Obama is no Colin Powell

I am still not sure why anyone's so excited about Sen. Barack Obama--perhaps it is a reflection of discomfort with Edwards and Hillary.

But I have to disagree with the thesis of this Dick Morris and Eileen McGann op/ed (via VolunteerVoters.com via straighttalkalabama.com). For the record, I think Morris is a master marketer but he is often too cute by half in his assertions that politics is a solvable puzzle or anything near a science.

Morris asserts that Hillary ought to be thankful for Obama's presence in the Dem primary because Obama clears the playing field of other candidates even though he'll never be able to beat Hillary. As evidence, Morris points to Colin Powell's potential candidacy in 1996. While I agree that Powell and Obama were similar inasmuch as they were attractive, projectionable figures, but Barack Obama has nowhere near the creds of Colin Powell.

Morris states, "Having the right opponent is one of the essentials to electoral success.” Of course “the right opponent” (a loser) is the key in any campaign, but I don’t see the legitimacy of any substantive comparisons between Powell and Obama, nor Dole and Hillary; and Powell’s purportedly long shadow didn’t keep Phil Gramm from raising $20m prior to Jan 1, 1995.

I do think Hillary can be thankful that Obama is keeping her from being under the magnifying glass at least for now.

Americans, religious folks, conservatives more generous

Here's a great report (here) about the book Who Really Cares by Arthur Brooks.

Conclusions? Religiously devout people are more generous than those who are not religiously devout. Accordingly, Americans, Republicans and Conservatives are more generous because each of these groups has a larger percentage of devout members.

Why is that? I believe a large part of it is simply buying into a philosophy and publicly identifying oneself with a philosophy helps one to live by the philosophy. It also helps to socialize in and "belong to" a community where a higher standard is extolled, not to mention, modeled.

In any event, the study refutes the Left-wing characterization of Americans, Republicans, Conservatives--particularly the Religious Right, as heartless or stingy.

Philosophy of Santa Claus

Thank you (and curse you) ABC Family Channel for your 25 days of Christmas programming this month. Almost every night that channel has broadcast a baby-boomer-era Christmas program (typically stop motion animation) and my kids have enjoyed seeing them.

But it occurred to me on Christmas day--when my middle child asked me a question about Santa Claus, that maybe I should reconsider playing along (hook, line and sinker) with the whole Santa enterprise. Why? Because it seems pretty obvious that I undermine my credibility in urging my children to believe spiritual truths--which I think are true, when I unreservedly or without qualification promote a belief in a concept which requires "faith" but which I know is untrue. I think I haven't been careful enough to talk about Santa with the twinkle in my eye that typically signals to my kids that I'm using my imagination.

My wife had already handled the issue a couple years ago with our oldest (I wasn't aware of that) but we agreed that we'll wait for an opportune time to break the news to the littler ones. And, don't worry, we'll go easy on them . . .

Warrior v. warmonger

Channel surfing while ESPN was showing a commercial, I came across Patton, starring George C. Scott. I've never watched the entire movie, though I've been familiar with it since childhood. Even the small portion that I watched was fascinating--though I have to admit I probably missed "the point" of the movie. And I don't know if this is "cliche" or not, but Patton's dog was a pitbull.

Anyway, in the movie, a Nazi is looking over a dossier of Patton as Allied forces are overrunning their HQ, and says, "he (Patton) will be destroyed, too, for a warrior can't suvive without a war" (or something along those lines). It reminded me of traveling home through north Alabama this evening and passing by the city/town of Warrior. I told my wife--as I have on previous trips, that "Warrior" is perhaps my favorite city name.

I guess that's because war seems to be an inevitable part of human existence and a warrior is a person willing to stand in the deadly juncture of civilization and the alternative. It should go without saying that I'm thinking of those who serve with honor, not those prone to atrocities.

Now I'm watching another "classic" war film I've heard of but never seen . . . A Bridge Too Far.

A natural selection near-miss

An interesting story from today, from the AP: "California Man Sets Himself, American Flag, Christmas Tree on Fire to Protest Religious Names." The man survived!

My sober holiday

We're visiting "the cousins"--my sister and her family in Alabama, and one of the best things about the holidays is having more time for activities like baking cookies, visiting family, etc. Actually, I guess we just make time for such things during the holidays.

Yesterday my four-year-old nephew brought me a stack of picture books to read to him. After the truck and tractor book, he handed me a "plane" book which was a picture book about the Pearl Harbor battle.

As we skimmed the book, he was most interested in the explosions, uniforms and military vessels, but I was struck by the details of the battle and the casualties--for example, 1,177 sailors died when the Battleship Arizona exploded and sank in 9 minutes. Many of the American victims were just waking on the only day they could sleep in, and some would die less than 10 minutes later--by drowning or being burned to death.

My thoughts drifted toward the sophomore biology teacher at DeLand High School, Mr. Tribble Dicks, who was the only person I've ever known who was actually there for the battle. He still sported a flat-top though I doubt he had served in the Navy long after WWII. Despite the haircut, he was a gentle and somewhat stoic man.

We viewed him as an antique, and we would laugh--amongst ourselves, at his imitation of a cranking Harley-Davidson. We also thought it was funny how he would choke up whenever someone could get him to talk about his experience at Pearl Harbor. We thought it was funny how he would get almost speechless, so emotional about an event that was long in the past and an incident which, to us, was a rich memory of America's resolve and America's ascendancy. All's well that ends well, right?

Yes, we were juvenile and "sophomoric" and such behavior is almost expected these days. When my nephew wanted to read that book, I hesitated because death and dying and enemies and war are all such grave subjects. However, there is a need for me to teach my children--while still preserving some innocence, the horrors of war and the steep sacrifice paid by veterans then and now.

Faith-based or reality-based blogging

Like me, you may have noticed the term "reality-based" being revived in discussions about the Iraq Study Group's report. Well, I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, but though I had heard the many sniffling, disparaging references from Liberals about "reality-based" policy over the past few years, I was not clear about its source (I plead guilty to being generally indifferent to petty, partisan criticism).

Well, today I read the article where the phrase debuted--thanks to a link from "commient" (sic) regular, elliemay. There it was, in the NYTimes Magazine. As I read the article, this adage, often attributed to Robert F. Kennedy, came to mind:

"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"

Suskind (the author of the article) seized upon the term "reality-based" as a contrast with what he terms GWB's "faith-based" presidency. By "faith-based" Suskind means basing policy decisions on "faith," which he defines as "believ[ing] things for which there is no empirical evidence." Was RFK a "faith-based" politician?

The article makes much of the now-common accusation that Bush is cock-sure and unwilling to yield, but that argument is ironic because it only arguably "works" if the subject is Bush's Iraq policy. Sure, Bush has determined that there is no negotiating with or appeasing Islamists, but I'd say there's plenty of "empirical evidence" for that conclusion.

On the other hand, Bush has been rather willing to compromise with Liberal pols on a host of domestic issues: the Medicare Prescription program; NCLB; BCRA; spendthriftiness, etc. etc. Speaking of "faith-based" policy . . . where, for example, is the empirical evidence that public schools in America are effective at educating our children?

Mittamorphosis

I thought I checked my messages all weekend, but somehow I missed my invite to meet Mitt while he was in Middle Tennessee. Oh well, accidents happen.

In any event, the '08 Presidential nomination campaign has already started so I'm planning to do a great deal of deep thinking* about folks like Mitt Romney in the coming week or so.

Terry Frank is predicting that Mitt isn't the likely GOP nominee, and I tend to agree. Why? Because of this startling Boston Globe story about Romney's morph from trying to bump aging Liberal warhorse Kennedy out of office to trying to right-elbow out moderate Republicans to garner the support of social Conservatives.
The article opens as follows:

In Governor Mitt Romney's metamorphosis from social moderate to self-styled conservative presidential candidate, Nov. 9, 2004, stands out as a seminal date.

On that day, Romney and two aides met in his State House office with renowned Harvard University stem cell researcher Douglas A. Melton. In Romney's retelling, Melton coolly explained how his work relied on cloning human embryos.

" I sat down with a researcher. And he said, 'Look, you don't have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days,' " Romney recalled on " The Charlie Rose Show " last June, characterizing the meeting as a watershed moment for him. "That struck me as he said that."

Melton remembers the session differently.

"Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it," he said in a statement last week. "I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases."

This article exemplifies how difficult it would be to get elected, much less govern, as a Conservative in such a Liberal state. I like the willing naivete of the Globe writer is casting the differing views of the consultation/conversation as contradictory. After all, the reporter implies, Dr. Melton said he has a "deeply held respect for life."

