Go viral young man--"Just Tax" video

Below is the "Just Tax" parody of the Lady Gaga hit "Just Dance." The video was shown to House Republicans in a GOP conference meeting Tuesday morning. I suspect Peter Cowman may be busy in the coming year.

No license to rant

I am committed to racial reconciliation, and I'm always hesitant to touch the true third rail of politics--race, but a couple of stories of late have motivated me to point out that the color of your skin does not give you a license to rant (more than anyone else, at least).

You have no doubt heard about the man (Harry Alford) who confronted Sen. Barbara Boxer because she was lumping him in with other racially-designated organizations during a recent hearing. While I have to admit it was somewhat gratifying to see someone treating Mrs. Boxer ((grin) rudely, I have to admit that I never quite sympathized with Mr. Alford's indignation. After all, he is the head of an organization (the National Black Chamber of Commerce) that exists--ostensibly, to represent a group of people based on race (we have a purely "business" Chamber of Commerce). As a person is opposed to just about every policy preference of Barbara Boxer, it is difficult to care about what Mrs. Boxer is/was feeling, but I did sympathize with her predicament . . . Mr. Alford shouldn't lead with race and expect not to be categorized on that basis. That being said, maybe Mr. Alford and Boxer are now appreciating the sharp-edged nature of racial politics.

And on that note, the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard professor, should not be a news story (or not as it is being spun by the MSM (""Black scholar's arrest raises profiling questions"). I would bet that Gates (or at least Race Merchants) would have been up in arms if he had ended up dead or otherwise victimized because the police had ignored a report that two men with backpacks had seen forcing entry into an apartment. The facts as reported, even slanted in favor of Gates and even characterized as an example of possible racial profiling, do not justify Gates' actions.

Update: Charges Dropped Against Gates

Virginia harbinger

Reeling from the relative Obama landslide in '08, the GOP could make a splash in governor's races across the U.S. in the next two non-presidential election cycles--and 38 states will hold elections for governor this year or next year.

And here's a bomb shell from Virginia which is electing its gubernatorial race on November 3 (along with NJ):

Sheila Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and the former chairwoman of Democratic Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's inaugural committee, crossed party lines Monday to endorse Republican Bob McDonnell as Kaine's successor, arguing McDonnell would do a better job of spurring economic development in Virginia.

Kathleen Parker's identity politics sinkhole

Kathleen Parker has an off-target essay up today about the Sotomayor hearings. In particular, Parker misinterprets legitimate questions about Sotomayor's wise-latina-makes-better-judge views as sexist/chauvinistic/racist. From the article:Kathleen Parker - The GOP's Sotomayor Sinkhole - washingtonpost.com:

But those who picked the wrong battles during her confirmation, reminding Americans that they are blind to their own biases and attitudes, may find themselves increasingly lonely in that great big tent.

By questioning Sotomayor about her race- and sex-based ideology and judicial philosophy, the Senators (who are jurisprudentially Conservative, but only happen to be male and white) are appropriately establishing a standard for Rule of Law and the proper role of a judge in our Constitutional republic.

I believe that a sparsely populated GOP big tent is a predictable result of cluelessly (or worse, insidiously) demagoguing legitimate questions of public policy. Way to go, female, people-pleasing Kathleen Parker.

Healthcare reform on the bottom shelf . . .

The Democrats' Legislative Anschluss continues with a rushed vote on socializing health insurance. And fast action requires fast talk.

VP Joe Biden was speakin' to the "folks" over at AARP yesterday; speakin' down to them, might be more accurate (here):

Biden told the group that the Obama health plan will not eliminate people’s ability to choose their health care insurance and that people who cannot afford insurance will be covered by the plan.

“They’ll be a deal in there so there’s competition, so what you’ll have in there is you’ll have the ability to go in there and say, ‘Now look, this is the policy I want. This is the one,” Biden said.

“And those people who can’t afford to get in there, up to a certain income, we’re going to subsidize them, you get in there and we’ll help you pay for it,” Biden said.

Isn't he reassuring?

Easy on Labor . . .

I'd like to hear some from the Left (Obama supports it!) explain why "card check" (or "majority sign-up," as Labor is calling it) is good or even "moral." From the NYTimes (here):

A half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop a central provision of a bill that would have made it easier to organize workers.
The so-called card-check provision — which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election, a higher hurdle for unions.

Coburn pickin' a fight?

I agree with Sonia Sotomayor's handling (at least in the context of this video) of this poorly framed question from Sen. Coburn on "personal self defense."

I think he's driving at the 2nd Amendment, but that is a distinct question from "personal self defense." I also sympathize with her unwillingness to tell her personal opinion (apart from legal considerations) about any such right. It is appropriate to ask her whether she believes that the Constitution provides for such a right or whether a particular statute provides that "right," and a good judge (one acting within his/her proper role) need not go beyond such consideration.

Who the grown-ups are (on foreign policy)

Andy McCarthy has a great op/ed about Congressional Dems' immature politics (Another Phony Scandal).

From the essay:

That is, while Democrats politicize “torture,” “domestic spying,” the Patriot Act, and now the CIA’s efforts to defeat al-Qaeda, Republicans are generally supporting Obama’s Pakistan policy for the greater good of protecting our national security.

Eventually, people do figure out who the grown-ups are.

French healthcare scandal

Interesting "scandal" regarding France's socialized healthcare system.

Note: story translated from here with www.translate.google.com .

About Cheney's "secret" program . . .

One story about the recently-revealed "secret program" (that "Cheney lied about" and Panetta (heroically!) reported and terminated) ominously states that the program was related to "assassinations." Well:

According to the Wall Street Journal, the program which Democrats were so angry about turns out to be an effort “to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives.” Excuse me, but this is the Democrats’ idea of a scandal? Most Americans would not only expect, but demand, that the CIA do everything in its power to kill al-Qaeda operatives before they strike our country. Indeed, the Obama administration itself has reportedly escalated targeted killings of al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan using Predator and Reaper drones. These targeted killings are not assassinations — they are legitimate strikes against an enemy that has declared war on us and attacked us where we live.

What exactly is "historic" about her?

Patrick Leahy betrays (here) his identity politics:

Noting that only 101 people get a direct say in who sits on the Supreme Court, Mr. Leahy highlighted Judge Sotomayor's credentials.

"President Obama has done his part and made a historic pick, now the Senate has to do its part," he said.

I knew he failed out of Vandy, but . . .

I knew that he failed out of grad school at Vanderbilt, but was Al Gore really stupid enough to use the phrase "awareness [of "global warming"]" and "driving change through . . . . global governance" in the same sentence?

(Here's the source doc; video at 1m10s)

Here's some historical context for Gore's statements (though the article mischaracterizes Gore's statement, in my opinion).

I know the window for credibly misusing climate statistics is probably closing on Al, but he better not get ahead of himself.

Speaking of maneuvers to the rear . . .

President Obama is getting some razzing (though much of it is the "boys will be boys" variety) for supposedly getting caught ogling a young woman during a G8 photo op, but I, for one, do not believe he is guilty.

Here's a video of the "incident."

On the other hand, Sarkozy (unsurprisingly) does not seem to be acting nobly . . .

Administration's recent strategic maneuver to the rear

Someone is probably keeping track of the Obama administration's various retreats from overheated campaign rhetoric about the GWOT (a campaign, the political one, not the military, which for the Democrats has lasted the past 8 years). Here's one "strategic maneuver to the rear" I spotted in a WSJ article this a.m. in relation to claims that CIA Director Panetta has admitted that the CIA misled Congress:

The flap over Mr. Panetta's recent disclosures reignites a broader debate between Congress and the executive branch over the limits of executive power. The release of the letters came the day before the House is scheduled to debate an intelligence bill that will test those limits once again.

The White House issued a veto threat on Wednesday over provisions in the bill that would require more expansive briefings of intelligence committee members on covert actions, taking a position against Democratic lawmakers and in line with what the Bush administration had advocated.

The provision would raise "significant executive privilege concerns," according to a White House policy statement. The broader bill contains several measures to bolster Congressional oversight of intelligence activities.

