "the little guy."

And it should probably be noted that an african-american U.S. Senate candidate is more of an oddity in the Democrat Party than in the Republican Party. For too many decades, the Democrat Party has done more talking than delivering on promises of helping blacks in this country.

Unfortunately, like Clinton's and the Democrat Party's talk about advancing race relations, Ford, Jr. is more about appearances than realities.

Darwinism Dogmatists

And I thought we non-Darwinists were supposed to be the dogmatic and disingenuous ones . . . David Klinghoffer writes about dishonest Darwinists and their state-by-state politically correct blitzkrieg.

Jonah Goldberg steps on some steel-toed boots

Here's an insightful op/ed about farm subsidies in America.

Great comic about stem cell research (and abortion, sort of)

Check this out, from Glenn McCoy at TownHall.com:

Legal costs we all share

John Stossel rocks. Here's another of his instant classic columns on the cost of trial lawyers gone wild.

Coercion or Conversion . . . or Cluelessness?

This article (which I stumbled upon at RealClearPolitics.com) seems a clever attempt to bolster the claims of the "Religious Left" that their party (the Democrat Party) is not, despite what others (including Dem Party leaders) say, secular.

Googling the article's author provided all the context necessary for the article--actually, when the article opened by quoting Mario Cuomo on the subject of religion and public policy, I kind of had an idea where it was headed. One example which provided context: Paulson argued in a Seventh-Day Adventist journal that developing humans in the womb were no different from living things like insects in promoting "pro-choice" policy.

SO, though I think the article is poorly reasoned and grossly wrong, it was regrettably published on a reputable e-journal and I have a couple of rebuttals to his article.

First, "secularism" is more menacing (eminent?) than he is willing to admit because of its prevalence among a certain class of elitist, powerful Americans--in particular, the popular media, academia and one of the two major political parties.

Second, we Religious Conservatives want to, for example, outlaw abortion because it ends innocent human life, not simply because I am afraid that I can't convince people not to do it otherwise. Heck, EVERY law is flouted regularly--even the most universally heralded, but does that mean that we are being unspiritual or less spiritual because we don't just let the crimes continue? Given Paulson's view of life before birth, he probably just views pro-lifers as interloping busybodies. As a Christian and a citizen in a democratic republic, I believe I must promote policy that is consistent with the Golden Rule. For example, I can't blame a King or a dictator for gov't policy that seizes money from one citizen to give to another.

Lastly, he confuses grace and unaccountability when attacking the orthodox Christian principle that we are saved by grace and not by doing good things. (That's also in the Bible, Rev. Paulson). Sure, people like Bill Clinton (according to Paulson's account) may abuse the grace extended to them by God, but that doesn't mean that we are no longer "worthy" of grace (we never were) nor does it mean that there are not or should not be earthly consequences for stupid, foolish, even sinful actions we do. Only God and Bill Clinton know the true status of Bill Clinton's soul, but the fact that Clinton may claim to be a Christian and may have sinned--even repeatedly, would serve to discredit him not the doctrines of progressive sanctification or salvation by grace.

All of Paulson's fallacious logic and theological malfeasance just demonstrates that only partisan Lefties will take Paulson seriously in his critique of ostensibly "fellow" Believers.

Ken Blackwell's "'tude"

There is a great gubernatorial race taking place in Ohio--I would love to be able to cast a vote for Ken Blackwell who is the Republican nominee. Here is the final comment he made during remarks on the night of his primary victory to his Democrat opponent in November: “Message to Brother Strickland: You can run but you can’t hide. We’re coming right atcha. We represent change, we represent the future, and there is no retreat in our bones.”

As my daughter (surprisingly) commented about a fond acquaintance the other day: "he has 'tude."

If only Kerry had won . . . peace in the Mideast!

Unbelievably, John Kerry is still thinking how stupid Americans were for not agreeing with him about whom should be president. Indeed, he's claiming that the military conflict in Lebanon would not be happening if he were president. Yeah, right.

Here's a great op/ed from the Weekly Standard about Warren Christopher--who was Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration and is a prominent Liberal foreign policy "expert," and his recent pronouncements about the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

Turning a page . . .

I can still remember the day that I learned to ride a bike . . . while visiting my grandmother in Georgia, a neighbor boy--the veterinarian's son, urged me to ride his bike in the soft sand of an unpaved Wilmington Island driveway. Hopefully, my daughter will always remember this day when, on a whim, we removed her training wheels and turned a page in her young life's story.

Well, she was successful on her first attempt, and you may not be able to see it in this picture, but I'd say I was more intense than she was . . . she has been ready to take this step for awhile, I think.

Lieberman's oppo gets Michael Schiavo endorsement!!

Whether or not you agree with allowing Terri Schiavo to starve to death, is anybody really supportive of her "widower" in the ordeal? Oh well, he has endorsed Ned Lamont, who is mounting a Lefty primary challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Whatever.

Activist judges going "inactive" . . . at least for now

Rich Lowry chronicles the positive developments in recent months on the "activist judges" front. Though the Tennessee S.Ct.'s decision to allow voters to be heard on the issue of homosexual "marriage" isn't referenced, it certainly belongs in a list of decisions reflecting judicial restraint and separation of powers. An excerpt:

The Washington decision, as well as the other important recent one in New York, rejects the argument that opposition to gay marriage is based only on rank prejudice. It says the Washington legislature was “entitled to believe” that preserving the current definition of marriage encourages a family structure that is best for children. Well, thank you very much! It is a symptom of our era of judicial fiat that it plays as some sort of far-reaching concession when a court says lawmakers are entitled to believe something that has been a bedrock belief throughout recorded human history.

