Tuesday, January 31, 2006

I guess they were right ..

Those who said that pushing a conservative nominee like Alito would rip the party apart, that is. Oh, well. Sometimes, you gotta press ahead any way. For the greater good, you know.

Monday, January 30, 2006

News Flash: Cave Men Design New Language, Win Spelling Bee.

The MSM continues to breathlessly report about the Hamas victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. Taken for granted, of course, is that Pres. Bush is responsible for this horrific result. Furthermore, if you listen closely, you can discern that some are asserting that the victory of the terrorists shows the limits/problems with the Bush Doctrine.

Some seem to suggest that the WH might have to deal with/recognize a terrorist state because its representatives won an election.

I don't think so.

The touchstone of the Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is freedom. You can certainly have a majority vote against freedom. In such a circumstance, then we get what? Democratic totalitarianism? This hardly necessitates diplomatic relations.

Pres. Bush should continue to explain that our mission is national security, and this is fostered and complimented by freedom. Freedom is antithetical to terrorism, which requires dictatorial control and support to survive. Militant Islam, the ideological engine of Hamas and its ilk, needs totalitarianism like free people need oxygen.

In sum: An electoral majority does not a free society create. Ask the Iranians.

Maybe some one in Washington could mention all this.

Further, the fact that anti-Semitism and ignorance are rampant among Palestinans should come as no surprise. I still recall Palestinians cheering after receiving word of 9/11.

Indeed, the two-ton gorilla in the room that no one outside the New Media seems to be talking about in all of this is the following question: Will Islam face its own internal problems that have, until American intervention, prevented democracy from working throughout the Muslim world?

Friday, January 27, 2006

Selling Emotion. Mortgaging Truth: 10 "True Feelings" about Memoir-Gate

I digress to a discussion of Oprah Winfrey and Memoir-Gate because (if you'll look at my chute to the left) I remain interested in preserving the culture. Truth, I think, has a role to play in this.

For a bit of background on the controversy, Oprah enthusiastically endorsed and recommended for her book club a supposed "memoir" called A Million Little Pieces, by James Frey. It turns out that the book, which Frey initially and unsuccessfully tried to market as a novel, contained a number of untruths about his life as an addict. Let me just say that, this offends and upsets my emotions. And that’s the truth. But don’t worry. I won’t have a good cry over it.

Lest I misstate the facts and unduly offend an Oprah devotee (like Rhod or Mark, ahem), here’s a synopsis of Memoir-Gate. And here is the Smoking Gun piece that outed both Oprah and Frey.

What follows are my 10 “feelings” about this matter. And if you don’t think what I say is true, at least acknowledge that I think what I am saying is true, and that it feels good for me to say it. So, here goes:

1) Oprah went on Larry King last week to defend Frey because his book, in spite of its myriad exaggerations and lies, still contained what she called "emotional truth". I get uncomfortable when people use modifiers before "truth", like for instance the term "half-truth". Sometimes we like truth, and other times it hurts. But truth, whether spoken about one's emotions, thoughts, or actions, either is or isn't. And Frey's book certainly contains some truth. But it also contains a number of falsehoods. He lies about things that he apparently doesn't need to lie about, too, such as his criminal record. Thus, the entire book is called into question, in my view. As I recently told an Oprah fan who is dear to me, if Frey is lying about immaterial things then you know that there are material falsehoods in the book. In my business, I deal with people who fudge occasionally. And I find that there is always a rational reason (absent a psychological problem) for some one to be lying. It generally has something to do with self-preservation or advancement.

2) Just a week after her vigorous defense of Frey on Larry King, Oprah appeared on her show to apologize. She was near tears … or was she? … and she was suddenly indignant about how Frey had "duped" her. She now says she is “embarrassed". But what happened in the last week? Oprah had come under increasing scrutiny and criticism by her normally reliable liberal friends in the media, that's what. And in an effort to head off criticism, she went on the air to defend Frey as the controversy continued to percolate. But the damage control didn't work. Now she is "repentant". Well, consider me unconvinced and indignant myself. Yet, I was indignant with Oprah's posterior protection from the outset.

3) Predictably, the fawning MSM applauds Oprah's "forthrightness". Yet, she sidestepped the issue and refused to even acknowledge the merit of the well-done piece by Smoking Gun until ... oh, yesterday morning. Again, what changed? Nothing. Ah, but all is forgiven by the MSM.

4) The MSM loves Oprah for a number of reasons. First, she is a liberal. Second, she is a woman. Third, she is a minority. Fourth, she doesn't "need" a man and she has all these years kept in line that poor unknown guy she shacks up with. Because of the foregoing, Oprah is crowned as "brilliant", "beloved", and an American icon by the MSM. Yet, just because you can talk well doesn't mean you are thoughtful. There are some in sales who might illustrate this point; you be the judge. But seriously, have you ever listened to what she actually says? Maybe it doesn’t sound so bad if you focus on the “emotional truth” behind what she says. Problem is, I am not sure how much of that “emotional truth” is even true. Just because something makes you feel warm inside doesn’t mean it is true. It could be soup.

