What is being "Pro-life"?

I guess it's worth it to articulate the "pro-life" position (again) in a post, partly because the "comment" feature is malfunctioning at present and partly because it's a big subject.

I know that Sharon Cobb is not a novice at public policy, so it surprises me that she cannot conceive (here) of any other feasible way (and moreso that she perceives "pro-lifers" have not grappled with the issue before reaching their policy position) to address welfare of children. Who knows what to make of "anonymous'" statement.

As an attorney who focuses on adoptions, I know that there is a great demand for children to adopt in America, and that large numbers of families who want to adopt look internationally to provide a needy child with a home. Gee, they perform abortions like ear-piercings in China and they still have to adopt them out, so I don't think that abortion serves the every-child-a-wanted-child (intone with a Dr. Joycelyn Elders accent if you will) proposition. Likewise, as an adoption attorney, I also know that government agencies devoted to protecting child welfare are incapable of doing so.

I also know, more from my involvement in policy, that we spend boat loads of money to pay for children that mothers and fathers "can't" or won't care for, and I am interested to see more than a vague accusation that any pro-life politician has voted against providing money for children in need. We've been fighting the War on Poverty for some time, and I'm curious as to whether you'd say it is winnable, is a quagmire, is time to redeploy, etc.

But, candidly, I'm not sure what you're speaking of when you talk about insufficient efforts or a lack of willingness by pro-lifers to care about children. We (American taxpayers) spend tons of money to promote the welfare of children; we make it possible to abandon infants on a fire station doorstep without prosecution; on the other hand we prosecute people who neglect their children; so why do we still have these problems? I'd say we have to acknowledge that there are limits to how effectively and to what extent "society" should take responsibility for non-orphans. I'd say we need to intercede in the extreme cases, provide a helping hand in many cases, try and promote healthy and responsible behaviors in all cases, and acknowledge that there are limits to how effectively and to what extent "society" should take responsibility for non-orphans.

On a personal level and more specifically related to abortion, I volunteer at a local ministry which supports, encourages and counsels women in making wise choices about sexuality--generally, and in a crisis pregnancy--in particular.

Regarding the challenge of "pro-life" hypocrisy from Anonymous, I have a couple of preliminary thoughts: first, "hypocrisy" is the perfect cardinal sin for a Liberal, because moral relativism and multi-culturalism and secularism set values and standards so low or so vaguely that it is difficult to ever be guilty of hypocrisy. Gotta admire that maneuver.

Second, it is astonishing--since we're taking off the gloves, "Anonymous," that people who apparently spend so much time e-sounding off about public policy make such ignorant or oversimplified or strawman or disingenuous arguments.

But surely you perceive an arguable difference between a capital murderer and an innocent human; between an inadvertent victim of war and an innocent human targeted for elimination; between funding/condoning/allowing partial-birth abortion and not being able to do the job of state and local officials in taking care of their citizens? The GWOT is not per se a war about religion, but as long as nation or movement is credibly threatening Americans with death unless we adopt their religion, then it is the President's obligation to neutralize that threat Ironically, you throw Darfur/Sudan in with your barbs about the GWOT, do you know much about the causes and interests involveind Darfur? I doubt it, as long as you purport it to be a Republican/Christian/Conservative/Rovian/blahblahblah problem.

Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart

Frankly, I don't care if Jon Stewart likes the Republican candidate for President, and I'm not sure that anyone who drinks Daily kool-aid can imagine voting for a Republican.

That being said, these two Daily Show clips (here) (and here) --that Sharon Cobb alluded to recently) reflect well on former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who is contemplating a run for president in 2008. Huckabee seems to have the charm of Bill Clinton without the greasy feel (that's my opinion, not Sharon's).

But Sharon writes:

Saying he is 100 percent pro life, Huckabee is the first pro life politician I've heard talk about the need to take care of that life once it is out of the womb. I've been saying that for years to people who consider themselves pro life. Huckabee seems to get that every child deserves to have food, shelter, education and health care.

I think Sharon commits a false dichotomy, that, or she only reads the hit-quotes from "Pro-life" pols which can be found on "Pro-choice" websites, or she really believes that I--as a staunch "Pro-lifer," really don't care about children after they're born.

There are a variety of ways to provide for a child's welfare, and it is only arguable that bigger government is the way to do it. I bristle when a talk-radio host ascribes an evil motive to a Liberal politician when said Liberal politician simply has a different view on a particular policy. Let's judge policy by its fruit . . . wisdom is vindicated by her children. And I think too often Liberals think it is enough that they have a virtuous motive for advancing a certain policy.

Brownback's challenge

This is a great overview (here, also here) from USAToday of the challenges faced by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) in seeking the GOP nomination in 2008. I think his chances are enhanced by the seemingly wide-open, large, moderate field of candidates. And as the article notes:

It's a mistake to underestimate him," former Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie says. "There's no substitute for sincerity in politics, and he comes from a neighboring state, and he is strong on a lot of issues that Iowa voters care about."

In Iowa and beyond, Christian conservative leaders say they can't determine who gets the Republican presidential nomination, but they probably can block a candidate who is unacceptable to them.

