Immigration is a sharp object

I just read this week's column from Ann Coulter, and she does a splendid job of skewering the "the anti-illegal-immigration backlash" myth. ("NYT: An Undocumented Newspaper"). Coulter's op/ed column was in response to this op/ed, er report from the New York Times about the issue. Immigration is a sharp object, and you know what your mother always told you about sharp objects . . .

A couple of things come to mind from reading the articles . . . first, I think that Coulter may be unadvisedly pooh-poohing the potential problems with a Republican candidate being strident on this particular issue. The Democratic Party--with the MSM in its corner and a willingness to demagogue this issue and already enjoying a majority of Hispanic support, has the ability to paint Republicans and Conservatives as nativist/bigoted/mean-spirited/hateful etc. etc. if we give them the paint, brushes and an empty canvas. The Democratic Party and its major candidates have a variety of vulnerabilities on this issue, too, but being able to exploit those weaknesses isn't a given.

Secondly, the bias of Michael Luo--the NYTimes reporter, is sad. Romney's comments that "he has no problem with 'legal' immigrants" (Luo's quotation marks) are somehow evidence that he is "recognizing the need to temper his comments."

Saying that Republican candidates have "railed against" certain pro-illegal immigration proposals, referring to Tom Tancredo as "the angriest on immigration" (emphasis added), and saying a Republican woman sensitive to the issue "hurled" a comment at Fred Thompson, and referring to the general GOP stance as "harsh" reflect the Liberal elitist view that folks who disagree with Liberal policies are emotional (with baaaad emotions!) rather than rational.

And the advocacy words that jump off of Luo's page are "many Democrats," "some polls," "Hispanic electorate could be turned off," all of which seem to indicate that Luo is marshaling his argument rather than reporting a story.

I think Coulter masterfully pounds the argument of the NYTimes and Luo, but it won't help us in the GOP to ignore the pitfalls of unself-awaredly arguing our positions on this issue.

Euro-elites make McCain blush

I've been speed-reading through the several half-finished magazines on my night-stand and came across this interesting anecdote about John McCain from a March issue of National Review, ("Fever in the Alps"--subscription required). Reporting on the global warming obsession at the 2007 World Economic Forum, Jay Nordlinger writes:

"Speaking of Brits, David Cameron, MP for Witney, is here. He is the new leader of the Conservative party, and thus a successor, in this sense, to Winston Churchill. And he is a firm, firm global-warming man (Cameron, I mean, not Churchill). He tells a group of us journalists that the “big question” is, “Are we going to act before it’s too late?” He believes that Americans are finally waking up to this threat, as evidenced by the reelection of Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. Obviously, Cameron is not a student of American politics, or at least of California. But Schwarzenegger is an American hero in Davos, because he has made all the right moves on global warming. Cameron further says that enlightened politicians are trekking to Norway, “to see the importance of climate change firsthand.” He himself has, and so have Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

As he continues with us, Cameron speaks of “green growth” and “green outcomes” and “gas-guzzling cars.” No one in this town — this pretty Swiss village up in the Alps — can out-climate-change him, and that’s saying something.

But the British prime minister, Mr. Blair, does fairly well. Giving a speech in the Congress Center, he calls global warming “a moral cause.” And he, too, praises Schwarzenegger, and also McCain, who is in attendance. McCain, says Blair, has “driven the agenda forward in the United States.” Soon, McCain himself is onstage, driving the agenda forward. He says, “I bring you good news” — and that news is that Congress will probably act quickly on global warming, and that the administration is coming along, too. “I freely admit to you that it’s very late and may not be enough, but I think that for the first time there may be some action on this very important issue.”

My sense is that McCain’s global-warming passion is almost enough to make Davos forgive him for the Iraq War. In this, he is not unlike Tony Blair.

Some days later, the lights go out all over Europe, but not in the way Sir Edward Grey meant: Frenchmen make the Eiffel Tower go dark, Italians make the Colosseum go dark, and Greeks make their parliament go dark, all in protest of climate change. I can’t help feeling we’re witnessing some large, end-of-the-world cult. The splendid British journalist Charles Moore, writing in The Spectator, has the same feeling:

Now and again, one reads little news stories about sects which, believing that the end of the world is nigh, gather on a hill in Montana or in a car park in Geneva to await the Last Day, and then, when nothing happens, rather sheepishly go home. The same embarrassment threatens those environmentalists who say that if we fail to reverse greenhouse gas emissions now, it will be too late (latest Sunday Times headline: ‘Last warning: 10 years to save world’). What will they do when the planet stubbornly refuses to die?

They will go on to the next cause, with nary a backward glance. Another Davos, another theme. "

(emphasis added)

I'm sick and tired of this type of stuff

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of this type of rhetoric ("Chavez: Only a 'Traitor' Will Vote No"):

"President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a 'traitor,' rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.

. . . .

'He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor,' the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. 'He's against me, against the revolution and against the people.'"

"Greater good" indeed

If you watch television (at least Sports on television) you've seen the touching ads for TIAA-CREF: "There's a place for us" while slow-mo footage of folks in the "non-profit" professions flows across the screen. Powerful stuff. Makes you want to be counted among those toiling simply "for the greater good."

But a recent article in WORLD Magazine, ("The new robber barons") caught my attention. The article reads:

"With college tuition prices rising at a much faster rate than that of inflation for decades, it stands to reason that somebody is getting rich. A report last week in the Chronicle of Higher Education indicates that university presidents are among the first in line at the gravy train.

. . . .

Like the original robber barons, today's university presidents make their living by charging exorbitant fees to those who pass through their domains. Fueled by government subsidies for students, tuition prices at public universities have more than tripled after inflation over the past three decades and have not fallen during a single year at least since 1980 (see "No way down," Aug. 27, 2005).

It's a record of price increases that would make oil executives blush but one that the captains of higher education get away with because the public mind has not associated their occupation with greed. Perception, however, may be catching up with reality."

That's why they call it the Left coast

Well, you've probably already heard something about this story from Seattle ("Seattle Schools' Thanksgiving 'Myths' Stir Controversy" - FoxNews.com), but seeing the title--"Director of Equity, Race & Learning Support," of the woman who wrote the "Thanksgiving-debunking" memo in question, who couldn't have predicted this type of "controversy"?

Wee bit o' dancing pleasure

Thanks to my friend Mike for alerting me to this impressive performance by Michael Flatley & Co. on Dancing with the Stars (last night?).



We eat this kind of stuff up seeing as we have several wee Irish Dancers in the Williams household.

Transparent cronyism

Rob Robinson has linked to a Tennessean story about state troopers being used by past governors (and their families) as chauffeurs. (thinktrain » "Son, can you spare a ride?") You gotta love the quote from Don Sundquist in the article:

Free rides for him and other VIPs have gone on for a while, said former Gov. Don Sund quist, a Republican who, like current Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen, said he approved the rides for McWherter.

"Whatever he needs, I'm for him. I think he's earned it," Sundquist said of McWherter, his immediate predecessor as the state's chief executive. "When I was in office, if he needed a car … I had no problem sending a car for him."

Sorry, Mr. Sundquist, state troopers (and any state employees, for that matter) are not the Governor's personal attaches.

And once you hear more of the details about the system, it's no surprise that it's all a little hush-hush:

House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh's full-time trooper escort had a gross salary of $102,896 in 2005, including regular pay and overtime, according to state records — putting his pay in the top 1 percent for state employees that year.

While I appreciate law enforcement, I don't think a law enforcement officer in what is probably the cushiest such job in the state deserves that kind of compensation. But I do think that Tennessee taxpayers deserve an accounting for how tax dollars are spent. Laughably, THP spokesman Mike Browning asserts that they do not maintain records of this stuff for security reasons. But maybe he's right. Sundquist might have to call out the Troopers again if word of this gets out.

Spinning the vicious, vicious budget cycles

Reading this article about an impending budget squeeze in Tennessee, ("Bredesen says he’ll be handling tight budget smoothly" on Nashville City Paper), I couldn't help but think of the $1.3 billion (that's BILLION) surplus from last (fiscal) year . . . since voters tend to have short memories, I thought I'd provide a public service by reminding us of the foolishness of assuming you'll always be flush with cash. As my dad used to say, "Don't let that money burn a hole in your pocket."

But I loved this terminology (perhaps it is gov't accounting terminology) in the report:

"Meanwhile, the Department of Education requested $133 million total in improvements to their budget today . . ."

"Improvements"? Are those the same thing as "increases"?

