A great video brought to you by Scrappleface.

Happy Reformation Day!

My neighbor flies his USC Trojans flag from his front porch after every victory of their football team.

I guarantee you that I won’t have to look at the darn thing this week now that the Trojans lost to the Beavers of Oregon State.

Thank you, Oregon State.  First the College World Series, now this.

Yep, a flamethrower made out of mostly LEGOs. In the video it looks like the guy is demonstrating it in the middle of his apartment. Can’t say that’s smart thinkin’.

This one directed at Dem candidate for Texas governor, Chris Bell (aka Mr. Way-too-liberal-for-Texas-guy), by incumbent Rick Perry (aka Governor Goodhair).

Judges are the main reason I will be upset if the Dems take the Senate. Bill Kristol has a fantastic article.

I’ve always known there was something wrong with Michael Savage’s schtick. It’s intolerable. He talks like an absolute madman. He is just about as intemperate as you can get and still be on the radio.

Now I know what was wrong. The whole thing is a put-on:

Supporting a candidate out of your own wallet may be the most accurate gauge of what a donor believes in his heart. So it should come as a shock to fans to learn where their hero distributes his own political gifts. Which are not ungenerous. Just ask Jerry Brown, the decidedly liberal candidate (pro-abortion, pro-gun control, etc.) for California attorney general.

As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, Savage is a top contributor to Brown’s campaign against conservative state senator Chuck Poochigian. His gift of $5,600, the maximum allowable under state law, was merited, Savage told the Chronicle after being outed. Why? Because “You have to make choices in an imperfect world.”

RIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHTTTTT.

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? 

Everyone should celebrate this day by watching this inspiring clip from Kenneth Branaugh’s Henry V.  The feast day itself has nothing to do with the Battle of Agincourt, fought on October 25, 1415, but any excuse to watch this clip is a good excuse.  You can read about St. Crispin and his brother St. Crispinian here.

At first blush, I think the Michael J. Fox ads on stem cell research scare people on the right. Here we have an actor who is very well liked and sympathetic in his plight making a call for political help.

Don’t worry.  I’m pretty sure this is going to end up helping the GOP quite a bit.

Two related reasons:

1. The Democrats have so far succeeded by existing almost entirely as a protest to the Iraq war which has been costly and semi- (dare I say it?) quagmire-ish. Putting the stem cell issue out on the table is a stupid diversion from a good strategy. Instead of “We’re not Bush,” they are now saying, “And we want to start pushing the envelope on bio-ethical issues just like we have been on questions of sex.”

It’s a big reminder of the life issue and whether you believe it or not, that one is becoming a big loser for the left. Pro-life will eventually be what anti-racism became.

2. By focusing attention on stem-cells, the Democrats re-emphasize to evangelicals and Catholics that they’d better not stay at home because of things like Supreme Court appointments. Instead of wondering whether they might send a message to Bush about inadequate attention paid to faith-based initiatives or uneasiness about spending, they are once again focused like a laser on the need to keep pushing against Roe and its progeny.

The Democrats have possibly already blown it in Missouri with this tactic and they may manage to up-end other apparent red-state gains in the process.

isn’t it rather uncomfortable playing baseball while wearing a belt?

FoxNews has this AP story about Muslim gangs, the increasing violence they are producing in France, and the growing re-assessment of post-modern multiculturalism occuring there and elsewhere. The particular incidents are awful, but the resulting “awakening” might be the best thing to happen to France and many other European nations in a long time.  Modern man (who does not think that mere “ideas” are worth dying for — little is) just cannot understand why or how people would fight for such notions, especially religious notions (we are now Enlightened folks — wars were for the medeival Church barbarians who just wanted to plunder and control, right?).  He had better wake up. 

A portion from the article:

The recent ambush was emblematic of what some officers say has become a near-perpetual and increasingly violent conflict between police and gangs in tough, largely immigrant French neighborhoods that were the scene of a three-week paroxysm of rioting last year.

One small police union claims officers are facing a “permanent intifada.” Police injuries have risen in the year since the wave of violence.

….

More broadly, worsening violence in France testifies to Europe’s growing struggle to integrate its ethnic minorities. Some mainstream European politicians — adopting positions previously confined largely to far-right fringes — are suggesting that the minorities themselves are not doing enough to adapt to European mores.

