A one-of-a-kind sucker

Powerline has a great summary of the interview Wolf Blitzer conducted yesterday with our Elder National Disgrace, Jimmy Carter. Incredibly, Carter admitted that Hamas double-crossed him, promising to him in private one thing then declaiming the opposite in public. Yet somehow Carter still managed to blame it all on Israel.

The first line in the post is the best line in the post. "There's a sucker born every minute... but a sucker like Jimmy Carter comes along only once or twice in a century."

Where has this been all along?

This video of President Bush pushing back against MSM idiocy on the war is solid. If only he could show these colors more often.



Hat Tip: Hot Air

Republicans and Crime

William Stuntz has posted some interesting data he uncovered during his research into the growth in prison populations that has occurred in the U.S. over the last thirty-five years. Contrary to type, Democratic governors tend to oversee disproportionately large (relative to national averages during the same time periods) increases in prison populations, while Republican governors tend to preside over disproportionately small increases or even decreases. Stuntz concludes that the common explanation for the putative over-population of America's prisons -- it's the fault of evil conservatives -- is wrong. Stuntz allows that he has not completed his research and that additional data might turn out to run contrary to this trend.

(Stuntz begins his post with the assertion, "Pretty much everyone—Republican or Democrat, right or left—familiar with America’s criminal justice system agrees that our prison population is far too large." That assertion simply is not true. Perhaps Stuntz means to say that everyone in his elite circle of acquaintance who is familiar the criminal justice system agrees with that proposition.)

The data is not self-explanatory, and causation in this case is necessarily a matter of speculation. Stuntz offers his own explanation. He posits that Democrats hoping to appeal to swing voters, who are mostly white and working-class, must appear tough on criminals, and black criminals in particular, and so must put more blacks in prison. Meanwhile Republicans, who are reputed to be tough on crime, must merely pay lip service to law enforcement.

This explanation rests in part on the supposition that at least some, if not most, imprisoned persons do not belong in prison. Stuntz, like many liberals, seems to assume that some large portion of prison residents in the United States are not at all culpable. This is unlikely, to say the least.

Another intepretation of Stuntz's data, at least equally as reasonable, is that Democratic policies result in higher crime, and therefore result in higher prison populations. This interpretation is consistent with studies that demonstrate links between welfare dependency and crime, fatherlessness and crime, and divorce and crime. Democrats are the champions of welfare entitlements, higher tax burdens, and regulations that retard economic development. And they are doing everything in their power to undermine the traditional family, advocating for same-sex marriage and no-fault divorce, and opposing parental consent prerequisites to abortion.

In any event, kudos to Stuntz for conducting this research, which is sure to rub many in the academy the wrong way.

McCain's Faith

The LA Times writes today about John McCain's faith:

Not long after he became the presumed Republican nominee, John McCain flew to New Orleans to face a skeptical audience -- conservative leaders of the Council for National Policy.

A questioner zeroed in on a topic McCain rarely addresses on the campaign trail, asking him to explain his faith in God.

McCain, an Episcopalian who attends a Baptist church in Phoenix, turned to a well-worn tale of the guard he met when he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. The man once loosened the ropes binding McCain, and later shared his Christian faith with McCain by silently sketching a cross in the prison yard with his sandal.

The story played well in an ad before the New Hampshire primary, but it was deeply disappointing to many at the New Orleans gathering, conservative activist Richard Viguerie recalled.

"He blew that question off by telling us about the faith of his jailer," said Viguerie. "It was very obvious to those three or four hundred conservative leaders there. . . . The vast, vast majority of them were either sitting on the sidelines or unenthusiastic about his impending nomination and he didn't move a single person."

McCain's reticence about raising the subject of his faith in public is all the more noticeable as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have spoken up about their beliefs as they campaign for the Democratic nomination.

The secular language of McCain's speeches, often rooted in patriotic themes of duty, honor and service, is also a striking contrast to that of President Bush, who bonded with evangelicals by threading religious language through his speeches and speaking about how faith rescued him from his struggles with drinking.

I am torn here. I don't think there is anything wrong with weaving the language of faith into your policy speeches like Bush did. If that is who you are as a candidate fine. On the other hand, we see where some of this language led in real policy terms. "Compassionate conservatism" became nothing more than big-government conservatism that spent way too much while achieving far too little (typical of anything big government-related).

If McCain shies away from that, good for him. And unlike some evangelicals, I do not feel the need to be placated by the stump speeches of political candidates.

Champions of self-aggrandizement

Prominent Catholic statesmen, euphemistically called "pro-choice," who support a right to abort unborn human persons have no business ingesting the transubstantiated body of Christ at mass. That is not my polemical assertion but rather the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Bob Novak notes today that the archbishops of New York and Washington DC, eager not to cause offense, have violated this prohibition, serving communion to Ted Kennedy and Rudy Guliani, among others.

Many non-Catholics read Catholic teachings through their own consequentialist lenses. They wrongly attribute to the Catholic Church the intent to exact vengeance on pro-choice pols, or to dissuade them from voting in favor of reproductive "rights." The Catholic view of communion is that the elements actually become Christ's body and blood. Abortion is a moral issue, on which there is a correct position and a clearly wrong position. To support the destruction of innocent human life is to live unrepentant in sin, and to reject Christ's grace. Thus, denying Ted or Rudy communion is not pursuit of a vendetta but rather an exercise in holiness.

Meanwhile, Ted and Rudy like to pretend that they are still Catholic, that their Catholicism means something to them, as it does for their constituents. To be invited to the Pope's mass and given a seat of honor there is to be acknowledged as an important American Catholic. It is to receive the imprimatur of a Church whose compassion, defense of truth and life, and righteousness Ted and Rudy despise.

Trampling the grace of Christ for personal aggrandizement should be unthinkable for prominent Catholics. Did Ted even pay heed to the Pope's admonition to cultivate an intellectual culture that is truly Catholic?

Rebate checks coming soon

What will Americans spend their tax rebate checks on? NBC news investigates (click image to watch):



In the meantime, who could not have seen this coming. Retail outlets are already starting their "stimulus" sales. Here is a screen grab from the Restoration Hardware website:

CNN shows its bias

Kudos to the group Americans for Prosperity for catching CNN on this one:

Political hot potato: rising gas prices

Harry Reid is taking steps to further regulate the gas industry in the name of low gas prices:

Nevada Senator Harry Reid says it may be time for Congress to do something about soaring gas prices.

The Senate majority leader says he has directed key committee chairmen to begin assembling a package of proposals aimed at addressing the growing impact that high gasoline and other energy prices are having on the economy.

Reid declined to say what proposals are being considered. But he says the plan is to bring a package to the Senate floor before Memorial Day.

Whenever an issue gets hot, this is always the first instinct of the Democrats. Whatever package they produce, you can bet it will include major punitive actions towards energy producers while having zero positive effect on the long-term price of gas. It is always a show with these guys.

The reality of the situation is that it has been years of this kind of behavior that has produced the inflated prices we see now:

For decades, Congress has led our government into disastrous decisions by being the patsy of radical environmentalists, naysayers and prophets of doom. Recent presidents have done little to resist.

Now American consumers pay the price while politicians try to evade and shift the blame.

However, we can lower gas prices by reversing misguided federal policies, and lower food prices, too. It's all about what we learned (or should have) in Economics 101 – supply and demand.