Thompson's "pro-lifeyness"

Tennessee radio personality Steve Gill has an op/ed today ("What really is more pro-life?" on Nashville City Paper) taking . . . well, BigPro-Life (if there is such a thing) to task for not selling their soul to the Fred Thompson campaign. Pardon us (I'm not BigPro-Life, but I am pro-life and withholding full-fledged support from Thompson, so maybe I qualify . . .) for deigning to criticize your candidate. I don't speak for any Religious or "Social" Conservative but myself, and I don't agree with the views expressed by other leaders of this slice of the electorate, but I--speaking for myself, have to challenge several of Gill's assertions.

NRLC-PAC's endorsement of a primary candidate for President came as a surprise to many pro-lifers and I voiced some (not much) surprise . . . so sue me. Thompson's vaunted "100% pro-life voting record in the Senate" is great, but anyone who follows the issue of abortion knows that the minimalist/baby-step/incremental legislative strategy pursued by the national pro-life movement in the 90's presented some pretty safe (tame?) voting opportunities for Republicans. Don't get me wrong; I'm appreciative for Thompson's votes on abortion while he was in the Senate, but don't hold it against me that I have some political context for thinking about the matter. A candidate's outspokenness on the issue, and willingness to lead on the issue, and public/campaign statements on the issue are significant. I'm trying to decide which presidential candidate best reflects my views on issues--and that consideration involves more than looking at final votes on a variety of fairly non-controversial (for a Republican) legislation.

Which leads me to my next beef with Gill et al. Gill provides a short (though it sure seemed long) lecture primer on principles of Federalism in defense of Thompson's views on how to handle the issue of abortion.

Consistent with his Federalist principles, Thompson prefers to allow the states to apply restrictions on abortion should Roe v. Wade get overturned. . . .

Thompson’s preferred policy process lies at the foundation of the Constitution. In the 9th Amendment it is clearly stated that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

. . . .

This Federalist approach to handling issues actually has very little to do with any particular policy itself, since it was intended to be broadly applied rather than on a selective basis to promote a specific political agenda. There can be little doubt that this is the approach the Founding Fathers intended; and respecting that approach does not mean Thompson is "soft" on the issue of abortion. He simply believes that the Constitution means what it says.

Well, as someone who--I guess, "[doesn't] believe the Constitution means what it says," I don't view abortion on demand (aka the opposite of "the right to life") as a mere "particular policy" or a mere element of a "political agenda." You're free to disagree with me, but abortion on demand isn't something that I--as a citizen in a republican form of government, am willing to condone. So, while there is an argument that a Federalist strategy, if successful, would result in a short-term decrease in the number of abortions in America, there is also an argument--my argument, that an across the board protection for innocent human life is warranted. Please don't hate me for using the primary season to sift through all the campaign rhetoric to discern which candidate I think is closest to sharing that opinion.

Concluding his comments about the advantages of a successful, state-by-state Federalist approach, Gill writes:

"And abortion on demand would continue to occur in those states while the effort to pass a Constitutional ban on abortions would continue." (emphasis added)

See, that's the problem, Steve. You (and Thompson and many of Thompson's current supporters) are assuming that Pro-lifers believe he would advance (or at least not stymie) "the effort to pass a Constitutional ban on abortions." Based on Thompson's spotty record of past public statements on the issue (e.g., before he was running for the GOP nomination); based on his conveniently-pragmatic/"realistic" Federalist position on the issue; based on his current, suspect language when discussing the issue; I'm leery of casting all my support to him, at this stage in the process, and at least with regard to the issue of abortion.

I like Thompson and could heartily support him against almost any Democrat I've seen. I know that some in the Thompson camp are growing concerned about his performance in various polls, and that they're getting a little frustrated with "the unpersuaded." That's no shock; but if you want my vote, stop deriding me. Fair enough?

I don't think Chuck Norris is acting

If you hadn't heard, Chuck Norris is a big Mike Huckabee supporter, and Huckabee's first TV ad features Norris in a change-of-pace, tongue-in-cheek production--frankly, like a lot of Chuck Norris' showbiz stuff.

More about Huckabee and Immigration

Marc Ambinder in his Atlantic.com blog posts about recent shots across Romney's bow on the issue of immigration. Marc Ambinder (November 14, 2007) - Huckabee Makes The First Move On Immigration:

"Kind of surprising: given how important the immigration issue to Mitt Romney's chances in Iowa, you'd think that he, and not challenger Mike Huckabee, would be the first to force a debate... and get personal."

It's an interesting read.

And it is significant to understand Huckabee's position on this issue . . . from an op/ed by Huckabee supporter Chuck Norris:

Gov. Mike did not offer blanket in-state tuition breaks to the children of illegal immigration. He tried to prevent penalties to high school students, even those whose parents brought them over illegally, who were aspiring to obtain challenging academic scholarships. He espoused that these competitive benefits were open to illegals too, "if they were willing to apply and become legal citizens."

Huckabee explained the drive behind his decision:

[My] position was and remains that you do not punish a child for the crime of the parent. If a child is in the back seat of a car when a father drives drunk, it's perfectly appropriate to put the father in the drunk tank, but you don't put the child in the drunk tank. If a child was brought here when he or she was 5 years old and has gone through our entire education system and has worked hard, learned and made straight As, and has qualified for an Academic Challenge Scholarship, which was a very specific program in the state, and that student has qualified to be able to earn that scholarship, I'd rather that student go to college and become a taxpayer, not simply take some low-end hourly wage job and ultimately be a tax-taker.

Here's a good post on the subject at MikeHuckabee2008 blog.

Whom Would Jesus Deport?

I started to write this post several months ago after a presentation at my church. The subject wasn't politics or immigration (it was on leading in an "externally focused" church), but the application to public policy seemed obvious to me: in sum, God is sympathetic to the "alien." Just do a search at bible.com for the term "alien" and you'll see what I mean (you probably need to use a version like the New American Standard Bible because "alien" is perceived as an archaic term these days).

As an aside, my church is unapologetically a "Bible" church--fundamentalist, Evangelical, "conservative," etc. so hearing this message definitely challenged my thinking on the subject. That being said, my church and its leadership are scrupulously a-political. For example, in our 8 years at the church the most political-ish statements I have heard from "the pulpit" are two references to the Biblical definition of marriage and perhaps two pro-life allusions. And that's the way I prefer it, because I don't want the Gospel to be obscured by political or any other messages.

But the point of this post is that I started to feel convicted about my attitude--my public stance on illegal immigration and the ways to address it. While Mike Huckabee has been accused of being "soft" on illegal immigration--actually, the wording is generally not as charitable as that, I have increasingly seen the wisdom in his views on the issue.

To be sure I am an American Exceptionalist, and I am seriously concerned about the erosion of American culture, American traditions and the "American" language--English. I believe America is great, and it isn't great because of fraud or exploitation or its natural resources or "dumb luck" (providence is another discussion) . . . it's because of our ideas and our ideals and our guiding principles, three things that can and are being readily undermined by illegal immigration in my opinion. And I am concerned about the burden of illegal immigration on our country's infrastructure (and am somewhat sympathetic to arguments about cheap labor's negative impact on some American workers), so I appreciate the economics of it all. But even if all these things are true, I don't get a pass from God when deliberating about how to address the problem. The reality is that this is very complicated issue with many ancillary challenges and with deep roots that can't readily be severed. Yes, they're breaking the law by coming to our country without permission and they're not assimilating as much as they ought to be and they breaking the law (oh, I said that one already), but I am pretty much convinced that God's word urges me to view them (the otherwise law-abiding aliens) more compassionately.

Incidentally, another aspect of this issue that jumped out at me several weeks ago was a news report about a convenience store robbery/murder that showed the video surveillance photos of two young Mexican-looking males who had been in the store at the time of the murder. They said these men were not suspects but were believed to have witnessed the murder (I know, I know, sometimes police say similar things about the real suspect in a crime--that wasn't the case here). The thought that crossed my mind was that if these guys are not here legally, they are probably scared to death to come forward about anything they may have seen that night. So for the first time I saw how it could hurt me and other non-illegal aliens for certain people to be driven underground by our immigration policies. But I digress . . .

I would say that this sentiment probably started with defending Dubya from invective rooted in his soft-ish immigration policy. Though I disagree with Bush on various issues, and I even disagreed with him on immigration, I perceive him to be sincere on the subject and I had to acknowledge his consistency (in his first run for President to now) on immigration. As a result, I felt like it was unfair to accuse him of crass motives or of betraying those who elected him.