Note, too, that Oprah’s guests (whether movie stars, politicians, or just women talking about how unnecessary men are) usually are licking her shoes and bowing respectfully. Why? She wields a lot of clout/money with her vast audience that views her as pretty much as a high priestess of sorts. But a high priestess of what? The High Priestess of Emotional Truth? Tears on Command? Group Hugs? Well, consider me just one of those unnecessary men who are working while her show is on. From what I have heard of her, though, here is what I can deduce: Oprah is a genius when it comes to self-promotion, but not much else.

5) If a conservative had done this, he (or even she) would be finished. And the bulk of his viewers/listeners would consider him disgraced. The MSM would be on the warpath. They would burn their way all the way to the offender’s studios.

6) Predictably, Oprah's congregation is completely satisfied with her televised contrition depicting what a big dummy she has been. They generally reserve their skepticism for the men in their lives, not Oprah. In Oprah’s world, you see, there are few consequences, little truth. Just the feelings, ma’am, if you please. If make-believing “works” and we can all have a good cry and sing Cumbayah to get ourselves together, please just go away. I mean, they are good enough, they are smart enough, and doggonit, they like Oprah. And if they feel good, dammit, then who are you to criticize?

7) The fact that a lot of people are buying a product doesn't mean it's good. It means that it's popular. And when you've got a culture that defines truth to suit its own desires rather than recognizing it for what it is, then you get lots of not-so-good things that are popular. Fortunately, many of the shows on TV that meet this description are on while I am working.

8) Kudos to the New Media for leading the charge and the way – again. True, some in the MSM started chirping lately, but it never would have happened without The Smoking Gun. While the MSM is generally trying to preserve their power, the New Media are doing the job the MSM formerly did – exposing and telling the truth.

9) You can’t make a fried egg out of a scrambled egg. You can’t be inspired by a “memoir” when you know it’s a lie. Well, you can be “inspired”, but you are deluding yourself. You can’t get better if you base your recovery on a lie. That Oprah didn’t immediately acknowledge this demonstrates, in my view, that she often manipulates her audience’s emotions at the expense of their well-being. More foundationally, like Frey, Oprah’s main desire is her main talent –- self-promotion and preservation. I think this explains, in part, her initial impulse to defend him. He was only doing what she was: Selling Feelings. Mortgaging Truth. But when the kitchen got hot, Oprah was frying James. Remember your first principles, James. You would have done the same thing. As those in recovery would say, man, you need a program. It seems to me, too, that the discrediting of Frey (who completely discounts traditional Twelve-Step Programs such as AA) should encourage and vindicate those who are in recovery and attempting to deal with their addictions honestly.

10) Finally, to those who think I am being unfair, I would like to offer what I think would have been a suitable apology by Oprah.

That is, this troglodyte wouldn’t have written this post, if Oprah had said something like this:

"I am deeply sorry for my colossal error in judgment that I made by endorsing James Frey's book and by going to bat for him. The book is full of falsehoods, and I became an accomplice in spreading them. In fact, I have been doing this for a long time. I have put my own feelings above what I know to be true. Why? Well, it gets me ratings. The media has fawned over me, and I have a lot of women watching who just adore me. Frankly, I think I have been unthinking, as have a lot of you for being fans of mine. I am going to turn over a new leaf and be honest, even if it doesn't help me promote myself ... even if it doesn’t fit my liberal, feminist agenda. I am sorry. I have been a self-absorbed bag of hot gas, and I am going to retire now.”

Wouldn’t that have been much better? But of course, turning over such a new leaf would have necessitated Oprah’s going off the air or having a vastly smaller afternoon audience.

Then again, we’d have a similar result if our culture valued truth more.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

It's National Security and the Courts, Stupid

You may recall that a few months ago, the Demos were preparing to take Washington by storm.

Now, though, the nation has been reminded that it remains in peril, and SC vacancies have caused Lefties to crawl out from under their rocks in the light of day.

There's some interesting reading out there detailing what is at stake and how badly the nation needs the Demos to be defeated. Although the Republicans have their RINOs and assorted problems, RINOs are still the exception. On the other hand, DINOs are not too bad. Are there any, other than Ben Nelsom and maybe Lieberman? The parties' exceptions point the way to the rules that should drive voters. And the Demo Rule is this: Kennedy, Schumer, Byrd, Leahy, etc., are the Demo mainstream. And if they are in power, we are in peril. Period.

As for the commentary about the iceberg off the bow of the USS Demo, check out this excellent analysis by John McIntyre. Bottom line: Demos have overplayed their hand and are about to have their heads handed to them by Darth Rover.

Next, have a look at Dick Meyer's take on the Demos' intractable problems. Per Meyer: The Republicans have a simple, clear message that hasn't changed since 9/11. And, oh yeah, they have lots more cash. It seems that Chairman Dean hasn't been much help here. A few less tasteless insults of the American majority might help, but hey ... he's a Leftist Democrat.

