Seeing Through The Fog

My political dispositions ought to be well known by now, so I don't think I need to bring them up again, but I did want to briefly address the recent revelations in the much-discussed so-caled Troopergate scandal. One of the big problems with the Palinsanity that ensued in the weeks following her announcement as Veep, besides the general sleaziness of many of the attacks, was the problem of crying wolf, that Simon dealt with earlier.

Let me say that I still like Sarah Palin (although my opinion of her has diminished somewhat), and yet I've always had concerns about some of her policy positions, and certain aspects of her record. Surely, even the most committed Palinites have to recognize that there are valid criticisms that can be made about her. Many press outlets, and various anti-Palin outfits have made such fools of themselves over the past few weeks, that when legit stories come up, they are treated with an amount of skepticism they otherwise wouldn't be.

In case you didn't know, a 263-page report was released by Alaska lawmakers investigating the scandal, that basically accuses Palin of abusing her power, in firing Mike Wooten. The McCain-Palin camp has called it a partisan witch hunt, and have issued a "clarification," that they assume will put the issue to rest. The thing is, I'm not at all prepared to call it a witch hunt run by pro-Obama partisans, just because Palin says it's a witch hunt. I agree with Ann, that even Palin fans ought not dismiss this outright.

First off, let me clear two things up right away: I am not saying that this report is valid, or that Palin did in fact abuse her power. It should be noted that as the Governor she has the perogative to fire Wooten, for basically any reason, so there's no criminality involved here. However, there is an alleged issue of credibility at play.

The point is, with the MSM's predispositions regarding Palin, and the aforementioned history of unfair attacks, Palin can cry "partisan witch hunt" with much more credibility than she would've had otherwise, because there was (and in certain quarters still is) a partisan witch hunt going on. People are more inclined to believe she's the victim of unfair attacks, even when she's not, and the media's reputation becomes so damaged that everything that comes out, is treated with a grain of salt. Everything.

Much Has Been Said Of The Anger That Will Be On Display if Obama Loses,

but for my money, and I may be the only one here to think this way, considering recent events, I'm concerned about the anger that we'll see if he wins.

Happy Birthday, Constitution!

The Constitution is 221 years old today:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Read the whole thing.

HT: Simon

Now That Was Good TV

Tina Fey nails it:



That was the highlight of the show, with all due respect to the icon Michael Phelps. I really don't see how anyone but Tina could have done it.

Seven Years Later, We Still Haven't Forgotten

Seven years ago today, America suffered the worst attack on her soil in history. Nearly 3,000 people were murdered by evil forces bent on our destruction. They declared war on us, and we ought to do every just and right thing we can to prevail over those who would seek to kill us, and threaten our way of life. We must challenge the ideology that drives them, and contend for the idea of human freedom. WE need to win the war, is all I'm saying.

BTW, think what you want, but this goes beyond the elction, whoever you're voting for.

God Bless America.

More on The Speeches

I'll have more complete thoughts on the RNC speeches later in the day, but I'll just say for now that Palin did an impressive job, and despite my obvious disagreements with a number of her policies, I like her. I've noted here and elsewhere that the attacks on her by the press and the far-Left are unfair and unfortunate.

I do have one quibble though: What's so bad about being a community organizer? Now admittedly, it doesn't compare to McCain's military record, but I just don't see why Obama being a community organizer is such a point of derision. Palin and Giuilani attacked him on this.

More on that later, but over at Booker Rising, a bit of a mini-ruckus has been raised about my praising of Lieberman's speech Tuesday night. First off, I have not made up my mind yet who I'm voting for yet, although I have leaned various directions throughout this campaign, and I'm leaning a particular way now. I can't really be counted as a firm Obama supporter at this point, but I do like him a lot, and have said so in the past.

Nevertheless, I was attacked by various commenters, as well as Lieberman. No big deal, I can take it (and so can Lieberman), but in the midst of the ad hominem, a few valid points were brought out, namely the fact that Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006.

The fact is, he did, and Obama has always counted Lieberman as a mentor. Now, I don't think Lieberman backing the man who he believes is best equipped to lead the country is disloyalty, but Obama can count his support for Lieberman in 2006, against the anti-war forces in his party as an example of bipartisanship, and I'm surprised he hasn't brought it up. Of course, Obama and Lieberman have differed on key issues, namely Obama's opposition to the surge, and his support for premature withdrawal. An argument could be made that maybe Lieberman shouldn't have gone after Obama directly, but he was probably the only speaker that night that actually offered any praise for his Senate colleague, and with all respect to Obama, he did have a point. McCain has clearly more legislative experience than Obama, and a much more significant record of bipartisanship than Obama does.

The fact is, Lieberman made his choice because he believes it's right, and it's not as if he owes his party much of anything, seeing as how the leadership essentially sanctioned his being thrown under the bus. We Democrats owe him our Democratic majority in the Senate, as it is held together by Lieberman's own will. The Dems didn't take LIeberman's speech too well, though, and have already readied his excommunication. It was clear that Lieberman's position as the preserver of the Dem majority kept him the caucus, but it's apparent now, that if they get enough seats that they no longer need him, he's back under the bus.

It's a shame really. Obama could prove himself to be above all this, and stick his neck out for Lieberman, but I doubt it. Let it never be said that opposing your party isn't without consequences.

"You may be thinking of voting for John McCain but you're not sure. Some of you have never voted for a Republican before"

Joe Lieberman made his plea for McCain tonight, and he was good:

Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record - not in these tough times.

In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic party.

Contrast that to John McCain's record, or the record of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups and worked with Republicans to get important things done like welfare reform, free trade agreements and a balanced budget.

And this:

Especially at a time of war, we need a president we can count on to fight for what's right for our country - not only when it is easy, but when it is hard.

When others were silent, John McCain had the judgment to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq. When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground.

John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge, and because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor!

Indeed. I'll tell you straight, that Lieberman damn near persuaded me tonight. It could be based on other things I've been feeling about the election in recent days, and the far-Left pile on Sarah Palin, but let me say that as far as my vote goes, Obama is lucky the election isn't being held tonight.

Powerful Speeches, Personal Attacks, and Palin

I've made my views on Obama;s speech well known elsewhere, but I wanted to share some quick thoughts on the speech, with particular focus on one of the big controversies raised by it. I liked the speech, and I thought he did a good job doing what he needed to do for his audience, and the moment. The use of the theatrics was well-executed-- it was grand and spectacular, but not too imperious. I remain amazed at how many people were there.

As for the substance, I thought he did a pretty good job making his case why the McCain policy agenda is too much of the same and bad, and why his (and the Democratic agenda) is good, and the change we need. Naturally, a lot of this depends on whether one agrees with the policies (and even I had issues with some his proposals), but he's speaking to a Democratic audience. Sure a lot of it was traditional Democratic fare, but it's a Democratic year, after all.

