On messiah complexes

Maybe I'm just more aware of this type of thing of late, but in reading this great Byron York op/ed, I realized how disturbing is Obama's construct of his or government's role in America. It is almost messianic.

York is writing about the corner into which Obama has painted himself in the run-up to tonight's acceptance speech--I agree with York, and I'm still wondering how/if the Obama campaign can pull off this high-risk event. But what really jumped out at me from the article was a quote from Obama that manifests his perception of what voters need and/or want in a president. I don't want to take these comments out of context, but they seem to betray an overwrought view of (a) how intractable/bad things are in America and (b) how much of a positive, specific role "government" can play in an individual's life:

Speaking to reporters in Illinois this week, he took pains to play down the razzle-dazzle. “I'm not aiming for a lot of high rhetoric,” he said of his upcoming speech. “I'm much more concerned with communicating how I intend to help middle-class families live their lives.”“People know that I can give the kind of speech that I gave four years ago,” Obama continued. “That's not the question on voters' minds. I think they're much more interested in, what am I going to do to help them in their lives?"

(emphasis added). Anyone paying attention knows that the, "I feel your pain," shtick is classic Democratic fare, but should we foster this type of mindset?

Dramacrats in Denver

I'm sorry, but it's hard not to laugh at the fabricated "drama" in Denver. For example, the breathless reporting about Ted Kennedy's "surprise appearance" at the DNC convention. We had heard reports (akin to Santa's sleigh on Christmas Eve) that the "Liberal Lion" had secretly touched down in Denver. Give me a break.

Not to mention, he appeared in DC six weeks ago to cast one of nine extra votes to override a GOP filibuster.

But wait, there's more "drama":

Barack Obama addressed the delegates in a short message via satellite at the conclusion of his wife's speech.

"Now you know why I asked her out so many times, even though she said no. You want a persistent president," he joked. Obama's two daughters, Sasha and Malia, grabbed the mic to give their father a quick "hello."

Obama watched his wife's speech from Kansas City, Missouri, where he is scheduled to campaign Tuesday.

Republicans will probably try something similarly stupid, but I think such Santa sighting reports appear stupid to all but party die-hards camped out at the convention looking for something to cheer about.

"Working the refs" and playing the (tin) foil

Something came to mind as I read a headline about the "protesters" and police preparing for the Democrats' Convention in Denver. It is intriguing to speculate about whether these Liberal loons will serve to marginalize the Democratic Party with average voters or whether they (the Loons) will make the Democrats seem more mainstream by comparison. I guess it all depends on how the story is spun by the MSM.

But over-the-top Leftyness is getting results, it seems, in its mastery of the 24/7 war room--the never-ending campaign. Here's a great article at Politico.com about the Nutroots' efforts to "work the refs" in this latest election cycle. :

Gone are the days when only the right howled about bias and malice from network anchors and star political reporters. What began roughly a decade ago as frustration from Democrats over coverage of President Bill Clinton’s impeachment and adulterous escapades has morphed into an informally organized rapid response network, ready to pounce on any and all perceived media slights against Barack Obama.

But even as I write this, I think there is a good argument, based on the past few presidential elections, that Libs seem to be getting diminishing returns on this strategy. Voters kinda get numb to the extreme rhetoric, and there's only so much antipathy that readily transfers from chimpybushitler to McCain.


Aside: I don't know whether it is politico or the Liberal dimwits being interviewed, but it is interesting that they mistakenly used "tenants" where they meant "tenets" and "slack" where they meant "flack." Impressive.

Frothy cup of Joe

Here's a PowerLine profile of Obama's choice of running mate:

Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate is underwhelming for many reasons, but it affords an opportunity to review a few of the moments that might have provided all the embarrassment a normal man would have needed to escape from public life.

Indeed . . .

Think globally, lose locally

I enjoyed this quote from Obama about his VP announcement ("Obama notifies candidates on shortlist" - CNN.com):

Obama said Thursday that he had made his decision but declined to give any further details.

