A Breath of Fresh Air

Listened to today's Fresh Air with Terri Gross broadcast ("Inside the Tea Party's Rising Influence"), an interview with Robert Draper, who's a contributor to the New York Times Magazine and who is currently working on a book about the House of Representatives. I braced myself for a repeat of the negativity and vitriol but heard none. It was a remarkably civil, informative, interesting, and insightful discussion. Here's what I wrote in the comments:

I could detect not even a snicker--no animosity, no mockery, no outward signs of disrespect--on the part of either the host or the guest. If either of them harbored a negative opinion about the Tea Partiers, they didn't let on. Congratulations to Terri Gross for her professionalism and objectivity. It's programs like Fresh Air that keep conservatives like me tuned in to public radio.

Just Words

Interesting collection of statements made by some key Democrats in the immediate aftermath of the debt ceiling debate (retrieved these off National Review Online): 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D., Vermont) takes to the Senate floor to declare the debt deal “immoral, grotesque, unfair.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D., Missouri) calls the debt deal “a Satan sandwich, there’s no question about it.” 

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Illinois) calls tea partiers “arsonists” and denounces their “slash and burn lunacy.”

Vice President Biden (D., Vice President of the United States) says tea-party Republicans acted “like terrorists” during the debt-limit negotiations.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D. Pennsylvania) complains that Republicans “have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. California) warns that Republicans “want to destroy your rights” and “undermine government."

Sen. Harry Reid (D. Nevada) laments, “[It’s] hard for me to understand why [Republicans are] so fixated on destroying our government, our economy.”

President Obama (D., President of the United States) links GOPers to hostage takers: “I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.”

I think it's appropriate at this juncture to remind ourselves of the words Barack Obama spoke at the Tuscon Memorial service not so very long ago (January 12, 2011). I've excerpted portions of his speech, highlighting some of his finer statements in red (sort of like the red-letter edition of the New Testament?): 

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds . . .

But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. That we cannot do . . .

As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together . . . If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate -- as it should -- let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle.

The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better. .. And if … their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.

We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations.

They believed . . . and I believe that we can be better . . . and I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

It's important to keep context in mind, i.e., that the man accused in the Tuscon shooting, Jared Loughner, was supposedly incited by the "violent" rhetoric of (wait for it) right-wing Republicans in general and Sarah Palin in particular. For at least a week, if not more, this was the narrative on every mainstream news outlet. It was a completely fabricated narrative, but even after it was proven to be untrue (if anything, Loughner fits more neatly into the left-wing mold), the underlying message remains. And who would argue with the importance of civility? I think we all agreed then, and in theory still agree. Until the next disagreement. Then, it's business as usual, especially where it actually can be found, at least as much if not more (e.g. see comments above) among Democrats as it is among Republicans.


Mr. President, you said, "I believe we can be better." Beautiful words. But apparently, predictably, not surprisingly, that's all they are to you. Just words.

Matt Damon, Please Stick to Acting

Let it be known that I adore Jason Bourne. I've watched the Bourne Trilogy so many times I have portions of each film memorized. Jason Bourne could run for president and I would probably vote for him, even if he was a Democrat.

Matt Damon, who plays Jason Bourne, is a fine actor. I liked him in Good Will Hunting. I liked him in Saving Private Ryan. I liked him in Invictus. He was OK in True Grit. He was very good in Hereafter. He was good in The Adjustment Bureau. He was funny in Ocean's Eleven. And so on. He's obviously a tremendous actor.

But someone should tell Matt Damon to keep his mouth shut when reporters stick a microphone in his face and ask him to weigh in on whatever current event is currently eventing. It was embarrassing listening to him, for instance, weigh in on the debt ceiling debate. Besides the fact that he seemed to be merely parroting his favorite left-leaning politician's talking points, he comes across as ignorant, arrogant, and uninformed. There's a verse in the Proverbs that says something like "even the foolish seem wise when they keep their mouths shut." OK, so I paraphrased, but I know it's there. I'll look it up later.

According to Matt Damon, the tea partiers are "intransigent." I looked it up. "Intransigent" means "characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an extreme position or attitude." The tea partiers are intransigent? What about the Democrats in the Senate who told John Boehner that the bill they just voted on in the House was "dead on arrival"? Were they not being intransigent? What about Nancy Pelosi, who strong-armed all the members of her own party to vote against Boehner's bill? Not a single House Democrat voted for that bill. Is this behavior not intransigence, Matt Damon?

Perhaps the tea partiers are not as much intransigent as they are principled. They were elected by their constituents because spending had gotten out of control. The 2010 mid-term election was a complete repudiation of the Democratic-led Congress and the Obama administration. Would Matt Damon have the tea partiers abandon their principles and capitulate to the Democrats' insistence on unrestricted spending?

