Recession?

No. The economy grew last quarter by 0.6%.

The classic definition of a recession is an economic retraction sustained over one quarter.

[Link]

But with gas nearing $3.35 per gallon here in Tucson, it's hard to agree.

Dems Frustrated...Wrightly So...

There seems to be a bit of chaos swirling among my colleagues on the left. So much so that uber-liberal Joe Klein felt the need to resurrect an ancient Time Magazine cover to make his point all the more emphatic.

[Link]

What seems to be the trouble in the land of universal health care, arugula and Birkenstocks?

Simply this: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco continues to stick to Democrats and their heir-apparent Barack Obama like toilet paper on a shoe. The man will just not go away.

Though our high-minded friends on the left implore us to avoid the 'distractions', many of us on the right hope the reverend sticks around for a goodly while. So, does Byron York at least.

You know, maybe we should set up a Human 'Wright's' commission just to make sure he is protected? Or perhaps we ought to discuss what's Wright with America rather than what's wrong?

And you thought Jeremiah was just a bull frog...

Lest my liberals fans think my motivations are suspect, let me explain. The real reason I hope Rev. Wright sticks around is that my morning trip through Google Reader, Real Clear Politics and Netvibes opens up a new treasure trove of article titles that leave me in stitches. Yesterday we took a few minutes to be serious and rifle through the text of the good reverend's remarks. Today it seems appropriate to have some fun.

Below is a listing of some of the most deliciously awful headlines birthed by the Rev. Wright debacle. The buffet of titles makes one appreciate the wonderfully derelict sense of humor some of our journalists and pundits have. Enjoy!

Wright Still Wrong, by Kathleen Parker.

Where Wright Goes Wrong, by Eugene Robinson.

Wright does Obama wrong, by Clarence Page.

Wright's bases-loaded single in 11th lifts Mets over Pirates, by Howie Rumberg
(Oops. My mistake.)

Looking for Mr. Wright, by Jonah Goldberg

The Rev. Wright has a right to defend his reputation, by Ruben Navarrette

Wright Stuff, by Michael Weiss

No, It's Not All Wright, by Marc Sheppard

Making the Wright Enemy, by Noam Scheiber

Rev. Wrong, Seattle Times Editorial Board

Do the Wright Thing, by Christopher Beam

The wrongs inflicted by Wright, by Roger Simon

Why Wright is wrong for Obama, by Jonah Goldberg

Obama Divorces Wright, by Andrew Sullivan
(The humor is present in this one. You might have to dig deep. Then again, it may depend on your parents...)

And my personal favorite:

Still More Lamentations From Jeremiah, by Dana Milbank

The Gospel and Rev. Wright

Much ado has been made about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speech to the National Press Club down in Washington yesterday.

Today, Sen. Obama called his Pastor's remarks an 'outrage,' throwing his former minister under the same bus that hit his grandmother back in March.

[Link]

The punditocracy was quick to weigh-in. Washington Post columnist George Will mused that Rev. Wright's discussion of church orthodoxy creates questions for the Sen. Obama to answer given the Senator's 20 year affiliation with the radical congregation:

He (Rev. Wright)is a demagogue with whom Obama has had a voluntary 20-year relationship. It has involved, if not moral approval, certainly no serious disapproval. Wright also is an ongoing fountain of anti-American and, properly understood, anti-black rubbish. His speech yesterday demonstrated that he wants to be a central figure in this presidential campaign. He should be.

[Link]

Politically, I have no doubt that Mr. Will's perspective is a legitimate critique of the Obama Campaign and of Rev. Wright's comments in particular. But given my penchant for political analysis (some have called it a redundancy), I was curious to delve into Rev. Wright's comments a bit deeper to rifle through any theological implications that might have been overlooked in the days subsequent to the storm.

What follows are a few thoughts.

Rev. Wright’s main argument is two-fold: that the attack against his previous sermons was an attack against the Black Church and that the attack was an affront to liberation theology. Rev. Wright said:

It is all of those streams that make up this multilayered and rich tapestry of the black religious experience. And I stand before you to open up this two-day symposium with the hope that this most recent attack on the black church is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church.

[Link]

He then attempted to justify the above by readings from Isaiah 61 and Luke 4 arguing that the context of both speak to God's radical desire for change in a social order that has gone sour. It is not difficult to see that such ideas have fertile ground for germination after a quick read of the texts. But the inverse is equally as obscure. One could quite rationally conclude on reading the same passage that the change God spoke to was not social change at all, but about the change of a person's heart upon embrace of the Gospel. My Protestant inclinations would have me agree with the somewhat Calvinist thought (shudder) that society is a damn mess, quite literally, and that God would not be so naive as to seek a social change that God knows will not happen in his omniscience.

But let us give Wright the benefit of the doubt. Surely, no one would dispute God's desire for 'positive, meaningful and permanent change' as the Reverend notes? We can also, probably, agree that God does not look favorably upon notions of superiority. After all, we are all a damn mess but for Christ. Whither then the dispute? As with most disagreements, conflicts arise from the solutions proposed. In turn, the next portion of Rev. Wright's comments reach a vastly different conclusion than mainstream Protestantism- assuming there is one.

Whereas many believers might look inward to change, Rev. Wright makes the inference that, "God’s desire is for transformation, changed lives, changed minds, changed laws, changed social orders, and changed hearts in a changed world." He then lauds the efforts of a wide range of social activists from Jarena Lee to Malcom X. Thus, the change God seeks is not an inward one, but an outward activist transformation that subverts the present political order for want of the oppressed.

In conclusion, the Reverend adds:

To say “I am a Christian” is not enough. Why? Because the Christianity of the slaveholder is not the Christianity of the slave. The God to whom the slaveholders pray as they ride on the decks of the slave ship is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying as they ride beneath the decks on that slave ship.

How we are seeing God, our theology, is not the same. And what we both mean when we say “I am a Christian” is not the same thing. The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God’s children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us.

Reconciliation does not mean that blacks become whites or whites become blacks and Hispanics become Asian or that Asians become Europeans.

Reconciliation means we embrace our individual rich histories, all of them. We retain who we are as persons of different cultures, while acknowledging that those of other cultures are not superior or inferior to us. They are just different from us.

We root out any teaching of superiority, inferiority, hatred, or prejudice.

