South Dakota Politics

SEAL Gets Medal of Honor

AP:

An elite Navy SEAL who threw himself on top of a grenade in Iraq to save his comrades will be posthumously awarded the nation's highest military tribute, a White House spokeswoman said Monday.

The Medal of Honor will be awarded to Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor. His family will receive the medal during a White House ceremony April 8.

Monsoor is the fourth person to receive the honor since the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

"Petty Officer Monsoor distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism on Sept. 29, 2006," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters during a briefing aboard Air Force One as President Bush headed to Europe for a NATO summit.

Monsoor was part of a sniper security team in Ramadi with three other SEALs and eight Iraqi soldiers, according to a Navy account. An insurgent fighter threw the grenade, which struck Monsoor in the chest before falling in front of him.

Monsoor then threw himself on the grenade, according to a SEAL who spoke to The Associated Press in 2006 on condition of anonymity because his work requires his identity to remain secret.

"He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it," said a 28-year-old lieutenant, who suffered shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. "He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him."

Latest Video From Palestine

A couple weeks ago I posted a video from a Hamas produced children's show where a Mickey Mouse type character preaches hatred of the Jews.   Here is the latest video from Palestine.  In this Hamas produced video a child kills George Bush.  This is an offense to decency and good puppeteering.  From the people at MEMRI.

Memri1
by luvnews

Democrats Push Panic Button

I don't know whether or how much trouble the Democrats are in yet, but a lot of them are pushing the panic button so hard and fast they are beginning to suffer from carpotunnel syndrome.  Here is the New Republic:

When Obama or Clinton eventually claims this nomination--and it increasingly looks like that won't happen until June--he or she will have only a short time to formulate general-election narratives; the period for testing arguments and laying groundwork will be impossibly compressed. And that compression will prove especially problematic on issues, such as national security, on which Democrats must tack back to the center. When a candidate prepares policies and rhetoric for the fall, it's clearly better to do it in subtle, little nibbles rather than grotesquely large bites. But, with Clinton and Obama fighting for the allegiance of liberal-minded primary voters, they won't make these important adjustments for months.

All of which is to say that it's about time for the Democratic Party to panic. If it wants to win this election, it needs this race to end as soon as possible. Every day spent on the primaries represents an opportunity cost and diminishes the chances for ultimate victory.

That is a good point.  With their genius for reforming political institutions, the Democrats have managed to create a situation where almost all the delegates were distributed by the end of February, but a candidate won't be nominated and so won't be able to begin his or her campaign until well after June.  That is special. 

But the real evidence of Democratic panic is this piece from the British Telegraph:

Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice-president.

The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.

If the Democrats are really considering Al Gore as their relief pitcher, they are in worse shape than I thought. 

Thune Veep Talk

Chris Cillizza at the WaPo's The Fix blog:

* John Thune: The argument for the South Dakota Senator is very similar to the case for Pawlenty. Thune is young (47), was an early endorser of McCain's presidential bid and comes from the plains states -- a big battleground this fall. Thune enjoys a higher national profile than Pawlenty as a result of his defeat of former Sen. Tom Daschle (D) in 2004 but doesn't have the executive experience that Tpaw [Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty] boasts.

Barack Caught in Another Lie

The Politico:

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion– positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.

They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize(d) his position.”

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago non-profit group that issued it. And it found that Obama – the day after sitting for the interview – filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes adding to one answer.

Ed Morrissey writes:  "Those positions won’t even fly with a large number of Democrats, let alone in a general election. The Hillary Clinton campaign has already begun making the argument to superdelegates that Obama holds extremist views so out of touch with the American electorate that he can’t possibly win in November. The questionnaire will bolster that argument, especially on guns, where the Democrats had tried to soften their stance since Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000."

UPDATE:  Today in alternative history.

Thune Advocating Coalbased Fuel

KXMC in Minot:  Thune: Coalbased fuel could save money, power security interests

Obama's Historical Revisionism

Back at the beginning of March, Barack Obama told a crowd in Selma that the 1965 March on Selma resulted in his conception.  The media couldn't do simple math and determine that Obama was born in 1961, not 1965.  Obama also tried to assert that the Kennedy administration was responsible for his father's arrival in America, although his conception predates Kennedy's oath of office.  The Washington Post's Michael Dobbs looks into the Obama/Kennedy myth and explores his historical revisionism:

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his “very existence” to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which “history replays itself” and by how “two generations of two families — separated by distance, culture and wealth — can intersect in strange and wonderful ways.”

It is a touching story — but the key details are either untrue or grossly  oversimplified.

Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Be sure to read the whole thing.  Like Hillary Clinton, Obama is toying with his life story to transform himself to whatever his audience wants to see.  As the post-racial candidate, he downplays race.  In Chicago, he rubs elbows with radicals like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers.  For the Democrats longing for JFK, he falsely ties himself to the Kennedys.  For those seeking a candidate with civil rights credentials, he tries to draw a connection with Selma.  Like Hillary Clinton's bogus stories, Barack Obama is a fraud.  Had the mainstream media done the math when they covered his Selma speech in 2007, this would be common knowledge.

An Email About The Film They Don't Want You To See

I received an email from someone who I take to be Muslim regarding the Fitna film I displayed yesterday.  The email is too long to produce in total, so I want to concentrate on the arguments the emailer makes regarding Geert Wilders' claims concerning the Koran:

1- Verse 8:60 which talks about an obligation to be strong to defend oneself from the enemy is immediately followed by a verse requiring muslims to lean to peace if their enemy reciprocates.  The producer of the movie chose not to mention that following verse (Verse 8:61)

2- Showing scenes from 911 or the train explosions in Europe is meant to stir the emotions of the western viewer to link these crimes to muslims rather than linking them to terrorists.  Why not show scenes from the Basque terrorist acts or scenes of Tamil terrorists in South Asia or Hindu terrorists in India. What about Sebrenisca in Bosnia?

3- Verse 4:56 describes scenes in the Hereafter and has nothing to do with actions in this life.

4- Verse 47:4 talks about conduct during war and about standing firm in battle but also talks about how to treat prisoners of war. The producer chose not to translate the context of war and on how to treat prisoners of war.

5- Verse 4:89 calls for pursuing the "war criminals" who killed muslims to force their conversions from the Faith.  Of course the producer did not translate the whole verse to explain the context and did not translate the following verse 4:90 which lists circumstances when pursuing War Criminals may not be allowed.

6- The producer showed a speaker talking on TV about fighting the enemy but again did not translate the context.  The speaker explained that fighting should be in self defense.

7- Showing scenes of an innocent little girl stating she hates Jews because the Qur'an stated they are like pigs and monkeys.  This is in reference in the Qur'an to an ancient Jewish tribe before Islam and Christianity who used to make tricks to overcome the requirements of the Sabbath observance.  Some people try to politicize this verse but despite what the Zionist giving bad name to Jews this is not how the vast majority of Muslims regard Jews.

8- The scene showing a Palestinian Iman calling for fighting the Israelis is again out of context.   He is a person whose land was stolen and whose nation was kicked out of their homes by the Israelis. The Israelis claim that their religion ordered them to do what they did.  What do you expect from oppressed people in similar circumstances?

The emailer goes on to make the familiar argument that jihad is about personal struggle, not violence against others.   The author than makes various historical arguments about the peaceful nature of Islam as compared to other religions and other movements.  For example:

If history could be called as witness it will testify that religious minorities always prospered in Muslim lands until the 19th and 20th Centuries when European colonized the entire World and started stirring troubles.  It was Muslims who saved the victims of the inquisition of the Middle Ages and many oppressed scientist during the Renaissance.

As I have other points to make here, I shall simply state that this is dubious history, at best, and tries to explain the world's woes as the product of European colonialism. For example, Islam did not go from a small local religion in the Eighth Century to dominating the Middle East, North Africa, and southern Europe by the Sixteenth Century simply because the people of those regions were asked nicely to convert. For a discussion of colonialism as an explanation current maladies, see Bernard Lewis's indispensable article Roots of Muslim Rage.

As I said in the original post, I am not a Koranic scholar so I will not try to adjudicate a dispute over interpretations of that book. So let me just say this.  First, there are "sayings attributed to the Prophet" that also have authority for most Muslims, so one must take those into account when discussing the Islamic belief system. For example, it is a saying of the Prophet that there shall not be two religions in the holy land (this is not a direct quote but the gist of it), which explains why non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca and why Christian churches are not allowed in Arabia.  Also, while certain verses of the Koran speak of jihad as a personal struggle, there are other verses that clearly lend credence to the notion of jihad as commonly translated as "holy war."  And throughout history this more violent interpretation of jihad has been accepted by many Muslims. 