"The GOP doesn't want to raise taxes," says Matt Damon. "The GOP wants smaller government." Yeah, but Matt, this is not the whole story. My understanding is that the tax rates are actually plenty high (the wealthy pay about 35% or 38% in federal income tax alone, and about 50% of the population pays no income tax at all). If you were paying attention at all, you'd learn that what the GOP wants is to revise the tax code, lower the overall tax rate, eliminate loopholes, and, yes, reduce spending. I heard one congressman say what's needed is not more taxes but more taxpayers. Does Matt Damon really think the United States could pay off its debt, and continue to take care of domestic and foreign needs, simply by raising taxes on 1% of Americans? The logic is just not there. The message of the tea party movement is to reduce spending, fix the tax code, and live within our means. That's not intransigence. If anything, Barack Obama was the intransigent one. He wanted carte blanche to raise the debt ceiling and continue to spend, spend, spend. The tea party locked arms and said, "Whoa, Nellie." Good for them, I say. Hooray for the little guy. 

There was an interesting op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times the other day, written by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason Magazine, about the influence of the tea party on this whole debate. Here's an excerpt: 

Forget President Barack Obama, House Speaker John A. Boehner and the less-interesting-than-their-name-suggests "Gang of Six." When the history of the Great Debt Ceiling Debate of 2011 gets written, the main character will not be a Beltway negotiator, or even a politician.

The only reason Washington is even talking about proposals to slow the growth of government spending, instead of robotically jacking up the nation's credit line for the 11th time in 10 years, is that a large, decentralized group of citizen activists has spent the last few years loudly telling politicians from both parties one consistent message: Restrain your own power or face our wrath. Whether you conceive of the "tea party" as a heroic tamer of bipartisan big government or a diabolical hydra threatening America's very future, its success in precipitating a national debate over fiscal policy should give hope -- and a tactical blueprint -- to anyone who feels marginalized. (Independents' Power Keeps Growing, June 9, 2011).

The past few weeks has been fascinating "political theater," as some have called it, but I think there's so much more to this whole debate. To accuse the Tea Party of being "terrorists," to accuse them of "holding America hostage," to accuse them of hoping to drive America "off a cliff," is to miss the bigger picture. What they really did was change the subject. This is no small feat. During the first two years of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress the subject has been about spending. It was like they went insane with power, and they madly crammed all their ideals into bills they could actually pass with apparently no concern about how these projects would be paid for.

The mid-term election changed all that, along with the election of Scott Brown to the Senate after Ted Kennedy died. Democrats lost their majority in the House, and within a year, everyone--including Barack Obama--was talking not about spending but about reducing the deficit. It's like they "got religion." As Gillespie and Welch write in their article, "The political winds seem to be blowing away from dominant political tribes and toward individuals who are fed up with bipartisan logjams that produce asinine policies."

This was a victory for the little guy. If Matt Damon would shut up long enough to think about it, he might find himself even siding with the Tea Party.

"Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent" (Proverbs 17:28).


Matt Damon on debt limit: 'I'm so disgusted,' 'it's criminal' the wealthy are not paying more from Nicholas Ballasy on Vimeo.

Dennis Prager is not a Wimp

I was making scrambled eggs this morning and listening to Prager. I'm a new fan. I like listening to him work things out on his radio show. He doesn't come across as someone who knows it all, though he does have strong views, obviously. But he's polite about it. He's among the more reasonable voices on the right. He listens as much as he speaks.

But this morning he did something that won me over completely. If I had been a peripheral admirer of him before, today I was lassoed in for good.

He had been discussing the debt-ceiling bill which had apparently just passed the Senate (having already passed in the House yesterday). He was mostly venting about the rhetoric coming from the Democrats, calling Republicans "terrorists" and "arsonists," among other things, and rightly repudiating the hypocrisy of these politicians who had condemned violent rhetoric allegedly emanating from Republican territory only months ago in the aftermath of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' shooting (which rhetoric, of course, had virtually nothing to do with her shooting, but that's another story).

Partway through his monologue he said he just learned that President Obama was about to make a speech to the nation about the debt ceiling vote. Should he interrupt his program so his listeners could hear the speech? "The president is now speaking," he told us, "but what does it matter? The president is always speaking and when has it mattered?"

He didn't interrupt his program.

Dennis Prager. My hero.


Prager Gladiator from Brian Godawa on Vimeo.

What I Look for in a President

Read this in an article yesterday ("A Story Not Quite Right," by Kathleen Parker):

Apparently, during his campaign for president, Barack Obama made a powerful case for health care reform by talking about his mother who died from uterine and ovarian cancer. As the story goes, Obama's mother was denied insurance coverage because of her pre-existing condition. Parker quotes Obama as saying, "I will never forget my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about whether her insurance would refuse to pay for her treatment."

Parker writes, "Thus, the story of Obama, Ann Dunham and corporate America's inhumanity toward pre-existing conditions became an inviolate holy trinity of immense political power."

Then, her bombshell: "If only it had been true."