The stifling of domestic oil and gas production and the suppression of new refineries and nuclear power plants have choked off the supplies of domestic energy, forcing us to rely on foreign oil. In the international market, we must bid against the growing energy appetites of China and India, and we're held hostage by the oil cartels of OPEC. The world market is unstable and expensive, and we shouldn't be at its mercy.

Reducing regulation is the last thing any Democrat is inclined to do. Reagan's old saying about a big government view of the economy is apt here; "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

There is another side to this coin though. Republicans in Congress are dropping the ball too. Where are the Republicans who are willing to call the Dems out on their hypocrisy? How can Nancy Pelosi demand perpetual $2.00 a gallon gas prices while also demanding we break our addiction to foreign oil and promote "green" energy? The Dems are completely inconsistent on this point yet never are called on it. Republicans should begin to hit this point while also promoting clean nuclear energy (for heaven's sake, even the Greenpeace founder now agrees with us on this issue).

We should then promote a systematic deregulation of the gas industry to provide some relief from artificially government-inflated high prices. But that does not mean prices will go back to where they were 5 or 10 years ago. And what is so terrible about prices slowly rising as long as it is determined by the market?

As market prices rise incentives for developing alternative forms of energy rise as well. This moves us closer to breaking our addiction to foreign oil, which I believe is a national security imperative.

Republicans also should be aware that rising gas prices are the only hope of moving the issue of ANWR through the Congress. Democrats who continually refuse to allow us to tap our own resources here at home while prices rise are in peril of being exposed politically.

VDH on energy and the environment

In his essay, A New Environmentalism, Victor Davis Hanson today makes a compelling argument in favor of developing traditional, domestic energy sources, such as nuclear plants, coal, and oil.

The question is no longer simply whether we want to drill in the Alaskan wilderness or off the Florida or California coasts. Rather, the dilemma is whether by doing so, we can mitigate the world's ecological risks beyond our shores, deny dictators financial clout, get America out of debt, and help the poor afford food.

"Britain has had it with religion"

On one hand, you can't blame run of the mill Europeans for their angst against religion. As they leave their front doors and head to the streets of their cities they are confronted with a terrible fact: Muslims, many of whom are Jihadi sympathizers, are taking over their world. Not only are they immigrating to Europe at astounding levels, but they are refusing to assimilate, thus diluting European culture and snuffing out the remaining lights of Western thought in the Old World.

Our feckless European friends see this as well as the current war being waged against brutal Jihadism and they blame it on "religion." Were it not for religion, they would all be free to sip their wine, eat their cheese and live to a ripe old age while suckling on the government teet.

A CHARITY set up by an ardent Christian to fight slavery and the opium trade has identified a new social evil of the 21st century - religion.

A poll by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation uncovered a widespread belief that faith - not just in its extreme form - was intolerant, irrational and used to justify persecution.

Pollsters asked 3,500 people what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society, updating a list drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago.

The responses may well have dismayed him. The researchers found that the “dominant opinion” was that religion was a “social evil”.

Many participants said religion divided society, fuelled intolerance and spawned “irrational” educational and other policies.

...Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said he was “extremely pleased”.

“Britain has had it with religion,” he said.

As Mark Steyn has pointed out in his wonderful book America Alone, the religion-less Europeans are losing the will to resist Islamization. Their rampant secularism and big government welfare state is producing Europeans who are soft. Without religion they are no longer able to see right from wrong. How can they really condemn Jihadis? How can they really say European culture is worth saving when they have turned their backs on such a large part of their rich history.

The welfare state too is contributing to their softness. The Europeans long ago abandoned the idea of liberty while trading it in for "freedom from want." Their governments pay for everything: vacations on the coast of France, health care from birth to death, education, shortened work weeks and afternoon tea. When you rely on big government as your provider, you lose the ability to build character by making it on your own. This, incidentally, is the kind of character -- or hardness -- needed to resist the Jihadis.

Will this ever end?

2008 should be known as the Year of the Bailout. The Wall Street Journal explains the latest:

Guess who's asking Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke for a bailout now? Hint: They are members of an exclusive club who bet wrong on the credit markets last fall. No, it's not a cabal of Wall Streeters, but Democrats in Congress.

We're referring to the "student loan crisis" now appearing in a media outlet near you. In September, Congress vowed to make education more affordable by passing the "College Cost Reduction and Access Act." The law reduced the interest rates borrowers pay on federally insured student loans. Backed by the Federal Family Education Loan Program, these loans account for more than 70% of education lending. Taxpayers will fork over $7 billion by 2012 to pay for the rate cuts.

Jimmy Carter and the failure of evangelical courage

A prominent evangelical pastor in a large northeastern city recently gave a sermon in which he extolled the post-presidential activities of Jimmy Carter as a model for Christians to emulate. (I was in attendance and was astonished.) This same pastor recently hosted at his church Jim Wallis, Accommodator-in-Chief. That the two events occurred in the same pulpit is not coincidental. Wallis and his organization have intentionally associated themselves with our Elder National Disgrace on numerous occasions (see, e.g., here and here). Indeed, Carter wrote the forward to one of Wallis' recent books. Birds of a feather and all that jazz.

Carter's latest demonstration of fecklessness and irresponsibility -- lending the legitimacy of the high office he once occupied to a terrorist organization -- is perfectly consistent with his behavior over the last couple of decades. And it is consistent with the conceit, self-absoprtion, and delusion of his Accommodator accolytes. Here's an Accommodator today (incredibly) defending Carter's most recent folly on Wallis' blog:

Carter's visit also showed that while Hamas, like most Palestinians, are bitter about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, they are pragmatic enough to accept a two-state solution negotiated by the moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, so long as the Palestinian public gets a chance to approve it in a popular referendum. ... Keeping 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza under permanent siege is illegal and immoral. Israel, and indirectly the U.S.'s, refusal to accept the offer by Hamas of a ceasefire is illogical.

The trouble with this assessment is not so much its factual inaccuracy. The real problem is the author's complete disregard for facts. Hamas most emphatically denies that it is willing to accept a two-state solution. That fact is not merely inconsistent with the author's claim, it is exactly the opposite of it.

Facts, those stubborn things, make rather infrequent appearances in Accommodators' reasoning. Misrepresentations and calumnies are frequent guests in "God's Politics."

The increasing influence of the Accommodators (or the appearance thereof, which the mainstream media is more than happy to perpetuate) is no longer merely an irritant. It has become dangerous. If terrorist thugs such as Hamas believe that they have successfully deceived some large portion of American evangelicals they are likely to become even more emboldened. Carter and Wallis abet that mistaken impression, and the bloodshed that results.

We will repeat again the refrain: The Accommodators do not speak for us!

Clinton wins big, race goes on

Despite being outspent by millions of dollars, Hillary Clinton looks to have pulled off a double digit win in the Keystone State. Governor Ed Rendell rightly calls last night's results a "game changer," and he is right.

Before Wrightgate broke, this was Obama's election. Since then, Obama has been seen in another light. Add to the fire the William Ayers story and Obama's boneheaded belittling of "bitter" working class Americans who "cling" to religion and guns.

All these stories will follow Obama into the general election if he ends up pulling it out in the Dem primary.

Now you have to really question whether this guy can win...or better yet, Democrat poobahs need to ask that question and adjust their support accordingly. He clearly is not the teflon candidate as his supporters had hoped. Teflon candidates don't get their rears served to them by an underwhelming candidate to the tune of 10 points or more.

