Dartmouth's Fiedler Lands in Tampa Bay

According to Sports Illustrated, Veteran quarterback Jay Fiedler, Dartmouth '94, will play another season in the NFL.

Fiedler signed a free-agent contract with the Tampa Bay Bucs yesterday where he will vie for the job of back up to Chris Simms.

Fiedler set school passing records while quarterback for the Big Green. He was released by the NY Jets this past February.

[link]

USA Today: Oops!

USA Today had its own 'oops' moment this afternoon when it announced that the NSA domestic surveillance program was not as extensive they had originally thought.

USA Today spokesman Steve Anderson sheepishly said, "Yeah guys, our bad."

[link]

Cindy Sheehan: War on Food

It seems today is a day of wars. Following in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein, Cindy Sheehan has declared a War on Food. [link]

Accordingly, she will not eat for two months. Saddam also declared a War on Food, you'll recall, though his only lasted until lunch. [link]

Too bad Cindy's isn't a silent protest as well. Then again, wouldn't it be a hoot to sit down across from her with a big, juicy hot dog from Spike's Junkyard Dogs? It's a New England institution. [link]

War on Soccer?

I was asked by a good friend recently (a couple of them in fact), why I had launched a war on soccer from these humble ramparts at Pax Plena.

For the record: I'm not anti-soccer.

I'm just not a big fan.

Apparently, I'm not alone. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, nearly 80% of Americans are also not following the World Cup action.

[link]

Howard Dean: Economics = Mumbo-Jumbo

Proving again why he is every Republican's best friend, DNC Chairman, Howard Dean announced the latest core value for the Democratic Party: Economics is mumbo-jumbo.

At a recent conference in Washington, Dean trumpeted the wage alarm despite enjoying the lowest unemployment levels in recent history. CNS News reports [link]:

As one method of accomplishing that goal, the DNC chairman called on Congress "to raise the minimum wage until we have a living wage in this country." He dismissed criticism of a minimum wage hike as "economists' mumbo-jumbo."

I've often called for increased candor on the part of the Democrats, but even I didn't intend for Dean to be this honest. I figured the Democrats record on fiscal policy spoke for itself.

Of course, this came after Dean declared:

We're about to enter the '60s again.

Name that Trinity

The following comes your way via Philosomatic [link] and the Tulsa World [link].

Hilarious commentary on the latest psychosis to hit some Protestant Denominations in the US.


Blogging Hiatus

Apologies fair readers for the latest blogging hiatus. This weekend and the past two days of late have found me quite ill.

I ventured to try a new Indian restaurant in Cambridge near Harvard square last Friday. It seemed like a wonderful summer evening replete with warmer temps and stars. And it was quite nice indeed.

That is until I awoke the next morning to find myself with sharp abdominal pain, chilled, and weak due to a bout of food poisoning. I didn't win this fight. But I think I've won the war. I have been recuperating steadily the past few days but should be better from here out.

As always, thanks for being long-suffering. Blogging should resume per usual.

Tory

CNN.com - Justices pooh-pooh Winnie the Pooh - Jun 26, 2006

On a day of sparse blogging, the above headline made me feel even more ill than I already am.

Jack Murtha: US Is Biggest Threat

Jack Murtha further tarnished his legacy of service this week, declaring at a town hall meeting in Miami that the US is the top threat to world peace.

It goes beyond politics when you call your Nation a terror threat.

It's almost impossible to believe this guy was a Marine.

Proof the Domestic Terror Surveillance Program Works

I would be remiss if I neglected to offer some thoughts on the major news item of the day. As you will doubtless know, seven men were arrested in Miami in connection with a plot to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago. The men lived in a non-descript, windowless, warehouse and included five American citizens, one permanent legal resident and an illegal immigrant from Haiti.

According to the NYT: The men were charged with conspiring to support a terrorist group, to wage war against the United States and to use explosives to damage or destroy the Sears Tower and the F.B.I. building. [link]

As recently as a few weeks ago, Senator after Senator, from VT's Pat Leahy [link] to SC's Lindsey Graham [link] have criticized the President's efforts to secure the United States from further terrorist attacks. The story today underscores the point that their criticism rings hollow.

The point missed by the media and by these Senators, though not entirely, is that five of the seven men charged were American citizens. It was a domestic terror plot that was foiled by a domestic terror surveillance program. It was the President's so called will to spy on ordinary Americans which led to the apprehension of these men and nipped a potentially devastating terror attack in the bud.

The goal of the domestic terror surveillance program is not to intrude into the lives of ordinary citizens, but to catch fiends like these before they strike. It is a micro-level application of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strike.

It may be true that there is some sacrifice of freedom for the sake of security. In this case, I would hazard the guess that the 10,000 people who work in the Sears Tower appreciate the President's approach more than the view backed by Lindsey Graham and Pat Leahy.

Americans have to realize that fighting a global war on terror includes gathering info to fight terrorists wherever they are- including downtown Miami.

