Another Pen for Western Culture

Democrat National Convention

2008-08-25T08:49:00.000-07:00

2008 Democrat National Convention

Schedule of Events

7:00 pm OPENING FLAG BURNING

7:15 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE U.N.
*

7:20 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
*

7:25 pm NONRELIGIOUS PRAYER AND WORSHIP -

Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton
*

7:45 pm CEREMONIAL TREE HUGGING -

Darryl Hannah
*

7:55 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
*

8:00 pm HOW I INVENTED THE INTERNET -

Al Gore
*

8:15 pm GAY WEDDING PLANNING -

Rosie O'Donnell
*

8:35 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
*

8:40 pm OUR TROOPS ARE WAR CRIMINALS -

John Kerry
*

9.00 pm MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR SADDAM AND HIS SONS -

Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon
*

10:00 pm ANSWERING MACHINE ETIQUETTE -

Alec Baldwin
*

11:00 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
*

11:05 pm COLLECTION FOR THE OSAMA BIN LADEN

KIDNEY TRANSPLANT FUND -

Barbara Streisand
*

11:15 pm FREE THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS FROM GUANTANAMO BAY -

Sean Penn
*

11:30 pm OVAL OFFICE AFFAIRS -

William Jefferson Clinton
*

11:45 pm Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
*

11:50 pm HOW GEORGE BUSH BROUGHT DOWN THE WORLD TRADE TOWERS -

Howard Dean
*

12:15 am TRUTH IN BROADCASTING AWARD -

Presented to Dan Rather by Michael Moore
*

12:25 am Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST
*

12:30 am SATELLITE ADDRESS -

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
*

12:45 am NOMINATION OF Barack Hussein Obama-

Nancy Pelosi
*

1:00 am Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST To Obama
*

1:30 am Ted Kennedy PROPOSES A TOAST To Hillary Clinton
*

1:35 am Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home

The Only Fair is Laissez Faire: Ditch the Fairness Doctrine

2008-08-01T11:18:00.000-07:00

So Democrats, unhappy that people won't just give them complete control already, want to reinstate the alleged "Fairness Doctrine."

An issue usually ignored is the fact that such "fairness" is as impossible as the utopia from which the idea springs.

Imagine being asked simply to count the number of opinions in an hour of radio. Even defining such statements is difficult. When is a statement pure fact, or "slanted" but mostly factual, or true, but misleading because of what it leaves unspoken?

If you could somehow overcome this impossible dilemma, perfectly sifting fact from opinion, you still have the Herculean task of deciding where each opinion fits on some spectrum, and what sort of alternate opinion is required to achieve "fairness." This is likewise impossible, because there are a dozen sides to every political opinion.

Sure, we talk about the left wing and right wing. But the bird/plane metaphor only addresses our two-party system. There are so many views available besides North and South. Perhaps the petals of a flower might better convey something of the points of view available on any subject. Yet this too fails. Opinions are more like the spines of a sea urchin--there's the 360 degrees of the compass, but there's also altitude, up and down . . . .

Like the tentacles of an octopus, opinions branch in any and all directions. They cannot be reduced to a mathematical quality, measured, predicted, and somehow "balanced." The notion reduces human thought to something so much smaller than it is.

Are broadcasters to balance conservatives with liberals? What about the libertarian view? Or the Green Party? Or PETA? Or American Communists? What do you mean by "fair" anyway?
Do we ignore religious opinion? The rule could easily make an exception for religious broadcasters, but does it?

Further, even Rush talks about God, Sean Hannity talks about his faith, and Laura Ingraham speaks of her conversion to Catholicism, and her admiration for the pope. Must these opinions also be cataloged and balanced?

What about opinions on the theory of evolution? Do you balance that with Intelligent Design? If one caller is an Old Earth Creationist, must the next be a Young Earth Creationist? Or can he be merely another atheist?

Opinions are as unique as the people who hold them. Where one point may have an obvious counterpoint, the combination of opinions contained in an hour or two of talk is as impossibly complex as a strand of DNA. There is no "opposite" in such a case. (Just as--with the exception of his ratings--Al Franken is in no way the "opposite" of Rush Limbaugh.) Such "Fairness" is a myth.

Real fairness is leaving radio alone, providing an "open mic" to all parties willing to pay the bill.
Fairness is letting the audience make the decisions, not further enlarging the suffocating hand of Big Brother.

Rambling about Reunions.

2008-07-31T17:14:00.001-07:00

"Something Happened." That was a clever line for those who get the joke.

The Blast from the Past (see the link) was special. Several people I invited were there, and they made it richer for all of us. (And several deprived us of your company!) :-(

Reunions are funny. They make me think of good times and bad, and ask weird "what if" questions about ancient history. I guess most of all, they're just very special times, especially a reunion like this one, with all your closest high school friends remembering the excitement of growing together and discovering God's Word, and His love, and His plan (the "A Plan") together. And of course, we got into all kinds of mischief along the way. That's fun too--or at least the memory of it.

Nevertheless, I'm here thinking about the futility of life. Yeah, that's right. It's always been a default position for me when I face things that dwarf me.

Seeing all these old friends--now older, with kids of their own, and all of us talking about our boys playing baseball, our daughters riding bikes and playing with American Girl dolls, and about teachers, and jobs, and bills, and struggles of every kind.... and so many of us have gained weight, lost hair, turned gray. Here and there you see sadness in some eyes, a sort of chronic sadness that's left by the deepest hurts. And it can feel overwhelming.

And I can't escape the notion that we've become our parents. And there will be another reunion and all our kids will be getting married, and more of us will have moved on -- to Heaven, that is. And a generation comes, and a generation goes, right? The world keeps on turning.

But I want to look deeper. To remember how many lives were changed in that youth group. (And it's worth mentioning that while marriage may be challenging for everyone, there were far fewer divorced at that reunion than national averages might have indicated.) No church is perfect (you sort of have to say that, don't you?) but a lot of good happened at First Baptist.

I think a lot of good has also happened since. Many of us have continued to walk with God, however faltering our steps may sometimes be. We share our faith, we teach Sunday school (or we should, right), and we volunteer, and we coach sports and run Scout troops and invest in young lives all around.

We may be gray and fat and bald, but our hearts were changed under Johnny's ministry (thank you) and we won't ever be the same. Nor will our homes. We may have become parents, but we have not become our parents. Most of us still operate with one advantage they lacked--the years we spent in America's finest youth ministry. We were so blessed, largely by the efforts of our parents, that our lives and our families will forever be so much better off.

I loved hearing Johnny speak the other night. It was a highlight for most of us, I'm sure. He will forever command my deepest respect. I learned so much under him, and grew exponentially. And I discovered my favorite book of the Bible one day at camp when I sat down and read--for no particular reason--Ecclesiastes. It blessed me that day and I've loved it ever since.

One line particularly fits these thoughts:

Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth.

I am so thankful that we were so strongly encouraged to get to know God then, to not put it off. I am thankful for that youth group. What a blessing.

Judges, Politicians, and America's Game.

2008-07-29T12:40:00.000-07:00

The great misfortune is that a notion obtains with those in power, that the world, or the people require more governing than is necessary. To govern too well is a great science, but no country is ever improved by too much governing . . . most men think when they are elevated to position, that it requires an effort to discharge their duties, and they leave common sense out of the question.

--Sam Houston.

Consider baseball. Chief Justice John Roberts has said that he sees his role like that of an umpire, calling balls and strikes. But Roberts didn't elaborate--so I will. The umpire-judge doesn't make rules. And he doesn't play the game.

The judge calls balls and strikes. What he does not do is redesign the strike zone.

That legislative decision was made elsewhere. Another body made the rules. The umpire merely applies them. A strike is above the knees, below the shoulders, and above the plate. Anything else is a ball. Sure, the umpire is imperfect. But he knows his role: to understand the law as it comes down to him and apply it to everything the pitcher throws at him.

What is an activist judge? He's the umpire who makes up a new strike zone. And activist judges are judges who step outside their proper role as judges. They are like the politicians who enter office seeking new ways to assert and grow their own power and authority. Or like the ones who think only of creating a legacy. In other words, these people, both judges and politicians, are the ones Sam Houston complained of: "they think when they are elevated to position, that it requires an effort to discharge their duties, and they leave common sense out of the question."

Our system requires a Separation of Powers. On rare occasions, the Executive Branch shares a legislative role, and the Legislative Branch shares an executive role. For example, the Executive takes on a legislative role when he uses his veto power. And the legislature takes on an executive role when it is required to ratify treaties entered by the president with a 2/3 vote.

But at no time does the Judicial Branch (at least as contemplated by the Constitution) share either. This third branch of our government is entirely different from the first two. The first two are made up entirely of politicians. They look at problems, search their hearts, talk to voters, and sponsor and draft laws. But the courts are entirely different. They (usually) don't run for office, they do not respond to voters, they do not listen to anyone's heart, and they do not create new law (other than "interstitially"). Moreover, the Founders described the third branch, the Judicial Branch, as being by far, the weakest of the three. . . .

Robert Bork put it this way: "There is not the faintest hint in the Constitution . . . that the judiciary shares any of the legislative or executive power. The intended function of the federal courts is to apply the law as it comes to them from the hands of others."

--The Tempting of America: the Political Seduction of the Law, 1990. 4.

Obama Akbar! All Hail Obama!

2008-07-25T09:37:00.000-07:00

From The Times of London
July 25, 2008
He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
by Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

[For those of you in Rio Linda--it's satire.]

The Sum of the Square Roots of Any Two Sides of a Right Triangle is Equal to the Square Root of ... Man-Made Global Warming?

2008-06-26T15:42:00.000-07:00

This article is copied from the Wall Street Journal Online:
"Yellow Science"

By JAMES KERIAN
June 25, 2008

In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers.

Man has always had a healthy desire for knowledge, and it is the feeding of this hunger that ennobles journalism. Hearst and Pulitzer were acutely aware that man has a less healthy but no less voracious desire to believe that he has knowledge, particularly knowledge of something sensational. It is the feeding of this hunger that irreparably disgraced journalism, and a century later now threatens to do the same to science.

* * *
Scientists, like journalists, are called upon to plumb the depths of the unknown and to fairly and objectively report their findings to their own professional community as well as the general public. Scientists, like the journalists of yesteryear, have specific methods for ensuring that the public trust placed in them is not abused. The most fundamental of these methods is the well-known, if not so creatively named, scientific method. The essence of the scientific method is the formulation of hypotheses (ideas) and the using of these hypotheses to make predictions that can be experimentally tested. In the words of Sir Thomas Eddington in "The Philosophy of Physical Science," "Every item of physical knowledge must therefore be an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure."

Nevertheless, over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.

The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure." Global warming may or may not be "the greatest scam in history," as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an "item of physical knowledge."

Nevertheless, the acceptance of man-made global warming as scientific fact has become so prevalent that the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, recently declared: "The debate is over. It's time to discuss solutions." Leaving aside the question of the secretary-general's qualifications, that is certainly one of the most antiscientific statements ever made. The first question that this raises is why have so many scientists chosen to ignore this glaring failure of the global warming hypothesis to meet the standards of their own profession? The second question is what, if anything, can be done about it?

The first, and most obvious, temptation for this sort of willful blindness is financial. Hearst made only a fraction of his estimated $140 million in net worth from yellow journalism. Global warming, on the other hand, has provided an estimated $50 billion in research grants to those willing to practice yellow science. Influence in the public sphere is another strong temptation. It might not be as impressive as starting the Spanish-American War, but global-warming alarmists have amassed a large group of journalists and politicians ready to silence any critics and endorse whatever boondoggle scheme is prescribed as the cure to our impending climate catastrophe.
Finally, one should not underestimate the temptation of convenience. Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."

* * *

The layman might object that this is not his problem. Surely Joe Six-Pack should not be expected to monitor the findings of research physicists; if anything is to be done about this collapse of scientific standards, it must be done by the scientific community itself. Unfortunately, history has shown the inability of professional communities to police their own ranks. When it first reared its head, yellow journalism was roundly condemned by the journalistic community. In fact, it was these critics who coined the term yellow journalism. The condemnation of their peers was an insufficient deterrent for Pulitzer and Hearst, because it was the approval of the public that drove their circulation. Eventually the entire journalistic community acceded to the sensationalism that the public seemed to insist on.

In recent decades, the scorn of prominent scientists such as John Coleman has been similarly unable to stop the ascendancy of the global-warming hypothesis as the public has been increasingly drawn by its sensationalism. The scientific community as a whole is on the brink of acceding to Ban Ki-Moon's insistence that "the debate is over" and turning now to their grant applications.

Ultimately, it is only the public that holds the power to enforce professional standards, and therefore each of us must accept this responsibility. Most of us will not be able to comprehend the latest climatologic studies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but fortunately that is not necessary. However complex the information may be, the standards are quite clear. One need not be a Beltway newshound to know that whatever follows the phrase "unnamed sources in the capital" or "rumors in Hollywood are" is not real journalism. Similarly, one does not need an advanced degree in natural science to understand that whatever follows the phrase "most experts agree" or "no one can measure the exact effect but" is not real science. In fact, if there is no possible way that a statement can realistically be tested, it probably fails to meet the standards for any professional community and is of no real use to the public.

The long-term results of yellow journalism have probably been more devastating than the war it started. Journalists have lost the respectability of their profession, and the public has lost real journalism. We are in very real danger, as scientists and as a nation, of losing the respectability of a professional community that has done so much to make this country great in the past hundred years. If yellow science overcomes real science it will not only be on account of the greed, ambition, and cowardice of our scientists but also the sloth and cowardice of a public that is unwilling to stand up and demand professionalism. This is why, as the editors of the New York Press said in 1897, I "called them yellow because they are yellow."

Mr. Kerian is a mechanical engineer and small business owner in Grafton, N.D.

CHANGE

2008-06-19T09:59:00.001-07:00

"Obama is a Rock Star" by Matt Friedman

2008-06-10T11:45:00.000-07:00

Here's a great article that touches on the pros and cons of the world's fascination with Obama:

***********************************************

from One News Now: Matt Friedeman - 6/10/2008

. . . . America seems to be gushing over a candidate with a certain appeal that is viscerally emotional and hard to contain.

Contain? A San Francisco columnist appeared ready to do the New Age faint the other day. He wrote about Obama the "Lightworker." Yes, capitalize that word. And then pile on top of it "isn't really one of us," "powerful luminosity" and "a unique high vibration integrity." But the starry-eyed columnist wasn't even close to done. "Rare kind of attuned being," "these kind of people actually help us evolve," "they are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."

More. "There simply is no denying that extra kick ... There's a vast amount of positive energy swirling about ... this energy has now found a conduit, a lightning rod ... People and emotions and ideas of high and positive vibration are automatically drawn to him."

You read this stuff and you think, My goodness, some people have finally found their god. But then you wonder if this god won't reach under his chin after the election, grab the edge of the mask and yank off the façade to reveal himself as the man who told us in language we weren't listening to and a voting record that was obfuscated by a cult of personality that I am indeed the One.

The One who promised to raise your taxes; buddy up with our sworn enemies over a latte; grow government in an attempt to assuage every conceivable un-addressed woe; appoint to the courts "moderates" who reflect the most liberal justices we currently have (thus re-redefining moderation); push further the boundaries of life by supporting partial-birth abortion and even refusing to protect children accidentally born alive because the abortionist missed; and redefine marriage so that marriage doesn't matter much anymore.

And here's what is wrong. To some people in this nation, that kind of a leader is god-like. Not really just one of us. A rock star. Lightworker. Their daydream.

Come hither, you who are googley-eyed. Snap out of it. Remember the lines out of the movie Broadcast News years ago? It was a Hollywood, Left-coast production, so maybe you might.

Aaron Altman (played by Albert Brooks) is talking to best friend Jane Craig (Holly Hunter) about her new love interest.

Aaron: "You can't end up with Tom, because it totally goes against everything that you're about. I know you care about him ... so don't get me wrong when I tell you that Tom, while being a very nice guy, is the devil."

Jane (disgusted): "This isn't friendship -- you're crazy, you know that?"

Aaron (defensively): "What do you think the devil is going to look like if he's around? C'mon, nobody's going to be taken in by a guy with a long, red, pointed tail ... c'mon, what's he going to sound like? 'AAARRRGGGHHH'?"

"No ... he'll be attractive, he'll be nice and helpful, he'll get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation. He'll never do an evil thing ... never deliberately hurt a
living thing. He'll just bit by little bit lower our standards where they're important ... just pokes along, flash over substance ... he personifies everything you've been fighting against."

The Candidate -- attractive, nice and helpful, just wanting to influence this great God-fearing nation. He pats his opponents on the head and tells them that yes, he understands their concerns. He mesmerizes the masses with speeches that the Hollywood crowd swears remind them of Kennedy and King. He is convincing; really likeable. People log on to their computers and can't help sending in millions. The light behind his head on the magazine cover produces that "powerful luminosity."

But bit by bit he lowers our standards. With his Lightworker, rock-star methods he slowly begins to change the way we think, feel, and act -- about everything.

It no doubt surprises some theological "progressives" that there are still people who believe in devils. Less astonishing is the fact that many of us recognize the reality of political devils -- specifically, those presaged in the words of a scriptwriter named Brooks.

***********************************************
Interesting P.S.--the article in the S.F. Chronicle, the hymn to Obama's New Age Goodness, a usually skeptical man's declaration that the energy and light is swirling about the Chosen One, as though he were Luke Skywalker, . . . well, that guy says JFK was killed specifically because he was one of those rare enlightened beings that step into our world from the more evolved future, and yearn to draw us toward the light. Or something:

JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.

So JFK was another Messiah. Not very powerful, of course. Forty years later you can't point to any teachings or doctrine that are now regarded as gospel. His own party--his kid brother even--has departed from his comparatively conservative positions on economics and national security. But more to the point--if Obama is another mini-Messiah, what is his message? (Does anyone have any idea? Has he uttered a single concrete statement of policy?)

I like how the Real Messiah once put it:

"Be innocent as doves, but shrewd as serpents."

Gasoline Economics: Low Supplies = High Costs

2008-05-30T15:40:00.000-07:00

It's simple economics:

When Supply drops, Demand (and thus price) rises.

Guess who controls the supply? Exxon? Texaco? Chevron? Consider this chart Chevron presented to Congress recently.

(Nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia control 94% of the oil that's being pumped.) Of course, the US has plenty of oil--it's just off limits thanks to out-of-control state and federal regulations.

For a larger view, click this link to the Powerline blog.

Pro-Gay Writer is Anti- "Gay Marriage"

2008-05-26T09:37:00.000-07:00

Why does the state endorse marriage--because two people feel strongly about each other, or because we wish to promote solid homes for having and raising children? It is the latter, according to this liberal writer. Marriage is not about coupling. It's about promoting a healthy atmosphere for healthy children. The strength of Rosie's and Ellen's and Mr. Sulu's feelings are not the point.

Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.

See the complete article here.

More from Michael Ramirez, winner of the Pulitzer Prize

2008-05-22T15:51:00.000-07:00

See more at Investors Business Daily.

Midnight at the Casino: Something Wicked This Way Comes.

2008-05-20T14:18:00.000-07:00

This is the best article I have ever read about casinos. Incidentally, the only casino I have been to is one of the ones featured in the story. (This would make a great documentary.)

Newest Propaganda Machine? WIKIPEDIA

2008-05-16T08:49:00.000-07:00

from POLITICO.COM

Wiki-Whacked by Political Bias

May 14, 2008 - by Matt Sanchez

With the presidential elections looming, Americans will query the Internet to make a decision on the candidates. Now more than ever, accurate information is key. For almost any query, the chances are that the search engine will turn up a Wikipedia article — and that’s where the problems begin.

In 2001, Bernard Goldberg wrote his groundbreaking book Bias to confirm what we already knew: the media colored the news according to a liberal ideology. Today, Wikipedia, the “world’s largest encyclopedia,” has the potential of becoming the liberal left’s largest [1] propaganda machine.