But let's not get distracted by theology.  As Prof. Blanchard intimates, the question isn't necessarily what the proper interpretation is of the Koran, but that fact of Muslim violence.  Even my fairly reasonable interlocutor gives a partial pass to Palestinian terror and hate by blaming those darn Israelis for creating a state in the 1940s.  The emailer states "What do you expect from oppressed people in similar circumstances?"  I expect them not to preach race hatred and the glory of killing innocents.  And if one is to be a warrior, I expect the warrior to put on a uniform and fight as a soldier in an army, not sneak among civilians, using the non-combatant as a kind of cover.  The Palestinian leadership fails to do any of these things. 

Geert Wilders may have produced a piece of propaganda, and Rod Dreher seriously considers that notion. Does Wilders have an anti-Muslim streak?  His Wikipedia entry (admittedly not definitive) gives a little evidence toward that conclusion, for example his comparison of the Koran to Mein Kampf, but mostly he seems like a mainstream liberal (as in liberty loving) politician.

The fact that there has been considerable outcry about this film tells you Wilders is onto something.  If Wilders had offended any other religious group in the world there wouldn't be nearly this much anger, and certainly no one, Wilders himself or the folks at LiveLeak, would have to fear for their personal safety.  Heck, in America Wilders could get a government grant for bashing Christianity.  If he attacked Jews at the UN half of the member nations would vote a commendation for him.  The attention Wilders is getting stems largely from the fact that we all know that what he is saying can get him killed and those who promote his film are in the same boat.  As Dennis Prager wrote last week, if the Tibetans were violent they would garner more world attention, too.  The focus on Geert Wilders is explained only by the fact that we all know that there is a credible threat of violence behind those who condemn him loudest.  Capitulation to that, as Prof. Blanchard notes, means the end to liberal society. 

Perhaps the segment of the Islamic world that is anti-Western, anti-modern and pro-violence represents a perversion of Islam.  But they exist and they are making demands.   Opposition to this militant faction is an offense to Islam only if Islam is at its heart anti-Western, anti-modern and pro-violence.  I suspect it is not, and it is the Muslims themselves who must lead the way in denouncing those who sully the name of Islam. 

When the Danish cartoons came out, I was opposed to publishing them (scroll down).  I find it juvenile to insult people just because one can.  That's a pretty low use of one's freedom.  But as the threats of violence mounted my opinion changed.  The violence and vitriol surrounding that incident made publishing those cartoons a defense of freedom, not simply a childish insult.  The Wilders film is the same.  Whatever its shortcomings, the death threats against the film maker and those who distribute the film make it's reproduction an act of a free person combating those with tyrannical souls.  Thus, I will post it here again:

The Changing Face of the Democratic Party

Joe Lieberman:  "I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It's not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will --and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me. I'm a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It's a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain."

The Problem of Islam

My colleague, Professor Schaff, posts a link to the ten minute film Fitna, on YouTube.  You can view it from his post.  The film is a dramatic presentation of passages in the Koran that encourage violence, coupled with graphic images of terrorist attacks.  As Professor Schaff reports, the clip was removed from the website LiveLeak (a YouTube clone hosted, I believe in Britain) after members of its staff were threatened.  As my colleague notes, there is no small irony in this.  The threats confirm the thesis of the film. 

Islam is a problem for modern civilization.  It is not that all Muslim endorse religious violence, or that other religions are innocent of such violence.  But contemporary Islam contains within it a radically militant and murderous faction, and that faction is much larger than anything resembling it in any other major religion and it is widely distributed.  Outside Sri Lanka, perhaps, almost no one has to fear religiously inspired violence from Buddhists.  Even in Israel, religiously inspired violence by militant Jews is a very rare event.  When was the last time that militant Christians planted a bomb on a subway train, or threatened to murder a film-maker?  But anyone who lives in a country with a substantial Muslim population, and who dares to publish anything that offends Muslims, may find himself or herself in the position of LiveLeak's proprietors.

The standard liberal response has been to be as accommodating as possible toward Muslims.  Universities have built foot baths for Muslim students, and recently one has established sexually segregated gym hours.   A British cleric went so far as to recommend that Sharia (Islamic law) be respected within Muslim immigrant communities, which would grant to the clerics a power over their congregations that no other religion is allowed.  There is a problem with all this.  If accommodating Muslims means allowing them liberties we do not allow any other religious population, it means that liberal democracy is in retreat. 

The best thing I have seen on this is in the current New Republic.  Leon Wieseltier has a piece entitled "Theologico-Politicus."  The title is a reference to Spinoza's great Treatise.    Wieseltier is responding to articles in the New York Times Magazine, Time, and elsewhere presenting the face of  "moderate Islam," while pointing out how repressive Orthodox Jews can be. Here is the key passage in  Wieseltier's essay:

I do not want The New York Times to become the voice of moderate Judaism, or of any Judaism. I want only that liberals desist from granting Muslims a reprieve from the rigors of liberalism.

Yes.  That is it pretty much the point on which our civilization either stands or falls.  By "liberalism" Wieseltier means liberal democracy, a regime in which human beings govern themselves, both individually and collectively.  Such a regime ought to offer the greatest possible accommodation to religion, because that is part of what individual self-government entails.  But the price for enjoying such a liberty is respect for the liberties of everyone else.  And that means everyone, even those whose cartoons offend thee, even those who are members of thine own church.  Anything more is "granting Muslims a reprieve from the rigors of liberalism."

Muslims should be offered all the liberties available to any religious minority in a modern democracy, but no more than that.  If they insist on more as the price of peace, if they want to censure the press or limit the freedoms of their own faithful, then the price is too high.  If modern liberal regimes are not prepared to fight about this, then liberal democracy is finished.   

SDP Jazz Note: Nat Cole Comes Back to Aberdeen

If you want to appear cool among jazz cats, just refer to "Nat Cole," without using the famous entertainer's nickname.  Nat Cole began his career as a very talented jazz man behind the keyboard.  Later he began singing jazz vocals, and then made the transition to stardom.  I don't believe he ever seriously played jazz piano again.  The jazz world regards this as great loss, though it is rare to hear the term "sell out," as you would later hear of Miles Davis when he went hippie.  It was as hard not to love Cole as it was hard to love Miles.

I do not regard Nat Cole's singing career as a sellout.  He gave a lot to jazz and then served as an ambassador from the jazz world to a larger audience than straight jazz would ever attract.  And he had an unforgettable voice (if you will pardon the joke). 

Tonight I attended the last Aberdeen showing of "Straighten Up And Fly Right: A Tribute To Nat King Cole."  The show is produced by  Bob Pontious, a keyboard player from the Twin Cities, and stars Maurice Jacox.  Jacox stood in for Nat Cole without ever really playing him, which I think was the right idea.  Jacox's voice was nothing much like Cole's, except on maybe one or two of the ten numbers they performed.  Pontious and Jacox were backed up by a bass and guitar for the first several numbers, in imitation of Cole's original drumless trio.  The guitar player, Blaire Krivinek, was very good, as was Pontious.  Then a drummer and sax player came on, and two female vocalists, including Aberdeen's own Jennifer Rott.  The show was sponsored by the Aberdeen Community Theatre, at the Capitol Theatre. 

The show was quite good.  There was a little narration between the songs, but just enough to give the audience a sense of Nat Cole's life in time.  Against the story of Cole's confrontation with the race problem and then with rock and roll, it was about the songs.  The playing and singing were delightful. It was a splendid evening, and if you get the chance to see the show, don't miss it.  My straw hat goes off to the ACT for bringing it here. 

Re: Ann Coulter

Prof. Schaff links to this piece by Joe Carter who says,

In the 1950's, William F. Buckley, Jr. and National Review led the move to anathematize the John Birch Society from the ranks of respectable conservatism. Today, we religious conservatives need to follow that precedent by purging the most odious hangers-on from our company. I propose that we start with the obnoxious, hate-spewing Ann Coulter. Why do we justify the vile rants of Coulter and her ilk? Is it excusable because they direct the bile at liberals?  We sully our own reputations--and disgrace our Lord--by associating ourselves with such hateful speech. The sooner we shun them the sooner we can return to the path of serious discourse.

I'll echo Prof. Schaff and say it's hard to disagree with that.  I've said before that Coulter and the likes should have no place in the Republican Party because they serve no constructive purpose.  The slash-and-burn politics so common in our era of twenty-four hour cable news and sound bites serves to lower our political discourse.  "The festishization of conflict," writes David Brown in his recent biography of Richard Hofstadter, "has obscured the value of consensus" (p. xxii) since it highlights what divides us rather than unites us.  Coulter would be wise to listen to the man she herself looks up to and respects: Ronald Reagan, who gave some sound advice on political compromise:

When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

The Plot Thickens

ABC News:  Philly Mayor Would Quit Obama Church

Mari Sandoz

Just spent seven hours in the car traveling back from Chadron, Nebraska, to Lincoln.  I was in Chadron to present a paper and participate in a roundtable at a conference about Mari Sandoz and the Great Plains environment, sponsored by the Mari Sandoz High Plains Heritage Center and the Nebraska Statewide Aboretum.  If you have not read any of Mari's work, I strongly recommend it.  Start with Old Jules, and also be sure to read Cheyenne Autumn and Crazy Horse: The Strange Man of the Oglalas; then explore her wider body of work.  Helen Stauffer's biography of Mari is also worth reading.