Up-date: Bush in Europe

Denis Boyles over at the National Review had an excellent piece of analysis on Bush's recent trip to Europe. [link]

Here's the money quote:

Bush is the anti-sphinx — and there’s no doubt a discussion to be had about the cost in lives and treasure of having a president who is not sufficiently conversant with the language to be able to tell persuasively the story of America’s global mission. But at least we’re used to it. Not the European press. They just don’t know what to do with a guy like Bush whose oratorical style is best suited for delivery through the window of the pick-up parked next to you at Sam’s Club. Bush’s gruff, instant dismissal of the entire Guantanamo controversy left most journos throwing their pens high in the air in frustration. The big, blank thing spoke, but it didn’t stick to the script. As Le Figaro complained, Bush failed to make the EU summit “an act of contrition.” How can you argue that Gitmo should be closed with a guy who says, “Yep”? All that passion, spent.

This succinctly summarizes the problem Europe has with the US and with President Bush in particular. It isn't so much that Europe is anti-American (although it is). The problem is that Europe doesn't get us. In a region of the world known for pomp and circumstance, they are forced to reckon with a President who is representative of his people- decidedly plain-spoken and bereft of frills.

This was the heart of the President's remarks I linked to earlier in the week and the reason it resonates so well with the majority of Americans.

Hillary: Democrats Struggling

You know it's a tough time to be a Democrat when their Presidential front-runner admits the party is struggling.

She's exactly right. The party has no clear plan for victory in Iraq short of surrendering to terrorists and no new ideas other than to say "no" to Republicans- a message which tanks at the polls.

It seems that for Democrats the Party of Defeat has multiple applications .

World Cup: Ghanaian Reaction to Win Over US

The BBC notes one fan's response to Ghana's victory over the American soccer team:

But it is all history now. As one text message making the rounds put it: "After beating America, Ghana is now a superpower. Now we should get into nuclear enrichment!"

Ghana, nuclear enrichment? Better get to work on that combustion engine first.

Perhaps they're a bit overly excited?

[link]

Democrats Fail on Cut and Run Iraq Measure

The US Senate rejected two Democrat measures aimed at pulling out American troops from Iraq earlier this afternoon.

Despite howls from the left, the Senate rejected a proposal sponsored by John Kerry and the cut and run Democrats 86-13, which would have mandated the withdrawal of US forces within one year. A short time later, a second Democrat amendment was also defeated by the Senate 60-39, which would have mandated the start of an immediate US troop withdrawal. To their credit, this was more of a cut and walk than cut and run approach.

Although the Democrats offered the amendment as part of politically calculated effort to divide the Nation and gain an upper-hand in the midterm elections, the debate only made the Democrats look foolish by highlighting divisions within their fractured party.

Essentially, the debate underscored what most Americans already know- Democrats are the party of defeat. Their claim is that the US can't win; that the Iraqis can't find a political solution; and that America's only choice is to fight and lose or surrender. For Democrats, winning is not an option.

America can ill afford to shirk on its obligation to the Iraqi people. Strategically, we can not stand for a failed state in between Syria and Iran. Had we abandoned Iraq as suggested by John Kerry, Harry Reid and Jack Murtha last November, we would not have trained 40,000 Iraqi troops; we would not have killed Al-Zarqawi; we would not have seen Democratic elections held; we would not have seen the firm establishment of the Iraqi Government.

History requires courage to achieve big results. This is what the Democrats fundamentally misunderstand and why they are the party of defeat.

US Eliminated from World Cup

As if we didn't see this one coming.

In a game that all 5 of the American soccer fans watched, the US team was mercifully eliminated from the World Cup.

It was indeed a valiant effort, but the mighty Ghanaians were far too much.

Let's just hope the Cote d'Ivoire gives them a run for their money!

This is why Americans hate soccer.

Gays and the Gospel

Sometimes it feels like the news tends to recycle itself. Accordingly, there has been a flurry of news recently on the topic of homosexuality. To recap:

Wednesday, it was released that the Pentagon has called labeled homosexuality as a mental disorder leaving many on the left up in arms. [link]

Turning to matters of faith, on Tuesday, the Presbyterians opted to allow gay clergy members to hold leadership positions within their churches. [link]

That same day, American Anglicans, who have already elected their first gay bishop, elected the first female leader of their church. In turn, she immediately declared her support of gay marriage within the denomination. [link]

For all of the headlines, it has been difficult to sift through the many competing messages on the topic. The left speaks out vociferously in support of marriage rights for gays. The right bemoans with equal fervor a decline in family values. I am naturally inclined to agree with the latter rather than the former, but I can't help but wonder what role the Gospel serves vis-à-vis the life of the homosexual.

Following that line of thought, I stumbled across the above article by Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Even though he’s a reformed scholar (viz., Calvinist) he does have some good things to say from time to time and his presentation is always impeccable. In truth, his position on salvation where I take a firm departure from Calvinist thought (specifically, the TULIP L representing Limited Atonement for my theologically inclined readers) is actually much more sophisticated than many Reformed scholars I have read.

