When Conservatives Protest

From the beginning of the Iraq War until the day he left office, not a day went by that President George W. Bush was not burned in effigy.

Masses gathered in cities across the United States and around the world with images of President Bush donning the mustache of Hitler. Code Pink protesters interrupted every conceivable Congressional hearing and speech they could manage to slither their way into.

Guess (if you can) how many columns Tom Friedman wrote in outrage at the lack of decorum accorded to our Nation's Chief Executive. Surely, Thomas Friedman, that even-handed man of letters who so eloquently wrote of the none too distant day when the Lexus and the Olive Tree could coexist, surely he would protest the rank incivility that his liberal peers commended toward our President.

To be clear,Tom Friedman wrote exactly ZERO columns in protest of liberal protesters - even when the President was physically assaulted and attacked with a shoe by an irate journalist.

My how one's tone changes when the home team is down in the polls.

Today, some nine months after President Obama ascended into office with his domestic agenda in tatters, Thomas Friedman is concerned about the 'tone' of protesters attacking President Obama. In fact, his 'stomach turns' at the thought.

What exactly has given Mr. Friedman such gastrointestinal fits?

Mr. Friedman opines:

And Mr. Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet "socialist" to calling him a "liar" in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives.

[Link]

Let us take each point in turn.

First, Mr. Obama has been dubbed a closet socialist because his policies are consistent with closet socialism. As even Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee were obliged to admit, the shibboleth that was the public health insurance option was really just a liberal half-way house toward the single-payer system that the left had wanted all along.

To wit, the overall idea was one right out of the playbook of Democrat-Socialist Europe: creeping, incrementalism toward the left. And this the American public rejected with a resounding 'no.'

Just to torture the point a bit more, spunky protesters, later dubbed racists, had the satirical wherewithal to superimpose Mr. Obama's face on a witch doctor thereby equating the President's plan with economic voodoo - which, indeed, it was.

Second, Mr. Obama was called a liar in the middle of a joint-session of Congress because, well, he told a lie. Several lies in fact (consider this chestnut: "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it!" Ho, ho).

As for claims about Mr. Obama's birth certificate, well, this may be the lone good point Mr. Friedman makes. But since when have questions raised by the likes of Lou Dobbs ever been in the mainstream?

Methinks Mr. Friedman doth over-reach his argument, and is a bit drunk on sour grapes. With such a potent tonic, it is little wonder that Mr. Friedman's stomach churns. (Query whether he is constipated when Republicans are in office).

The rub is that the Dems and the left won the '08 election. But en route to holding hands with Iran while singing Kumbaya, they have badly lost the American people in the process. The Biblical adjuration about gaining the world and losing the soul comes to mind- of course this assumes, quite generously, that the left has a soul.

The more likely explanation for Mr. Friedman's mysterious outburst (and veritable fear for Mr. Obama's life) is that he is upset at how anemic the current administration is. As Bill Maher so eloquently put it in the Huffington Post earlier this week, the Dems control both house of Congress and the Executive branch and the only thing they have to show for it is Mr. Obama's dog.

Not exactly change we can believe in.

Is the Recession Bankrupting Faith?

It was not without some amusement that I read the AP's dour forecast for 'organized religion.'  Armed with the title Religious Life Won't Be the Same After Downturn, in nigh sarcastic language, the AP objectively lays out the case for religion's demise at the hand of 'The Great Recession.'

Religion has a long history of drawing hope out of suffering, but there's little good news emerging from the recession. Long after the economy improves, the changes made today will have a profound effect on how people practice their faith, where they turn for help in times of stress and how they pass their beliefs to their children.

[Link]

With so amorphous a title as 'religious life won't be the same after downturn', the author's work follows closely on the heels of the latest in great journalism and opinion writing- both of which tend to be heavy on verbiage, while not really communicating anything.  Saying that religious life will not be the same after the recession is about as innocuous as saying that tomorrow will not be the same after today. Were its form the article's only atrocity, I might well be inclined to leave the matter be. Unfortunately, it is the substance of the piece that I find most troubling. 

At its core, the assessment strikes me as having been written by someone who fundamentally misunderstands the role that faith plays in the lives of adherents. This is all the more troubling since it was penned by the AP's religion writer, Rachel Zoll. The rudimentary mistake Ms. Zoll makes is in assuming that economics has any relationship to faith at all. To wit, the entire point of faith is the embrace of something far beyond the "news emerging from the recession".  In this way, the economic climate is really beside the point for the Divine in nearly all faiths is wholly other. Like the New York Mets and the playoffs, the one is as far from the other as the east is from the west. 

