Talk about offensive

A Federal Appeals court has overturned the FCC fine against CBS for Janet Jackson's purported "wardrobe malfunction."

This was a rich comment by one of the hangers-on attorneys (they filed an amicus brief) . . . I doubt the attorneys representing CBS will be caught grandstanding like this:

Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a group of TV writers, directors and producers, said the ruling "is an important advance for preserving creative freedom on the air."

"The court agreed with us: the FCC's inconsistent and unexplained departure from prior decisions leaves artists and journalists confused as to what is, and is not, permissible," Schwartzman said in a statement Monday.

Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake were employees of CBS . . . they willfully (and salaciously) exposed Jackson's breast during the half-time show of the most watched sporting event in the world. I guess "artists and journalists" would have had no way of knowing that this would be deemed offensive by the FCC? It is progress that this ruling will help "preserv[e] creative freedom" of this nature? Give me a break.

I hope the FCC doesn't let this die here. This whole episode is a (middle) finger in the eye of decent Americans.

Dems do religion

This AP profile of the person in charge of the 2008 Democratic Convention, Leah Daughtry, nicely showcases the role religion will play in this year's presidential election. Daughtry is an ordained minister, is no religious wallflower (she "carries a Bible in her purse"), was raised to believe Black Liberation Theology (BLT) (though noone thought to ask her if she subscribes to BLT), and splendidly--not to mention boldly, juggles her moral relativism and her religion.

Leah Daughtry has married faith and politics, holding positions in the Clinton-era Labor Department, working on the 1992 Democratic National Convention and heading her party's outreach to faith groups, Faith In Action. And she continues to lead her own House of the Lord Church of 20 or 30 people in Washington, D.C.

Daughtry considers it all "ministry - a way to give of yourself." Several of her party's positions, though, put her at odds with most evangelical Christians. That includes her support for abortion rights.

"Theologically, we believe that in the greatest decision of our entire lives - whether to follow God or not - God allows us to choose," she said. "If God is big enough to allow that choice, then who are we to dictate choices to other people? Your choices have consequences, but you should be allowed to make those choices."

(emphasis added) Which begs a couple questions: what does the Bible (like the one in Daughtry's purse) say about Big ol' God's opinion of when we do make the wrong choice? And what "choices" should we as a society not give people the freedom to make with impunity? Maybe the rest of the article can shed light on the subject.

Daughtry credited the party for changing the way it talks about abortion - "not just in terms of a woman's right to make her own health-care choices, but also in terms of society's responsibility to make sure women have the resources that they need to make appropriate decisions."

(emphasis added) Yeah; another way of saying that is, "the right to make society shoulder the blame and consequences for choices people make." Boy, I like this new way that Democrats are "talk[] about" issues.

And noted "liberal evangelical author and pastor member of the Democratic platform committee," Tony Campolo, is asked to expound on this new way of discussing the issue of abortion:

Campolo . . . said he and others hope to move the party toward stronger advocacy for reducing the number of abortions.

He declined to discuss specific proposals, but he mentioned ensuring that pregnant women are able to go on maternity leave without fear of losing their jobs, and making day care more accessible.

(emphasis added) Okay, first objective: Family and Medical Leave Act (passed in 1993!), check! Second objective: a little dicey, because a lot of taxpayers disagree that society owes it to underwrite others' choices to work rather than care for their child. I guess it's the charitable thing to do, though. WWJD and all.

But is the message resonating as much as Dems hope?

Daughtry believes the party already is making inroads with evangelical voters, particularly young ones sympathetic to Democratic positions on poverty and the environment.

But a survey released last week called that into question. Despite Obama's robust religious outreach, only about one-quarter of white evangelicals support him, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life - about the same number that supported Democrat John Kerry at this juncture four years ago.

As for those worried that Democrats are acting like Republicans when it comes to religion, Daughtry said: "The difference between us and the Republicans is, one, we don't claim a monopoly on God. We don't try to be dogmatic about this or make it a litmus test. For us, values come from different places."