The article, however, deals not with salvation but sin. In particular, it addresses how the church is to deal the issue of homosexuality in an increasingly secular culture. His suggestions are very practical and also quite rare in public discourse. Quoting Paul’s letter to the Corinthians [link], the crux of Mohler’s argument is found in its conclusion:

Such were some of you . . . The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin. To the contrary, it is the Body of Christ, made up of sinners transformed by grace. Not one of us deserves to be accepted within the beloved. It is all of grace, and each one of us has come out of sin. We sin if we call homosexuality something other than sin. We also sin if we act as if this sin cannot be forgiven.

We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis. The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony–and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.

[link]

His point is well made and well taken. Homosexuality in a Christian worldview is indeed sin, but it is no more a sin than any of the many other sins with which believers struggle on a daily basis. A farmer in Oklahoma is just as accountable before God for his sins of pride as the gay male from San Francisco.

The equalitarian nature of this message notwithstanding, Mohler's more profound point is that the national debate over homosexuality is in essence a debate over the nature of the Gospel. Mohler is right in that the message of the Gospel requires courage to deliver and compassion to accept. But the interesting point of this is that in its nature the Gospel completely levels both sides.

The Gospel of judgment applied to gays by some Christians, is actually the same Gospel they struggle to live by during the week. Yet, it is not a Gospel which tolerates a life of sin when Believers are to be changed by Grace. The national debate is turned on its head when viewed through Mohler’s article because he pulls no punches in calling gays sinners; yet he also pulls no punches in calling Christians sinners as well. The end result is that both camps have their own, personal and communal issues to mitigate before the Lord.

There was an old saying I heard in Sunday school that mused, “The ground is level at the foot of the cross.” Mohler’s point is that the ground is level because everyone at the foot of the cross kneels in humility because we all sin profoundly. The message of the Gospel is not that people who are Christians are good. It is that God is good and allows people to become Christians.

It is an obvious, yet important message to recall.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

Romans 2.1-2

Saddam on Hunger Strike

The rumors on the internets have it that Saddam Hussein is on a hunger strike protesting the death of his lawyer who was gunned down late last week.

I suppose it's a viable protest option. We can only hope that Cindy Sheehan will soon take up the cause as well. However, coming from Saddam, this just doesn't seem like a credible hunger strike.

Think of it more like an Iraqi diet. The South Beach diet, Baghdad style!

Like most dieters, this isn't his first try. He's attempted this twice before. [link] [link]

AP: Europe Backs Bush on Growing Nuke Crises

The left can deny it, but when you read a headline like the above you've gotta admit that Bush is on a roll.

When pressed on America's image abroad the President replied:

That's absurd,' Bush snapped at a news conference in response to an assertion that the United States was regarded as the biggest threat to global security. 'We'll defend ourselves, but at the same time we're actively working with our partners to spread peace and democracy."

Bingo!

This is the type of leadership people follow. It's the perfect message to carry to Europe in these turbulent days and the exact message which needs to get out at home.

Admittedly, the White House had been in a bit of a funk until a week or two ago, but it's clear that the gloves have come off and that the President is ready. Republicans can only hope that he will get mad more often and deliver the message with equal passion to today's exchange.

Update: The rest of the answer is as impressive as the excerpt. I'll try to link to the video so you all can see it. Like I've said before, this is the response the White House needs both in Europe and in November. It's one of his best responses in months.

[link]

Drudge: Sheehan Follows Bush to Vienna

The Drudge Report ran the headline above today.

At first I dismissed it as a funny, snide remark. But the more I thought about it the more its point struck me as an absurdity. Cindy Sheehan really has issues.

Given that her behavior is near the point of stalking, and that her credibility is somewhere around the level of a bearded Al Gore, people ought to stop paying attention to her. But the media is just as crazy as she is, and the cameras are there every time Cindy spews her latest helping of vitriol.

I'm not really going anywhere with this I guess it just shows that people will watch anything- this explains how Dan Rather managed to last so long...

Dan Rather Leaves CBS

News reached me late that poor Dan Rather is set to leave CBS.

The BBC called Rather one of America's most influential TV news anchors...His retirement was marred by criticism of a report questioning President Bush's military service, based on evidence that turned out to be forged.

Most influential news anchor? Seems the BBC was being a bit generous.

Dan Rather won't be remembered for his stellar journalism so much as he'll be remembered for "Rathergate" in the 2004 election.

Re-Vamping the Line-Item Veto

US Senate Majority Bill Frist of TN announced in the National Review his intent to back a proposal aimed at giving the President line-item veto authority.

The initial measure, handed down to President Clinton in 1996, was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court only two years later because it ceded too much Congressional Authority to the Executive Branch.

Frist aims to get around the ruling by subjecting the line-item veto to Senate confirmation.

Interestingly, the bill has some pretty hefty backers. Senators John McCain and John Kerry both support the bill along with 25 other co-sponsors leading some to conclude that its chance for passage looks promising.

The news is fairly recent so for now, I'll only say that I'm skeptical. As a constituent, I worry that a line-item veto will impeded the ability of my Congressman to advocate the interest of our district.

