Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Commutation of Libby's sentence
Before people get too high and mighty about the "unprecedented corruption" of the Bush administration commutation of Libby's sentence they really ought to take another look at Clinton's outright pardons, especially Clinton's pardon spree in January, 2001. Remember Marc Rich, Pincus Green, and Linda Jones?
Friday, April 20, 2007
Music
I've found some new music to enjoy -- new to me, that is.
There was a link to Andrew Bird's performance on Letterman at http://rom116.blogspot.com/.
There was a link to Andrew Bird's performance on Letterman at http://rom116.blogspot.com/.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Ehrman: Leaps of Unbelief
I’ve just started to read Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. Instead of waiting till I finish the book to comment on it, I think I’ll just post a running commentary. This is probably wise since I may have difficulty finishing it; I’ve been brought to a stop many times already in just the first few pages of the introduction. Many of his statements are truly startling. They are not faith-threatening or provocative but are such shocking leaps of illogic that it’s hard to imagine a well-reputed scholar wrote this.
I admit that I’m not open-minded in my approach to this book. I expect to disagree with his conclusions about the nature of Scripture; I’m reading it critically and with some skepticism. However, I also expect to get a good introduction to textual criticism. Many of the reviews have indicated that Ehrman is pretty good at describing textual criticism to a lay audience. So, I’ve expected it to be a good read. But now, after just a few pages, I’m not so sure. His reasoning is so questionable, his conclusions so unfounded, that it’s hard to imagine the book will get much better. Ehrman repeatedly jumps to completely unwarranted conclusions from fairly simple, widely-held premises.
For example, on page 5 of his introduction he describes his discovery that we do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testament, “Moreover, none of these documents is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in places. All the scribes did this. So rather that actually having the inspired words of the autographs (i.e., the originals) of the Bible, what we have are the error-ridden copies of the autographs.” Ehrman leaps from the idea that “no copy is completely accurate” to “all copies are error-ridden.” This is a blatant fallacy that anyone with some common sense can refute. It doesn’t even take any formal study in logic to see how dumb this is!
I have terrible handwriting: my letters are tiny, crabbed and shaky. I often used to write out memos and reports in longhand and then turn them over to my secretary to type out. She then returned them to me for my review before distributing them. None of my secretaries was ever able to make out my handwriting perfectly. Every document ever typed up for me had some mistake in it. Sometimes the mistakes were unintentional, sometimes they were corrections of my grammar or suggested rewordings. The point is, “no copy was completely accurate.” But that’s not the same as saying they were “error-ridden.” One of my secretaries was remarkably good. Though she invariably made some mistake, it was only a couple on a document, and they were easy to explain given my almost illegible hand-writing. One of my other secretaries, however, did such a lousy job that it was just easier for me to type up my own documents. Her copies were truly “error-ridden.” There’s a huge difference between the two!
Ehrman is guilty of another logical error at this point as well. He argues that since all of the documents disagree with each other at some point then every document must be wrong. But this, too, is obviously not necessarily correct. If all of the witnesses to some event disagree at some point in their reporting of the event, the only conclusion that follows from this is that they can’t all be right about that part of the event. They could all be wrong, as Ehrman seems to hope, or one witness could be right and all the others wrong. It just does not follow that one of the witnesses cannot be completely accurate. And, even if there’s some point at which all the witnesses disagree, that doesn’t impeach the 99% of the testimony where they do agree.
Here’s another example. At the bottom of page 6, and spilling over into the following page, he says, “I came to see early on that the full meaning and nuance of the Greek text of the New Testament could be grasped only when it is read and studied in the original language . . . This started making me question my understanding of scripture as the verbally inspired word of God . . . What good does it do to say that the words are inspired by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to more or less clumsy renderings of these word into a language ... that has nothing to do with the original words?” Again, what a huge, irrational leap!
Ehrman begins with a relatively innocuous, commonplace that everyone who’s ever studied another language can understand. Sometimes simple translation can’t capture completely all of the nuances of a single word. For example, Brazilians speak of saudade. There is no single English word that is the perfect counterpart to this wonderfully rich word. But it’s a long way to jump from this simple observation to the conclusion that English speakers can have absolutely no access to saudade, or that English translation has “nothing to do with the original words.” Even if word-for-word translation is imperfect, meaning is still accessible and the translation is circumscribed. If the Greek uses the word for “dog” the English translation is not free to substitute “elephant.” Does Ehrman expect his books to ever be translated into foreign languages? (Maybe they already are. I don’t know.) If so, why? If translation is so incredibly hopeless then what’s the point?
My expectations for this book, as low as they already were, are diminished after just a few pages. Is he going to continue to make these leaps of unbelief?
