Bloggers: Sorry IF we offended anyone . . .

The hullabaloo over the fired/rehired Edwards! bloggers is intriguing to me for a couple reasons. Edwards Keeps Bloggers on Staff Amid Controversy - washingtonpost.com

First, I perceive that a lot of "bloggers" are misinformed or ignorant about the peculiarity of the blogging audience. It is a narrow slice of the narrow slice of people who get their news online. Given the narrow demographic of bloggers, it is easy to lose a sense of context for your views and the way you express them. That lost sense cuts against being "mainstream."

Along the same lines, I think that "bloggers" cannot expect to be treated with respect or uber-credulity as long as profane, "snarky," and other intentionally offensive rhetoric is their common currency. Indeed, I liked how the in-your-face bloggers at issue said they were sorry if they offended anyone . . . yeah, right.

The two women put out statements in which they offered apologies if they had offended anyone but defended their right to speak their minds."

Did anyone say they didn't have a right to speak their mind? (insert cricket chirping) I didn't think so.

Lastly, I think it is important to note that Edwards wants to at least appear as if he gave these employees a second chance rather than a pass. I don't think it is wise to write off the Catholic group in question as "conservative whackos" or whatever. As Democrats like to say about Dubya creating more Jihadists with his actions, I don't think Edwards wants his staff creating more Reagan Democrats. But, though I think bashing/dismissing Catholics is unwise, I say knock yourself out, Liberals.

Russert's rebellion

Dang, didn't right-wing Russert get the memo about what the Bush Administration expected him to tell investigators?!? (here)

Marriage Protection Amendment national scorecard

FYI: The 2006 national scorecard on homosexual marriage by the numbers: (here).

Sacrosanct environmentalism

I just read this great essay on how Evangelicals should approach the so-called "environmentalist" issue (as well as other political issues). (here)

Here's an excerpt:

"Global warming is a matter of science, not theology. How to address the issue involves prudence rather than faith. Responsible political engagement requires understanding the issue’s complexity, man’s inadequacy, and government’s incapacity. Evangelicals are right to worry about environmental issues, but not to make government action on global warming a new tenet of their faith."

UPDATE: Kat Coble has an interesting post on the subject of Environmentalism here. Incidentally, I don't agree that dissenters on the GWOT are the same as global warming dissenters (there is no objective truth involved with the GWOT in my opinion; thus, dissenting turns into demoralizing grumbling at some point.

Money quote:

So, like crazy Berkley love-in folk, we on the right are feeling the burden of dissent. We feel your mockery and your patronisation. We fully expect it, too. But we also see the power of dissent and the necessity of speaking truth to power. Although in this case "power" is not the Federal Government, but the claque of go-along-to-get-along climatologists who abjure the scientific method in favour of being well-liked by their peers.

What is fascism?

Here's a great post from the bloggerblaster on "fascism." (read it here).

Huckabee's reasonable-sounding-ness

A meaty post arguing that Mike Huckabee should not be running for president. (here).

Though the post is persuasive, I couldn't help but think that Huckabee's "moderate" rhetoric--if it isn't so substantively squishy/"blasphemous" that it forecloses support from Conservatives, is well-suited for attracting non-partisan voters. The first comment (from Jim) expresses a sentiment I've heard from local bloggers--that is, Huckabee is "reasonable"-sounding; ergo, he doesn't sound like a "Conservative." It may be the sister souljah distancing required in our never-ending, toxic, full-court partisan press.

Taxing for income redistribution

Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee have both launched (sort of--"exploratory committees") campaigns for President and announced support for an overhaul of our Federal Income Tax system, namely the "Flat Tax."

This article is interesting because it reflects a Liberal's view of the "flat tax." (here) Here's an excerpt from the article, but suffice to say, the (Liberal) author is most concerned about giving gov't the power to redistribute income.

"Whatever the actual advantages of a flat income tax might be, the conservatives surely must appreciate the fact that flat taxes make government redistribution of income much, much harder. This could well be the real reason why this misguided proposal has cropped up again."

To which I'd reply, where do I sign up?

BigPharma and the Left, sittin' in a tree . . .

At last, BigPharma is in the Left's good graces . . . of course, coercive BigGov't is already in the Left's good graces, so this story is only half "newsworthy."