From an aggregate perspective, I'm curious to hear more about the process for Senate confirmation of the President's suggested vetoes and how much money can actually be saved when the bulk of government spending comes from entitlement programs.

Really, the majority of my concern stems from the point of ceding too much Congressional authority to the Executive branch. The Congress is strong for a reason and I'm not yet convinced that diminishing this check is worth the gain of balanced spending.

[link]

The Death of Metrosexuality

Just passing on the good news. Good Morning America ran the above article on its website proclaiming the death of metrosexuality in the United States.

Perhaps we give it too much credit as this assumes it ever really lived. If you think about it, the only locales to which the term can actually be applied are NYC and most of California.

Its end, however, comes not without some considerable degree of scrutiny. For a time, fashionistas from Hollywood to 5th Avenue proclaimed that being Metro was decidedly 'in.' Even the typically staid, Economist ran an article a couple years back offering a nascent definition for phenomenon and tricks to corner the male waxing market [link]:

This new target market is “metrosexual”, a term coined a few years ago to identify straight urban men who enjoy such things as shopping and using beauty products. It is sometimes described in lad mags as being “just gay enough” to get the babes.

Be this as it may, GMA questions the staying power of Metro, noting that

"Whenever there's a trend, such as the more-manicured man called metrosexual, there's going to be a reaction against that, almost immediately after that, where you see a stronger man, kind of the 'machosexual,'" said Eric Wilson, a reporter for The New York Times.

I guess even this really isn't news. No self-respecting guy would willfully go shopping and use beauty products. In the end, it's all rather silly.

Men want to be men not myn. [link]

Obama in 2008?

Only the Democrats would seriously consider a freshmen Senator with no legislative accomplishment as a candidate for President.

Then again, Kerry had no legislative accomplishment and they ran him in 2004. Republicans can only hope history repeats itself.

[link]

Democrats Forced to Face Their Culture of Corruption

Nancy Pelosi's words have come back to haunt her in recent weeks. Today the headlines screamed the reminder.

House Democrats were forced to remove one of their own from the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Despite the fact that the Congressman in question has not yet been convicted of a crime, Democrats felt enough embarrassment to remove him from the committee.
There were several reasons for this, aside from the obvious ethical lapses which plague the party from time to time. The biggest reason being that Pelosi can't come up with new talking points for the midterms in November.

Democrats even admit as much [link] :

"Mr. Jefferson has some legal issues that he and his family must deal with, and Ms. Pelosi has some political issues she and her caucus must deal with," he said, referring to the House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi.

Without the fabled high road they once championed, Democrats remain adrift looking for the latest set of core values which will help them at the polls.

On Whales

As the title suggests, I've been thinking a lot about whales lately. Believe it or not, this isn't some strange fascination with large fish I've recently developed. Although fly fishing has long been an interest of mine.

What prompts my curiosity is my long-standing resolve to read the abominable novel Moby Dick. Without warning, I opted to venture into it having done no research or seen any criticism of the book. What I did not realize was that the novel isn't so much a story as it is a commentary on the global whaling industry from the mid-nineteenth century.

It was indeed a tragic mistake. I am nearing 2/3's of the way done, but aside from some interesting anti-transcendentalist musings, the novel is as boring as it has been made out to be. I can see where the plot would be interesting but it is far too weighted down with arcane, verbose blubber about whales and whaling to keep my attention (I recognize the pun was bad).

However, the novel has made me curious about whales in general and about whaling practices then and now. The article I've linked to above follows this with a discussion of some recent trends in Europe where countries are opting to relax laws put into place after the near extinction of some whale species after WWII.

I guess what I find remarkable about whales is how little is actually known. Given the size and scope of the ocean and the depth at which whales tend to station during the day, there is precious little ability for humans to monitor and study whales in their natural habitat. In all, they amount to an ancient yet modern mystery, in an ever increasing age of mass information proliferation.

For some reason, I kinda like that.

Final Thoughts on Tom Delay

In the past, I've never spared words when commenting on Tom Delay. And why should I? His personality is a lightning rod for polarization. Few people in American public life generate the type of strong reaction Tom Delay commands- be it affirmative or negative. Truth be told, he wouldn't have it any other way.

In turn, for a time, I had my mind made up about Delay. I had dismissed his rhetoric as cold and his thoughts on compassionate conservatism merely platitudes. Recently, however, I had the opportunity to read his farewell speech to the House of Representatives and a reaction to his speech by Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus. Both made compelling arguments and the end result was that I couldn't help but reconsider Delay the man and his mystique.

In a lot of ways, Marcus' article was typical. She excoriates Delay's partisan tactics as only a seasoned liberal of the Washington Post can. Here is the conclusion of her column [link]:

There is a place for partisanship, and an honor in hewing to principles that divide the parties. But DeLay's zero-sum politics diminishes the capacity of government to solve difficult problems. Compromise isn't just an occasionally necessary evil, as DeLay sees it. Practiced well, it can be a mechanism for distilling the best public policy, or at least a better one than either faction would achieve on its own.