Ms. Zoll also goes to great lengths to paint any change in religious practice as a substantive deviation from the spiritual norm.  Ms. Zoll's much touted "profound effect on how people practice their faith...and how they pass their beliefs on to their children" would have occurred regardless of whether "The Great Recession" ensued or not.  Simply put, religious practices have changed since the inception of every single world religion.  We Christians no longer stone witches for example, and the Muslims no longer wage jihad en masse (except in Afghanistan).  And even the Jews have changed their religious practices, no longer condoning marriage and its attendant sexual relationship with children - although this point was lost somehow on Roman Polanski. 

In brief, Ms. Zoll makes much ado about a very obvious thing: individuals have always changed how they practice their faith, and pass on beliefs to children.  These changes are a natural part of the life of anyone claiming to walk any road of faith at all.  What makes faith timeless is not its capricious shifting in the economic winds.  Quite the contrary.  What makes faith timeless is the belief in a Divinity that stands outside the bounds of time, providing hope amid the chaos that life brings. Schools may close, and budgets may be cut, but the tenants of faith remain in tact.

These points, of course, are all obvious.  Any cursory study of religion can corroborate any of the above.  So what gives?  The real agenda of the piece seems to be nothing less than a tacit endorsement of secularism generally. When forced to make an obligatory concession about the recent increase in worship attendance (during the recession mind you), the author countered with an unsupported claim that Americans are moving toward a 'general spirituality':

Clergy in different communities say worship attendance has increased with people seeking comfort through difficult times, although no one is predicting a nationwide religious revival.

Americans for years have been moving away from belonging to a denomination and toward a general spirituality that may or may not involve regular churchgoing.

As you can see from the above, the sole purpose of the second sentence is merely to undermine the fact of increased worship attendance during the recession.  But the author's own analysis only a few lines above notes that Americans are increasingly becoming 'non-denominational.' This is not necessarily the same as embracing a pantheistic spirituality as the author suggests.  As if this subtle dig were not enough, the article ends with an especially morose conclusion:

Religious leaders say the next year or so will be key in determining which organizations survive the downturn intact. Even if the recession ends soon, religious fundraisers say the angst donors feel will not lift immediately, prolonging the difficulties for congregations, schools and ministries.

Put differently, religion in America is going to hell in a hand-basket because "The Great Recession" is bankrupting faith.  This is indeed troubling. America would do much better if "The Great Recession" bankrupted the Associated Press instead.

Justice Delayed: Thoughts on Roman Polanski's Arrest

Apparently the arrest of convicted pervert, and filmmaker Roman Polanski is causing quite the stir in Europe. Reuters notes that French politicos are veritably up in arms, doubtless ready to storm the Bastille, demanding the release of the French National who fled the United States after his conviction of sleeping with a 13 year-old girl in 1977.

[Link]

Reuters notes that Polanski was invited to Zurich to accept a lifetime achievement award for his cinematography when U.S. authorities persuaded the Swiss to take Mr. Polanski into custody for extradition, and sentencing for his crime here in the U.S.

The French opprobrium is truly stunning. The man slept with a 13 year-old girl.  Just in case you missed that: he slept with a 13 year-old girl. He fled the U.S. and took refuge in France.  What is the difficulty of justice being served in the country in which he committed his crime?  Should the passage of time simply negate Polanski's crime and conviction?  Reasonable people would almost certainly say, 'no.'  True to form, some on the left have already begun conjuring arguments for clemency on Polanski's behalf. 

The Huffington Post's film critic John Farr recounts the tragic tale of Polanski's life en route to concluding that he is equal parts victim and predator.

But the story of what Polanski suffered even before the unspeakable trauma of having his pregnant wife Sharon Tate butchered in the spooky twilight of the turbulent Sixties makes me believe that overall, he's as much victim as predator himself.

[Link]

Farr's sob-story notwithstanding, this simple fact remains: not even Academy Award winners are above the law. Polanski deserves every day he is sentenced to spend in jail, and his decades-long evasion of responsibility should serve as an aggravating factor for whichever judge assumes the duties of his sentencing. As much as I enjoyed Polanski's 'The Pianist,' I enjoy seeing convicted rapists traipse about even less. 

