Rightward Bound

Personal Primary Endorsement: 92nd district, Pennsylvania general assembly.

2006-05-09T19:11:00.000-07:00

This year, the people of the 92nd district (which includes South Middleton Township and Mount Holly Springs as well as sections of Northern York County) have an opportunity to elect a man of integrity and vision to the state legislature. His name is Mike Wilson: a family man who has served his country in the US military, serves his clients as a practicing attorney, and will serve the people of the 92nd district well as their state representative. He has worked hard throughout his life, whether it was as an MP serving along the demilitarized zone in South Korea, a correction's officer paying his way through Penn State University by working full time, or a practicing attorney who gave his time and talents as a reservist in the military's JAG core. Mike is also a family man; he and his wife Linda are proud to be the parents of Michael, who is 11, and Isabela, who is 2 and a half.

Now, Mike Wilson is ready to dedicate himself to serving the people of the 92nd district, and to ensuring that Pennsylvania continues to move forward into a bright and prosperous future. He wants to eliminate residential property taxes, and replace them with a very broad-based and equitable system whose funds will be solely used to teach Pennsylvania's children. Mike also understands that Pennsylvania must be prepared to educate it's kids not just for today, but for the global economy of tomorrow. That's why he wants to see a revolution in curriculum for Pennsylvania's schools, cost controls designed to make our education system more efficient, and a system of pay for teachers and administrators which will allow local school boards to return their focus to teaching their children. Mike also understands that Harrisburg itself needs reforms, such as tighter lobbyist disclosure and a more merit-based process for assigning key legislative positions. Personally, he guarantees the people of the 92nd district that he will never use his position to line his own pockets. Finally, he believes that transportation improvement is essential for keeping Pennsylvania competitive, so he favors a well-planned, cost-effective railway system.

Certainly, there are other candidates running in the 92nd district who might make decent representatives. Scott Perry is a good politician who has put himself forward as a businessman, leader and soldier. However, I feel that his lack of specific policy goals and the ethical concerns which have dogged him and his business could well hamper him in the post-pay raise climate. Karl Meiss, the former police officer, seems to have been a dedicated public servant, but I cannot support a candidate who has been endorsed by planned parenthood and the PSEA, more commonly known as the Teacher's Union. The other candidate in the race is J. McKiernan, a solid conservative and would-be reformer. McKiernan would be my second choice, but I feel Mike is a strong candidate who has been more active and effective in communicating his conservative message to the people of the district. So my endorsement goes to Mike Wilson, a man of personal integrity, who understands the issues which face the people of Pennsylvania. For more information about Mike visit www.mikewilsoncampaignforpa.com

A. J. Nolte, former chairman Messiah College Republicans.

Quick update.

2005-07-08T13:32:00.000-07:00

My appologies for the long absence. I've found a job, and have become (all be it temporarily) the one thing I never ever wanted to be: a Middle East analyst. In particular, I'm focussing on Iraq, with some attention also paid to Jordan, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan. What can I say: Iraq is a fascinating country, and as much as ME politics is still frustrating headache-inducing stuff, this kind of international analysis is way too much fun.
I did want to react a bit to the London bombings yesterday. I was younger and less politically active when 9-11 hit, though it certainly had a profound effect. However, I think the London attacks were almost a second 9-11 for me. I spent last semester studying in Oxford, and I've been through two of the tube stations hit yesterday. I spent a lot of time, especially after I got back, complaining about the Brits and their crampt streets and, among the English, stuffy-seeming reserve. Still, they are a people proud of their history (and not without reason) and they are our cousins, in political heritage at least. The question of what the British will do now has been a hot topic over here, bandied about by far wiser heads than mine. Still, for myself, I think they will try to go on as before. I had a chance to visit the British War Museum when I was there, and saw an exhibit there on the British people's attempt to deal with the Blitz. It seemed to me then, that they were mostly eager to carry on and live as normally as possible. I think this is what their descendants will do as well. And I am optimistic that they will not buckle as did the Spanish. The British are proud of what their empire once was, even if they are afflicted with the same post-colonial guilt as most westerners. This combined with the British stoicism which I found so frustrating at times gives me a certain amount of hope that they will soldier on, for a little while at least. Whether they'll go with us until the war is over, or whether even the US has the stomach to continue this far, is anyone's guess.

Is there conservative hope for Europe?

2005-06-04T23:10:00.000-07:00

Although I have primarily focused the attentions of this site on conservatism's fortunes in the United States, conservative movements around the world deserve some coverage as well. I will confess that I am not nearly as well-versed in the politics of other nations as I am in my own. However, in some of my upcoming posts, I hope to give an overview of how conservatism is fairing in various parts of the world. I'll focus mainly on those countries which I know something about, and in which a conservative party or cause is identifiable. For the time being, that means Europe, Canada and Latin America. Let's begin with a brief euro-tour.

The recent votes of the French and the Dutch seem to have driven a major spike into the wheels of the EU constitution, and for this, conservatives may be grateful. The bureaucratic, federalizing junta in Brussels will have to put the breaks on its rapidly-progressing integration project, and the often anti-American and sometimes anti-Christian bias which pervades it. This will give Europe's unsung heroes, the booming free market states of eastern Europe and Ireland, a chance to push for a more trade-oriented union which would function on economic rather than political lines. With CAFTA on tap for the Americas, a trade war may be in the offing, but this is far more manageable than a united anti-American Europe. In any event, the Irish, British and eastern Europeans would have nothing to gain by a conflict with the US and they know it. On top of this, impending elections in Germany and approaching elections in France give rightist movements a real chance to cripple socialist old Europe. Britain's recent election has been a mixed blessing for the right, but it may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. In Northern Ireland however, elections have brought extremists to the reins of power, a fact which may well cause no end of grief to the British, Irish and northern Irish. Just how much time the world will have for a resumption of the troubles in the north is in doubt, but the IRA and UVA may find that the world's attitude toward terrorism is cooler now than has previously been the case.

France: real hope on the horizon?
The failure of the European Constitution last weekend has thrown French president Jacque Chirac into a paroxysm of difficulties. The referendum is seen as much as a repudiation of Chirac as of the constitution. Now, he has tried to bolster his flagging popularity, and his particular wing of France's conservative movement, by nominating his loyal man Dominique de Villepin as France's new prime minister. Americans may unflatteringly remember de Villepin as the man who spoke so vehemently, and worked so hard, to undermine the Iraq war. Chirac hopes that de Villepin can recapture the magic, reminding the French of a time when they were firmly united, behind him. Yet, de Villepin is noxious to conservatives in other ways. He is considered one of the most left-leaning of Chirac's rightist ministers, and his ascension as the standard-barer of the conservative cause might almost make a socialist victory preferable. But de Villepin has a challenger for this role: former (and now returning) interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarko, as he is known in France, campaigned only half-heartedly for the EU constitution by all reports, and will likely be able to distance himself from it fairly easily. He is far more conservative than de Villepin. As the son of Hungarian immigrants, all be it wealthy ones, Sarkozy is an outsider in the cliquish world of French politics, and people seem to like him for it. And interestingly, Sarkozy has some pro-American leanings. It is doubtful that he will ever show America the staunch friendship that Blair has: he must placate the French electorate after all. But Sarkozy would be an improvement both for Americans and for the conservative cause generally. I certainly hope, for entertainment purposes if nothing else, that a clash between de Villepin and Sarkozy emerges. The outcome could have interesting repercussions for years to come in France.
Germany: die Neue dammen Thatcher?
The last time he faced an election, Germany's obnoxious socialist chancellor Gerhard Schroeder found a nice comfortable cloak to pull round himself and Germany's problems: anti-Americanism. After all, the war in Iraq was on everyone's mind, and the Christian Democrats (honorably) supported it. Schroeder won narrowly, and Schroeder stayed in power. Now however, things have changed. Domestic concerns seem more to dominate the German electoral agenda, and the long time social democrat bastion of Northrhein Westphalia has just fallen to the Christian Democrats. Germany's stagnation has been compared to that of Britain in the late 1970s, and the Christian Democrats think they might just follow the British model for fixing things: nominate a woman of steel. At least, that's how Angela Merkel, the Christian Democrat candidate for chancellor in the snap elections forced upon Schroeder by his party's electoral woes, has been build. The comparison may not be considered a flattering one in the German context. Old Europe cringes and twinges at even the thought of an "Anglo-Saxon" model of government. But Germany's economy does need major reform, as unemployment sky-rockets and the welfare state groans. If they elect Merkel, the German people may be in for some tough love. Should she take a Thatcherite line, Merkel may save Germany, but may pay a political price. Still, things look better for the Christian Democrats than they have since Schroeder came to power. Americans could certainly grant a Merkel chancellorship with a certain warmth. As for conservatives, while a wait-and-see approach might be appropriate, the Thatcher parallel is encouraging.
Britain: The Toreys and their Discontents:
Tony Blair's election to a third term as prime minister made American conservatives happy for one reason above all others: Blair's loyalty to his American allies as regards the Iraq war. The reaction for British conservatives must be more mixed. True, Michael Howard was an uninspiring, middle-of-the-road leader, who seemed more Blair Light than Thatcher redux. His woffeling on the Iraq war cost him the respect of Americans, his weakness in standing against Blair's hunting bans, euro-integrationism and shilling to the growing Muslim community in Britain have not won him any love among Toreys, and his failure to win the election have caused him to step down. However, the Toreys did far better than expected, gaining a large number of seats in southern England, one in Scotland and 3 in Wales. The Toreys also have some promising young talent, one of whom could be the next party leader. The Toreys need to start planning for 2009, in which election they will probably face the grim Scotsman Gordon Brown. Brown, chancellor of the exchequer, is more left-leaning and less pro-American than Blair, and his replacement of Blair would be a major loss for both Americans and conservatives. It is imperative that the Toreys find clear, strong leadership which can bring them to electoral success in the inevitable elections. There is still hope for Britain, and the right seems ready for another mobilization, but only time will tell how successful Britain's Toreys will be. One thing is for certain: Northern Ireland will likely remain a worry for Britain in the near future. The radical Democratic Unionist Party won a clear majority of seats from Protestants, while Sinn Fein has become the leading party among the Catholics. The DUP is quite religiously fundamentalist (its party leader has an honorary degree from Bob Jones), and it opposes the peace process. As for Sinn Fein, its links with IRA terrorism are well-known. With the recent up tick in IRA activity, any compromise seems unlikely. Are the Democratic Unionists really just a hard-line anti-terrorist party which will work with northern Irish Catholics if the IRA goes away as they claim? Or are they rather a dangerous party of extremists who have loyalist terrorist links of their own, as their opponents claim? Time will probably tell, but the people of northern Ireland must be careful to keep their conflict under wraps. Might federalists in Europe, desperate to prove their usefulness and necessity, seek to intervene if the conflict heats up? If so, the results will probably not be to the advantage of either Catholics or Protestants in Northern Ireland.

The Rest of Europe.
The rest of Europe seems fairly static at this point. Spain, sadly now in the hands of the socialists, pushes for greater integration and arms such worthies as Hugo Chavez, according to some reports. Italy, still led by Silvio Berlesquoni, remains a US ally and somewhat conservative, for the moment at least. The Dutch have their laissez-fair social and economic consensus, but the political establishment will be shaken by the no vote and the unassimilated Muslim minority must somehow be dealt with (though whether conservatives have a dog in the fight between the social libertine consensus of the Dutch and the traditional but often radicalized Muslim opposition to it is one which deserves to be debated). The smaller countries of western Europe will probably tend to remain socialist (because they can afford it) and integrationist (because it is in their interest). As for the Eastern Europeans and the republic of Ireland, these countries seem focused on overcoming their economically backward pasts, making as much money as possible, and riding along with the European tide, so long as it is profitable and beneficial to do so. On the whole then, conservatives have good opportunities for gains in France and Germany, and could, through shrewd maneuvering, create one in Britain. Northern Ireland must be watched, and watched carefully, and the EU should be kept out, if at all possible. As opportunities arise, conservatives should seize the chance to threaten Europe's anti-American and often anti-religious socialist consensus. Only then, may Europe be saved from itself.

The Four Horseman

2005-06-02T00:15:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest difficulties the GOP has had in its ongoing attempt to reach out to the African-American community is a lack of credible candidates. With the exception of J. C. Watts, black Republicans in positions of authority have been scarce in recent years, to say the least. Yet, with party chairman Ken Melmann making outreach to the African-American community a priority and with a marked increase in the number of smaller statewide offices held by black Republicans, this difficulty seems on the verge of being overcome. And as the 2006 election cycle inches toward a reality, prospects look brighter for the GOP where African-American candidate recruitment is concerned. Four candidates in particular seem poised to give the Democrats the headache of their lives: for if the Republicans can dent the African-American percentages currently won by the Democrats, the party may find itself unable to win elections. The fact is, the African-American community is in a position where the Democrats can't win with them and the Republicans can win without them. With Hispanics looking to overtake African-Americans as the largest minority in America within 20 years, African-Americans may have good reason to believe that business as usual is no longer good enough. To drive the point home, the Republicans may draw on the services of four diverse men, whom I like to call the four horsemen of the Democrats' apocalypse: a preacher, a teacher, a football star and a rising star. And best of all, all four have self-identified as conservatives.

The Preacher:
To say that black ministers are not normally associated with Republicans is like claiming that ex-military gun-owners tend not to be Democrats: there are exceptions, but not very many. However, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton had better move over, because the newest shepherd on the political stage might expose them to be more goat like than they'd prefer. His name is Keith Butler. He has previously served as a city councilman in Detroit, one of the few Republicans to hold such office. Now, Butler has moved out to the suburbs, and moved his ambition more statewide. Michigan's female senator Debby Stabenow is considered one of the weaker incumbents in the senate, with pole numbers hovering at or below the 50 percent mark. She has done little to solidify her position, and it is questionable as to just how strongly African-Americans in Detroit feel about returning her to Washington. Could Butler cut into Stabenow's urban base in Detroit? He has been elected there before, despite his Republican label, and he has a reputation as a charismatic and dynamic personality. He'll have to play things a little smarter than the last GOP so-con to come out of the African-American community and run for senate: Allan Keyes. Then again, Butler is undoubtedly a far different person, and Keyes was handicapped by his late drop into a blue state getting bluer to run against inveterate campaigner Barak Obama. An equally good question is whether the white GOP is ready for Butler to run statewide. Michigan has a reputation for divisiveness on racial issues. Then too, the other announced candidate is Jane Abraham, who, as director of the Susan B. Anthony List (the pro-life Republican answer to Emily's List), has her own social conservative credentials. Abraham's other great strength is also her weakness: the seat was her husband's before it was Stabenow's. Abraham has rightly or wrongly gained a reputation as a lackluster senator and campaigner, and as Jeane Carnihan of Missouri can attest, spousal candidates do not always do very well in their husband's old stomping grounds. Of course, either Abraham or Butler might just as easily set their sites on yet another weak incumbent, Michigan's governor Jennifer Granholm. In any case, the GOP cannot but benefit from a Butler run, unless they treat him shabbily, which I doubt they will. After all, a man like Butler, even if unsuccessful, could be most helpful in the inevitable 2008 campaign for Michigan, whoever the nominee is.

The Teacher:

J. Kenneth Blackwell is not your ordinary politician. I first became aware of him just before the 2004 election, where his name cropped up in conjunction with Ohio's brewing election controversy. He was also mentioned as a possible candidate to replace Ohio's unpopular country-club Republican governor, yet another in the long line of Tafts to rise to prominence in that state. By chance, I stumbled upon a lecture given by Blackwell at the Ashbrooke Center for Public Affairs, and broadcast on the net, on the subject of religion and liberty. Ohio's secretary of state gave off quite a professorial aura, and spoke with zest and intelligence on a subject which he obviously knew well. I couldn't help but get the impression of a distinguished professor of something or other when I heard him speak. He is obviously smart, and from what he said, seemed inclined toward conservatism. Ohio's GOP definitely needs a shot of that right about now. Although the two senators and the governor are all Republicans, both senators have shown an unconscionable degree of wobbliness where presidential nominees are concerned and Taft, as previously mentioned, has been a disastrous tax-and-spend disappointment. Blackwell does not face an open field. Others, including the auditor general, have also announced an interest. However, Blackwell gained a certain amount of name recognition from the Ohio controversy, though without nearly the negative stigma that the name Catherine Harris carries, perhaps unfairly. Expect the Democrats to nominate a tough candidate, unless, of course, Jerry Springer really does make a bid. Few things would please me more than seeing the professorial Blackwell take America's greatest smutmeister back to school.

The Football Star.
Ed Rendell may seem invulnerable from the outside, but matters are perhaps not as they seem. His use of gambling to raise revenues has angered social conservatives, and its success is doubtful. His fiscal record is not really very impressive, and his comments regarding Bin Laden campaigning for Bush (not to mention his disenfranchisement of military voters) was unconscionable. Then too, there is a sense in the state that Rendell views himself as governor of Philadelphia (affectionately known by some of us in the t as Chicago East), not Pennsylvania. Finally, in order to protect vulnerable incumbent Rick Santorum, the PA GOP may think it wise to mount a serious challenge to Rendell, thereby putting the PA Democrats more on the defensive. Yet, whatever their strengths as candidates, it is not state senator Jeff Piccola nor former lieutenant governor Bill Scranton whose name sets the Republican grass-roots buzzing. Rather, it is Pittsburgh Stealer's legend Lynn Swann. Swann, the go-to wide receiver for the Steelers during the most glorious of their glory days, is seriously mulling a run for governor. He's got charisma and stage presence, he's got Washington connections through his work for the President's physical fitness council and the campaign, and he's got a good chance of bringing a lot of crossover votes in Western PA. It is even possible that his work with Big Brothers Big Sisters might just give him more of an edge with inner-city voters in Philli and elsewhere than his Republican rivals. Of course, what Swann does not have is political experience and a long background of policy knowledge. He is a rookie politician, and while this worked for Arnold in the short California recall campaign where the field was crowded and the incumbent far less popular than Rendell, Swann will need to do even better. He must match his sunny disposition, his ability to generate great sound bites and his great name recognition and fund-raising agenda with a positive policy package which people can get behind. So far, he's talked in dribs and drabs about little common sense tweaking of the system. But small ideas won't beat Rendell, a slick pol who has thrived in the machine politics of Philadelphia and whose fund-raising and policy debate skills are formidable. Swann will need to remember how to be coached, and he will need some exceptionally talented campaign and policy staff. Above all, he needs to stop mulling and start deciding to pass or punt. This might be the longest bomb Lynn Swann has ever caught. Then again, football players tend to do well in politics (Jack Kemp, Steve Largent and JC Watts all come to mind). For Swann' a gubernatorial run might be yet another one of the bone-smashing hard-fought scraps on which life and reputation hang which are the football player's forte. In such scraps, Swann usually comes out ahead.