"If given the chance to do it all again, there's only one thing I would change," DeLay said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. "I would fight even harder."

That was all too believable.

You can see from the excerpt that her concluding argument is that Delay's politics were too harsh, to put it mildly. Instead she champions bipartisan cooperation and political compromise. Needless to say, in his farewell address, Tom Delay spoke out in support of the exact opposite. And while I have never counted myself a fan of Tom Delay, his speech titled "In Praise of Partisanship" was at times humorous, at times poetic and at times inspiring. [link]

Here is an excerpt from his remarks:

The point is: we disagree. On first principles, Mr. Speaker, we disagree. And so we debate-often loudly, and often in vain- to convince our opponents and the American people of our point of view. We debate here on the House floor. We debate in committees. We debate on television, and on radio, and on the Internet, and in the newspapers. And then every two years, we have a HUGE debate...and then in November we see who won.

That is not rancor.

That is democracy!

You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny.

Indeed.

Although this will doubtless seem obvious to those now more invested in the conservative movement and in Republican politics than me, I never thought about the nature of partisanship in quite this way. It makes sense that if we maintain some fundamental principles- first principles that are dear to us constituting the very fabric of our being, then we are obliged to fight for, defend and advocate those principles with unwavering commitment.

Viewed in this light, compromise is tantamount to pragmatism which is no distant cousin to relativism which in the end means nothing. Delay's line, "For true statesmen, Mr. Speaker, are not defined by what they compromise, but what they don't," has my very sympathetic ear. History will not long record those of us who are willing to exchange principle for the pragmatic flavor of the day. It will remember those who believe in something and work toward that end.

Delay is also correct to note that democracy is strengthened by debate. A Nation that argues, discusses and makes choices, is a Nation that reflects the free will of its people on Election Day. Argument is not itself an evil. Rather, it is the feelings of hatred and intolerance which can result from argument (on both sides) that is the real evil to be confronted. America is strong because two views must work hard for political favor. Politics is about persuasion and there is nothing to be gained from retreating in the battle for public opinion. Seeking pragmatically to govern while disengaged from the public process is oligarchy.

In the end, I find myself in complete agreement with Tom Delay, embattled though he may be. America is not weak for being divided. She is strong because she argues. She is strong because the American people are arbiters who decide which side is right every two years come November. Ruth Marcus has it wrong on a very basic point. Compromise is not the mechanism by which policy is generated. Partisanship is. Compromise is the tool for its implementation.

Al Qaida's PR Job

I've been following this story in recent days. I have to say, it has left me a bit incredulous.

Give me a break. Does Al Qaida have a press shop or something that does their public relations for them? Suddenly, they've announced a successor to Zarqawi and have all but broadcasted his inauguration on television; the media calls this guy the new 'terror chief.' They even have their own talking points memo. [link]

What happened to the good old days when terror outfits hid in mountain caves and the sleeper cells of large cities; you know, the good old days when they opted to fly beneath the radar instead of making press releases and videos.

Terrorism just ain't what it used to be. Now, we have these little whippersnappers scurrying about releasing the identities of their leaders and putting together press packets replete with press photo and biography.

I am of course being completely cynical. But the attention this guy has been getting makes you wonder whether our investigative techniques are what they used to be.

AFP: Democrats in Disarray as Bush Basks in Glow of Iraq Trip

A title after my own heart. [link] But it's not just the AFP...

It's also the Washington Post. [link]

And Dana Milbank. [link]

And the New York Times. [link]

Why, even Slate had some good things to say. [link]

Not bad for a President who is supposedly washed up.

Hillary's New Take on Abortion

New York's Junior Senator, and most ambitious resident, Hillary Clinton is trying diligently to shift her liberal reputation toward the center- particularly on the issue of abortion.

Clinton gave remarks recently to the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in Washington where she outlined her new position on abortion:

"Let us unite around a common goal of reducing the amount of abortions," she said, "not by making them illegal as many are attempting to do or overturning Roe v. Wade and undermining the constitutional protections that decision provided, but by preventing unintended pregnancies in the first place through education, contraception, accessible health care and services, empowering women to make decisions."

Mrs. Clinton, a potential candidate for the presidency, also used her speech to take a jab at Republicans who, while adamantly opposed to abortion, have resisted efforts to pay for programs providing greater access to contraception and other family planning services.

Specifically, Mrs. Clinton criticized the Bush administration for failing to provide adequate money for family planning programs, as well as for refusing to approve over-the-counter sales of Plan B, an emergency contraceptive.

In the end, Clinton's argument is simply a verbose regurgitation of her husband's position on abortion, which he said should be "safe, legal and rare."

This view is cheap political posturing to find a middle ground between two mutually exclusive positions: pro-life and pro-choice. The argument fails when its basic assumption is questioned- exactly why should abortion be rare if it is both safe and legal?