The rest of the article describes how Obama, who actually acted as his mother's lawyer during her illness, basically fabricated the part of the story where his mother couldn't get insurance. In fact, Parker writes,  "According to Janny Scott, a New York Times writer and author of the book A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother, Dunham's cancer treatments were covered by her employer's insurance policy. She was denied disability insurance, which would have helped Dunham pay her deductible or unreimbursed medical costs. These apparently ran into the hundreds per month."

So the president embellished the story of his mother's insurance coverage in order to "sell" America on his health-care plan. Is that OK?

Not in my book. Whether it's right or wrong for insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions (and I believe it's wrong), the president of the United States manipulated the facts, fabricated part of his mother's story, in short, lied, in order to accomplish his objectives.

This tendency on President Obama's part--to distort and manipulate the truth in order to accomplish his objectives--is one of his failings, not only as president, but as a person.

I remember back when George W. Bush was president, Bush-haters (members of my extended family included) accused him of lying to justify the Iraq war. One famous bumper sticker went something like this: Clinton lied: Hillary cried. Bush lied: People died.

Very clever. The thing is, Bush didn't lie. President Bush did what he thought he had to do for the security and safety of the country, based on the knowledge and intelligence that he was faced with at the time. And it's important to note that he was not alone in making the decision. He assembled a coalition of other countries. He went to Congress, and Congress approved. One can't help but contrast Bush's approach to Obama's, which was not only to not ask Congress for approval to go to war in Libya but then to refuse to comply with Congress' request to seek its authority after 90 days because, according to Obama, "American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities." More rhetorical legerdemain.

The point is, it's easy to call someone a liar when their policies offend you. People hated George Bush, so the assumption that he "lied" about Iraq fit nicely into the narrative they had created about him, not only that he was inept, but that he was evil.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is, in fact, dishonest. Kathleen Parker was too gracious to call him a liar: "It is too much to say that Obama told an intentionally tall tale to mislead the public," she writes. "But it is also incorrect to say that he told a true story."

Maybe Obama doesn't lie outright. But he does midlead. He is disingenuous. He fabricates, distorts, and exaggerates. It's typically subtle, done for rhetorical effect, and generally accomplishes what he hopes to accomplish: i.e., shovel a bill through Congress, change the subject, place blame on others (usually his predecessor or members of the Republican party), buy time until he can come up with yet another misleading rhetorical appeal.

Another example of his duplicitiousness: telling a CBS news anchor that he couldn't guarantee that Social Security, disability, or veterans' checks would be delivered by August 3rd if Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling because "there may simply not be money in the coffers to do it." That sounds scary. Those who actually take the time to punch the the numbers, however, say there actually is "money in the coffers."

The federal government takes in roughly $180 billion every month. (It also borrows $135 billion a month.) Social Security payments are about $60 billion a month, payments to all military personnel (veterans and otherwise) are about $12 billion, and payments to disabled veterans are about $6 billion. That totals about $78 billion. To say that “there may simply not be the money in the coffers” to pay for these items is plainly false. One might even call it “engaging in scare tactics.” (Jeffrey H. Anderson, The Weekly Standard).

 I'm not sure which is more frustrating: that Barack Obama can't be trusted or that people apparently still take him at his word. I'm also not sure why people would vote to re-elect him. He's proven to be an ineffective and even petulant leader. But the one thing that completely disqualifies him in my book, trumping all other failings, is his dishonesty. I for one would not "re-hire" him as my president. And that's what this next presidential election is (or should be) all about: deciding whether to "re-hire" Barack Obama as our president.

Give me an honest man for president, even one who makes mistakes, over a duplicitous one, any day.

Journalists Then and Now

What a difference a few years in office makes...

Here's Evan Thomas of Newsweek in 2009 on Hardball with Chris Matthews:



Yes, you heard correctly. A journalist compared the new president to God ("he's sort of God").

Here's Thomas again, in 2011, on Inside Washington:



Interesting, the word "God" has been bleeped out this time.

Is it possible that some of these cheerleaders journalists have come out of their trance? Will the news media be more willing to scrutinize Barack Obama this time around? I hope so. I pray so. And not only the journalists who ought to know better (shame on them for their silly crush), but regular people, too. People (young and old) who fell for Obama's promises, believed his rhetoric, projected their fantasies onto him, were unconcerned about his lack of experience and paltry voting record. I hope they think twice before giving Obama a second term.

Media Gone Mad for Sarah

And Sarah Palin's emails are interesting to us because...because....um, why, again? Palin hasn't declared her candidacy for president as far as I know, and even if she had, what's with this disproportionate interest in (or obsession over) Sarah Palin? I don't see the media clamoring for Mitt Romney's or Tim Pawlenty's email correspondence, for instance. And what about newcomer Barack Obama back in '08? Scouring his personal emails would have been quite revealing. Oh, but wait. Wanting to know more about Obama might have been construed as racist. Besides, the media didn't need to know anything more about Barack Obama. It was enough that he was promising Shangri-la.