And I agree with this statement from Brownback:

"There are two windows you've got to get through" to win the Republican presidential nomination, [Brownback] says the next morning over pancakes and coffee at Des Moines' Drake Diner. "One is: Are you ideologically acceptable? Secondly: Are you electable?"

While Brownback doesn't say it here, I think these two questions need to be answered in order. And as I perceive many Dems are doing with Obama, I think many Conservatives are putting the cart before the horse.

Damittscus road experience? Do tell.

Jay Bush has a nice post (here) about the "rapid response" to "The Real Romney" debate video montage mentioned below. Romney argues that people should look at his record to know what his positions are on the issues, but isn't it fair to ask what has prompted his near-180 degree turn on EVERY issue dear to Social Conservatives?

Likewise, Bill Hobbs (here) has an interesting post about this episode and notes a recent Romney speech:

Romney's recent statement to conservatives gathered at Sea Island, Ga., sums up things rather nicely regarding his changed views on such issues:

"Now, I wasn't always a Ronald Reagan conservative. Neither was Ronald Reagan, by the way. And perhaps some in this room have had the opportunity to listen, learn, and benefit from life's experience - and to grow in wisdom, as I have. My life experience convinced me that Ronald Reagan was right."

Sorry, but that seems like spin to me.

Mitt Romney's Liberal stances and view of Reagan didn't exist or even get formed in a political or ideological vacuum--they certainly weren't uttered in a vacuum. It was 1994. Clinton was President. Romney had observed Reagan, considered Reagan and then chose to pooh-pooh Reagan.

As Kleinheider says over at Volunteer Voters: "[Romney] was campaigning, in the bluest of blue states, as a Northeastern Liberal Republican" when he espoused Liberal positions.

Of course, now Romney is campaigning to be the GOP's nominee for president . . . you do the math.

UPDATE: I just read another article (here) quoting Romney as saying that he, like Reagan and Henry Hyde, changed his mind on abortion. When you're on the cutting edge of an issue, a change of heart is a little bit more believable than if you're late to the party (and it is because you were busy preparing to seek the GOP nomination).

Dems lack credibility on Iraq

For the record, I DO believe it is possible for the American military to be defeated on the battle field, even if the cause is just. An informed friend (Afghanistan vet, retired special forces soldier with Middle Eastern heritage) tells me that our enemies in this guerilla war are battle-hardened, but perhaps more importantly, they're life-hardened--hardened by their life circumstances such that they can endure worse circumstances, and also hardened such that they place a different value on "life"--their own lives and the lives of others.

So, even assuming the cultural pre-eminence which is fostered by American exceptionalism, I disagree with Sean Hannity, for example, when he asserts that we cannot be defeated on the battle field. Accordingly, I don't think that someone is dissing our troops just because s/he says that we can't win in Iraq.

That being said, I don't believe most critics of Dubya's strategery in the GWOT are concerned about "winning" in Iraq. The reality is that a disproportionately powerful minority of Democrats are opposed to use of force under any circumstance, so, they really are fine with warmongers losing wars . . . you know, it "serves 'em right."

I think the balance of the critics consider the likelihood of prevailing in Iraq to be a toss up; thus, it is worth it for the long-term interests of the Democrat Party (and, likewise, America's interests!) to oppose Bush at every turn. Public sentiment has shifted on the war (certainly due to persistent, partisan, poisonous, peevish criticism from the Left), now there is little to no incentive to stay on board with "Bush's war."

Bush's recent changes in our Iraq strategery may not work, but absent any alternative proposals from Democrats, and based on their record of bad-faith dealings since the Iraq invasion, I'd have to say they lack credibility.

Mittamorphosis, the prequel

I happened upon this interesting youtube footage (here) from the Romney/Kennedy senate debate in 1994. (Hat tip VolunteerDispatch (here).

I can't see that the video contains any new info on Romney's mittamorphosis from social Liberalism to his current stances; however, it is a higher level of unsettling to see actual footage of his Liberalness . . . kind of like just hearing you're being cheated on versus actually seeing video tape of the act.

I'm not saying that I can't or won't vote for Mitt Romney, but how credible is it that a person--one who has been working in public policy for more than a decade, credibly do a 180 on such fundamental issues?

Abramson and ACK know a Social Conservative when they see one

What is a Social Conservative and who's to say? These questions are being raised in light of the unexceptional (except to Adam Kleinheider--at VolunteerVoters.com) and Roger Abramson--at flanktwoposition.com)) assertion that the "Pro-life with exceptions" position on abortion (or the Pro-Life with Asterisk position) is not the "social Conservative" position on abortion.

I'm still kind of astounded at the reaction (and it is clearly no rebuttal) to my point, though. Are Roger and ACK insulted that someone has the nerve to make "bold" pronouncements? Not likely, if you read their stuff on any regular basis.

Is it that--for the sake of "the cause," they are concerned about stigmatizing the "Social Conservative" position? Not likely, as Abramson and ACK seem careful not to become to ideologically-paired with a party.

Is it because they personally hold an asterisked position on abortion and would like to consider themselves "socially Conservative"? I doubt it, but who knows.