Even Liberals agree: Dem leadership pandering on foreign policy

Here's an insightful op/ed by Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of the notably Liberal The New Republic; an excerpt:

The Democratic Party's single biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why.

Of course, I don't agree with all of the assertions in the essay, but I think his conclusion is pretty much accurate.

Gore in 2008!!!?

I'm wondering if Al Gore will be appearing with likely DEM senate nominee Harold Ford, Jr. on Aug. 3rd in Nashville. Doubt it. However, according to reports, Gore's stock appears to be rising among the faithful (that is, faithful to the Democrat Party, mind you).

Concerning Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, here's a great op/ed on some of the "inconvenient truths" ignored by devotees of Gore and Environmental doomsdayism.

Oh, THAT'S what you mean by "monogamous"

George Michael, who is out and proud about his homosexual activity, is rejecting criticism about his "cruising" for (and engaging in) anonymous sex in a London public park, and he claims his roommate of 10 years does not object, so their planned "wedding" is still on.

[Michael] said he and [his roommate] recently celebrated their 10th anniversary and he had given his lover a £1 million present to mark the milestone.

"We had a lovely 10th anniversary party and actually my 10th anniversary present to him cost me a million quid so I reckon I should get away with more then."

Again, why should we elevate homosexual "marriage" to a societally sanctioned institution?

Intriguing poll about Tennessee

This poll of Tennesseans commissioned by the Knoxville News Sentinel has some really encouraging data in it.

Tennesseans say their government is fair-to-middlin' in a University of Tennessee poll taken earlier this month.
In a survey of 574 residents, UT's Social Science Research Institute found that three out of four respondents graded the government in general and the state Legislature in particular as "fair" or "good." Some interesting excerpts:

Nearly half the respondents - 46 percent - described themselves as conservative, while 36 percent said they were moderate and 18 percent said they were liberal.

The poll, sponsored in part by the News Sentinel and conducted July 5-16, has a margin of error of 4.1 percent.
....
Despite the mediocre numbers, the Legislature is still more popular than TennCare.

More than half the respondents said TennCare, the state's insurance program, is performing poorly, and 42 percent supported reforms of TennCare instituted by Gov. Phil Bredesen last year. Forty-eight percent said they did not support the reforms.
....
Tennesseans remain opposed to a state income tax. When asked if they would support an income tax coupled with a rollback of the sales tax, six in 10 respondents said no. An income tax received the support of 30 percent, with 10 percent unsure.

A majority of Tennesseans - 55 percent - believes that abortion laws are "about right." By an 8 percent margin, respondents want to see Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision confirming the legality of abortion, upheld.

Half the respondents don't believe that evolution is "a well-established scientific theory." Forty-four percent said intelligent design is "just as valid" as evolution, and three in four believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true.

Respondents overwhelmingly oppose government use of eminent domain to take private property, even if it's for a public purpose. Fifty-seven percent oppose eminent domain in all instances, even for public projects. That number leaps to 88 percent when the end use is for private development as opposed to schools or roads.

Three out of four respondents support term limits for county officials. The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in a case to decide the fate of Knox County's charter, which contains a term-limits provision.

Woohoo, is this a Red State or what?

This is an excellent time to link to the Red State theme song, Boondocks (by Little Big Town).

Excellent political ad from NC

My bloggin' colleague serr8d posted this excellent political ad from NC on his blog ("The Cutting Edge"). And check out Vernon Robinson's (the candidate's) website . . . he deserves some love from us from over the Smokies.

If guns are outlawed . . .

Here's a great report of a citizen--using a gun, who prevented a knife-wielding perpetrator from committing murder in Memphis. Kudos to Chris Cope for his courage.

Santorum lays it out on Islamofascism

Great speech delivered by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) on the enemy we face . . . Islamofascists.

NY Times is clueless about economics

MediaBlog over at NationalReview.com points out how clueless the NY Times is on the subject of economics. Yes, lower marginal tax rates do increase revenues "from corporations and the wealthy." I know it is hard for them to admit that Ronald Reagan might have been right about something (they still believe that Mikhail Gorbachev bravely ended the Cold War), but . . .

The Constitutional Right to Jihad

Here's Mark Steyn's insightful yet humorous (though, in a way, not so humorous, due to the seriousness of the subject) analysis of the Supreme Court's holding last week that "The Constitution contains a right to Jihad." (via RealClearPolitics.com)

DP Debate over

From: MJB
7/1/06, 5:21 pm

"[A] style that is emotionless"? Ned, you sound furious. You are not a good example of Christ, but that is an issue for another message. Excepting some allusions to other political events, I have been sticking to the issue of state killing.

You shouldn't've published my messages to you w/out my permission, Ned.


------------------------------

From: Ned (posted, but not emailed--got to stick to my word, don't I?)
7/1/06, 5:43 pm

MJB,

You obviously concluded that I had written less emotionally in an earlier email than a later one. The record speaks for itself as far as your other assertions; I definitely make mistakes and commit sins, but I'll sleep with a clear conscience tonight.

And you don't have any right to keep me from "publishing" emails that you sent to me, just as you can't control who I allow to read it. I guess it would be wise for you to include such expectations in any future emails you send to strangers about things you've already posted--under a pseudonym, on a web forum. Are you concerned about anything you've written? Certainly there is little value to hastily drafted emails. I might consider pulling them down but I don't feel guilty for posting them.

Sincerely,
Ned

**Incidentally, I have posted our entire dialogue without excluding anything, other than MJB's real name and email address.

