Politicos Courting the Native American Vote

I suspect my hopeful title is a bit premature given the state of American politics. But for now New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is beginning an encouraging trend of politicians reaching out to Native Americans in his quest to win the Democrat Presidential nomination.

[Link]

While Richardson is far from a first-tier candidate, his appearance before a group of Native Americans in CA is a positive step toward exposing some of the harsh realities of life on reservations.

Politically, I think the move is smart. New Mexico has a large population of Native American tribes many of whom have a cushion of casino dollars they are willing to invest in the candidate who understands their issues best. For the tribes, gambling as a revenue source is morally upsetting in itself, but the reality is that tribes now have the money and opportunity to seek political protection for their interests. Armed with this fresh deluge of casino profit, tribal investment in political capital only bodes well for them over the long-term.

As for Richardson's rally, it seems he was well received by the Morongo Mission Indians who gave him an extremely warm reception after he promised to create a cabinet-level Department of Indian Affairs should he be elected.

Exactly why Native Americans would want a Federal Department to oversee Indian Affairs is beyond me given the Government's mismanagement of more than $100 billion of our money. But I suppose platitudes are nice.

At any rate, his attention is certainly welcomed. Republicans would do well to follow suit...

The Negative Affects of Positive Reinforcement

I had no intentions of making a late afternoon post but the CNN assessment of 20-somethings caught my watchful eye and merited a quick post.

CNN is citing a recent study out of San Diego State University which breaks down the 1980s "self-esteem" movement and analyzes its heavy contribution to the rise of narcissism among today's college-age adults.

CNN comments:

The study asserts that narcissists "are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors."

[Link]

I never expect much in the way of insight from these sorts of studies. There's something inherently problematic about making generalizations of any age demographic.

But I would say that sums up relationships among 20-somethings fairly well.

Extremely well, in fact.

Song of the Week: This Side

The Pax Plena song of the week comes to you from progressive blue grass trio Nickel Creek and is titled This Side.

Written by violinist and background vocalist Sean Watkins the lyrics speak of transitioning from one phase of life to another and the uncomfortable uncertainties which accompany such segues. Despite its weighty subject matter, the song's message is ultimately one of optimism culminating in the final verse as the bard once again becomes content and at home amid change.

The song's power comes from the unique way in which lyrics and music work together to create the final product. The melody itself is up-beat but it would lack its optimistic quality if not for the harmony of the combined instruments which meld to create a strong, light sound. Written in a series of alternating major chords with a dissonant strains sprinkled about, the score would be hard to improve. The dissonant sounds are uniformly combinations of major, sharp chords which create a high-pitched disharmony- as opposed to a more dour sound heard among smatterings of minor chords say in Johnny Cash's Hurt, for example.

Vocally, the lead voice of the song undergoes its own transition. The early lyrics wistfully recall memories past and evokes feelings of regret and fear. But as the song progresses, the voice gets stronger along with the music and ultimately becomes a voice of optimism as he embraces a new future. Not unlike all of us in life.

I will include a link to the video below which is also quite fun. Enjoy!


This Side

One day you'll see her and you'll know what I mean.
Take her or leave her she will still be the same.
She'll not try to buy you with her time.
But nothing's the same, as you will see when she's gone.

It's foreign on this side,
And I'll not leave my home again.
There's no place to hide
And I'm nothing but scared.

You dream of colors that have never been made,
You imagine songs that have never been played.
They will try to buy you and your mind.
Only the curious have something to find.

It's foreign on this side,
And the truth is a bitter friend.
But reasons few have I to go back again.

Your first dawn blinded you, left you cursing the day.
Entrance is crucial and it's not without pain.
There's no path to follow, once you're here.
You'll climb up the slide and then you'll slide down the stairs.

It's foreign on this side,
But it feels like I'm home again.
There's no place to hide
But I don't think I'm scared.
(there's no place to hide)
(there's no place to hide)
But I don't think I'm scared.
(there's no place to hide)
But I don't think I'm scared...

The video can be accessed here.

Election 2008: Much Ado About Nothing

Being some 617 days away from Election Day 2008, the ridiculous the flood of press coverage the campaign has received is becoming all too clear. I would like to think that the media is reaching its coverage limit given the electoral minutia discussed of late but admittedly this is wishful thinking on my part.

To prove the point, two articles were released earlier today, both discussing the very pressing question on the minds of most voters: which campaign has the better website.

In the National Review, Michael Barone warns us of the many vapid platform pieces up on most of sites (to say nothing of the many vapid politicians running). Meanwhile, Daren Briscoe at Newsweek performs the very important public service of alerting readers to those candidates with Myspace accounts. "Be sure to add all your political friends!"

Still another article in the Boston Globe discusses the political strategy and nuance behind all of Senator Clinton's name changes during her career. By all accounts, her last name is both her biggest asset and liability.

With the election media carnival clearly in full swing, it seems the single idea around which the press can gravitate is the inability of any Republican to capture the affections of the GOP base- an odd conclusion, given the distance between now and the primary, and the relative newness of the race itself.

In her weekly column, Eleanor Clift asserts that Evangelicals back Jeb Bush, a candidate who has no intention of running. The New York Times offers a different take declaring that no candidate has made a strong showing among Evangelicals- while accusing the same of engaging in a bit of political pragmatics. The paper depicts the lack of candidate as a situation in which the Christian right is willing to forsake social values ( i.e. its interest) in order to unite behind the most electable candidate (Romney).

Two reactions occur to me having perused the above:

The preceding articles demonstrate well the ability and danger of a media engaged in agenda setting. The American people could not care less about the graphics, websites, or Myspace accounts of any candidate seeking the Presidency, yet these items become news because the media makes it so. Which website looks better is a matter of interest for those inside the beltway. But this interest itself demonstrates just how out of touch Washington is with most Americans. The sooner we depart from such micro-level political analyses and start talking about ideas, vision and the direction of the United States, the better off our Nation will be.

Second, the entire process is called an election for a reason. It is purposefully not a coronation and it is not a dynasty. I would submit that most evangelicals haven't united behind a candidate because the candidates have only had a couple of months to make the rounds and communicate their ideas. Hearing the views of the many candidates who are running for office is the most important part of the electoral process. It is a process which takes time- much more time than the 30 second news blip on network TV.

Finally, here's a small newsflash for the New York Times and Eleanor Clift- Democrats are just as split over their nominee, perhaps to an even greater extent than the Christian right. For evidence, do a quick Google search of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. If that doesn't work, have a non-fat, organic, soy latte with David Geffen. I'm sure he'll produce a few print worthy gems on the matter.

Defining Joe Lieberman

A happy snowy, Monday to all. Here in Boston this morning's walk to the T (subway) only reinforces exactly why I hate snow and the MBTA's inability to deploy sidewalk sweepers in highly trafficked areas to wit T stops. Grumbling out of the way on to the least insightful headline of the morning which comes to us from the AP via MSNBC.

Our faithful associated pundits are announcing that Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman will not switch caucuses and join the GOP. By way of clarification, Lieberman a long-time Democrat was re-elected in 2006 as a political independent who caucuses with Democrats for purposes of committee assignment.

[Link]

I'm ridiculing the headline because his reasons for staying are only too obvious. Simply by keeping his caucus membership steady, and somewhat ambiguous, he remains the most powerful member of the Senate. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? As Massimo Calabresi of Time Magazine notes, what Lieberman wants, Lieberman gets:

Those stakes [Lieberman's defection] are high enough to give Lieberman leverage with both parties no matter how slim the chance of his crossing the aisle. Which means Senate leaders aren't worrying only about whether Joe Lieberman will switch parties. They're wondering what, if anything, he plans to do with the power that comes from keeping that possibility alive.