But the article also exemplifies Romney's ability to convincingly articulate his testimony about "seeing the light." To be clear, I think those compelling arguments are there for the making, and I'm glad to see this candidate willing to make them. But I have to say that I wonder how contemplative or sincere Romney is if these rudimentary principles dawned on him only after he set his sights on the GOP nomination for president? The same thing goes for his morphing views on abortion and homosexualism.

And Romney is presenting himself, wittingly or not, as someone who is very impressionable: on embryonic stem cell harvesting, he is disturbed by a harvester's dispassionate discussion about ending human life, on abortion he states, "I have learned and grown from the exposure to the thousands of good-hearted people who are working to change the [abortion] culture in our country."

I may end up backing him in a general election, but he's got some convincing to do. I urge you to read the whole article if you consider yourself a social conservative.


More soon on the impact that Romney's religious beliefs could have on his candidacy . . .




*A Deep Thought I just read: "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."

Christmas Warrior reporting for duty...I guess

Christmas Warrior reporting for duty! (Please retrieve from memory banks the embarrassingly lame salute of John Kerry in accepting the DNC nomination).

I just came across a link to a Slate article (here) via Anne's StupidStuffIWitness blog about why "conservatives" and "Christianists" despise the phrase "happy holidays."

For the record, I don't despise the phrase "happy holidays" or need affirmation from a store greeter/shoplifter-cop as I rush into a brick and mortar. As a result, I only skim over assertions that there is a war on Christmas and have never read the book so named.

That being said, I am bothered by a patently secularist agenda to strip all mention of devoutness in the public square, and an emerging trend to never utter Christmas (other than in a laundry list of Winterish celebrations) is certainly evidence of said agenda.

But to the article. I like how the author harkens back 17 years--seventeen years!!!--all the way back to midway in the GHWBush administration!!, to establish how long the LANDMARK!!! Supreme Court holding that any religious display on a public venue is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (see previous post on how Libs are BIG time advocates for stare decisis after nosing their Liberal agenda--via even only a plurality of judges, across the finish line).

I also like how Greenburg writes that in the 1950s, "the Holocaust had made the merits (indeed the necessity) of religious toleration all the more compelling." I'm not sure why Greenburg chose "toleration," and I'm even more surprised that he used that as an example of religious intolerance. Maybe this would explain folks like Greenburg's problems with "Religious Conservatives" and evangelicals. As noted in an earlier post, NOW I know what Liberals think I think.

And Greenburg can't be serious in presuming that uses of the term "Season's greetings" in the past (all the way back to Eisenhower's Christmas Cards!!) were intended to mean "season-which-includes-Channukah-Kwanzaa-Ramadan-witch-winter-solstice-etc.-etc." as opposed to Christmas and new year's eve and Hannukah.

But hasn't Christmas sufficiently been secularized/commercialized/spiritually-dumbed down so as to obviate the need for marketers to begin advertising "Holiday Trees" for sale?

Lastly, I can appreciate that Lefties despise that conservatives despise anything, but can't we agree that consumers have every right to complain, organize, boycott, threaten (in an economic sense), pressure, etc. any company they darn well please? If you're so right, Greenburg et al, let boycotters across the globe continue to make fools of themselves.

And remember, Jesus is the reason for the season.

What a Loser

I am a supporter of Protest Warrior which I think epitomizes Free Speech--as opposed to flaunting it.

Thus I have followed (somewhat) the story of this FREAK who criminally (on a Federal scale) sought to undermine Protest Warrior by stealing credit card numbers of thousands of Protest Warrior members with the intent of using them.

Well, Loser has been convicted and sentenced. But what interested me this a.m. about the story is the LAMEness of the judge's sentence and rationale for said sentence.

First, I think it is ironic that Loser, who brags of being an anarchist appears to do all his speaking through his daddy and the lawyer his daddy probably hired for him. I love how the reporter writes, "According to [Loser's] lawyer, Hammond ("Loser") has extreme left-wing political views."

And I was impressed with several profound statements from the judge. For example, those who advocate for hate crime laws should be appreciate this nugget,

Hammond (Loser) was "more interested in countering speech he found wrong rather than picking the pockets" of political rivals, the judge said.

And when Loser's dad noted his son was 19 at the time of the offenses and had used "poor judgment":

U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel picked up
on the point, but used more blunt terms.

"You were an idiot when you did it," the judge said. "At the
perspective of my age, all 19-year-olds are idiots."

Also according to daddy,

Though he faulted his son's judgment, the elder Hammond said his son's "basic inner moral code is good."

Uh, I guess we'll take your word for it . . .

I'd encourage you to read the whole article before piping off about this.

Gobbledy greetings from the Guv

There is a buzz in the blogosphere about TN Gov. Phil Bredesen's "Christmas" card. (As an aside, it is intriguing to watch Liberal bloggers--you know who you are, create a buzz by raising an issue and ascribing to all Conservatives the sentiments of a single Conservative blogger; oh well).

First, I believe the guy's not a bad artist, but I have some interesting illustrations that may be purty and still may not make sense on a Christmas card. Which leads me to the inane statement/explanation that Bredesen put on the back of the card. According to the Tennessean,

"May the peace and joy of this Christmas season be with you and your loved ones throughout the coming year," the card reads.

"While it may seem odd to put a portrait of a young Muslim woman on a Christmas card, this Season reminds us that He loves His children most of all," Bredesen stated on the back of the card.

I think his comment, though sort of true about Christianity, (i.e., what does it mean to say “[God] loves His children most of all”?] appears to be a stab at a multi-culturalist "Christmas" card (is that an oxymoron?).

But the back verbiage reminds me of those blog posts that require a lot of ex-post facto explanation. To wit, if they needed that much explanation or back-filling they probably shouldn't have been posted.

Politically-interested comedians take themselves too seriously

I read over at the NY Times (via Drudge) that Al Franken is contemplating a U.S. Senate run.

I believe that politically-inspired comedians take themselves too seriously (certainly more seriously than the average voter). Accordingly, the quality that makes them so "charming" to a live, studio audience of people (who get their knowledge of current events from late night talk shows) would wither and fade under the glare of political krieg lights.

So, I think Franken is kidding himself (pun intended) if he thinks he's cut out for elected office. I think the same thing applies to "Man of the Year" inspiration Jon Stewart.

Young(er) Vince

This youtube montage of 2004 Vince Young Highlights is really fun to watch. Seeing as I only watch a couple of Big 12 football games in a season, my primary memory of Young was his men-among-boys finale in last year's Rose Bowl. The footage of his humiliating a team dressed in Michigan uniforms (at the end of the clip) is particularly impressive.

Crichton: discernment biggest challenge for mankind

Here's an interesting speech (here) delivered by famed author Michael Crichton.

The speech is entitled, "Environmentalism as Religion." I agree with most of the speech, though I disagree that there is no factual basis to Christianity. Go read for yourself.

Shut up and be pretty

Matt Damon is promoting a new movie (here) and has an opinion (one that is ill-informed and ill-mannered) that he wants to share. (Hat tip, Drudge) Damon is recommending that Jenna and Barbara Bush be sent to fight in Iraq.

"I don't think that it's fair as I said before, that it seems like we have a fighting class in our country that's comprised of people who have to go for either financial reasons or, I don't think that that is fair," said Damon, 36. "And if you're gonna send people to war ... then that needs to be shared by everybody, you know, and if the president has daughters who are of age then maybe they should go too."

I say, shut up and be pretty.


**I know, I know; acting is a difficult skill--certainly more difficult than looking good, but it didn't sound as "catchy" to say "shut up and act"

Bush "staying the course"

It appears that Dubya intends to "stay the course" in Iraq, as discussed in this Fred Barnes piece (here). (Hat tip to reader elliemay).

But wait, “stay the course” means keep using American troops as fodder for the “war for oil/Halliburton,” doesn’t it?!? Well, no.

Even though the phrase became a favorite club by Dems during the 2006 campaign, I guess it means persevering in a worthy cause, even though people are dying.

Clintonesque Emanuel

I cruised through this Washington Times article (here) about how Congressional Democrats (particularly Rahm Emanuel and his underlings) handled the reports about Mark Foley's potentially-inappropriate contact with House pages . . . most of it seemed like old news.

But there's something interesting in the report:


Read the rest at my new blog address.
And please update your aggregator or bookmarks if you haven't already.

Been there, Dunn that . . .

The news that Jason Mumpower has defeated Bill Dunn for House Minority Leader is disappointing, because I know and respect Dunn.

On a variety of levels, I doubt Mumpower will be featured in a Conservatives of the House 2007 Calendar. See House Directory Mugshot here and a non-Conservative review here.

Read the rest at my new blog address.
And please update your aggregator or bookmarks if you haven't already.

Even with Liberals at the helm?

Some on the Left will surely pooh-pooh this general's statements (here) about the war on Islamism. He says that it could take 100 years to prevail.

It appears he didn't get the memo that Liberals are going to be calling the shots on foreign policy from here on out.