Question: What's Worse Than Sleazy, Lying Politicians...?

Answer: Sleazy, lying politicians who wag their fingers and scold the people who are trying to get them to tell the truth.

It's the finger-wagging that grates most. It was bad enough when Congressman Weiner feigned indignation when ABC news correspondents tried to get him to answer a simple question about why he wasn't planning on pressing charges against those who allegedly hacked his Twitter account and then insisted on talking about the issues "he was elected to discuss" (e.g., the debt ceiling). Round and round they went, with the reporters repeating their questions and Weiner getting more and more indignant. Yes, that was bad.

But I watched him in one video (now apparently removed from You Tube) actually scolding the ABC interviewer, Jonathan Karl, for asking whether it was "inappropriate for a member of Congress to be following young women on their Twitter account." Listening to this interview one day after Weiner's public admission that he lied for days about this issue, one can't help but be stunned at the ease with which this man not only lies but how he manipulates the story by attempting to humiliate, demean, and denigrate the reporter.

A few of the more odious examples:

"It is your responsibility, and I want you to take it seriously, when you ask a question like that, it is charged with implication, and it's simply not fair. It's not fair to me, it's not fair to my family, it's not fair to that poor girl who has now been besieged, because of the implication...

"And I would urge you, I would urge you, my friend, to refocus on what you think the actual issue is. This is a Twitter hoax, a prank, that was done. I am a victim of it, this poor girl is a victim of it. And to somehow draw a larger line here about people who have done nothing wrong..."

My. What a loathsome, arrogant, condescending, imperious, unprincipled man.

Some people felt sorry for him, standing there before the media yesterday, weepy and apologetic. Not me. I'm onto him. I know it's all an act. He's fighting for his political life. Sleazy men like him will do anything, including grovel, to keep from drowning.

Here's the issue as I see it. It's bad enough when an elected official (or anyone given the trust of leadership) gets seduced by power and becomes sexually and morally reprobate. Such behavior should not be tolerated, people of both political parties should be appalled when it happens, and not only to people of the "other" party.

But it's the lying--and more to the point, the effortlessness, the facility, the ease with which they lie--that's troubling to me. It's almost as if lying is second nature, this innate ability to distort, to blame, to accuse, and then to chide those who dare to ask. And we're seeing it more and more in political figures. We saw it in that Blagojevich person. We saw it in John Edwards. We're seeing it in Barack Obama, especially when reporters dare to ask him "tough" questions. He gets all defensive and prickly and tries to make the issue about the questions, the questioners, the implications behind the questions. He's very good at it. Maybe not as good as Weiner, but pretty good.

This is not a good thing.

I've never trusted a smooth talker. Me, I prefer the bungler, if he's honest, to the glib, the verbally dexterous, the artful dodger.

Helicopter Parent? Yes, I'm Guilty.

Article in today's Los Angeles Times (Home section) by Mary MacVean examining the way today's parents are more connected (perhaps too connected) with their college students than is necessary or even healthy. She writes that going to college today means "never having to say good-bye," and adds, "Researchers are looking at how new technology may be delaying the point at which college-bound students truly become independent from their parents, and how phenomena such as the introduction of unlimited calling plans have changed the nature of parent-child relationships, and not always for the better."

Lots of stories in this article illustrating varying degrees of "communication" ranging from benign to excessive (though I suppose what I consider benign might be viewed as excessive, especially by those researchers).

Example of what I think is benign (and by benign I mean something I might do):

Katie Bent, a sophomore, calls home to Seattle weekly. "For me, I would love to be in contact with my parents very frequently, but I also feel like this is the time I'm supposed to be learning how to function without them," she said. "So last semester I completely destroyed my glasses at one point. That probably would have been a perfect time to deal with it, to find an optometrist in the area. What I did was call my mom, and said, 'Oh my God, Mom. What am I going to do?" Mom found an optometrist.

Of course Katie's mom found her daughter an optometrist! Like Katie's going to know where to go, whether or not the optometrist is on their insurance plan, how much she might be charged, what's reasonable, what's not. These are financial issues that students aren't necessarily engaged in at this time of life. Lots of kids are still on their parents' insurance plans, so it would make sense, in my view, to help my kid out at this point.

And yes, I'm guilty of doing the same thing. For example, I spent about 30 minutes searching for a dentist for my college-aged son in the nearby environs where he's living this summer. Could he have done this himself? Yes, of course, he's in college, for heaven's sake. Would he have done this himself? Probably not. He's in college, for heaven's sake (like he's really going to make an appointment to see the dentist?). Should I be micromanaging his oral health issues? Probably not. But I justify it for a couple of reasons: first, I have more time on my hands, and second, if my investment of 30 minutes results in my son making an appointment to get his teeth cleaned, it's worth it.

Examples of excessive parental involvement?