The Rising Star.
"Talk about a rising star," the promo for the "off the record" interview with Maryland's lieutenant governor Michael Steel reads. In describing Steel so, the folks and GOP.COM have definitely hit on something: Steel is probably the best out of these four candidates and that says a great deal. Raised Catholic, Steel actually briefly entered an Augustinian seminary at one point, before giving up the monastic life for a more worldly calling. Briefly the chairman of the GOP, Steel left this post to run for and shockingly win the lieutenant governor's slot with governor Bob Errlich. Already, this made Steel a spokesman for the GOP where African-American outreach is concerned. He spoke briefly at the convention, and apparently electrified the crowd. Even the likely democratic standard-barer, former congressman and NAACP head Quaisi Mfume has compared a race between himself and Michael Steel for the senate seat of the retiring Paul Sarbanes to a clash between "Hank Aaron and Berry Bonds". Maryland is a very blue state, and Steel is not a liberal Republican. In his first race with Errlich, the GOP'S numbers in heavily black areas did not jump greatly. Yet, Steel would have certain advantages. Undoubtedly, marylander and GOP chairman Ken Melmann would help Steel any way he could, both for African-American outreach and personal reasons. Then too, Errlich's administration has made a conscious effort to reach out to Maryland's African-Americans, and has won praise from such unlikely sources as Deaf Jam Records producer Russell Simmons. Finally, Maryland's white voters, while they might be Leary of a white conservative Republican, might just consider Steel more mainstream than the sometimes radical Mfume, who has never credibly been accused of racial moderation. Steel is likeable, obviously electable and could go far as a Republican senator, even a first-termer. As blue as Maryland is, he should not be counted out.

Whether any of these men will run and make it past the primaries is still a question. Whether any of them can win is perhaps unwarranted speculation right now. However, the fact that four credible African-American candidates for statewide office are being discussed, three in swing states and one in a blue state, is quite remarkable. Republicans should not necessarily give these men preference because of their race: to do so would be to bypass their color-blind principles. However, win or lose, run or no, these four men can be articulate spokesman of the conservative Republican message to a community which needs to hear it.

Mike Rogers, gay activist, terrorist.

2005-03-29T16:55:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to rehash my views on gay marriage and all that goes with it for the umpteenth time here. Those of you who know me know that I'm opposed to it, but that I think the issue should be treated with more respect by people on both sides. And those of you who've read my posts on Gannongate know what I feel about the disgusting leftist practice known as "outing". This practice mainly consists of finding a gay conservative Republican and trumpeting this homosexuality to the world. I have no time for it or it's practicioners. Not everything is politics, and I do think people have the right to private lives. The architect of this practice is one Mike Rogers, who cut his teeth by outing a variety of Republican staffers and a Republican congressman or two. Blogger
Gay Patriot:
www.gaypatriot.net
accused Mike Rogers of being a terrorist. This prompted Rogers to feel "threatened" and to, as a consequence, threaten legal action and a boycott against Gay Patriot's employers. Essentially, Rogers bulleyed gay patriot out of the blogosphere, though the blog (worth a visit by the way) still goes on under new management.

Now, I'm a simple student of politics at a small Christian liberal arts school studying at a little university across the pond called Oxford. I have no employers who may be boycotted, and those inclined to question my sexuality may take the issue up with my girlfriend, or any friends who know me well. As much as a blind man can, I certainly have an eye for ladies. So then, let me, a small-time blogger against whom Mike Rogers' venom has little sting, examine this charge of terrorism. Now, by the dictionary definition, a terrorist is one who seeks to cause terror. It has it's roots in the tactics of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. In more common parlance, it has come to signify a member of any given group of networks which seek to foment this terror for financial gain, political ends or, more likely in my personal opinion, power. It seems highly unlikely that gay patriot meant that Mike Rogers was running guns for the FARC or training in Afghanistan, so I'm going to evaluate the question in the dictionary definition context. What is it Mike Rogers is trying to do to these gay Republicans? Certainly not give them long life, joy or rosey job prospects. I think we can find in Rogers all the makings of a little Robspierre, an ideological fanatic who uses stalinist tactics to stifle dissent and opposition.
First, what motivates this string of outings? Not knowing Rogers personally, I have to generalize a bit from his particular set, which I take to be ravingly fanatical "gay rights" crusaders. Yes, I use the term crusader both deliberately and provocatively, for their fanaticism for their "holy cause" is such that it blinds them to even the possibility that the opposition may have a just cause. Thus, in an irony totally lost on them, they ape the worst and most extreme fundamentalists which they so despise. When we understand this crusader mentality, Rogers' actions take on more logic. Just as the crusaders could not imagine any Christian living under the Muslims still to retain his Christianity (some of them at least must have held such a view), so Rogers and his ilk can't fathom any gay man or lesbian woman not sharing their absolute dedication to "the cause". Worst of all for them are those who actively work for those who promote, or even support, a socially conservative agenda. Their myopia to any cause but their own makes it inconceivable for them that anything else might trump this group identity around which they have built their lives. In a classic case of projection, they assume then that these gay Republicans are somehow ashamed of their gay identity, and are hypocritically working to oppress a group which they are ashamed to be a part of. Why is this projection? Because, like the crusaders of old who felt the need to prove their piety and group identity in battles in the holy lands, these modern gay rights crusaders are proving their absolute group loyalty. Perhaps then, just as medieval Christians were motivated by insecurity and uncertainty of salvation, Mike Rogers may also be motivated by his own self-hatred and insecurities. But then again, I am no psychologist, and I don't really care what psychological conditions, Freudian or not, motivate Mike Rogers to embrace the crusade mentality.
So, to Rogers, gay conservatives are infidels and apostates of the worst sort. And, just as the most violent purges of Robspierre, the Communist Party and Islamic terrorists came against french revolutionaries, party aparachics and moderate muslims respectively, so now Rogers turns his venom on those within his own self-identified group who aren't gay enough for his taste. As he does not have the power to become a crusader, he has embraced petty terrorism. This savaging of one's own, of the very people one has swarn to protect, seems also to be a serious hallmark of all terrorists, not just the ones I have named. Witness, in particular, that the killing which has gotten the IRA in trouble of late was of a Catholic republican (in the northern irish not American sense of the word) and not a Protestant unionist. Mike Rogers may see himself as a noble warrior for gay rights exposing Republican hypocrisy. Yet, in point of fact, he is little more than a jack-booted thug attempting to conduct one of the brutal internal purges which is the hallmark of terrorism. Nothing shows this more clearly than his destruction of the blogging career of Gay Patriot. Like those moderate Muslims who stand up to Al-Qaeda and those brave republicans who risk the IRA, Gay Patriot seems to have had it with the terroristic activities of Mike Rogers and his ilk. So he called a spade a spade. One can imagine Rogers saying, in his mind at least, the line used by all terrorists and bully-boys in this situation: "Don't you know who I am? I will destroy you." And so he did, causing the blog death of gay patriot. However, in yet a last irony, Rogers' actions have proven Gay Patriot vindicated. Mike Rogers is in fact a terrorist, though an altogether small, petty and nasty terrorist who, fortunately, does not have the means to enact violence. Should Rogers be prosecuted under the Patriot Act? Certainly not, for his form of terrorism is of a kind which can't be defeated by tanks and guns. No, Mike Rogers must be brought down by the very people he claims to defend. It is only when a critical mass within the gay community becomes so outraged by Mike Rogers as to demand that he be brought low that his petty terrorism will end. Or, Rogers may find, at some point, that he has hooked a fish too big for him to handle. It is rumored that he is looking into the private life of Condoleeza Rice. Be ware Mr. Rogers, Rice knows how to deal with terrorists, and whatever details you may find in her private life, that's why this social conservative loves Condi. Either way, Mike Rogers' downfall can't come too soon for me. I don't like terrorists very much.

Could reality be almost as good as the dream...

2005-03-23T01:30:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Chris Lilik at:
www.grassrootspa.com
for his link to my "Dreaming in 2006" column. Time now, let's see if the intervening week has shattered the dream (more follow-ups to follow on this subject at some point).
PA: Santorum and Casey are in a dead heat right now. Conservatives are really irritated with Rick, or at least, the intrepid folks at Grassroots PA seem to be. Santorum's woffling on minimum wage issues and, yes, his hard slogging for Spector are irritating. Still, he'll get my vote, because it'll keep the smirks off the faces of Deaniacs and MooveOn types everywhere. And because, well, Bob Casey is Bob Casey. If I 've got to choose between two pro-lifers who are going to raise the minimum wage and who might have tenuous connections to conservatism at times. I'm going to pick the one who's reelection will make Michael Moore more likely to cry in his coffee. I still expect Casey to implode: boring candidates who resort to hard-running negative attacks at the end of bitter primary battles don't win unless they're incumbants. As for the gov race, Lynn Swann is breaking my heart by keeping such a low profile. Run Lynn run! There's another candidate I kind of like: Jeff Piccola. It's not just because he's a central PA man from the next county over: he's real solid on issues like tort reform and school vouchers, and if his swop on abortion's good enough for rock-ribbed Toomeyites like Ted Mehan, who am I to question? Piccola doesn't have name rec or a wild fund-raising base though, and Rendell's shown himself capable of defeating your average politician. So I like Piccola, but I'm not sold on his ability to seal the deal, sadly. C'mon Lynn, just do it!!
Ny: Rudi's thinking of running...against Spitzer that is. Gov does set Rudi up for a possible presidential run, and his mayoral background does predispose him more toward things executive I suppose. I'll be sorry to lose the Rudi Hillary slug-fest. The DA of Westchester county (can't remember her name, sorry) has been talked about by some folks at the WSJ. She's getting good publicity on the Jackson case, and if she handles it well, this could be a platform. I think Randy Daniels would be a spectacular choice though: carve into Hillary's minority base and give her a real fight. Daniels' appearance at CPAC speaks well for him. Can a notable conservative (though I'd like more on Daniels background and issue positions before giving him this label) seal the deal in NY against Hillary Clinton. Conventional wisdom says no. Of course, conventional wisdom also said no to almost every other conservative it's run across.
MD: Sarbanes is retiring, and the ever-obnoxious Quaisi Mfume (he of NAACP fame) is looking to run. Likely Republican opposition? My man Michael Steel. Obama Keyes ain't got nothing on this matchup baby! Steel is a real, smart, electable conservative in a very blue state. Will his bolting hurt Ehrlich? I'm not totally convinced that it will. For those who believe, as one condescending Baltimore Sun article on Steel quoted someone as saying, that the LT Governor was just a "brown face" who helped get Ehrlich over the line in MD, then it would. I think more highly of both of them.
MN: Mark Kennedy seems to have the Republican primary field clear for him. Look for him to raise a lot of money and start building a statewide grass roots. The DFL (yes, Minnesota calls their Democratic party the Democratic Farm Labor party) will have a hard time holding this one, and Polenti's looking solid.
Michigan: Granholm and Stabbenow are both vulnerable. That's the good news. Bad news: the Michigan GOP may just have a recruitment problem. As much as state senator Garcia would be a really really really cool governor/senator, I'm not sure how high his statewide name recognition is yet. I hope we can pull this off...
That's all I have at the moment. I'll post new stuff as I get it. Thanks again to Chris for the plug!

Dreaming of 2006.

2005-03-08T13:30:00.000-08:00

November 3, 2006.

Successful young blogger A. J. Nolte woke up late, having been out all night at a victory party. Flushed with exhilaration after the massive Republican victories of the day before, Nolte sat down at his trusty laptop to write about the historic day. After thinking for a few minutes, he began:
“Realignment. There’s absolutely no other word for what happened last night. And I have to say, November 2 2006 has to go down as one of the best days of my life: right next to the free elections in Iraq and Lebanon, and the 2004 reelection of the president. Yesterday was a great day for so many reasons, but let me start close to home. Here in Pennsylvania, there was quite a lot of reason to celebrate. Rick Santorum’s victory against Bob Casey was the first resounding smack to the left to be delivered last night. As my regular readers no, I predicted Casey’s implosion: from the not inconsiderable pro-choice challenge mounted to him in the primaries, to the nasty bind Santorum’s photo perfect “Would you, treasurer Casey, filibuster the next Supreme Court justice?” challenge in the televised debate of September 17, to which Casey gave a faltering and fumbling reply which displeased everyone, right up to Casey’s last-ditched negative campaigning, which tilted undecideds definitively in Santorum’s direction. But this victory was not to be the end of Republican and conservative celebration in PA. Lynn Swann, GOP gubernatorial candidate, swept to victory last night over Democrat incumbent Ed Rendell. Swann’s charismatic speeches and clear, optimistic (dare I say, Reaganesque) platform helped him streak past Rendell’s piddling defenses and score the biggest touchdown of his life (sorry, I’ve been on the campaign trail with him for the past six months: can’t help the football metaphor).
And PA was not the end of GOP success last night. Let’s take a quick tour of the nation shall we?
New York: Hillary Clinton and Eliot Spitzer: who could be stronger than that dynamic duo? Well, it turned out that Randy Daniels, NY’s African-American secretary of state, put a big hurtin’ on Mr. Spitzer (helped in part by the investigative reporting of the WSJ, among others, who discovered massive corruption in AG Spitzer’s office). As for Ms. Clinton, she was no match for Rudi Juliani in one of the nastiest and most high profile senate campaigns in New York history. Congratulations Rudi, and thanks for that “Unlike Ms. Clinton, I’ll put the interests of the people of New York above my personal ambition.”
Maryland: The stunning GOP double victory here marks a turning-point in Maryland’s political history. Let’s begin with Bob Erlic, who risked much and gained more by giving up the governor’s mansion to challenge Democrat incumbent Paul Sarbanes in the senate. Erlic’s victory helps consolidate the Republican trend in this bluest of blue states. As does the victory of Erlic’s former lieutenant governor, the new governor of Maryland, Michael Steel. Steel trounced Democrat challenger, Baltimore mayor Martin OMally.
Ohio: The big news here is the victory of Ken Blackwell, former secretary of state, in his gubernatorial quest. Blackwell joins three other new African-American Republican incumbents in PA, MD and NY, leading some pundits to dub these four GOP rising stars the “four horsemen of the mid-Atlantic.”
Michigan: Upset has a new meaning, as Jennifer Granholm goes down in flames. Her challenger, Hispanic GOP state senator (and veteran, hoo-ah) Valde Garcia of Michigan, helped lead the GOP to their best showing among minorities in Michigan in history. This plus the GOP victory in the Michigan senate race puts this light blue state in a GOP-leaning column.
Florida: Shut out. That’s how the Democrats in FLA must feel after the victory of gubernatorial candidate Tony Jennings and senatorial candidate Eliana Ros-Lehtinen. Ros-Lehtinen’s victory leaves FLA with two Hispanic Republican senators of high quality, and leaves Florida Democrats scrambling for a solution to their sudden crisis.
Virginia: Lucky saves. After George Allen’s announcement that he would not seek reelection in order to focus on his presidential ambitions, VA Republicans feared the worst. But GOP AG Jerry Kilgore held out to win the governor’s race last year, and surprise Republican candidate Linda Chavez coasted to victory over her challenger, former Democrat governor Mark Warner.
Illinois: The nasty primary fight waged by some Illinois Democrats against Rod Blogojivitch cleared the way for former Bears coach Mike Ditka, who won a resounding popular victory in this blue state. A good day for football-playing Republicans.
Oklahoma: How cool does it sound to say Governor J. C. Watts? Well get used to it, J.C. is back in town! That’s five African-American Republican governors, count’em five baby!
Minnesota: My man Tim Polenti held out against disgraced Democrat senator Mark Daton. Best of all though, Minnesota just put another Kennedy in the senate. That’s Mark Kennedy, Republican hotshot. The Republican senator Kennedy will be giving them heck.
Rhode Island: In one of the few losses this cycle, RINO Lincoln Chafee fell to Democrat challenger Jim Lanjovine. However, the new senator is pro-life, and Chafee’s refusal to support the president during the last election limited the dollars the RNSC would spend on him. Chafee has picked up his ball, and blissfully gone home.
Massachusetts: despite spending an exorbitant amount of money, Democrats couldn’t dislodge Mitt Romney, who remains governor there.
Vermont: Jim Douglass, the state’s popular governor, was handily reelected. Meanwhile, Jim Jeffords barely beat back a primary challenge from socialist Berney Sanders, in a primary battle which amused us all.
Texas: Cay Bailey Hutchinson’s challenge to governor Rick Perry looked like trouble. Instead, it ushered in the senate career of Henry Bonilla. With Bonilla, Chavez and Ros-Lehtinen joining Mel Martinez in the senate, it looks like a lonely couple of years for loan Democratic Hispanic Ken Salazar. Texas also added several more Hispanic congressmen, from the GOP of course.
Washington: It seems as if Deano Rasi’s gamble has paid off, as Washington now has him as a Republican senator, and as former senate candidate George Nethercutt will run (and run strongly) against “governor” Gregwar in 2008.
Arizona: Yet another GOP upset here, as congressman Jeff Flake took down governor Janet Napolitano.
Colorado: Mark Holsmann successfully held this governorship. And best of all, Tom Tancredo was knocked off by a pro-life Hispanic, moderate Democrat, who is already talking with the GOP about switching parties. Anti-immigrationism just doesn’t win elections, and Tancredo’s violation of a term limits pledge didn’t help him against his opponent, the only Democrat to be supported this year by the club for growth.
New Mexico: So we didn’t take down Bill Richardson, but the challenge to him launched by Heather Wilson was much more formidable than previously expected. Expect Wilson to take on Jeff Bingaman, and win.
West Virginia: knocking off Robert Bird was sweet wasn’t it? Congratulations to Shelly Capito for putting Bird in his political bed sheets. Also, after a depressing night like last night, Democrats are looking with desperation to West Virginia’s governor, the pro-life tax-cutting tort-reforming DINO Joe Manchin. Manchin is now being talked about seriously as a Democrat presidential candidate.