In answer, abortion should be rare if, and only if, both sides agree that abortion destroys a human life. If it does not destroy a human life, then there is in principle no conflict and abortions should be as popular and as available as tylenol. However, if the procedure does destroy a human life then it is no longer merely terminating a pregnancy, but killing a person.

Hillary's middle ground is a misnomer because the two sides fundamentally disagree on the value of human life.

Rove Cleared in Plame Investigation

You heard it here first. The President's Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was cleared by federal prosecutors according to his lawyer yesterday evening.

Rove had been at the center of the controversy surrounding Valerie Plame who's identity as a CIA agent was revealed in the press.

More to the point, however, is that Rove had been the darling of the left, vilified in campaign after campaign, and a pillar of Nancy Pelosi's "culture of corruption."

Democrats will need a new slogan now and a fresh set of "core" values with real ideas if they hope to win in November.

Sen. Byrd Serves 48 Years

Today marks a rather interesting milestone in the U.S. Senate.

Robert C. Byrd became the longest serving Senator in United States history.

Byrd born in 1917, was elected from WV in 1947.

Living proof we need term limits.

Are the Dems Slipping?

Some political analysts are beginning to wonder.

With Nancy Pelosi's culture of corruption now more applicable to Democrats than Republicans thanks to William Jefferson, Alan Mollohan and Harry Reid, it seems that the once buoyant Dems are left looking for a new set of values to pitch for the mid-term elections this fall.

Unfortunately for them, the bad news keeps rolling in. The article linked to above from USA Today discusses how gubernatorial races in several key states including California have become increasingly cloudy for the Dems. Even states such as PA,which was once safely in the hands of incumbent Governor Ed Rendell, have now become too close to call.

What has to be particularly unsettling about the new numbers for the left is that they reflect an electorate which is much more focused on local and regional issues as opposed to the Democrats' fabricated culture of corruption. In other words, Pelosi's efforts to make the 06 election a referendum on President Bush and the GOP is failing to capture the intrigue of voters who are concerned with accomplishment and ideas- all of which invariably come from Republicans.

Assuming people vote on the basis of local issues, as demonstrated by the competitive nature of these races for the State House, Democrats can look forward to another round of losses this November. This already seems to be the case. The DNC recently suffered a major set back in their effort to steal CA's 50th District out of GOP control.

World Cup Fever

The much anticipated Fifa World Cup fever has finally arrived with matches being played across the whole of the Deutschland.

In turn, fans across the World are really getting into the spirit of the games though in markedly different ways. How's this for cultural diversity:

On one end of the spectrum, you have soccer enthusiasts such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair- who opted to raise the red/white cross of St. George high above 10 Downing St. in support of England on match days.
[link]

On the other end, Islamic courts in Mogadishu have shut down movie theaters and restaurants which were set to air the world cup, while also banning the games from being viewed by residents.
[link]

No doubt, the Islamic clerics in Somalia were merely reacting with disappointment to the news that Iran was routed by Mexico earlier in the afternoon. Sheesh...and I thought Red Sox fans took sports a little too seriously.
[link]

Meanwhile, Americans across these United States raised a collective yawn.

Sleepy Workers Costs Companies Billions

We can all remember the days when mom told us to get to bed early. Turns out, she might have been on to something.

In Japan, recent studies indicate that drowsy employees cost companies around $30 Billion per year in lost productivity. Nearly 40% of the Japanese workforce indicates they have difficulty sleeping.

I'm inclined to think prescriptively and say that this problem extends much wider than just Japan. Each morning, I see dozens of sleepy commuters struggling to down their cup of joe and keep their eyes open. The lulling sway of the Boston subway doesn't help matters very much either.

Usually, I'm good in the morning so long as I down my own mug of coffee before leaving for work. My ipod playlist is usually pretty up beat too, which helps a great deal.

Nothing like a little George Strait and Bob Wills to get the adrenaline pumping.

Sam Brownback in 08?

It's been much speculated that the Junior Senator from the Sunflower State may be a Republican candidate for President in 2008. With a feature length article in the Washington Post, those rumors appear increasingly true.

I didn't know much about Sam Brownback before reading the article but what I read, I did found very appealing. As a confessed Christian and a conservative, Brownback's simple implementation of compassion and policy offers a model worthy of emulation. His talk about grace, sin and the power of love vested in Christ resonates quite well with me. I agree with his belief that the best model of leadership is servant leadership as demonstrated by Jesus. And I'm encouraged to hear his positions on the dignity of every person and the protection of the family.

What some may find interesting, however, is that Brownback is not actually affiliated with most Evangelical circles (viz., protestant denominations). Rather, he is a professed Catholic who regularly attends both mass and the protestant worship service of his family who opted against conversion.

The article itself is a mixture of WP foolishness and genuine reporting. After all, the WP is well known for coming up with cheesy titles. This one, "Faith-Based Initiative," is particularly bad, but does an overall good job of telling the facts. It highlights well one of the tensions in being a Christian politician- how can one pursue personal ambition, while maintaining a life of humility. The answer to this question for Brownback isn't an easy one except to say that he readily admits his fallibility while working hard to advance many of the issues near and dear to the conservative agenda.