Merck, which is the manufacturer of the new HPV vaccine, is lobbying state gov'ts to mandate universal use of their vaccine. (here)

As an abstinence advocate and Evangelical, I will admit I had mixed emotions regarding initial reports about the vaccine. For one, I believe that this vaccine undermines (further) God's design for sexual activity--an activity with physical but also moral and emotional implications. And pardon me for not trusting scientists (not to mention agenda-driven scientists who often push the proverbial envelope) with the moral questions about forcing people to take this vaccine.

On the positive side, I'm glad that one of the most life-threatening risks from sex (outside of marriage) has been largely neutralized. I say "largely" because 30% of HPVs will not be prevented. And that 30% of cases, along with the aforementioned moral and emotional implications of sex outside of marriage, represent my hesitation about this news . . . the vaccine doesn't remove all dangers of sex, though it will probably be greeted by teens (and parents alike) as somewhat of a silver bullet. Kind of like setting your teen (who for the purposes of this illustration loves lettuce) loose on a salad bar even though 30% of the lettuce is infected with E. Coli.

We'll see.

Disciplining dilemma

This is another opportunity for some of you to add to your knowledge base about we "authoritarian cultists." (see here) I was thinking all day about spanking and how controversial it has become.

Our youngest has acquired a disgusting habit of spitting/wiping spit on the couch while watching TV and sucking her thumb. Maybe her lack of expertise can be explained by the fact that she hasn't always sucked her thumb . . . but I don't care about the cause, I want it to stop. The couple of other times I've busted her in the act, I've scolded her and tried to reason with her about how unacceptable this spitting habit is.

Well, this a.m., before heading out to work I looked in on the kids watching a kids show. As I glanced at them, I spotted her wiping her mouth on the couch and--upon inspection, I saw that there was a little puddle next to her. Frustrated, I announced (mid Arthur!) that I was turning the TV off and I chided the little rascal for her conduct (her older sibling was thrilled with these consequences). That pronouncement notwithstanding, I had threatened before that a spanking was going to be the consequence if I caught her spitting on the couch again.

As I went back to preparing to leave for work, I started having second thoughts.

Fast forward to later today. I was leaving the mall and spotted a young couple standing beside a car in the parking lot watching 1 to 2 year old baby going ballistic inside a car. The woman was dangling a pair of pink sneakers in the window and saying "Are you going to put on your shoes?" in a real understanding voice.

The couple was obviously uncomfortable, toggling between grimacing and faux-grinning at each other. I wasn't within earshot long enough (I was POWER shopping) to hear what happened, but I could only think how silly the whole exercise was. It reminded me of something my father-in-law says, but only half believes, in reference to parenting: that you've got to be "smarter" than something to train it. I disagree as it relates to parenting.

Though I think parenting (like leading or influencing) is certainly a "life skill," I bristle at the notion that successfully raising a child requires brilliance or superior intellect or extraordinary creativity. Indeed, I believe that, like most things in life, there is no "trick" involved. Rather, I'm of the belief that the consistent, disciplined application of proven strategies/principles will bear fruit in the life and heart of a child. I do not that it is a sound and wise parenting strategy to focus on a parent's ability to "distract" a child or persistently hunt for creative ways to avoid the inevitable confrontation with a child's innate desire not to conform his/her behavior to a norm or not to be responsible for how s/he treats others or not to obey his/her parents (yes, "submit to authority").

Well, back to the dilemma at hand. Depriving of a privilege or chastening/spanking for a 3 year old. We rarely use force with our children and I've observed that a little force goes a long way. I perceive that our children are well behaved; I also perceive that they are pretty capable of rolling with the punches (unfortunate metaphor, but . . .) so they rebound very quickly after being corrected and/or reminded of a particular standard they are ignoring or forgetting. Likewise, the more resilient and enterprising and self-motivated and confident a child is, the harder it can be to get his/her attention by depriving him/her of privileges.

For willful, blatant, persistent disobedience, spanking is awfully efficient. It is typically a relatively brief interruption to the parent's relationship with the child and it only briefly takes a child out of his/her routine. It is unsurpassed in getting a child's attention and it doesn't require tons of "administering"--like an until-further-notice ban on TV watching imposed on one of several children in a family. Moreover, given that a child doesn't have much long-term decision-making capacity at age three, I'm not sure that an open-ended statement that she is not able to watch TV makes quite the impression as a little whack on the fanny.

