Remember this post about Blog Mobility? In it, I qouted Michelle Malkin. In fact, the whole post was inspired by her entry.
Well, guess what?
SHE RETURNED THE FAVOR!!!!!!
WOO HOO!!!!!!
Let's see. In about 24 hours, I've received my first hate email, AND been quoted by a major pundit both in the blogosphere and the MSM.
If this generates a significant abount of traffic for my blog, given the subject of the post, I can't help but notice the synchronicity.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
P.I.T.S.
That's Pregnancy Induced Tourette's Syndrome, or just "Pregnancy Tourette's," a term my wife coined to describe the sudden outbursts of sailor-intimidating profanity she is prone to these days, inspired by the nausea, indigestion, and general discomfort that are her constant friends.
She's at 18 weeks, well into her second trimester. We've been told these are the halcyon days of pregnancy, when morning sickness abates and before the awkwardness of late term zeppelinitis.
My response to those who seek to encourage us with this hope? Well, I think my wife's P.I.T.S. speaks for both of us.
She's at 18 weeks, well into her second trimester. We've been told these are the halcyon days of pregnancy, when morning sickness abates and before the awkwardness of late term zeppelinitis.
My response to those who seek to encourage us with this hope? Well, I think my wife's P.I.T.S. speaks for both of us.
We Get Lots and Lots and Lots and Lots of Letter!
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Movin' On Up -- Or Are We?
I have a confession to make: I am a traffic junkie. Ever since I discovered the TTLB Blog ecosystem and the tools afforded my by Site Meter, I have become fascinated with my stats, and with tracking how many visitors I get, as well as where they originate, and how many page views they go to while here. While I still write what I want, when I want, and how I want, I do get excited when I get a response, and I'm not too proud to advertise with links on other blogs where I think the owners and/or readers will appreciate my offering, nor to trackback when one of my entries is inspired by another blog.
And I'm pleased to report that my readership has steadily risen over time. I currently have an average of 116 visits per day, with a one day record of around 250. Now, that's admittedly peanuts compared to the big boys, but still, considering how new I am and how limited my blogging time is, I think that's a pretty decent gain. All by being myself.
All of this is to provide background for my take on the following blog entry by Michelle Malkin:
HOW MUCH MOBILITY IS THERE IN THE BLOGOSPHERIC ECOSYSTEM?
In the LA Times, former blogger Billmon writes that bloggers have sold out. His thesis is that "[a]s blogs commercialize, they are tied ever closer to the mainstream media and its increasingly frivolous news agenda."
I was particularly interested in his argument that "a charmed circle of bloggers" is gaining "larger audiences and greater influence," while the rest of the blogosphere is being left behind. Media exposure to the top blogs, he argues, "is intensifying an existing trend toward a 'winner take all' concentration of audience share." He goes on:
Even before blogs hit the big time, Web stats showed the blogosphere to be a surprisingly unequal place, with a relative handful of blogs — say, the top several hundred — accounting for the lion's share of all page hits.
In Billmon's eyes, the blogosphere is an inegalitarian place, with little opportunity for new blogs to break into the "charmed circle" of high-traffic sites that have sold out in pursuit of advertising dollars. I am not familiar with Billmon's writings, but I get the sense that he (or she) probably feels the same way about economic opportunity in the U.S.
How well does this pessimistic view of the blogosphere align with reality? Is mobility really as limited as Billmon suggests?
A little more than a year ago, John Hawkins listed the most influential center-right bloggers. (He ignored left-of-center blogs and non-political blogs because he was not well acquainted with them.) His list was as follows:
1. Andrew Sullivan
2. Instapundit
3. The Corner
4. The Volokh Conspiracy
5. Little Green Footballs
6. Lileks (James) The Bleat
7. Steven Den Beste
8. Scrappleface
9. A Small Victory
10. Tim Blair
If Hawkins were to create such a list today, I have no doubt we'd see plenty of new names--sites like Powerline, Hewitt, Allah, and perhaps Wizbang and INDC Journal. Not coincidentally, these are among the most consistently interesting and informed sites in the blogosphere.
In essence, Billmon believes the game is rigged. But in blogging, as in life more generally, there is tremendous opportunity for those inclined to seize it.
It cannot be denied that early bloggers enjoy an advantage over latecomers. A blog that launches today, no matter how good or heavily promoted, will not soon overtake Instapundit or Daily Kos. Yet even the mightiest blog won't retain its position in the "charmed circle" for long if it is running on fumes.
More thoughts on Billmon's op-ed (from liberal bloggers) here: 1 2 3
Update: It turns out that Hawkins ranked the top 125 political blogs just this week. Compare to his October 2003 list here and his January 2003 list here.
Update II: For blog newbies, N.Z. Bear's weblog ecosystem is a fascinating barometer of blog mobility (though it seems to be down this morning for maintenance).
I am in agreement with Michelle on this. A while back I blogged about Memogate (who didn't?), and in particular about the level of fact checking and policing done by blogs, OF OTHER BLOGS. In it, I also touched on the issue of blog quality and how it affects blog popularity. To shamelessly quote myself:
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated.
That, I think, is the point that Billmon has missed. The Blogosphere is truly a "Free Market of Ideas" in the sense for which that term was truly intended. Not only are you free to express your opinions on a blog, but your success, at least in terms of readership, is directly related to how well-expressed and well-received those opinions are BY YOUR AUDIENCE -- not by a publisher or producer. Unlike the MSM, where only those who please the ear of the bigwigs ever gets a chance to present their views to the public, anyone can post to a blog. From there, its success is up to you and your audience. Admittedly, there are bloggers who have received commercial support, and who continue to blog because of it. But as Michelle points out, these blogs don't necessarily get the readerhsip they once did.
Furthermore, she could have used as examples two of my favorite blogs, both of whome have been gaining in readership and influence (and upon whose coattails I have made some of my most spectacular gains): Ace of Spades and MyPetJawa. Both of these guys blog because they enjoy doing it, yes, both care about recognition, but no, neither one has bee coopted by the forces of conformity because of it.
While it may be arguable that blogs in general are not as upwardly mobile as Billmon wishes we were, one thing can be said in our defense:
At least we're self-propelled.
And I'm pleased to report that my readership has steadily risen over time. I currently have an average of 116 visits per day, with a one day record of around 250. Now, that's admittedly peanuts compared to the big boys, but still, considering how new I am and how limited my blogging time is, I think that's a pretty decent gain. All by being myself.
All of this is to provide background for my take on the following blog entry by Michelle Malkin:
HOW MUCH MOBILITY IS THERE IN THE BLOGOSPHERIC ECOSYSTEM?
In the LA Times, former blogger Billmon writes that bloggers have sold out. His thesis is that "[a]s blogs commercialize, they are tied ever closer to the mainstream media and its increasingly frivolous news agenda."
I was particularly interested in his argument that "a charmed circle of bloggers" is gaining "larger audiences and greater influence," while the rest of the blogosphere is being left behind. Media exposure to the top blogs, he argues, "is intensifying an existing trend toward a 'winner take all' concentration of audience share." He goes on:
Even before blogs hit the big time, Web stats showed the blogosphere to be a surprisingly unequal place, with a relative handful of blogs — say, the top several hundred — accounting for the lion's share of all page hits.
In Billmon's eyes, the blogosphere is an inegalitarian place, with little opportunity for new blogs to break into the "charmed circle" of high-traffic sites that have sold out in pursuit of advertising dollars. I am not familiar with Billmon's writings, but I get the sense that he (or she) probably feels the same way about economic opportunity in the U.S.
How well does this pessimistic view of the blogosphere align with reality? Is mobility really as limited as Billmon suggests?
A little more than a year ago, John Hawkins listed the most influential center-right bloggers. (He ignored left-of-center blogs and non-political blogs because he was not well acquainted with them.) His list was as follows:
1. Andrew Sullivan
2. Instapundit
3. The Corner
4. The Volokh Conspiracy
5. Little Green Footballs
6. Lileks (James) The Bleat
7. Steven Den Beste
8. Scrappleface
9. A Small Victory
10. Tim Blair
If Hawkins were to create such a list today, I have no doubt we'd see plenty of new names--sites like Powerline, Hewitt, Allah, and perhaps Wizbang and INDC Journal. Not coincidentally, these are among the most consistently interesting and informed sites in the blogosphere.
In essence, Billmon believes the game is rigged. But in blogging, as in life more generally, there is tremendous opportunity for those inclined to seize it.
It cannot be denied that early bloggers enjoy an advantage over latecomers. A blog that launches today, no matter how good or heavily promoted, will not soon overtake Instapundit or Daily Kos. Yet even the mightiest blog won't retain its position in the "charmed circle" for long if it is running on fumes.
More thoughts on Billmon's op-ed (from liberal bloggers) here: 1 2 3
Update: It turns out that Hawkins ranked the top 125 political blogs just this week. Compare to his October 2003 list here and his January 2003 list here.
Update II: For blog newbies, N.Z. Bear's weblog ecosystem is a fascinating barometer of blog mobility (though it seems to be down this morning for maintenance).
I am in agreement with Michelle on this. A while back I blogged about Memogate (who didn't?), and in particular about the level of fact checking and policing done by blogs, OF OTHER BLOGS. In it, I also touched on the issue of blog quality and how it affects blog popularity. To shamelessly quote myself:
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated.