[Democrat House Member] Holt said he was surprised Mr. Obama continued to support the practice of more limited briefings.

Exploiting McNair

Mike Lupica (of the NY Daily News) is seizing upon July 4th's high-profile murder (and likely suicide) in Nashville to decry America's "gun culture." ("Steve McNair's famous face becomes just another victim of American gun culture") From the article:

According to the The Tennessean newspaper, McNair had a permit to carry a handgun. The weapon found next to the bodies was a semiautomatic.

There were so many wonderful statistics attached to McNair's career, the most important being the one Super Bowl, the four Pro Bowls to which he was selected, all the games he won. But the last was the only one that mattered. He is the 36th homicide victim in Nashville this year. That is down from 41 at the same time last year.

Only in a country of gun lovers is that considered progress.

Only to a gun grabber is that statistic not considered progress.

Franken doesn't bring me flowers . . .

I was reading an Al Franken story this a.m., and was reminded of what I like about him. Franken said that he wanted to be "the people's proxy" during the Sotomayor hearings. From the story:

"As someone who will have been in the committee a grand total of six days and isn't an attorney I kind of see myself fulfilling a certain role for Americans watching the hearings," Franken said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press.

"So I kind of see myself as people's proxy, not that the other senators aren't, but certainly that's the kind of role I want to play," he said.

For the record, I always enjoyed the pre-political Al Franken's work . . . I can hardly believe that anyone wouldn't, so that's no big story, I guess. I think he would be a fun guy to know, as long as he didn't fly off the handle about Bushitler or something when we were hanging out. He's a real intellectual and creative talent and one common trait of a comedian is that they are able to laugh at themselves.

But it is hard for me to look past his decade-long vitriol for, and demonization of, anyone who holds Conservative political views. I guess he is akin to our Ann Coulter, and I'm even tempted as I type this to distinguish her from Franken or to offer a defense of her; but I can understand why some people don't like her.

Sort of like when the class clown becomes teacher for a day, here's hoping that Franken's new job--one in which bomb-throwing is disfavored, will change him for the better. I think it already has, based on the news coverage I've seen of him during his campaign and after the election.

McNair's home

Here's a link to McNair's home-for-sale site. Beautiful home: one room pic has a poster-sized picture of McNair and one of his sons at LP Field; another pic shows the oven bearing a Baltimore Ravens sticker on the glass.

Re. Palin: lame is as lame does

The "Palin Resigns" story comes as a shock, and I think the "lame duck avoidance" rationale she has offered is lame. ("Sarah Palin Says She Will Resign as Alaska Governor" - NYTimes.com). From the article:

Ms. Palin said that she had decided not to seek re-election when her term expires at the end of next year and that, given that, she did not think it was fair to her constituents to continue in office.

“As I thought about this announcement that I would not seek re-election,” she said, “I thought about how much fun other governors have as lame ducks. They maybe travel around their state, travel to other states, maybe take their overseas international trade missions.”

“I’m not going to put Alaskans through that,” she said. “I promised efficiencies and effectiveness. That’s not how I’m wired. I’m not wired to operate under the same old politics as usual.”

What? I think that's a load of moose dung. This smells like quitting to me, and I can't see that it will help her in a run for president. Our country would benefit from more, not fewer, elected officials who are serving without devoting half of their attention and resources to being re-elected.



Update: This John Fund report helped to give context to Sarah Palin's decision. For example, I didn't realize that political enemies had filed 150 FOIA requests and various ethics "complaints," resulting in nearly $500k legal expenses, over the past 9 months. That's wrong. And I suspect that my assessment of her decision may well be wrong, too.

Parody against homosexual adoption in NC?

Hey, did the Onion or Scrappleface dream up the child rape/incest case in Durham, NC? It is even more suspicious, given how little it is being covered by the MSM. This guy is the poster child for all the concerns that people have about endorsing adoption by folks who engage in homosexual activity.

According to the indictment:

On Monday, . . . Det. Timothy Palchak of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department, chatted online with a person using the name “F.L.” Palchak said “F.L.” described specific sex acts he had performed on a 5-year-old child and said that he lived in Durham.
. . .

[The perpetrator--Frank Lombard] is asked how he got access to a child so young. "Adopted," he replied, and said that the process was "not so hard ... esp (sic) for a black boy."

In the chat, "F.L.” told Palchak that abusing the child was "easier when he was too young to know what was happening and when he couldn't talk ...He had a little too much Benadryl. Was knocked out."

According to the report, the perp, who again is alleged to have performed sex acts on the child and offered the child to others for the same purpose, is "associate director of Duke's Center for Health Policy" and more specifically directs the "Health Inequalities Program" doing AIDS education -- which gives new meaning to the term "extension program."

But it gets even more cliche'd. I had never heard of a "co-housing" community, but the article gives some context:

Neighbors of Lombard had nothing to say about him Saturday to a reporter who visited Eno Commons, a co-housing community in north Durham.

Residents ordered the reporter to leave the neighborhood, which emphasizes communal life.

A roadblock with a "no trespassing" sign and a Subaru greeted visitors Saturday to Indigo Creek Trail, a private street in the 22-home neighborhood.

Co-housing communities allow residents have a say in the area's design, and they manage and maintain the community together. Decisions are made through consensus, and residents share common space.

Sounds like a corny, Liberal place, frankly. But the website highlights that people of all "affectional preferences" are welcome. And you gotta love the gay-friendliest make of car helping the neighborhood to circle the wagons of one of their own. Nice.

Thanks for the assist, Mr. Lombard!

Have a heart, Sotomayor!

If you follow the news at all, you likely have heard (here) that the U.S. Supreme overturned one of S.Ct. nominee Sonia Sotomayor's lower court decisions this week. But the more interesting and timely aspect of this story to me (rather than the wins/losses or victor/smack-down angle) is how it reflects Sotomayor's summary and un-serious treatment of a very serious and complex issue.

Given that Judge Sonia Sotomayor's most exceptional quality is supposedly her ability to empathize, this week's affirmative action decision in Ricci v. DeStefano is ironic. Sotomayor's endorsement of a one-paragraph 2nd Circuit opinion in the matter wasn't very sympathetic.

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg was careful to note how she had resisted her feelings in considering this case,

The white firefighters who studied for the exam "understandably attract the court's empathy," Justice Ginsburg said in summarizing the dissent from the bench. But, she added, "they had no vested right to promotion."

It is a fair (not to mention complex) question whether there is a right to be promoted if you qualify for a promotion in every respect except for the color of your skin. And I commend the "living Constitution"/jurisprudentially Liberal dissenters on our Supreme Court for their effort to rationalize their political view of racial preferences. But Sotomayor, and the other two judges on the panel who dismissively refused to consider this case at the Circuit Court level, didn't even go to that trouble. Apparently her motivation to go the extra mile is limited to certain types of petitioners.

Come on Judge Sotomayor, have a heart!

Do HRC and BHO understand rule of law?

I'm not sure what caught my eye about what is going on in Honduras--the purported "bloodless military coup." Maybe it was the prominence of characters like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro in the narrative; nonetheless, it appears that what is happening down south is less a military coup and more of a constitutional stand-off.

And it sounds like the Obama administration is engaging in knee-jerk foreign policy regarding the situation. From a WSJ article on the matter:

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

Creepiness creep

With Michael Jackson's passing, I have found myself thinking more about the inherent problems of social isolation. And it has served as a "teachable moment" for explaining what I'm terming "creepiness creep" that befalls so many celebrities. It just seems that the more one tends to be able (and willing) to isolate themselves from "reality," the more creepy they become.

Well, here's an excellent op/ed from Mark Steyn about the unnecessary and unwise "bubble" that we countenance for elected officials. (Let’s Burst the Bubble by Mark Steyn on National Review Online). From the article:

At the press conference, the governor rationalized his unfaithfulness to Mrs. Sanford by saying that he needed to get out of “the bubble.” Tina Brown, proprietrix of The Daily Beast, hooted in derision: “The bubble’s where you’re s’posed to be, Mark. That’s what all the rubber-chicken fundraisers you put her through were for.” But a more basic question is: Why does the minimally empowered executive of a mid-sized state with no particular national prominence need to be in “the bubble” in the first place?