Random Thoughts

From City Journal.  All the spending on social policy will come to naught as long as the family remains in shambles.  The article contains strong evidence that persistent poverty has much more to do with family breakdown than this or that economic phenomena, but few suggestions are offered as to how we can resuscitate the family.  That may be a problem that has no government solution. 

More on Jeremiah Wright (ah, the well that never runs dry).  Stanley Kurtz argues that we haven't even scratched the surface of Barack Obama's radicalism. 

A president who identifies with Malcolm X? A man who grew up alienated from ordinary American life and determined to avoid becoming a "sellout" by hanging with Marxist professors and radical feminists?

Meanwhile Victor Davis Hanson sees identity politics chickens coming home to roost. 

Watching the parade of apologists for Rev. Wright’s hatred—“garlic noses”; “KKK of A;” “God Damn America;” “Condamnesia;” the U.S. deserved 9/11; America is no different from al-Qaeda; we caused the AIDs virus; Israel is a “dirty word” and sought an Arab and black ethnic bomb, etc—is, well, depressing. Instead of offering distance from Wright, far too many African-American professors and pastors interviewed on the cable stations the last few nights instead praised his brilliance and inspiration.

Hanson is frustrated to see Rev. Wright described as a "prophet."  Dennis Prager argued on his radio show last week that a prophet is exactly what Jeremiah Wright is not.  A prophet tells the people what they don't want to hear. A prophet goes to his people and asks them to look inside themselves at their own sin.  Jeremiah Wright assures his congregation that there is nothing wrong with them; it is everyone else who needs to change. 

It appears Rev. Wright has his own "mansiongate" problem.   

Speaking of religion, Joe Carter (the evangelical, not the baseball player) acts as a prophet, telling his fellow Christian conservatives some things they don't want to hear. For example:

America is not a "Christian nation", though we should aspire to be a nation of Christians. America is not a "shining city on a hill", though we should let our light of freedom be a shining example for the entire world. America is not the "greatest blessing God gave mankind", though it is a great nation worthy of our conditional adoration. Patriotic sentiment has its place but we mustn't let it expand beyond its acceptable borders.

Carter also urges the purging of the likes of Ann Coulter from the ranks of the reasonable right.  Her bombastic rhetoric is both unpersuasive and uncharitable.  Hear, hear. 

A commenter at Carter's site suggests reading this article that links early evangelicals to the separationist project of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.   The history here is largely correct: evangelicals of the founding era, particularly Baptists, sided with Madison and Jefferson, partially out of theology and partially because they were a religious minority often abused by the majority.  I'd simply suggest, though, that while there maybe some practical wisdom in the separationist agenda of Madison and Jefferson, let us not forget that especially for Jefferson this was motivated by a hope to weaken religion as a social force.  Also, Madison and Jefferson were not typical of the founding generation, so let us not make the same mistake the Supreme Court has in turning their approach to religion into constitutional law.  Prayer in public schools may be unwise, but that does not make it unconstitutional. 

Fitna: Watch The Film You Aren't Supposed To See

Geert Wilder is a Dutch film maker who has made a film called Fitna. Because it portrays the violence within the ranks of Islam, it was removed from the website LiveLeak.  Here is what it says on the website right now. 

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

I will not be the first person to note the irony that because of threats of violence from Muslim extremists the website has to take down a film about treats of violence from Muslim extremists. I am not sure what I think of the film, not being a scholar of the Koran, but this film is worth watching, so watch it below...while you still can.  Be forewarned.  This film contains disturbing imagery. 

Massive Oil Deposit in North Dakota? I say yeah!

Jon Schaff alerts us to this rather important story.  It looks like there is a lot of oil underneath North Dakota, enough to increase our domestic reserves by a factor of ten.  Professor Schaff, who could find bad news in good weather, is a bit worried.

On the one hand one is glad because it might eventually lead to a lowering of fuel prices.  On the other hand this is a little like the heroin addict finding a stash of the yam-yam in the trash.  No, I am not comparing North Dakota to trash, although I am comparing the American consumer to a smack addict.

Well, it may be that the end of cheap oil would make us all more virtuous.  But given a choice between poverty and plenty, I choose plenty.  Modern civilization runs on oil.  A lot of stern voices have been warning us lately that we are running out of the stuff, and we ought to begin acquiring donkeys and collecting driftwood.  I am doubtful.

We have been running out of oil and/or other resources since the very beginning of the industrial revolution.  At every point in that long history of running out of stuff, we have had more stuff at our disposal. The reason for this is that in using energy and other resources we are constantly getting better at getting the resources we need.  The price of a barrel of oil or a gallon of gas seems steep todays, but it isn't, really.  The fact that rising gas prices have yet to result in curtailed travel, even a little bit, proves this.  The sudden rise in demand from China and India have put pressure on prices, but so far that demand is being absorbed.  Higher demand means that previously useless oil deposits suddenly become precious. Then we figure out how to get at them, and when we do, oil again becomes cheap.

American consumers are about as good as anyone has ever been at recognizing what is cheap and what is expensive.  I am all for a ten-fold increase in American oil, but not because it can make us "energy independent," which is a silly idea.  I am for it because it means that human civilization can keep on getting richer.  That is a kind of virtue, and I hope it continues.

The Pied Piper of Sniper Fire Finally Offends Her Party?

Just when her opponent was stuck fast with one foot in the alternate universe of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Ms. Clinton dialed up her own disaster.  She told a story about how she landed in Bosnia during war and exited the plane under sniper fire.  It was a good story, and she told it for the same reason that Michael Dukakis put on a helmet and climbed into a tank in 1988: she wanted to look Rambo-tough.  The tank blew up on Dukakis, metaphorically speaking, because in the tank he looked just like Alfred E. Newman.  Senator Clinton's story blew up on her because it was revealed to be a gross inexactitude, otherwise known as a big, fat, lie.  What bothers me more than the mendacity is the lapse in judgment.  She had to know that a lot of other people were on that plane with her, and that some of them (like the comedian Sinbad) aren't in her plane right now.  What's more, there were cameras on that plane too. 

Now I have some sympathy for Senator Clinton on this score.  All fiction is probably heir to the embellished story: some cave man or woman told a tale and made it a little taller than the truth for the sake of dramatic effect.  But it is one thing to embellish a story for the sake of laughs, or to more clearly illustrate a point.  One of my favorite comic writers, David Sedaris, recently came under criticism for for telling comic stories about himself and his family that weren't exactly so.  I am willing to allow Sedaris all the poetic license he needs.  It's something else to fabricate a story about oneself in order to pad one's resume.  Senator Clinton is a candidate for President, not a comedian (or at least, not intentionally). 

Ms. Clinton's fat lie may be turn out to be the big one.  Democrats have known for a long time what all the rest of us know: that the Clintons are incorrigible liars.  They lie like birds chirp and frogs croak: by nature.  They lie even when the truth would do about as well.  Up until now, however, the party of the donkey has always felt it necessary to do everything in its power to protect the Clintons from the consequences of their mendacity.  That spell may finally have been broken.

Kimberley Strassel, in the Wall Street Journal (and Real Clear Politics), has this:

Hillary Clinton's been all the news this week, after she "misspoke" about Whitewater, Travelgate, missing files, suspicious pardons, Johnny Chung and cattle futures. Oh wait, after she "misspoke" about Bosnia. Oh wait, same thing.

That's one way to make sense of the unrelenting, unforgiving, 24/7 news coverage of Mrs. Clinton's fictional telling of Bosnian sniper fire and the subsequent debunking of her every word. In a nasty primary battle that has already featured racial slurs and Chicago slum lords, missing tax documents, and a "monster," you might expect this slip-up to have been yet another blip in the media cycle.

But that would have been to deny the press, the pundits, Democrats, and even Barack Obama, the catharsis of finally -- finally! -- getting a chance to confront the Clintons' questionable mores. Hillary's and Bill's scandals have been the elephant in the primary room ever since she first signaled a run. Yet up to now everyone has been too scared, or too loyal, or too weary to touch the ugly past. Her Bosnia misspeak is now serving as proxy for all the truths about the Clintons' non-truths, allowing even liberals to break free from their Clinton dependence.

One can't imagine that the Democrats enjoyed being lied to all those years.  Now, finally, they have a good reason to say "enough."  The reason is that they need to get Ms. Clinton, who has almost as many delegates as Mr. Obama, and almost as many popular votes, off the darned stage.

