“No one is obliged to take part in the spiritual crisis of a society; on the contrary, everyone is obliged to avoid this folly and live his life in order.”

– Eric Voegelin, Science, Politics, and Gnosticism 22-23 (1968)

Count me among those who try not to get too excited about various “insults” to Christmas and the advance of the godless heathen secularists.  But I have to chuckle - or maybe grimace just ever so slightly - when I get those catalogs and email solicitations that trumpet loudly that there are just a few days left for your “Holiday” shopping in order to get the items there before, oh, Dec. 23rd.  I understand the sentiment - surely there’s someone, somewhere who would find offense at an advertisement that actually suggested you should be buying for Christmas - but it’s still a bit, oh, silly.

SA blogger William J. Watkins Jr.’s book, “Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their legacy,” is reviewed by Soraya Rudofsky in the latest installment of the Federalist Society’s most excellent publication, Engage.

ESPN on possible rematch for national championship?

just called it quits?

baldness?

to retire?

don’t miss the photos.

Another SEC regular season is pretty much done (save a couple of non-conference games with Georgia and Florida going against their rivals and the “Egg Bowl” with Ole Miss - MSU) and it seems worthwhile think about the biggest surprises and biggest disappointments of the season.

Clearly, Arkansas is the biggest surprise of the season. At 10-1, headed into the championship game with a pretty good chance at beating Florida, Arkansas has definitely exceeded expectations. Indeed, I thought at the beginning of the season that Huston Nutt would be looking for a new job in December. Darren McFadden is a hoss, as they say - anyone know whether he’s sticking around?

The biggest disappointment? I think that has to go to Georgia. Sure, Alabama’s a candidate, but I think people were just overestimating them at the beginning of the season. They’re just now getting through their scholarship penalties so I wasn’t suprised to watch them not quite get it done. (That said, Shula’s got one more year - he doesn’t deliver a stellar year next year and he’s done, especially, especially if he doesn’t beat Auburn). Georgia - while, again, I think people overestimated them - just hasn’t played consistently all year long. They were great against Western Kentucky, for a half against Tennessee, for another half against Florida, and then really showed up against Auburn. But they can’t defense against the run, their own running game is anemic at best, and Mark Richt seems to be following the Florida State model of play-calling - dull, dull, dull. And no self-respecting team loses to Vanderbilt and Kentucky in the same year. I think they’ll be much better next year - Matthew Stafford is the real deal, but how much better won’t depend on him but on the defense.

As for the SEC championship game? Arkansas 24-10. Too much McFadden…

(Oh, and did you notice that I could write a *whole post* about college football and *not* mention some other team?  It’s true…)

Instapundit notes an editorial in the London Times regarding some controversies in England recently over university attempts to ban Christian groups becausee those groups…get ready for it….actually think you should be a Christian to be a leader.  I know, I know, unbelievable.  In one sense, it really baffles me that anyone thinks it admirable or even defensible to think that groups within a university setting ought to have their leadership open to all, even those who oppose those groups’ constitutive views.  I seem to recall blogging a bit about this before and the very lawyerly (not a compliment, by the way) response has been that, well, universities have the right to set standards for groups they recognize and if groups don’t like it, well, they can simply forgo the “privilege” of being recognized on campus.  That’s fine so far as it goes, but it simply doesn’t capture the moral impulse behind the de-recognition effort: it’s a concerted attempt to restructure religious groups in the image of the state (or the university, if it’s private).

Oh, but what about radical Islamic groups or neo-Nazis, some will ask?  Won’t you then be inviting *them* onto campus?  Well, I suppose they might end up on campus; indeed, I suspect they’re already there.  I say, let ‘em stand up and be counted.  Let ‘em defend themselves from what will no doubt be the severe criticism that comes their way. Banning doesn’t do a thing.

The song “Work” from their latest album.

[gv data="dOX37YsQic4"][/gv]

Easy, Kevin Federline aka Mr. Britney Spears.