I’ll add just a couple examples from the mistakes and contradictions Ehrman finds in the Bible itself. That is, these aren’t errors made by scribes in copying; he sees these as errors in the originals. In one of the kingdom parables, Jesus says that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds on the earth.” It obviously isn’t. So Ehrman concludes Jesus made a mistake. But, this is just a silly sort of literalism than no one holds. Everyone recognizes that Jesus uses figurative language, including hyperbole, in his storytelling. This is just plain stupid!
More subtly, Ehrman finds a contradiction between the book of Acts and the autobiographical section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “when Paul says that after he converted on the way to Damascus he did not go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him (Gal 1:16-17), whereas the book of Acts says that that was the first thing he did after leaving Damascus (Acts 9:26)” (p. 10, his italics). Only someone who is predisposed to find a contradiction here would find Ehrman convincing.
What does Paul really say in Galatians, if we read the whole account? “I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days” (Gal 1:17-18). So, there’s no contradiction. In Galatians, Paul claims only that he did not return to Jerusalem immediately after he was converted but that there was an intervening time period during which he was in Nabatean Arabia, the region adjacent to Damascus. From Arabia he returned to Damascus. When he left Damascus he then went straight away to Jerusalem, which is exactly what he says in Acts 9:26. The account in Acts also implies an interval between Paul’s conversion and his departure from Damascus, though the time period is left indefinite. Luke says that Paul tried to associate with the Christians in Damascus for “some days.” He increased in his persuasive ability over some period of time. And, “after many days” the Jews plotted to kill him. Both accounts allow for some interval of time between Paul’s conversion and his leaving Damascus. On the main point, that upon leaving Damascus Paul went to Jerusalem, the two accounts are agreed. The only way to find a contradiction between the two accounts is to stop reading Galatians at verse 17, not read verse 18, and jump to an unwarranted conclusion.
The weird thing about Ehrman’s complaint is that he seems to be disappointed that an extreme literalism and fundamentalist bibliolatry turned out not to be true. At heart, Ehrman is actually the worst sort of fundamentalist, a bitter, disillusioned one. None of his arguments challenge in the least a solidly evangelical view of the authority of Scripture.
I admit that I’m not open-minded in my approach to this book. I expect to disagree with his conclusions about the nature of Scripture; I’m reading it critically and with some skepticism. However, I also expect to get a good introduction to textual criticism. Many of the reviews have indicated that Ehrman is pretty good at describing textual criticism to a lay audience. So, I’ve expected it to be a good read. But now, after just a few pages, I’m not so sure. His reasoning is so questionable, his conclusions so unfounded, that it’s hard to imagine the book will get much better. Ehrman repeatedly jumps to completely unwarranted conclusions from fairly simple, widely-held premises.
For example, on page 5 of his introduction he describes his discovery that we do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testament, “Moreover, none of these documents is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in places. All the scribes did this. So rather that actually having the inspired words of the autographs (i.e., the originals) of the Bible, what we have are the error-ridden copies of the autographs.” Ehrman leaps from the idea that “no copy is completely accurate” to “all copies are error-ridden.” This is a blatant fallacy that anyone with some common sense can refute. It doesn’t even take any formal study in logic to see how dumb this is!
I have terrible handwriting: my letters are tiny, crabbed and shaky. I often used to write out memos and reports in longhand and then turn them over to my secretary to type out. She then returned them to me for my review before distributing them. None of my secretaries was ever able to make out my handwriting perfectly. Every document ever typed up for me had some mistake in it. Sometimes the mistakes were unintentional, sometimes they were corrections of my grammar or suggested rewordings. The point is, “no copy was completely accurate.” But that’s not the same as saying they were “error-ridden.” One of my secretaries was remarkably good. Though she invariably made some mistake, it was only a couple on a document, and they were easy to explain given my almost illegible hand-writing. One of my other secretaries, however, did such a lousy job that it was just easier for me to type up my own documents. Her copies were truly “error-ridden.” There’s a huge difference between the two!
Ehrman is guilty of another logical error at this point as well. He argues that since all of the documents disagree with each other at some point then every document must be wrong. But this, too, is obviously not necessarily correct. If all of the witnesses to some event disagree at some point in their reporting of the event, the only conclusion that follows from this is that they can’t all be right about that part of the event. They could all be wrong, as Ehrman seems to hope, or one witness could be right and all the others wrong. It just does not follow that one of the witnesses cannot be completely accurate. And, even if there’s some point at which all the witnesses disagree, that doesn’t impeach the 99% of the testimony where they do agree.