I might be wrong about their answer to the above questions about motives, but I guess I'll have to go with the paranoid Social Conservative conclusion . . . they don't want to expand (though I think acknowledge would be more accurate) the influence of Religious Conservatives or the Religious Right within the GOP.

But, again, what does the term mean and who defines the term?

ACK wrote, "The Religious Right does not determine what social conservatism is, neither does Ned Williams," but I--and most pols, would view the terms as synonymous. "Social Conservatives" is a term that has always been used to distinguish between the more Libertarian, "Economic or Fiscal Conservatives" within the GOP and Religious Conservatives.

Well, I think it is clear that organizations like Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, etc. have classically been the "Social Conservative" organizations.

As far as the meaning of the term, there is not necessarily unanimity on every policy issue. But regarding abortion, these organizations are not--in principle, "Pro-life with exceptions." And I think it is fair to say that the above "socially Conservative" organizations--not Adam Kleinheider or Roger Abramson, are the ones who best define their positions.

Certainly, terms--and movements, can "soften" or (d)evolve over time. But until these organizations are lacking in number, or influence, or significance--until they are a mere "fringe" element of the "non-Libertarian Conservative" faction in the GOP, it seems that they would be the authority on what is a "Social Conservative" position.

**Roger is asserting that an exception for "life of the mother" is an exception like rape or incest; in that case, as long as one doesn't define "life" as "quality of life," there are two competing lives to consider. Imminent danger of death for a mother, for example where a fertilized egg hasn't implanted in a mother's womb, is one example where efforts to ensure survival of at least one of the lives isn't contrary to the sanctity of life.

***Also, Bush's murky position on exceptions can be interpreted as an effort at magnanimity toward those Americans who disagree with the non-asterisked Pro-life position, and the fact that he--in competition with John McCain, was supported by Social Conservatives doesn't mean that his position on an issue defines the Social Conservative position, right?

PFAW=People For . . . what?

I just received my 8th email of the day from one of my favorite org's . . . ok, not really, it just seemed like the 8th email and it really isn't one of my favorite organizations. The organization? PFAW (which stands for "People For The American Way") or, as they're wont to call it now, simply "People For."

I'm curious as to why they changed their handle. I've never like the name, thinking that it was verbose and ambiguous (which is ironic, given that it is wordy). But I suspect there's a reason other than the wordiness that prompted the change.

It dawned on me this evening that it is probably because--since the period following 9/11, Lefties have been a little sensitive to accusations of being "un-American" or claims that any war is worth fighting to preserve the so-called "American way."

As with the film producers who jettisoned "the American way" phrase from the most recent Superman movie, what's worth defending about the American way? And we don't have any business being all exclusive or arrogant . . . you know?

I guess it's "Great. To be. A Florida Gator"

Well, for an evening, I was a Florida Gator. And it was great. Congratulations to the University of Florida and their convincing thumping of THE Ohio State University. Any questions about who's number 1 in the country?

Though, as a UT alumnus, it was difficult to pull for the Gators, I felt like I had to stick with the SEC team in this one (it helped me along that we invited a family of Gators over to watch the game). I briefly had second thoughts about my support when it dawned on me during the game that UF would be (for a couple more months) the reigning champs in the two premier college sports, but that concern didn't last for long.

So, we can conclude that UF has a great Athletic Department (even Zook's hire wasn't a complete bust). And I will concede, especially in light of Bruce Pearl's hire, that the University of Tennessee has a good Athletic Program. But I have some complaints. Since I don't give loads of money to the Athletic Dept. (I don't even give a little money to it), my only potential means of influencing them is by this little ol' blog. So here goes.

Re. our football program, I know that Phillip Fulmer has one of the best winning percentages of any active coach in the NCAA, but that's not all I'm concerned about as a fan. Fulmer has an excellent winning percentage and I think that is VERY closely related to his excellence as a recruiter, but I want excellence in fulfilling potential, in graduation rates and in sportsmanship. I do not accept that Fulmer's "boys will be boys" attitude (which is a big part of his recruiting success, I think) precludes discipline and high expectations/standards for conduct on and off the field. That discipline is what leads to better execution on the field and averts the problems of playing down to your opponent's level and acting like T.O. when you make a play.

It still irritates me that the above problems (lack of discipline and failure to execute) have cost us big Ws over the years (especially after layoffs like Bowl season) and even cost us any level of respect for winning the national championship in 1998--which it is hard to argue was not a plain old ugly win.

So that's my complaint. I've been told that Cutcliffe is particularly strong in this area, and Fulmer needs to realize that his personal weakness in this area costs the program.

House Dems call TV timeout

Just read that House Democrats are backing off their press release about 5-day work weeks, industrious Congresses, urgent people's business, etc. (here) No biggie; but you'd probably be wise not to talk so much trash.

Waiting until after the Fiesta Bowl is more of a PR issue than anything else--the House Democrats don't dare take their "100 Hour" media splash event head-to-head with a college football game.

It reminds that last week I read some blogger's razzing of Senator Corker's purported comment to Rep. Steve Cohen, "y'all are taking this stuff seriously" or something to that effect.

Nahhh, not that seriously . . . only when the cameras are rolling.

UPDATE: Sean Braisted has an interesting post on this subject.