Along the same lines, "no TV" isn't the end of the world when she can go play with Barbies or do puzzles or play Leapster or color or shadow her mother asking odd questions; as a result, the "no TV" consequence has less "sting."

In the end, I've concluded (again) that the challenges in parenting are to be patient, discern between foolish acts and childish acts, be consistent, and fight being too lazy to parent in a given situation.

UPDATE: I just became aware of this story with Nashville connections (posted about by Truman Bean here) about the trial of two parents who killed their son ostensibly in the act of disciplining him. My post was not in response or in defense or in light of that case.

"Broader" or repackaged agenda?

There's an interesting op/ed over at The American Spectator entitled "Tithe and Spend" Republicans. (Here) One excerpt from the article shows the purportedly broader agenda of Religious Conservatives Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback.

The longtime Southern Baptist preacher [Huckabee] sounds the usual conservative themes on abortion and marriage, but like a growing number of high-profile evangelicals, Huckabee tries to tie his socially conservative values to a broader agenda. "I earn the right to push for a strong pro-life agenda only by making sure I'm concerned about poverty, hunger and homelessness," he told a columnist for the Des Moines Register. "If I don't care about those issues, then my faith is incomplete."

So while Huckabee favors President Bush's capital gains tax cuts, he also wonders if his faith "confuses Republicans who are only concerned about how we preserve wealth." He is for a flat tax while also advocating increased funding for arts education, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and an enlarged government role in preventive health care.

While I agree that "my faith" (as applied to gov't policy) is broader than opposing abortion or homosexual "marriage," I hesitate to agree that it is little more than increased spending on existing, fundamentally flawed gov't programs. I personally believe that gov't intervention (you might want to take a seat, Liberal readers) often exacerbates problems or certainly masks the real problem and ultimately ends up costing more (or causing more/greater problems) in the long run than the original problem did.

So, yes, I'm very concerned about children and education and the environment; I'm just less convinced than Statists that a new agency or more gov't spending is the way to accomplish good for said subjects. In sum, I hardly share Statists' faith in government.

As was not done (or not the case) with "Compassionate Conservatism," Huckabee and Brownback must tread lightly to establish that such rhetoric is actually just a different way of presenting the Religious Conservative agenda, as opposed to a "broader" agenda.

Critical Senate resolution: symbolic but significant - Los Angeles Times

Noam N. Levey of the LA Times has an op/ed about the pending non-binding Senate Resolution criticizing the President's new direction in Iraq. Levey's first sentence is,

WASHINGTON -- Not a single American soldier will do anything differently this week if the Senate approves a resolution criticizing President Bush's plans to increase troop levels in Iraq."

Wrong.

Resolve, determination, focus, will, etc. are subjective states of mind. It is foolish to assert that servicemen and women won't be affected by what one of the two major political parties is saying about the worthiness of their mission . . . it is foolish to assert that their will or morale won't be affected by one of our two parties saying that they have given up on victory on the mission.

Great ad campaign

Seeing as it is the biggest day of the year for commercial lovers, I thought it seemed fitting to post on one of the best ad campaigns in a while (in my humble opinion): the "Hi, I'm a Mac" ads. Here's a link to the site where you can watch the entire series. If you close your eyes, you can picture Sean Braisted saying, "Hi, I'm a Democrat" and me saying, ". . . and I'm a Republican."

Likewise, I think the ads are great, but I still haven't bought a Mac.

Breaking: Dems oppose blocking judicial nominations

Apparently Liberals/Democrats have decided that every judicial nominee IS entitled to an up or down vote in the Senate. I just saw a post (here) bashing Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) for holding up a vote on the judicial nomination of Janet Neff to become a federal trial judge in the Western District of Michigan. I've surmised that Brownback's main concern is that Neff will have a difficult time acting like a judge (and not like a legislator) if/when the homosexual "marriage" issue comes before her in light of reports that she traveled to Massachusetts to participate (she gave a homily, though that's rarely reported) in a same-sex "wedding" being conducted for a neighbor.