Volunteer editors scour the Internet for “reliable sources” (RS in Wiki-speak) and the typical Wikipedia article is better sourced than most subscription-based encyclopedias, according to several studies. But it’s the choice of how to source an article that really shades the news. Drawing from a mostly liberal media, a controversial figure like Senator Obama’s “spiritual guide,” the [2] Reverend Jeremiah Wright, becomes almost a scholarly man presaging the woes of our time.

Most editors take their work very seriously, and are meticulous in following the Wikipedia rule book. But many editors pursue childish agendas with a perverted glee. Control, influence, and prestige — which escape many Wikipedia editors in the mundane brick and mortar world — are what some Wiki-addicts can establish in the virtual realm, except here they mostly remain anonymous and irresponsible.

Editors Gone Wild

“Every year a couple of editors go crazy and deface the Wikipedia main page,” says Lise Broer, a Wikipedian with over two years of experience in the Wikipedia project.

“Wikipedia has redundant systems for eliminating much of the vandalism, but the more subtle stuff can get through,” said Lise in a phone interview. “That’s where I come in.” Broer has adopted the screen name Durova, the first female Russian officer.

An historic female military figure is a fitting name because Lise Broer has involved herself with the toughest and most contentious articles on Wikipedia. Ms. Broer/Durova worked to ban an editor who claimed to be the descendant of Joan of Arc and was intent on inscribing his shoddily sourced lineage on the saint’s Wikipedia page. “Wiki-drama” is as subtle as using “sock puppets” to pretend you’re more than one editor, to outright stalking. Through hours of incessant emails, text messages, and chats, Broer has dealt with these headaches with great professionalism — and she does it all for free.

Liberal Bias?

Conservative figures are subject to both outright vandalism and the subtle hostility of activist editors with an enormous ideological agenda and no scruples. If several editors collaborate to block or stonewall an article, they can stall well-sourced information or just entirely skew the presentation. For some reason conservatives are an especially appealing target.

“Is he best known as a (political) ‘commentator’ or as a ‘TV presenter’ or a ‘lying sack of sh*t?’” asks one irate editor of the Wikipedia Bill O’Reilly article.

Conservative radio personality and activist Melanie Morgan has had her Wikipedia article defaced for several years by editors who have lobbied to have false information included in her Wikipedia article, including changing her name.

[3] Michelle Malkin’s article is typically peppered with racial epithets.

Ann Coulter’s article is on a permanent lockdown status, where only the most trustworthy editors preside over the smallest of changes that have to reach some type of peer consensus. I can’t even reproduce much of the comments and criticisms on the Coulter article.

My article, [4] Matt Sanchez, is one of the most hotly contested articles on Wikipedia and has been shielded from editing for the better part of a year.

There are hundreds of thousands of blogs and articles on the Internet, so what makes Wikipedia any different from much of the dubious information one can find on the World Wide Web?

“Take the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, and Fox News. Put them together and the traffic going to [5] Wikipedia is easily 10 times that amount and growing,” Durova said. If you do a search, any search, there’s bound to be a Wikipedia article among the top three results. The culture wars have found a new battlefield; it’s named Wikipedia.org.

[6] Matt Sanchez is an international journalist and war correspondent. After a year of cooperating with Wiki-editors he is currently [7] banned from contributing to an article based on him at Wikipedia, due to protests of bias.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wiki-whacked-by-political-bias/

Why Do Voters Always Swoon for the New Guy?

2008-05-12T09:14:00.000-07:00

You know the old story--a new girl moves to town and every boy in school wants her number, each one hopes he'll be the one carrying her books home, tutoring her in chemistry, being the perfect host and winning the damsel's heart. But then reality sets in: someone gets the brush-off, she chooses a few girls to confide in and suddenly she has her friends, her clique, her place and role, and most of the boys know she'll forget their initial kindnesses soon enough. Still, the infatuation was fun while it lasted.

But maybe choosing the leader of the free world ought to be different. Maybe we should consider wisdom, experience, a voting record, a lifetime of service. Maybe some things matter more than a charming face and voice you're not bored with.

Yet Americans keep leaping for the new guy, for young blood, for "change." They were infatuated with Carter and Clinton. Those one-night stands turned out really well. (Remember that song, "Oh, the Girls All Get Prettier at Closing Time"?)

After Democrat Carter we had Democrats Bill and Hillary, whose own rise from nowhere was greeted with the same numbskull adoration that the media are now ready to bestow on Obama.

Consider another great article.

Wikipedia isn't.

2008-05-06T11:21:00.000-07:00

The people at Wikipedia want you to believe the online reference book is some sort of collaborative, democratic townhall, where users pass the wiki, (the conch, the talking stick, the candle, choose your own metaphor), and everyone gets to say their piece. The idea is that there will be a lot more voices, and the cream will rise to the top.

But this is the internet. What cream?

Not only is Wikipedia open to all sorts of ridiculous bias, lies, and propaganda. Not only is it one of the most consistently unreliable sources of information because so little is known of the contributors. But apparently the whole wiki idea is a sham.

Wikipedia employs monitors who watch over the entries and wield content-related editorial control. Every decent reference book has quality control editors. But Wikipedia is not a decent reference book. It has never pretended to be. It is some sort of on-line, "living document," where anything goes. Except things of which the thought police disapprove. (And remember--the website would like you to think there are no thought police. It's collaborative--allegedly.)

I have seen Wikipedia close its entries on Israel because those who wish to abolish Israel (and wipe the people off the face of the earth) had been filling the entry with propaganda. Sounds like a good decision, right? But what about every entry for every Jew who ever lived? How can Wikipedia keep out all the propaganda?

And what if you disagree with Wikipedia? Are the secret, trolling editors going to be fair on the facts surrounding gun control, or the Clarence Thomas hearings, or the Kennedy assassinations, or Greenpeace, or abortion proponent Margaret Sanger's ties to eugenics and her desire to rid the world of lesser races?

Here is an excellent article on Wikipedia's biased editing of all things related to global warming.

As I say so often, the article is better than what I have been rambling about. Trust me! You need to read the author's account of his struggle to correct facts about which he had first-hand knowledge.

Don't waste your time on Wikipedia. The handy categories, the nice layout, the tendency to have more information all in one place--it will lull you into credulity. I know it does me. My grandmother used to believe that people wouldn't put something in a book if it weren't true. "But it's in print!"

Don't think the same about Wikipedia. A source is either credible or it isn't. And Wikipedia isn't. Anyone can change a letter here and there and state as fact preposterous lies and distortions. Consider Wikipedia--at best--like the inadmissible evidence in a criminal investigation. It cannot be used to prove anything. But it "might" point you in the right direction.

Great Words for a Great Man, a Eulogy for Charlton Heston -- or -- Why George Clooney is a Moron

2008-04-09T13:53:00.000-07:00

BEVERLY HILLS, California, April 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In his legendary film career he played saints, geniuses, prophets, soldiers and even the occasional bad guy, but in real life, Charlton Heston was a genuine hero for his defence of civil rights for blacks and for the unborn. His death on Saturday, at age 84, was met with an outpouring of admiration and tributes on the internet and television news and on countless blogs. Admirers lauded him as one of the last of the old-time Hollywood movie stars, and as a man who also embodied in his off-screen life the integrity, patriotism and honour he often portrayed in films.

"If Hollywood had a Mt. Rushmore, Heston's face would be on it," Michael Levine, Mr. Heston's publicist for twenty years, said. "He was a heroic figure that I don't think exists to the same degree in Hollywood today." . . . .

Click to read more.

Ride on, El Cid. Ride On!

Hillary Wins Four Pinnochios from the Washington Post.

2008-03-25T12:18:00.000-07:00

Remember Al Gore inventing the internet? John Kerry claiming he was some kind of sharpshooting Rambo? Bill Clinton saying he wandered the streets of Harlem, worrying about the troubles of black folk? Obama saying he never heard Wright's racist comments, in twenty years of sermons?

Then there were Hillary's claims of being named for Sir Edmond Hillary, only later to learn he was not yet famous, and had yet to scale Everest or be knighted when she was born.

Hillary does it again. You have to see this to believe it.

This is shorter, and more fun.

I think I'm going to like this fact checker site....

When Will Obama Drop the "Vague Generalities"?

2008-03-24T15:17:00.001-07:00

Why is Barry Obama's campaign rhetoric so vague?

In seventh grade we used a Social Studies text that talked about the problem of "vague generalities." Politicians love to tickle your ears and avoid the details. But none so much as the-lawyer-formerly-known-as-"Barry" Obama.

I read an article today in which an Obama defender actually argued that his campaign is vague because he's waiting to hear from the people about what kind of "change" they want most. Wrong.

His campaign is vague because he is running as another utopian messiah, promising every buzzword of 60s-Marxist radicalism: "Change," "Hope," "A New America," "We Are the Change We Seek," "Power to the People," "Equality of Opportunity," "Equality of Condition," "Free to Be Me," "Unity," "Hope You Can Believe In," and on and on it goes.

Such a candidate must remain vague as long as possible; once he becomes real, and takes unpopular positions, he will be unable to represent everyone, to be the "I'm Every Woman"--(and Man)--candidate.

Such a candidate, once elected, will find his efforts to bring about utopia through the law thwarted. Utopias are always thwarted. And the thwarters are never tolerated. Marx believed in a Utopia. So did Stalin. Ditto Chairman Mao and Pol Pot.

Insist on concete language from the Messiah of the Secular Humanist Party. The vague promises he offers at present are at best illusory, at worst, grist for the mill that grinds up human lives.

Obama's rhetoric is dangerous.

...Not to mention is lack of discernment in choosing advisors and mentors. And then there's his honesty. Oh, and the fact that he claims to speak for both whites and blacks, because after all, he is one. (Two?)

Obama and Black Nationalism

2008-03-20T18:12:00.000-07:00

Investor's Business Daily does it again.

White House challengers such as Clinton think Obama's childhood brushes with Islam will make Americans nervous. But it's his adult conversion to black nationalism and socialism that makes this otherwise attractive minority candidate unfortunately so unattractive.

Reagan on Obama

2008-03-20T13:34:00.000-07:00

Michael Reagan on Obama's race speech: It was brilliant oratory, but....

Nobody expected him to declare Wright anathema and cast him into the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and the gnashing of teeth -- one simply doesn't do to that sort of thing to a longtime friend, benefactor and mentor even if he has been shown to have slipped the rails time after time.

What was not expected was Barack H. Obama's use of a litany of America's past racist offenses to justify not only Wright's blatant hatred of white America but his suggestion that it was a sentiment shared by most African Americans. And that is simply not true.

Nor was it true, as Obama charged, that the Reagan coalition was created out of white resentment for affirmative action or forced busing. He charged that "anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime. talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse
racism."

Poppycock! These are not only outright falsehoods, but echoes of what Obama learned at the feet of Jeremiah Wright and now preaches as his own beliefs. He learned his lessons well. When he suggested that my father's coalition was based on anger over affirmative action and welfare he was peddling blatant falsehood as egregious in its falsity as Wright's charge that whites created AIDS to wipe out the black population.

And These Are the Kinds of Men Obama Chooses for His Advisors?

2008-03-19T17:24:00.000-07:00

David Horowitz sees the end of the Obamanon phenomenon:

Barack Obama said that he could not disown his white-hating, Jew-hating, America-hating Pastor Jeremiah Wright because that would be the same as disowning the black community. Imagine a white politician saying he couldn't disown David Duke because that would be disowning the white community, and you will understand how utterly Obama has unmasked himself and why he now will never be a unifying candidate that all Americans can trust. This is the end of the Obama phenomenon....

Jeremiah Wright is a prophet of bigotry and hate. Barack Obama is a presidential candidate who will not repudiate bigotry if it comes in a black skin.

Mikhail Gorbachev a Christian?

2008-03-19T12:51:00.000-07:00

Remember the 20th Century's most important revolution? The sea-change accomplished without a single shot fired?

What President Reagan suspected long ago, has finally been confirmed: the last head of the USSR, the man God used (whether Gorby liked it or not) to topple the brutal, atheist empire and bring freedom and light to millions, may have been a believer all along.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.

Barack Obama and David Duke

2008-03-19T10:42:00.001-07:00

I wonder if David Duke took his daughters to the meetings?

Just curious.

Obama Denounces . . . DON IMUS?!

2008-03-18T15:40:00.000-07:00

Obama says Don Imus was wrong.

He mentions his daughters---that somehow they could be hurt by Imus.

What about the damage Obama has done by dragging them to the Church of Holy Hatred for twenty years? And how can Obama admire a man whose every sermon blasts the race of Obama's mother? I thought you weren't supposed to let people insult your mother?

And if I am 100% guilty for the sins of my ancestors, doesn't that make B. Hussein Obama at least 50% guilty of those same sins?

Watch this.

Kudos to David Mamet

2008-03-12T10:41:00.000-07:00

Here's an article that will bless your soul. (But beware the language.)

Every day I think about the liberal worldview and how best to address it. I struggle to reduce conservatism and liberalism to their few and most fundamental principles (private property is sacrosanct, free markets = better and cheaper products, power corrupts and must be held in check, etc.).

Now here's a liberal who unwittingly seems to have worked out the same equations--and of course, he misplaced his liberalism along the way. He begins by stating his most obvious liberal beliefs: People are all basically good, but the world is corrupt, you can't trust the government, or business, or the military, everything is always wrong.

But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part.

Click here to read more.

Prostitution a Victimless Crime?

2008-03-11T12:04:00.000-07:00

Pontificating on Eliot Spitzer, Nora Ephron explained that prostitution is a victimless crime. She must be among those who consider it a willing exchange of goods and services between equally sophisticated parties, a negotiated arm's-length transaction, or perhaps the consummation of a "personal services contract."

This webpage has a good article and cites scientific research.

To believe prostitution has no victims, one must ignore these statistics published in Farley's Fact Sheet:

78 percent of 55 women who sought help from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in 1991 reported being raped an average of 16 times a year by pimps, and were raped 33 times a year by johns.

62 percent reported having been raped in prostitution.

73 percent reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.

72 percent were currently or formerly homeless.

92 percent stated that they wanted to escape prostitution immediately.

83 percent of prostitutes are victims of assault with a weapon.

75 percent of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide.

67 percent meet diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

In short, the victims of prostitution are mostly the prostitutes themselves. It just may be that they no longer have the ability left to "consent" to be a willing participant in their so-called victimless crime.
*I would push for one change: the buyers should always be prosecuted along with the sellers, regardless of the purpose the investigation.
*Alec Baldwin (OF ALL PEOPLE) agrees that prostitution should always be a crime.

Win in Ohio Buys Time for the Clinton War Machine

2008-03-05T10:01:00.000-08:00

More than one person I know is complaining that you have to kill Jason when you get the chance, and put him in the woodchipper so he won't come back--but I am excited about Hillary's continued survival. (You go girl!)

Republicans have not picked a truly great candidate since 1980. But this year, they've somehow settled for the ultimate compromise. There's no way McCain can defeat Obama. Bush the Younger was well-liked by most Republicans, and had a way of rallying Hispanic voters. Yet he barely beat Gore (Gore!?) and Kerry. Bush could not have asked for opponents with less charisma, charm, and eloquence, yet he nearly lost.

McCain is not half the campaigner the inarticulate Bush proved to be.

The only hope for the GOP?

The Clinton War Machine.
She'll dig up something. She can't defeat BO, but she might be able to inflict a mortal wound. (If she can't do it, no one can!)

Now that You Are About to Elect My Husband--For the First Time in My Adult Life, I am Proud of My Country.

2008-03-03T09:19:00.000-08:00

What excellent work from the great Michael Ramirez at Investor's Business Daily. He not only comes up with great satirical ideas--he is also a fantastic artist and colorist, with great use of line and shadow.

You can see more of his work here.

Obama Regrets Not Supporting Terry Schiavo's Husband

2008-03-01T07:25:00.000-08:00

Remember Terry Schiavo's husband--the man who secured permission to kill his disabled wife and promptly cut off her feeding tube? This in spite of not only measurable brain activity, but smiles, "vocalizations," and other actions her parents took as indications not only of awareness but of conscious thought? Remember when a Republican Congress took a stand for life, arguing that starving Terry was wrong?

Mr. Obama has regrets. Regrets that he did not stand up for Terry? No. He's a liberal Democrat, an ALLEGED PROGRESSIVE, liberated from the shackles of religion, morality, and all vestiges of absolute truth.

Obama regrets that he did not take a stronger stand against his colleagues. He regrets his failure to stand up for the rights of the husband.

"When I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decisionmaking process of the families," he said. "It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake..."

The worst part of this may be that regrets tend to create determination: Obama is not likely to repeat his "error."

Read the article here.

**Incidentally, this issue, like Major League Baseball, healthcare, education, the arts, and a thousand other things was arguably never within the province of the U.S. Congress. Not being enumerated in the Constitution, most issues fall within the "Reserved Powers," and are rightly the business only of the individual States. Ha, ha, ha, ha! How cute, I know. How naive. Oh, that's classic. Try to restrain your hilarity. Oh, and of course, true to form, when convenient, Democrats will suddenly stand up and defend the Constitution:

But Democrats said Congress has no right to become involved in a sensitive family issue.

"We are members of Congress. We are not doctors. We are not medical experts. We are not bioethicists. We are members of Congress," said Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

How often do you hear BIG GOVERNMENT Socialists ask to be kept out of people's private affairs? The latter quote is from a news article of 2005. BTW, doesn't the Schiavo case seem like just yesterday? Obama really is short on experience.

Prophetic Words from 1955

2008-02-28T16:33:00.000-08:00

What's better than brilliant, well-reasoned writing? Brilliant, well-reasoned writing that is also unblinkingly, frighteningly prophetic.

Consider the current state of the GOP:

Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by the Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.

Here's more, also from the happy post-war years, before a radical Supreme Court had had much time to swing its axe at the architecture of the Constitution. This was nine years before the Beatles hit Ed Sullivan and boys discovered bangs, before the Beats and the Hippies and the Yippies, before Jack Kerouac and Ginsberg, before sex, drugs, rock-n-roll. Before a counter-culture generation worked itself into a frenzy of rebellion against bourgeoisie values--which basically meant rebellion without any meaningful cause, or better, rebellion without an object.

And what do rebels without an object object to? Whatever bothers them at the moment. Parents, teachers, rules, society ("The Establishment"), jobs, the boss ("The Man"), lack of jobs, crime, men who fight crime, post-war peace and prosperity, zits, bras, churches that suggest actions have consequences, the consequences themselves, (unplanned pregnancies), people who want to bring down their high, an existence that requires effort, etcetera ad infinitum.

Again--it's 1955. People are as proud of America as they have ever been. They instinctively respect the one nation that was able to save the world from the three evil empires of World War Two, and the only nation standing in the way of the Death Machines of Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao (who some argue were busy killing as many as 60 million of their own people).

The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things.

Run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals.' Drop a little itching powder in Jimmy Wechler's bath [think George Stephanopoulos] and before he has scratched himself for the third time, Arthur Schlesinger will have denounced you in a dozen books and speeches, Archibald MacLeish [think Norman Lear] will have written ten cantos about our age of terror, Harper's will have published them, and everyone in sight will have been nominated for a Freedom Award [Nobel Prize].

This was National Review's Mission Statement, written by William F. Buckley, Jr., November 19, 1955. May he rest in peace.

President Obama and the Heretics

2008-02-27T09:04:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama is not a Muslim. That much is clear, though there are good reasons to ask the question. But he is a member of a false religion nonetheless. Unfortunately, like all heresies, his "church" does not seek to annihilate Christendom, but merely to alter it slightly.

Nevertheless, Black Liberation Theology, especially as preached by Obama's pastor, is so radically different from the gospel of the New Testament as to constitute a new gospel altogether.