Lastly, Democrats who are all over the airwaves saying this is not hurting their party are completely full of it. If this trend continues and super-delegates do indeed begin to move for Hillary, the Party will have a full fledged revolt on their hands. Are we to believe that denying the democratically elected Obama the nomination will not have repercussions with black voters and young voters? Nonsense.

How not to engage the Pope

We, and particularly I, have been quite critical of Accommodators, those so-called Progressive Christians who, in their quest for relevance in a secular, liberal world have traded away the only thing that makes them unique -- Orthodoxy -- in exchange for the illusion of acceptance by liberal elites. As we have mentioned before, another faction within evangelicalism is, if not equally as puerile as the Accommodators, at least as embarrassing to thoughtful evangelicals, which we here in the Cloakroom strive to be.

We have termed this latter faction the Know Nothings, after the Nineteenth Century political movement that was characterized by its anti-Catholic bias. Today, Know Nothings earn the appellation not by preserving the secrecy of their societies and meetings but by deliberately fostering an anti-intellectual fideism, a skepticism of religious and institutional authority, and a dogmatic commitment to theonomous reasoning. For an example, consider Pat Robertson predicting that Orlando, Florida would suffer natural disasters as a result of its decision to host a gay pride parade and, on a separate occasion, castigating mainline Protestant denominations as harboring the spirit of the Antichrist.

The Know Nothings have found one of their own in Mike Huckabee. However, perhaps no current American politician better deserves the label of Know Nothing than Tom Tancredo. Here's Tancredo responding to Pope Benedict's call for United States Bishops to welcome and support recent American immigrants: "[T]he pope's immigration comments may have less to do with spreading the gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the church."

There are compelling prudential arguments in favor of an enforcement-first immigration policy. Mr. Tancredo would do well to articulate those arguments. Accusing the Pope of placing proselytization over the Gospel is neither persuasive nor helpful. In the first place, it is not at all clear that the Pope's comments were directed toward American immigration policy. Regardless, what possible harm could come from the growth of the Catholic Church in the United States, by (legal) immigration, evangelizing, or proselytizing?

Just as we criticize the lunacy of the left wing of evangelicalism, we reject the reactionary rhetoric of some of our conservative, evangelical brethren. We can do much better.

The Utility Infielder of Constitutional Jurisprudence

Over at Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr points out the affinity that Justice Kennedy, indisputably the most influential member of the Court at the moment, has for the word "dignity." Dignity has become an all-purpose purpose for state action, something like a utility infielder for constitutional justification. Why does the Court prohibit states from criminalizing sodomy? To protect the putative "dignity" of autonomously-chosen homosexual relationships. Why are States entitled to sovereign immunity from lawsuits by their citizens? To protect the States' "dignity."

One derives the impression that Kennedy (and those Justices trying to secure Kennedy's swing vote) employ the word "dignity" whenever they can find no articulable justification for their decision. So, for example, in Lawrence v. Texas the Court struck down a criminal prohibition against sodomy. That decision served no purpose other than elevating homosexual intimacy to moral equivalence with conjugal monogamy. But the Court could not say that it was lending the approbation of the United States government to homosexual intimacy. So Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, threw in the word "dignity." That gave homosexual relationships the appearance of inalienable sanctity, much like life and liberty, without precisely identifying homosexual sex as the interest that the Court was acting to protect.

Kerr's interlocutor, Michael Dorf (a former Kennedy clerk, incidentally), also criticizes the Court's profligacy with the word "dignity." He finds puzzling the Court's concern, stated in last week's death penalty decision, for the dignity of the lethal injection procedure. Fair enough. But then Dorf wanders off into the ridiculous. He asserts that the lethal injection case "bears an uncomfortable resemblance" to last term's Gonzales v. Carhart decision, in which the Court upheld Congress' ban on partial-birth abortion. The legitimate state interest in that case was respect for the dignity of human life. Dorf continues, "The Court in Gonzales v. Carhart validated the federal government's aesthetic interest in dignity, at the potential expense of women's health... ."

This short assertion, not even Dorf's entire sentence, contains not one but two fallacies. First, promoting respect for the inherent value of human life is not merely an aesthetic interest. Aesthetics are important interests, which the state may rightly promote. But human life is valuable in and of itself. This is what moral and legal philosophers mean when they say that human life has intrinsic value. It is an end, a purpose, an interest, all of its own and even when it serves no additional purpose.

Second (and here Dorf is guilty of outright prevarication), nothing anywhere in the public record demonstrates to the least degree that the ban on partial-birth abortions jeopardizes any cognizable interests of women, or even has the potential to do so. Congress made express findings on this point, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports those findings.

Furthermore, Justice Kennedy (again), writing for the majority in Gonzales v. Carhart, expressly invited abortion proponents to bring specific challenges to the ban based upon particular cases. If the partial-birth abortion ban impedes a woman's access to needed health care, threatens her life or health in any way, or otherwise infringes upon any of her constitutionally-protected rights, nothing in the Gonzales v. Carhart decision prevents her abortionist doctor (who bears the penalties for performing the procedure) from bringing a claim challenging the ban as applied to her. As Ed Whelan recently pointed out, one year after the Gonzales v. Carhart decision, not one single such claim has appeared anywhere in this immense nation.

In other words, abortion proponents lied through their teeth. And Dorf continues to do so, shamelessly.

All of this suggests that the word "dignity" should not be used for all-purpose utility work in the Court's lexicon. Instead, the word has particular usefulness in service to the dignity of human life. Kerr and Dorf rightly chide the Court for using the word too freely. But we ought not throw the baby out with the bath water. The inherent dignity of human life is a very important state interest. And in Gonzales v. Carhart, at least, Justice Kennedy rightly called our attention to a just cause.

Benedict, the American

I missed these remarks from Pope Benedict last week on the White House lawn. The Holy Father truly understands and appreciates what it means to be an American. The significance of the world's leading Christian quoting George Washington at the White House should not be overlooked:

From the dawn of the Republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation's founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature's God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations...

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one's deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that "in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation", and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent "indispensable supports" of political prosperity.

The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27). She is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling, and the hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.

Getting educated at CU

Titus is right. The 4/20 pot smoke fest at CU Boulder makes for hysterical self-parody. It also gives CU students the oppotunity to showcase the many valuable skills and virtues they are acquiring in consideration of their diligence and tuition payments, such as:

Delayed gratification: "Oh forget it," one student said, aborting the countdown to 4:20 p.m. and lighting his pipe early.

Eloquence: "Sweet."

Leadership: "You guys need to go stand on those stairs,” one girl shouted to her friends, who were seated in a circle on the quadrangle grass. “You don’t even understand."

Civic-mindedness: CU freshman Emily Benson, 19, of Kansas City, said she thinks the decriminalization of marijuana will become a hot topic in the upcoming political season and said she felt part of something bigger than just a smoke-out on Sunday.

Altruism: “We’re at the starting point of a movement,” she said. “This is a big part of the reason I applied here — for the weed atmosphere.”

Humility: “I just like being generous and doing nice things,” he said. “I’m like a good Samaritan.”

Reason and rhetoric: CU senior Tyler Molvig, 24, said that rather than condemning the smoke-out, CU and the city should embrace it as a money-making opportunity. “I mean, it’s gonna happen regardless,” he said.