Childbearing and selfishness

I was channel surfing this evening and came across a salient C-Span program in light of a TinyCatPants I read (here) yesterday. "Aunt B" riposted (sic) a Terry Frank post and an Adam Kleinheider post, on the implications, if any, of birth-rate disparities between the East and the West.

The program in question was on BookTV and featured Arthur Brooks, who has published a book/study on patterns of charitable giving in the U.S., Who Really Cares.

"Aunt B" takes offense at the insinuation that people who choose not to have children--or multiple children, are selfish. I didn't know what to think about the selfish angle, but one thing that Brooks asserts (or has found) is that--all things being equal, people who have more children are more charitable, or vice versa.

"Number of children" is one of a handful of predictive factors for charitableness identified by Brooks (e.g., religious practice, view of government), and they are all clearly interrelated. "Aunt B" and some commenters assert that selflessness is the very reason they're not having bunches of children. That may be true for them; however, inasmuch as giving to non-family reflects selflessness (and it's difficult to think of a better measure), it appears the data on charitable giving reflects that a desire to have children goes together with selflessness.

Libs and Rule of Law

I channel-surfed upon two excellent programs on C-span and C-span2 this evening--kind of sounds like a conspiracy that C-span would be showing programs Ned would consider "excellent" during the infomercials time slot, doesn't it? Oh well.

One program was a panel with Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia. Very instructive about the contrasting perceptions of the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic.

You ought to watch it and I'd be eager to hear some of you try and explain why Breyer's position is more "democratic" or more consistent with rule of law. (watch).

Surprisingly super ad pitches

I have to admit that I pay attention to commercials. Now, that's not the reason I tune in to the Super Bowl, but I am fascinated with advertising. But I wasn't expecting much when I visited NFL.com's Super Ad contest site (here) (hat tip worldviews blog). Seriously, it is hard to pick a single favorite, but I like 5, 11 and 12--a mix of humorous and dramatic.

One thing that is interesting to me is how the best ads (in my humble opinion) are well-pitched--the person has "passion" as they make their pitch.

Is Iraq a distraction from GWOT?

In various sparring sessions over the war in Iraq, I notice that many Liberals flatly assert that Iraq is a distraction from the GWOT (that is, if they're generously acknowledging that the war against Islamists requires more than strict airport screening.) I've asserted that Iraq was simply the next stage in the GWOT, so the various arguments marshalled for taking this step are more persuasive collectively than they are individually.

But this article (here) by Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard is instructive on the issue of whether Iraq is a distraction from the purported common objective of effectively waging the GWOT. In fact, the connections between Saddam's Iraq and Jihadists (even Al Qaeda) is pretty clear.

Oh, and remember, disagreeing with a Liberal doesn't constitute a war crime.

You can't say we're not bi-partisan . . .

Kudos to The City Paper for its editorial about the recent nomination by Democrats' recent nomination of John Wilder to another term as Lt. Governor (Wilder's Leadership Non-existent in Senate). Here's the last sentence:

So, to date, Tennesseans for the last three decades have deserved John Wilder as their Lt. Governor. They may earn the right to call him speaker again very soon.

My first impression was, no, that isn't true--if Wilder is elected Lt. Governor, Democrats are getting what they deserve. But, in reality, that can only be said of his election following the 2004 election.

The fact that "Republican" Senators Tim Burchett and Mike Williams--who provided Democrats the votes needed to elect Wilder to the position in 2005, are still around to cast ballots on this issue makes Republicans just as culpable. Don't ever say we're not bi-partisan.

Roger and Me (and abortion)

I've been called out by Roger Abramson, again, but this time it's about my post regarding Mitt Romney's current position on abortion. You can read my post (here) and Roger's reaction (here).

Abramson makes much of a Pew Poll showing that only 11% of the population agree with my position on abortion, but even if a mere 11% of the population are "socially Conservative," that fact is only marginally relevant in electoral politics, and even less so in GOP primary politics. This confusion on Abramson's part could explain why he challenges my assertion that Romney's pro-life-with-various-exceptions position isn't "socially Conservative." The category "socially Conservative" (I should probably capitalize the "s" in social) isn't a relative or even subjective term. It has a generally accepted meaning, and the point of my post was that Romney's abortion stance doesn't qualify.

On a similar point, I think it is wholly legitimate for Social Conservatives (or as I like to say, Conservatives)--as opposed to moderates, or squishes or Libertarians or Abramsons to define what Social Conservatives believe. Roger may agree with this, assuming that he was hung up on my imprecise "-ly" after "social."

Lastly, I'll address what Abramson refers to as his "Law of Presidential Abortion Politics":

The more logically consistent a presidential candidate's position on abortion is, the less viable that candidate will be.

Well, I disagree, and my position on abortion is logically consistent, as was that of Ronald Reagan, for example.

A candidate's position on abortion is only one of many factors that contribute to his/her likelihood of success; so Roger's "Law" isn't necessarily validated by a perception that there are no "Pro-life" (as I define it) candidates in contention at present. But that being said, it isn't difficult--if someone is so inclined, to state a logically consistent pro-life position while acknowledging there is not consensus on prohibiting abortion and noting that a president doesn't govern by edict.