In Galatians 1: 8 Paul writes, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should come to you preaching a gospel that is contrary to what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

President Obama

2008-02-27T08:59:00.000-08:00

As I write, the momentum appears to be with Barack Hussein Obama. It's hard to believe it--a man with a name like that--but Americans have been nothing if not accomodating in the wake of 9/11. Here is a young man, handsome, charming, and with oratorical skills we have not seen since Ronald Reagan. He's generally happy, winsome, and comes off as an optimist--which is not easy for a Democrat. The first time I heard him speak, I was stunned and astonished. He is a fantastic speaker.

Hillary's right--it's all meaningless platitudes and poetic nothingness: It's time for change. Things will change. We are change. You are change, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. (Can I get change for a dollar?)

But in an evenly divided nation--where a charmless fear-monger like Al Gore almost won--no one is going to be beating Obama easily. Add to that the RINO shill-for-the-liberals that is John McCain, and the Republicans don't stand a chance. No matter how many of the people once stabbed in the back by McCain eventually come out and rally for him, some of us are not going to buy it.

Does anyone actually believe the Lesser of Two Evils Argument is enough to defeat one of the best speech makers since MLK?* Bob Dole, is that the best you can do? President Bush the Elder, is there no better defense of McCain than that--that he's not as horrible as the Democrats? And what's with calling McCain a "Reagan Conservative"? Saying that destroys all your credibility. In fact, it's more than mere "puffing," as they say in law school. It sounds like a lie.

(*Although--a vast gulf lies between President Obama and Reverend King, as King's speeches possessed not only high-rhetoric, but also substantive content.)

Anything can happen in politics, but the odds are with B. Hussein Obama.

CONGRATULATIONS, DEMOCRATS!!

2008-02-27T08:43:00.000-08:00

Congratulations, Democrats! You can't lose! No matter what happens now, you get either moderate Democrat McCain, serious Democrat Clinton, or Marxist Democrat Obama. To the victor go the spoils.

Sam Houston Would Agree With Ron Paul

2008-02-08T14:35:00.001-08:00

"The great misfortune is that a notion obtains with those in power, that the world, or the people require more governing than is necessary. To govern too well is a great science, but no country is ever improved by too much governing. . . most men think when they are elevated to position, that it requires an effort to discharge their duties, and they leave common sense out of the question."

Sam Houston.

I Vote for Ron Paul

2008-02-08T14:22:00.000-08:00

After searching for a candidate who is conservative--and who didn't just figure out he was conservative in the last year or two--I've landed on an option I think is at least a far cry from a Hillary endorsement.

Dr. Ron Paul (obstetrician) is clearly the most conservative candidate running. He is against tax increases. He supports a flat tax and the abolition of the IRS. He also favors pulling out of the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, WTO, the ICC and most other international organizations/treaties that threaten our national sovereignty (look at the threat the EU poses to the UK, for example).

On the home front, Dr. Paul believes in a smaller government, and is "tired of the federal government kicking its ball into his yard." He favors doing away with most of the huge, bloated federal agencies that continue to drain our tax revenue, stifle creativity, and smother independence.

And just to be clear, he has always supported the invasion of Afghanistan to defeat those who attacked us on 9/11. He did not support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, because it was done without the Constitutionally required Congressional Declaration of War. I love Bush, but I have to say, when weighing a brand-new tactic dressed up with the fancy term "Bush Doctrine," versus the venerated Constitution, (drafted by the Founding Fathers, ratified by the States, credited by 200 years of court decisions from the USSC) I have to go with the Constitution.

For thirty years, Dr. Paul has hewn to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution that, frankly, makes him an anomoly in this age (or any age). On the other hand, here is one candidate who is committed to a clearly defined set of principles, not to his own power.

As I have told most of you before, please read some of his articles. You will have to admit they are refreshing in this age of television politicians who too often will say anything to get elected, and seem to understand so little about the principles that made this nation great. (Too many Republicans depart from GOP principles after they are elected. Again, I love Bush on several issues: great judicial nominees, good on security, but he has never been interested in shrinking government. "Compassionate Conservative" was always not-too-veiled code for "Republicans who will keep giving your wages to the poor, to the illegal aliens, to Africans dying of malaria who could be saved with DDT," etc.)

I don't expect Dr. Paul to become the president, not now or ever. But given his allegiance to the Constitution and the principles of the Founders, I want to do anything I can to see that his message gets out. In the sixties, the right-thinking Goldwater was defeated as well--but some believed he blazed a trail for the coming of Ronald Reagan. I think somewhere out there in America is a Ron Paul supporter who could be the next Gipper. You never know.

All I ask is that you read some of his short, well-written articles, and give his positions the thought they deserve. I also signed up as an endorser, so at some point I assume my name will come up here. More interestingly, you might want to consider the section called Acclaim for Ron Paul. The comments from people all over the spectrum are very interesting.

Christmas, Politics, and the Cross

2007-12-21T14:17:00.001-08:00

So now McCain and Huckabee both have Christmas ads, featuring a cross in the sand and an alleged bookcase cross (not unlike those Virgin Mary inkblots that keep popping up). I find McCain's to be far more self-serving, as long as we're knocking the men. A real sense of Me-too-please-pick-me-I-love-Jesus-I'm-practically-a-martyr.

But "Boris" left a comment to the Huffington Post article that intrigued me:

I dont think the crucifixion cross is a proper symbol for Christmas since it is about the death of Christ and not his birth. THE symbol for Christmas is the Manger or the Star of the East, or Joseph and Mary, etc. In fact, using the crucifix for Christmas shows the lack of understanding of Christ's life and the willingness to confuse the issue. What does this show about McCain's understanding of Christmas? Not much.

I disagree strongly. I think the cross ("crux" in Latin--origin of the phrase) is the "crux" of the matter, the crux of history, and the crux of Jesus's ministry. It was the crux--the whole point--of the Incarnation in the first place. It's why He came. As I argued to Boris.

Forget the politics. Politicians will do what politicians will do.

But the crucifixion is certainly the heart of Christmas. Consider Matthew 20:28, in which Jesus says of Himself, "the Son of Man did not come to serve, but to be served, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

The point of Christmas is the point of the nails. As one song puts it, He was "Born to die, to rise again, to crush the power of Satan's sin."

For many of us, it is not the baby lolling in the manger that moves us, but the overwhelming love of a Creator God who gives up His throne (Philippians 2) to rescue His beloved creation. His arrival was extraordinary, but when He said of His work "It is finished," He was speaking about the redeeming work of the cross.

Jesus explained, "No greater LOVE has any man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." That is the love that makes Christmas so special.

Politics and Graduation: Commencement Speakers and the UH Law Center

2007-12-05T10:06:00.000-08:00

*Warning: uncharacteristic complaining ahead.

Consider this: You recently invested thousands of dollars and hours in an education. Your family supported you with love and prayers and encouragement--and of course, money. Mom and Dad and Grandma and the cousins are coming to recognize you on your special day.

Then the Dean of Students arranges things so the event will promote her personal agenda. It's not about you, your family, your accomplishments, or your future. This is her day, an opportunity to force a captive audience to listen to a speaker whose entire life symbolizes the single most polarizing subject in American life: abortion.

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, imagine how you would feel if a speaker on the other side were scheduled to speak to your family and friends at your graduation. This is your one chance to show them something of what graduate school has been like for you--and instead, they get to listen to political sermonizing on abortion.

This was the case in early 2001, when Dean She-Whose-Name-Must-Not-Be-Spoken announced she had chosen Sarah Weddington as the commencement speaker for the University of Houston Law Center.

Weddington is the Texas attorney who (with a team from UT) chose the "perfect" Jane Roe from among a pool of unwed, pregnant, and otherwise troubled women. Once they had settled on Norma McCorvey, they proceeded to call the Dallas District Attorney, Henry Wade, and announced that their client planned to have an abortion. (What kind of lawyer does that?) Weddington also prepared for McCorvey's signature an affidavit swearing the child was the product of rape. McCorvey later said that was a lie.

Wade dutifully filed charges against McCorvey and Weddington appealed. The Supreme Court took up the case, and several years later published Roe v. Wade.

(McCorvey never did get her abortion, by the way. She claims to have been told she would, though Weddington had to know the legal process could never have moved that fast. The child was adopted.)

Although Weddington was appointed by Carter to some post or another, thirty years later she is still known for only one thing--her connection to abortion.

Thus many students were unhappy with the dean's choice of speaker, but passive. A smaller number was outraged and wanted She-Whose-Name-Must-Not-Be-Spoken to schedule someone else. We have speakers all year long, more than one a week, they argued. Why does graduation have to be about abortion? Weddington herself had already spoken on campus that year. Couldn't She-Whose-Name-Must-Not-Be-Spoken find a judge or some meritorious alumnus to speak? Was there no one out there that could talk benignly about the law and not risk offending half the people in attendance? As politicized as life at the UH law center is already, wouldn't it be nice to have some unity at graduation?

She-Whose-Name-Must-Not-Be-Spoken scheduled a meeting with concerned students. She cried. She apologized for creating such a controversy. She had no idea people would react this way. She's new to Houston, after all. Oh, and by the way, should you protest at graduation, or wear black arm bands or put signs on top of the mortar board, or otherwise exercise your freedom of speech, remember I HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON YOUR FITNESS TO SIT FOR THE BAR EXAM. In other words, if the students were determined to protest, they risked destroying their entire legal career. Extortion? Has it come to that?

The flack hit the fan. The Houston Chronicle ran articles, editorials, and letters to the editor about the controversy. The paper quoted professors who lamented the fact that the school was turning out such poor attorney candidates. One prof said if the students were unhappy about Weddington, how could they ever represent a client with whom they disagreed?

That's just stupid. Forgive me for not putting it in legal terms. I lament that UH ever hired a professor who could make such a stupid argument. After all, enjoying your graduation--which you paid for--is completely different from representing a party in court. (Incidentally, such protests often swirl about Weddington's commencement addresses.)

In the midst of this, I--a lucky member of the class of 2002--wrote a letter to the editor of the Chronicle. It was printed. They spelled my name correctly. Everything else was wrong. I complained to the Paper and was told the Houston Chronicle frequently "rewrites" letters to the editor so that they represent the majority of the letters received. (Did you know that? Does the reading public expect letters to the editor to have been revised not only for grammar, but for content?) I thought it curious how perfectly my "re-written" letter represented the opinions the opposition accused those on my side of having. That is, they changed the letter, turning it into an easily defeated straw man. But they kept my name on it.

Anyway, the commencement went along swimmingly. No one protested. A year later, when I graduated, we had a speaker from NASA. I don't remember what he had to say, but we laughed a lot and he was wonderful.

And now-- the rest of the story. Remember the plea of She-Whose-Name-Must-Not-Be-Spoken that she "had no idea" students would protest? We learned a few years later that she had brought Weddington to the commencement during her tenure at a previous law school. Students there had protested also, but to no avail.

So, if unhappy students will make poor attorneys, what do you make of a dissembling and deceptive dean? And whatever may have happened elsewhere, her claimed surprise at our reaction to Weddington is in-credible. No lawyer is that naiive and out of touch. She knew, she did not care, and she lied, cried, and pretended otherwise.

I'm sorry to say that I do not miss the UH Law Center. Yet, the people and the programs are generally quite good. If those who dwell in their ivory towers could find it in their hearts to extend a bit of tolerance, the place would be much better. It must be nice to be a tenured liberal professor and to tell yourself you are right about everything and that anyone who disagrees is beneath your contempt. I suppose the feeling extends even to the Republican lawyers and conservative firms that donate their hard-earned money to keep the professors employed.

P.S. On a positive note, She-Whose-Name-Must-Not-Be-Spoken is out. On another note, my list of the truly great professors at UHLC:

Meredith Duncan
Seth Chandler
Johnny Rex Buckles
Joan Krause
Sidney Buchanan
the late, great Rosenberg
Doug Moll
Chris Martin (adjunct)
Robert DuBose (adjunct)

Whatever their politics, these are not in favor of forced conversions.

For a kinder evaluation of the tenure of She-Whose-Name-Not-Must-Be-Spoken, and a description of the admittedly daunting problems she faced (besides the one(s) she brought upon herself)--consider a brief blog by Christine Hurt, legal research and writing director while I was in school, and a woman who deserved a great deal more respect than students seemed willing to give.

Let's Kill All the Lawyers...

2007-11-26T14:15:00.000-08:00

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
--William Shakespeare

For the record, Shakespeare never suggested killing lawyers. The Bard gave that line to a villian in Henry VI. As I understand the play, the criminals know that for their plot to work, they'll have to get rid of lawyers. After all, who else is going to stop them from trampling the Magna Carta and destroying the Rights of Man?

Many argue this is a compliment to lawyers because it acknowledges they are a threat. Thus, this sound bite is not the sort of anti-bourgeois, Marxist sentiment that so many imagine it to be. Lawyers may be capitalists, they may be expensive, perfectionists, critical, abrasive, and control-freaks. But lawyers show up every day, the only one standing between citizens and prison, or between people and poverty. It is still a noble calling and an extremely valuable service.

Who else has the ability to protect you from the tentacles of an over-reaching State?

Consider Pakistan.

What does the dictator do when he wants to increase his power? Musharraf might well have said it himself:

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

P.S. Props to the unknown pontificator PTB for a heads up on sources. Consider this article for more on the Shakespeare line, all of which is beside the point of this post.

There's Nothing Original About Original Intent

2007-10-24T13:55:00.000-07:00

Consider the following. You just came up with the next great widget. Everybody's going to want one--but you can't cover the production costs. So you recruit two venture capitalists and they like your idea. The prototype is impressive and you've got a deal. You shake hands, then stop by the lawyers' office and draw up some forms. Sign and date in the presence of a notary. Deposit the check, and you're in business. Two years pass. A competitor uses reverse engineering to copy your widget, changing it just enough to escape a patent suit. You made a few mistakes and now the money's all gone and you can only sell your stock at a loss.

Suddenly you find yourself in court, facing off against your former partners. At issue are the terms of the writing. Forget the oral agreement and handshake. When you get to court, will you be bound by the original intent of the parties (as revealed by the terms of the writing)? Or will the parties get up and describe the writing as a living document, with terms that are open to adaptation as circumstances or parties change? How would a judge respond to such an argument?

Lawyer: Your honor, the plaintiffs would construe this writing as a "living document," and as such, the terms are fluid. The terms are adaptable, malleable, mutable.

Court: Then why bother writing them down?

Lawyer: Well, your honor, this is the customary way of doing business, the expectation of the parties....

Court: So the parties expect to sign a written contract, but not to be bound by its terms? They plan to exchange promises but keep all the terms fuzzy? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a writing? Fuzzy deals are for handshakes, counselor, for standing arrangements and oral understandings.

The only reason anyone ever reduces an agreement to writing is in order to be bound by that writing. If the writing is a "living document" then what possible advantage was there in drafting it? I have no idea. The hard fact is, fuzzy (but 'original') terms like living document are only in vogue today because so much fuzzy thinking passes for sound reasoning.

I can tolerate a great deal of existentialism and relativism. Probably too much. I can accept the idea that I will never on this Earth be able to fully share another man's shoes. A Venn diagram of our minds and experiences will never completely overlap. There may be ways in which I will never fully know even my most intimate allies. But we speak the same language. I understand most of what is said to me in English. We can communicate. And we can come to terms. And if I promise to provide x number of products on y date, in exchange for your payment of z dollars, we have a deal. And if we take the time to write it, review it, and sign it, every court in this country will assume both parties understood it, absent some claim a party lacked capacity to enter a contract in the first place.

In addition, most literate Americans understand the written English of the late 18th century. We can read the Constitution and other founding documents and know exactly what the words mean. Originalism is the way documents have always been read. After all, how else can you understand any written word, but to attempt to read it with the tone and meaning with which it was written. The beauty of originalism is that it is completely un-original.

And if you are a hopeless existentialist, do you actually believe it is impossible to know any writer's intent at any time? Do you think the pursuit of original intent is somehow an objectionable call for speculation? Fine. Although we can make a sound argument, we need not prove the actual inner motives of any of the framers of the Constitution. Maybe it was all some sort of conspiracy, right? There's a fresh, post-modern approach.

But we can certainly require the document to be applied in a manner consistent with the original understandingof those who read and ratified it. All that requires is a reading of the legislative history, especially the wealth of letters sent throughout the 13 states explaining in detail the meaning of each article in the Constitution. Such legislative history is plentiful and it is consistent. The Constitution should be read today to have the same meaning it had in 1789. Supreme Court opinions consistent with such a reading, or inconsistent but so deeply entrenched as to have now become essential (absent an amendment) due to stare decisis, should be given the greatest precedential value. Opinions that are neither consistent with an original understanding of the Constitution, nor deeply entrenched, should be set aside or overruled. (FYI: Lest you think legislative history is a weak argument, note that lawyers make resort to legislative history every day for cases involving everything from zoning ordinances to the income tax.)

Again, I can't help but think in personal terms. What if your boss said your employment contract was a living document? Or your rich wife informed you she now saw that prenup as adaptable? Or the surgeon who injured your child argued the informed consent papers you signed now included the injury in question, because the document changed with the times? Such arguments would be ludicrous. People do not operate this way, they don't do business this way. Scholars don't even read history this way. And those who ask courts to read the Constitution as an allegedly "living document" that changes with the times do so for only one reason: they do not believe American law would have gotten where it is today without such readings, and they are certain it will not progress further if the Court looks to anything like an original understanding. Both views are wrong and I will explain why another time. Finally, a quote. One of the Huxley's once said he and others like him had become proponents of evolutionary theory for only one reason: it allowed them the freedom to behave any way they liked. Perhaps the same is true of those who talk about "living documents."

After unwittingly showing my kids an R-rated film...

2007-07-04T14:03:00.001-07:00

It was Gladiator. I tried to convince Twila the "R" stood for Russell Crow. But she didn't buy it.

Anyway, I found this interesting. Try it.

The Fall of Europe

2007-05-08T16:46:00.000-07:00

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims.

In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world.These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride. They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world,drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

This is a translation of an article from a Spanish newspaper--or so claims the spammer who sent it to me. I thought it was worth the reading either way.

A Little Square for Sheryl Crow

2007-04-25T16:26:00.000-07:00

What is Heaven?

2007-04-03T14:43:00.000-07:00

Heaven is a lot of things to a lot of people. But to me it will start with one incredible reunion. I showed my children this video of a sailor returning from Iraq and surprising his kindergartener after 7 months away. Then I asked them who he reminded me of--if I were the little boy. They said, "Grampa?" Good answer.

But no. I said, "If the little boy were me--when I get to Heaven--who is the Daddy?"

And my kindergartener knew:

"GeeJuss!!"

Exactly. Watch this little boy. He is overwhelmed to be reunited with Daddy. Watch how he stretches his hands, spreads his fingers. There is nothing in the world that he wants more at that moment than to be held by his Daddy.

That's me.

"Even so, come, Lord Jesus."

Here's the video. Hope it stays up for a long time.

Tagged Again? I thought I quit...

2007-02-12T07:33:00.000-08:00

Six weird things, because Dennis caught me and held me down:

1. I sometimes eat cold, sliced broccoli for breakfast. No, it doesn't taste good with coffee. But I do it anyway.

2. I only wash my car when it comes free with the oil change.

3. I never sweat and have been known to wear a pair of jeans some fifty times before finally washing them (but who's counting?).

4. I eschew deodorant, but am obsessive about dental health.

5. I have written and now revised a novel. Call me if you know an agent....

6. House Bill Four put me out of work on June 30, 2006. Your prayers are appreciated. (Okay, it's not that weird, but it is critical.)

7. Bonus: By quitting, i.e., walking off when he was mad at me (usually while practicing baseball), Dennis taught me to deeply loathe the quitting instinct--(a message that was reinforced in many other ways by my parents). It is easier for me to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune than it is to take arms 'gainst a sea of troubles . . . and quit.

Thanks for reading!

Happy Thanksgiving

2006-11-23T13:59:00.000-08:00

The food was good, and the fellowship. Speaking of the weather, it's another fantastic day in Houston (that's all we've had for about three weeks)....