DP Debate XII

From: Ned Williams, 7/1/06, 5:01 pm

MJB,
It would save me a lot of time if you would closely read what I'm writing, perhaps there's too much on the table to keep the arguments straight, but I'll repeat my arguments. Use of deadly force by a state is moral, in my opinion. You haven't addressed the war aspect of this issue (because, I perceive, it reveals an inconsistency in your views) but the gov't should protect its citizens from threats, of course bounded by concerns for individual liberties. So, domestic threats are thwarted by laws and enforcement of those laws. Cold-blooded murder (by an individual, not a duly organized gov't, I hope you can appreciate the distinction, as I've noted before) has been deemed such a threat that we will threaten its perpetrators with loss of their own life. Assuming that a state may appropriately use deadly force, then it may impose such a sentence. Incidentally, your assertion that most murders happen in heat of emotion or whatever is not accurate, at least not as far as the death penalty is concerned; first degree murder requires that they made a decision, absent passion, to take another's life. We do not allow individuals to do that but allow gov'ts. to do that.
Don't presume that because I may write in a style that is emotionless that I am not emotional about everything I write. I am interested to be a good example of Christ in this context, so I am willing to discourse with you on this subject, but it is a drain of time--my wife and children are much more important to me than electronically arguing with a stranger. You didn't "strike a cord" or "hit a nerve" or "hit home" or anything like that. This isn't an example of a hit dog howling, I could easily ignore you and your emails if I was feeling threatened in my world view. Rather, I resented how petty you were being (snide jabs/references to Bush/Cheney; red herring references to Iraq war; asserting that my view makes me no better than PDR or AQ; asserting as if it trumped all arguments that my arguments might be rooted in belief; "rich white men" blah blah blah, etc.); those are all fallacious arguments. You haven't backed me into an intellectual corner and I have attempted to answer every question you've posed . . . I don't think you have done the same. That, in my book, isn't honest debate.
Regarding deterrence, you're narrowly defining deterrence. There is individual and general deterrence. To deter means to 1 : turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting, 2 : INHIBIT, and I believe that having a DP deters by threat and by implementation. From the argument you stated, NO law would qualify as a deterrent, and that certainly doesn't make sense. You assert that "we're protected" because "Poor Paul Dennis Reid" is behind bars tonight, but I know there are many more people like him who have cultivated a lust for violence and power and notoriety and will act on it if not deterred. Credible laws and punishments will help to deter that. (By the way, you can take off on an argument about "cultivating a lust for violence" but I reject that all force is violence or all violence is immoral, etc.)
Again, you cannot have rule of law if we simply redefine what words meant when they were enacted based on what we--in the present, want them to mean. That may qualify as legal reasoning to you, but I flatly reject it as a fair interpretation of "cruel and unusual," as I've already stated. Like I said, you are more than welcome to try and amend the Constitution so that it prohibits capital punishment.
Sincerely,
Ned

DP Debate XI

From MJB, 7/1/06, 4:08 pm

Except, Ned, that your beliefs justify killing only in self-defense, and state killing isn’t done is self-defense, which, by your own beliefs, make state killing immoral. Further, Ned, in the same paragraph (#4), you claim that state killing is and isn’t cold-blooded.

I realize that my previous message hit you emotionally, considering how riled your response was. This message has hit home against your arguments, since you must stretch the definition of self-defense beyond the breaking point to claim that a man who is locked up for life still must be killed. Self-defense means defending yourself from attack. Sedley Alley & Paul Reid haven’t hurt anyone in years (if Alley ever did). In addition, the earlier argument that a killed criminal never kills again isn’t a deterrence argument, since it doesn’t work as an example. Worse, it would extend the state killing without bounds: A killed rapist never rapes again. A killed burglar never burgles again. A killed embezzler never embezzles again. A killed drunk driver never drives drunk again. A killed president never sends men to kill & die for oil again.

I didn’t say that state killing was wrong because almost no other country practices it. That makes it UNUSUAL. That it is irrevocable makes it CRUEL AND UNUSUAL. That makes it unconstitutional. Your intent argument doesn’t hold water, because the Constitution is a living document not fixed in the supposed “intent” of some rich White men of the late 18th century.

No one denies that a government may defend or protect its citizens. Paul Reid is in prison. We are protected. End of story.

DP Debate X

Come on MJB, I will gladly claim that I am choosing/supporting/advocating the Death Penalty. My point is that I am not going to behead you for having the opposite view of mine or for being, if you ever are, in the majority on the issue. You're wasting breath trying to emotionally scare me away from being an advocate of the DP. And, though I think you've changed your tune on this, it is arguably also on your hands, because you have stood by while an unjust, immoral, oppressive act took place.

Re. posthumous testing of Alley's DNA, it is likely that you are underestimating the cost of it or who'll pay such cost. Again, I don't believe* you care about any of that and I don't believe* it will deter you from your beliefs* if the DNA tests affirm that the victim had bled in his car. And again, we don't have to satisfy you and yours for justice to be done . . . you're unsatisfiable.

It is not true that the DP has no deterrence effect as someone (idgaf?) has stated several times, there is no recorded incident of an executed criminal killing again, and numerous examples of non-executed murderers killing again). It is commonsense that when there are 2 executions of condemned people in 50 years, despite all the tough talk from gov't officials and society, that the bark loses it's impact.

Again, my "foundation" for stating that executing Sedley Alley isn't immoral or isn't cold-blooded are my beliefs,* what is your basis for labeling it differently? (To clarify, my view of executions are that they are done in cold-blood, there's no passion involved, and the State, after "due process" certainly has the right to impose such punishment.)

