With the election only days away, and Sen. Obama's ego feeling more than a bit healthy, Americans are finally able to see the future of the press in an Obama run America.
Today, three major newspapers were all booted from the Obama press pool after their editorial boards endorsed Sen. McCain.
The obvious message Sen. Obama is sending to the press: support my agenda or else. Funny how the politics of change look strikingly similar to retributive politics as usual.
After months of bottom-feeding in Sen. Obama's tank, the mainstream media is finally beginning to vet the Democrat's rhetoric.
Just today, CNN's Campbell Brown complained:
Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.
One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.
Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.
According to The Journal of Family Psychology, the short answer is maybe.
But a handful of new studies suggest surprising changes in the marital landscape. Infidelity appears to be on the rise, particularly among older men and young couples. Notably, women appear to be closing the adultery gap: younger women appear to be cheating on their spouses nearly as often as men.
In general, I tend to be fairly cynical about relationships. Though twenty-five years old, I fancy myself a battle-tested curmudgeon when it comes to such matters- arguably for good reason. But the analysis highlighted by the article leaves even me disconcerted.
Sure. We hear platitudes about the alleged 50% divorce rate all the time. We hear about new trends in family structure. We have entire cottage industries dedicated to helping people resolve difficulties in their personal lives. CNN devotes an entire page to the matter.
But for all of the effort we invest in finding compatible relationships, that infidelity would increase, particularly among younger couples, has to sound some kind of warning for our society, and its future. What future does any sort of coupling have if the younger demographic finds commitment anachronistic?
Even after years of relational cynicism, I remain convinced that love is a commitment between two people. The article disturbingly indicates that my generation gets around this premise by rejecting fidelity wholesale.
This afternoon, a federal jury down in Washington found Alaska Senator Ted Stevens guilty of seven counts of fraud on his 2000 - 2007 income tax returns.
The allegations stemmed largely from home repairs, and gifts of discounted labor costs that the AK Senator was supposed to have disclosed according to ethics laws.
Not having read much about the case, spare news summaries from the past few days, I cannot say whether there were any overtly nefarious issues raised during the trial. Although, there looks to be a few questions the defense could raise about the jury's deliberations.
On the other hand, I think the photo above of the Senator's home speaks louder than the prosecution would like it to. It demonstrates that this is clearly not a man who was bent on living a life of opulence. One can say what one will about his politics, but this A-frame cabin is a modest home by Senate standards. At the very least, it is an insult to the word "chalet".
Given the relatively low stakes for the prosecution, I cannot help wondering why this matter even went to trial...
The New York Times must have a default policy of condescension whenever it mentions a city that is not located on the east or west coast. True to form, in the latest NYT Magazine, Bruce Schoenfeld's piece on Oklahoma City's new NBA team is dripping with sarcasm and laced with contempt.
Yet, even while the story is a veritable excoriation of the Sooner State, the account provides the pithiest, and most accurate summary of how the Seattle SuperSonics became the Oklahoma City Thunder.
For those who would prefer to skip the bulk of the lengthy article, the reason Oklahoma City bested Seattle in the eyes of the NBA is excerpted from Schoenfeld's essay as follows:
ONE WARM TUESDAY IN OKLAHOMA CITY last spring, Bennett presided over a presentation to N.B.A. executives and three members of its relocation committee. First they toured the Ford Center, which Bennett had gussied up with a showcase suite, an expanded shopping concourse and other improvements. “I wanted to show them that we knew what the N.B.A. standard was like, and we were prepared to go even further,” he says. Later, the group convened in a hotel ballroom that had been transformed into a stage set. Seated in an arc around the participants were Mick Cornett and his two predecessors as mayor; the state’s last two governors; C.E.O.’s of local corporations; the athletic directors of O.U. and Oklahoma State; even the Sooners’ football coach, Bob Stoops, and Tulsa’s mayor. The unanimity was striking. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” Stern says. Soon after getting the committee’s recommendation, the league’s owners voted on Bennett’s plan to relocate the Sonics to Oklahoma. It passed 28-2.