After revealing my undemocratic side earlier today, I now want to write about other (potentially equally impossible/impracticable) things I would love to see changed.  First and foremost, redistricting.  Although partisan districting is by no means the sole cause, it is clear that House races are growing more and more uncompetitive.  After the Supreme Court hopelessly fractured last year, it is clear that this issue must be, as it should be, resolved by the political branch; Congress needs to set some minimum standards regarding the drawing of districts.  Every time a state legislature changes hands now, it can redraw the districts in its state into 24-sided Rorschach inkblots so that a minority of its state can elect a majority of its representatives (c.f. CT in 2004, haven’t crunched the numbers this year).  While fairvote (linked above) offers numerous suggestions, the easiest one is to require a supermajority of state legislatures to approve plans, so that it represents a bi-partisan compromise. 

Secondly, and potentially most importantly, are our schools.  Democracies require an educated citizenry; equality of opportunity is one of the core civil rights.  America spends approximately the same amount as a % of GDP on our schools as do the other leading industrialized federal democracies (Germany and Canada)  (see p. 17-18).  Unlike those other federal systems, however, far more of our funding comes from local (as opposed to regional) governments (same cite).  That allows for the massive disparities between a rich suburban practically-private school in Westchester and ones in the Bronx.  Making education funding a regional, and not local, obligation would allow for far greater equality of opportunity in schooling.  Clearly, this would only be the beginning of solving this difficult problem.

Who is you local assemblyman? State Rep?  How many people in your state legislature?  State Senator? U.S. Congresswoman?  Senator?  President?
 
Odds are, if you are an average American, your ability to answer those questions got easier as the questions went on.  At the same time, the effect of your vote in electing the person and setting the policies decreased as the questions went on.  That fact, coupled with what follows below, influence a part of what I will term my ‘ un-democratic impulse.’  These are some of my more half-baked ideas (near impossible, certainly impracticable), and ones I would not put in my own name as I dont really think I believe them.  I hesitated before putting them online for that reason.  I still find them interesting to play with sometimes, and coupled with my general exhaustion over watching election returns until quite late, I decided to present them for public criticism and feedback now, below the jump. (more…)

Happy Reformation Day!

Given the earlier discussion over the anti-Ford ad, I began pondering, what makes something racist?  I think there are two clear cases where something could be considered racist:

1)  The statement degrades one race;

2)  A racial-neutral statement is made with the intent to degrade a race.

My question is this:  What if a racial-neutral statement is made with no intent to degrade a race and yet some will interpret it that way?  I think that is the situation with the Ford ad.  There was nothing racial about any of the statements and I do not think there was an intent to degrade someone based on their race.  (For the sake of analysis, just assume that, even if you disagree).  Could the ad still be legitimately considered “racist” if some people react negatively toward Ford because of his race?  How many people would need to react negatively based on race for the ad to qualify as “racist?”  90%, 75%, 51%, 1%, or just 1 person?  Discuss.

FireFox 2.0, the latest version of the best browser around (better than Internet Explorer, at any rate) is now available for download. What’s neat is that there’s an built-in spell-checker for web text input fields.

about the RNC ad against Harold Ford? 

Bill Kristol takes the Bush Administration to task for Bush’s “all-U.N.-all-the-time defensive crouch.”

With the exception of Bush’s commendable steadfastness in Iraq–combined, how ever, with debilitating stubbornness on troop levels and strategy–and his support for Israel, Bush’s foreign policy is now Clintonian in its combination of weakness and wishful thinking.

or does the snobby rich wife seem so much worse than the redneck wife?  Not any particular episode, but in general, it seems that while the rednecks are a little too tough on their kids, they are so much better in their approach than the obnoxious rich parents who turn their kids into spoiled brats.  Or is that simply my background coming out, and to most white-collar types, does the redneck life strike you all as utterly ridiculous? 

If anyone is interested, the Washington Legal Foundation has two new attorney openings: litigation counsel and vice president for legal affairs. If you are interested in either of these positions, please let me know and I will forward your information along to WLF for its consideration.

Yesterday I linked to a video showing the response of liberal students at Columbia to a conservative speaker.  Last night Jane Fonda spoke at Notre Dame.  The conservative response:  To attend and submit written questions (as that was all that was allowed), which Fonda ignored if she didn’t feel like answering; and to distribute flyers at the doors with details on the real Jane Fonda.  Only one lone student interrupted, running into the auditorium and screaming Hanoi Jane.