And we recognize for the first time in modern history in the West that the other who stands before us with a different color of skin, a different texture of hair, different music, different preaching styles, and different dance moves, that other is one of God’s children just as we are, no better, no worse, prone to error and in need of forgiveness, just as we are.

Only then will liberation, transformation, and reconciliation become realities and cease being ever elusive ideals.

It would be fighting sacred text with sacred text were I took look up the Biblical contradictions to Rev. Wright. With your indulgence I will omit this argument. You can take or leave my word that they exist. Who am I to impose one interpretation for want of another? Looking at the comments logically, however, I am not convinced that one follows from the other.

First, Rev. Wright draws a distinction between the God of the Slave and the God of the Owner as justification that a unity of Faith is not enough in accomplishing the social change sought. Then, he adds that there is a dichotomy of meaning when one professes faith. By Wright's estimation, the root of the issue is that there is a need for reconciliation that must precede any future of equality among the races.

Given the argument above, the textual basis initially relied upon by Rev. Wright in Luke and Isaiah breaks down. A pastor, lay leader or clergymen can make no appeal to any scared text and speak of reconciliation (or a message of Universality such as the Gospel) when the initial premise of the debate is that the God to whom we pray varies depending upon one’s race. The implication of this point is that there can be no message of unity or over-arching display of reconciliation absent a common source from whence cometh our help.

Next, Wright argues that we ought to view other races as neither inferior nor superior but different. Taken in isolation there is nothing inherently contradictory with this statement. In fact, it could well be a model of tolerance for all those concerned with race relations and pluralism. But taken in the context of Rev. Wright's other remarks, it remains a mystery how even such a benign recognition of difference can be accomplished. The reverend’s initial premise, after all, is that everyone has a different God. Given this construction, saying that we are different is no more insightful than saying that we are all humans. Of course we are. The matter in terms of reconciliation is not difference per se, but how we are different and whether we are willing to embrace one another. But in order for there to be a Spiritual mandate for reconciliation in a Christian world-view, we must proceed under the assumption that there is one God Whom we all share. To argue otherwise is to argue circuitously.

In my brief review of the Reverend's theology, I have merely looked at the capstone of Wright's comments. His most controversial remarks I will leave to my political betters. I suppose the only conclusion I can draw in proceeding along these lines is that there is at least one glaring point of truth believers can glean from Wright's comments (without dismissing them wholesale).

There remains much work to be done in the Body of Believers to bring about reconciliation among the races here in the United States.

But the solution for such reconciliation is not further divisiveness. It is not found in a theology that assumes in its departure point that we pray to different Gods. It is not found in a theology that believes our conception of God is different though we all profess the Blood of Christ as the sacrifice for our sins. Were this true reconciliation could never occur by definition because our prayers toward that end would merely be in the subjective rather than in the Universal.

In a shared, Christian world-view, reconciliation can only begin with the acknowledgment that there is but one God for both slave and free. Absent this profession, any discussion of reconciliation remains premature.

Eagles Sue T.O.

Some three years after the fact, the Philadelphia Eagles are upset at having lost bonus money on wide receiver Terrell Owens departure.

[Link]

The suit reminds me of a quote from Saint Paul which is applicable to many instances of the law and of law school specifically:

All things are lawful but not all things are expedient.

[Link]

A New Goal?

Perhaps...

[Link]

Ferguson Headlines White House Correspondents Dinner

Late Late Show host Craig Ferguson was the main event at President Bush's final White House Correspondent's Association Dinner last night.

I managed to catch parts of it last night in between studying. What struck me most is that unlike past hosts, Craig Ferguson was, well, funny. Videos from the event are posted below.

Even President Bush was in rare form last night. The Commander-in-Chief had the following zings for the Presidential candidates:

"I have to say I'm kind of surprised we don't have more presidential candidates here tonight. Like, any. Senator McCain's not here, he probably wanted to distance himself from me a little bit. You know, he's not alone. Jenna's moving out too. The two Democratic candidates aren't here either. Senator Clinton couldn't get to the building because of sniper fire, and Senator Obama's at church."

[Link]

Not a bad evening.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

New Obama Scandal Surfaces

At long last, the media's infatuation with Democrat Senator Barack Obama has finally worn off.

Today the Los Angeles Times ran a front-page story outlining yet another questionable business relationship between Sen. Obama and a major donor named Robert Blackwell Jr. for whom the Senator was a "consultant" in 2000.

The basic narrative from the L.A. Times story is below:

A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.

Killerspin specializes in table tennis, running tournaments nationwide and selling its own line of equipment and apparel and DVD recordings of the competitions. With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.

[Link]

I will say from the outset that it's hard to say whether or not this will become a major issue. But one would assume it adds teeth to the argument that Sen. Obama simply represents politics as usual. There is, after all, nothing especially hopeful about politicians doling out pork for wealthy friends and donors. One could also find grounds to question the Senator's judgment. Is subsidizing a ping-pong tournament really worth the shades of impropriety it has produced?

In terms of consequence, at the least, I expect that Senator Clinton's campaign will add this to the growing list of Sen. Obama's questionable relationships during his time in the Illinois Senate.

From Tony Rezko, to Rev. Wright, to Bill Ayers, now to Robert Blackwell Jr., Sen. Obama has demonstrated, through action, a stark willingness to advocate on behalf of his friends at the expense of the public trust (e.g. coffers).

I knew of Sen. Obama's history as a community organizer. Funny that I did not realize his community consisted mostly of personal business associates...

Congressman Cole Backs Cherokee Nation in Dispute

We discussed with some vigor last week house Democrats' plan to with hold Federal housing dollars to Indian tribes pending the outcome of litigation on the Cherokee Nation's membership dispute with some slave descendents formerly on tribal rolls.

Late last week, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman, Tom Cole, weighed-in and voiced strong support for the tribal communities affected by the Democrats' position:

This is legislating with a gun to the head of the Cherokee Nation," Cole, R-Okla., said this week, adding that lawmakers should allow the courts to settle the issue. "This is what got the Cherokees to Oklahoma in the first place...the misuse of congressional power.

[Link]

The Congressman raises an interesting point for those supporting a legislative fix. Why trust the institution that began the Trail of Tears with resolving the matter of who gets to be a tribal member? This is a bit like trusting an arsonist to hold the matches.

Of course, commonsense has never been a hallmark for those opposed to tribal sovereignty- particularly in this debate as comments from the past week indicate.