It is a form of self-defense to execute those who wantonly take the lives of others. Frankly, I reject your characterization that Reid's murders were merely "bad choices" made in the "heat of emotion." Sedley Alley's actions were cold-blooded as well. And even if you say something like, "Alley (who may or may not have committed this murder) would not have been motivated to kill his rape victim if he wasn't worried about the DP!" that only establishes a) that he feared being put to death and b) that he was cold-blooded and it ignores that every DAY in America men commit murder to avoid being MERELY sent to jail . . . should we remove jail sentences because it "causes" perpetrators to kill police officers?

Lastly, like I've said in every post, it is a FALLACY to say that the DP is wrong because a majority of (good) countries' gov'ts think it is wrong or because some (bad) countries think it is okay. You wouldn't accept that reasoning on a host of issues I could list . . . as you said somewhere, "morality isn't determined by majority vote." Sure, such evidence may persuade some people, but it doesn't persuade me. You're welcome to make those arguments, but you're wasting my time making them to me. By the way, as I said (and you appear to have ignored) majorities of Europeans support the death penalty, though their "representative" gov'ts don't. And your definition of "cruel" and "unusual" as relates to the Constitution is a stretch, given that the same folks who approved those words in relation to punishment approved capital punishment elsewhere in the same document. I think it is too unstable of a basis for a democratic republic for 5 justices to be able to "interpret" words differently than they were intended when written. You guys need to go to the work of changing the Constitution the honest way, I think, if you want it to prohibit capital punishment.

I appreciate your compliment--that I'm a good person, and I would say that it is consistent with good character to think that a gov't may properly use deadly force to protect its citizens. I'm assuming you have conceded your moral equivalency arguments?

We'll "talk,"
Ned

DP Debate IX

From: MJB
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:03 PM
To: Ned Williams
Subject: Re: "beliefs" and their legitimacy in policy discussions


Let's put aside, Ned, whether Sedley Alley's motion for DNA testing w/ justified or not. Shouldn't Tennessee permit DNA testing now?

MJB

-------------------------------------
From: Ned Williams
To: MJB
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: "beliefs" and their legitimacy in policy discussions

On him? Is that even being asked for? If so, sure--assuming his next of kin approve of it and the taxpayers don't have to pay for it and it isn't unreasonably "costly" to allow it to happen.

--------------------------------
From: MJB, 7/1/06, 2:26 pm

I am glad to read it, on the evidence that he wanted tested before we killed him.

--------------------------------
From Me,

Yikes, you guys keep busy don't you? Like I said, sure, with qualifications.


--------------------------------

From: MJB, 7/1/06, 3:11 pm

Ned. Our state--representing us--doesn't want to let Sedley Alley's representatives perform the DNA tests even now. Tennessee currently demonstrates a fear of being proved wrong.
Now, I’d like to cut through all the stuff in your last message & return to the issues involving state killing. I don’t mind discussing Israel’s occupation of Palestine & oppression of Palestinians & Palestinian revolutionaries’ violence toward Israelis. I don’t mind discussing Bush-Dick’s unwarranted invasion & occupation of Iraq or their illegal arrest & torture of men at Guantanomo—but one thing at a time.

Ned, if all you did were vote for candidates who want to kill, then you & I wouldn’t be in this discussion. You vociferously supported killing on the City Paper’s website. Thus, the blood is on you, too, as it’s on me, but I refuse it. I am against it. You are not.

You claim a deterrence to state killing that has been proven time & again not to exist. You claim that these delays hinder the possible deterrence, but there is no evidence that that is so. Further, most murders are performed in the heat of emotion or by people who are mentally disturbed. The VAST majority of murders are committed by people who are not making good decisions, which further deteriorates any deterrent effect of state killing. Today’s Supreme Court has cut down on what you construe as delays in our killing a helpless individual, but it, even with John Roberts & Samuel Alito, is unlikely to speed up the process any further. Without a deterrent effect by state killing, you have no reason to support it, even if you state, without foundation, that it isn’t cold-blooded & that it isn’t immoral.

Here is what we know: State killing has no deterrent effect on crime. State killing is practiced by very few nations of the world, which makes it unusual. State killing differs from all other punishments by being irrevocable, thus making it cruel AND unusual. Killing someone without the cause of self-defense makes one a killer. You & I have agreed on that. Live with it or change your mind on this. You will still be you, a good person, if you support the abolition of state killing.

MJB

Forbearing wife

For those of you wondering, yes, my wife is very forbearing and yes, I probably ought to get on to doing something productive like mowing the grass. Have a great Saturday!