Here’s another example. At the bottom of page 6, and spilling over into the following page, he says, “I came to see early on that the full meaning and nuance of the Greek text of the New Testament could be grasped only when it is read and studied in the original language . . . This started making me question my understanding of scripture as the verbally inspired word of God . . . What good does it do to say that the words are inspired by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to more or less clumsy renderings of these word into a language ... that has nothing to do with the original words?” Again, what a huge, irrational leap!
Ehrman begins with a relatively innocuous, commonplace that everyone who’s ever studied another language can understand. Sometimes simple translation can’t capture completely all of the nuances of a single word. For example, Brazilians speak of saudade. There is no single English word that is the perfect counterpart to this wonderfully rich word. But it’s a long way to jump from this simple observation to the conclusion that English speakers can have absolutely no access to saudade, or that English translation has “nothing to do with the original words.” Even if word-for-word translation is imperfect, meaning is still accessible and the translation is circumscribed. If the Greek uses the word for “dog” the English translation is not free to substitute “elephant.” Does Ehrman expect his books to ever be translated into foreign languages? (Maybe they already are. I don’t know.) If so, why? If translation is so incredibly hopeless then what’s the point?
My expectations for this book, as low as they already were, are diminished after just a few pages. Is he going to continue to make these leaps of unbelief?
I’ll add just a couple examples from the mistakes and contradictions Ehrman finds in the Bible itself. That is, these aren’t errors made by scribes in copying; he sees these as errors in the originals. In one of the kingdom parables, Jesus says that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds on the earth.” It obviously isn’t. So Ehrman concludes Jesus made a mistake. But, this is just a silly sort of literalism than no one holds. Everyone recognizes that Jesus uses figurative language, including hyperbole, in his storytelling. This is just plain stupid!
More subtly, Ehrman finds a contradiction between the book of Acts and the autobiographical section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “when Paul says that after he converted on the way to Damascus he did not go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him (Gal 1:16-17), whereas the book of Acts says that that was the first thing he did after leaving Damascus (Acts 9:26)” (p. 10, his italics). Only someone who is predisposed to find a contradiction here would find Ehrman convincing.
What does Paul really say in Galatians, if we read the whole account? “I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days” (Gal 1:17-18). So, there’s no contradiction. In Galatians, Paul claims only that he did not return to Jerusalem immediately after he was converted but that there was an intervening time period during which he was in Nabatean Arabia, the region adjacent to Damascus. From Arabia he returned to Damascus. When he left Damascus he then went straight away to Jerusalem, which is exactly what he says in Acts 9:26. The account in Acts also implies an interval between Paul’s conversion and his departure from Damascus, though the time period is left indefinite. Luke says that Paul tried to associate with the Christians in Damascus for “some days.” He increased in his persuasive ability over some period of time. And, “after many days” the Jews plotted to kill him. Both accounts allow for some interval of time between Paul’s conversion and his leaving Damascus. On the main point, that upon leaving Damascus Paul went to Jerusalem, the two accounts are agreed. The only way to find a contradiction between the two accounts is to stop reading Galatians at verse 17, not read verse 18, and jump to an unwarranted conclusion.
The weird thing about Ehrman’s complaint is that he seems to be disappointed that an extreme literalism and fundamentalist bibliolatry turned out not to be true. At heart, Ehrman is actually the worst sort of fundamentalist, a bitter, disillusioned one. None of his arguments challenge in the least a solidly evangelical view of the authority of Scripture.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Pilgrim's Regress
“‘But how do you know there is no Landlord?’
‘Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder! !’ exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.
‘I beg your pardon,’ said John.
‘Eh?’ said Mr. Enlightenment.
‘I don’t quite understand,’ said John.
‘Why, it’s as plain as a pikestaff,’ said the other. ‘Your people in Puritania believe in the Landlord because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training. For example, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that the earth was round--round as an orange my lad!’
‘Well, I don’t know that it would,’ said John, feeling a little disappointed. ‘My father always said it was round.’
‘No, no, my dear boy,’ said Mr. Enlightenment, ‘you must have misunderstood him. It is well known tht everyone in Puritania think the earth is flat. It is not likely that I should be mistaken on such a point. Indeed, it is out of the question.’” (Lewis:20–21)
I've finally started to read C.S. Lewis's The Pilgrim's Regress, considered by some to be his best book. I especially enjoy the description of his pilgrim's encounter with Mr. Enlightenment.
‘Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder! !’ exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.
‘I beg your pardon,’ said John.
‘Eh?’ said Mr. Enlightenment.
‘I don’t quite understand,’ said John.
‘Why, it’s as plain as a pikestaff,’ said the other. ‘Your people in Puritania believe in the Landlord because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training. For example, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that the earth was round--round as an orange my lad!’