See also Sanford and Gosselin.

Science-deniers prevail in House vote

From the WSJ (Strassel: The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com) the "debate" over man-made climate change may be just beginning, regardless of yesterday's Cap and Tax vote in the U.S. House:

"Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone."

Sanford and Gosselin

I just watched a video of SC Governor Mark Sanford's press conference (here) and I have been following the "Jon & Kate" saga over the past few days, and I can only say that men, particularly husbands, are taking a bath.

It is painful to watch the mealy-mouthed statements of these guys about what they're doing or what they have done. Every country-fied or southernized phrase out of Sanford's mouth made my stomach hurt; it almost seemed like he was enjoying the attention at this press conference. He was too comfortable.

Jon Gosselin expressed his "sad[ness]" and "excite[ment]" in his first public statements (on Monday's Jon & Kate Plus 8 broadcast) about divorcing his wife and the mother of his children . . . he said he was "proud" that he was "finally standing on his own two feet" (whatever that means; though I doubt he meant to say he was hereafter proverbially paying his own freight).

It is so important that guys have someone in their lives--or will allow someone into their lives, who is willing to tell them uncomfortable truths. I need to be cultivating those types of relationships myself.

Say aloha to the Pro Bowl

This may be old news, but I just read that the 2010 Pro Bowl is (a) going to be played on the Sunday before the Super Bowl and (b) is not going to be played in Hawaii (here).

I definitely like the idea of filling the typically "off" week before the Super Bowl with an event--the coverage of preparation for the Super Bowl gets tiring real quick, and there's bound to be more interest in a game that is played before the interest in professional football climaxes in the Super Bowl.

Perhaps NFL types will miss having a reason to travel to the Aloha State, but it is hard not to think that the game--which is typically viewed as post-season walk-thru, will have a different feel if played in the pre-Super Bowl atmosphere and the Super Bowl venue.

Making hay out of straw men

Give me a break, Forrester.

Goforth's email was definitely racist. I don't condone that kind of stuff, and it is doubly offensive that she used state property (and likely state time) to send the email.

But this was not racist.

And the "Magic Negro" bit was satire, making fun of LIBERALS' view of Obama.

Stereotyping Republicans as racists conveniently stokes the racial division in our state and country. Grow up Chip.

Let's debate education!

It is fascinating to read the arguments (now Democrat State Rep. Mike Turner is blaming busing--which we've always heard is "code" for racism . . .) about how to improve education in the comments section over at Post Politics.

Folks, there's no evidence that inadequate spending is the cause for the problems with public school. Conspiracy of Ignorance is a great resource on the subject, but this 1999 report touches on some of the same concepts:

The program, "Public Schools in Bad Shape," was broadcast on November 12, 1999. In it, New York City Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew warned that it would be wrong to create the idea that failure is "sewn within the fabric of public schools." Stossel agreed, noting that some public schools do good work.

"But the big truth is that in city after city, the Catholic schools do better, spending less than half as much" as government-run schools, said Stossel. And while Catholic schools offer fewer union job protections, the bottom line is that "it sure seems good for the kids," with Catholic school graduation rates far outstripping those in the public schools.


Why Catholic Schools Succeed

How do U.S. Catholic schools do well on about $3,000 per student, when Crew says the New York City schools need even more than the $8,000 per student that is currently spent? Classes in Catholic schools are much larger than in the government schools, teachers are not paid as much, and many are teaching without a four-year degree and without a masters degree.

"Maybe it's not the money," suggested Stossel, "but about accountability and competition."

Maybe.

UPDATE: Here's a more current study and report that demonstrates the same thing: inadequate funding is not the problem with public education. Spending on public education has more than doubled in America since 1971 . . .

UPDATE II: Here's the video broadcast of the Stossel report.

The best of both worlds!!

Well, if you were waiting to hear Miley Cyrus weigh in on homosexual marriage, your wait is over! From a news report:

[Perez] Hilton's comments [referring to Miss California Carrie Prejean as a b***ch and c***t] have drawn sharp reaction, even from those who might also disagree with Prejean's answer.

"I am an openly gay man and a supporter of same sex marriage and I wish Perez Hilton would shut up," writes syndicated talk show host Charles Karel Bouley in a column on Huffington Post. "This is a person who is famous for smearing snarky and crude things over celebrity photos and following Brittney's every move. He lives for controversy and is only famous for it."

However, celebrity Miley Cyrus sided with Hilton in a Twitter conversation.

"Ya that's lame!" the "Hannah Montana" star wrote. "God's greatest commandment is to love. And judging is not loving. That's why Christians have such a bad rep."

Christ surely taught that we should love others, but either there is such a thing as right and wrong, or you should stop judging Prejean for judging, Miley.

Do you hate Palin that much?

I think it is silly to try and defend David Letterman's joke that former GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin's daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez . . . it was obviously a reference to the daughter of Palin (14-year-old Willow) who was in attendance with Sarah Palin at the Yankees game, where she (Willow) might have had a chance to meet the womanizing A-Rod, and--like her older sister, gotten knocked up . . . get it?

Letterman is appropriately being condemned for the attempt at humor.

Slice of tragedy (and criminal behavior) from America's heartland

I happened upon this mugshot gallery from greater Indianapolis (I assume) after following a link to the 10-year-old killed by lightning story. It occurred to me how often in a day or week such tragedies are repeated. It helps me be content with the challenges that I'm expecting to face today.

An off-duty cop arrested for DUI.

An asst. bank manager busted (in an amusing course of events) for pilfering cash.

An idiot who killed two people while racing a refurbed '68 Camaro.

Some high school punks busted for "hazing" some freshmen (that's a euphemism, sounds like bullying and assaulting are more accurate).

A washed up musician, whose stage name was Henry Lee Summer, arrested for meth possession. Apparently (according to wikipedia, he has a bit of a history).

A female teacher/male student arrest . . . a pastor statutory rape arrest . . . a DUI while operating a full school bus arrest . . .

And it goes on and on . . .

A "don't ask, don't tell" policy of their own

It appears the Left will need a new "don't ask, don't tell" policy of its own in dealing with the Obama's administration. Aubrey Sarvis: Under Obama "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Will Pass Away . Here's a nice screen shot from over at Huff Post.

What is unfavorable to a majority of voters . . .

Matthew Hurtt has linked to a Gallup poll on the favorability of Nancy Pelosi and Dick Cheney. Cheney’s favorable rating higher than Pelosi’s, according to Gallup.

I have always believed that the majority or at least plurality of voters (who do not belong at either end of the political spectrum) may not have strong opinions on particular policies, but they do have strong opinions about the political character of the candidate, in particular, a candidate's perceived candor and independence. And I believe that Cheney's modestly higher popularity marks over Pelosi are related to this principle. Like him or not, Dick Cheney is viewed (in the reigning hyper-partisan, hyper-politicized climate) as more authentic than Nancy Pelosi by more people.

And, to reiterate, both of these folks have unenviable favorability numbers, but it is no surprise to me that Cheney would best Pelosi in these ratings . . . despite his near-constant pillorying, vilification and demonization in the MSM and in the Left side of the Blogosphere.

See also skepticism from ACK.

A couple things about Bill Hobbs' TNGOP departure

I was somewhat surprised to read this a.m. (here) that Bill Hobbs had been shown the (front) door at TNGOP. That being said . . .

--the phrase, "a communications director is ineffective if his/her name is a part of the story" is hackneyed. In the age of the search engine, the weblog and the never-ending campaign the identity of ANY effective, much less "controversial" communications director will almost definitely be part of "the story."
--it is a stretch to declare that Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker are representative of the average Republican voter; thus, it is foolish to state that any Communications Director not to their liking is out of touch or not representative of the average Republican voter.
--I agree with commenter "Terry" over at AAACK's place: "The grassroots recognizes and truly appreciates all the hard work and effort of Bill Hobbs. When a man does a job because he believes in it instead of what he can get out of it, it always shows."

See also,
Bill Hobbs’ Red-Meat Style a Factor in Losing State GOP Job | Politics Beat Blog | Memphis Flyer

What’s Going on with the Republicans?! « Tiny Cat Pants

It's Obama on Line 1

Apparently a little pressure from the Obama Administration is helping break a Democrat lock-step against improving education.