DP Debate VIII

MJB,
It is about "voting for candidates who support state killing" because that is the extent that I will go to on behalf of the death penalty. Though I would be frustrated to lose this policy debate, I won't start murdering guys like "(Poor) Paul Dennis Reid" in their frogmarch outside the courthouse. I have already thoroughly discussed the "blood on hands" "argument"; that is an argument from emotion, not reason.
The whole Israel thing reflects a "white guilt" or blame-America-first view or something. I really don't understand how the actions of Palestinians (i.e., PLO) are equivalent to the acts of Israel. One is a democracy, one is not. I don't think that everything ever done by Israel was right, but it is simple NONSENSE, MJB, to equate the two "nations." Just as it is NONSENSE to equate my belief that we can as a society consent to a use of deadly force (in war or in executions). You don't see the difference between the two? It isn't wanton, it isn't bloodthirst, it isn't "unjust" (unless you flatly believe* that deadly force is unjust).
And isn't it so predictable that you hate the President ("Bush/Dick," cute) and believe* this was a war about oil? It wasn't a war about oil--was Afghanistan about oil? Will North Korea be about oil, if and when it happens? I know that you have a difficult time believing* that Bush can do anything with sincerity or without greedy or corrupt motives and I suspect that you think whatever I believe* is based in greed, insincerity, corruption or ignorance. That is where we are different. I believe* that you are sincere in your beliefs*, and there is some merit or intellectual consistency (despite your intent on demonizing the motives of those who disagree with you) but that doesn't mean your ideas are right. That is where the principle of majority rule kicks in. Sorry, but I do believe that we won't survive without fighting against Islamofascism, and it is better in my view to take the fight to them rather than endangering my family and loved ones here. I suspect you are a pacifist.
I have listed numerous differences between me and Al Qaeda and me and Paul Dennis Reid, and it is downright offensive that you continue to make those assertions. The fact that I believe that killing is sometimes justified (I think you even conceded that it was, in self defense) doesn't make me the same as Al Qaeda or "Poor Paul Dennis Reid." You don't see a difference between the DP and shooting someone in the back of the head who just showed up at work at Captain D's on a night that Reid wanted to make a quick $50? Sir, that is NONSENSE. Likewise, you don't see the difference between supporting the DP and killing 2000+ people (I'm excluding the Pentagon employees, out of utmost respect for your position) because they disagree with an international policy which attempts (at least arguably--again, out of respect for your position) to promote self-determination and democracy around the world. Yes, we have made mistakes as a country, but that doesn't mean Sharia law is cool now. In MY system, you won't be beheaded or shot in the back of the head for looking at me crossways while I rob your store or for having the nerve to stage a protest outside of a gov't facility. THIS WILL BE THE LAST EMAIL YOU RECEIVE FROM ME IF YOU CONTINUE WITH SUCH MORAL EQUIVALENCY.
MJB, I'm not going to take the time to offer you the apologetics for my religious beliefs*, because I don't discern that you are the least bit genuinely open to discussion of the issue.
Re. sovereignty and beliefs*: I discern that you believe (most of the time) that all sentient life is precious. But what about animals? What about humans who have the IQ of a dolphin or who are in a coma? What about certain plants or insects which can appear sentient at times? What separates them? I would submit that it is species-ism for you, unless you rely (believe* in) on some other basis for valuing them differently. For me, that is revelation of God (backed up by our intuition, frankly) that there is a creator and that we humans are different than all other "living" things. That "revelation" is more reliable than the Qu'ran because of a variety of things--one the historical reliability of the Resurrection; another the historical reliability of the Gospels and their chronicling of the authenticating miracles of Jesus and the Disciples. But even if all that is thrown out the window, you BELIEVE* that your view of living beings is right and I would be as justified in BELIEVING* that mine was right, so we're back to square one. YOU (I mean collectively--those of your worldview) DO NOT HAVE A CORNER ON REASON, MJB.
I agree we do not exist in isolation, but we are as generous as any other nation and we are as concerned about justice as any other nation and we are as flawed as any other nation. This might be the source of "blame America first" reflex, but I do not agree that our culture or system is worse than others'. You (collectively) seem to reject western civilization while denying that it is the direct cause of most prosperity, freedom or equality in the world. I challenge you to present another civilization which has better fruit than ours. And this is important for you to hear: I do not think it is to my/our credit that we are exceptional--it is the ideas that we have observed, experienced and embraced (some of us). America isn't "great" (I know, you probably won't agree to that conclusion) because of her natural resources or the race of her peoples or timing or being bordered by two oceans or anything other than the principles around which she is ordered.
So, what do you KNOW, Matthew? Do you KNOW that PDR is anything more than a carbon-based lifeform that stepped over our arbitrary list of dos and don'ts? Do you KNOW what constitutes "justice"? No, I don't think you do. It has been determined that it is "just" for us to not allow a convicted capital offender to seek to delay his execution or enjoy another round of legal process IF HIS CLAIMS DON'T MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. Alley didn't meet those requirements. I've said this multiple times, and I guess you think I'm just flippantly saying it, but something can be "just" even if it doesn't satisfy your opinion of what is just. Although I think that our system is exploited by disingenuous attorneys who simply oppose the death penalty, I can tolerate certain delays in administering justice (even though, too, I believe* that said legal tactics/delays detract from the deterrence value of the DP and serve to distance convicted murderer's from their guilt and play into their deluded sense of being mistreated). But I accept them because of my belief* in rule of law. But Alley didn't meet those standards, and it was not a rush to judgment, and it was not a fear of being proved wrong, and it was not cold-blooded state murder, and it was not immoral.
In sum, your position on this and the host of things you brought up (Iraq/Israel/Greedy Republicans, etc.) are rooted in YOUR personal beliefs*, too. I would argue that my beliefs* on gov't policy, at least, are more logical and based in reason than are yours, but I'm willing to listen to your side. I won't listen to statement intended to insult me and which are intellectually offensive. Why even have a discussion/debate/argument with me if you think I am so blinded by wrong motivations? I personally have too many other demands on my time to waste it in fruitless discussion, and I would hope you do too.
Thanks,
Ned Williams

DP Debate VII

Ned, this isn't about voting for candidates who support state killing. This is about supporting state killing, rather than attempting to end it. You have a legal right to support al-Qaeda & its practice of arresting & beheading, but it would be reasonable to consider you to have the blood of those victims on your hands also, whether you wielded the sword or not. Since you support killing mentally challenged Paul Reid, then, if we kill him, blood is on your hands. We are all in this together. Defending Israel's right ot exist is not the same as defending its arrest & torture & slaughter of Palestinians. As for taking over governments, who runs Iraq but the oily Republicans in the White House. This takes us off the point, however. Since you haven't denied the similarities nor come up w/ compelling differences, then the similarities between the desire of al-Qaeda to kill & the desire of some of the people of Tennessee to kill exist.