Obama has told some other potential running mates over the past few weeks that he would not be choosing them, the Democratic source said.

'I won't comment on anything else until I introduce our running mate to the world,' he said in Emporia, Virginia. 'That's all you're going to get out of me.'

(emphasis added)

Democrat's class(less) warfare

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., showed his backside in a Wednesday interview regarding Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman on Wednesday:

"[Lieberman] has a close personal relationship with John McCain. I don't fully understand why he does," said Reid, who said Lieberman called Tuesday from the Republic of Georgia to alert him to the move.

"I told him last night, 'You know, Joe, I can't stand John McCain.' He said, 'I know you feel that way,' " Reid said.

(emphasis added)

Gold medals and the 20 something %

What a shock to see--in a typically annoying (to me, at least) Olympic "winner's circle" interview last evening, Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh going out of their way to speak highly of the President (approvingly, you might say).

On the heels of Kobe Bryant's refreshingly patriotic comments the other day, this Olympics' "human interest" stuff is almost inspiring. Maybe McCain can make inroads with the Soccer Mom demographic this election.

Maybe he IS the messiah . . .

SI’s Selena Roberts Predicts Olympic Softball Might Be Saved by Obama | NewsBusters.org:

Sports Illustrated’s Selena Roberts, when asked during an interview on the SI website about the future of softball as an Olympic competition on Thursday, added some liberal commentary into her prediction about the sport’s redemption: "One other wildcard for 2016 is the exit of the Bush administration. The undercurrent of anti-Americanism within the IOC, which some say has hurt the U.S. because of its softball dominance, may abate somewhat with a potential administration led by Barack Obama, a rock star in Europe."

As an aside, I hope the Redeem Team is paying attention to the softball story.

Recycling and "Cap and trade" nonsense

Stephen Moore takes on "Gang Green" at WSJ.com:

But now the environmental movement has morphed into the most authoritarian philosophy in America. The most glaring example of course is the multitrillion-dollar cap-and-trade anti-global warming scheme that would mandate an entire restructuring of our industrial economy. This plan, endorsed by both presidential candidates, would empower climate-change cops to regulate the energy usage and carbon emissions of every industry in America. If we do this, the best estimates are that we could reduce global temperatures by 0.1 degrees by 2050 and save on average about one polar bear a year from early death. But no burden is too great when it comes to helping the planet -- even if the progress to be made is infinitesimal. To weigh costs and benefits is regarded as sacrilege -- the refuge of global warming 'deniers.'

. . . .

Many studies have shown that the environmental benefits from household recycling are minimal or at least highly exaggerated (because it uses a lot of energy and those recycling trucks emit a lot of greenhouse gases). America is not in danger of ever running out of landfill to store our garbage. For example, a study by Daniel Benjamin, an economist at Clemson, finds that we could store all of America's garbage for the next century within the property of Ted Turner's ranch in Montana, with 50,000 acres undisturbed for the horse and bison.

By the way, McCain's susceptibility to stupid (and typically "populist") arguments like the "green" agenda is the most troubling thing about him.

Ridge is out of touch.

Don't be so sure, Mr. Ridge. Ridge: GOP would accept abortion-rights VP (OneNewsNow.com):

"'I think that would be up to, first of all, to John to decide whether he wants a pro-choice running mate; then we would have to see how the Republican Party would rally around it,' Ridge said. 'At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party will be comfortable with whatever choice John makes.'"

Maybe this type of statement is calculated to appeal to "the muddled middle" on the issue of abortion, but "comfortable"? You gotta be kidding me.

If it's above your pay grade, then shut your pie hole

Warren: Obama dodged question on when life begins (OneNewsNow.com):

The moderator of Saturday night's presidential forum on faith -- Pastor Rick Warren -- says Barack Obama failed to adequately address the question of when life begins.

Senator Obama (D-Illinois) told Pastor Warren that it was 'above [his] pay grade' to determine at what point a baby should be given human rights.