That, I think, is the point that Billmon has missed. The Blogosphere is truly a "Free Market of Ideas" in the sense for which that term was truly intended. Not only are you free to express your opinions on a blog, but your success, at least in terms of readership, is directly related to how well-expressed and well-received those opinions are BY YOUR AUDIENCE -- not by a publisher or producer. Unlike the MSM, where only those who please the ear of the bigwigs ever gets a chance to present their views to the public, anyone can post to a blog. From there, its success is up to you and your audience. Admittedly, there are bloggers who have received commercial support, and who continue to blog because of it. But as Michelle points out, these blogs don't necessarily get the readerhsip they once did.
Furthermore, she could have used as examples two of my favorite blogs, both of whome have been gaining in readership and influence (and upon whose coattails I have made some of my most spectacular gains): Ace of Spades and MyPetJawa. Both of these guys blog because they enjoy doing it, yes, both care about recognition, but no, neither one has bee coopted by the forces of conformity because of it.
While it may be arguable that blogs in general are not as upwardly mobile as Billmon wishes we were, one thing can be said in our defense:
At least we're self-propelled.
Guest Post
You'll recall, perhaps, a post I made early on in my blogging about how my Christian faith shapes my political views.
Well, one of my best friends in the whole world read it, we had a dialogue, and the following blog entry is his response. With his permission, I am reprinting it here, without comment from me:
As you called for on your blog several weeks ago, there is a need for "righteousness" in American government. It is, in fact, a virtue toward which individuals and institutions are morally obligated to strive. Despite the claims in recent years by some in the political arena, the pursuit of justice has always been (to varying degrees) a part of the American experiment. This is evident in the three great documents of the American form of government - the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. These documents wit-ness to certain principles, ideals and virtues that the state must recognize and strive to secure or, at the very least, recognize above all others:
· All citizens will have liberty
· All citizens will be equal
· All citizens will be justly governed - i.e., justice
Whereas liberty and equality are oriented toward the individual, justice (as the highest of the three) is always geared toward the common good.(1) Because "good" is a moral term, the common good is understood as a political science about what is best and right for the whole. This is how and why justice will "run into" or at times "run over" liberty and equality. Of course, the devil is in the details, and our task as citizens of a representative republic is to seek the proper definition of the common good and then to create an atmosphere in order for people to achieve it.
This naturally leads to a discussion of rights, which should be understood as natural rights recognized (though not created nor established) by our democracy. Tocqueville wrote that it is by reference to natural rights that "men have always defined the nature of license and tyranny." In other words, no nation can be called great without having respect for natural rights. It seems to me that it could be persuasively argued that without this there can be no real civil society at all (unless one considers types of tyrannical societies "civil").
Even a rudimentary inspection of American history will show that liberty and equality have always quarreled with each other in our democracy. And they will do so in any democracy. This is what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison feared the most when considering the future of democracy in America. In fact, this is the explanation for John Adams' fear of the eventual failure of the American experiment, writing (in a private letter after his presidency) that "all democracies eventually self-destruct."
As Mortimer J. Adler wrote in The Time of Our Lives (1970) the conflict in our society between liberty and equality occurs only when neither is limited by justice. The application of this principle is extraordinary: from affirmative action to abortion. Only justice has the natural ability to resolve the inevitable tension and conflict between liberty and equality that will arise in any type of democracy. Justice must be the controlling principle among these three since it alone has the ability to determine the scope of the other two without sacrificing either. Left unchecked, liberty will run roughshod over equality and vice-versa. Justice, when properly conceived in coordination with "the common good" and "natural rights" must be recognized as the ultimate discriminating virtue in government.
Definitions:
Below are some detailed definitions of several key terms I have outlined above.
Natural Rights
There are several ways to define natural rights. One way is through the observing that natural rights are to be identified by our natural needs. This is to say that human beings possess no natural right that does not correspond to a natural need. Justice and natural rights are inherently linked together because our ability to determine right and wrong in both private and social contexts is based on what is really and objectively good.
A just government must recognize and secure the natural rights of men and women in order that they may be able to make good lives. This is what the Declaration of Independence is speaking of when it mentions our natural right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No government has the power to grant a good life. The good life entails meeting our natural needs through the possession of real goods, as well as the possession of those goods or wants that we have that do not interfere with our natural needs (or those of others).
All of this is possible, of course, because all human beings possess the same essential nature. If this were not so, society would be impossible. This last point has been famously rejected by many political, biological, sociological and, sadly, even religious thinkers of the past century. Thankfully, not all have fallen into this serious philosophical error.
Liberty
To understand liberty properly (which is synonymous with freedom) we need to under-stand the four kinds of liberty. Circumstantial liberty is the ability and right of self-realization. Moral liberty is the freedom to perfect oneself - that is, to be perfected by means of a virtuous character. Natural liberty is the ability and right we possess for self-determination. The final kind, political liberty, can be considered as a type or aspect of circumstantial freedom - that is, a person possesses political liberty or freedom only when they are living in economic, social, and political conditions that foster it. The essence of this last type of liberty is the ability of an individual or a society to be governed by their consent and to have a voice in that government.
Equality
Like liberty, there are several types of equality. For the purposes of the present discussion, political equality is based on circumstances, but is entitled to all human beings by virtue of being human. In other words, these are conditions that should be experienced by everyone - specifically, the political conditions of status, treatment and opportunity.
The issue of slavery is a good, if not obvious, example to use to explore these conditions. In terms of status, the reason why slavery is wrong is because no person is more or less human than another. This means that every member of society deserves the same general treatment since no one naturally deserves more dignity than anyone else. As for opportunity, every human being naturally deserves the same opportunity afforded to others for the same reason - their shared human nature. If and when these conditions are not distributed equally, it is the duty of a just state to override liberty and do what is necessary to correct the situation (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). Every person is by nature equal to all other persons and is naturally entitled to an equality of political, social and economic conditions. Our greatest President and statesman, the honorable Abraham Lincoln, recognized this as one of the core principles of democracy, even though it was not evident in American society at the time. This is why he called the ideals in the Declaration of Independence as a promise to the future rather than a statement of fact.
Justice
Aristotle (4th century B.C.) distinguished between two types of justice - universal and particular justice. Particular justice deals with such things as fairness in exchange, the distribution of goods and taking corrective steps to ensure equality (like in the example given in the immediately preceding paragraph). John Rawls, the late Harvard professor, was mistaken when he argued that justice was limited to fairness in how we deal with others. When it comes to universal justice Aristotle asked the question, what is lawful? By which he meant, what is right and good? Understood in this way, justice is recognized as one of the four cardinal virtues (along with courage, temperance and prudence). This idea can be traced back to his teacher Plato who had the insight to observe that justice consisted in virtuous acts toward others. It is universal justice that we speak of when discussing political justice.
Aristotle also recognized that, while all other animals are social to various degrees, only man is a political animal. When seeking to understand the proper relation of justice to the state we must ask whether the principle of justice is prior to the political state (including its constitution, laws, etc.) or if justice is relative to the political state. If it is relative then we are forced to into two positions. First, that justice is completely dependent on the power of state. Second, that justice is the result of the state’s laws rather than the basis of them. This is tantamount to saying that saying that justice is merely political. However, if we say that justice is antecedent to the political state, then we are claiming that political justice is deter-mined by natural justice. Hence, justice is understood as natural and rational rather than conventional. In other words, justice is not man-made. If it were then justice would change with the coming and going of different political regimes. Instead, because justice is natural it is, therefore, universally binding on all people in all places and at all times.
It was this definition of justice that led Lincoln to conclude that the obligations of a just government were to do for its people what they, individually, cannot do for themselves. The preamble of the U. S. Constitution summarizes these obligations well - "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
(1) Admittedly, these terms are not oriented wholly to the individual. They are corporate terms that also possess specific personal and/or individual application.
- David Alan Reed
Well, one of my best friends in the whole world read it, we had a dialogue, and the following blog entry is his response. With his permission, I am reprinting it here, without comment from me:
As you called for on your blog several weeks ago, there is a need for "righteousness" in American government. It is, in fact, a virtue toward which individuals and institutions are morally obligated to strive. Despite the claims in recent years by some in the political arena, the pursuit of justice has always been (to varying degrees) a part of the American experiment. This is evident in the three great documents of the American form of government - the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. These documents wit-ness to certain principles, ideals and virtues that the state must recognize and strive to secure or, at the very least, recognize above all others:
· All citizens will have liberty
· All citizens will be equal
· All citizens will be justly governed - i.e., justice
Whereas liberty and equality are oriented toward the individual, justice (as the highest of the three) is always geared toward the common good.(1) Because "good" is a moral term, the common good is understood as a political science about what is best and right for the whole. This is how and why justice will "run into" or at times "run over" liberty and equality. Of course, the devil is in the details, and our task as citizens of a representative republic is to seek the proper definition of the common good and then to create an atmosphere in order for people to achieve it.
This naturally leads to a discussion of rights, which should be understood as natural rights recognized (though not created nor established) by our democracy. Tocqueville wrote that it is by reference to natural rights that "men have always defined the nature of license and tyranny." In other words, no nation can be called great without having respect for natural rights. It seems to me that it could be persuasively argued that without this there can be no real civil society at all (unless one considers types of tyrannical societies "civil").
