The Politico is reporting that former MA Gov. Mitt Romney has risen to the top of Sen. McCain's VP short list.
Why? Perhaps it is Mitt's ability to reform the party? Or the mass enthusiasm he generates for the ticket? Perhaps it's his stellar ability to reign in the evangelical base?
For none of these reasons, actually. But Gov. Romney can raise $50 Million in 60 days.
Assuming the report is true, it would seem that the GOP VP spot is all about the money.
Suffice it to say, selecting Mitt Romney for Vice-President would be a powerful abrogation of Sen. McCain's hard-earned, maverick mantle. Romney brings nothing else to the ticket (besides $) and is simply business as usual.
CNN ran an interesting article highlighting projected voting trends among young, evangelical Christians. To typify young evangelicals, the article describes an obviously left of center group that is driving a vegetable oil-powered bus, and touting the Lord Jesus Himself for President.
In an interview with the group's leader, the organization's efforts were explained as follows:
After the speech in an interview with CNN, Claiborne said, "This is not about going left or right, this is about going deeper and trying to understand together. Rather than endorse candidates, we ask them to endorse what is at the heart of Jesus and that is the poor or the peacemakers and when we see that then we'll get behind them."
While I'm not convinced that Christ would have us choose between the poor 'or' the peacemakers, I am obliged to support the rights of most groups to raise political awareness, and I do- even here.
Yet, it occurs to me that this organization, misses the point in a very fundamental way. Jesus would never seek elected office. The matter is not about what Jesus would do politically as the group implies. The matter is about how one's faith informs one's policy.
It is fair to say that Jesus had a heart for the poor. He clearly did. But the policy question to consider is the manner in which we should address the problem. When this question is considered, the answers and prescriptions vary widely.
Specifically, would the Lord opt to provide the indigent with an equality of economic opportunity or would he strive for abject economic equality regardless of its fiscal consequences? In a governmental context, no one is leading the coalition to increase the number of poor people. But great rifts exist when one seeks to address extant poverty in the United States.
Similarly, no one disputes that Jesus was the Prince of Peace or that war is a terrible thing. But meaningful disagreements exist as to how America should handle threats and potential threats to her National security. Would Jesus rather see Israel destroyed by a nuclear armed Iran, or would Jesus advocate a preemptive strike by Israel's closest ally? Would Jesus view preemptive war as a reasonable security measure, or would the Son of God dismiss it as imperial warmongering? Reasonable minds can disagree.
While I applaud efforts to engage people of faith politically, my point is that caution should be exercised where obvious answers are assumed to ambiguous questions. Caution need not forestall discussion, but it should cause us to approach the exploration with humility.
In an age where people and artists continually reinvent themselves, I have come to appreciate consistency. Going on nearly four decades in country music, George Strait is a bastion of tradition in a sea of ever changing artists. Last weekend I stumbled across George Strait's new Troubadour album and was pleased to see that the King of Country still has it.
With one song from the new album already atop the country billboards, Strait's stipped-down version of country music has made him the stuff of legend. The most obvious example of this nearly minimalist style is found in the first single on the album eponymously titled Troubadour. The song is at points both wistful and self-affirming. It's unique simplicity earns it the title, Pax Plena Song of the Week.
Country music fans will appreciate that the songs on the entire album are pure George Strait. Far from having the rock flourishes of a Keith Urban, George Strait's brand of country music reminds one of driving dusty roads in West Texas. With Strait, the generic trappings of Nashville are displaced for want of Frio County, Texas. The music is real.
In terms of sound, the drive of the album is obviously Strait's voice, but its instrumentation is guided by the pure strum of an acoustic guitar, and the crying fiddle that personifies country music. A small trap set keeps beat, but its role in the song is far subordinate to the elements mentioned above.
But what makes Troubadour stand out from an impressive gallery of songs on the album is its lyrics. The words of the song force one to consider self-definition. Because Strait's music style, already has quite the established definition, the challenge in the lyrics comes with authority.
For instance, in the chorus, the singer muses that even as old age approaches some goals remain the same (viz., still trying to make a name), though they have now been tempered by a profound self-assurance (viz., Knowing nothing's gonna change what I am). This simple introspection strikes at the heart of the very negotiation made between ambition and definition. For those who resolve the conflict, there is no need to fret comparisons with others because we are who we are at the end of the day. Take it or leave it. I would submit that most folks can relate to the questions posed. The problems the song presents are just as relevant in Pearsall, TX as they are in New York City.
George Strait reminds us that in some ways we are all troubadours. Our songs are simply different.
Please enjoy the Pax Plena Song of the Week, Troubadour in the video below. Lyrics follow after the jump.
Troubadour By George Strait
I still feel 25, most of the time. I still raise a little cain with the boys. Honky tonk and pretty woman. Lord I'm still right there with them. Singing above the crowd and the noise.
(Chorus) Sometimes I feel like Jesse James, Still trying to make a name. Knowing nothings gonna change what I am. I was a young troubadour, when I rode in on a song. and I'll be an old troubadour, when I'm gone.
Well, The truth about a mirror, It's that a damn old mirrow. Don't really tell the whole truth, It don't show what's deep inside. Oh read between the lines, it's really no reflection of my youth.
(Repeat Chorus)
I was a young troubadour, when I rode in on a song. and I'll be an old troubadour, when I'm gone. I'll be an old troubadour, when I'm gone.
I cannot in good conscience say that I appreciate David Addington, the Vice-President's Chief of Staff. I know very little about the man.