Charter School Bill Back In Play

See also KnoxViews.

Why the controversy? UPDATE

An encouraging report from Kay Brooks ("Grad gift from Governor Bredesen"):

Gov. Phil Bredesen (D), who kept his cards close to the vest, signed the homeschool diploma bill this afternoon. HB0431/SB0433 was filibustered by the Democrats for nearly 2 hours two weeks ago as they fought tooth and nail to keep students with Category IV diplomas from getting jobs as police officers (despite getting their college degrees), or day care workers, auctioneers, hair dressers or pedorthists (among other jobs). I'm thankful to the Governor for not vetoing this and letting the community and the state to move on to more pressing issues.

(emphasis mine)


UPDATE: Liz Garrigan weighs in on the counter-revolutionaries. Hat tip, Kleinheider.

A couple things about George Tiller's murder

AC Kleinheider's has posted a statement from "all around religious rightist" Richard Land regarding this weekend's murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, M.D. (Richard Land Rebukes Abortion Provider Assassination). In response to various commenters to the post:

--The State has the authority to deprive someone of life within specific guidelines, despite what hippies may say. Tiller's killer was not acting on behalf of the State.

--Performing a partial-birth abortion is not, yet, a capital offense, so executing a partial-birth abortionist is not legal.

--It is rich to see someone quote the "golden rule" in arguing for intentionally ending the life of a child only months prior to birth.

Smacking down moralistic moral equivalency

A little history lesson (here) about ending WWII for Jon Stewart.

Living free versus dying

This morning I was reading the latest edition of Imprimis. The essay from Mark Steyn hammers the reality that we are inclined to want many things other than freedom when push comes to shove. From the article:

"Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor," wrote Charles Murray in In Our Hands. "When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome."

The key word here is "give." When the state "gives" you plenty—when it takes care of your health, takes cares of your kids, takes care of your elderly parents, takes care of every primary responsibility of adulthood—it's not surprising that the citizenry cease to function as adults: Life becomes a kind of extended adolescence—literally so for those Germans who've mastered the knack of staying in education till they're 34 and taking early retirement at 42. Hilaire Belloc, incidentally, foresaw this very clearly in his book The Servile State in 1912. He understood that the long-term cost of a welfare society is the infantilization of the population.

I thought of the subject again over lunch with a friend as we discussed the stress of employment and paying bills and most-things-work-related . . . a comfortable, secure, high-quality-of-life job is very appealing at times. Steyn's article, beyond any perceived (or real) relationship to contemporary partisan politics, provides insight into a founding principle of our great republic: Live free or die.

Wow, "more info" equals "more pro-life"?

I've heard some speculation that recent polling trends (in favor of the pro-life position) were a reflection of push-back following the election of the most abortion-friendly president in American history, but this article suggests that the pro-life trend (which has been occurring over several years) may be the result of increased use and availability of ultra-sound.

Iranian "Elections"

I was intrigued by the headline, "Iran approves candidates," linking to an article about Iran's upcoming presidential election. From the article:

Campaigning has officially got under way in Iran's presidential elections, with just four people cleared to run out of the 475 who registered.

Iran's Guardian Council cleared four candidates, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president, to run for election, Iran's Jumhuri-ye Eslami newspaper reported on Thursday.

The Guardian Council likely thinks they're "guarding" the people from themselves.

Pro-life legislation finally gets a vote in TN House

Pro-life victory in TN: SJR 127 passes the House at last.

Hey, is Nancy Pelosi a lawyer?

There's a "movement" afoot to disbar 12 Bush Administration attorneys for their purported support of "torture." VELVETREVOLUTION.US : The DisbarTortureLawyers Campaign:

Torture is illegal under both United States and international law. The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and it states that treaties signed by the U.S. are the “supreme Law of the Land” under Article Six. The Geneva Convention and The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment both prohibit torture and have been signed by the United States. These laws provide no exception for torture under any circumstances. Moreover, the United States Criminal Code prohibits both torture and war crimes, the latter which includes torture. The Army Field Manual prohibits the use of degrading treatment of detainees.

Despite this well-established law, under the Bush administration, torture was authorized by George Bush and kept secret using classified designations. The White House requested legal memoranda to support its use of torture and it received those authored by a host of attorneys, including John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury. Attorneys who advised, counseled, consulted and supported those memoranda included Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Michael Chertoff, Alice Fisher, William Haynes II, Douglas Feith, Michael Mukasey, Timothy Flanigan, and David Addington.

(emphasis mine). Well, it wasn't exactly kept a secret.

Majority of Americans "pro-life"

Poll: Majority of Americans Are Pro-Life for the First Time

Fifty-one percent of Americans consider themselves "pro-life" and just 42 percent say they are "pro-choice," the first time a majority of the country has stated a personal objection to abortion since Gallup polls began tracking the data 15 years ago.

See Newsbusters for more info on the poll.

Remembering 9/11

While I was at youtube, I came across this stirring documentary about 9/11. It is an excellent reminder of the enemy we face in Jihadist Islam.

Great movie speeches . . .

Great art inspires us to great things, in my opinion. This movie clip inspires me to be willing to fight and risk loss.

What song brings a tear to your eye?

Tea Party Primer

If you have been following coverage of yesterday's Tea Parties (even reports about the CNN Chicago Tea Party dust up) you might not have a firm grasp on what the Tea Parties were/are about (I'm not sure I could have told you even though I took part).

Well, my friend The Blue Collar Muse (Ken Marrero) provides the best Tea Party Primer that I've seen, below.

A lot of material to work with

A little known (or appreciated) policy in Tennessee is that whichever party has the majority of total members in the General Assembly gets the majority of seats on every county's Election Commission--the people that hire the person who runs every county's election apparatus. Well, I just saw this Tom Humphrey report that,

County election administrators who are fired because of their political affiliation could successfully file lawsuits against county election commissions, according to state Attorney General Bob Cooper.

Given the challenges that seem inherent to administering elections (and have seemed largely intractable for Democrat-chosen election administrators) the newly-Republican controlled election commissions should have no problem removing many election administrators "for cause."

The intersection of isolated lives

I had missed the story about a missing California 8-year-old girl until today, when it was announced yesterday that a pastor's granddaughter had been arrested in the slaying:

A Sunday school teacher was booked early today on suspicion of murder and kidnapping in the slaying of 8-year-old Sandra Cantu, whose body was found in a suitcase in an irrigation pond.

This reminded me of several other recent reports of murders, for example, the man in Binghamton, NY who went on a shooting spree in an immigrant community service center or the man in Pittsburgh who seems to have ambushed and murdered several police officers for no apparent "reason." The information on the California arrest is sketchy, but it appears that they have likely found at least one person involved in the murder.

My anger at such perpetrators is palpable, but I eventually get to thinking about the challenge of predicting or preventing such crimes. It has become cliche to read the statements of people who knew such murderers: "s/he was quiet," "he kept to himself," "never would have imagined s/he would do something like this."

As I contemplated the whole "Sunday School teacher" aspect of the CA story, I began thinking of my own children and my own church. Given the protocols and circumstances of our church, I don't really have any concerns about my children when they're in the care of our learning center. For example, I know that our church does background checks on volunteers, and there is a requirement that at least three people be present at any given time, especially when using "the facilities." But I also know how "desperately" we have to recruit people willing to serve in the learning center. And in a small church, those protocols would be difficult to implement.

I worry that in our culture it has become increasingly difficult to avoid becoming a victim to such crimes. It has become more difficult (a) to avoid crossing paths with criminally-inclined people and (b) to even know that someone is criminally-inclined. I don't know what the "push back" is. I think we must be wise about allowing someone too much "access" to our lives without a basis for trusting them with that access. I also think that a right-to-carry permit can be a useful "hedge" against those in our society who are demonstrating an increasingly bold appetite for violence.

Bush responsible for hate murders in Iraq

Comcast.net: Gays killed in Baghdad as clerics urge clampdown: "Homosexuality is prohibited almost everywhere in the Middle East, but conditions have become especially dangerous for gays and lesbians in Iraq since the rise of religious militias after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein six years ago."