California, Not only did Ahnold coast to victory against foolish Democrat challenger Barbara Boxer, but Republicans picked up something like five congressional seats as a result of the governator’s redistricting. Three of them (and one of the seats held by a Republican after an incumbant’s retirement), were held by minorities. Congratulations are also in order for Tom McClintock, who will be the new senator from California, and who, not incidentally, is also a Republican.
Congratulations Ken Melmann: the GOP is the majority party, and with the appointment of chief justice Thomas and associate justices Janice Rogers Brown and Michael Luddig, real progress on the reforming of the judiciary has been made. Last night, the GOP took a long step toward securing the future of this country for generations to come.”

Was it really all just a dream…

Trouble for Santorum?

2005-03-04T18:41:00.000-08:00

www.grassrootspa.com and www.politicspaa.com are reporting that Bob Casey will be the Democrat nominee against Rick Santorum, in all likelihood. Intransigent convert Barbara Hafer looks unlikely to run against Casey at this point (though rumors that she had switched parties for this very reason ran rampent throughout the state). The Democrats need Casey almost as badly as they want to beat Rick Santorum. The Dems are getting smacked around electorally because they can't even make inrodes into the pro-life community. The reason for this is simple: their cash flow comes from the radical pro-choice elements: Emily's List, NOW, etc. However, these pressure groups can't deliver the votes, and the pro-choice demographic tends to be shrinking (perhaps putting all one's eggs in the basket of a movement determined to abort itself out of existence seemed wise thirty years ago, but WSJ's James Taranto's infamous "roe effect" is really coming home to roost). So the pro-choicers bring money, and the pro-lifers bring votes. Republicans have (whining of a certain New Jersey governor who bares the dubious distinction of losing to Jim McGreevy notwithstanding) not as yet clensed the pro-choicers completely from the party in the same way that Democrats have pro-lifers. It's interesting to note that the two biggest headline speakers at the Republican convention, Ahnold and Rudi, are both staunch, unreconstricted pro-choicers. At the last convention at which Zel Miller spoke (1992), pro-lifers were denied a platform. Incidentally, Zel was pro-choice at the time: part of the reason he is known as "zig-zag Zel." So the GOP doesn't have quite the same disadvantage with pro-choicers that the Dems do with pro-lifers, though it certainly can be bad for them at times. I probably should be sad that some Republican pro-choicers feel "alienated", but given the way their opposition is treated in the Democratic party, I would encourage them to have a little perspective.
Back to Casey. Along comes the son of the very man they shut out in 1992, now practically begged by the Democrats to run against their arch-nemesis, Rick Santorum. Now, we can argue about how conservative Rick is or isn't how much he's betrayed the movement or hasn't, but the point is, to the left, he represents conservatism. Beating Santorum will energize their base and depress ours in a big way. And even if they don't win with Casey, they'll have shown pro-lifers that the door is open to them: at least, to run against other pro-lifers.
So what should conservatives do? From a purely ideological standpoint, some have suggested ditching Rick by the wayside. I'm starting to get really sympathetic to that line of thinking (senator, I hope you're reading this: I've been a real staunch defender but you're not making my job any easier). What possessed him, regardless of other circumstances, to allow for a situation which would create the press release "Santorum to push for minimum wage increase"? There's a time and a place for reaching out beyond your base. Right after you've just alienated it (politically necessary though you thought support for Spector might have been) is not the time. And Arlen seems to be Rick's worst handicap at the moment (Senator Spector, you old goat, you'd better be reading this too. I've been a detracter for a long time, and if you kill Santorum for us you'll make that a whole lot easier, if that were possible). Spector's public posturing, his hiring of liberals to judiciary staff (however qualified you think they may be) and his gratuitous slap-in-the-face comments about Bush reflect badly with conservatives on Santorum. We tend to think that (to some extent) Bush and (far far more) Santorum saved your bacon senator, so, it would seem that your actions become Santorum's actions. You should keep in mind the friend and colleague who saved you big time in the Toomey primary when you go out in the press and slap around the President because you're on a power trip.
All that said, we conservatives must keep in mind what a Santorum loss would mean for the left. For them, it would be more empowering, statewide and nationally, than we can possibly imagine. They can't beat Bush, who they loath more than any other, but Santorum is a close second. To them, the shades between "squishy conservative" and "rock-ribbed conservative" are about the same as the difference we can see between Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. Does Hillary's rhetorical embrace of the pro-life movement make the right love her any more? Nope. Will talking like a minimum-wage-loving liberal make the left dampen their dislike for Santorum? Nope. Trust me guys, they hate him more than they hate anyone else in the senate. The left has been humiliated and brow-beaten badly, not only by Kerry's loss but by Dashle's fall and the loss of so many senate seats. They are bitter, they are angry, and they want blood, someone's blood. If the left brings down Santorum (which they just might be willing to embrace a pro-lifer to do), they will be energized beyond all reason and (never mind the truth of this claim) claim all the credit. They will be even more insufferable, more difficult to deal with and more ready to play attack politics with Republicans and conservatives than they are now. Likewise, the GOP, who also sees Santorum as a conservative, will see the necessary response as a move leftward. For these reasons, we need to support Santorum, unless he is unseated in the primary by a Pat Toomey cloan or the real deal.

A Response to Father John Dear's attack on Messiah College.

2005-03-01T21:55:00.000-08:00

I believe in one of my previous posts, I mentioned a certain Jesuit priest who visited Messiah some time ago. This Jesuit, one John Dear by name, has written a vitriolic screed regarding North American Christianity, clearly using Messiah as an opening pretext. The article may be found on his website:
www.fatherjohndear.org,
And is entitled Pharisee Nation. What follows is my response to some salient points of his article.

Dear Father Dear:
I was intrigued to read your recent article entitled “Pharisee Nation” As one of those whom you have labeled a Pharisee, I feel compelled to respond. You see father Dear, I was one of the students at the small “Baptist college” in Pennsylvania at which you spoke on September 24, 2004. (By the way, just for future reference, that’s Anabaptist, not Baptist, but this is only the first of many small discrepancies between your accounting of the events and what actually occurred.) Given your record of events, however slightly distorted it might be, and some background research I did into you and your organization both before and after your visit (including an examination of your schedule which turned up no “Baptist colleges” in PA at which you were scheduled to speak, aside from my Anabaptist home college), I am absolutely certain that I am one of the students you met that day. So let me cordially remind you of a few facts.
1. By the school’s own estimates, something less than 100 people walked out. I suspect the number was something like 150 or 250. The walkers began as a trickle, but became a flood. I wasn’t one of them, as I was diligently taking notes on your presentation.
2. So far as I remember, there was no chorus of “Bush Bush” whatsoever. One student did in fact yell “not true!” in response to your repetition of the blood-for-oil shibboleth which has been a hollow staple of the American antiwar movement since it’s inception.
3. This was, in fact, not the end of your speaking at my home college. In reality, you spoke several more times throughout the day, including a talkback cession which I attended and at which I questioned your theology, and an alternate chapel in the evening, at which you found more support than your article implies. Indeed, I would say that your supporters were near as loud as your detractors, a fact which you also conveniently omitted. Of course, you should remember these facts, as well as a certain young man who approached you after this last alternate chapel, and who told you that, while he disagreed with you, he understood your sentiments and found them noble, though wrong. Your response was
“Bless you.” I should know: I was that student.

But now father Dear, you have given me reason to question that initial assessment of your nobility, however much I disagree with your stated goals. I had an unpleasant suspicion, given your reaction to the walkout (“And then they persecuted Jesus, just like you’re persecuting me” were your words I think), that you just might be the kind of man I’m afraid you’ve proven yourself to be. Father Dear, I fear that, in your heart of hearts, nothing pleased you more than to have those students walk out on you that day. Was the Messiah walkout another feather in your cap: an instance of persecution of the brave Father Dear about which you could pat yourself on the back, and which would raise your stature in the radical circles in which you travel? I had thought not, but putting two and two together, it now seems that it was. Else, why would you, a self-proclaimed follower of “Jesus” stretch the truth and twist it to make the story sound worse than it in fact was? If so, this is a sad thing. I find nobility among those with whom I disagree something worthy of honor, and you have not shown it.

And what of the criticisms you wished to level? Are we the nation of Pharisees you claim us to be? Is the “non-violent Jesus” you claim to follow really quite displeased with America, over and above the displeasure all our sin creates in God? I don’t know, but I think not. You see, I’m not really sure the Jesus you follow is truly Jesus the Christ, the incarnate son of God born of a virgin who walked and taught among men, was crucified, died, buried and resurrected all for the sake of our salvation. I think, in your zeal for your cause, you’ve stripped away the mystery of Christ and redacted him into your preferred mould: a super Ghandiesque moral teacher ready to rip apart the sinful framework of society. I think Jesus the Christ deserves better. Christ was not merely some social revolutionary protesting the excesses of the Roman empire was he? Is such a mere revolutionary enough to make countless thousands suffer death and millions suffer persecution (and no, being walked out on by people who disagree with you doesn’t count)? Is this Che Guavara Jesus really equipped to bring hope to the downtrodden; not hope of wealth or “social justice” but the true hope of union with God that is truly all that can sustain us. Is all we “really know” about Jesus that he was “non-violent”? If that’s all we “really know”, then why not worship Ghandi? The reason is simple: because Christ refuses to be placed into any manmade box. If he is not the vending machine Jesus of the pop Evangelical culture, then neither is he the revolutionary Jesus of those who rebel against it. If you really need a spiritual icon for your iconoclastic destruction of the existing order, might I recommend you read Milton’s Paradise Lost, for I’m afraid Christ will not serve. As to your charge of hypocrisy, it is manifestly true of course. Hypocrisy and sin are a natural part of the human condition, and are thus unavoidable. Yes, the church has failed to be as prophetic as it should be. Yes, America has it’s excesses. No, not everything America has done is moral. Now I ask you, are you truly in such a morally superior position that you may in fact judge America? Are you so free of sin as to cast the first stone? In your zeal to turn Christianity and the church fathers into radical carbon copies of yourself, you seem to have forgotten some things, humility first among them. Don’t forget also, that (contrary to the claims in your article), the church fathers were in the habit of regularly praying for the empire and her officials. Yes, the very same empire which brutally and truly persecuted them in a way I don’t think either one of us can comprehend. Do you pray for the President, country and soldiers you so despise? Do you treat them with respect and humility, or do you despise them and spit in their faces?
I could go on and on: I’ve barely touched on the political difficulties I have with your position. Free markets (which you label as “corporate greed” have, in point of fact, probably done more to promote peace than all the protests one could attend in several lifetimes (no two countries which have a McDonalds have ever gone to war for example). Beyond this, the corporations and military you so revile both promote the creation of wealth which lifts up the poor and protect the rights within this “empire” which you exercise every time you criticize it. I have a feeling you have had some negative experiences with the military, but then, I might argue that this was of your own choice.
In conclusion, I fear that your article “Pharisee Nation” both distorts the truth and fails utterly to convince the reader of your somewhat reduced portrait of the “non-violent Jesus”. I am sad that, instead of engaging with those who disagree with your positions, you much prefer grand-standing, self-congratulation and self-righteous pride. Whatever the merits of your cause (and I do not think as highly of them as you do), your desire to credit yourself while castigating other serves it very poorly. Perhaps you think that I have unfairly judged you. Proving me wrong will be easy: post this letter, in it’s entirety, on your website. Respond if you like, and I will do likewise. Open dialogue on these issues, and defend your positions using scripture, reason and facts. I eagerly await your response, but I do not expect it.

Technical difficulties.

2005-03-01T11:03:00.000-08:00

For some inexplicable reason, this particular blog is interacting in a very negative way with my screen-reader: namely, it's making it shut down. Consequently, this may be my last post from this blog address, either for the time being or perminently. If the problem is fixed, I'll resume normal posting. If not, I'll post the new address. Thanks for your patience.

The Freedman syndrome.

2005-02-27T12:30:00.000-08:00

Thomas Freedman sounds down right cheery:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/opinion/27friedman.html?th
There's an interesting phenominon with guys like Freedman and Freed Zakaria (and Nicholas Christof probably fits here as well). They are, all three, exceedingly intelligent guys (unlike, for example, Maureen "Bush baaaaaaad!!!!!" Dowd). They all make, from time to time, very valid points which support the conservative cause. But, whether out of a lack of chutspa or an entrapment in their own left-of-center paradigm, all three always see the edge, and instead of courageously making the jump, reel back drunkenly onto the solid ground of center-left orthodoxy. You can observe this phenominon both in Freedman's Classic _The Lexis and the Olive Tree_ and in Zakaria's provocative read _The Future of Freedom_. Both, at different times, have written rather silly things about Iraq for popular consumption. Now however, Freedman seems to be turning rosey again. How long will it be before he sees the edge again, and reels back in horror? Let's call this the Freedman syndrome.
Now, I want to talk about a right-wing Freedman syndrome, and it involves immigration. There's been a lot of talk among libertarians and palioconservatives about "big government conservatives". However much some of this seems to be hysterical over-reaction to Bush's triangulation, we must admit that, on immigration, they have a point. When right-wing staples like NRO begin running stories slamming corporations left and right, talking up protectionism and railing against Bush's hispanic outreach, we've got to wonder just what ideological stripe we're talking about here. I'm not one to advocate total libertarianism: I feel the conservative movement has prospered as a result of our alliance with traditionalists, and that libertarians are a bit soft on defense. Yet libertarianism is a critical element of conservatism on economics at least. When I here conservatives talking about government cracking down on corporations, government deporting people to "protect" the American worker, government militarizing the border (thereby taking troops away from the theaters where they can probably do more good), I start to wonder when we'll see the edge of the nannhy-state jump, and pull back? Yes, there are valid national security concerns with the immigration issue. But seriously, is it in the national security interests of the United States for our government to be rounding up Mexican waitresses? Can't we make a distinction between those who want to work and those who want to blow up buildings? We're only one of the most advanced societies on the planet after all. Certainly, there are many complications and intricacies to the immigration debate, too many to discuss all in this post. I'll even grant that the european debate is currently of a far different stripe than that here in the States. But as we broach the issue, is it too much to ask that we at least be aware of the Freedman syndrome?

Gannongate

2005-02-27T00:23:00.000-08:00

Have you heard of Jeff Gannon? If not, don't worry, you're not alone. Aside from a few conservatives who visit sites like GOPUSA and a dedicated fringe of nutty leftwingers looking to reduplicate Watergate in the second Bush administration, not many people have. Gannon was, so the story goes, a rather under-qualified journalist working for, ***gasp***, a highly partisan news outfit (as if the name GOPUSA didn't give you a big fat clue about that). Worse yet, Gannon had access to Bush administration press conferences, and asked ***gasp*** administration-friendly questions (again, see the name of his website perhaps). Now, the uproar over Gannon was started by a group calling itself Media Matters. MM is a "liberal media watchdog group". To decode this for you, any failure to obsess over the failings of Bush or conservatives on the part of the media, any moderately negative comment on Democrats, any piece which hints that the world might not explode after four more years of Bush, is proof positive of a conservative media bias. Excuse me if I don't take them that seriously. Anyway, it turns out that this Gannon lied about his name and is not, in fact, a Gannon at all, but is rather named Guckert or some such.
So, a rather hum-drum teapot scandal: a less than qualified journalist who falsifies his name to get into the press room. Is this troubling? Well moderately, yes. We really don't want random folks pretending to be people they are not in the same room with our president during war time. Conservatives should perhaps be a little agitated on this score: just anyone seems able to waltz into the press room and get a day pass, though this is quite common, if Byran York's piece at NRO DT (subscription required so not linked) is any indicator. One could make an argument for tightening up the cridentials process, though one would probably be accused of limiting free speech with draconian violations of civil liberties by the very same people now flipping out about Gannon/Guckert/whoever. But leftist hypocrisy is just par for the course. And perhaps the fact that the left is more upset than the right about this goes beyond simple "gotcha" partisanship. After all, we conservatives have been sinical about the media for years. "A partisan newsman" we might think "so what: aren't they all?" Liberals really do believe that journalists are objective, mainly because they tell the left what it wants to hear. So partisanship bothers them a good deal. Now, many conservatives have a similar blindspot with, say, Fox News. I'll admit that it's a bit more conservative than the obviously left-of-center networks which make up the entire rest of the TV news ensemble, CSPAN possibly excluded. Do I watch Fox: yeah, because frankly, I'd rather have center to center-right journalism, and because I appreciate my TV newscasters being able to say things like "We're praying for the troops" without qualms. If leftists want a slant to their news, fair enough. Now, I don't hold with forgeries, ala Dan Rather's national guard memmos, or wild alegations about our troops, ala Esan Jordan. But what is Gannon/Guckert if not a sadly too common example of journalism blindly paroting one side or another? To be biased is human nature. To (as they are accused of doing) look for a known friendly face in the audience is pure politics.