(emphasis added) Glad we got that cleared up. The Republican message is flawed because even a fool realizes that "values" may come from different places but they're all equally valid. And even God doesn't claim a monopoly on truth.

You know, what other reason than racism could there be for white evangelicals not supporting Obama?


Also at tennesseefree.com

Don't blame the Puritans . . .

There's a great article over at Nashville City Paper--"Just do it" by Lindsay Ferrier, regarding the challenge of intimacy between husband and wife after children join the family.

Ferrier provides a great perspective on the issue, with one exception . . . Ferrier insinuates that "Victorian" or "Puritanical" values in American society are somehow to blame. Ferrier writes:

It doesn’t help matters that society isn’t exactly encouraging my mommy self to put on stiletto heels and channel my inner sex kitten. American mothers are expected to take on the persona of a woman entirely preoccupied with disinfecting her kitchen counters and baking the perfect cupcake, in addition to holding down a full-time job and heading up the Booster Club. While shows like Desperate Housewives seem to knock the notion of a sexless motherhood on its [hiney], just try wearing one of Terri Hatcher’s low-cut top/ tight jeans combos to your next PTA meeting and just see how many friends you make. ["Sexpert"] Raskin says this asexual mom image can be problematic for the whole family.

Ironically, this assertion contradicts all the data offered up in the first half of the article. As demonstrated by all the examples Ferrier supplies, there's no need for Victoria's Secret weapon (you know it just dawned on me that there might be a pun in the name of that store) to get a faithful husband (the subject of the article) interested in intimacy. I don't believe Ferrier or Raskin would assert that "showing off one's merchandise" somehow counters a mother's busy lifestyle or that the fires that need stoking (or ought to be stoked) are also going to be at a PTA meeting.


Also at tennesseefree.com

Oh' Blackwater, keep on rollin' . . . or not

Perhaps I'm on a roll. After the Kelo-bashing post below which drew bi-partisan support over at TennesseeFree.com, I thought I'd post about a movie I watched on Comcast "On Demand" the other night: "Iraq For Sale."

From the movie's website (IraqforSale.org):

Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers is the story of what happens to everyday Americans when corporations go to war.Acclaimed director Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed and Uncovered) takes you inside the lives of soldiers, truck drivers, widows and children who have been changed forever as a result of profiteering in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the decision makers who allow them to do so.

You can get an idea of the producer's (Robert Greenwald) "politics" by his filmography, and Iraq for Sale certainly has its share of MikeMoorish crocumentary gimmicks; nevertheless, I am troubled by the movie.

Not because I think we invaded Iraq as a sweet deal for Cheney's cronies. Not because I think the military industrial complex is running our government behind the scenes. Not because I think that the atrocities committed in the name of the U.S. are greater in number or more egregious than they were in other wars (as they say, "war is hell" and it often brings out the worst in a person--it's probably more accurate to say it manifests a person's true character).

Rather, the concerns the movie raised are whether we are able and willing to hold private companies going to war for us accountable, and whether the fact that the Pentagon is outsourcing so many services is a symptom of more than just valuing efficiency (indeed, it doesn't appear that these contractors are a better "value" for taxpayer's dollars. In sum, I don't think a policy of using contractors like this is immoral or indicative of some nefarious motive or inherently "Rethuglican"; however, it does not seem to be a policy that is working . . . to the degree that it may be a practice which is immoral to continue.

She says "goodbye," and they say "Kelo"

I regret that I missed this post (not to mention the story) by The Blue Collar Muse, but Nashville is in the news!!! Yikes, it seems that Kelo has come to town. Here's BCM's follow up post on the issue.

Gang, Joy Ford's fight with the MDHA (and Nashville government) is a stark reminder of (or lesson about) the difference between Liberalism/Statism and Conservatism. Do we believe in private property rights in our country anymore? I wonder how the "Conservative-leaning" SCOTUS would rule on this if they had another shot at it. Elections matter.





hat tip, Eagle Forum.