Our co-blogger done got himself promoted to Major.

(h/t Blackfive)

I just can’t figure out which angle to believe.

Was it the oil companies gauging us when gas prices rose to $3 a gallon?

Or (now that the price has fallen precipitously — like 80 cents in a month) is it the car companies desperately trying to save the internal combustion engine by keeping the price of gas artificially low?

Or is it just good, old-fashioned supply and demand?

Weird Al is calling your name.  Answer.  Answer and feel the freedom.

I’ve blogged on the Beckwith tenure story quite a bit the past several months, so I’ll conclude simply by saying that hearing Dr. Beckwith got his tenure was one of the happiest moments in my life.  When he was denied several months ago I felt the emotional turmoil that comes with witnessing injustice and not being able to do anything about it.  Now, I know that justice is good for the soul.  Congratulations to Dr. Beckwith.  Congratulations to Baylor.  Congratulations to President John Lilley and Provost Randall O’Brien for doing the right thing.  Congratulations to the Regents of Baylor University.  This is a great day and one that gives real hope for the future of the Baylor 2012 Vision begun by Robert Sloan.

I often like the commentaries of Sports Illustrated’s Frank Deford.  But he’s got this odd tic that just drives me up the wall.  Take his latest column, prompted, I’m guessing, by the complaint that Tiger Woods was being unpatriotic for rooting against American Andy Roddick and for the Swiss Roger Federer in the U.S. Open final.  There - as he has done several times - Deford lambastes Americans for being a “a narrow, jingoistic sports country.”  You see, he’s upset that we don’t appreciate “‘furriners” and pay attention only to sports where Americans are dominant.

Gosh, that’s shocking.  Do you mean that people prefer their own, in general?  That people pay more attention to the goings-on of their own countrymen (and women) than others’?  I’d bet that if we got Mr. Deford in a room and had a bit of time to, er, “interrogate” him (Sen. McCain notwithstanding) we’d figure out pretty quickly that his distaste for the preferences of the people that allow him to pursue a pretty nice life as a sportswriter and commentator runs right along with distaste for what he sees as our “current American tendency toward arrogance and imperiousness” in the world at large.  In other words, those know-nothing red-staters are boobs in sport and politics, don’t ya’ know?

Perhaps more to the point, maybe the explanation for his phenomenon is a bit simpler - maybe the sorts of sports he would like us to take an interest in just aren’t all that interesting to Americans.  Deford made this sort of complaint previously when Americans, in his view, were only paying attention to the Tour de France because an American, Lance Armstrong, was winning.  Well, why else would anyone watch hours upon hours of a cycling race?  “Well, Jacque, the strange beast known as the peloton has continued to move along all together now for five straight days - but, my, isn’t that a lovely thatched roof on that shed and, look, some excitement now, the French along the roads look like they’re trying to surrender to the German cyclist!”  (Sorry, lost control a bit there…)  Ditto goes for soccer - er, excuse me, “football” - European basketball and don’t forget 24-hour Le Mans racing!  You’ll be at the edge of your seats for that one!

Finally, who says we don’t root for foreigners or take interest in them?  Sergio Garcia is one of the most popular players on tour; people love Ernie Els.  If Vijay Singh weren’t such a prickly fellow, he’d be a bigger hit than he is.  I’ve even heard tell that there a few - just a few - players born outside of the US that are pretty popular among American baseball fans.  I mean, c’mon, didn’t we root for the Red Sox in the World Series a few years go - what’s more foreign than Boston?
(Oh, and as an aside, the only thing more silly than complaining that Tiger Woods was rooting for Federer is believing that it actually had anything to do with their “friendship.”  Yep, all those pictures inside the locker room didn’t have anything to do with the fact that their both Nike guys or that they have the same agent.  Nope - theirs is just a mutual admiration society, that’s it…)

as this article explains, but Christian pharmacists will be forced to dispense a drug the operates to destroy human life.  

Stories like this remind me how lucky I am to live in the First World. 

 The leaders of a village in the Indian state of Rajasthan ordered 150 men to dip their hands into boiling oil to prove their innocence after food was stolen from a local school, a newspaper reported Sunday.

is available here.  Has anyone else seen this ad in their market?