Even a rudimentary inspection of American history will show that liberty and equality have always quarreled with each other in our democracy. And they will do so in any democracy. This is what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison feared the most when considering the future of democracy in America. In fact, this is the explanation for John Adams' fear of the eventual failure of the American experiment, writing (in a private letter after his presidency) that "all democracies eventually self-destruct."
As Mortimer J. Adler wrote in The Time of Our Lives (1970) the conflict in our society between liberty and equality occurs only when neither is limited by justice. The application of this principle is extraordinary: from affirmative action to abortion. Only justice has the natural ability to resolve the inevitable tension and conflict between liberty and equality that will arise in any type of democracy. Justice must be the controlling principle among these three since it alone has the ability to determine the scope of the other two without sacrificing either. Left unchecked, liberty will run roughshod over equality and vice-versa. Justice, when properly conceived in coordination with "the common good" and "natural rights" must be recognized as the ultimate discriminating virtue in government.
Definitions:
Below are some detailed definitions of several key terms I have outlined above.
Natural Rights
There are several ways to define natural rights. One way is through the observing that natural rights are to be identified by our natural needs. This is to say that human beings possess no natural right that does not correspond to a natural need. Justice and natural rights are inherently linked together because our ability to determine right and wrong in both private and social contexts is based on what is really and objectively good.
A just government must recognize and secure the natural rights of men and women in order that they may be able to make good lives. This is what the Declaration of Independence is speaking of when it mentions our natural right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No government has the power to grant a good life. The good life entails meeting our natural needs through the possession of real goods, as well as the possession of those goods or wants that we have that do not interfere with our natural needs (or those of others).
All of this is possible, of course, because all human beings possess the same essential nature. If this were not so, society would be impossible. This last point has been famously rejected by many political, biological, sociological and, sadly, even religious thinkers of the past century. Thankfully, not all have fallen into this serious philosophical error.
Liberty
To understand liberty properly (which is synonymous with freedom) we need to under-stand the four kinds of liberty. Circumstantial liberty is the ability and right of self-realization. Moral liberty is the freedom to perfect oneself - that is, to be perfected by means of a virtuous character. Natural liberty is the ability and right we possess for self-determination. The final kind, political liberty, can be considered as a type or aspect of circumstantial freedom - that is, a person possesses political liberty or freedom only when they are living in economic, social, and political conditions that foster it. The essence of this last type of liberty is the ability of an individual or a society to be governed by their consent and to have a voice in that government.
Equality
Like liberty, there are several types of equality. For the purposes of the present discussion, political equality is based on circumstances, but is entitled to all human beings by virtue of being human. In other words, these are conditions that should be experienced by everyone - specifically, the political conditions of status, treatment and opportunity.
The issue of slavery is a good, if not obvious, example to use to explore these conditions. In terms of status, the reason why slavery is wrong is because no person is more or less human than another. This means that every member of society deserves the same general treatment since no one naturally deserves more dignity than anyone else. As for opportunity, every human being naturally deserves the same opportunity afforded to others for the same reason - their shared human nature. If and when these conditions are not distributed equally, it is the duty of a just state to override liberty and do what is necessary to correct the situation (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). Every person is by nature equal to all other persons and is naturally entitled to an equality of political, social and economic conditions. Our greatest President and statesman, the honorable Abraham Lincoln, recognized this as one of the core principles of democracy, even though it was not evident in American society at the time. This is why he called the ideals in the Declaration of Independence as a promise to the future rather than a statement of fact.
Justice
Aristotle (4th century B.C.) distinguished between two types of justice - universal and particular justice. Particular justice deals with such things as fairness in exchange, the distribution of goods and taking corrective steps to ensure equality (like in the example given in the immediately preceding paragraph). John Rawls, the late Harvard professor, was mistaken when he argued that justice was limited to fairness in how we deal with others. When it comes to universal justice Aristotle asked the question, what is lawful? By which he meant, what is right and good? Understood in this way, justice is recognized as one of the four cardinal virtues (along with courage, temperance and prudence). This idea can be traced back to his teacher Plato who had the insight to observe that justice consisted in virtuous acts toward others. It is universal justice that we speak of when discussing political justice.
Aristotle also recognized that, while all other animals are social to various degrees, only man is a political animal. When seeking to understand the proper relation of justice to the state we must ask whether the principle of justice is prior to the political state (including its constitution, laws, etc.) or if justice is relative to the political state. If it is relative then we are forced to into two positions. First, that justice is completely dependent on the power of state. Second, that justice is the result of the state’s laws rather than the basis of them. This is tantamount to saying that saying that justice is merely political. However, if we say that justice is antecedent to the political state, then we are claiming that political justice is deter-mined by natural justice. Hence, justice is understood as natural and rational rather than conventional. In other words, justice is not man-made. If it were then justice would change with the coming and going of different political regimes. Instead, because justice is natural it is, therefore, universally binding on all people in all places and at all times.
It was this definition of justice that led Lincoln to conclude that the obligations of a just government were to do for its people what they, individually, cannot do for themselves. The preamble of the U. S. Constitution summarizes these obligations well - "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
(1) Admittedly, these terms are not oriented wholly to the individual. They are corporate terms that also possess specific personal and/or individual application.
- David Alan Reed
Pundit Review's Upcoming Schedule
From an email I received from Pundit Review:
This Saturday (10/2) at noon we will have on Dean's World to talk about the latest project for Operation Hope and then we will have Scoott Johnson of PowerLine. The show can be heard live at www.wbix.com and archived at punditreview.com. If you want to call in, the number is 877-711-1060.
We have a great line up, including Don Luskin of Poor and Stupid.com on 10/9.
This Saturday (10/2) at noon we will have on Dean's World to talk about the latest project for Operation Hope and then we will have Scoott Johnson of PowerLine. The show can be heard live at www.wbix.com and archived at punditreview.com. If you want to call in, the number is 877-711-1060.
We have a great line up, including Don Luskin of Poor and Stupid.com on 10/9.
Mini-Rant
1. Open the top to the coffee pot.
2. Slide the pot under the brewer.
3. Slide the filter basket out of the brewer.
4. Dump the old filter and grounds in the trash.
5. Place a new filter in the basket.
6. Place the basket in the dispenser and pull the handle twice.
7. Slide the basket back in the brewer.
8. Press the "Start" button.
Eight steps. A total of oh, two minutes. How freaking hard is that? And yet, every day, when I come to work, ONE OR BOTH OF THE POTS IS EMPTY!!!!!
I can only assume this is attributable to rudeness or stupidity. Or both.
2. Slide the pot under the brewer.
3. Slide the filter basket out of the brewer.
4. Dump the old filter and grounds in the trash.
5. Place a new filter in the basket.
6. Place the basket in the dispenser and pull the handle twice.
7. Slide the basket back in the brewer.
8. Press the "Start" button.
Eight steps. A total of oh, two minutes. How freaking hard is that? And yet, every day, when I come to work, ONE OR BOTH OF THE POTS IS EMPTY!!!!!
I can only assume this is attributable to rudeness or stupidity. Or both.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Uh-Oh, Here We Go Again!
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa (Actually, I'd already heard about it, but tracking back to Rusty gets me gobs of traffic!).
US volcano that wreaked havoc 24 years ago rumbles to back life
LOS ANGELES (AFP) Sep 27, 2004
Mount St. Helens, a volcano that devastated swathes of the US northwest when it erupted 24 years ago, has rumbled back to life, raising fears of a fresh explosion, seismologists said Monday.
Experts believe that a sudden and potentially dangerous event could be on the way after a wave of nearly 100 small earthquakes began hitting the area in the states of Washington and Oregon in recent days.
"We have had small swarm of earthquakes that begun last Thursday and are worried that a small explosion may occur without warning," said Peter Frenzen, a scientist from Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.
"The earthquake activity is occurring below the dome -- all this could increase the likelihood of small rock slides from the lava dome," he said, adding that the mountain had not been hit by waves of quakes since 2001.
Trails up the mountain were closed to climbers and hikers after quakes measuring between two and to 2.8 on the Richter Scale shook the area amid fears of mud and rock slides over an eight kilometer (five mile) area around the peak.
The area north of the peak was hard hit in the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens that left 57 people dead, devastating hundreds of square kilometers (miles) and spewing ash over much of the Pacific Northwest region.
The mountain's top lies around 88 kilometers (55 miles) northeast of the Oregon's main city of Portland, which was also covered in a thick layer of ash in the 1980 eruption.
I remember. Here in the Pacific Northwest, unless you're talking to someone VERY young, all you have to do is say May 18th, and people know what you mean. Before she blew, St. Helens was called "The Fuji of America" because she was so perfectly symmetrical. The initial eruption pulverized a cubic MILE I was living just to the east of Washington in Idaho, and we got a light dusting. My church's camp is in Camas WA, less than 50 miles from MSH, but away from the direction of the blast. The ash there was a couple of inches think. The stuff was incredibly fine and got into EVERYTHING. It was abrasive and destroyed engines and paint jobs. Interestingly enough, if heated hot enough, it makes a beautiful glass that can be blown in artwork. It turned the skies black at noon. It was a weird time, kind of exciting as a kid, especially since I was a bit removed from it, but scary at the same time.