The Democrats need closure, as Mr. Dean puts it. Dean is aiming for July, but that is a long way from now.  As John McCain is already running for President, the Gargantua and Pantagruel of the Democratic Party are slugging away at each other with their fists, while struggling to extricate their feet from the stuff   they stepped into.  Dean needs to bring this show to a close as soon as possible.  Patrick Leahy has urged Ms. Clinton to step down for the good of the party.  Right. 

The only way the Democrats get out of the mess they are in is for the super delegates to come together and, regardless of previous pledges, to throw their collective weight to Obama. That will probably happen eventually.  It needs to happen tomorrow.  It won't be any easier after Pennsylvania. Perhaps Ms. Strassel is right, and the Clintonian spell has finally been broken.  But I wouldn't bet the funny farm on it.  It looks like Ms. Clinton does have a firm grip on about half the Democratic electorate. 

Return of the Paranoid Style

In 1964, in reaction to the presidential nomination of Barry Goldwater, historian Richard Hofstadter penned a piece for Harper's magazine identifying the "Paranoid Style in American Politics."  To Hofstadter, Goldwater was an enemy to the New Deal political order that Hofstadter valued, and said that he was "a vital blow at the American political order."  Hofstadter identified Goldwater as a bigger threat than Joseph McCarthy; McCarthy had been one man and one issue, but Goldwater and the conservative movement was a "permanent force."  For Hofstadter, Goldwater, like McCarthy, held to a government conspiracy controlled by powerful elites (Goldwater's "paranoia") and was apt to "heated exaggeration," "suspiciousness," and conspiratorial fantasy -- the three habits of the paranoid style.

In the April edition of The Atlantic, Ross Douthat explores "The Return of the Paranoid Style" and sets his sights on "the paranoid style of American cinema."  He argues that the Iraq War and President Bush have sent the movie industry back to the 1970s and explores the culture that has spawned "our neo-'70s moment," which aligns with Hofstadter's habits of paranoia.  Be sure to give it a read.

Skit Controversy at NDSU

Our friends to the north have a bit of a scandal on their hands after a skit at NDSU:

North Dakota State University is investigating complaints about a campus skit in which a white student in blackface portrayed Barack Obama receiving a lap dance.

The same skit, part of a charity fundraiser held at a campus theater, also featured a depiction of cowboys having sex with each other, witnesses told The Forum newspaper, which first reported the backlash Friday.

"We're trying to find out the right approaches for accountability, but at the same time try to heal wounds that have occurred and allow the campus to move ahead," Janna Stoskopf, NDSU's dean of students, told The Associated Press on Friday.

The March 18 skit involving the NDSU Saddle and Sirloin Club was performed at the Mr. NDSU Pageant, which is sponsored by the Alpha Gamma Delta sorority and raises money for diabetes research.

People who attended it said a pageant contestant from Saddle and Sirloin dressed as a woman from the Internet video "I Got a Crush on Obama" and performed a strip tease for another student, who was wearing dark makeup and an afro wig.

In the background, two male students dressed as cowboys simulated anal sex while holding an Obama sign that one student ripped at the conclusion of the 30-second performance, the Forum reported.

Newspaper Revenues Falling

Editor & Publisher:

NEW YORK The newspaper industry has experienced the worst drop in advertising revenue in more than 50 years.

According to new data released by the Newspaper Association of America, total print advertising revenue in 2007 plunged 9.4% to $42 billion compared to 2006 -- the most severe percent decline since the association started measuring advertising expenditures in 1950.

The drop-off points to an economic slowdown on top of the secular challenges faced by the industry. The second worst decline in advertising revenue occurred in 2001 when it fell 9.0%.

Total advertising revenue in 2007 -- including online revenue -- decreased 7.9% to $45.3 billion compared to the prior year.

There are signs that online revenue is beginning to slow as well. Internet ad revenue in 2007 grew 18.8% to $3.2 billion compared to 2006. In 2006, online ad revenue had soared 31.4% to $2.6 billion. In 2005, it jumped 31.4% to $2 billion.

Media Whore Alert:

Apparently I'll be sharing time with Cory on SDPB radio on Monday at 12:20.  Tune in as my presence on SDPB nearly triples the chances that the word "poop" will be used on the radio. 

Massive Oil Deposit In North Dakota?

One doesn't quite know what to make of this story of enormous reserves of oil in North Dakota.  On the one hand one is glad because it might eventually lead to a lowering of fuel prices.  On the other hand this is a little like the heroin addict finding a stash of the yam-yam in the trash.  No, I am not comparing North Dakota to trash, although I am comparing the American consumer to a smack addict.  Part of the story:

Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.

Thune for VP?

John Thune's name is in the mix for John McCain's Vice-Presidential pick:

The argument for the South Dakota Senator is very similar to the case for [Minnesota governor Time] Pawlenty. Thune is young (47), was an early endorser of McCain's presidential bid and comes from the plains states -- a big battleground this fall. Thune enjoys a higher national profile than Pawlenty as a result of his defeat of former Sen. Tom Daschle (D) in 2004 but doesn't have the executive experience that Tpaw boasts.

As I have suggested before, Pawlenty is likely the best choice for McCain, but Thune would not be unreasonable. 

In other Thune news, he is working with North Dakota's Byron Dorgan to promote wind energy.

Krauthammer And The 100 Year Lie

Did John McCain say we should be in Iraq for 100 years?  Not really.  Charles Krauthammer has the goods:

Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

What McCain clearly meant is he'd have no problem with a military presence in Iraq similar to what we have in Germany, Philippines, Okinawa, South Korea, etc.  But that's not how some are portraying it:

     -- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

     -- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).

     -- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).

Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us ... that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).

Big difference between military presence and war.  Krauthammer concludes:

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.

 

 

First McCain Ad

Impressive.

Military Deaths in Perspective

There is a document circulating by e-mail that purports to prove that military deaths are lower under President Bush (43) than under President Clinton.  The document is fraudulent, as is shown at FactCheck.Org.  You can view the document and the debunking at that link.  But it did encourage me to investigate the numbers, and they are interesting. 

Since the size of the U.S. armed forces changes over time, you need a standard number for comparison.  This is usually deaths per 100,000 active personnel.  Deaths in the following figures indicates deaths from all causes, including hostile action, accident, suicide, disease, etc.  Active personnel includes regular services, National Guard, Reserves, etc.  Using figures from the Congressional Research Service, I calculated the death rate for military personnel in 2005 to be 117 per 100,000.  That reflects a little over 1,900 deaths out of a total number of servicemen and women amounting to 1,664,014. 

How big is a death rate of 117?  It is the highest in 26 years.  But it is only a little higher than the rate of 111 in 1980, when the U.S. was not at war with anyone I can think of.  Well, there was that Iran unpleasantness.  The rate for 2006, the last year the study covers, was 112.  The obvious question here is why the death rate was so high in 1980.  I have no answer at hand.  Between 1980 and 2000, the death rate for American military personnel steadily declined to a low of 50/100,000.  It rose, for obvious reasons, every year after that, until 2006.  I am guessing that 2007 will show another decline. 

Those enlightened folk in Berkley, who protest the opening of a military recruiting office because it is "selling death" don't have much of a case.  Consider that the 2005 death rate for all Americans ages 20-29 is 95/100,000.  But that is deceptive, because it includes women.  The death rate for American men in their twenties is about 140.  Now that comparison also raises some questions.  Military recruits are certainly healthier than the population at large.  But of course, people in their twenties are healthier than the population at large.  It seems very unlikely that any analysis of the numbers will not confirm this fact: men serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, in the worst years of the current war, were, on the whole, less likely to die than men of a similar age who were not serving.

Every life is precious.  If the Iraq war is bad policy, then we are wasting a lot of precious and well-trained people there.  But almost any policy, foreign or domestic, will cost lives.  We allow people to sell, purchase, and operate motorcycles in this country.  We don't have to.  In 2005 alone, more Americans died on motorcycles than have yet died in the Iraq war. That 4,232 precious lives is a price we are willing to pay for the freedom to ride these frivolous toys.  If the Iraq war does succeed, the price in lives will have been cheaper than any war we have ever fought before.  It might even be cheaper than not having an army at all.

Update:  I got this note from Captain G:

During first Gulf War, military leaders were perplexed why death rate went down when we deployed.  Until the remembered the alcohol factor.  Kuwait, Saudi, etc. are dry countries.

Blackwater Fever

IPS News:  "Iraqi doctors in al-Anbar province warn of a new disease they call 'Blackwater' that threatens the lives of thousands. The disease is named after Blackwater Worldwide, the U.S. mercenary company operating in Iraq."  Too bad that it's actually just the name of the disease as it's been called since the 19th century.  Are the reporters, Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail, idiots?  Lairs?  Hard to say.  It seems clear, however, they don't know how to use Google.

How Not To Win Friends And Influence People

Harry Jaffa once wrote, "Persuasion means turning potential friends into actual friends.  In identifying yourself with the man you would persuade, you lead him to identify himself with your cause." This email sent out by William O'Dea of the South Dakota School Superintendents Association is an excellent example of how not to persuade people. 