I wouldn't say that all truth claims are equal. Those who claim that the earth is flat or that natural selection is w/out scientific basis do not deserve equal time w/ those who state that the earth is round or that natural selection is proven. Comparing the Qu'ran w/ the Bible, however, those are certainly equal. Neither is a document of fact. Each is a statement of belief for a culture or belief community. Each has gone through much revision by anonymous committees attempting to establish a church.

As to national sovereignty, that is not the same as national ignorance or isolation. This is America, part of the planet Earth, one of 193 countries. We do not exist in isolation. The pretense that we do gets us into trouble. In this world of human beings, most do not practice state killing. You & the U.S.A. are in the minority. It doesn't matter, however. The goal is to help those people who still desire to kill to see that such a motivation takes us bckward, not forward.

This notion of flouting the law is just an arbitrary judgment of appeals & motions that you don't like. There is no flouting of the law here. These acts (unlike, say, Bush-Dick's at Guantanamo) are w/in the law. You cannot complain about te way others play the game if they stay w/in the rules. You insist on the rules to deny Sedley Alley a DNA test. Perhaps you'd even defend Tennessee's attempt to stop post-humous DNA testing. I'm not sure waht the basis would be, but if it's w/in the rule of law & due process, then you'd have the right to ind it just as others nave the right to demand it. There's not flouting here.

That "the majority of us believe it's time for [Reid] to be put to death" is not an argument to kill. Justice doesn't work by opinion polls.

What concerns me in your message is how many times words of belief appear. We should move past belief & stick to what we know. One of the beauties of the American legal & governmental systems is that they are secular, not beholden to any belief-system. Personal beliefs have no place here, and using them to justify a desire to kill makes you more like al-Qaeda, not less so.
MJB

DP Debate VI

MJB,
There's no competition as far as responding to messages--I presume you are getting hit with more communications than I am. But I'm really wondering if you thought that such assertions would be compelling to me. Such as your assertion that all truth claims are equal (Qu'ran v. Bible) and all "extremism" is equal (suicide bombing v. voting for candidates who support the DP) and all complaints are equal(defending Israel's right to exist v. taking over gov'ts and imposing sharia law) etc. That is a classic fallacy: because two things arguably share some similarities they are the same. I understand that people hold those views, but that simple fact is not compelling--seeing as I'm not a moral relativist.
The "majority" issue, again, is not even touching the target, MJB. First, this is America not Germany or Belgium or Tanzania. You are overwhelmingly in the minority in America. As I've asserted, I believe in national sovereignty which means it is only potentially relevant to morality/correctness that ours is the only country in the world to do something. But I can point to polling from European countries demonstrating that government policy in Europe doesn't reflect the policy preferences of the citizens of European countries. Unfortunately, it appears that democratic principles aren't practiced as much in those countries as they are in the U.S.--that's nothing to be ashamed of.
And I don't doubt that you folks are chipping away at public approval of the DP given your absolutist zeal on the subject and the near full-court press of so many in the media, academic and governmental "elite." Even I have had to stop and ponder the issue (not the morality of the DP in theory, but in American practice) a couple of times, but I always learn from digging that, as with Sedley Alley, there's no substance to the assertions--kind of like so much of what defense attorneys are "compelled" to argue (due to legal "ethics," as you suggest) on behalf of their client. Of course, whether one is flouting the law is a "living" question, you know subjective, and I believe that you and the attorneys for your side of this issue will disingenuously make ANY assertion or claim, on the flimsiest of grounds, to subvert imposition of the DP. That is "flouting" the law and you only do it because you believe your end justifies just about any means. We're all satisfied that Reid did these murders, was conscious of what he was doing and did it anyway, and has no remorse; and the majority of us believe it's time for him to be put to death . . . you won't ever be convinced or satisfied of these things, but that isn't the standard.
We'll "talk,"
Ned

DP Debate V

By: idgaf on 06-30-2006
MJB would you feel better if we called [the execution] a late term abortion?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: MJB on 06-30-2006
Only, Idgaf, if we make the pregnancy twins & you're taken out, too. Just kidding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: Powertee on 06-30-2006
Not funny MJB. Neither is it funny to lump together Al Qaeda, (Poor) Paul Dennis Reid and people who believe that murder warrants the penalty of death. We don't agree with you . . . you are in the minority . . . stop flouting rule of law.


emailed to me by MJB on 7/1/06, 1:39 a.m.
Powertee, Idgaf was joking, and I joked back. You should chill. Let’s look at the facts: You want to kill Paul Reid because he did something (murder) that you think warrants death. Al-Qaeda wants to kill Americans & Europeans because they have done something (supported the torture of Muslims, invaded sovereign nations, ruled over others’ lands) that al-Qaeda think warrants death. Note the similarity. Many people posting here have cited the Bible to justify their desire to kill Reid. Al-Qaeda cite the Qur’an to justify their killing of Europeans & Americans. Note the similarity.

As to minority/majority, I am in the majority: State killing is practiced by very few nations. Four countries (China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, & the United States) killed 94% of all the people killed by state killing. Only ten countries killed anyone. This means that 183 of the world’s 193 countries are not practicing state killing. I’m in a majority of 95%. In terms of population, only 31% of the world’s people live in a country that practices state killing. I’m in a majority of 69%. Finally, within the U.S., in 1994, 32% of Americans suppported the sentence of life without parole over the sentence of death. In 2004, 46% support life without parole. Support for the sentence of death by itself was at 80% in 2004 & has dropped to 65% in 2004.