Finally, we are seeing the very positive development of more Leftists/Demos coming out in broad daylight to tell us what they really believe. If you have taken all of your prescribed medications for the day, take a look at Joel Stein's piece in the LA Times. In his piece, Stein admits what some of us have been arguing for a while: The anti-war Left doesn't support the troops. But at least the non-patriot is consistent; Stein calls anti-war troop supporters "wusses". Kudos for that scud, even if it did come from a wuss.

And kudos to Stein, too, for coming out in the daylight. Like their vampire kinfolk, Leftists/Demos/same things shouldn't come out in the daylight.

Especially in a wartime election year.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

33 Years Later ...

Are we better off?

On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court did not "legalize" abortion. This is uneducated, journalism-school-speak. In fact, approximately one-third of the states allowed abortions in circumstances other than to save the mother's life at that time.

Instead, what the Court did was to take abortion off the legislative table by declaring it a sacred constitutional right.

And the Court did this, as I was taught by a litany of liberal law professors, via an incomprehensible and poorly-written opinion. In short, Roe v. Wade created a fundamental right to an abortion until the unborn child was "viable", that is able to live outside the womb. And in the process, Roe put the law on an inevitable collision course with science, as the viability of an unborn child continues moving closer and closer to the point of conception.

The whole exercise was simply an exercise of raw judicial power, as the Court mysteriously discovered a constitutional right that had eluded judges for nearly 200 years and must have escaped the framers' attention, as well. All the states outlawed abortion at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. So, the location of the abortion "right" in 1973 was no small discovery.

But the ends or "desired result" suited the policy preferences of seven left-leaning judges. So, pro-abortion advocates turned their heads and politely nodded at achieving their desired result. And they continue to deride any lawyer or judge who publicly criticizes Roe as an extremist.

Still, those who know better know that American constitutional law received perhaps its greatest black eye 33 years ago today. So deep and pervasive is this knowledge that Roe is never defended on its merits by any one other than Democrat political activists. If you try defend Roe as a sound interpretation of constitutional law in a law school or behind closed doors with judges, people know you are not to be taken seriously.

So, American law was bastardized for the sake of social policy and experimentation 33 years ago. Was it worth it? Are we better off?

As a result, we have nationalized an issue on which people have deep convictions and disparate views in various regions of the country. In 1973, states were already working out the abortion problem and coming up with differing approaches via the great laboratory that is American federalism. No more.

Instead, we have a bitterly divided public that unwillingly focuses its attention on the abortion issue in national elections every two years. When the national government should be concerning itself with national security, taxes, immigration, and federal regulation ... cultural issues, and in particular abortion, remain paramount.

Understand that I am not advocating that we ignore the debate nationally. We can hardly do that. But the point is this: The travesty that is Roe has not only corrupted American constitutional law, but it has also corrupted American politics. Have you seen the Senate Judiciary Committee in action recently?

Are we better off?

Abortion is a hard issue. I am unapologetically pro-life, but I realize that there are a lot of people who disagree with me on the issue.

But I do think a lot of women have been taken advantage of by those advocating abortions as if they are the very essence of freedom and womanhood. Couples inexplicably wait years to adopt while young women, fearing they have no options, have abortions lest their lives as they know them are ended.

Abortion is marketed as a "quick" way out. Yet, many millions of women have found this is not so. And a culture that advances abortion as a last-chance form of birth control continues to reap the benefits of broken relationships and broken spirits.

Are we better off?

And what of the little ones who never made it here? Is there a civil libertarian in the house? Is it right to assure that a murderer is condemned only if and not until we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt? No question. But how then can we condemn the innocent unborn without knowing? And we must admit that deciding where human life begins seems a tough line to establish beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply put, how can we give the benefit of the doubt to the accused criminal but not the innocent unborn?

Some have argued that a society is judged by how it cares for its most vulnerable. I tend to agree.

And who is more vulnerable than the innocent unborn? And if we don't give them the benefit of the doubt, are we better off?

Rather, are we better?

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

What exactly is a leftist? A conservative?

I've done a lot of thinking about this subject over the last few years. I have heard various definitions of both leftists and conservatives for some time now, but these haven't seemed workable.

For instance, some define the Left as being "pro-government", but such a definition is shallow and doesn't account for the Left's disdain for certain branches of the government, such as the police and the military. On the right, some have posited (most notably Rush Limbaugh) that "freedom" is the unifying principle for conservatives. This has a certain ring to it, but what do you make of mainstream conservative positions on cultural issues and law and order?

I have been tempted in the past to use the Potter Stewart/porn approach: I know them when I see them. For example, Ted Kennedy ... leftist? Check. Ronald Reagan ... conservative? Check. Howard Dean ... leftist? Check. William F. Buckley ... conservative? Check.

But now, I have a definition to pass on to my kids and answer that burning question: "Dad, what is a damleftist?"

So, here's what I think: In simple terms, the more one embraces the post-modern view of mankind, the more he or she is a leftist; the more one embraces a traditional or Judeo-Christian view of mankind, the more he or she is a conservative.