Regarding Huckabee, perhaps the most frequent throw-away Conservative slam I hear is that he is "terrible on immigration" or something along those lines. His views on illegal immigration are articulated here. But what I've concluded is that in waging the political battle to "solve" the illegal immigration problems I mentioned above, it is important to avoid demonizing people who are here illegally and dealing with the issue. First of all we should keep them from coming into the country through strict border enforcement--this measure has national security implications, too. Next, we need to prosecute persons who willfully subvert our employment laws by employing illegals--such employers are knowingly flouting our laws and are sticking a finger in the eye of law-abiding fellow Americans. And lastly, we certainly should SLAM someone who is in our country illegally and commits a crime. Any measures aside from these seem draconian--or certainly seem easy to characterize as draconian, and don't really balance Christian compassion with wise public policy. Though I don't advocate imposing my religious principles on others, there's no doubt that my religious views (my worldview) should impact how I feel about a given public policy.

And I'll end by saying that so much of this (and politics) is about "tone." Some people will not believe you are resolute if you don't seem angry or outraged. (Indeed, probably the most poignant quote I've heard from Huckabee to date is, "I'm Conservative; I'm just not angry about it.") As a Christian I should not push buttons of voters just to get them riled up. I certainly should not appeal to the Flesh (or base nature) of voters to get them riled up. Illegal immigration is a complicated problem with no easy solution, and Huckabee seems willing to straddle the divide on the issue, resisting the temptation to demagogue or simplistically pander to voters about it.





Here are several Biblical references that have gnawed at me of late:

Lev. 19:34
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 10:17-19
For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.

"He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing.

"So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Malachi 3:5

"Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me," says the LORD of hosts.

Torture the new abortion? hogwash

I thought this was insightful from Jill Stanek regarding "water boarding" and assertions from some Lefties that Republicans are now more protective of "torture" than "pro-life" . . . hogwash. Jill Stanek - Torture: the new abortion?:

"I digressed on the topic of waterboarding to show for one thing it's really not torture. No one is hurt by it. They just perceive they will be. At most it could be called virtual torture."

You ought to read the LATimes op/ed to which Stanek links, but the reason abortion has receded from political view to a degree (ref: Mukasey nomination) is that pro-lifers have been winning the argument on abortion.

Sort of an endorsement

This unwittingly Onionesque report ("Several Christian conservative leaders gravitating toward Huckabee")about the endorsement wars in the Social Conservative movement made me snicker: :

"Although it's unclear whether Mr. Dobson will endorse anyone, those familiar with his plans say he intends to say positive things about Mr. Huckabee on his nationally syndicated radio program next week."

I guess that's better than nothing, huh?

This matters

According to Politico.com: Nat'l Right to Life to endorse Thompson

Fred Thompson will pick up the support of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tomorrow, according to two Republicans familar with the decision. . . . in the hotly contested effort to court the fragmented social conservative base, the validation by this group represents a coup for Thompson."

Chavez: Godwin's scofflaw

We weren't allowed to say "shut up" in my home growing up; "Nazi" is probably in the same category.

Spanish King Tells Chavez to "Shut Up":

"The king of Spain told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to 'shut up' Saturday during a heated exchange at a summit of leaders from Latin America, Spain and Portugal. Chavez, who called President Bush the 'devil' on the floor of the United Nations last year, triggered the exchange by repeatedly referring to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a 'fascist.'"

Ref.: Godwin's Law.

Surge of former insurgents

Here's some good news from Iraq. Nationals seem to be taking more responsibility for defense of their country: ("Clash between ex-insurgents, Al Qaeda in Iraq kills 18" - The Boston Globe)

Former Sunni insurgents asked the United States to stay away, and then ambushed members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, killing 18 in a battle that raged for hours north of Baghdad, an ex-insurgent leader and Iraqi police said yesterday.

The Islamic Army in Iraq sent advance word to Iraqi police requesting that US helicopters keep out of the area because its fighters had no uniforms and were indistinguishable from Al Qaeda, according to the police and a top Islamic Army leader known as Abu Ibrahim.

Also,

"Meanwhile, farther east, in Diyala Province, members of another former insurgent group, the 1920s Revolution Brigades, launched a military-style operation yesterday against Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Iraqi Army said. About 60 militants were captured and handed over to Iraqi soldiers, an Army officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak to media. Afterward, hundreds of people paraded through Buhriz, about 35 miles north of Baghdad, witnesses said. Many danced and fired their guns into the air, shouting 'Down with Al Qaeda!' and 'Diyala is for all Iraqis!'"

Hat tip: The Corner.

Should we elect judges?

In light of the impending battle over judicial selection in Tennessee, I was intrigued to read this AP article this evening: "O'Connor Says Judges Shouldn't Be Elected":

"Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Wednesday that she'd do away with electing judges and make prosecutors and defense lawyers interchangeable as a way of improving the U.S. justice system."

The battle brewing is the result of a sunset provision of our current system of selecting judges for our Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals. What has become known as "The Tennessee Plan" expired in 2007 and was extended another year.

I am skeptical about adopting the English criminal justice system, and I'm not sure that "merit selection" (as opposed to election of judges) "improve[s] the judiciary." That being said, O'Connor's argument could very well carry the day in Tennessee . . . even though it shouldn't. Our Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. III) explicitly dictates popular elections for judges, as it does for other state offices.

Say thanks to the Troops

Regardless of your view on this war, I encourage you to visit this site to say thanks to someone serving in Iraq.


H/T: The Corner.

Bill Clinton and statism

This (here) is a cool piece (a slide show w/ audio) from TheAtlantic.com about Bill Clinton's philanthropic work since leaving office. And the "since leaving office" part what's interesting to me.

It is encouraging to hear what Clinton has been able to accomplish as a citizen and not a government actor (though, obviously, your typical citizen cannot pick up the phone and reach the CEOs of GE and Wal-Mart). Gov't is not known for its soft touch.

Dobson leaning Huckabee? (Updated)

Updated below . . .

Interesting report from the American Spectator ("Huckabee's Salvation"):

"Dr. James Dobson, who has largely been made irrelevant to the 2008 Republican presidential race, has apparently found his man, and according to an adviser, is ready to change the landscape of the Republican nomination race.

'He is the leader of the evangelical and social conservative movement in America, and he's going to reassert that position and leave no doubt that he's in charge,' says the adviser based in Colorado.

Sources close to Dobson say that within the next ten days he is coordinating an endorsement plan with the presidential campaign of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. According to a Huckabee insider in Iowa, the event would be staged in that state at a rally, followed by a bus tour across the state, and an appearance by Huckabee on Dobson's radio show, which is heard nationally."

A variety of voices have questioned the significance of Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani, but there's little question about Dobson's enduring influence within the Religious Conservative movement.

Tip o' the hat to The Maritime Sentry.


UPDATE: Public denials from all sides . . . but private, unnamed sources standing by their story. Also, this article reports that Don Wildmon (Pres. of American Family Association) has endorsed Huckabee.

Dogma's bark is worse than its bite

Well, I read some of the stuff linked by William in the comments of my "Debate over. Not." post. There's a lot of impressive-sounding scientific bluster (a lot of it is obfuscation, I perceive--this is part of an agenda, folks, just listen to William), but this "myth debunking" was pretty weak. ("Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming" - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment. They write:

"Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more. This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet."

Well, maybe Al Gore isn't a climate scientist, but I must have missed the press release where he was rebuked for making that assertion. And I have to beg to differ with the assertion that this assertion--if true, "does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet." Sure it does; why did Al Gore use the stat?

If you read the entire attempted "debunking" (I know, it's a pain, but the alarmists are hoping you'll just take their word for it) you see a whole lot weaselly language. Not real worthy of dogmatism, frankly.

The debate is over. Not.

Gimme a break, Al Gore.



Hat tip: Dave Oatney.

Bush on recent GOP endorsements

The Volunteer Dispatch:

"If evangelical Christians are as powerful a voting bloc as has been made out by the media, it should be the candidates making concessions, not the other way around. It shouldn't matter who Pat Robertson or James Dobson endorse because it should be readily apparent which candidates will best represent the values of evangelicals based on the issues."

What Jay said.

Lead, follow or act like you're leading

I haven't had time the last two days to dig into the subject, but I'm in a bit of a funk hearing about some recent high-profile endorsements: from Pat Robertson, Sam Brownback and Paul Weyrich. Something that has concerned me from the beginning of this presidential election cycle (or the day after the 2006 election when McCain announced his candidacy) was the pressure that some people feel to commit to a candidate early so that they can ultimately be credited with the candidate's success. Too often "leaders" are scrambling to get out in front of an issue or campaign and it is unseemly in my opinion. One of the things that impressed me about a Jeb Bush interview (via Bill Hobbs) was his statement that he wasn't endorsing any of the GOP candidates.