Way cool . . .

Liberal Originalists? Whatever works . . .

In this article ("Rethinking the Constitution's Original Intent" - WSJ.com) about a movement among some Liberal legal scholars' toward Originalism (i.e., interpreting the Constitutional based on what was intended in its original text), there is this revealing statement about this "movement."

Professed Liberal Originalist Douglas Kendall provides some historical context for Liberal Originalism and refers to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who, ostensibly, represented the ideals of Liberal Originalism but ultimately threw in the towel:

"Black was the great progressive textualist, and once he lost the battle, the court decided that avenue is closed," says Kendall. Other justices of the 1950s and '60s, including William Brennan and William O. Douglas, "were less concerned with having the correct test as getting the right answers," he says.

(emphasis added). Yep. "The end justifies the means."

Religious freedom in the U.S.A.

On James Madison's birthday, a fascinating op/ed on his view of so-called "separation of church and state": Madison and Religious Freedom - WSJ.com

Madison and his evangelical allies had a completely different concept. They wanted to promote religion. They just believed that the best way to promote religion was for government to leave it alone.

This basic approach has made America one of the most religiously free and religiously vibrant nations in the world.

Indeed.

Fowler on renewing the "Tennessee Plan"

2/19/2009 - Is Following the State Constitution a Bad Policy? - Opinion - Chattanoogan.com:

"As a former legislator, I know that it is sometimes hard to know what the best policy is and how to balance competing policy values. But it is always a good policy for the legislature to follow the plain, common sense language of the state’s constitution, and it is always bad policy to disregard it. When our fundamental, supreme governing law ceases to be just that, then we are in trouble."

Adoption from A to Z

If you're interested in learning more about adopting a child, you can meet representatives from almost every Middle Tennessee adoption agency (including the Department of Children's Services) and attend seminars hosted by adoption experts at the Middle Tennessee Inter-agency Adoption Coalition's annual conference, Feb. 21, 2009.

Follow this link for more information or to register. The price for the conference, including lunch, is $25 per person (or $35 per couple).


(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the co-chair of IAC . . .)

The Power (and Peril) of Praising Your Kids -- New York Magazine

This article about the impact of praise on children is fascinating, and it resonates. Enjoy . . .

"How Not to Talk to Your Kids--The inverse power of praise." -- New York Magazine:

Re. the "innocence" of Steve Henley . . .

I previously posted (here) about one of the vigil-ants at the Steve Henley execution--Michael McCormick. McCormick purports to be "innocent" of murder after 17 years on death row . . . Henley purported to be innocent all the way up to his lethal injection.

Well, I've looked into the facts of the Henley case, and I'll sleep soundly tonight. You can reach your own conclusion his capital convictions:

State v. Henley
774 S.W.2d 908
Tenn.,1989.
April 10, 1989

In summary the evidence showed that Fred and Edna Stafford lived on Pine Lick Creek Road in Jackson County, just a short distance from the farm, owned by Henley's family, where his grandmother lived. On the day of the Staffords' death Henley had visited his grandmother and obtained some mechanical parts for some work he was doing. Flatt was with him. Earlier in the day they had been driving about, tending to business affairs of Henley's. During that time they had consumed some beer and also had taken some drugs, referred to in the record as Dilaudids. According to Flatt, as they passed the Staffords' residence Henley commented, “there was some people that lived on that road that owed his grandmother or grandfather some money, and they done him wrong, his grandparents wrong years before, and he was going to stop and see about collecting some money off them.” Henley let Flatt out of the truck just before he reached his grandmother's house. When he returned five or ten minutes later he had a .22 rifle with him. They stopped fifty or seventy-five yards up the road where Henley loaded some more shells into the rifle. He also filled a plastic jug with gasoline from a five-gallon can he had in the back of the truck. They proceeded on toward the Stafford residence. When they reached there Mr. and Mrs. Stafford were standing on the left-hand side of the road looking at a small bridge where some construction work had recently been done. Henley stopped the truck, jumped out and told them, “I want your money, if you don't give it to me this man in the truck here, he's going to kill me.” He then directed them to go to the house. Mr. Stafford said, “Steve, if you want money or something, I got $80, maybe $100, you can have it.” He forced them on to the house at gunpoint and told Flatt to bring the .22 rifle as he followed behind them. When they got within 20 or 30 feet of the house he told Flatt to give him the rifle and go back to the truck and get the plastic jug of gasoline. Flatt did as directed. As he reached the porch he saw Henley begin to shoot. He first shot Mr. Stafford then turned and shot Mrs. Stafford a time or two. While she was laying on the floor moaning and groaning he threw the rifle to Flatt, took out his pistol and shot her again with the pistol. He told Flatt to pour out some of the gas. Flatt endeavored to do as he was told and poured out a small amount. When he could not finish Henley took the container of gas from him and finished pouring it out. He then directed Flatt to light it. When Flatt said he could not he struck the match and as the flames went up they ran to the truck.

The house burned to the ground. The bodies of the Staffords were found in the ashes. All that remained of Mr. Stafford's body was part of the right leg and the trunk area. The body of Mrs. Stafford was similarly burned. It was determined that Mr. Stafford died from a gunshot wound to the chest with the bullet passing through his heart. Mrs. Stafford's death was caused by burns and inhalation of noxious gases from the fire. It was the opinion of the medical examiner that Mrs. Stafford lived a minute or longer after the fire began.

. . . .

Defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence on his conviction for first degree murder and for aggravated arson. He says there is no evidence independent of the testimony of Terry Flatt, who was an accomplice as a matter of law, to corroborate Flatt's testimony. He also says that in the absence of any proof of a criminal agency which caused the burning of the Stafford home, he cannot be convicted of arson.

. . . .

The State clearly showed that a crime had taken place. Fred Stafford died as a result of a bullet passing through his heart. Edna Stafford died as a result of burns from the fire and inhalation of gases from the fire. A spent .22 rifle shell was found in the ashes near where Fred Stafford's body was lying. This cartridge was fired from a Marlin .22 rifle, located by law enforcement officers where Flatt testified defendant had hidden it and another weapon after the homicide. This rifle was never positively identified as the murder weapon because of its condition when it was found. David Henley, defendant's brother, testified it was similar to one he had acquired some four or five months before and had left in his grandmother's house for her protection. This rifle had a loose part on the end, as did the State's exhibit and the bluing was scratched off the sight in the same way. The rifle was no longer at his grandmother's house. Ronald Leonard identified the State's exhibit as an automatic .22, Glenfield rifle, made by Marlin, which looked just like a rifle he had traded to David Henley. At the time of the trade the Allen screw securing a ring holding the magazine in place was loose. The ring would slide off and on occasion the rifle would jam when fired. Defendant himself noted the similarity between the State's exhibit and his brother's rifle. He endeavored to place the weapon in the possession of Flatt whom he had left by the roadside while he went to visit his grandmother. This of course was a question for the jury. There was evidence of bad feelings between defendant and the Staffords over a car wreck which he believed was due to the Staffords' fault. The gas can in defendant's truck from which Flatt testified he filled the plastic jug had to be refilled on the weekend following the burning of the Stafford's house. A near neighbor of the Staffords saw defendant drive past, apparently on the way to his grandmother's. Sometime later she heard a loud noise, “maybe an explosion or something real *914 loud. Louder than a gunshot.” A minute or two after that she saw defendant's truck come back down the road. Shortly after that her husband saw smoke coming from the direction of the Stafford house. They went together to see about it. When they arrived there was fire all over, it looked like it was boiling inside. Defendant denied knowing anything about the fire until the next day although a police officer corroborated Flatt's testimony that, on the night of the fire, he told defendant about the fire when he encountered them on the road and stopped to ask directions to the Stafford house. An arson investigator with the State Fire Marshall's Office investigated the fire. He suspected arson although there was no physical evidence of that fact. He did not make any test for accelerants because there was a total burn-out and it was his opinion any accelerant would have been burned away.

"Innocence" is all relative, I guess

It is always interesting to look at the backstory related to news reports surrounding Death Penalty cases. Death Penalty opponents sure know how to work the media.