In terms of his prospects, many place Brownback among the lower tiered candidates. I think that if he can raise his public profile a bit and work toward building his base of Christian conservatives he stands to be a very formidable contender for the party. His challenge however is just as obvious. It's incredibly difficult to raise one's profile in Washington and his conversion to Catholicism will be of interest to any base of Evangelical support he tries to build. I would place him as a top contender for Veep but time will tell whether he has the mettle to be a top tier contender for the big office.

Bush on Deportation

"Ain't Gonna Work."

True enough. When you consider this aspect of the immigration debate it really isn't all that complicated. Regardless of whether people like it, deportation remains simply untenable given the many millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the US.

To be clear, I'm not at all opposed to stricter security along the border to prevent illegal immigration from occurring. But rounding up all of the illegals and shipping them home won't work, as the President has said.

Although the remarks were overshadowed by news of Zarqawi, this talking point should be the single biggest push made on the part of the Administration in advancing its immigration agenda.

Was Zarqawi's Killing a GOP Stunt?

I knew it was coming. I just knew it. It was only a matter of time. Today it is the Washington Times which has earned the honor of having called the remarks to my attention first.

Although he’s not yet cold in the ground, ultra-liberal Democrats (I recognize this may be a redundancy) have predictably begun denigrating the news of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death in Iraq.

Representatives Denny Kucinich and Pete Stark have been the most egregious offenders to date (see link in title above because their statements are not worth repeating) but most of the Democrat rank and file have offered only reserved praise regarding the news.

Fortunately, most Americans and even most media outlets have embraced the news with optimism. None have predicted the disappearance of the insurgency, but all have noted that the kill offers a victory to the US military at a point when such a victory was badly needed.

What disappoints me most is that the Democrats have opted to play politics with what should be obvious good news for the country. The world is better off with Zarqawi dead. This point isn't open for interpretation. Only the left and their "party of no" would offer a twisted distortion of the facts.

Update: Remember those murdered American contract workers in Iraq who were beheaded, turns out those murders are all Bush's fault; as opposed to being the work of...I don't know, maybe terrorists...
[Link]

Breaking News out of Iraq: al-Zarqawi Killed

The most violent militant of the Iraqi insurgency Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was killed today in a US airstrike.

The kill marks a major victory in the war on terror and in the American liberation of Iraq.

Zarqawi's brutal tactics yielded him the nickname "slaughtering sheik" as the terrorist released videos showing the beheadings of two American contractors.

He later allied his organization to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida where he took on the leadership of Al-Qaida's operations in Iraq.

Rush on the CA-50 Election

I've never been a huge Rush Limbaugh but I may just become one after reading his analysis of the recent election out in Cali.

Money quote: This is not something they were hoping for, and if they want to continue to have "moral victories" like this all over the place, we should grant them.

Bingo. The folks on the left can spin this however they want but the fact is that Democrats usually take about 45% of the vote in this Congressional district anyway and Bilbray had a libertarian and a conservative to beat in the special election.

More Changes...

Here are a few more changes in the works here at Pax Plena:

1) I've opted to take down Letters to Theophilus. I'm not sure if anyone even read the site but I prefer to do my morning Bible study over coffee and a notebook instead of online. It was a fun experiment while it lasted; I just feel my time is better used in the mornings away from the computer.

2) The church I attend here in Boston has launched a new podcast, which allows listeners to hear the Sunday sermon online.

It takes some slight ability to download the mp3 but it should still be easy enough. I mention this because some folks from home have asked about the churches up here. The one I attend is as close to a good Southern Baptist Church as I could find.

Access the site here.

3) I'm still not completely set on the current layout just yet. Don't be surprised if I mix it up in the coming days. I like how it looks, but the banner at the top is a little plain. If you have any suggestions for colors or layouts feel free to pass them along!

GOP Hangs Tough in CA Election

Just this weekend the WP called Tuesday's special election in CA to replace convicted Congressman Duke Cunningham one of the most "closely watched races" in the Nation.

They called the prospect of loss "alarming" to the GOP.

They quoted private Republican sources (viz., their editorial board) as saying "a loss Tuesday would be a stunning symbolic blow."

They even trotted out the liberal bigwigs to rally the Dems. Ellen Malcolm, President of Emily's List an abortion advocacy group, said "This is a rock-solid Republican seat which I think they are going to lose."

What happened? Republican candidate Brian Bilbray won.

What happened with WP? Today's article noted rather glumly, the results yielded no "significant surprises."

Today's private sources were Democrats who said, "She needed a flawless finish to pull this off," downplaying the hopes placed by the DNC on their candidate and the election.

I feel for them. I really do. Let's hope this election teaches the Dems a valuable lesson: voters aren't as dumb as the DNC seems to think. A major political party can't run a campaign with only a bash the opposition message. People are concerned about ideas and about getting things done. Absent these they will not support a candidate.