In Britain, former Foreign Minister Jack Straw, now leader of the House of Commons, this month touched off a wide debate about the rights and obligations of Muslims by saying that he asks devout Muslim women to remove their veils when visiting his office. Prime Minister Tony Blair said Islam needs to modernize.

In France, a high school teacher received death threats, forcing him into hiding, after he wrote a newspaper editorial in September saying Muslim fundamentalists are trying to muzzle Europe’s democratic liberties.

Ethnic integration and violence against police are both becoming issues in the campaign for the French presidency. Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the leading contender on the right, said this month that those who do not love France do not have to stay, echoing a longtime slogan of the extreme-right National Front: “France, love it or leave it.”

Michel Thooris, head of the small Action Police union, claims that the new violence is taking on an Islamic fundamentalist tinge.

“Many youths, many arsonists, many vandals behind the violence do it to cries of ‘Allah Akbar’ (God is Great) when our police cars are stoned,” he said in an interview.

This weekend the College Game Day crew visted Death Valley for the Clemson v. Georgia Tech game.  It was a great day and a terrific atmosphere in the stadium.  I know you Notre Dame fans are proud of your team and tradition, but take a look at this clip of College Game Day from Clemson.  Southern football excitement at its best–nothing tops it!

I don’t agree with James Dobson about everything, but I would never join the group against him, Dick Armey or whomever else . . .  I wrote the below (slightly edited) over at the American Spectator blog when this came up earlier:

I have a tendency to react to criticism of Dobson the way an African-American of a certain age might react to somebody going after Malcolm X.  For those of us who grew up in the age of low rent televangelism, Dobson was a revelation (no pun intended).  He was extremely articulate, compassionate, and yes, righteously indignant.

Instead of being yet another preacher, he was a superbly well-educated man who gave up a very nice academic existence to risk his career on this grass-roots radio ministry idea centered around traditional values and the Gospel.  It took a long time for him to become a punching bag of the left because he addressed politics only peripherally during most of his public life.

Since about 1997, he has been far more active.  He is extremely impatient with abortion, appalled by the idea of same sex marriage, and I’m sorry to say, too easily taken in by the wrong side of the Roy Moore controversy.  Nevertheless, I and many others like me will always be grateful to him for having done it all so much better than his predecessors in the movement.  You simply aren’t going to see Dobson claiming to turn the path of hurricanes or having a television moment where he blames God’s wrath on gays and abortionists.  He’s not that kind of guy.

You also will never see him on the wrong side of an integrity issue.  No mishandled funds.  No girl (or boy) problems.  No mansions and Rolls Royces.  He’s a pretty pure flame whether you agree with him or not.

Certain Republicans resent him because they want to treat Christian conservative voters pretty much the same way the Democrats treat African-Americans.  He won’t let that happen and I think he’s right. I’m personally in love with free-market economics, but it’s simply not the priority issue for people who are trying to figure it all out in the light of Christ.

Having said all the above, I understand Dick Armey’s gripe to some extent.  Dobson pushes hard and isn’t easily satisfied.  This conservative-libertarian movement is tough to hold together.  It’s very fortunate for our side that the Democrats are so tightly wedded to socialism and big, international schemes of governance.  It’s what keeps us together.

Indiana Rep. Mike Pence wrote a piece lamenting the recent Dick Armey comments regarding Dr. Dobson’s power politics in the Beltway. I respect Mike Pence and I understand what he’s trying to do here, to wit: can’t all us Christian conservatives just get along?….after all, I’d like you all to vote for me. Yes, indeed, negative attacks can divide conservatives. Sometimes, however, it helps refine the movement. I applaud Armey for saying some things that need to be said…. in this piece, Christians and Big Government.

As I mentioned at the end of my last post, after I was about to head for home after voting, Harold Ford Jr.’s campaign bus pulled up to meet a gathering of Dems. Curious, I moseyed on over to the crowd to the several dozen people gathered by a couple of tents and a speaking platform and find a Democratic rally. State Senator Rosalind Kurita (who ran against Ford for the Dem. Senate nomination, though she dropped out before really starting a campaign) introduced Ford who the crowd was just estatic to see.