Given Liberal jurists' philosophy that judges need to interpret the Constitution in a way that reflects contemporary values, what would keep her from flat out asserting that our Constitution entitles people to have "marriage" mean whatever they want it to mean.

The problem of Conservatism

I've commented on this before . . . the Liberal tendency to view any disagreement with them as a character flaw or a moral deficiency or a criminal propensity or a psychological disorder (poor lil' Conservatives, they can't help themselves).

As best as I can recollect, I've only heard of Glenn Greenwald within the last week, but William, a faithful reader/commenter/combatant linked to a review at Greenwald's blog (here)
of a current book by John Dean, so I got me an earful. NOW, Liberal Democrats have a book to cite (based on sociological studies and Dean's personal experience from the inside!!!) that explains exactly why Conservatives are not just wrong, we're psychotic and MUST be stopped.

According to Greenwald, Dean posits that modern-day Conservatism amounts to either a character flaw/weakness or a psychological disorder. Greenwald writes,

And there is seemingly no limit -- literally -- on the willingness, even eagerness, of Bush supporters to defend and justify even the most morally repugnant abuses -- from constantly expanding spying on American citizens, to a President who claims and aggressively exercises the "right" to break the law, to torturing suspects, imprisoning journalists, and turning the United States into the most feared and hated country on the planet.

As I told William in a discussion yesterday regarding the purportedly near-cult status of GWB,

I am definitely a critic of him, but I also am inclined to defend him against--among other things, outrageous, illegitimate accusations such as he is "a divider not a uniter," or he is obscenely incompetent, or corrupt, or malevolent, etc.

You guys (sorry, I'm definitely lumping here) are so busy raising outrageous crap that there is little opportunity to agree on anything. Bush is much more Liberal than I am on NCLB, gov't spending, the role of gov't, compromising principle, pragmatism over principle, the First Amendment, immigration policy, etc., etc., etc. But, regrettably, I don't believe y'all want progress as much as you want power (back), so working together with Bush isn't an option.

Frankly, I do occasionally get the feeling that I'm like an exhibit at a zoo.

The last sentence was a perception I had from reading William's comments on this blog, but I can appreciate what William was thinking even more after reading more about John Dean's book. Dean and William and many other thinking folks have figured out the troubling phenomenon of . . . Conservatism.

But Dean's broad brush smear job of Conservatives is so off the mark, it is laughable. What Dean & Co. need to be worrying about (and appear to have devised a gimmick to address--e.g., Webb, Ford, Jr. and Shuler) is that the Republicans have successfully forged a consensus majority--most of whom do not fit into the pigeon-hole carved out by Dean. Ironically, as a member of the Democrat Party--a true coalition party with no other binding principles than (a) a strong dislike/fear/envy of Republicans and (b) a desire to obtain power as a bloc that they could not achieve alone.

We "authoritarian cultists" (as amateur psychiatrist John Dean has diagnosed us) sure don't have any trouble advocating for smaller government, less Federal control, local control of schools, a minimal welfare state, broader civil liberties, autonomy from international bodies like the UN, not being told for whom we should vote, separation of powers, owning small businesses, having our own guns, and on and on and on and on.

Yes, Dean says that this suspect group called "Conservatives" has only been held together, "through the power of negative thinking, and specifically, the ability to find common enemies. . . ."

As I told William, I have long acknowledged that Bush is flawed, but can people like William bring themselves to acknowledge that Bush is not the fount of evil/ignorance/greed/incompetence/malevolence in the world? That is negative thinking. That is the requisite "common enemy" to hold a "movement" together when there is little else to rally 'round.

Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy unplugged

You may have heard that an Indianapolis church was smacked down by the NFL's legal beagles about plans to broadcast the Super Bowl on a large screen at their church (here). In addition,

The league even took exception to the church's plan to influence nonmembers with a video highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.

Well, here's a site where you can see the same material at your leisure. These men are performing at the highest level without compromising--from all appearances, their commitment to things that transcend worldly success. See www.beyondtheultimate.org.