O'Dea's email drips with contempt for what he calls "the majority" in Pierre.  This is a thinly veiled attack on the Republican majority in the legislature.  As I have said before, if one hopes to achieve legislative success in Pierre, alienating the Republican caucus is not a smart move.  A Republican legislator told me this past year that they have meetings with certain groups of the education lobby, the education lobby spends their time attacking and belittling Republicans, and then the education lobby wonders why the legislature doesn't enact their agenda. 

The letter also expresses frustration with various aspects of the conservative agenda.

We do not need legislators who spend their time on lions, deer, guns and moral issues (better left to the individual)...

Agreed, the mountain lion issue was kinda stupid, but is Mr. O'Dea aware that he lives in a state with a lot of hunters?  That being the case, hunting and guns are going to be issues.  Also, Mr. O'Dea should not be distracted by what he reads in the news.  Legislators did not spend as much time on "lions, deer and guns" as news reports might indicate. 

It is reasonable to suppose that the "moral issue" that is "better left to the individual" is abortion.   This statement by Mr. O'Dea (along with the NEA's long standing support of abortion rights, or, as they term it, "reproductive rights") only feeds the impression by some that the education establishment is as interested in pursuing a liberal social agenda as it is the education of our children.  Why does the head of the Superintendent Association even have a public position on "moral issues"?  Talk about distracting.  And, of course, in a relatively socially conservative state, he isn't winning any friends, which is just what he needs.

I am with Mr. O'Dea on the need for our state to spend more on education. But he loses more friends than he gains when he gratuitously attacks Republicans and whines about "moral issues."  And then next year he'll wonder why the legislature doesn't cater to his every desire. 

New Blogger At Badlands Blue

Good to see local boy make good.  Ok, so Tyler Smith isn't really a "local boy" as he is from Rapid, but he is one of our fine NSU grads.  Now he is the "local boy" for Badlands Blue.  Smartest move that website has made all year.  Tyler is a smart and dedicated guy who is a fine writer.  He is going to make Badlands Blue a better site. 

Perhaps Tyler can start his tenure at BB by explaining how attacking Wal-Mart is going to help Democrats in South Dakota.  When we had a vote on Super Wal-Mart here in Abedeen, the zoning variance passed with something like 75-80% support.  I suspect Wal-Mart has similar support across the state.  But by all mean, South Dakota Democrats, attack the store that brings low prices and great selection to South Dakotans. 

Inflation: The World's Most Interesting Subject

Prof. Blanchard presents a tour de force on the nature of inflation.  Unfortunately, I must dissent from his analysis. 

It is possible that one can see deflation in one sector of the economy (housing) while seeing inflation elsewhere (food and energy).  Given that food and energy prices are more central to the economy than housing (and more likely to effect the average person on a daily basis) perhaps we should not dismiss inflation concerns so quickly.  Indeed, perhaps the housing "crisis" is masking even deeper inflation problems. 

The central error in Prof. Blanchard's analysis is the assumption that the Federal Reserve should act only after inflation is painfully obvious rather than acting proactively.  The question is not whether inflation is a crushing burden now, but whether there are signs that it soon will be.  What are those signs?

Prof. Blanchard concedes that inflation is on the rise in the last half year.  As one can find here, since at least last October we have seen inflation higher than has been normal over the last 16 years or so. Are there other signs of inflation?

The American dollar is in free fall on the world market.  This is a sign of a devaluing dollar, which is the real disease of inflation while rising prices are the symptom.   

Gold keeps increasing in value.  Gold is traditionally thought to be a safe investment in times of inflation, although there is some evidence this is a false hope.   In a column four years ago decrying the inflation bogey man, St. Larry Kudlow argued that rising gold prices and sinking value of the dollar suggesting coming inflation, but, he argued, strong economic growth will soak up the excess money supply:

Today's high gold price and weak dollar do signal excess money in the system. However, that liquidity will be absorbed by the reduction in high marginal tax rates on personal income, dividends, and capital gains; high productivity; and rapid economic growth.

In short, more money will be chasing even more goods and services.  Hence inflation will be quiescent.

The emphasis is mine.  So what happens when the economy slows down, yet gold prices remain high and the dollar continues to tumble in value?  Answer: inflation.  The Fed should be acting now to strengthen the dollar rather than acting to devalue it further, which is what lowering interest rates will accomplish.  In this case economic stimulus should come in a manner that Kudlow would approve, namely through reduction of corporate tax rates, not through monetary policy. 

Media Bias and the Emboldenment of Terrorists

James Taranto:  "Researchers at Harvard say that publicly voiced doubts about the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable 'emboldenment effect' on insurgents there."  The study can be read here (PDF alert).  Meanwhile, John McCain is asking Hillary Clinton when she will apologize to General David Petraeus (via Instapundit).

Inflation and Its Discontents

Professor Schaff argues against lowering interest rates in order to head off recession.  I am not sure he is wrong, but I think we need to distinguish between two causes of inflation.  One is when the supply of some set of basic goods is suddenly reduced or, what is the same thing, becomes more expensive.  Rising oil prices and food prices world wide would seem to examples of this.  If you allow the prices to rise, eventually the supply will increase.  Professor Schaff directs us to this article, from the Kansas City Star:

If you’re seeing your grocery bill go up, you’re not alone.  From subsistence farmers eating rice in Ecuador to gourmets feasting on escargot in France, consumers worldwide face rising food prices. Freak weather is a factor. But so are profound changes in the global economy, including higher oil prices, lower food reserves and growing consumer demand in China and India.

In the long term, prices are expected to stabilize. However, consumers still face at least 10 years of more expensive food, according to preliminary FAO projections. As of December, 37 countries faced food crises, and 20 had imposed some sort of food-price controls.

That is basically what has to happen.  Food-price controls will result, due to very mechanical laws, in shortages. Meanwhile, food production will gradually catch up with demand. 

The other cause for inflation is when the money supply rises faster than the supply of goods.  This happens when governments literally print money, or by some other means pumps funds into the economy faster than production can soak up that money.  As folks buy goods up faster than they are produced, the price on the remaining goods naturally rises.  That second thing is what we usually mean by inflation.

Now here is my problem with the argument advanced by Professor Schaff, and he is hardly alone: an inflation threat doesn't really seem to go very well with the crisis in the housing market.  Home prices are falling dramatically, which means 1) the supply of this very basic good is exceeding demand; and 2) a big chunk of the dollars that people thought they had stored up in their homes is rapidly disappearing.  Shouldn't that reduce inflationary pressure? 

Secondly, how much evidence of serious inflation is there in the system.  Here is a chart from Inflation Data.Com, showing the general trends from 1990 to the present:

While it is true that the inflation rate in the last four months has been high for the last decade, the average of 2007 was actually lower than 2005-2006. 

The question then is whether certain sectors of the economy suffer from a "liquidity crisis," i.e.,  there is nothing fundamental wrong except that they are short of cash.  In that case, an infusion of cash in the form of lower interest rates can make sense.  Since 1980 the Fed has been pretty good at this sort of thing, and I am inclined to give Bernanke the benefit of the doubt.  See Lawrence Kudlow on this. 

So right now the so-called median home price is $196,000, roughly back to 2004 levels. And it's still about 60 percent higher than ten years ago. (Studies show homeowners generally don't sell for about a decade, so I use ten years as the comparison.) But here's where Gentle Ben comes in. A $196,000 home and a 10 percent equity down payment leaves $176,000 to be financed, perhaps with an adjustable-rate mortgage. And since the Fed slashed its target rate and LIBOR rates dropped roughly in sync, the owner of this median-price home is now saving $300 a month compared to last summer, or about $3,600 a year.

That's a big rebate from the Fed. It's about three-times bigger than what Uncle Sam is promising. The official IRS notice says the average married couple filing jointly may get $1,200. But Fed head Bernanke is giving median homeowners $2,400 more than that amount. A lot better, right?

In other words, the Fed is responding to a crisis in housing (a crisis for sellers, not for buyers) with modest help for buyers and others.  The action is within the parameters set by the last decade, and so is unlikely (of itself) to trigger major inflation.  It might be the trick needed to avoid a recession, which everyone talks about but so far has quite shown up. 

I would certain prefer this to targeted actions by Congress that bail out this or that economic player, and run the risk of convincing everyone that future bad decisions will have no adverse consequences.

He's In: Congrats to PP

Our friend Pat Powers officially filed his petition for the state Senate today.  Congrats, Pat!  Best of luck to you.  If anyone wishes to contact his campaign, he can be reached at:

Pat Powers for Senate
1610 17th Avenue South
Brookings SD, 57006

Epp v. KELO?

Todd Epp accuses KELOLAND of bias in favor of President Bush and the Iraq War.  In turn, KELO's Doug Lund strikes back.