UPDATE: Adam Kleinheider over at VolunteerVoters.com thinks that Roger's right. Of course, I think that Adam is wrong, so there you go . . .

Watada '36!

Newscoma (here) alerted me to a fascinating story about the war in Iraq. I was kidding when I suggested that the defense lawyer for Ehren Watada might expect the courtroom to sit through a showing of PBS's "The Darkside" (here) . . . but from reading the interview (here) with Watada, that's not a stretch. It's an interesting--and well-done, interview, and it demonstrates the clash of post-modernism and the military. Poor guy enlisted as we were planning to invade Iraq, and his father was a conscientious objector (sort of) in 'Nam . . . I'm sure his dad is pleased now, though.

Oh well, perhaps Watada is laying the groundwork for a lackluster run for President in a couple of decades?

Folks, it's not a crime to disagree with a Liberal.

Chilling, chilling I say, Cheney chart

After graciously enduring 90 minutes of Liberal propaganda (The Darkside), I can't believe the ingratitude of some Liberal readers. But one element of the "documentary" merits additional comment, I think.

The Charts.

You're familiar with the technique . . . slowly spinning camera as it zooms or pans out from a chart illustrating the point being made. Oooo, powerful. Nice visual aid. Here is the one on "Vice President Cheney's Network."

This chart highlights how Cheney aggregated power at key national security centers -- the Pentagon, State and White House -- and lists the positions his friends and allies have held during the time period leading up to the 2003 war in Iraq.

This chart is only impressive if you assume that political lightweights (read: Dan Quayle, John Edwards) are the only people qualified--it's ironic I know, to be Vice President. Of course he has "connections" and an incredible network . . . he was the Gravitas to this ticket, remember? Of course the majority of those in his vast right-wing, er, network are from the right wing.

This reminds me of the Nightline episode during my first year in law school that showed this sinister organizational chart/network that circuitously connected Judge Ken Starr with some lawyer that worked for Clinton-accuser Paula Jones because . . . they both had been members of (cue sinister music) . . . The Federalist Society. Imagine my dismay when I realized there was no chapter at my law school (a deficiency soon corrected). But back to the subject . . .

I can just hear the questioning now at the upcoming Electoral Mandate Impeachment (EMI): "Are you, or have you ever been, an acquaintance or co-worker of Dick Cheney?"

Mitt on abortion

Various local blogs (VolunteerVoters and Bill Hobbs) are reporting about the e-launch of the Mitt Romney for President Exploratory Committee. So I dropped in for a little browsing, and I'm kind of surprised that this is the best they can do regarding the sanctity of life over at mittromney.com. Under "America's Culture and Values," we read:

Governor Romney: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
(Boston Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)

Romney seems to think that he will emerge as the candidate for social conservatives, but this is not a "socially Conservative" position on abortion. Heck, it's not even logically consistent.

If you're "pro-life," what difference does it make how the "life" was conceived? This position--with a list of exceptions, is more accurately anti-abortion-on-demand. Some will say, "fine" but those aren't Religious Conservatives.

And if it's a human "life" we're talking about, how is a human life on American soil not worthy of Constitutional protection from deprivation of life? While it is certainly reasonable for a "pro-life" official to compromise and arrive at a "state's rights" (or "exceptions") position on abortion, it is hardly a principled "pro-lifer" that starts at that position.

Fox's short bench

Is it just me, or is it not working for FoxSports to use pro announcers for its BCS coverage? I haven't been able to put my finger on it yet, but I think it seems like they are are NFL-centric? They're definitely competent to commentate on football (even though some of those in the coverage are rookies--like Wannstedt and Brown), but their references to NFL coaches and the NFL prospects of the players and differences between the NFL and the NCAA give the impression that they are looking past the college game.

I guess FoxSports has a short bench when it comes to college sports, but this may be an example of how the highest bidder may not be the best equipped to deliver the goods (that's a screwed up metaphor, isn't it?).

Political play of the year?

Adam Kleinheider (over at Volunteer Voters) reports that

Keith Ellison, the much chastised first in history Muslim congressman, took some heat when he announced that he would use the Koran as his photo-op faith book of choice at his swearing-in. Represenative Virgil Goode has been most vociferous in his opposition saying:

"When I raise my hand to take the oath on swearing-in day, I will have the Bible in my other hand," Goode wrote. "I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way….

"If American citizens don't take up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

Ellison has stuck to his guns and will use the Koran in his swearing in - a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson. Goode had no comment on the choice of this very sopecific Koran.

Nicely played, Congressman, nicely played.

I'm not sure how much I want to take Goode's side in this whole "debate," but one way Goode could counter this play by Ellison is to see if he can be sworn-in holding Thomas Jefferson's copy of "Canterbury Tales."

Looks like Mr. Ellison will inspire and perform some interesting theater over the next couple years.

UPDATE: Jay Bush posts about the reason that Thomas Jefferson even had a Koran that Ellison could borrow. Apparently Jefferson wanted to understand his enemies.

Since when do losers get to write history?