It is almost impossible to discern when a person's motives for endorsing a candidate are less than sterling, so I've focused--with my little soapbox, on preventing poorly-motivated endorsements. But this Huckabee statement on Weyrich's endorsement of Romney brought to mind one of Huckabee's strengths as a candidate . . . his consistency: (Huckabee campaign sets the record straight with Paul Weyrich)

"Former AR Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee said he was disappointed that one of his political mentors endorsed another Republican candidate based on information that was factually incorrect. 'I love Paul Weyrich and he has been a political mentor to me. It hurts that he has accepted some misinformation as fact, but I will forever respect and appreciate him. I will continue to support Paul even if he doesn't support me, ' Huckabee said. 'One thing is for sure---when I was a 23 year old communications director for a Christian organization that helped launch Christian involvement in public affairs, Paul Weyrich was one of my heroes and I'll bet in the late 70's and 80's Mitt Romney wasn't listening to cassette tapes of Paul Weyrich speeches like I was. '"

Even when candidates hold views that contradict a certain constituency, I believe they get major credit from voters when they acknowledge that contradiction and don't gloss over it or obfuscate their past or present views. I've noted from the beginning that one of Giuiliani's strengths has been his straightforward handling of "controversial" (within the GOP) policy stances. Unless you're the candidate, no candidate is going to agree with you on everything, so a candidate/potential leader must mitigate the disagreements.

I also think that Huckabee is someone who has been straightforward about perceived disagreements with various constituencies . . . granted it isn't as big of a news story because he hasn't been the front-runner like Giuiliani or Romney and--most importantly, his past and present disagreements (with the base) pale in comparison to those of the others in the "top-tier." But the fact that Huckabee has been so consistent on his views--like them or not, is strong evidence that he hasn't had a "Road to Des Moines" experience and is less likely to have similar "experiences" in the future.

Thompson, talk radio and talking trash

Maybe they're right about talk radio.

This morning I wasted 25 cell phone minutes waiting to speak truth to power on the state-wide talk radio program "Talk of Tennessee" hosted by Steve Gill. As I waited, Gill kept ratcheting up the rhetoric . . . and then the show ended before he took my call. Here's some of what I was going to say:

Gill (who, incidentally, wrote a flattering book about Fred Thompson's likely presidential run: The Fred Factor) was defending Thompson from critics like Mike Huckabee who have been questioning Thompson's convictions on a host of so-called social issues (actually, I had yet to hear of the criticism until Gill spoke about it on the radio--apparently Huckabee is getting some traction in the campaign). Thompson is staking out a position that Federal action on a host of issues is unwise and even--depending on the particular issue, unconstitutional. Well, that's where he's wrong. Or at least Steve Gill is wrong when he asserts that Huckabee doesn't care about the Constitution because he thinks it ought to be amended to protect human life in the womb (Gill also repeatedly questioned the motives and the sincerity of "supposedly pro-life" activists; very insulting, but I don't have time to address that now).

First, the Constitution provides for an amendment process. If a person thinks a right--such as the right to live, ought to be spelled out in the Constitution, then that person can attempt to amend the Constitution to include that right. There are certain principles or rights the protection of which is legitimately not left to the discretion of the States . . . "life" is reasonably considered one of those rights. That's fine if Thompson doesn't think it is, but it is not fine to assert that it is anti-Federalist to acknowledge the existence of such rights or unconstitutional to attempt to amend the Constitution to recognize such rights.

Second, Thompson's reaction (and that of some present supporters) is doing little to assuage the concern of voters who think that abortion is "not a government issue" (as Thompson asserted in his first run for the U.S. Senate) or something that is okay in some states and not okay in other states. Thompson has been straddling the issue of abortion since entering public life. I really resent someone tearing me a new one for wanting more than a pat answer regarding Thompson's views on an issue that is very important to me.

Which leads me to this WaPo article on the subject. In GOP Race, Blurring the Lines in the Abortion Debate | The Trail | washingtonpost.com:

"The simple way to look at the abortion divide in the Republican race is Rudy against the rest: one abortion rights supporter against a field of abortion opponents. But take a closer look and the distinctions begin to blur -- not in whether other leading candidates support a woman's right to choose or believe abortion should be outlawed in most or all circumstances, but in what each might do about it as president.

On that question, Thompson and Giuliani and the others are not so far apart. This became clearer on Sunday when Thompson appeared on NBC's 'Meet The Press' as part of the candidates' right (sic) of passage with host Tim Russert. Russert grilled Thompson at some length on abortion and in the course of the discussion, Thompson said two things of note:

First, he said that, as a senator, he had a '100 percent pro-life' voting record. Second, he said that he does not support the Republican Party's platform plank on abortion, which calls for passage of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution."

First, though I'm glad that Thompson voted the "right" on abortion when he was in the U.S. Senate, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative scorecard on abortion (or any scorecard, for that matter) is only useful for predicting how someone would vote (assuming, of course, that the person didn't "evolve" on the issue as is common these days) on issues that came up for a vote before him/her while they were in office. The issues--or aspects of a given issue, can be rather narrow depending on the particular period during which the person served, frankly.

Second, as I detailed above, I hope Thompson (and his supporters) can appreciate that a Pro-life voter views abortion as different than laws on marijuana use or insurance regulation or speed limits. It is reasonable--as Gill argued this morning, to assert that Thompson's idea of a Federalist approach would spare more human life than holding out for a nationwide ban on abortion, but please forgive us for being reticent in acceding to a legal position that we vehemently disagree with.

I may very well end up supporting Thompson out of all those in the current GOP field, but I won't be persuaded by disingenuous and/or pugnacious treatment by him or his supporters.

Great stump speech

I heard today that Stephen Colbert has announced he won't be seeking the presidency, but I came across this inspiring, hopeful, educational stump speech from his short-lived campaign. Enjoy . . .

The Purpose Driven Post

Okay, for those of you who think Rick Warren hung the moon (that is, since he started making greenish comments--by the way, what's with a media company so blatantly propagandizing on controversial Environmental issues? but I digress . . .), here's what he had to say about Mike Huckabee:

“I know most of the candidates running for president but I’ve known Mike Huckabee the longest, since we did our graduate degrees together in the late 70s. Mike’s a man of vision, compassion, and integrity. I’ve watched his uncanny ability to identify with normal people in ways that many leaders don’t. That’s probably why TIME named him one of the five best governors in America. He’s definitely presidential material. But honestly, what I find most appealing is his self-deprecating humor. That’s a key sign of a spiritually and emotionally healthy leader - someone who is comfortable with himself, is authentic, doesn’t wear a mask, and is secure enough to be humble. People love that.”"

Btw, I like Warren and I know this side comment might take some of the sheen off of Warren's glowing comments about Huckabee, but I can't resist commenting on this (grandiose) subtitle on Warren's site: "Want to learn more about Rick Warren's historic plan to tackle the global giants of spiritual lostness, egocentric leadership, poverty, disease, and illiteracy?" Reminded me of this Onion article about John Edwards.

Would Chuck Baldwin vote for Jesus?

I don't know who Chuck Baldwin is, but apparently he is a pastor, apparently he is a Christian and apparently he's backing someone other than Mike Huckabee for president.

Pastor Baldwin, at the Christian site "NewswithViews.com," is casting Mike Huckabee as a bogeyman. (Chuck Baldwin -- "Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee") As the old political adage goes, it is a good sign when your competition starts aiming for you (or however that old political adage goes); so Huckabee's people can take some comfort at hit pieces like this one. But there is another positive aspect of this op/ed.

Among other damning quotes marshaled in the article is one from Phyllis Schlafly, a pillar of the Social Conservative movement. Chuck Baldwin writes:

"President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, said this about Governor Huckabee: 'He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.' She went on to say, 'Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.'"

Guilt by association (especially when the principal "guilty" party has acquitted himself ably in many respects to Religious Conservatives) is specious; however, upon reading the quote, I had a question for Schlafly: "Which candidate are the other evangelicals (who sold you on Dubya but are not trying to sell you on Huckabee) trying to sell you on this go 'round?"

And that's the real issue or challenge we face: How do you pick a presidential candidate from among a host of candidates--none of whom are Jesus? (You non-believers can substitute whomever--I won't speculate who, you believe to be the ideal person for "Jesus").

No, I'm not saying that Mike Huckabee is Jesus. But the truth is that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses, and there are a host of political issues about which there is no definitive Christian or Biblical position. Indeed, I would submit that even Jesus (if He were running as a sort of heavenly Manchurian Candidate and we didn't know He was God in the Flesh) would somehow rub each of us the wrong way . . .

hat-tip: Miguel Diocuore.