Naturally, the NYT concludes with a pessimistic forecast for Oklahoma City's success in the NBA. But, in some ways, the ending seems halfhearted. It reads as if Schoenfeld is obliged to commune with his inner nihilist, rather than offer an accurate assessment of the Thunder's prospects.
Before concluding that the team is doomed, the author acknowledges that the template for small-market, NBA success- a model that buoyed the likes of perennial contender San Antonio no less- is present in Oklahoma City. The simple rationale is that the viability of a team is helped tremendously by being the only show in town. Or in Oklahoma City's case, the only big-league show in the state.
As with any pro-franchise, the long-term prospects for the team will depend upon the fan support generated by the Thunder's presence in the community. Given OKC's warm reception of the Hornets in 2005, unlike the author, this Oklahoma native is every bit the optimist.
Watch the video below, and you will see that the Pax Plena song of the week pretty much sums up our Christian Legal Society organization in six minutes.
Just kidding.
But it does mark the denouement of the Rat Pack, Bing Crosby, and arguably the golden era of American music.
Taken from the 1964 hit film Robin and the 7 Hoods, Mr. Booze features the talent of Bing Crosby, Sammy Davis Jr., Dean Martin, and Frank Sinatra. The group appears in the film as a gaggle of South Chicago racketeers (not unlike Barack Obama) who are trying to prevent muscle man Peter Falk (yes, that Peter Falk) from invading their turf during Prohibition.
The film was released to mix reviews, although it earned Academy Award nominations for Best Music Song and Best Music Score. But in recent years, the film has recovered its artistic acclaim for its contribution to music history, and its special place as Bing Crosby's last musical role.
The song itself is a hilarious spoof of a 1920s era revival meeting; replete with testifying sinners, a sanctimonious minister (Bing Crosby), and a church full of hand-waving, tambourine-playing congregants. The dust Bing slaps off the Bible at the beginning of the clip is priceless. Take care to listen to the low note sung around the 6:00 mark.
The video of the performance appears below. Lyrics follow after the jump. Enjoy!
Mister Booze Bing Crosby
Booze, Mister Booze (Mister Booze), Mister Booze Mister B double O, Z Eeee, (That sure spells booze), You will wind up wearing tattered shoes if you mess with Mister Booze. (Don't mess with Mister Booze, don't mess with Mister Booze.)
Don't mess with B, double o, Z, E, if you've been so sick you thought you'd died. You'll feel better once you testify.(Testify, Testify)
[I want to testify, I want to testify] Well, then cleanse yourself, my child, cleanse yourself. Brothers and sisters, I happen to know this poor unfortunate soul, and the fight she is waging against sin. That old devil hooch has turned her into the unsightly person you see before you. Give us your testimony, my child. [Well, it all began with Daddy] (Yeah?) [He said drink helped him stay alive] (Yeah?) [Do you know how old he was when he died?] (No) [He was only twenty-five] (No! No!) [That's why I gotta come clean] (why?) [Because I'm already seventeen]
Who's to blame? (Who's to blame?) What his name? (We know his name. His name is) Mister Booze, Mister Booze, Mister B, double O, Z, E, Don't ever choose, any game you play with him, you lose. If your head feels like it's ten foot wide, You'll feel better once you testify (testify, testify, testify)
[I want to testify, You got to let me come testify!] Well, come forward, dear brother, come forward.You see here, ladies and gentlemen, a man who just last year was the United States Olympic heavyweight wrestling champion. Now here he is, just a shadow of his former self, wasted in health, ravaged by sin. Give us your testimony, dear brother.