Enterprise: Entrepreneur Barrett Betz, 20, conceived of the potential financial benefit 4/20 holds earlier this year, and sold peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, Hostess snack cakes and bottled water for a $1.

Forget Harvard. I want my daughter to get an education at Colorado University.

Hippies celebrate 4/20

Drudge is linking to this hilarious story in which we learn of thousands of Colorado University potheads who hit the quad on Sunday to celebrate 4/20. The article is so over the top that it reads like a parody. Some choice highlights:

"Nine, eight, seven ..."

A crowd of about 10,000 people collectively began counting down on the University of Colorado's Norlin Quadrangle just before 4:20 p.m. Sunday.

Yet the massive puff of pot smoke that hovers over CU's Boulder campus every April 20 -- the date of an annual, internationally recognized celebration of marijuana -- began rising over the sea of heads earlier than normal this year.

"Oh forget it," one student said, aborting the countdown to 4:20 p.m. and lighting his pipe early. He closed his eyes, taking a deep, long drag.

"Sweet."

...About 15 CU officers and a half-dozen deputies with the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office had a presence Sunday among the mass of pot smokers, who bounced giant balls and tossed Frisbees through the haze. CU police did handle four medical-related calls for health issues including dehydration; two people were taken to Boulder Community Hospital.

...From the steps of Norlin Library, some of the thousands present said the turnout appeared comparable to that of a peace march or protest.

“You guys need to go stand on those stairs,” one girl shouted to her friends, who were seated in a circle on the quadrangle grass. “You don’t even understand.”

Smoke-out participants — thousands of whom wore green or T-shirts promoting pot — climbed trees, played the bongos, snapped pictures and had miniature picnics.

That, of course, after they sparked the weed they had come to smoke.

CU freshman Emily Benson, 19, of Kansas City, said she thinks the decriminalization of marijuana will become a hot topic in the upcoming political season and said she felt part of something bigger than just a smoke-out on Sunday.

“We’re at the starting point of a movement,” she said. “This is a big part of the reason I applied here — for the weed atmosphere.”

...Although CU junior Max Lichtenstein, 21, isn’t into marijuana or smoking, he also felt Sunday’s event was a chance to do something “bigger” than himself. He passed out 126 Rice Krispies treats with messages attached asking that they act out against the injustices in Darfur.

“Tomorrow, when you’re sober ... call the White House at 202-456-1414,” the note read.

“I just like being generous and doing nice things,” he said. “I’m like a good Samaritan.”

...“Peanut butter and jelly!” he screamed to passers-by who were parched and eager to satisfy their munchies. “I’m doing very well.”

One woman was hopeful Betz’s treats were charged with some special ingredients.

“Are these magical?” she asked, only to be disappointed. “Why aren’t you selling magical ones? I mean, it’s cool — but c’mon.”

Too funny! All this reporter had to do was take actual quotes from these people and the hilarity ensued.

Canadian justice

The Canadian legal system has run amok. Can a nation with an irresponsible judiciary long endure?

Made for order

Law Prof William Stuntz has cancer. Yet he has maintained his perspective.

This world is messed up, but that's not how it started. We crave order because we were made to live in an ordered world. Then we disordered things by rebelling against the Creator. And the Creator bore our suffering anyway, and invites us to carry His yoke, which is light and easy. That's how a Christian explains suffering.

How do non-Christians explain it? I cannot tell.

God blessed America... through the Catholic Church

Would the United States be the Shining City on a hill, which it most emphatically is today, without American Catholics? Probably not. Leaving aside the many valuable contributions to our Republic from Catholics over the first 175 years of the American experiment, American Catholics unquestionably have preserved the best features of our culture and traditions for the last 50 years or so.

As William F. Buckley's many friends, opponents, and allies eulogized him with glowing enconia last month, we were reminded of the extraordinary influence that energetic and committed Catholic exercised over the course of recent American history. He built the movement that defeated Communism, made world markets freer, and undermined the dictatorship of relativism.

Five of the current justices on the United States Supreme Court are Catholic, and all of them voted last term, in the landmark case Gonzales v. Carhart, to uphold Congress' partial-birth abortion ban. That decision was the first occasion on which the Supreme Court upheld a ban on an abortion procedure and arguably marks a turning point in the Court's abortion jurisprudence.

One of those Catholic Justices, A. Scalia, J., swam for over a decade against the current of constitutional relativism, and did so with panache. His intellectual courage and witty penmanship inspired the conservative legal movement, and he became the most prominent champion of originalism, which has in twenty short years become the dominant mode of constitutional interpretation.

Two of the three most influential intellectual forces for good in the realm of Western moral, legal, and political philosophy -- Robert George and John Finnis -- are Catholic. The third, Hadley Arkes, is Jewish but identifies himself with the distinctly Catholic intellectual tradition of Thomist natural law philosophy. Indeed, Catholic intellectuals have almost alone preserved the natural law tradition in the United States, and the West generally. For this reason, Catholics laid the groundwork for the civil rights movement, the pro-life movement, and the defense of marriage and the family.

It was a Catholic Pope, John Paul II, who without firing a single shot ignited a revolution in Poland and Eastern Europe, which eventually toppled the Soviet Union. Before evangelical relief and charitable organizations proliferated, Catholics were operating orphanages and soup kitchens. Before evangelicals re-entered the political arena in the 1970's, Catholics were founding political journals and organizing the conservative movement. Before evangelicals discovered Francis Schaeffer and Chuck Colson, Catholics offered a comprehensive view of culture, law, religion, and politics that was informed by the truth and grace of the Word of God.

The United States owes much to its Catholics population. We evangelicals, in particular, owe our Catholic brothers and sisters an enormous debt of gratitude. Despite the obvious trangressions that the Catholic Church has committed in the past several years, it has done far, far more good than evil.

For all of these reasons, this line from a press report today is striking. "Before [Pope] Benedict's arrival [in the United States], polls showed most Americans knew little or nothing about him."

Maybe this is yet another example of American ignorance, much like our infamous inability to locate Iran or South Dakota on a map. But I wonder whether the same would be true of other important world leaders. Do most Americans know anything about Gordon Brown, Osama bin Laden, or Kim Jong Il?

Senate Dems opposing Papal resolution

A resolution honoring the Pope on his visit to America is being held by Senate Democrats. The resolution had been expected to pass by unanimous consent, but someone in the Democrat Party has a problem with the following language:

Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties

Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life.

Yes of course...how dare somebody speak out for the value of every life. What a quaint notion...

Amanda Carpenter has the scoop.

UPDATE: This has now passed the Senate. Apparently Barbara Boxer -- surprise surprise -- was the one holding it up. Much to my disappointment, Senator Brownback was negotiating with Boxer and agreed to water down the life language.

Obama compares Coburn to 1960's terrorist

Maybe Obama should just stop talking and go into hiding for the remainder of the campaign. At this rate that seems his surest bet to win the nomination and the Presidency. In recent remarks on the campaign trail Obama compared conservative Senator Tom Coburn to 1960's radical terrorist William Ayres, who has recently been connected to Obama.

Obama after complaining about "manufactured issues," says, "this is what I'm talking about... He lives in my neighborhood, he's a professor of English. Not someone I've accepted endorsement of, it's not someone I exchange ideas with on a regular basis... (!) He did detestable acts when I was eight years old."