Read the rest at my new blog address.
And please update your aggregator or bookmarks if you haven't already.

Peace through mensa

I'm not sure what to think about this Congressional Quarterly report (here), also reported at CNN (here) (hat tip, Drudge); however, I know that it certainly blunts Democrat/Liberal assertions that all will be well as soon as we get the party of Elites at the helm.

read the rest at my new blog address here.

Better explanation needed for war in Iraq

I read a moving op/ed by Joel Belz at World Magazine (here) yesterday and it truly resonated with me. In sum, Belz argues America owes our troops a better explanation for the war in Iraq. In an open letter to a future serviceman and family friend, Belz writes,

I looked in your 22-year-old eyes yesterday morning, and I wasn’t prepared for
my own reaction. I’m having more and more difficulty asking you to put your life
on the line for a cause wrapped in so many ambiguities.

Read the rest at my blog:
http://nedwilliams.wordpress.com/2006/12/11/better-explanation-needed-for-the-war-in-iraq/

And please update your aggregator or bookmarks if you haven't already.

Justice, justice shall you pursue . . .

I just was watching a livestream video (the internet is amazing) an interesting a forum with Justices Breyer and Scalia called “A Conversation on the Constitution.”


Read the rest of this post at my new blog address, here.

Blind-sided by baby

You've probably read reports that Dick Cheney's daughter (the one who prefers women) is pregnant. I'm most interested by the reporting of "the story" surrounding "the story."

read the rest at my new blog address, here.

I propose a truce . . .

Though I am willing to do my part in consistently providing Brittney at Nashville is Talking with a “quote of the day,” I think that we can take steps toward promoting reasoned discussion about moving forward as a country and as a blogospheric region.

READ MORE . . . http://nedwilliams.wordpress.com/2006/12/08/i-propose-a-truce/

And please, PLEASE update your Aggregator with my new blog address . . . your readers need the entertainment/enlightenment (as the case may be) that comes from seeing what is posted here, right?

Winning elections more important than winning wars

Please go to my new blog address to read and comment on this post (here)

If you have a blog aggregator, please include my blog and update/add this address:
nedwilliams.wordpress.com

Do soldiers of fortune constitute an “insurgency”?

Please go to my new blog address to read and comment on this post (here)

If you have a blog aggregator, please include my blog and update/add this address:
nedwilliams.wordpress.com

Saving Franklin Cinema, losing all sense

The City Paper is reporting (here) that the Franklin Cinema is closing it's doors in January because it can't afford the rent increase when its current lease expires. I've never been to the cinema, but I like seeing it when I drive through downtown. It's quaint, and it harkens back to the good ol' days. End of story for me because I have neither the resources, nor the contacts, nor the fire in the belly to preserve a movie theater.

The report is even-handed in my opinion, but the interesting thing is the comments to the story. I learn that the place is a dump and that maybe it's not able to turn a profit because it is a "dump." Too bad more Wal-Mart hit pieces don't have comment-on-the-story features.

If you don't feel close to Obama, guess who moved . . .

My mom used to have a little framed thingamajig that sat on a table in our living room that read, "If you don't feel close to God, guess who moved." E.J. Dionne would have us believe that Barack Obama provides a similar type of measuring stick.

AACK at VolunteerVoters highlights a RedState.com post about a recent E.J. Dionne op/ed (here). Dionne is fantasizing about Presidential Timbarack Obama and his potential draw for Evangelicals. I generally agree with the RedState.com post and think that Dionne's creepy electoral leering at we Evangelicals makes me feel dirty.

Bringing it home, AACK seems to agree with the statement that "never really been fans of narrowly partisan politics," but then takes it a bit further to assert--wrongly, I believe, that Evangelicals have been "trained to believe that blind support of the GOP is in their interest." First, I think that Evangelicals have legitimately concluded that the Democrat Party is not "sensitive" or "interested," heck, even "tolerant" of Evangelicals' issues; and until the Democrats make a move, that conclusion is of continuing legitimacy.

Next, the same characteristic--relative indifference to political gamesmanship, that makes them not "have a thirst for partisan politics" makes them less politically savvy and less apt to "make each party bid for [their] attentions." Thus, I disagree with the assertion that Evangelicals "are starting to wakeup to the usefulness of this strategy." Evangelicals may sit out an election, but I don't think they are flirting with the Democrats except in rare, localized races.

Frankly I'd say Evangelicals are more than willing to meet Sen. Obama half way. Dionne touts how ". . . Obama took on the moral message of evangelical AIDS activists -- and then challenged them . . . "; I'll look forward to the day when a Conservative is given the same treatment, such as when someone should point out the irony of "pro-choice" Obama charging, "[w]e're dealing with flesh-and-blood men and women, and not abstractions."

Though he is certainly welcome to the cause, Obama is joining Dubya and other Republicans have been concerned about this epidemic for a long time. And I'm not sure how savvy it would be for Evangelicals to let a slick Democrat politician co-opt their issue, muddy the waters on their principled stances, or to pose as the moral leader on the issue.

Moving my blog

I have changed my blog server in pursuit of more advanced features and I hope you will proceed on over there and look around . . . there's a new category function that I'm happy to have, and I didn't want to wait any longer for a beta blogger "invitation."

I hope you'll bookmark my new address and maybe you can leave a snarky comment.

New address:
http://nedwilliams.wordpress.com/

Ignoring Noah's Ark

Aunt B is sounding off (here) about a post at Jamey Tucker's "Faith and Ethics" Blog. In lambasting Tucker for reporting on recent archaelogical investigation into a possible discovery of Noah's ark, Aunt B writes:

I said I was going to complain a tiny bit about Christians, and here's where I'm going to do it. Folks, you are practicing a religion. The Bible is not a checklist of archaeological digs you must fund in order to prove that your way is right.

There's supposed to be mystery and wonder and confusion. There's supposed to be awe and stuff beyond knowing.

I'm not saying you shouldn't go looking for whatever it is you want to go looking for.

I'm just saying that, when you put all your hope in fact, you're conceding the terms of the debate to secularists who, first of all, love to frame religion as a question of whether or not it's "real" just because it's so cute to watch you guys get all wound up and go off; and second, aren't going to be convinced even if you showed up tomorrow with the ark, a piece of the one true cross, and a tuft of Jesus's hair from which DNA tests could prove he had no earthly father.

And Kat Coble from a less-cynical perspective commented on Tucker's site thusly:

I've said this in another context and shall repeat myself here for good measure.

The time for idolatry of relics is past. Faith, as we are told in Hebrews 11:1 is
the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Christianity is about faith. Which is about believing in the unbelievable, in the things you cannot see. We serve a risen Saviour. How idiotic is that when you think about it? That is FAITH.

Hunting for old wood and the pinkie fingers of saints is a misguided attempt that cheapens the beauty of simple faith by attempting to tie it to bits of dust.

There is no majesty in these quests.

First, I think folks are confusing scientific proof with historical proof. While it might be futile to ask whether scientific principle supports a Biblical miracle, but it is relevant to ask whether evidence supports that a Biblical miracle occurred. If you accept the supernatural, you accept that it is possible for God to supercede natural law; that being said, if the Bible is inspired by God and it says that Noah used "gopher wood" to construct the Ark, then it calls into question the Bible's truth claims if the evidence contradicted that factual assertion. Sure there are many things about "faith" that we must take on "faith," and it could be a waste of resources to seek authentication for Biblical accounts of events. But unless you believe in some form of Universalism (and basically ignore Jesus Christ's exclusive truth claims) then it matters whether Biblical assertions are true or not.

But reading Aunt B's post I felt a bit like Harold Ford, Jr. likely felt sitting in campaign strategy sessions with Liberal Dem leaders prior to his senate run; thanks for the advice.

It's not "mainstream" Christian denominations that are causing traffic jams on Sunday mornings or buying up vacant acreage in visible locales. Likewise, it's not evangelical churches that are saying, "this doesn't have to be true to be educational/inspirational/motivational!!!"

And as I read Aunt B's comments about the Red Sea Miracle from the Bible, it occurred to me how those Jewish rubes sure went overboard with the whole "sea of reeds" story, seeing as it was just a wetland that their "God" helped them breach.

By the way, did you hear the one about the guy who decided to go to seminary? One day an Old Testament professor, teaching about the nation of Israel and the Red Sea, was explaining that the Red Sea was really the "Sea of Reeds" and that it was merely a swamp with shallow water. The children of Israel could simply wade across the swamp. Suddenly from the back of the room, the guy shouted, "PRAISE THE LORD!" The professor--unaccustomed to such outbreaks in class, asked the student what all the excitement was about. The young man replied, "PRAISE THE LORD! My God is so great that He could drown the entire Egyptian army in a few inches of water!"