But I can say, without reservation, that I appreciate the carnival he brought to Capitol Hill yesterday.
Here is a brief sample from the Washington Post's Dana Millbank:
He had the grace of Gollum as he quarreled with his questioners. In response to one of the chairman's questions, he neither looked up nor spoke before finishing a note he was writing to himself.
When Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz(D-Fla.) questioned his failure to remember conversations about interrogation techniques, he only looked at her and asked: "Is there a question pending, ma'am?"
Finally, at the end of the hearing, Addington was asked whether he would meet privately to discuss classified matters. "You have my number," he said. "If you issue a subpoena, we'll go through this again."
Supposedly, Addington is 'Cheney's Cheney.' I hope this means that the Vice-President would similarly refuse to suffer fools. Or at least refuse to answer the Democrats' silly questions.
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson's radio address yesterday took Democrat Presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, to task for conflating Jewish law with the Gospel.
According to the AP, the brouhaha began when Sen. Obama made remarks early in the campaign about faith and policy to liberal evangelical Christians:
"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the. United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.
In response, Dr. Dobson aired his hermeneutical grievances with the Senator on his weekly radio address. The AP report notes that Dr. Dobson took issue with the Senator's equation of Old Testament laws with Christ's Sermon on the Mount:
Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.
""Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.
On a base level, it strikes me as disingenuous that Sen. Obama would make such a coarse comparison between the two scriptures. Sen. Obama is a Harvard trained lawyer. From his legal education, it should be obvious that texts generally are parsed with considerable nuance.
Rather than treat the Bible with such consideration, Sen. Obama seems to have taken the rather glib view that the Old Testament is as applicable to Christians as the words of Christ Himself.
Quite the contrary, the Gospel is premised upon a firm rejection of legalism as a means of attaining salvation. Legalism in this context is defined as the strict adherance to religious law in order to gain God's favor and earn Salvation. By contrast, many Christians adhere to a form of antinomianism holding that the traditions of Jewish law do not bind them because of Christ's sacrifice in providing Salvation to those who believe.
Assuming the AP quoted Sen. Obama's remarks correctly, Dr. Dobson's claims of distortion by Sen. Obama are well founded. Many Christians accept that the Bible in its totality is God's word, but most believers do not hold the view that the Jewish laws of Leviticus should guide contemporary morality- let alone public policy. For the record, this is also the position of many Jews as well.
The issue, then, is not that "folks haven't been reading their Bibles.". The issue is that theology is more complex than Sen. Obama made it out to be. Ironically, this was the very point, Sen. Obama was attempting to make: religion is complex.
Whether Sen. Obama's distortion was deliberate as Dr. Dobson indicated is up for debate. But the remarks were, indeed, an unfortunate conflation that undercuts Sen. Obama's overtures toward evangelicals.
Couldn't the smart folks at Winning the Future have come up with something (viz., anything) better than 'Energy Independence Day?' This slogan utterly fails the straight-face test on all counts.
I have read many an AP wire story. None have been more myopic, slanted, and overblown than the AP story yesterday by Alan Fram and Eileen Putman. On my initial read, I thought that the Fram/Putman piece was parody. A bit of intelligent satire written by a couple of plucky journalists. Sadly, I was mistaken. What read as a good-humored, satirical piece instead revealed a truly self-loathing perspective that the intrepid writers wish to impose upon the American people.
Titled Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control, the story's authors easily cross the line of journalism, and enter the realm of opinion by their headline alone. If ever the AP was in need of a good copy editor, it is now.
Unfortunately, the Fram/Putman analysis of the Nation offers a similarly misguided assessment. After underscoring a litany of problems besetting the Nation, the duo concludes:
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.
While a clear majority of Americans believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction, it is not the case that the can-do spirit of America is under assault as a result (although the AP seems to prefer that it were). Times may be dispiriting, but this is not to say that Americans are impotent to bring about the changes necessary in order to right our course. Other than the list of challenges, the authors offer no evidence that the alleged"dour powerlessness" is eroding Americans' confidence in their ability to persevere.
In fact, I dare say that the "dour powerlessness" which the authors conjure is little more than hyperbole. Far from being powerless, Americans possess a unique freedom in all the world that actually empowers us to make any requisite adjustments in order to set aright both the ship of self and the ship of state. If you don't like the political clime, then vote for the other guy. If you are unhappy with your life's lot, then pursue a new course toward happiness. This is your unalienable right.
While the article makes this unfortunate, 'can-not' assumption, its tacit endorsement of Sen. Obama offers another troubling challenge to its journalistic integrity:
Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House.
This period has seen intense interest in the presidential primaries, especially the Democrats' five-month duel between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Records were shattered by voters showing up at polling places, yearning for a voice in who will next guide the country as it confronts the uncontrollable.
It does not surprise me that the article is fawning. Even Sen. Clinton has complained that the press' support of Sen. Obama has drunkenly walked the line of impropriety. The media is in the tank for Sen. Obama. This is common knowledge. It surprises no one.
But what is surprising is the lengths to which the AP has gone to prime individuals of the need for 'change in the party controlling the White House.' The article goes beyond politics and encourages Americans toward despair. This point is made all the more emphatic in the article's conclusion:
Why the vulnerability? After all, this is the 21st century, not a more primitive past when little in life was assured. Surely people know how to fix problems now.
Maybe. And maybe this is what the 21st century will be about — a great unraveling of some things long taken for granted.
Perhaps in the era of post-modern journalism it is cute to glibly dismiss our National ability to solve problems for want of embracing the social unraveling that comes with the normal course of things going to hell.