• There's the story of one student named Grace who was doing a semester abroad at Oxford. "She had trouble getting permission to check books out of the library. The problem wasn't getting solved, so [the dad] emailed the foreign study office himself. When he heard from Grace, the message was, 'I'll kill you if you do that again.'"
• One student named Jamie says she gets a text from her mom every night, saying good night.
• Researchers who surveyed students at Middlebury in Vermont and the University of Michigan learned that on average students and their parents were in contact about 13 times per week. 

That last item, about being in contact 13 times a week...OK, well, maybe I'm guilty again. I admit, I send my kids emails that might be newsy ("cell phones may cause brain cancer!") or personal ("tried a nice recipe with organic beets!"), or micromanagerial ("did you make an appointment for the dentist?").

Is there something wrong with all this? At some level, I guess there is. I mean, one has to ask oneself, at what point does one stop thinking about one's kids and start living one's life? I can't imagine, for instance, that my 87-year old father is wondering what I'm doing today, and if I'm maintaining good oral hygiene. At a certain point in life, he and my mom managed to let us kids go. The question is, did that "point" take place too soon, and to my personal detriment? Would I have turned out better, for instance, if my parents had been more involved in my transition from adolescence to adulthood? Back then, in the 70's and 80's, the thinking was to not be intrusive, to let kids make their own decisions (not to mention their own mistakes). I have very little memory of my parents being involved, for instance, in decisions relating to college. If anything, they were hands off to a fault.

How did that work out for me? After about two and a half years dabbling in course work at a local community college while working part-time as a waitress somewhere before finally, at around age 22, transferring to a 4-year college and getting my bachelors degree at age 24, and then, two years later, my masters, it turned out fine, but it was a circuitous and somewhat tumultuous path filled with unnecessary detours. And there are enough "W's" on my early college transcripts to indicate that I had no idea what I was doing.

Did I learn from my mistakes? Am I a better person because I made bad choices but then recovered nicely? Or did I fritter away the "best years" of my life? If my parents had hovered over me during my junior and senior years of high school, steered me towards more rigorous course work, pushed me to apply for scholarships, challenged me to stick with my musical training, stayed in touch with me when I was drifting (no cell phones, back then, let alone email, Skype, Facebook), where might I be today? Sometimes I think about all the untapped potential that was squandered simply because there was no one hovering nearby, shouting directions in my ear.

So yes, my husband I did things differently. We challenged and prodded and pushed and steered our three kids through high school and on through college. And yes, we do stay in touch with our adult kids. Guilty as charged. But I can't imagine doing it differently.

Today I got a call from my son, who recently finished his junior year at an Ivy League school and is currently working a summer job back east. He's living temporarily in the locker room before his summer housing becomes available, and not having had lunch yet (he gets cranky when he doesn't eat), he was venting about how much money he's spending on food, how he's always hungry, how the food he's eating isn't good (i.e., healthy)...

Always hungry? Not eating good food? What? I'm all over this...

Thirty minutes later I texted him: "Check your email....I found out there's a Whole Foods within two miles of you!"

I even sent him directions from Google maps.


"The Bond: Staying in Touch When Children Go to College"

Back to Salacious Politics...

 Scandal of the Week: Congressman Weiner (D. New York's 9th District) claims that his Twitter account was hacked when a 21-year old college woman received an inappropriate picture of someone's (Weiner's?) male anatomy in whitey tighties. Now Rep. Weiner is backing off his original accusation that he was hacked (potentially a felony) and instead calls it a prank.

Sort of a big difference.

Obviously the congressman would like the story to go away. But why? If he was hacked by presumably right-wing agitators (such as Andrew Breitbart), wouldn't Weiner go full-throttle here? This is his opportunity to put that pesky Breitbart away once and for all.  Instead, he's trying to change the subject, and has apparently hired a lawyer.

Jonah Goldberg makes a couple of good points. First of all, if this were a Republican congressman in the center of this salacious story, the mainstream media would be All Over It, as indeed they were just this past month. The special election in New York to replace Republican Chris Lee was necessary after it was discovered that Lee had posted pictures of himself shirtless in a Craigslist ad (yuk). And the media were all over Mark Foley back in 2006, when it was discovered the Florida Republican had sent suggestive emails to young men (yuk again).

Disgusting and offensive acts, agreed. They did and should resign. But let's be consistent. It shouldn't matter that these undies belong to a Democrat. Salacious is salacious, regardless of party affiliation. Let's get to the...um, bottom of the story. As Jonah writes, "I honestly have no idea what happened, but I do know that Anthony Weiner is exactly the kind of Democrat who would sensationalize a story like this if the politician involved was a Republican."

But here's Weiner refusing to answer any questions from the press.

Is the Next Generation Doomed?

I know this is not a settled issue, and the issue is still being studied, but it seems to me that we're gambling here on this upcoming generation's health. As it stands today, at least, the World Health Organization has classified cell phone use as "possibly carcinogenic" to humans, and places it in a category similar to the pesticide DDT or gasoline engine exhaust.

Great. Just great.

Call me, let's TALK.