[Link]

A brief anecdote. I met Joe Lieberman several years ago up in Hanover and the one thing which struck me from his remarks and my conversation with him was the genuine sense he conveyed of his ideological mix. In truth, Lieberman hasn't really changed from his core policy convictions since he became a Democrat in CT many years ago. He remains a hawk on foreign policy. He remains committed to government solutions for domestic issues and a mixed bag on social issues.

What has changed is that his party has taken a dramatic turn to the left leaving him and many others wondering how their party went so wrong so fast. True, the Dems' strategy was enough to win an anti-war election in 2006 but the win wasn't so much a Democrat victory as a Republican loss.

Now, the man Democrats rejected has become their party's cornerstone. Nothing makes me smile (or Lieberman, perhaps) more broadly these days than the thought of Harry Reid and Dick Durbin toadying to Lieberman's every whim.

There's no need for a switch. Lieberman is more important than ever before and just fine right where he is.

NYC Democrats Convicted of Corruption

So much for the party of ethics and reform...

[Link]

Vilsack Out

The news is a day late, but former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is putting the kibosh on his 2008 bid for President.

[Link]

That Vilsack is dropping his campaign isn't unexpected.  The question is, did it ever really begin?

Pelosi's Complaint with Victory

It's been a short week for government employees down in Washington.  With President's Day on Monday and Congress out of session for the week, headlines of late have been about as interesting as a Harry Reid press conference.  

Who knew four days could last so long?  

In fact, the only major news for Democrats this entire week was the 2008 bickering between Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.  Of course, it's nice to see Democrats divided against themselves for a change.   The respite surely isn't lost on Republicans.    

The single headline of note, is the dearth of action by House Democrats to offer an Iraq alternative to President Bush's troop surge- which, incidentally, has already gone into effect.  Leave it to the Speaker to turn no news into news.  

The latest Pelosi meltdown really started across the globe in Tokyo.  Surprisingly, the brouhaha did not involve the Speaker requesting a direct flight.  Rather, in an interview with ABC News Vice President Dick Cheney characterized the Democrats cut and run position as emboldening the enemy.  

The Veep said:
 

I think, in fact, if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy. The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people. In fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.
 

[Link]

Rather than defending her position, in a fit of hysterics, Pelosi let her emotions get the better of her as she fired back at President Bush (who is, indeed, not the Vice President):

 

"You cannot say as the President of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country."
 

[Link]

Her misdirected tirade notwithstanding, the Speaker's remarks smack of a reaction void of logic.  It is entirely consistent for the President to welcome disagreement on Iraq and then proceed to disagree.  The discrepancy Pelosi tries to draw is fictitious.    

Regarding the substance of her complaint, since taking the reigns of Congress Pelosi has regularly attempted to curtail the Administration's efforts to succeed in Iraq- writing off the entire enterprise as untenable.  

Just last week, her stewardship in the House of Representatives ushered through a resolution condemning the President's plan to win in Iraq.  Meanwhile, the latest news from Capitol Hill is that the Pelosi's Congress will try to micromanage the war effort by placing funding restrictions on the troops already being sent into battle.  You know, nothing says the Democrat Party backs the troops quite like cutting off their funding.

As the Vice President astutely notes, Pelosi's patriotism is far from being questioned but her judgment is.  Given the stakes, it should be.  

Boston Globe: Bloggers Fear Publicists

The Boston Globe reports this morning that political bloggers across the web now fear the infiltration of publicists on their sites.

[ Link]

Lest there be some confusion created by my blogger colleagues, here is a message to all the publicists out there reading Pax Plena:  this blogger warmly welcomes you, your book advance, and six-figure contract anytime.  

Wife Brokers: for All Your Marital Needs

Wife Brokers: for All Your Marital Needs

Single? Having trouble getting dates- let alone finding a wife? Apparently, all you need to do is call up your Wife broker to set up a marriage tour and in five days you'll be all set.

At least that's the case in South Korea.

According to the NYT, a surplus of single South Korean men are increasingly headed to Vietnam to find wives through wedding tours arranged by third-party brokerage firms.

The firms, act as a mediator between the parties and connect would-be beaus with would-be brides. After a series of dates, a meeting of the parents, a brief ceremony and a honeymoon at a nearby resort, the couple goes their separate ways until the paper work is readied for wife to join husband in S. Korea.

[Link]

The predicament for some makes sense. For many of us, relationships are like the Latin classes we took in college. We still don't get them and we still tend to fail.

But has it really come down to this?

I understand that we've more or less reduced marriage to being transactional (having extracted any sense of commitment from relationships generally) but must we resort to brokerage firms for finding wives?

If Academics Ran the World...

A former professor of mine delivered the 20th annual Presidential Lecture yesterday evening up in Hanover.  Ron Green, Professor of Religion and Director of the Ethics Institute at Dartmouth, spoke on the politicization of bioethics in the United States.  

Although I was not in attendance, I believe The Dartmouth summarized his opening remarks fairly well:

"I wish to use this opportunity to think about how politicized things have become in the sphere that I work in- debates that were once confined to journals are now found in the halls of Congress."

[Link]

While the article discusses the more nuanced points of Green's remarks, something about his opening strains left me troubled.  

Society relies upon the Congress to resolve disputes regarding policy decisions.  If we accept this point, and nearly any 8th grade civics class would, it seems perfectly appropriate that Congress should debate issues of bioethics and set the federal standards by which the scientific community is regulated.  

Given this, Green's fundamental issue is not with the political controversy surrounding the issue, but with the will of the people as expressed through their legislative body.  

In other words, the disturbing conclusion we reach from Green's premise is that he takes issue with the political process itself.  Such is the view from the ivory tower.  

Stability, Tehran Style

According to the IRNA:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that the policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on promotion of stability and justice around the world.
 

[Link]

What better way to promote peace and stability than by pushing your country toward war with the West?

Only Diplomacy?

The Iranian press shop is heralding remarks made UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon who commented earlier today on the Iranian nuclear standoff:

Solutions can only be found through talks and dialogue. This is the basic principle in conflict situations.

[Link]

With all due respect to the Secretary General, all evidence to the contrary.

[Link]

Happy Ash Wednesday

I'm not sure if happy is the appropriate benediction for a day of repentance and obeisance, but I'm not sure how to mark the occasion otherwise. If you buy into Thomas Merton's view in Seasons of Celebration then lent is our Holy Spring and Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the Lenten fast, is a day of happiness, a Christian feast.

Happy Ash Wednesday indeed.

For readers askance at my observation, never fear. I have not switched teams in the Catholic-Protestant divide although this divide isn't entirely pronounced either as Episcopalians and Methodists observe the day too. But my time in Boston has alerted me to the many random holidays (or should I say, holy days) acknowledged by so many of the city's Catholic population.

According to the Globe, Fat Tuesday was a big hit down in New Orleans yesterday. Revelers once again flocked to the French Quarter and lived it up into the wee hours of the morning. The crowd was said to be larger than last year.

[Link]

For the most part, however, Fat Tuesday was fairly lost on me as well. Having never made a trip to Mardi Gras during college, my exposure to the celebration was limited to the Dartmouth Food Court's Mardi Gras dinners- replete with every dessert and entrée imaginable. Apparently, the day is much bigger in Europe and Latin America. Religious pundit Jim Carroll, author of Constantine's Sword, had some interesting reflections on the day celebrated in these disparate places.