Hot air, on a global scale

Some frequent visitors of late have been using me as a punching bag on the issue of "global-warming-climate-change-the-greenhouse-effect-whatever-it's-called-this-month." Here and here, for example. (Free advice to friends to the Left--derision is not a great way to win friends or influence people). Well, they've been calling me out on this issue, so I guess I need to respond or risk losing their undying respect and fawning appreciation.

Some fundamental premises on the general issue:

1. Big Wedge of Green Lettuce: It's becoming par for the course that Liberal bloggers mock Conservatives of being rubes for sticking with the GOP based on issues like abortion and they accuse the GOP of pretending to care about such issues with no intention of doing anything about them. Well, so-called "Environmental Issues" are their "wedge" issues. Issues they will not ever give up on and which they will ad infinitum use to mischaracterize their opposition. These "Environmental" issues seemingly pit Republicans/Conservatives against the "Englightened" elements of the culture.
   
2. Suspect messengers: sort of related to #1; Democrats and Liberals have a political motivation to fan the flames of environmental doomsdayism, and "Scientists" typically have at least a "naturalist" bias. And this Naturalist perspective is the deciding factor on the issue of "Origins."
   
3. Statist Paganism: I may be a man of faith, but--unlike my Liberal counterparts, I have serious doubts about Statism's ability to adequately protect the environment. (By the way, the history of all socialist/communist countries prove my point.) Thus, I have to err on the side of the maxim that massive regulation/market interruption/restraint of liberty ought to be motivated only where a compelling state interest is involved. And let the debate begin . . . more along the lines of John Stossel and less those of Michael Moore. Some sources of information reflecting skeptically on the Environmental Left's assertions are TechCentralStation and the Heritage Foundation.

So, where do we stand? I'm not an expert, so I have to discern whom I will trust on the issue (and I perceive that the people calling me out on this issue are not experts either.) I've been told that there is evidence that surface temperatures are increasing ever so minimally. There is debate about whether this is a cyclical phenomenon or a long-term phenomenon.

Next, some people have concluded that these rising temperatures are the result of human actors. And others are less convinced. Seeing as all the proposed solutions for "global climate change" involve serious restraints on freedom and serious expense, it is important to reach a consensus on this issue. If Republicans/Conservatives are the roadblock to solving this problem, then explain the 90-something vote in the U.S. Senate not to approve the Kyoto Protocol.

Next, some people have concluded that the consequences of this phenomenon are dire. While I concede that it may be wise to err on the side of caution on the issue, I describe Environmentalism as "doomsdayism" because Environmentalists are "Preservationists," believe that the earth is more fragile than I think it is, and conclude that there is no way the earth can adapt to these small environmental changes. Assuming that Macro-evolution is true, it's a good thing that the Green Movement wasn't around early in the process. (Incidentally, I say we should err on the side of caution in the question of whether a child in the womb is worthy of protection). But I think it is clear that Democrats/Liberals have an incentive to exaggerate the threat.

So, based on the motives, biases, worldviews of the messengers, I'm skeptical. Liberals expect me to come down on the same side as they have on all of these close questions. That's not reasonable.

Inconvenient smoking guns

I posted earlier (here) about the Happy Feet "controversy" and was working on relatively few facts; I was merely defending the right to criticize a movie for overt political messages in traveling in trojan animated horses.

Well, this article reports that there was intent and motive (sounds "criminal" doesn't it?) on the part of the those involved in directing, distributing and promoting, etc. this movie to influence young viewers. I thought this quote was ironic, yet candid:

The green theme "was hard to shoehorn into the ad campaign," says Dawn Taubin, president of domestic marketing for Warner Bros. . . .

Sorry if I don't appreciate that.

"Inconvenient entertainment"

Bill the blogger--AACK (at Volunteer Voters) and Southern Beale (at MrDTalk) are up in arms that others are, uh, up in arms about the Earthinthebalance message featured in the new animated film Happy Feet. Well, I haven't seen the movie, and from what I can discern, neither has AACK or SouthernBeale, so I guess we can only speculate about the outrageous outrage surrounding this film.

From what I can tell, AACK doesn't have any children, which might explain his glib response to the possibility that the Liberally-biased entertainment industry might be writing plots with a Liberal political message. (I'm still bitter about the screen-writer of Madeline for making the heroine a vegetarian and the anti-heroine a bratty meat-eater.) So, stick with universal "truths" or values in writing a screenplay; be responsible with the platform I give you to "speak" to my children.

But possibly most amusing is Southern Beale's insinuation that CNN, USAToday CNN-Headline News, and FoxNews are all part of a Conservative cabal's coordinated campaign to creat "controversy." Obviously she has no problem with the movie's apparent environmental doomsdayism, but she plainly doesn't speak for me. Ticket-buying parents don't have a right to care what bees Liberal movie producers are putting in kids' bonnets?

Is it, as AACK alleges, "inherent hypocrisy" to complain about a movie's message? Not as hypocritical as getting bent out of shape for someone else caring enough to get bent out of shape.

Media bias by the numbers

Media bias? You judge for yourself, from the FEC records of campaign contributions (here) by media and entertainment celebrities.

Give credit where credit is due

"Hurricane Season Ends Quietly," reads the headline (here).

Don't you think that Dubya deserves some credit for this?

Blogging fun

Sorry if this is old news to you, but I just came across this hilarious blog . . . wuzzadem (the name hints at the POV).

re. senator-elect Jim Webb's "speaking truth to power or whatever" with Dubya (reported here).

re. intra-Christian jockeying a la the Rick Warren dust-up. (prior post on Warren).

"Why Mommy Indoctrinates Her Kids"

If you (a) pay attention to google ads snuggled around almost any and every article on the web, and (b) read a lot of political stuff, you have no doubt seen the ad for "the book George Bush doesn't want your kids to read!!" . . . the book they call, "Why Mommy is a Democrat." (found here). I've noticed it before (and visited the website before) but want to comment on it in light of my recent interest in how parents influence their children.

It is always interesting to see my attitudes or opinions (that you may not have been aware you were expressing) voiced by your children. Partially due to their age and partially due to the vagaries of the race, my kids were understandably challenged to understand what was happening during this most recent U.S. Senate campaign in TN. Their daddy was gungho for Ed Bryant and opposed the ubiquitous (on TV) Bob Corker, and then their daddy supported Bob Corker and opposed the equally-ubiquitous Harold Ford, Jr. (Understandable, some adult Conservatives struggled keeping up, too).

Anyway, this book gets on my nerves because after reading its sample pages, I realized how lazy this "mommy" is. Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed at her initiative and her marketing is surely extensive and she is definitely working diligently to influence the next generation for the Democrat Party. But I think it is lazy because she is indoctrinating her kids rather than equipping them. Note the cute imagery in the pages of the squirrel "mommy" protecting her squirrel "children" from a mean elephant running nearby ("is this a parody?" my wife asks)

I know it is a fine line between the two, but I always try to imagine what it will sound like if my kid essentially parrots "what daddy said" on a given subject/issue in public or in front of the rare Democrat with whom I let her interact (just kidding). So I really endeavor to fairly represent the other side's position as well as my position and persuade them that my way is right. Hey, my kids think I hung the moon, so I don't need to demonize my opponent or my opponent's positions to persuade my kids to side with me.

But perhaps most importantly, such doctrinaire indoctrination certainly influences--rather negatively, how my kids will view others who may be different than we Williamses.

Dems adding insult to injury

This just in, House Democrats appear to have been exaggerating, fudging, lying, over-reaching, demagoguing (whatever) in their campaign promise to "enact all of the 9/11 commission's recommendations," a "failure" about which the Dems have attacked the GOP. Aside from passively breaking their campaign promise (that's the injury), they are actively breaking their promise (that's the insult).

As the a Washington Post article reports:

Pelosi strongly backed Murtha for House majority leader, only to see him soundly defeated by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). That chain of events made it difficult for her to ask Murtha, a longtime ally, to relinquish control of the intelligence budget from his consolation prize, the chairmanship of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, according to Democratic sources.

Likewise, a controversy over the choice of a new chairman of the House intelligence committee proved to be a factor in the decision. The Sept. 11 commission urged Congress to do away with traditional term limits on the intelligence committees to preserve continuity and expertise, a recommendation the House implemented in 2003. But in her search for a reason to drop the committee's most senior Democrat, Jane Harman (Calif.), from the panel, Pelosi fell back on the tradition of term limits. She has decided to pass over the intelligence committee's second-ranking Democrat, Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), as well. (emphasis added)

Frankly, I haven't heard--prior to this article, any reasons the first seemingly-wise reform wasn't enacted under the GOP, but it can't be any less tasteful than that of the Dems, can it?

Says who?

Though I've been thinking (and sharing!!) a lot the past few days about the influence that parents have on their children, I've always enjoyed the potential for influencing the "next generation."