Ford gave a short speech on how there needs to be a new generation of leadership in Washington. He slammed Corker’s criticism of him for not wanting to “stay the course” in Iraq, by stating that he’s against “staying the course” in Iraq, and in education, healthcare, etc. In regards to Iraq, Ford advocated the paritioning of Iraq into 3 regions which he pointed out Sen. Warner, Hagel, Snowe, and Hutchison by name as Republicans supporting “our plan”. Ford criticized the budget deficits and federal debt and appealed to the crowd’s nostagia of Bill Clinton by remarking how the budget deficit shrunk under him (conveniently forgetting that the GOP ran Congress after 1994 which made those budgets possible). He said something along the lines of “you shouldn’t vote for me just because I’m a Democrat” but instead for him on his stances and that “If you just vote for Democrats, I may not be your candidate; if you just vote for Republicans, then I’m definitely not your candidate.” He also spent a good bit of time praising Gov. Bredesen and the 3 Dem. candidates for TN House. He wrapped it up by pumping up the crowd and exhorting to vote and volunteer. I have to say, Ford was very charismatic speaker with the crowd eating out of his hand.

Kim McMillian, the retiring majority leader in the TN House, introduced the 3 Democratic TN House candidates, Bruce Gibbs, Tim Barnes, and Joe Pitts who each gave a few sentences long speeches.

Next up was Phil Bredesen. If Ford has charisma, then Bredesen has whatever the opposite of that is. He did jokingly pick on Ford to not go to far with the “new generation” thing, since there’s plenty of good old people in office (like himself). He gave a nice, if forgettable, speech with the crowd chanting “4 more years” a few times. And I mean forgettable because, well, I can’t remember what he really said. After the speeches the candidates shook some hands and which point I head home.

What I found interesting was that I was seeing in real life people, specifically Ford and Bredesen, who I had only seen on television. It’s a strange sensation since I’m so used to viewing them as just images on a tube. Of course, I still wouldn’t have voted for them…

Like Glenn Reynolds did yesterday, I voted today for the mid-term elections. Tennessee (where I live) has early voting…well other places do, too, but I’m talking about a legal form of it. At the election commission office, there was a pretty long line but I only had to wait a short time until I got to one of the clerks to show my ID and sign in. My county uses a “Microvote Infinity” machine which was pretty durn easy to use.

So, how did I vote? For the U.S. Senate, I picked Bob Corker (R). I supported former congressman Ed Bryant in the GOP primary since I thought (and still think) that he was more strongly conservative on the issues than Corker, who seemed somewhat of a more moderate flavor of Republican. That said, Corker has run on a good conservative platform in the general campaign and I very much prefer him over Democrat Harold Ford, Jr.

For the 7th U.S. House District, I voted for Marsha Blackburn (R). She successfuly fought against the effort a few years ago of RINO Governor Don Sundquist and his Democrat allies to enact a state income tax while she was a state senator. That’s won my respect for her even since.

For TN Governor: My selection was state senator Jim Bryson (R). According to the polls he really doesn’t have much of a chance against Phil Bredesen, the Democrat incumbent. I have no huge beef against Bredesen, as far as Democrats go he’s okay. In fact, there’s a good many lib Dems who really don’t like him, so he gets some points in my book. That said, I think Bryson would do a better job in staving off a state income tax and reforming government.

For TN House: Incumbent Curtis Johnson (R) over Tim Barnes. Barnes actually knocked on my door while he was campaigning in my neighborhood a couple of months (whilst I was Rug-Doctoring my carpet). Seemed like a nice guy, but, I prefer a conservative state representative.

There was constitutional amendment on the ballot that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, which I had no problem voting “YES” for.

With my civic duty fulfilled, I got back in my car to head back home but then Harold Ford, Jr.’s campaign bus pulled into the parking lot. There was a nice sized crowd waiting for him, so I figured I would stay a little while to see the goings-on. (continued in my next post).

Quite an cool set of graphics to represent the internal factions of the Republican and Democratic parties.

(h/t Democratic Peace)

My column in today’s Washington Examiner looks into the latest bogus mega-lawsuit strategy wherein ambitious pols and ambitious plaintiffs’ attorneys try to bring down an industry while generating big headlines and big cash. Read all about it. Hint: When a chicken poops in the chicken coop, does haste in disposing of waste make the chicken farmer environmentally unchaste?