Tony Snow, RIP--updated again

I just read that Tony Snow has passed away from colon cancer. One thing from this AP article that I had forgotten was that Snow had replaced Scott McClellan,

Snow was working for Fox News Channel and Fox News Radio when he replaced Scott McClellan as press secretary in May 2006 during a White House shake-up. Unlike McClellan, who came to define caution and bland delivery from the White House podium, Snow was never shy about playing to the cameras.

"[C]aution"? "Deer caught in headlights" is more like it. As press secretary, Snow sure was a sight for sore Republican eyes.

May he rest in peace.

UPDATE: Here's a moving clip of former Snow producer (and current CNN "Situation Room" producer) Rick Dibella (after Bill Bennett interview).

And here's another example of a former colleague--Griff Jenkins, choking up in an interview about Snow.

And here's another clip (of Brett Baier) choking up when discussing Snow.

UPDATE 2:
Here's a moving David Gregory interview of Tony Snow. At one point in the interview, when talking about his family, Snow fights back tears and eventually utters, "It's great to love people this much." Hat tip: The Corner.

"Borking" but not "swift boating"

Democrats (particularly those in the MSM) have coined a term which means, for them, "to smear." That's right, "swift boating" has become synonymous with "smearing." This National Review op/ed pushes back against the Left-wing Media Machine on the issue. From the article:

. . . Barack Obama vows he won’t be swift boated.

And he won’t — at least not unless several close associates from his past, relying on personal, firsthand knowledge, get together to criticize his behavior at some key point in his life. Were that to happen, the swift-boat analogy might be apt. But otherwise, when it comes to the run-of-the-mill, day-to-day attacks that presidential campaigns launch at one another, can we please dispense with the s-word?

America is exceptional

Unfortunately, I didn't have much time or opportunity to post last week, so I didn't publish anything in honor of the our nation's birthday, but I came across this profound lecture about--among other things, what makes America exceptional.

Hold your nose, Liberals--the lecture is by Newt Gingrich and you have to visit the "In Touch" ministries website to view it. But I'm eager to hear any substantive criticisms you have of the lecture.

If the Democrat candidate flip flops in a presidential campaign . . .

. . . does it make a sound? Obama, er back-tracks on "change we can believe in" re. Iraq.

Standing on stare decisis

Samuel Johnson famously said "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels," well it's ironic that stare decisis--if it's all your standing on, may qualify as the last refuge of judicial activists.

Retiring TN Supreme Court Chief Justice William M. Barker has stated in a Nashville City Paper interview that he thinks Tennessee's most recent way of picking judges is best. From the article:

In an interview with The City Paper, Barker said that the state’s way to pick Supreme Court and intermediate appellate judges — called the Tennessee Plan — is the “best of all methods” that states have found."

That's his policy preference and that's just fine. (Incidentally, all the other states in the U.S. which replaced constitutionally-required elections with "merit selection" went to the effort of changing their Constitutions--something Tennessee voters rejected in 1977).

But Barker offers a legal basis for his policy preference by stating that two prior TN Supreme Court opinions have found the so-called "Tennessee Plan" to be "Constitutional" . . . Barker's basis is a legal principle called stare decisis and--in this case, I'd say it is the jurisprudential equivalent of vapid patriotism. (I'll save for another post whether those prior decisions even fairly qualify as "stare decisis").

Stare decisis (pronounced "starry deSEYEsus")literally means "to stand by things decided," and it expresses the principle that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedent. Supposedly, stare decisis is essential for lending predictability to the law.

One thing that really serves to make the law "predictable" is to adhere to what the plain text of the law--the Constitution in this case, says. The text of our state Constitution has painstakingly been arrived at by Constitutional Convention or by the arduous process (in Tennessee) of Constitutional amendment. That's "law" that deserves some deference, I'd say.

Indeed, Barker cites Brown v. Board of Education in supporting the idea of insulating judges from accountability for their rulings. That's a fair argument in favor of Barker's preferred way of picking judges. But it's a good thing that the judges in Brown v. Board of Education didn't hide behind stare decisis in reaching their decision, isn't it?