Looks like the "party of no" has to go back to the drawing board if they hope to win in 06. Perhaps they should hold another pow-wow and figure out what their core values are this election?

Speedy Confirmation Seen for Dartmouth Alum

Fox News is reporting that a quick confirmation is on the horizon for Treasury Secretary nominee and Dartmouth '68 Hank Paulson.

And why not? After a stellar record on Wall Street at the helm of the most successful i-bank in the world Paulson is a lock.

As an interesting aside, Dartmouth grads will soon occupy two of the top economic posts in the country. Dartmouth '79 Rob Portman was also recently appointed to head the Office of Management and Budget.

It is no mistake that they are both Republican much to the chagrin of Dartmouth's president and faulty.

Gay Marriage, Bigotry and Evil Republicans

"Bigots, Christians, Republicans, Oh my!" These tired, oft-repeated criticisms can only mean that the left has gone back to its sad, ailing party mantra.

In a move allegedly aimed to make headlines, the White House breathed life into the stalled Constitutional Amendment regarding the definition of marriage yesterday. Following suit the liberal press played its part by quoting ad nauseum the Bay State's senior Senator Teddy Kennedy who very tolerantly called supporters of the amendment bigots.

Kennedy said, "A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple. I'd say it's a vote for political gain -- whichever side you're voting on -- and it's not the least bit pure, though it is rather simple." Poetic brilliance on the part of Teddy K, brought to you after only three long island ice teas.

True to form, the Boston Globe followed through as well with an editorial today, sagely observing that gays are not terrorists. Insightful.

Not to be out done, other media outlets also chimed in, placing moderate Republicans on the endangered species list, and calling efforts to review the amendment hollow because said Republicans do not support the issue. Sound the alarms- liberal Republicans disagree with the party base.

Several points. Teddy K's biggest complaint about gay marriage is that it forces Democrats to show their true colors: liberal and out of touch with most Americans. Some 2/3's of the American people oppose gay marriage even if there is only 50% support at present behind a constitutional amendment. The numbers are staggering when broken down by state with bans on gay marriage passed in eleven states in 2004 alone. More to the point, however, is that gay marriage doesn't allow Democrats to parade as moderates. Instead, the issue forces them into placating their own liberal base by rallying opposition to the amendment while leaving them with a clear record of support or opposition on the issue thereby shattering any moderate perception.

In response, the press likes to trumpet the demise of so-called moderate Republicans. It notes the rarity of these very reasonable members of the GOP in a party made up of right-wingers and neo-cons. The fact is that moderate Republicans have supposedly been 'dying' ever since Ronald Regan took office. It's been the same old song and dance routine for over twenty years now. The real question is why aren't there more moderate Democrats? Why is Ben Nelson of Nebraska the only Democrat in a Red State who supports what most people in his electorate believe? Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Harry Reid (D-NV), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Bill Nelson (D-FL), why don't you support the beliefs of your constituents?

Opposition to what is socially acceptable to some does not make a person bigoted. The up roar over gay marriage means there is a clash of values and the need for a genuine national discourse. Whether that discourse is aimed at persuasion or debate is a matter for the individual but neither merits writing off no less than 60% of the population as bigoted.

On 6/6/6

You knew this was coming. How could I not post on the day that occurs once every hundred years?

666. The Mark of the Beast. The Anti-Christ. Bad omens all, but certainly not worth all the fervor they have engendered. In fact, this link to an MSNBC article by Dave White does much to explain the hilarity of the day as White lists the top "six" reasons (no less) the Devil has been rendered lame by bad advertising.

To butress the article, a quick perusal of the web demonstrates that there any infinite number of combinations one can create to build superstition surrounding the day. One site indicates through photo that the mark of the beast actually refers to six modern secretaries of state.

You know, maybe White is right? Perhaps Satan has lost his street credibility.

I mean, if Satan really wanted to beef up his image and today really were the day of the beast, then Nancy Pelosi would be Speaker of the House and Hillary Clinton would be President.

Final Word on Pax Plena

Unfortunately, it seems I've picked an inauspicious day to make an important announcement regarding my decision on Pax Plena. But as you can tell from the new digs, I'm planning to stick around.

There were a number of constraints which led me to re-consider the blog. For a time, I was considering a job opportunity in Washington, DC which would have necessitated, justly, the absence of my blog. Although it would have been a very interesting experience and an honor besides, my firm made an offer I couldn't refuse as the Godfather might say and I opted to remain here in Boston. In the end, the decision to stay was undoubtedly the best call. Sometimes life requires sacrifice and willingness to put others first; I felt like the offer from the firm was an affirmation that my inclination was correct.

In all cases, it is the status quo which has the most staying power and so I will here remain. And accordingly, Pax Plena will remain as well. The new format, however, will probably not remain unless it grows on me; though I do like the colors for the summer months. The problem is that it's hard to find user friendly layouts- especially since my html abilities are minimal at best. For now, feel free to tune back in often. And again, thanks for your patience.
 

Pax Plena Copyright © 2011 -- Template created by O Pregador -- Powered by Blogger