McCain Off Base On Interest Rates

John McCain has this to say on interest rates:

He called on the mortgage lenders to "pledge to do everything possible to keep families in their homes and businesses growing," citing the example of General Motors Corp. -- which offered no-interest financing to its customers after Sept. 11, 2001.

"We need a similar response by the mortgage lenders," McCain said. "They've been asking the government to help them out. I'm now calling upon them to help their customers, and their nation. It's time to help American families."

Of course mortgage lenders are different from GMAC in that unlike GMAC, they don't actually sell anything.  GM is making profit simply by selling cars, so they don't need to make money on the financing to get some return.  Mortgage lenders usually depend on the interest to make their money. 

I have argued before against the obsession with lower interest rates.  The attractiveness of lower interest rates is understandable, though.  Clearly low interest rates provide economic stimulus, which our economy needs.  But low interest rates also drive up inflation, which is one thing hurting our economy (see this story about worldwide rise in food prices).  What we need is to encourage the profitability of business while not devaluing the currency.  How do we do this?

We actually need to increase interest rates.  We can also reduce or eliminate the tax on personal savings.  These policies will help wring out inflation from the economy while encouraging people to save. We also need to control government debt, in the news today with more horrific reports on the solvency, or lack thereof, of Social Security and Medicare.  Sound policy on these matters includes raising the retirement age, giving an option of private accounts for Social Security, and considering means testing for Medicare. 

We also need tax reform beyond the tax on savings rates mentioned above.  The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  We should help corporate profitability by dramatically reducing that rate.  That also reduces the incentive for corporations to send funds overseas to nations such as Ireland that already have low or no corporate tax.  Obviously moving to a simpler tax code for individuals would increase compliance and transparency.  I am for a flat tax for this reason. 

Economic growth must now be tied to energy policy.  We should be expanding our own supplies of oil by expanding off-shore and ANWR drilling.  We can also reduce obstacles to building new refineries and pipelines.  We also need to build new nuclear plants.  That's on the supply side.  On the demand side, we should grant tax incentives toward the production and purchase of hybrid vehicles.  While acknowledging the burden it places on the automobile industry, in the long run we are better off raising our fuel efficiency standards. 

Many of these policies are supported by McCain; some are not.  But economic growth depends on this kind of comprehensive approach. 

Prager On Tibet

Dennis Prager gives his own series of answers to the question of why the world tends to ignore Tibet and indulge the Palestinians.  Just a taste:

The first reason is terror. Some time ago, the Palestinian leadership decided, with the overwhelming support of the Palestinian people, that murdering as many innocent people -- first Jews, and then anyone else -- was the fastest way to garner world attention. They were right. On the other hand, as The Economist notes in its March 28, 2008 issue, "Tibetan nationalists have hardly ever resorted to terrorist tactics..." It is interesting to speculate how the world would have reacted had Tibetans hijacked international flights, slaughtered Chinese citizens in Chinese restaurants and temples, on Chinese buses and trains, and massacred Chinese schoolchildren.

One should point out that it is imminently reasonable that the United States and other nations of the world should treat China differently than they treat other oppressors.  Elementary logic tells us to treat likes alike and unalikes unalike.  It is hopelessly shortsighted to ignore the fact that the United States has a deep interest in the Chinese economy and that China has a large military backed up by nuclear weaponry.  Also, China has a veto on the UN Security Council, so if one hopes to be successful in that body one must take Chinese interests into account. 

This does not an apology for the Chinese and a condemnation of the Tibetans.  But in forming a sound foreign policy, it is recklessly idealistic to ignore the power of the Chinese regime and its importance to our the United States .

Pelosi, Herseth-Sandlin, and National Security

Randall Rasmussen is causing quite the stir in the comments over at Mount Blogmore with his post entitled "The war against President Bush."  My colleague Prof. Schaff likewise blogged on Herseth-Sandlin, Pelosi, and FISA reform bill last week.

Kranz: McCain Is Old

David Kranz talks to war hero Leo Thorsness about John McCain.  The headline that comes out of this discussion?  "Age Concerns McCain Friend."  Who knows what went on in the conversation, but that's not even the major point of the story.  Thorsness only brings up age to discuss McCain's VP choice, not to "criticize" him.  So why the headline? Oh, and contra Kranz, McCain is actually 71, not 72.  He'll be 72 in August.  Some excerpts:

When Thorsness reflects back on his times visiting with McCain, he remembers a man who seemed as if he was readying himself back then for this pursuit of the White House.

"Would he be a good president? Yes, I think so. He has the years of experience, has been through a lot during the war. He has also been in government, including service as a U.S. senator," Thorsness said. (snip)

Another common  criticism is McCain's age. It raises a red flag for Thorsness, too.

"Because of his age, (72), and he has had some cancer ... his choice of a vice-presidential nominee is important. I would like to see him pick someone like (Mitt) Romney ... Or Colin Powell, Secretary of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, maybe Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, and your state's senator, John Thune. Age-wise, that choice will be important."

This calls to mind some lyrics from Paul Simon's "Old."

The human race walked the Earth for 2.7 million
And we estimate the universe about 13-14 billion
When all these numbers tumble into your imagination
Consider that the Lord was there before creation
God is old
We're not old
God is old
He made the mold

SDP Movie Review: Be Kind, Rewind

OK, for most of the country, Be Kind, Rewind has been out for a month.  But for whatever reason it just made it to Aberdeen this weekend.  Usually it's the "art films" that come here late.  Whatever the case may be, if you have a chance to see this movie, go for it.  Thumbs up.  The film is always amusing and often laugh out loud funny.   It also is quite edifying. 

Spoiler Warning.

The film stars Danny Glover as Mr. Fletcher, the proprietor of a dumpy Passaic, NJ video store named Be Kind, Rewind.  Forget Blue Ray; this store is VHS only.  Mos Def is Mike, Mr. Fletcher's young employee and, apparently, heir apparent.  Jack Black plays Jerry, a no-account who lives in a camper in his mechanic's lot right next to the power plant.  One of the story arcs involves Mr. Fletcher's love of Fat Waller and his claim that Fats was born in the building housing the video store. Mr. Fletcher leaves, ostensibly to go to a Fats Waller gathering, but in reality to study other video stores to figure out what makes them successful (he learns the secret of success for big video stores is renting DVDs, not video, and offering lots of copies of very few titles).  You see, he is in trouble with the city of Passaic which wants to condemn his building to build condos.  In a familiar plot turn, he has to raise a bunch of money to make improvements or he loses his building. 

While Mr. Fletcher is gone, in a failed (and hilarious) attempt to attack the power plant he is sure is controlling his mind, Jerry succeeds only in magnetizing himself.  Entering the video store, he proceeds to erase all the video tapes.  Mike and Jerry then scheme to keep the store afloat by re-shooting all the videos themselves.  They corral local girl Alma to be "the girl" in all these movies (mostly because Jerry refuses to kiss his mechanic, who had been playing all the female roles).  Contrary to their expectations,  these "sweded" movies take off and the store begins raking in the dough.  But they then run afoul with the movie industry, and in one of the movie's funnier scenes, the industry rep, played by Sigorney Weaver, explains they owe billions of dollars and face thousands of years in jail. She then has all the tapes crushed by a bulldozer in front of the store, lamenting, "Somehow we're the bad guys in this."

Their hopes of saving the video store now dashed, the gang decide, with help from the neighborhood, to make a movie about Fats Waller, despite the fact that they now know that Mr. Fletcher made up all his stories linking Fats to Passaic. So they decide to just make it up (including the suggestion by neighborhood kids that Fats Waller's brothers were all killed in a gangland slaying).

The chief thing to recommend the movie is that it is funny.  The lame attempt by Jerry and Mike to break into a rival video store is itself worth the price of admission (let's just say they do not pick the path of least resistance).  I'd say the movie is more amusing than hilarious, but it does have great comedic moments. 

The film is also fairly clean.  Why it gets a PG-13 rating is beyond me.  There is one "s" word, but the film consciously avoids the "f" word, substituting "mucking" instead, and this is only a couple times.