As I told Rusty, Washington's Mt. Rainier and The Three Sisters here in Oregon have both been showing signs of awaking. If The Sisters go, I'll have an incredibly good view, but a fairly safe one. It's the people in Central Oregon who will be screwed. That's cattle country, the cost of evacuating livestock will be phenomenal. We don't put up with tornadoes, or hurricanes (well, not true. Storms on the PNW coast are routinely of Hurricane force, and the Columbus Day Storm was the hardest blow to ever hit the US in terms of wind speed. But there's hardly anyone there to notice it), or as many bizzards as the midwest or earthquakes as California, but when we finally do have a disaster, we do it with flair.
US volcano that wreaked havoc 24 years ago rumbles to back life
LOS ANGELES (AFP) Sep 27, 2004
Mount St. Helens, a volcano that devastated swathes of the US northwest when it erupted 24 years ago, has rumbled back to life, raising fears of a fresh explosion, seismologists said Monday.
Experts believe that a sudden and potentially dangerous event could be on the way after a wave of nearly 100 small earthquakes began hitting the area in the states of Washington and Oregon in recent days.
"We have had small swarm of earthquakes that begun last Thursday and are worried that a small explosion may occur without warning," said Peter Frenzen, a scientist from Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument.
"The earthquake activity is occurring below the dome -- all this could increase the likelihood of small rock slides from the lava dome," he said, adding that the mountain had not been hit by waves of quakes since 2001.
Trails up the mountain were closed to climbers and hikers after quakes measuring between two and to 2.8 on the Richter Scale shook the area amid fears of mud and rock slides over an eight kilometer (five mile) area around the peak.
The area north of the peak was hard hit in the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens that left 57 people dead, devastating hundreds of square kilometers (miles) and spewing ash over much of the Pacific Northwest region.
The mountain's top lies around 88 kilometers (55 miles) northeast of the Oregon's main city of Portland, which was also covered in a thick layer of ash in the 1980 eruption.
I remember. Here in the Pacific Northwest, unless you're talking to someone VERY young, all you have to do is say May 18th, and people know what you mean. Before she blew, St. Helens was called "The Fuji of America" because she was so perfectly symmetrical. The initial eruption pulverized a cubic MILE I was living just to the east of Washington in Idaho, and we got a light dusting. My church's camp is in Camas WA, less than 50 miles from MSH, but away from the direction of the blast. The ash there was a couple of inches think. The stuff was incredibly fine and got into EVERYTHING. It was abrasive and destroyed engines and paint jobs. Interestingly enough, if heated hot enough, it makes a beautiful glass that can be blown in artwork. It turned the skies black at noon. It was a weird time, kind of exciting as a kid, especially since I was a bit removed from it, but scary at the same time.
As I told Rusty, Washington's Mt. Rainier and The Three Sisters here in Oregon have both been showing signs of awaking. If The Sisters go, I'll have an incredibly good view, but a fairly safe one. It's the people in Central Oregon who will be screwed. That's cattle country, the cost of evacuating livestock will be phenomenal. We don't put up with tornadoes, or hurricanes (well, not true. Storms on the PNW coast are routinely of Hurricane force, and the Columbus Day Storm was the hardest blow to ever hit the US in terms of wind speed. But there's hardly anyone there to notice it), or as many bizzards as the midwest or earthquakes as California, but when we finally do have a disaster, we do it with flair.
Finally
Oregon won Saturday, 48-10 over Idaho. Yeah, it's "only" Idaho, but they had already lost to "only" Indiana, so it was a relief to see them stay focused. The only thing sad about the game for Ducks fans was the fact that Michael Harrington was the Vandals' QB, and it reminded us just how much we miss his older brother Joey.
Joey lost yesterday, to Philadelphia, but Detroit hung in there and played well, the Eagles are just scary. San Diego lost, that was a bit of a bummer, but the Vikings won, and so did Seattle, demolishing SF 34-0!!!! Who ever expected to hear the words "Seattle" and "Led by their defense" in the same sentence?
Joey lost yesterday, to Philadelphia, but Detroit hung in there and played well, the Eagles are just scary. San Diego lost, that was a bit of a bummer, but the Vikings won, and so did Seattle, demolishing SF 34-0!!!! Who ever expected to hear the words "Seattle" and "Led by their defense" in the same sentence?
Worth the Trip
Pop on over to my friend Ricky V's blog Vices & Virtues and enter the Caption Contest. Even if you don't win, heck, even if you don't enter, it's worth the trip just for the photo.
DeFazio Violates Election Rules
The following press release was issued by the Oregon Republican Party, and forwarded to me by a local GOP activist. I'd appreciate any help I can get from other conservative bloggers, especially on the Left Coast, to get the news out:
DeFazio Campaign Website Violates House Ethics Rules
Eugene, OR—On Friday, Lane County Republican Central Committee Chair Robert
Avery filed a formal complaint with the U.S. House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct against Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio.
House Standards Committee rules clearly state that no member’s campaign
website can include links to members’ House sites. However, DeFazio’s
campaign web site contains two links to his House site.
One link reads, “If you’d like to read about my current affairs in Congress,
or to contact my office about an issue, please click on this link:
http//:www.house.gov/defazio/.”
The second states: “Read about my forest thinning legislation:
http://www.house.gov/defazio/073004EGRelease.shtml.”
Bruce Harvie, campaign manager for Republican 4th Congressional District
candidate Jim Feldkamp, said he was surprised to see such a blatant
violation go unnoticed.
“The rules state very clearly that campaign sites and House sites should not
be linked,” Harvie said. “Those links are still on his campaign site right
now, which is in clear breach of official protocol.”
Oddly enough, the Democratic Party of Oregon filed a complaint against
Feldkamp, alleging that trips he made to Washington D.C. for Naval Reserve
drills and to Boston to visit his daughter were in violation of election
rules governing the disclosure of campaign expenditures. Feldkamp, who was
recently endorsed by the Grants Pass Daily Courier, has documents that
verify his presence at those Naval Reserve drills.
“It’s ironic to me that the same people who would choose to file a frivolous
and unfounded complaint against Jim would be so unaware of a legitimate
violation taking place,” Harvie said. “Trips that he paid for out of pocket
are scrutinized, yet official misconduct goes unnoticed. I guess this just
demonstrates the extent that some people are willing to go to in order to
advance a partisan agenda.”
Havie said that a veteran legislator like DeFazio should be aware of such
rules by now.
“Anyone who has spent 18 years in the House should be familiar with the
basic laws set forth by that body,” Harvie said. “Either he’s unaware, or he
chooses to ignore them, and I don’t see either scenario as being very good.”
DeFazio Campaign Website Violates House Ethics Rules
Eugene, OR—On Friday, Lane County Republican Central Committee Chair Robert
Avery filed a formal complaint with the U.S. House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct against Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio.
House Standards Committee rules clearly state that no member’s campaign
website can include links to members’ House sites. However, DeFazio’s
campaign web site contains two links to his House site.
One link reads, “If you’d like to read about my current affairs in Congress,
or to contact my office about an issue, please click on this link:
http//:www.house.gov/defazio/.”
The second states: “Read about my forest thinning legislation:
http://www.house.gov/defazio/073004EGRelease.shtml.”
Bruce Harvie, campaign manager for Republican 4th Congressional District
candidate Jim Feldkamp, said he was surprised to see such a blatant
violation go unnoticed.
“The rules state very clearly that campaign sites and House sites should not
be linked,” Harvie said. “Those links are still on his campaign site right
now, which is in clear breach of official protocol.”
Oddly enough, the Democratic Party of Oregon filed a complaint against
Feldkamp, alleging that trips he made to Washington D.C. for Naval Reserve
drills and to Boston to visit his daughter were in violation of election
rules governing the disclosure of campaign expenditures. Feldkamp, who was
recently endorsed by the Grants Pass Daily Courier, has documents that
verify his presence at those Naval Reserve drills.
“It’s ironic to me that the same people who would choose to file a frivolous
and unfounded complaint against Jim would be so unaware of a legitimate
violation taking place,” Harvie said. “Trips that he paid for out of pocket
are scrutinized, yet official misconduct goes unnoticed. I guess this just
demonstrates the extent that some people are willing to go to in order to
advance a partisan agenda.”
Havie said that a veteran legislator like DeFazio should be aware of such
rules by now.
“Anyone who has spent 18 years in the House should be familiar with the
basic laws set forth by that body,” Harvie said. “Either he’s unaware, or he
chooses to ignore them, and I don’t see either scenario as being very good.”
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Countdown to the Apocalypse
Well, not exactly, but close enough...
Last night, as I was watching my standard guy fare on the History channel, the Feared Redhead called to me from the bedroom where she was surfing for a more chick-friendly program. "Hurry," she said, "Turn it to channel 16. You have to see this!"
Channel 16 is QVC. I complied (because she is called the Feared Redhead for good reason) with great trepidation. And there it was, scheduled for 9 PM PDT:
Countdown to Christmas
On September 24th.
It hurt my head. Then she informed me that the local Ross had Christmas stuff out at the end of August.
I'm just waiting for the plagues of locusts. Yep, any day now.
Last night, as I was watching my standard guy fare on the History channel, the Feared Redhead called to me from the bedroom where she was surfing for a more chick-friendly program. "Hurry," she said, "Turn it to channel 16. You have to see this!"
Channel 16 is QVC. I complied (because she is called the Feared Redhead for good reason) with great trepidation. And there it was, scheduled for 9 PM PDT:
Countdown to Christmas
On September 24th.