He concludes:

Religion warns that humans constantly attempt to substitute for God what is not God (the nation-state, the quest for wealth, oneself, etcetera). And religion, equally, acknowledges that it, too, does just that. Religion all too often worships itself...

At carnival, the revelers are holding up the powers-that-be for ridicule. But the street-dancers are also making fun of themselves, which makes the festival noble. This week's glad interruption in time is a gift from the deep past. Carnival foolishness is self-surpassing, whether deemed holy or not. Either way, it is a reminder that we humans on the earth were made for more than appears before the eyes.

[Link]

By way of criticism, Carroll's comments about the revelers making the festival noble are a stretch at best. I would submit the revelers aren't so much 'holding up the powers-that-be for ridicule' as they are attempting to get hammered and hook up. But that's just me.

More substantively, while, I do not normally agree with Carroll on much of anything his remarks on religion tending to worship itself are a profound reminder for Believers to never mistake the Church, public service, mission work, counseling or anything else we associate with Christianity or good-doing for a personal relationship with Christ. This seems to me the point of Ash Wednesday - to consider the cross, and to consider what we might sacrifice for the Lenten period in order to honor Christ's sacrifice for us.

The Bible study I attended last night discussed something related in the Book of Ephesians. The life of a believer is one of unearned grace from a God who loves mankind. Ash Wednesday offers the opportunity for personal challenge in reflecting upon this point.

So, to those marking the day, I hope Lent is a thoughtful time for you. For those still hung over from Fat Tuesday, try a couple of Tylenol and a large coffee. Preferably from Dunkin Donuts. Hazelnut with cream and sugar.

For those who have given up caffeine for Lent- I'll say a prayer for you.

Tory Party Makes Gains

Our friends over at the Iranian press shop released some unexpectedly good news earlier today.

According to the IRNA, Tory Party leader David Cameron is on course to upset Britain's Labor majority in the next election based on opinion polls conducted by the UK's Guardian Newspaper.

The Tories have repeatedly called for general elections upon the resignation of Prime Minister Tony Blair and are expected to wield a commanding, double-digit lead according to the Guardian.

[Link]

The only disturbing part of this news is that the Iranians called it to my attention first. Even so, we here at Pax Plena will always be faithful Tories.

Song of the Week: Stand Back Up

The Pax Plena song of the week comes from the country music group Sugarland and is titled Stand Back Up.

There's no need for deep analysis with this one, folks. The message of the song is simple and profound: sometimes life throws an unexpected punch or two and there's nothing one can do to avoid the impact or pain.

But the song reminds us that our inner temerity and determination are enough to get us through the darkness of any situation and indeed we can do all things through the Source of our strength. Whether you are dealing with a seasonal affective disorder or if you're just going through a rough spot, Sugarland's ballad is sure to inspire.

Musically, the song is as simple as its message. It is played with a clear, lone acoustic guitar. The sound becomes haunting in places as the strumming drives home the melody at just the right points. The lyrics are superbly delivered and the singer's voice couldn't be better. It is almost a performance of necessity-any weakness in the singer's voice would ultimately destroy the message of the song. Sugarland more than overcomes any such deficiency.

One can nearly feel power itself rising from an abyss of winnowing pain.

Stand Back Up

Go ahead and take your best shot
Let 'er rip, give it all you've got
I'm laid out on the floor, but I've been here before
I may stumble, yeah I might fall
I'm only human but aren't we all
I might lose my way, but hear me when I say

I will stand back up
You'll know just the moment when I've have enough
Sometimes I'm afraid, and I dont feel that tough
But I'll stand back up

I've been beaten up and bruised
I've been kicked right off my shoes
Been down on my knees more times than you'd believe
When the darkness tries to get me
There's a light that just won't let me
It might take my pride, and my tears may fill my eyes
But I'll stand back up

I've weathered all these stroms,
But I just turn them into wind, so I can fly
What don't kill you makes you stronger
When I take my last breath
Thats when I'll just give up

So, go ahead to take your best shot
Let 'er rip, give it all you've got
You might win this round but you can't keep me down

'Cause I'll stand back up
And you'll know just the moment when I've had enough
Sometimes I'm afraid and I don't feel that tough
But I'll stand back up

You'll know just the moment when I've had enough
Sometimes I'm afraid and I don't feel that tough
But I'll stand back up

How Much Time Do You Have?

JetBlue CEO David Neeleman finally offered a few responses to a weekend long quagmire of canceled flights and stranded passengers- some stuck on planes upwards of ten hours.

Taking perhaps the high road of buck passing, Neeleman indicated that the problem for JetBlue stemmed from an antiquated communication system which left airline attendants and available pilots on a perpetual disconnect throughout the long weekend. By all accounts, the situation got fairly ugly and the airline was eventually forced to call airport security to tame the unruly crowds.

[Link]

I think everyone has a flight story from hell which helps us relate to the frustrated JetBlue passengers (yours truly has completely blacklisted Continental Airlines due to a Thanksgiving mishap during my Senior year of college). It is easy to see the story as yet another sad tale of inept airlines. Which, in truth, it is.

But the reactions from stranded passengers do not really indicate a frustration with ineptitude alone. Rather, the root of the problem seems to be with what the ineptitude caused: wasted time. When our time is wasted the most frustrating aspect of those instances is that we are squandering the only commodity in life of which we cannot acquire more.

We can get more stuff. Wealth, possessions and most of life's necessities are in abundance. We cannot reclaim lost years, months, weeks, hours, minutes and seconds. Ultimately, it is this very specific, idiosyncratic loss which makes the JetBlue fiasco so pitiable for the rest of us. We feel their pain, in part, because we have wasted many a moment of our own lives. We feel sympathy for them because being stuck on a non-flying plane, at the gate (viz., freedom) for ten hours has to be one of the worst ways to lose half a day.

On the other hand, there's nothing quite like the feeling of time well spent. The NYT also ran a story yesterday about Yale Endowment guru David Swensen. Swensen has remained at the helm of Yale's endowment despite record setting performance which would have enable his departure for greener pastures and bigger bucks long ago.

Swensen's motivation to stay is that he feels his time is better utilized by affecting lives than by making the most money:

"In the finance world it is very easy to measure winning and losing in dollars and cents," he says. "That has always seemed to be an inadequate measure. The quality of life is a better way to measure winning and losing. Money is only one element of that."

[Link]

Swensen's remarks hit on an interesting point about how we value our time. For Swensen, time well invested (forgive the pun) includes working for an institution committed to learning and affecting the lives of some of America's most promising students, which is exactly what he is doing higher pay elsewhere notwithstanding. For some of the passengers on the JetBlue flight, time well spent meant visiting family for a birthday. For two others, it meant a honeymoon in tropical climes. Suffice it to say, there are many ways to spend one's time well.

So, how do we get the most out of our finite existence?

For those grappling with the question, there are no shortage of answers. The Boston Globe offered that we get the most out of life by marrying people of a similar educational level. Britney Spears would submit that we get the most out of life by doing something radical (though her example is highly suspect). On a National level the President has offered that the best use of America's time is to win in Iraq- though how we contribute toward that effort as civilians is less than defined. A Malay woman thought a twenty-five year bus ride was a good use of her time, while a nine-year old boy thought taking the next flight away from mom was a good use of his.

Closer to home, for some of Pax Plena's collegian readership (or recent grads), we are all aware that hundreds of students preparing for graduation this Spring will soon decide how to spend the next few years of their life. For some, this will mean pursuing higher education, jobs, or travel. For hundreds of young professionals, it may mean starting a new life with the one they love, deciding where to live or what personal sacrifices are worth potential gains. It seems to me that the one clear caveat time engenders is choice. Life moves fast and the decisions one makes only grow in stakes and quantity.