To provide a bit more explanation, the prior defininition doesn't rest on one's acceptance of any faith per se, just the view of mankind as being either post-modern or traditional/Judeo-Christian.

To further break down this definition, the post-modern view of mankind is essentially: the unlimited, unconstrained individual, whose personal reality is defined entirely without resorting to what the philosophers call "metanarratives", i.e., religion, family, country. The individual is supreme in all respects, in making decisions and in defining reality as he or she sees fit.

The traditional/Judeo-Christian view of mankind says that each individual has dignity, yet is limited. The individual does not define the universe, but is part of it.

Whew.

Again, none of us fits perfectly on this philosophical continuum. We all have our "heresies". But I think this is the best way to determine and define who is a leftist and who is a conservative.

So, let's give the definition a test drive.

How about an easy one? Take permissive social mores on sexual issues, for instance. The Left looks to the individual to decide whether a relationship "works" or feels right. The Right generally looks to rules or traditions to decide whether conduct is permissible or healthy.

The free enterprise system? In some ways, this is so antithetical to postmodernism that it considered a "metanarrative". More fundamentally, though, the free enterprise system runs on an understanding of the limits and self-centeredness of individuals. Leftists don't see the need to incentivize the radically unconstrained individual. I mean, would you put God on a rewards system?

It's not always self-evident, though. Why is it that radical individualists seem to gravitate to totalitarianism? If you start from the premise that a Leftist is not required to be consistent (because each individual defines his reality without reference to any external rules or standards), then everything starts to fall into place. Plus, there are other factors, too, such as the following: A totalitarian leftist state works real well for the individuals running it.

Environmentalism? The Leftist view here is primarily a reaction to conservative institutions and the traditional view of mankind itself, namely the view that advocates human dominion over nature.

Back to the Potter Stewart approach ... Is there any doubt that Ted Kennedy is a paradigm of the radically unconstrained individual?

So, what do you think? Is there any example that doesn't work or fit? If you think so, let me know.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

A Worthy Cause

Looking for a way to get involved and spread truth, consider this.

The really nice part is that they are working to put that billboard right by the USC campus.

Work has intervened ...

but I shall speak soon, and hopefully about one of my favorite subjects: Leftists. What are they, any way? Any ideas?

Friday, January 13, 2006

"Bald Tires on an Icy Road"

We Texans know driving in winter weather. Not.

Actually, we know we can't. And we do know the frustration of trying. Thus, it's appropriate that Texas Sen. John Cornyn came up with the phrase above to describe the Demo attacks this week on soon-to-be SC Justice Samuel Alito.

The only thing that surprises me about the Demos at this point is that they seem not to have any instincts for self-preservation. I mean, when your standard-bearers for truth, justice, and the American way are ... Schumer? Biden? Kennedy?!?

There was a very nice post by Paul Zummo this week over at confirmthem.com about the Alito hearings. The post, which featured pointed commentary about the senior senator from Massachusetts and his mates, was appropriately entitled, "Scum". Here it is:
At first when I heard the news about Mrs. Alito crying at the conclusion of the hearings today, I was merely upset for her. It must be difficult to hear your husband attacked as hers has on ethical grounds, with several Senators more than implying that perhaps he is a racist. But the more I reflect on what has transpired, my mood has turned even angrier. I am fed up with the Democratic party and its leadership, and I have had ENOUGH of the underlying assumption that conservatives are all just racists at heart. A good man has had his character maliciously impugned in order that tinfoil hat-wearing moonbats can be assuaged by the lords of their political party.

Edward Kennedy is a sad, pathetic old man. He represents the very worst of all of American politics. The privileged son of an anti-Semetic, bootlegging, womanizing jerk, he has the gumption to even remotely impugn any element of Alito’s character? This same man who left a woman to drown while he got away free to booze away the rest of his life is now sitting on high in the Senate chamber to accuse Samuel Alito of being a racist for his half-hearted participation in a student group over 30 years ago. If it weren’t so infuriating it would almost be funny. But it’s not. It’s disgusting and shameful.

Does any Democrat on the judiciary committee truly believe that Samuel Alito is a racist? I would wager that deep down they absolutely know he is not a racist, but in their sick and desperate attempt to take down this man by any means at their disposal to appease the raving lunatics that now makeup an ever-growing proportion of their party, they will smear him. It is absolutely sickening to see that sanctimonious vermin representing my EX-home state of New York to pontificate as he does, to pretend to be somehow morally and intellectually superior to the man he is questioning.

I have had enough of this. This farce is not about constitutional principles, not in the least. At first I accepted that, knowing full well that this was not a serious attempt to grapple with Alito’s qualifications and philosophy. But it has become a sick sideshow all for the glorification of people who aren’t worthy to lick Samuel Alito’s shoes.
Paul is on fire.

One would hope that we would see at least one Democrat step up and distance themselves from the party's base and baseness. It's frustrating to see the silence as Kennedy and Schumer slime, slice, dice, and then moralize.

