Yesterday I linked to an article by Peter Singer that appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I cited it as an example of the subtle evil that the man purveys to a populace that may or may not be intellectually braced to deal with his arguments. For those who can't be bothered to read the piece I will summarize Singer's points. 1. The acts of terrorism exhibited on September 11th were a clear and demonstrable horror. 2. Everyday, however, Americans who choose to drive SUVs are each having minute effects on the environment the sum of which will be more devastating to human beings than the terrorist acts. 3. The problem is that Americans and indeed most human beings are too parochial. They fail to recognize the value of all human beings as being equal. Compatriots' sufferings are viewed with more sympathy than those of people on the other side of the world. 4. This outlook is understandable from a historical perspective. In the past geography separated us from others and interfered with our ability to face the suffering of others. Thus tribalism and nationalism developed. 5. In the age of globalization where pictures are available from all over the world a new ethic seems necessary. One World Ethics(OWE). (Although Singer doesn't use this term exactly it is the gist of his idea.) 6. The old ethic encourages competition for capital amongst nation states resulting in too low tax rates to meet the social needs of many citizens. OWE seeks to break down this old paradigm and build a new one. 7. It will require the elimination of the concept of nationalism and state sovereignty. 8. There are signs that this concept of state sovereignty is beginning to fade. 9. Austria-Hungary sought sanctions and changes in Serbia after the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, they presented evidence of the involvement of the Serbian government in the plot, yet they were opposed in their actions by France, Britain etc. because A-H proposed solution would have violated the Sovereign state of Serbia. (Singer's history, not mine) 10. Nowadays the U.S. wishes to invade another sovereign state for the purpose of regime change and it is meeting with far more limited resistance. This shows that the world is opening up to elimination of the concept of sovereign states. 11. World government is still far away, but great political minds should be working on a way to create a worldwide federal system modelled along the lines of the European Union (which according to Singer practices subsidiarity by allowing policy decisions to be made at the level closest to the problem.) 12. This world government based on OWE would redistribute wealth and seek to make decisions that redound to the benefit to the majority of world citizens. 13. The biggest obstacle to this effort is the United States. Its opposition to Kyoto and the World Criminal Court are unfortunate examples of arrogance. (Kyoto and the WCC are great boons for civilization according to Singer.) Its consumer culture is inequitous vis-a-vis the rest of the world. In short, the U.S. stands in the way of OWE. Although it tacitly has recognized its need for others by paying its overdue U.N. dues shortly after it was attacked so that it could play upon U.N. sympathies.
There are some details that I have no doubt missed, but 13 seems like the appropriate number for summing up Singer's work.
It is hard to know where to begin to address Singer's arguments. On the surface they may seem reasonable to many readers and that is indeed the danger. Rather than address them point by point I will offer a few observations regarding the logical conclusions to Singer's arguments.
1. The opening of Singer's article and its comparison of SUV ownership to terrorism is not merely an attempt to shock people. It is per his arguments below about the decline of the idea of state sovereignty the offering of a casus belli for right thinking people/nations to declare war on the United States. America lost merely 3,000 lives as the result of the terrorist attacks, through the everyday actions of its citizens it, according to Singer, endangers millions. America's failure to adhere to the OWE therefore places it in a state of war against others and justifies the use of sanctions/force against it. To be fair, Singer does not explicitly state this idea. It is an idea, nonetheless, that a zealot might easily derive from his words, and it is not clear that Singer would object.
2. Singer suggests that nations would choose their representation in the One World Government and it would rule for the benefit of all. There is an inference in what he writes that the end of the concept of sovereignty would allow for greater intervention within the borders of nation states to address internal inequities. Rwanda and Kosovo would not happen because force would be brought to bear earlier. Unfortunately Singer does not explain how dictators eager to get more wealth redistributed to them from the West might be induced to allow outside military forces to invade their country to protect the people from oppression. More likely is that they will push for redistribution without internal reforms which will,of course, do the people in those lands no good.
One doubts, however, if Singer really is concerned about the plight of people in these countries because he offers no discussion of how one might begin to afford them the kind of governance that would be beneficial. Some vague middle ground between capitalism and communism is the preferred economic system, but how one might get there is never mentioned only hoped for. Again the conclusion is that Singer is not so interested in truly changing the world as he is in changing American practices.