And yet, there's another element to this story, and a shameful one at that. You see, it would seem that Gannon/Guckert is gay, and has been involved in the production of gay pornography. Again, is this troubling? Well, yes it is. I really don't hold with gay porn (or any porn) myself: it seems, and keep in mind that this is a blind man talking, like a degrading practice really. But what does it have to do with the rest of the story? The left claims that it underlines the right's "hypocrisy". After all, those nasty right-wing fundamentalist Christian homophobes benefited from a gay journalist. Why, how dare they! Of course, one can imagine the outrage if Gannon had been fired from Tallon News because of his homosexuality, though this would be consistent with the above leftist caricatures. So, if Gannon is fired, it's a typical example of the right's intolerance (same if he is not hired as a result of his orientation), but if he is not fired because he's gay, it's hypocrisy. Seems like a no-win situation to me. Now Gannon has also been "outed" by some gay activists, in a pattern reminiscent of certain truly low behavior in the last election cycle as regards gay Republican staffers. As one whom the ueber-politically correct inteligencia would probably label as a "right-wing fundamentalist and homophobe" (believing in a higher power seems to get one such a designation these days), I've got a real problem with "outing". Yes I believe that homosexuality is wrong, and I'm not a big fan of gay marriage though I can't see keeping same-sex partners from basic hospital visitation, will bequest domestic partner stuff. Basically, I don't feel homosexuality should be institutionalized, but neither should homosexuals face discrimination. And I don't like having homosexuality shoved down my church's throat by a bunch of narrow-minded ideological activists who try to brainwash kids at national church youth gatherings (personal experience) or deny pastors calls because they disagree with their viewpoints (acquaintances of mine). So call me moderately conservative on these issues. That being said, I really don't think it's the business of governments or employers, and certainly not of disgusting political hacks claiming to be "gay activists", to be dipping into people's sex lives. If they do their work compitently and don't make an issue of it such that it creates a hostile working environment in some way, leave it alone. I think this is a fairly common position among conservatives, though it's probably not universal. I'm sure some people would like more discrimination against homosexuals, but it's hardly a universal. Given this, I find it supremely ironic that, instead of recognizing the fact that conservatives opposed to gay marriage don't discriminate against gays in hiring as a signifier of the good intentions of their opposition, LGBT activists and leftist hacks like Marcos "screw them" Melitzas use this to try to ruin the lives of the very gay people they're claiming to speak for, all in the name of scoring cheap political points. Were I gay, this kind of thing would royally piss me off.
So back to Gannon. Are there elements of concern here? Yep, there probably are. Is this, as some snarky trolls on www.grassrootspa.com with more arrogant bravado than intellect have speculated, a scandal big enough to bring down the GOP? Nope, probably not. Obsessing over one fake journalist does not an electoral majority make, so of course, I sincerely hope, from a ruthless political standpoint, that they keep it up. Frankly though, repeated snarky references to the homosexuality of said fake journalist makes the speaker appear to be, for want of a better word, an ass. Gannongate seems to say more about the desperate and pathological need of the left to make up scandals in the Bush administration (to compensate for those of the last administration perhaps?) than it does about Bushist plots to "corrupt the media" or conservative "hypocrisy". We conservatives have some experience with midterm elections. In 1994, conservatives used victories against Hillary care (this was back before Mrs. Clinton had a policy-making mandate) as a springboard to put forward an agenda which launched them into majorities in the house and senate for the first time in forty years. Conversely, in 1998, Republicans allowed Clinton hatred and impeachment bloodlust to cloud our message, thereby putting that majority in jeopardy. Happily Gannongate is indicative of a tendency on the Democrats toward the 1998 model. As far as I'm concerned, that's absolutely fine.

Friends in the blogosphere.

2005-02-26T19:46:00.000-08:00

It seems that some friends of mine are getting in on the blogging act. Chris Morgan, a buddy of mine from Messiah currently at Oxford with me, has just started one on conservative economic philosophy. It's here:
http://thespiritofcapitalism.blogspot.com/
I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention Nathan Harig's good conservative blog. Nathan's a high school chum who'll be rockin' the boat. Nathan's here:
http://www.harigreport.com/
Yes Nathan, I expect a nice visible link on your site in return.
Of course, there's always
http://hispanicon.blogspot.com
who's an alumn of my college (I won't tell you how many years back though we were never there at the same time) and an all-around good guy. I'm trying to persuade a few more friends, comrades and even family members (my mom, for example, would make a really good blogger, but I'm not sure I want ***that*** kind of competition). I'll have a post for you all on the Gannon scandal (not that you probably care, but it'll be fun...I promise...) in a bit.

Revolution amongst the cedars.

2005-02-24T18:00:00.000-08:00

If I were Stateside, or had a bit better internet connection, this would likely not be my first post here on Lebanon. Some of you who know me might remember a time (about two years ago) when I was quite Lebanon-obsessed. That's never totally gone away, though I've been more focussed on places like Sub-saharan Africa and Latin America of late. It's a complex and difficult to understand place, not unlike the rest of the region. The main reason for this is that everyone keeps switching sides. Back when groups like this:
www.FreeLebanon.org
made up my daily reading, Rafik Hariri and Walid Jumblatt were staunch defenders of Syria. Hariri was certainly not the darling of neoconservatives, and Jumblatt (deservedly) had scorn heaped upon him for some rather racist comments he made about then National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. Jumblatt has called Pierre Jemayel, founder of the lebanese Falanj (a rather rightist party representing Lebanon's maronite Christians) a fascist who trained under Hitler. If you thought Kerry was a flip-flopper, the man ain't got nothing on Jumblatt. And apparently, since some time last year, he's felt the wind blowing the opposition's way. Of course, Hariri's perhaps a bit different. First and foremost, he's a businessman, trying to get Lebanon out of debt. Yet, apparently something snapped with him too, for he's now a martyr to the anti-Syrian cause. Now, the traditionally Christian opposition seems to have some non-sectarian support, and Bashar is feeling the heat. The ineptitude of the Hariri assassination is staggering, not least because of it's timing right before a "mending fences" visit from President Bush to Europe. One of the few things the french agree with Bush on is a belief that Syria should be out of Lebanon. (Indeed, it's interesting to wonder what France's reaction would have been had it been Syria, not Iraq, which Bush pressed to invade). Now, Assad has given Bush and Chirac the pretext they both need to paper over their differences and unite against a common enemy: him.
Which has led, of course, to lots of Middle Eastern paranoia about how the Israelis are behind the assassination. To understand this, you've got to realize the history of Lebanon (particularly during the civil war) was one of really really strange bedfellows. Former spook Robert Baer even speculated in his book _See No Evil_ of an alliance between radical shiah militia Hezzbolla and the falanjists of the Lebanese Forces. One man, Eli Hobika, seems to have worked (according to his bodyguard at least) for Israeli intelligence then, subsequently, for the syrians. So, when you've got such a conspiracy-laden environment, why not finger an unlikely culpret like Israel? Well, because the Israelis aren't quite good enough at that game. Israel tends to do things in an appallingly "We don't like you, stop doing what you're doing or we'll kill you...oops, you didn't stop, here's a missile" fashion. If the Israelis would just do their killing covertly and let it appear as if someone else was doing it (EG, play the regional game), perhaps they wouldn't be so reviled? No, but it is an interesting thought. No, the MO is much more Bashar's He's incompitent really, when it comes down to it. One could speculate that his father never would have made the kinds of mistakes that he's making, and one would probably be right. But if, as some commentators have speculated, Bashar's trying to run things in Lebanon himself, much about the ineptitude of the assassination might be explained.
So, it would seem, it begins. And for Lebanon junkies like me, it's going to be fun to (hopefully) watch her slip out from the clutches of Syria.

On cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

2005-02-20T18:35:00.000-08:00

Alright, in the interest of full disclosure, if it were up to me, Arlen Spector would be playing golf right now. I worked for Toomey,I voted for Toomey, I had the inevitable "Can I go out there and work for the President who just torpedoed my man" crisis of faith on April 28. But you know what? I did go out there and work for Bush, because the thought of John Kerry as commander-in-chief makes me ill, and because, for all his flaws from a conservative perspective, I like Bush. I didn't vote for Spector even on election day, pulling the lever instead for Constitution party challenger Jim Clymer, and this despite differences with Clymer on Iraq. Yep, it was a protest vote. Yep, I wouldn't have minded seeing Spector go down, even to that liberal wank Joe Hoeffel, though thought of him in the senate was a somewhat nausiating prospect. After all, Toomey could always give him a bludgening in 2010.
Now, with that said, I've been having an incredibly frustrating time over on http://www.grassrootspa.com Chris Lilik's great site for PA conservatives. The topic of Santorum has come up, and everyone wants to "pay him back" for supporting Spector.
Sorry, but no. Does anybody, besides William Buckley, remember Barry Goldwater's endorsement of Jacob Javitz, a liberal Republican from New York? Did conservatives bolt from Goldwater? Never have, and probably never will, even despite his ambivalence on the abortion and same-sex marriage questions. Likewise, who was it that nominated liberal Sandra Day OConnore to the Supreme Court, thereby extending (possibly) the longevity of Roe Vs. Wade? Here's a hint, it was a recently-departed and much-beloved Republican President of whom conservatives (rightly) do not speak ill. Keep this in mind when you accuse Santorum of "preserving Roe": Kennedy and OConnore, who supported the partially Roe-affirming decision in Planned Parenthood V. Casey, were appointed by Ronald Reagan. Of course, Reagan also gave us Skalia. Has Santorum done anything to count as a Skalia, which might counter his Spector-supporting?
Well, where should I start. How quickly have we forgotten Santorum's willingness to stick his kneck out and criticize Lawrence V. Texas (written by a Reagan justice, just to hammer the point home)? Have we forgotten his succinct statement of the slippery slope argument, earning him the eternal hatred of the Human Rights Campaign and other GLBT agitators? Have we forgotten his work on behalf of the Partial Birth Abortion ban and other legislation to restrict abortion? How quickly we forget. And let's turn away from strictly social issue stuff. Which Republican senator has a record of tireless advocacy for the persecuted church worldwide? That's right, Santorum. Which Republican senator co-sponsored the Syria Accountability Act, designed to get those medalsome Syrians out of Lebanon, thereby cutting down on terrorism in the region? Santorum again. And these are just things off the top of my head. No, Santorum hasn't always been with us. He has a reputation for a tad bit of protectionism where steel tariffs are concerned. But on the whole, Rick Santorum has been with us about...well, to quote the American Conservative Union, 89 percent of the time. Heck, Allan Keyes wouldn't speek ill of Santorum at the pastor's briefing they did together in Harrisburg last summer, and Keyes is a little too conservative even for me.
What Santorum did to Toomey was a crying shame. Should he maybe walk on hot coals a bit for PA conservatives? Probably couldn't hurt. Should he do everything in his power to rein in the supremely arrogant senior senator from Pennsylvania? Well, yeah, Santorum saved Spector's bacon, and if Spector doesn't deliver Santorum the RINO Philli burbs, Santorum can justly take the old weasel out to the woodshed. Even if Santorum doesn't do these things, should we support him? Yes, because one case of bad political judgment doesn't erase a career during which Santorum was with us far more than he was against us. And if you think there's a chance this side of the eschaton that Democrats will come up with someone we like better, I've got a bridge in Brooklynn to sell...

Wednesday evening update: it's just come to my attention that Santorum plans to...introduce a bill which will...increase the...minimum wage. Why Rick why!?!?!? For those of us who've been trying to repair your conservative creds, this a serious slap in the face. This (economics) is Santorum's weakest (read least conservative) area. To quote Howard Dean AARGH!!! So, I guess I'll be focussing on the Swann campaign...

Screamin' Dean in 2006.

2005-02-13T21:20:00.000-08:00

So Howard Dean is to be the new chairman of the DNC. My immediate reactions are two-fold: good for Republicans, bad for conservatives. The Republicans might just have had serious reason to fear come 2006. After all, some have reasoned, Bush's electoral luck has to run out sometime, and midterms during a President's second term tend to be that time, or so says the "conventional wisdom". (Of course, there was that little boost Clinton got in 1998, but we wouldn't want to get in the way of "conventional wisdom" now would we)? Now, beating Bush and company is no mean feat, as John Kerry found out. Rove and Melmann know how to put together a winning organization, and Melmann will bring those organizational skills to the table. A hardened campaigner and tough organizer is what a party needs in a chairman, not a grandstander out of touch with the mainstream. Sadly, that's exactly what the Democrats have gotten in Dean. Daily Cos agitprop-manufacturer extraordinair Marcos
may think Dean's the best thing since sliced bread, but Cos "screw them" comments, directed at dead contracters in Iraq, don't speek well for his mainstream tendencies. In other words, Cos' endorsement revs the base, but doesn't reach out to anyone right of Kennedy. Can Dean translate the rage and energy of the mad deaniacs into electoral victory? Well, let's look at some big races coming up in 2006. There's North Dakota for one: Kent Conrad will likely face popular GOP governor John Hoven. Will Howard Dean convince north Dakotans to retain a man who shares his party? Not far away, Minnesota's Mark Daton is retiring, leaving an open seat for which Republican rising star Mark Kennedy is set to run. The Democrat field will be a crowdid one. Will Howard Dean help the winner? Then there's West Virginia. Robert Bird is getting old, and he may actually be about due for retirement. Dean does not help here. Virginia's got a goovernatorial race this year. Will Dean's "reaching out to guys with confederate flags on their pick-up trucks" play in Virginia? Let's think about that. Bill Nelson's up in Florida, and the governor's mantion is open. Will Dean help in this red-trending state? And then, of course, there's my home state of Pennsylvania. Ed Rendell, a governor up for reelection, has already given Dean a back-off warning glare, in the form of comments regarding the Vermont doctor's "trash and burn" tactics. And the Democrats really really want to topple Rick Santorum. To do that, they need to erode his social conservative base (good luck Doc) and swing the skiddish blue-blood suburbs of Philladelphia decisively into their column. Now, the thing about the RINO suburbs (as we Repubs not-so-affectionately call them) is that they don't like the boat rocked too badly. A candidate lost a congressional race down there at least in part because of her open support for Fahrenheit 9-11. So Screamin' Dean might not play so well there, and I suspect Rendell and the PA Democrats will keep him at arms length.
So, at the best, Dean is ineffective and kept at arms length by state chairs. At worst, he'll actually hurt them in some key races. Yet, as a conservative, I'm not so keen on Dean. There was a time when a conservative just might be at home in the Democratic party. Beginning with the black-listing of Bob Casey senior at the 1992 convention, Democrats have been purging the last conservative elements from their party. Now, it seems, they're working on the moderates. I remember a certain conservative senator from Arizona was reputed to have pushed his party to the right, and the consensus of the country with him. The seeds of Republican victory were arguably sewn with Goldwater's 1964 defeat, and consolidated when a conservative appealed to the best in all Americans with an optimistic message of patriotism. So I'm worried about Dean, because he sets the stage for someone else. And no, it's not the oportunistic Hillary, who tacks left or right at the slightest hint of a breeze. I'll give you a hint, his last name begins with an O, and the rest rhymes with mama.

Cudos to Erlich

2005-02-01T11:25:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Times:
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050201-122040-8896r
Possible VP material? Or perhaps Steel could challenge one of the Dem senators?

A good day!

2005-01-30T14:35:00.000-08:00

Sunday, January 30, 2005. A day which deserves to go down in history. Free elections have/are taking place in Iraq. Let me say it again, just because it sounds so good: free elections in Iraq. I'm sure we on the right all have an angle, though none of us quite so much as the brave soldiers who have made this happen. Of course, they didn't go into it necessarily for the Iraqis. I rather suspect it was--more than anything else--for the folks at home. Still, it brings back to mind a great phrase from a great Zell Miller speach: "Nothin' makes this marine madder than people saying that our troops are occupiers, not liberators!" Well Zell, the Iraqis have proven you right. And of course, the Iraqis have--ultimately--the greatest interest in how this comes out. Go to Iraq the Model or Free Iraqi (both of whom are linked by almost every decent conservative blog this morning, and would be linked on mine save for the constraints of screen-reader web navigation). These guys can speak for themselves. NRO's the corner has other Iraqi election reactions as well. Yet, I can't help feeling a certain sense of joy. It's like the feeling I got when a friend knocked on my door to announce: "They got Saddam!" or in subsequent weeks as I replayed a message left on my phone by a Kenyan friend: "Sorry to wake you up, but Saddam has been captured. This is breaking news at 6:53 Am. Jesse: bless you." No, on second thought, this is better. I think back on all the articles for campus newspapers and campaign op-eds, all the heated debates with leftist nay-sayers begging for something to go wrong, begging for some troops to die so they could be appropriately victimized, begging for more attacks, more civilian deaths, just so they could point the fingers at our "cowboy" President. I think about all the outcry from international students (above Kenyan and other friends excluded) whose countries aren't really that Democratic themselves, blasting American imperialism. I think back to ridiculous protesters in D.C. heaping scorn on our military yet again, on our President yet again, and calling the war every vile epathet in their considerable arsinal. I think back to a certain jesuit priest of much Messiah fame, to the slurs and insinuations made by him about our military, our country, our President. And to all these nay-sayers, to all who prayed, in the secret sanctums of their deepest darkest most humanly depraved thoughts for it all to come crashing down around our ears, to you, on this one day, I say shove it! And yet, the nay-saying continues. "The sunnis may not vote...civil war...a dividing not a uniting election...won't mean anything..." Let's answer this succinctly: would these same folks have complained of depressed Afrikaner turn-out in post-apartheid South Africa? Don't Democrats view any election they either don't or can't win as dividing? If there hasn't been a civil war yet, why should one break out now? You've said the same thing (the election was meaningless) about the last two American elections. Maybe it's elections themselves you don't like? What is it: the competition?
In other news, NRO is finally readable for me, for the first time in months. A good day indeed! Now, just waiting for results...
Oh, two numbers to keep in mind: 72 and 28. Reuters is reporting 72 percent voter turn-out, and Crenkoff (a more reputable news outlet than Reuters) is reporting something like 28 casualties.
Update: have just checked the blogs (Roger L. Simon's blog has some really good stuff, and Power Line is up and running this morning as well). It seems that my casualty numbers were an under-estimate: 31 total, not 28. A tragedy, but nothing like what the insurgents promised. Also, you absolutely must go to Power Line:
www.powerlineblog.com
and read the Reuters dispatch. I've never seen Reuters so...positive! And best of all, turn-out in the Sunni triangle was described as "solid". Take that you would-be Vietnam-era-legacy-upholding hippies. Take it, and shove it back to 1968.