In this report about TN's execution Of Steve Henley, ("Henley executed, maintains innocence in final words," Nashville City Paper) there was this tidbit towards the end, ostensibly bolstering claims by Henley, Henley's family and Death Penalty opponents that Henley could_be_innocent:

"For those at the vigil, the presence of Michael McCormick – a Tennessee man who spent 17 years on death row before being acquitted and released in 2007 – served as testimony to a legal system that sometimes makes mistakes.

“I’m here to support Steve. I’m here to support all of [those on death row]. I knew them for 20 years,” McCormick said. “The system can fail. People can be executed for crimes they didn’t commit. People need to keep that in mind.”"

Well, I haven't researched Henley's claims of innocence yet, but I encourage you to read the facts--FACTS, from Michael McCormick's case. Yes, he may have been acquitted after being on death row for nearly 20 years, but you can judge for yourself whether he was "innocent."

Supreme Court of Tennessee,
at Knoxville.
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee,
v.
Michael Lee McCORMICK, Appellant.
Sept. 25, 1989.
778 S.W.2d 48 (Tenn. 1989)

OPINION

DROWOTA, Chief Justice.
This is a direct appeal from the first degree murder conviction and capital sentence imposed upon Michael Lee McCormick for the shooting death of Donna Jean Nichols. The sentence is based on the jury's unanimous verdict that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant. T.C.A. § 39-2-203(i)(6).

Defendant vigorously challenges the sufficiency of the proof of both his participation in the killing and the aggravating circumstance found by the jury. He also contends the introduction of incriminating statements he made to an undercover officer violates his constitutional right to counsel under the fifth and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution. In addition to other evidentiary issues, he raises two issues regarding the constitutionality of the statute under which he was sentenced. After review of the record and the law, we find no error, and affirm the conviction and the sentence.

At about 2:00 a.m. Thursday, February 14, 1985, the body of the victim was discovered in a parking area along Brainerd Road in Chattanooga. The witness, Arlinza Mobley, immediately notified the police and related that he had been gathering cardboard and boxes discarded from businesses in the area when he came upon another vehicle. He saw the taillights of the vehicle come on, and it sped away, leaving what appeared to be a pile of rags. Mr. Mobley then saw a “steaming” body lying in a pool of blood.

Two head wounds were apparent, as well as one on the hand. One spent shell casing was on the ground nearby. An autopsy later that morning showed that Jeanie Nichols had been shot at very close range, the bullet entering behind her right ear, severing the brain stem, and exiting through the left temple. Death had been almost instantaneous. No projectiles were found in the body. The victim's blood alcohol content showed she was very intoxicated.

Through information on a personal check found in the victim's pocket, police learned her identity and a description of her car. At 4:46 a.m. the car was found in an auto service parking lot that was frequently used by customers of the adjacent Beach Club, a singles' night spot. The victim's pocketbook, its contents intact, two spent projectiles and two 9 mm shell casings were recovered from the front passenger compartment. These casings and the one found at the scene were fired from the same gun, either a 9 mm or .45 calibre weapon. Faint smudges of blood stained *50 the covers of the front seats, and a thick film of blood covered the frame and exterior panel below the passenger door. A substance appearing to be brain tissue was visible on the carpet of the passenger side.

The victim was at home until approximately 9:30 on the night of the 13th. At 9:45 she met a man she dated frequently, and they had drinks at Merv's restaurant. When they separated at 11:30, Jeanie Nichols was driving the car later found near the Beach Club. She announced she was going to “hit” Brainerd Road, by which her companion understood she planned to visit various night spots in the area.

Over the following week police learned about, and later established at trial, a connection between Defendant McCormick and the victim. Defendant was a friend of Nichols' younger brother Hap, with whom she shared an apartment in their grandmother's home. According to Hap, he and Defendant became acquainted at Dalton Junior College, where he was enrolled as a student and Defendant worked as a media technician until 1984. The two men regularly consumed drugs together and had committed a burglary at the college and stolen electronic equipment. When the victim completed her pharmacy degree and moved to Chattanooga in 1984, she discovered these activities and McCormick's identity. She insisted that the stolen equipment be moved from the house and that her brother end his association with Defendant. Hap Nichols related all this to Defendant at the time, as McCormick later admitted, and he removed the equipment. According to family members, Jeanie was very proud of her career, had worked her way through school, and had undertaken to straighten out her brother's life.

At 9 o'clock on the morning of February 14, Defendant telephoned his ex-wife to report the Nichols' murder. He claimed that he had been dating the victim and that he had bought her a drink at 9:30 the previous night at a club called “Faces” and tried to cash a check for her. He also claimed he had been questioned by the police, although this was clearly untrue.

It was also learned that Defendant had visited at the home of a former girlfriend, near his parents' home, from 9:30 to 11:10 p.m. on February 13. He was driving his employer's red truck, and he left saying it was too early to go home. This witness reported that Defendant was intoxicated and behaved in a bizarre fashion and he spent some time removing something he had hidden under her house.

At this point McCormick was questioned by Detective Dudley of the Chattanooga Police Department. He acknowledged his acquaintance with Nichols but denied he had seen the victim since her return to Chattanooga. He said he had met a childhood friend at Bennigan's on the evening of February 13. They had a few drinks and left in separate vehicles for the Brainerd Beach Club. He had left the Beach Club at 11:00 or 11:30 p.m. and gone straight to his parent's home, where he lived. When confronted with the contradictory information police had gathered, Defendant admitted the call to his wife, but insisted he fabricated the story to engender sympathy and jealousy. He first denied involvement in the burglary to which Hap Nichols had confessed, but he said Hap's sister was present when he removed the stolen items from their home. He claimed confusion about the date of his visit to his former girlfriend, but did not deny it. He denied possessing a gun, saying he did not trust himself with one. Defendant invoked his right to counsel, and the remainder of the interview was not admitted at trial.

Defendant consented to the gathering of samples of hair, saliva, etc. and to a search of his house and vehicles. With one exception, nothing of interest was found. A hair collected from the interior of the victim's car was determined to have features similar to his, and could have come from the Defendant.

Shortly after this interview and search, Defendant left town and spent some time in Arizona. He returned, was convicted of the college burglary, and served a sentence followed by parole.

Defendant's account of his whereabouts on February 13 was confirmed in part by *51 the childhood friend, who had seen him at Bennigan's and later at the Beach Club. This witness left the Beach Club before 10 p.m.

It was also learned that McCormick and the victim had been seen together. An employee of the Revco Drug Store, where Jeanie Nichols worked at the time of her death, testified she and the victim had gone out together during this time. She reported three disturbing encounters she witnessed between Nichols and McCormick during the three weeks before the murder. Twice he had come to the pharmacy counter with another man and engaged the victim in conversation. On February 7 he and another man had approached her at a bar, and they had talked privately for a long time. Each of these conversations left the normally talkative and cheerful victim in a depressed mood.

Almost two years after the murder, January 21, 1987, Chattanooga Police arranged for Defendant to meet Eddie Cooper in a Georgia parole office. Cooper was an undercover officer posing as a parolee. The two moved into a motel apartment together, and over the next four weeks Cooper gained Defendant's confidence and included him in several purported transfers of stolen cars.

Early on, Defendant asked if they needed to go armed in these transactions and said he had a .45 calibre handgun. He conversed about murderers he had met in prison and professed to know about contract murder, but he made no mention of the Nichols killing. Cooper then hinted he had been offered twenty thousand dollars to perform a murder in Knoxville.

On February 9, Detective Dudley staged the arrest of a customer in a bar in the presence of Defendant and Cooper, and he spoke to Defendant. Defendant was visibly shaken. Cooper demanded to know whether Defendant was under suspicion, in light of their mutual illegal activities. Defendant explained about the burglary conviction and the murder investigation. Over the next few days Cooper pursued the subject, ostensibly concerned about their safety and Defendant's trustworthiness. When asked why anyone would kill a woman, Defendant replied, “For instance, a woman knew more about you than you wanted them to know, possibly enough that would put you in the penitentiary.... There's some things you just don't tell on yourself.” He claimed he had refused one thousand dollars to kill Jeanie Nichols, but he knew the murderer. According to him the motive related to the drug inventory at her place of employment and she “was going to spill her guts.” Defendant also said Nichols had been shot three times with a 9 mm or .45 calibre weapon, once in the temple, once behind the ear, and once in the hand. He stated the gun “wasn't two inches from her head.” Later he said he did not know why she had been killed.