At the suggestion of a commienter (sic), I took the time to watch "The Darkside"--a Frontline special aired this past summer. When will I learn that if I keep up with Lefty media I can better understand and anticipate their hysterical (and unoriginal) accusations in the blogosphere? Libs, don't be ashamed to bring this stuff forward more readily--that way we can deal with it way before it festers into a full-blown conspiracy theory.

Some quasi-"live blogging" as I watched the entire episode online at this late hour (much to my dear wife's chagrin).

Frontline programs crack me up . . . that narrator's voice--the sinister "music," the slowly panned B&W photos . . . it can make ANYthing look criminal/evil/Republican. I have to admit that I admire the Left's abilities to propagandize.

The premise is that Cheney manipulated the intelligence agencies with a handful of nefarious motives. First piece of evidence is that he and Rumsfeld couldn't abide the CIA running things in the GWOT.

The CIA has no business waging a war (hey Libs, wasn't this the guiding principle of your foreign policy in the 70s and 80s?) , so it made perfect sense for it to defer to the Pentagon after the initial, rapid operations it conducted in Afghanistan after 9/11. The fact that the Pentagon took over the GWOT after a month or so doesn't prove that Rumsfeld was Hitlerian or Machiavellian or (even worse) Rovian to seek and obtain that transition. The same goes for Cheney.

The CIA has not had the best track record over the decades and given the expanding capabilities of the military in collecting intelligence and using intelligence, it makes sense that there would be a change in the whole process of intelligence gathering and dissemination--especially in response to the grave threat to America on 9/11 and thereafter. You Libs do acknowledge that 9/11 was bad and that future 9/11s aren't desirable, don't you?

The fact that the CIA didn't think that Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi officials in Prague is somehow gospel now? Is this the CIA that the Left has reviled and underminded and underfunded for decades? That one? Hindsight is 20/20. They should rename Frontline to Hindline or something like that.

I like how one talking head/book author flatly states that the military could have just blocked the eastern border of Afghanistan . . . when several others (military types) express the difficulty of blocking off a long mountainous border, replete with systems of tunnels. Of course the Liberal writer is right. And I thought we Conservatives were the dogmatic, Black&White ones. Oh, I guess that we wanted Bin Laden to escape, right? I tell you, this conspiracy stuff is too easy.

It's not a crime to have misjudged the status of the mission in Afghanistan and determined that we could move ahead to Iraq and keep our enemies on the run. It just isn't. Now; it may have been an inaccurate judgment, but see above about hindsight.

And surely you Libs realize that you are mischaracterizing the whole basis for invading Iraq--but maybe I shouldn't assume that you are interested in any constructive debate on the war (oh, and demolishing the President's approval ratings doesn't qualify as "constructive"). And though Iraq was not "connected" to Afghanistan or Al Qaeda in one sense, it was a bit of unfinished business with WMD dreams and capabilities.

Author Suskind: "9/11 was a coming together of opportunity and intent." (paraphrase) "They're [Cheney and other "Darksiders"] looking to expand executive authority and then 9/11 comes along . . . " Mr. Suskind, What is proof of their intentions to illicitly "expand exec. auth."? (and, remember, disagreeing with a Democrat doesn't count as "unconstitutional" or "criminal").

I like all the "smoking gun" comments they've got on Cheney . . . on Meet the Press! What a conspiracy dunce. Even the "darkside" comment was said on national TV. Surely the CBS folks could have found a way to obscure that Cheney was making the "darkside" admission on national TV?!

Crockumentaries 101: Presume sinister motives to everything done by "bad guys" and noble motives (or duping of said "good guy") to the "good guys." Former senior level CIA operative Paul Pillar who basically wrote Tenet's NIE that was presented to Congress, is supposedly a moral paragon and yet he cannot state any concrete means by which he was pressured to fabricate evidence supporting the threat of Iraq--a former CIA agent states, "I have such respect for Pillar that if he participated in this, the force exerted upon him by the VP must have been overwhelming[!!!]" That, my friends, is begging the question.

Likewise, Colin Powell is a moral paragon yet he chose to be a "team player" and "not abandon his Commander in Chief and the troops." Doesn't sound like he's got much character to me, or maybe he isn't as "with" you Libs as you'd like to think.

And it sounds like Tenet was the criminal if he knew that the intelligence didn't support the decision and called it a "slam dunk" when the President expressed doubt. And likewise if Tenet "assur[ed]" Powell that the info being presented to the UN was "ironclad." Oh, I forgot, Tenet was duped by Darth Cheney.

It took a lot of chutzpah to use campaign-aide-de-Kerry Joseph Wilson in this thing, but it is entirely predictable: Wilson: "I knew a lot about uranium production. I knew a lot about Niger." Frontline narrator dude: "The CIA sent Wilson to Niger--he found no evidence of a yellow-cake sale." That's all that is said about this "assertion" until 30 minutes later when they roll out the Scooter Libby non-conspiracy and the Plame Affair.

But THAT WASN'T WHAT THE ASSERTION WAS, FOLKS, in the famous "16 words" of Dubya's SOTU address. The "16 words" were accurate.

But even if all this is true, even if the entire thesis of this "documentary" is true, so what? Why were all these people so eager to go to war in Iraq? Halliburton? Military Industrial Complex? Oil? Warmonger marrow in their bones? Unadulterated evil?