More on this debate at tennplandebate.org




also posted at tennesseefree.com

Obama and legitimate religious talk

I expected derisive statements or articles from the Left about the Dobson-attacks-Obama "story" from last week, but it caught my eye to see an op/ed by a Peter Wehner entitled, "I am a conservative evangelical, and even I am offended by James Dobson's dishonest critique of Barack Obama's theology." The so-called MSM is all too eager to provide a platform to this ankle-biter for "speaking (Liberal) truth to (Conservative) power," but Dobson's criticism is right--even if undiplomatic.

Wehner describes how,

Dobson criticized Sen. Barack Obama, accusing him of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit ... his own confused theology," of having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution" and of appealing to the "lowest common denominator of morality."

Wehner may be "offended" that Dobson wasn't wowed by a Democrat Presidential candidate mentioning God in public, and Wehner can legitimately argue that Religious Conservatives need to cheer on religious-talking Liberals if we want to them to keep on "making the public square more hospitable for people of faith." But if they're sincere, they won't need my encouragement, right?

And, sure, if you give Obama the benefit of the doubt (or, should I say, if you ignore most everything else he has said about issues bearing on the subject and ignore the implications of most of his other policy prescriptions), you might resent Dobson's chiding of Obama. But I--like Dobson, think what Obama said was simply flowery, religiously-tolerant-sounding mumbo jumbo. I'm just not feeling that Spartan Spirit because Obama seems more interested in curtailing what constitutes legitimate political speech than in expanding the category.

While I choose not to rely on Biblical text or supernatural premises when attempting to persuade others to my particular policy preference, that is a choice I make in the interest of effectiveness, not because to do otherwise would be immoral or unethical. (Speaking of which, you hear a lot more "preaching" and moralizing from Democrat candidates than Republican candidates.)

In sum, Obama is conveniently defining legitimate faith-related-political speech as speech that is persuasive to those with non-faith-related presuppositions. But Obama's definition gives others the power to veto or chill my views simply by demanding that--in order to legitimately bring religious expression into the public policy debate, I have to appeal to the values or presuppositions of the secular Left.

Obama is a master at framing arguments, at doling out left-handed compliments, at statements that communicate all the right things while communicating nothing. So even though it could be a positive development that God is referenced at some point prior to the "God Bless America" line in Democrat speeches, I perceive this is more about manipulation (to those "clingers") and "neutralizing" a Republican issue than it is about putting out the welcome mat for Religious expression in the public square.

Nice try.

Please pardon me for not sitting up in my seat for a sermon--from a Rev. Wright congregant, about how faith intersects with public policy.

Keeping the gun issue alive?

Here's an interesting piece (from American Spectator) about the Democratic Party's response to the Heller decision. From the article:

THAT BRINGS US to the most prominent Illinois Democrat of them all. Barack Obama has spent most of his career in the hardcore anti-gun category. He was the Democrat quoted above who said "I don't believe that people should be able to own guns," according to scholar John Lott, who met Obama in the mid-'90s.

That's one of many highlights in Obama's long anti-gun record. But since he's now running for president, Obama has retreated to safer political territory, implausibly claiming that "The Supreme Court has now endorsed" what Obama has "always believed."

Obama emphasized, like Schumer and Pelosi, that "Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe." His clear preference is to move on from this subject.

He could get away with it. Congressional Quarterly blogger Taegan Goddard suggests that by making it harder to take away your guns, the Supreme Court has made it harder for Republicans to mobilize gun owners.

(emphasis mine). For the record, I am uncomfortable with political gamesmanship along the lines of "keeping issues alive" for the sake of winning elections. That being said, the last sentence above jumped out at me because it seems that a 5-4 vote on a Supreme Court ruling as controversial as this sustains--if not increases, the importance of elections involving a supreme-court-justice-appointing president and a supreme-court-justice-consenting senate.