As to the accusation of flouting the law. No one has done that. Every appeal has been to practice every possible safeguard before this unique, cruel punishment is inflicted.

(I know that i still have another message from you to respond to.)
MJB

DP Debate IV

MJB,
I used to be an attorney in the Criminal Justice Division of the AG's office, so I am fairly familiar with the legal process in this situation. You (and those on your side of this issue--more about categories in a moment) have an unreasonable interpretation of "legal ethics" and of fair process than me or the majority of the governed. We don't have to satisfy you, a vociferous DP opponent, before executing a person; we have to satisfy the law, and Alley's claim in the 11th (relatively speaking) that he was entitled to DNA testing was not supported by the law and was nothing more than a delaying tactic, in my opinion. The statute on that issue takes into account the circumstances you have noted and Alley didn't qualify for this round of process. I haven't read the details about the Reid decision, but some determinations are transferable to subsequent venues on subsequent issues . . . whether or not Reid meets the standard of mental competence for prosecution/execution is something that has not changed by the relatively-recent mentally retarded holding. But I suspect you and I would reach different conclusions on it if there is any grey area on the matter . . .
Re. self-defense, I know you are dismissive of "deterrence" as a factor in support of the DP but that is a key aspect of self-defense. The state, in defending it's citizenry has held up a very serious punishment (actually, there are worse punishments, like torture) for taking another human life. That signals the state's intention to defend against murderers and--I believe, deters murder or serious violence against others. Also, there's no reason that we should face the risk of Reid killing a fellow inmate or a prison employee or a citizen should he somehow escape.
Re. "having blood on my hands," I think you're misinterpreting my position. Though I don't agree with your characterization of it, I am not ashamed to execute a murderer or have it done in my name. I know you don't want to discuss abortion, but you have the innocent blood and fragment of developing body parts of every abortion on your hands if your support abortion "rights." I have a LOT easier time condoning one than the other.
Re. use of the term "people from your perspective," that wasn't "personalized" it was generalized, which is necessary in a situation like this and which is merited by your various assertions over the past days. You reject national sovereignty; you equate the "violence" of execution with that of Al Qaeda and Reid; you believe that the Constitution "says" whatever a majority of people on the supreme court--regardless of legal principle, say it says; you believe that the end justifies the means in using legal methods to thwart a "state killing." Frankly, I can draw a lot of conclusions about your world view based on these various assertions, and you are free to correct me if a conclusion is inaccurate--I don't have to nor want to mischaracterize your opinion/view to effectively rebut it in the public square.
I guess I should just close by saying that I don't think the Bible mandates executions or that by executing people we will solve the problem of murder. But I do personally believe it is a legitimate policy to protect citizens and it is not contrary to Biblical principles. So I won't wail if you guys were to ever get a majority of Americans to agree with you. I am unwilling, however, to allow fallacious arguments or undisclosed premises be used to thwart my policy preference. I am a born-again Christian and believe that, while I have a duty to be concerned about my community ("my neighbor") and the things that the government does in my name--as a member of "we the people" who govern ourselves in this democratic republic, I am also to be most concerned about eternity. That gives me the perspective that I need in saying, yes, Sedley Alley is now standing before God or has already done so, and he has had to answer for his life. Hopefully, his "spiritual advisor" informed him that there was a reckoning in his future and that he ought to get right with God. There is forgiveness even for what he did and in a weird way, he had an "advantage" in not being deluded into thinking that he would have a long time or the "rest of his life" to take care of such spiritual things. So, our existence as individual beings is much more than our earthly existence. I hope that you have reconciled all this in your own mind--i.e., whether you believe it . . . whether you have acted on it . . . whether you have an appropriate confidence about what will happen to you after you pass from this life. http://www.campuscrusade.com/fourlawsflash.htm You are obviously passionate, committed and articulate about what you believe, and those are good qualities; nevertheless, all that can be negated if they are harnessed in pursuit of a wrong goal. Based on what I believe, execution is a just punishment for the state to carry out in response to cold-blooded murder. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out.
E ya,
Ned

DP Debate III

6/29/06, 12:33 pm

Thanks, Ned, for your thoughtful reply. It demonstrates, again, that the posting forum doesn’t encourage such consideration. I wish that you would not, however, personalize with the phrase “people from your perspective”. Let’s deal with the perspective, not the people. I winced, by the way, when I saw you pick up the abortion topic and was pleased to see you let it drop. I’m happy to (at least willing to) discuss abortion, but one issue at a time.

I have not said that there is no basis for killing. I understand self-defense, either personal, societal, or national. State killing is not self-defense. The victim is already helpless & harmless, therefore killing him/her is a wanton act, under the notion of “having no just foundation or provocation.” Nothing is gained by using the power of the state against one helpless person. Over the last 30 years, we have killed 1028 people. That is almost 34 people a year, or about three per month each month for the last thirty years. Picture if, somewhere in this country, there were a public hanging or beheading or electrocuting every eleven days. Would we be seen as civilized or barbaric? just because the killings are behind closed doors & done by injections doesn’t make these helpless individuals any less dead nor make our acts any less irresponsible.