Following the forum, Pastor Warren criticized Obama's decision to dodge the question. In an interview with Beliefnet.com, Warren said 'to just say 'I don't know' on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.'

Warren went on to suggest Obama's non-answer will not sit well with many Christians. As Warren puts it: 'If an evangelical really believes that the Bible is literal -- in other word[s], in Psalm 139 God says 'I formed you in your mother's womb and before you were born I planned every day of your life' -- if they believe that's literally true, then they can't just walk away from that. They can add other issues, but they can't walk away from the belief that at conception God planned that child, and to abort it would be to short circuit the purpose.'

In all fairness, I have to admit that Obama's answer--when analyzed closely and viewed from a Liberal worldview--was not as glib as it sounds. He was basically asserting that he is not a scientist or a theologian (though I'm not sure the self-deprecating angle is credible, e.g., scientists or theologians are at a higher "pay grade" than legal dynamoes, U.S. Senators and community organizers? Come on.)

Nonetheless, Obama was dodging the question because the question of "when an individual human life begins" is pretty basic Christian theology and pretty basic biology.

It's baaack.

History, that is.

Call me easily distracted, but the Olympic Games (the back story of the Olympic Games is probably more accurate) combined with Russia's invasion of Georgia in the past week or so have gotten me dwelling on foreign policy. Too bad I couldn't have been on vacation in Hawaii.

Anyway, I just read a profound op/ed over at the Weekly Standard called, History's Back. I think Robert Kagan accurately assesses the post-Cold War global situation and demonstrates how the New World Order's honeymoon--as well as the viability of Liberal and neo-Conservative global visions, has ended. From the article:

Nor has the growth of the Chinese and Russian economies produced the political liberalization that was once thought inevitable. Growing national wealth and autocracy have proven compatible, after all. Autocrats learn and adjust. The autocracies of Russia and China have figured out how to permit open economic activity while suppressing political activity. They have seen that people making money will keep their noses out of politics, especially if they know their noses will be cut off. New wealth gives autocracies a greater ability to control information--to monopolize television stations and to keep a grip on Internet traffic, for instance--often with the assistance of foreign corporations eager to do business with them.

Exactly; and though I have defended Dubya from unhinged rhetoric about nefarious motives for invading Iraq, I have long believed that the aspiration of planting a republic in Islamic Iraq was uber-wishful.

But, it's comforting to know that we're still doing pretty well in the medal count . . .

NCLB swamping State Dept.'s of Ed.?

I don't follow public education stories (especially when my children aren't directly impacted), but I happened upon this story about the rising influence of Nashville's teachers' union, and it got me to thinkin' . . . in sum, it is intriguing to me that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) may inadvertently be fostering the influence of local teachers' unions at the expense of local school systems (and, frankly, at the expense of students in said systems). As State Departments of Education are given authority (read: responsibility) to control local failing (per NCLB standards) school systems, are State Education officials practically forced to let special interest foxes in to help guard the henhouse?

From today's City Paper article regarding the controversy of MNEA's potentially extensive role in principal and vice princpal assignments in Nashville:

The state has authority to make principal and assistant principal changes due to the d[i]strict’s repeated failure to pass certain benchmarks required by state and federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) laws. MNPS, as a district, is currently in NCLB’s “Restructuring” status, giving the DOE authority to approve all staffing resources.

One school board member, Steve Glover, recently organized a meeting with three state legislators to discuss the state’s role with the school district. At that meeting, Glover noted that some of the principals moved by the state had brought about success and change at their schools, in terms of NCLB. There appeared to be other factors playing a role in principal moves, and Glover highlighted public statements from Smith that the MNEA had contributed to the process.

. . . .

“It appears that they [MNEA] had a considerable amount of influence. …It unnerves me to think that they may have a hand in determining who the principals are, because I think that’s clearly a management decision,” Glover said. “Any time you’re in management, it’s a very fine line between the ‘respect’ and the ‘like.’”

. . . .