Why it's more American to be republican (heehee)

Here's an insightful post on the growth of federal gov't and one reason America was constitutionally more "republican" than "democratic." The Corner on "Wronged states."


Also posted at tennesseefree.com

Good questions re. Dems' disaster demagoguery . . .

You may have already seen this, but I thought these questions from my sister-in-law's email were worth passing along . . .

--Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?
--Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem? Asking where the FEMA trucks (and trailers) are?
--Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago?
--When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines?
--Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?
--Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets?
--When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a "vanilla" Iowa, because that's the way God wants it?
--Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism?
--Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people?
--How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again?

Corker shining in DC

Kudos to Bob Corker for his noteworthy service in the U.S. Senate to date, noteworthy if for no other reason in its workmanlike character.

Corker's work on the Energy issue is profiled in this recent piece in The Weekly Standard. ("Uncorking Energy Supplies", by Fred Barnes). You need to read the article for the substance of what he's doing on behalf of prudent Energy policy, but this quote encapsulates the secret to Corker's effectiveness:

"In Washington, knowledge usually trumps opinion. 'All of us have opinions,' Corker says. 'To be heard in the Senate and break through the clutter,' it takes more than voicing an opinion. Senators who speak with authority, Corker says, are the ones who listen and learn, and are thoughtful and knowledgeable. 'I'm not saying I'm in that category. But that's my goal.'"

Doc Rivers and Me

Did I ever tell you about the time I met Doc Rivers?

It was on a bus, in the Soviet Union. In 1988, Ted Turner's (cough cough) Atlanta Hawks were on a goodwill tour of the USSR, and it just so happened that the Hawks (regrettably, minus the Human Highlight Film) were scheduled to play the Soviet National Team in Tbilisi, Georgia where I and a team of Americans were on a goodwill tour of a un-Ted-Turner-like sort.

The game was sold out, but my colleague and I--undeterred, camped out in the lobby of the team's hotel, finally spotted Mike Fratello, and implored him to locate game tix for two homesick American NBA fans. He told us to meet them there the next day two hours before tip off.

Well, you can bet we were there with bells on, and we giddily boarded the team's chartered bus. One of the last players on board was Doc Rivers, who--seeing a couple of young (obviously) American guys on his team's bus, heartily greeted me saying, "How you doing?" as if we were old friends.

To make a long story less long, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Coach Fratello asked us to stand "guard" at the locker room during pre-game warm ups. We sat on the floor of the arena, three rows from the court and right behind the players' families. Spud Webb is truly 5'7". The Hawks won by one point. Good times.

But nothing like what Doc's experiencing tonight. Congrats Doc.

Apply now . . . space limited!! Yeah, right.

In the latest installment of Tennessee's Judicial Selection soap opera, only two persons have applied to be considered (note: I disagree with our current system of selecting judges) for appointment to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Two people. And judging from this article on the subject, one of the applicants may have just gotten the proverbial wild hair. ("Chattanooga: Local attorney applies for seat on state Supreme Court")From the article:

A Chattanooga trial attorney has applied for the Tennessee Supreme Court vacancy that will be created this fall when Chief Justice William M. Barker retires.

John W. McClarty, who has practiced law for 32 years and concentrates primarily on civil litigation, said he applied to be a state supreme court justice in order to expand his experience at the appellate level.

(emphasis added). Wow. Only two attorneys in our entire state aspire to sit on the Tennessee Supreme Court.

That being said, given the events of the last couple years, you can hardly blame a person for shying away from the process. It's secretive. Rigged by legal special interest groups. Tainted by political correctness. Unconstitutional. (To be fair, I just threw that last reason on there for good measure. Only a small number of attorneys are bothered by this). I don't know what the history is, but maybe there are a lot of late-filers for such openings. We'll see.

The Gore bump. Not.

This just in:

Former Vice President Al Gore will step off the sidelines and make his first campaign stop with Democrat Barack Obama tonight.