One of the prevailing memes from many on the right is that it was an angry speech, and not very inspiring. I think it was appropriate to attack McCain on policy, but pro-McCain forces contend that he attacked McCain personally, and accuse Obama of attacking McCain's courage and patriotism. I didn't see that at all, but this is the offending phrase:

"You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell. But he won't even follow him to the cave where he lives."

FWIW, I don't think he should've used that line, but what I think Obama was doing was advancing the argument that the Iraq war was a distraction from the hunt for Bin Laden. It's a sloppy argument, and not one I agree with, but Obama was hitting at McCain's policy judgment. The thing is, the line is problematic for three other reasons, the first being that it ignores the reality of the Bin Laden situation, the second being that McCain has no authority as Senator to catch Bin Laden (nor does Obama), and third, it contradicts Obama's own wise point about impugning the motives of those with whom we disagree. McCain and Obama disagree on the best way to fight the GWOT, but it's bad form to even appear to imply that McCain doesn't want to go after Bin Laden. That's just as bad as suggesting that Obama puts his self-interest ahead of the country, or that he'd "rather lose a war, than lose an election."

I suspect Obama felt the need to play tit-for -tat, but it does hurt the speech somewhat.

I thought he closed out well with his change and post-partisan theme, although he still has the problem of lacking a real legislative record to back that up.

Oh, and then there's Sarah Palin, who was a surprising and impressive choice by McCain. The Obama camp may not have gone too negative last night, but their dismissive and almost haughty response to Palin is disappointing, and may only serve to drive away more Hillary voters. Is he really going to try to use the inexperience tag? Not good at all on that score.

Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong

At least when it comes to the truth of the Russia-Georgia conflict. This solid piece from Michael Totten:

TBILISI, GEORGIA – Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. “The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia,” the Associated Press reported over the weekend in typical fashion.

Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.

Read the whole thing, as it's much too lengthy to properly excerpt. Let me also add that this, among other reasons is why Obama's recent gaffe is so frustrating. I know it's his week and all, but I have to call 'em as I see 'em.

Biden.

Biden is Obama's man.

Discuss. My thoughts forthcoming.

Obama's Labour Battalion?

Over at SF, Simon has a good post about new hubbub and faermomgering about the draft. Tully has an interesting comment, about Obama's plan for "National Service," and links to this quote:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

At first glance, it sounds pretty creepy, however, I'm going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and suggest that maybe things aren't quite what they seem. As I suggested there, perhaps this is just an inartful way of Obama promoting expanded civic volunteerism, as in the Peace Corps, or Americorps. Of course I could be wrong, as Tully is on onto something when he points out that such plans usually require some form of compulsion, not to mention that "civilian antional security force" gives me the creeps. Again, I do think that many have the tendency to project their own biases upon Obama's policies, and I suspect that at the very least, its a scheme that tries to appeal to America's compassionate nature (he has many of those), and at worst, a well-intentioned plan that may not work out in the real world, without some undesirable consequences (he has a few of those, too).

United By Opposition

I'm still intrigued by a post by my co-blogger Simon over at Stubborn Facts, about a David Brooks piece on McCain's new negative campaigning being a response to Obama's media coverage. I left a comment there that I think captures my view on this quite well, but this led me back to something I've been pondering for a while, that is the unifying force behind the conservative support for McCain. McCain has, and always will have dedicated support from moderate Republicans, independents, and even many moderate Democrats. I respect McCain a great deal, and I've said so before. Amongst the right-wing base of the GOP, the story has been different. The rifts betwen McCain and the GOP base are recent and well-known. Remember that it was only mere months ago that McCain appeared before the CPAC, to "heal the wounds," as it were.

Things have changed, however. I've no doubt that the right-wing distaste for McCain is still there, as a close reading of righty blogs will reveal, but for the most part, the conservative leadership has lined up behind McCain. Despite the rants of the likes of John Hawkins and Ann Coulter, most righties have decided on McCain, or rather they've settled for him. You see, that's the thing, while most of Obama's core supporters have enthusiatically embraced him (a few of them taking it to unseemly levels of hero-worship), most righties have merely settled on McCain. For many, if they had their druthers, would've chosen someone else.

If you check out most righty blogs nowadays, you'll notice that you see a whole lot of anti-Obama posts and ads, and less pro-McCain stuff. The reason why is simple: The right-wing base is full of zeal, but it's not in support for McCain, rather it's in total opposition to Obama. They hate his guts, and are willing to put aside their issues with McCain (well, most of them) to see Obama defeated. The right is unified by opposition to Obama.

Now to be fair, most righties are pretty upfront about this, and the Left is hardly different with regards to Bush, but a lot of Democrats really like Obama, and Obama has an easier time getting money from his supporters than McCain does.

Brooks' article mentions that McCain's numbers have gone up as he's gone negative against Obama, and a good reason for this is that McCain has helped to unify righties against Obama. Conservatives seem to think it's a a bad thing for McCain to have good relations with Democrats, so the fact that he's in full attack mode helps him among his base, although it might hurt him among moderates.

In 2004, a lot of Democrats had the mindset of Anybody But Bush, and now the GOP has the mindset of Anybody But Obama. They are unified by opposition.

About That Saddleback Forum Saturday Night...

OK, I'm pretty sure most watched, or at least heard about the Saddleback Forum at Rick Warren's church Saturday night, and the continuing controversies. I watched it, and just had some quick thoughts:

I thought Rick Warren did a good job. He was trying to create a civil discourse with both candidates, and I thought he did that to the best of his ability. As to the debate itself, I thought both did a good job, although as far as getting done politically what needed to get done, McCain did better than Obama. Despite the growing consensus in many quarters, I don't think Obama did that bad, although he did make some missteps. First off, let me say that McCain had some implicit advantages in some of the questions.

I don't mean that there was cheating or foul play afoot (I'll deal with that in a moment), but I think certain questions intrinsically favored McCain. The "gut wrenching decision" question is an example. I've no doubt that Obama wrestled with the decision to support the Iraq war, but that doesn't really compare with the decision to turn down early release from that Vietnamese prison camp. It just doesn't. There's really nothing Obama could've done to counter that, although I find myself wishing he had a better answer. In fact, Obama had no real legislative authority to effect the decision to go to war (Not that settling the moral question in one's heart and mind isn't a serious one), so the effect is diminished slightly. Some may balk at this, but I think he should've mentioned his decision to break with his former church. Surely it would've opened him up to more scrutiny by his opponents, but I take Obama at his word on his explanation of why he left Trinity.

The gay marriage answer was pretty good, although he did stumble through the last part. McCain does get a benefit on the gay marriage, abortion, and the question of judges, because his views on those issues are more in line with those of the audience. McCain is pro-life, and has a 20-plus year pro-life record. It's easier for him to explain that.