But this is the antithesis of America's essence.
People surely know how to fix problems because this is the crux of American governance: we are governed by our own consent because "we the people" know best how to address the people's problems. When our Nation was founded some 231 years ago, "we the people" was not a trite slogan. "We the people" was the premise. Specifically, We the people in order to...[insert problem Fram/Putman think we can't solve here] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Simply put, our National founding assumed that Americans can solve any problem that comes our way. In turn, the power allocated to the State is and has always been a willful of abrogation of personal power for the National good.
In light of our founding, what is most insulting about the Fram/Putman piece is neither its dour outlook, nor its obvious political slant. What is most insulting about the Fram/Putman piece is that it questions this wisdom of "we the people" in our American experiment in self-governance. Contrary to the authors' suggestion, Americans know how to solve problems, and to suggest otherwise is to question the very foundation upon which our Nation was built.
God grant that the 21st century not be about the unraveling of Americans' ability to fix problems as the authors have suggested. Such an unraveling would mean that Americans have lost the ability to put the good of our country before the good of ourselves.
If ever there was an appropriate use of the adjective "un-American" it is reserved for such an article as this.
I would be remiss friends, if I did not apologize for the changes in scenery here at Pax Plena within the past couple of days.
Most of you will be uninterested in this, but for those who blog and struggle to find the best layout for your site, you understand that it can become a vexing process. For the better part of a year, I have stuck with this basic 'Kubrick' layout as adapted for my blog host blogger.com. But changing how the site looks is easy enough and I enjoy playing around with the html. This explains the changes within the past couple of days.
At any rate, I think a good blog should do three things:
1. Provide and communicate a unique perspective as clearly as possible.
2. Be reasonable in analysis, and disagree without being disagreeable.
3. Present its content in a clear, forthright manner.
My fans will no doubt agree that we strive for the first two. My foes would say we never quite get a handle on any of the above. My personal dilemma is how to present the content.
It seems perverse, but I can do little to affect the first two. Either one will appreciate the view offered, whether as insight or as a view contrary to one's personal leanings, or one will not. One will either think our analysis well-reasoned (or at least mildly entertaining), or one will not. That leaves the third prong as the sole measure that I can directly affect.
Toward that end, the present layout has been faithful. I appreciate how the content is clearly centered. I like that the Permalinks (links to specific posts) can be accessed by clicking the title. I enjoy that for the most part its navigation is intuitive. The only point which troubles me about the current design is that it seems a bit cramped, and there are much 'flashier' layouts out there- both literally and figuratively.
Today, I decided to overlook the layouts flaws and test myself. Can I last until the end of the year without adjusting the layout? This test pits my penchant for perfectionism- a nasty habit of thinking I can actually make things better than they really are- against my desire for continuity. Which will win?
That said, I reserve the right to change the photo in the header (I rather enjoy finding pictures that correspond with the time of year), and to make an emergency transition to another layout should something run afoul with my image host (Photobucket was apparently hacked last week and none of this sites images/buttons were viewable). Other than those two instances, expect to see more of the same around here as we press forward into the fall elections.
Thanks always for being loyal readers, and lately for your patience.
NYT Op-Ed Contributor Dan Koeppel predicts the end of the banana in these United States within a matter of 5-20 years.
But bananas have always been an emblem of a long-distance food chain. Perhaps it’s time we recognize bananas for what they are: an exotic fruit that, some day soon, may slip beyond our reach.
Just over a year ago, Sen. Obama took a "principled" stand to 'preserve' the public financing system for presidential campaigns:
In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
Today Sen. Obama announced plans to decline public financing because it would put him at a political disadvantage.
Geraldine Ferraro made the comment on Fox News last night that this issue would not be dispositive come November, and I think she's probably right. But it does conjure up questions about whether the Democrat nominee is honest and trustworthy.
If Sen. Obama's principles can be so easily swayed by political expediency, how can we trust him to stand up for American interests abroad? More importantly, if Sen. Obama cannot keep his word in the little things like public financing, how can we expect him to keep his word to us on the issues that matter most?
Update: Columnist David Brooks offers a scathing critique of Sen. Obama's calculating nature. He pits Sen. Obama's public perception as Messiah Incarnate, against "Fast Eddie Obama," the slick Chicago politician who is actually seeking office. Update 2: The New York Times also offered a critique of the Sen. Obama's flip-flop in its latest editorial. Naturally, the move is a surprise to me. On the other hand, it also takes a cheap shot at Sen. John McCain, but the comment seems obligatory and half-hearted. The NYT has to keep its liberal street-cred.
I interviewed several years ago for a position with the American Enterprise Institute down in Washington, DC. I was not hired, but I did get a nifty book on health care out of the experience, pre-release. Today, an article I stumbled across by AEI scholar Arthur Brooks more than makes up for my misadventure. It is nice to see AEI doing good work.
Mr. Brooks' article poses several timely questions for Americans to consider in light of the '08 elections, rising gas prices and a tumultuous period in foreign affairs. Specifically, Mr. Brooks explores what this ephemeral notion of happiness is, and how can we get more of it.
He then rifles through the latest facts and figures en route to outlining a few key principles for those grappling with similar questions.
It is hard to be more practical.
I will resist giving the crux of Mr. Brooks' argument away. His article is far more insightful than any summary I could offer. But here is a brief excerpt designed to whet the appetite:
In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders didn't treat happiness as some fuzzy concept; they believed that people wanted happiness and had the right to pursue it. Along with life and liberty, happiness was the connection between the Creator and our nation's destiny, and the ability of its citizens to pursue and achieve happiness was a measure of the effectiveness and morality of the state.