Draft movements.

2005-01-29T13:00:00.000-08:00

It seems to be the next big thing in conservative circles to start a movement to draft one's favorite candidate into the 2008 presidential race. Two movements are currently competing for conservative attention: that of South Carolina's mavric conservative governor Mark Sanford, and that of Indiana conservative Mike Pence. Sanford has governatorial experience and solid conservative cridentials, but not much name recognition. Pence has name recognition and a great background in communications, but that "representative" before his name might be a hindrance. Each candidate has his strengths and weaknesses, but it would take a massive load of money for either one to run competitively in 2008 (Vast right-wing conspiracy to the rescue)? Replicating the Dean strategy (with a candidate who won't follow the Dean nuclear implosion part) might be proffitable for these two dark horse candidates.
However, my favorite draft movement has to be this one:
www.draftSwann.com
Run Lynn run!
Update: this post originally said Sanford was from North Carolina. In fact, he's from SC, so this has been corrected.

Too rich.

2005-01-29T11:52:00.000-08:00

http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050128-111516-1207r
When will the Political correctness stop?

SWORDS!!!

2005-01-25T17:23:00.000-08:00

Good link:
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/january/0124_robotic_soldiers.shtml
There are many implications to this. But over-riding them all?
Dood, they called it swords!
(Backing away, slowly, from military geekdom).

How'd you like a mass-murderer on your T-shirt.

2005-01-18T12:00:00.000-08:00

J. Nordlinger has a great and informative piece on the phenominon of Che Guavara iconography:
http://www.hacer.org/current/LATAM71.php

A friend of mine grew up behind the iron curtain in communist Poland. Her grandfather fought the Nazis as a part of the free Polish Army. I think I'll always remember something she told me once: "The victims of the Nazi holocaust got justice, but the victims of the red holocaust never have." Conservative estimates place the death tole under communism at between 150 and 200 million. And of course, we still don't know if all records from certain communist countries have been released. As for Che himself, his numbers were never so grandiose, but they are certainly there.
www.babalublog.com
has a list of people known to have been executed by Che. His (Babalu's) criteria is at least two witnesses. If (when?) the Castro government should fall, perhaps a more complete picture will emerge.
It's one thing to be a left-leaning hippy college student, who thinks revolution is "cool" and likes to go to peace protests to irritate one's parents and snub one's nose at "authority". Such actions, whether motivated by teenaged angst or naive conviction, are excusable. Sporting icons of a murdering thug in the name of "social justice" is to spit on the graves of all those he killed.

Father's Rights: what can I say.

2005-01-15T14:47:00.000-08:00

A close and trustworthy friend passed this story on to me. I think it's a perspective not often heard or recognized in the abortion debate.

I’d like to talk about abortion. I’m not going to discuss the issue in the conventional way, moral or not moral. I want to discuss the choice and who has the choice. My ex-fiancée is pregnant and will have an abortion on the 18th of January 2005. Its her choice, the law says so. The law also says I don’t have a say in the matter. Is that fair?
This isn’t her first abortion. In October of 2004 she aborted our first baby, a baby she begged me to help create. We were to be married in November of 2004 and I asked her to wait on children until we were married. I gave in thinking we’d be married in a few months and she wouldn’t get pregnant right away anyway.
I was wrong. She was pregnant on the first try. Then she decided she didn’t want to be pregnant. She changed her mind. Was she in danger? No. She just changed her mind. She decided she didn’t want a baby anymore. My feelings didn’t matter, it was her choice, not mine. She was nine weeks pregnant when she killed that baby. We broke up and that should have been the end of it.
I believe in love. I believe in forgiveness. She came back and led me to believe we could make things work. My mistake was letting her have a second chance to hurt me. But its not just me she’s hurting now. There is an innocent unborn baby involved now. I’m not claiming innocence in this matter. I could have worn a condom, I could have sent her packing. But she did lead me to believe she couldn’t get pregnant. In her defense, she did offer me a condom. A week later she informed me she had been ovulating. A week after that we found out she was pregnant.
She told me she would keep the pregnancy if it turned out she was carrying twins, because twins are special. She couldn’t do that to twins. Apparently twins are a life but a single child is just a clump of cells. Excuse me? Twins are special but a single child isn’t? Now I had to pray for twins if I wanted to have a child. This is the sick position she put me in. Pray for twins or nothing. Then she pulled that rug out from under me and said she wasn’t going to keep the pregnancy either way. Then she changed her mind again. I am being played with and there is nothing I can do about it.
The argument is its her body, her choice. My argument is its not just her body in question. There is a body inside her body that belongs to two people. Washington is a 50/50 State, correct? Why is there an exception on unborn babies?
I have tried everything possible to get her to keep the baby. I asked her to have the baby and give it to me. She says she won’t do that to her body. Where is her responsibility? I am willing to take responsibility for this child. I would be more than happy to pay her child support if she were to keep the child. I’m willing to take the child and responsibility myself. I have a good job and make a very good living. But the laws are on her side. She can have an abortion anytime she wants. I can do nothing to stop her.
Its time we had a few laws to stop this nonsense. I realize it will be too late to save my second child, just like I couldn’t save my first child. That child is as good as dead already, because its her choice. We need laws to help men keep the children they helped create. It takes two to tango, it should take two to make the choice.
Men are hurt by abortion. I’ve been hurt once and am about to be hurt again. Her choice is killing me. Her choice keeps me awake at night and wakes me at night. I have not had a good night of sleep in months. I thought getting back with her would help, it didn’t. It has only hurt me more. But its not just me that is being hurt. There is an innocent child who will be dead because of this. I have four days to try and save this child’s life, and I fear I will fail. Unless, of course, she is carrying twins. Twins are special, after all.

(I should note that my friend was not the guy in question, but rather passed this on to me. I did spoke with the man who wrote this, and his permission was granted. I can put interested people in touch with him if you make the request to me personally, but will not post his name and email here out of respect for his privacy.

The Diplomad.

2005-01-14T11:47:00.000-08:00

Just posted some comments at:
http://diplomadic.blogspot.com
If you've not been to this blog, go check it out. It's amusing to me that the first resort of the leftists on the comment page is to doubt his cridentials. Typical political spin really: if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger (conservatives do it too sometimes, though I think not so often. Of course, this could be my personal bias). I find the comments of Canadians on America and the Iraq war particularly fascinating in their incoherents. Longtime readers, (which I hopefully have) no my position on Canada's constant anti-Americanism: inexcusable (and that's saying a lot, since I can kind of excuse the French). The difference between Canada and, say, France, is that I've heard the French give a real honest explanation of their opposition: realpolitik. Somehow, it's easier to accept realpolitik from a realpolitik country and sometime ally like France than moral superiority and blow-hard socialist sniping from our "friendly" neighbors to the north. Look, I know Canadians are upset about softwood lumber and other stupid protectionist measures enacted by the Bush administration. Frankly, so am I: protectionism is stupid and serves no purpose (and I'll even give Canada a break for protecting it's cultural industry, even though it's hard to find Avril Lavigne's content distinctly Canadian. This may be partially because I like Great Big Sea, but I digress). But seriously, did you expect the US to agree with you on everything, and always act as it should? I'm a ravingly patriotic American, and I don't even have this expectation. As for the US not taking Canada seriously, here's a simple five-step program to fixing that problem.
1. Start taking yourselves seriously. If you think Americans are apathetic about our politics, go to Canada. Most Canadians really don't seem to care (of course, there are some exceptions: including friends of mine who really do know the Canadian system quite well).
2. Might I suggest...rebuilding that little thing with the tanks and ships...ah, that's right, the Canadian military. More funding, more troops, how about buying up some surplus American stuff, and we'll reopen the softwood lumber market in exchange. Good for you, good for us.
3. Stop pretending that you deserve to care about our politics, but we don't have reciprical rights. When you criticize America, it's "speaking truth to power". When we criticize Canada, we "don't understand you". Maybe the sword cuts both ways hmm?
4. Honestly, if we could refrain from making fun of Jean I-got-a-pie-thrown-in-mhy-face Cretien,a little restraint with regard to Bush isn't too much to ask. Or do you want us bringing up some really hillarious folks like Pierre I'm-a-citizen-of-the-world Trudeau. I'm not saying stop altogether, but there's no need to get nasty and personal folks.
5. Honestly, we're tired of hearing about how great your healthcare system is. Some of us have seen it up-close, and we aren't so enamored. Like ours, it's got problems, and it's much better in some areas than others. If you're happy with it, that's fine, but that doesn't make you morally superior.

Follow these five recommendations, then maybe America will start taking you seriously. Until then: inexcusable.
And for all you pro-American Canadians out there, my heartfelt sympathies.

The death of a political party?

2005-01-12T19:12:00.000-08:00

There's quite a lot that's newsworthy today. Michael Chertoff, a New Jersey appeals court judge, has been nominated to be the new director of Homeland Security. Tim Romer, pro-life congressman from Indiana, is running for DNC chair. And of course, CBS has come out with a little report. Which brings me to Howard Feinmann's interesting piece here:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6813945
The analysis here is quite interesting, particularly the Bush bit. Many people seem to think that Bush hates the media. I think neglegance in that regard is altogether more likely. (hat tip: Opinion Journal's Political Diary).

Pat won't run.

2005-01-10T23:37:00.000-08:00

It's official: Pat Toomey will be taking over the reins of the Club for Growth, a massively effective conservative lobbying and candidate-supporting organization. Toomey's a good choice to lead it: a conservative star whose willingness to take on Arlen Spector has won him friends in conservative circles. There had been some talk of trying to draft Toomey for a senate run against Santorum, particularly from one Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Counsil. I've always thought this was a bad idea: Santorum's about as conservative as PA is going to get, and with Bob Casey considering a run, and Mahoney considering backing him, the judgment of the head of the Christian Defense Counsil is somewhat suspect.
This leaves an interesting field likely to immerge in 2006. With Toomey out as a possible senate or governatorial candidate, incumbant protection looks that much more likely. Should Bob Casey run against Santorum, things could get interesting, but Santorum would likely still win. Santorum is a charismatic young senator who has risen far and, all his Spector-backing to the contrary, has shown himself to be a man with guts. Casey's only claim to fame is his father's legacy, and his staunchly pro-life stance. While it would be good to see a pro-life Democrat advance, I've still got to go with Rick on that one. The Rendell race already looks more dicey. Jeff Picola, state senator from Dauphin County (that's Harrisburg for those of you unfamiliar with PA) is a definite. I have friends who like Picola and friends who don't, but the main point about him is that it's doubtful that he can gin up enough support to actually beat Fast Eddie. PAs good a guy as Picola may be, he doesn't really have the name recognition. Bill Scranton, another likely candidate, is the scion of a liberal Republican family with long routes. However, he doesn't seem like much of a candidate, and certainly won't excite the base in Dauphin, Cumberland, Lancaster and York Counties, nor hold down Rendell's colossal advantage in Philli. All eyes are on football great Lynn Swann. If Swann can lock up the west, excite the T and do passibly in Philli in the Rino suburbs, Fast Eddie could be toast. And outside observers might be surprised at just how unpopular he really is. I have opportunity to talk to a few state workers, and they don't even seem to like Rendell overly much. If a Democrat has earned defections from state workers, he or she has certainly done something wrong.
Anyway, it's late here in the UK, and yours truly is hitting the hay.

Oxford Cowboy!

2005-01-10T00:02:00.000-08:00

The Oxford blog is up:
http://oxfordcowboy.blogspot.com
Alright, I know voting Republican and listening to country music doesn't make you a cowboy, that blind kids don't ride range and all that. But hey, it's a cool name, and the cowboy is the oh-so-rarified symbol of American imperial hubrous and "evil" (if they even remember what the term means) in elite European and leftist circles. So, being me, I'm sticking a thumb in their eye. And assuming that it's not ridiculously expensive (something of an assumption here), I may just have to get a cowboy hat. Still not a cowboy you say? Well, just don't tell the European left, and I'll try to do the real cowboys as proud as I can over here alright?

Across the pond: jolly good and all that.

2005-01-09T12:48:00.000-08:00

So, again, I haven't fallen off the face the earth, but have actually crossed it. I'm safely and happily settled in here at Oxford for the next semester. I'm debating starting up a separate blog to cover my ?Oxford happenings, and keeping this one for politics, but I'm afraid posting may remain a bit infrequent until I get more firmly into the swing of things. So be patient, and if I get the Oxford blog up, I'll post the address.
Until then, God bless you all, and do keep the home fires burning for me.

Year in Review, Part 2.

2004-12-31T15:20:00.000-08:00

Continuing my post from earlier:
I remember where I was when Kerry picked Edwards: at U-Mas visiting my then girlfriend, and taking my ease. The times were good on those summer days surrounding the 4th of July, and just before the Democratic convention. Not long after, a huge Bush rally in York, at which I screamed myself horse. And of course, less conventional activities. I remember working for a weekend to get Ralph Nadir on the ballot in PA. To help Bush? Well, partially, but also because he deserved to be there. Isn't that what this whole democracy thing is all about? Who can forget the 527s. Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org. Talk about David and Goliath: the under-funded Swifties taking on the Kerry 527 spin machine, and winning. A thorn in Kerry's side, which--because of his own pride--he couldn't excise. The campaign heated up with the summer, and as the semester started, I started working for it. And Christina and I broke up, not long after. The election ate up every waking moment between start of term and Nov. 2, in one way or another. I generated op-eds at a fever pitch some weeks, a trickle others. To this day, I have no idea if any of them were used. That's campaigning, a mad, barely-comprehensible scramble for the prize. Even well-organized campaigns are probably nine tenths confusion when you're a boot on the ground. Whirl-wind moments: at the vandalized York victory center, at Bush-Cheney headquarters, at a little Mexican restaurant where I met with my Hispanic Republican contact. Craziness on campus too at that time. So-called "Jesuits" and "men of peace" exhorted us, in the name of Christ no less, not to support that evil war-monger Bush. Fahrenheit 9-11 was shown, inaugurating what Turanto would undoubtedly have called a kerfuffle of immense proportions. And the world moved on, grinding toward Election Day. We went to class, to work, to eat and to bed, and time ground on toward that moment which we were all sure would define our nation for years to come. Tears, sweat and even blood poured forth from a nation, a state, a city, a campus divided. And time ground inexorably on. Haloween weekend in Philadelphia, where the Democrats drive around in caravans with loudspeakers on top, blaring their mind-numbing propaganda. In Philli, where there is one team, one candidate, one party and I'm working for the other side. Crashing exhausted on my bed, waking up on Election morning and dashing down to York to pass out lit at a poling place where the line is hours long with my comPadres. Watching the election returns come in like it's a football game, and not sleeping, well, accept for that little three hour chunk. And we won didn't we? By something substantial, but there's no time to celebrate. That last big push--the one which will culminate in the end of the semester--is on. Time to stop focussing on the rest of the world. Time to look to yourself.

And so much more. All the personal stuff that you just can't put on blogs. Stuff about girls and girlfriends, family and friends and my own thoughts and musings ranging from tortured to triumphant. What a year: what an insane rollercoaster ride of a year. And what's next? Well, across the pond to Oxford, and of course, the blogging will continue, though in more regular blog fashion I promise. But what good's the end of the year if you can't look back at it eh?
Should old acquaintance be forgot...

The Year in Review: sort of.

2004-12-31T09:45:00.000-08:00

It's the end of the year, as we know it. So happy New Year's Eve everyone... Ald Langs Ime and all that. Anyway, as is customary, let's take a look back at 2004.

Ah, remember New Year's Day, 2004? Remember when Howard Dean was hot, and John Kerry was not? Remember when the biggest election immediately on Republicans' minds was the Toomey-Spector affair? Interesting times, no doubt.
I remember that day at the end of January, when I went to State Committee's convention. Christina had just left to go back to Mt Holyoke, and I went to State Committee as the guest of a friend. How exciting, to meet the candidates for statewide office and the Republican committee luminaries. Of course, some of them give you good vibes, some give you bad vibes, and so many give you that "big fish in a little pond" politician feeling.
Of course, Dean jumped the shark in February, leaving only John F. Kerry to carry (no pun intended) the Democratic torch against President Bush. Remember 3-11, the day on which terrorists scared the Spanish out of Iraq and into socialism? A black day for sure, and it did not stop the terror in the EU. I met Pat Toomey then too, by accident at a fund-raiser when I blundered into his prep room. I remember how cool he played it to this day. Heck of a guy. I remember April 27 like it was yesterday, and the burning disappointment as Pat Toomey came within half a point of beating Arlen Spector. I thought, for a few minutes, that I'd have difficulty backing Bush again. As it turned out, I was wrong. I remember meeting him on that cold morning in February. My pal Bill came as well, getting a ticket so last minute that he didn't even get to shower beforehand, and had to steal my leather jacket just to have something to wear. And I quite clearly remember shaking his hand and speaking to him for a good long minute, and wondering how it was that so many people mustered such a strong hatred for the man. Democrats, as I have found out quite strongly, aren't always rational.
Anyway, more later, got to get off-line.

Review: State of Fear.

2004-12-26T12:12:00.000-08:00

Michael Chrichten's new novel, "State of Fear", has definitely gotten some attention. After reading it, I can see why. While listening to the first CD I thought: 'Well, it's good, but I'm not sure it lives up to the hype.' By the end of the second disk, I was hooked, and I finished the entire 6 CD set in one night. The fast-paced action, the clear science, the plot which is so like, yet so unlike Rainbow 6...brilliant. The fate of Chrichten's Martin Sheen analog? Spectacular. It's the kind of book conservatives will love to love, and Liberals will hate to hate. There's one part where a somewhat off-base professor makes the assertion that Global Warming has been manufactured to replace the fear ingendered by Communism. That seems a little to edgy for me, but with tsunamis, flash floods and major glacial calving going on at the direction of semi-compitent ecoterrorists, a suspension of disbelief becomes more plausible. The best thing about "State of Fear" is that it both makes you think, and entertains. Over all, four and a half out of five stars, and definitely worth a read if you're at all interested in Environmental issues. Also, don't skip the appendix: Chrichten's description of the Eugenics hysteria is invaluable, and is a piece of history we should not soon forget.