Staying on the abortion question, I think Obama's biggest gaffe was the obvious one, the "above my pay grade" answer, to Rick Warren's question. That was a sloppy mistake. I know what he was trying to say (it's up to God), but it came off as evasive, cold, and stupid. I think Ann Althouse hits the nail with her explanation:

Now, let's also look at Rick Warren's rhetoric. He asked, after a preface about abortion, "when does a baby get human rights in your view?" And, most obviously, his use of "baby" instead of "fetus" or at least "unborn baby" conveys a lot of opinion. But look at what else Warren is doing. He is not asking when does life begin?, a question that is much more susceptible to Obama's answer that only God knows. Warren is asking when do rights begin? That makes it a legal question. And Warren even appends the phrase "in your view."

So Obama's answer — that it's not for him to say — is inapt. Obama answered the question he expected to hear. But Warren had the wit to frame the question in terms of a legal opinion that Obama was fully equipped to give. When does the baby have legal rights?

Exactly. Warren was prepared, and asked a question Obama apparently wasn't ready for. Obama answered the question he either thought was asked, or thought should be asked, and missed it on this one. Warren himself expounds on Obama's answer(link via Althouse):

No. I think he needed to be more specific on that. I happen to disagree with Barack on that. Like I said, he's a friend. But to me, I would not want to die and get before God one day and go, 'Oh, sorry, I didn't take the time to figure out' because if I was wrong then it had severe implications to my leadership if I had the ability to do something about it. He should either say, 'No scientifically, I do not believe it's a human being until X' or whatever it is or to say, 'Yes, I believe it is a human being at X point,' whether it's conception or anything else. But to just say 'I don't know' on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.

Nope, not clear enough at all.

However, as I saw it, those were his only major gaffes. I do think he had a different attitude about the debate than McCain did, that may count as a mistake. I do think some of his answers, particularly his foreign policy answers, were a but too abstract and philosophic, while McCain went directly to policy and specifics. When asked about evil, McCain went directly to 9/11 and al-qaeda. McCain mentioned Russia and Georgia. McCain sounded forceful on those answers. Obama's answers weren't bad, it's just that McCain seemed to keep the focus on the issues at hand. I still hesitate somewhat to call this a mistake on Obama's part, as both candidates have different approaches, and had different tasks during the debate. McCain saw this as his opportunity to shore up his evangelical base, and the talk from many righties is that they like what they saw. Obama had to make a good impression with evangelical voters, ans he may have hurt himself somewhat with the abortion answer, and the dis to Clarence Thomas.

Not that most conservatives were going to vote for Obama, anyway.


A quick point about the cheating controversy. I don't believe it. While it's apparently true that McCain wasn't in the "cone of silence," Rick Warren says he took real steps to keep McCain from hearing Obama, and I believe him. McCain says he didn't hear the questions, and I believe him as well. Also, I wonder what difference it would have made. I think those amongst the Obama circles who advance this story aren't helping, as it makes Obama look whiny and weak.

All in all, mistakes included, they both did a decent job. Besides, I think Ann is right when she points this out:

There were many other differences on display at the forum. Compare their answers on abortion and their efforts to put a number on "rich." It's this displaying of differences that matters far more than any conclusions about who won.

Yeah.


ADDED: Sully also misses the point, but Ross Douthat gets it right.

AND: This from Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, on why the dis to Clarence Thomas could be a major disaster.

On the Race Card, And Other Issues

Now I'm sure we're all aware of the latest bit of controversy between Obama and McCain, over cooments Obama made about the GOP and race. For a refresher, Obama said this:

"What they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

McCain took offense, and responded:

"I'm disappointed that Senator Obama would say the things he's saying," McCain told reporters in Racine, Wis. The Arizona senator said he agreed with campaign manager Rick Davis' statement earlier that "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

Obama's camp defended themselves this way:

"Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue, but he does believe they're using the same old low-road politics to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign," said spokesman Bill Burton.

Let me say that I think Obama did make a mistake here, as McCain himself hasn't really brought up the issue of race, although Obama himself has, albeit in a different context. To be fair, Obama argued that the GOP would use race as an issue (and let's be clear, there's no other way to really interpret that "doesn't look like other Presidents" line), not that they did, although it's not really fair to make such a prediction without prior evidence. As to patriotism and attendant issues, Obama's on safer ground, at least with regards to the anti-Obama forces in general (less so with McCain specifically).

At the end of the day, on this issue, Obama played the race card.

Changing gears for a bit, there's been much talk about the campaign turning negative. It's a little disheartening, but not at all surprising, as I suspected for a while now that the idea of the candidates not going negative was a fairy tale. McCain has clearly decided to go negative, and if you ask me, it's personal now, as reflected by this now infamous ad, and this new one just put out.

First off, I'm not at all offended by these, but they are negative, decidedly personal, and ridiculous. The Spears-Hilton ad makes McCain look desperate. Some have suggested that there are racist overtones, but I don't see that at all. Rather, it's McCain basically saying Obama is an empty, vacuous celebrity with nothing to offer, like Britney and Paris. There are ways of making the argument I think McCain's trying to make, without taking it to that level. It makes him look silly, and frankly, a little petty.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

"with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

Happy Birthday, America.

Here is the full text of that great Declaration:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections"

Obama flips on his pledge on public financing for the general election.

But listing the Iraq war, healthcare, education and the economy as defining issues for November's election, Obama said: "This is our moment and our country is depending on us.

"So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people."

With all due respect sir, you flipped on this. There's no getting around it. You flipped. I don't want to make any broad conclusions based on this, but these sorts of things may give some the impression that you have a problem keeping your word:

"Today, Barack Obama has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama," McCain's communications director Jill Hazelbaker said.

"The true test of a candidate for president is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people," she said.

"Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics."

Like I said, I'm not prepared to condemn Obama as a phony, but when you set out to be a new kind of politician, these sorts of things don't help that image, and do more damage than they would otherwise. That's all I'm saying.

Tim Russert, 1950-2008

The nation has lost a true legend today, as Tim Russert has died. He collapsed at his desk, and had a heart attack. He was only 58. Good Lord, this is sad news. Tim Russert was an icon of journalism. Straight-up, honest, decent journalism. I have vivid memories of Sunday mornings, watching Tim Russert do his thing. He was an icon. Tough but fair, never tearing people down, and called it right down the middle. I'll never forget his Election 2000 coverage, with his dry-erase board.

It's a sad day for the nation. RIP, Tim Russert. There's a special spot in Heaven for men like yourself.

The tributes on TV were great as well. Really inspiring.

Obama Clinches The Nomination...

It's pretty much official that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. Hillary has not conceded yet, and there's still talk of her being VP. More to come later, including two essays I'm working on, on the hawkish case for Obama, and the liberal case for McCain. More soon...