Cell Phones May Cause Brain Cancer

Thoughts on the Monday After

There was a lot of joking in the days leading up to this past weekend. I only became aware of Harold Camping's prediction that the world would be ending on May 21st when I noticed Facebook comments about what people planned to do or eat on their "last day" (chocolate in all its various mutations topped the list). Most of the funnier (sarcastic) comments came from people I know to be believers. I'm sure there was a sense of wanting to distance themselves from what most thinking Christians believe to be error, namely, the notion that anyone can predict the day, let alone the hour, of judgment day.

As is now apparently clear to anyone who was paying attention, 5/21/11 came and went, the prophesied earthquakes never materialized, the rapture didn't happen, and people who gave up jobs, homes, savings, and reputations, now need to figure out how to get back to reality and continue living their lives like the rest of us, one day at a time. Harold Camping has to face both his followers and his critics. As one person on Facebook wrote, "Harold Camping has some 'splainin to do."

Since billboards were apparently one of Camping's mediums of communication, I guess it's appropriate that new billboards are popping up in the aftermath, a reminder of what most Christians believe to be true: "No one knows the day or the hour" (Matthew 24:36).


Yes, the billboard is funny. But I'm not laughing. And I was not among those who were mocking Harold Camping on 5/20 or 5/22. I feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for those whose lives are now completely messed up because they trusted his "math." But I'm also sorry for the greater mess Camping has caused. People who believe, as I do, that there will be a day of judgment, that believers will be raptured, that this world will be destroyed, that there will be new heaven and a new earth...now find our task was just made more difficult. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. He fooled the villagers so many times, that by the time a real wolf attacked his flocks, no one believed him, though he cried and cried for help.

It's bad enough that agnostics and athiests poked fun at Camping's message. That's to be expected. But when Christians mock, it's a problem. Because the time will come when the "wolf" will attack, but the "villagers" will no longer pay attention to the warnings.

Choosing our Idols

America gave us two scoops of vanilla for this season's finale. Besides the fact that Lauren Alaina's a girl and Scotty McCreary's a boy, they are virtually indistinguishable--same genre, same age, same oh-so-sweeeeet personality. 

It would have been nice to have a different "flavor" in the finale (Rocky Road? Cappuccino Crunch? Licorice?) with Haley Reinhart paired against either Scotty or Lauren. 

Maybe it's time to carve out a separate niche for country (American Country Teen Idol?) and let the rest of the artists have a shot. 

Gay Marriage, "Ethical Non-Monogamy," and the Future of Marriage

Marriage purists are in a difficult position, it seems to me. In trying to defend the "one man/one woman" definition of marriage, they have little evidence on their side. Perhaps that's why Proposition 8 in California was overturned by the  San Francisco judge yesterday. Or perhaps that's one of the reasons. It has been argued that this judge, who happens to be gay, was going to rule against the constitutionality of Prop 8 regardless of the facts (see "Judge Walker's Phony Facts," link below). However, I remember reading excerpts of the trial when the case first went to this judge, and I was astonished by how seemingly ill-prepared the "Yes on 8" lawyers were. I read this morning in the LA Times that the lawyers for the plaintiffs (No on 8) presented 16 witnesses--some expert, some just regular people--gay couples and families--telling their stories. Contrast this with only two witnesses brought by the backers of Proposition 8--witnesses who apparently, when cross-examined,  made concessions that actually helped the other side.

Of course, a lot's not being said--why were there only two witnesses willing to publicly testify? Their lawyers claim that prospective witnesses for their side refused to testify out of fear for their safety. This would not surprise me. Who can forget what took place after the law was passed in 2008, when individuals and businesses who had supported passage of the law were targeted by opponents, boycotted and ridiculed publicly? No surprise that potential witnesses would be intimidated.

Is gay marriage inevitable? It would appear so. It's hard to argue anymore that the one man/one woman model even works. Divorce, remarriage, adultery, are rampant not only in society at large but in churches. I'd wager that evangelical churches are among the worst, statistically. The argument that having children and raising a family is the ultimate purpose for marriage is also difficult to sustain. What of the countless dysfunctional heterosexual families? What of childless couples who can't bear children? Ought they not be permitted to marry once it's proved they can't bear children? What of single parent families doing quite well, thank you very much? Where are the studies--longitudinal studies--that would be able to irrefutably document the superiority of the mother/father family model? It's too early in the game to document longitudinally whether the single-gender model works. So this road to gay marriage is premature. And yet onward, upward, forward we traipse into unfamiliar and possibly adverse terrain.

The best and only argument that works for me is biology, the propagation of our species. Yes, gay couples can and have figured out ways to have children, through adoption, artificial insemination, surrogates, and so on. But these approaches are inefficient. The male/female reproductive system was perfectly designed for procreation. Societal views about marriage may change, courts may make judgments, Congress may pass laws, but biology will never change. Letting gay men and lesbians marry is an idea that may work for a time, but I'd argue that it's a dead-end from the standpoint of evolution.