[Metro Nashville School] Board chair Marsha Warden said Thursday that she agrees that the MNEA’s relationship with the district has changed. She added that she hopes the union will play a larger role in helping the district monitor the effectiveness of individual teachers. A positive relationship with the union will be helpful to MNPS, she said, as long as the teachers’ union serves as a professional organization with a focus on teacher and student success.

“I think one of the most beneficial results for children would be a beneficial relationship with the MNEA,” Warden said.

The obtuseness (and naivete, INMHO) of that last statement by Board Chair Marsha Warden is odd . . . and it almost makes you wonder exactly how concerned she is about having her school system in "restructuring" status.

Above his pay grade, indeed*

Mark Rose links to Michelle Malkin on Barack Obama's radical abortion record.



*Here's a great write-up on Rick Warren's Saddleback Church Civil Forum.

The Evangelical-driven Night

Well, I'm jumping between the Olympics (which right now consists of the Women's Marathon--btw, do competitors typically drop like flies during World Class Marathon competitions?) and Rick Warren's Presidential Forum.

I was kind of surprised to hear that people were paying up to $2,000 for a ticket to the event . . . then I read <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-tickets-saddleback-2122308-members-ross">that EVERYone had to pay</a>. Then I was surprised--despite all the hype about Obama's purported entree to Evangelicals, to see a standing ovation when Obama made his appearance, not to mention when people applauded--mid answer, Obama's circuitous (as all his answers were) reply to some "social issue" question.

I had assumed that this was more of a Saddleback event than simply an event staged in Saddleback facilities. I would have preferred--and I generally prefer, debates that don't have live studio audiences. I'm not sure what I think about that, and I'm not sure I agree with Saddleback using this event to raise $$.

I must admit I didn't watch the entire event, but several other things occurred to me as I watched, all related to the candor of the candidates. Both men face a challenge of wooing skeptical Evangelicals, and I think that McCain's forthrightness will be a serious asset in a campaign against a personality like Obama. Warren asked for names of the three wisest counselors he had and he gave three. Obama's answer was, shall we say, less than forthright, though I was disappointed that he did not attempt to rehabilitate Rev. Jeremiad Wright as he did his grandmother.

Obama's Clarence Thomas answer was also disingenuous. Based on his follow-up, Liberally-obligatory swipe at Scalia, Obama seems to think that Thomas is not intelligent enough (lacks "intellectual brilliance") to be a Supreme Court justice. It was a knee-jerk jab at Thomas and indisputably ironic in light of Obama's bid to be president . . . as Obama said, he's "been on the stump a long time" . . . 140 days after becoming a U.S. Senator.

One other seemingly disingenuous statement I heard from Obama was his statement about being concerned about the election (I think): "As a person of faith, I believe things will work out and we will get the president we need." That is a smooth answer for the Evangelical target demo, but I'm guessing Obama thinks God was out to lunch each time Dubya was elected?

The Chinese girls' gymnastics squad

Okay, I'm new to gymnastics-watching, so I hadn't realized that people were questioning the age of China's "women" gymnasts prior to yesterday.

I had been thinking (in light of the regrettable reality that commies treat citizens--to include children, as tools of the state), "so what if they're young?" But tonight I couldn't help but notice how "cool" one of these Chinese gymnasts was as she did a vault. And then I came across this somewhat dated NYTimes article on the subject with this interesting quote:

"An advantage for younger gymnasts is that they are lighter and, often, more fearless when they perform difficult maneuvers, said Nellie Kim, a five-time Olympic gold medalist for the former Soviet Union who is now the president of the women’s technical committee for the Swiss-based International Gymnastics Federation.

“It’s easier to do tricks,” Kim said. “And psychologically, I think they worry less.”

And sorry, China; the extra layers of eye shadow aren't fooling anyone.

The ABA needs more cowbell!

This WSJ op/ed reports on ABA (American Bar Association) plans to take over the appointment of Federal judges by means of so-called "merit selection." The article highlights the problem with "merit selection"; in particular, do we want the politics of picking judges out in the open or behind closed doors? And I assure you, the process is very political.