‘Well, I don’t know that it would,’ said John, feeling a little disappointed. ‘My father always said it was round.’
‘No, no, my dear boy,’ said Mr. Enlightenment, ‘you must have misunderstood him. It is well known tht everyone in Puritania think the earth is flat. It is not likely that I should be mistaken on such a point. Indeed, it is out of the question.’” (Lewis:20–21)
I've finally started to read C.S. Lewis's The Pilgrim's Regress, considered by some to be his best book. I especially enjoy the description of his pilgrim's encounter with Mr. Enlightenment.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Clinton to support Alito filibuster
Newsday.com is reporting that Hilary will join the drive to filibuster Alito: Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday announced she'll join potential 2008 presidential rival John Kerry in voting to filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, just as top Democratic leaders predicted the effort is likely doomed.This just shows how much sway Kos, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and People for the American Way have over the democratic party. Hilary will never again be able to get away with trying to adopt her husband's talking points on abortion, that is, "making abortion rare."
Friday, January 27, 2006
Senator Feinstein Reneges
From Senator Feinstein's web site
Senator Feinstein to Vote No on Cloture for the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.The Democrats are intent on a scorched earth policy, reneging on every agreement made.
Oil Subsidies for Big Oil
Yesterday, I read a blog entry by a student, an acquaintance, who has declared her abandonment of evangelical Christianity. In this entry she was questioning why evangelicals are not embarrassed by the ethical lapses of the Bush administration. She ended her entry with the biblical quote, "By their fruits you shall know them," implying that evangelicals either are hypocritical in their political judgment or are too easily fooled by the president's self-proclaimed evangelical faith because of their eagerness to embrace him. She included a litany of ethical offenses.
One of these offenses was that oil companies received oil subsidies at the same time these companies were making unusually high profits. This statement was highlighted in her blog entry as if it exemplifies the "corruption" of the Bush administration. Does it? Should I, as an evangelical, be particularly embarrassed by this?
I frankly don't see why I should be. I may dispute the economic wisdom of continuing oil subsidies because I believe in free markets, but I do not see how this is an ethical issue for the Bush administration.
The best source of information I can find on oil subsidies is a report on real gas prices by the International Center for Technology Assessment, which argues that the federal subsidies for oil artificially reduces the consumer's price for gasoline from $5-$15 a gallon to whatever it currently is at the pump. Their argument is that the true cost of gas is high enough to make alternative energy sources look more attractive. This is an advocacy document opposed to subsidies. (Although their original report was first published in 1998, there is an updated version, 2005, on their web site.) The report comprehensively explains these subsidies and tries to quantify their true cost (I think they're a little overly zealous in finding subsidies.)
One could easily get into arguments over their characterization of these subsidies--for example, they believe that the industry's practice of using replacement cost rather than historical cost as a basis for depreciation of reserves is wrong; however, this is the sort of technical accounting argument one could have about many industries and is not a uniquely Republican ethical problem. Chrysler exploited accounting rules to hide their bankruptcy for a year before they requested their federal bailout during the Carter administration.
In addition, all of these federal subsidies for oil long predate the Bush administration. Here are some quotes from the ICTA's report (note the dates):
On the other hand, on November 16, 2005, the New York Times reported:
Apparently this student has bought into the anti-Bush story line as well as the media's caricature of evangelicals. Let's actually look at the fruit rather than rely on someone else's description of it.
One of these offenses was that oil companies received oil subsidies at the same time these companies were making unusually high profits. This statement was highlighted in her blog entry as if it exemplifies the "corruption" of the Bush administration. Does it? Should I, as an evangelical, be particularly embarrassed by this?
I frankly don't see why I should be. I may dispute the economic wisdom of continuing oil subsidies because I believe in free markets, but I do not see how this is an ethical issue for the Bush administration.
The best source of information I can find on oil subsidies is a report on real gas prices by the International Center for Technology Assessment, which argues that the federal subsidies for oil artificially reduces the consumer's price for gasoline from $5-$15 a gallon to whatever it currently is at the pump. Their argument is that the true cost of gas is high enough to make alternative energy sources look more attractive. This is an advocacy document opposed to subsidies. (Although their original report was first published in 1998, there is an updated version, 2005, on their web site.) The report comprehensively explains these subsidies and tries to quantify their true cost (I think they're a little overly zealous in finding subsidies.)
One could easily get into arguments over their characterization of these subsidies--for example, they believe that the industry's practice of using replacement cost rather than historical cost as a basis for depreciation of reserves is wrong; however, this is the sort of technical accounting argument one could have about many industries and is not a uniquely Republican ethical problem. Chrysler exploited accounting rules to hide their bankruptcy for a year before they requested their federal bailout during the Carter administration.