[I was cruel and I was mean] (He was mean!) [I was a pickpocket!] (A no-good pickpocket!) [And then sin got me] Gin got him...oh, a little bit of that too. [Sin and Gin got me in its clutches, and that's why I need forgiving] (Why?) ['Cause now my hands shake so much, Reverend, I can't even make a living] (Get out!) That's a shame! (What a shame!) Who's to blame? (Who's to blame? His name is) Mister Booze, Mister Booze, Mister B, double O, Z., E. (You must refuse!)
[I wanna testify!] You don't have to. [Oh, but I wanna!] But you don't have to. (Oh let him testify.) Very well, then let us lead you on the path of righteousness. Not long ago, brothers and sisters, This helpless soul was the foremost brain surgeon in this grand and glorious country. Success was smiling down upon him. Well, go ahead and tell us your story, oh downtrodden one. [I use spirits for medicinal purposes only] (Yeah) [I manufactured it for medicinal purposes only.] (yeah?) [Then I started drinking what I manufactured and I drank myself out of a hell of a business for medicinal purposes only.] (That's right!)
Alcohol makes a big man small and can lead to life of crime.
Demon rum makes a gent a bum, and you cash in before your time.
Bootleg gin puts you in a spin till you don't even know your name.
You're a public disgrace, flat on your face, and there's only one guy to blame.
(Oh Mister Booze, Mister Booze, Mister B, double O, Z, E, don't ever choose) (Don't you wind up swearing platitudes if you're mad with Mister Booze) (Don't mess, mess with Mr. Booze.)
Don't mess with B, double O. Z, E, cause that spells booze. And you gotta lose with Mi-ister Booze. (Oh Yeah). Don't mess around with Mister Booze.
(Don't with Mister Booze, Don't with Mister Booze.) (What's his name now, Oh Mister Booze), (Don't mess with Mister Booze), Oh Mister Booze, (Don't mess with Mister Booze.)
The New York Times announced its endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama today continuing an uninterrupted tradition of endorsing liberal candidates dating back to 1960.
Sen. Obama joins such luminaries as Woodrow Wilson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis who have all earned the Times's endorsement.
In its op-ed, the Times made paeans to Sen. Obama's 'cool head' and 'sound judgment' while castigating Sen. McCain as a derelict of 'racism' bent on partisanship. I suppose such remarks should come as no surprise given the media's penchant for objectivity.
But the part of the Times endorsement imbued with the most creative license was its description of Sen. Obama's tax policies:
Mr. Obama is clear that the nation’s tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will have to pay some more.
Of course, the code words in the endorsement are 'fairer' and 'pay some more.' For those who do not speak liberal, these roughly translate to 'spread your wealth,' and 'tax increases.'
While the endorsement comes no as surprise, Americans would do well to consider the source.
The New York Times supposedly contains 'all the news that's fit to print' yet, this is the publication that suggested Sen. McCain was having an affair back in February. It also refused to publish Sen. McCain's plan for Iraq one week after running Sen. Obama's.
Simply put, the New York Times and most of the major media outlets have long been cheerleaders for the Obama Campaign. Today's endorsement merely allows them to be overt in their support.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer's argument is not the most compelling that I have heard. But the points he makes to justify his support for Sen. McCain are among the most honest:
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
The remarks, accurately sum up the plight of most conservatives caught in the media's Barack Obama undertow.
As I have said before, a conservative endorsement of Sen. Obama does not mean that that individual has become a 'traitor' to the conservative movement. It merely indicates that that person has repudiated their philosophical moorings.
This makes Krauthammer's comment all the more on point: better to lose an election than one's bearings.
With Joe the Plumber serendipitously thrust into the National spotlight, CNN notes some other rank and file voters who have had their forename joined to their profession.
A list of recent figures to hit the campaign trail include:
Tito the Builder.
Phil the Bricklayer.
Rose the Teacher.
And last but not least, Barack the Wealth Spender.
I suppose I shouldn't ridicule too much. After all, Tory the Blogger? Kinda has a nice ring to it.
Hmm...
Update: David Brooks obviously didn't get the memo: if you want to create a voter caricature, then you go about it by wedding the forename of the individual to the individual's profession. (E.g., Joe the Plumber).