3. At one point Singer suggests that a sense of audience approval is key to changing behaviors. that the more obliquoy pointed at the U.S. the more likely it will be too change its ways because no one likes to be a pariah. This is in part the rationale behind the crusades against the death penalty and for nationalized health insurance that liberals support by citing European examples. I'm not sure that the argument will hold much weight in a nation that prides itself on individualism.
4. This is a cheap shot, I'll admit, but if, as Singer has argued elsewhere, under certain conditions a cow may be endowed with greater moral rights than a human being why should someone view others around the world as anything other than cows. I realize Singer's intent is to raise the moral status of cows, but one might just as easily lower one's standards for humans living under certain conditions. In which case OWE would lead to the greater denigration of human life.
There is certainly more to attack in Singer's work. I think it speaks volumes about the state of intellectual rigor at our highest levels of academia that his article got placed in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
This critique admittedly isn't composed as thoroughly as I might like. Such are the hazards of having other things to do. I hope that those who bother to read Singer might get back to me with their own thoguhts on his work.
Wednesday, October 09, 2002 Catholic Joke of the Week
Once again this is more of a Heaven joke than a Catholic joke.
Up in Heaven there are two gateways. The first is under an arch with a sign that reads "Men who were henpecked by their wives." The second is under a sign that reads "Men who weren't henpecked by their wives." The first gate has a line behind it miles and miles long. The second gate only has one guy. St. Peter approaches the man and asks him, "What makes you so special that you're the only one in this line?" The man replies, "I don't know, my wife just told me to stand here."
Tomorrow we'll visit the Whipping Post once again. This time the focus will be this article by Peter Singer. It is a shining example of what evil may be wrought by a human being blessed with above average intelligence and a reasonable facility with language. Those who haven't thought about the issues beforehand might easily be charmed if not convinced by his arguments for a "one world" vision. But there are some implications for his ideas that he glosses over perhaps in hopes that people will accept and act on his solutions before fully considering what they would entail. More tomorrow.
1. Simon says "Let's send Gray to France." Check out this ad for GOP CA gubernatorial candidate, Bill Simon. The message is right on, the presentation could be a little crisper.
This ad is on top of Simon's pummeling of Davis in their debate yesterday. I think that what Bush the Elder called "The Big Mo' " is working in Simon's favor at this point. I'll be watching to see if the stories coming out of California start picking up on this theme as election day draws near. If there is one thing that reporters care about more than a Democrat winning it is writing about a candidate's impending collapse and the post mortems. As the race pulls even in the next week or two a trickle of stories about the flailing Davis campaign will emerge. The weekend before the election, if/when Simon is ahead in the polls, look for a torrent of stories about the political demise of Gray Davis. The entire week after Simon wins there will be more ink and tape in the national media devoted to discussing what Simon's victory means for the GOP and how badly Davis blew it than there will be coverage of the outcome of the House races. (Because the House will stay in GOP hands.) Only the GOP's strong takeover of the Senate will be a bigger story.
2. Speaking of which, the only GOP Senate seats really in play are Arkansas and possibly Colorado. In spite of what some pundits like Fred Barnes write and say the races in NH and Texas are now foregone conclusions. The GOP will hold those seats. Meanwhile the Dems have to worry about MO, MN, SD, IA, NJ and even GA, fast closing GOP campaigns in those states could (and should) upset Tom Daschle's applecart. Mind you I am not looking at polls just going off of my gut and a sense of historical voting patterns. I feel comfortable in stating, however, that by the end of his second term President Bush will be leaving his GOP successor with bigger advantages in both chambers than were present when he entered office.
1. President Bush's speech tonight about Iraq seemed to set the perfect tone. Without giving too many details that might endanger operatives it laid out the case for taking action against Iraq now rather than later and to my mind made Al Gore and other naysayers look like even bigger idiots. The apparent hedging exhibited over whether physical force will be necessary was what could called the gender clause. Mindful that women are more cautious than men in matters of war and peace President Bush suggested that war was not inevitable just highly probable and that all reasonable alternatives to violence will be explored before sending in troops.