In addition, all of these federal subsidies for oil long predate the Bush administration. Here are some quotes from the ICTA's report (note the dates):
I could go on to quote more extensively from the report. However, the point should be clear: federal subsidies for the oil industry long predate the Bush administration, and many of the hidden subsidies, such as the TRA, were expanded during the Clinton era. One could argue that these protectionist economic policies are too selective, but, again, Bush did not create the policy.
Percentage depletion allowance is one of the oldest and largest tax subsidies affecting the petroleum industry. This provision primarily benefits independent oil companies (enterprises not substantially involved in refining or retailing). Until 1975, it applied to major oil companies, but Congress has gradually narrowed the application and reduced the rate over time ... Since 1990, Congress has expanded the use of the percentage depletion deduction to include transferred property.
The nonconventional fuel production credit provides the oil industry with another opportunity to avoid paying taxes. The federal tax code provides for a production tax credit of $5.75 per barrel of oil equivalent for certain fuels produced from alternate energy sources. ... Overall production of nonconventional fuel has not increased since the credit was first enacted in 1980.
Foreign tax credits (FTCs) were intended to enable multinational oil companies to avoid double taxation in the United States and in foreign countries where they are operating. In reality, FTCs enable some oil companies to avoid paying taxes in either jurisdiction. ... According to calculations in a study published by the Institute
for Local Self Reliance (ILSR), “if the petroleum industry could only deduct foreign taxes instead of taking a credit for them, we could [have] raise[d] an additional $3.38 billion in revenue in 1996. A recent report prepared for Greenpeace takes a more conservative approach, estimating that 50 percent of all FTCs claimed by the oil industry are disguised royalties ...
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA) is a recent reminder that revision (and supposed reform) of the internal revenue code often contains many new distortionary tax subsidies. Tax expenditure provisions are often passed into law with the intent of being in effect for limited periods. However, subsidies that prove beneficial to oil interests tend to receive extensions
from sympathetic lawmakers. TRA contains several new provisions that will benefit the petroleum industry. The act relaxes rules on the percentage depletion allowance and the accelerated depletion provisions and will increase the annual level of subsidy by
more than $70 million.
On the other hand, on November 16, 2005, the New York Times reported:
In a telling sign of the political impact of soaring energy prices, the Republican-controlled Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to impose a $5 billion tax next year on the nation's biggest oil companies.I believe this is terrible economic policy and will ultimately prove detrimental--this is just basic economics--but, again, to those eager to accuse evangelicals as ethical hypocrites because of Republican oil policies, this is an inconvenient fact.
The measure amounts to a one-year windfall profits tax, a concept that most Republicans had until recently denounced as a discredited idea from the 1970's.
Apparently this student has bought into the anti-Bush story line as well as the media's caricature of evangelicals. Let's actually look at the fruit rather than rely on someone else's description of it.
International Snowboarding Man of Mystery
From The Washington Times:
Democratic Sens. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota said they will support the nomination, even as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts phoned in for a filibuster from the Swiss Alps.Kerry just doesn't get it. The image of him snowboarding in the Alps while phoning in a filibuster is just too easy! Just as I predicted this image is all over the blogs this morning. There's also fairly unanimous opinion that this was a completely cynical fundraising ploy to satisfy the radical base of his party. Kerry wants to have it both ways yet again. He wants to get credit for calling for a filibuster, but waits for cloture to be almost a done deal so that it has no chance to succeed.
Mr. Kerry made calls yesterday while attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, urging colleagues to join a last-ditch effort to thwart Judge Alito's confirmation. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, joined in Mr. Kerry's call for a filibuster.
Republicans -- eager to relive the days during the 2004 presidential campaign when they called Mr. Kerry 'an international man of mystery' -- delighted in his choice of venue.
'He shouldn't be wasting taxpayers' hard-earned money on long-distance phone charges calling for such obstruction,' said Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican.
'I hope it doesn't interrupt his snowboarding plans,' added Joseph Cella, president of the conservative Catholic group Fidelis. He noted that American voters support Judge Alito's confirmation by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.
'While I'm sure Senator Kerry feels right at home at the plush resort, he has only further marginalized himself as a very liberal senator who is completely out of touch with middle American values,' Mr. Cella said.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Earmarks
McCain, Coburn to Challenge Pet Projects - Yahoo! News.
This is great. The practice of earmarks has to die.
This is great. The practice of earmarks has to die.
CNN.com - Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito
Everyone understands that Kerry is making a play for DailyKos support with this call, but it's hard to imagine that it will not backfire on him: CNN.com.