The film is also quite edifying and endearing.  The previews we saw before Be Kind illustrate one reason why Hollywood is in trouble. With the exception of Superhero Movie, a parody film so formulaic it even stars Leslie Nielsen, the other films appeared not only to be totally derivative but also deeply cynical and/or vulgar. Why would I pay through the nose so I can have some pampered Hollywood elitists tell me how rotten the world is and do so in the crudest manner possible?  Be Kind is a "feel good" movie without being saccharine. In addition to being funny, the film is thought-provoking for the following three reasons.
1. Despite having an interracial cast, the subject of race is virtually never brought up.  There are only a small handful of points in the film when you are made aware of racial difference (see for instance the pic above of Mike and Jerry attempting to remake Driving Miss Daisy).  In an example of the film's indifference to race, Mia Farrow plays an local character who has a mother-like relationship to young men of various races who appear to live in her apartment.  This taken for granted an not commented upon (or explained, for that matter).  One of the best scenes of the film is toward the end when the gang watches their Fats Waller documentary.  The camera quite consciously shows a group composed of various races and backgrounds sitting together and laughing as they watch a movie.  This is a post-racial society where, as the term "post-racial" suggests, race is not really a consideration.  They are truly color blind. This is Martin Luther King's dream and Jeremiah Wright's nightmare.
2. The film considers seriously (albeit through comedy) the power of story telling and its ability to bring people together.  The film suggests that people need stories, real or made-up, to give them a sense of who they are and something to believe in. Be Kind also makes the case for film as a powerful medium of communal story telling. Whether it is filmed or otherwise, Be Kind instructs us to start telling stories that bring people together in a common identity and that inspire us to be better than we are.  That, my friends, is a powerful indictment of Hollywood. 
3. Connected to the idea of story, this film is very interested in the past, in history, as one of those narrative styles.  Through the person of Fats Waller, the characters develop a knowledge of who they are and of what happened before them.  At one point Mike laments the fact that the neighborhood kids know nothing about Fats Waller, a man Mike perceives as an important part of their neighborhood's history.  A puzzle presented by the film, then, is what do you do when you find out that your history isn't what you thought it was, i.e., that Fats Waller wasn't really born in the Be Kind store building?  The film's solution is to then consciously make up a history to fit with what people need/want.  That solution is problematic, although not without its merits.  It certainly is the enemy of cynicism.  So the title Be Kind, Rewind may actually reveal an attitude toward history ("rewind your mind"), not just a recommendation about video tape etiquette.

Be Kind, Rewind may have already left your city's theaters.  But when it comes out on video give a watch, on VHS if you can.      

Random Thoughts

Even more on the "liberation theology" of Barack Obama's church, this time from the Belmont Club.  Worth the read if only for the Peachy Carnehan reference. 

Anti-war protesters attack church goers in Chicago.  Irony noted. 

Still think there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?  The L.A. Times does. 

SDP Jazz Note: Live At The Blackhawk

A lot of jazz fans and especially jazz critics tend to believe that jazz is only authentic when it is played before a live audience.   I suppose that rules out zombies.  Some will go so far as to say that you only really hear jazz when you can see the band, up close in a small club.  Next in the scale of authenticity is a live date recorded. When studio sessions are considered a great deal of emphasis is placed on the session, a set of tunes recorded on the same day.  All this is a bit silly: many or most of the best jazz recordings are done in studio, perhaps over a number of days, and I am betting that few club audiences witness anything as wonderful as Kind of Blue.  But there is this substantive point underlying this conceit: that any combo has to play together.  Jazz can't be authentic if it is recorded in the way that many other genres are: players coming into the studio at different times to lay down their tracks.  A jazz tune must be a conversation, with each of the players reacting to each other. 

Two jazz clubs stand out in the history of bop for the major recordings that were made there: the Village Vanguard in New York, and the Black Hawk in San Francisco.  Bill Evans recorded his magnum opus at the former, and John Coltrane's Live at the Village Vanguard ranks as one of his five most important recordings. The Vanguard is still in operation.   

The Black Hawk is but a memory, but I have recently been listening to some of the great music recorded there.  Shelly Manne, one of the very best West Coast jazzmen,  recorded a series of albums there in 1959.  All 5 CDs are available at eMusic.  Manne was a drummer, and drummers make good leaders for the same reason that catchers do in baseball: they can see the whole field.  Here is the Wikipedia entry:

Shelly Manne's Quintet, At the Blackhawk, Vol. 1 - 4, was recorded extensively at San Francisco's Black Hawk club for three nights in 1959, four live albums recorded, now documented on five CDs. With trumpeter Joe Gordon, tenor saxophonist Richie Kamuca, pianist Victor Feldman, and bassist Monty Budwig was certainly capable of playing high-quality bebop. Highlights include "Step Lightly," "What's New," "Vamp's Blues"). These lengthy performances "Vamp's Blues" is over 19 minutes long. The third volume adds a long version of "Whisper Not" to the original rendition, Cole Porter's "I Am in Love" and the spontaneous 18-minute "Black Hawk Blues." As with the first three sets, the fourth volume adds an alternate take (of "Cabu") to the original program ("Cabu," "Just Squeeze Me," "Nightingale," and a full-length version of their theme, "A Gem from Tiffany"). The lengthy solos are consistently excellent, making this entire series recommended to straight-ahead jazz fans.

This is swinging jazz at its best, energetic and humorous, but steady.  I am in the market for the four CD Miles Davis at the Black Hawk, with Hank Mobley on tenor sax (Coltrane's replacement), Wynton Kelly on piano, Paul chambers on bass, Jimmy Cobb on drums. 

I couldn't find any video clips from the Black Hawk, buy here is a good one of Shelly Man behind a sax, trumpet, piano, and bass.    

Replies on and Around Tibet

To my last post on Tibet, I get this reply from Kelsey at DakotaWomen, directed at the medium rather than the message.

Speaking of discussion, can I just say how not a fan I am of comment-free blogs? Comments are a chance to actually have a dialogue about an issue. Not everything deserves its own post and the 'point-counter point' style seems like a poor way to work out the finer points of an argument. Instead of a conversation, we're forced to yell at each other from opposite sides of a gorge. Would it be a stretch to suggest that the commentless blog is indicative of exactly what's wrong with our democracy? Probably. But it's still annoying.

I might point out that almost all of my posts appear on both the SDP website, and the Keloland page where Madville Times appears.  The latter does have a comments section.  But I do not agree on the point.  Kelsey and I obviously are reading each other's posts, and responding in turn.  I don't see why this is shouting, or why the "gorge" between blogs is really broader than the one between current and older posts.  Readers visiting our blogs day by day will see each item in turn, while they might miss a conversation going on at the bottom of a post that appeared days ago. 

As for Cory's "great response," at Madville Times, I confess that its greatness is not evident to me, not because I disagree with it but precisely because he spends a lot of his space arguing points that I had explicitly conceded: that there is good reason why Israel attracts more attention than Tibet;  that this does not justify the utter neglect of Tibet, of which both the left and the right are guilty; and that the enormous trade between the U.S. and China makes it a lot harder to bring real economic pressure on China than it was, say, on South Africa. 

On other matters, Cory is easily confused.  I said this: "It is perhaps excusable if I prefer to criticize the other side."  I was being honest there.  Each side finds it easier to criticize the other side than to criticize itself.  That, Cory, is why political controversies between opposing parties are considered good for democracy. No doubt you are always even handed, or perhaps it is just that the Left is so morally pure that it never has to make such confessions. 

Another confession that I can make is that the Left is better at such things as launching economic boycotts than the Right is.  I pointed out that the boycott of South Africa was a great achievement.  The Right opposed it, on the grounds that it was likely to bring to power a regime allied with our enemies and, if ANC had turned out to be as radical as it often looked, its government might have been more oppressive and more murderous than the White Supremacist regime.  As it turned out, the Left was right and the Right was wrong. 

But the boycott of South Africa worked because a lot of nations were in on it, and that happened only because the economic interests involved were reasonably small, for everyone but the South Africans.  China is another matter.  I have no idea what Cory means when he says that "The right has power that will work against China."  I would point out that the right is not in control of either house of Congress.  Cory imagines that the U.S. could unilaterally cut its imports from China in half and bring the Chinese economy to a halt.  Maybe in a video game. Cory says this:

If we cut our consumption of Chinese goods by half (and given that 30% of consumer spending is discretionary -- i.e., stuff we don't need -- I think we could do it), we could bring the Chinese economy to a screeching halt. 

Cory is quite sure he knows the interests of Wal-Mart shoppers better than they do, but I would take a good look at the five gallons of milk and six boxes of cereal in that woman's cart just ahead of you, and the single mother scanning the items who had no job at all until Super Wal-Mart opened up.  All these people might know something about economics that Cory doesn't know, but perhaps he boycotts Wal-Mart and doesn't have to look at them.   

 

In the real world, any American government that tried a unilaterally boycott on Chinese trade would hurt so many domestic interests that it would certainly be forced to back down.  And other countries would then cut lucrative deals with China.  The French and Germans were selling weapons under the table to Iraq during the embargo.  You think they wouldn't do the same against an American boycott of China? Maybe these things are deplorable, but they are real.   

Something else that is real is that China has real power in the world.  No one had to be afraid of South Africa (well, no one but her immediate neighbors).  The Chinese would regard any such boycott as an act of aggression, and they would respond in ways that might well draw the region into a major crisis.  Perhaps Cory is ready to put on his General Patton helmet and yell: "bring it on!"   He will get more conservatives on his side than liberals, but not many of the former. 