On this chilly President's day, the JetBlue story brings my ruminations to a much more personal level as I think about how I wish to invest my own energies in the months and years to come. Given a fixed quantity of time, it behooves me to find ways to maximize what time I have while accepting that the future remains, by definition, the great unknown. For all of us, then, it seems there should be a sense of urgency to make each day a maximum return on our time investment.

A recent book I read on the subject is by Bethlehem Baptist Church Pastor John Piper titled Don't Waste Your Life. Piper makes the case that the best way to make your life count is to recognize that your life is not yours.

Your life is in God's hands and hangs by a thread of sovereign grace. God owns every soul. He made us and we belong to him by virtue of his being our Creator. He can give and take life as he pleases according to his infinite wisdom, and he never does anyone any wrong. He created human life, and he decides what human life is for.

[Link]

I recognize that many readers who drop by do not share the same faith or beliefs as me. But I think the common point reached between secular and religious approaches to this question specifically is that the most fulfilling use of time is time spent in service to other/s.

Piper would argue that the Other is God and I would tend to agree. But the point is made that with life apparently before us, many decisions made now about how we use our time will affect our lives many years hence. It's a bit cheeky but if I were to sum up my personal goals it would be to use whatever time I have to love and live boldly while serving ably. More immediately, I believe this includes pursuing higher education and a career but the devil, as always, is in the details. The basic goal, however, remains constant: to invest my time in what I treasure most.

I suppose the point of a post like this isn't really to suggest answers but to cling fast to the questions. All of which begs the following for your consideration: How much time do you have? How will you make sure it is not wasted?

MA Governor Takes Heat for New Ride

MA Governor Deval Patrick ran a campaign appealing to the spirit of liberal idealism this past fall with the slogan was "together we can."

Apparently, what he meant was "together we can buy me a new Cadillac."

And why shouldn't he? After all, nothing says I relate to the working-class quite like the 2007 Cadillac DeVille.

[Link]

Mid-February Political Round-up

The political winds are swirling like a Boston nor'easter as we hit the rough mid-point of February 2007. Sensible people are beginning to wonder why we are hearing so much about an election that still seems so far away.

[Link]

[Link]

Strangely, it isn't just the Democrat circus that is the 110th Congress leading the hullabaloo. Celebrities, have recently seized their own bully pulpit (viz., the Grammys) and are quick to offer their middle finger on everything from the President's troop surge to the Dems much more sensible plan of unanimously approving a new general while repudiating his plan.

According to CNN, one-hit wonder Ricky Martin:

At a recent concert, the 35-year-old singer stuck up his middle finger when he sang the president's name in his song "Asignatura Pendiente," which includes the words, "a photo with Bush." The gesture last Friday prompted cheers from thousands of fans in the San Juan stadium.

[Link]

Nothing says, "I'm a serious artist with deep political convictions" quick like flipping the bird on international television.

House Democrats are only slightly more cordial. The Washington Post is predicting a political brawl when Democrats try to infringe upon the President's Constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief. If Democrats went to fisticuffs over cigar smoking, think of what they'll do to a President they loathe- who, incidentally, has said numerous times he has no intentions of attacking Iran.

All things considered, Americans can rest easy at night knowing our media maintains its objective, watchful eye over the public interest. And you know, nothing maintains an aura of objectivity quite like endorsing your ultra-liberal pal in his bid for Senate. At least that's the rational of Newsweek's Howard Fineman:

As a reporter, I pride myself on keeping my opinions to myself and my personal distance from the people I cover. Until today, that wasn't a problem in the case of my friend of 20 years, Al Franken. But now that he has said that he is running for the U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota currently held by Norm Coleman, I have a duty to the voters there to tell them what I know about him that is relevant to their decision about him -- and then to get out of the way and not say or write another word about his (or that) campaign.

[Link]

It seems a bit disingenuous for Fineman to call himself a reporter, then again, the self-deluded are always the last to know. Fineman's journalistic integrity is already somewhere around that of Bill Clinton's marital fidelity. Interestingly, it was only two years ago, just before the inauguration of President Bush, that Fineman bemoaned the death of the mainstream media- which was being "destroyed' by the conservative minions of the Republican Party:

Still, the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto.

[Link]

This should be an inspiration to all the Valentine's Day singles out there. You too can come to terms and let go of old feelings. Just look at Howard Fineman.

In all, I would say things are pretty much par for the course. Democrats complain. The media is biased. All is right with the world. But don't let the status quo fool you. Given the relatively calm February, thus far, I would say stormy weather is on the horizon. With a brewing melee over Iran and our pacifist Majority in Congress, here is fair warning from yours truly: beware the ides of march.

Bank of America, Credit Cards and Illegals

The Washington Times ran the interesting story linked to below on the bank I love to hate.



Make no mistake Bank of America is everywhere. From the tiny ATM in Lawton, OK to the mega branch in Harvard Square.



Just don't hold your breath if you ever need questions answered by a live person. Or if you'd rather your bank not give credit cards to illegal aliens.



[Link]

Al Franken Runs for Senate in MN

Rumor has it late-night comedian and bankrupt Air America Radio host Al Franken is running for Senate in MN.

I guess this gives new meaning to the Democrat Party being a joke...

[Link]

Dilbert on Office Projects

Once again, Dilbert brilliantly captures the reality of life in the working world.










Comic courtesy of Dilbert.com.

Modern and Ancient Thoughts on Love

Every year I look forward to the flurry of comedic advice which is unleashed upon  a complicit public anticipating Valentine's Day.  The counsel is always disparate.  Our humble media outlets comment on anything from the worst gifts to give her (light up bras rest atop the list) to whether Valentine's Day extends to the inter-party bickering on Capitol Hill (it doesn't).  Yesterday, yours truly even mentioned the day in passing during a discussion of Pelikan's concept of the good.  Suffice it to say, most of us in the blogosphere tend ignore the point of the holiday and mold it to suit our own purposes which often continue far afield from the actual sentiment of the day for even the most cynical and jaded among us.  

Which actually brings up an interesting point.  Views on the holiday fall along the extremes.  Assessments of the day tend to come in two, and only two, flavors: you have the doting lover who is nauseatingly in love with a special someone and the huge production that is the night to follow, replete with romantic evening and chocolates.  Or you have the depressingly bitter single who is both pessimistic and sarcastic.  This person will beleaguer you tomorrow with tales of a night spent with ice cream, Bridget Jones' Diary and her pet cat.  

Valentine's Day, then, it seems is a lot like Hillary Clinton.  Feelings distribute along the lines of love or hate with very little room in between.  Unlike politics, however, all of us have likely been in one camp or the other.  Which disturbingly makes us much more like Mitt Romney or John Kerry than Hillary Clinton.  

Take a second.  Let that one digest.

Anyway, CNN's take on the story I mentioned yesterday was, incidentally, much more interesting than the Washington Post commentary I cited.  According to CNN, scientists have indeed concluded that when a person is in love dopamine flows into the caudate which creates the feeling of excitement one feels when seeing their beloved.  

But one point the WP neglected to mention was that the research being done also marks a profound distinction between love and sexual attraction.  In short, the article concludes that "Brains in love and brains in lust don't look too much alike," confirming a centuries old common knowledge in distinguishing between the two (as if we needed a fancy study to confirm what Mom, our youth pastor, and experience have repeatedly drilled into our brains).  