Ironically, Tennessee and other states are moving in the opposite direction. It must really be irritating to the ABA, George Soros, et al, that states are refusing to go along with the ABA agenda. Whatever . . . the ABA needs more cowbell!

Pommeling credulity in China

For whatever reason, the ugly side of Communism and China is increasingly coming to light during the Olympics. Today, it appears that several members of the gold medalist Chinese women's (girl's) gymnastics squad were not old enough to compete in the Olympics. I thought this quote from a Chinese official was funny:

Asked whether the federation had changed their ages to make them eligible, Zhang said: 'We are a sports department. How would we have the ability to do that?'

'We already explained this very clearly. There's no need to discuss this thing again.'

The International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) has said repeatedly that a passport is the 'accepted proof of a gymnast's eligibility,' and that He and China's other gymnasts have presented ones that show they are age eligible. The IOC also checked the girls' passports and deemed them valid.

Yeah. Riiiight.

Which reminds me of a clever post (an "interview" with the coach of the Chinese Gymnastics team). Enjoy . . .

Dems' not exactly embargoed script

The folks at Democrats.org are scaring up money for their opposition research operation so as to be ready to come out swinging the moment John McCain announces his running mate--the website is named thenextdickcheney.com.

Which goes to show that Dick Cheney is probably not as outrageous as the Left purports . . . he's just the Republican guy. So, like producers of the next Bond movie, Democrats.org has already written the script for "Villain." Likewise, the Dems' hollow "message" is garnering them little more than a Margin of Error lead in the midst of an unpopular war and a flagging economy.

Not pretty enough for the Motherland

We love us some Olympics around the Williams household. My wife and I have always been fans, and it appears the fruit is not falling far from the tree: the other day my oldest daughter rebuffed a request to do Something Kids Love To Do by saying, "I'm watching women's beach volleyball and it only comes on in 4 years!" In our family, the Olympics is almost like 14 Super Bowls in a row.

That being said, Olympics spectating is more complex than it used to be (you could say it is "nuanced," kind of like John Kerry's political views). It was much simpler, before the dissolution of the Soviet empire and before the advent of heart-wrenching human interest segments on athletes, to pick a team or competitor to root for. And having little eyes and ears spectating on our spectating makes it more complex, as well.

The Olympics have certainly lost most of their political dimension, but this article provides a glimpse behind the curtain to what makes America different than other countries, like China. The Beijing opening ceremony was literally awe-inspiring for our family, and I couldn't help but wonder whether we could pull off such a spectacle in America. America definitely has her problems, but this story helps to illustrate--for my children and for me, at least one difference between America and China, and at least one reason to be proud of our Republic. ("Official: Child Singer Not Pretty Enough for Olympics Opener; Girl Lip-Syncs Her Song").

We decide, then report.

Interesting to consider: ("Clinton aide: If affair pushed Edwards out, she would have won") from CNN.com:

"If reporters had nabbed former presidential candidate John Edwards lying about his extramarital affair, Hillary Clinton would have captured the Democratic presidential nomination, her former communications director said."

Side effects of BDS

We have some dear friends that live in Tbilisi, Georgia, and we're really concerned about what is happening over there. What should America do in the face of such aggression?

One unfortunate side effect of the Left's radical, reckless rhetoric after 9/11 is showing up of late. As a result of the over-heated, irrational and partisan campaign waged against All Things Republican (or Anything Bush Touched), the President--and our country and our allies, are in a very difficult position in responding to the Russians' veritable invasion of Georgia.

"Adults" are better at remembering who the real enemies are in the world. But hey, maybe this election they will finally beat Bush.

Barack Obama: Painful indeed

Life in the spotlight must be grand . . .

Obama's holding out . . .