You do not create for the voter a superhero-esque alter ego. Particularly, one named Patio Man.
After a meeting last week where my thoughts on reputable, conservative opinion writing were solicited before a group of law students, a friend approached to get my reaction to Christopher Buckley's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama.
Naturally, the scion of a conservative publication magnate endorsing the veritable antithesis of conservative orthodoxy was bound to raise both eyebrows, and heckles alike. Liberals have been suddenly quick to laud Buckley as "major full-time talent [sic]." Meanwhile, conservatives have called the endorsement everything from "rigged" to an exercise of "poetic license."
Today the New York Times Style Section ran a feature length article on Christopher Buckley and proclaimed him "unbound."
My reaction to Buckley's endorsement remains unchanged from early last week. No true conservative could, in good conscience, vote for Sen. Obama (this includes Gen. Colin Powell). Social conservatives find Sen. Obama objectionable for his positions on everything from home schooling to abortion. And while I am no libertarian, surely the Ron Paul wing of the GOP would have difficulty fathoming the increase in government spending that Sen. Obama has proposed- to say nothing of the Senator's position on taxes.
Of course, this is not to say that Sen. McCain fits squarely in either camp. It is to say that Sen. McCain is a far more agreeable choice when compared with the Democrat nominee.
So, what of Mr. Buckley? Unlike some on the right, I would not call him a traitor to the movement- though I would have accepted his resignation swiftly as National Review Editor Rich Lowry did.
More than anything, I think Mr. Buckley's endorsement represents the simple fact that over time, people change. This isn't a stretch. The human being is far more malleable than we like to think. We change professions, geographic locales, brands of coffee, wives, and ideology. To say otherwise is to ignore reality.
Regarding whether Mr. Buckley is a friend or foe, the truth is probably in the middle. He is a little of both. Though Mr. Buckley is incorrect to say that the conservative movement left him, it is fair to say that he changed his views, and left the conservative movement. His endorsement does not represent the repudiation of conservatism that folks on the left would like to attribute to it. Buckley's endorsement means that he simply switched teams.
I would say Christopher Buckley leaves as a friend (anyone who has seen the movie Thank You for Smoking must consider him thus), only to battle us in his new publication as foe.
I'm a bit embarrassed to confess that I know, by heart, the motto of Arizona Law's legal writing department. But here it is: Dare to be interesting.
Yet, in a divine touch of irony, legal writing is rarely interesting and almost never daring. Imagine my surprise, then, to read Justice Roberts's dissent from the majority's denial of cert in Pennsylvania v. Nathan Dunlap. The relevant part reads as follows:
North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a threedollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.
Devlin spotted him: a lone man on the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up the buyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office.
As noted above, he is no John Grisham, but I give Justice Roberts (or his law clerk) credit for trying. Unfortunately, this small-scale attempt at paperback mystery is probably the most interesting writing we have seen from the Supreme Court in the past year.
People who drink alcohol -- even the moderate amounts that help prevent heart disease -- have a smaller brain volume than those who do not, according to a study in the Archives of Neurology.
Today, Sen. Biden called the crowd reactions at Sen. McCain's campaign events 'scary.' The video below calls for speculation as to whether the Senator used the preposition 'at' when he should have used the preposition 'to.'
At any rate, the video is yet more proof that Ronald Reagan had it right:
The tolerance of a liberal only extends to other liberals.
To read New York Times Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich, you would think Sen. John McCain had donned a white robe and mask for his latest campaign swing through North Carolina.
Mr. Rich lambasted Team McCain for pumping up 'Weimar-like rage' at its rallies as it questioned Sen. Obama's association with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.
Oddly, the worst hate speech of all came from GA Congressman John Lewis, a black leader of the Civil Rights era. Without blinking an eye, Congressman Lewis compared Sen. McCain to racist, Alabama Gov. George Wallace who famously proclaimed "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" in 1963:
In a statement issued Saturday, Lewis said McCain and running mate Sarah Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse." He noted that Wallace also ran for president.