"Inquisiting" minds want to know

Hugh Hewitt has a great post ("great" except for his assertions toward the end that Huckabee has been slinging coded, anti-Mormon barbs in the campaign) ("Mike Huckabee with Bill O'Reilly") about arguably illegitimate religious questions being thrown at folks like Huckabee and Romney. From Hewitt's post:

"The interview was conducted during my show yesterday, so I could only see some text as the mute button was on. I think Bill asked the governor if he really believed in Adam and Eve. The answer doesn't matter to me so much as what the question represents: A huge breach in the previously widely respected understanding that such questions are not asked of presidential candidates and, if asked, politely turned aside as inappropriate in a nation built on the premise that religious tests are unconstitutional in law and that politics is best kept very clear of theological disputes appropriate to church debates and academic settings."

Know-it-all-ism

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine has taken to quoting religious people to impugn Mike Huckabee (Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > "Choosing Between Science and God: The Mike Huckabee Story") . . . "hit and run" is right.

Bailey relies on this exchange from Salon Magazine to score make his point,

A reporter asked Huckabee how he thought his views -- including his view on evolution -- might play in the general election.

"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," [Huckabee] said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."

Bailey's quote of Huckabee (not to be confused with the really impressive, though mostly inapposite, quote from St. Augustine that followed) relates to the evolving (though I would probably assert it is simply varying or shifting) nature of science . . . especially given the politicization of science in our day. Huckabee probably should have used the term "scientific hypotheses" instead of "science" but Bailey is just itching to prove Huckabee's "know-nothingism."

And you can save your "NASA scientist [felt uncomfortable] in Bush administration [some of whose members happened to think there might be a God]" links. When I say "politicization" I am referencing the use and abuse of an increasingly sacrosanct field of "science" to support political objectives. Global warming alarmism comes to mind.

Bailey is beside himself in linking to a poll showing that a majority of Republicans say that they don't believe in evolution. Well, if "evolution" means to Republicans what Bailey seems to think it does--that there is nothing beyond the physical or natural world, then I would say that the Republicans (and Americans in general--Democrats weren't far behind Republicans on this point) in question are more open-minded than Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Righteous addresses his critic

To begin with, I just checked, and my AuntB hotline inbox is empty, so I guess I'll respond here at the ol' blog.

Playing a fine blogdom Nurse Ratchet (that's an interesting metaphor--the Nashville blogosphere as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) has called me out regarding some sentiments expressed of late. ("The Bitchass Tyrant Addresses Her Critics" « Tiny Cat Pants).

I don't have much time to craft transitions and such, so here goes with the bulleted response.

1. If the shoe fits. You weren't the subject of my post (I can only remember reading a comment from you at MCB once, and I don't remember the subject or what you said). Consequently, the "community theatre" comment wasn't written with you in mind. And pardon the title of this bullet, I had to think of something.

2. My opinion, and I do have one. You were the subject of some of my comments at MCB on the matter, but only after several fawning comments that seemed to need some perspective--my perspective, applied to them. I hope people will take the time to read the entire thread (I know, it's a long one, but do it out of love for Community).

3. Unbecomingness. I don't balk at expletives or otherwise explicit conversation because the person spouting it is a woman or a feminist or even a Liberal. It's the language. It's the subject matter. Now that's not to say that I don't see something funny or insightful or even profound behind the clutter at times, but I won't deny that it is offensive and wearying. I don't hear that language in my daily life; I don't use that language; it is a distraction (at best) and an irritant (at worst). William (who made a surprisingly misogynistic comment over the past couple days) may have different expectations for e-interaction, but not me.

4. Dogmatism. Hopefully you can respect that others may believe certain "immutable truths" which are different than your own and that espousing said convictions may deeply offend and/or hurt people. I don't think that it qualifies as "prickly ridiculousness and bull-headed hurtfulness" to communicate that. Just be glad you don't have to live with me and have control of when you have to hear dissenting opinions.

5. Thinking hard. My point, and nm misunderstood it as well, was that someone with my views won't get much grace or benefit of the doubt on your site . . . no mulligans or do-overs. Not only that, (to continue with the sports metaphors) almost any pitch towards a batter on your team that may wander up and in will be perceived as a bean ball, so folks like me have to walk on egg shells to avoid ratcheting up the debate. Now bench-clearing brawls certainly draw attention, but I would generally rather play the game than do the fighting, so I try to avoid inciting something . . . and that takes rumination.

6. Coyly not naming names. Gosh it's easy to call people out in the e-world, but I that doesn't mean that I should do it. (see "ratcheting up" reference above). I didn't bring your name up, but I did have an opinion about what was said by those who did bring your name up. Surely you're aware that your posts tend to be a little blue from time to time? Certainly you are aware that some of the things you write might be kind of off-putting to those who disagree with you? I will admit that I implied that a difference in tone (slight, but perceivable nonetheless) from your posts to your comments with said posts hinted at inflammatory-ness for effect, but I pretty much will stand by that assertion. But your site, unlike MCB, isn't intended to build a "Community" (the word is starting to grate on me now) out of persons spread along the political/ideological spectrum, so that's fine with me.

It has been fun talking . . . may I go now?

THIS is news?

I'm surprised that the Politico blog wasted the time reporting this poll. ("Clinton would cream Giuliani, poll finds" - David Paul Kuhn - Politico.com):

"One year before voters go to the polls to select the next president, the Republican Party is as weak as it has been in a generation, a detailed new poll suggests.

In a hypothetical match-up between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, bloc after bloc of traditionally Republican voters break for Clinton:

She wins the South.

She polls evenly with voters who attend church at least once a week.

She splits families with a household income above $100,000.

She loses rural voters and men — but only by a narrow margin.

All are constituencies Republicans have dominated for decades; George W. Bush won each by double-digit margins."

The poll was taken of "adults." Who in the world considers this information relevant in predicting who will win an election? We've all heard of "push polling" . . . this article could be classified as "push reporting."

Cultural concerns

Newsweek discusses the sexualization of girls in this article about Halloween costumes. From the article,

These new "edgier" costumes are simply reflections of pop culture, says Jackie MacDonald, a costume buyer for catalog giant Lillian Vernon. "Girls today seem to like a little pizzazz. The same old princesses aren't where it's at anymore," she says, before carefully noting, "We don't want to say they're sexier, just more confident."

Not that there's anything patently wrong with young girls wanting to look pretty. Child psychologists agree that embracing and understanding their attractiveness is a key part of early-adolescent development for girls. But when sexiness and body image become the sole criteria by which they judge themselves and each other, "That's when we start to see problems," says Dr. Eileen Zurbriggen, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who last year chaired the American Psychological Association's (APA) Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Their report, issued in February, declared that, "Throughout U.S. culture, and particularly in mainstream media, women and girls are depicted in a sexualized manner."

Sorry, but "sexy" isn't just another word for "confident" or "pretty."

I may have been mistaken to draw this discussion toward public policy ("politics"), but it is difficult for me not to "connect the dots" of culture and worldviews. I hope that folks like SouthernBeale and William will agree with me about slutty Halloween costumes, but whether they do or not, I'd say that this trend should be at least as concerning as a "declining lack of aesthetic" in music.

Tip o' the Hat to Instapundit.

Ode to parity

I am not really a baseball fan, though I usually tune in around the divisional playoffs and to varying degrees "watch" most every game (much to my wife's chagrin) during the league championship series and World Series. I pretty much do the same with the NBA, and of course I closely follow "March Madness" and a lot of college and pro football. I'm not sure what the fascination is, but it's probably because a sporting event provides a microcosm of life--opportunities to start fresh, face challenges, adapt to situations, maintain focus and deal gracefully with winning or losing. That's why I think sports are such an emotionally and physically healthy pastime. Oh, and I enjoy the "live," unpredictable aspect of watching athletics in real time. But back to my point . . .

Sweeps, and the domination they typically manifest, really disappoint me. Though I don't really care about the Rockies or the Red Sox as teams, I am interested in watching them square off because of the potential drama--and drama mainly consisting of one team getting thumped gracefully isn't much "drama." This is probably the reason that I don't really enjoy watching dynasties, even when said dynasty is my team. I'm just not sure how "healthy" it is to get pleasure out of watching my team pummel a lesser foe. Which is why I felt sorry :) for Nebraska football fans all those years and teased my father-in-law about Duke BBall's dominance during that stretch of years . . . who cares to watch someone else's team dominate every game and how many contests can you endure just waiting for an unlikely upset?

While the World Series was a disappointment, I have enjoyed this college football season like none before it. It seems that almost every game could be interesting and the opinions of pundits or even computers is almost irrelevant. To be clear, I am not saying that the seeming dominance of the Red Sox or the Patriots (maybe it is a Blue State problem I'm having), but I do want to go on record as saying that I don't mind a bit of fiddling with formulas in sports to achieve something approaching parity.

So, here's to you "parity" . . . even though thwarting the natural ascendancy of superior talent requires significant manipulation of sports leagues, I think you're worth the trouble.