For Memorial Day

I posted this great poem by Henry van Dyke last year, and I think it's still worth revisiting. Just remember, during your cookouts, movie marathons, time with family, or however you choose to celebrate, that many brave men and women gave, and still give, to keep us free.

"Liberty Enlightening The World"

Thou warden of the western gate, above Manhatten Bay,
The fogs of doubt that hid thy face are driven clean away:
Thine eyes at last look far and clear, thou liftest high thy hand
To spread the light of liberty world-wide for every land.

No more thou dreamest of a peace reserved alone for thee,
While friends are fighting for thy cause beyond the guardian sea:
The battle that they wage is thine; thou fallest if they fall;
The swollen flood of Prussian pride will sweep unchecked o'er all.

O cruel is the conquer-lust in Hohenzollern brains;
The paths they plot to gain their goal are dark with shameful stains:
No faith they keep, no law revere, no god but naked Might; --
They are the foemen of mankind. Up, Liberty, and smite!

Britain, and France, and Italy, and Russia newly born,
Have waited for thee in the night. Oh, come as comes the morn.

Serene and strong and full of faith, America, arise,
With steady hope and mighty help to join th brave Allies.

O dearest country of my heart, home of the high desire,
Make clean thy soul for sacrifice on Freedom's altar-fire:
For thou must suffer, thou must fight, until the warlords cease,
And all the peoples lift their heads in liberty and peace.

Henry van Dyke April 10, 1917

When You Put It LIke That...

You know, I've always held that the meme that Obama is somehow less than supportive of Israel, or wants to appease terrorists in the Middle East is false and ridiculous. I still hold to that, but I must admit I find this disquieting:

It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.

Lee Smith explains what's wrong with Obama's analysis:

Obama's language is derived from those corners of the left that claim Hezbollah is only interested in winning the Shia a larger share of the political process. Never mind the guns, it's essentially a social welfare movement, with schools and clinics! – and its own foreign policy, intelligence services and terror apparatus, used at the regional, international and now domestic level. But the solution, says, Obama, channeling the man he fired [Robert Malley] for talking to Hamas, is diplomacy.

Yeah. Like I said, disquieting.

Real Moderates

I though this was interesting, from Michael J. Totten, on moderate Muslims, and the NYT's inability to showcase real moderate Islam.

First, for perspective, there's this from guest-blogger Lee Smith:

A Turkish Sufi, even if he tried to undermine the secular nature of a US ally, is less scary than the adolescent Pakistani mobs he is trying to educate; Tariq Ramadan, even if he is of two minds about stoning women to death for adultery, is less scary than bin Laden; Brooklyn's Reda Shata may have mourned the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, but he is less scary than Omar Abdul Rahman, the Brooklyn sheikh jailed for his role in the 1993 WTC attack. Unfortunately, it seems to be beyond the scope of the Times to recognize that this is how politics is typically waged in the Muslim Middle East, with the “moderates” serving as both arsonists and firemen, using the violence of the “extremists” against the established order and promising to rein them in.

Finally, one can only sympathize with American Muslims, those who may or may not be religious, but surely have no attachment to the obscurantist fanatics that drove them from the region, and must now be wondering what is wrong with the New York Times that the only Muslims that register with the paper of record are very scary ones, and less scary ones.

Michael Totten expands on this, with a piece in Commentary magazine, on authentic moderates, which he argues can easily be found, if one knows where to look:

A large number of Kosovo's Muslims are Sufis—the most peaceful and the least fundamentalist of all the world's Muslims. Sufis can be found in many parts of the Islamic world, but here in Kosovo they proudly proclaim that they are the most “progressive” of all.

Soft-imperial Wahhabis are trying to export their brand of Islam from the deserts of Saudi Arabia to this fertile green land. They have their work cut out for them with this crowd. Bosnia notoriously welcomed thousands of Salafist mujahideen fighters from the Arab world during Yugoslavia's violent demise. But the Kosovo Liberation Army brusquely told them to stay the hell out of their country—even while they faced an ethnic cleansing campaign directed from Belgrade.


Read the whole thing.

Happy Birthday, Israel

The modern state of Israel celebrates its 60th birthday today. By God's grace, and the hard work of many, Israel survives, and despite challenges, thrives, whether certain people like it or not.


HT: Fern, with more links.

This blog now has a working site counter!

Finally.

Obama Wins in Tarheelia, Indiana Still Too Close...

It's still unsettled in Indiana, although Clinton has a slight lead. Keeping tabs.

UPDATE: Hillary wins Indiana, but it may be a Pyrrhic victory.

John Conyers' Wife Gets Put In Her Place By An Eighth Grader

That eighth-grader is one Kierra Bell, who respectfully reminded President Pro-Temp of the Detroit City Council Monica Conyers (who is third in line to the mayoralty), that she is an adult, and ought to behave like one. This was priceless, and embarassing at the same time (HT: Pat):




What a fool, Mrs. Conyers is. What a fool. We need to pray for Detroit, my friends. I mean it.

Pat has the transcript, as well as links to the backstory.

Speaking of Nazi Imagery...

Here is this story about one aspiring Congressman named Tony Zirkle, along with a few rules to remember when seeking political office:

• 
  Don't show up at a white supremacist commemoration of Hitler's birthday.
• 
  Don't give a speech about white women being taken into sexual slavery in Israel to a white supremacist commemoration of Hitler's birthday while standing under a large portrait of Adolf Hitler.
• 
  Don't talk about sexually transmitted diseases supposedly being encouraged by pornography (or, as Zirkle likes to call it, the "porn dragon") from Jewish bookstores as "genocide" against the white race to a bunch of white power rangers wearing T shirts with portraits of Hitler on the back at a white supremacist commemoration of Hitler's birthday.

Good tips. Read the whole thing. It gets worse.

HT: Sully, and Megan McArdle

Ben Stein Has Lost His Mind

Maybe, as Tully suggests, it's because his problematic movie isn't doing so hot, or considering some of the faulty arguments he makes in his film, he really believes this, but this has got to be one of the revolting things I've ever seen:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

Good word!? Come on Paul, you ought to know better. Stein ought to know better as well, but as Tully suggests in his post, it's all about coarsening the culture. Advance the idea that science is anti-God, yet rail against evolutionists who argue that belief in God is anti-science. The cultural divide deepens, and Stein wins more money. Oh yeah, and throw some Holocaust imagery for good measure, never mind the context. I guess anything goes in the culture war.

I mean, Stein has been known to advance absurd lies in the service of narrow ideological causes before, but this is just beyond the pale.