Nevertheless, it remains unclear to me what course the Senate will opt to follow. While that body has traditionally tempered extreme legislation, one can only guess as to what it will do with Democrats in charge.

Here's hoping that Oklahoma's Senators, Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, will follow Congressman Cole's lead.

Misunderstanding American Culture

Rarely in recent memory has a respected columnist gotten America so wrong. The latest column from Newsweek Magazine's Michael Hirsh amounts to little more than the bitter musings of a disaffected liberal, but its objective is clear: bait for the similarly disenchanted.

I suppose Barack Obama's message of hope just isn't getting through...

[Link]

Hirsh begins his fulmination by making the perfectly audacious claim that the 'south transformed the sensibility of the country' (What would Katharine Graham say if she knew the culture war was declared over by one of her columnists?). As evidence, Hirsh goes on to cite examples from American Idol, Barack Obama's lapel-pin fiasco, and the general existence of the State of Texas as proof that the South has corrupted the quaint Yankee liberalism of old.

In support of his claim, Hirsh offers the rather insightful commentary:

Bush is a Jacksonian pod person.

It comes as little surprise then, when Hirsh diagnoses the country's ills:

This thought, which has been recurring to me regularly over the years as I've watched the Southernization of our national politics at the hands of the GOP and its evangelical base, surfaced again when I read a New York Times story today.

In brief, Southerners, Republicans and evangelicals (oh my) have corrupted our beloved Nation. While this argument is fairly typical of Democrats and their ilk, at least we know the source of Hirsh's stroke of genius.

Anything with its genesis in the New York Times leaves plenty of room for skepticism. Just consider the source.

That said, the nature of the commentary makes me wonder whether Hirsh actually believes what he writes. Can he really justify the end of the culture wars through American Idol, HBO and the New York Times?

The implication of Hirsh's argument is that to the extent that any region has dominated National discourse it is the south. Yet, the financial capitol of the Nation, and America's largest centers of culture (L.A. and NYC) are located far and away from the nefarious influences attributed to 'southernization.'

This fact alone generates quite a different set of conclusions. Not only has the south not won the culture war, but it cannot win because the major institutions of cultural influence are firmly ensconced in liberal strongholds- environs which would not allow for such a victory.

Of course, reality is hardly the appropriate point of departure for discussing a columnist as Hirsh. It is much more fashionable to become taken in by HBO's Spring line-up, and American Idol. Really, from what better sources can we learn of America's culture and values? After all, watching television is much easier than actually visiting the people our elite would choose to castigate.

Then again, Hirsh's conclusions make some sense given the context. We would expect nothing less from the author's whose column is titled, "The World from Washington." By Hirsh's metric, Washington is not out of touch with America. America is out of touch with Washington.

Magazine for Snobs

We talk very little of the news from Moscow, Russia here on our slice of the web. But Reuters had a gem of a story yesterday that is well worth repeating.

Apparently, Russia's wealthy elite need an extra pat on the back to soothe that nation's economic woes. To meet the need, Moscow billionaire, MikHail Prokhorov, has designs to set up a magazine for Mother Russia's wealthy elite. The magazine is set to feature the lifestyles of Russia's wealthiest citizens showcasing the ways in which they flaunt their wealth.

The name of the publication?

"Snob Magazine."

[Link]

I have to respect Mikhail Prokhorov efforts, but it's too bad a magazine for snobs already exists.

It's called The Huffington Post.

Poor Dems...

They are tired.

[Link]

Song of the Week: Wrapped

With the crush of finals looming, blogging may be scarce. But certainly no more so than the Pax Plena Song of the week.

Regardless I see the error of my ways.

This week's song has made many a hot afternoon in Tucson pass with a hint of western swing. The lyrics tell a classic country tale of loss and unrequited love. Who knew country music could be so Petrarchan? You can almost hear the jukebox playing the tune at your local watering hole or in the radio of a dusty pick-up.

Then again, we would expect nothing less from the reigning king of country music George Strait.

Direct off his 2006 album "It Just Comes Natural", our song of the week Wrapped is Strait's 55th #1 hit on the country billboards. Please excuse the video but do enjoy! Lyrics follow after the jump.



Wrapped
by George Strait

I didn't have to turn my head whenever you walked in
The only one to let these chills roll down my skin
My heart beats faster, I hear your name
I feel my confidence slippin' away

Chorus:
I thought I was doin' fine
'Bout to get you off my mind
I see your face and then I'm
Wrapped around your pretty little finger again

It feels like ages since you laid down in my arms
I see no good reason but still I'm tangled in your charms
My God, you're smilin' and you catch my eye
My heart is pounding deep inside

Chorus

Ain't gonna let no man go down without a fight
'Cause my stalls and walls look better in the bright day light
My heart beats faster, I call your name
I feel my confidence slippin' away

Chorus

Your pretty little finger
Baby, I'm wrapped around your pretty little finger
Pretty little finger

Clinton Wins Big in PA

Turns out, Drudge had it right. Almost.

NY Sen. Hillary Clinton won tonight's PA primary by ten percentage points, 55% to 45% over IL Sen. Barack Obama. Drudge forecasted a win by 11% based on Clinton internal polling.

[Link]

The press was, of course, quick to belittle the Clinton win lambasting the New York Senator for taking the 'low road' to victory. The New York Times sagely concluded:

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

[Link]

Is this so? Does an open debate about ideas, legitimate questions surrounding Senator Obama's character, and his electability really amount to a low road for victory? Reasonable minds might conclude quite the opposite.

In fact, Pennsylvania Democrats, specifically, might conclude quite the opposite.

As a result of the late primary, the Keystone state boasted a record turnout unprecedented in recent years. The massive voter participation rate was lauded by the New York Times even this afternoon. With so many people engaged in the political process, the Times rationale for Sen. Clinton's withdrawal rings hollow.

On the other hand, it also shows the Times' cards. The press has been objectively harder on the New York Senator than it has on Sen. Obama. A slight dust up for Sen. Obama in the Democrat debate last week sent the media apoplectic. Tonight's 'encouragement' from the NYT to withdraw from the race indicates only that the liberal establishment would rather Sen. Clinton disappear.

While it is true that allegiances split among Democrats, it was Sen. Clinton who summarized her campaign rationale best according to ABC:

"But maybe I'm old fashioned about that. But you run a very competitive race at a considerable financial disadvantage. I think maybe the question ought to be why can't he close the deal?" she said. "Why can't he win a state like this one, if that is the way it turns out?"