But here's what struck me most about the study:

In the end, Drs. Fisher and Brown say what they learned from lovers' brains is that romantic love isn't really an emotion -- it's a drive that's based deep within our brains, right alongside our urges to find food and water.

[Link]

My morning readings have taken me within the past month or two back into the Old Testament where we read and marvel at the intricacy of God's creation from the dawn of time.  I think the above observations offer a very relevant harmony between what modern science and the ancient Biblical text both have to say about love.  

While, I'm sure Fisher and Brown approach love from an entirely secular and Darwinian view (the article says as much), I think their findings of love as a deep seeded need reflect the Bible's truth that love is primarily a commitment.  From the ultimate expression of love in Christ's death on the cross to the Book of Revelation's denouement, God repeatedly demonstrates that His love for us is a commitment made by Himself to the redeeming work of saving us from our own foolishness and sin.  

Fisher and Brown seem to substantiate in science that love isn't something discovered or obtained instantly.  If it were, there would be no physiological distinction between love and sexual attraction.  Their research gets at something more- something embedded in the core of our identities as people.  Love, according to their research, is something that develops within us which drives us as much as food or water.  Anything that drives or motivates us by definition develops over time as we discover what our priorities and goals in life are.  It isn't an instantaneous feeling.  It's a choice.  It's a commitment.  There are plenty of broken promises on the market which can attest to the point.  

For those of you in love, undoubtedly the commitment of love takes many forms ranging from the mundane to the exciting.  For those of us who are single, perhaps love is an ideal and a goal.  But one thing becomes clear for both sides as we think about the implications of St. Valentine's Day- the joy of life rests in the details and a loving God watches and guides us as we sort them all out.

Conservative Schizophrenia

I came to the GOP during my late years of high school and early years of college.  Having cut my political teeth in the State of New Hampshire two of the glaring things I have come to realize as a conservative originally from Oklahoma is how deep a split exists within the Party of Lincoln and how deceptive the recent years of Republican unity has been.  I submit two recent articles in the National Review which discuss the Presidential ambitions of two contenders for your consideration in light of the above.

The first piece comes from today's edition of the NRO by contributing editor Deroy Murdock who discusses the anticipated campaign of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.  It should be said in fairness that Murdock's views are utterly consistent with his flavor of politics.  By all accounts, Murdock is more libertarian than conservative which makes for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican.  Not unlike Giuliani.

As one might expect from a man predisposed toward Giuliani's brand of conservatism, Murdock waxes poetic about the former mayor's supply-side credentials.  With nigh a tear in his eye, Murdock wistfully concludes his missive:

Conservatives seeking a proven leader to lasso taxes and rein in runaway spending have a natural choice for president: Rudolph W. Giuliani.

[Link]

From the same publication we find a very different description of a different candidate.  The piece by NRO's Jennifer Rubin undertakes much the same task as Murdock to flesh out the positions of a Presidential aspirant.  This time former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

After a couple of introductory (obligatory?) paragraphs on the former governor's socially conservative record, Rubin devotes the latter two-thirds of her article toward criticizing Huckbee's fiscal policy.  Her conclusion is quite nearly the perfect foil of  Mr. Murdock's pining commentary on Giuliani.  It makes one wonder if the NRO doesn't have a template for article conclusions its authors must follow.  At any rate, in ominous tones, Rubin warns conservatives against the spending behemoth that is Mike Huckabee:

Club for Growth also chastised Huckabee for advocating return of the surplus when "he had ample opportunity in the summer of 2006 to do just that as governor and declined to take the necessary steps of calling the Legislature into session." It would seem conservatives searching for Mr. Right to rebuild the coalition of social and economic conservatives may need to keep looking.

 

[Link]

To summarize, we have one publication which is unquestionably conservative in bent and two different articles which effectively represent the unspoken, dominant ideology of the publication.  This ideology in brief is supply-side economics.  Perhaps my conservative readers will remain unconvinced.  I'm generalizing too much you might say.  If these articles are unconvincing, please see the NRO's authors' Valentine's Day political crush list in which every author yearns for a supply-side candidate for President (and mentions Giuliani by name in several).  

For the sake of highlighting the tension, let us assume that the characterizations of both me are true.  Each candidate is a conservative of one variety or another.  Yet the one would be antithetical to the supporters of the other.  The first group of Giuliani backers being libertarian-lite would have tremendous difficulty accepting Huckabee as one of their own, simply because Giuliani seems to fit the bill of what they are looking for in a candidate.  The other camp of social conservatives/Evangelicals would be loathe to accept Giuliani as its nominee with his socially liberal positions on abortion, gay marriage and his personal misgivings (Giuliani is presently working on wife #3).  

Somewhere in the middle of the split is the Presidency of George W. Bush who initially brought together both sides of the Republican coalition through a promised return to the conservatism of Ronald Reagan- comprehensive conservatism, one might say, in both fiscal and social policy.  As is the case with most alliances, this too was doomed to collapse.  Both sides have since offered their own critiques of the White House and blamed it for failure to deliver on both of their respective agendas.  For fiscal conservatives, Bush's National debt figures are anathema to their basic principles.  Meanwhile, for social conservatives Bush can't seem to do enough for the pro-life cause even though he is poised to veto stem-cell research legislation for the second time.  

Least I seem more problem than solution oriented, here are a few prescriptive remedies for the GOP dilemma:  

 

As 2008 approaches, the GOP must do more to unite the party than a weekend breeze through-session in VA.  It is critical that the party leadership linger no more in the doldrums of a Congress lost, but seek a genuine conversation and remedy among the candidates which would seek to lead the party.  

This remedy for Conservative Schizophrenia is through the nominating process itself.  Rather than anointing a candidate early, the election cycle offers Republicans an opportunity to find the most acceptable nominee by which to seek the White House and to construct a winning agenda for the GOP.  This individual will likely be one which wholly satisfies neither camp but it should absolutely be one with whom either side can work to advance their respective issues.  

The hit pieces and cheerleading by the National Review offer no incisive contribution toward the conversation which needs to take place among conservatives of either stripe.  Conservatives deserve better from the publication which has long been the standard bearer for conservative thought- both fiscal and social.    

Song of the Week: Opportunity of a Lifetime

Bucking the recent trend in calling St. Valentine's Day "Singles Awareness Day", this single has opted to mark the occasion by posting a song for the amorously inclined. And looking through my library of music, nothing expresses romance quite like Darryl Worley's Opportunity of a Lifetime.

It's by no means the most famous country love song. But there's just something about it that captures the innocence of young love and the vitality and optimism it creates for the couple. Long before the personality conflicts and pessimism start to creep into a relationship, love offers folks an opportunity to willfully be optimistic for the future and the start of something new. The song brings these feelings of new love to mind.

Musically, the song has just a hint of Western swing that actually reminds me of lazy summers fishing and driving along the back roads with someone you love. While the song is definitely more traditional than some contemporary artists it's one that fits well in a country play list especially during the summer months.