One exercise that has occurred to me lately and one that I intend to drill into my children is to simply ask the question, "Who says?" Requesting the authority for another person's assertion or argument can sure make discussions more efficient.

I was reminded of this great tool for decision-making and reasoning when I read (over at Mark Rose's Right Minded) this exchange between Larry King and James Dobson--bogeyman of the Left:

". . . when the discussion turned to attempts to redefine marriage -- [Larry King] made it an issue of separation of church and state.

KING: Why is [marriage] a state institution rather than a religious institution? Why is the state involved?

DOBSON: Well, it's both. It is both.

KING: But we have a separation of church and state.

DOBSON: Beg your pardon?

KING: We have a separation of church and state.

DOBSON: Who says?

KING: You don't believe in separation of church and state?

DOBSON: Not the way you mean it. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. No, it's not. That is not in the Constitution.

KING: It's in the Bill of Rights.

DOBSON: It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called "wall of separation" was mentioned was in a letter written by (Thomas) Jefferson to a friend. That's the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be.

What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around, which is that church was designed to be protected from the government.

KING: I'm going to check my history.

Knowing King's interviewing style, it's hard to discern whether he meant the actual phrase "separation of church and state" or the mere concept, passed down from the gods of democracy through the pen of our dear judicial activists, but it is interesting to see the power of the simple question, "says who?"

Why do you vote like you do?

Aside from considerations of voting for the "lesser of two evils," and using the broad, modern categories of Democrat/Liberal and Republican/Conservative, why would you say you tend to vote for one party or the other?

Some commenters to yesterday's poll think that a high level of education makes someone a Democrat-leaning voter . . . likewise some of the same commenters believe it is hatred or bigotry that makes someone a Republican-leaning voter. Frankly, such assertions are insultingly simplistic, though I'm open to hearing an argument from anybody who believes that way.

But, as I mentioned in my "update" to the "Poll" post, I think a combination of temperament and worldview determines how we vote; the former you're born with, the latter is either un-formed and marginally influential, or well-formed and nigh unto determinative.

That being said, I'm not sure that partisan or ideological differences have always been as pronounced or obvious as they are now, since the advent of non-stop campaigning made famous by Morris/Begala/Carville and Clinton and the 24/7 media coverage of "politics." Thus, there seems to be a greater ideological divide in our country now than ever before--as far as the center of gravity for each of the two largest political parties.

I have to say that I believe much of the partisanship since the 2000 election--which has been fueled by the media and academic elite going to a whole 'nother level of contentiousness in response to a surge by the GOP toward parity in American party politics over the past two decades. Party folks have concluded it was necessary to go more partisan--demagoguing, demonizing, etc., in attempting to attract the "undecided" voter. And more and more people say they could never vote for X party as a result. I don't think that's healthy and hopefully the principle of "diminishing returns" will temper such partisanship in the near future.

So, what is the basis of your tendency to vote more Democrat/Liberal or more Republican/Conservative?

Poll--Updated

Apparently, research data indicate that 80% of us grow up to vote in line with the way our parents voted. It was in an interesting article (here) about the "fertility gap" between the Right and Left.

But I'm interested to hear how true that is in the blogosphere, and to hear from you if you strayed from the fold. If you did choose a different political identity or ideology than your parent(s), what would you say made you change parties or affiliations?

UPDATE: I guess I ought to answer my own question. Both of my parents voted Republican as far as I can tell (I am certain my mother did, and I'm pretty sure my dad did)--they were both deceased before I started getting interested in politics.

As far as temperament, I have always had a higher "justice quotient" as opposed to a "mercy quotient," it seems. I appreciate that others (my wife, for example) are more inclined to sympathize with or feel mercy towards a person, but I typically will side with "principle" over a person and prefer objectivity to subjectivity.

As far as worldview, I'd say mine is more clear or intentional than that of my parents, so I would venture to say that I would likely be more conservative than my parents assuming their beliefs were relatively unchanged. I don't want to weird anyone out, but my worldview is most influenced by my decision to place my faith in Christ as personal Savior. That decision implies a number of things regarding absolutism vs. relativism and supernaturalism vs. naturalism. (Aside: And based on my understanding of the Bible and our Constitution, it doesn't mean that George W. Bush should turn the other cheek on behalf of all Americans or should coerce certain citizens to be charitable toward other "needy" citizens.)

So, I would fall into the 80% category in one sense but not in the same way that my children are likely to be in that category . . . seeing as I'm much more aware of the concept of a worldview and because I am much more "involved" in the political process. Indeed, that's another motivation for Lefties to seek more control over the educational system and be more concerned about the long-term electoral impact of the "fertility gap." My children won't stumble upon their worldview, much less be ignorant of the concept until they're in their 20s. Even if they settle on a worldview different than mine or don't ever really settle on one, it won't be because they haven't been exposed to the concept. And, I know what many of you are thinking, I won't love or accept them any less if they choose a foolish path, er, a path different than mine.

Merry Fitzmas, indeed!

I remember the jovial greetings from Lefties to one and all of the Conservative or Republican nature: Merry Fitzmas! Visions of White House indictments danced in their heads . . . of course, they were only "visions." But I digress.

It appears that Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is prevailing before the Supreme Court on behalf of "the people" to uncover who in the Federal Government leaked confidential information related to anti-terrorist funding investigations. Unlike the "Plame affair," this is a real leak . . . of truly confidential information . . . motivated by truly political machinations . . . intended to thwart efforts to protect America's interests.

Merry Fitzmas, indeed!

Newsflash: Church failing to keep up with modern mores

I just read an op/ed by Oliver "Buzz" Thomas over at the USAToday blog (here) about the church and homosexuality (hat tip Flanktwoposition, though Roger surely hoped to enlighten rather than annoy me). Essentially, the author--who appears to be an attorney, a Baptist minister, and an author, equates the Church's longstanding position that homosexual acts are sin (and please feel free to comment if you resent my assertion that this is "the Church's" position) with the Church's position--at one time in history, that the Earth was the center of our Universe. Obviously, his point is that we need to acknowledge the evidence/facts and kindly take our welcome into the '90s.

I'm a little surprised that "Buzz" is a lawyer (though maybe he is simply doing what many lawyers do--advocating on behalf of a client, no matter the weaknesses of his position) but I'm really surprised that he is a minister. Here are some of the reasons:

First, I'm not sure upon which authority early church leaders based their conviction that the Earth was the center of the Universe. But beyond that, I haven't heard of too many examples lately in which scientists were dragged before inquisitors and then burned at the stake for not toe-ing the Church's line.

But giving "Buzz" a pass on that grandiose analogy, I'd be interested to hear what "facts" or "growing stream of scientific evidence" "Buzz" is alluding to on this issue. Certainly he is not referring to statements from persons who engage in homosexual behavior who--sincerely or not, assert that they have felt these urgings since as far back as they can remember? What sinful action does not seem "natural" or "innate"? I don't struggle with alcohol or substance abuse, but I can tell you that every person who does would claim that they cannot remember a time--after being exposed to the substance at issue, when they didn't feel compelled to indulge themselves. Thus, the author's faulty premise yields this whopper:

"If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?"

Ditto for this sloppy theological assertion:

The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

First, God doesn't judge us for being tempted (being "human"); heck, even Jesus was tempted. Second, it's lame to assert that people who engage in homosexual acts have no choice in the matter.

Next, the author repeatedly, flatly asserts that the Church's position on homosexuality constitutes "discrimination." Wrong. It isn't "discrimination against gays" to simply refuse to acknowlege it as normal or to refuse to condone it. Is it "discrimination" against adulterers not to award property rights to them if they are in a sexual relationship with a person who obtains property? No. Is it "discrimination" to not give tax deductions to people for rental properties or multiple properties they own for other purposes? No.

Next, I like how he points out that we have no recorded sermons from Jesus about homosexuality to prove that He was hip on it. There are a host of things left unremarked upon by Jesus, but that doesn't mean much. The context of the Gospels pretty clearly demonstrates that Jesus was intent on challenging the Levitical system and the works-righteousness so associated with the Religious leaders of the day. Jesus never mentioned that sex with children was wrong or that beating your wife was wrong or that slavery was wrong or that sexual harassment was wrong or that . . . you get the point.

And regarding not being judgmental, Jesus didn't say that there was no such thing as sin. Sure, He taught and modeled that we should treat "sinners" in a loving way (indeed, we all sin) and that we should remove the log out of our own eye before removing the thorn from someone else's.