It is a good question, indeed. Given Senator Obama's inability to close, Democrats are left to ponder whether their heir-apparent has the chops to win in November. Naturally, Senator Obama would have had a much better chance to win had he not insulted the majority of Pennsylvanians with his elitist remarks.

Democrats Assail Native American Tribal Sovereignty

House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), has become a notorious figure on these ramparts of late. Today, the Congressman is in the spotlight, not for his liberal shenanigans. Quite the contrary. His decision to withhold federal funding for Native American housing runs counter to most progressive notions, and could quite fairly be called racist.

Congressman Frank announced today that his committee will withhold all Native American housing funds, unless the Senate agrees to bar the Cherokee tribe of Oklahoma from receiving federal dollars in its version of the Indian Housing reauthorization bill.

[Link]

Immediately at issue, however, is the Cherokee tribe's recent decision to exclude the descendants of slaves from its tribal rolls. The controversy is, of course, much older dating all the way back to 1866.

A quick primer:

In 1866, Congress entered into a treaty with the Cherokee Nation granting the tribe formal, federal recognition as an Indian tribe. One of the caveats in the treaty allowed slave descendants to be incorporated into the Cherokee tribal rolls. This provision was codified in the tribal constitution of 1975, and reaffirmed by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court in 2006.

The present controversy came to a head when the Cherokee tribe exercised its right of tribal sovereignty in defining its citizenship (viz., membership). Such rights were granted to the tribes by Congress under the 1975 Indian Self Determination Act. In June 2007, Cherokee tribal members voted overwhelmingly to amend their tribal constitution, and rescind tribal membership for slave descendants.

After a brief litigious history, the amendment to the tribal constitution was granted approval by the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs on August 9th, 2007. Slave descents excluded by the constitutional amendment responded with a suit in federal court, and by applying political pressure on the Cherokees through the Congressional Black Caucus.

As my brief survey of Cherokee history indicates, the matter is complicated, and ignites the passions of race, and tolerance. Given the nuance required for a fair adjudication, it seems more than an incongruity that the Democrat Congress would exacerbate strained tribal housing needs for political posturing with the Congressional Black Caucus. Unfortunately, Congressman Frank has hitherto rejected any meetings with the Cherokee Nation to discuss the matter and has already pledged his full support toward the CBC.

Two levels of analysis are overlooked by the Democrats' position on the issue.

On a macro-level, the issues presented pit the Congressional policy of tribal sovereignty and self-determination, against a 19th Century Congressional fiat lumping slave descendants with Native Americans. Which should govern?

On a micro-level, the issues presented strike at the heart of current federal Native American policy and issues of identity: who gets to decide who is a full-fledged Native American? The Congress? Or the tribes?

Reasonable minds can disagree as to the answers, but most would concede that the issues are far too complicated to be resolved by Congress. Such questions of legal finesse are rightfully left to the judiciary, and not to Congressional committees having all the grace and dexterity of a sledgehammer. Unsurprisingly, there is a pending lawsuit on point.

In sum, the Democrat leaderships' efforts are misguided. Blind kowtowing to the powerful Congressional Black Caucus demonstrates to Native Americans that Democrats care less about equitable resolutions and more about defending their most powerful interest groups.

Upset Brewing in PA?

According to Drudge, Sen. Hillary Clinton's internal polls show her up 11 points over Sen. Barack Obama in advance of the Keystone State primary.

[Link]

Granted, internal polls have been wrong before. But should Sen. Clinton win big in PA, the victory will be a telltale sign of how much Sen. Obama's elitist comments have cost him.

Democrats Introduce Marijuana Legalization Bill

The story below was dwarfed for want of the Pope's visit last Thursday, but Democrat Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) did his party no favor by introducing legislation aimed at legalizing marijuana in the United States.

[Link]

According to the Bill summary on Thomas:

The bill would remove federal penalties at the federal level only:

(1) possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana and

(2) the not-for-profit transfer of one ounce (28.3 grams) of marijuana. Additionally, this legislation would provide for a civil penalty of $100 for the public use of marijuana.

[Link]

The summary is also quick to note that the bill would not legalize drug dealing, drug importation, or alter Marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug for federal classification purposes.

In essence, the legislation would simply gut extant federal laws of any penalties.

Of course, this allows Democrats to make an end run around the legalization issue by merely decriminalizing marijuana rather than legalizing it. The classic critique of decriminalization is that it provides the "worst of both worlds." Sale of the drug would remain illicit, but there would no longer be strong incentives to discourage drug use.

The bill will doubtless be heralded by the left for its 'courage.' In fact, it has already earned the endorsement of the presumptive Democrat nominee. Barack Obama voiced his support for the decriminalization marijuana in his 2004 Senate campaign.



Politically, the bill will garner the blind support of most liberals, college students and potheads. Not exactly a fearsome coalition. But the bill and Obama's support provide a unique opportunity for Republicans to exploit the far-left policies lurking behind an Obama Administration.

What makes the issue even more compelling for Republicans is that marijuana legalization is not a winning policy among center-right independents- a crucial constituency for both parties come November.

This is all the more reason for John McCain to make the bill and Obama's position an issue.

Tempering McCain

The Washington Post ran an interesting article today highlighting the infamous temper of Arizona Senator John McCain.

The story is a drop late for Republicans to consider now. The GOP race is decided. Nevertheless, it offers an interesting window into the habits and dealings of the presumptive GOP Nominee.

While the article could be damaging to Sen. McCain, perceptions, naturally, will depend upon already settled views of the Arizona Senator. The article admits:

One man's bulldozer is another's bully.

[Link]

I think, for the most part, McCain's temper is well-recorded. Aside from its novelty, the story provides little new information to voters. On the other hand, it should give the GOP establishment some pause as McCain selects a running mate.

Suffice it to say, someone opposite his temperament would help allay concerns.

Remembering Oklahoma City

The day has passed without fanfare in most of the country. Perhaps this is a reminder that even the worst of tragedies can settle from the American consciousness.

Nevertheless, some 13 years ago today, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was destroyed by a domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma City. 168 Americans lost their lives on April 19, 1995- including 19 children.