Lastly, I don't think the evidence supports the accusation that evidence was "manipulated" (sorry, it's not enough to prove someone is Eeevul by establishing that they have voted for a Republican) but the focus on "evidence" or lack thereof in support of the invasion of Iraq is Liberal sleight of hand. To most Americans, the link between Hussein's Iraq and the GWOT was clear . . . he was willing and eager to work with Islamists; he had demonstrated that willingness and capability; the GWOT is a worldwide battle and it won't be solved by kicking all the Islamists out of the gov't in Afghanistan; we had--as a country, denied the global nature of the war with Islamists in the past; thus, toppling Hussein in Iraq was merely "Chapter 3" in the GWOT ("Chapter 4" if you include the Clinton years when the Islamists were beginning to nip at our heels).

It is not a war crime to agree with the preceding paragraph; it is not a war crime to suspect/conclude that leading Democrats/Liberals are afraid to fight a war and will stop at nothing to subvert use of force by a Republican; it is not a war crime (or even unwise) to question the capabilities of the CIA; it was not a war crime to challenge the veracity and competence of Joe Wilson.

Why not "First 100 Minutes"?

This WaPo article (here, via Drudge) demonstrates the problems the "New Democrat Majority Party!" faces . . . there is no way that Pelosi & Co. can scrupulously pass their--ahem, "well publicized [legislative] plan" in 100 hours. It is impossible to allow debate on (much less full review of) their (as yet un-released) proposals in that amount of time. But that is plenty of time for the MSM to cram down our throats, "these are some sure-as-syrup ethical, industrious and populist folks!"

On the other hand, it appears that Pelosi's foolish, pre-election-press-conference 100 hours gauntlet-throwing will result in Dems shooting their wad of "popular" proposals in only four days of session.

And for the record, contrary to how it was portrayed in the WaPo article, the House Republicans FULLY DELIVERED ON THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: they promised an up or down vote on a list of policy proposals which were both legitimately "well publicized" and not rammed through without debate.

Edwards "Hearts" Wal-Mart

I love the story about John Edwards trying to pull strings at Wal-Mart to get an X-box for his 6-year-old. I like it because it tells how Edwards unwittingly demonstrates (aside from incredible hypocrisy and elitism) his belief in the Wal-Mart ethic . . .

Which is what I thought of when reading this Thomas Sowell op/ed about free markets and Wal-Mart and ignorance.

And speaking of John Edwards and economic ignorance, here's another op/ed on the subject.

Outback blowback

There is a ruckus being raised (or referenced) over at NashvilleisTalking.com (here) concerning perceived bias in the coverage of the UTvPSU game yesterday.

I did think it was pretty stupid to have a former PSU nat'l champ winning QB announce the game--you'd have to be almost superhuman to be unbiased in that position, but the images of JoPa were fascinating . . . isn't it about time to hang it up when from all appearances your presence is unnecessary during a bowl game? The guy seemed to be talking to himself throughout the game.

And one shot of UT Coach Phillip Fulmer that I would rather not have seen was when he was blowing his top (which I welcome, frankly) over Jonathan Hefney's (SP) faircatch of a punt on the five yard line (read: STUPID play) and Hefney strolled right past Fulmer, apparently ignoring him as Fulmer bumped into another Vol player and Hefney kept strolling.

THAT attitude by Hefney (which was condoned by Fulmer, it appears) is why Fulmer has a 7-7 record in bowl games and why his teams always play down to their opposition. They rely on emotion--not discipline and in winning, they often squeek by on superior talent (ref. the graphic I saw recently that showed UT as third (?) on the list of former players in the NFL). Fulmer's boys will be boys attitude may help him recruit, but it hamstrings the team on the field.

There; that's about all I need to say about our humiliating loss in the Outback Bowl.

Socialist romanticism

Last night I noticed that I was linked to a peculiar (to me) post about expansion of the EU. When I visited the post, I realized it was from Tennessee Ticket in which he writes:

Back then, all sorts of places I had a hankering to go were behind the so-called Iron Curtain: Poland, Lithuania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, and, according to some, Massachusetts. Wait -- I was in Massachusetts. Three years there, and I could probably count the number of communists I met on one hand. (I did meet fascists in New Hampshire, but that's another story.)

and gives me an elbow poke about my characterizations of Massachusetts as socialist.

Well, snarky comments about Massachusetts aside, I have no romantic notions about Poland or the USSR (prior to the fall of "the so-called iron curtain") or Lithuania (after the iron curtain's fall). And TT's story about the expanding EU demonstrates the good fortune of these countries that Ronald Reagan didn't have a romantic view of Marxism.

Obama is still no Powell

I wrote previously that Barack Obama is no Colin Powell, and I still think that's true in regard to stature, credentials or even popularity, but John Fund writes (here) that Obama is like Powell in another way: he could very well opt out of a future presidential run. I, for one, think Obama's pure ambition far outstrips Powell's, and Obama is less likely to make the same choice as Powell.

Like me, Fund thinks that much of Obama's appeal stems from Dem concerns about Hillary's electoral shortcomings.