None of this is to say that we shouldn't try.  Maybe Cory can become the leader of an international boycott movement against China.  But first he will have to get the Left interested.  So far it isn't, and that was my main point.  I don't think there is much we can realistically do about China in Tibet, but we ought at least to keep the issue alive, even when people are not being flattened.  Both the Left and the Right have failed to do this.  The Right does not push for action at least in part because of the economic realities mentioned above. The Left, with its animosity toward global trade and its fondness for protectionism, clearly isn't moved by economic reality.  Cory's opposition to China is well-informed and honest so far as I can judge, but it just isn't widely shared on his side of the isle. 

Air Steadily Leaking from Climate Change Models

Global warming may be happening, and we may be partially responsible.  I have generally believed both things for some time.  I have criticized the global warming theology on other grounds, such as there's no way we can do anything about it, and it's not clear that its going to be bad. 

But a solar wind of bad news has been hitting the basic climate models used to track and predict climate change.  Consider this, from the International Journal of Climatology:

We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model
simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our
conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application
of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this
proposition. (The use of tropical tropospheric temperature
trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region
represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the
trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse
forcing.) On the whole, the evidence indicates that
model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent
with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there
is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to
the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then
future projections of temperature change, as depicted in
the present suite of climate models, are likely too high...

The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete
and accurate observations and more realistic modelling
efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the
observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of
future climate based on these models be viewed with
much caution.

Now that's pretty serious stuff.  The models that predict climate change must be viewed with caution.  That means that they are unreliable.  And then there is this from NPR:

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

According to the same climate models mentioned above, the ones that the entire global warming case is built on, the oceans should be warming.  But they ain't, at least not for the last five years.  We know this because of the 3,000 little temperate sensitive robots that have been crawling under Poseidon's tongue and taking his temperature.  Instead, the ocean is cooling.   Now how big a deal is this?  It is a really big deal, if it continues.

Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

Now this may be a temporary period of cooling, and the world may start warming again any day now.  Still, as our observations have been based on better and better technology, they have consistently failed to support the global warming models.  We don't know what is going on. 

An Easter Meditation

Professor Schaff has a thoughtful mediation on the season below.  Though my colleague is somewhat suspicious of me on these matters, I respond with my own.  He makes this provocative but surely correct point:

Christianity is unlike most faiths.  It ...is unique in that it is not we who make the sacrifice to God, but God who sacrifices himself for us.  It is this recognition of an act of profound love on the part of God that sets Christianity apart from any religion I am aware of.

I would merely point out that this is seen as one of the defects of Christianity from the point of certain Orthodox Jews.  Christians ask not what they can do for their God, but what their God is prepared to do for them. 

That small point aside, Easter is certainly one of the most profound mysteries in the history of man's difficult relations with the Creator.  In fact, what is most profoundly mysterious in it has been too difficult for most Christians to swallow.  I am thinking of the resurrection of the body, which I believe to be the doctrine of all the major churches.  The Biblical story is quite clear as I remember it, that Christ did not float out of the tomb but sat up, stood up, and walked out.  Why else was it necessary to roll away the stone? 

Most of my students, pious or not, seem to be quite ignorant of this teaching.  They conceive of survival as the separation of a vaporous, cartoon body, that drifts upward and away from the discarded corpse.  The gospel according to Walt Disney.  I had long thought that this was a Cartesian impurity in the body of Christ, but apparently it is nothing new.  Or so says this article  by Larry Hurtado in Slate:

Christians in the first few centuries also had difficulty embracing the idea of a real, bodily resurrection. Then, as now, resurrection was not the favored post-death existence—people much preferred to think that after dying, souls headed to some ethereal realm of light and tranquility. During the Roman period, many regarded the body as a pitiful thing at best and at worst a real drag upon the soul, even a kind of prison from which the soul was liberated at death. So, it's not surprising that there were Christians who simply found bodily resurrection stupid and repugnant. To make the idea palatable, they instead interpreted all references to Jesus' resurrection in strictly spiritual terms.

Well.  Dualism has a stronger ancient pedigree than I imagined.  Here I lay some of my cards on the table.  I think dualism, the view that human beings consist of two substantially distinct bodies, one physical, the other spiritual, is a big mistake.  Human beings are unthinkable apart from their physical bodies, a truth that is suggested by the fact that ghosts always appear wearing clothes.  It is one thing to believe in the survival of the soul, but cotton tee shirts and polyester jackets?  I believe, as Aristotle did, that the soul is the essential activity of the body in the same way that pumping blood is the essential activity of the heart. 

That the resurrection of the body is the teaching of the churches shows that my view is not only consistent with Darwinian biology, but also with the promise of salvation in Christ. Whether that promise is genuine is, of course, a matter of faith.  But it is surely one of the greatest stories ever told, and I have nothing but admiration for it. I think it is clearly a true story in so far as it gets right what human beings are in this world.   

So I am fully prepared to celebrate Easter in the time-honored American way, by imagining a man-sized bunny carrying a straw basket full of colored chicken eggs on plastic grass.  Oh, and I will be going to church and later cooking a leg of lamb (sorry, Todd). 

To all of our readers: Happy Easter from SDP! 

Herseth-Sandlin Stands Behind Obama

Mark Steyn and Michael Barone have more thoughts on Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.  Is Wright serving his responsibility to his congregation's spiritual sustenance well when he uses the pulpit to stir up anger and antagonism?  That Obama is comfortable around somebody with views as dangerous as Ward Churchill's is a bit unsettling.  Meanwhile, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's press secretary says she remains committed to Obama.

UPDATE:  Jeff Jacoby:  "It's still a question of Wright and wrong."

The Luck of John McCain

Fred Barnes is starting to like McCain's chances in November.  William Voegeli at No Left Turns wonders whether a McCain presidency is inevitable.  He references this article in the Economist.  Three's a trend!

The argument goes like this:

1..If Clinton wins the nomination, she will be unable to unite the party.  Black voters, along with most of the party's best, brightest, and most energetic, will withhold their enthusiasm and all that goes along with that.  It is at best unlikely that she wins under those circumstances.

2.  Clinton can't win the nomination.  The odds that she will get a popular vote edge over Obama are vanishingly small.  There is no way the super delegates will give her the victory if Obama has more popular votes.

3.  But Obama can't win in a general election.  He was weaker than Clinton in key states like Florida and Ohio, and that was before the Rev. Wright controversy.  He might be about to get flattened in Pennsylvania. 

Ergo: McCain can't lose.

Now I wouldn't take any of this too seriously, but it does suggest that the Democrats have more serious problems than a lot of folks imagine.  There is almost always a trade off in modern elections between enthusiasm and breadth of support: to get some people to love you a lot, you have to turn off a lot of other people.  Obama may be pushing the limits of that strategy.  Unfortunately for Ms. C., it doesn't seem to worth the other way around.  You can get a few people to really despise you without getting everyone else to like you very much.  Whether all this really adds up to a McCain victory, I am sure I don't know. 

Easter Thought

Christianity is unlike most faiths.  It is common in world religions to see that we live in a fallen state that requires some sacrifice to "set things right" with God.  Christianity is no different in that respect.  But it is unique in that it is not we who make the sacrifice to God, but God who sacrifices himself for us.  It is this recognition of an act of profound love on the part of God that sets Christianity apart from any religion I am aware of.  We are meant for a mystical union with the Body of Christ, a union made possible by Christ's sacrifice of himself.  On Good Friday Christ conquered sin and on Easter the wages of sin, death, was overcome.  Uniting ourselves with that loving act through faith and charity allows us to share in this victory over sin and death. 

From Malcolm Muggeridge's Jesus: The Man Who Lives:

Either Jesus never was or he still is.  As a typical product of these confused times, with a sceptical mind and a sensual disposition, diffidently and unworthily, but with the utmost certainty, I assert that he still is.  If the story of Jesus has ended on Golgotha, it would indeed be of a Man Who Died, but as two thousand years later the Man's promise that where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them, manifestly still holds, it is actually the story of a Man Who Lives. 

Tibetan Secrets

Why does the world ignore Tibet while obsessing on the Palestinian cause?  Prof. Blanchard has been asking and answering the question (see here, here and here).  Dennis Prager asked the same question yesterday.  Go here and listen to hour one of March 21, 2008.  Prager gives two answers.  First, there are no cameras in Tibet.  Second, the Tibetans are not violent.  If they created a violent liberation movement they'd garner more attention. 

Readers should note that the U.N. General Assembly has passed over 300 resolutions condemning the democracy of Israel and, to my knowledge, passed zero resolutions condemning the authoritarian Chinese government's repression in Tibet.  The United Nations has granted observer status to the Palestinians despite the fact that they don't have a state while it has denied even observer status to Taiwan despite the fact that it has a state.  These facts tell you something about how "world opinion" views Israel and China. 

More Obama Fallout

See Charles Krauthammer on the "brilliant fraud" of Barack Obama's defense of Jeremiah Wright. 

If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

You might also be interested in this McClatchy story on the Marxist liberation theology underlying Trinity United Church of Christ. 

Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama's church.