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 . . .

Merry Fitzmas indeed!

The Left's (one-time) favorite prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, today announced indictments of Illinois' Democrat Governor on corruption charges.

ABC News: FBI: Illinois Governor Sought To "Sell" Obama's Senate Seat.

And, though I know I'll get flak for saying this, it never ceases to amaze me that talented and successful people can't express themselves without using expletives.

Wanna do your part in the MN Senate race?

Here's a cool time-waster, game sort of thing, that'll make you feel like you're doing your part to end the U.S. Senate race between Senator Norm Coleman and comedian Al Franken ;)

Whaddya expect from Planned Parenthood?

The Left's hackneyed rhetoric about how crisis pregnancy centers abuse or don't care about young women, are agenda-driven, are void of ethics, blahblahblahblah is tiring. Well, now there's even more proof against another scofflaw Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic. ("Planned Parenthood covers up under-age rape") From the article:

New footage has been released showing a staff member of Planned Parenthood deliberately ignoring the statutory rape of a 13-year-old during an undercover sting operation. "Planned Parenthood offers no solutions for the victim of statutory rape - they give her an abortion and a bag of condoms and send her straight back into the arms of the abuser," states [undercover journalist Lila] Rose.

Northern exposure of universal plague

For the record, I thought it was a bad idea--when faced with the "credit crunch," for gov't officials to micro-manage the economy or attempt to counter market forces simply because the economy was headed for a rough patch and there were cries/threats that something--ANYthing, had to be done. That being said, this report about political chess-playing in Canada (TheStar.com | Canada | "Harper avoids the axe") provides a glimpse of what probably would have transpired here in the U.S. if Dubya et al had tried to stand in the way of Statist/Populist do-gooding:

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper appealed to his opposition rivals for economic advice in an attempt to defuse their outrage over the unprecedented shutdown of Parliament.

. . . .

Harper yesterday adopted a more conciliatory tone than he had since the crisis erupted over his government's economic statement on Nov. 27.

Liberals, NDP and the Bloc had united in opposition over its lack of measures to kick-start the sluggish economy. Moreover, proposed cuts to public subsidies for political parties and the suspension of public servants' right to strike were political dynamite.

The Prime Minister called on the opposition parties to 'engage with the government,' and cited Canadians' 'frustration' at all political parties for their failure to work together on the economic crisis.

'We are all responsible,' he said yesterday. 'The public is clear. They want us to discuss specific proposals and that we propose things, especially on things where we are able to find consensus.'"

Though "doing something" for the economy was the political football, the petty special concerns of the Left were the real rub in the matter. Ol' Heartless Harper wants to decrease the amount of public monies given to political parties and is not interested in preserving the ability of (ostensibly essential) public employees to strike.

And Oligarchy ain't Democracy

I thought this headline was ironic, given the substance of the article: Some in Mexico want the death penalty reinstated - Los Angeles Times "Some"? Capital punishment has been outlawed in Mexico for almost 50 years, and legal experts say it "is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that the death penalty could be reinstated because of legal obstacles," for one, an OAS treaty. But deep in the article is this tidbit:

Recent polls showed support for the death penalty surging to as much as two-thirds of the surveyed population.

Warming up for the holidays

If I had to pick a favorite holiday, it'd be Thanksgiving for a number of reasons.

And one nice thing about Thanksgiving is that it is the beginning of the "Holiday Season," so it can serve as a nice warm-up. In that vein, Lindsay Ferrier has a nice essay on how she spent her last Thursday in November. From the article (Suburban Turmoil: A holiday to remember | Nashville City Paper)

When I first became a wife and mother, I was determined to have the perfect family holiday experience — the kind of thing I knew existed because I’d seen it on Hallmark commercials.

Dressed in a vintage hostess apron, I’d stand nonchalantly behind a polished mahogany table laden with gourmet delicacies and festive sugared treats. Dozens of family members would cross our cheery threshold wearing their Lands’ End best and carrying professionally wrapped gifts and bottles of wine. The whole scene would be bathed in the warm glow of candlelight, with twinkling lights and real pine garlands in the fuzzy background.

Out of sight, out of mind: the MSM and Iraq

Since things are going so well in Operation Iraqi Freedom (this story notwithstanding) the MSM has no incentive in reporting on the war. But this is a fascinating movie from embedded filmmaker Mike Slee of Zaragoza Pictures 2/7 CAV. Battalion Ball tribute.

Hat tip Chuck Norris.

Whew...Katie survives college

I can heartily agree with Katie Granju's thesis for this post, and I think it is a worthwhile point to make. But several of Katie's assertions are real stretches (even assuming the subjective nature of the issue):

While I'll admit that it's likely that on many of our more prestigious college campuses, Democrat-voting profs outnumber GOP-voting academics, that's certainly not true on every campus. I can tell you that it definitely was not the case during my tenure as a student at UT, where the collegiate culture I experienced strongly reflected the politics of the state and the region. My professors and fellow students were, on the whole, center-right to far-right in their political views.

(emphasis mine) "Likely"? "Center-right to far-right"?


Here are the primary sources (here, here).