Come November, I intend to cast my vote for John McCain. Like many other conservatives, I’m not terribly happy about having to vote for McCain but I really have no other legitimate choice. But if I were supporting Barack Obama, I would be increasingly worried about my candidate.
Given his recent track record of major flips on a variety of issues, Senator Obama is quickly making John Kerry look like a principled politician. It is becoming clearer by the day that the Senator is willing to do and say anything in order to get elected. It’s not hard to imagine that if Obama wins the election his first two years in office will be marked by a hard tack to the left.
Senator Obama has been able to clinch the Democratic nomination by preaching an ambiguous message of hope and change without delving into much in the way of policy specifics. But as this campaign move into the more serious season he’s going to have to make it clear what he stands for. Otherwise the “Change We Can Believe In” will be his platform that alters direction based on which way the political winds are blowing.
In conversations about ethnic or sub-community and varying access to education, I suggested a while back that the necessity of a “good” education for everyone is over-rated. The minimal education needed to get by in our culture and civilization is literacy, some arithmetic competency, and an understanding of how to manipulate or survive the attentions of various bureaucracies. In a good schooling environment this is achievable by about the 2nd grade, in the less good likely the 4th or 6th. It might be said that the only other purpose that public schools get us for the dollar spent is to provide relatively poor moral and public ethics education and to act as baby-sitting service for our kids for 6-7 hours a day on the weekdays of about 2/3rds of the year.
There is as well a public interest in locating and identifying few those in our midst who are touched by genius. The Mozarts or Ramanujans hiding in the weeds, who if found and nurtured can likely blossom and refine their talents to greater levels than they otherwise could if left undiscovered. Our country (and the world) would benefits greatly from the another Fermi or Kelly Johnson. It doesn’t need 5,000 more mediocre literature majors in selling cars. Read the rest of this entry
During my recent interview with author Jane Hampton Cook, I asked her how she thought history would view President Bush. One of the interesting things she mentioned was how the President was more concerned with doing what he felt was right then what was popular or politically expedient and as a result history will likely look more favorably on his presidency than the press does now. I tend to agree with this view.
It’s even more refreshing when members of the mainstream media begin to understand this dynamic. This article (from Great Britain, no less) nails it perfectly and at the same time calls liberals and Europeans on the carpet for their deranged hatred of the President (hat tip: Instapundit):
This is a man who has the courage of his convictions.
Let’s not forget how Europe does wars.
Usually we wait and wait until the enemy starts attacking, then we let them win a bit, then we fight until we are tired, then we just call the US to come over to clean our mess. That is what happened in WWI, WWII, and the Balkans.
Bush is just showing us what a bunch of dangerous ditherers we are and we hate him for it. Naturally.
And the Olympics. Bush said right from the beginning that he’s going to the opening ceremony because he saw the whole boycott thing as silly and counterproductive.
Compare that with Sarkozy who has changed his mind twice so far and to Gordon Brown who, well… err.
Not much leadership from Europe here, as usual, just doublespeak. Once again, it is to Bush that we look for leadership.
Bush may not have the slickness of his predecessor, but he is a man you can trust and who prefers to tell it like it is.
This is refreshing, and very scary for us who are used to our politicians always talking grandly about principles and hiding behind political mumbo-speak.
The fact is you guys hate Mr Bush because he is not a hypocrite and you are used to hypocrites as your leaders. We hate what we don’t understand.
Yes, yes, all you bleeding heart liberals are cringing out there. I can just hear you. But the fact is, Mr Bush has had to take some very tough decisions and the world needs people who can not only talk but also act tough and admit mistakes.
Well said.
When Karl Rove joined FNC as a contributor, the Left howled about bias. Now, however, either they’ll howl more quietly, or ignore this and howl just as loudly, ignoring, in either case, how this indeed continues to make Fox "fair and balanced".
Howard Wolfson, who was a top strategist for the presidential campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, is going where some Democrats were unwilling to go during the early days of the election season: the Fox News Channel.
The network is expected to announce as early as Tuesday that it has signed Mr. Wolfson as a contributor who will appear regularly on its programs.