Considering Kosovo

Always-at-the-top-of-his-game Michael Totten is traveling to Kosovo, and doing his spot-on reporting from there. He has a good piece on Kosovo, and I found this excerpt fascinating:

Kosovo is the world’s newest country, and its unilateral declaration of independence is more controversial than the existence of Israel. It should be only slightly surprising, then, that many Kosovars, though most are Muslims, identify to an large extent with the Israelis. “Kosovars used to identify with the Palestinians because we Albanians are Muslims and Christians and we saw Serbia and Israel both as usurpers of land,” a prominent Kosovar recent told journalist Stephen Schwartz. “Then we looked at a map and woke up. Israelis have a population of six million, their backs to the sea, and 300 million Arab enemies. Albanians have a total population of eight million, our backs to the sea, and 200 million Slav enemies. So why should we identify with the Arabs?”

Indeed.

Bitter Academics, Torture, Tom Friedman, and Political Discourse

I particularly enjoyed this Bloggingheads diavlog with Dan Drezner, and Megan McArdle, in which they discuss topics such as the bitterness of academics, whether John Yoo should lose his tenure, the torture debate, the wisdom of throwing pies at Tom Friedman, and the nature of our current political discourse. It's too good all around to excerpt, but I'll say that I agree with Dan that the best way to undermine Yoo is not to take away his tenure, but to undermine his ideas, which is a good rule in general, as it's also not a good idea to throw pies at people either.

I aslo agree with Megan and Dan about the complexities of the torture debate, and that we've really had less of a debate on these issues, then we've had a shouting match. THat really applies to our discourse in general. All good stuff, and worth a look.

And Obama Cuts Him Loose...

Just a few hours ago, Obama commented on Reverend Wright's rants yesterday, and basically renounced his former Pastor:

At a news conference in Winston-Salem, N.C., Obama said Wright is exploiting old divisions in a way that is antithetical to his campaign of bridging the racial divide. The comments "give comfort to those who prey on hate," Obama said.

Obama called "ridiculous propositions" Wright's assertions that the US government might have brought AIDS to black neighborhoods, that Louis Farrahkan is one of the greatest voices of the century, and that the US government has conducted terrorism. "There are no excuses," Obama said.

And this:

Obama said Wright's appearance Monday at the National Press Club in Washington was a "show of disrespect to me" and an "insult" to what his campaign is about.

Obama said he was particularly angered that Wright seems to believe that his prior denunciations of Wright's remarks were mere "political posturing." That shows that Wright doesn't know him that well, after all, Obama said.

"I may not know him as well as I thought, either," Obama said.

Indeed. I think, besides the vile rants that Wright spewed forth yesterday, what really got to Obama was the fact that Wright basically called him a phony. He called him a "typical politician," and basically echoed the charge of Obama's critics. Obama had to firmly break with him, although he cannot hide the fact that they had a relationship, which Obama didn't do. Wright has made himself Obama's adversary, and I think Obama has figured that out.

Wright Is Still Wrong

More on Wright's latest speech, in which he basically says the same hateful things he's said before, just with more bad political analysis thrown in, is forthcoming, but I just wanted to offer up this, via Dana Milbank in the WaPo:

His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

First off, Farrakhan did in fact call Judaism a gutter religion, and even if he was talking about Zionism, and I know I should know better considering who we're talking about, but are we supposed to treat that statement as if calling Zionism a "gutter religion" is somehow a good thing? Are we supposed to agree with you, and Jimny "Douchebag Diplomat" Carter, that standing up for Israel is somehow a bad thing? I think not. Farrakhan was wrong then, and he's wrong now, and so are you.

Also, there's this:

Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."

One of the big problems I have with Wright, is his assertion that his brand of preaching and theology represents the mainstream of the black church. I find that assertion ridiculous. The prophetic tradition of black preaching is one thing. Wright's sermons are something else. Don't get me wrong, it's not as if Wright's the only one who preaches this way, but the idea that this is how the black chuch, or the church in general is to function is revolting.

And lastly, there's this, in which he totally throws Obama under the bus, and may cost him the Presidency:

Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Ouch. To paraphrase the proverb, "My enemies I can handle, God save me from my friends."

Obama needs to cut this guy loose. I mean, he can't totally disown him, but he needs to publicly denounce Wright's views some more, and with more force than before.

HT: Instapundit, Patterico, and Sully

You've Got To Love This...

In the spirit of this gem here, I present to you this:



That was cool!

Well, Somebody Had To Try...

Apparently a bunch of anti-military douchebags decided to lay a bunch of American flags on the ground and walk all over them. In their warped minds, they call it art. Thankfully, one brave Vietnam vet stood up to them, and tried to pick up the flags. He wasn't the only one in the room with sense, as many took the time to walk around the flags.



You know what, they have the First Amendment right to be douchebags by disrespecting the flag, and the veterans who fought under it, and for their right, but they're still douchebags, and SPC Bennett had the right to call them on it. Bravo, sir, and thank you.

HT: Tully

John Dickerson Tries To Do The Heavy Lifting

He does a pretty good job, considering the task at hand, which is trying to justify, or explain away Obama's fracked-up cultural criticisms. He closes out with this spot-on point:

Obama supporters should know just how offensive it is to hear this line of argument. They've been on the receiving end of it for months, as Hillary Clinton and her allies have described them as deluded cult members who are marching behind the inexperienced senator because he gives a pretty speech. Obama supporters don't like it when their well-thought-out reasons for following Obama are dismissed as emotional, irrational, and thoughtless. They should understand, then, why people who don't support Obama—or in the past haven't voted for Democrats—don't like being told that they've drunk some kind of crazy Kool-Aid.

Indeed.

More on "Snobgate"

Well, over at Taylor Marsh's blog, that's what they're calling it in the comments. (HT: Instapundit).

You know, I try to maintain a consistent policy against hysteria, and to use Obama's own words, "fake controversies," on my blog, and in my political discussions. The thing is, the more I think about Obama's latest verbal infraction, I'm increasingly convinced that this really isn't a "fake controversy," or an example of phony outrage. This new firestorm and Obama's response to it, along with what seems to be, to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, a long train of political abuses, self-inflicted, leaves me with persistent questions about Obama's judgment, character, and his political sense. I may be overreacting, or in a pessimistic political mood, but, to be blunt, I'm wondering if he even makes it to the nomination, let alone the Presidency.

I mean, how many times can he keep fracking up like this, and people not start asking questions? I'm going to share my personal thoughts why this in fact a big deal later on, but consider this from Mickey Kaus, on why the "bitter" remark is the least of Obama's worries:


1) It lumps together things Obama wants us to think he thinks are good (religion) with things he undoubtedly thinks are bad (racism, anti-immigrant sentiment). I suppose it's logically possible to say 'these Pennsylvania voters are so bitter and frustrated that they cling to both good things and bad things," but the implication is that these are all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for ... him). Yesterday at the CNN "Compassion Forum" Obama said he wasn't disparaging religion because he meant people "cling" to it in a good way! Would that be the same way they "cling" to "antipathy to people who aren't like them"--the very next phrase Obama uttered? Is racism one of those "traditions that are passed on from generation to generation" that "sustains us"? Obama's unfortunate parallelism makes it hard for him to extricate him from the charge that he was dissing rural Pennsylvanians' excess religiosity.