There's an interesting (and unsurprising) Time article about the Clintons' struggle to move on from the Primary loss to Obama. Karen Tumulty reports:

But behind the united front, says an adviser, "it's not a great relationship, and it's probably not going to become one." In private conversations, associates say, Clinton remains skeptical that Obama can win in the fall. That's a sentiment some other Democrats believe is not just a prediction but a wish, because it would prove her right about his weaknesses as a general-election candidate and possibly pave the way for her to run again in 2012. Clinton is also annoyed that Obama has yet to deliver on his end of an informal bargain, reached as part of their truce, that each would raise $500,000 for the other. "Hillary has done her part in that regard," says an adviser. "Obama has not."

Dude doesn't have $500,000 for Hillary?

As an aside, it is interesting to see how Bill Clinton is handling the loss. I always thought it would be awkward for an ex-president to campaign for his spouse.

How did I miss this? Al Gore's hot air baloon

I can't believe I missed this "protest" story concerning environmental alarmist Al Gore. From the article:

"A 70-foot-tall hot air balloon was launched and sent floating toward the Belle Meade home of former Vice President Al Gore Friday, emblazoned with large, white letters that read: 'Global Warming Alarmism: Lost Jobs, Higher Taxes, Less Freedom.'

The launch and flight over Gore's home was part of the national 'Hot Air Tour,' organized by the libertarian group Americans for Prosperity. Its aim was to point out what the organizers describe as the folly of concern over global warming."

Is that a cricket I hear?

At least the WSJ is reporting some of the good news out of Iraq:

Good news out of Iraq is becoming almost a daily event: In just the past week, we learned that U.S. combat fatalities (five) dropped in July to a low for the war, that key leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have fled to the Pakistani hinterland, that troop deployments will soon be cut to 12 months from 15, and that Washington and Baghdad are close to concluding a status-of-forces agreement.

Now this: Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr plans to announce Friday that he will disarm his Mahdi Army, which was raining mortars on Baghdad's Green Zone as recently as April. Coupled with the near-total defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, this means the U.S. no longer faces any significant organized military foe in the country. It also marks a major setback for Iran, which had used the Mahdi Army as one of its primary vehicles for extending its influence in Iraq.

That's good to hear.

BigAppliance: public enemy #1!!

Here's a great article (linking to a WSJ article) about the demagoguery related to purported windfall profits for Oil Companies. It's ironic that household appliance makers (who almost doubled the profit margin of "BigOil") aren't being vilified by the Left.

America, The Exceptional

Jonah Goldberg has a great op/ed today about what makes America exceptional:

The interesting question isn't "Why is there poverty?" It's "Why is there wealth?" Or: "Why is there prosperity here but not there?"

At the end of the day, the first answer is capitalism, rightly understood. That is to say: free markets, private property, the spirit of entrepreneurialism and the conviction that the fruits of your labors are your own.

For generations, many thought prosperity was material stuff: factories and forests, gold mines and gross tons of concrete poured. But we now know that these things are merely the fringe benefits of wealth. Stalin built his factories, Mao paved over the peasants. But all that truly prospered was misery and alienation.

A recent World Bank study found that a nation's wealth resides in its "intangible capital" — its laws, institutions, skills, smarts and cultural assumptions. "Natural capital" (minerals, croplands, etc.) and "produced capital" (factories, roads, and so on) account for less than a quarter of the planet's wealth. In America, intangible capital — the stuff in our heads, our hearts and our books — accounts for 82 percent of our wealth.

McCain and MLK

Here's the latest meme I've seen emanating from the Left: John McCain is a liar . . . a LIAR!!!! . . . because he stated in a debate that he worked for recognition of a day commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. AND THEY'VE GOT THE VOTING RECORD TO PROVE IT!!!! (google McCain, MLK, liar)

NOTE: Beware political shills bearing legislative scorecards.

McCain did support an MLK day after having opposed it. He apologized way back when and acknowledges that he made a mistake. Here's a recent example of his attitude on the subject.

No doubt pointing out a candidate's vote in black and white on a particular "hot" issue is powerful. That's why many candidates try to avoid having a voting record. Take Barack Obama, for example.