Gore, who made the announcement in an e-mail to supporters, will appear with Obama at a rally in Detroit that is scheduled to begin at 8:30 p.m. local time.

Wowww.

The Democratic nominee for President in 2000 endorses the Democratic nominee for President in 2008. Are we supposed to care (much less be impressed)?

But have you heard who the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee has endorsed?

I think Gingrich is right

From today's TheHill.com:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Sunday that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal “would be far and away the best candidate” to appear on the Republican presidential ticket with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

I also agree that we need to Drill here and drill now.

Kozinski and the big tent

Most attorneys (or observers of the judiciary) know of embattled Federal Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski (the "porn" hosting judge), but I knew of him primarily because he is a notorious or regular speaker at Federalist Society events. Don't ever tell me we Conservatives don't have a big tent.

Here's an intriguing profile of Kozinski from several years ago. From the article:

There's also nothing conservative about Kozinski in the stuffed-shirt sense; he's a troublemaker. The judge is zany and bawdy, a high-pitched giggler and an anything-goes storyteller. Kozinski takes his law clerks paintballing and snowboarding. (E-mails from his personal account are addressed from 'The Easy Rider,' a reference to his snow boarder identity.) He has written video game reviews for The Wall Street Journal and an account of a Malibu pajama and lingerie party for the online magazine Slate. Six pet chickens have the run of his property in the beachfront community of Palos Verdes, where he lives with his wife and three sons. When Kozinski gives surplus eggs as gifts, he names which chicken (Veronica or Heckle) laid each one. At one oral argument in September, after listening to the Drug Enforcement Agency argue for a ban on the use of hemp seed and oil in food products, Kozinski leaned forward solicitously. 'Before you sit down, can you tell me how you're going to save the poppyseed bagel?' he asked the government's lawyer, to the delight of the Vote Hemp deadheads in the audience.

Kozinski's open-to-anything mindset means that as a judge he relishes the opportunity to shred a piece of received wisdom. That doesn't mean he's a judicial activist in the ends-justify-means sense. Though he often makes mincemeat of poor reasoning in a previous judicial holding, Kozinski doesn't ignore or brush off precedential rulings that don't go his way; he insists on letting the language of a statute set the course of his analysis. 'If you, as a judge, find yourself too happy with the result in a case, stop and think,' he has written. 'Is that result justified by the law, fairly and honestly applied to the facts? Or is it merely a bit of self-indulgence?'

From what I know of Kozinski, these recent disclosures are not out of character; nonetheless, they highlight a part of his character that was better--for his sake, kept far away from his professional sphere.

Gas prices and hot air from Al Gore

I'm sure that Al Gore (you can't spell "alarmist" without AL) & Co. have a (credible or not . . . probably not) response to this, but (via Drudge) here's a poignant commentary on the connection between the anthropogenic global warming crowd and the price of gasoline (Weather Channel Founder John Coleman -- "Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas"). Here's the first paragraph:

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

William's favorite URL

One stalker frequent visitor to this blog is a guy named William. William has a PhD (in music, I think) and he is a proud Liberal. Chief among his traits, however, is that he is a critic of Conservatives and Conservatism, and the most common blunt object he uses to "criticize" Conservatives is a study from several years ago "finding" that Conservatism was--maybe not a mental disorder, but certainly a mental/psychological/emotional shortcoming. The study was called Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Here's the URL to a press release on the study. Here's William's even cruder take on the study.

To be candid, I don't read much of what William writes, though I do read his comments on my blog and typically skim his posts at tennesseefree.com. And I have only cursorily read his attacks on me and Religious Conservatives (here was where it may have started; note to self: William typically ramps up these attacks at the beginning of summer)--the guy just doesn't have much credibility in light of his "public" antics and demonstrated character.

In any event, I thought I'd look into his study a bit (I've learned that William's arguments/attacks have a nice way of falling apart or diminishing if you look into them at all), and I found a clinical psychologist's splendid analysis and dissembling of the political-science-disguised-as-psychology that william clings to. In sum, Psychologist Shawn Smith points to three serious methodological flaws in the "study." But you should read it for yourself.