It hurt my head. Then she informed me that the local Ross had Christmas stuff out at the end of August.
I'm just waiting for the plagues of locusts. Yep, any day now.
Friday, September 24, 2004
An Open Letter to the Left-Wing Jerk
Who Peeled the Bush/Cheney Sticker Off of the Back of our Car:
(originally posted 9:19 AM PDT, September 4, 2004 -- Update at bottom)
Thanks a lot, jackass. Thank you for respecting my private property. Thanks for thinking that my opinion doesn't have a right to be expressed on my car. Thank you for showing me what brave and honorable defenders of the First Amendment you Leftist scumbags are. And thanks for reminding me once again why I'm glad I'm a Republican.
I've heard a lot of pissing and moaning lately from the left about how nasty and mean Republicans are. I've heard all the chatter about Bush=Hitler and how our freedoms are being trampled on by the Right and how I'm a digital Brownshirt. I've heard Democrats say that it's time they stopped playing nice and fair and started slinging mud the way they claim Republicans do.
What utter rot. What kind of deep woods hermit do you think I'd have to be not to have noticed the five years of effort trying to make all sorts of mud stick to President Bush? What ROCK have you been hiding on not to have observed the books and bumper stickers and protesters' signs calling conservatives and our leaders nazis, and villains, and all sorts of evil, vile names, calling for the assassination of the POTUS, gleefully celebrating the deaths of American troops because it will damage the President politically? How naive do you think I am, to expect me not to pay attention to the antics of movie producers making hate and lie-filled movies, "comediennes" standing on stage and making snide, obscene comments about the president, or 527's like MoveOn, the Media Fund, and all of Soros' other little whores/handmaidens? This little bumper sticker was NOTHING compared to the crap you've been flinging in your monkey pens for years. But this was personal.
So go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. I'll just get another.
Go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. It just strengthens my resolve to campaign for the President.
Go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. You can't so easily deny me my VOTE. Although I'm sure you wish you could.
Added Note: Based on some feedback from commenters, I feel it prudent to explain why a mere bumper sticker should set me off so. Setting aside for a moment the affront to my personal property, please understand that this was the last straw in a series of incidents of harassment prompted by my display of support for the president. I live in Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, a community with a large population of individuals whose politics make most liberal Democrats seem like Zell Miller by comparison -- Greens, anarchists, Supporters of the likes of Nader, Kucinch, Mumia, etc. Suffice it to say, my conservatism is not often well-received. I've been called a "F@&#ing Republican Commie", my visibly pregnant wife has been cursed at by three different people in as many minutes as she has parked our car, and then this. So while a Bumper Sticker may seem like a small matter, it was one of many small matters that added up. This was my catharsis. 10/01/04
UPDATE 09/24/04:
Thanks for the Memory to Russ at TacJammer.
I know it's not the same person, Vancouver WA's 2 hours north of here. But the following story recounted to Larry Elder by one of his listeners from Vancouver certainly makes me feel a little better:
Dear Larry,
Last Thursday I put out one of my Bush/Cheney signs in my front yard. Between midnight and 3:00 a.m. someone stole it. On Friday night I put out sign No. 2. Since I didn't have to get up early, I thought my dog and I would "stake out" our sign. This time I put the sign a little closer to the gate leading to my backyard. With my dog on an extra long leash, I planted myself on a lawn chair and read "Unfit for Command" by flashlight until about 1:00 a.m. Here comes the fun part . . . I noticed that the car coming down the street was slowing down and pulling over to the curb right next to my yard. Sure enough, he gets out of his car and heads right for my sign. Just as he was about to uproot and desecrate it, I opened my gate and let my dog make the initial introduction! As he ran to hide behind the rear end of his car, I promptly moved to the driver-side door, which was still open. It was a fairly nice car with power everything and still running. While my dog continued to "introduce" herself, I rolled up the window and hit the power door lock button. With that, I slammed the door, grabbed my Bush sign and headed into the back yard.
And now for the "rest of the story." About 40 minutes later, I heard a knock at the door. I opened the door to one of our city's finest . . . the Vancouver Police Department. The officer asked me what was going on and when I told him, he could not stop laughing! I followed him out to the perp's car and stood there while he asked the guy a few more questions. Upon learning that the guy lived a couple of streets down, I -- knowing what was about to happen -- asked him, "Why do you have Oregon plates on your car if you live just down the street (here in Vancouver, Wash.)?" Larry, Oregon has no sales tax, so often Washington residents will buy and register cars in Oregon to avoid paying sales tax . . . it's a crime and the fine is pretty stiff. Here comes the best part. . . . The look on this guy's face told me he knew he was about to get busted. When the officer asked for his license and registration, the "Democrat" mumbled that (his license) was suspended. Just for kicks and giggles I asked the officer if he smelled any alcohol coming from the guy! The officer looked at me, smiled and promptly gave him a field breathalyzer test. Guess what? You got it, he blew a .10, legally drunk in the state of Washington.
DUI, illegal registration and the brand of "MORON," all 'cause he hates Bush!
Sincerely,
John
Cost of Bush signs: $5.95 each
Cost of Flashlight batteries: $3.95/Pack
Seeing a Leftwing Numbskull carted off to the hoosegow: Priceless.
(originally posted 9:19 AM PDT, September 4, 2004 -- Update at bottom)
Thanks a lot, jackass. Thank you for respecting my private property. Thanks for thinking that my opinion doesn't have a right to be expressed on my car. Thank you for showing me what brave and honorable defenders of the First Amendment you Leftist scumbags are. And thanks for reminding me once again why I'm glad I'm a Republican.
I've heard a lot of pissing and moaning lately from the left about how nasty and mean Republicans are. I've heard all the chatter about Bush=Hitler and how our freedoms are being trampled on by the Right and how I'm a digital Brownshirt. I've heard Democrats say that it's time they stopped playing nice and fair and started slinging mud the way they claim Republicans do.
What utter rot. What kind of deep woods hermit do you think I'd have to be not to have noticed the five years of effort trying to make all sorts of mud stick to President Bush? What ROCK have you been hiding on not to have observed the books and bumper stickers and protesters' signs calling conservatives and our leaders nazis, and villains, and all sorts of evil, vile names, calling for the assassination of the POTUS, gleefully celebrating the deaths of American troops because it will damage the President politically? How naive do you think I am, to expect me not to pay attention to the antics of movie producers making hate and lie-filled movies, "comediennes" standing on stage and making snide, obscene comments about the president, or 527's like MoveOn, the Media Fund, and all of Soros' other little whores/handmaidens? This little bumper sticker was NOTHING compared to the crap you've been flinging in your monkey pens for years. But this was personal.
So go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. I'll just get another.
Go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. It just strengthens my resolve to campaign for the President.
Go ahead, peel off my bumper sticker. You can't so easily deny me my VOTE. Although I'm sure you wish you could.
Added Note: Based on some feedback from commenters, I feel it prudent to explain why a mere bumper sticker should set me off so. Setting aside for a moment the affront to my personal property, please understand that this was the last straw in a series of incidents of harassment prompted by my display of support for the president. I live in Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, a community with a large population of individuals whose politics make most liberal Democrats seem like Zell Miller by comparison -- Greens, anarchists, Supporters of the likes of Nader, Kucinch, Mumia, etc. Suffice it to say, my conservatism is not often well-received. I've been called a "F@&#ing Republican Commie", my visibly pregnant wife has been cursed at by three different people in as many minutes as she has parked our car, and then this. So while a Bumper Sticker may seem like a small matter, it was one of many small matters that added up. This was my catharsis. 10/01/04
UPDATE 09/24/04:
Thanks for the Memory to Russ at TacJammer.
I know it's not the same person, Vancouver WA's 2 hours north of here. But the following story recounted to Larry Elder by one of his listeners from Vancouver certainly makes me feel a little better:
Dear Larry,
Last Thursday I put out one of my Bush/Cheney signs in my front yard. Between midnight and 3:00 a.m. someone stole it. On Friday night I put out sign No. 2. Since I didn't have to get up early, I thought my dog and I would "stake out" our sign. This time I put the sign a little closer to the gate leading to my backyard. With my dog on an extra long leash, I planted myself on a lawn chair and read "Unfit for Command" by flashlight until about 1:00 a.m. Here comes the fun part . . . I noticed that the car coming down the street was slowing down and pulling over to the curb right next to my yard. Sure enough, he gets out of his car and heads right for my sign. Just as he was about to uproot and desecrate it, I opened my gate and let my dog make the initial introduction! As he ran to hide behind the rear end of his car, I promptly moved to the driver-side door, which was still open. It was a fairly nice car with power everything and still running. While my dog continued to "introduce" herself, I rolled up the window and hit the power door lock button. With that, I slammed the door, grabbed my Bush sign and headed into the back yard.