This kind of stuff makes me crazy!!!!

2004-12-23T12:25:00.000-08:00

From the Middle East Media Research Institute:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD83404
Wow, I'm speachless. The Arab media really will say anything won't they? By the way, "secret European reports" don't sound like a credible source to me. This reminds me why I decided the Middle East would not be my region of focus: because this stuff is crazy! And the crazier part is just how many conspiracy theories turn out to be true in the Middle East.

Presidential picks: just for fun.

2004-12-23T01:15:00.000-08:00

The presidential election of 2004 is over at long last. So, you know what that means right? That's right, time to start thinking about 2008. Here are just a few possible prognostications regarding possible presidential contenders, from both parties.
The Dems.
Coming off a demoralizing loss here in 2004, look for the Dems to seek something new. If they're smart, they may just find it. (Repubs, keep your finger's crossed).
1. Hillary. That she'll run seems beyond question. Will she win? Quite questionable. Former first lady she may be, but she's still a northeastern, liberal, freshman senator with a radical rapsheet two miles long, about whom conservatives are already writing nasty books. Her nomination would go over in red America like a hydrogen baloon in a field of powerlines during a thunderstorm.
2. Bill Richardson. Governor of a reddish purple state, Richardson's half-Hispanic heritage and reputation for moderation and integrity will stand him in good stead. His biggest problem? Chinagate. He was Secretary of Energy during one of the worst spy crises since the Rosenbergs. Still, his work with Freedom House does give him some Foreign Policy experience.
3. Ed Rendell. A slimy politician, as I mentioned previously, but he clearly wants to go somewhere. Mayor of Philli, to Democrat party chair, to governor of Pennsylvania, all in about six years? That's an ambitious man. He may be running for the VP slot, but run he probably will.
4. Evan Bai. The Democrat Republicans like to sort of like. Some have predicted that he'll be the next "Zell Miller". I doubt it, but a Lieberman certainly. Bai will probably be the standard-barer for the blue dogs, New Democrats and other centrist types. As such, look for MoveOn and their nutty pals to start digging on him pronto.
5. John Edwards. Assuming people still remember him in four years, he may try again, but probably won't get anywhere. He has no base whatsoever.
6. John Kerry. Rumors have him considering a second run. An unwise move, but one he just might consider. Somehow though, I don't think he can stand the pounding he'd take in the much more competitive Dem field I anticipate in 2008.

The GOP.
If Bush does well these next four years, the GOP will have a strong advantage going in. If he doesn't, the GOP candidate will have to be able to promise something different.
1. Rudi or Pitaki. It's almost a guarantee that one of NY's leading Republicans will run. Rudi is a manifestly better candidate (Pitaki makes me think milk toast), and his popularity may help balance his ludicrously liberal record on social issues. However, his personal life just may be a killer. GOP candidates win when they connect with the average American, and lose when they don't. If Rudi can't, I hope he gets killed in the primary. In any case, he's probably not my first choice.
2. John McCain. I'm an inveterate disliker of all things McCain. He's not that bad policy wise, but he's irritating as heck in his constant quest to grab media headlines. Much of the McCain fever one found in 2000 will probably be gone in 2008, and McCain will be 72. If he doesn't run, look for Chuck Hagel to run with his backing. Either way, no primary vote from me.
3. George Allan. A serious man, and a serious contender. For those who don't know him, he's the previous governor of Virginia, currently a senator from the same state, and recently the chairman of the very successful Republican Senatorial Committee. His hiring of John Thune's former campaign manager speaks volumes about his willingness to seek the Presidency. Also, he has governatorial experience, which is a real plus. Allan is southern enough and conservative enough to hold the base, but he can probably appeal beyond it. I like him and his chances.
4. Bill Owens. Here's an I-wish-would-be that probably won't. He's a western governor (Colorado) with solid conservative cridentials (also formerly the head of the Republican Governor's Association)... and marrital problems. This is not a winner, particularly if your wife tends to get the sympathy. Still, he may patch up his personal life and make a strong run.
5. Bill Frist. He'll probably run, but won't win. He's not really a strong leader, and doesn't have the governatorial experience of an Allan or the star power of a Rudi. A nice guy, but I can't see him winning.
6. Tim Polenti. The governor of Minesota is a dark horse admitedly, but not an unimpressive one. I don't know much about him, but I'm impressed with what I've seen. Worth watching.
7. Mark Sanford. Little known, but much balihooed in conservative circles, the governor of North Carolina is the dream candidate of many at the ACU and other right-thinking places. They love his budget-busting ways, among other things. If the economy/deficit blow up in Bush's face, maybe. If not, he's got a high mountain to climb, assuming he even wants it. Still, good luck to him.
8. Colen Powell, Jeb Bush, Arnold, and Tom Tancredo. No, no, no and heck no.
More later on why Barak Obama is a phenominally scary Democrat for 2012 or 2016, and other fun tidbits and predictions. Feel free to give me some feedback on this one (and any other posts for that matter).

Arnold deserves this.

2004-12-23T00:45:00.000-08:00

From Town Hall:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20041222.shtml
Say no more. Moving left is the most ridiculous strategy I've ever heard anyone advocate for the GOP. Gaining five percent of the electorate? Proposterous! Why Arnold, why?

It's called Christmas.

2004-12-21T20:52:00.000-08:00

For the first time, I can't think of anything political to blog on. The big story today, as far as I know anyway, was the terrorist attack this morning which killed about 23 people, Iraqi soldiers, our soldiers and civilians. I have nothing really interesting or unique to say here: we should hunt down the Jihadi responsible and kill them like the dogs they, in all likelihood, are. No, wait, I can say something here, and it'll actually tie in with the title. Why is it that the chattering classes insist on calling these guys "insurgents" or "revolutionaries"? The first is just a euphamism for terrorist. The second isn't even accurate. Generally, a "revolutionary" wants to radically change things. If anything, the terrorists are reactionaries, trying to change things either back to the status quo anti, or back to the good old days of the rightly-guided caliphs, or at least, their interpretation of those good old days. Heck, even our "revolutionary" foundingn fathers were really reformers seeking to restore their English liberal traditions, who found that severing themselves from England was the only way to do so. But anyway, why can't we just call a terrorist a terrorist? You might say "But Rightwardbound guy, they're defending their homeland"! Funny, the IRA, ETA in Spain, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) all made the same claim, and guess what, they were all listed as terrorist groups. Face it. They aren't ensurgents, they aren't the "minute-men", they're terrorists. Some of you are probably thinking "But Rightwardbound guy, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter". And that's the other part of the problem: the inability to make a moral distinction between, well, anything and anything else. Look, freedom-fighters are generally fighting for their people. Ergo, they try not to kill their people. Terrorists, on the other hand, seek to inspire fear. Ergo, they kill whoever they bloody feel like killing, because that's how you inspire fear. Yasser Arafat, Ho Chi Min, and Abu Musab al Zarcawi kill (or killed) innocent civilians. As did that "revolutionary" Che Guavara. Ergo, all of the above were in fact terrorists. By contrast, George Washington's continental army did not make it a practice to do so. Ergo, they were not terrorists. Got it?
Which brings me back to Christmas. What's with this happy Holidays thing? We're putting up trees, spending hours at malls, not working, and more importantly not at college because of the birth of the baby Jesus, not because we all thought winter was pretty and decided that a little tree-lighting gift-giving and relative-irritating was in order. I'm not saying that everyone has to celebrate Christmas. Nor am I saying that we should force a Bible down every school child's throat. But is it too much to ask that we actually call Christmas Christmas? Yet again, the culture of euphamism and political correctness has taken hold. Well, this blind (not visually impaired) Christian will be happily celebrating Christmas (not the Holidays) with his family, and hopes our fine soldiers in Iraq bring every last one of the terrorist thugs (not insurgent revolutionaries) to justice. ACLU, stuff that!

More proof that the BBC just doesn't get it.

2004-12-20T17:44:00.000-08:00

It would seem that the font of British wisdom, the British Broadcasting Company, has decided to do a little investigation into the nexis between Evangelical Christianity and Republican politics:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4105229.stm
There's one basic thing the BBC corispondent doesn't seem to get. American Evangelical conservatives are--well--conservative. Understanding what this really means--in the American context--would help. The dissenting Protestant character of America's history is what the Evangelicals are trying to conserve. And what is this heritage? It is one of Republican government, personal responsibility and a primacy on the family and the individual, sometimes at the expense of egalitarianism. In other words, American Evangelicals are trying to conserve their heritage of classic liberalism and dissenting Protestant Christianity. And ever since the 1970s, Evangelicals have felt threatened by an anti-theistic culture which strikes at all these values. Why would white Evangelicals--who might benefit from some of John Kerry's programs--shrink away from them? Why is Jerry Fallwell a power in Evangelical politics, while Jim Wallace is not? Simply put, because, in the first case, Evangelicals see personal responsibility as the foundation of society, and are wary of the government--the same one trying to take prayer out of their schools (by their reckoning in any case)--making their decisions for them, and in the second place, because Fallwell's alliance with the party of limited government makes more sense than Wallace's bowing and scraping before the gods of "equality" and "social justice". Wallace may argue--with some justice--that there is a long tradition of egalitarianism and communitarianism within the Christian faith. However, Evangelicals may equally argue that their tradition, which is at least as historic as Wallace's, rejects statism in all of it's various forms (ask me sometime what my Lutheran tradition says about politics).
So, to answer the BBC's question, all Bush and the Republicans would have to do to lose the Evangelical Christians is stop being small c conservative and small r republicans. The BBC may as well scratch it's head and wonder in puzzlement what all those unwashed colonists were yammering on about ny on 230 years ago. Some, like Edmund Berke, have tried to remind the citizens of Britain about a heritage which, after all, they deeply share. The question ought not be "Why are those crazy Americans so conservative?" but rather "Why are those crazy Brits so socialist?"

Run Lynn, Run!

2004-12-18T00:30:00.000-08:00

A bit of an old story, but worth discussing. Something tells me I may have posted this earlier...oh well, it's worth a repeat even if so.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04345/424795.stm
Now, this is great news on several fronts. However, the main one is that Rendell deserves to be beaten. Anyone who would claim that the BinLaden video released right before the election was "campaigning for Bush" is out of their blooming mind, and shouldn't be trusted with your neighbor's cat, let alone a major swing state. That and the kind of sneaky way he handled military absentee ballots makes me strongly suspect the guy. I suspect my animosity toward Rendell stems as well--at least in part--from my 72 hour weekend in Philli right before the election (though, I do think I gained a bit of respect for the city itself in this time, particularly it's cheese steaks). Any Democrat politician coming out of that machine should be viewed with some suspicion (ever notice that the PA house and senate have solid Republican majorities, our congressional delegation is--if memory serves--majority Republican, but for some reason, we lose statewide elections? If the words "Philadelphia" and "Democrat voter fraud" spring to mind, you are at least a casual observer of PA politics). Anyway, I hope Lynn Swann gives Rendell a run for it, and turns the governor's mansion red once again.

Can it be true?

2004-12-15T00:51:00.000-08:00

From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/opinion/15kristof.html?oref=login&th
Now, there are probably some things to quibble with here. For example, is fascism really of the "right"? However, Christof does make an interesting assertion or two:
1. That Russia has become a "dictatorship of the right" instead of of the left. In fact, he explicitly compares Putin to Pinochet and Franco, two whippingboys of the leftist intelegencia.
2. Most astoundingly, Christof actually admits that dictatorships of the right are preferable to those of the left. He correctly points out that Spain, Chile, South Korea and other nations with rightist dictatorships have transitioned successfully to democracy. This dovetails with Fareed Zakaria's belief in the existance of "liberal autocrats". If we can credit Christof's assertion, then it may be time to rethink that old leftist critique of Reagan's "dictator diplomacy". Let's look at the track record of leftist dictatorships:
China--still a dictatorship, though maybe more in the rightist or fascist mode.
Russia--same.
Cuba--still disfunctional as ever, and still a dictatorship of the left.
North Korea--same as above.
Vietnam--not my area of expertees, but seemingly in the China mould.
So, you get my drift. Now, if we can't trust the left in dictatorship, why should we trust them in democracy? Need I compare the center-right US with more center-left European countries with regard to economic productivity, civil liberties, position of prominence in the world, Etc.
Let's face it, history shows that the right is right. Nice of Christof to acknowledge it, even in a back-handed way. That being said, those of us in the democratic right need to be the most vociferous voices in calling so-called "dictatorships of the right" to account for their dictatorial actions. After all, we wouldn't want to slip into the fellow travelerism which infected the left throughout the Cold War. Also, a rightist democracy is better than a rightist dictatorship.

The Rising Dragon, continued.

2004-12-13T12:36:00.000-08:00

I seem to have blogged a good deal of late about the rising threat of China. At the risk of pounding this too much, here's an excellent piece on the subject from the WSJ online:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=110006021
Something to keep our eyes on.

The Flying Dutch...middle class?

2004-12-11T15:45:00.000-08:00

Interesting story from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/11/wneth111.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/11/ixworld.html

I wonder what the implications of a bourgeois exodus from Europe would be? Only time will tell I guess, but if I'm a member of the Dutch government, I've got to find this a little worrying. In any case, it does underscore the importance of assimilation, and maintenance of a nation's identity against the pressures of relativism. And no, this does not mean I support restriction of immigration: we're much better at assimilating immigrants than the Europeans, historically. Then too, I think there are arguably more similarities between Latinos and Americans than between north African and Middle Eastern Muslims and Europeans. For starters, Americans and Latinos not only share a generally high level of religiosity, but also largely hold to the same Religion, Christianity. Of course, this is a generalization, but a useful one I think. Compare this with nominally Christian, but mainly non-religious Europe and it's staunch body of Muslim immigrants, and you're clearly talking about different situations. Americans need to start thinking seriously about immigration policy for security reasons. Europeans need to do so in order to determine what Europe's identity will be 50 to 100 years from now.

Canadian shananigans.

2004-12-11T15:30:00.000-08:00

This article from the Population Research Institute reinforces in my mind something I've said here before: there's no excuse for Canada.

Canada Cuts off Chinese Women's Freedom in Order to Spite America's Face
By Joseph A. D'Agostino
Perhaps frustrated, together with France and Kofi Annan, with its inability to influence American foreign policy, Canada's government decided to increase sharply its annual contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The official announcement of the increase just happened to coincide with President George W. Bush's visit to America's small northern neighbor. ***Actually, they're quite a large northern neighbor, geographically-speaking anyway.***
Canada has chosen to ignore the evidence of China's coercive population control program and UNFPA's assistance to it-or perhaps she doesn't care. ***Hmm, probably the latter.*** This Tuesday, December 14, the House International Relations Committee under the guidance of Rep. Chris Smith (R.-N.J.) will hear new testimony of abuses in China's one-child-per-couple policy. Human Rights in China reported November 24 that it "has learned from sources in China that along-term campaigner against China's coercive family planning policies,Mao Heng feng, has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in custody at a Reeducation Through Labor (RTL) Camp in Shanghai. Mao has been protesting and petitioning for 15 years since she was dismissed from her job because of an out-of-plan pregnancy."
Bush now redirects about $34 million a year in UNFPA funding away from the agency because of its continued assistance to Communist China's coercive program. In a post-election lame-duck session of Congress last month,UNFPA supporters tried and failed to get legislative language passed that would have rescinded the President's authority to withhold the funds.Under current law, the administration may redirect UNFPA funds if it finds that the agency is helping coercive population control programs. ***Remind me again why we're funding UNFPA at all?***
Shortly afterward, and during Bush's visit to Canada, Canadian Minister of International Cooperation Aileen Carroll announced on December 1 her government's intention to increase by 28% Canada's annual contribution to the UNFPA. (In a news release issued that day, which was also World AIDS Day, the Canadian International Development Agency referred to the radical social agenda that also lies behind Canada's involvement in such international programs by citing its commitment to "taking on the important issue of gender inequality and HIV/AIDS"). ***Sounds inocuous enough, but the devil may be in the details.*** Canada's UNFPA funding will increase to "$67.4 million over four years [including] $58.4million to the UNFPA's ongoing work in the areas of sexual and reproductive health and HIV/AIDS among women and girls. The remaining $9million will help improve the distribution of reproductive health supplies, such as condoms, which are in very short supply in developing countries."
Two days before the announcement, the Toronto "Star" got the story, spun to it by Canadian officials as a poke at the United States. "'Being friends with the United States doesn't mean agreeing with everything,'said a senior adviser in Prime Minister Paul Martin's government. . .,"reported the newspaper on November 29. "Until now, Canada has preferred to make its opposition to the [American] boycott known more tactfully,allowing the dollars of its continuing contributions to speak for themselves. . . . Canada has never supported the U.S. boycott and has quietly, if somewhat diplomatically, tried to help make up for the missing$34 million over the past few years with modest increases."
"It is shocking and disgraceful that the Canadian government should approve any increase in funding to the UNFPA without making any of its own efforts to investigate allegations of UNFPA's involvement in forced abortions and sterilizations in China," said Samantha Singson of Canada's Campaign Life Coalition in response. ***"Well now, we can't let a little thing like forced abortions get in the way of poking those 'American morons' in the eye can we eh?"***
What have previous investigations shown? Secretary of State Colin Powell,no friend to the pro-life cause, found that the heavy fines imposed on Chinese women for having too many children were, of course, coercing them-most of whom are poor-to refrain from having more or aborting those they conceive. UNFPA does not directly coerce women, but its involvement in the People's Republic of China (PRC) assists government officials in their efforts, he said. "UNFPA is helping improve the administration of the local family planning offices that are administering the very social compensation fee and other penalties that are effectively coercing women to have abortions," Powell concluded in July 2002. ***Earth to pro-choicers: forced abortion isn't "choice". Congrats to Powell for admitting to this fact.*** A State Department fact-finding team had previously declared in May of that year, "In the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved, the population control programs of the PRC retain coercive elements in law and practice." Sometimes, the team said, fines for having more than one child can equal two to threeyears' income.
Just a few months before, in December 2001, PRI investigators issued their own findings after visiting the county of Sihui in Guangdong Province, 100 miles northwest of Hong Kong. They found that UNFPA shared office space with the local Chinese population controllers. Says their report,"Coercive family planning policies in Sihui include: age requirements for pregnancy; birth permits; mandatory use of IUDs; mandatory sterilization;crippling fines for non-compliance; imprisonment for non-compliance;destruction of homes and property for non-compliance; forced abortion and forced sterilization."
PRI will assist Congressman Smith in publicizing the truth about China.We hope that the government of Canada, as well as the other funders of the UNFPA, will listen and come to value the lives of Chinese children and the freedom of Chinese women.
Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at the Population Research Institute.