...
The data tell us that what matters most for happiness is not...
Read the rest of Mr. Brooks' essay at the link below.
Dick Morris' colums always strike me as being a bit petulant. But his latest assessment of the Democrats' energy policies is astute:
Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies.
Morris gets it right. Having ruled out every major policy that could have an immediate impact on the price of gasoline, the Democrats are left in the unenviable position of defending the un-defendable: Democrats offer America no solutions for its energy mess.
A little known fact about your humble blogger: many years ago, I was a member of my high school's varsity choir. For a town of roughly 2,500 people, our choir was fairly impressive. Led by our intrepid director, Mrs. Charla Dedmon, our small troupe would go on to win several superior medals at the Oklahoma State Solo and Ensemble Competition (This was the rough equivalent of taking a gold medal at a state championship track meet). As with so many activities of youth, I failed then to realize that my hours spent singing were actually quite influential in developing my later appreciation of art and music.
Lest this post seem more self-congratulatory than need be, I cannot lay personal claim to having made Oklahoma's illustrious All-State Choir despite my superior solos and ensembles at State Contest. Sadly, My baritone voice was of limited range, and this did me no favors as I competed against Oklahoma's best. I was easily bounced from the final round of auditions having returned late from a College visit to Dartmouth. I suppose we all have our priorities.
Looking back on it, I wonder if I might have met country music star Carrie Underwood somewhere during our formative years at competition. Ms. Underwood hails from sleepy Checotah, OK, a town roughly the same size as Walters, and she graduated from High School the same year I did in 2001. For anyone interested in music or singing, varsity choir was an obvious way to go. Then again, Ms. Underwood was probably too cool for choir, and, regardless, is surely way too cool for yours truly.
All of the above, is merely a long prelude to today's Song of the Week. One of the few numbers we performed in my choir days that has stuck with me was English composer Ralph Vaughn Williams' 1901 selection titled Linden Lea. It was a drop high for me as a baritone, but the song was lovely.
At risk of insult, Vaughn Williams' style was to borrow from the Anglican hymnal and recast folk songs to the rough typeset of a hymn. This metric is pronounced throughout song. As a result, one could fairly call Linden Lea a secular hymn. In my view, this is a perfectly reasonable application of new styles to older songs. Artists have been doing this since ye olden days of minstrels and bards. In music and fashion alone is theft a form of flattery.
Linden Lea is striking for two reasons. First, its music is absolutely superb. Written in the key of G major, the tune is at times both soaring and brooding, not unlike the natural environs it sets to score. Specifically, the high key challenges even the best of singers because the highest points in the song are also those notes that are held the longest. A quick read of the sheet music shows the highest notes in the second half of the melody marked with a dotted quarter note set amid a 3/4 time signature.
Given the pace, it could be said that the greatest musical difficulty of the song is its simplicity. To wit, anyone can sing Amazing Grace, but not everyone can sing Amazing Grace well. The same holds true for Linden Lea.
The second reason the song is striking is its words. While Ralph Vaugh Williams dubbed the song a 'Dorset Song,' true credit for the lyrics go to the Dorset poet William Barnes. Barnes was born in the early 19th Century and spent the majority of his life among the west country peoples in Dorset along the southern coast of England. This area is home to a number of jutting crags, meadows and grasslands aplenty (viz., leas). Although the area was once quite thick with timber, the land has been cleared for centuries of its native forests. Its climate falls on average between 50 and 54 degrees. As one keeps in mind the area described in the song, it is difficult not to develop an affinity for such a seemingly far away place. Growing up in small-town Oklahoma, even a young boy could appreciate the romance of green leas, and the bubbling streams of Doreset.
The song was originally written in the Dorset dialect, a slight variation of English that adds a soft inflection in place of the letter "F." It makes for an interesting read of the poem as Barnes wrote it. The themes of the poem's language carry over nicely into the song by Ralph Vaughn Williams. It is not difficult to embrace the locale described in its colloquial warmth. The song evokes feelings brought on by the turning seasons, and by wide expanses of meadows. This aspect of appreciation is not limited to Dorset. One of my favorite college memories is of lying down in a field of green near Quechee, VT, and soaking in the cloudless sky overhead.
As a burgeoning lawyer, the part of the song that I enjoy most is the lyricists musings on life and work. The final stanza of the song describes a choice made long ago between making easy money working in 'dark-roomed' towns or living life in the freedom of simplicity. I suppose we will all cross a similar point of decision in our lives. But for now, the introspection is a welcomed consideration nearly a decade after first hearing the song.
Below is a performance of Linden Lea as sung by the Choir of St. Mary's Church at Hendon. The congregation at Hendon has has existed in some form since the 9th century. Its choir has performed at such sundry places as St. Paul's Cathedral in London and in venues across New York City. A legal and free mp3 of the song can be found here. Lyrics follow after the videos. Enjoy!
Below is a video of Linden Lea as sung by a terrific, amateur countertenor.
Below are videos underscoring the, ah, difficulty of singing Linden Lea well.
Within the woodlands, flow'ry gladed,
By the oak trees' mossy moot;
The shining grass blades, timber shaded,
Now do quiver under foot;
And birds do whistle overhead,
And water's bubbling in its bed;
And there for me,
The apple tree
Do lean down low in Linden Lea.