I was but a young 6th grader when the attack occurred. I distinctly remember returning from a field trip that day. We had no indication that anything was awry until we stopped for lunch at McDonalds just off of I-44 outside of Walters. The lone TV at the visitor's center showed coverage of the tragedy while travelers and workers alike crowded around the 12 inch screen to watch.

When we returned to the middle school, every channel was tuned to coverage of the attack. Classes went forward but no work was done. Some classmates cried while teachers maintained blank looks. The day was marked by an eerie calm.

It was the first time we would witness tragedy grind the Nation to a halt.

CNN Spins McCain Fundraiser

It took CNN nary a day to spin the fundraising Email sent out by Arizona Senator John McCain.

CNN ominously warns:

John McCain’s campaign sent supporters a fundraising e-mail Friday that claims Hamas approves of Democrat Barack Obama’s foreign policy vision, and is hoping for his victory this fall.

[Link]

And of course the Obama camp offered empty, faustian denials, and called on Senator McCain to repudiate the fundraiser.

But what both CNN and the Obama campaign miss is that the fundraiser actually has it right.

Barack Obama did receive the endorsement of Hamas earlier this week on WABC radio out of New York. Powerline has the clip. About 3:50 into the interview, Hamas Chief Political Adviser Ahmed Yousef endorses the Illinois Senator and offers Hamas' nod of approval toward Sen. Obama's foreign policy vision.

What puzzles me is the reaction from team Obama. Senator Obama has said repeatedly that he would opt to engage rather than isolate our enemies- dictators not excepted. They can come to tea too.

Given the Senator's position, an endorsement from a terrorist organization is merely part and parcel of the Obama foreign policy vision.

Sonics Move to OKC, NBA Approved

Some time between next season and 2010, Oklahoma City will have an NBA Basketball team. At their annual spring meeting, NBA owners gave final approval to the Seattle Super Sonics to move the franchise to Oklahoma City.

[Link]

Some sensible Seattle officials are already set to give up the ghost:

King County Councilman Pete von Reichbauer said local officials should accept that the current Sonics team is destined to leave. He said officials should stop demonizing Bennett and focus on negotiating a deal with the NBA to keep the Sonics name and get a future franchise."

Fair enough. The only tie now keeping the Sonics in Seattle is a legal dispute over the Sonics' lease of Key Arena. It's in the City of Seattle's better interest to protect its desire for a franchise and cut its losses. Regardless, the outcome will be decided in late June.

With the Sonics' airline tickets all but purchased, my hunch is that the lawsuit will either settle, or that the court will grant permission to break the lease with fees. Granting specific performance of the lease terms now, would simply insult the intelligence of fans and the city. Who wants to come see a team that will surely leave in two years?

Here's hoping the court will be reasonable and allow the team and the city to move-on.

Bush To Pope: Awesome Speech

Yesterday, we had links to remarks from Pope Benedict XVI.

Today, is a video making its way 'round the interweb of our President's comments to the Pope upon the speech's conclusion.

What embarrassing faux pas did the President make? He told the Vicar of Christ, simply:

"Awesome speech."



Normally, I am not one to begrudge folks a good chuckle. But comments like those found at the Huffington Post are far more about cheap shots, and personal invective than they are about substance.

Perhaps this is me being a bit hermeneutic, or maybe I am just being a spoiler, but the formal definition of the word "awesome" according to the infallible authority dictionary.com is the following:

awe·some
–adjective
1. inspiring awe: an awesome sight.
2. showing or characterized by awe.
3. Slang. very impressive: That new white convertible is totally awesome.

Inspiring awe. This is precisely what the Pope's speech did. Given the context, the President used the word in a perfectly appropriate manner.

Mocking the President, then, for correctly using a word given the occasion is little more than abject condescension. Simply, it speaks far more about those poking fun, than it does about Bush.

If anyone disagrees, I suggest they speak with the 40,000 fans who will pack Yankee Stadium on Sunday. I dare say, it promises to be a rather awesome event.

Stand Up with VP Cheney

Once again, I am a bit ashamed that I missed coverage of the annual Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner down in Washington. The speeches are ususally pretty funny so imagine my suprise to see that on tap for this year's event was Vice President Dick Cheney.

In case your curiosity is piqued, the text of the Vice President's speech can be found here:

[Link]

Not to play spoiler, but this was Cheney's best line:

Speaking of Vice President Gore, I'm sorry to relate that he's a little bit sore at me. He's convinced that, on global warming, I just don't get it. But lately with every passing day, the evidence has been catching my attention. I have no doubt, none at all, that we are in the midst of a global warming, or as I prefer to call it, spring. And I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but it's going to get a lot warmer before it gets cooler.

Not bad for a man many have called Darth Vader.

The YouTube video of the speech is below.

CNN: Martha Stewart's Dog Dies

I really wish I were joking. But, sadly, the title above is a directly quoted headline from CNN.

The "Story Highlights" note:

*Martha Stewart's dog Paw Paw dead of renal failure; he was almost 13

*Paw Paw made appearances on Stewart's TV show, in magazine

*Dog's full name was Kublai Khan Paw Paw Chow Chow Chow

[Link]

The Pope is in Washington, DC this week. Barack Obama is an elitist. President Bush announced a new climate change initiative. And oil reached $115 per barrel.

CNN's lead story? Paw Paw the dog died.

The Cable News Network has once again established itself as a paragon of journalistic resourcefulness. That it reports only the most newsworthy of stories goes without saying...

Pax Plena 10.0

As you can see, the latest incarnation of this site has not change much in terms of content. You can access our slice of the web the same way. Same Bat-time. Same Bat-channel.

But a few things are different:

First, you will notice a new search function in the upper left-hand corner. This handy feature opens up a window within the body of the blog text and displays results for your search not only from this site, but also from links that we have linked to from Pax Plena, as well as links from web in general should you wish to find more results. The search is easily dispatched by clicking the "x" in the screen when you are through. It remains completely anonymous.

Second, comments can now be made and read directly from the blogger comment window. There will no longer be an intermediate permalink window you have to click through before you get to the screen where you actually leave your remarks.

Third, I have posted a new category of options called "subscribe." For those of you who come here via Email subscription, it should be easier for you to subscribe to the RSS feed regardless of which blog/rss aggregator you use.

Finally, the archives can now be accessed through a hierarchy display feature at right. It will archive automatically each month and be separated by year. Some concerns relayed to me indicated that the drop-down menu was too cumbersome, so hopefully, the hierarchy will provide a welcomed change. The list can be adjusted simply by clicking the black arrows as necessary.