I am thankful for a phrase the Houston Post--now Chronicle--media critic Ken Hoffman once described as the "best endorsement I ever heard":

GOD LISTENS.

That is, the slogan of KSBJ states that for which I am most thankful. Being unemployed, I have prayed about all sorts of things lately. And sometimes it's a YES, sometimes a NO, often I hear no answer at all. But--

GOD LISTENS.

What a thought. Does the answer even matter? Maybe it's enough just to know He really is listening. He hears the cry of every heart--even those too stable, too dull, or just too male to muster up any actual cries. (Much as I might like to.)

God Listens.

And He is faithful. A verse that got me through law school has also had renewed importance for me lately:

Faithful is He who calls you, and He will also bring it to pass.

Amen. He is faithful and He listens.

Thanks.

Men and Marriage by George Gilder

2006-09-01T12:55:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot about something the always-controversial George Gilder said about men and marriage. I think he's right. He basically said that men are born wild (as Eldredge points out: Adam was formed outside the Garden, while Eve was formed in it) and only the love of women can civilize them. There's much more to it--but it's very interesting. It's not to say men are not equally valuable, but that men are filled with impulses that may or may not contribute to society and the home. But women always grow up to be homemakers. A woman without a man can still raise the children. For a single father, it's harder somehow.

I've tried to paste some of Gilder's text here, but can't grab it from Amazon. Check out the book, and read a few pages--beginning at page five. Let me know what you think.

What? A Patriotic Oliver Stone Movie?

2006-07-21T14:17:00.000-07:00

That's what they're saying about World Trade Center....

Thoughts on the Gray Lady

2006-07-13T13:48:00.000-07:00

Dedicated to those who think appeasement is the best way to deal with evil. It was confrontation that ended the Cold War without a shot fired--not pacifying the enemy with diplomacy. Reagan's Evil Empire speech changed the world, not the men in the State Department who kept deleting the phrase.

This is not my creation. I posted it for E.... Enjoy.

High School Reunion? Don't Miss It.

2006-06-22T15:00:00.000-07:00

Our Twentieth High School Reunion left me with three distinct impressions:

1. Everyone was so incredibly, sincerely NICE.

2. I am not as young as I used to be.

3. I miss people; I value something in relationships that may have meant little at the time. Shared history is shared life.

Is anything more fun than a reunion? Don't all our best memories involve getting together with old friends and family and talking about things and laughing about old times? Isn't a wedding (or in some cases, a funeral) more fun than dinner with the President? Wouldn't you trade front row seats to--whatever--for a chance to re-connect with all your old friends? I would. And my old foes.

And if relationships don't thrill you, consider the tremendous insight. After Sharpstown c/o 1986 had its ten-year reunion, I thought in addition to having so much fun, I had learned one thing valuable: All the cliches about nerds becoming rich and popular-people/jocks being poor are wrong. What a nerd or social misfit might do is probably no more predictable than the general population. But it looks like there IS a correlation between popularity and future job performance: many of them will be successful at whatever they do. After all, they became popular by having great people skills--not to mention being aggressive and competitive, or assertive at least. (And I do not speak to you as one of them, believe me.) After the twenty-year reunion, I can add another detail: almost every single popular male that I know is now in some form of sales, either hard or soft, cars or houses or intellectual property.

Another thing. The reunion was the most fun I have ever crammed into one evening. Like a mountaintop--with a valley, and I was sad it was over the next day. I also felt old, realizing in another twenty years, my daughter will have her own ten-year reunion! (Actually, a number of factors combined to make me feel old.) But mostly, I felt sad. Even though I was so very unhappy in high school, I miss the people--not who they were then, but who they are now, and our shared history. I daydream of a small town where people stay connected all their lives. Whether that ever existed, I don't know--but after the Industrial Revolution, it exists no more. (But then, neither does the yawning poverty that threatened everyone everywhere.)

The 20th was an absolutely huge, life-altering milestone. I am so glad I went.

Below is a series of e-mail messages between me and my very best high school friend. There was never any way he was going to go. But I think he's a bum for missing it. In my e-mails, I am trying to convince him that he actually is interested in the way all these people's lives have turned out. I want him to admit that he was lying when he said "I am just absolutely not interested." (I suspect he was unhappy with his appearance, among other things. I also suspect many no-shows were. There was only ONE person there with any gray hair--and we're all 38--and there were only a handful that had gained weight. That was too bad for all of us.)

(Some of you know this guy....)

Chris--
The reunion was a blast--in spite of how much I hated high school. Several have died. Half a dozen ladies were obviously on starvation diets. Chuck Wehner said you were a tool for not coming--he made me promise to pass that along. He said it affectionately. (Gawd, you were missed.) People asked about you and even about [your sister]. Guess who's a sheriff in Harris County? San Jacinto county? Guess who's a psychotherapist? Flight instructor, radiologist, dentist, and a whole lot of salesmen? Guess who brought his (male) life partner? Guess who had hair to his waist? Guess who came home from Kuwait for the reunion? Guess who got leave from his 20-year navy career? Guess who's been teaching and coaching at Sharpstown for 14 years? (You should know that one.) Guess who thought I was a Democrat just because of my job title? Guess who came from Minneapolis? Guess how many alumns live in Sugar Land? Guess who lives in Denver? Guess who owns two car dealerships?.... Guess who Paul said looked like "Fat Elvis" because of his weight gain? Guess which really popular guy gave me creepy vibes? Guess who suffers gout and has been seen doing yard work on crutches?

But I won't bore you with the details, seeing as how you said you weren't interested....

Steven

After this and other tantalizing messages, CW wrote back and admitted he actually was interested. But at the time, he "was not $120 interested." Victory! And I concede, the fee was ridiculous.

Today I got another message about the reunion--from a friend who was there. My reply:

. . . I have been SO distracted since the reunion. It was so much fun, and so weird at the same time. It's a special event, you know? Getting together after 20 years!? I wouldn't have missed it.

Funny thing, having seen you and Jeff F. both at the ten-year and the next day in Hermann Park, I felt like I had seen y'all just yesterday--and like I would see you again tomorrow. But of course, it's been a decade. But not as much has changed in the last ten years as in the first ten.

Still, it was great to see everyone. I just can't stop thinking about it. In the end, it's going to cost me a lot more than the $63 I paid to get in. Daydreaming is not billable....

I missed a lot of people too. Laura V., for example, married a childhood friend of mine from across town (we went to church together). I haven't seen Glen in 20 years either (though she came to the 10-year). Sorry Robert Munden couldn't make it. I seem to have tracked him down on the east coast somewhere, in a research firm of some sort. But it escapes me at the moment.

I also wonder about Jimmy K. I used to see him at HBU until he got a C in calculus or something and lost his academic scholarship. Then he was a bank teller for a while, but I've since lost touch. His name is common enough, I never even tried to look him up. (But now you've got me curious.) I just have to get back to work and try to stay focused! I can't afford too many reunions...

I looked up Kathy G. after I read she was deceased. Breast cancer in 2000. I had no idea.

It was great seeing you, once again. Thanks for the e-mail. Let's keep in touch.

Steven

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management (Allegedly).

2006-06-14T13:49:00.000-07:00

(Don't miss the fine print.)

The Come True-er

2006-06-08T09:55:00.003-07:00

My son has been thinking about prayer a lot lately. He's five. Tuesday night at bedtime he wanted to know if he could pray that God would make those men stop taking our money. (We have had several talks about taxes recently.) I laughed when I realized what he meant. (Interestingly, to Marshall the men who take our money are the same as strangers: nice at first, until they get you alone somewhere in the forest. I'm not sure how he came up with the connection, but I find it apt. And no matter how I try, we cannot discuss one without the other.)

So, Marshall prayed those men would stop taking our money. I prayed his childlike faith might be rewarded!

Last night he wanted to know if he could pray for five more days of Vacation Bible School--which ends tomorrow. Both kids have really enjoyed it this year.

"And so, Daddy, Jejjus is the Come-True-er, Right?"
"What?"
"He's the Come True-er. Because if I pray, He'll make it come true. Right?"

1. What Happened to General Motors? Anti-Trust Law

2006-06-02T08:12:00.000-07:00

Anti-trust law, conceived and promoted as consumer protection, is actually something else entirely. It was never about protecting the consumer. The idea is that businesses such as Microsoft get too big and then destroy their competition so they can make more money with some unwieldy monopoly. But this scenario is loaded with lies and bad economics. The best known being the mythical "PREDATORY PRICING." This idea that a business would choose to willingly sell at a price below what the market would bear in hopes that competitors would be driven out of business is ludicrous. How long would that take? Months? Years? Even a big business can't afford to operate below cost. And assuming they already have a large market share, predatory pricing then hurts the would-be predator more than it hurts anyone else. And even if current competition went out of business, what about the young upstarts, the new businesses always ready to jump in and sell cheaper than the large monopoly? Even the monopoly will go under if it never recoups its losses from years of selling below cost. And more importantly--PREDATORY PRICING HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE CREATED A MONOPOLY. It's a losing strategy; you don't become a business success by ignoring profits.

Companies become large and successful by making a better product more efficiently. That is, they sell a good product at a low price. Standard Oil, long ago attacked by a federal anti-trust prosecution, had been providing cheaper and cheaper oil products for fifty years. The price had dropped so much--thanks to Rockefeller's many innovations--that few companies could compete. So they sold their resources to Standard. That's what is supposed to happen in capitalism. The most innovative, most efficient gets more resources and uses them better. In the end, the consumer wins. And that has been true in every anti-trust prosecution to date. The consumers were always winning. But the federal government stepped in anyway, not to protect the consumer (as they always claim), but to protect the less-efficient (but more politically-connected) competition. Anti-trust law has always been at its core ANTI-CAPITALIST.

(Didn't you ever wonder why the corrupt Clinton-Reno Justice Department went after Microsoft? Could they really be the gallant white knight suddenly, rescuing the consumer? No. That was not it at all.)

So many of America's best businesses have been attacked and uselessly prosecuted under bogus anti-trust law that others were afraid they were next. Enter General Motors. Afraid they were next to be sacrificed on the anti-trust altar, in the 1940s and 50s GM settled on a policy: never garner more than 45 % of the U.S. car market. And how does a company keep its share of the market artificially low (in the post-war boom, where people wanted to buy big American cars)? By pricing them too high and building them in a more costly, less reliable fashion. And GM accomplished its goal. It built millions of costly, unreliable cars, and it kept its market share below 45%. But surprise, surprise--suddenly in the 1980s and 90s, GM could no longer compete with the German and Japanese imports. But hey, they avoided an anti-trust suit, the government's way of strangling America's best businesses.

(Another method is tariffs, price controls, and over-regulation. Post-war licensing requirements caused RCA to "outsource" all its techy business--and the Japanese components industry was born. Just one more example of anti-capitalist U.S. law being a boon to foreign competition.)

More to come.

The Dixie Chicks, These Ain't

2006-05-30T13:41:00.001-07:00

This post is
Dedicated to the Lightbulb and his wife and other haters of country music wherever they may be found....

In the office, I sometimes tune to Accuradio.com. The free internet radio has interesting offerings. For example, there's the main 80s station, but there are also four other choices. That's five different channels of Eighties music. (Who'd have thought?) But under country music, Accuradio offers no less than seventeen sub-channels: marriage songs, married (but not to each other), songs about families, songs by men, songs by women, etc.

I wanted to take just a moment to note one of these categories: Red White & Blue Country. I've always believed that no group in the entertainment business loved this nation more than its country singers (with some exceptions). But I had no idea how many songs were out there on the subject. Many of these are post-9/11.

Consider these titles:

1. This Ain't No Rag, it's a Flag (Charlie Daniels)
2. Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (Toby Keith)
3. Star Spangled Banner (versions by Faith Hill, Leann Rhimes, and Ricochet--the Glad of country music; click here MR. LIGHTBULB to hear the song).
4. My Lucky Stars & Stripes
5. Arlington (about the cemetery--sung from the point of view of one buried there)
6. Travelin' Soldier
7. A Soldier's Prayer
8. Where the Stars & Stripes & the Eagle Fly
9. Days of America
10. Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning? (about 9/11)
11. One Last Time
12. In America
13. Country Boy Can Survive (Hank Williams, Jr.)
14. America Will Survive (Hank's post 9/11 remake)
15. Homeland
16. You Got to Stand for Something
17. Something to Be Proud of
18. Private Malone
19. Forty-Hour Week (Alabama)
20. Letters from Home
21. Come Home Soon
22. God Bless the USA (Lee Greenwood's classic)
23. Hey Hollywood (a complaint about anti-American rants from movie stars and etc.)
24. Hey Mr. President (we stand with you)

I started making a list once and it got pretty long, so I thought I would share it. Some of these songs are pretty good, and not easy to find on traditional radio.

Are there others? What great songs about America am I missing? Let me know if you have a favorite.

God bless the veterans, the troops, and the USA.
(And may God bless you and yours.)

Congratulate Taylor Hicks...

2006-05-24T07:12:00.000-07:00

Click here. It should not come as a surprise.

Aww Man, You Shoulda Seen it...

2006-05-22T08:30:00.000-07:00

I just came from the 2006 Talent Show at my daughter's elementary school. All the kids were sweet and precious--karate acts, gymnastics routines with pounding back beat rhythms, etc. But I was so proud of Daddy's little girl. She's only in second grade, but she's wanted to be in the talent show since last year. It was wonderful. She played Beethoven's Ode to Joy--in an arrangement for young piano students--and her piano teacher took the time to come and play the duet accompaniment (which added a lot, no doubt). I was so proud of Twila for her ambition and the follow-through--being by nature shy in large groups. And the duet was just perfect. After all the MC Hammer acts and all the noise (and feedback on the speakers), something pure and simple on the piano was a beautiful contrast. I loved it, both as a father and as an audience member. I really was proud of her, and just had to mention it.

And that is not to say she's a virtuoso. I think she's an normal 8-year-old pianist: she likes to play but practicing is sort of hit-or-miss. But with extracurricular activities, just being involved and staying with it is enough. Whether it's piano, basketball, tee-ball, or whatever. I just want my kids to have fun and to learn about effort and endurance. That's what makes the difference in the long run, isn't it? Talent plays a role, but not quitting is the real key. Like Churchill said when London was being bombed into rubble night after night after night:

Never, never, never, never,
never give up.

Press Release on Da Vinci Code film:

2006-05-17T08:52:00.000-07:00

Isn't this interesting....

JEWS AGAINST ANTI-CHRISTIAN DEFAMATION

URGES BOYCOTT OF THE DA VINCI CODE

May 15, 2006
For Immediate Release
For More Information, Contact: Bryan Rudnick at (561) 499-3201 or Don Feder at (508) 405-1337

Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation today urged a boycott of The Da Vinci Code, scheduled to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday and open in the U.S. on Friday.

“Director Ron Howard assures us that the film will be true to the book,” said JAACD President Don Feder. “That means it will be an insult to nearly a billion people worldwide.”

Feder commented: “As Jews, we’re in a unique position. While we don’t worship Jesus or pray in his name, we take exception to a work of fiction which trivializes the beliefs of our Christian friends and neighbors. The Da Vinci Code treats the life of Jesus like a soap opera.”

Dan Brown’s book, which sold more than 45 million copies in the U.S., also maligns Judaism.

Feder observes, “On page 309, Brown’s protagonist claims Jewish men visited the Holy Temple in Jerusalem to achieve ‘spiritual wholeness’ by having sex with ‘priestesses.’ The Torah absolutely condemns the ritual prostitution practiced by the Canaanites. To call Brown’s bizarre theory an attack on Judaism (and – by extension – Judeo Christian morality) is an understatement.”

Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation also notes the disturbing parallels between The Da Vinci Code and The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion. Feder: “Like The Protocols, The Code projects an international conspiracy to conceal the truth, in order to maintain control of humanity. In one case the conspirators are Jewish leaders and, in the other, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.”

Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation urges the public not to reward Hollywood bigotry by buying a ticket to The Da Vinci Code, but instead to treat it with the scorn it deserves by boycotting the Sony Pictures film.

Feder will speak at a press conference sponsored by The Interfaith Coalition Against The Da Vinci Code, on Wednesday, May 17 at 1:30 pm at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Speakers will include Dr. Ted Baehr of The Christian Film and Television Commission and Austin Ruse of The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.

He will also appear on Fox News Live at 2:50 pm (EST) that day.

For more information on Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, visit our website, http://www.jews4fairness.org/.

Say Goodbye to Elliot Yamin

2006-05-17T07:32:00.000-07:00

Er, maybe. But the predicted results are within the margin of error.

Chris Daughtry Was Robbed.

2006-05-10T19:48:00.000-07:00

I don't know if it fits the theme of this blog, but there's more to me than highbrows. Yeah, my wife and I love American Idol. (Every singer and would-be singer I know watches--some in secret.) Here's a run-down: Kelly Clarkson was so versatile, but during season one I still thought AI was just like all the other unscripted so-called "reality" shows--so I didn't watch. Then I heard Clay Aiken's season two audition. Key word: heard. For me, it's all about the voices, although the presentation matters. But Clay's voice was unique.

UNIQUE: adj. one of a kind.

Then there was Fantasia. Her voice was always a little odd, but great nonetheless, and what made her special was her styling, her creativity. Last year was fun with Bo Bice and Carrie Underwood (another singer who could do it all). This year my favorite during auditions was Taylor. He is fun and always interesting and great and refreshing. But then I heard Chris Daughtry. Again, key word here: heard. And what a voice. Unique.

You know what they say about avoiding songs that are too closely associated with some great singer? Katherine McPhee, for example, suffered when she sang a Whitney song but not as well as Whitney. And this is a huge problem on a live television show. It's hard for any live performance to match a product that's been polished and refined in a recording studio. But Chris Daughtry never had such problems. Every time Chris began singing I found myself preferring his voice to the original. And tonight he got cut.

Oh well, I've always said American Idol might be more foolproof if we were calling to vote people off. But who knows? In the end, it's just another game show. Just another bit of so-called "reality" television. And it just happens to be one of the most moral, most entertaining, most compelling shows out there. But I may skip the rest of this season. (And what happened to Mandisa? She deserved better.) I think we all know Taylor's going to win. And I like him. But--the music business all comes down to what you hear. I hope Taylor's voice is enough after it's stripped of all that personality and showmanship (and Taylor's great there; don't get me wrong).

But Chris Daughtry was extraordinary and I hate to see him go. Then again--if they gave Josh Gracin a record deal, they'll give Chris one--here's hoping the album can do what so few AI albums have ever done, and capture just a little of the quality that made him great on the show. Clay's albums, for example, lacking the drama of a singer trying to win a huge competition, have largely been a dissapointment.

Chris Daughtry, you will be missed.

P.S. Okay, so he wasn't robbed. In fact, it was predicted by a telephone busy-signal tracker called DialIdol.com. (Would be nice to see those results from the Aiken-Studdard contest.)

Please Knock.

2006-05-05T09:53:00.000-07:00

I bought this house. The previous owners had an open-door policy. The entire neighborhood was welcome. People would wander in and out at all hours of the day and night. Everybody liked to Pop in. Like Seinfeld's description of Kramer:

Oh, he loves the Pop-In. He's big on the Pop-In.

But when I moved in, I started locking my doors. Is that wrong? Is it wrong for a homeowner to want to regulate the traffic coming in and out, to assert some control over the movement of goods and services? People are still welcome, you understand. Our policy is Come One, Come All! But knock first.

Knock and it shall be opened.

Doesn't every homeowner do the same? Is there a nation on earth that doesn't control its borders the way I control my front and back doors? Is there a nation anywhere that doesn't hang out a sign like mine:

PLEASE KNOCK.

Tired of Tremulous Tenors

2006-05-03T10:50:00.000-07:00

I like this article.