What is the future of marriage? Is marriage on the verge of extinction? We marriage purists talk a lot about the "slippery slope" and are mocked in doing so. But one can't help but look beyond the summer of 2010. Gay marriage advocates celebrate this victory, and it has, indeed, been a long hard climb. Perhaps they view this ruling as the pinnacle, or the precursor of the pinnacle as they wait for the case to reach the Supreme Court. But I look beyond this "victory" and ask, What next? Because there is and always will be a "next." I was listening, for example, to a discussion on These Days on NPR radio the other morning on my way to the post office. The topic was non-traditional relationships, polyamory, also referred to as "ethical non-monogamy." Maureen Cavanaugh was interviewing a woman named Dossie Easton, who has written a book called The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships, and Other Adventures. Here's a woman who has dedicated her professional life to exploring "new paradigms of gender, sexuality, and relationships." When questioned during the program about the traditional Christian view of the marriage relationship, here was her reply:

I think that the polyamorous perspective is largely that spiritual connection can exist beyond marriage and that the connections, that the love connections that we make are sacred, whatever rituals or whatever commitments involved in those relationships are. Certainly, marriage is a very special relationship, I’m not saying it isn’t, but the notion that love can only occur in marriage or that ... sexual love can only occur between two people in one particular kind of relationship, is, in my experience, really just plain not true.

What chutzpah. The audacity.  To dismiss marriage out of hand, marriage, which was designed by her creator "in the beginning," for a purpose. Try looking at the Creator in the eye and saying that again, I wanted to say. This is the slippery slope we are about to tumble down. Because once gay marriage is not only socially acceptable but also legal, there will be another group of disenfranchised people who want social and legal sanction to marry. Does anyone really doubt this?

My hope and prayer is that one by one, as we begin to look objectively at this issue, we will begin to turn back to our creator, first in repentance, and then, maybe, hopefully, in worship.


"The Future of Marriage and Non-Traditional Relationships" (These Days, March 18, 2010)

"Judge Walker's Phony Facts" (The Editors, NRO, August 5, 2010)

"Indecent Proposal....Intentional Provocation"

Excellent editorial by NRO editors this morning, strongly condemning the proposed construction of a "community center" (mosque) in Manhattan, two blocks from Ground Zero. Those who support the project reject arguments against it, not surprisingly casting opponents as either intolerant or xenophobic. Perhaps this is true of some, or a few. But what I'm hearing from those who are sounding the alarm about this project, is that we have every reason to be quite concerned about a) who is funding this project, and b) the motives behind the project. By reminding readers that the Islamic cleric who is spearheading the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, wrote a book titled, A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post 9-11., and that the word "dawa" means Islamic proselytyzing, the editors make it clear this is not about "religious tolerance" but about something far more insidious.

Barack Obama has been strangely mum on the issue. His press secretary says Obama won't get involved in a "local issue." Since when did "local issue" stop B.O. from opining? There was that little local incident at Harvard, about which Obama had quite the say. And the other local issue in Arizona. Lawsuit, anyone? "Ground Zero," it seems to me, doesn't "belong" to New York. As the NRO editors rightly point out, it is "the gravesite of 3,000 Americans who died at the hands of Islamist radicals" in the single-worst attack on American soil in our history. That block belongs to Americans. I agree with the editors: for shame on those politicians and city planners and leaders for promoting this project.

Not at Ground Zero
(NRO editorial, August 4, 2010)

Wrong on So Many Levels

Just read that the "Cordoba House" project (mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero) has cleared its final hurdle with a vote approving the project by New York's Landmarks Preservation Commission. This is wrong on so many levels. I only hope that, regardless of this vote, there will be a groundswell of opposition at the grassroots level. Shouldn't everyone in the country have a say in this matter?

Cordoba House Clears Last Hurdle, Moves Forward

The Anti-Defamation League Does Not Support Cordoba House

The ADL announced its opposition to the $100,000 mosque project in New York City. See write up here.

This announcement had to take some courage on the part of the ADL since the liberal organization now seems to be on the same side of the issue as arch-conservatives Gingrich and Palin, among others. Yet another example of politics making strange bedfellows.

I hope the arguments against the project, now growing in intensity and prominence, prevail. Surely this decision belongs as much to the nation as it does to New York residents. Ground Zero is the sight of a devastating and unprecedented attack on American soil. The decision about how and what to build on this sight should be a national one. Barack Obama has yet to weigh in. Perhaps he's doing what he does best--waiting it out, sniffing the wind, watching the polls--before staking out a position. While it would be easy to guess where he stands on the issue, here is one non-Obama supporter who hopes he gets it right for once and speaks on behalf of the most Americans in decrying this not-so-subtle attempt by radical Islamist organizations to thumb their noses at the United States. Take a stand, Mr. President.

A Conversation About Libertarianism, Conservatism, and the Tea Party Movement

Fascinating discussion.