2. It is to the networks great discredit that they chose not to televise the speech live. It certainly gives the lie to the networks pretensions to be taking seriously anymore as purveyors of news. The President gives a speech outlining the necessity of being able to use force against Iraq and they can't be bothered to hold up their network premieres by a half an hour to show it? Simply inane.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case involving the Democrat Switcheroo in the New Jersey Senate race. As I wrote on Friday I think the GOP is better off for not having the Court decide the case now. A probable reason for rejecting the case is that it involved a political question. That is it was a case that could still be resolved through normal political practices. Specifically, if Forrester ends up losing he could contest the Senate's seating of Lautenberg in the Senate. A GOP majority could decide to vacate the election because Lautenberg was placed on the ballot in violation of New Jersey state law as written by the legislature which has the sole right of deciding the time place and manner of the election according to the Constitution. If the seat was vacated Gov. McGreevey would probably just re-appoint Lautenberg or maybe pick somebody new, but rather than having to wait until 2008 for a new election the GOP could get another shot at the seat in 2004.
The downside to this strategy is that it would fire up Democrats in New Jersey and nationally. It would also, however, energize the GOP base who would welcome the get tough approach especially after seeing how the Democrats treated many of President Bush's judicial nominees. Moderates would forget the whole thing by the time 2004 rolled around.
The strategy also might inspire some nasty tactics by Democratic Senators but with President Bush dominating the media it would be difficult for them to make their case for obstruction especially since the GOP's action wouldn't change the partisan balance in the Senate.
4. The N.Y. Giants, Miami Dolphins and Virginia Cavaliers all won this weekend and the Yankees lost. Further proof that the Arizona Curse may be lifting.
5. Speaking of the Yankees ... their loss to the Angels was foreordained by the Boon of the Gimmick. Whenever an unlikely team manages to win and establishes a strange and quirky practice that inspires fans it tends to win its championship. For example, the "We are Family" Pirates of 1979. The "Homer Hankies" put the Twins over the top in their first World Series. The Pittsburgh Steelers were powered by the "Terrible Towels" to several Superbowl Championships. This year the Angels adopted "Rally Monkeys" and have ridden them to success. My guess is that they will emerge as World Series Champions.
I will also note that they are managed by Mike Scoscia. He and Dusty Baker the highly regarded manager of the S.F. Giants spent many years playing under Tommy Lasorda the former manager of the Dodgers. Lasorda is well known for talking about the "Big Dodger" in the sky when referring to God. The way he says it almost makes one think that God has a rooting interest in them. My feelings for the Dodgers haven't been the same since Lasorda retired and they traded Mike Piazza to the Florida Marlins. (Piazza was taken by the Dodgers in the amateur draft as a favor by Lasorda to an old friend little did they know that he would turn out to be the best hitting catcher of all time. Although he is now firmly ensconced in New York to me Piazza should be a Dodger.) In 2000 Lasorda came out of managerial retirement to lead the U.S. Olympic baseball team to a victory that most observers did not think possible. He is that good a motivator. I have no doubt that a major part of Scoscia's and Baker's success as managers comes from having studied under Lasorda. Luv ya Dodger Blue.
6. Some pastors just don't get it. Ours made a speech this Sunday about how the parish was not making ends meet. He suggested that the scandals, economic hard times and the uncertainty of the war on terror might be to blame. With regard to the war he pronounced some nonsense about how because we couldn't get Bin Laden now we were going after Hussein and this worried people. Why this would lead them to reduce their donations I have no idea. Neither, I think, does he it was just a gratuitous cheap shot at the Bush administration. To make matters worse his complaint that donations were down thus causing the deficit did not hold up to scrutiny. In truth, expenses went up dramatically while donations stayed flat.
When we registered at the parish we were sent a short welcome letter and a packet of envelopes to be used for donations. I refuse to use them. Each week I give cash. I know for tax purposes I should be writing checks but what I give to the Church is my business, not the parish's. This practice apparently is unacceptable. In truth we don't give as much as we probably should, but I am not eager to support the parish or the Diocese of Phoenix at a higher level.
I am going to write a letter to my parish priest to telling him why. A. The tabernacle is in some alcove miles from the altar. B. The pastor ends Church with the admonition to love ourselves and God. I prefer to love and serve the Lord. C. Not once in 9 months have I heard a sermon about the sanctity of life. (In case you missed it this Sunday was respect for life Sunday and we got preached to about giving money to the Church instead of the culture of life.) D. While hearing nothing about the culture of life in all this time I've heard sermons that seemed to okay divorce.