And now for the "rest of the story." About 40 minutes later, I heard a knock at the door. I opened the door to one of our city's finest . . . the Vancouver Police Department. The officer asked me what was going on and when I told him, he could not stop laughing! I followed him out to the perp's car and stood there while he asked the guy a few more questions. Upon learning that the guy lived a couple of streets down, I -- knowing what was about to happen -- asked him, "Why do you have Oregon plates on your car if you live just down the street (here in Vancouver, Wash.)?" Larry, Oregon has no sales tax, so often Washington residents will buy and register cars in Oregon to avoid paying sales tax . . . it's a crime and the fine is pretty stiff. Here comes the best part. . . . The look on this guy's face told me he knew he was about to get busted. When the officer asked for his license and registration, the "Democrat" mumbled that (his license) was suspended. Just for kicks and giggles I asked the officer if he smelled any alcohol coming from the guy! The officer looked at me, smiled and promptly gave him a field breathalyzer test. Guess what? You got it, he blew a .10, legally drunk in the state of Washington.
DUI, illegal registration and the brand of "MORON," all 'cause he hates Bush!
Sincerely,
John
Cost of Bush signs: $5.95 each
Cost of Flashlight batteries: $3.95/Pack
Seeing a Leftwing Numbskull carted off to the hoosegow: Priceless.
Oh, He's a Democrat, and He's OK...
He flips all night,
and flops all day....
Thanks for the Memory to a Large Regular.
A bit of a Pythonesque jab at the Kerry/Edwards campaign:
Dead Parrot Redux
John Edwards enters Terry McAuliffe's office with John Kerry in tow.
Edwards: Hello, I wish to register a complaint.
(McAuliffe does not respond.)
Edwards: Hello, Miss?
McAuliffe: What do you mean "miss"?
Edwards: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
McAuliffe: We're closin' for lunch.
Edwards: Never mind that. I wish to complain about this candidate that I got teamed with not two months ago from this very office.
McAuliffe: Oh yes, the, uh, the Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester ...What's,uh...What's wrong with him?
Edwards: I'll tell you what's wrong with him. He's politically dead, that's what's wrong with him!
McAuliffe: No, no, he's uh,...he's resting.
Edwards: Look, I know a politically dead candidate when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
McAuliffe: No no he's not politically dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable candidate, the Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester. Beautiful to watch when he's wind-surfing!
Edwards: The wind-surfing don't enter into it. He's stone politically dead. And I know stone politically dead because I campaigned against Kucinich.
McAuliffe: No no no no, no, no! He's just resting!
Edwards: All right then, if he's just resting, I'll wake him up! (shouting at Kerry) Hello, Mister War Hero! I've got a lovely story of Halliburton making billions.
McAuliffe: There, he moved!
Edwards: No, he didn't.
McAuliffe: Yes he did!
Edwards: (yelling and hitting Kerry on the arm repeatedly) HELLO JOHNNY!!!!!Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! Jane Fonda's on the phone. Alec Baldwin wants to speak with you. This is your nine o'clock wake-up call!
(Takes Unfit for Duty off McAuliffe's desk and hits Kerry on the head with it.)
Edwards: Now that's what I call a politically dead candidate.
McAuliffe: No, no.....No, he's just stunned!
Edwards: STUNNED?!?
McAuliffe: Yeah! The Swift Boat ads stunned him, just as he was getting his momentum after the DNC! Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protesters stun easily, John.
Edwards: Um...now look...now look, Terry, I've definitely had enough of this. This ticket is definitely deceased, and when I signed on not two months ago, you assured me that his total lack of charisma was due to him being tired and wiped out following a prolonged primary season.
McAuliffe: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Edwards: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, Look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment the DNC was over?
McAuliffe: The Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester prefers campaigning on it's back! Remarkable candidate - isn't he? He's a great skateboarder!
Edwards: Look, I took the liberty of examining the poll numbers when I got home from the DNC,and I discovered the only reason that he had been sitting on his top of the ticket perch in the first place was that he had been NAILED there by the New York Times and by you.
(pause)
McAuliffe: Of course he was put up at the top of the ticket! If I hadn't nailed him up at the top of the ticket, then "VOOM" his wife and George Soros would have withdrawn all their money from this campaign!
Edwards: "VOOM"?!? Terry, this guy wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through him! Face it - the ticket is friggin' demised!
McAuliffe: No no! He's just pining!
Edwards: He's not pining! He's history! This ticket is no more! We have ceased to be! He's making Mondale look good! He's a stiff! Bereft of honesty! He makes people yearn for Dukakis!! THIS IS AN EX-CANDIDATE!!
(pause)
McAuliffe: Well, I'd better replace it, then (he takes a quick peek in a folder on his desk).
McAuliffe: Sorry John, I've had a look around and uh, we're right out of candidates.
Edwards: I see. I see, I get the picture.
McAuliffe: I got a Tom Harkin.
(pause)
Edwards: (sweet as sugar) Pray, does he have a combat history?
McAuliffe: Nnnnot really.
Edwards: WELL HE'S HARDLY A FRIGGIN' REPLACEMENT, IS HE?!!???!!?
McAuliffe: Look, if you wait four years - maybe I can hook you up with Hillary.
Edwards: Hillary, eh? Very well.
and flops all day....
Thanks for the Memory to a Large Regular.
A bit of a Pythonesque jab at the Kerry/Edwards campaign:
Dead Parrot Redux
John Edwards enters Terry McAuliffe's office with John Kerry in tow.
Edwards: Hello, I wish to register a complaint.
(McAuliffe does not respond.)
Edwards: Hello, Miss?
McAuliffe: What do you mean "miss"?
Edwards: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
McAuliffe: We're closin' for lunch.
Edwards: Never mind that. I wish to complain about this candidate that I got teamed with not two months ago from this very office.
McAuliffe: Oh yes, the, uh, the Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester ...What's,uh...What's wrong with him?
Edwards: I'll tell you what's wrong with him. He's politically dead, that's what's wrong with him!
McAuliffe: No, no, he's uh,...he's resting.
Edwards: Look, I know a politically dead candidate when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
McAuliffe: No no he's not politically dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable candidate, the Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester. Beautiful to watch when he's wind-surfing!
Edwards: The wind-surfing don't enter into it. He's stone politically dead. And I know stone politically dead because I campaigned against Kucinich.
McAuliffe: No no no no, no, no! He's just resting!
Edwards: All right then, if he's just resting, I'll wake him up! (shouting at Kerry) Hello, Mister War Hero! I've got a lovely story of Halliburton making billions.
McAuliffe: There, he moved!
Edwards: No, he didn't.
McAuliffe: Yes he did!
Edwards: (yelling and hitting Kerry on the arm repeatedly) HELLO JOHNNY!!!!!Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! Jane Fonda's on the phone. Alec Baldwin wants to speak with you. This is your nine o'clock wake-up call!
(Takes Unfit for Duty off McAuliffe's desk and hits Kerry on the head with it.)
Edwards: Now that's what I call a politically dead candidate.
McAuliffe: No, no.....No, he's just stunned!
Edwards: STUNNED?!?
McAuliffe: Yeah! The Swift Boat ads stunned him, just as he was getting his momentum after the DNC! Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protesters stun easily, John.
Edwards: Um...now look...now look, Terry, I've definitely had enough of this. This ticket is definitely deceased, and when I signed on not two months ago, you assured me that his total lack of charisma was due to him being tired and wiped out following a prolonged primary season.
McAuliffe: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Edwards: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, Look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment the DNC was over?
McAuliffe: The Boston Blueblood Vietnam Veteran Protester prefers campaigning on it's back! Remarkable candidate - isn't he? He's a great skateboarder!
Edwards: Look, I took the liberty of examining the poll numbers when I got home from the DNC,and I discovered the only reason that he had been sitting on his top of the ticket perch in the first place was that he had been NAILED there by the New York Times and by you.
(pause)
McAuliffe: Of course he was put up at the top of the ticket! If I hadn't nailed him up at the top of the ticket, then "VOOM" his wife and George Soros would have withdrawn all their money from this campaign!
Edwards: "VOOM"?!? Terry, this guy wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through him! Face it - the ticket is friggin' demised!
McAuliffe: No no! He's just pining!
Edwards: He's not pining! He's history! This ticket is no more! We have ceased to be! He's making Mondale look good! He's a stiff! Bereft of honesty! He makes people yearn for Dukakis!! THIS IS AN EX-CANDIDATE!!
(pause)
McAuliffe: Well, I'd better replace it, then (he takes a quick peek in a folder on his desk).
McAuliffe: Sorry John, I've had a look around and uh, we're right out of candidates.
Edwards: I see. I see, I get the picture.
McAuliffe: I got a Tom Harkin.
(pause)
Edwards: (sweet as sugar) Pray, does he have a combat history?
McAuliffe: Nnnnot really.
Edwards: WELL HE'S HARDLY A FRIGGIN' REPLACEMENT, IS HE?!!???!!?
McAuliffe: Look, if you wait four years - maybe I can hook you up with Hillary.
Edwards: Hillary, eh? Very well.
Radio Blog-ah
I received the following email, and think this is a cool idea:
Who: Pundit Review Radio
What: A show featuring the work of the most interesting, influential
bloggers and the impact they are having on the mainstream media
When: Saturday's between Noon and 1pm on Boston's business news station,
WBIX AM1060.
Where: The show is streamed live at www.wbix.com and will be archived
on www.punditreview.com. The show will also be made available to all
bloggers.
Why: We hope to interview our favorites each week and get their fresh
perspective on the news of the moment.
Scheduled Guests Include:
September 25: Matt Margolis, Blogs for Bush
October 2: Scott Johnson, Powerline Blog
October 9: Donald Luskin, Poor and Stupid
Who: Pundit Review Radio
What: A show featuring the work of the most interesting, influential
bloggers and the impact they are having on the mainstream media
When: Saturday's between Noon and 1pm on Boston's business news station,
WBIX AM1060.