Mr. Wolfson is joining a network that Democrats shunned for a time, complaining that its coverage was unfair. But aides to Mrs. Clinton came to view Fox News as distinctly fair to her in a news media climate that they believed favored Senator Barack Obama.
“I thought that Fox’s coverage during the primary was comprehensive and fair and evenhanded,” Mr. Wolfson said Monday in a telephone interview from Liverpool, England, where he was vacationing. “It’s a huge audience, and it is important to have a strong, progressive voice on the network.”
Even with it’s rightward tilt, FNC continues to be far more balanced than any other news channel. I will note that CNN has been seeing the light in this area recently — what with adding Glenn Beck as a show host and having Bill Bennett as a contributor during the campaign season — but perhaps that’s because the light was illuminating their dismal ratings compared to Fox.
[tags]media bias,Fox News Channel,Howard Wolfson[/tags]
Brevity.
In response to last nights essay, which was intended to be satirical, the following question arose to my remark:
The only serious question [raised in the prior post] is whether mingling of groups is desired or not.
Commenter Mr Boonton asked:
… what do you think about mingling of groups? I think they are on a whole to be encouraged with single-group states being the solution of last resort.
This is a serious question, which begs answer. The conventional wisdom in Jouvenel’s Babylon [Babylon: the multi-cultural/multi-ethnic mix of modern society] that by mixing with “other” we learn tolerance and to appreciate those around us. However there are a few points to consider, and to do so, I’ll resort to the dread bullet list (and more below the fold): Read the rest of this entry
What follows is the text of my recent segment on Shire Network News. Normally I don’t post these commentaries here, but I thought this one fit well with this blog. And if you want to hear it, click on the link above. (Disclaimer: The shows are sometimes rated PG-13 for some language from the host and other commentators.)
Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to “Consider This!”
With all due respect to the host of this show, who comes from the land we broke away from 232 years ago, I’m going to touch a bit on Independence Day in these United States.
This quote from John Quincy Adams was brought to my attention recently. He was writing to his wife Abigail about how he thought Independence Day would be celebrated in the years to come.
I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of the continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.
Well, we seem to have the pomp and parade, fireworks and barbeques down pat. Some sporting events, like Atlanta’s Peachtree Road Race, are exclusively on July 4th. But it’s this clinginess to guns and religion that one US presidential candidate would, no doubt, find beneath him. Thanks to the Heller Supreme Court decision, it now appears that individuals can celebrate Independence Day, not just “well-regulated militias”.
In the intervening years since Adams’ prediction, and indeed hope, America has been there to fight for freedom in other places as well. Imagine that; a country strong enough and with the right frame of mind to consider more than just its own well-being, but the well-being of other nations. The American “empire”, if you want to call it that, has been unlike any other. Instead of entering a country and annexing it or taking it over, we come in, get rid of the bad guys, and, instead of installing our own government in perpetuity, we install voting booths. Granted, it’s not always been that way, and we have certainly made our share of mistakes, no doubt. But on balance, compared to other nations of our size and strength throughout history, I believe we’ve been an overall force for good and liberty in the world.
No, not Bush’s. This group would love to have the same ratings as Dubya. In most cases, based on who you talk to, only 1/3rd of the number of people who approve of what Bush is doing think Congress is any good.
The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.
Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.
The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.
Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.
For comparison, most other polls give Bush +/- 30%. Hating polls as I do, I would only bring this up to counter those who use them as a bludgeon for Bush and his policies. If popular opinion is your bellwether for whether a course of action should be taken, the Democratic Congress has less of a mandate than the President.
Now, we can debate as to what the poll means, and that can have as many explanations as people polled. But if you want to claim that Bush is doing a poor job, you must also say that it could be worse; we could have Congress in charge.
[tags]polls,approval rating,Congress[/tags]
Having children that love to read is a joy for many a homeschool parent (although the phenomenon is certainly not limited to homeschooled children).