A show I could get hooked on!

2004-12-09T14:26:00.000-08:00

http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2004/12/the_west_wing_w_1.php#more
What can I say but, awesome.

Christianaphobia:

2004-12-09T13:36:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Times:
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20041209-122008-5991r
I've long suspected that the Vatican will lead the fight against Christian persecution worldwide. Now, it would seem that they are taking steps in this direction. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

Wictory Wednesday.

2004-12-08T19:32:00.000-08:00

If you're reading this from Washington or the surrounding area, you're probably already familiar with the local Democratic party's attempt to steal the governatorial election there. If you'd like to help the Washington GOP, call them at:
425-646-7202
Good luck to all the folks in WA!

'Tis the season.

2004-12-08T18:26:00.000-08:00

From
www.gopusa.com
Pro-Family Group To Sing Christmas Carols To ACLUBy Jimmy Moore Talon News December 8, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- A pro-family group will be singing religious Christmas carols as well as spoofs of popular holiday tunes on Wednesday in front of the Washington offices of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Set to begin at 12:30 p.m. EST, the group Public Advocate of the United States wanted to make a public stand against the ACLU for their position against the BoyScouts.
"The event will highlight [the ACLU's] continuing disregard for the rights of the young men in the Boy Scouts to maintain their morally straight principles," the group said in a statement. "Because of these principles, the ACLU has convinced the Defense Department to stop sponsoring one of the Nations oldest and most respected youth organizations, which is congressionally chartered."
Explaining the purpose of the Christmas carol concert, Public Advocate of the United States says they want to put the ACLU in the Christmas spirit to reveal to them the error of their thinking.
"Public Advocate hopes that the spirit of the Christmas season will fill the members and employees of the ACLU and that they will embrace the morals and principles of groups like the Boy Scouts and renounce their efforts to destroy traditional values in America," the group concluded.
Public Advocate of the United States invites pro-family supporters who live in the Washington area to join them at 915 15th Street NW to sing Christmas carols to the ACLU.
Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved.

Kansas revisited.

2004-12-06T18:07:00.000-08:00

From the Wallstreet Journal online:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005940
Nice critique, and one the left won't relish.

Limited blogging.

2004-12-06T14:46:00.000-08:00

It's that time of year again folks: the week before finals. So my blogging may be a tad slower this week, but keep checking back.

And you thought your campus left was bad:

2004-12-05T22:47:00.000-08:00

From the Korean Central News Service (North Korean),

Writings by Foreign Students Presented Pyongyang, December 3 (KCNA) -- A presentation of writings on the subject "People Blessed with Generals" done by foreign students studying at Kim IlSung University took place at the Taedonggang Club for the Diplomatic Corps on Thursday on the occasion of the 13th anniversary of leader Kim Jong Il'sassumption of the supreme commandership of the Korean People's Army and the 87th birth anniversary of anti-Japanese war hero Kim Jong Suk. Present therewere foreign students studying at different universities here. Put on the stage were dialogic poems, essays, travel notes, accounts of visits, impressions, etc. In the dialogic poem entitled "December 24 We are Observing" Chinese students impressively told the audience how significantly this day is marked notonly by the Korean people but by the world progressives. In the essay titled "Focus of the World" and in the travel note captioned "Treasures of Korea" Chinese students highly praised the feats of PresidentKim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il who has successfully carried forward his cause, their traits as great men and the Korean people's happiness of being blessedwith the generals generation after generation. A Mongolian student in a speech entitled "The Language I Have Learned" spoke highly of the greatness of Kim Jong Il. They presented chorus "Remembering the Old Home", male vocal solo "My Blessed Life" and other Korean songs. It closed with chorus "Comrade Kim Jong Il Is Our Supreme Commander."
The link is here:
http://kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

hahahaha

2004-12-05T20:18:00.000-08:00

Looks like Cos et al have been cheating a bit.
http://youngpundits.blogspot.com/2004/12/leftists-stealing-votes-that-dont.html
Wow, it's Philadelphia 2004 all over again.

Anybody but Cos.

2004-12-04T19:36:00.000-08:00

Last time I checked the best overall blog award on the 2004 blog awards (linked below), Daily Cos was winning handily. Now, I'm not normally one to use the "anybody but..." line, but in Cos' case, I'll make an exception. Granted, he's not on quite the same level as, say, Peter Singer or Michael Newdow, but he's in a pretty distinguished category of low for me. Some of you may remember Cos from an incident earlier in the year involving contractors in Iraq killed by terrorists. Cos' response? "Screw them". After all, people working for Haliburton don't deserve to live, right Cos? Imagine the reaction if a prominent conservative blogger responded to the accidental death of an Iraqi non-combatant by saying "screw them". Said blogger would quite rightly be boycotted by all reasonable people. Not only would said blogger's inbox overflow with hatemail, but the MSM would be chalk full of stories about how unbalanced and racist conservative blogs are. Yet, when a well-known blogger closely associated with the Democratic party, whose site boasted of sponsorship from countless key Democrats running across the nation says it about American non-combatants? Barely a peep outside the conservative blogosphere. For this reason alone, Cos should not win best overall blog. Of course, on another incident, I recall looking at his site, and being astonished to read there that Zell Miller is a racist. Cos apparently couldn't figure out anything the Democratic Party was more liberal on now than under McGovern and Clinton than "civil rights". Of course, the fact that then governor Miller waged a politically costly campaign to remove the confederate flag from the state flag of Georgia is irrelevant. Trust a partisan hack like Cos to ignore said facts when they prove inconveniant. In conclusion, go vote...for someone else (I'm not a big follower of LGF--simply because I follow so many others--but I'd recommend them, the Corner or PowerLine). Anyway, even if Cos should happen to win (a fact that would doubtless be used within the MSM to create claims about the leftward tilt of the blogosphere), it will be because of a multiplicity of conservative blogs. In other words, it won't be a majority of the popular vote. So it won't be a mandate...no wait, that's not strong enough for a mandate either, right Cos?

Profile: Chris Lilik.

2004-12-04T15:23:00.000-08:00

From the Scranton Times:
http://www.scrantontimes.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13490737&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=8
Nice going Chris!

WFB on Danforth:

2004-12-04T01:52:00.000-08:00

From NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412031251.asp
I for one am sad to see Danforth go. He seemed to me to be a straight shooter. I found his sermon at the Reagan funeral to be a good one, and he deserves quite a bit of credit for his work in Sudan. My suspicion is that the President asked him to stick around at least until the election, and now that it's over, Danforth is headed home. I do hope we'll be able to replace him with someone of some grit.

The China Threat, part 2:

2004-12-03T18:45:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Times:http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20041202-115302-2338r
"There is no China threat. China is a liberalizing country that wants to live in harmony with it's neighbors. Any suggestion to the contrary is a result of American imperialism."
Say, anyone want to buy a bridge?

Yushchenko Speaks out.

2004-12-03T18:40:00.000-08:00

From this morning's Wallstreet Journal online:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005974
A well-written piece. Can we hope that Yushchenko, if elected, will be a fair and upright player on the international stage? Will Putin let him? For my part, I'll hope and pray for the best.

'The Next Christendom', a brief review.

2004-12-03T17:17:00.000-08:00

Alright, I know you're supposed to underline the book title, but I'm lazy. At any rate, 'The Next Christendom' by Philip Jenkins is a must-read. The explosive growth of Islam has been studied and analyzed from every possible angle. Jenkins is one of the few to take the time to analyze the other fastest growing religion, Christianity. And it's not the liberal mainline version we're used to in parts of the US, with it's emphasis on "tolerance" to the point of soft-pedaling doctrine. The southern (growth is mainly in Asia, Africa and Latin America) church is predominently conservative in it's theology, and although portions of the southern Christian church have been known to support silly things like liberation theology, I'm confident that such things will pass away in time. The really interesting bit from a geopolitical sense revolves around Christian-Muslim conflict. If demographic trends persist and if major political or theological shifts don't take place, an era of jihads and crusades may--if Jenkins is correct--be a real possibility for this century. One more point. This book does underscore a point I made earlier: immigrants to the United States are, if anything, more likely than Americans to hold very socially conservative views. Cultural conservatives may need to rethink their positions on immigration. What's the challenge of the Next Christendom for conservatives? To understand it, and communicate our principals to it's adherents.

Shameless plug.

2004-12-02T23:07:00.000-08:00

This year's anual blog awards are under way:
http://2004weblogawards.com/archives/poll.php
There are many deserving entries in several categories. However, because he's a friend, a Messiah alumn and because his blog is cool, I'm recommending that you all vote, in the Latino blog category for:
http://hispanicon.blogspot.com otherwise known as HispaniCon. On a side note, it's impressive how many in the best blog category are conservative. So hard to choose between the corner, polipundit and Power Line...any suggestions on that one people?

I want Maureen Dowd's job.

2004-12-02T13:54:00.000-08:00

I almost feel bad about making fun of Maureen Dowd. I mean, there really is something pathetic about the "Bush World" author, now desperately spinning and carping in order to find the reason for the success of a President she despises so much. It's sad really.
Wait a minute, no it isn't! This woman gets paid to carp on like this! I don't feel sorry for Maureen Dowd, not in the slightest. Nor do I share her deep and abiding sadness about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/02/opinion/02dowd.html?th
Putting aside her almost obligatory references to red states and, of course, Merfy Brown (which is kind of before my time anyway, but whatever floats), this is the quintessential reason why the left gets nowhere in this country. Picture this: women are being forcibly sircumcised, imprisoned for dressing in such a way as to make them able to see oncoming traffic, killed if they dare to engage in the promiscuity common among some men, all in parts of a predominently Christian region of the world. President Bill Clinton decides to promote a radical program of democratization in this Christian region (in honor of a feminist misunderstanding of Evangelical Christianity which was quite popular at one point in time, we'll call this region the Gilead Archipelago), in response to a terrorist attack perpetrated by Christians from Gilead. How would Maureen Dowd and her colleagues on the left react? Would they demand that president Clinton respect the sovereignty of Gilead, or wait for a UN resolution, or accuse him of hatching some theocratic imperial dream, all the while complaining about the lack of diversity among big 3 ancors? Does anybody see the hypocrisy here? Dowd and her ilk (with some notable acceptions) largely ignore things happening in the Muslim world, because they are politically inconveniant or incorrect. It's probably a generalization to say this happens everywhere in the Muslim world, but it's certainly going on in large chunks of it. "Feminists" of the Dowd stripe despise the man who brought to an end arguably the most repressive regime with respect to women anywhere in the world, the Taliban. They argue that we should have "negotiated" with a man whose eldest son did things to women which probably should not be discussed in mixed company or public places. But NBC hiring Brian Williams is a crisis for women? I want Maureen Dowd's job: to write incoherent leftist screeds barely inteligent enough to get a C in a freshman English class about things of no consequence, then get paid handsomely for it. Of course, I'm sure she's done some great pieces in the past, that this was just an off day, that she's suffering from Post-election Stress Trauma or whatever...blah blah blah. Hey Maureen, if you want diversity in America's news so badly, here's an idea. Why don't you advocate that the Times hire a black or Hispanic conservative to fill William Saphire's old slot. Change begins at home Maureen.

Scum, part 2.

2004-12-02T00:48:00.000-08:00

Speaking of people whose positions I loathe, Marvin Olasky has a good piece on Peter Singer:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/mo20041202.shtml
I may have indirectly hinted at this before, but I'm blind, as a result of a certain genetic condition passed on through my parents. Now, if the premise of Singer's argument is that we must replace our "sanctity of life" ethic with a "quality of life ethic", if infanticide for children born with downs syndrome is considered acceptable, then logically, what's to stop someone from making the same judgment about...yours truly? So I take Singer's ethics a little personally. Then again, maybe we all should. After all, certain minority groups tend to have a lower quality of life than others due to discrimination and economic disadvantage right? And as groups like the Human Rights Campaign tell us routinely, homosexuals are discriminated against. What if homosexuality could be determined genetically? Would infanticide be an acceptable way of ensuring that they never experience the pain of societal rejection? And if we deny absolute truth, if we deny that there is something beyond hedonism, pure utility and the squishy acceptance of any conceivable position which is relativism, than by what right do we say that any of the above formulations are unjust? Apart from human dignity as barers of the image of an omnipotent and wholely good creator god, what dignity do we have? Peter Singer may be a very decent human being. I'm sure he pays his rent, takes good care of his mother and always gives the neighborhood kids an extra tootsy-pop on trick-or-treat night. Funny, I don't find that very comforting. It's not the man I loathe, it's the philosophy he advocates. For my part, I'm glad that my parents understood that a person's intrinsic dignity is not limited by what some would perceive as a "lower quality of life".

Federalism's new champions.

2004-12-01T21:07:00.000-08:00

NRO's Jona Goldberg is extatic, and with good reason.
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200412011600.asp
Now, I for one doubt that the left's infatuation with federalism will last much beyond the next election of a Democrat to the Presidency. However, there are some interesting possibilities if I'm wrong. First, let me state outright that I think government does two things naturally: preserve itself, and expand itself. I think the founders understood this perfectly well when they put together a federalist system, and that they intended the government's expantion to be checked by other competing branches of the same government, or by other governments altogether. There's a reason the US has something like 89,000 governments within it. Now however, the federal government has gotten big and strong enough that it canm expand without so many checks from other governments. How can this be fixed? This is where--I think--big government conservatism comes in. If I read President Bush's programs right, he's expanding government in such a way as to make it no longer necessary (faith-based initiatives to empower others to pick up the slack of failing government welfare, vouchers to pick up the slack of failing government schools, Etc). The Left doesn't like these programs, and so to counter them, voilah, they become federalists. Which is useful because--if the Bush gambit works--people will begin to see government as less and less necessary. If conservatives play our cards right, we could be in a position to jump back on the federalist bandwagon at a critical point when enough of the left is on board, and help redistribute power (to use leftie code) back to state and local governments. Of course, the whole thing could backfire completely, and we could end up with a bloated federal government in the hands of the left again. This strategy is largely dependent on two things: conservatives staying in power, and conservatives staying conservative. Still, conventional government-shrinking fails to work, no matter how conservative the incoming congress. As Actin put it, "power corrupts". If it has a reasonable chance of success, I'll dissent a bit from Goldberg's line, and accept the hopefully temporary reign of "big government conservatism".

Trade: free or "fair".

2004-12-01T16:05:00.000-08:00

From the economically conservative, religiously grounded Actin Institute:
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=231
This helps explain the "fair trade" movement rather nicely. I wasn't really aware of the differences between political and retail fair trade until recently. Retail fair trade even sounds like a decent idea (what companies do in making their products is their own business, and if it helps make things better for workers, so much the better). Certainly, it does present an interesting new model for doing business, and even if it goes the way of previous attempts in utopian production (various religious and socialist models of the nineteenth century come to mind), fair trade may at least lead to greater improvements in working conditions for workers the world over. That being said, political fair trade--as is the case with any form of protectionism--is nonsense, and forcing adherents of one's faith to embrace such nonsense is bad theology. (I'll be a bit tied up the rest of the day, though I should be posting a brief review of Philip Jenkins' well-known book "The Next Christendom" either tonight or tomorrow). .

Ralph Peters on Ukraine.

2004-11-30T13:50:00.000-08:00

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/32142.htm
Peters is one of my favorite analysts, whose analysis is almost always solid.

Horowitz strikes back.

2004-11-30T13:26:00.000-08:00

I'm thoroughly convinced that noone actually ***likes*** Al Franken. Oh, the left may find him useful, but I doubt anyone actually enjoys his company. Why? Because he's transformed himself from a decent commedian into a partisan hack in the Michael Moore mould. Franken seems to want to be another Ann Coulter, though he lacks the knowledge, intellect and, naturally, the looks to do so (male or female, I hope all my readers can agree that Coulter is the more telegenic partisan spokesperson. I'm blind and I know this). Well, it seems that Al's finally irritated someone willing to fight back in kind. Hey Al, never pick a fight with an ex-communist alright? They know how to play your game better than you. they've been there.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16131

Letter from a Saudi Islamist.

2004-11-29T19:10:00.000-08:00

www.memri.org
Recently translated a letter from a Saudi Islamist into English. An excerpt follows:
"You who shirk Jihad: I ask you, by Allah, don't most of these troops know well that the Jihad warriors are the enemies of America and its allies? Hasn'tAllah said: 'He who allies himself with them [the infidels], Allah does not guide the iniquitous...' [5:51] Haven't the ulama ... stipulated, with regardto causes that nullify Islam, that whoever assists infidels with his life, money, advice, or even with a single word, is considered an infidel and an apostate.I was very pleased with what one of my brethren said on this matter: 'What is the difference between Peter and Hammud? Peter comes from the desert of Nevadain America, and Hammud comes from the desert of Najd [in Arabia], but both of them fight under the banner of the cross.'
"You who shirk Jihad: 'Let not pity for them overcome you and hold you back from obeying Allah's law, if you believe in Allah and the last day' [24:2].Why is it - when you call whoever collaborates with the Jews in Jerusalem and Gaza a spy, in Kabul an agent, in Baghdad and Falluja a traitor - you regardhim [the collaborator] in Riyadh with awe? Allah's religion is one. His messenger is one. And the Islamic law is one. He who hunts our brethren in Palestineis the one who hunts them in Iraq and Afghanistan and is the same one who hunts us in Riyadh. The scholars of Islam are all in agreement that it is permissibleto fight the despotic enemy, and if this one is not despotic, and above all, a traitor, then what is he? By Allah, I saw with my very eyes soldiers fromthe traffic police, who are falsely called 'Jihad warriors', block the roads and brandish their arms in the faces of our brethren. These troops know verywell that Ibn Sa'ud and his brothers are American agents. H as anything survived of their manhood and honor, and above all, of their religion?"