The Chosen One

Okay, I've been a little out of the loop lately (only lately, mind you--I know how you Libs think), so I just watched McCain's ad "The One."



I like it. Just tongue-in-cheek enough to get the point across without being "mean spirited." Too bad they couldn't have patched in a scene from Eddie Murphy as "the Chosen One" in The Golden Child.



But thankfully, in America voters (not the MSM) do the choosing.

Who you callin' a science denier?

Once again, it appears that research on adult cells is more promising than that on cells harvested from human embryos. The score is now 7851 to 0 . . . goose egg . . . zip.

Dja hear about Obama's church, pastor favorite artist?

Hey have you heard rapper Ludacris' ode to Barack Obama? Some lyrics from Ludacris' "Politics as usual":

Said I handled his biz and I'm one of his favorite rappers
Well give Luda a special pardon if I'm ever in the slammer
Better yet put him in office, make me your vice president
Hillary hated on you, so that bitch is irrelevant

. . . .

You can't stop what's bout to happen, we bout to make history
The first black president is destined and it's meant to be
The threats ain't fazing us, the nooses or the jokes
So get off your ass, black people, it's time to get out and vote!

Paint the White House black and I'm sure that's got 'em terrified
McCain don't belong in any chair unless he's paralyzed
Yeah I said it cause Bush is mentally handicapped.

Folks love to talk about how "smart" rappers are. If he was smart, and if he really wanted Obama to be president, Ludacris would have kept these "clever" hip hop ideas to himself. And I love the irony of a forced-rhyming, grammatically-challenged rapper calling someone "mentally handicapped." I also love the irony of Ludacris accusing ANYone else of being racist.

But, don't let the man keep you down, Ludacris! Keep speakin' truth, bro!

Obama's Rosie O'Donnell moment

Here's an interesting story in light of my recent viewing of "Iraq For Sale" about--among other baaaad companies, Blackwater. At the end of the article, "Blackwater protected Barack Obama in Afghanistan," Toby Harnden writes:

In his Washington Whispers column, the well-connected Paul Bedard reports that Obama was overheard saying that 'Blackwater is getting a bad rap'. A fairly startling alleged observation given his previous utterances about the company - though perhaps unsurprising given he was in a war zone and his life was in the hands of Blackwater guards.

A tight-lipped Anne Tyrrell, spokeswoman for Blackwater, said she could neither confirm nor deny that the company had been involved in the visits by the senators to Afghanistan or Iraq. My request to Bill Burton, Obama's national spokesman, for comment on the Bedard story - including whether the alleged quote or its sentiment was genuine - went unanswered.

But a source familiar with Obama's security arrangements told me that Blackwater, along with the Secret Service, did pull security for the three senators in Afghanistan, though not Iraq.

Deceiver describes this as Obama's 'Rosie O'Donnell moment' That's maybe a tad harsh but it will be interesting to see whether Obama's public position on Blackwater changes as a result of his up-close time with their personnel in Afghanistan.

(emphasis added).



Also at tennesseefree.com

At least one celebrity the Left won't respect

I was a bit shocked to read what actor Jon Voight (Oscar winning actor, mind you) had to say about Obama and the 2008 election. He makes some good points--nothing spectacular other than some admissions, but you gotta give him credit for sticking it out there for Lefty media types to hack away at. Washington Times - JON VOIGHT: "My concerns for America":

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Uh, Mr. Voight, I don't think Libs care what your concerns are, even though you are a bona fide celebrity.

Attempts at Darwinist dogpiling

I stumbled across Darwinism apologist John Derbyshire's post about an e-argument between folks at Little Green Footballs and The Discovery Institute. I'm not sure there is much substance to the dispute, but Derb thnks it is entertaining:

"Charles Johnson over at Little Green Footballs has been doing a few rounds with the Discovery Institute, in which the DI sleaze tactics come through loud and clear. It makes for entertaining reading."

Of course Derb is entertained, because the LGF crew are masters at pithy in the trenches combat (which I typically am pleased about) and the fact that Derb despises--desPISES, those who criticize Darwinism.