If Kucinich had a campaign, this would sink it . . .

Shirley MacLaine claims Kucinich had UFO encounter - cleveland.com From the article:

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has claimed to have seen a UFO, according to Shirley MacLaine in her new book, "Sage-Ing While Age-Ing."

Kucinich "had a close sighting over my home in Graham, Washington, when I lived there," the actress, a close Kucinich friend, wrote. "Dennis found his encounter extremely moving. The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him.

"It hovered, soundless, for 10 minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind."

Open Letter to MusicCityBloggers bloggers (and commenters)

There has been quite a bit of discussion at MusicCityBloggers recently about community blog decorum. I have been thinking for several months about the immense challenge of maintaining a "blog community" when it is so easy to be an "electronic tiger" and so tempting to clique up. Anyway, I thought I should link to this article as a first pass at the matter.

I won't deny that Conservatives can be obnoxious, but I couldn't help but think of a handful of local Libs when read this "advice" column entry over at Slate.com. Advice on manners and morals. - - Slate Magazine. The (Liberal, Slate regular reading) advice-seeker wrote:

Hi Prudence,
I'm an office manager at a very small company, where I work with three other girls. In short, I am much smarter than my co-workers. When one of them asks a dumb question (i.e., "What's so bad about Fox News?"), I try to be sensitive and explain without making them feel stupid. Sometimes, though, I get very frustrated, and it's difficult to hold my tongue. Yesterday, my co-worker's sister came in to visit and announced shamelessly that she had never heard of Craigslist. After she left, I exclaimed to my other co-workers, "I can't believe she's never heard of Craigslist!" My co-workers defended her, saying they had never heard of Craigslist until they moved to New York City. I find this preposterous. I didn't say anything else because I didn't want to come off as a snob (which is probably how I'm coming off in this e-mail; my apologies). How does one handle working with people like this? I could keep my mouth shut and go with the flow, but it makes me feel dumb when I don't speak up—I feel that if I don't acknowledge their stupidity, then I'm not doing my duty as an informed young woman.

—Dumbed Down

You need to read what "Prudence" wrote in response . . .

"Traction"

From the folks at Rasmussen the folks at Rasmussen Reports™:

"Rudy Giuliani remains precariously atop the pack with support from 20% of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide. Fred Thompson is close behind at 19% while John McCain enjoys a second straight day in third place with 14% of the vote. Huckabee continues to gain ground and is just two points behind McCain at 12%. This is the first time all year that Huckabee has surpassed Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts Governor slipped another point and he is now at just 11% nationally. No other Republican attracts more than 3% support while 18% are undecided. (see recent daily numbers).

Given Huckabee’s progress in the polls, Rasmussen Reports will add his results to the daily tracking history table starting on Monday."

(emphasis added). While I think the poll numbers in early primary states are more significant, Huckabee is polling in a virtual tie for second with Thompson in Iowa.



HT: race42008.com

"Peace-loving" nut assaults Rice

Reading today about the assault of Condi Rice by an anti-war freak ("Protestor painted in 'blood' accosts Condoleezza Rice") reminded me of these prescient bits from Ann Coulter's column this week ("Have You Hugged An Islamo-Fascist Today?"):

Conservative speakers are constantly being physically attacked on college campuses -- including Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and me, among others. Fortunately the attackers are Democrats, so they throw like girls and generally end up with their noses bloodied by pretty college coeds. But that doesn't make it right.

Michael Moore can waddle anywhere he wants in America without fear of violence from Republicans. But we still have to hear about every testy e-mail Paul Krugman ever
receives as if liberals are living in the black night of fascism. Any time Krugman wants to get into a "Most Vicious Hate Mail" contest, just say the word. You don't hear me sniffling.
. . . .

If liberals want to face real fascism, try showing up on a college campus and denouncing fascism.

You're forgiven; now resign and cooperate w/ investigators

Just today I came across the verse, "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap," and the verse came to mind when reading Rob Briley talks about his struggles with alcoholism, personal life on Nashville City Paper. From the article, Briley says:

“I’ve been an exercise in how much public humiliation one person can endure and still be able to hold their head up high,” Briley said. “I’m not proud of what I’ve done, but I’m proud of who I am today and for the way that I’m trying to deal with the problems that have confronted me today.

“And I’m looking forward. I’m not going to live in the past. I’m trying to live my life today in the way that God directs me, and God’s forgiven me for what I did. I would hope that us mere mortals would find a way to forgive me too.”

Briley asked the public to forgive him and thanked God that the police officers were not hurt and that “no one else was injured” as a result of the incidents.

and regarding his relationship with a lobbyist to the house committee he chairs?

"The Nashville attorney and former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee until he recently resigned that post would not comment on the Nashville Scene’s allegation that he had an affair with the trial lawyer’s ex-lobbyist, Mary Littleton, who was involved with lobbying the Judiciary Committee. “I think that as a public figure, I think people have a right to pry into my life,” Briley said when asked for comment on the allegation of marital infidelity. “And over the past four years, I’ve been living my worst nightmare … and at some point in time, I have to be willing to draw the line and say, even though I’m a public figure, there are certain things that are private.”"

Frankly, I'm not sure whether he has reason yet to "hold his head high," and I'm skeptical of the motivation for this interview given his resolve in maintaining decorum and privacy only with respect to details of his life that would hurt his case in the court of public opinion or in real court.

The Democratic divide

This story ("ABC News: Gay Rights Group to Obama: Drop Singer") highlights the delicate balancing act of the modern Democratic Party.

Barack Obama's view on homosexuality is at odds with that of one of the gospel artists--Rev. Donnie McClurkin scheduled to perform at an Obama campaign event in SC this weekend. The problem for Democrats is that the views of McClurkin, not Obama (or any of the other Democrats running for President), are representative of the majority of Black Americans. In particular, Black Americans aren't keen on comparisons between racial discrimination and opposition to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

Huckabee second by a hair in on-line poll, first by a mile on-site

Jonathan Martin reports from the "Value Voters Summit"("A tale of two polls" - Jonathan Martin's Blog - Politico.com) :

Mitt Romney was announced from the podium Saturday afternoon as the winner of the Family Research Council’s “Values Voter Straw Poll,” narrowly edging Mike Huckabee.

. . . .

Although the audience at the Washington Hilton was not told, the crowd favorite among the 952 attendees who voted in person turned out to be Huckabee by a mile. He got 51 percent of the in-person votes, compared to just 10 percent for Mitt Romney.

Even in the on-line poll, Romney merely edged Huckabee by .47%. That's less than half a percent.

AuntB v. KayB

Kay Brooks has caused a stir with a post (What cowed men aren't allowed to say") about a recent rape in Nashville's Bicentennial Mall area. AuntB--as John Hutcheson says "takes what Brooks said and draws a chalk line around it, if you know what I mean." Yes, I know what you mean, but I think there is third way to view the issue.
Here's ("Who Does Kay Brooks Hate More–Men or Women?" « Tiny Cat Pants) some of what AuntB says on the matter:

"Those of you who’ve been reading me a while can, I presume, point out the ways in which Brooks thinks women should just suck it up and accept their status as second-class citizens:
–According to Brooks, we are not to go outside alone after dark, especially not to public places, like parks.
–Being raped isn’t merely a crime, it’s a “lesson” (presumably in what happens to us if we forget that we don’t have the right to walk around in public).
–If you are raped, you have to accept personal responsibility for it. In other words, though Brooks tries to say that she thinks the victim doesn’t “deserve” what happened to her, she’s also turning right around and saying that she bears responsibility for it. This stuff is pretty vile. But look at how Brooks talks about men. –Men who won’t blame rape victims for their rapes are “cowed.” (Yes, America, I swear to god, Kay Brooks manages to hit the trifecta of misogyny there. Let’s count it out, shall we? 1. Women are to blame for their rapes. 2. Being called a female [a cow] is an insult. 3. Men who don’t agree with her are acting like women, which, of course, is an insult of the highest order.)

–Men are monsters who cannot help but rape. She even calls them monsters.

–And there’s nothing other, non-rapist, men–like police officers–can do to make women safe in public."

AuntB,
I'm not sure what to think about Kay's post--at best it was merely insensitive to the victim, but I think it is wrong to place any responsibility on her. The victim may have acted carelessly or foolishly, but fault has a moral element.

And I don't think Kay "hates' men or women. While Kay is a friendly acquaintance, and I generally agree with her on issues, I think she may have breezed by the tragic, horrendous and personal aspect of this particular crime--as well as the tragic, horrendous and personal aspect of the "institution" of rape, and jumped to the policy considerations of trying to rid Nashville of the threat of rape. Law enforcement requires resources, and resources are limited; thus, there are limits to what we can spend to remedy this problem and exhorting women to avoid situations like this is "free."