I think that about wraps up any initial explanations from this end. You should now only see about five posts per page since the font is a little bigger. There is also a new page advance feature at the bottom of each page so that you can access recent posts from within the same window.

As always, if anyone finds miscellaneous errors or false links, just let me know and I'll be glad to adjust accordingly. Feedback is always appreciated.

Pope B-16 Lands in Washington

With the all of the pomp and circumstance accorded a state visit, Pope Benedict the XVI began his tour of America today in Washington, DC.

In 2003 I had the privilege of attending a state reception for Philippine President Gloria Arroyo at the White House. For those who have not witnessed a state reception, spring in our Nation's Capital helps to make any state reception a truly a magnificent event in international relations. The link below takes you to NYC's WCBSTV, which had a raw video feed of today's reception.

[Link]

In his welcome of the Holy Father, President Bush called on Americans to reject the "dictatorship of relativism," and extended his friendship to the Vicar of Christ on behalf of the United States.

The Pope's remarks noted the awesome responsibility of freedom and the contribution of America in meeting humanitarian needs around the world.

The text of the Pope's speech can be found below.

[Link]

The Pope concluded his remarks by wishing God's blessing on America and the Marine honor guard closed the ceremony to the strains of the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Somehow, the lines,

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on."

seemed perfectly apt for a Papal visit.

Photo courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

Slate on Obama and 'Bitter-gate'

For the record, "bitter-gate" was not a phrase I coined. I'm not sure who gets the dubious honor.

But it is rather apt in describing the perfect storm besetting the Illinois Senator. I had assumed by now the story about Sen. Obama's comments over the weekend would die given the media's salivation over his campaign (of course, his supporters will invariably blame the media for perpetuating the story- which only goes to show that the press giveth and the press taketh away).

Interestingly, this has not been the case. The story remains alive and well.

Exhibit A comes from George Will's column in the Washington Post. Will explains Sen. Obama's comments as the latest incarnation of liberalism:

By so speaking, Obama does fulfill liberalism's transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them.

[Link]

Agreed.

Slate Magazine summarizes:

Obama is offering voters his talent for empathy. But if he's going to bring the country together, he can't go pissing off huge swathes of it.

[Link]

Slate gets it right. To win the Democrat nomination, Obama needed to close the gap with the very heartland voters he 'pissed off.' Sure it will be written off as a political 'distraction' from the Obama camp. In fact, it already has. But the bottom line is that team Obama threw Sen. Clinton a Hail Mary when it could have delivered the knockout blow.

Now, all bets are off and John McCain can watch the Democrats implode with a grin.

Scrutinizing McCain on Faith

The CNN political desk has an interesting analysis of GOP Nominee Sen. John McCain's faith. The story examines the Senator's relative silence on the subject of religion as compared with his newly religious, Democrat rivals.

[Link]

The article takes a cheap shot at McCain's age, of course, but it makes the more intelligent point that McCain still has a ways to go before he assuages the concerns of evangelical Christians in the GOP base.

Of course, the AP ran a hit piece arguing just the opposite. The AP claimed that McCain is actually much more conservative on social issue than people perceive and that such positions could hurt him among independents.

While Mac has received mixed reviews among conservatives for his positions on immigration and torture, it is true that he voted against extending habeas corpus to terrorists held at Gitmo, and for the ban on partial-birth abortion. Regarding potential McCain judicial appointments, the Senator has voted for some of the most conservative justices on the court, including Justice Thomas.

My personal forecast is that given the Dems running, Sen. McCain will probably convince enough of the party base to turn-out on grounds that he is the least of evils compared with the far-left policies of either Hillary or Obama.

Given his record, Sen. McCain can legitimately make the case that he is a true conservative by touting some of the bona fides noted above.

To the extent that he can speak to his faith on the trail, it will be to his benefit. After all, Mac persuaded the late Rev. Jerry Falwell after labeling him an 'agent of intolerance' in 2000.

Stranger things have happened.

More Obama Fallout

Let's put the Obama flap mildly: Sen. Obama has seen better weekends.

The Politico weighed-in with 12 reasons why the Senator's comments hurt him. Here are my favorites:

3. Some people actually use guns to hunt — not to compensate for a salary that’s less than a U.S. senator’s.

4. Some people cling to religion not because they are bitter but because they believe it, and because faith in God gives them purpose and comfort.

5. Some hard-working Americans find it insulting when rich elites explain away things dear to their hearts as desperation. It would be like a white politician telling blacks they cling to charismatic churches to compensate for their plight. And it vindicates centrist Democrats who have been arguing for a decade that their party has allowed itself to look culturally out of touch with the American mainstream.

[Link]

Comments three and four make the case for five, and paint Obama as an out of touch liberal. My money says he remarks of itself will not hurt Obama among his core supporters (viz., out of touch, elitist liberals), but it will almost certainly haunt him should he snag the nomination.

Sen. Obama Slams Rural Voters

The story below is a tad cold now, but if you are a rural voter, regardless of your political party, here is an astoundingly poignant reason not to vote for Barack Obama.

Then again, according to the Senator, you are probably too bitter and racist to care.

[Link]

I won't quote the Senator at length (you have to see to believe), but what makes the comment striking is the unapologetic tenor, and matter-of-fact way in which Sen. Obama sits in scorn on rural America. The senator is roundly lauded for his skills of oration. If the press is to be consistent, it is left only to conclude that Sen. Obama meant exactly what he said: rural voters are bitter, full of antipathy and nurse religion as the opiate of the masses.

We might expect such conclusions from an academic elitist. We would hardly expect such remarks to come from a potential leader of the Free World.

Comments like these reinforce the late William F. Buckley's famous quip: "I'd rather be governed by the first thousand names in the Boston telephone directory, than by the thousand members of the Harvard faculty."

As a concerned citizen, my sense is that it is better Americans learn this of Sen. Obama sooner rather than later. Buyers remorse is easier to stomach in April than it is in November.

As a Republican, I wish Sen. Obama all the best! From Rev. Wright, to tea with Ahmadinejad, to Mrs. Obama's newly acquired pride in her country, to bitter Pennsylvanians, Barack Obama is the gift that keeps on giving.