Lastly, I'd be interested to hear about all the homosexuals being discriminated against in jobs, in filing wrongful death claims, etc. Unfortunately, I can match your incidents of discrimination example by example with people being "discriminated" against in America because they are deemed too devout or too Conservative. Sure, homosexuals may be treated differently, but those who choose to live this lifestyle are different, aren't they? Pardon the 95% of us who can hardly comprehend the driving attraction to people of the same sex, but we need a lot of convincing to accept that society has an interest in guarding such sexual relationships or elevating them to the level of traditional marriage.

Maybe "Buzz" Thomas' article will provide hay for homosexuality apologists (after all he's a lawyer and a BAPTIST minister!) and mislead some soft-headed Christians, but I think it is far from a compelling argument for the Church to jump on board the "gay" bandwagon.

Dems find BigOil smoking gun! (or not)

Over at Music Row Democrats (here), they're linking to an AP "report" (here) about how BigOil is purportedly rigging the oil market to increase profits.

I hate to say you need to read the entire article, because it is long (it takes a lot of writing to spin a conspiracy from scarce data), but it is interesting to note how ignorant all parties involved (Dem Senators, "Truthout," Music Row Dems, etc.) are about economic principles.

Among other fallacies in the article . . .

Is it right for someone to beneft at my expense? In fact, I'd like for these companies to freakin' give me gasoline; but it wouldn't be long before I'd have to go out and pump, refine and store my own gas. Hmmm, that won't work.

Holding on to your product with the anticipation of its value increasing over time is not evil, and it's not always smart.

10 companies is not a "handful" of companies (as the Naderite in the article asserts), and is certainly enough to foster free market competition.

The trend of not building new refineries began during the Clinton administration; what does that tell us? THIS CONSPIRACY IS BIGGER THAN I THOUGHT!!

Don't pith on me, Roger--reprinted

I don't want to start a pithing contest, but . . . Roger Abramson has called me disingenuous (here) for my post about Rick Warren (below).

Unlike me, Abramson is unimpressed with Warren's signature work, The Purpose Driven Life, but, as an aside, I would posit that Roger is plenty impressed to see Warren seemingly poking his Evangelical constituency in the eye.

I am not hiding anything by criticizing Warren for his left-of-center, "half-cocked" positions of late. I make no bones about my Conservatism and, ahem, don't specialize in Maher-like "conservatism."

And I alluded to the Dixie Chicks for a reason. It is certainly legitimate to have political views, no matter your station or position in life. But any person ought to carefully weigh the cost of attempting to parlay their non-public-policy-related celebrity into political influence. Dobson and others (but not Haggard, whom I had not heard of prior to his "outing") have not launched into the political sphere after gaining notoriety for a best-selling series of apolitical books.

And unlike me, Abramson seems to think that "people of faith" should stay out of politics. Believe it or not, there's a lot of overlap in the two spheres.

Update: Roger and Katherine Coble have more to say on the subject. Frankly, I don't spend much time on pop-culture stuff (nudge, nudge Katherine) or pop-Christianity stuff, so I think I'm pretty sensitive to junkfood media. I'm most interested in "lifechange," and The Purpose Driven Life has caused some.

Pompous, driven Life?

I am a huge fan of The Purpose Driven Life, authored by Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California, but I have read several stories recently (here--regarding Syria and Iraq, here--regarding "global warming," and here--regarding the Barack Obama whistle stop tour) that cause me to question whether his success has gone to his head and is causing him to make half-cocked statements/pronouncements about public policy.

This phenomenon seems common among celebrities or leaders in one "field" who give in to the temptation to try and simply make a lateral move from one field to another. Alec Baldwin. Michael Jordan. Ross Perot. Dare I say, "shut up and write"?

Boycott_Citgo

Hugo Chavez is president of Venezuela. Venezuela's gov't owns Citgo. Hugo Chavez is again talking trash. I'm reminded that we should boycott Citgo.

False dichotomies re. Dem congressional majorities

AACK over at Volunteer Voters has posted (here) on a Steve Gill criticism of the GOP-majority Senate's work on appointing judges (among other failures), re-re-reiterating the storyline that the GOP deserved to hear "you're fired" on Nov. 7th.

Though I'm disappointed with the GOP's performance over the past 6 years, and though I am not Sen. Frist's biggest fan, and though I think there was a politically-healthy chastening by voters electing a Dem majority, Kleinheider's post is based on at least 2 false premises.

First, he presumes that the Democrats--who held a near 50% "minority" in both houses of Congress, were not being obstructionist and were willing to work in a bipartisan manner on any reasonable proposals.

Second, he presumes that Democrats will "deliver" more on the issues important to American voters than even the worst group of Republicans.

Well, false premises lead to false conclusions. And though I am not threatening to move to Canada and though I was still able to offer thanksgiving yesterday despite the results of the mid-term elections, I have to disagree with the "conclusions" being drawn by some about the 2006 election results.

Florida the 13th

The Dem--Christine Jennings, who had hoped to replace Katherine Harris won't accept a count, recount and manual recount in her race, all of which show she lost. She's suing (here). Ominously, the article hints that the Congress will ultimately decide whom it seats. Surely, the Dems are more responsible than that . . .

From reading this article, it seems obvious that voters failed to vote in the race because it was, get this, at the very top of a page. Despite the growing collective (Lefty) plaintive wail, it's a good thing that the ballot design was approved by the Dems. It's a good thing the Dems run the county where this is happening (although the commissioner of elections is a Republican). It's a good thing that these weren't Diebold (pronounced DEE-bold, as in "DEEmon") machines.

Partisan Dems seem to think the only way they lose elections is when others (read: Republicans) conspire to steal elections. When all is said and done, Democrat voters are still going to have to follow directions, read ballots and comprehend ballots. These partisan Dems would likely welcome a return to straight-ticket levers, where "Democrats voters" wouldn't need to even know the name of the persons for whom they were voting. Yeah, any reform that will help folks vote the way we know they ought to vote.

Move along, people, there's no conspiracy here . . .

Over at "Tennessee Guerilla Women" they've posted an entire Paul KrUghman op/ed on the matter.

Give thanks! . . . on the other hand

This post from Tony Hendra (whomever he is) from over at the Huffington Post (via The Corner) lays bare the heart of the American Left. (For the sake of Conservatism) thanks for sharing, Tony.

Here's the first sentence of his "prayer":

I give thanks O Lord for Dick Cheney's Heart, that brave organ which has done its darn-tootin' best on four separate occasions to do what we can only dream about.

Incidentally, I'm glad others read this crap and pass along links; I sure don't want to visit these sites.

Lovin' Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, virtual friends.

Not that you asked, but Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday for a variety of reasons, in no particular order. I like that there are no gifts involved, just spending time with loved ones; I like that there is football involved; I like that it is the beginning of the holiday season; I like that it is devoted to giving Thanks to God; I like that it is uniquely American.

Sure we have and have had problems as a country and as indviduals, but Thanksgiving is a reminder of reason to have hope; it is an opportunity for a psychological and spiritual tune up.

"Cat fight" in House

The "cat fight" between Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman isn't going away and it's interesting to read details (here, here).

Some of the interesting tidbits from these articles: Harman hasn't been strident enough for the Democrat Party base.

Members of the "Congressional Black Caucus" seem prepared to give Pelosi a pass if she gives Hastings a pass.

No publication, save the British Independent, dare call this a "catfight."

And Pelosi's spokesman is spinning out of control:

Spokesman Drew Hammill said Tuesday that the Select Committee on Intelligence, as it is formally called, is different from other panels. "Seniority doesn't carry over from Congress to Congress," he said, adding that the speaker could not only change the membership but pick "virtually any" House member to be chairman.

Well, it's not "seniority" then, is it?

Theocrat Bogeyman

BOO! Didn't mean to scare you, but here are a couple of recent op/eds on the Left's newest bogeyman: "Theocrats" or the Religious Right.

It is fascinating to read about the grand agenda and the fearsome potential and the malevolent motives of the Religious Right, because it's all news to me . . . a card-carrying member. Indeed, opposing homosexual marriage and abortion on demand--positions supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, hardly constitute advocating a "theocracy." So it is not enough for the Left to simply oppose the policy positions of the Religious Right, they have to oppose folks who are Conservative and religious. As a result, it seems that secularism (even if just practical secularism) is one tenet of modern-day Liberalism--"we can't have folks being dogmatic and stuff!"

From Dinesh D'Souza.

From Jonah Goldberg.

O J and W

Roger Abramson, in his locally inimitable way (here), is accusing others of blind fealty to Dubya. Of course, buddies to his left are enjoying the spectacle of Roger's reamings, and that actually illustrates the problem with Roger's exercise.

I hesitate to risk reviving old animosities, but over the weekend I watched a special about the O.J. Simpson Trial ("Unanswered Questions about . . .") and saw the footage of the various audiences' reactions to the announcement of the O.J. verdict. Video of cheering students gathered in the student union of a traditionally-black university student union reminded me of how I felt when all that occurred--that feeling of being kicked in the stomach. I believed that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated O.J. was guilty of a double murder, and though I was disappointed that he was not convicted of these crimes, the real shock was realizing there was such a divide in our country.