I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, a man who has suggested the death penalty may be appropriate for those who perform abortions.

What!? The only bombs Tom Coburn throws are rhetorical in nature and usually aimed at Senate liberals and misguided devoid of principle GOP old bulls. He is a life long physician who has delivered thousands of babies and who to this day would rather be bringing a new life into the world than dealing with the myriad of nimrods in the Senate. Obama clearly understands that in many ways Coburn is a revolutionary. But that makes him akin to a patriot, not a terrorist.

Earmarks for Israel?

What complete and utter nonsense:

John McCain will make an exception for at least one category of spending in his pledge to "veto every bill with earmarks": aid to Israel.

ThinkProgress pointed out earlier that military and other assistance to Israel is included in definition McCain's aides say they're using of the term, to the tune of about $2.9 billion, about 5% of the total, depending on how you count.

"Senator McCain will bring wasteful spending under control, and he will ensure America remains committed to the security of Israel, including maintaining America’s assistance levels," emails spokesman Brian Rogers.

That's one thing about spending cuts: Much harder when you get to the details.

UPDATE: DNC Spokesman Damian LaVera emails, "Once again John McCain is trying to have it both ways. Rather than playing rhetorical games McCain should say which is his priority: maintaining our miliary and economic assistance to Israel, or his promise to veto the earmark that provides that support?"

In no way does this provision meet either the House or Senate definition of an earmark. Democrats are reaching here by combining their increasing hostility to our best ally in the Middle East with their insatiable desire to knock McCain down a peg or two on one of his best issues. Nice try...

WSJ: McCain-omics

The WSJ editorial board today on John McCain's economic platform:

John McCain gave his big economic speech in Pittsburgh Tuesday, and many of the policies he proposed are laudable – the highlight being an optional flat tax for individuals. The weakness – especially heading into a general election amid a struggling economy – is that his pudding still has no theme.

Being able to provide a guiding economic narrative is not just a matter of having a catchy soundbite, a la the "ownership society." It's essential for two reasons. First, it offers voters an explanation of how we got to the current moment, which means why the economy is struggling. The two Democrats already have their story: The 1990s were a golden age for the middle class that has been ruined by Republican tax cuts that rewarded only rich lenders and speculators. Mr. McCain needs a different policy narrative.

Second, a guiding philosophy shows voters that future decisions will be made according to a set of principles they can understand. Example: A month ago, Mr. McCain gave a speech saying it wasn't the government's obligation to rescue those who took out loans they couldn't afford. Then last week he, ahem, supplemented that view by supporting an FHA-guaranteed loan-restructuring program in what looked to be a bid to compete with Democrats in the housing bailout auction.

Without some guiding principles, voters are left to wonder whether Mr. McCain's next lurch will be to the populist left, where his instincts sometimes run, or to the fiscally conservative right, where he is also sometimes found.

Read the rest here. George Bush talked about an "ownership society" -- a good narrative sold by a less than stellar salesman. Ronald Reagan talked about the "opportunity society" that lay in wait for Americans. The Journal is right, McCain needs his own narrative.

Faith and Democrats

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, I do not believe that Senators Clinton and Obama scored a big victory for the Democratic party with their appearances at Messiah College on Sunday. Those evangelicals with whom I have spoken about the forum were impressed with Clinton's candor but disagree with her convictions on abortion and with many of her policy proposals. I have yet to hear from anyone who thinks Obama hit a home run, or even a base hit. He came across as calculated and awkward. As a commenter on this site opined, Obama seemed "uncomfortable using the evangelical lexicon." And as Titus pointed out, Obama was hopelessly inconsistent on the abortion question. That was striking; he must have anticipated that question. Surely his advisors gave some thought to issue. But that was not at all apparent from his response.

Furthermore, McCain is unlikely to suffer from his decision not to participate. Reasonable people understand that McCain has sealed the Republican nomination and that it is in his best interest to lay low for now and watch the Dems beat each other up.

Also, the audience was quite clearly liberal. Assertions that Al Gore won the presidential election in 2000, that Jeremiah Wright's statements have been distorted, and that a cap-in-trade policy will best incentivize alternative energy production all earned applause. The representation of believing Jews and Christians did not appear to be anything near proportional. Any accretion of credibility to Obama or Clinton will be accordingly modest.

*****

The truth is that neither Hillary nor Barack came across as a genuine person of Christian conviction. Consider this bit from Hillary, resisting an invitation to identify occasions on which she felt the presence of the Holy Spirit.

And I am not going to point to one or another matter. ... And it is just such a part of who I am and what I have lived through for so many years that trying to pull out and say, oh, I remember, I was sitting right there when I felt, you know, God's love embrace me, would be, I think, trivializing what has been an extraordinary sense of support and possibility that I have had with me my entire life.

In other words, Senator Clinton can't think of any occasions on which she has felt the presence of the Holy Spirit. And the grand failure of her sniper-fire prevarication has made her wary of making stuff up. No one believes that sharing memories and experiences of God's grace trivializes God's grace. Stories are powerful, especially when they are true. If Clinton had at any moment in her life devoted a single, fleeting thought to God's love for her, you can bet your life savings she would have grasped the opportunity to tell that story on national television.

Similarly, Clinton gave a long, evasive non-answer to the question what first principles inform her judgment on important political questions. She discussed the importance of civility, of considering all sides to a question, and of soliciting input from advisers and critics. However, she did not identify a single, immutable conviction from which she will not turn. One could be forgiven for concluding that she has none.

Except, that is, the right to have an abortion on demand. When asked whether she believes that life begins at conception, she unequivocally stated that abortion should be legal. Ironically, considering her audience, that might have been her best moment in the forum. She was as candid as she was wrong, and that counts for something.

*****

Obama, by contrast, was neither right nor candid. He badly fumbled the abortion questions. (He was lobbed two of them.) He was enigmatic on the morality of end-of-life decisions and on the efficacy of abstinence education in nations ravaged by HIV. He rightly invoked the principle of stewardship in environmental protection, then undid his good words by pretending that his cap-and-trade policy proposal is a necessary corollary to good stewardship.

Furthermore, Obama was guilty of Wallisian hubris. He indulged in more than one implied defamation against conservatives, at which Accommodators like Jim Wallis (who tossed Obama a softball at the forum) are so well practiced. Obama assured us that he is "careful and suspicious of attempts to paint Islam with a broad brush." Why is that relevant? Does he suppose that American Christians are guilty of that offense? He dusted off the canard that universal, single-standard health care is a "moral imperative." And those of us who believe in increasing choice in health insurance, making it more varied and less expensive, are ignoring our moral obligation? Obama warned against sacrificing civil liberties out of fear. Who would cower in such self-defeating fear, allowing their leaders to infringe upon their inalienable rights? Obama's "nation." The US of A. That's who.

This is emotional blackmail in its most blatant form. It is not, as we have seen, beneath Jim Wallis. But it ought to be beneath a serious candidate for the office of President of the United States.

The cost of freedom

Antiwar liberals in Washington have taken too a new line of attack of late. With the 5-year cost of the war in Iraq closing in on $1 trillion, they sense an opening. The war, they say, is the reason for a declining economy. The war is the reason we cannot have universal government-run health care. The war is the reason we cannot be responsible and reign in entitlement spending that threatens to bankrupt the nation in the near future.