Have you noticed the improvement in Contemporary Christian music? There have always been great songs and talented singers. Michael W. Smith, for example, was an accomplished writer of church music before he was famous. But at some point I just lost interest in him and the other men on the scene. Or, more accurately, I liked them "okay" but wasn't much of a fan. I kept wondering when I would hear something with a little more . . . testosterone.

I like this article.

Enter Third Day with their Travis Tritt sound, and Casting Crowns, and the rockers Kutless, and Jars of Clay, and others. Doesn't it seem like the men singing Contemporary Christian music just hit puberty? Didn't the collective pitch drop about an octave? (Okay, a fifth?) I like that, and not just because I'm a bass. It's a whole mindset. James Dobson writes about it with insight in his book Bringing Up Boys--boys and girls are different and that's normal and that's okay. John Eldredge celebrates the differences in Wild at Heart, paraphrasing a Biblical passage about God thusly:

The Boy is a Warrior, Warrior is his name.

This post may be misleading, but it's not really the music I'm concerned about. I'm thinking about a culture, schools, and even churches that may not be addressing the needs of men. Some have written that we have "pared the claws of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah." Now we're doing the same thing to boys made in His image.
Did I mention, I like this article?
P.S. I have always thought being able to sing tenor, first tenor even, would be awesome. It's just hard to imagine that every talented singer out there is a tenor. I'm happy to finally hear a few baritones--otherwise this post is not really about the singing. To put this in American Idol terms (some of my best friends are quite literate in that language):
Would you rather listen to Ace (the most tremulous tenor ever) or Chris Daughtry (future owner of vocal nodes)?
Say what you will about Chris--his image is simple and masculine. No girly Bo Bice hair, no nasal falsetto runs, and a voice as dramatic and fresh for rock as Clay's was for pop. (But I worry about the abuse he heaps on his instrument. He may end up like Satchmo if he spends his career belting it from the neck.)
I like this article.

P.P.S. TIM MINER CUT HIS HAIR and washed off the make-up. The androgenous 1980s are officially over.

United 93: Even-Handed; Two Thumbs Up.

2006-04-30T16:48:00.000-07:00

I saw United 93 last night.

It begins with the sound of hushed prayers in a language I assume to be Arabic. The opening scene is one of three or four men in their hotel rooms praying and shaving in the pre-dawn hours. Each is nervous and scared for obvious reasons. But as they make their way to the airport, they seem like any other group of travelers. Sure, they're not locals, not WASPS, but they come across as likable as any group of immigrant-students you might take classes with in a college somewhere. The one who ends up piloting the plane is someone I could see myself making conversation with while waiting to board. Nothing about these men seems evil or malicious. If anything, as the film begins they seem devout, earnest, and good. I had read the film treatment was even-handed in this way and watching it, I kept thinking:

Why not make the bad guys bad? Why not make the heroes heroic? Why be so even-handed?

I know all the best reasons, of course: an even tone is much more appealing to those who are less partisan, less patriotic, less-jingoistic than I. Remember all those journalists who were afraid to wear flag pins after 9/11 for fear their impartiality and credibility would be impugned? (What impartiality? What credibility?) People like that want an even tone, a movie that makes no judgments, that does not "tell you what to think," that just lets the facts speak for themselves. But Hollywood was not obsessed with moral relativism during World War II. Those movies never made Hitler or the Japanese look like America's moral equivalents. Few Cold War films made Soviets look like our equals. So I thought hard on this throughout the short, well-made film.

I enjoyed it very much and recommend it highly. Certainly a must-see. And you know what? It's a must-see for the moral relativist crowd. The even-handed tone works because what the terrorists did was so unspeakably evil it speaks for itself.

And later at home I kissed my sleeping wife and kids, thankful I had not had to make the sort of call made by those on board Flight 93. Then I kept looking around, listening, pacing. Checking the locks and wondering what that noise was I just heard. Turns out the even-handed tone left me as spooked as I have been in a long time. Spooked to know that could have been me, spooked that I would have trusted those guys, spooked that I could look pure evil in the face and not know it until it was too late.

Great movie.

P.S. Opening weekend found United 93 no. 2 at the box office.

Welcome Another Blogger

2006-04-27T08:36:00.000-07:00

Guess who started blogging? Several of you know him, but he's using an alias on the worldwide web. (And don't let him throw you off with his description of himself as allegedly "middle-aged.")

I can promise you quality stuff. How do I know? Because unlike most bloggers, this guy was writing and self-publishing fascinating political insights as much as fifteen years ago. Few writers are as precise or as concise as he (the former "newsletter" was on a postcard!).

So he's perfect for the blogosphere.

Visit early and often.

Stone Table Beats Goblet of Fire

2006-04-26T15:54:00.000-07:00

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe just passed up Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to become the second highest-earning film in the U.S. and Canada--not to mention reaching $200 million in the overseas box office in two consecutive years.

Read all about it.

Sovereign Healer

2006-04-24T13:52:00.000-07:00

Sometimes God heals, sometimes He does not, blessed by the name of the Lord.

Duane Miller was healed while teaching on this very topic. A problem with his voice had robbed him of his pastorate and left him broken. His life was in the pit, as his book Out of the Silence explains. But an amazing thing happened at church one day. He was featured on a recent James Dobson. Click here and scroll down to the 4/10/2006 broadcast. Click to listen, then slide the button over to about 11:30 if you want to skip to the tape recording of this dramatic healing. It's really an amazing story.

It happened in 1993 at First Baptist Church. I was there and I will never forget it.

We Will Never Forget.

2006-04-18T07:41:00.000-07:00

I had lunch last week with the two biggest movie fans I know, one of whom holds a masters degree in screenwriting from USC. I turned to him:

"So what movies do you like right now?"
"Nothing. All the movies are
horrible. Every studio soliciting manuscripts right now wants 'teen kills
teen--or sleeps with teen, then kills teen--while other teens look on
desperately,' it's ridiculous."
Our buddy (S007) interjected. "Oh, I want to
see that Flight 93 movie."
David agreed. "Oh, yeah. I do want to see that."
Dennis Prager liked it.

Vicente Fox's Double Standard

2006-04-13T12:17:00.000-07:00

Just promise me you'll read the article below.

I'll concede: most of us barely understand our American citizenship, we want out of jury duty (a high honor), we rarely vote, and our political loyalties are based more on hype and emotion than reasoned arguments. But generally speaking, locals still understand and contribute to the American system better than immigrants. That's just the facts--it's nobody's fault. (And pardon me, but there's a difference between those seeking political asylum, such as Vietnamese and Cambodians, who happily sever all ties with the homeland and cleave to the open arms of Lady Liberty, and those who go back and forth with the seasons, earning dollars they will go home and spend in Mexico, only to come back the following spring. It's not terrorism, but it's no great contribution to the American cause.)

But those in governance--even Vicente the Fox--do understand certain truths. One is that your home comes first. Jerusalem comes before Judea and the ends of the earth. And there is value in a sense of a national identity. Borders matter, not because of who they keep out, but because they point out the distinctions. Spain once owned the land I sit on, but France owned much more. I don't see the French arguing that this land is there land. Enough rambling.

Just consider this article by Larry Elder.

Democrat, 3-time Governor of Colorado Talks About Immigration

2006-04-06T13:12:00.000-07:00

One of my lawyer-friends sent me this 2004 speech by Richard Lamm, three-term governor of Colorado (after verifying on Snopes.com that it was indeed real and over two years old). (All-caps in original--I'm not retyping it.)

I HAVE A PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA

By RICHARD D. LAMM

I HAVE A SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. IF YOU BELIEVE, AS MANY DO, THAT AMERICA IS TOO SMUG, TOO WHITE BREAD, TOO SELF-SATISFIED, TOO RICH, LETS DESTROY AMERICA. IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO. HISTORY SHOWS THAT NATIONS ARE MORE FRAGILE THAN THEIR CITIZENS THINK. NO NATION IN HISTORY HAS SURVIVED THE RAVAGES OF TIME. ARNOLD TOYNBEE OBSERVED THAT ALL GREAT CIVILIZATIONS RISE AND THEY ALL FALL, AND THAT "AN AUTOPSY OF HISTORY WOULD SHOW THAT ALL GREAT NATIONS COMMIT SUICIDE."

HERE IS MY PLAN:

I. WE MUST FIRST MAKE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY. HISTORY SHOWS, IN MY OPINION, THAT NO NATION CAN SURVIVE THE TENSION, CONFLICT, AND ANTAGONISM OF TWO COMPETING LANGUAGES AND CULTURES. IT IS A BLESSING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE BILINGUAL; IT IS A CURSE FOR A SOCIETY TO BE BILINGUAL. ONE SCHOLAR, SEYMOUR MARTIN LIPSET, PUT IT THIS WAY:

THE HISTORIES OF BILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT ASSIMILATE ARE HISTORIES OF TURMOIL, TENSION, AND TRAGEDY. CANADA, BELGIUM, MALAYSIA, LEBANON-ALL FACE CRISES OF NATIONAL EXISTENCE IN WHICH MINORITIES PRESS FOR AUTONOMY, IF NOT INDEPENDENCE. PAKISTAN AND CYPRUS HAVE DIVIDED. NIGERIA SUPPRESSED AN ETHNIC REBELLION. FRANCE FACES DIFFICULTIES WITH ITS BASQUES, BRETONS, AND CORSICANS.

II. I WOULD THEN INVENT "MULTICULTURALISM" AND ENCOURAGE IMMIGRANTS TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CULTURE. I WOULD MAKE IT AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF THAT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL: THAT THERE ARE NO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES THAT ARE IMPORTANT. I WOULD DECLARE IT AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT THE BLACK AND HISPANIC DROPOUT RATE IS ONLY DUE TO PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION BY THE MAJORITY. EVERY OTHER EXPLANATION IS OUT-OF-BOUNDS.

III. WE CAN MAKE THE UNITED STATES A "HISPANIC QUEBEC" WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT. THE KEY IS TO CELEBRATE DIVERSITY RATHER THAN UNITY. AS BENJAMIN SCHWARZ SAID IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY RECENTLY:

...THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF OUR OWN MULTIETHNIC AND MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED NOT BY TOLERANCE BUT BY HEGEMONY. WITHOUT THE DOMINANCE THAT ONCE DICTATED ETHNOCENTRICALLY, AND WHAT IT MEANT TO BE AN AMERICAN, WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM TO HOLD US TOGETHER.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL IMMIGRANTS TO KEEP THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE. I WOULD REPLACE THE MELTING POT METAPHOR WITH A SALAD BOWL METAPHOR. IT IS IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE VARIOUS CULTURAL SUB-GROUPS LIVING IN AMERICA REINFORCING THEIR DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN AMERICANS, EMPHASIZING THEIR SIMILARITIES.

IV. HAVING DONE ALL THIS, I WOULD MAKE OUR FASTEST GROWING DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP THE LEAST EDUCATED - I WOULD ADD A SECOND UNDERCLASS, UNASSIMILATED, UNDEREDUCATED, AND ANTAGONISTIC TO OUR POPULATION. I WOULD HAVE THIS SECOND UNDERCLASS HAVE A 50% DROP OUT RATE FROM SCHOOL.

V. I WOULD THEN GET THE BIG FOUNDATIONS AND BIG BUSINESS TO GIVE THESE EFFORTS LOTS OF MONEY. I WOULD INVEST IN ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND I WOULD ESTABLISH THE CULT OF VICTIMOLOGY. I WOULD GET ALL MINORITIES TO THINK THEIR LACK OF SUCCESS WAS ALL THE FAULT OF THE MAJORITY - I WOULD START A GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY BLAMING ALL MINORITY FAILURE ON THE MAJORITY POPULATION.

VI. I WOULD ESTABLISH DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND PROMOTE DIVIDED LOYALTIES. I WOULD "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY." "DIVERSITY" IS A WONDERFULLY SEDUCTIVE WORD. IT STRESSES DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN COMMONALITIES. DIVERSE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ARE MOSTLY ENGAGED IN HATING EACH OTHER-THAT IS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT KILLING EACH OTHER. A DIVERSE," PEACEFUL, OR STABLE SOCIETY IS AGAINST MOST HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. PEOPLE UNDERVALUE THE UNITY IT TAKES TO KEEP A NATION TOGETHER, AND WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS MYOPIA. LOOK AT THE ANCIENT GREEKS. DORF'S WORLD HISTORY TELLS US:

THE GREEKS BELIEVED THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE SAME RACE; THEY POSSESSED A COMMON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE; AND THEY WORSHIPED THE SAME GODS. ALL GREECE TOOK PART IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN HONOR OF ZEUS AND ALL GREEKS VENERATED THE SHRINE OF APOLLO AT DELPHI. A COMMON ENEMY PERSIA THREATENED THEIR LIBERTY. YET, ALL OF THESE BONDS TOGETHER WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERCOME TWO FACTORS . . . (LOCAL PATRIOTISM AND GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THAT NURTURED POLITICAL DIVISIONS . . .)

IF WE CAN PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE "PLURIBUS," INSTEAD OF THE "UNUM," WE CAN BALKANIZE AMERICA AS SURELY AS KOSOVO.

VII. THEN I WOULD PLACE ALL THESE SUBJECTS OFF LIMITS - MAKE IT TABOO TO TALK ABOUT. I WOULD FIND A WORD SIMILAR TO "HERETIC" IN THE 16TH CENTURY - THAT STOPPED DISCUSSION AND PARALYZED THINKING. WORDS LIKE "RACIST", "XENOPHOBE" THAT HALTS ARGUMENT AND CONVERSATION. HAVING MADE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY, HAVING ESTABLISHED MULTICULTURALISM, HAVING THE LARGE FOUNDATIONS FUND THE DOCTRINE OF "VICTIMOLOGY", I WOULD NEXT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS. I WOULD DEVELOP A MANTRA - "THAT BECAUSE IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN GOOD FOR AMERICA, IT MUST ALWAYS BE GOOD." I WOULD MAKE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IMMIGRANT SYMPATRIC AND IGNORE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT.

VIII. LASTLY, I WOULD CENSOR VICTOR HANSON DAVIS'S BOOK MEXIFORNIA — THIS BOOK IS DANGEROUS — IT EXPOSES MY PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. SO PLEASE, PLEASE — IF YOU FEEL THAT AMERICA DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED — PLEASE, PLEASE — DON'T BUY THIS BOOK! THIS GUY IS ON TO MY PLAN.

"THE SMART WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE PASSIVE AND OBEDIENT IS TO STRICTLY LIMIT THE SPECTRUM OF ACCEPTABLE OPINION, BUT ALLOW VERY LIVELY DEBATE WITHIN THAT SPECTRUM." — NOAM CHOMSKY, AMERICAN LINGUIST AND US MEDIA AND FOREIGN POLICY CRITIC.

(Both Governor Lamm and the writer of the e-mail misidentify the author of the book Mexifornia, whose correct name is Victor Davis Hanson -- Snopes.com).

The article on Snopes.com ends this way:

There was no applause.

A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America — take note of California and other states — to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

Below all this is a reply from the Governor in which he responds to those who question whether he ever said such things:

Yes, it is a speech I gave a year and a half ago in Washington D.C. It was a 5 minute speech, and I am amazed and gratified it has received so much coverage.

Don't believe it? See for yourself, here.

Border Problems, School Problems, and What the Two Share.

2006-04-05T08:30:00.000-07:00

I began rereading E.D. Hirsch's CULTURAL LITERACY. Wow. He just says it all so much better than I can.

But he got me thinking about the connection between school problems and border problems. At bottom is the principle that a nation survives by passing on to future generations those things that make it great--not only principles and skills, but also content. And our nation is struggling on two fronts: American-born children are not being taught all that they should, and foreign-born immigrants are not being fully assimilated. These two problems are one.

SAT verbal scores are dropping, not because children are not excellent readers but because they are unfamiliar with so much of the material that writers of English expect an audience to know. In other words, while literate in the sense that they can pronounce the words, the kids are illiterate in the sense of understanding their meaning--because they cannot decode the various allusions and references contained in the passage. So years after Dewey, citing Rousseau, convinced American schools and schools of education to teach only skills without regard for content, men like Hirsch have helped educators to remember the importance of shared knowledge. It's the Venn diagram: you can only communicate about things with which both parties are at least vaugely familiar. Schools are realizing they should teach the right books, the most important history, and that content is crucial. And at some point children should pick up not only our nation's shared history, but also a passionate love for its extraordinary and unique greatness: a City on a hill.

The same should be done for immigrants. Not only their children, but themselves--they need to learn not only that America is a land of opportunity (which they apparently knew before they arrived), but they need to be shown why. And there are reasons--it's not just a happy accident. If immigrants could be thoroughly schooled in this culture, if they could be made culturally literate, then most would also become assimilated--patriotically assimilated.

Peggy Noonan has great thoughts on much of this here. (I dig her wandering, right-brained, totally non-lawyer approach. She's a great writer.)

Education and the Classical Curriculum

2006-03-30T14:53:00.000-08:00

When I was 15, my favorite question was: What is the purpose of school?

Then as a teacher, I used to ask my high school classes the same question. You can imagine their answer: to get an education so you can go to college and get a great job and make a lot of money. But that's NOT the purpose of school. While the future ability to provide for a family is one of the functions of education, it is certainly not the only function or even the most important.

Education is the vehicle societies use to preserve themselves. That is, older generations educate the younger so the entire social structure can continue to grow. Americans educate their young so the nation doesn't collapse around us like a house of cards. As a teacher, I always saw my role as that of a runner in a relay. My job was to pass the baton to the runner who was to follow in my footsteps. If the baton were dropped, both of us would have failed.

But how do you do it? The United States is by any measure the greatest nation on Earth and the greatest in history, whether you look at economic prosperity, American ingenuity and inventiveness, the development of the world's most elaborate infrastructure, the amount of free time we have, and even the thriving religious diversity--hundreds of denominations, many of them filled with sincere people. The educator's role is to distill the most important principles in that culture and convey them to the citizens of tomorrow.

But it is a daunting task. I taught 12th-grade English, and 13 years after I started that job, I still have not read half of the greatest works in English. No English teacher ever does--there is just too much material. And the same is true of history, science, math, etc. You remember that book you always meant to read? I know you have a book or two in mind--and when you read that one, there will always be more. The amount of material is massive.

And this brings me to: the CLASSICAL CURRICULUM, a kissing cousin to what colleges call the liberal arts. "Had we but world enough and time," we could spend years and years teaching children the best works of every world culture. But we don't. We have 12 short years to make devoted American citizens of them. It is a sacred duty and one not to be taken lightly. And there is so much material that is critical: Shakespeare, John Donne, Beowulf, Hemingway, T.S. Eliot, Twain, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Charles Dickens, Alexander Dumas, Victor Hugo, John Steinbeck, Milton, Bunyan, and the list goes on and on and on, and in every subject. The classical curriculum is the only way to approach education; everything else simply wastes too much time. How can we prepare our children for the world of tomorrow if we waste half their time on material they will never hear of again? Face it, your kids don't want to go to school, and sometimes you'd rather not send them. Is it fair to waste their time on material that has virtually no educational value, material that is chosen not for its relevance to American reality, but for its ability to elicit certain emotional or moral responses, many of them contrary to the things that made this nation what it is today?

Most schools today, including KISD, tend to follow a hit-or-miss curriculum, an unfocused shotgun blast of classical elements, political correctness, multi-culturalism, and books and projects forced on the schools by various interest groups. All of these things, while they may have some merit, are examples of the good shouldering out the BEST.

I support the classical curriculum because it is the most efficient and effective way to educate students in the things that matter most in all areas of an American life.

You can read more about the Classical Curriculum by clicking here.

On the Border: Immigration, Assimilation and the Survivor Game.

2006-03-29T19:44:00.000-08:00

Why all the fuss about immigration?