Cooper pretended to be friends with a local probation officer who had information about the murder, and on February 11, Defendant insisted that Cooper confirm that the murder weapon was a .45. He said, “I think I know where one is [but] it wouldn't be that one. I can guarantee that.”

On February 16, Cooper exchanged a large sum of money with another man in Defendant's presence, admittedly a ruse to suggest that he had engaged another accomplice for the Knoxville “contract.”

On February 17, 1987, the Defendant unexpectedly began to confess to Nichols' murder. Cooper managed to record the conversation, which was played for the jury along with several previous conversations. Defendant said that he had killed Nichols but not for $1,000.00. Supposedly, she was “holding out” some drugs. He claimed that he had killed her “over some money” and said he had been paid $3,500.00 but did not name who had paid him. He and Nichols had met at the Beach Club and left together. He had then killed her, dumped her body in Eastgate, parked her car at an automatic transmission business near the Beach Club, and driven away in his van. In one cryptic remark, he implied that the time of the murder was 10:37 p.m. He also said he had taken the gun apart and thrown the pieces into four or five different rivers.

*52 The Defendant's parents testified that Defendant, who was an adopted child, had a serious drinking problem and had been living with them at the time of the murder. They testified that he had come home that evening between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m. Shortly thereafter he went out again for a few minutes but did not take a vehicle. He returned around 12:10 a.m. and remained with his mother in the living room from 1:00 to 2:00 a.m., and he retired at 3:00 a.m.

At the sentencing phase the State presented no further proof. In mitigation, Defendant's father described his son's serious drinking problem, which had begun at age 14 or 15. It became worse, and was complicated by marijuana use, after his discharge from the Air Force in 1974. He had twice entered treatment programs, but in 1984 when he returned home after his divorce, the drinking had become constant. Defendant's alcoholism was corroborated by the trial testimony of various acquaintances. In addition, counsel argued Defendant had no significant criminal history. T.C.A. 39-2-203(j)(1), (8).

Tortured Liberal indignation

What Congress Knew About 'Torture' - WSJ.com

Hippocratic Oath v. "Conscience"

Interesting article about Rights of Conscience in the healthcare profession, First Things » Blog Archive » The Hippocratic Oath, Persona Non Grata. From the post:

To keep from so throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I suggest that we consider at least two crucial distinctions in determining what would be a protected refusal to provide a requested medical intervention; first, between elective and non-elective procedures, and second between treatments and patients. Thus, doctors should be permitted to refuse elective procedures—that is, interventions not immediately necessary to save the patient’s life or prevent serious physical harm—if their conscience so dictates, whether it be rhinoplasty, abortion, or assisted suicide. To prevent care refusals from being a mere cover for discriminatory attitudes, the requested procedure should generally be what violates the conscience, not bias against the patient. In this way, for example, an oncologist should not be able to refuse to treat a lung-cancer patient because the patient smoked or was a member of a racial minority.

Hat tip: ADF Alliance Alert

Hamas living by the sword

Hamas leader Rayan lived by the sword. ("Bodies of Hamas leader's children paraded as group promises 'painful' revenge for their deaths"). From the end of the article:

[Rayan] was preaching in a local mosque on the day before he was killed and said: "Our only language with the Jew is through the gun."

Abortion extremism

Who are the extremists on abortion?

A new Harris Poll finds a plurality of Americans want all or most abortions to be illegal and overwhelming majorities of Americans want more abortion limits in law. The nationwide poll showed just 9 percent said abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy -- Barack Obama's position.

Obama's Jihadist challenge

This article about the recent military conflict in Gaza reminded me of an Obama statement way-back-when threatening unilateral military action against Pakistan--a statement for which many people (even Conservatives) criticized him:

The Gaza Strip is just a microcosm of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism. Unless and until nations such as Iran and Syria are forced to end state sponsorship of terrorism, any victories we or the Israelis achieve will be short-lived. The longer we and the rest of the civilized world deny that fact, terrorism will succeed.

I haven't paid close enough attention to see if Obama ever recanted the comment, and I'm not sure whether he was serious anyway.

Auld Lang Syne - "Days Gone By"

Auld Lang Syne - Lyrics and MIDI:

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
And here's a hand, my trusty friend
And gie's a hand o' thine
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne

Happy New Year!

Inconvenient Truthiness

I enjoyed this "global climate change" post from Drew Thornley. Dude brings up some interesting points. From the post:

The Summer 2008 issue wrongly imagines a global warming crisis and blames it on CO2 released by combustion of fossil fuels:

“Houses, roads and airports buckle because the permafrost is no longer permanent.” The permafrost melts because the ground is heated by the structures themselves, not by CO2.

Polar bears “are drowning.” Like humans, polar bears occasionally drown because they spend a lot of time on the water. Polar bears survived warmer periods than the present, and their numbers worldwide are the highest in decades.

“The reefs are bleaching.” Some are, especially when people dump raw sewage on them. CO2 is not the problem. Reef corals evolved hundreds of millions of years ago when both temperatures and atmospheric CO2 were significantly higher than they are today.

“Kilimanjaro’s snow is melting.” A recent retreat was a function of reduced precipitation, not higher temperatures. As of May 2008, the Tanzanian government reported that snow cover on the mountain is increasing.

The “polar ice cap is retreating.” Which one? Antarctic ice sheets and sea ice are growing. The retreat of ice in the Arctic likely has been caused by ocean floor volcanic activity since 1999, wind patterns that have blown ice into warmer waters and heat-trapping soot from industry in Asia.

Sea levels are “rising.” So they are, at the same rate as they have been for decades.

Storms are “frequent and destructive.” No more than usual, except that we have put massive new coastal development in harm’s way.

Temperatures are “increasing.” Not since 1998 they’re not. After a very active period in recent decades, solar activity has begun to settle down, taking temperatures down with it even as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb.

Gregory A. Inskip ’77
Delaware

Merry Christmas!

George C. Scott's rendition of Scrooge's change of heart:



Another favorite Christmas movie denouement--I love when Jimmy Stewart can't help but kiss that loose banister ball.

A man who didn't want to be lionized

With the ensuing hubbub about Frost/Nixon, it is interesting to consider the story of Mark Felt (aka Deep Throat). (Pat Buchanan--"On the Death of Deep Throat") From the article:

. . . the passing of Mark Felt, associate director of the FBI in the later Nixon years, lately exposed as "Deep Throat," the source for the Woodward-Bernstein stories, calls forth some rebuttal to the tributes lavished upon Felt as the honest lawman who saved our republic.

When the Watergate break-in was traced to the Committee to Reelect the President, Felt was put in charge of the FBI investigation. Almost immediately, he began to leak to Woodward.

Felt, it is said, was justified, as the White House was interfering with his investigation. False.

This is a moral cloak belatedly cast over more base motives.

While I think that Richard Nixon abused his power as president, I think Felt's story--when considered in proper context, well illustrates some selective lionization by the MSM.

Liberal myths about Dubya

Though George W. Bush wasn't on the ballot this go 'round, his unpopularity in and of itself may have been enough to ensure a Democrat win in the '08 Presidential race, but Liberal post-election gloating merits a little fact-checking . . . RealClearPolitics -- Facts About the Real Bush Record.

Well, I'm offended that . . .

Barney Frank is getting nationwide coverage of offense taken (here) concerning previous moral views held by others (in this case, Rick Warren).

My turn now?