Thankfully, Larry Kudlow blows this argument up in his column today:

First point: The U.S. has spent roughly $750 billion for the five-year war. Sure, that's a lot of money. But the total cost works out to 1 percent of the $63 trillion GDP over that time period. It's miniscule.

But here's the real question we ought to be asking: What is the cost of freedom? While the Left refuses to acknowledge it, the U.S. homeland has not been attacked since September 11. Right there is a big economic plus. Since President Bush went on the offensive and took the battle to Iraq, al Qaeda and other extremist terrorist groups have been utterly routed by U.S. forces. But in tying the jihadists down on their home turf, and keeping them from mounting another coordinated attack on the U.S., our economy has benefited incalculably.

Then again, the anti-war forces might want to recall John F. Kennedy's inaugural address, in which he called on Americans to "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to ensure the survival and the success of liberty."

Do these folks actually think 1 percent of GDP is too large a price, too heavy a burden? I sure hope not.

Now, let's talk numbers:

And by the way, despite the current slowdown, the U.S. economy has performed remarkably well during the five years of the Iraq war. Real GDP has increased by 16 percent, or 3 percent annually. The unemployment rate has hovered below a historically low 5 percent for quite some time. Nearly 10 million jobs have been created. Household net worth has increased by $20 trillion. Industrial production has expanded by 13.5 percent. Even home prices, despite the current correction, have increased by 20 percent.

But this matters not to Washington liberals. They see a sticker price approaching $1 trillion and they immediately begin to think of a liberal wish list of policies that they could purchase for the same price. This is their real motivation for cutting funding for Iraq; to funnel it towards their big-government Utopian schemes.

Obama on faith

Two clips of interest here from last night's CNN forum on faith. In the first (only watch the first minute) we see Obama awkwardly answer the question about when life begins. Obama says he cannot "presume to know" when life begins. It may be "when a soul stirs" or "when a cell separates," he simply cannot know. But he does grant that "there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life" and that power has a "moral weight to it."

So regarding the question of abortion, Obama's logic should lead him to err on the side of life. If life does begin when a cell separates, then even early on abortions are the ending of that life and therefore a grievous violation and affront to the "moral weight" that Obama concedes that life carries. This does not even begin to address the late-term procedures that Obama will go to his grave to legally protect.



Now, switching gears. In the video below we are witness to the world's greatest softball question pitched from an Accomadater in chief, Richard Cizik. Cizik at his perch atop the National Association of Evangelicals has been a hero of the liberal left and darling of the MSM.



"Should it be part of God's plan to have me in the White House I look forward to our collaboration." Thus the already massive egos of our friends the Accomodaters quadruples in size.

UPDATE: While we are on the topic, note Obama's promise to Jim Wallis to cut the amount of poverty in half in ten years. Follow the link for background.

Losing our pain threshold

George Will's latest column is worth reading. He exposes the misplaced hype behind the economic downturn. Compared to years past, we are not in a "crisis" by any measure. Perhaps the most powerful line in the piece is this one in reference to a report about a man who will have to wait until he is 62 to retire:

Deranged by the entitlement mentality fostered by a metastasizing welfare state, Americans now have such low pain thresholds that suffering is defined as a slight delay in beginning a subsidized retirement often lasting one-third of the retiree's adult lifetime.

I'm worried that if we cannot find it in ourselves to abstain from bailing out every person who faces hardship, we're not going to be able to meet the challenges ahead. Maybe one good outcome of the softening economy will be a greater pain threshold for everyone. We're going to need it.

And then there's this

You own a gun? You're religious? You think the government should enforce immigration laws? That's okay. Barack Obama forgives your transgressions. He understands that you're really just bitter about being unemployed. When his enlightened policies have had a chance to jump-start economic progress in the Rust Belt, you won't have to resort to such distasteful tendencies.

"Fathers, be fathers"

Whatever his motivation for giving this particular stump speech, Barack Obama's call for parents to take responsibility for the upbringing and education of their own children is commendable. The message is good, and needed, particularly in the black community, where fathers are too often absent.

American Idol features evangelical favorite

UPDATE: It is interesting that in the Wednesday night version at the bottom, they changed the lyrics to "My Shepherd, may savior..." but then changed them back to the original version of "My Jesus, my savior..." in the Thursday night version on the top.

Not sure how this happened...American Idol over the last two evening has featured a song that is an evangelical favorite; Shout to the Lord. They performed the song wonderfully.





The first night they sang it was Wednesday, at the end of the "idol gives back" show for charity. That show, incidentally, was terrific in the way it called on Americans to give whatever they could to help the least of these. It was completely free of any political agenda as well, which was refreshing.

McCain caves in

To date I have been impressed with John McCain. He has been consistently conservative on all the big issues, but yesterday he veered from the straight and narrow path. So much for straight talk, at least on this issue:

John McCain called for an aggressive federal government role aimed at stabilizing the housing market, rejecting a largely hands-off approach he outlined two weeks ago.

The likely Republican presidential nominee's prescription included a heavy dose of policy more typically associated with Democrats, as he sought to show voters he understands their economic pain. Most significantly, he urged the federal government to guarantee new mortgages for homeowners at risk of foreclosure.

The plan "offers every deserving American family or homeowner the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan," he told New York-area small-business owners Thursday.

The plan's price tag is estimated at anywhere between $3 billion and $10 billion.

Ugh...$10 billion in government spending -- especially spending that encourages risky behavior -- is not what the doctor ordered to treat an ailing economy. McCain was right when he first talked about this issue. The economy is correcting itself. There must be some pain before the ship can be righted. Clearly, John McCain's political advisers got to him, and that, frankly, is lame.

Memo to McCain's political team: let McCain be McCain. His gut reaction was right. The nansy pamby politicos who are scared of their shadow are wrong.

Honoring a hero

If you have not seen the ceremony honoring fallen Navy Seal Michael Monsoor, it is a must watch. Our country at its finest:

The slope is, in fact, slippery

We defenders of conjugal monogamy are frequently pilloried for pointing out that nothing in principle distinguishes same-sex marriage from polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage. If there is no rational basis for the conjugality predicate to marriage then there is no rational basis for the numerosity (2) or filial (not) predicates. We are excoriated as homophobic chicken littles for even mentioning the analogy. No one is seriously arguing for polygamous or incestuous marriage, the argument goes. That's a scare tactic.

In fact, plenty of people are arguing for legal recognition of polygamy. And, as predicted, the incest threshhold is in danger of being breached, as well. Martin Knight over at RedState calls our attention to the Deaves, father and daughter who have brought into this world a child of their own.

We join Mr. Knight in standing athwart this progression of history yelling, "Stop!" But we are not confident that anyone is paying attention.

Dems planning to hold war funding hostage for liberal spending

Congressional Democrats have been buzzing incessantly of late about a second "stimulus" package in the wake of Bush's package past last month. The Bush economic stimulus bill, which conservatives rightly criticized, has given Democrats license to spend like the drunken sailors they are. Despite the fact that the checks for the first stimulus have not even been printed, Americans are about to be saddled with more deficit spending.

This time though, it will be tied to funding for the Iraq war and it will be directed to liberal spending priorities rather than direct tax rebates. The NY Times reports on the high-stakes game of political chicken:

It is not easy to draw a straight line from the slumping economy to the war in Iraq and a trade deal with Colombia, but Democrats are trying to connect those dots.