Some Facts from the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies:

[1.] During the 1990s, the United States admitted the largest number of immigrants in its history . . . . We now have a . . . foreign-born population of about 27 million, twice the level of 1910.
[2.] Immigrants are also more concentrated, with the top four immigrant states accounting for a 20 percent larger share of the nation's immigrant population than the top four states just 25 years before.
[3.] Also, the immigrant flow is much less varied than before, with more than 50 percent of post-1970 immigrants coming from Spanish-speaking Latin America, a degree of ethnic concentration unprecedented in American history.
[4.] And finally, ongoing mass immigration is hindering the economic assimilation of immigrants, with immigrant wages falling behind those of natives and immigrant poverty steadily growing.

I think of it like a macro-Survivor game. The world is divided into teams. Team membership is fluid, but moving is difficult because of language differences. And there's more. When a team member switches teams, he can take with him the strategies of the old team or he can learn the strategies of the new team. Teams don't have to operate unanimously, of course. But the teams have challenges: farming requirements, architectural projects, scientific and medical breakthroughs, an infrastructure, a market, an economy. The team completing each task with the least wasted effort and the most bountiful result wins. And who is that going to be? The Red, White, & Blue continue as the reigning champs. But they are slowing down every day because of the team's failure to exert leadership over the new members who keep defecting from other teams. Think of it like a Viking long boat. Everyone in America, legal or not, has an oar. But they come in different sizes, and the majority is pulling for the team. Nevertheless, a growing minority is dragging its oars beside the boat, slowing it down, or maybe pulling in other directions. And how can they help it? They learned how to row elsewhere. It will take years to teach them how to row the American way, in sync with those around them, rather than banging on all the other oars while marching to the beat of different maracas.

How can the United States or any team with a united purpose - a corporation, a family, a classrooom, or a community - continue to function when swamped with unruly members who don't understand the game or the way it is played here? Twelve years of public school is arguably not enough to fully prepare kids who are born here--and raised by those born here--for their duties as a citizen. America is a complicated machine that functions on a very high level and with a great deal of intellectual principle assumed. That is, you can't just walk in and begin to contribute. Sure there are lawns to be mowed, roofs to be nailed down. But to really engage in our society, you need education and assimilation--and lots of it.

Though most immigrants will undergo a superficial assimilation however broken our immigration policy is, there is more to Americanization than learning English and getting a job. The development of a visceral, emotional attachment to America and its history, or patriotic assimilation, is increasingly unlikely when the schools and the culture at large are skeptical, even hostile, to patriotism and when technology enables immigrants to maintain strong psychological and physical ties to their countries of origin.

No thoughtful American is against all immigration. But the current flood needs to be reduced to a manageable stream. IT'S ALL ABOUT ASSIMILATION; that's the whole point. We want to bring people in, but no faster than we can train them in all things American. Keep your native food and clothing. And American pop culture will overwhelm you regardless. But in issues of citizenship, art, government, law, commerce, and philosophy, you have much to learn. So much in fact, a sensible policy would give you and yours a pass, but slow the immigration rate so that American neophytes enter the nation at about the same rate that first-generation immigrants from previous decades are dying out. (The latter is my own suggestion--and may bear little relation to proposals by the Center for Immigration Studies or anyone else.)

You can read more from the Center for Immigration Studies here.

'V' for 'Vilify': More Anti-Christian Propaganda

2006-03-27T12:55:00.000-08:00

While totalitarians of every stripe persecute and kill the devout around the world, Americans make movies alleging the real problem is those troublesome Christians. I understand: a storyteller needs villains the audience will know to be villainous. But are American moviegoers more likely to associate villainy with Christians than with some other group? It's true that Americans know little about the world's persecutors. And we are so ignorant of the full extent of anti-Christian persecution around the world you'd think it wasn't even happening (as did most Americans until last week). But after 9/11, after hundreds of lesser-incidents and cartoon carnage, are we so worried about offending delicate sensibilities (see cartoon incidents), we could not stomach a film in which evil is linked to something other than the Lamb of God? Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek"; Jesus made humility a virtue; Jesus elevated the status of women, minorities, and children; and it was Jesus who "laid down His life for His friends." Does it make sense to link the followers of Jesus, even considering all their failings, to a totalitarian state, when events in Afghanistan just last week make the connection of totalitarianism and another world religion so much more obvious?

"The message of ‘V for Vendetta’ could not be clearer," said Don Feder, president of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation. "Those involved in this cinematic hate crime are saying Christians want to establish a totalitarian state and impose their morality with a policeman’s truncheon."

No such Christian dictatorship exists anywhere on earth," Feder noted. "On the other hand, there are no shortage of Islamic theocracies and quasi-theocracies where ‘infidels’ are persecuted, homosexuality is outlawed and women stoned to death for adultery. Why isn’t Hollywood making movies about them? Because it fears reprisals? Christianity is the only religion Hollywood can mock and slander with impunity."

You can read the balance of the comments by this wise Jewish gentleman here. I long-ago linked their website in the column at right: Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation.

France Opposes Same-Sex Marriage Because it Leads to Adoption by Same Sex Couples

2006-03-24T08:35:00.002-08:00

Sometimes the news is surprising. Consider the following statement on children and families from the French National Assembly:

The best interests of the child must prevail over adult freedoms... even including the lifestyle choices of parents. The legislator is not obligated to adopt the most permissive foreign legislation. . . . Countries that have opened up marriage to same sex couples have all authorized adoption by these couples. . . .
Marriage is . . . a framework with rights and obligations conceived in order to welcome the child and provide for his harmonious development. Thus, marriage is the only structure reserved strictly for heterosexual couples. . . .

The purpose of adoption is not to provide a child to a family but rather provide a family to a child ...
Given the original trauma of his personal history, the adopted child requires the judicial and emotional security that only married [heterosexual] parents can provide. Favoring equality for adults would bring about a greater inequality towards children. . . .

You can read more here.

Michelle Malkin on Religious Persecution in the 'new' Afghanistan

2006-03-23T09:02:00.000-08:00

Michelle Malkin makes excellent comments on the pending execution of a man who refuses to deny Christ.

As of yesterday afternoon, left-wing Amnesty International had nothing to say about the case. But neither did President Bush, a man of faith and a Christian brother. . . .

How about offering Rahman asylum in the United States? Perhaps Yale University, proud sponsor of former Taliban official Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, can offer Rahman a scholarship. Where's the Catholic Church, so quick to offer sanctuary to every last illegal alien streaming across the borders? And how about Hollywood, so quick to take up the cause of every last Death Row inmate? . . . .

You can read her article here.

So Afghans Plan to Execute a Convert to Christianity; Is it Any Business of Ours?

2006-03-21T10:30:00.000-08:00

Perhaps you have heard that an Afghan man is on trial for having converted from Islam to Christianity some fifteen years ago. His family turned him in. Americans, mostly Christians--but not entirely--are crying foul. This is the 20th century, right? Doesn't a man have the freedom to believe whatever he chooses? To follow his conscience? Well, he does according to several statements of the U.N., most of them signed by the worst Central Asian and Middle-Eastern offenders. See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and others. See also the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, a powerful bi-partisan watchdog. Almost every constitution on earth gives lip service to religious freedom--but many nations then enact necessarily unconstitutional criminal statutes making conversion from Islam to anything else criminal apostasy, often punishable by death.

Makes you thankful for a nation where legislators and judges value at least the appearance of a consistent jurisprudence.

But what can the United States do for the accused Afghani? Should the President do anything? Does he have a role, and if so, by what authority? As they say, what gives Americans the right to interfere? Obviously our First Amendment does not guarantee freedom of religion to a man in Afghanistan. But another U.S. law requires the President to get involved in cases of religious persecution:

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This Act, a response to the worldwide persecution of Christians and others following the collapse of Soviet Communism, and initially opposed by "Free-Trade Republicans" (including Phil Gramm, R.-Tx.), the Clinton White House, and Democrats worried about how it would impact their President, eventually passed both houses unanimously and was signed into law by President Clinton. I've told the amazing story elsewhere. My point here is that this American law places a burden on the U.S. Executive Branch. It is now our national policy not to be isolationist in matters of religious freedom:

[R]ecent years have seen an increase in the amount of religious discrimination and persecution in other countries. By 1998 the international situation for the devout of all faiths had deteriorated to such an extent that the United States passed the International Religious Freedom Act in an attempt to alleviate the suffering of the persecuted. Suddenly religious freedom became an integral part of America’s foreign policy.

The Act argues that religious freedom has always been a fundamental part of America’s history. Now religious freedom is also a fundamental part of its foreign affairs, a possible deal breaker in negotiations with other countries. This ambitious new law has altered the landscape of U.S. foreign policy. Such sweeping change merits close scrutiny.

The Act places the primary responsibility on the President for promoting religious freedom abroad. He is required to promote such freedom by negotiating with, withholding aid from, and levying sanctions against the worst offenders.

Nothing in the Act requires the President to address this or any other specific case. However, if the new government of Afghanistan hopes for the continued support of the nation whose young patriots died to release that land from the iron fist of Taliban rule, it should be required to set this man free. I think our President should be able to make that clear.

Do You Have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms? But What if There's a Hurricane?

2006-03-16T09:08:00.000-08:00

. . . In other words, what if there's suddenly a situation in which you need your arms? What if Hurricane Katrina has flooded the city, and left in its wake lawless looters and a lack of law enforcement?

Do you still get to keep your guns? Or would we all be better off just handing them over to the agents who float by in a jon boat? (My cousin up the road in Denham Springs spent days guarding his house with a shotgun and a dog. And I was thankful he had both.)

But Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans decided to treat the citizens like children and rob them of the right and ability to protect themselves and their families.

Yes, not only did the Sin-City-Fathers divert money earmarked for levee improvements, they took the guns away from the law-abiding who were left behind.

(In law school, students--and professors--are forever arguing that the Second Amendment should be repealed: "Why do I believe the Constitution is a living document, changing with the times? See Second Amendment." Somehow, they never understood why this answer did not automatically win the day. Conversely, when riots happen, or disasters like Hurricane Katrina, I find myself thankful once again for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.)

What do you think? Was the 2nd Amendment designed for just such a time, or is it as outdated as the gunslingers of the Old West?

Sermon on Hurricane Katrina from One Who Has "Been to the Mountain"

2006-03-13T20:43:00.000-08:00

Skip my intro . . . listen to Brother Fred Luter, Jr., "What to Do When the Storms Come."

On August 29, New Orleans suffered the worst disaster the Gulf Coast has seen in a century (or better, the worst disaster ever seen by an American city). But unlike the midnight storm that destroyed Galveston, millions escaped Hurricane Katrina, limiting her wrath to mostly property damage. On the other hand, whether New Orleans will suffer the obsolescence that befell Galveston--and be replaced by the inland city of Baton Rouge, as Houston replaced Galveston--remains to be seen. A great deal remains to be seen, unfortunately. I used to go to New Orleans monthly on business, but have yet to return (same for Biloxi). Yet, I digress.

When the levees broke, I knew I was witnessing the greatest tragedy of my lifetime. Houston was suddenly filled with homeless people, many with great jobs and good kids to educate. I met others who made their "living" entirely on federal assistance. I helped some figure out how to get their high schoolers into the best public school in Houston (we went with Bellaire). My wife and I moved into our son's room, and moved him in with our daughter, offering our master bed and bath to families of as many as five. If it was a risk, we were willing. We 'counted the cost' and were ready to store up treasures in Heaven to help those we were certain were not pretending. The first family had their stuff sent over, and we moved it in. Then they backed out. The next two families did the same, the federally funded hotel stays being an understandably better offer.

But our Houston church got involved. Soon a displaced New Orleans church--many of whose members washed up in Houston--began to meet in our church building every Sunday. They still do. (I don't know how they do it. To still be on the road six months later. Still "at sea" as it were.) The head pastor, Fred Luter, preaches at our location every 1st and 3rd Sunday of the month. The second and fourth, he preaches a 7:30 service at a dry New Orleans church, then a 1:00 service in Baton Rouge at Istrouma Baptist.*

Yesterday, Brother Luter, pastor of the largest black church in the Southern Baptist Convention, preached in our pulpit during a combined service. It was awesome. I loved it and am listening to it again as I write. This sermon was an event. To me--a HISTORICAL EVENT, because of his reflections on the hurricane that wiped out his city, and his thoughts six months later. He put Hurricane Katrina in a spiritual context that would be valuable and interesting to anyone. But equally compelling was his delivery. You just don't hear such excellent use of all the tools of an oral tradition: parallelism, alliteration, rhyme, rhythm, refrain, dynamics, music.... This sermon really was an EVENT. You should not miss it.

You can listen to Dr. Luter's words here: "What to Do When the Storms Come."

*I'm partial to Istrouma--my favorite church of which I am not a member, the church the Wales family has attended since the 40s, if not earlier. My grandparents once showed up the Sunday morning of another hurricane. The pastor was the only one there--and he was only there to send everyone home. "I'm sorry, Brother Wales. I don't think we'll be having church today."

Do the Academy Awards Bore You?

2006-03-09T20:25:00.000-08:00

How can the Motion Picture Academy be responsible for anything so tedious, trite, and tiresome? Wouldn't you expect them to put together something interesting?

But it's a trade show, after all. Just a trade show by an industry that considers itself the most important, most relevant industry on earth. That's what happens when you read too much of your own press. The whole thing is reflexive: Celebrities become famous: a billion-dollar celebrity-obsessed media writes about them and fawns over them and flatters them, paying attention to every haircut and mole removal. Is she too heavy, too thin? Anorexic? Ohmygawd... Whether they love you or hate you, the thing is to keep them talking about you and your latest love interest. Bennifer. Braniston. Branjolie. (If you don't think some of these affairs are only for the press, think again. Or read Simon Cowell's book on how to make it to the top as a celebrity.) Soon the celebrities think only of their fawning press and the next publicity stunt. And the magazines keep telling them they are American Royalty. And the press thinks it matters too. People, Us, and a thousand gossip rags think they are relevant because they believe in this stuff too.

So I find every awards show to be horribly boring. Maybe without a fictional plot, the emptiness of these people is more obvious. Sort of the emporer's new clothes. But whatever it is, I just cannot listen to those speeches. . . . speeches given by people who live cloistered lives in a place where reality no longer matters.

But maybe a speech like this would liven things up a bit. (Yeah, Dennis Prager's cool.)

Working vs. Blogging

2006-03-08T20:33:00.000-08:00

No time for posting. I've been busy. Finally. I just want to express my thanks. We have needed work for so long and I am so thankful. I'm also enjoying being "needed" again on the job. It has been a while.

If working ever seems like a drag, I suggest six months of job hunting in a glutted market....

Thank you, Lord for work. Help me be a good steward.

Mystery photo

2006-03-01T15:30:00.000-08:00

This is one of my all-time favorite photo subjects. Can you explain it?

I doubt it will be a mystery to anyone, but you never know.

Can You Name Five First-Amendment Rights?

2006-03-01T14:46:00.000-08:00

Neither can anyone else. But if you can get the first four, you're doing better than most. It seems we know the Simpsons better than the First Amendment.

Quiz yourself. Can you name all five?

To the first person to name all five First Amendment rights without having looked them up during the last week, I hereby assign by Quit-Claim Deed my stake in a border-town tort verdict.

(No cheating!)

Happy Birthday, Daddy: Thoughts on Fatherhood.

2006-02-24T22:26:00.000-08:00

Dennis waxed poetic, so I thought I would indulge. These are my thoughts on someone who for me will always be larger than life.

Few of my friends' dads were both as feared and loved as ours--kind of like a drill sergeant. (They called him "Clint," after the Dirty Harry movies--and not just for the once - obvious physical resemblance.) None of the kids in the neighborhood liked to annoy him, but sometimes they would risk it to get his positive feedback.

I think they knew he took a genuine interest in them. He was no Mister Rogers, of course, not someone kids would flock to. He was just there, working in the yard or making something, or whatever, but available and always ready with encyclopedic knowledge on every subject any kid could come up with:

"What was it like when you were gassed in the Army and your mask didn't work?"
"Aw, it was somethin,' I tell you what . . . [eleven minutes later] now, the Germans first used chlorine gas during World War I, but you could smell it. But mustard gas is odorless...."

"What was it like jumping out of airplanes in the Army?"
"Aw, it was somethin'. . . [nine minutes later] now you see, the Bernouli Effect is what happens when air is forced around a curved object. And the wing of a plane is flat on the bottom but its curved on the top. Look at this radio-controlled model I just made out of balsa wood. See that curve? Now when the air is forced around that curve, it speeds up on the top side of the wing--but the air on the bottom doesn't speed up--and the difference creates lift... Now your balsa is one of your lightest woods..."

"What was it like riding a bull?"
"Aw, it was somethin' else, I tell you what . . . . [thirteen minutes later] now, Braimers' were never much for beef. But they've been bred to other breeds to help them resist disease. The Santa Gertrudis, for example, is three-eighths Braimer' and five-eighths shorthorn. And the Brangus is three-fourths Braimer' and one-fourth Angus. Then there's the Charbray, which is three-eighths Braimer' and five-eighths Charolais, if I remember correctly...."

But he saved the best lessons for his own children . . .

"Well, sound travels at a rate of 1100 feet per second. And there are 5,286 feet in a mile. Now light travels amazingly faster--do you remember the speed of light?"
"Ummm....one buhzillion miles an hour?"
Then he slaps his forehead and grimaces, nodding side to side slightly. "Well, now there's no such thing as 'buhzillion.' Light travels at a rate of a hundred and eighty-six thousand miles a second--or 700 million miles an hour. Now, that's fast, huh?"
"Maybe. But Han Solo has warp speed. That's way faster."
"Hun Who?"

"Now, I don't know a thing about music, junior. But middle C is the name musicians give to a sound with a wave amplitude that measures 256 Hertz. And the frequency doubles with each octave. So the next C up is 512 Hertz, and the one below middle C is half the frequency of middle C, or 128 Hertz. Now, if you could draw the wave pattern of the different Cs at the different frequencies or Hertz, the distance, you see, between the sign and the cosign would always operate on a ratio of 2:1, with the number of Hertz at the peak of the wave being...."
"Daddy, my rubber ducky makes waves when I throw him in the water. Watch."

"Come here, son. Stand right here. Listen to this song on the reel-to-reel."
"Okay."
"There. You hear that? That's the magic of stereophonic sound. The analog tape is magnetized in such a way that the signals for some instruments go to the left speaker, and some go to the right. The tape is polarized, see. Acoustics is just so interesting. Isn't it incredible?"
"Yes. Now can I go ride my bigwheel?"

"Well, now you've got to understand the difference between volts and watts. One measures current, the other is a unit of work. And it takes 1,000 watts to make a kilowatt. And a kilowatt hour, then, you see.... Now, when the power leaves the generating plant, they raise the voltage up thousands of times so that it can travel more efficiently. But then it has to be reduced at the transformer before it comes into the house. Can you imagine what would happen if your house ran on 50,000 volts?"
"Ummm. It would be like an atom bomb and blow up the whole state of Texas, maybe?"
"Well, no. It wouldn't be like an atom bomb. Now, son, stop pedaling the tricycle for a second. Listen. An atom bomb is not electrical. I mean, it works off an electrical switch, of course. But the bomb itself is based on nuclear fission. Think of it this way: you remember last week, we were talking about the nucleus of an atom, right? Remember, how there are electrons and protons and they float around the center? And some are positively charged, and some are negatively charged? Like the parts of the mobile above your crib?"
"Yeah, all the moving parts of the mobile, Daddy. I remember. I like my mobile."
"Right. Well, an atom bomb is like that."
"Daddy, if my crib blows up like an atom bomb, can I sleep with you and Mama?"

All kidding aside, never was a father's brain more tightly packed with sophisticated information about the way the world works--and never was a father any better at sharing it with his kids. I always liked his approach: share a little more than they are ready to absorb, and on a level a little higher than they are ready to hear. I'm sure I missed plenty, but I appreciated the fact that I was expected to understand, and spoken to as though I were just another grown-up.