I was aware that we had racism and racial animosity in America (the trial happened on the heels of the Rodney King incident); I was aware that "reasonable people can disagree" about such-n-such; but this was a perverted form of jury nullification where one segment of Americans wanted to "even the score" by allowing a murderer to "walk" just because of the color of his skin.

Regarding Dubya, I have often defended him--particularly regarding the GWOT, even though I haven't agreed with many of his policies and even though he has often acted less than conservatively. But I have--over the years, been dumbfounded by words and actions of Democrat leaders in accusing Bush of all manner of fascism, particularly in reference to the war in Iraq.

I believe the concept is called "polarity management" which teaches that many of life's challenges force a business to manage the tension between two worthwhile goals. The LAPD was plainly flawed and the Rodney King phenomenon raised a host of issues, but the answer is/was not to give aid and comfort to OJ--or, in this context, to entertain every cockamamy conspiracy theory that Michael Moore could conceive.

Following their losses in 2000 and coming forward, the Democrats certainly had incentive to win something. Unfortunately, that drive to win overcame reason as they sought ANY means to handicap Dubya and to prepare the electoral soil for future harvests. So, yes, I defended Dubya and certain of his decisions in response to outlandish accusations and vilification from Lefty ideologues. Elections are either/or propositions, which leaves less room for pithiness; and it takes discernment to appreciate the difference between blind fealty or "cheerleading" and reasoned reaction to demagoguery.

I admired Harold Ford, Jr.'s general reasonableness or unwillingness to demagogue. Like when, in a speech to the "Music Row Democrats" (or a Dem Group in Germantown?), he drew hisses when he offered a reasonable response to an audience question about Bush starting illegitimate wars and winning illegitimate elections, or something along those lines.

I regret that Democrats have--until the PurpleState Elections of 2006, been choosing the opposite side than Bush on any and every issue to the great pleasure of those who would love to see our entire country and everyone of our countrymen in a heap like Ground Zero. Sure, there are limits to loyalty, but the fact that I and others may have stood by Dubya under such circumstances is rather honorable, I'd say.

In this most recent election, Democrats have enjoyed success in part because they moderated their opposition concerning the GWOT. That's great, it's certainly smart, and it is welcome (even though it neutralized a Republican strength). But their position and rhetoric has evolved to get to where it is now, and it was a no-brainer as to which party or presidential candidate was more willing to take the fight to our Caliphanatic enemies.

I don't apologize for "cheerleading" in that context.

Just make sure you spell their name D-I-X-I-E C-H-I-C-K-S

Here's (here) an example of preaching to the congregation--when it's the choir that needs a sermon. Peter Cooper of The Tennessean has written an op/ed entitled, "Let's all shut up and listen--Chicks should be judged on music, not their political views." Cooper appears to reach the right conclusion in the article, even though his headline and much of his argument reflects that he absolutely will not go where the logic takes him. For example, compare the title and last line of the story with this excerpt,

It's hard to complain about the media trapping you in an enduring soap opera when you're writing new scripts for it and taping new episodes, but that's exactly what the Chicks have done. "Shut Up & Sing" documents them doing it, and the band members' personalities are engaging enough that it's possible to watch the movie and think, "What poor women," for a while and then later be struck by the inanity of so many of the circumstances depicted.

As Cooper notes, the Dixie Chicks have sold 1.5 million albums this year, so Maines & Co. seem to subscribe to the old PR saw, "I don't care what you say about me, just make sure you spell my name right."

"Compassionate conservatism," redundant

Interesting study (here) about the compassion of Conservatism. I've posted on this phenomenon before, but it bears repeating.

Which reminds me of the clip I you-tubed yesterday (here) of a campaign appearance by Congressman-elect Heath Shuler (D-NC) in which Shuler explains why he is a Democrat (actually, why his grandmaw is a Democrat).

So many people (esp. Dems) gloss over the issue of whether government should be taking money from one citizen to "show compassion" to another citizen. To quote a econ prof friend, "Gov't is intended to be an instrument of justice; when gov't tries to be an instrument of mercy, it becomes an instrument of injustice."

Blame Rumsfeld

Here's (actually, here) a disturbing report (via Drudge) about the soldier (Barker) who has pled guilty to rape and murder in Iraq:

Barker . . .told the judge that Green approached him with the plan to attack the family while they were drinking whiskey purchased from Iraqi Army soldiers.

Barker described changing clothes, then climbing through backyards as the five left the checkpoint. He also described in vivid detail raping Abeer Qasim Al Janabi with Cortez and Green before Green killed the girl, her younger sister and parents. The defendants also are accused of burning the girl's body

Followed by this whopper from the scumbag's civilian defense attorney, David Sheldon:

Sheldon told reporters during a news conference following the hearing that Barker took responsibility for his actions, but he also said the US Army was to blame for the way the war in Iraq was being fought.

If you read the article, I think you'll conclude that, rather than taking responsibility for his actions, he's trying to save his butt from the death penalty.

Mudslinging-n-hand-wringing at the Scene

A Guest Commentary over at the Nashville Scene (here) is criticizing the black-oriented Tennessee Tribune for printing a list of voters who did not vote in the September primaries, ostensibly to motivate them to vote in the general election. Professor Franklin, the author, writes:

Never mind that, decades ago, social scientists debunked the myth that non-voting can be explained solely by political apathy. Although this is an important explanation, non-voting also happens because of low exposure to politics, infirmity and medical hardships, transportation barriers, electoral laws that discourage people from voting, archaic registration requirements, socioeconomic barriers, the alienation of prospective voters from community and civic organizations, disillusionment with the two-party system, fears that the political process is corrupt and will discard votes, the belief that political outcomes are overly determined by wealthy elites and corporations, and the fact that political campaigns are framed to appeal to the middle-class, instead of the poor and working-class who make up a larger share of non-voters.

For the record, I believe that the Tribune's action was coercive and bully-ish, because there are many reasons, all personal, that someone may choose not to vote or choose to vote for a particular candidate. Those reasons are none of the Tribune's or the Tribune's readers' business.

But, I think it is interesting to look at the "causes" of non-voting: most of them are the result of Democrat demagoguery re. elections and politics, in general. I've opined about this before, but this is an example of Democrat practices coming back to bite them.

Pervasive racism behind every tree

I got drawn into this fight by Aunt B's incendiary post in response to an observation by Nathan Moore about the slant of a recent Tennessean article, entitled "Racial Gap is Wider Here than Nationally."

You work the syllogism:

The pertinent data reflects there is a "racial gap" concerning poverty (and home ownership) in TN.

The pertinent data (not to mention common sense) reflects that unwed, single-parent households have inordinately low-incomes.

The pertinent data reflects that non-white races have a higher rate of unwed, single-parent households.

The Tennessean concludes--and asserts with "supporting evidence," that racism is causing blacks to have disproportionately (as far as racial comparisons) low incomes.

Harry Reid's boner

Nevada senator, Harry Reid-D, referring to his fellow Nevada Senator, John Ensign-R: (Here)

"He's a Republican, I'm a Democrat, we work together on issues that are important to the state of Nevada. And I wish other people had the same nonaggression pact we have," Reid told reporters. "It's not a 'Brokeback Mountain' situation."

Har-dee-har-har. Hopefully "Beavis and Butthead" isn't going to be the "new tone" in Washington . . .

All politics is local . . .

I've never quite "bought" the saying (maybe I just haven't understood it), "All politics is local"; however, this story from CQPolitics.com--about another race that has been conceded (believe it or not, it is a Democrat that is conceding defeat), probably best illustrates the old saw.

The victorious (incumbent) Republican was a popular former sheriff so he apparently had a local, political advantage. Even in the "year of the Democrat!!"--the Democrat lost. I think the adage is true because aside from devout partisans on either side, independent or swing voters are not compelled by campaign appeals that say, "elect Candidate X or the other party will control Congress." I'd even argue that "independents" are repelled by this argument because it seems so un-independent. Though I've argued before that "electing X will mean X party has control," I now see how--when pitching to non-partisans, "all politics is local."

Silver-lining snippet

As I read this story (via Volunteer Voters) about a Republican conceding his 96-vote loss in CT, it reminded me of one "silver lining" that I've seen since Nov. 7th: the Republican, Nancy Johnson, had been serving in Congress FOR 24 YEARS. Sorry, but that is too long. I am a frequent supporter of term limits, and turnover of elected officials (not in a partisan or ideological sense, but in an individual sense) is valuable in a democratic republic.

To career politicians: get a job; look out for citizens, not yourself; you're not so special that we can't replace you. I guess that message should be directed to the electorate, too.