Party strategists say that President Bush’s opposition to additional economic recovery proposals and his strong support of the trade pact provide an opportunity to portray Mr. Bush and his Republican allies, notably Senator John McCain, as being insensitive to the economic struggles of Americans while spending billions each month on Iraq.

“There is an economic argument to be made,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. “This administration has not done what it should for the middle class.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said Tuesday that he was preparing to link the war spending directly to the economy at home by using a pending bill to finance combat in Iraq as a proxy for a second stimulus measure. He plans to try to attach to the Iraq money Democratic favorites like an extension of unemployment benefits, a summer jobs program and perhaps local building projects.

“That will be war,” promised Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina.

As it should be.

CNN hosting "values forum"

Hmmmmmm...

Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will participate in a faith and values forum that will be broadcast live Sunday exclusively on CNN.

Clinton and Obama, in back-to-back interviews, will field questions from CNN’s Campbell Brown and Newsweek’s Jon Meacham as well as prominent members from the faith community. The Compassion Forum, sponsored by Faith in Public Life, will air at 8 p.m. ET on April 13.

The forum will take place at Messiah College, a Christian liberal arts and sciences school in Grantham, Pennsylvania nine days before the state’s presidential primary. In this hotly contested race for the Democratic nomination, 158 delegates are at stake.

Topics Clinton and Obama are expected to address include poverty, human rights and the worldwide AIDS crisis.

An unsung honor

Mary Katharine Ham posts a tribute to Michael Monsoor, Medal of Honor recipient. BlackFive tells the hero's story, which the MSM is largely ignoring.

The end of the story:

An insurgent closed in and threw a fragmentation grenade into the overwatch position. The grenade hit Monsoor in the chest before falling to the ground. Positioned next to the single exit, Monsoor was the only one who could have escaped harm. Instead, he dropped onto the grenade to shield the others from the blast. Monsoor died approximately 30 minutes later from wounds sustained from the blast. Because of Petty Officer Monsoor’s actions, he saved the lives of his 3 teammates and the IA soldiers.

Greater love has no man than this, that he lays down his life for his friends.

Senator Rockefeller is Brilliant

Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia finally spoke up and said what we all have been thinking all along. Senator McCain has no idea what war really entails. Finally, someone said it.

After all Senator McCain was not asked to take a life in Vietnam. He never had to drop thousands of pounds of explosives on people he could see running around on the ground. No, McCain was so far removed from the realities of war that Senator Rockefeller knows more about the situation than he does.

OK, I know you're thinking, McCain was shot down and nearly beaten to death. Yea, and so he was tortured a little. That's not war. It wasn't war when his boat caught on fire and he watched his friends burn to death either. After all, Senator McCain was a fighter pilot, the lowest of the low. Worse he was a Navy fighter pilot, all those guys do is ride motorcycles and wear sunglasses. They don't go to war. They don't care about the men and women they are protecting and they certainly don't know what happens when the 2,000lb MK-84 that's nose and tail fuzed for impact, sets of a fragmentary burst that rips everything to shreds inside of an exact number of meters they have memorized. They don't know exactly what kind of cover friendly troops need to be under to save them and they've never seen how far an enemy body gets tossed by one of these bombs. Thank you so much for finally speaking the truth Senator Rockefeller. Oh yea, which theater did you serve in again?

A law school for the 21st century

Though Professor Erwin Chemerinsky is a misguided lib, he's also a brilliant scholar and legal educater. The Founding Dean of the new UC Irvine Law School, Chemerinsky lays out his vision for Irvine's model of legal education and challenges more established law schools to follow suit. The gist of his message is to focus on preparing students to practice law. A salutary and obvious goal, too often overlooked.

Kansas 75, Memphis 68

The moral of the story is simple. Practice your free throws.

Fun for them while it lasts

Liberals love the Accommodators, especially Jim Wallis. Mind you, I don't mean that they have agape love for them. It's more akin to the affection that a starter on the football team has for the cheerleader who is currently making the rounds. And the cheerleader, delighted to be invited to the parties, mistakes opportunism for respect and fails to see that she's never going to get a marriage proposal out of these relationships.

Because libs love the Accommodators, one frequently sees fawning enconia to Accommodators in that great communications bureau of the liberal movement, the mainstream media. All the tributes follow the same pattern. This piece, though not in a traditional MSM source, is illustrative. The author, Melinda Henneberger, discovers an ostensibly new tension in the evangelical movement, brought about by younger, better-educated evangelicals who have rejected the dogmas of their parents, come to their senses, and embraced Christ's true message of collectivism, statism, and redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately for Accommodators, this praise is not borne out of respect. In fact, with praise like this, one could kill a movement.

To see why liberal praise of Accommodators carries the seeds of the Accomodators' destruction, it is important to see why Accommodators are as popular as they are. Their influence (currently at its apogee) derives not from any insight, proposal, or virtue of theirs. No, the Accommodators fascinate the libs because they play against type. Here are evangelicals who are educated, aren't hung up about sex, and don't assume that humans are better than other species. Why can't you conservative evangelicals be more like them?

Henneberger's Accommodators, Aaron and Ginny Routhe, have moved beyond obsolete evangelical dogmas. They are no longer constrained by a belief that humans are uniquely created in the image of God. Ginny: "But pro-life for us is more holistic, more all of life and all of the environment-endangered species, and not just the human species."

They are no longer inhibited by defense of something so trivial as the intrinsic values of human life and conjugal marriage. Peter Ilyan, a "Christian environmental evangelist": "So now when James Dobson says it's only gay marriage and abortion we should care about? One of our jokes is that gay married couples have the fewest abortions of anybody."

Convenient that the quip is at James Dobson's expense, no?

Notwithstanding the current popularity of the Accommodators, the Accommodator anti-type is doomed for two reasons. First, the type itself is grossly caricatured. Accommodators have borrowed their stereotype of conservative evangelicals -- uneducated, prudish, joyless, peculiar, scheming -- from secular liberals, many of whom have never met a conservative evangelical, and all of whom avoid conservatives like the plague, whenever possible. But anyone who actually comes to know a conservative evangelical quickly discerns that the type is terribly unfair. Certainly there exist some joyless, prudish evangelicals. However, they are not anything like a majority.

So, Accommodators do not play well against type. "Give 'Em Hell" Zell Miller played well against type because the type -- the Democrat who cares more about defeating Bush than winning the War in Iraq -- is accurate. Similarly, Alan Keyes plays successfully against type because not very many black men in America are conservative.

By contrast, Accommodators have chosen to combat a type that doesn't fit their opponents very well. So their self-congratulatory calls for a "more well-rounded" and "more holistic" view of political issues rings hollow. When an Accommodator quoted in Henneberg's article asserts that "evangelicals en masse are beginning to realize that the Good News encompasses both" "fundamentalism [and] the Social Gospel," bewilderment sets in. Evangelicals are only now embracing the Social Gospel? Really? So the Salvation Army, Samaritan's Purse, hundreds of other charitable organizations, and millions of the most generous people on Earth were only pretending to be evangelicals?

Second, the more frequently Accommodators are held up as the anti-type the more rapidly they become a type of their own. Once it becomes conventional wisdom that savvy evangelicals vote for Democrats, the Accommodators will have served their purpose and will no longer be of any use or interest to orthodox libs. Like the cheerleader who has finished making the rounds, the Accommodator will find himself used, abused, and no longer invited to the party. Libs don't buy this stuff about the Gospel. They think it's trite, amusing... and convenient.