When leaves, that lately were a-springing,
Now do fade within the copse,
And painted birds do hush their singing
Up upon the timber tops;
And brown leaved fruit's a-turning red,
In cloudless sunshine overhead,
With fruit for me,
The apple tree
Do lean down low in Linden Lea.
Let other folk make money faster;
In the air of darkened towns;
I don't dread a peevish master.
Though no man may heed my frowns
I be free to go abroad,
Or take again my home-ward road,
To where, for me,
The apple tree
Do lean down low in Linden Lea.
I would like to think that our local, criminal justice system turns a blind eye toward promising athletes, and processes the accused just as they would any suspected criminal. But plea agreements like the one struck for Oklahoma State tight end Brandon Pettigrew make me wonder.
According to Sports Illustrated, Pettigrew was originally arrested for attacking a police officer this past winter. He was initially charged with felony assault and battery of a police officer, but pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of assault and battery.
His sentence calls for him to pay less than $1,ooo in petty fines, and perform 20 hours of community service. According to the article, the community service portion of his sentence has already been completed.
While it is true that a variety of factors would have been taken into account, including Mr. Pettigrew's history of prior offenses, and any subsequent acts of contrition, here's the obvious question that results: would Pettigrew have received such a mild sentence from Payne County Prosecutors (home county of OSU Football) had he not "caught 35 passes for 540 yards and four touchdowns last season" for the Cowboys?
Today, Sen. Obama's politics of hope looked a lot like the tired politics of discrimination:
The men said the volunteer, a 20-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits.
Miller said yes but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.
The volunteer “explained to me that because of the political climate and what’s going on in the world and what’s going on with Muslim Americans, it’s not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama,” said Koussan, a law student at Wayne State University.
If one believes the Politico, there was little ambiguity in the Senator's discriminatory tactics. Aside from being repugnant to everything America stands for, the story does provide a couple of insights about the Obama Campaign.
First, the team is obviously media savvy ('get the Muslims out of the shot'), and its actions demonstrate that the campaign fully intendeds to exploit and overstate 'diversity' for the sake of the campaign. Apparently, well-dressed, young men in suits and black women are okay for the dais, but young women in headscarves are not.
Were it a Republican running, the press would have called the Senator's actions xenophobic pandering. Double standard?
Second, Sen. Obama is obsessively afraid of associating with the Muslim community. For all of the hay raised by Democrats about ethnic profiling and religious discrimination toward Muslims, one might have thought that the Dems were past the point of singling out others on the basis of faith. In fact, Sen. Obama was among the loudest critics of such tactis back in 2003.
But today it seems team Obama has resurrected a crusade of sorts, isolating Muslim supporters and moving them gingerly to the back of the room even as blacks were moved to the back of the bus not so long ago.
Naturally, the Senator will attempt to turn the discussion toward something else, and bemoan these 'distractions' that divide America without ever really confronting this latest imbroglio.
But here's hoping that actions speak louder than words this time, and that the press does its part to hold him to account.
The following will doubtless come as sobering news for many of my law school colleagues. America has a 'glut' of law schools and a dearth of jobs.
Optimistic reports of employment from career services offices is primarily explained below:
The methods that law schools choose to collect salary info just happen to be ones that underreport low earners. The figures for what percentage are employed within nine months often say nothing about whether those graduates are using their law degree. They could be taxi drivers with JDs -- and $100,000 of debt.
This, of course, comes as no surprise to yours truly. My offer remains outstanding to all publications: I will gladly entertain your generous offers for syndication prior to accepting placement at most white shoe firms. Taxi driving will remain on the table.
Earlier today, Democrat Presidential Nominee Sen. Barack Obama made the perfectly audacious claim that Osama Bin Laden was still at large because of Republicans.
When the McCain campaign complained, team Obama cried foul:
"I'm a little disgusted by the attempts of some of my friends on the McCain campaign to use the same old, tired tactics ... to drive a wedge between Americans for partisan advantage and to frankly frighten Americans," Clarke said.
In sum, it is okay for Sen. Obama to claim that Republicans are responsible Osama Bin Laden's freedom because because this represents change we can believe in.
(As opposed to, say, OBL being free because of the combination of terrain and Pakistani influnence, and the limitations even of our special forces).
But when Republicans fire back to clarify the record, the discussion is a distraction aimed at frightening Americans.
Sen. Obama's politics of hope look strikingly similar to politics as usual.
I've been told that my summer here in Tucson is part of a service in the southernmost bastion of Homeland Security. While the description is surely inflated, I realize that even if it were, my efforts would pale in comparison to those of Joe Arpaio, the toughest sheriff in America, and legendary figure of Maricopa County, Arizona.
There's really no context for the AFP article except to say that Sheriff Joe Arpaio's approval ratings fall between 80 and 90 percent. But it does feature a rather interesting assessment of Sheriff Joe in his own words:
"'I get more press in one day than the governor gets,' he said. 'If you go anywhere in the world, all you have to do is say Arizona,' and they say Sheriff Joe.'
'Do you think they know who the governor is? I'm the toughest sheriff in America.'"
For those who do not know, Arizona's Governor is the eminently forgettable Janet Napolitano (no relation to Fox News Legal Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano).
I have my own personal nomination for vice president for McCain. It's Rudy Giuliani, precisely because he shares the vision of a practical, reforming, war-winning Republican Party that inspires John McCain, plus the stronger-than-usual grounds for hoping that he might be the rare candidate who can make a difference in an essential state--in this case, New Jersey.
So, according to Frum, even though VP picks do not matter, Sen. McCain should pick Rudy Giuliani because he shares his vision and could deliver NJ. This is a perfectly reasonable argument. But it doesn't square with Frum's initial assessment about the triviality of VP selections.