So why not go to another church? Well we sampled five or six when we moved to town and this sadly was the best of the bunch. It has small Christian communities and allows pro-life organizations to set uyp shop outside of the church. It also has, tabernacle placement excluded, a very nice setting for worship that actually inspires one to think about God's majesty. If only it could get a new pastor.
(Actually it should have had a new one a long time ago. The present pastor has been with the community for years. Why is it that bad ones always seem to stay put while good ones move from place to place. My family's church in NH had the same boring, corrupt priest for a decade. His dynamic replacement energized the flock and brough many families that had fallen away back to the fold. Of course, he was moved within four years.)
1. It was announced today that President Bush will be giving a major prime time speech from Cincinatti on Monday. It is a shrewd decision for several reasons. Reason 1 is the location, the President will be speaking from the heartland of America about events that will speak to Americans' hearts. Reason 2 is that in the last few weeks people have begun to question the urgency of going after Iraq. Even my wife and mother worry about the costs (in human lives) of going in. They are also concerned about the idea that our actions mights create more terrorists. The President needs to address these niggling doubts forthrightly by laying out the case against Iraq even more persuasively. He no doubt will do so. Reason 3 is that it puts the Democrats in a bind. Who will deliver their response? Daschle, Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, McDermott, Gore ? (Just kidding on the last one, by tradition the respondent is a member of Congress) No matter who it is he or she will surely alienate a vast portion of the Democratic party. If the Democrats don't offer their own response President Bush will just dominate the discussion all the more. This is exactly the kind of situation the Democrats have been afraid of. My only quibble with the speech is its timing and that is because of my political preferences. For maximal political effect the President probably should have waited another week before jumping into the fray.
Let me be clear that politics aside I think that accomplishing regime change in Iraq is the right thing to do. I was disappointed that our troops weren't aloud to push for total victory in 1991. I understand the rationale for not doing so, but I think that it was based on some assumptions that have proven to be faulty. Primary among those false assumptions was the idea that the political will of nations to quarantine Saddam would outlast his regime. Clearly this was not the case.
2. It frustrates me when I read articles critiquing President Bush because of the corporate scandals, the decline in the stock market, and the danger of the world stage. As a dad who reads frequently to his daughter I think that The Cat in the Hat presents an interesting analogy. Two bored children are entertained by a guy who makes a big mess, all the while they are mesmerized by his antics their pet fish tries to remind them of their duties but to little avail. He is mocked and put down by the Cat in the Hat. As the mother is coming home the Cat whisks out a machine that straightens everything up or at least appears to. Bill Clinton was a diversion who created a big mess in the economy (my portfolio began taking in April of 2000), foreign affairs (weak responses to terrorist acts, leniency with regard to China) and the moral fabric of American society (for political reasons people were asked to forget and forgive the unconscionable) sadly, unlike the Cat he didn't bother to clean things up on his way out, he just made a bigger mess by issuing pardons and taking stuff that didn't belong to him. Below is a version of the Cat in the Hat Clinton-style.
THE CAT WITH THE SAX With the end of the Cold War there was nothing to do So sister and I just moped boo-hoo-hoo. Then into our lives came the Cat with the Sax He told us to all have fun and relax Nevermind said the cat about lying and such It won't harm the economy, well really not much Don't you dare listen to that snippety fish the one who goes by the name of Gingrich He'll tell you that I'm making a terrible mess Where he got that idea is anyone's guess And wait till you meet thing two and thing one Thing one's called Reno and she's quick with a gun If you pray or have travelled to escape tyranny she'll burn your house down or send you back over sea Oh if you let her she'll make quite a hash the rule of law will wind up in the trash thing two well lets just say she's my wife she's mucking with healthcare to spread sorrow and strife In my private life I'll be reckless In foreign policy feckless But I'll small and grin through it all just watch my next trick I'll balance books on a stick while standing on top of a ball There was smoke, there was fire and garbage flew through the air But when the air cleared all was there but not there The clever cat had it hidden that big mess he made under the rugs and behind the lampshade We'll leave it all there said the Cat with the sax to let it fester and stew until it comes to life and attacks the next poor sucker who comes into the room then he left with thing two on top of her broom
3. In spite of my disgust with the New Jersey Supreme Court I think that the GOP and Doug Forrester would be better served simply using the rotten circumstance surrounding the change of his opponent to their advantage. In Jersey I'd emphasize that Lautenberg was picked by a backroom cabal and was their 4th choice (behind Bradley, Menendez and Pallone) at that. Nationally I'd make Daschle's little power play an issue. 2 weeks ago Daschle appeared at a fundraiser on Bob Torricelli's behalf but when it looked like Torricelli was going to lose because of his scandals Daschle engineered a replacement in violation of the laws of the state of New Jersey. Is this the kind of win at all costs politician, someone to whom the laws mean nothing, you want to be Senate majority leader?