1) Kerry called for this filibuster after 5 Democrats had already announced they would vote for cloture, that is, after it was already clear no call for a filibuster could succeed. So, either Kerry can't add or this is a completely cynical move on his part to get credit with the lefties, whom he must think too dim to see through the charade.
2) He's placed the Democratic leadership in a tough spot. Several of his colleagues have already indicated they believe this will alienate the majority of Americans and create future problems for the Democratic party. Kerry, however, has chosen to ignore these objections, and put his fellow-Senators on the hook with the party's base.
One little side note: among the criticisms of Kerry coming from middle America was his deference to Europeans in formulating national security policy. When he flew his French hairdresser in to touch up his hair on the campaign trail, his preference for all things European was confirmed, reinforcing his image problem. Where is he now? Switzerland. He calls on his fellow Democrats to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, a previously unprecedented act in American history, then immediately takes off for Davos. The symbolism is rich. He's phoning it in from Europe!
It seems Kerry, once again, has set himself up for resentment and ridicule. He must be politically tone deaf.
1) Kerry called for this filibuster after 5 Democrats had already announced they would vote for cloture, that is, after it was already clear no call for a filibuster could succeed. So, either Kerry can't add or this is a completely cynical move on his part to get credit with the lefties, whom he must think too dim to see through the charade.
2) He's placed the Democratic leadership in a tough spot. Several of his colleagues have already indicated they believe this will alienate the majority of Americans and create future problems for the Democratic party. Kerry, however, has chosen to ignore these objections, and put his fellow-Senators on the hook with the party's base.
One little side note: among the criticisms of Kerry coming from middle America was his deference to Europeans in formulating national security policy. When he flew his French hairdresser in to touch up his hair on the campaign trail, his preference for all things European was confirmed, reinforcing his image problem. Where is he now? Switzerland. He calls on his fellow Democrats to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, a previously unprecedented act in American history, then immediately takes off for Davos. The symbolism is rich. He's phoning it in from Europe!
It seems Kerry, once again, has set himself up for resentment and ridicule. He must be politically tone deaf.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Sports Car Personality/Sedan Body
Cool!
I'm a Porsche 911!
You have a classic style, but you're up-to-date with the latest technology. You're ambitious, competitive, and you love to win. Performance, precision, and prestige - you're one of the elite,and you know it.
Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
A New Standard
From PoliPundit.com:
Sen. Diane Feinstein claimed that the situation differs today from the Republicans' consistent recognition of a President's right to his judicial nominees, even voting overwhelmingly to confirm such out of the mainstream liberals as Ginsburg and Breyer. She claims that Democrats are justified in denying the President (and those who elected him) his rights, because "we are so much more polarized."
Duh! The Democrats have systematically engaged in wholly unprecedented tactics with regard to judicial nominees: threatening filibusters, putting holds on nominees, and smearing candidates with racism, sexism, favoring mafiosos, etc. How does this previously unheard of, uncivil, and beligerent act solve the problem of polarization? How does polarization provide the rationale for what can only be interpreted as a recklessly polarizing act?
When will Republicans learn that Democratic senators will continue to misbehave so long as they never pay any consequence ... so long as Republicans refuse to vote only along party lines with regard to judicial nominees. It's time for Republicans to act like Democrats! Make 'em pay!
Every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voted against Judge Alito, and virtually every Democrat is certain to do so on the Senate floor as well.I agree completely!
This is a new and unprecedented standard, and Republicans should return the favor if a Democrat becomes president.
From this day on, every Republican senator on the Judiciary Committee has an obligation to vote against any judge to the left of Attila the Hun. Indeed, every Republican senator has an obligation to so vote on any judicial nomination that comes to the floor.
If a future Democrat president wants to nominate a liberal, or even moderate SCOTUS Justice, he will only be able to do so with a Democrat Senate.
Sen. Diane Feinstein claimed that the situation differs today from the Republicans' consistent recognition of a President's right to his judicial nominees, even voting overwhelmingly to confirm such out of the mainstream liberals as Ginsburg and Breyer. She claims that Democrats are justified in denying the President (and those who elected him) his rights, because "we are so much more polarized."
Duh! The Democrats have systematically engaged in wholly unprecedented tactics with regard to judicial nominees: threatening filibusters, putting holds on nominees, and smearing candidates with racism, sexism, favoring mafiosos, etc. How does this previously unheard of, uncivil, and beligerent act solve the problem of polarization? How does polarization provide the rationale for what can only be interpreted as a recklessly polarizing act?
When will Republicans learn that Democratic senators will continue to misbehave so long as they never pay any consequence ... so long as Republicans refuse to vote only along party lines with regard to judicial nominees. It's time for Republicans to act like Democrats! Make 'em pay!