If You're Happy and You Know It

An interesting survey in the New York Times yesterday outlined the trending gap of happiness between men and women.

Like any good exercise in self-flagellation, the author suggests that men do not shoulder their fair share of the burden in a relationship. But the jibe seems more obligatory than substantive.

According to the NYT, the real crux of the rift stems from the amount of things women now have to do.

What has changed - and what seems to be the most likely explanation for the happiness trends - is that women now have a much longer to-do list than they once did (including helping their aging parents). They can't possibly get it all done, and many end up feeling as if they are somehow falling short

[Link]

As a relatively, newly married husband, I tend to agree with the article's conclusion though not necessarily in its analysis.

In fact, the implication of the article almost strikes me as a bit sexist. The tone seems to suggest that the lot for women is an either/or proposition. Either women can have a stable home life and be happy, or they can have a career and be happy, but they certainly cannot have both and be happy.

This is simply counter to the trends of modernity and our common sensibilities. If we have learned anything in our present age, it is that the neanderthal relegation of women to the home is no longer a requisite. Women now share in the burden of choice for one's life alongside men.

This is crucial. The root of the matter is in the choice. Should a woman choose to have a career, or to remain at home, or to attempt both, the empowerment of women comes from being able to elect which course she would. Happiness is no guarantee, but a net gain or loss of happiness is not the result of having the opportunity to choose as the article suggests. It is the result of the outcomes of one's life decisions.

That said, I agree with the article to the extent that it is a difficult path to navigate- though no more so than any other facet of life. My own wife is pondering medical school, even while we weigh job prospects for me, and when to grow our family, if ever.

The bottom line is that life merely presents us with an array of choices. There are no guarantees of any happiness at all.

But with burden there is also blessing. Women may be less happy at this moment in time, but this is only a burden we enjoy because we are free to choose.

ACORN: One Tough Nut to Crack

Apologies for the headline. I couldn't resist. On the other hand, the title has some truth to it. ACORN is indeed proving to be a formidable foe for those opposed to government waste, and crime.

Having been outed for their 'questionable' practices (on film no less), what is any self-respecting corrupt organization to do? In the grand tradition of American legal chutzpah, they have opted to sue the little bastards who exposed their 'public interest' ponzi scheme.

[Link]

The problem, according to ACORN, is that MD law prohibits video taping of employees without their knowledge/consent. CNN notes that they are seeking an injunction against further disseminating the video of them giving tax advice to a pimp and prostitute.

I suppose the lawsuit could state a claim assuming ACORN's attorneys have not utterly misread the law. I would suspect they have not. After all, ACORN tends to hire only the finest legal minds. Consider that our Commander-in-Chief hails from among their legal ilk.

But the greater outrage is that ACORN would opt for litigation rather than clean up its act. Here, we have a situation where an aspirational organization is clearly aiding individuals in committing fraud, and the response from the organization is to sue the muckrakers, and bottle-up the evidence.

From a public relations perspective, retribution could not be a worse response. To wit, contrition might have earned them a bit of a reprieve- although this too is far from certain. Even Barney Frank is advocating that their funding be withheld.

All of which is to say, full speed ahead ACORN. I support your lawsuit. Not its merits of course. But one cannot help supporting the implosion, and fallout it will create. That it is the Democrats' pet interest makes it even more entertaining.

Glenn Beck on McCain

Fewer pundits have generated more buzz of late than the Fox Network's Glenn Beck. For this reason, and his general disdain of President Obama, I was almost inclined to like him.

Almost. 

In the video below, Beck claims Sen. McCain would have been a worse President for America than President Obama.


Watch CBS Videos Online

It would be too easy to break down how silly his position is. But more to the point, consider me, formally, not a fan of Mr. Beck. Country first.

HT: Hotair.

Lolcat of the Week

We are slowly resurrecting the lolcat of the week feature around these parts - even while the song of the week is pretty well defunct.

Burning the midnight oils here in Tucson, I cannot help but think that the lolcat of the week accurately sums up my love affair with coffee (and now tea). Enjoy!


see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Why We Have Tort Laws

I will be the first to admit that I'm no fan of the ambulance chasing mockery our tort system has become. Few things churn my stomach more than personal injury lawyers promising cash justice on local TV stations anytime a litigious accident victim feels that they have been wronged on account of their own foolishness. Suffice it to say, I am a firm proponent of tort reform.