On a recent trip to California’s Central Coast we had a serendipitous, if not ultimately heartbreaking, homeschool moment with our youngest child. One of our favorite places to hang out, while touring the area, used to be Leon’s Used Bookstore, in San Luis Obispo. Imagine the look on our child’s face, however, as we walked up to the storefront, only to find the premises empty of its rows of bookshelves, with construction work being done inside. Alas, we soon found out that Leon’s Used Bookstore is no more, the victim of the costs of doing earthquake retrofitting for older, unreinforced masonry buildings.
Our youngest was on the verge of tears.
Imagine… a 21st century child, upset because her favorite used bookstore had to shut down? While it was a painful lesson in reality for her, my wife and I simply smiled at each other, content in the knowledge that our child has a sincere love of reading.
Here’s my thought for the fourth, I’ve written such on my blog in previous years, but there are new readers here so … From the book of Ruth chapter 1 we have:
And she said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” And when Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more.
The poetic plea of Ruth’s, “For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” seems to me not far from the patriotic declamation of Captain Hale, “I regret I have but one life to give for my country.”
When one transposes the sentiment Ruth expresses for Naomi and love of one’s country I think there are strong parallels here. Patriotism is about roots, about earth, about home and hearth at it’s core. It is also at it’s heart, a parochial plea. It is exclusive. I love my country (and not yours). This is my land where I and my family will dwell.
I’m curious, does that jibe with you’re notion of patriotism?
It seems these two holidays make the Left nervous. Of the half dozen left-leaning blogs I read none seem to manage to actually unabashedly come out and say they love their country. Instead we are greeted by various apologetic nuanced finely crafted arguments how we can be (highly) critical of our country and still love it. Or even how the absence of criticism is a sign of a lack of love, if the left leaning author is feeling testy.
It seems to me, if I had a friend, who on every Valentines day and anniversary for his wife announced (quite spontaneously) to his friends and other around who don’t even really know him that his constant criticism, backbiting, and quarreling with his wife and her ideas, her looks, and her acquaintences was a sign of his affection. Well, after a while, not noticing any real displays of affection, one might wonder if where his true feelings lay.
Just saying. It seems to me if you can’t craft a love letter to your wife on her birthday or anniversary sans critique or correction … then I’d wonder about your relationship.
I’m not a great student of recent politics, that is the politics of my lifetime, instead more of a casual observer or johnny come lately, in that my interest in politics is quite young. When I was in college and until just a few years ago, Politics was much like the weather, people talk about it, have opinions and all, but it really didn’t touch me (actually did far less than the weather) and the “little guy” of which I number have about as much effect on the weather as we do on federal politics. I am not well aware of the history of Mr Helms, nor have I walked a mile in his shoes nor understand how he thinks and sees the world. I don’t hate him, I don’t love him (any more than I would another stranger).
Mr Jessie Helms has died. Every single one of the liberal blogs I read have failed to say anything gracious (and some are definitely ungracious) at the passing of a man from this mortal coil. On reflection over their attitude on his passing, I find it a good thing that I hold no American and very few foreigners in a similar regard as the beheld Mr Helms. To reiterarate:
There is no American and very few foreign nationals whose death I would celebrate.
As they did today. I don’t hate as they hate, it seems. I can think of very few men on whose deminse I would react in a similar fashion. I think I had little good to say about the deceased when Mr Hussein and Mr Arafat died. It seems to me, if you are trying to rid the world of hatred and bigotry, one must start with oneself. In our liturgy, we repeat and strive to uphold each week, these words before the anaphora (Eucharist):
I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first….
The confession/statement goes on, but the important phrase (for this discussion) is emphasized. This does not mean I am a worse sinner than Mr Hussein, Josef Stailn, or perhaps Mr Helms. It does mean however, I am the first person whose sins are my concern. It is not for me to address the “other’s” sins while mine are lying plain before me. And … if you (on the left) hate Mr Helms, Mr Bush, or Mr Cheney then that sin is far more important to you to address than anything that those men have done or do that you find unrighteous. And no, I don’t think that to others your sin of hatred is being compared or worse then perception of the sins of those men whom you hate. What I am suggesting is that it is more important for you to address than the other.
Help Build Houses and Hope with Habitat for Humanity