I got my start with American Spectator by writing about Georgia politics and then promptly wandered off into federal politics, culture, and religion.  A local election marks my return to the topic.

If the race for state senate between Jane Kidd (D) and William Cowsert (R) is any indication, then the Democrats think this is their year and that they have simply got to convert.  Kidd’s seat is an attempted hold for Democrats, but it’s more like a takeover if they hold because the GOP recently redrew the seat.

Literally every day, I receive a glossy full-size mail-out from Kidd’s campaign.  Some declare her virtues.  Others proclaim Cowsert’s shortcomings.  At the price, she could have just sent me forty bucks or so and asked for my support.

On top of the mail, I have been the target of push-polling.  I was asked to participate in a political survey and readily agreed, hoping I could improve poll results for the GOP team.  After answering a couple of questions I realized this was no scientific poll and would not be published in the newspaper.

I was asked if it would affect my vote if I were told Republican Cowsert:

Cut lots of money from a state insurance plan that protects children,

Runs a law practice with almost the sole goal of getting drunk drivers off scot-free, AND

Is a big crybaby (they really said it) who got his brother-in-law to redraw the seat so he could beat Jane Kidd who defeated him last time around.

The last two made me laugh and my “pollster” conceded that many people had the same reaction.  I’m wondering whether the Kidd campaign might be hurting themselves with this one.

This concept has resonated with me for a long time. The former ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, views partitioning as an inevitable event (in a very interesting July interview on NPR… here). Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is now publicly tossing the idea around while W has succumbed to the Iraq-Vietnam comparison (if only in a small way). Of course, W is committed to staying the course which will certainly spill into another presidential term. Abrupt withdrawal would likely be a disaster, leaving Iraq to incubate and export every flavor of Islamofascism. So that’s not a good idea. Phillip Carter over at Slate has a plan other than partitioning that, to me, still sounds like a long-haul slog. So what do you think? Chop it up?

How long before the dems start claiming Bush or Rove is responsible for the threat, even though the government is disclaiming it. 

Here is a news story on the signing of the Act. At the very least, the detainees should have been granted rights to counsel, but were not.  The world is watching our handling of these military commission trials and denying these men representation does not speak well of our system.  This Act applies not only to aliens, but also citizens held as enemy combatants.  Aliens are stripped of the right to petition for habeas, but the government begrudingly permitted citizens to retain this privilege. 

The text of the Act can be found here.  

Over at the American Conservative, James Antle has a column up on the November elections and why we are better off if the GOP loses.  Here is a snippet:

Nevertheless, conservative gains have often followed Republican electoral setbacks. Ronald Reagan would not have been elected in 1980 if Gerald Ford had won a full term in 1976. Republicans probably wouldn’t have captured Congress if George H.W. Bush had won re-election in 1992.

And where would the conservative movement be if the GOP had gone with a viable Rockefeller Republican in 1964 rather than suffering a landslide defeat with Barry Goldwater? That movement is today weighed down by big-government conservatism and George W. Bush’s foreign policy. A Republican loss would be the best way to repudiate both crippling trends.

It is easy to imagine how a resurgent Democratic Party might make things worse. But how can rewarding the current Republican majority make things any better?   

So Miami U President Donna Sha-la-la thinks that one-game suspensions for brawling is just fine.  What a joke.  What a bunch of losers – I hope they get blown out by Duke.

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.

With recent reports of proposals by the government to bar trans-fat, I’ve been thinking:  I don’t want the government involved in regulating my food, but then again, if I get sick, I will pay for it myself (or shift the risk to an insurance company by paying premiums), whereas for those without insurance, sooner or later, we will pay the expenses caused by their poor health habits too.  So, rather than take away individual freedom by regulating everyone, I say “card them.”  To order certain foods or buy them at a grocery store, the purchaser must present an ID card that consists of either a current health insurance card or a card from a doctor confirming no heart disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes.  Now, do I really think the government should require this?  No, if the justification for the government regulating available foods is the public cost of health care, carding would be more appropriate than barring everyone from enjoying those transfats.  

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?