But I'm still having trouble understanding your point about not being able to prevent rapes, as if any efforts to avoid being a victim represent a concession to rapists or are not wasted effort. I don't think that's true, and I think it can be deterred. I think that rapists are as cowardly and self-preserving as any other perpetrator (perhaps they are the worst), and I think they can be deterred. I kind of doubt that anyone on this thread could outdo me in severity of punishment I would support for rapists--and I bet Kay feels similarly. If I were the DA as well as the father/husband/brother of this victimized woman, I would seek to crush this rapist and hope my daughter/wife/sister would do as much as is reasonable in the future to avoid scum like this rapist. In my estimation, entreating women not to be easy targets is FAR from promoting burqas or female curfews.



**And this is a minor point, but "Cowed" has nothing to do with women, unless one uses it with the intent of asserting that women are more likely to be subdued or intimidated. Women, or men, can be "cowed."

Whew, glad she's lookin' out for us . . .

I and thousands of other (ahem) supporters of "People for the American Way" heard today from Kathleen Turner via an email . . . Turner says she is ". . . sick and tired of the Religious Right trying to tell me how I ought to live my life." It's interesting to learn that Turner and her ilk don't tell others how to live their lives or aim to impose their views on others through law.

It's good to know that Ms. Turner is looking out for me and my interests.

Liberal jaws dropping 'round the world.

Well, it has been less than a week since Liberals appear to have first realized that Jesus was intolerant of other gods (and that Christians believe what Jesus said!!), but here's another newsflash:

Conservative persons of faith believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong, even if it is "safe." Sexual intercourse with someone infected with an STD is very dangerous, even when a condom is used.

In an awkward response (here) to a question about whether he would support giving $50 billion toward a-moral condom distribution to less-than-first-world countries beset by AIDS and other sexually transmitted disease, Mike Huckabee responded as follows:

"If we really are serious about stopping a problem, whether it's drunk driving...we don't say "Don't drive 'as drunk'?" ...This is an illogical thing that we apply to that one area that we don't apply to any other area. And I'm open-minded to all the arguments, if someone can convince me a little reckless behavior is OK. Maybe that's the message. But it would seem to me that if we're consistent in saying reckless behavior is undesirable we should ask people to move their behavior to the standard and not move the standard to the behavior...We don't say that a little domestic violence is OK, just cut it down a little, just don't hit quite as hard. We say it's wrong."

Though Huckabee is pretty-much known (to persons other than rabid Libs) for non-threatening and reasonably-framed policy statements, he seems to mishandle this question by failing to hide his tough pill (response) in peanut butter or flavoring it like cotton candy.

Granted, wife-beating is more than "reckless behavior" and drunk-driving victims rarely have consented, but when the question is related to a proposal to throw condoms at persons living in an STD-permeated context, Huckabee's answer is not quite as jaw-dropping. Ironically, the UN has a poor record on combating AIDS, and the organization seems more interested in defending a worldview than in saving lives.


hat-tip, huffingtonpost.com.

You gotta believe!

A Conservative Jew takes on (Omri at "Mere Rhetoric") the Ann Coulter "Scandal." Read the whole thing, but his/her(?) thesis is: "Disagreement is not tantamount to aggression and insult." And here's a memorizable quip for Jews in any healthy debate with an Evangelical Christian:

"Our gut check would have been to try to reraise with something like 'thanks, but we'd rather stick with a Messiah who's powerful enough to get the whole 'peace on earth' thing right the first time.'"

Hey William, start counting . . .

I've heard "William" state in a variety of blog threads that he "can count the number of anti-choice agnostics on one hand." After reading that quote this evening, I thought I'd google the subject and lookie what I found. Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Member List. Well William?

Maybe they're right about Coulter . . .

Yikes. Ann Coulter has turned her high-caliber pen on GOP candidates Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. ("Fred Sawyer and Huckabee Finn"). Coulter raises some fair criticisms of Huckabee and Thompson, but they seem much less fair absent the prospect that she will provide withering critiques of each of the candidates. It doesn't appear that she has that in mind, closing her piece thusly:

"If you're bored with our top candidates, go see a slasher movie. Don't take it out on a presidential election."

I believe Ann Coulter is exceptionally gifted as a thinker and communicator, but I am incredulous about her assertion that interest in Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee amounts to boredom with the "top candidates."

How DO they do it?

Recently my wife and I were discussing how amazing it was that Jihadists have not successfully struck in the U.S. since 9/11. It occurred to me how seemingly easy it would be for Jihadists to simultaneously (and dramatically) assassinate a bunch of U.S. elected officials out of session and attending townhall meetings across the country.

I guess there are a host of factors involved, but this regrettable story from today ("Qaeda Goes Dark After a U.S. Slip" - October 9, 2007 - The New York Sun) gives some insight into the work that America is doing and has been doing to undermine the Jihad:

"Al Qaeda's Internet communications system has suddenly gone dark to American intelligence after the leak of Osama bin Laden's September 11 speech inadvertently disclosed the fact that we had penetrated the enemy's system."

Until I know more about the circumstances surrounding this leak I shouldn't say more than how much of a disappointment this is.

A surrogate sister souljah?

Tennessee attorney and Conservative media personality Steve Gill has written an op/ed (Nashville City Paper--"Dobson's Choice") criticizing James Dobson for recent (and past) critical comments about GOP candidate Fred Thompson. In particular, Gill takes offense at a past statement by Dobson that Thompson didn't appear to be a Christian and Dobson's recent criticism of Thompson's opposition to a Federal Marriage Amendment (oh, and Gill also derides Dobson for responding to critics through a spokesperson . . . Gill couldn't be reached for comment--just kidding). At the risk of appearing to be a Dobson apologist (though Gill doesn't appear too concerned about appearing to be a Thompson apologist), I want to comment on Gill's op/ed. You know, to make sure that there aren't illegitimate points of contention between Thompson, Thompson supporters, Dobson and Dobson's "supporters."

Even assuming the best intent of the statement about "being a Christian," I was surprised that Dobson, who is typically media savvy, would make a statement that is so easily misinterpreted. The statement is somewhat understandable to an Evangelical Christian, because our conviction is that "being a Christian" is both more than a cultural category and--this will shock some of you, it is more than the way a person acts. While Scripture says a tree is known by its fruits and "faith without works is dead," whether a person is a Christian or not--according to an Evangelical, has something to do with what said person is willing to profess (e.g., Jesus' words in Matthew 10:32-33 are that "if you confess me before men, I will confess you before My Father"--what constitutes "confess" and what doesn't is probably better left to another post). So an Evangelical Christian is alert to whether a person is willing to confess Christ before men. It doesn't mean that you have to preface every post-game interview or campaign appearance with, "First of all I'd like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," but it is something that should probably be more prominent than a footnote to your life. (I need to clearly state that I don't purport to speak for all Evangelicals; please feel free to modify or challenge any of these characterizations. That being said, I think I have a pretty good perspective on the species.) So that's one angle on the statement.

Another mitigating factor (treating the statement's utterance as a crime) is that Dobson (or his spokesperson) has said that he was using "Christian" interchangeably with "Evangelical Christian." If the statement was in answer to a question like, "Do you think that Thompson is a Christian?" then the questioner is setting it up as something less than a "disparaging" remark. Such a remark could be somewhat disparaging in the Evangelical Christian context, but it is more of an observation than a judgment, again, because we Evangelicals assume that a Christian is someone who is more than casual about their spiritual status and more than casual about their association with Jesus. To be clear, "being a Christian" is not synonymous with being a "good" or even "moral" person (by societal standards). All that being said, while I am heartened when I can pull a lever for a qualified candidate who shares my worldview and faith, that is not a prerequisite to me caring about an election, working in an election or supporting a given candidate.

Now on to Gill's more substantive (in my opinion) criticisms. Gill makes much of the Constitutional position on the issue of same-sex "marriage." Gill writes:

Recently, Dobson launched another drive-by attack on Thompson – before once again ducking behind his spokesmen for cover. This time Dobson, who has still never met or talked with Thompson, declared in a mass email: “Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson then, not surprisingly, declared that Thompson is not the man for him.

What inspired Dobson’s vitriol? Apparently, it is Thompson’s belief that citizens in the individual states should make important public policy decisions -- like defining marriage, restricting abortion and setting education standards. Dobson disagrees, and prefers that the Federal government be the repository of absolute power and decision-making in the country. It is a debate that has raged since the inception of our nation, but Thompson’s view is the one adopted in the Constitution.