"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights," said Lewis, who is black. "Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."
Let's retrace the logic of Sen. Obama's supporters:
1. Questioning why Sen. Obama would launch his career in the living room of a former terrorist is off limits. (Even though he did).
2. But, comparing Sen. McCain to a racist former Governor, and a scourge of the Civil Rights movement is ok.
So remind me, who is playing the race card?
Update: Washington Post writer Anne Kornblut weighs in on the Lewis debacle with the sage observation, "Issue of Race Creeps Into Campaign." The headline would have been timely when the campaign started, say, three years ago.
To read the headlines of late is to read the over-eager obituaries of the American Economy.
For instance, the Washington Post proclaimed the death of American capitalism earlier this morning, and The Weekly Standard followed suit and recently pronounced dead free trade as we know it.
Imagine my surprise, then, to read a thoughtful op-ed from the New York Times that actually makes a little sense out of the economic madness. U of Chicago Prof. Casey Mulligan argues:
It turns out that John McCain, who was widely mocked for saying that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” was actually right. We’re in a financial crisis, not an economic crisis. We’re not entering a second Great Depression.
How do we know? Well, the economy outside the financial sector is healthier than it seems.
I suppose at the end of the fracas Mulligan will either be a genius or a pariah, but his analysis makes sense. The base indicator of economic health in Mulligan's world is the "the profitability of non-financial capital, what economists call the marginal product of capital."
In brief, the marginal product of capital is the amount of profit each dollar invested in the economy makes over a certain period of time. By this metric, American companies (granted those not rooted in the financial sector) continue to do well. Historically, the marginal product of capital has averaged $0.07 to $0.08 per year. Since 2007, the rate has averaged $0.10 per year according to Mulligan.
Admittedly, I am no economist. But Mulligan's comments strike me as commonsense. Our economy is large and includes companies from a broad swath of industries. The media focus has been only on the financial services sector, and we have ignored the health of the majority of our economy.
Once the dust settles, it will be interesting see whether Mulligan is friend or foe.
The story is a bit cold on Drudge at this point, but I have to say, hearing complaints from CBS reporters about Sen. Obama's campaign treatment evokes little sympathy from me.
Nevertheless, CBS embedded reporter Dean Reynolds had this to say after spending a day off from his usual perch on Sen. Obama's campaign plane to cover Team McCain:
Maybe none of this means much. Maybe a front-running campaign like Obama's that is focused solely on victory doesn't have the time to do the mundane things like print up schedules or attend to the needs of reporters.
But in politics, everything that goes around comes around.
Is this a threat? Is a lone, intrepid CBS reporter about to do his job and take off the gloves on Sen. Obama?
I suppose I can understand the nature of the veiled remark. Reporters would like their Wi-Fi connections solid, and their lattes with a decafe option.
But the argument 'what goes around comes around' coming from a CBS reporter is just silly. To wit, if Sen. Obama treated the press so badly, then why are they so deep in the tank for him?
The Politico's Roger Simon shows his bias early by calling VP Nominee, Gov. Sarah Palin, appalling and frightening. But the rest of his post makes for an interesting read.
After consulting with GOP operatives they offer two conclusions for how Sen. McCain can pull off the win in November starting tonight:
1. Define Obama's liberal agenda.
2. Take the gloves off, and attack Sen. Obama's judgment.
I woke up a bit earlier than normal this morning. The 60 degrees temps outside offered a Southern Arizona whisper of fall.
As a recovering New Englander, fall was always my favorite time of the year. Its cascade of colors, and the Life Is Goodpumpkin festival brought a certain satisfaction when I donned a sweater and a jacket. As an Oklahoma Sooner football fan, fall remains my favorite time of the year- even if I celebrate amid the cacti.