Not so "fair," not so "open"

Interesting write-up about Nancy Pelosi's House and her campaign promises that she (and Dems) would run a more open and fair House of Representatives. Here's a free sample:

As with the initial "100 hours" legislative agenda, the Democratic leadership again did not give Republicans -- nor even their own Democratic members -- a chance to debate or offer amendments to the omnibus spending bill. Democrats say that's because they had to pass all the remaining spending bills left over from the Republican Congress as quickly as possible. Fine, but we're talking about one of the House's primary responsibilities essentially being driven through without any participation from the members. This bill was written by a small band made up of the House and Senate Democratic leadership team and appropriators -- not exactly what we envisioned when the speaker talked about a more "open and accountable" Congress.

Gore's excess baggage

Adam Kleinheider (here) has posted about Al Gore's good publicity over the years (and any publicity is good publicity, ACK asserts.

ACK, (here) along with Bob Mueller (here) are asserting that Al Gore is on a roll and may not stop until he's the Dem nominee in 2008; I tend to agree with Sean Braisted (here) who says that a Gore nomination is not likely.

My reasoning is slightly different than Sean's, though. Because, in my estimation, Gore's "prestigious awards" (actually just nominations) are rooted in his political notoriety, they are thereby tainted. He's not some disinterested, talented success story who is only now turning his attention to public service (aka the down and dirty world of politics). And I think it matters (as Sean observes) that Americans aren't multi-cultural, post-Christian, socialist-leaning folks, so Gore's political reputation (starting with the Clinton administration and continuing through his sore loss in 2000) and crusading positions on various issues--including the GWOT and "the Environment," don't endear him to a majority of voters.

The Libby circus

Yikes, the Libby case is a circus, (here) and sadly, it was hardly Nuremberg once Fitzgerald knew that Richard Armitage had told reporters (aka, "leaked") the fact that Mr. Valerie Plame's wife--a CIA employee, had gotten him the Nihjair gig. (Read the article, and be sure not to miss the smoking gun!/"cryptic message" Libby sent to reporter Judith Miller.)

Accordingly, there was no intent to "out" anyone and after all this time/expense all Fitzgerald has to show for it is someone who misremembered or even "lied" about an immaterial issue (note before flaming: "immaterial" has a legal meaning).

Who's in charge of "tiers"?

This write up about the 2008 GOP field is getting some broad circulation--in part because it refers to the GOP pack as Lemons (as far as the GOP "right" is concerned). But it is an interesting piece because it is so "media-" and "registered voter-" centric. And I wonder why Rush Limbaugh (quoted at the beginning of the article) is so readily following suit. (here) Here's an excerpt:

"'Where do social conservatives go?' asked Dan Schnur, a California-based Republican consultant who worked for McCain in 2000 but is staying out of the 2008 contest. 'They've been the determining force in the nomination process for a generation and they've got no candidate in the top tier.'

Plenty of people are trying to prove Schnur wrong. McCain's advisers are betting that the disdain toward the Arizonan among many of the most vocal activists will not prove representative of primary voters. Running in a party that counts many Baptists, Romney may find a sympathetic audience for his story of conversion on social issues -- if he can convince people that he saw the light on the road to Damascus, not the White House."

My question is where's the home office or star chamber determining which "tier" a candidate belongs in? Uh, when did so-called Mainstream Media folks become reliable guides about who is or is not "credible," "electable" or even "likeable"? And since when is a poll of "registered voters" a reliable indicator for what primary voters are thinking?

"Pro-family" does not equal "anti-gay"

A San Francisco area journal reports about the righteous (uh, in the untraditional sense) candidacy of Rudy Giuliani and makes this reference to Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney(here):

"Interestingly, the two Republican candidates who are most notoriously anti-gay – Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts – are not polling well at all. Romney has done no better than 9 percent and Brownback also is polling in single digits.

Brownback, apparently sensing that hostility toward gays might position him too far to the right to be considered electable, moderated his position last month, telling a group of Republicans in Iowa that he thinks there is room in the party for people with other views about equal rights for gays."

We can expect more of this type of mischaracterization as 2008 approaches. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is "anti-gay" because he doesn't think that marriage should be re-defined or un-defined to include same-sex couples, and anything less than proverbially trampling on a rainbow-colored windsock is an attempt at "moderat[ing]" one's "anti-gay" positions.

Ahem, well before the DNC found Jesus in the last election, the GOP practiced Big Tent Party politics.