Yet, in the end, my frustration is tempered by the knowledge that I believe that Judge Alito entered the hearings as a conservative and will emerge from them as a Justice in the mold of a similarly-wronged Clarence Thomas.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

10 Worst Americans Ever?

You will recall that Jess asked me to debate a liberal veteran on various questions/issues. The latest question from Jess, which has typically not been responded to in a timely fashion by my adversary, was to name the "10 worst Americans ever". Seems like a trap to me.

At any rate, Jess said that I could approach it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, so here is my answer:
Tough question. Hard to answer without getting too personal and nasty, and you know us Daisy Cutters are sensitive. Plus, if I answer it straight on, I'll just get in trouble, leave some one off and/or just be plain misunderstood.

So, since this is a question that a lefty would love, let's try it this way: How about let's look at this thing through the eyes of a true-blue hard-left Demo?

Without any further delay, here it is:

Kinda hard for us lefties to think about "bad Americans". I mean, it's like a double negative, but ... we know 'em when we see em. So, let's go.

11) Honorable mention/bonus pick -- _________________ (Insert name of any Christian who is a political conservative). These are dangerous people who are primed for another round of Crusades. Far, far more dangerous than those ruses in robes. Remember how Billy Graham used to call his "revivals" a "crusade"? Duh. They have been recruiting Christian holy warriors who won't keep that wall of separation betwixt and between that state and the Christian church. They rail on about al Jazeera, but these miscreants have their own sinister network, Pat Robertson's CBN. Keep your eye on these holy roller-warriors. Bad people. Bad Americans.

10) Rush Limbaugh -- Need I say more? This fat gas bag has personally taken over the air waves and is spewing conservatism non-stop. He is full of hate and lies. Never mind that we can't think of an example of either, but just listen to him. He annoys the hell out of liberals and other sensitive types. He makes us uncomfortable. Bad guy. Bad American.

9) Ronald Reagan -- The former airhead-in-chief reminds us of a couple of things that threaten the very fiber that holds America together as we see it -- that would be, of course, radical collectivist leftist thought. In particular, he said two things that are just like nails on the chalkboard, man: 1) America is good; and 2) the Soviet Union was evil. Not only that, now that I think of it, he reminded us that there are standards that we have to live by and live up to. Bad guy. Bad American.

8) George Washington -- Slave holder and "father of the country". Figures. An unrepentant slaveholder who never made reparations. We will not forget. Forget all the war hero BS, holding off the most powerful army in the world, keeping the constitutional convention together, dodging a million Native American arrows, etc. Bad guy. Bad American.

7) Ken Starr -- This sex-obsessed pervert personally stained and took down our hero -- Bill Clinton. Plus, see honorable mention pick above. What a bad guy with so many prosecutorial excesses that we can't think of one. In fact, he is just a bad, bad guy. And a bad American.

6) Dick Cheney -- Uh, duh. Dick Cheney. Halliburton. Dick Cheney. Halliburton. Really bad guy. Really bad American.

5) The Marine who shot that poor moving insurgent in the mosque -- Gives us the shivers to think of such aggression against an insurgent. Reminds us that there are rough men who do not care for the enemies of America. Very scary man. Very scary to us. Bad American.

4) Newt Gingrich -- The frito-eater extraordinaire is trying to make it look like he is Mr. Nice Guy now. No way. We remember his Contract on America. He started all of this Republican-power-grab craziness in Washington. He tried to cram dog food down seniors throats when he shut down the government. Then he tried to euthanize Medicare. He's an evil man and a reprehensible American.

3) Tom Delay -- Uh, hello. Felon. Stealer of congressional districts. Utilizer of inappropriate advantages that only Demos are supposed to use. Passer of Republican legislation. Hammering the crap out of Demos left and rig ... never mind, left and lefter. He smiles for his mug shot, but he kicks Demos in the nads the second that the cameras turn off. Bad congressman. Really bad guy. Even the Republicans won't let him have leadership position. Bad, bad American.

2) Dick Cheney -- I mean, he makes Darth Vader look like Mother Teresa. He is the most sinist ... Have I mentioned him already? Never mind. He's still nearly the most awful American of all time. Then there is ...

1) Who else? George W. Bush. Steals two presidential elections. Steals two countries in the Middle East. Lies about WMD to get even for his dad. Outs honest public servants who get in the way. Flaunts UN authority. Spies on insurgents. Dares to use American power to protect American security. The baddest man. The worst American. Ever. Exposing and defeating him defines our mission. He is our mission. Thus, he owns us.
So, there you have it. Did I leave any one off? Besides Sam Alito this week?

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Tough Weekend

The earth spins on its axis and circles around the sun; it just keeps moving. Why do we expect life on this moving orb to stand still? Indeed, this life is moving on. Nothing is static. Bad situations can change, but good ones do.

I am reminded that if we couldn't see the motion, there wouldn't be anything standing still. There could be nothing immutable ... truth, justice, and all the values that underpin all that is good about America and this world.

I am but a small man here, spinning in space. I wish I could stop, or at least slow, the constant change at times, but I can't.