Demagoguery (not) made easy

In this intriguing op/ed from Bill Kristol (about how "social conservatives" can do more than simply protest for the next for years) is this salient point:

And the selection of Rick Warren may turn out to have significance beyond short-term political maneuvering. One can see this from the hysteria on the left and among gay activists. They sense that Obama isn't willing to sign on to their campaign to delegitimize, to cast out beyond the pale of polite society, anyone who opposes same-sex marriage--and in particular, anyone (like Warren) who supported Proposition 8 in California, the initiative that overturned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, Sean Braisted is really struggling to reconcile Obama's choice for Inauguration Invocator in Chief with Obama's "inclusive" campaign for president. Nashville for the 21st Century: To Invocate or Not To Invocate, That Is The Question.

But Sean mistakenly equates Obama's seeming tolerance of Warren's views on homosexual acts with hypothetical tolerance of, say, opposition to religious intermarriage. As commenter Goldnl notes, many Jews disagree with "religious intermarriage," and whereas homosexual acts are named as sin in the Bible, religious intermarriage is merely labeled as unwise.

But Sean also mistakenly asserts that Obama's exclusion of Jeremiah Wright way back when disproves that the Warren Decision is evidence of Obama's inclusiveness when it comes to filling invocation slots. Sean is in the clear minority in believing that conscientious opposition to homosexual "marriage" is the same as Wright's racist theology. As Kristol points out,

The left senses that the invitation to Rick Warren is a blow to their effort to establish a soft tyranny of "correct" opinion, to enforce society-wide political orthodoxy, on social issues. They're right. This isn't the time for conservatives to snipe at Obama's motives. It's time to welcome him into the American mainstream, to salute the president-elect's progress from Reverends Wright to Warren.

New, non-ideological approach to science? Riiiiight.

Wow, Obama is purportedly purging the Federal gov't of science deniers. Appointments signal change in approach to science - The Denver Post:

"From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way," Obama said in announcing his selections in his weekly radio address. "'Leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process. Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources — it's about protecting free and open inquiry.

'It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology,' he said. 'I could not have a better team to guide me in this work,' Obama said."

And you gotta love the unintentional "internet inventor" shout out to the failed divinity and law school student Al Gore . . .

Yeah, I'm ideological

Great article about the emptiness of political "pragmatism," in particular the illustration of Bush's GWOT policy (what Charlie Gibson might call, the Bush Doctrine). Here's the plum paragraph from the op/ed:

When people praise a policy or a politician as “pragmatic,” they’re often simply praising themselves for being open-minded. They are projecting a false pretense of objectivity, premised on the conceit that they are utterly free of ideology while their opponents are mired in prejudice. In fact, a so-called pragmatist’s support for a policy indicates only two things: that he agrees with the policy’s goal, and that he believes the policy is likely to achieve the goal in an efficient way. But these are precisely the controversies at the core of every old ideological dispute: Which goals should we strive for? And what is the best way to achieve these goals? Pragmatism as a catch phrase does not displace those ideological questions, but does a great deal to obscure them. It is, to borrow from Kant, a vain delusion and a chimerical vision of mankind. Which, on second thought, might explain its popularity in the age of Hope and Change.

the power of marketing

Here's an interesting experiment that demonstrates the power of marketing to shape perceptions. I think it is undisputed that Apple has extraordinarily effective marketing, and I'm curious to see whether Microsoft's efforts to counter i-marketing will ever succeed.

Background checking run amok!!

A Rob Briley press release WBIR news report from today shows that EVERYone is doing it ("it" being running illegal background checks on citizens). Well, not exactly. WBIR.com | Knoxville, TN | Third trooper ran background checks:

Another highway patrol officer has been reprimanded for accessing the same state criminal justice computer portal as Lt. Ronnie Shirley, according to a department spokesman.

Tennessee Highway Patrol Sgt. Clifford Babits received a written reprimand for running checks on his wife, Dorothy Babits, who is a Department of Safety employee, and two adult children and his ex-wife, agency spokesman Mike Browning said Tuesday.

. . . .

A third THP officer, Lt. Robert Eckerman, is being investigated for accessing the portal info of his wife, son and ex-wife. Eckerman's attorney says his client believes the investigation is retaliation because he was the officer who started the Shirley investigation after discovering his information had been accessed.

This reminds me of the common misuse of crime statistics, particularly those regarding homicide. Comparing a guy who ran an unauthorized background check on his wife to what Briley's client, Lt. Ronnie Shirley, is accused of doing is comparing apples to oranges. Most Tennesseans need not be worried that Babits' or Eckerman's conduct.

Will ideology continue trumping science?

On abortion: what needs protection

An article at Slate Magazine (and Newsweek) poses the question Why do we protect the moral convictions of only some health workers? It is an interesting article about how so-called "right of conscience" and mandatory informed consent laws for healthcare professionals are threatening "freedom" of the favored folks in the abortion debate: Abortion-supporters and women who want abortions. Dahlia Lithwick concludes the op/ed thusly:

Even beyond the problem of subordinating a woman's rights to those of her health care providers, however, there looms here a larger question for the health care workers themselves: If they are indeed seeing their rights and freedoms to speak and work either hugely expanded or severely restricted based solely on which team they've chosen in the culture wars, they should be wondering whether any of them are really free at all.

Protect someone's right to obtain an abortion (by forcing someone to perform the procedure or forcing someone to pay for it)? This shows the diceyness of loopy Liberal discussions about "rights." And though it is predictable, it never ceases to amaze me how most arguments from abortion advocates completely ignore the nascent human life.

By the way, Lithwick's principal premise in the piece--that there's no evidence that abortion has any significant psychological impact on a woman's psyche, is very controversial. But scientific studies aside, abortion apologist's latest line of attack is illogical. Why should abortion ever need to be "rare"--as Democrats have begun to say since Bill Clinton's prominence, if it is no big deal?

I guess if opponents of abortion would just shut up there would be no crisis of conscience in choosing an abortion, huh?

TN Constitutional Officers interviews

Here's an interesting link to view live-streaming of candidates for TN Constitutional offices (Senate Video). Click on "senate schedule" and then on "Joint Republican Caucus Hearing on Constitutional Officers Applicants."

Kudos to the new Republican majority for making this process so open.

Jim Bryson's up right now . . .

"Quotes" etched in the public's memory

Yesterday I was thinking about the media's power to shape public perception--making myths into political "realities" . . . then I read how a non-quote from a Republican was the most "memorable" "quote" for the Yale Law faculty member who compiles an annual list of Most Memorable quotes. ("Palin tops list of memorable quotes"). From the report:

Sarah Palin lost the election, but she's a winner to a connoisseur of quotations.

The Republican vice presidential candidate and her comedic doppelganger, Tina Fey, took the top two spots in this year's list of most memorable quotes compiled by Fred R. Shapiro.

First place was "I can see Russia from my house!" spoken in satire of Palin's foreign policy credentials by Fey on "Saturday Night Live."

Palin actual quote was: "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

. . . .

President-elect Barack Obama didn't make the list, not even for his much-criticized remark in which he said some small-town Americans "cling to guns or religion."

"To me it didn't seem like a very remarkable or very foolish quote," said Shapiro, who describes himself as a liberal Democrat. "Ultimately I decided against it, but it was a close call."

Yeah, I'm sure it was.

Ann Coulter on Minnesota's recount

Ann Coulter's op/ed on the latest Democrat election shenanigans is a must read: ("Minnesota Ballots: Land of 10,000 Fakes") From the article:

What is the point of having a hand recount of ballots in the Minnesota Senate race if the Democratic secretary of state is going to use the election night totals in precincts where it will benefit Democrat Al Franken?

Either the hand recount produces a better, more accurate count, or there was no point to the state spending roughly $100,000 to conduct the hand recount in the first place.

But that is exactly what the George Soros-supported secretary of state has agreed to do in the case of a Dinkytown precinct near the University of Minnesota. The hand recount of the liberal precinct produced 133 fewer ballots than the original count on election night and, more important, 46 fewer votes for Franken.

Can I call in "gay"?

I kind of regret that I'm already on vacation, because I'd kind of like to call in "gay" on tomorrow's "Day without a Gay" (well, not really). But how does one qualify?

Those gay activists sure are clever, but I think they're too clever by half, as the question above reflects the biggest weakness in the "gay is the new black" spin: sexual attraction can hardly be said to be immutable, like skin color or gender.

Dang, I just realized they might have to shut down Disney tomorrow . . .