2) Even if Obama wasn't equating anything on his list with anything else, he did openly accuse Pennsylvanians of being racists ("antipathy to people who aren't like them").

3) He's contradicted his own positions--at least on trade and (says Instapundit) guns.. Isn't Obama the one trying to tar Hillary as a supporter of NAFTA? Is that just 'boob bait'?

4) Yes, he's condescending. It's not just that in explaining everyone to everyone Obama winds up patronizing everyone. He doesn't patronize everyone equally. Specifically, he regards the views of these Pennsylvanians as epiphenomena--byproducts of economic stagnation--in a way he doesn't regard, say, his own views as epiphenomena.** Once the Pennsylvanians get some jobs back, they'll change and become as enlightened as Obama or the San Franciscans to whom he was talking. That's the clear logic of his argument. Superiority of this sort--not crediting the authenticity and standing of your subject's views--is a violation of social equality, which is a more important value for Americans than money equality. Liiberals tend to lose elections when they forget that.

Yes, they do. I don't care how much stuff you promise them. Voters will not support you if they perceive that you don't respect their values, even if you in fact do. The culture matters.

UPDATE: John Judis over at TNR, all but sounds the death-knell. Let me say that I count myself as something of an Obama fan, but I've always been a swing voter in this election. I've leaned toward Obama in the past (I voted for him in the primary), and part of me still wants to, but as I've said before, I could vote for either of the three. This might be all moot by November, if things proceed as they are.

HT: Simon

Obama, Marx, Lieberman, and His "Bitter" Pill

You all must know by now about the kerfuffle over ill-executed and disquieting comments Obama made about small town voters being bitter, and "clinging to their religion and their guns." I'm going to elaborate on this later, but I'm feeling a bit lazy right now, so I'll link to my comment from this post by Tully over at SF, about one possible explanation for Obama's comments.

As I said in my comment ( do read the post, BTW), I don't think Juliette's argument is plausible. Others, namely one Bill Kristol, have a different view, that Obama is in fact, a Marxist, who uses his religious faith as a cover. I think that charge is clearly over the top, and I'll elaborate more later on, as to why.

The thing is though, there is a bit of a controversy brewing over comments Sen. Joe Lieberman made with regards to this. (HT: Sully and ThinkProgress):

NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

Many, including Sullivan and Think Progress took issue with this statement by Lieberman. IN fairness to Lieberman, who I've come to deeply respect more than ever these past couple of years, perhaps he felt the question of Obama being an elitist was the good question, as opposed to question of him being a Marxist. Lieberman clearly stopped short of calling Obama a Marxist, although some will argue that he was ambiguous in doing so.

The question of him having views to the left of Lieberman and mainstream America is an interesting question. Obama does in fact hold views to the left of Lieberman (and myself, for that matter), at least with regards to foreign policy. He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq a whole lot sooner than Lieberman does, and he's mentioned talks with Iran. As to other issues, Lieberman;s comments are a bit problematic, as I'm not really sure what Lieberman means here, as he and Obama are pretty much on the same page with regards to the other core Democratic issues. As far as mainstream America is concerned, many war critics rightly point out public dissatisfaction with the war, but keep in mind that a lot of those still oppose a premature withdrawal.

At the end of the day, though, I don't think this is that big of a deal, except in the minds of those on the Left who already have a beef with Sen. Lieberman.

Not that Obama being perceived as too far left of the mainstream doesn't help McCain, who Lieberman supports, a fact which really drives many on the Left crazy.

The Tedious Task of Debating Glenn Greenwald

Via Kevin Sullivan of Independent Liberal, comes this post, on Dan Drezner's attempts to reason with the often insightful, but often- as-dogmatic-and-irrartional-as-his critcs Glenn Greenwald:

Greenwald’s rhetorical style in his column boils down to,”if you dispute anything I say, then you are objectively pro-torture.” This bears more than a passing resemblance to the position rabid pro-war advocates adopted in late 2002 — that opposition to war with Iraq rendered one objectively pro-Saddam. It was a disgusting tactic then, and it’s no less disgusting that Greenwald is using it now. It makes him no better than the ideological adversaries he so despises.

Read the whole thing.

"He knows how to bring trash and soul together in a way that doesn't make one get in the way of the other"

Via Booker Rising, is this by Stanley Crouch, on the genius of Tyler Perry:

What Perry has mastered is the perfect mix of buffoonery, anguish and spiritual redemption. He knows he can hold his audience with variations on slapstick, pies in the face and clown costumes as long as he does not avoid the sandpaper that has scraped the hearts of so many who are lost, living far above or all the way down at the bottom. Finally, Perry knows that he must take his characters and his audience back to the church, where the greatest use of the English language other than Shakespeare lives. It's right there in the King James Bible, where forgiveness and redemption are made more than real in the big feeling of those who truly believe and who live it by the day.

Indeed.

Free Speech Still Under Assault

"The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron -- they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.' "

--Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four



I may be one of the few left-leaning bloggers to take up this issue (I doubt it), but I'll be damned if I'm going to let this pass by. In Canada, a freedom-hating douchebag named Richard Warman has decided to sue bloggers with political views he does not like, namely one Kathy Shaidle, of the blog Five Feet of Fury. He's also gone after other conservative bloggers, like Ezra Levant, Kate McMillan, Jonathan Kay, and the conservative chat site Free Dominion. He uses the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which by all appearances is a misshapen beast right out of Stalinist Russia, along with some rather misconstrued laws, to go after his political opponents. He used to work for the HRC, and Levant has been battling this kangaroo court for a while now, namely over his role in publishing the Muhammad cartoons.

Levant himself has all the specifics of the lawsuit.

Michelle Malkin has more.

I was taken aback by this, on Shaidle's blog:

Richard Warman's friends at the Canadian Human Rights Commission say "freedom of speech is an American concept" they refuse to recognize.

Riiight. That's outrageous, and yet I fear that there are Americans who refuse to recognize the concept as well.

Let me say that I'm willing to do my part to fight this assault, and I'll donate straightaway, and those who can should do so as well. Some may no doubt wonder why a center-left liberal like myself would care about righty bloggers being silenced. As I see it, either we have free speech for everybody, or we don't have free speech. In other words, I wouldn't be much of a liberal if I didn't stand up for the rights of bloggers who are being being silenced, right, left, or whatever. If doing so puts me in common cause with those who may hate my political views, then so be it.

Just so you know, this isn't going to stop with Canada, and believe it or not, it's not going to stop with righty blogs.

UPDATE: It's already here, folks.