There's another of Psychologist Shawn Smith's articles on the subject here.

We Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics are in good company, apparently

This op/ed provides a great perspective on the dangers of scientific-y alarmism, and it appears that Mark Twain might have shared my skepticism toward crystal-ball-reading scientists.(Roy Spencer -- "Bad Science: A Grand Tradition" on National Review Online):

And why should the science of global warming be so uncertain? Mostly because it is a whole lot easier to make scientific measurements than it is to figure out what those measurements are telling us about how the natural world works. The famous humorist and writer Mark Twain once said, “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

I consider the theory that global warming is caused by mankind to be just one more example of the continuing tradition scientists have of extrapolating well beyond what they think they know. In his 1883 book Life on the Mississippi, Mark Twain also expressed perfectly the proclivity of scientists for turning observations of the natural world into long range predictions which were clearly outlandish.

Twain humorously extrapolated an observed change in the length of the Mississippi River forward and back in time by millions of years to demonstrate the absurdity of the conclusions one can reach when one assumes something currently observed will continue to happen at the same rate, indefinitely.

Twain famously concluded, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact.”

(emphasis added).

Bush Lied!! well, sort of

Great op/ed about the recent report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (Fred Hiatt - "'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple." - washingtonpost.com). Like most Americans, I could hardly take the time to read the report. And the Democratic authors would rather you just take their word for what the report contains. After demonstrating how equivocal the data is in the matter (and in the report), Fred Hiatt--like an adult, raises the following points:

But the phony 'Bush lied' story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant."

Picking a McMate--please, not Crist.

As discussion of McCain's VP choice begins in earnest, one name that keeps surfacing is that of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Please, no.

He's squishy or weak on abortion (here).

He's weak on almost everything else. Read this damning article from National Review.

The interesting thing from reading Crist's bio is that he seems to be substanceless, though a consummate campaigner. Oh, and he's got a great tan. Regrettably, those qualities can get you elected to a lot of public offices these days. But they don't qualify a person for second in command of my party.

Meanwhile, The Boston Globe discusses some of the reasons that Bobby Jindal is an appealing choice to much of the GOP "base." The article gets a lot of things right, but in the same way that much of the MSM (and even some Old Guard Republicans) didn't "get" Ronald Reagan, some folks fail to appreciate the natural "charisma" found in the principled person, and in the happy warrior.

Election fraud in Connecticut?

There's a story on FoxNews (online) today that reports votes being cast in the name of dead persons in the state of Connecticut. Here's the original article from the Hartford Courant. The Courant article is worth reading in its entirety.

The FoxNews report is already causing a buzz (among Republicans) and inspiring rebuzzals (from Dems), for example the CT Sec. of State Susan Bysiewicz is raising clucks by adamantly asserting that no evidence of election fraud has surfaced. But I suspect most stories/commentaries on the issue will miss the important point: some very simple changes in our system would greatly reduce the electoral system's vulnerability to fraud.

First, it is significant to remember that this investigation only involved a SAMPLING of databases in Connecticut, so don't draw too many conclusions from the relatively low numbers. The actual data supporting sloppiness are very likely higher, and as demonstrated in a recent news story (my friends at People for ("the American Way") inform me that one of their candidates--unfortunately named Kevin Killer, won his SD primary race by only 5 votes) races are often won by small margins.

Second, the angle of this story is that Connecticut's electoral system is so sloppy. In reality, every state's electoral system is sloppy, but that doesn't mean that we can't take common sense steps to make the system less vulnerable to fraud.

From the Courant article:

The potential for fraud is most serious in municipal elections, when officials are not required to check photo identification at the polls and voters need only sign a statement attesting to their identity.

. . . .

Registrars tend to rely on newspaper obituaries, relatives, or word of mouth to learn of someone's death, many officials said.

Even then, registrars are advised to be extremely cautious about purging dead people from voter rolls, said George Cody, president of the Registrar of Voters Association of Connecticut and New Canaan's Democratic registrar.