Yet for all my harangues against the system, stories like the one below strike me as an wonderfully poignant example for why we have tort laws in the first place. According to CNN, a fertility clinic in Ohio negligently implanted the wrong embryos into would-be mother who is teetering on the edge of her ability to conceive. The mix up, could cost this mother her last opportunity to bear children. 

[Link]

The Savages have only limited options and time is continually winding down.  But the bottom line is that there is no amount of compensation that will cure the error. There is no dollar amount that will right the balance. And the best this family can hope for is that suing the clinic, and its negligent staff,  will somehow bring a sense of dignity in the judgment, and (hopefully) enough bank to permanently punish the clinic for its mistakes.  And for this reason we have a tort system. 

Note:  I anticipate my position on the tort system may raise some questions.  One might wonder whether I am adopting a different position regarding the use of embryos than I have in the past.  After all, from our many and lengthy conversations both here and elsewhere regarding stem cell research, I have been a firm proponent of using embryos to bolster our understanding of medical science through the development of stem cell research.  The challenge might follow that since embryos are destroyed in stem cell research (which I support), how can I now support suing a clinic for merely using improperly the embryos of another?

The difference is that in the case of stem cell research, the embryos were bound for destruction, and my position on the matter remains one of good sense (viz., we should use the embryos to preserve life rather than waste them indiscriminately). By contrast, the family in question here had entrusted some five embryos to an IVF clinic in hopes that the mother and wife would conceive.  Now, even in an ordinary IVF procedure, conception is no guarantee.  But theirs was a deliberate effort to harness the power of technology to create life. Now, because the of the clinic's mistake, this opportunity has been taken from them.  Indeed, hers is an especially sad tale because of the latent health risks jeopardizing her prospects for having anymore children at all. 

Obama's Health Insurance Tax

President Obama asserted many a time over the weekend that the Democrats plan to fine individuals for refusing to purchase health insurance was 'not a tax:

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.

Unfortunately, the President is using fuzzy math, and reasoning that most economists reject.

The AP sets the record straight:

WASHINGTON — Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don't — isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the coverage requirement.

"If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that's a tax," said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. "If you don't pay, the person who's going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS."

[Link]

I'm certainly no fan of the AP, but if even the press is willing to call a spade a spade, then surely the Obama Administration should do the same...

Jon Stewart Gets it Right on ACORN

The wires here have been a bit silent over the weekend. Me, the Mrs., and two good friends made a b-line for the beach, cooler climes, and the gorgeous weather of San Diego, CA. 

Naturally, I'm a bit late on the draw, but the Daily Show's Jon Stewart had a veritably hilarious piece over the weekend regarding the ACORN sting operation conducted by two undercover bloggers. 

After highlighting the idiocy of tax-payer dollars funding an obviously corrupt organization, Stewart lambastes the MSM for being out done by a duo of bloggers and a $3,000 budget.

The video is a fun watch, and seeing Stewart obliged to acknowledge the foolishness of leftist organizations is priceless.  To his credit, Stewart is a good sport about the piece and does an even-handed job of excoriating the press for its malaise. Well done!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

HT: Health Care Horse Race. Dogs and cats living together: Conservatives heart Stewart after ACORN monologue « Healthcare Horserace

Throwing Poland Under the Bus

In a move clearly aimed at appeasing Moscow, the Obama Administration announced plans to scrap the U.S. missile defense shield for Europe on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland during World War II. 

The Soviets invaded Poland on September 17, 1939. 

Conveniently, the AP reports Russia's approval of the plan.

Moscow said it would welcome a decision to scrap the plans, which had complicated U.S. efforts to enlist Russian support over Afghanistan, Iran and nuclear arms control.
[Link]

Exactly what benefit America receives from capitulating on our defense and the defense of our allies remains a mystery. 

In hindsight, I suppose it was only a matter of time before the President's national security policy began to reflect his leftist views.  This is to be expected, and elections do indeed have consequences.

But the myopic perception prevailing among liberals that appeasement somehow bolsters America's position and influence in the world is both naive and dangerous.

Is Opposing Health Care Reform Racist?

The silly debate on the matter not withstanding, the answer to the question is clearly, 'no.'

[Link]

Although one might fairly call the President's supporters statists....