My team lost a beloved comrade and valuable team player this weekend. It came as a shock to me, because I thought we'd have him around for a while yet.

Uh, no ... I'm not talking about Vince Young. Vince is great, but hey, he just plays football.

The teammate I am talking about is my blogbrother and cohort in conservative crime -- Nickie Goomba. Nick announced that he is shutting down his blog for the time being, much to the dismay of his adoring fans and blog friends.

His unique blend of humor, information, and inspiration will be sorely missed. Nickie Goomba is a powerful messenger for America and her way of life.

I hope he is all right, and that he circles around the sun and returns to us. Yet, I know that he would, like all good teammates, want us to keep up the fight in a tumultuous world where Western Civilization is under assault.

So, saddle up. Let's move out.

Friday, January 06, 2006

As the world turns, reality returns ...

Yes, it appears so. It's been an enjoyable week here in the Lone Star State. I see that things in the rest of the world are pretty much the same. Do I still care? You bet I do. Still, the respite of Longhorn football has been most appreciated here, as it was by the 101st Airborne Longhorn fans who were piped in at halftime during the Rose Bowl. Where were all those USC fans over there, by the way? Ah, another rabbit trail.

So, you bet I care and I enjoy my Longhorns in their win in "the Biggest Shootout". I enjoy them in the same way that the country marveled at and enjoyed the immortal Blanchard-Davis duo during WWII. For the free and the brave, life goes on.

But it is different. We lost 11 young men yesterday in Iraq. The Democrats are on the prowl again, seeking to derail a presidency at all costs. Israel's political life rests in the balance with that of PM Sharon.

In Iran, "president" (I think this is Iranian for "Head Jihadi Smack Talker") Ahmadinejad says that he wishes that Israeli PM Sharon would die. But wait, I thought Sharon and the other Israelis already didn't exist. No? Meanwhile, Pat Robertson says that the stroke is God's wrath for dividing up Israel.

Oh, my. Well, a couple of quick thoughts about this: First, the Law of Nature dictates that there never seems to be a shortage of ignoramuses with access to large audiences. Questions regarding biblical interpretation aside, I always get suspicious of people who can explain the lives of others with certainty. I think the Bible says that only God can do this.

Still I have a question: Are Robertson's opinions more representative of Christianity than Ahmadinejad's (I'm afraid I am going to have to learn to spell this name) are of Islam?

And here's another, yes a different, question: Are Robertson's opinions more representative of Christians than Ahmadinejad's are of Muslims? Hmm.

But the MSM doesn't ask these questions. They simply report the inanity of Robertson side by side with the insanity of the Jihadi Smack Talker-in-Chief in their efforts to paint evangelical Christians as no different than Ahmadinejad and his ilk. Pretty clever, but some of us understand.

Robertson has been wildly spewing ignorant commentary at an ever-increasing pace of late. It seems indicative of a dwindling audience to me. He purports to speak of what the Bible "undisputably" claims about Israel's metes and bounds today, but he fails to provide the scriptural references. His ego combined with his ignorance means that he should be kept from all microphones. Yet, the same ego and ignorance magnetically draw him to the mike. Count your blessings that at least he is not in Washington. He wouldn't stand out there, though.

Wait, breaking ... I see that Robertson has apologized. You be the judge as to whether it is sincere or not.

More to the point, though, here is another question that the MSM won't ask, but I will: Whose comments, Robertson's or Ahmadinejad's, are more evil? Who wishes that the Israeli PM were dead? Who is unwisely trying to explain why PM Sharon is near death?

So, the MSM's efforts at distortion aside, here are the facts: Like me, most Americans are friends of Israel. And like me, most Americans and most Christians don't believe that there is one immutable biblical boundary for Israel today. Notably, if Robertson were consistent, he would be urging an Israeli attack in pretty much all directions to get Israel back to Old Testament boundaries.

Also, most Americans instinctively know that jihadis like Ahmadinejad are dangerous to the world. Robertson, though, is harmless, except for how his wild statements hurt the reputation of Christians.

Ahmadinejad speaks for an army of "holy warriors". Robertson does not.

But this is too complicated for the geniuses in NY and LA who used to define it all for the masses.

Yes, it's a complicated world out here. It's not for the unthinking. So, back to fooball.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

From the Once-Again Football Capitol of the World: A Night of Merriment and Magic


Photo of Vince Young courtesy of AP.

A few thoughts after taking and making congratulatory calls from friends near and far, and even from some in the Rose Bowl last night:

First, it was probably the best football game I have ever seen. Hard to think of a better one, especially with more at stake. Vince was just simply masterful, truly a man playing with the boys of Troy.

For his part, Matt Leinart recovered from a difficult first half against a harassing Texas defense to absolutely light up the Longhorns' tremendous defenders in the second half. Reggie Bush was mostly held in check this night, except for one nearly gravity-defying 30-yard touchdown run. His first-half lateral attempt was an ill-advised and uncharacteristic mental error.