Opportunity of a Lifetime

Big brown eyes, soft red lips
I'm thinkin' I could get used to this
This could be the opportunity of a lifetime

My heart melts when you whisper my name
I've got a feeling if you're feeling the same
This could be the opportunity of a lifetime

I don't need to travel the world
Chase after rainbows, I'm telling you girl
There's so many things that I'd rather do
Like wakin' up each morning with you

We've got a chance at a real true love
We'd have to be crazy to pass it up
This could be the opportunity of a lifetime

I can just see us sittin' there
Front porch swing with gray in our hair
I know it seems like a lifetime away
But we could get started today

We've got a chance at a real true love
We'd have to be crazy to pass it up
This could be the opportunity of a lifetime
Oh yes-sir-ee, this could be
The opportunity of a lifetime

When Good Isn't Good Enough

Of late, I have fallen into a trend of reading along two tracks. The one is done for pleasure with erudition being merely a by-product. The other is undertaken solely for the purpose of spiritual edification. The former reading generally takes place in the evening as I return home from work or as I relax at night for want of avoiding the TV. The latter takes place in the mornings. I have found no better way to escape the doldrums of my daily routine than by turning my mind toward the realm of thought where God meets man standing amid the crowds of the Boston T. Strangely enough (perhaps), my morning train ride is where metaphysical and temporal collide.

This morning was no exception and I marked the day with a new book . One of my favorites, actually, by Jaroslav Pelikan the preeminent historian of Christian thought. Pelikan's Fools for Christ consists of six essays exploring the relationship between what is holy and what is true, good, and beautiful. Pelikan uses the lives of Kierkegaard, Paul, Dostoevsky, Luther, Nietzsche and Bach as foils of one another to highlight various aspects of the relationship between the aforementioned elements.

What prompts me to mention the book is a spate of headlines which seem to augment our modern issues with the good as addressed by Pelikan years ago. From the Washington Post's assessment of love to the New York Times account of nuclear disarmament in North Korea, our modern existence tends to reinforce the notion that the good is both ephemeral and infrequent. The headlines take issue with Pelikan's premise which assumes good and stymies the conversation before it begins.

Take for example this recent account from Sports Illustrated. San Diego Chargers Head Coach Marty Schottenheimer led his team all the way to the NFL playoffs coasting along to a 14-2 regular season record. With a first round bye, the Chargers ultimately lost their playoff game to the New England Patriots in the second round of the playoffs. The loss, while disappointing was by no means unheard of in a sport which crowns only one champion. Being one of the league's elite teams to make the playoffs typically constitutes a good season. A coach who leads his team to a 14-2 record is generally considered a good coach. Nevertheless, Schottenheimer was fired today despite all of the above.

Schottenheimer's response to the news:

"That is absolutely unfair in my view...we had no control over two guys who became head coaches in this league. We gave two guys an opportunity to be coordinators in this league. We've added a couple of guys that people should be very pleased with. The future coach will be very pleased, as well."

[Link]

The situation serves as an example of modern disconnects within the definition of the good itself. The Chargers' brass For the Chargers organization, their reaction ultimately was good isn't good enough. Results, in this case, didn't matter and a man lost his job. Schottenheimer's view is, I think, much more consistent with a classical observation of meritocracy. Good results (14-2 record) should be met with praise.

The Washington Post's Neely Tucker had a similarly interesting piece discussing the chemical reactions which take place in the brain when one falls in love. A piece no doubt intended to prompt a few reactions before Valentine's Day. So, to be fair, Tucker's piece isn't intended to be especially insightful or reflective. And it is what it is- a cynical melding of science, pop culture and emotion en route to establishing a definition of love.

Tucker writes:

And so, alas. Even neurologists, to go with Shakespeare's priest, now tell us passion is true love's fool's gold, a flamboyant dead end on the evolutionary chain of primate happiness.

The only problem with this insight is that no one pays it any mind. Doomed passion may not make us right, and it may not even make us very happy.

It only makes us human. It only makes us who we are.

[Link]

I realize I'm being generous but with Tucker, we don't really see a muddled conception of the good as seen in the Schottenheimer account. Instead, we are presented a rather satirical account of human nature which places an elusive good within the fabric of our biological composition. Tucker argues that humans who pursue the good in passion (or dopamine), ultimately find good's opposite when passion cools and/or dies. In the case of love lost, dopamine levels rescind into the "nucleus accumbens, the insular cortex, the lateral orbitofrontal cortex" giving way to sorrow and even depression for love unrequited. Put differently, even when we find the good in love, this too ultimately cools (think Everybody Loves Raymond) or it dies (think every messy break up you've ever had). So, even for life's most intimate relationships the good remains elusive.

The matter is not relegated to the individual. It permeates all theaters of National and foreign affairs. Take, for example, the recent nuclear disarmament agreement between the US and North Korea (et. al). Today's headlines boast the most significant news about the North Korean nuclear crisis since 2003 with the North Koreans agreeing to suspend enrichment and pursue disarmament in exchange for fuel and aid to their starving population. Yet, the most prominently featured American reaction to the news came from perennial realist John Bolton who said:

"I am very disturbed by this deal," Bolton told CNN. "It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: 'If we hold out long enough, wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded,' in this case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only partially what needs to be done."

[Link]

As any frequent reader knows, I am more than supportive of realism generally, and of a robust foreign policy specifically. But Bolton's analysis seems to offer more in the way of reactionary argument than it offers in the way of a logical evaluation. Given the Nation in question, it is more than prudent to take the announcement with a grain of salt. But it is just as important to recognize the agreement as a positive concession on the part of a North Korea which has hitherto refused to negotiate. For Bolton, the good is non-existent (perhaps because he is averse to compromise). The account constitutes an unwillingness to embrace any good in the situation at all.

This sentiment is echoed most vociferously in our public discourse when talking about the conflict in Iraq. This past weekend, the Washington Post ran an article by former General William Odom titled "Victory Is Not an Option." Rejecting centuries of a can-do American attitude, Odom embraced the far more modern and ubiquitous notion of perennial pessimism. Toward this end, Odom's op-ed included a four point plan for our defeat. Odom concludes:

The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.

[Link]

Like previous examples, Odom rejects forthrightly any potential for the good in America's operations in Iraq. If we assume victory in Iraq is good and embracing its opposite (defeat) is bad, then for Odom the good in this context is non-existent too. Far from having a discussion of what it means for good to come of the war, Odom removes good as a point of conversation. Pelikan's entire essays becomes a logical non-sequitur.

My point in presenting the stories above is not to rail against bad news. It is not to question Tucker's definition of the good in love. It is not even to quibble with Odom's politics or with Bolton's pessimism.

I do feel, however, that they offer a bit of insight into the type of people modernity has produced. Our modern culture rejects the good wholesale. This view subtly pervades every facet of our existence whether we embrace it in its entirety or not. As a society, we are far more interested in assessing what is bad in a situation than we are in recognizing any good at all. And true to the title, we live in an age when good isn't good enough.

Our modern response to Pelikan's good is that we collectively reject such arcane institutions.

Obama: Faith Doesn't Matter

Illinois Freshman Senator-cum-Democrat Presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, shared an interesting assessment of the American public in an interview from Iowa yesterday.  

The AP dipatch quotes Obama who said:

"Ultimately what I think voters will be looking for is not so much a litmus test on faith as an assurance that a candidate has a value system and that is appreciative of the role that religious faith can play in helping shape people's lives," he said.

[Link]

A couple of thoughts.  

Sen. Obama is either deluded or in dire need of better staff support.  Some 82% of Americans profess belief that Jesus was the Son of God.  For a candidate looking to connect with voters, dismissing the importance of faith in a Presidential campaign is indistinguishable from immediately disconnecting with the vast majority of the entire population.  

 

If Obama thinks religion doesn't matter, he should have a talk with Mitt Romney.  

If this point weren't already glaringly obvious, one would think President Bush's victory in 2004, wrought largely at the hands of religious voters, would clue in Obama to the importance of such a large political demographic.  This reality forces Obama to concede that religion plays some role in how voters vote at the very least.  