But I think it is hard to doubt LGF's intention in writing "radical Islamic creationist movement," and LGF ignored the reality that "Christian" is not an accurate description of the Discovery Institute.

Derbyshire spends a paragraph (though it seemed like two) accusing the Discovery Institute of disingenuously (I guess?) pretending to be "a pure-science institute" when it is "a Christian-proselytizing lecture agency, pressure group, and publisher." Derb also appears to have missed that DI is not "Christian," and naively thinks (or pretends) that other groups that he would surely feel comfortable labeling "pure-science" institutes also engage in lecturing, pressuring and publishing with a particular message.

What Derb and LGF seem not to appreciate is that many (on their side of this "debate") will knee-jerkedly dismiss as "unscientific" the scientific assertions or conclusions of anyone who might not share their naturalistic view. Derb, et al, are wont to cut intellectual/rhetorical corners in taking out them dishonest, unscientific, Covert Creationists. But those whackos deserve it, you know?

Re. the barackstar in Europe

Victor Davis Hanson analyzes Obama's Berlin speech. Here's one great paragraph from the blog post:

"When Obama shouts,

Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

it is the world, not the U.S., that needs to listen most. In this regard I would have preferred Sen. Obama of mixed ancestry to have begun with “In the recent tradition of African-American Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice,” rather than the less factual, “I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city.”"

Of course, Powell and Rice don't count because they're not Democrats.

And it is interesting to consider Obama's juxtaposing of "reject[ing] torture" and "rule of law" when I'm not sure there is a cut and dried legal definition of "torture." Nonetheless, it is fun to see Liberals getting all morally absolutist on something.

Dems and their "wedge issues"

John McCain has announced his support for the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, which Roger Clegg reports "would ban preferences based on race, ethnicity, and sex in the state’s public contracting, education (including university admissions), and employment programs." Clegg also report:

"Disappointingly, Senator Barack Obama immediately criticized McCain: 'I think in the past he'd been opposed to these Ward Connerly initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right. These are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.'"

Yep, if an issue doesn't help Democrats win elections, it's likely "divisive" or in the "wedge" phylum.

Bredesen: Buyout offers should have been sweeter on Nashville City Paper

This story caught my eye the other day, but I didn't have time to post about it. "Bredesen: Buyout offers should have been sweeter," on Nashville City Paper From the beginning of the story:

"If he had to do it over again, Gov. Phil Bredesen said Wednesday he might have “sweetened” his voluntary buyout package to state employees.

So far, with about two weeks to go before the Aug. 5 deadline, about 1,400 state employees have applied for the buyout, well short of the about 2,300 goal. The Bredesen administration had offered it to about 12,000 state employees.

Bredesen said he likely didn’t make the $50 million buyout package “quite strong enough” to attract eligible state employees."

What occurred to me the moment I heard the report was that this seems wholly predictable from my experience inside (and, like everyone else, as a consumer of) state government.

I'm not sure you can reasonably sweeten any buyout enough to lure state employees away from a secure job. The folks Bredesen et al are hoping will accept this buyout aren't typically the type to take risks or strike out into the unknown. Good thing for Tennessee Democrats that he won't have to lay off anyone until well after November.

Support impeachment! (virtually, if not otherwise)

This just in: erstwhile Liberal presidential contender Dennis Kucinich is getting a few minutes this Friday to further erode the Democrat-controlled Congress' low approval numbers argue in favor of impeaching the president. From the Democrats.com email:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has led the fight for impeachment since April 2007, when he courageously introduced 3 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 333/799) against Vice President Cheney. On June 10, Kucinich introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 1258) against President Bush.

When Speaker Pelosi refused to allow hearings on any of the 38 Articles, Kucinich returned to the floor of Congress to introduce one more Article of Impeachment against President Bush (H.Res. 1345).

Maybe Kucinich should add Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to the list of people who need impeachin' . . .

See also at Tennesseefree.com

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.