HT: Tully

McCain, "The 100 Years" Controversy, and Iraq

As I'm sure we've all heard by now, there has been much discussion (and distortion) over McCain's comments about who long American troops will remain in Iraq. The prevailing attitide that most war critics (and many sympathetic voices in the press) have towards McCain, is that he wants an unlimited commitment to Iraq, and is basically the same as George W. Bush. I am no Bush supporter, but I am for all intents and purposes a supporter of the Iraq war (come on, keep reading), and I respect McCain, not only because of his service, but for his history of standing up to Bush whwn it mattered. My point is, many have misinterpreted McCain's comments about staying in Iraq for a hundred years. Agree with him or not, it does no one any good to distort the record. McCain was essentially arguing that with regards to American public support for the war vis-a-vis progress in Iraq, most Americans aren't so much concerned with how long we're there, as much as they're concerned about our troops being killed or wounded. If things remain as they are now, fifty years from, heck even five years from now, naturally, that would affect public opinion.

The issue, McCain argues, is one of American casualties, nor American presence. We've had troops in Germany and Japan for over sixty years, in Korea for over fifty, and in Kuwait for over a decade. Most people aren't calling for us to pull troops out of Korea or Japan. Most people aren't calling for pullouts from Afghanistan, for that matter. Most people don't even think about our troop presence in Europe and Asia. I think that was McCain's point, agree or disagree.

The thing is though, there is an interesting discussion to be had, about the implications of a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq (assuming one believes that U.S. policy will ultimately settle on permanent bases), and how some argue that the issue is American presence. Andrew Sullivan offers this up:

My own view is that McCain's comment, in its most benign formulation, misses the key element here: Islam. One reader helpfully pointed out that occupied Japan also had a fiercely proud populace revolted by foreign troops. Sure: but it had been defeated as a unitary state and its Emperor (which we wisely retained) gave the occcupiers sanction. No such unitary state exists in Iraq; and Islam forbids the rule of infidels in its own heartlands - and Iraq has central religious importance for its various shrines and religious centers in the Muslim mind. Secularism has been in decline for a couple of decades. There is no way an Arab Muslim country will tolerate Western troops permanently based on their land - without constant war and threat of war. To believe otherwise is to engage in a "holiday from reality." We've done enough of that.

Sully's response has some problems. First off, while the Iraqi government is fragile and weak, it does in fact exist, and they have given us their consent, not to mention the U.N. mandate. The goal is ultimately to create a relatively stable society, and one key aspect of that is working out a formal framework regarding our troop presence. Secondly, we're not really running the country, as the Iraqi government (though fragile) is in place, and we are there as a support. Lastly, the question of Islam is important, but if the argument is going to be that an American presence in the Islamic world will ultimately lead to conflict, then the logical outgrowth of that argument is the view that we shouldn't confront terrorism at all, lest we run the risk of offending Muslims.

Call me naive, but I'd think we can confront terrorist threats in the Middle East, but allying ourselves with moderate forces who recognize terrorism as a common threat. It certainly doesn't always have to involve force, but sometimes force is neccessary. Just saying, is all.

Charlton Heston, 1924-2008

Sad news as truly one the icons of film and American culture has died. Whatever your views on his politics, he was a legit icon. Heston's potrayal of Moses remains the persistent image of Moses in my head. He played many iconic roles, from Moses, to Ben-Hur, to Andrew Jackson, to Michelangelo, to Captain Taylor from Planet of the Apes. He had that stone-faced look, and that gravelly voice, that will forever be in our minds.

RIP, and my condolences to his family.

Tell Me She Didn't Just Say That

Consider this, via Althouse, on Amanda Marcotte's extreme views on abortion:

The underpinnings of the moral angst about abortion — the idea that a woman has no right to pry loose a flag a man has planted in her (even if he agrees with her decision, as most men in this case do), or that she should be punished for having sex — offend me to the core, and that many women go through anguish over getting abortions depresses me.

Ok, I'm trying not to vomit as I write this, but let me deal with this piece by piece. First off, did she just compare a human fetus to a flag planted on a field? Has the debate sunk so far now, that the fetus is reduced even further than a lump of cells, to a flag? Secondly, did I miss something, because I thought it takes two to make a baby. Why is it only the man that "plants the flag?"

As for the third and fourth points, I like Ann's responses:

Well, it offends me to the core that you think material like this helps preserve abortion rights (which I support).

I'm pro-life, for all intents and purposes, but my third point was going to be that even most clear-headed pro-choicers would find Marcotte's argument revolting, and Ann's comment here shows that.

The "abortion" shirt[the focus of the underlying post], on the other hand, admits that you've done something for yourself that involved sacrificing what many people believe is another human being. Why do you want to say that by T-shirt? In Marcotte's view, it's to show that you're proud of "taking care" of yourself "despite all the misogynist messages out there." I thought it was more to normalize abortion — to make it seem ordinary, widespread, and something that would be done without shame by nice, upstanding women.

Exactly. In Marcotte's moral sideshow of a universe, abortion is some sort of a moral smackdown to the "entrenched misygonist patriarchy" that supposedly punishes women with babies (fetuses?) they supposedly don't want, and she laments that women have the audacity to find ending the lives in their womb problematic. How dare they act like mothers? Don't they know that sex...oh I'd better stop here, before I say something that gets me in trouble

Mugabe Crushes His Opposition

Disquieting and disturbing news from Zimbabwe, as it's been reported that Mugabe has had the offices of the opposition raided. HT: The Walrus.

She hits it home in the commentary:


It's rather uncomfortable for journalists to document that though. Mugabe was a former media darling. It is difficult to admit mistakes, especially ones that never should have been made. To this day journalists seem incapable of summoning the moral outrage they applied (rightly, in that case) to apartheid and turning it against Mugabe. This despite the fact that he has turned his formerly prosperous country into a hellhole that most of his people would cheerfully leave for South Africa - present or past - or for old-time Rhodesia.

It is the African tragedy writ large all over again: a "liberator" who is really only interested in his own power. And a politically correct world that should be howling in outrage but doesn't. And journalists who express polite amazement at the inevitable.

I think I shall go be ill.

You're not kidding.

Tag, I'm It

Randy, the Internet Ronin has tagged me with another meme. Who am I to say no?

The Rules:

I. Link to the person who tagged you. (See above)

II. Post the Rules Here.

III. Share Seven Random or Weird Facts About Yourself:

1. I went to Space Camp (Space Academy) in the ninth grade.

2. I have an uncle who is involved in local politics. (Guess who!)

3. I spent almost $200 on comic books once.

4. I've been to New York twice.

5. I have copies of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Federalist Papers on my bookshelf.

6. I started school at age 2.

7. I'm 79 inches in height (6'7'')

IV. Tag 7 random people, linking to them:

1. The Walrus
2. Sean of Rife's Torch
3. David Schraub of the The Debate Link
4. plez of plezWorld
5-7: Any three of my co-bloggers from Stubborn Facts.