For Texas, Super Man was Super Man. But others made huge plays, too. For instance, there was Michael Griffin's incredible end zone interception, the only pick ever thrown by Leinart in a bowl game. Tight end David Thomas was both steady and spectacular, with 10 catches. Ramonce Taylor broke loose for a key touchdown run, and freshman Jamaal Charles finally stopped dropping footballs for a while to flash some brilliance. Michael Huff was everywhere.

USC's Lendale White made all the big runs. Except one. For the first time in the second half, Texas defense rose up to stop the huge bruiser on fourth and two with a little more than two minutes left. He was chatting it up on the sideline a bit too early, it seems.

Then, Vince took the Horns home by scoring on fourth down with 19 seconds left. Bedlam ensued in the Rose Bowl.

And all across Texas living rooms like mine.

The post-game class of Pete Carroll was striking. But Pete is always that way. He is a super coach, a great credit to USC and to college football. Incidentally, Texas has a coach like that, too. And I guess we can now officially put to rest the claims that Coach Brown can't win the big game. As I posted recently, Coach Brown is deserving of this great ride his team has taken him and the rest of us on.

So, no, Mack didn't win the big game. His team just won the biggest ever.

USC QB Matt Leinart was pouty and ungracious in some of his post-game comments (i.e., "the best team did not win tonight"). Vince Young, a similarly fierce competitor, was similarly ungracious after Bush's Heisman win, though. UT fans love Vince, so we can forgive Matt Leinart.

It just doesn't get much better than coming from 12 points behind with 6 minutes left to beat the supposedly unbeatable Trojans, the team for the ages and winners of 34 straight. And to do it in Southern California, in SC's hometown and in the shadow of Disneyland is, well, magical.

I remember the last Texas national championship. It was 1970, when the Longhorns were AP Champions, like USC was two years ago. In those days, the votes were counted before the bowl games, so the devastating Notre Dame defeat in the Cotton Bowl (which stopped a 30-game Texas win streak) did not cost the Longhorns the AP title that year.

The last undisputed Texas football championship, though, was in 1969. I remember that one, too, because the '69 championship really felt like Texas was on top of the college football world. That's because the Longhorns were.

I told my 15-year-old before he went to bed early this morning to enjoy this championship. My son may be 50 when it happens again, and I may be dead.

But for now, Texas football is again king.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

State of the Blog 2006

DC: Good morning and Happy New Year. Great to see you all again. Let me just start by saying: Ladies and gentlemen of the MSM and New Media, the state of this blog is very good.

(Sustained applause from assembled Fox News reporters and Nickie Goomba of Goomba News Network).

I hope you'll make yourself as comfortable as possible on the driveway. I apologize for running out of lawn chairs. But I will try to keep my remarks brief.

It's good to be back. It's another election year, but ... it's still good. There's a lot going on in the nation and world. The Alito nomination is up in January, and I like the timing of the Alito debate occurring around the debate on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. The Left thinks that keeping the debate on national security issues is to their benefit. I'm glad they think that. It's going to be an interesting year, and it will get started soon.

As for what I am doing here, I am happy to report that (with virtually no effort and promotion by me) "Blogs for McCain's Opponent" have now garnered our 50th member. Appropriate that number 50 identified himself as "Rightwing Conspirator". We're growing and lurking. It gives you an idea of the energy waiting to foist itself upon Sen. McCain when he makes his run in '08. Of course, there is the mighty centrist blogosphere. Ahem.

(Smattering of laughter).

But we are making a difference. To give you an idea of what I am talking about, I have got to show you something. No doubt feeling the pressure of the conservative blogs, John McCain is now blogging. Yes, it's true. Go ahead and take a minute and take a look. If the press representatives here will take a look, as I will project it on the side of the barn. Pretty interesting, huh?

I will be monitoring McCain's blog, and I think you should do the same. Go pay him a visit.

I'd like to touch on a couple of other adminstrative matters, and then I will open it up for questions. First, you'll notice that I have rearranged the blogroll a bit. I am no longer a part of Homespun or The Wideawakes. These are great folks, but I am trying to get away from blogrolls with posting or other requirements. This ties into my day job, which I still have.

And speaking of which, I am going to try to stay with a posting schedule of Monday-Wednesday-Friday, barring unusual events. The mid-week post, which may be posted on late Tuesday night, will generally be the longer post/column. I've got some ideas in mind and things I want to cover, so it should be fun.

Now, I'll take your questions. You two, there. Who is that, so close and all? Nick, I thought that was you. Yes, Nick.

Nickie Goomba, Goomba News Network -- Yes, sir. Nickie Goomba, GNN. Happy New Year, sir. With all due respect, how can your Texas Longhorns stay on the field with my beloved shi-shi-fu-fus from Southern Cal? I mean, what is your prediction?

DC: Thanks, Nick. Happy New Year to you and Helen, as well. I like the Horns' chances. I think we can and probably will win. Look for a big play or two in the kicking game and for key adjustments to be made by UT defensive coordinator Gene Chizik. I think we will get 'em. Look at it as Reggie Bush's chance to get an early start on ingratiating himself to the state of Texas, since he will be playing in Houston next fall.