Culture of Corruption
Hilary Clinton used the Democrats' "culture of corruption" smear against Republicans during her MLK speech. She also said that the Bush Administration will go down as the most corrupt in history. If she makes this a centerpiece of her campaign she'll go down in flames. The Progressive Review summarizes the legacy of the Clinton Administration in this list of records set by the Clintons.
Update: Gateway Pundit links to The Progressive Review, too, and summarizes their statistics. Here are some interesting ones.
47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.If the Democrats really want to use the "culture of corruption" story line, they're going to take down their own leading candidate for 2008.
Update: Gateway Pundit links to The Progressive Review, too, and summarizes their statistics. Here are some interesting ones.
* Number of independent counsel investigations: 7
* Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 72
* Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 17
* Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 19
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Kelo Applied
The infamous Kelo decision expanded eminent domain to cover anything that would serve the perceived public good of a community, including expanding its tax base. What is to keep tax exempt churches from being targetted by city councils?
See Heather Wilhelm on National Review Online:
See Heather Wilhelm on National Review Online:
Since the Supreme Court's controversial Kelo decision last summer, eminent domain has entered a new frontier. It’s not just grandma’s house we have to worry about. Now it’s God’s house, too. “I guess saving souls isn’t as important,” says Reverend Gildon, his voice wry, “as raking in money for politicians to spend.” The town of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, has plans to take Centennial Baptist — along with two other churches, several businesses, dozens of small homes, and a school — and replace them with a new “super center,” rumored to include a Home Depot. It’s the kind of stuff that makes tax collectors salivate. It’s also the kind of project that brakes for no one, especially post-Kelo. “I had no idea this could happen in America,” says Reverend Gildon, after spending Monday morning marching in the Sand Springs Martin Luther King Day parade.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Why Isn't This Offensive?
Why do blacks not take offense at Democrats minimizing the horror of slavery through the use of absurd analogies?
According to the New York Times, Hilary Clinton equated Senate Democrats to slaves and the Republican-controlled Congress to a plantation. This strikes me as extremely offensive on many levels.
Democrats are a minority only because they have not won elections. That's very different from pure bigotry and hatred targetted toward someone of a different color. It's absurd for the rich, white, privileged and powerful to portray themselves as victims. To equate the Democrats' legislative and electoral incompetence with the sufferings of slavery is to minimize the very real horrors of slavery. It is almost to fictionalize it.
Holocaust survivors are relentlessly vigilant about analogies that minimize the real evil of Hitler's final solution. Why do blacks not react the same way to such stupid statements as Hilary's? Why, instead of recognizing this for the insult it is, do they rush to her defense?
When Bill Clinton declared himself "the first black President" because he came from a broken home, why did they embrace him rather than see this as continuing a stereotype about black families?
According to the New York Times, Hilary Clinton equated Senate Democrats to slaves and the Republican-controlled Congress to a plantation. This strikes me as extremely offensive on many levels.
Democrats are a minority only because they have not won elections. That's very different from pure bigotry and hatred targetted toward someone of a different color. It's absurd for the rich, white, privileged and powerful to portray themselves as victims. To equate the Democrats' legislative and electoral incompetence with the sufferings of slavery is to minimize the very real horrors of slavery. It is almost to fictionalize it.
Holocaust survivors are relentlessly vigilant about analogies that minimize the real evil of Hitler's final solution. Why do blacks not react the same way to such stupid statements as Hilary's? Why, instead of recognizing this for the insult it is, do they rush to her defense?
When Bill Clinton declared himself "the first black President" because he came from a broken home, why did they embrace him rather than see this as continuing a stereotype about black families?
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Newsweek's Bubble Burst
Scrappleface has a great parody of the Newsweek cover, Bush Admits He's Trapped in Bubble.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Paying for PR: The Sequel -- Shame on NBC
To confirm my point about the hypocrisy of the MSM media, there's this story today.
Which is worse, for the Pentagon to pay an independent Iraqi press to run factually accurate stories, or for NBC to run yet again demonstrably and obviously false, terrorist propaganda for free? Which is the greater threat to an independent, credible press?
Which is worse, for the Pentagon to pay an independent Iraqi press to run factually accurate stories, or for NBC to run yet again demonstrably and obviously false, terrorist propaganda for free? Which is the greater threat to an independent, credible press?
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Paying for PR
I must be missing something really basic. I just don't see what all the fuss is about the Pentagon paying the Iraqi press to run positive stories about the war's progress in Iraq. And, I don't see why this is such a threat to freedom of the press there. The American media's furor over this seems entirely hypocritical.