Going to the Supreme Court even if GOP wins will remind voters of Florida and angry up the Democratic base. By playing the high road they can get their base energized while independent and marginal Democratic voters will be turned off by the party's disrespect for fairplay.
4. If the Bush Administration was really trying to "politicize" the war wouldn't they be using Colin Powell, Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, the foreign policy team, on the campaign trail?
5. The Cavaliers are 12 point favorites against Duke this weekend. I think that we have a better team, but they are young and still relatively inexperienced I wouldn't count on them to cover.
6. The Hoos' quarterback Matt Schaub began the season horribly. He threw a bad interception that essentially cost the team the game in the opener and critics came out of the woodwork to crucify him. Since that game, however, he's played fantastic. He has thrown 15 touchdown passes and is #3 in passing efficiency amongst Division 1A quarterbacks. I wonder how many of the people who mocked him after the first game have called in to shows or called him to apologize. I also wonder how many will, if he keeps things up and ends up with over 30 TDs and 3000 yds. passing, tout him for the Heisman next year?
7. Saw a great quote somewhere, perhaps it was in Jay Nordlinger's at National Review Online column, it stated "Before you criticize a man walk a mile in his shoes, that way you'll be a mile away and have his shoes."
The New Jersey Supreme Court. They've destroyed respect for the law on behalf of a political goal, the retention of a Democratic majority in the Senate. Its a shame, but par for the course for the people who tried to destroy the Boy Scouts.
Wednesday, October 02, 2002 Catholic Joke of the Week
A sexually adventurous fellow is driving down a backroad in southern Idaho. He sees billboards on the way touting The Little Sisters of Mercy Fun Palace. Underneath the caption reads "Get Screwed by a Nun." Intrigued he pulls over when he sees the huge neon sign announcing that to the right is the Little Sisters of Mercy Fun Palace. The man approaches the door and is greeted by an attractive nun in full habit. Being irreligious he is a bit excited by the thought of the sacrilege of being screwed by a nun. He asks the nun how her order came to this sinful means of gaining money. "We do what we can," she replies. "How much he ask?" "$100" He thinks to himself why not and plunks down his money. The nun leads him through several passageways in the mission. Finally she opens a door to an elegantly styled bedroom. The nun tells him to help himself to some champagne, to take off his clothes and wait. He does so but after a couple of sips he blacks out. He awakes in a field in Canada naked sitting up he notices a billboard in front of him. "You've just been screwed by the Little Sisters of Mercy."
Speaking of being screwed. The New Jersey Supreme Court decided to screw lawmakers and voters in New Jersey by throwing out a portion of New Jersey election law that was inconvenient to the interests of the Democratic party. Amazingly the vote was decided by a 7-0 margin. Which means apparently that none of the New Jersey court members is actually intellectually qualified to sit on the bench. The Republicans have decided to challenge the decision in federal court. Perhaps a superior course of action would be to simply use the shenanigans against the dems by running ads denouncing the action.
1.Bob Torricelli resigned from the New Jersey Senate Race yesterday because the revelations about his corrupt fund raising practices had torpedoed his candidacy, his poll numbers were dropping drastically. Reports are that he was pressured by top Democrats to step down so that his name could be replaced on the ballot with one less likely to lose. The problem is that under New Jersey law he waited too long to resign and the Democrats need the New Jersey Supreme Court to overturn the law.