Truth and the Press

The media double-standard I wrote about last week regarding Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst was really a mere warm-up act to former McCain Chief of Staff Mark Salter's piece below.

After excoriating the present state of incivility, Salter takes the press to task for being complicit in the problem.

Here's an excerpt:

But our political discourse won't begin to recover any civility until we get some referees back in the game, who will call bullshit on both sides.
[Link]

Truth spoken to power, indeed.

Read the whole thing. You will thank yourself later.

New Digs, New Links

I had resolved after my last website update to leave the thing alone awhile.  Yet, sometime today - blessedly while reading for my legal ethics class, I discovered that the server for the old site had crashed leaving everything in a white-washed state.

As always, my loss is your aesthetic gain, and I'm quite pleased with the new look.  Of course, I was quite pleased with the old look so take that for what you will.

In addition, I'm also glad to plug a new blog by my college friend, Diane Ellis.  The blog is actually a co-op of sorts talking about Calvinism and theology generally.  And, perhaps more interestingly, politics and conservatism specifically.  The posts are uniformly well-written as any product from a Dartmouth grad should be. 

A post from August excerpted below features a weighty musing about the plight of American conservatism, and potential paths out the mire. Her thoughts on President Obama are a fine assessment of our great leader.

Conservatives now find themselves energized by President Obama, a retrogressive statist who shares almost nothing in common with the average American. Ours is a president who daily impugns the intellect and dignity of those who oppose his policies. Ours is a president who frequently characterizes over half of all Americans as his “opponents” as he proceeds to demonize and ostracize them.

The Rebirth of American Conservatism

Anyway, a fine blog worthy of your perusal. Links can be accessed above, and to the right under 'links.'

I have also made an interesting Youtube discovery that I may or may not commend for your viewing pleasure, and I have plans to play the part of William F. Buckley in a law school debate. More on that later.

Obama on Kanye

According to sources at ABC, President Obama called Kanye West a 'jackass' for his antics last night toward Country Music star Taylor Swift.

Here at Pax Plena, we're glad to give the President thumbs up when he's right.  And on this issue, he's spot on.

[Link]

When Candidates Swear

Perhaps it's my cynical nature, but I take it for granted that much of politics is scripted. Call it 'high theater' if you will.

The microscope of the 24 hour media makes it nearly impossible for candidates to speak 'off-the-cuff.' When that intrepid statesman does traverse the realm of the unscripted, daring to forgo the teleprompter, the foray often yields unfortunate consequences (viz., Joe Wilson).

That said, my reaction to VA gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell's recent 'f-bomb' during a live radio interview isn't outrage over what he said. Even our erstwhile Vice President had the wherewithal to tell Vermont's Senior Senator what he could do to himself in an 'f bomb' moment of his own on the Senate floor. Point being, everyone swears now and again - some of us more than we should.

No, my disappointment with Mr. McDonnell comes from him being so undisciplined a candidate as to allow the swear word to slip out at all. I suppose this week we will have a better understanding of its fallout.

[Link]

Health Care, Heckling, and the President's Lies

Hours after Congressman Joe Wilson heckled President Obama for 'lying' about aspects of the Dems health care proposal, the general reaction from the chattering class was one of universal condemnation.

According to the powers that be, the Congressman failed to show the President 'respect befitting the office,' and his comments were 'totally disrespectful.'

Granted, while the Congressman's remarks were out of taste, in many ways they were not beyond the pale. President's are routinely heckled, and when the such heckling comes from anyone other than a member of Congress, the press tends to give the hecklers a pass.

• Note the absence of outrage when President George W. Bush was heckled by Australian Senators during a joint-session of the Australian legislature in 2003.
• Note the absence of indignation when hecklers called President Bush a 'fascist' during an Independence Day ceremony in 2008.
• Note the absence of derision when an Iraqi journalist threw his SHOES at President Bush during a press conference in December of last year.

Flash back to the present. Because this week's heckler was a Congressman, and because the President is a Democrat making a pitch on health care, the matter is one for utmost scorn.

I'm not writing in defense of Congressman Wilson. Heckling strikes me as shrill thing, and while I am many things, shrill is not among the adjectives I would ascribed to myself. Yet, there is something askance about the faux outrage that the Congressman's remarks have inspired- to say nothing of whether the Congressman was actually telling the truth.

So, what of this truth?