Prospects for rule of law in Iraq

Seeing as anti-capital punishment activists in America succeed--through frivolous appeals and demagoguery, in rendering our death penalty ineffective, I'm hoping the speedy review of Hussein's conviction and sentence bodes well for the future of Iraq and is not an indication that civil rights will get only lip-service in this new democracy. That being said, I was impressed that the execution was going to happen within 30 days, but I thought 4 days appeared hasty. (One Lib blogger commented recently that this was all a plan by Bush to "silence" Hussein before he started to "talk").

But I've been reading reports that Saddam Hussein's executioners (dressed in ski masks and stylish street clothes!) began chanting slogans which were pro-Moqtada al-Sadr (the Shiite cleric and militia leader) and pro-Shiite just before the floor dropped on Hussein. Judging from pirated footage of the incident, it was pretty raucous in there. I really worry that Iraqis have little appreciation for "rule of law" and I'm not convinced that Islam is a sufficient basis for such a value.

Incidentally, after starting this post, I came across this report that Iraqi officials have launched "an inquiry" into the whole situation.

Just a Mittcommunication?

There's an interesting interview (transcript, mp3 and video!) with Gov. Mitt Romney over at HumanEvents.com. Romney seems to believe that his square jaw and ultra-religiousness will transcend his contradictory stances on a variety of social issues over the course of his political career.

For instance, in answering a question about potential criticism from Religious Conservatives concerning his 1994 asking for the endorsement of the Mass. Log Cabin Republicans, Romney states:

No, actually, my view on marriage has been entirely consistent over my political career. And that is that I oppose same-sex marriage. I also oppose civil unions.

There are some people who feel that is inconsistent with also encouraging the elimination of discrimination against gay people as well as others of differences. I’m very much opposed to discrimination. I also recognize that it’s not wise to create a special class and establish new rights for any particular group. But I’m opposed to discrimination.

Well, that sounds good, and I agree; but then there's the actual letter in question. The letter repeatedly states that Romney is committed to "establish[ing] full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens" and he even asserts that he can and will outdo Ted Kennedy and his "considerable record on ciil rights" if elected. What exactly did he mean by "full equality"? He's either duping us now or the Log Cabiners then. Read the letter for yourself.

Incidentally and amazingly, Romney also attempted to out-Lib Ted Kennedy on the issue of abortion during that campaign. See this article.

Then Romney attempts to explain away past criticisms of Ronald Reagan (and Jesse Helms) by saying, "I’ve said since, and continue to reiterate, that one of my heroes is Ronald Reagan." Oh, okay. That kind of reminds me of U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr.'s confidence that a record established with a view toward the next constituency is wholly credible.

Next in the inerview:

One of the other things you accomplished as governor was a healthcare plan for Massachusetts, which has been both lauded and criticized by some libertarians and conservatives. Is this something you would consider proposing for the federal government as well?

My current thinking on that is that the states as laboratories really play a very useful role for the nation. There are some aspects of what we proposed and put in our health plan that actually could be helpful for the entire nation and may well figure into national legislation. But there are others that really are peculiar to the state of Massachusetts, and I’d like to see how they work in Massachusetts, and frankly to see what other states do. Because I wouldn’t be surprised if some other states came up with ideas, borrowing from our own experience, that could be better than ours.

I don’t think we’re ready as a nation to adopt a Massachusetts plan for the entire nation. I’d like to learn more from other states, perhaps take some things that we found and get them under way right away. (emphasis added)

This is disconcerting; it might qualify as the understatement of the holiday season to say that we're not ready to follow Massachusett's lead on much of anything. And it sure sounds to me like he thinks that following Mass. on this issue wouldn't be a bad thing.

I certainly understand that Romney's rhetoric running in 1994 and in Massachusetts had to be different than running for the GOP nomination, and he is to be commended for faring as well as he did in that context, but Massachusetts is not representative of America--maybe 20% of America, and I'm not sure that a non-squishy winning candidate in Massachusetts could ever represent my interests absent the political equivalent of a Damascus road experience. I don't perceive that happened here.

Suitable to Teach until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt

Just read a report in The City Paper about a Metro (Nashville) Schools substitute teacher who has both a criminal record and a recent arrest, yet the HR person at Metro Schools can't say whether the sub will be spending the day supervising school children come January 8th.

What's interesting about the article is the apparent equivocation of the Metro officials . . . the HR director appears to give a "non-responsive" answer to the question of whether a background check was ever done on this sub before hiring him; the Metro spokesman (McMillin) seems to assert that a teacher with pending criminal charges (and these don't seem as if they could be misdemeanor charges) is presumed suitable-for-supervising-elementary-schoolchildren.

I understand taking care in responding to a journalist's questions and being careful not to speculate about a situation, but that doesn't appear to be what is happening in this case--they don't appear to have been reached for comment (2 different officials!) while vacationing on the slopes, and they had time to look up the guy's file before speaking with the reporter. How hard is it to determine whether the guy's CRIMINAL CONVICTION over the summer (for which he is currently serving probation) was ever reported to Metro Schools? I don't think conviction for every drug offense necessarily warrants draconian punishment, but a drug conviction should probably disqualify a person from supervising elementary students in the upcoming semester . . . don't you think?

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.