If conservatives swift-boated John Kerry in 2004 on one issue, think what can be done to Obama with many.

I can see the ads now...

New Columns and The New York Times

Below is yet more proof that anyone can snag a column at the New York Times.

[Link]

Hillary's Military Gaffe

I would like to think Sen. Clinton's comments today were a gaffe.

Sadly, I rather believe they accurately reflect the temperament of her party.

When pressed on whether she would act on the advice of military commanders in Iraq as President, Sen. Clinton responded that she would carry out her foreign policy regardless.

Military advice be damned:

At a news conference here, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would keep to her promises on withdrawing troops, even if she is advised differently by military leaders on the ground.

“Well, let me just describe to you the way our system works,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Policy is set by the civilian leadership. The president of the United States sets the policy. Our military, and thankfully so, carries out the policy that is set. You ask the military for their best advice about how to implement the policy that you have set.”

[Link]

Oddly, it is just this perception of impudence toward the military that seems to plague the Democrat party at the polls. From Obama's will to fete terrorists, to Hillary's scorn of the armed forces above, many Americans are left wondering whose side the Democrats are really on.

Even liberal bloggers who are intellectually honest recognize the incongruity and chalk it up to Democrats being soft on foreign policy. For once, I am not inclined to disagree.

Such consensus makes Sen. Clinton's position all the more puzzling.

Sports Collapses

Sports Illustrated released a ranking of the most memorable collapses in sports history.

[Link]

Notably absent among the listing is the 2007-2008 New England Patriots who went 18-1 and failed to win the Super Bowl.

The Plight of Burmese Migrants

This is why the Western World should take a greater interest in Burma. Desperate for work, some 54 migrants suffocated in a freezer trailer bound for Thailand.

[Link]

Beside human rights concerns, that the nation is poised to adopt a new constitution next month makes our attention all the more needful.

Burma has been without a constitution since 1988.

Dallas Mavs Owner Weighs Sonics Move to OKC

The story below has circulated for a few months, but with a trial date finally set (June 16, 2008) and NBA bigwigs descending on Okie City, it looks as if the Sooner State will finally get its NBA franchise.

Litigation commenced in Seattle to determine whether the Sonics can terminate their lease with Key Arena. But the dispositive issue will come from outside the courtroom at the NBA Board of Governors Meeting set for the 17th and 18th of this month.

At this meeting, NBA owners will give their final nod to the Sonics proposed relocation to OKC. If the plan is approved by the NBA, the on-going litigation will be a mere formality.

The present suit is aimed only at deciding whether the Sonics can break their lease in 2008, or if the City of Seattle gets specific performance of the lease and the team must remain in Key Arena until 2010.

Simply put, should the NBA give its approval, the issue will not be if the Sonics can leave but when.

[Link]

Given the hullabaloo, it comse as little surprise that NBA owners would begin voicing their opinions. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban took such liberties earlier today in an interview with the Associated Press.

Cuban's take:

"I think that's bad for the league," Cuban said. "Because there's not enough TV weight. There's not enough demand from a TV perspective from outside that little area. It's nice, but when you've got San Antonio versus Dallas, which you'd think is a great marquee matchup, no one outside our area (cares). That's bad. You don't expand the market at all."

[Link]

I suppose it is a fair point, but Cuban's view seems intellectually dishonest.

Oklahoma City is no Dallas, but I cannot help wondering if Cuban's real hang-up is the three hour distance between the cities and whether a new team will affect his bottom line (it will).

McCain's Politics

Slate Magazine ran an interesting article on its site this morning discussing the political character of GOP Presidential Nominee, Sen. John McCain.

The story takes readers on a trip through the dusty archives at the New York Times, highlighting McCain's relationship with former Arizona Congressman Morris Udall (a Democrat). Udall is the founder of the Morris K. Udall Foundation which provides a number of prestigious internships to Native Americans.

[Link]

According to Slate, McCain is remarkable for his ability to overlook partisan divides and befriend those across the aisle. And that this quality is an exception and not the rule says far more about Washington than it does about McCain.

Agreed.

We debated the use of torture in one of my classes yesterday. Thinking about the partisan divide in that discussion, as opposed to the relationship between McCain and Udall, really underscores how far afield we have come.

I am, of course, far too cynical to think that partisan divides can be bridged so simply. But to the extent that differences can be differences rather than invective, America can only benefit.

Understanding The Dems on Iraq

With all eyes today on Gen. David Petraeus, it has proven difficult to apprehend the Democrats consistent shrill in the face of clear gains.

To provide sense to the madness, the estimable Rich Lowry of the National Review offered the following vignette for any conservative still boggled by the Democrats' stance on Iraq:

"Even in the age of instant communication, it takes three months or more for developments in Iraq to have any impact on the U.S. political debate. The war is like a distant star whose light we only see well after the fact.

So Democrats still warn that we'll never be able to police a sectarian civil war, even after violence has significantly declined in Iraq -- because we have successfully policed a sectarian civil war."

[Link]

You know, Spike TV has been showing the Star Wars episodes recently. Having seen a couple, and after reading Lowry's clarification, the Democrats' position make sense.

Darth Nancy jokes aside, Democrats view Iraq only in light years...

Obama: Babies = Punishment

As the Washington Times notes, the gaffe provides an important insight into Sen. Obama's worldview.

[Link]

The article is an important read for evangelicals weighing a vote for the Illinois Senator.

Pandemic on the Brink? H5N1 Transmission Confirmed

The story below mad surprisingly little news yesterday. Nevertheless, Chinese health officials confirmed that a December flu strain was, in fact, a human-to-human transmission of avian influenza.

[Link]

According to officials, such transmissions have occurred and been recorded some 12 times in Asian countries. But this time the host, a 24-year-old man, died not long after transmitting the strain to his father.

Experts indicate, however, that the threat of a pandemic remains unlikely. The virus has yet to mutate into an easily transmissible strain.

The father's treatment of H5N1 with trial vaccines proved successful.

Photo courtesy of National Geographic.

Daily Kos: Dem Fighting a Good Thing

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas argues in Newsweek that the Democrat bickering between Clinton and Obama is a good thing for the Party.

I could not agree more.

[Link]

In fact, it will be a great thing for America if the Dems keep it up until, oh, November.

The Effects of Blogging

You have no idea what your humble blogger goes through...

[Link]

Of course, I'm also not earning millions in ad revenue either.