In sum:

[Asst. Prof] Dufresne said there is no evidence of any election fraud, but the number of dead voters “shows the system is vulnerable and it shows that people who are clever and have a little cooperation in the town level, you could use this and get people to vote for people who died.”

(The prof said something similar in the Norwich Bulletin: "The investigation was not about fraud,” [Journalism Prof] Dufresne said. “It was about a lot of flaws in the system in town halls and at the state level. It is an inaccurate system.”)

So, it's not news (to most people) that bureaucracies, in general, are inefficient or that election systems, in particular, are vulnerable to abuse . . . so what is the simplest way to avert election fraud?

Dems have for a couple of years been alleging that elections are being stolen (as opposed to lost) because the CEO of Diebold once raised money for a Republican . . . or because some Berkeley Computer whiz was able to break into a poll machine in under 3 minutes and tamper with voting tallies. On the other hand, Liberals weep and gnash their teeth about attempts to purge databases of felons or dead people, when the truth is that "provisional ballots" make certain that all persons are allowed to cast a ballot and will have their vote counted--if upon post-election investigation the ballot is found to be legitimate and if including such contested ballots is necessary for determining a winner.

But all the while, Liberals and Democrat officials oppose--tooth and nail, merely requiring proof that a person is who s/he claims to be when showing up to cast a ballot?

One final point about the Courant article is that digging deeper into the facts on this report--like digging deep into a lot of such reports, appears to have turned up . . . nothing. Too bad Liberal election conspiracy theorists rarely if ever take the time to do the necessary investigation before demagoguing the vote fraud issue.

Hillary's Fact Hub

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

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

Here's the site: The Fact Hub.

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

McClellan finally learns to work the press

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

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

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

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

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

It takes a family . . .

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

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

Ouch; this'll probably leave a mark

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

Being "Green" just another "ism"

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

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

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

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

Dem delegate debate, how do I love thee?

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

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

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

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

. . . .

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

"Shut up!" one woman shouted at another.

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

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

. . . .

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

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

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

Yes he can!

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

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

Now that's change that's believable.

Show me the alien!

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

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

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

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

Whatever you say, Director Rojas.

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

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

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

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

How will the Establishment Media respond?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed.

Meanwhile, back at Obama's church . . .

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

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

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

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

Coulter on modern-day appeasing

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

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

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

Soros' credibility gap

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

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

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

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

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

I just read over at TennViews that,

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

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

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

Get Obama on the phone . . .

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

Not exactly the simile that comes to mind . . .

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

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

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

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

Barack Archuleta Obama?

I don't watch or "follow"

American Idol

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

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

D'oh! Environmentalist conundrums

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

Here are the 10 "Green Heresies":

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

Wilder deserved to lose his "last stand"

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

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

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

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

The AP knows what Republicans want!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let the debate begin.

www.tennplandebate.com


From around the state (and beyond):

Terry Frank
VoluntarilyConservative
Dan Pero
Bill Hobbs

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

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

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

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

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

A must-read for any WFB fan

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

McCain on SNL

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

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

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

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

"Sweetiegate" and taffy-like feminism

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

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

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

A hit (yellow) dog howls--update

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

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

A couple things . . .

. . . about the Democratic Presidential Primary.

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

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

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

From John Rodgers' report:

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

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

. . . .

Tempers flared after the legislation was effectively killed.

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

. . . .

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

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

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

Way to go, senate Republicans.

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



Prior posts on this issue here.

Winning the war, losing a battle

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

Hypocrisy writ large

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)


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

Rule of Law on trial in Tennessee

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

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



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

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

Tragic, yet heroic, story from Chicago

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

Disenfranchising Democrats

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

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

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

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

Get thee to a polling place

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Here's the AP report.

Evolving standards of dispassionate scientificness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reports of speedy justice in East Nashville

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

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

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

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

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

Even Stevens (agrees on ballot integrity)

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

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

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

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

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