The Question: "Where Do Libertarians Belong?
The Guests: Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute, representing the Libertarian Party; Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online and American Enterprise Institute, representing the Conservative and/or Republican Party; and Matt Kibbe, Freedom Works President, representing the Tea Party movement.
The Topics: "In which Lindsey argued for the abolition of the historical right-libertarian alliance in "Right is Wrong," Goldberg warned against the lure of "The Non-Existent Center," and Kibbe defended the Tea Parties in "Drink Your Tea."
Source: Reason.TV.com (Reason Magazine)

The Los Angeles Times Supports Cordoba House

I sent in a Letter to the Editor this morning to the Los Angeles Times, in response to their editorial in today's paper called "Ground Zero for Tolerance." They argue in favor of the construction in New York City of an "Islamic Community Center" (aka mosque) 2 blocks from Ground Zero. They cite Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, who have been vocal opponents of the project, before making their case that the center will be a place for the promotion of religious tolerance. Their source for such a claim is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is spearheading the project. They take his words at face-value with little or no apparent scrutiny. I took offense at the editorial on several levels, which is why my letter won't be published (too long, for one, and also, making two points, a no-no if ever there were one). Since it won't be published, I'll copy it here. I'm linking to the original editorial below. Here's my too-long/bifurcated Letter to the Editor:

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the Los Angeles Times simply can't be trusted for intelligent and informative commentary. In your editorial, "Ground Zero for Tolerance," you gleefully bat down two "straw men" (Palin and Gingrich) as representative voices against the construction of the Cordoba House two blocks from Ground Zero, even managing to slip in a dig over Palin's misuse of the word "repudiate" in her Twitter post. I teach English at a community college, and one of the things I teach my students is to "argue against the best representation of your opposition," as Sydney Callahan put it. "If you can't state the opposing side's argument better than they can, and then show why the position is unsatisfactory," she wrote, "you haven't done your homework." Trying to score points with your readers by mocking Sarah Palin and distorting Newt Gingrich's words is not doing your homework. How about addressing some real concerns about the project, such as the following (to name a few):

• Contrary to your editorial, the construction of this building is not about religious tolerance. America is plenty tolerant of Muslims. According to the website American Muslim Perspective, there is a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America, two million of which are associated with mosques. A 2007 survey by the Muslim Group of America listed 1,462 mosques in America. 

• Your  editorial quotes Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as saying that the purpose of this center is to "push back against [Islamic] extremists." In reality, according to Andrew G. Bostom, Rauf is a "full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism."

• You say nothing about the significance of the naming of this so-called "Islamic Community Center." The "Great Mosque of Cordoba" built in the capital of Southern Spain, was built in the 8th century after the Islamic conquest. Symbolically, Cordoba implies Islamic rule and conquest. Nothing peaceful or tolerant about that.

It may surprise you to discover that your readers are smarter than you think. If we can't get reliable commentary from the Los Angeles Times, we'll find it elsewhere. Meanwhile, even if you don't publish this letter in your paper, I suggest your editorial board start doing their homework. 

 Sincerely, etcetera. I provided links to some good articles and blogs I've read recently. I'll link them below for the interested reader who is not easily dismissed by condescending editors.

"Let Religious Freedom Ring," Editorial, Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2010

"Behind the Mosque: Extremism at Ground Zero?" by Andrew G. Bostom, New York Post,  July 23, 2010

"Rauf's Dawa from the New York Trade Center's Rubble," by Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO, July 24, 2010

"Iraqi Columnist in Arab Media Warns of Cordoba Initiative," at Atlas Shrugs, by Pamela Gellar, posted May 28, 2010.

And so on.

Why is Britian Considering Scrapping Centralized Healthcare System?

Interesting excerpt from today's End of Day report from Gary Bauer: 

The New York Times reported last weekend that the new British coalition government, facing a crippling national debt, has proposed “the most radical reorganization” ever of the nation’s socialized healthcare system. What is so “radical” about the plan?

According to the Times, it seeks to “decentralize” British healthcare, giving more power to local doctors and patients, as well as “shrink the bureaucratic apparatus.” The report adds, “Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.” After decades of experimenting with socialized medicine, the British are taking steps toward a more market-oriented approach and shedding “layers of bureaucracy” in the process.

Meanwhile, America is going in the opposite direction with ObamaCare’s trillion-dollar price tag, higher taxes, new commissions, czars and regulations. Worse, President Obama has appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to make it all “work.” A New York Times article yesterday quoted Berwick in 2008 as saying, “I am romantic about the [British] National Health Service; I love it.”

Evidently, many of the Brits who have to live with it aren’t quite so fond of it. A new Rasmussen poll finds that likely voters in America aren’t too keen on the idea either – 58% favor repealing ObamaCare before it goes into full effect. 

 My thoughts: Is it too much to hope that we Americans (and hopefully a renovated Congress in November) can revisit this entire debate before our newly-enacted health-care reform kicks in?