Why would I care about fall when I live in the land of varying degrees of hot? Around the third weekend of October marks the annual Oklahoma - Texas football game!
This year, the Sooners and the Longhorns will invade the Cotton Bowl down in Dallas for the Red River Shootout on Saturday morning. Oklahoma comes into the game top-ranked in the Nation. Texas boasts a humbler ranking at No. 5. Given my absolute disgust for the University of Texas (They have puke orange uniforms. Need I say more?), the Sports Illustrated column below lauding Sooners QB Sam Bradford naturally caught my eye.
SI is framing the Red River Shootout as a clash among Heisman Trophy hopefuls. Bradford comes into the game as the rough No. 2 favorite to win college football's most prestiegious award. Texas QB Colt McCoy comes rated No. 5.
My visceral hatred for Texas notwithstanding (It's hard to hate a school that boasts "I've Been Working on the Railroad" as its school anthem completely), OU - Texas remains my favorite game of the year. It is easily college football's super bowl. Nothing beats the atmosphere of the game.
So, with less than a week to go, here's wishing the Oklahoma Sooners much success against Texas.
Boomer Sooner!
Update: For those who simply do not 'get' my fanaticism, this link will shed some light on the mystery.
Well, Thursday night's Vice-Presidential debate has come and gone. The melee earned the attention of some 70 million Americans, and was easily the most watched Vice-Presidential debate in history. In fact, according to the early numbers, it was the most watched act of political theater in 12 years.
To this armchair pundit, the strength of Gov. Palin's debate performance can be summarized in one, oft-repeated phrase: Main Street. Naturally, this is the key demographic that intellectualists, and most liberals have trouble understanding. A bit of elucidation.
Gov. Palin's audience was not the cable news talking-heads, the beltway-insiders, or the army of political activists with entrenched interests. These types would have opposed her even if she had channeled her inner Geraldine Ferraro, and wore an Obama for America button. In fact, such Georgetown dilettantes spent the past two weeks ridiculing Gov. Palin's lack of substance in Katie Couric's finely edited interview of gotcha questions. Gov. Palin's inability to name her least-favorite Supreme Court decision drew especially pointed howls and heckles from the left.
But the problem with such intellectual minutia is that it is not on the radar of most Americans. To these, the Supreme Court is an institutional curiosity that rears its head in October and draws headlines in the Spring. It has little relevancy for how Americans will suffer through mortgage payments while the economy tanks. Simply put, the folks in Cedar Rapids, IA couldn't care less.
Given the inevitability of criticism, Gov. Palin smartly re-tooled her audience . Rather than trying tho shore up her policy credentials, or appeal to the strength of her policy positions (both would have been dismissed anyway), Gov. Palin took the stage in Missouri with one mission: connect with regular Americans.
Everything she did on Thursday night was directed toward this end. Her phrases, her message, and her criticisms were all aimed at connecting with that cross-section of population residing in the nebulous enclave known as 'Main Street.' Specifically, she addressed the concerns of suburban districts outside of major cities, and the bedroom communities of key swing states across the Nation. She was talking to voters in places like Colorado Springs, Co, King of Prussia, PA, Portsmouth, NH, Charlottesville, VA, and Liberty, MO. Places where people appreciate straight-talk, and simple statements of principle. The tactical goals were to speak their language, to be one of them, and to become the outsider fed up with Washington.
Gov. Palin accomplished all of the above with alacrity. Columnist David Brooks summarized it best:
It took her about 15 seconds to define her persona — the straight-talking mom from regular America — and it was immediately clear that the night would be filled with tales of soccer moms, hockey moms, Joe Sixpacks, main-streeters, “you betchas” and “darn rights.” Somewhere in heaven Norman Rockwell is smiling.
According to focus groups monitoring the debate, the move was a resounding success. In a discussion with Missouri voters, debate watchers uniformly gave her high marks.