V. Leave a comment letting them know you've tagged them.

OK, then.

This of course assumes that all those tagged are willing to accept, but I think they will.

Thank You, Ric

The greatest of all time has bid his farewell, after a legendary thirty-six year career. Thank you, Ric, for all the memories.

Huckabee Sticks His Neck Out For Obama

This I found quite interesting, and dare I say, refereshing. Mike Huckabee comments on Rev. Wright's comments, and tries to understand:

And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie.

You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..."And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

First off, let me say that I like what Huckabee's saying. I know people will accuse him of excusing Wright's hatred, but he's not. I'm not, and Obama isn't either. Huckabee (and Obama) is simply trying to put things in context, to try and understand where it comes from. It's not right what Wright said, and Wright's comments cannot be justified. They must be rejected in full. We cannot allow ourselves to remain in bitterness and the past, but I think context helps to understand the complex relationship Obama has with his pastor.

Nice work by Huckabee, and a pleasant surprise, considering some of things he's said in the past.

HT: David Schraub, who I've officially added to the blogroll.

Arthur C. Clarke, 1917-2008

In all the mess over the Obama-Wright controversy, I forgot to post about Arthur C. Clarke's passing away. A true genius, and a giant of storytelling. God rest his soul.

Thanks to Stubborn Facts for the tip.

Further Thoughts on Obama/Wright and Iraq

It's been a day since the speech, and after further reflection I still hold to my view that it was a good speech, and Obama did most of what he needed to do. One big thing that still nags me though, is the problem I'm having reconciling Wright's supposed good qualities that Obama asserts we haven't seen, and his anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and his anti-white bigotry. In other words, I'm wondering what Barack Obama sees in this man. I've said before that I do not believe for a second that Obama shares his views. The question is of judgment, and integrity. He still has to go further in explaining this.

In other news, today is the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. President Bush gave a speech acknowledging it today. Call me crazy, but at the end of the day, setbacks, blunders, missteps, foul-ups, and tragedies included, the Iraqi people, America's long-term security, and the free world is better off. Yes, there's still a lt of messes to clean up, and a lot of those are messes that should not have been made, but the idea that Iraq circa 2008 is not an improvement over Iraq circa 2003, is just not cricket.

Just for reference, let's remind ourselves why we went in again.

UPDATE: No, Tom, not quite. (HT: Instapundit)

UPDATE#2: The Obama-Wright discussion continues over at my second home, Stubborn Facts. Thoughtful and heated at the same time.

Jeremiah Wright is a Conservative

That is, a Black Conservative. David Schraub explains the difference in a must-read essay:

Black Conservatism essentially operates off the premise that racism is an ingrained and potentially permanent part of White-dominated institutions. As a result, Black Conservatives essentially tell Blacks they can only rely on themselves to get ahead in America -- counting on White people to be moral or "do the right thing" is a waste of time. Politically, this means building tight-knit communities that emphasize the patronizing of identifiably Black institutions, with the end result being social independence from White America. In this, it mixes at least partial voluntary self-segregation with a significant aversion to external dependency, with Whites and White institutions being defined as outsiders who can't be trusted.

He goes further, and explains how this applies to Obama:

I'm not saying I agree with all of his points -- I'm not a Black Conservative, and as I outlined in the Thomas post, I'm not sure that a White person can morally adopt the premises of Black Conservatism. But we can't understand what we're yelling about until we properly position it within its philosophical school. This is why I feel confident in asserting that Obama and Wright are not of a political kind -- they operate from totally different ends of the Black Conservative spectrum. Obama is an integrationist, the very act of running for President means that he believes that there is a space for Blacks in our hitherto White-dominated government, and all of his speeches, policies, and writings have indicated he believes that there is hope for an America that is not separated and divided on racial lines. All of these positions would be derided as doe-eyed idealism by a true Black Conservatism. And if there is one thing Obama can't be accused of, it's of being too much of a pessimist.

Damn good stuff. Read it all.

HT, from Andrew Sullivan

Obama's Speech

I watched the speech, and I thought it was really good, and did most of what it supposed to do, at least in terms of the Rev. Wright controversy. I believe Obama effectively repudiated the hateful and divisive rhetoric of his former pastor, while doing his best to explain the complex relationship he has with him:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all. Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

And this:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

And this part here:

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

I think Obama is saying that Wright's views reflected in this sermons are wrong and hateful, but one must understand the background they issue from--and this is important, they do not reflect the totality of the man. Wright is family, and he cannot totally walk away from his family.

You should read the whole thing here. (HT: Tom Maguire and Drudge.)

As I said, the speech was pretty good, and dealt with this issue the best way he could have. As a black man, I have experience dealing with the wide range of views Obama talks about. It's important for us to continue to move forward, face the challenges, and heal the wounds that still remain, even after all the progress that has been made.

Politically, I still feel he may face questions about his judgment, (namely why he let his children attend, and the fact that many of Wright's statements weren't so much but race, but vicious attacks on American foreign policy) but at the end of the day I think he did a pretty good job. I'm in agreement with the view that those who choose not to vote for Obama over this probably weren't going to anyway, and those who have a preconceived negative view of Obama aren't going to be swayed by this speech.

Ross Douthat has a really insightful piece on this:

Barack Obama’s long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright isn’t significant because it suggests that Obama shares Wright’s more controversial views; I have no doubt that he does not. It’s significant because it undercuts an important aspect of Obama’s promise as a politician: Namely, his potential to break the mold of American politics, by transcending both the recent templates for African-American political activity (grievance-based shakedown politics on the one hand, Afrocentric separatism on the other) and the larger red-blue polarization in the country as a whole.

He needs to reject his minister's politics, in other words, in the name of a new generation of African-Americans, while simultaneously suggesting that the bigotries are not necessarily the only measure of the man, and that the appropriate response to Wright's noxious words isn't outrage but rather the mix of pity and tolerance that a white American might feel toward a racist parent or grandparent, who deserves to be loved and accepted in spite of their retrograde opinions.

Could he actually say all this? Can a half-white, half-Kenyan politician presume to speak for the experience of black America? Can a man who clearly loves his pastor go so far down the road toward attacking him outright? Can a black man persuade white Americans that they should feel toward a ranting black preacher the way they might feel toward their own grandparents? I doubt it. But I'd love to see him try.


Shelby Steele goes a somewhat different route, and deals with Obama's whole candidacy. As to "the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap," Steele in effect says that it is. He's totally wrong, much like Geraldine Ferraro was wrong, but his piece deserves a read. (HT again to Tom Maguire)

UPDATE: The always-on-point John McWhorter gets it right. (HT: Sully, who gets it right as well.)