I was galled by a statement made by a lawyer for the state Democratic party. He suggested that the court shouldn't leave the people of New Jersey without a choice. But it is the Democrats who chose (through a primary) to limit the voters of New Jersey's choices to a Republican, several minor party candidates and a corrupt albeit incumbent Democrat. Democrats had all the facts available to them about Torricelli's problems when they chose him. No new information about Torricelli's corruption has emerged since he was chosen. Democrats obviously did not mind then that his problems might make him unelectable in the fall. Torricelli had no problem seeking money to run for re-election. Had no problem attending fund raisers. He has a warchest of $5 million. This money came from people who had no problem with his ethical lapses. As his defeat seemed more and more likely Torricelli chose to limit voters choices by announcing his intention to step down after the legal date by which he could do so and have his name legally replaced on the ballot. Voters, of course, can choose to vote for him anyway. Although why anyone would want to is beyond my ken. The point is that if the New Jersey Supreme Court chooses to uphold the law it will not be limiting the voters choices. That was done with impunity a long time ago by the state Democratic party. Voters sadly are merely reaping the "benefits" of Dems callous disregard for ethics.
2. Reports I have heard from California put Bill Simon within striking distance of the incumbent Democratic Governor, Gray Davis. Given Davis's shady fund raising practices Democrats should be calling on him also to resign, but he is ahead in the polls so no such calls will be forthcoming.
3. Reps. McDermott (D-WA) and Bonior (D-MI) went to Baghdad this weekend and spoke like fools. I have always thought that the politics of war with Iraq will play to the GOP's favor, but the Democrats seem intent on making things worse for themselves.
My Mom will be in town for the next few days so posting will be light.
1. This weekend the Dodgers missed the playoffs, the N.Y. Giants and the Miami Dolphins lost. The only sign that the Arizona curse may not have returned is the Cavaliers comeback from a 17 point halftime deficit to beat the Demon Deacons of Wake Forest in Winston-Salem.
2. Rosie "Flock of Seagulls" O'Donnell is being sued for $100 million by the publisher of the magazine to whom she attached her name. I'm not sure which side I favor to win, but if the suit keeps Ms. O'Donnell from making idiotic public statements for the next few years it will be well worth it.
3. This weekend the U.S. lost the Ryder Cup to Europe. Living out west meant that I knew the results before T.V. showed them. The teams entered the final day tied. The last day is singles competition between the sides. The U.S. usually wins in singles competition, but on Sunday the Europeans took the U.S. to task. Even Tiger Woods didn't beat his competition, he tied. Since the end of the Cold War killed the Olympics (they were great when it was our amateurs versus their pros in a test of political systems, but now that they are professionalized and no longer proxies for war they are far less enjoyable --perhaps if China becomes a bigger threat...) the Ryder Cup has stepped up as the best appropriate outlet for nationalism. It ticks me off that our team lost.
4. In a previous post I mentioned that I have learned not to begrudge anyone what they have. On further review I have one addendum to make. I always feel a pang of envy when I see kids in USGA and PGA commercials (and on the golf course) with perfect golf swings. They'll be able to enjoy the sport for years in a way that I currently can not.
5. Barbra Streisand performed at a Democratic fundraiser this weekend. Fox News just showed pictures of her singing a revised version of Memories about how great it was when Bill Clinton was in the White House and how bad things are now. I know I'm being a little petty, but Babs had on a dress and jewels that could probably buy a home for a family in Missouri. They were almost glitzy enough to hide the fact that she has added more than a few pounds to her frame. It must be painful to realize that your political relevance has shrunk while your waistline has grown and that neither will ever go back to the way they were. An example of the kind of lunacy that such a realization engenders is Ms. Streisand's offering a quote from Shakespeare aimed at piquing President Bush that was not in fact written by Shakespeare.
Thoughts on the week that was. (Short because I somehow had everything I had originally written erased.)
1. I am sure that someone in the main stream press will raise this issue eventually, but I thought I might be the first to write about it. Yesterday at a Senate Judiciary hearing Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) employed tactics (citing anonymous witnesses) in dealing with Appeals Court judge nominee, Miguel Estrada, that he and the ACLU have complained mightily about the Justice and Defense departments employing against captured Al Qaida operatives. The willingness of Schumer to use this tactic and the tacit approval of it by the ACLU through their silence suggests that, in their minds, Estrada is somehow a greater threat to our country than terrorists. The word disgraceful comes to mind.
2. Ted Kennedy had a speech today in which he confirmed the fact that Democratic pollsters have found that the best way to oppose war against Iraq is by saying that it will A. Lead to more people becoming terrorists and B. Distract from the War on Terror.
3. Sammy Sosa of the Cubs is in a slump. He is two homers shy of 50. If he gets there he will hold a record for the most consecutuve seasons with at least 50 homeruns. Cross your fingers for him.