As to the legal process, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution that has permitted the number of appeals &c. that are involved in every death sentence. Certainly, a motivation for the lawyers & advocates helping the sentenced one is a loathing of state killing & a conviction that it is unconstitutional. This is a reasonable position. If Tennessee made a law criminalizing driving between the hours of 3 to 5 a.m., stating that those hours have the highest number of accidents, and that driving is not a right but a privilege, then you would want an advocate who disliked the law on your side when you were sentenced to the mandatory one year in jail. As to your contentions about poor Sedley Alley’s last appeals and poor Paul Reid’s current one, you are incorrect. There was no DNA testing when Alley was convicted. It is reasonable to use it now before the unique punishment of death is imposed. When Reid was convicted, the Supreme Court had not found it unconstitutional to kill the mentally handicapped. Now, it has. Therefore, there is reason to test the constitutionality of Reid’s death sentence, particularly since those who know him know that he is seriously disturbed. Further, the legal process is about taking every permitted advantage for your client. That’s what these advocates are doing. If you were truly concerned about legal fairness, then you, too, would want to see an end to state killing, since those killed are much more likely to have had the worst possible advocacy when it counted most, with that first bite of the apple.

No matter whether you or I do the actual injecting, Tennessee is doing it for us, and therefore, we are killers. We have blood on our hands. If killing another not in self-defense it wrong, then state killing is wrong.

MJB

DP Debate II

MJB,
I'm glad you emailed me, and I strive not to be cavalier about this issue. I certainly appreciate your right to advocate on behalf of your position, and though I disagree with your conclusions (and some of your premises, I think) I understand your position. I hope you'll attempt to understand mine.
Re. state killing: People from your perspective believe that there is never a basis for killing. I would assert that there certainly are appropriate bases; self-defense being the primary basis, and on a national/public scale, executions or war. And I don't think you're being careful about your use of the word "wanton" in response to me. I do not support "wanton" use of deadly force and the DP in Tennessee/America is clearly not an example. Which leads to my next point . . .
Re. legal process: People from your perspective/worldview believe that the Constitution requires such measures and have construed it as such. It doesn't say that you get 5 bites at the apple, as with Alley, who has not satisfied the REASONABLE guidelines for qualifying to get another round of legal process on DNA testing. It doesn't say that Reid has a right to multiple additional rounds of legal process just because some family member believes he's not mentally normal. But what is disingenuous, I believe, is for you and others to assert that you're only interested in the law being carried out. You don't want these guys to be executed and I believe you are exploiting the good faith of individual citizens and indvidual gov't officials to act as if you'll ever concede a) their guilt or b) the appropriateness of their sentence.
Re. whether or not I have the courage of my convictions on wanton destruction of human life, I am comfortable with the process though it would be difficult to actually inject the poison. Sometimes, even often, the right thing to do is very difficult. I find it difficult to discipline my children when I am not in the heat of frustration from their determined disobedience. I find it difficult to approach a friend about a conflict we've had. I, at times, find it difficult to be selfless when relating to my wife, but all of these are to be expected, I believe.
I suspect you are also Pro-choice on abortion, and I'd ask you if you are willing to stick the curretage into a woman's womb who is six months pregnant and remove the body parts of the developing human therein. I doubt it. And you can bet abortion would be much less "popular" if we had all the attention about the circumstances of an individual abortion that you guys manage to get for an execution. Most of us can watch a cool-headed murderer die without ANY remorse and I don't think the same can be said of an abortion. But I don't want this to get off track. I just want you to realize your view is based on MANY premises, some of which others--the majority, I'd say, do not agree. That's fine, but we live in a democratic republic, so there is a point at which efforts to thwart the will of the people is immoral or illegal.
In sum, I believe there will always be people who threaten civilization and peace and we need to do the sometimes difficult things in our personal lives to instill in others a respect for human life, a respect for God and a respect for the law. Based on my premises above, I think that it is thoroughly consistent to use force against my daughter while instructing her that there are inappropriate uses of force; or to teach her to respect the law and gov't while instructing her that there are inappropriate acts of gov't. I guess the trick is in discerning the difference, and that all comes back to an over-arching relationship with/understanding of God.
Thanks for writing,
Ned Williams
"PowerTee"

Death Penalty debate

As you may know, Tennessee has been buzzing with the death penalty issue for a couple of weeks as two convicted murderers were scheduled to die on the same date. As the result of some posts to the Nashville City Paper's forum, I recieved an email one evening from an anti-DP post-er and the "discussion" was on. It has been an interesting exchange, so I'm going to post the correspondence here. Frankly, I think it does not reflect well on MJB, but he is responsible for the impression he gives, not me.


6/29/06, 1:49 am
Powertee, when New Yorker writes "KILL HIM!", i'm not the one you should write to about lack of compassion. That Sedley Alley & Paul Reid killed men & women is terrible (presuming that Alley killed Suzanne Collins, which the state of Tennessee--representing you & me--was too afraid may not have been true, so it fought against DNA tests). Alley's family, Reid's family, Collins's family, & the families of the other victims have gone through terrible pain. I hope that all these families follow Father Charlie Strobel's example & join Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, where they can transcend any desire for vengeance & find healing, forgiveness, & understanding. You should attend a meeting of M.V.F.R., too.

As to the legal process: Everything done by Alley & by Reid's representation (since he's too mentally unstable to represent himself) has been part of the constitutional process put in place by the Supreme Court to safeguard those who are under the sentence of death, since it is, unlike any other legal sentence, irrevocable. These are safeguards to prevent "the wanton destruction of human life".

Unfortunately, since state killing is still nominally legal, the wanton destruction exists. I cannot tolerate it, which is the reason that i post my opinion here & in other forums, sign petitions, & attend vigils. If, instead of simply finding my picture online (not a bad photo, don't you think?), you had had the courage of your convictions & joined us at the vigil, you could've spoken against the wanton destruction of human life, and the 70 of us would have agreed w/ you.
MJB