There's something really striking here. Put aside the fact that the same Islamist conspiracy theories are being mouthed again for the hundred thousandth time. No, the interesting thing here is that the house of Saud is lumped in with the infidels. Now, normally when Jihad is declared, it may only be against those who aren't Muslims. The Islamists, however, seem to blur--or outright ignore--this distinction. This is not typical of Islam (though, if Dore Gold's research in 'Hatred's Kingdom' is correct, it may not be as atypical of the wahhabis). However, it's quite typical of totalitarians. Hitler massacred his own SA on the so-called "night of the long knives". Stalin's "greatest crime" according to Crushchev (not a fair judge say I) was purging the Russian Communist party. And who could forget Mau's "cultural revolution", part of which was the torture, imprisonment and even murder of any officials suspected of being a "capitalist roader". Islamism is utopian totalitarianism in religious clothing. Thus, a war on Islamism is--more than anything else--a continuation of the same struggles against totalitarianism which plagued the twentieth century.

A new Secretary of Commerce.

2004-11-29T18:37:00.000-08:00

The President has chosen Carlos Gutierrez to be his next commerce secretary:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041129-2.html
Two thoughts on this. First, it underscores the growing clout of Latinos. This is not to say that I think Gutierrez got the job because of his ethnicity, but rather that well-qualified latinos are making big inrodes into American politics. Two latino senators elected, and now two Latinos appointed to high level positions, all within a month. Second, have you noticed the Bush appointees? As a commenter on
www.polipundit.com
noted, no white men have been appointed by Bush as of this writing. We do live in some interesting times.

Woohoo!

2004-11-29T15:06:00.000-08:00

As the automated post below shows, I successfully installed Haloscan commenting on my blog. I've got to hand it to them. The auto-install wizard is so easy to use that even a computer-mostly-illiterate type like myself can use it successfully. So feel free to drop some comments (hint hint).

France, conservatively speaking.

2004-11-29T14:50:00.000-08:00

American conservatives just don't research french politics. At least, that's the opinion of most eurocentric leftists, and many conservatives. Well, perhaps we should. First, I'm as irritated with french abstructionism and hypocrisy on Iraq as anyone else, but it's a bit more understandable than, say, Canadian carping, sniveling and embracing of the lunatic left (Michael Moore loves Canada for a reason). If I was prime minister of a country which was, at one time, one of the most powerful countries in the world, but now has fallen far from this position, has a desire to balance the current great power, and has a ten percent Muslim population which is quite restive, I'm not going to support said great power's wars in Muslim countries if I can avoid doing so and still look good on the international stage. Let's face it, the french and Americans have different interests at the moment, and this is the root of our current conflict (the "we hate Bush" thing is either a pretext, or stems from the fact that Bush seems so quintessentially American to the french). There's simply no excuse for Canada. Before snapping at this author as a jingoistic nationalist with no appreciation for the 'finer points' of Canadian life, it's worth noting that I spend every summer in the affor-mentioned beautiful country, surrounded by it's incredibly hospitable people. And there's still no excuse for Canada. However, even the Canadians may be moving in the right direction (pun intended). If the Conservatives (and the conservatives too for that matter) in Canada can pull things together, they just may win the next election, whenever the Liberals finally decide to call one again. By contrast, France's center right is already in power. So there isn't much hope on this score right? Maybe wrong. This morning's Robert Novak column on TownHall caught my eye, in particular, it's reference to one Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy, it seems, is a rightist minister who is extremely popular, extremely ambitious and at least a little pro-American. Should he win the presidency in 2007 (and a run by him seems inevitable), we might expect more sanity from Paris than we've seen under the current and oh-so-corrupt regime. Of course, Sarkozy could turn out to be a dud. I've only just begun looking at the guy, and there are a few disturbing things (mainly a populist streak, which is always an unpredictable factor in politics). Another right-leaning person of some influence in France, a proud and self-avowed libertarian, is one Sabine Herold. When we think of student organizers in the states, we tend to think of leftists protesting the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, or some other ill, real or perceived (at least, this has been my experience on campus these past three years). However, Ms. Herold has put together some quite sizable libertarian, free market, and even pro-war protests in France. Interesting and charismatic people on the French right who have even a mild pro-American bent. Such things brighten my day. Now, let's just hope they don't turn out to implode.

2004-11-29T12:00:00.000-08:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Hats off to the Gray Ladey.

2004-11-27T12:10:00.000-08:00

Let me just clarify one thing. I dislike the NY Times as much as any other conservative. Krugman, Doud et al are out of touch with America, and their bitter recriminations against those of us "ignorant, intolerant fundamentalist hicks" who had the nerve to actually vote for and support George W. Bush justly deserves the scorn heaped on it by conservatives. The Gray Lady is the whipping boy of conservatives for a good reason. However, every now and then, she gets it right, and, in the spirot of encouraging her to fly the straight and narrow, we conservatives should give credit to the Times on those rare occasions on which it actually deserves it. This morning's op-ed page is one such moment. Nicholas Christof may be wrong about the "mistake" of invading Iraq, but he's right on target as to why we need to stay the course. The pieces on Saudi Arabia and Iran are instructive, and will hopefully help to illuminate in the leftist intelegencia the importance of democratic reforms in the Middle East. However, by far the best piece comes from the Times' loan classic liberal voice (William Saphire, the in-house conservative, has recently retired) David Brooks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/opinion/27brooks.html?th
Wow, a defense of globalization, praise of free trade and a well deserved kick in the face to those dim-witted starlets who just don't or won't get it. Thomas Freedman calls the global embrace of free-market economics the "golden straightjacket". Now, I'm skeptical, for reasons stated below, about China's reformability. It will take more than economics to fix China's biggest problem: dictatorship. Those who place naive faith in the free market's ability to solve all of the world's problems are unwittingly embracing dialectical materialism, but applying the opposite logic of Marx. Dialectical materialism itself is in fact incorrect. That said, a free market is a long site better than an unfree market. To quote PJ ORourke:
"The free market is ugly and stupid, like going to the mall. The unfree market is just as ugly and just as stupid, except there's nothing in the mall and if you don't go they shoot you."
Free trade won't save all the world's problems, but it is a definite move in the right direction. Now,if only the Gray Lady could convince some of it's other op-ed columnists of this fact.

Immigration again.

2004-11-27T00:35:00.000-08:00

Again, from the WSJ online:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005937
The responses to this one were interesting. You get a few people blasting immigration and illegal immigration, with a seeming inability to tell the difference which afflicts many anti-immigration conservatives, and a few really pro-immigration types (the post from the ex-navy reservist is instructive). However, most folks are in the middle. That is, they have no problem with immigrants. They find it amazing that so many give up so much to get the American dream. They support--reluctantly or whole-heartedly--the president's guest worker program. But they'd like some security on their borders. They'd like to see more screening of who does come into the country, and they'd like to see the government crack down on the real bad guys: terrorists, drug-smugglers and international gang types. Unfortunately, the immigration debate on the right has pitted the Wallstreet Journal against Tom Tancredo (to paraphrase US Term Limits founder Paul Jacob, never trust a man who breaks a term limits pledge), Pat Buchanan (of course), NRO's resident anti-immigration crusader Mark Crekorian and a hoast of spin-off restrictionist groups funded by 0 population growth white supremacist John Tanton. The vast middle ground into which most conservatives fall is not really represented. And by the way, for any of you conservatives who think that immigration restriction is a great new cause to pick up, do keep in mind that Margaret Sanger and now Hillary Clinton both support it. Anything Sanger and Hillary are for, I'm against unless substantial evidence or just plain common sense stand to the contrary. Pro-life and pro-immigration for me thanks; it tends to drive the nativists, population control eugenicists and socialists (expanding populations do put a strain on the welfare state) bonkers.

Still alive, and some thoughts about the rise of China

2004-11-26T23:52:00.000-08:00

Yes, I'm still here, but I've been on thanksgiving break and away from my computer for the past few days. But now, with much turkey consumed and some quality time spent with family, time for a little blogging.
I just finished reading 'The China Threat' by Bill Gertz. It's a few years old (takes a while to get your hands on books when you have to wait for them to come out on tape) but relevant nonetheless. If Gertz is correct in his two main assertions: that China is not in fact on the path to reforming itself into a happy little classic liberal paradise, and that it is in fact attempting to counterbalance--and even eclipse--American power, then we should indeed be watching the dragon. A Kenyan journalist friend passed me a story indicating that Kenya's current government is looking to make some rather lucrative deals with the Chinese. Kenya has been a fairly staunch US ally for quite a long time, and a turn toward China on their part would not be good at all. Gertz also alleges that China has been helping Venezuelan bully-boy and democratic totalitarian Hugo Chavez, and a story I read in the NY Times last week indicated that Brazil's socialist government is thinking hard about signing some sort of strategic alliance with China. This may be a silly thing for the Brazilians to do, since playing America and China off one another might be a better strategic course for a rising power to take, but sillyness and socialism are inextricably linked. At any rate, China seems to be buying friends in Latin America and Africa. From a strictly free market standpoint, China spreading a little cash around isn't at all a bad thing. Geo-politically however, it makes me nervous. Even if Gertz is wrong about China's failure to liberalize (and something tells me that he might not be), I hope somebody in the administration is watching.

Scum!

2004-11-23T13:53:00.000-08:00

Michael Nudo is at it again:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/schaefer200411230854.asp
As if trying to strip "under God" from the pledge wasn't bad enough, now he's trying to make the welfare of the child a secondary concern in support cases. Wow, I'm speachless at how much I loathe everything he stands for.

So much for "yes men".

2004-11-23T13:40:00.000-08:00

David Brooks (one of the few Op-ed columnists I like at the NY Times) has a provocative piece this morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/opinion/23brooks.html?oref=login&
Brooks is doubtless correct: majorities always have difficulties like this. However, this should ease the minds of the left, which fears Republican dominance will lead to conformity. Well, here's a shocker: conservatives don't all think alike. For example, I support open immigration (to a point), and would at least be sympathetic to a guest worker program. Many conservatives think this is a horrible idea, and akin to "amnesty". Guess what, conservatism is a big tent with all kinds of diversity within it. This can be frustrating at times, but I think it's also healthy. Maybe the Dems (and the left generally) could learn a few lessons. Like, for example, banning a speaker from sounding off at your convention because he's pro-life might not be a good way to broaden your coalition. Fortunately, I doubt they'll learn for quite some time, and suspect that we Republicans can maintain our strong, if often fractious, majority.

Depends on what your definition of "Secretary General" is.

2004-11-22T16:05:00.000-08:00

A friend told me about this speculation, which had been floating around for a while before the election:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/492377.html
Now, odd as this sounds, I think this is a great idea, at least in the short term:
1. With all the sex, drugs and petty (and not so petty) corruption in the UN, Clinton would fit right in.
2. It would make Hillary that much more unpopular with the GOP and possibly swing voters. After all, we can't have Clintons running the UN and the US both now can we?
3. Honestly, he'd probably be better than many of the possible alternatives. Think, Kerry made Clinton look moderate, and the cronies at the UN are so out there that even Kerry wouldn't embrace them all the time. By UN standards, Clinton might just be a rightwinger.
4. Hillary. He'll still have a wife who's sitting in the senate (presumably waiting for him to finish so she can finally run for President), so he'll need to avoid doing anything stupid enough to alienate the electorate back home any more. Heck, the UN might actually pass a resolution which didn't condemn Israel for once in it's storied career.
5. And best of all, if his management of the UN is equivalent to his management of Arkansas during his tenure, it's stature and power will diminish exponentially.
In conclusion, conservatives should get behind the idea. After which, of course, we can always pack the UN off to Paris.

Nice piece on Afghanistan.

2004-11-22T13:42:00.000-08:00

James Robbins has a nice piece on NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200411220812.asp
Kind of reminds you what we're fighting for eh?

Amen!!

2004-11-22T11:32:00.000-08:00

I'm going to have to depart from the traditional conservative fold of folks like NRO (which is right about 95 percent of the time) and the nativist palio right (which is right maybe once every thirty years). This piece is dead on:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005927
And to all you cultural conservatives, two things. First, our anglo-Protestant culture was in decline long before Latino mass-immigration got it's start (you can thank our very own left-leaning Anglo-but-no-longer-Protestant elites for that). Second, if you really want to restore traditional values, Latinos are natural allies. Why are cultural conservatives going absolutely bonkers about a massive influx of...highly religious cultural conservatives? Beats me. Oh and before burnishing the "danger of chicano separatism" card, let's keep in mind that it is assimilated elites who've learned how to play victim politics American style who propegate that garbage. Give blame where blame is due.

Odd decision by British Conservative Party Leader.

2004-11-22T11:20:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Times:
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20041122-124931-9416r
Why is Howard trying to slide to Blair's left? Some of the numbers I've seen suggest that almost 59 percent of the British public is Euroskeptic. Wouldn't it be more logical to slide to Blair's right instead? This may, it seems, insure Blair's reelection.

Oh, what the government pays for these days.

2004-11-21T17:24:00.000-08:00

Martin Cramer has an article up on
http://www.campus-watch.org
about the president of the Middle East Studies Association. Campus Watch has been stalwart in it's attempt to catalogue bias on college campusses, with regard to the Middle East. This one kind of makes you wonder just exactly what the government is doing with our tax dollars. Having opinions contrary to the policies of the US government is one thing. Voicing these opinions, if in fact she did, on the government's dime is another (where I'm from we like to call that good-ole-fashion hypocrisy). Voicing these opinions on the streets of a country which is currently occupied by the lone remaining baathist dictatorship in the Middle East is another ball game altogether. For those of you who didn't read the article, I'm talking about Syria's occupation of Lebanon, a subject about which I often rant. I have to agree with the old English-speaking man mentioned in Cramer's article with regard to MESA's erstwhile president: "gullible". I believe Mona Charon, and Vladimir Lennin for that matter, have a less diplomatic phraise for it.

Blogs for Blackwell:

2004-11-21T15:50:00.000-08:00

I just wandered across this link:
http://www.blogsforblackwell.blogspot.com/
Some of you may remember Blackwell from election night, at which point it looked as if he would rise to Catherin Harris status. Fortunately, things in Ohio seemed to have cooled down (some third party antics not withstanding). Blackwell is not only a solid conservative, but a very smart one as well. He'd make a nice edition to the Republican Governor's Association in 2006 (hint hint, any readers from Ohio). Anyway, looks like they're just getting started, like yours truly, so wander over and giv'em a look.
Thanks to Patrick Ruffiini:
http://www.patrickruffini.com/
for posting the link.

Not sure what to make of this one:

2004-11-21T13:45:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Times:
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20041120-113709-6934r
I tend to distrust anything done by Tancredo (more on immigration later), but I'll have to hold off on this one. It does seem that we're moving to implement the 9-11 Commission's recommendations with a bit more haste than is warranted. Here's hoping that everyone can find a compromise that will protect our troops in the field and the folks at home.

The next chief justice?

2004-11-20T18:22:00.000-08:00

In his most recent column for www.townHall.com, Robert Novak examines a widely discussed possibility in conservative circles:
"WASHINGTON -- Sentiment in conservative circles strongly favors promoting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to chief justice if ailing William Rehnquist leaves the nation's top judicial position.
President Bush's nomination of Thomas would guarantee a tough confirmation fight. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who voted against confirming Thomas for associate justice, has signaled he also would oppose him for chief justice. In addition, Thomas is reportedly unwilling to undergo another confirmation battle. However, Thomas at age 56 would ensure long-term conservative leadership at the court.
The Thomas boosters would like his place on the court filled by Washington lawyer Theodore Olson, who recently resigned as solicitor general. Other conservatives are launching a campaign to boost the 63-year-old Olson for chief justice."
Interestingly, The Corner (National Review's excellent blog), links to a report that Reed would support the elevation of Skalia. Perhaps because he won't be CJ for as long as Thomas? At any rate, it's a story well worth watching.

The Spector of Discontent:

2004-11-20T16:10:00.000-08:00

From human Events:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5842
It would be a shame for Spector's confirmation to further imperil Santorum. And Mahoney should really pick a better target for 2006. As a discontented Toomeyite from Central PA myself, I was quite unhappy with Santorum's choice. Still, he is one of the most solid conservatives in the Senate. And replacing him with Casey? Come on!

Blast!

2004-11-20T16:07:00.000-08:00

That last link didn't work for some reason. Let's try again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/politics/20spend.html?th
I'll get the hang of this yet.

An abortion controversy already?

2004-11-20T15:10:00.000-08:00

this piece from the NY Times is interesting. Looks like some house Republicans are moving to consolidate their gains already. One question for Demo senators Boxer and Harken: how does exempting healthcare providers with moral objections to abortion from any requirement to perform such procedures violate the rights of women? Are there any abortion restrictions to which pro-abortion fanatics such as Boxer won't apply the "women's rights" card?

2004-11-20T14:08:00.000-08:00

Welcome aboard friends and fellow conservatives. With the historic election of November 2, America has shown that it is headed in the right direction. This blog is dedicated to preserving and consolidating these victories in the areas of political races, foreign and domestic policy and culture. Now is no time for conservatives and classic liberals to disengage from politics, thinking that the victory is one. For, as the saying goes: "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."
I'll be updating as time permits, so drop by from time to time and check it out.