On this subject, I think I learned more from him than I did in any school on the subjects of physics, history, politics, capitalism, education, media literacy (a term he'd never use!) and life in general. More importantly, the teaching of our parents prepared us to interpret the divergent worldviews we would encounter in college. Judging by the struggles of almost all of my peers at HBU--when faced with so-called 'higher criticism' of the Biblical text, for example, I think it was the confident and intelligent, thoughtful faith of my parents that made the difference.

But more important than all of that is the way he has lived his life. His integrity is unimpeachable. I don't think anything ever mattered more in our home than honesty. Complete honesty. And I recommend the same--it has an impact on so many other areas. (Teenagers, for example, will rebel. But teens who perceive their parents as dishonest or hypocrites will rebel in spades. No age group is more sensitive to a snowjob, and none more likely to sniff it out.)

But my parents are honest. And when hard (really hard) questions were raised in later years, whether they concerned society, or our local church, or whatever, it was my knowledge of my parents' integrity that kept me going, not their answers. Nineteen-year-old know-it-alls can dismiss pat answers. But when you have examined your parents and are certain of their complete trustworthiness--I'm talking about absolute, total honesty, not just the "mostly honest" of the guy down the street--then nothing they say can be dismissed as a 'pat' answer. If I brought them a question, I knew the answer was the truth, just as if Jesus had walked in and posed the question Himself. I honestly do not know another man about whom I can say that.

Finally, I admire my Dad for a number of reasons: He never cared about material things. He keeps the financial house in order. He's patient. He never oversleeps. Both he and my mom are never, ever late for anything. He has literally never spoken a cuss word in my hearing (nor I in his!). He reads the paper cover-to-cover every day, and reads the Bible through every year (and did both before retiring). He never stops reading books. He always had time for us. He could fix anything and make anything (including a working flint-lock rifle, a set of flint-lock pistols--or whatever they're called--and a huge Bowie knife. Boys love that stuff). He is shrewd but never cynical. He believes in swift justice and hanging murderers and pedofiles. But he knows God can change lives. He does his own taxes. He never drinks and never missed it. He remembers his whole life--and can repeat it in a thousand great stories, each of them seasoned with bits of historical and scientific trivia.

And he never backed down from a fight.

Following the oft-repeated 'Clint' reference, I spent years scanning movies for something more apt. My friend Scott compared him to Gary Cooper's iconoclastic character in The Fountainhead film. (Scott also said that given Daddy's Louisiana accent, listening to him talk was like listening to a very intellectual Foghorn Leghorn.)

Then when I saw Mel Gibson's The Patriot, I thought there is a movie that captures my dad. Here was an articulate, thoughtful man, willing to disagree with the leaders of the community. He loves his family and wants to protect them. But when the English capture his eldest son and take him away to be hanged, Dad grabs three rifles and sets up an ambush. He rescues his son by singledhandedly killing a dozen or more soldiers, in the end reduced to hacking at them with a tomahawk, finally so overcome with passion he just keeps hacking on the last one until his son stops him. When Dad looks up, he is covered in blood.

As he would say, "it's a safe bet" my dad's never gone that far. But there were threats leveled against me as a kid. Most were empty, perhaps. But when they weren't I can't tell you how great it felt to know I had a dad that would take on all comers. In this world of emasculated, passive men, where feminism and liberalism have left most too conflicted to be gentlemen and too selfish to defend their family against anything but physical harm, it is great to know those who coudn't care less about "that silly feminist hogwash."

He was absolutely undaunted for example, by the man who told me and Dennis (ages 6 and 4) that he was going to break both our legs. This man chose me for his pet scapegoat. If money was missing from a piggy bank, then that 8-year-old delinquent must have snuck in during the night and stolen it. (Yes, he literally accused me.) If something was broken, it must have been little Steven the devil-child. This grown man considered it his duty to constantly remind the second-grader next door that he would be spending his whole life behind bars and would never be president or an astronaut or a lawyer or doctor or anything else. Then there was the time he literally picked me up by the hair so he could look me in the eyes and tell me not to throw grass clippings. When it was appropriate, Daddy and the man "had words." I did my best to watch from the bushes. (I'd give anything for a tape of those conversations.) When a confrontation could be avoided, my parents taught me how to handle criticism. They taught me not to internalize it. They taught me that sometimes, it really was not my fault. They kept reminding me, convincing me that I was a good kid. As John Eldredge would say, they taught me that I "had what it takes." I would not trade those lessons for a nicer neighbor, not on your life.

And for a kid and his parents to do battle together against a common enemy, whether it's a neighbor, or math, or an illness or a learning disability, or whatever--what better way could there be to forge a powerful bond as allies, not adversaries? I suspect one of the reasons I so easily internalized so many of my parents' beliefs and values is that these struggles left me absolutely convinced we really were on the same team. Oh, I rebelled--in a thousand overt ways. But there were several lines I would not cross, lines many parents can only dream of. I also worked through my 'rebellious phase' much earlier than most. By high school graduation, I had decided my parents were wiser and better allies than most of my peers. And I think a part of it may have been the way they fought for me and alongside me during so many difficult childhood battles. It's easy to leave long division to the teacher, for example, and tell yourself they'll catch on soon enough, what difference does it make. But it does make a difference.

Still, as a child the constant criticism was hard sometimes, not because it had any basis in reality, but because I seemed to be in trouble all the time. At school, teachers complained about all sorts of things. The principal and I knew each other far too well. She wanted me on Ritalin. I ended up on a special diet. And I meant well, but seemed to always be doing the wrong things. There would be moments of brilliance--one great school project a year, maybe--then months of failures. But what stands out when I look back are not the struggles but the rescues. I will never forget the way I was defended.

My parents expected a lot from us. But sometimes when I explained what happened, Daddy would look at me--and he knew I would not lie to him--and I would see a twinkle in his eye. I never knew what that was. Did he understand? Had he been there, too? Could it be that deep down, even though what I did was bad, he understood why a boy would want to do it? Without ever really telling me, I always knew he understood. Even when he took the belt off. Somehow, I knew that he knew what it was like. (And I believed him when he said, "this is going to hurt me a lot more than it hurts you.")

But when I was falsely accused, and falsely punished or unfairly treated in some significant way, it may have hurt. But for most of those occasions all I really remember is being defended. All I remember is my hero. And in a case like that, the pain is worth it because without it, you would have never seen the passion of your defender.

"The Glory of Sons is their fathers." Proverbs 17:6.
--Boy, am I blessed.

Happy 71st! You deserve it.

Would You Destroy US Law to Defeat Roe v. Wade?

2006-02-23T08:02:00.000-08:00

South Dakota is busy passing a law making abortion a crime, and doctors convicted of performing an abortion can be punished by five years in prison and $5,000 fine. Five other states are racing to pass similar measures: Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky. This calls for celebration! Doesn't it?

But wait--isn't abortion a protected right, under Roe v. Wade, no matter how illegitimate that decision?

Since when do states intentionally pass laws that are patently unconstitutional? Do long-term, unintended consequences no longer matter? Can we just say "chuck-it" to the whole system because one law is bad?

The play A Man for All Seasons documents the life of Sir Thomas More,
England’s Lord Chancellor. A key scene includes his debate with his son-in-law,
a righteous man who is frustrated by his father-in-law’s unwillingness to arrest
a man everyone knows to be bad. More won’t do it without proper grounds. His
son-in-law says in effect, forget the law. Tear down the law if you have to, but
get the bad man. More asks to what lengths his son-in-law would go to prosecute
the devil. The young man explains hotly that he would destroy the entire English
law to get at the devil. More then asks where the young man would turn for
protection when the devil turned on him.

Likewise, the question facing
conservatives is: to what length will we go to get at a bad case—to get Roe v.
Wade?Should conservatives destroy the institution of the law and the respect of
future generations by trampling stare decisis? The film’s Thomas More would
answer no. And did the movie romanticize its hero? Unlikely. More is known to
have once explained that were he sitting on the bench and asked to judge between
his father on one side and the devil on the other, “his cause being right, the
devil should have his due.”

The quoted passage above is from another post, here. I have also discussed the rule of law here but it keeps coming up.

These un-Constitutional laws are terrible. Consider the precedent. Do we want every state to do its own thing, no one following an accepted national standard? Can you imagine what this would do to our system?

Global Map of the Cartoon Wars.

2006-02-20T22:20:00.000-08:00

There is an amazing interactive map of the recent rash of riots sparked by cartoons. (Yeah, cartoons. I couldn't believe it either.)

Do you still think it's a religion of peace? Can anyone still believe that? The whole world is on fire, burning in Islamic arson. It has its denominations, sure, but everywhere Islam is the majority religion, it is a religion of war and death and suicide and beheadings, a religion with no hope of forgiveness, and no hope for redemption, and no hope. Many of its followers raise their children to hate and to believe that all non-Muslims (or non-Shia Muslims) are evil and worthy of slaughter. It is easier to believe that the relative peacefulness of American Islam stems not from any inherent peacefulness of the religion, but from the fact that its followers remain so greatly outnumbered. Historically, Islam has always been a religion of peace--while it remained a minority.

The cartoons were published in September, but no one cared till now--because several fake cartoons were added. Still, the reaction to the cartoons is substantial evidence that we are dealing with a dangerous, unpredictable, evil enemy. (But how much proof do you need?) The fact that Europeans and American liberals want to appease and placate them is inexplicable. Do you think they will ever be appeased? Will they ever be happy? Even if we were to give them the one thing they want most, the entire land of Israel? Would they not simply find another way to blame all their problems on us?

The Islamo-Fascists are the most dangerous people on Earth today. They should be absolutely barred from entering our nation, and their attempts at nuclear programs should be stopped at any cost. If it were up to me, we would depose all the evil leaders as we did Saddam (but I'm not saying all Arab nations have evil leaders, though the difference is one of degree; I'm not sure any are particularly "good"), and we would import democracy. Not all of western culture--but freedom and democracy are essential.

What if it were up to you? What's your solution?

Documentary on Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

2006-02-20T10:22:00.000-08:00

Ronald Reagan first encountered the spreading virus of Communism when he was a Democrat and union president. For the next forty years, he wrestled with a single enemy, a struggle documented in In the Face of Evil. The film airs tonight--watch it or tape it. As one friend wrote, "finally a reason to watch the Paul and Jan network."

(I also recommend Peggy Noonan's When Character Was King, and What I Saw at the Revolution--and anything else she writes.)

American Idol Wins Gold During Sweeps Month.

2006-02-17T21:49:00.000-08:00

American Idol beat coverage of the Olympics almost two-to-one? How can that be?

American Idol is better television, that's how. I have friends who look down their noses at the show--friends who can't sing, of course, and have never auditioned for anything. But what they seem to be mocking is the show's tame, family-friendly nature. Of course, that a show lacks a shooting, a surgery, or an autopsy does not necessarily make it bad. In fact, American Idol is the absolute, bona fide king of television, a collossus no other show can touch. And though I've watched them all, Idol is the only reality television that I like (or consider anywhere near reality). Here's why:

1. The people are real and the focus of the show is the contestants (as opposed to coverage of the Olympics which has become a showcase for broadcasters and political speeches not unlike an awards show--however, with regard to this first point, the Olympics is a probably a close second.)
2. The show is about singing--and at some point during the show everyone who watches will hear at least one or two songs that they like. (And they'll be well done, now that the auditions are over.)
3. The audition shows are great because everyone loves to hear someone else sing flat--I mean, it makes you realize that you can at least tell when they're flat, right? And apparently they can't? Somehow, that just feels good to people. (Although it's painful at times.)
4. Everyone loves to hear someone sing well, too. Especially the people who have worked hard and who keep on working hard.
4. People love to try to predict the judges' comments.
5. Not everyone has skiied, or "curled," but we've all tried to sing. You can relate.
6. We know what we like in a singer, and what we don't--people who may know very little about music still know what they like. Similarly, we are no longer a nation of readers. We're watchers of tv, and increasingly, obsessive listeners. Music fills way too much of our time and attention--but we have developed a ravenous taste for it.
7. The show always has two or three surprises: people who have a sound that actually is unique (it is such a cliche). Idol has had many, but a few have been cut so early, I can't remember them. The best examples may be Fantasia Barrino, Clay Aiken (not just another Barry Manilow--the guy has pipes!--though no one has heard them since the season ended; all his recordings are dull compared to what he is capable of), and at least two unique voices this year that I am excited about, one an energetic rocker, the other Alabama's answer to the marriage of Joe Cocker and Ray Charles.

Given the quality and variety of singers this season, I would not expect the Idol to topple any time soon.

P.S. On Cheney Humor

2006-02-15T09:25:00.000-08:00

The jokes are funny. But the allegedly serious comments are annoying. Reporters (I didn't get the name) who insist Cheney was drunk ("that's what hunting is all about, right?") are completely irresponsible. And Mrs. Slick Willie calls the White House "less than forthcoming." I guess she would know.

As hilarious as the jokes are, none would be funny if we didn't live with the constant din of radical-liberal babble in our ears every day. It's only the alternative universe with which we co-exist that makes all this funny. The following premises are all lies. But you hear them so often, they sound true, and they are "true" in a way--true within the fictional world of those who believe them.

To find any of this humorous, you must accept the following--but only as part of the fictional parallel universe of George Clooney, Michael Moore, et al.:

1. The Bush Administration is a posse of cowboys who love to play with guns.
2. The Administration hates lawyers (as opposed to frivolous lawsuits).
3. The Administration loves war, and loves to fight and slaughter its enemies.
4. The Administration does not care about innocent victims and believes American soldiers are expendable.
5. Cheney is a privileged fat cat who thinks he deserves special treatment.
6. Cheney is secretly on the payroll of Halliburton--in spite of his sale of all stock before the 2000 election.
7. No one but the Bush Administration believed Saddam had WMDs. They acted unilaterally--with no support from Democrats or any other nations. (How soon we forget that the majority of the Democratic party voted for the war and the whole world knew Saddam was flouting the UN weapons inspectors--who also believed he had WMDs.)

P.S.--

I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney
Than ride with Ted Kennedy.

On Cheney: This Stuff's Comedy Gold!

2006-02-14T21:52:00.000-08:00

In his book, How to Be Funny, Steve Allen wrote an equation:

Tragedy + Time = Comedy.

But you don't hear a lot of jokes about 9/11. Same with Columbine and Hurricane Katrina. Decent people refrain from making tasteless jokes in the face of horrible suffering.

But who's talking about decent people? I've got a theorem:

A sense of humor is often inversely proportional to a sense of decency.

I hope my theorem is wrong. Anyway, please allow me to apologize to the White House and all its occupants, to hunters, and to Bush supporters everywhere. But I'm sorry:

You just can't go around shooting people!!

To me, this is the funniest thing that's happened in years. I'm sorry. It just is. (Dear God, bless Mr. Whittington and don't let his health suffer further.)

That said, how can you not laugh at this? It is the most unbelievable, outrageous bungle since the Clintons moved out. (The material below was stolen from ABC.)

As you read, try to hum Aerosmith's latest: "Cheney's Got a Gun."

from Vice President Shoots Man, Hilarity Ensues
By JONANN BRADY
Feb. 14, 2006 — - W.W.J.S.D.?

This is the question the nation asks when a story of great political magnitude breaks, such as when our vice president accidentally shoots a 78-year-old lawyer in the face while quail hunting. It's not "What Would Jesus Do?" but "What Will Jon Stewart Do?"

Harry Whittington's injuries are certainly no laughing matter. The Texas lawyer was "peppered" with pellets in his cheek, neck and chest when Cheney fired his shotgun, but by all accounts, he's recovering nicely. * So comedians on the Internet and on late-night television are mining this political comedy gold.

Dan Kurtzman, the editor of About.com's political humor Web site, says this is the funniest thing to come out of the Bush administration since the president choked on a pretzel. [What do you mean? This is way funnier.]

"It has all the key ingredients for a great comic set-up: A gun-wielding, warmongering vice president who embodies the motto 'shoot first, ask questions later,' a bizarre case of mistaken identity, a dubious official narrative, and a lawyer riddled with birdshot. You can't make this stuff up," Kurtzman said.

Here Come the Lawyer Jokes

A few bloggers played on Cheney's well-documented disdain of trial lawyers.

Political Cortex's headline was "Cheney Accidentally Bags Lawyer Out Of Season," while Wonkette said, "Dick Cheney Finally Takes a Stand Against Trial Lawyers."

Jay Leno also pulled out a lawyer joke in his monologue Monday night: "Over the weekend, on a quail hunting trip, Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a fellow hunter, a 78-year-old lawyer. When people found out he shot a lawyer, his job approval rating rose to 92 percent."
And Jim Brady, the former Ronald Reagan aide-turned-anti-gun-advocate quipped: "Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him."

But We're at War

Web satirists had fun with Cheney's own (fake) spin on the shooting, and a few reminded the American people that the rules were different during wartime.

Jerry and Joe Long imagined this statement from the veep on huffingtonpost.com: "Since the days of Aaron Burr, under our constitution, the vice president has the implied authority to shoot whomever the hell he pleases. … In a time of war, it would be inappropriate to comment further on how and under what circumstances a 78-year-old man underwent a minor pellet infusion."

"I believed I had credible intelligence that al-Zawahiri had infiltrated my hunting party in disguise with the intent of spraying me with pellets," Mr. Cheney told reporters. "Only after I shot Harry in the face and he shouted 'Cheney, you bastard' did I realize that this intelligence was faulty."

A Man Unafraid of Guns, F-Bombs
But what does it all mean for the vice president's reputation? Cheney always had the air of the renegade about him -- frequently scowling, often disappearing to "undisclosed locations," and not afraid to drop the F-bomb right on the Senate floor.
Does this shooting make Cheney even cooler?

The Wonkette bloggers think so. Yesterday, they said on the Web site: "Dick Cheney is a badass, and we love him. He's like America's abusive father -- we're terrified of him, we hide under our beds when we smell whiskey on his breath, but we crave his attention."

I also stole these jokes from ABC. (Don't you love blogging?)

from Late Show with David Letterman, CBS:

"But here is the sad part before the trip Donald Rumsfeld had denied the guy's request for body armor."

"We can't get Bin Laden, but we nailed a 78-year-old attorney."

from "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," NBC:
"I think Cheney is starting to lose it. After he shot the guy he screamed, 'Anyone else want to call domestic wire tapping illegal?'"
"Dick Cheney is capitalizing on this for Valentine's Day. It's the new Dick Cheney cologne. It's called Duck!"

from "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Comedy Central:

"Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a man during a quail hunt … making 78-year-old Harry Whittington the first person shot by a sitting veep since Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, of course, was shot in a duel with Aaron Burr over issues of honor, integrity and political maneuvering. Whittington? Mistaken for a bird."

*Okay, we know the victim suffered a heart attack. Not funny. Not comedy gold. Should he shuffle off this mortal coil, I'll delete this post with apologies to the grieving. But he's not the point. Cheney did the shooting. BTW, I'm sure Cheney's genuinely upset. All kidding aside, you don't shoot a man, by mistake, especially as a seasoned hunter, and not feel horribly. Given his health, I'm surprised Cheney hasn't had another heart attack. That would probably help his poll numbers at this point. And y'all know I want only the best for the Bush Administration. But this is a case where you just have to be able to laugh at yourselves. Oh, and no, I don't believe it was Cheney's fault. And I fully endorse legal hunting (get the proper stamps, too). And, yes, the rifle in the photo above is so completely unlike the shotgun he used Saturday, as to be incomparable. But accuracy doesn't matter when you're talking about comedy gold! (Or when dove hunting, for that matter. Isn't that the point of a scattergun, anyway?)

Now, I'm just looking forward to those Sunday editorial cartoons.... Poor Cheney.

TRO issued against local school

2006-02-14T14:06:00.000-08:00

A local principal has achieved infamy here in Katy for her anti-religious zeal. (For those who can describe Ken Starr's White House investigation as nothing more than a Federal Judge's personal obsession with illicit sex, how would you describe this lady?)