Any syndicated print shops that would like to change this just let me know.

McCain's Secret Service Details

The story above hit the wires yesterday but its publication still puzzles me. The Secret Service in testimony before Congress revealed in an open hearing that GOP nominee John McCain has no Secret Service protection.

[Link]

A couple of points.

For once, I cannot blame the press for irresponsibly breaking the story. I doubt word of McCain's protection would have circulated at all from the press given their myopic focus on destroying Clinton for want of Obama. Instead, the dubious honor goes to the Secret Service chiefs testifying before Congress.

Let's think this through:

The one agency utterly responsible for the protection of our public officials (and counterfeiting ) is the Secret Service. They understand the threats facing our elected leaders. They know how to deal with most security exigencies, foreign and domestic, to ensure the safety of our officials. And they understand the paramount need for secrecy in protecting our leaders.

Isn't it a bit of an incongruity, then, that this agency would testify in an open forum that the GOP nominee has no Secret Service protection?

I will concede that the testimony was permissible (legal, non-malicious, etc...). Most things are. But is it wise?

God forbid that some anarchist vigilante should act on the information- information that has now been broadcast across the Nation to all of the other anarchist vigilantes thanks to, you guessed it, the Secret Service.

I suppose I cannot blame the agency simply for testifying before Congress. But I do question their judgment in answering such questions in a public setting.

Even in Washington, perhaps especially in Washington, there is such a thing as TMI.

Update: As a result of the snafu, Sen. McCain has announced that he will accept Secret Service protection.

[Link]

Sally Kern Update

It has been a few weeks since Sally Kern graced our pages here at Pax Plena. I had actually expected the story to die and slip away from the headlines. Enter my surprise this afternoon on seeing the AP's major wire story about the Oklahoma City Representative.

Far from being castigated by her electorate, apparently more than 1,000 supporters showed up at a rally for Kern in her district.

Of her comments, Kern explained:

"You cannot separate your faith from life."

[Link]

The whole situation raises obvious questions for me about religious tolerance and free speech vis-a-vis my Fitna post from earlier this week. But I will save those for another day.

Song of the Week: I Wish You'd Stay

The Pax Plena song of the comes to you, admittedly, a bit late. I blame it on the irregularity of selecting songs from my iTunes library. While the process yields variety, it takes a while before one song strikes me with an unexpected trip down memory lane. Only those eliciting such reactions make the cut.

Nevertheless, a few weeks ago we featured Sinatra's In the Wee Small Hours of the Morning and billed it as a gospel hymn to romance. If Sinatra is the gold standard of his milieu, then Brad Paisley's I Wish You'd Stay is its country equivalent.

Released in 2001 on Paisley's second country album, I Wish You'd Stay tells the story of romance gone wrong. It speaks artfully to the complex emotions that seem to go hand in hand with unrequited love.

What makes it a powerful piece despite its traditional country pastiche is the universality of emotion conveyed in the lyrics. Simply put, we've all been there before. Love slips away. Nights grow cold. We want a mulligan. But it is not to be. The vividness of feeling is captured by Paisley's singing style and aptly demonstrates this complexity through verse. And in so doing, Paisley creates a song that all but says what we would like to say, if only we could find the strength.

Naturally, the song has some special meaning to yours truly. Specific references are made to Sallisaw, Oklahoma for the faithful reading back home. References also abound to Tennessee- a state not without some faint impression in my lost annals of mind. But the application could well be made by anyone who has ever loved and lost.

So, to those burning the midnight oils, traveling the information superhighway, and to those lost in wistful memories of what might have been, please enjoy the Pax Plena song of the week, I Wish You'd Stay.

The song appears below courtesy of Songza.com for your immediate listening gratification. For those interested, the video lacked an embedding function (blast you BMG Records), but it can be seen here.



I Wish You'd Stay

I talked to my sister in Memphis
And I told her you were movin' to town
Here's her number
She said she'd be glad to show you around
I left a map on your front seat
Just in case you lose your way
But don't worry, once you reach Sallisaw
It's all interstate

I know you need to go
But before you do I want you to know, that I

Wish you the best
And I wish you nothing less
Than every thing you've ever dreamed of
And I hope that you find love along the way
But most of all
I wish you'd stay

I figure right about sundown
You'll be in West Tennessee
And by then
Maybe I'll understand why you had to leave

I know that you've done some changin'
And I know there's no changin' your mind
And yes I know
We've been through this a thousand times

I'm sorry for still holdin' on
I'll try to let go and I'll try to be strong, and I'll

Wish you the best
And I wish you nothing less
Than every thing you've ever dreamed of
And I hope that you find love along the way
But most of all
I wish you'd stay

Yeah, everything you've ever dreamed of
And I hope that you'll find love along the way
But most of all
I wish you'd stay
I wish you'd stay

The Amazing Hillary Clinton

For those of you who love Hillary Rodham Clinton as much as I do, this site's for you.


[Link]


Just click the blue link to generate a new description.


And remember, Hillary knows what you did last summer.

McCain Narrows Veep Search

According to CNN's Political Ticker, GOP Nominee John McCain has narrowed his VP selection to twenty names.

Yep. Twenty names.

[Link]

You know, if this is Big Mac's short list, I would hate to see the long one.

House Democrat Loses Wiretapping Case

Sadly, I have done a bit of research in recent days on the Federal Wiretapping Act (don't ask). Today's ruling from the D.C. Court of Appeals makes my research only too real.

The case is decades-long according to the AP. Nevertheless, it seems after many a year, Democrat Congressman Jim McDermott will finally have to pay up.

Last December McDermott lost his bitter legal feud over a telephone conversation he recorded between then House Speaker Newt Gingrich and now House Minority Leader John Boehner. Today damage awards were handed down by the court.

[Link]

In awarding damages, the court found it especially egregious that McDermott leaked the recording of the conversation to the press while serving on the House ethics committee. His party notwithstanding, the Court seemed to expect Ethics Committee members to have, well, ethics. It is a tall order for sure given the present Majority.

As a result of his infraction, Rep. McDermott, a Seattle Democrat, will be forced to pay Boehner's $1.05 million in legal fees and costs, besides some $40K in interest. McDermott, will also be held accountable for some $60K in damages and his personal legal fees totaling more than $600,000.

The holding of the case, for those interested, can be found here: Boehner v. McDermott, 484 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2007).