Sounds like Tenn . . . sounds bad

I thought this was an interesting (not to mention incredibly candid) comment deep in a story (here) about Pelosi's work on behalf of Jack Murtha to be elected as House Majority Leader:

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a Murtha supporter, said Monday night that Pelosi is playing for keeps.

“She will ensure that they [the Murtha camp] wins. This is hardball politics … We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it,” he said. “Yes, she’s making calls to people. She is contacting people and letting them know that it’s an unequivocal letter.”

(Emphasis added, obviously)

Mid-term myths

There's a great op/ed (here) by Rich Lowry at NationalReview.com concerning myths (or emerging nuggets of conventional wisdom) from this year's mid-term elections. Read it and see if you agree.

But I have to challenge one point in the article. Lowry asserts that--despite what many Conservatives are saying, the size of Dem gains in 2006 is rather remarkable given decades of sophisticated district-drawing capabilities and the fact that the GOP has been in control of Congress since 1994.

I would submit that re-districting's impact is rather diminished because the legislatures drawing districts with a view toward benefitting one party or the other are state legislatures--and Dems have either controlled an equal number or majority number of state legislatures following the 1990 and 2000 censuses. See here and here. As a result, the Democrats have been enjoying a "procedural" or structural advantage over past decades.

This affirms my view that the GOP--as the Conservative party, is the ascendant majority party on a national level, despite the setbacks of the 2006 election. It also demonstrates the importance of focusing on winning state elections. Wait'll next cycle . . .

Re. Newt's naysayers

Dang. I am a victim of the media, which (who?) are intent--less than a week after the 2006 election, on dropping the gates on the 2008 presidential horse race. Of course, the would-be candidates are partly to blame . . .

But over at evangelicalsformitt.com (here) there is a disparaging post about Newt which warrants a response. Obviously, as the author of a "shill blog" (I'm going to call them "shiblogs" ©--feel free to use it), Nancy French has a "job" to do, and although I'm not yet sure who I'll support for president in 2008, I feel like I have to correct the thesis of her post about Newt and signers of the "Contract with America."

French writes,

"[election night in 1994] was full of hope while the newly elected officials talked about their Contract with America.... a contract that was scarcely signed before it fell apart in shreds. If this last election debacle is anything, it's indicative that this Contract was worth less than the parchment on which it was written."

Based on this post, French misunderstands the nature of "the Contract" not to mention its "success." The Contract with America was a pledge by Republican congressional candidates to bring ten legislative initiatives to a vote in the U.S. House within the first 100 days of the new session. Each of the initiatives enjoyed overwhelming public support and each was brought to a vote and all but one was passed--that was term limits, which received a plurality but needed vote from two-thirds of congress to pass. You ought to read the actual "Contract," because the scope and substance of the reforms is/was impressive.

Ironically, even the WaPo writer (cited in French's post) understands and points out the reality that Republican House members in later years "strayed" from the path laid out by the Contract with America. Whether Newt would be a good president or presidential candidate is another issue, but the Contract with America was not a gimmick or a sham. Newt and Co. delivered on their promise and we (the GOP) would do well to return to the ideological and dispositional roots of 1994.

Rudy's tough row (and maybe mine)

For a couple of reasons I was not thrilled to see this article (here) about Rudy Giuliani's preliminary steps to seek the GOP nomination . . . first, I had hoped (though not nearly as much as my wife) to give politics somewhat of a rest and second, it brings to light a potentially bloody intra-party struggle over who will be the 2008 GOP standard bearer.

As the article states,

The former mayor is a moderate who supports gun control, same-sex civil unions, embryonic stem-cell research and abortion rights - stands that would put him at odds with the majority of the GOP conservative base.

Couple these Liberal stances with Giuliani's Libertine lifestyle (well, in relation to most Republican voters), and I thought up until very recently that Giuliani's candidacy was a non-starter. But considering that Hillary may be the Democrat nominee, Giuliani--as the Republican nominee, would certainly be the more Conservative choice, and some voting blocs (I'm thinking the folks at BCR and silk-stocking Republicans) won't let his "moderateness" on these issues keep them from supporting him.

Giuliani is off-the-charts gifted as a leader, but I'm just not sure that he can ride the tough-on-foreign-and-domestic-enemies horse through a GOP primary. First, he wouldn't stand out enough; second, he would have to overtly argue "electability" as a "part B" response to his answer on almost every issue.

Lastly, if Rudy became the nominee, I think Democrat politics of personal destruction would take the lustre off of his current public image. An uninspired base plus a plurality of hard-core Dems (in today's polarized electorate) is not a winning combination. And I'm hoping I won't be faced with having to support my second choice after another "spirited" GOP primary.

Fear and loathing in Nashvegas

I've read various posts/comments in the blogosphere from homosexual folks concerning their reaction to last Tuesday's overwhelming support for the Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment, but this video report (here) from WKRN (NewsChannel2) begged for a response--unfortunately, the story only presented one side of the debate, that is, the people-who-voted-for-Amendment-One-are-bigots-or-ignoramuses side of the debate.

The main subject of the story, Rev. Gail Seavey of the Universalist Unitarian Church in Nashville, said that homosexuals were looking around at work on Wednesday thinking, "80% of these people hate me; 80% of these people are afraid of me . . ." Seavey also credited the vote to "ignorance and lack of education."

I'll give Seavey the benefit of the doubt on whether she was intending to insult supporters of the Amendment, but her statements reflect a couple of misconceptions, intentional or not, about opposition to homosexual marriage.

First, just because someone doesn't agree that marriage should be re-defined or un-defined or expanded to include same-sex pairings doesn't mean s/he "hates" or is "afraid of" homosexuals. Heck, just because someone thinks that homosexual sex is sin or immoral doesn't mean that s/he "hates" or is "afraid of" homosexuals. Rather, I'd posit that most supporters of the amendment did so based on an opinion that homosexual acts are unwise, indulgent and unnatural, and that marriage between one man and one woman is uniquely worthy of protection in the law. I don't want to get mushy here, but I can love, respect and enjoy someone even if I think they are confused about their sexuality or making bad choices in their life.

Second, blaming "ignorance and lack of education" for the Amendment's passge is, at best, naive. Sure, not all supporters of the amendment have been indoctrinated to the gay-friendly view at America's institutions of higher learning, but incredulity is different than ignorance. Average folks are bombarded in popular media (TV, film, music) with flattering portrayals of homosexuals. Many supporters of the amendment knowingly socialize and work with homosexuals. Accordingly, I think that support of the amendment is a reflection of the fact that most Tennesseans (and most Americans, frankly) are not persuaded that homosexual attraction is an immutable trait like race or sex ("gender").

I guess there may be some potential political benefit--for the homosexual lobby, in questioning the intelligence or motives of opponents of same-sex marriage. But as long as line items of the gay agenda are being submitted to the electorate, such characterizations probably hurt more than help the gay "cause."

Inspiring profile of first-time voter

Thanks to WKRN's Amy Napier for this profile (here) of a first-time voter--former Sudanese "Lost Boy" Pal Kong. What a great country.

Ford's future?

As many Tennessee pundits have speculated, Harold Ford, Jr.'s star is rising despite his loss to Bob Corker in the race to fill Bill Frist's seat. Roll Call has this report about lobbying opps in D.C.:

While few of the losing Members in Tuesday’s elections have K Street hiring partners drooling, several lobbyists said they’d like to scoop up outgoing Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), who lost a close race for Senate. “I’d take Harold Ford in a flash,” said one GOP lobbyist

. Not sure if Ford, Jr.--who has unlimited political ambition, would be wise to go into the family's other business.

Dems and that sinking feeling (Part 3)

I opined previously (here) that the Dems understandably had a sinking feeling heading into Tuesday's election. They certainly are feeling groovy right now, but I think they sense that this election was a bit of a perfect (political) storm. As Jonah Goldberg asserts in this op/ed,

. . . corruption and cronyism aren't core planks in the conservative platform either. Rep. Don Sherwood (R., Pa.) lost his seat because of an alleged personal scandal, but I can assure you there's nothing in the works of Edmund Burke that says a good conservative should try to strangle his mistress.

In other words, just as Democrats insisted, the GOP's drubbing had more to do with incompetence and scandal than program and ideology.

Consequently, this chastening by the electorate can only steel the GOP for future campaign battles.

Another great point of the op/ed is that the GOP's "social conservatism" is not what cost the GOP this election:

Philosophically, reasonable people may differ about whether there's been too much social conservatism, but politically, this is idiotic. As Ramesh Ponnuru notes in the National Review, Christian conservatives give the GOP as many votes as labor and blacks combined give to the Democrats. It's to the Republicans' electoral advantage to take positions that shock the conscience of Rosie O'Donnell.

There are several well-crafted post-election assessments over at NationalReview.com.