It's also worth mentioning that the article differentiates between beliefs and values.  Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to a secular media, but it seems fundamentally contradictory to mark the separation between the two given the particularly religious subset of the population in question.    

Likely, the whole interview underscores just how out of touch Obama really is with religious voters.  

Who's on First Redux

Having worked steadily into the night to produce the new Pax Plena layout- hopefully the final iteration for a while- I took this leisurely Saturday afternoon to check out a few videos on YouTube.

What I discovered was that often the best humor is the recycled kind.

Below is a video to the original Abbot and Costello performance of the comedy skit Who's on First.



The following is a video of the latest iteration of the skit featuring President Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao. The skit is titled Who is the leader of China. Hilarious.

Anna Nicole Smith & Happiness Lost

There have been many reactions within the past 24 hours to the death of Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith.  None have been more verbose or opaque than the editorial by Washington Post writer Philip Kennicott.

Far from offering any tangible idea or reflection on Smith's life, Kennicott likens Smith to courtesans of the mid-16th century lamenting her untimely death as no less than the expiration of "yet another sexual category that allowed for contradiction and ambiguity."

[Link]

Kennicott's missive is really less a commentary on Smith's passing than a few incongruent reflections on the institution of 'sexual alliances' in our present day.  His agenda isn't really to think about either the courtesans or Smith so much as it is to take advantage of Smith's passing to opine on a Kennicottian view of marriage.  

While amusing, his piece is only valid insofar as we can ascribe a particular category of sexual alliance to any one person.  It's true that Smith took the term trophy wife to an entirely new plane, but she was a far cry from a relational category unto herself.  

In so many ways, Smith's life was fairly typical of relational categories- a tragic figure seeking definition through relationships with others.  Kennicott argues that Smith's life is tragic because happily ever after is a fantasy.  But the real tragedy is that Smith maintained a pursuit of happiness in all of the wrong ways.  To quote our erstwhile Secretary of Defense, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.  Smith may never have found happiness, but this is not the same as saying happiness is a fantasy.  What Smith attempted repeatedly was to define herself on the terms of her latest companion rather than finding identity on her own.  Ultimately, the very ambiguity Kennicott champions is what led Smith's tragic fall- an identity as the faceless symbol of marital opportunism to use Kennicott's term.  From this, it would seem that Smith's life isn't typified so much by Proust as by Dostoyevsky whose characters are marked by internal struggle and the quest for self-definition.  

Of course, Kennicott has an argument at the ready against this proposition, and all propositions really.  He dismisses outright any contrary view as moral judgment.  I suppose this is only a slightly disingenuous defense for a philosophy major from Yale.  

If we choose to engage the question and reject this tautology, it becomes clear that Kennicott's essay is belied by its title.  In naming his piece "The Fantasy of Happily Ever After" Kennicott's point was that Smith eluded relational consistency and definition- she was a "sexual category that allowed for contradiction and ambiguity," as it were.  

If we agree with Kennicott and accept that both of these things were true of Smith then we must also tacitly accept that there is some standard or definition by which "happily ever after" can be defined- the very point Kennicott uses Smith's life to argue against.  This turns Kennicott's argument on its head as his rejection of happily ever after becomes its own moral absolute.  In turn, Kennicott couldn't have made a more persuasive argument against the 1228 words which followed than his own title.

To be fair, Kennicott does a much better job of making the socially unacceptable elements of Smith's life more palatable for readers.  There is no question her life was tragic.  It was also epic in some ways and eventually pitiable in others.  The lessons learned from her will to some extent be subjective, but the discussion her life engenders is one of absolutes.  

From Smith's life, we are forced to confront what informs our ideas about love, marriage, equality and gender differences.  She leaves us the searing observation that there are differences between men and women in our age of political correctness and equalitarianism.  She reminds us that happiness can be elusive.  Her experience prompts us to consider that life can be empty once you gain and have it all.  

Although, perhaps, cliché, Smith's life is also a commentary on its brevity.  We recall how eternal youth is fleeting and how sorrow can come at the least expected point.  Her headlines force us to consider our own mortality and whether we are taking the opportunity to make this moment a part of our life's best story.

News That Makes You Go Hmm...

In the spirit of the C&C Music Factory, I was perusing the morning headlines when I ran across two headlines which both led me to utter despair for our Nation's media outlets and ultimately made me go "hmm".  

The first headline from the New York Times blares:

Prewar Intelligence Unit at Pentagon Is Criticized

[ Link]

"What's that you say?  America's intelligence community has been criticized?  Faulty intelligence?  Man.  That's really big news."  What an insightful headline, say three years ago...

The second headline comes from the Washington Post via MSNBC:

White House on sidelines in 2008 contest

[Link ]  

Wow.  This is heady stuff.  "The President of the United States is sitting on the sidelines in advance of a major, nation-wide political campaign?  Why would the leader of the GOP do such a thing?  Ahh- something about the Constitution.  Oh.  He's term-limited.  I see..."  

The day the mainstream media becomes incisive is the day I become editor of the New York Times. 

 

Think enthymeme people.  Enthymeme.

For Pelosi, Bigger is Better

I've watched with growing amusement the rumpus over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's demands for the finest military aircraft available to cart her, her family, and favorite donors back and forth between San Francisco and Washington, DC. The embarrassing rift between Pelosi and the Defense Department came when Pelosi requested a larger aircraft to transport her to San Francisco than the frumpy private jet offered to former House Speaker Denny Hastert.

According to the Washington Times, the real issue isn't so much about basic transport as largess. The paper notes Pelosi requested an Air Force C-32 which is equipped with roughly 42 business class seats, a stateroom, private bed, various reception amenities and a galley crew. The plane costs American tax payers roughly $15,000 to run per hour. Per hour? Hmm. That amounts to eight hours round trip, say twice a week--you do the math. Former Speaker Hastert's plane, by comparison, had approximately 16 seats. Comfy. But not exactly posh. About what you would expect from a former wrestling coach.

[Link]

Anyway, critics contend that Pelosi is mistaken in even making the demand to say nothing of its extravagance. According to the Times, Congressional Code does not actually guarantee the Speaker nonstop service to San Francisco or anywhere else (perhaps she has it confused with American Airlines?).

In fact, it is apparently at the pleasure of the President that Pelosi has a plane at all. Sources report that Speaker Pelosi was offered the same accommodations as those afforded to Speaker Hastert and the same restrictions on who may fly with her on trips as those placed on Speaker Hastert.

[Link]

To Pelosi, however, her request is nothing more than a courageous stand against sexism. MSNBC writes:

Pelosi also took a stand on the issue as the first female speaker explaining, "I don't want any less opportunity than the male speakers have had when they have served here."

[Link]

In her mind, it seems, Pelosi is doing nothing more than standing up for women's rights. After all, aren't all women entitled to a posh military transport plane? I suppose I can't argue with her remarks. Pelosi's right. She wants nothing less and actually a whole lot more.

I would make a crack about high maintenance women but it almost seems too easy here.

Miss America Backs Obama

I normally give recognition to Oklahomans who do well. True to form, I'm proud to offer congrats to this year's Miss America Lauren Nelson who happens to be a native of Lawton, OK!

Nelson is the second consecutive Oklahoman to win the title (see why I need to move home?).

[Link]

In all fairness, I should probably add that while Miss America is certainly a pretty girl and a great Oklahoman, her political acumen leaves something to be desired.

When pressed on her political views, Miss America reportedly said she "likes Obama." Why an Oklahoman would endorse someone so liberal is beyond me. But then again, it's not necessarily a ringing endorsement.

 

Nelson was also said to have named Oklahoma's two senators when asked the name of her Congressman.
 