4. The Ryder Cup gold matches between the U.S. and Europe have begun and as usual the U.S. players find themselves trailing by a point after one day. Tiger lost both his matches. His record is now 3-8-1. He is the best individual player in the world but apparently that does not translate over to team play very well.
5. Over at HMS Blog they have been discussing Natural Family Planning (NFP) versus artificial contraception. Some miguided souls argue that if the intent is the same, to regulate the number of children a family has, then there really isn't much of a difference between the two. Its sad to see this point made by Catholics who should know better. Think of it as the difference between planting in a fertile field during the off-season and just throwing seeds into the ocean. One way gives the seeds a chance to grow the other does not. There is a respect for nature and a learning of its cycles in the first case; a disregard for it in the second.
6. The Cavaliers take on Wake Forest in Winston-Salem this weekend. For the first time in 8 years I won't be watching the game with my friend, John Dinan, from the stands. I am hoping that my absence will not throw off the Hoos and cause them to lose for the first time in many years at Wake. Last year I missed the game in Charlottesville and the Hoos 16 game win streak against the Demon Deacons was snapped.
Oh sometimes it is just too easy to mock Democrats. This weak Tom Daschle and Al Gore have decided to stage public meltdowns by delivering awful public speeches. (Of course, I thought Al Gore's unfocused and poorly delivered nomination speech would kill his campaign in 2000 and that Elizabeth Dole's (media hyped) ramble at the 1996 GOP convention stunk to high heaven. Which shows me that at least during the Clinton years Americans' ability to appreciate fine oratory was at a nadir. Mike Gerson has, I hope, helped to rectify that situation by offering President Bush some tremendously well-crafted orations.)
Daschle threw a hissy fit on the floor of the Senate yesterday because President Bush deigned to tell people in New Jersey that "the Senate is putting special interests ahead of the national interest with regard to the Homeland Security Bill." The quote is not exact, but it is close enough in the sense that the President did not mention the Democratic party by name in making this point. Daschle of course was peeved because his party has been holding up the Homeland Security Bill to appease government union workers and he didn't like President Bush reminding people of this fact even obliquely. Former Klansman, Robert Byrd echoed Daschle's high hat routine. If only Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond could pull Grand Dragon Byrd out of the Senate with them when they retire in December. They could move in together in a house in Florida and call themselves The Golden Bubbas. Sen. Kennedy could provide occasional comic relief by always entering the room with either a bottle, a bimbo or no pants.
Some unsolicited advice I'd give to Tom Daschle. Next time you want to come down to the floor of the Senate and talk tough, leave the granny glasses and pink tie at home. Seeing the performances of Daschle and Byrd made me almost whistful for the characters in the 19th century Senate. I can imagine a burly fellow walking across the room and smacking Byrd upside the head and telling him "Shut up you old coot!" or better yet slapping Daschle with a glove and challenging him to a duel saying "You sir, have insulted the honor of the President and the Republican Party and I demand satisfaction." Instead you had Trent Lott, giving a speech, which was nearly as pathetic as Daschle's and Byrd's in response. The only ones who hit the right note yesterday were the president and Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA).
As for Al Gore...I was really going to lay into him, but its been done pretty well already by Rush Limbaugh and Michael Kelly and Bill Bennett already to paraphrase "Animal House" Fatuous, Dumpy and Arrogant is no way to go through life.
Something Scary
My impersonations of Saturday Night Live's Darrell Hammond's impersonations of Bill Clinton and Al Gore are pretty good. I also can do Ross Perot and the classic muppets (which are pretty much the same thing.) Yet I can't get a handle on President Bush. Perhaps it is easier to mock the inherently mockable.
Which Missouri Polls Do You Believe?
Josh Marshall of talkingpointsmemo.com cites polls that show Jeanne Carnahan pulling away from Jim Talent in the race for the Missouri senate seat. Joel Mowbray at National Review Online suggests that Talent is leading. Admittedly I am not on the ground watching the campaign, but I'd be shocked and disappointed if Carnahan were to win. Her being in the Senate in the first place is a fluke. She is not an experienced politician. If she temporizes at all on Iraq she's definitely toast. I like to think of Missourians as ordinary people with more than a modicum of commonsense. The election of Carnahan, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, would cause me to seriously question that impression.