The General Comes to Town

Army General David Petraeus will be in Washington today testifying before multiple Senate Committees. A media feeding frenzy will no doubt follow as all three Presidential candidates have returned to their committee perches to question the military leader.

The media will cover today's proceedings through their very simple lense: Republicans = pro war and Democrats = no war. They will score the proceedings accordingly.

I will be interested to see how both Obama and Clinton handle some of Petraeus's testimony. He will bring some good news about the status of the surge, which the Democrats have all but declared a defeat already. Will Obama or Clinton be able to be happy with some good news? I am not holding my breath.

UPDATE: Time Mag -- How Petraeus will make his case

The Senate bail out party

Senators this week will debate and pass a so-called housing measure that they claim stabilizes housing prices and provides economic stimulus. It will likely do neither, but then again, what does that matter? The real impetus for this legislation is CYA, which politicians in Washington have become extraordinarily good at. The Wall Street Journal this morning has a must read editorial on the subject:

Majority Leader Harry Reid's bipartisan "housing stimulus package" hits the Senate floor on Tuesday afternoon, and what it proves is that, whatever their other differences, both parties can agree to throw good money after bad. The bill is a $15 billion list of subsidies that won't do much for housing markets but will please the homebuilders, local politicians and other influential lobbies.

Among the largest items is $4 billion for notorious Community Development Block Grants. The money is intended to purchase and redevelop foreclosed properties. It's hard to think of a less promising vehicle than the CDBG program, which is managed after a fashion by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A February 2008 report from the White House budget office calls the program "ineffective," which is putting it mildly. On a 100-point scale of achieving results, CDBG scored a 27. In 2005 and 2006, the Government Accountability Office recommended more oversight and better methods of targeting grant recipients.

In addition to being a proven-failure of a program, this funding for CDBG will take housing out of private hands and put it in the government's hands. According to the legislation, the local governments are not obligated to do anything with their new-found property. It could be sold, turned into low-rent housing, redeveloped or whatever they want. Since when should the government be in the business of flipping houses?

10 Reasons to vote for McCain

Provided by Moveon.org...

While we're on the topic...

of so-called "Progressive Christians," it is appropriate to put that offensive term in its proper light. The Progressive movement is founded on the purpose of using politics to bring about an Eschaton on Earth. Progressives speak of goals such as eradicating poverty, ending war, insuring all persons against health care costs, and enabling all sentient beings to exercise fully their autonomy. As the name of the movement suggests, progressives believe that they are helping mankind move toward an ultimate goal, an evolved state of peaceful self-actualization. For this reason, the Progressive movement is well-suited to the secular worldview, which takes as its presuppositional foundation Darwinian naturalism.

For the same reasons, progressivism is completely antithetical to Christianity. Christians believe that the Eschaton is not a state to be achieved here on Earth, but rather a Person to be desired and pursued, the very Son of God. We also believe that humans do not have it in our power to end poverty, end war, or bring about self-actualization. Indeed, we are not called to do so. Instead, we are called to tend to the poor (whom, Jesus assured us, we would always have with us), preach the Gospel, and lead people to the Good.

A central tenet of Christianity is that man cannot improve upon what God has created. In the orthodox view, God allows us the privilege of helping to redeem what we have corrupted by our own rebellion. To suggest that self-absorbed humans -- much less governments, which are comprised of fallen humans with competing self-absorptions -- have it within our power to effect our own progress is a category mistake.

Furthermore, that suggestion belittles the crucifixion and resurrection of the Eschaton Man. There remains no work to be done, no higher plane to which we must progress, because Christ has done it. Past tense. To suggest that Christ left the job unfinished is to claim that his life, ministry, and death were less than what they truly were.

Conservatism and Christianity, by contrast, fit naturally with each other. Conservative Christians suffer from no internal contradictions in their thinking. We believe that Christ has completed the work of sanctification and that He allows us to participate in His work of redemption in personal relationships with Him and with our fellow man. We have the great privilege of participating in this work by assisting the poor (not taxing the rich), defending the unborn and infirmed, and preserving institutions -- marriage, the public square -- that enable mankind to be fully integrated, to pursue the Good.

The next time an acquaintance identifies herself as a "progressive Christian," ask her toward what she is progressing. You will, I think, find the answer enlightening.

The Real Predators

Over at the "Progressive Christian" (an oxymoronic term, if ever there was one) hangout, Elizabeth Palmberg renews the old "Jubilee" movement's call for debt forgiveness for poor nations. The Jubilee movement has intuitive appeal on its side, just as it did more than a decade ago when I first encountered it in college. (There is nothing new in the "progressive" movement, only old ideas dressed up as new ones.) No Christian wants to keep poor, oppressed peoples under the bondage of debts they cannot hope to repay. And if the choice were actually between freeing developing nations from their debts and forcing them to pay, debt forgiveness would make sense. In this case, however, as in so many others, the Accommodators are impervious to the reality of the situation.

Impressively, Palmberg manages to slip two canards into her post. She begins with the irrelevant howler, "The subprime mortgage crisis in the U.S. has raised just outrage at the behavior of predatory lenders." This is another of those casual defamatory presuppositions buried in a related assertion as a given, at which the Accommodators are so skilled. Which lenders behaved in a predatory manner? How did they behave? Palmberg doesn't say, because she can't. The fact is that borrowers, especially poor borrowers, benefitted from the subprime lending frenzy. Borrowers obtained loans they had no business acquiring, which enabled them to purchase homes they had no business purchasing. When rates continued to rise and home prices fell, the cards collapsed and subprime borrowers returned to the position they occupied before the fiasco, living in residences for which they have the means to pay in full.

Indeed, the evidence is mounting that borrowers hoodwinked lenders at least as often as lenders took advantage of borrowers. The FBI is now buried under a massive pile of mortgage fraud investigations.

Back to the Jubilee plea. Palmberg advocates for forgiveness of loans, "often the result of Cold War favors to corrupt dictators," which cannot now be repaid. Two questions appear not to have occurred to her. First, why can these countries not repay the loans? The fact is that many, if not most, of these nations remain poor not because of usurious loans but because of terrible leadership. No rule of law, no protection of private property rights, and expenditures for the comfort of the privileged elite rather then desperately-needed infrastructure, all hold these nations back. Loan forgiveness would merely reward the very same bad behavior that harms the people Palmberg wants to assist.

Second, who will benefit from loan forgiveness? Palmberg assumes that, now freed from their dictatorial Cold War leadership, the people of poor nations will experience the direct benefits of loan forgiveness. However, she ignores the facts on the ground. Most of the nations saddled with these loans have exchanged one dictator for another, and that one for the next, in a continuous succession. In those nations, loan forgiveness would accrue not to the benefit of the people but rather only to the benefit of the regimes who oppress the people.

So, loan forgiveness must be taken on a case-by-case basis. Which nations are good candidates? Palmberg appears not to have considered this question, either. Does she mean Zimbabwe? Uganda? She specifically mentions Zaire, now known as the Congo. The Congo is hardly a compelling case study. Burdened with periodic conflict and self-absorbed leadership, the Congo, like many African nations, makes the case against loan forgiveness a no-brainer.