Liberals, of course, were quick to dismiss her performance as anything meaningful. Sen. Biden "did well," and "left Ms. Palin way behind on most issues," according to Sen. Obama's press shop at the New York Times.
The analysis is disingenuous. Politics is a living, breathing animal. Winning elections depends as much upon Sen. Biden's bevy of facts as it does upon Gov. Palin's making them flesh and blood. Indeed, the most successful politicians of our era have tended to be those individuals who can best connect with the American people. Consider that Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and even George W. Bush all made relating to the 'folks' a high priority. They were all elected to two terms.
The NYT assessment also ignores reality. Joe Biden spent 35 years in the U.S. Senate, was the heavy favorite coming in to the debate, and yet he failed miserably to land the knock-out blow against a Wasilla hockey mom. Let there be no question- in politics, pathos counts.
Much ado has been made about AK Gov. Sarah Palin's Vice-Presidential debate tonight with DE Sen. Joe Biden. To listen to the punditocracy, one wonders whether Gov. Palin nets a win simply by showing up and stringing together a cohesive sentence.
Of course, whether tonight's debate will be fair remains suspect.
But what makes tonights match-up interesting is that the chattering classes utterly miss Gov. Palin's appeal to regular Americans (you know, those of us who avoid the Ivy Leagues, who cling to God, Guns and antipathy). Suffice it to say, the minutia of Supreme Court nuance is far off the radar of concern for everyday, working Americans.
For my friends on the left, and for those to whom her appeal remains mysterious, I commend to you the biography below from the Washington Post. It offers the single most comprehensive background into Gov. Palin's roots on the Alaska plain of any that I have read. It paints the portrait of a woman buttressed against the northern cold, who is steeled by life in the Klondike. In some ways, her rustic childhood reminds me of life in Oklahoma. It isn't difficult to see how rural values can shape such a public servant.
With the throes of 2L well upon me, I have scarce had time to listen to my iPod at all, let alone branch out to pass along new music recommendations. But this Pax Plena Song of the Week falls under the increasingly rare category of new music discoveries made by yours truly.
Composed by American folks musician Jay Ungar, and performed by Scottish Violinist Aly Bain, Ashokan Farewell made its debut on to the American music scene during the early 1990s in a PBS Mini-series called The Civil War. The song is written in the style of a Scottish air so it boasts a breezy, wistful melody that make it both enchanting and soaring at the same time. Listening to the piece, it is not difficult to imagine an evening stroll along the banks of the Ashokan Reservoir in upstate NY (the song's namesake), or a foggy overlook from the Scottish Highlands.
The story of the song is also intriguing. In a lengthy back and forth on his personal website, composer Jay Ungar describes the emotion he felt upon the song's completion:
I composed Ashokan Farewell in 1982 shortly after our Fiddle & Dance Camps had come to an end for the season. I was feeling a great sense of loss and longing for the music, the dancing and the community of people that had developed at Ashokan that summer. The transition from living at a secluded woodland camp with a small group of people who needed little excuse to celebrate the joy of living, back to life as usual, with traffic, newscasts, telephones and impersonal relationships, had been difficult. By the time the tune took form, I was in tears. I kept it to myself for months, unable to fully understand the emotions that welled up whenever I played it. I had no idea that this simple tune could effect others in the same way.
It is exactly this sense of melancholy that makes the song so powerful. Ungar describes his loss of community at the summer's conclusion, but it is easy to substitute this with a personal sense of plaintiveness. Even while Jay mourns the passing of summer, one could readily long for a lost love, a missed opportunity, or a change of pace all the same. Simply put, the emotions conjured by the music may be person specific, but the nature of the music itself is universal. Given the change invariably brought about through the on set of fall (See my thoughts on fall and change here, here, here, and here), I felt it was a timely selection.
In all, it is an absolutely stunning piece, and well-deserving of the title Pax Plena Song of the Week. A video of Ungar and Bain performing the song appears below as filmed in the Transatlantic Sessions by the BBC. Enjoy!
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