For example, some schools issue uniforms to prevent kids from showing up in gang colors (the Bloods and the Cryps being well-documented criminal organizations with thousands of members across the nation and a history of violent crime). But at Pattison Elementary, the rule is no one can wear any red or green at any time during the entire month of December. Why? Because some impressionable (and apparently clairvoyant) child might interpret that as an endorsement of Christianity.

There's been a lawsuit in the works, but it was Principal Scrooge's Executive Orders regarding Valentine's Day that provoked the Court to issue the unusual measure of a Temporary Restraining Order. (And most of us don't consider Valentine's Day a religious holiday in the first place!)

(Yes, this is the same district that initially refused to let me sub because I had a speeding ticket.)

Let it Snow

2006-02-13T12:07:00.000-08:00

I love snow. Sure, tort-reform has left me "under-employed." Sure, the Bush Administration hates lawyers. Sure, Dick Cheney has decided to start shooting Texas attorneys on sight. But hey, you can't beat snow. It's so peaceful, you know? Sort of makes it all better. Good old snow.

Whatever Happened to Stephan Kampf?

2006-02-11T23:07:00.000-08:00

(Yes, this post keeps changing....)

Remember Stephan Kampf [sic--maybe he'll never find me]

Well, he's turned up on blogger.

But be warned.

A fair sampling of his style is his review of the Narnia movie. He claims to have liked it very much. He raises good points, and he accuses C.S. Lewis of heresy. It's an interesting discussion of the Ransom Theory--minor heresy if there is such a thing, particularly in a work of fiction.

But I still like his songs.

Well, I'd ululate too...

2006-02-08T20:58:00.000-08:00

. . . if I failed to check my sources.

It seems the world of Islamo-fascists, always a tinder-box, may have been set aflame deliberately. Apparently, the radical Imams couldn't elicit much reaction with those dull Danish cartoons. So they added a few of their own. No one bothered to check the original source.

Not to change the subject, but I love footnotes. Do you? I love them. (They provide an excellent place to chase rabbits and dump those distracting tangents.) I don't always read every one, but seeing them there reassures me that the writer has done his homework. And if I want to read more, I can. If I want to verify, no problem. In law school I edited a journal. And I was surprised and saddened at the often sloppy work done with footnotes. Professors got the page numbers wrong, or even titles of cases or books. Law students occasionally copied footnotes from other sources verbatim (the same way they wrote much of the paper, it seems) and expected to get away with the obvious plagiarism. But most of us did it right. The editing team (a fascinating process, actually) changed not one of the 500 footnotes I wrote in my opus. (The process requires the author to recuse himself when his own paper is involved.)

They fouled up a lot of grammar, however, which I was allowed to change back, provided I could cite rules that trumped theirs. It was delicious. For example, one editor's zeal for the law caused him to butcher a common expression in a misguided attempt to prevent ending a sentence in a preposition. It came out: "A detailed report is a force with which to be reckoned." I let that one slide, but only to throw them a bone, after I had changed over 60 previous edits. But I missed one that still irks me. The same editor left me writing about the "Russian programs against Jews." He was evidently unfamiliar with the term I had used (in a direct quote, no less).

But should the Islamo-fascist world continue to be lied to and set on fire by its leaders, perhaps Pogram will be a word we'll become familiar with once again.

To Censor or Censure, That is the Question.

2006-02-03T13:44:00.000-08:00

Do you believe in censorship?

Not the censorship of ideas or debate, but the censorship of the base, the vulgar, the most vile and disgusting and proposition-free. What do you think? Is it ever justifiable? Could censorship serve a purpose that would make it worth the surrender of a set of rights? Do we need such rights? More on that in a future post.

Human Events has an excellent article on the cartoons that have set ten thousand tongues to ululating. I could only find one cartoon that was funny, however--second row, second from the left.

Pet Peeve: "To continue in English, press one."

2006-02-02T08:18:00.000-08:00

Can't that be assumed? Listening to the automated phrase wastes the time of the call center, of those who prefer English, and those who prefer Spanish. (I'll stipulate to the need for the invitation to continue in Spanish). And if they're adding on this English option because it's PC, how long before they tack it on the end, afterthe invitations to continue in any of five or six other languages?

Is English not the most flexible and widely known language in the world (not to mention the US), the established language of international relations and international trade and the one language every air traffic controller and pilot around the world is required to use for all radio contact? Remind me,

Why do we not have an official language?

Doing Church in the Information Age

2006-01-31T21:56:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time, the person in a community likely to be the best educated, the best informed, and certainly the best orator (to use the nomenclature) was the local priest or parson. He was the man you looked to not only for Biblical wisdom but for insight about the day's events. Not only were many of our nation's founders either in the ministry or educated for the ministry, but local pastors led the members of many Colonial churches to take up arms against the King. Many of them joined the battle--including the two "fighting parsons" pictured here.

It's different today. Modern church members are often as well-educated as their pastors (or similarly degreed, anyway). And as for the news of our day, it would seem lay people in general have more time for reading and interpreting widely-sourced news than their pastors. My pastor is a busier man than most. He can't possibly spend the kind of time on the net or listening to talk radio that I can. Nor can he spend all his time reading books. And frankly--what pastor would want to? My pastor once told several of us that he had remodeled the office and removed the built-in bookshelves of the prior pastor. He tapped his laptop. "I've got all the books I need, right in here." I was chagrined, having forever dreamed of built-in bookshelves. But rabid bibliophilia (doesn't it sound like a disease?) is not a prequisite for effective ministry. Frankly, my own bookishness is a hindrance as often as it helps at church. (For every Sunday school lesson enriched, there's a committee meeting where everyone thinks I'm crazy because I don't share their priorities. Thank you, Neil Postman.)

Then there's the massive proliferation of other ministries. Everyone in Houston can listen to half a dozen Christian radio stations, and two Christian television stations--even without cable or satellite systems. Surely you could listen to fifty sermons a week if you were so inclined. And with the internet, you can listen to sermons all day, every day. And you can hear the very best in church music, new worship, old worship, or whatever you want. There's James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Janet Parschall, Chuck Swindoll, Hank Hannegraff, Beth Moore (can't forget her) and dozens and dozens of others on radio and TV and internet outlets 24/7. And there are Christian movie reviewers (Movieguide now has at least one competitor), "family coaches," financial ministries, health and diet experts, experts on preschool, or caring for aging parents (somebody send me a link--ha!), experts on guiding your child's education, whether home-schooled or otherwise, and many more.

But after a week immersed in this sea of information--listening to great speakers, great music, reading the best analysis and the best books, having deep and heavy discussions on the web--where writing the occasional 'comment' may take longer than we allow the pastor to speak--arriving at church on Sunday, it might be easy to shrug your shoulders after the sermon and say, "Oh, well. That left me sort of flat."

And it occured to me--why do we come to church? To hear a great message? Do we expect the pastor to beat out the competition in a world saturated with information? To be more entertaining, more insightful, more passionate, but more dispassionate, more everything--than whatever else we've taken in all week? Is that fair? Is it possible? (Could Beth Moore even live up to that?)

John Eldredge makes it clear: We come to church to fellowship with other believers and to commune with and learn how to love Jesus. We come because we are not autonomous, disconnected people who can pick whatever's most interesting, as if going to church were just another channel on the tube, another bookmark taking you to another distant website. Instead, we are part of a body. And you can't take that lightly. Not just the larger body, but the local one to which you have been called--even if it has seemed dull lately. We stand or fall as a body. We reap what we sow as a body. God's reasons for church attendance do not include being over-stimulated by exciting sermons. If you've read much of the Bible, you know the excitement is knowing God and having a changed life. It's not about the reading experience. Same with sermons.

We need to love our pastor(s). Pray for him. And be thankful for him, whatever his weaknesses. The gospel ministry is no more about impressing people with deep insights or flowery oratory than marriage is about non-stop passion, or a career fulfilling and perfect every single day. Pastors are given to the church to teach us and equip us for ministry. Not to impress us with their education, brilliant rhetoric, or insightful commentary on the events of the day. Often such concerns have more to do with entertainment than sanctification. Consider them blessings when they come, but do not expect the preacher to be more entertaining--or even more insightful--than everything else out there. No one is that good all the time. Not in an information age.

And enjoy the wealth of information at your fingertips--but don't get so saturated in the ubiquitous media that you lose touch with relationships. What matters in life is the people, the ones you know well, and the ones you fellowship with across the aisle. Church is about building your life, your character, and your relationships, both with people, and with Christ. Go there, expect Him to hear your worship and to touch your life (whether you realize it or not) and be blessed. We would all be wise to give our pastors a break. Stop expecting them to dazzle us with profundities. Sometimes the simplest and shortest message is the one you most need to hear.

Since You Asked...

2006-01-28T12:48:00.000-08:00

Okay, so no one asked. But that's me in the 'photo.' In 1997 I was driving to my job as an English teacher (grades were due!) and was rear-ended by a cement truck. I was stopped for a turn, he was going 50 (I had passed him previously). I was out for half an hour, then woke to paramedics telling me great news: "You won't be going to work today. You've been in an accident."

For some reason that was funny. "All right! Rescue 911!" (I actually said that. You know, Boy Scouts train for years for this sort of thing--now it was my turn.) Soon I was strapped to a board, clamped into a cervical collar, and loaded onto a helicopter. I was sad I couldn't see Houston as we flew to Hermann Hospital (where Dr. Red Duke pioneered the use of helicopters for emergency transport).

Things continued to be funny in various ways, but the pain became unbearable. Long story short, I had--as both my nurse mother and medical student brother suggested--a subdural (Latin for beneath the skull) hematoma (L. for bloody mess). It's visible in the picture--the pool of blood collecting around the skull between 9 and 11 o'clock. You can also see the wavy center line that becomes straight in the smaller apres-surgery film at right (you can also see staples and other hardware I care not to explain here). The hematoma caused increasing numbness and interesting but mild paralysis on my left until surgery, three weeks after the wreck. Two weeks more and I was back at work. (See also the staples in the bottom photo--too bad they were gone by the time I returned to the high school. The kids would have loved that.)

In the end, the whole experience was a blessing. I found it fascinating and even fun in ways (I've always loved being on stage), and I knew it was an adventure I would be talking about for years. I felt sorry for my family and friends--some of whom suffered a terrible fright when the hospital--20 miles and a dozen hospitals away, a place for only the worst trauma cases--called and, thanks to privacy laws, would say only that I had been in an accident "and he's talking." I felt pretty good, all things considered, and was dismissed the next day. (Later, another hospital discovered the hematoma my loved ones had speculated about from day one.)

The greatest thing was realizing in a new way, that even when I was not driving defensively (I never saw it coming--one minute I'm waiting to turn, the next I'm talking to the paramedics), God was watching out for me, defending me and protecting me. Seeing the car in a junk yard later that week was remarkable too. It had been rear-ended, pushed into the next lane and hit head-on by another car doing 50-something, then crumpled underneath the massive cement truck the way bulls climb over each other in a pen. Seeing the car was like whittling on your own coffin. But it was touching too, and all these pictures are actually part of an album I put together. (Here I raise my Ebeneezer, RB.)

The whole thing was special because God just loved me and took care of me and blessed me every sweet day between February 24 and April 1, 1997.

There is no adventure like walking with the Master. Amen? But it means walking through the storm, standing up to enemies and emporers, and carrying that cross up the long road to the Hill of the Skull. And it's sweet fellowship with the Master. Can you imagine that--joining Him, walking by His side? Can you imagine the privilege of suffering with Him? Of being asked to take part in the fellowship of His sufferings? Now that's sweet fellowship.

Why Democracy?--Question 2 from Bob A., age 18

2006-01-26T22:55:00.000-08:00

Bob A., previously introduced as "Johnny Public," poses the following multi-farious question. Please help me assemble some sort of answer. (Rome wasn't built in a day, and an Amish barn-raising takes the whole town, and I can't reassemble the cathedral that is Western Civilization alone.) I've edited this a little, but left it mostly hairy and complex. In response to my asking what could be better than democracy, Bob writes:

There is monarchy, which history has shown is far less cruel than democracy. prior to world war one, no states were democratic, with a few exceptions such as athens, the roman republic, the u. s., and the french republics. after that, most states have been democratic, and there has been a tremendus increase in taxation, inflation, (real) interest rates, legistlation, ideological war and genocide, and immorality. democracy has been the fountain head of every form of socialism, notably that of nazi germany and soviet russia, not to mention the roman empire. the democratic revolution of france was also particularly brutal. this is consistent with the theory of government.

kings have a perpetual monopoly on the ability to plunder and loot their realm, and can pass that along to their children, so they have an incentive to preserve the value of their rule and not engage in reckless behavior such as excessive taxation and war. democratic rulers have exactly the opposite incentive. in order to be relected, politicians must engage in redistributing wealth, ideological war, useless legislation, and whatever else the voters want (or that they can dupe them into thinking they want). in other words, the incentive of politicians is to loot the country as quickly as possible, because what they don't loot now, they won't be able to in the future. the other alternative, which i think best, is anarchy (that is, the lack of a state). this in various degrees has worked in ancient america, ancient iceland, and modern somalia. the most notable example is ancient ireland.

in theory, though, the state is simply unnecessary, because it provides no service which couldn't be provided more efficiently by the free market. it is a law of economics that monopolies are never more efficient than competing companies. utilitarian arguments are morally flawed if they violate natural principles of justice.

Question from Young John Q. Public.

2006-01-25T09:00:00.000-08:00

I know a precocious student of 16 whom I will call "Johnny." He gave me permission to post a question he e-mailed me--because I promised that I had smart friends who would like to help. And here's the thing: Johnny asks huge, earth-shaking sorts of questions that require answers that may be beyond me. If you can help, please leave Johnny your thoughtful comments. (And be nice!)

hello. i think that the biggest problem at the moment is the state. speaking of which, why do you support the constitution? why does anyone have the right to compel others to obey a document they've never signed or consented to?

Movie Review: 'End of the Spear'--90

2006-01-22T21:12:00.000-08:00

Great movie--I say that without hesitation. This won't be like the Left Behind movie (no offense) whose production company was sued by Tim LaHaye for making a crummy film.* I think this movie is well-made and one of which the Christian community can be proud.

The story is powerful. Here's how Al Mohler introduces it:

The End of the Spear is a retelling of the story of the martyrdom of missionaries Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, Roger Youderian, and Ed McCully by Waodani tribesmen in Ecuador in 1956 -- and many Christians have been eagerly awaiting the film's release.
This is one of the classic narratives of Christian missions. Eventually, the widows of these five missionaries led the majority of the Waodani to faith in Christ, ending decades of tribal killings. Steve Saint, the son of Nate Saint, maintains a ministry among the Waodani even now, after having been "adopted" by Mincaye, the very tribesman who killed his father.

The story of the five missionary martyrs and their families has been recounted in several books and films -- most famously Elisabeth Elliot's two books, Shadow of the Almighty and Through Gates of Splendor. Generations of young evangelicals have drawn courage and inspiration from these testimonies, and the larger story of the evangelization of the Waodani people.

Again, great film. I liked the score, the sweeping shots of the jungle from the air (filmed in Panama), the characterization of the tribal people (though as in every movie, they were too fat to fool anyone who ever actually lived in the jungle eating speared monkeys. The male actors, more Spanish than Indian, had obviously been shaving very closely to look more authentic--but I just kept seeing those thick Basim whiskers and wondering when and where and how and why they shaved every morning). One great element was the portrayal of various relationships, especially between Nate Saint and his son, and between Mincaye and other members of the tribe as they wrestle with how to handle the outsiders.

My criticisms were few: (1) The film made it appear that the widowed missionary wives just naturally moved in with the Indians who speared their husbands, as if they were all neighbors and the whole thing some sort of misunderstanding. The film does show the Indians arguing privately about killing the women too, but there's no sense of how terrified these women must have been, and how difficult a choice it must have been for them. There is little shown of the bitterness and hostility some of the women must have struggled with. I realize they were missionaries--but they were human too. Moving in with and loving those people was at least as heroic and as remarkable as what their husbands had done. After 50 years, isn't it still the courage and self-less love of those women that inspires us all? And isn't that what finally reached the warring tribesmen? Yet the film slips past this amazing, agonizing, soul-searching as if it were no decision at all.

(2) I know from an interview I watched that Steve Saint practically grew up with the tribe--or spent several years living among them anyway. In the movie, it seems he's among them for at most six or eight weeks before returning to the States--where he will remain for forty years. Steve had learned their ways and established meaningful roots among the tribe that made it easier for him to bring his own family to Ecuador years later, but that was not clear.

(3) Finally, as an adult Steve learns who killed his father. In the movie he is handed a spear and he shouts and acts as if he will kill the man. In reality, I am sure--without verifying it--that did not happen. When a man has lived among a people as missionary, always knowing that the men of the tribe had killed the men of his "tribe," he has put away the sword long ago. The scene was written for cinematic effect, but seemed exaggerated to me. The same could have been accomplished had he held the spear, had a brief dark look in his eyes, and through two or three flashbacks remembered the times as a child when he was the most hurt and angry over the death. When the flashbacks end, he breaks the spear over his knee. "End of the spear," he says, or something a bit more subtle. But as it is, seeing the missionary act as he does in the film was just weird to me.

(4) Chad Allen was cast as Nate Saint and as Steve Saint. That was odd too--the boy grows up and magically turns into his father. This was made more complicated by the fact that the tribal people did not appear to have aged at all. Instead of aging them, the director showed us that forty years had passed by covering them in pancake makeup. But there's a bigger problem with Chad Allen. You should see the movie anyway; pay the money and feel good about it. But for a little more on the Chad Allen controversy, click on Al Mohler.

*(Such action is not very charitable, but consider--an author can sell movie rights to any of a flock of suitors. They'll pay an initial cost, then a percentage of profits. A bad film not only hurts the writer's credibility, but can cost him a great deal of what he might have made had he sold his rights to someone else. But then, there's caveat emptor.)

Basim and Smelly Bloggers

2006-01-22T14:16:00.000-08:00

I know ya'll know this--but I wanted to officially welcome Basim (back?) to the blogosphere. Basim is actually the second stinky blogger whom I can claim to have smelled. I've seen lots of others--thanks to y'all posting photos--but Dennis and Basim are unique: the only bloggers I've met face-to-face, "seen, touched, and handled." And smelled. Not that I can describe the scent. But its definitely something you can't get on the internet, yet (Hallelujah). Oh--and I met Kelly years ago--but she says the blog is Carter's.

Welcome Basim.

Do you Believe in Big Government?...

2006-01-21T23:31:00.000-08:00

. . . Big enough to take your house away? Not only did patriots build this nation (and a few others) on a commitment to the sanctity of private property--but Marx called private property the original sin that caused all our modern woes. (Marx's Eden was primitive collectivism, his fall was the advent of private property, and his redemption the wholesale destruction of private commerce and the bourgeosie--you and me--in favor of an all-powerful State.)

Personally, I prefer a government that respects private property, taking it only for an essential public purpose, like schools, roads, hospitals. Not Wal-Marts. What the Supreme Court did this summer was apalling. I have written about it previously. But I like what's going on outside the New Hampshire home of David Souter. Just wish they'd launch similar actions at the homes of the other four justices who think the government should be able to take your property any time it wants to redecorate, the same way my wife shifts chairs and sofas around. The city wants you out and a strip center in? Who can stop them now? (Of course--sensible states like Texas have already passed their own laws limiting this ridiculous power.) Anyway, they're making progress with the Souter action.

An interesting point: a critic says you just don't go around attacking a Justice because you disagree with the decision. But this is no attack. It's just a run-of-the-mill condemnation action, you know? I'm with the activist, who says his action is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party. I agree. The decision is way outta' line.

Insulating Souter from the results of his decision puts me in mind of another book on the Wish List: Do as I Say, (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. The author explains that when conservatives are hypocrites--which they are often--they hurt themselves and their families. But when liberals are hypocrites what happens? They make more money, they drive better cars, they pay less taxes, they hire competent workers regardless of race--in other words, they benefit themselves. Liberal hypocrisy is actually good for you.... and good for Souter if he can keep his house.