[Link]

For the record, Nelson's Congressman is Tom Cole from Oklahoma's 4th District.

Congressional Quarterly Profiles Mike Huckabee

Congressional Quarterly ran an interesting article on former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee earlier this afternoon. 

 

[Link]

 

To my surprise, it does a really even-handed job of pointing out some of the strengths and challenges Huckabee will face en route to the 2008 GOP Presidential Nomination. 

 

Author Rachel Kapochunas notes Huckabee's fundraising disadvantage as a key obstacle for team Huckabee to address while pointing out his Evangelical views as a genuine strength in the Republican primary.

 

In all, it doesn't really present any new information for Huckabee fans at present.  But it does somewhat help to address concerns that Huckabee isn't making headway in fundraising early.  It notes events slated for Iowa, NY and NH as key opportunities for the former governor to get his fundraising machine up and running.

Who Wanted to Visit Crawford, TX Anyway?

Only the AP would take a small Texas town of 705 people and say it's dour tourism is function of the President's poll numbers.

Call me crazy but mightn't it be the case that Crawford lacks tourism because Crawford lacks any discernible basis for attracting tourists?

[Link]

Song of the Week: Lay It Down by Jaci Velasquez

Having been back for a couple of weeks now, I've decided to take a cue from the venerable Joe Malchow over at Dartblog and introduce a song of the week series here at Pax Plena.

Rather than being consistently from one artist or genre, the Pax Plena song of the week will come from the one song which has most set the tenor for my week.  This week's selection comes from seven time Dove award winning artist Jaci Velasquez and is titled Lay It Down (Note: the series will not necessarily be religiously themed). 

We joke around a lot here and poke fun at liberals in both debate and jest.  But Velasquez's lyrics remind even the most ardent partisan that sometimes life becomes more than we would prefer to bear.  In those instances, the best course, as the song warmly commends, is to entrust the situation to the Author of life's plan and lay the burden down.  A dear friend once remarked, "when we can't, God can." That is the song's message in brief.  It has been a tremendous strength to me the past several weeks.

Beneath the lyrics you will find a YouTube link to a performance by Velasquez on an American religious programming station.  Please, ignore the commentary at the beginning and enjoy her rendition of the song.

Lay It Down

By Jaci Velasquez

I've been lookin' till my eyes are tired of lookin'
Listenin' till my ears are numb from listenin'
Prayin' till my knees are sore from kneelin' on the bedroom floor
I know that you know that my heart is achin'
I'm running out of tears and my will is breakin'
I don't think that I can carry the burden of it anymore
All of my hopes and my dreams and my best laid plans,
Are slowly slippin' through my folded hands

Chorus
So I'm gonna lay it down
I'm gonna learn to trust You now
What else can I do?
Cause everything I am depends on You
And if the sun don't come back up
I know Your love will be enough
I'm gonna let it be, I'm gonna let it go,
I'm gonna lay it down.

I've been walkin' through this world like I'm barely livin'
Buried in the doubt of this hole I've been diggin'
But You're pullin' me out
I'm finally breathin' in the open air
This room may be dark but I'm finally seein'
There's a new ray of hope, and now I'm believin'
That the past is past, and the future's beginning to look brighter now
Oh, cause all of my hopes and my dreams and my best laid plans
Are safe and secure when I place them in Your hands

So I'm gonna lay it down
I'm gonna learn to trust You now
Oh what else can I do,
Cause everything I am depends on You
And if the sun don't come back up
I know Your love will be enough
I'm gonna let it be, I'm gonna let it go,
I'm gonna lay it down
I'm gonna lay it down
I'm gonna lay it down

Are You In To Win?

The Washington Post heralded the news today that former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani is all but declared as a candidate for President in 2008.

Like Hillary Clinton last week, Giuliani is "in to win."

[ Link]

Meanwhile the AP reports, perhaps more tepidly, that Giuliani isn't quite in to win. According to the AP Giuliani needs to make a "unique contribution" to the crowded field of candidates before he's definitely "in."  So, really the AP is saying, "Giuliani is sort of in to win if, in fact, he is in."

[Link]

Given that Giuliani is a Pro-Choice, Pro Gay Marriage Republican, I'm not sure what he's waiting for. How much more unique he can get?  Then again, I suppose he could run as a pro-America Democrat. That would be fairly unique given the rhetoric out of the Senate in recent days.

But here's what gets me about the declaratory announcements of late. Who isn't in it to win?  Seriously.  Who announces, "Vote for me because I'm in it to lose"? 

Mark Steyn Weighs In on Global Warming

The venerable Mark Steyn takes the knife of logic to the global warming debate in his latest column for the Chicago Sun Times. 

 

His account, as always, is utterly hilarious and does a wonderful job of turning liberal foolishness on its head.  Here is an excerpt to whet your appetite: 

 

And, if you really don't like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium. A thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now. Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland and thought, "Wow! This land really is green! Who knew?"

 

[Link]

 

Given the wind chill in downtown Boston, it's days like these that make me wish Al Gore was right and Erik the Red was wrong.

Indianapolis Colts Win Super Bowl

Led by QB Peyton Manning, the Colts bested the Chicago Bears 29-17 to win Super Bowl XLI.

It wasn't exactly the 35-31 win I predicted, but given my track record I'll settle for picking the winning team. 

At any rate, a hearty congrats to all the rowdy fans celebrating in down in Indianapolis, IN!

[ Link]

Super Bowl Projections

I normally refrain from making predictions (about anything really after the disaster that was my mid-term election prognostication) but today I've decided to buck the trend and offer my forecast for tonight's Super Bowl.

I'm taking the Indianapolis Colts over the Chicago Bears 35-31- look for Manning to throw the game winner late in the 4th Quarter.

Just to keep things politically consistent, it seems the Secretary of State agrees with my prediction.

[Link]

For those concerned about my social life, don't worry, I will not be doing a live blog of the Super Bowl. 

Cowboy's Irvin Makes NFL Hall of Fame

It's been a while since I've offered a football comment. Earlier today, however, former Cowboy's great Michael Irvin was voted into the NFL Pro-Football Hall of Fame.

Irvin, a wide-receiver for Dallas, snagged 750 receptions and 65 TDs in his career with the Cowboys.

He was definitely one of my favorite Cowboys to watch growing up. Congrats to Michael Irvin!

[Link]

Mary Cheney's Baby

Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, responded to questions yesterday surrounding her plans to rear a child with her partner Heather Poe. In remarks made to Barnard College, Cheney asserted that her child was "a blessing from God," and "not a political statement."

As a Christian and a conservative, I disagree with her choice, but I can't argue with her remarks. All children are blessings and they shouldn't be the basis for political rancor.

In contrast to this point, Cheney's plans were brought to public light last week by CNN's Wolf Blitzer who repeatedly pressed Vice President Dick Cheney for reactions to his daughter's pregnancy. The Vice President responded by saying Blitzer was "over the line" and that he "fundamentally disagreed," with Blitzer's question.

In the end, Mary Cheney summed up the situation pretty well: "He was trying to get a rise out of my father."

The irony of Cheney's situation is that the issue of her pregnancy was forced by the very media organizations the gay and lesbian community so often embrace to advance their social agenda. Given Cheney's predicament, it apparently doesn't really matter to the media if you're gay or straight but if you're conservative or liberal.

[Link]

New Research on Coffee

In defense of my well-earned reputation for being somewhat of a coffee connoisseur, recent studies out now suggest that coffee is actually good for you.

 

I won't say I told you so.  But...

 

[Link]