Were Sen. McCain to win NJ, a state that has trended blue, the outcome could be decisive in tipping 15 crucial electoral college votes toward the GOP, and he would have Mayor Giuliani to thank.
In order for Frum to be consistent with his analysis, Frum would have to argue that Sen. McCain should pick Rudy Giuliani because he will not matter.
Most advice on finances from the NYT I normally take with a grain of salt, but the 'Your Money' article by Ron Lieber offers some practical advice that new, entry-level employees can take to heart.
The article discusses the ins and outs of health insurance, retirement investing, and taxes. Naturally, the alternative is to learn as you go, but the basic overview might be helpful before you do.
My Saturday morning read of the New York Times provided an interesting perspective on parenting trends. While children are not particularly to my taste at this point, the article was interesting as a social commentary on the direction that families with children are taking.
The excerpt below discusses one couple as an archetype of the new ideal:
Instead, they would create their own model, one in which they were parenting partners. Equals and peers. They would work equal hours, spend equal time with their children, take equal responsibility for their home. Neither would be the keeper of the mental to-do lists; neither of their careers would take precedence. Both would be equally likely to plan a birthday party or know that the car needs oil or miss work for a sick child or remember (without prompting) to stop at the store for diapers and milk. They understood that this would mean recalibrating their career ambitions, and probably their income, but what they gained, they believed, would be more valuable than what they lost.
Some of my more 'radically' conservative friends will no doubt dismiss the model out of hand. Displacing the traditional, male-bread-winner model in any circumstance is enough to send these social stalwarts apoplectic. I mention this only to say that my personal ideal has never been so rigid. I'm completely fine with a parity of career and ambition within a relationship so long as a baseline of values and interests remains constant and sustaining.
On the other hand, there is something a bit unsettling about the addition of children to the mix, and the implications of parity for parenting described in the new trend.
The initial point of the article describes an agreement between the couple to create a firm, equal division of labor in rearing their children. The idea is premised upon the notion that men and women are equally capable of rearing children, and that the division of labor makes sense given their equal abilities. Why should a loafing husband shirk his responsibilities when he can do just as much, just as well, as his wife?
The problem with this assumption is that it could be false. The couple most prominently featured in the NYT story boasted a mother who far out-earned her husband and was clearly more ambitious. The husband had repeatedly passed up promotion opportunities in his career prior to their marriage, and stated that he preferred a more 'laid-back' life. The question, then, is how well the model would work where two people are both highly ambitious, and are on equal footing in terms of income.
Human nature being given toward selfishness, my hunch is that it would not work nearly so well.
Another question about the assumption is whether men and women really are equally adept at rearing children. Speaking merely as one male voice, my fatherly abilities are probably somewhere around that of the grizzly bear. This is not to say that all men are such Neanderthals, but I think it is safe to say that a majority of men do not possess the maternal and parenting instincts in the proportion to those possessed by a majority of women. If we assume that men are not as adroit at parenting as women, then any expectations of any such equality of division of labor in parenting will be limited at best. In this case, while it might be true that men could do more, it is not necessarily the case that men could do it better. The ideal, then, would be to increase the contribution of men in parenting, tempered by the understanding that women are better and would likely bear more of the responsibility as a result.
My hunch is that most couples who marry and have children work out this sort of agreement implicitly.
This is why I love small towns: below is Item #10 from the March 18, 2008 meeting of the Walters City Council (viz., my home town, Walters, OK).
Item #10--City Manager John Sheppard presented bids on a striper. Sheppard stated that we have a lot of striping to do on the streets. Bids were Barco $3,485.00; Kelly Moore $3299.00; and Sherwin Williams $3879.00. Street Superintendent Terry White stated that he likes the Barco striper; therefore he recommends the Barco at $3485.00. After consideration Steve McCammon made a motion to approve the purchase of a striper from Barco for $3485.00 Frankie Valdez seconded the motion. The vote was:
If you read the above quickly, it's enough to be pretty darn funny. Of course, a stripper at almost $4,000 is exceeds even the price NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer paid for a prostitute. Fortunately, the City Council of Walters is catching quite the break on 'striping' at roughly the same price. On the other hand, if they start doing that in "the streets" they could wind up with a few disgruntled citizens.
It strikes me as odd that some on the left have begun to reign-in their hopes for 2008. Stuart Rothenberg of Roll Call takes great pains today to depict a John McCain win as a pyrrhic victory for the GOP in November.
It's probably a measure of how bad 2008 looks to be for Republicans that even if they win, they lose.
The simple counter to Mr. Rothenberg's analysis, quoting the sports adage, is that 'a win is a win is a win.' That said, the utility of such an assessment as Mr. Rothenberg's is limited except to say that some on the left may be worried that Sen. Obama hasn't the chops to go the distance against the maverick Senator from Arizona.
Even if this were not the case, the analysis leaves something to be desired. Mr Rothenberg overlooks the seemingly obvious point that a majority of Republicans have selected Sen. McCain to be the nominee of their party.
While it's true that Sen. McCain's ability to unite Republicans has been under intense scrutiny, it is not the case that conservative Republicans are flocking to the Democrats as a result of his nomination- a clear result if Sen. McCain's vision had fractured the GOP.
In fact, the 'nightmare' scenario Mr. Rothenberg describes could well be the result of the GOP taking a new political course. The matter of nightmare, then, would depend upon which Republicans Mr. Rothenberg is referencing in his piece. Regardless, the percent of disgruntled Republicans certainly cannot, be a majority.