Well, the President by most accounts did not lie when he said that illegal aliens would not receive federal benefits under his 'proposal'. But the problem is that the President's proposal is not the bill being considered by either chamber of Congress.

According to the non-partisan, Congressional Research Service, it is at least possible that illegal immigrants could receive health care benefits under the Democrats plans to expand Medicaid. Perhaps the President did not lie on this point, but one could hardly fault a person for believing that he did. Let us simply conclude that the President certainly failed to tell the truth.

Yet, this was not the only misleading point about the President's speech. One more glaring example. The President surely mislead his audience by making the audacious claim that the bill would not add $1 to the federal deficit. This simply isn't true. Even the CBO admits that the current bill on the table would 'enhance' the Nation's deficit to the tune of $1 trillion. Is it then a 'lie' for the President to claim that the deficit would be unaffected by the Dems plan? Of course it is.

So, what then of the Congressman's claims? The simple conclusion of the matter is that the President, indeed, lied. Better still, since the Attorney General is so keen on torture investigations, it might be fairly said that President Obama 'tortured' the truth. Call it a rhetorical water boarding of our health care debate. This fact alone should be the source of our opprobrium, and indignation.

Second Most Competitive Economy

The AP is reporting that the U.S. dropped in the annual ranking of most competitive economies to second behind Switzerland.

According to the World Economic Forum, the drop was largely attributed to the financial crisis, and (more importantly) toward ballooning 'fiscal deficits.'

The United States has lost its place as the world's most competitive economy, mainly because of the financial crisis and accumulated fiscal deficits, according to a survey released Tuesday.

[Link]

Having only the second most competitive economy should be anathema to America and its leaders. The lesson of this ranking for Congress and the Administration is that short-sighted spending is not the long-term solution to our economic woes.

Sadly, as President Obama so eloquently remarked in 2006, "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

OU Drops Season Opener to BYU

The headline of last night's game between the Oklahoma Sooner's and the BYU Cougars wasn't the score - although Oklahoma fell to BYU 14 - 13.  The headline of last night's game was the loss of OU's Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Sam Bradford to a shoulder injury midway through the second quarter.

Team doctors remain unsure when he might return.

[Link]

True to form, the Oklahoma naysayers have all but pronounced the team dead. Indeed, Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel declared the Sooner's title hopes dead, implicitly declaring that Sam Bradford's NFL career was dead as well. Of course, the last time Mandel wrote anything positive about Oklahoma he was gingerly explaining how he simply could not stomach a vote for Bradford in last year's Heisman race. Naturally, one would be wise to consider the source.

One point of information on the decedent, Oklahoma Sooners: losing a star player early in the season is nothing new.

The Sooners have no such policy, but they have been through this before. Starting quarterback Jason White got hurt in both 2001 and 2002, prior to his Heisman Trophy run. Adrian Peterson was a season and a half removed from being the Heisman runner-up when he broke his collarbone in 2006 and missed seven games.

Two of those three seasons ended with Oklahoma still winning the Big 12 championship and going to a BCS bowl.

"We do have a track record here," Wilson said. "We've lost some guys through the years. It is a part of the game. You don't want it. You don't want it for anyone, but I do think we've shown that we do have the ability to adjust and we do have a bunch of good players here that will rally and pick it up."

[Link]

True, the situation is far from ideal. But it's also far from dire. 

Lest anyone think I am more annoyed with Stewart Mandel than I really am, I find myself obliged to concede that Mandel isn't wrong on every issue.  He correctly dubbed last summer's Senate BCS Antitrust hearing as a 'waste of time.' 

In fact, the hearing was a waste of time - not unlike Stewart Mandel's weekly column in Sports Illustrated.

Schilling for Senate

The news is a bit premature, but here's hoping former Red Sox ace Curt Schilling makes a bid for Ted Kennedy's vacant seat.

[Link]

Relitigating the Case for Huckabee

Neil Stevens at Redstate has an interesting piece up today evaluating the prospects of another White House bid for former AR Gov. Mike Huckabee.

[Link]

Stevens suggests that if Huckabee can morph into a fundraising machine, then his service to the GOP may situate him well for a bid in 2012.

I'm inclined to agree having long been a Huckabee fan. But Stevens solution strikes me as ironic given that a dearth of fundraising was largely what led to Huckabee's undoing on Super Tuesday. On the other hand, it's true that time and name recognition will do wonders for a candidate - particularly in a GOP primary...