Where: The show is streamed live at www.wbix.com and will be archived
on www.punditreview.com. The show will also be made available to all
bloggers.
Why: We hope to interview our favorites each week and get their fresh
perspective on the news of the moment.
Scheduled Guests Include:
September 25: Matt Margolis, Blogs for Bush
October 2: Scott Johnson, Powerline Blog
October 9: Donald Luskin, Poor and Stupid
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Sam Adams Would Approve
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
According to Stars and Stripes, a group of GI's stationed in Iraq has come up with a great way to boost morale: a way for people to buy soldiers beer online.
I can't think of anyone who deserves a frosty one more than the men and women serving our country. GO TO BEER FOR SOLDIERS AND GIVE!
According to Stars and Stripes, a group of GI's stationed in Iraq has come up with a great way to boost morale: a way for people to buy soldiers beer online.
I can't think of anyone who deserves a frosty one more than the men and women serving our country. GO TO BEER FOR SOLDIERS AND GIVE!
Kerry: For the Red Sox Before He Was Against Them?
Thanks for the Memory to Blogs for Bush.
Apparently, for Kerry, flip-flopping is not limited to political affairs. The Junior Senator from Massachusetts, a regular attendee of Boston Red Sox games, has now declared his loyalty to the New York Yankees, hated arch foes of the Bosox:
At the fundraiser, Kerry reflected on his reborn self. He praised the triple victories of the Jets, Giants and Yankees and said: "I came here to bask in your glory, came here to grab onto that winning streak."
That's gotta sting, eh Mass.? Especially since two of the wins in that streak have come against the Sox.
Apparently, for Kerry, flip-flopping is not limited to political affairs. The Junior Senator from Massachusetts, a regular attendee of Boston Red Sox games, has now declared his loyalty to the New York Yankees, hated arch foes of the Bosox:
At the fundraiser, Kerry reflected on his reborn self. He praised the triple victories of the Jets, Giants and Yankees and said: "I came here to bask in your glory, came here to grab onto that winning streak."
That's gotta sting, eh Mass.? Especially since two of the wins in that streak have come against the Sox.
Kerry: Building Consensus By Alienating ALL of Our Friends
Thanks for the Memory to Blogs for Bush.
One of the chief claims that the Kerry campaign has made regarding the war on Iraq and the reason Kerry is a better choice for president is that President Bush has alienated the world community by his actions, and that John Kerry will be able to heal these rifts.
Well, he didn't get off to a good start today.
For that matter, he hasn't done such an impressive job even before hand. The dismissive, scornful tone he takes when referring to the coalition is not bound to sit well with nations like Poland, Australia, and Great Britain who are already on our side. Furthermore, the nations most frequently discussed when people bring up these issues aren't exactly helping him any: France is the target of terrorist attacks despite their anti-US stand on the war, and has stated that they will not send troops there regardless of who wins the election. And as a result of the School Massacre, the Russians are now taking an even harder-line stance than Bush, let alone that of Kerry.
But now Kerry has decided to ice that cake and insult the Iraqis as well.
Iyad Illawi, interim Iraqi Prime Minister, addressed a joint session of Congress today, and thanked the United States, saying in part, "We know Americans have made enormous sacrifices.... We promise you your sacrifices are not in vain."
Well, apparently, that's not good enough for John Kerry:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that Iraq's Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the "best face" on Bush administration policy.
Nice, Senator. You've just told Allawi he's nothing but a mouthpiece for the administration. I know that's a popular view on the left, but how do you thing that sits with Iraq?
Bush "missed a huge opportunity" at the United Nations this week to try to persuade leaders of other nations to join the United States in Iraq and the broader anti-terror war, Kerry said.
How will you do that, senator? By belittling our allies? By kowtowing to countries who had a vested interest in seeing the US fail? By giving the terrorists a timetable so they know exactly how long they have to lay low before Iraq will be left high and dry? By returning to the ways of the administration prior to this one, and reassuring the forces of evil that the US is a blowhard full of empty threats and swagger, without the will to back up our threats with actions?
No thank you.
The Bush campaign's response echos my own:
"Today, John Kerry showed he lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the United States of America to victory in the War on Terror.
"His attacks on the veracity of the Iraqi Prime Minister's historic address to Congress reveal a stunning propensity to take political cheap shots for his own benefit by denigrating our allies in this important struggle against a global terror network. President Bush is proud to stand with Prime Minister Allawi while John Kerry attacks progress and resolve and advocates a policy of retreat and defeat in the face of terror.
"John Kerry said today, 'And when you people judge me and the American people judge me on this, I want you to judge me on the full record.' We're confident the American people will."
Oh, we will, Marc. And I for one will find Senator Kerry wanting.
One of the chief claims that the Kerry campaign has made regarding the war on Iraq and the reason Kerry is a better choice for president is that President Bush has alienated the world community by his actions, and that John Kerry will be able to heal these rifts.
Well, he didn't get off to a good start today.
For that matter, he hasn't done such an impressive job even before hand. The dismissive, scornful tone he takes when referring to the coalition is not bound to sit well with nations like Poland, Australia, and Great Britain who are already on our side. Furthermore, the nations most frequently discussed when people bring up these issues aren't exactly helping him any: France is the target of terrorist attacks despite their anti-US stand on the war, and has stated that they will not send troops there regardless of who wins the election. And as a result of the School Massacre, the Russians are now taking an even harder-line stance than Bush, let alone that of Kerry.
But now Kerry has decided to ice that cake and insult the Iraqis as well.
Iyad Illawi, interim Iraqi Prime Minister, addressed a joint session of Congress today, and thanked the United States, saying in part, "We know Americans have made enormous sacrifices.... We promise you your sacrifices are not in vain."
Well, apparently, that's not good enough for John Kerry:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that Iraq's Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the "best face" on Bush administration policy.
Nice, Senator. You've just told Allawi he's nothing but a mouthpiece for the administration. I know that's a popular view on the left, but how do you thing that sits with Iraq?
Bush "missed a huge opportunity" at the United Nations this week to try to persuade leaders of other nations to join the United States in Iraq and the broader anti-terror war, Kerry said.
How will you do that, senator? By belittling our allies? By kowtowing to countries who had a vested interest in seeing the US fail? By giving the terrorists a timetable so they know exactly how long they have to lay low before Iraq will be left high and dry? By returning to the ways of the administration prior to this one, and reassuring the forces of evil that the US is a blowhard full of empty threats and swagger, without the will to back up our threats with actions?
No thank you.
The Bush campaign's response echos my own:
"Today, John Kerry showed he lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the United States of America to victory in the War on Terror.
"His attacks on the veracity of the Iraqi Prime Minister's historic address to Congress reveal a stunning propensity to take political cheap shots for his own benefit by denigrating our allies in this important struggle against a global terror network. President Bush is proud to stand with Prime Minister Allawi while John Kerry attacks progress and resolve and advocates a policy of retreat and defeat in the face of terror.
"John Kerry said today, 'And when you people judge me and the American people judge me on this, I want you to judge me on the full record.' We're confident the American people will."
Oh, we will, Marc. And I for one will find Senator Kerry wanting.
Hello Minnesota!
I was just monitoring Traffic to my blog and discovered a reader accessing it from the server of the Minnesota Republican Party.
What a happy coincidence. The Feared Redhead (my wife) is a native of Minnesota, and grew up in the Twin Cities suburb of Plymouth. We were married near Lake Minnetonka, and I think you have the second prettiest state in the Union (I'm biased).
So welcome to Oregon, enjoy, I hope you like what you see. Keep fighting the good fight, it's good to be in a state that's in play again, isn't it?
What a happy coincidence. The Feared Redhead (my wife) is a native of Minnesota, and grew up in the Twin Cities suburb of Plymouth. We were married near Lake Minnetonka, and I think you have the second prettiest state in the Union (I'm biased).
So welcome to Oregon, enjoy, I hope you like what you see. Keep fighting the good fight, it's good to be in a state that's in play again, isn't it?
Offender of the Faith
UPDATE:
Via the Seattle Times
Evangelist Swaggart apologizes for remark about gays.
Original Post, 1:27 PM PDT, 21 September, 2004:Thanks for the Memory to the Twisted Spinster.
Apparently Eugene Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy is upset by a comment made by Jimmy Swaggart:
I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.
Oh, apparently, Andrew Sullivan weighs in on this too. There's a surprise.
First of all, let me say I'm not a regular visitor to Volokh's blog. I know it's popular, and from what I see, well-written, but it's not on my list of frequents. Nothing against it, I just thought it fair warning.
Apparently what upset Volokh most was not the comment itself, but the lack of outrage from the Christian Community:
But it seems to me that decent Christians ought to condemn this defender of murder, who publicly says that he'd violate the Ten Commandments when someone "looks at [him]" the wrong way, while purporting to preach God's word and lead Christian congregations. Tell us, at least, that this supposed Christian — who was once one of the nation's leading evangelists, until he was tripped up by another of the Commandments — doesn't speak for you.