1) It is admitted by everyone on all sides that the stories are factually correct. The Pentagon is not planting false stories; they are paying the Iraqi papers to run true ones. Contrast this with the American MSM's practice of running stories based on fabricated evidence, which they call "fake but accurate." They're too stupid to get paid. Instead they pay others for the privilege, even if it's in quid pro quo favors.
2) The Pentagon is not compelling the Iraqi press to run these stories. True tyranny occurs when the press is merely an extension of the government. The fact that they have to pay shows that the press is independent. Again, the MSM comes out looking stupid by comparison. The NYT and WaPo frequently just repeat Democratic talking points even in supposed news reporting instead of analysis and opinion. They're volunteering to do it, without getting paid. It seems to me that our so-called free press is less independent than the Iraqis. The MSM is often merely a too-willing extension of the DNC.
3) The Pentagon does not have an exclusive arrangement with the Iraqi press. Though they may be paying to run these stories, there's nothing that keeps the Iraqis from running counter stories as well. Freedom of the press is compromised when only propaganda is printed. Surely, there's more question about the propagandizing role of the American MSM than the Iraqi press.
4) Almost every organization in the U.S. -- whether business, nonprofit organization, labor union -- has a PR department whose primary role is to get stories planted in the papers, and these are very successful. The press often run so-called quotes from interviews that are no more than PR-planted statements.
5) We are at war. Propaganda is increasingly a part of war.
I simply do not see what President Bush and the Pentagon have to be so apologetic about.
1) It is admitted by everyone on all sides that the stories are factually correct. The Pentagon is not planting false stories; they are paying the Iraqi papers to run true ones. Contrast this with the American MSM's practice of running stories based on fabricated evidence, which they call "fake but accurate." They're too stupid to get paid. Instead they pay others for the privilege, even if it's in quid pro quo favors.
2) The Pentagon is not compelling the Iraqi press to run these stories. True tyranny occurs when the press is merely an extension of the government. The fact that they have to pay shows that the press is independent. Again, the MSM comes out looking stupid by comparison. The NYT and WaPo frequently just repeat Democratic talking points even in supposed news reporting instead of analysis and opinion. They're volunteering to do it, without getting paid. It seems to me that our so-called free press is less independent than the Iraqis. The MSM is often merely a too-willing extension of the DNC.
3) The Pentagon does not have an exclusive arrangement with the Iraqi press. Though they may be paying to run these stories, there's nothing that keeps the Iraqis from running counter stories as well. Freedom of the press is compromised when only propaganda is printed. Surely, there's more question about the propagandizing role of the American MSM than the Iraqi press.
4) Almost every organization in the U.S. -- whether business, nonprofit organization, labor union -- has a PR department whose primary role is to get stories planted in the papers, and these are very successful. The press often run so-called quotes from interviews that are no more than PR-planted statements.
5) We are at war. Propaganda is increasingly a part of war.
I simply do not see what President Bush and the Pentagon have to be so apologetic about.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Sho 'Nuf
As I posted earlier, it is evident that the new Democratic strategy is to claim credit for the unfolding of Bush's Iraq policy. Democrat mouthpiece at the Washington Post David Broder writes that there are "new signs of an Iraq policy" formulated by the Democrats.
It has taken a long time, but the Democrats finally have come close to defining a sensible common ground on the issue of Iraq. ... [The] outlines of such a position emerged last week in speeches by two respected Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden of Delaware and Barack Obama of Illinois.John Henke reacts.
Biden, the committee's senior Democrat, said in New York that it is time to scale back U.S. ambitions in Iraq and reduce troop commitment while shifting security responsibilities to the Iraqis. ... What must happen to make it possible, they agree, is a significant acceleration in the training of Iraqi security forces and in the civil reconstruction projects needed to give Iraqis a sense of hope—both of which will require a change in priorities and an improvement in operations by U.S. forces.
So, after 2 years of debating Iraq policy, the Democrats have decided that training Iraqi security forces to take over and reducing US deployments as they do—"as Iraq stands up, we will stand down"—is the best course in Iraq? And this epiphany, David Broder writes, may have "pointed the administration and the country toward a realistic and modestly hopeful course on Iraq."Henke has links to the original Bush statements on his blog.
What the...?!?!?! This has been the strategy all along. . . . This was the strategy Bush enunciated in August of 2003, September of 2003, May of 2004, and many other times. It was the strategy outlined in this May 2004 "Fact Sheet: The Transition to Iraqi Self-Government".
The Democrats have not come up with a new Iraq Policy. They've jumped onboard the Bush administration's existing policy, with the novel new suggestion that we stay the course...but try harder.
Cindy Sheehan's Book Signing
You have to admire AP/Reuters creativity in making it look like Cindy Sheehan still has an audience. Compare photos of the actual response to her book signing with the one they ran (at bottom).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)