If one assumes that Republicans nominated Sen. McCain to revamp the party, then a McCain re-election effort in 2012 could well be a Republican fortification, rather than its eminent destruction.
Consider also that Sen. Obama is far more liberal than Sen. McCain on most issues. The fact that conservatives have no conservative alternative among Democrats speaks volumes to the fact that Mr. Rothenberg's calculus is overstated.
I suppose the conditional language of Mr. Rothenberg's piece (e.g., "might") potentially saves it from a reduction to wishful thinking. But such an application would not preserve its insight.
After all, one could make the claim that Republicans "might" take back Congress this year though most know that this is highly unlikely.
Then again, we might expect such grandiose projections from Mr. Rothenberg. In 2006, he famously rang the death knell for CT Sen. Joe Lieberman. Mr. Lieberman would go on to win re-election to the Senate as an Independent Democrat after a brusing primary battle.
Suffice it to say, sometimes the chattering class confuses that which it would with that which is.
Controlled by radical environmental special interests, House Democrats have opted to block an obvious solution to increase the supply of crude oil on the market and lower gas costs over time: drill for oil here.
Democrat leaders seem to reason that an increase in domestic oil production will not lead to an increase in oil supply.
"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.
The conclusion drawn by Chairman Obey is a bit cavalier. How can Democrats conclude that domestic oil drilling will not help supply given that America has banned offshore drilling since 1981?
The lone Democrat in Oklahoma's Congressional delegation, Rep. Dan Boren, announced yesterday that he will not endorse Democrat Presidential nominee Barack Obama's candidacy.
Congressman Boren noted that his constituency is 'conservative' and that he must reflect the will of his district:
"No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen to them."
The sentiment is almost enough to be down right noble.
That is until you read 'the rest of the story.' CNN noted that Congressman Boren nonetheless plans to vote for Sen. Obama at the Oklahoma Democrat Party's convention this August and at the Dems pow-wow in Denver.
So, the bottom line is that while Congressman Boren does not endorse Sen. Obama, he still plans to vote for him.
We could easily call that a flip-flop. I think back in Oklahoma folks might call it covering his rear.
Two young girls, ages 13 and 11, were murdered over the weekend in rural Weleetka, Oklahoma. The girls were shot multiple times in the head and chest as they were heading home after a slumber party.
As an older brother from rural Oklahoma with a kid sister age 12, my heart breaks to think of the families' pain and the fear gripping the community.
On behalf of Pax Plena, here's offering a prayer and my thoughts during such a difficult time. More specifically, here's hoping the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations, and the Okfuskee County Sheriff's Department bring the killer to justice.
Many employers, social scientists and consultants are increasingly interested in our Generation Y, or the millennials as we are sometimes called. Presumably this is the case because we are quickly entering the workforce in droves. Rumor has it that our communication habits and penchant for technology leave employers somewhat askance at how to handle our integration.
Accordingly, the pecuniary interest in our assimilation has prompted interests in other areas of our lives, including our Generation's views of life and love. So much so, that the New York Times has run a series of pieces written by millennials detailing our disparate thoughts on just such topics.
Of the ones I have read (sad to say, I have read most), I believe the piece below perfectly articulates the state of love, and relationships in our generation. The description is not necessarily endearing.
Below is a well-considered excerpt:
Out of fear, we shrink ourselves. There have been many times I should have cried but stifled the tears. Instances where I should have said, “I love you” but made a joke instead. Once, a girl dumped me and it nearly ruined me. How bad was it? I ate nothing but Wendy’s for an entire week.
I’m fairly certain I could have saved the entire endeavor with a soul-baring soliloquy of what was true and what mattered to me, but I couldn’t muster the courage. I don’t know many who can.
We’ve grown up in an age of rampant divorce and the accompanying tumult. The idea that two people can be happy together, maturing alongside each other, seems as false as a fairy tale. So when a relationship ends, it isn’t seen as bad. It’s held as evidence that the relationship was never any good to begin with.
Vice-President Romney is a terrible idea. So, why would an otherwise reasonable publication offer such a silly suggestion?
The Times rationale is below:
Mr. McCain needs to bolster his standing among conservatives and to capture key battleground states. The Arizona senator must have a running mate who has been vetted, tested and has national stature.
The problem with this assessment is that Romney's vetting produced a third place finish in the GOP primary. While Romney has national stature, he brings no meaningful states into play. One might think that these two outcomes mean his testing has failed.
New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman had an interesting op-ed today about digital revolutions past and present. Krugman's piece was interesting but a bit inflated:
Right now, publishers make as much from a Kindle download [e-books] as they do from the sale of a physical book. But the experience of the music industry suggests that this won’t last: once digital downloads of books become standard, it will be hard for publishers to keep charging traditional prices.
Indeed, if e-books become the norm, the publishing industry as we know it may wither away. Books may end up serving mainly as promotional material for authors’ other activities, such as live readings with paid admission. Well, if it was good enough for Charles Dickens, I guess it’s good enough for me.
Given that Krugman is a published author, it strikes me as odd that he would predict so dire a result for the publishing industry. Having dealt with digital readings in numerous courses, my experience has been that a physical book is always preferable to a e-version of the text.
In an academic sense, it is far easier to make notes in physical books than in e-books. In an intangible sense, there is something especially satisfying about finishing a book and having it on the shelf- a trophy of sorts and a reminder of time spent reading it. Perhaps the last notion is a bit silly, but it is hard for me to see books in commercial publication being forsaken for e-text.