Trust me, Eugene, he doesn't speak for me -- about a great many things. I'm not at ALL a member of Jimmy Swaggart's regular audience -- nor for that matter, a WILLING member of his audience PERIOD. Setting aside the above quote, the man espouses a doctrine (the Word Faith Movement) I find abhorrent. I believe that most Christians who follow it are merely deceived, and doctrinally in error, but I am also firm in my belief that most pastors teaching it, especially leaders like Swaggart, are espousing Heresy. About that I will not equivocate. For this reason I would discourage ANY Christian from paying heed to ANYTHING being preached by Swaggart.
And that's the reason THIS Christian has not yet denounced Swaggart's comment -- because I do my best to completely avoid or ignore him, I had no idea Swaggart had said something like this. If I had, I would have denounced it, as I do now. I wonder how many other Christians, and even pastors, are in the same boat. While Swaggart is still popular in some circles, I doubt he's as influential as he once was, or as Volokh believes him to be.
Having said that, I do denounce this statement. It is not at all in keeping with Christian Doctrine to speak of killing someone because they look at you with unwanted sexual intent -- nor, for that matter, for sinning at all. That's the Law, we live under Grace. As for the part about "telling God he died", theologically, that's just... What's the word? Oh, yeah -- stupid.
I do hope that any Christian leader who hears of this will vocally step to the plate and agree.
But there was something else about the Volokh blog entry that bothered me. In an update to the post, he linked to a response from another blogger, Sweeny A. of Ipsa Loquitur, who writes in part:
Eugene is certainly right that ethical people should condemn [Swaggart's] words, but one wonder's [sic] about Eugene's implication that this moral stain is automatically conferred to other Christians until they renounce it. One might say that for a Christian who has heard this comment to consciously refuse to renounce it is a tacit endorsement. That may be true, but the very terms in which Volokh has couched the ultimatum is unfair.
Since advocating murder because a gay man looks at you wrong is an obvious violation of the Christian ethic, why should Christians, qua Christians, feel obligated to renounce the remarks any more than people who share the last name of Swaggart?
Volokh has a lengthy response, but this is the part of it that caught my attention:
Christianity is a belief system — not just an involuntary status such as race or ethnicity, but a consciously chosen belief system that is based on certain writings and certain traditions. Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior, and of a Christian community, which helps enforce this behavioral standard. In recent decades, many Christians have also tried to downplay denominational differences (say, between Protestants and Catholics), and to stress the common purpose of those who follow Jesus's [sic] teachings.
When someone who is a Christian minister, and still something of a Christian leader, makes a claim about what Christian scriptures mean, it seems to me that those Christians who condemn his views — and condemn them as deeply evil, rather than just subtly or slightly wrong — do have a responsibility to speak out.
and later,
I'm not asking for anything much — I'm simply saying that Christians should be outraged at Swaggart's essentially slandering their religion, and should denounce his views, to make clear that his views (though purportedly Christian) are not mainstream Christian views.
If I interpret Volokh's point correctly, he believes we Christians should not only condemn Swaggart's statement as morally reprehensible, but as doctrinally unorthodox. When he says "Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior," that's as close as he's ever going to come to what we say when we acknowledge the inspiration and authority of scripture. In other words, we should reassure him that Swaggart doesn't speak for us because "That's not what our Scriptures teach."
Well, fine, Eugene. If you'll go back to my response to Swaggart's statement, that's exactly what I did. I stated my denouncing of the statement out of adherence to sound doctrine.
And here's the irony. That same adherence to sound doctrine requires that I take stances on many issues that I'm sure Volokh and Sullivan would both find... Distasteful, at best. That includes believing that adherence to certain tenets of the faith is requisite for being acknowledged as a Christian, believing that orthodox Christianity is the exclusive means by which an individual can know and have fellowship with God, and, yes, believing that homosexual behavior is in opposition to the commands of God.
Yet when I make such statements, rest assured that a great many people, both theologically liberal Christians and Non-Christians alike, will denounce me as being too closed-minded, too narrow, too devoted to an ancient book.
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you want Christians to speak out against Swaggart, and specifically want us to do so based on his violation of some standard of orthodoxy based on our Scriptures, then you are giving us your assent that we are correct in acknowledging the authority of those scriptures in establishing ALL standards of orthodoxy.
Via the Seattle Times
Evangelist Swaggart apologizes for remark about gays.
Original Post, 1:27 PM PDT, 21 September, 2004:Thanks for the Memory to the Twisted Spinster.
Apparently Eugene Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy is upset by a comment made by Jimmy Swaggart:
I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.
Oh, apparently, Andrew Sullivan weighs in on this too. There's a surprise.
First of all, let me say I'm not a regular visitor to Volokh's blog. I know it's popular, and from what I see, well-written, but it's not on my list of frequents. Nothing against it, I just thought it fair warning.
Apparently what upset Volokh most was not the comment itself, but the lack of outrage from the Christian Community:
But it seems to me that decent Christians ought to condemn this defender of murder, who publicly says that he'd violate the Ten Commandments when someone "looks at [him]" the wrong way, while purporting to preach God's word and lead Christian congregations. Tell us, at least, that this supposed Christian — who was once one of the nation's leading evangelists, until he was tripped up by another of the Commandments — doesn't speak for you.
Trust me, Eugene, he doesn't speak for me -- about a great many things. I'm not at ALL a member of Jimmy Swaggart's regular audience -- nor for that matter, a WILLING member of his audience PERIOD. Setting aside the above quote, the man espouses a doctrine (the Word Faith Movement) I find abhorrent. I believe that most Christians who follow it are merely deceived, and doctrinally in error, but I am also firm in my belief that most pastors teaching it, especially leaders like Swaggart, are espousing Heresy. About that I will not equivocate. For this reason I would discourage ANY Christian from paying heed to ANYTHING being preached by Swaggart.
And that's the reason THIS Christian has not yet denounced Swaggart's comment -- because I do my best to completely avoid or ignore him, I had no idea Swaggart had said something like this. If I had, I would have denounced it, as I do now. I wonder how many other Christians, and even pastors, are in the same boat. While Swaggart is still popular in some circles, I doubt he's as influential as he once was, or as Volokh believes him to be.
Having said that, I do denounce this statement. It is not at all in keeping with Christian Doctrine to speak of killing someone because they look at you with unwanted sexual intent -- nor, for that matter, for sinning at all. That's the Law, we live under Grace. As for the part about "telling God he died", theologically, that's just... What's the word? Oh, yeah -- stupid.
I do hope that any Christian leader who hears of this will vocally step to the plate and agree.
But there was something else about the Volokh blog entry that bothered me. In an update to the post, he linked to a response from another blogger, Sweeny A. of Ipsa Loquitur, who writes in part:
Eugene is certainly right that ethical people should condemn [Swaggart's] words, but one wonder's [sic] about Eugene's implication that this moral stain is automatically conferred to other Christians until they renounce it. One might say that for a Christian who has heard this comment to consciously refuse to renounce it is a tacit endorsement. That may be true, but the very terms in which Volokh has couched the ultimatum is unfair.
Since advocating murder because a gay man looks at you wrong is an obvious violation of the Christian ethic, why should Christians, qua Christians, feel obligated to renounce the remarks any more than people who share the last name of Swaggart?
Volokh has a lengthy response, but this is the part of it that caught my attention:
Christianity is a belief system — not just an involuntary status such as race or ethnicity, but a consciously chosen belief system that is based on certain writings and certain traditions. Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior, and of a Christian community, which helps enforce this behavioral standard. In recent decades, many Christians have also tried to downplay denominational differences (say, between Protestants and Catholics), and to stress the common purpose of those who follow Jesus's [sic] teachings.
When someone who is a Christian minister, and still something of a Christian leader, makes a claim about what Christian scriptures mean, it seems to me that those Christians who condemn his views — and condemn them as deeply evil, rather than just subtly or slightly wrong — do have a responsibility to speak out.
and later,
I'm not asking for anything much — I'm simply saying that Christians should be outraged at Swaggart's essentially slandering their religion, and should denounce his views, to make clear that his views (though purportedly Christian) are not mainstream Christian views.
If I interpret Volokh's point correctly, he believes we Christians should not only condemn Swaggart's statement as morally reprehensible, but as doctrinally unorthodox. When he says "Historically, Christians have often stressed the importance of those writings, which supposedly provide something of an objective standard of behavior," that's as close as he's ever going to come to what we say when we acknowledge the inspiration and authority of scripture. In other words, we should reassure him that Swaggart doesn't speak for us because "That's not what our Scriptures teach."
Well, fine, Eugene. If you'll go back to my response to Swaggart's statement, that's exactly what I did. I stated my denouncing of the statement out of adherence to sound doctrine.
And here's the irony. That same adherence to sound doctrine requires that I take stances on many issues that I'm sure Volokh and Sullivan would both find... Distasteful, at best. That includes believing that adherence to certain tenets of the faith is requisite for being acknowledged as a Christian, believing that orthodox Christianity is the exclusive means by which an individual can know and have fellowship with God, and, yes, believing that homosexual behavior is in opposition to the commands of God.
Yet when I make such statements, rest assured that a great many people, both theologically liberal Christians and Non-Christians alike, will denounce me as being too closed-minded, too narrow, too devoted to an ancient book.
I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you want Christians to speak out against Swaggart, and specifically want us to do so based on his violation of some standard of orthodoxy based on our Scriptures, then you are giving us your assent that we are correct in acknowledging the authority of those scriptures in establishing ALL standards of orthodoxy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)