I haven't seen the communique in question, but one major flaw in Gill's analysis is that Dobson is talking about support or non-support of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to protect the institution of marriage. As a result, if an amendment were passed, then treating marriage as a federal issue would be wholly Constitutional.

That aspect aside, I think that Gill is either ignorant of or disingenuous about the Religious Conservative position on same-sex "marriage." Gill implies that Dobson is less Federalist than Thompson on the marriage issue as well as abortion or education (for some reason, Gill doesn't reference "campaign finance"). I'm pretty sure this conclusion is not true regarding abortion or education policy, but even on the issue of marriage, I think that a careful analysis of the issue demonstrates that there is no obvious Federalist answer. The existence of differing definitions of marriage from state to state in our republic would be a serious problem given marriage's institutional importance in America and given the Constitutional principle of comity. The absence of a single definition of marriage would intractably disturb almost every sphere of the law (e.g., inheritance, adoption, perhaps Criminal is excluded). Of course, advocates of same-sex "marriage" likely say, "bring on the disturbance," but some traditions, values, principles are worth saving.

I generally agree with Steve Gill, and I generally agree with Fred Thompson. I haven't picked a GOP primary candidate yet (though most acquaintances know "I like Mike"), but depending on how the GOP primary plays out, I and many others may end up backing Fred Thompson--indeed many Religious Conservatives already are. Accordingly, while healthy debate on issues and policies is constructive, there is little benefit (to me and my Party) in picking a fight or failing to reconcile when disagreements or misunderstandings arise. Not every Republican will agree on every issue or on who should be the GOP standard-bearer, so some degree of conflict is inevitable in this process. But this dust-up between Thompson and Dobson is not a reason to cast aspersions or burn bridges or gather the ingredients for a crow casserole, is it?

I know that James Dobson is routinely demonized by the Left and some of that spills over into the MSM, but I don't advise Thompson (or Thompson's supporters) to unnecessarily (note: Clinton's gesture was legitimate) seize or "stage" a Sister Souljah moment during the GOP primary.

Theological exercises

Over at MusicCityBloggers there is an aged post (about Church marketing) and frequent MCB participant nm asserted (as s/he has before) that Jesus quoted (purportedly in an approving fashion) the Jewish theologian/Rabbi named Hillel in much of the New Testament.

That's fine, as far as I'm concerned, because I think the New Testament text typically reflects that Jesus--typically speaking to a Jewish audience about Jewish tradition and Jewish "law," quoted Hebrew sources and traditions and sayings so as to either expound upon or challenge the sources, traditions or sayings. But I have never done much (any?) study on that subject (whether and how Jesus quoted Hillel in the New Testament), so I did a quick search today and came upon this interesting blog post. Random Observations: Celebrating Pesach Seder; Notes on Hillel, Jesus, and the Golden Rule. The whole post is worthwhile, but I thought this was a poignant observation in the beginning of the post:

"Last night I was honored to be invited to join Jewish friends in celebrating the the Pesach Seder, the Passover feast. The Seder is the basis of the Christian idea of communion -- it is this meal that Christians refer to as 'the last supper'. . . .Christians believe this was also a 'type' (physical representation) of things to come . . . among those who accept Jesus as the [M]essiah, this act is a procla[]mation of the forgiveness available through his death.

My friends are, shall we say, rather toward the liberal end of the Jew[i]sh belief spectrum. At one point a young participant asserted the bit about expecting Elijah's return was wrong, and nonsense. There was hearty agreement around the table, but it was observed that what we were doing was a tradition, and we should continue anyway.

That created an interesting kind of mental dissonance for me: Here I am, the only non-Jew at the seder, and I might also be the only one around this table who actually believes most of this stuff."

This is an irony that has struck me before in a couple conversations with nm (who seems to represent the views of many modern-day Jewish believers). I don't think that such conversations are a waste, but like my undergrad "Bible as Literature" course, such exercises are fairly limited in their usefulness. You can certainly learn from history and from literature, but . . .

Pretend to Be All That You Can Be

Dang; I know this will irritate my Liberal friends, and it is about as pointed as cactus croissant in Crawford, TX, but this week's Ann Coulter column is the perfect rejoinder to the whole Limbaugh-faux-controversy story. Pretend to Be All That You Can Be.

This statement, like so many of Coulter's pointed rejoinders, tends to be a real argument-ender:

We've been waiting more than 20 months for Kerry to make good on his "Meet the Press" pledge to sign form 180, which would allow the military to release his records.

Are Republicans Crazy? Is Doug Bandow a Republican?

Though his name seems to evoke "Conservative Pundit" from my memory banks, I have to admit I had lost sight of Doug Bandow. But over the transom today came this op/ed ("Are Republicans Crazy?") about the prescience of Ron Paul and the ignorance of all the "other" Republican candidates for president. I say "other" because I think Paul is a fair-weather Republican and his candidacy, if Republican, is quixotic.

If the title doesn't give you the gist of the article, the fact that the article's google pole position is held by antiwar.com should. But here's the thesis of the article:

"The bell is tolling for the GOP warmonger caucus. Unless the leading Republican presidential contenders join Ron Paul – soon – in detaching themselves from the failed Bush policies, many more Americans are likely to conclude that the Republicans are crazy. And to vote accordingly."

Bandow is beside himself that Republicans (not just the GOP presidential candidates) don't agree with him and Ron Paul and Usama Bin Laden about the Global war against Jihadists, and he r_e_p_e_a_t_e_d_l_y proclaims that Paul is not "blaming America" when he says that we are the subject of the Jihad because we have a military presence in that part of the world and because we have been bombing Iraq for the past decade. It sounds to me like Paul is saying that we are causing Jihadists to hate us or that we are forcing them to defend themselves, doesn't it to you?

But that is a semantic game Paul is playing and it isn't really the issue. We have interests in a stable middle east. Israel deserves our support. Oil is a commodity that we need to be able to buy. We cannot allow Jihadists to plot, scheme, train, and arm themselves unhindered in their war against us. A decisive number of GOP primary voters understand this; ergo, it stands to reason that all (save one) persons seeking to win a GOP primary understand (or at least pretend to understand) this.

But even a Republican candidate for president who doesn't view foreign affairs the same way as George W. Bush (or W's zionist neo-con puppetmasters!!!!) can appreciate that Republican voters balk at suggestions that Bush's motives for this war were nefarious; that the mistakes or misjudgments made in this war--as opposed to every other war in history, were extraordinary; or that we will be safe from Jihadist designs if we simply pull our troops out of Iraq (and are on our best Jihad-neutral behavior indefinitely).

Maybe if GOP primary poll samples included Liberal journalists and other pacifist-lite Americans Ron Paul would be polling higher than 2%. Maybe.

Favorite movie clips

Here's one of my favorite movie clips (stumbled upon while wasting time youtubing this evening).

If you haven't seen the movie, I recommend it; but this is the scene where Richard Gere's character ("Mr. Clark") realizes that he has been finding "life" in something other than his most important thing in his life . . . his relationship with his wife. In this case, it's ballroom dancing (which Clark has secretly taken up as a hobby), but it can be a lot of things, even "good" things, that distract us.



What's your favorite movie clip, and why?

Person from same state as Bush pleads guilty . . .

Although I'm not sure that his state of residence belongs in the lead paragraph, it is good to see some this man and others being held to account for crimes against America.("In Surprise, Oilman Admits Iraq Kickbacks" - New York Times):

"Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., the Texas oilman accused of cheating the United Nations oil-for-food program, pleaded guilty yesterday to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s government in 2001 to gain access to lucrative Iraqi oil contracts."

I sure hope he gets the maximum sentence of 24 months (he could've received 70 years if he had not entered a plea agreement).

But the phrasing of the first paragraph is odd because from all indications the United Nations (as an organization) was up to its elbows in the criminal activity. And speaking of tangled webs, I came across this report of another American businessman who paid Saddam for oil contracts:("The Sanctions: Report Cites U.S. Profits in Sale of Iraqi Oil Under Hussein"):

"Mr. Khafaji financed a controversial film about Iraq by Scott Ritter, the former United Nations arms inspector who opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq."

Academic freedom and doers vs. talkers

Mark Steyn op/eds today about the Ahmadinejad (aside: I'm hoping that I never get beyond having to looking the proper spelling of his name) appearance at Columbia. ("But Enough about Iran, Let’s Talk about Me!").

There's a lot of good stuff in there (e.g., Steyn invents the term "Hoogivsastan"--Southern Beale will find plenty of uses for that, I'd bet), but the last line (in the context of Liberal academe patting itself on the back for hosting the little fella) is really good:

"The pen is not mightier than the sword if your enemy is confident you will never use anything other than your pen. Sometimes it’s not about “freedom of speech,” but about freedom. Ask an Iranian homosexual. If you can find one."