Krugman's prediction is premised by the phrase, 'Indeed, if e-books become the norm.' This strikes me as a fairly big if.
The Dartmouth Association of Alumni elections have not really been on my radar of late. We tend to discuss politics and current interests here, and I generally prefer to avoid intra-familial issues that are of interest to but a few. For those interested, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal outlining the background of the race can be found here.
Online voting for the Dartmouth Alumni Association winds up today. Of course, you can still vote in person at the summer meeting in Hanover. But if you haven't paid attention so far (like me), why should you care?
I submit that casting your ballot is worth the time , because the election will decide whether alums have a meaningful say in how the College is run.
Since 1891 alumni have elected half the members of the Board of Trustees. But after a string of losses, the College Administration led by President Jim Wright plans to double the number of members on the College's Board of Trustees who are appointed by the President. Appointees will then outnumber alum-elected Trustees on the order of 2-1. The plan has been packaged as a reasonable increase in the size of the College's Board of Trustees, but no commitment has been made by President Wright to increase the number of alum-elected trustees in equal proportion to those he appoints.
This clarification may come as a surprise because the issue in this race has long been conflated with politics. Given my political affiliations, I hesitated to comment sooner for fear of adding weight to the assertion. In fact, this is actually one of the rare issues that has brought liberal and conservative alums together.
The Dartmouth Association of Alumni has committed its resources to fighting President Wright's plan. It has selected a slate that will continue this mission. The College, naturally, has invested considerable resources to bankroll an opposite outcome.
Suffice it to say, I am glad to offer a firm endorsement of the AoA's Parity Slate.
For any alums reading, the slate of candidates supporting parity between alum-elected Trustee members and the College President's appointed members can be found here.
Voting takes place until midnight here (you will need your official ID and PIN #. These were E-mailed to your alum account a few weeks ago).
One day after his coronation, this is not news Democrat Presidential Nominee Barack Obama needed to hear.
Of the jury's verdict, DuPage County Prosecutor Joe Birkett concluded that Sen. Obama essentially fiddled while Rome burned:
The conviction of Tony Rezko represents a deep stain on the Democratic Party in Illinois. Democrats from top to bottom, including Barack Obama, stood idly by — and in some instances directly benefited — while the massive Blagojevich corruption scheme flourished. They rode into office promising to clean up after the George Ryan scandals and they have taken corruption in Illinois to a new low.
The Obama Campaign even released a fawning speech of his opponent NY Sen. Hillary Clinton perhaps anticipating her concession. Sen. Clinton's response was in essence that she won 18 million votes- the most in her Party's history, and more than the Senator. Moreover, no decisions will be made in her campaign tonight.
In brief, no concession.
The party numbers have been stacked against Sen. Clinton for a while, but the absence of a concession speech seems to be a veiled warning to Team Obama that she should not be written-off as a running-mate.
While, Sen. Obama would certainly liked to have wrapped up the primary on a high note. Sen. Clinton's speech tonight indicates that this will not be the case without an Obama-Clinton ticket.
I found a couple of the headlines mentioned in the piece slightly askance, but it is hard for me to believe that Drudge would actually support Sen. Obama.
The comments themselves are unsurprising. But the high-profile remarks do pose a recurring question of judgment for Democrat Presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. Sen. Obama has repeatedly advocated meetings with Iran absent any pre-conditions. Why would Sen. Obama opt to meet with such an obviously unreasonable man?
Sen. McCain recently suggested that if elected President he would appear before both Houses of Congress for a back and forth with members. The idea is to create an accountability check similar to the British Prime Minister's repartee with members of the House of Commons.
Initially, the idea struck me as something novel. I even appreciated the populist aspect of an American President being openly questioned by the people's representatives- the "plebiscitary presidency", as George Will calls it. But today, I read the balance of Will's op-ed in the Washington Post and have second thoughts.
The matter turns on a couple of key points: First, the British system of Government has no true Executive branch. Their Executory function is imbued by a Prime Minister who is actually a member of the House of Commons. The two, are in essence, one.
By contrast, our American system of Government consists of a true Executive. Our President, has a wholly separate function than the one performed by the Legislature (and the Judiciary). The distinction occurs by design. Our Constitution guarantees that the respective powers are not subordinate to one another but are co-equal.
Will's point is that the lines between the branches are already blurred; due in part to regulating agencies, and lack of Congressional backbone. Sen. McCain's proposal, then, would only further confuse the distinction between the branches. Symbolically, the question time would make the Legislature appear subordinate to the Presidency- Congress would be graced with the opportunity to ask questions of the President. In truth, however, the Congress retains as much power within the Government as the President.
Will's argument is truly Federalist in nature, and I cannot disagree with its logic. Practically, such a question period might produce a few interesting moment, but I cannot see that it adds anything substantive to our National conversation other than theatrics. Sen. McCain might consider having regular press conferences as an alternative. Or he may open the White House to legislators wishing to ask the President questions. But either of these options can be accomplished without appearing before the Legislature.
My hunch is that the idea was floated off-handedly anyway. Some staffer probably watched C-Span late one night, and decided the British Q&A would be a good idea to use here. Of course, this is unfortunate since it indicates how little attention we pay to the Constitution's Separation of Powers, and its import in our legacy of American exceptionalism.
Welcome to Pax Plena! Here you'll find many a book review and many a musing about life. All courtesy of a recovering law student & burgeoning academic.
I'm also a Republican, a Christian, and a Native American - make of it what you will.
The Conservative Blog Network