Yes, you. Yes, ma'am, right there. The big, I mean, good reporter.

Candy Crowley, CNN -- Candy Crowley, CNN. Sir, you ran various hit pieces in the past year, you attacked Harriet Miers, you railed against Muslims who simply wanted to have civil rights like Americans, and you turned a blind eye to every attempt by the Bush Administration to run roughshod over Americans' civil liberties, and you openly cheered for American success on the battlefield, shunning all pretense of objectiv ...

DC: Excuse me, ma'am. I think at this point, I would like to read a question from the Discerning Texan. You have to bear with him, because Texans are kinda slow. Apparently, he didn't understand that the questions were supposed to be for me. I think this one is for you, however, Ms. Crowley: "When are you going to start putting your country ahead of your fossilized political agenda?"

(Cheers and wild applause.)

Please, please. If you would ... Next question. Dari.

Dari Alexander, Fox -- Dari Alexander, Fox News. In terms of the links on the site, does a link mean an endorsement by you of that particular site?

DC: Great question, Dari. Actually, no. In particular, I have thought about this a lot in putting together the "Blogs for McCain's Opponent" blogroll. There are some who say things differently than I do, and others who say things that I just outright disagree with. Some are on the edges of places I don't go. But, as I have said on a number of occasions in a number of forums, I am a believer in building winning coalitions. Take, for instance, Christopher Hitchens. He is dead wrong on a lot of things relating to faith and culture, in my view. But he is great on the war and he has described our adversaries with brutal clarity in a way that the Adminstration could learn from.

DC: I have another written question for you all now. This one comes from Carl Rowan,who as many ...

Helen Thomas -- Are you kidding me?!! Carl has been dead for five years! Why you bast...

DC: Helen, I will remind you that you are only here as a guest of Nick's, so please ... I know Carl is gone. But I would like to read his question, if you don't mind. Here goes: "Is that your truck? Why is it so clean? And where is the gun rack?"

Well, I'm standing in it, aren't I? I am sorry about the lack of a gun rack, but hey ... gun control advocates make it hard, you know. As for why it's so clean, let's just say that I don't work much. I just argue with liberals like Carl, so hey. Yes, Ms. Huddy.

Juliet Huddy, Fox -- Juliet Huddy, Fox News. With the moving around of the template, are you ever going to run any ads?

DC: Working on it, if I can ever figure out the HTML, etc. Yes, Megyn.

Megyn Kendall, Fox -- DC, starting with the Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling last term, the Court has really become the focus of a lot of conservative critics. Now, we have John Roberts elevated to Chief Justice and the nomination of Judge Alito coming to a vote in January. How important do you see this debate over both the role of the judiciary and who should serve on the bench?

DC: It is so important, Megyn. And I am glad the focus has turned to the courts, especially as we head into an election year. I remain thrilled with the appointment of CJ Roberts, and I am equally happy about the upcoming confirmation of Judge Alito. Both will be solid for many years. I think that the eminent domain ruling really woke the country up as to how the Court was infringing upon our liberties at an ever-increasing pace. And that case brought people other than social conservatives to the debate.

We are seeing the debate over the Supreme Court also encompass the rights to be afforded to jihadis during a time of war, as well. Next to the War on Militant Islam, the courts are the second most important issue now. It is vital that the country gets this right, and (especially with the withdrawal of the Miers nomination) the Bush Administration has been rock-solid on this front.

The Republicans are vastly superior to the Democrats on national security and the courts. There are a few exceptions around the edges, such as RINOs in Blue States and DINOs in Red States. We need to replace RINOs where we can with real conservatives, but make no mistake that in these times, we can't afford the "perfect church" crowd to unwittingly ally themselves with Demos and put the nation at risk.

The bottom line here is: If the Republicans stay strong on the war, get conservatives confirmed to the bench and come forward with meaningful immigration reform, it could be a tough year for the Demos again. Okay, Lisa. Yes.

Lisa Bernhard, Fox -- Lisa Bernhard, Fox News. I have a couple of Texas-related questions for you. First, how does Sheila Jackson-Lee get elected in Texas? Second, why doesn't Ron Paul (a libertarian Republican) doesn't get more attention? And third, how can you speed the construction of a wall to keep out illegal aliens, perhaps even by using aliens and convicts to build it?

DC: Well, Lisa, that actually sounded like three questions, but I'll answer as follows: 1) She benefitted from the same thing that the Demos are screaming about with Tom Delay, that is, congressional districts drawn by partisans; 2) Like most libertarians, he is a little bit crazy. Libertarians are just conservatives on drugs; and 3) You need to talk to California, since they have a greater suppply of both illegals and convicts than we do. Okay, whose next? Yes, Julie.

JulieB -- Yes, DC. I'd just like to say "thanks" for introducing me to your conservative friends. They're not such big bad meanies, after all.

DC: You're welcome, Julie. I appreciate your being a good sport, as well. It is interesting how Rhod, Mark, et al, really don't bite. They're just patriots who love the country. They're passionate but they're good guys, too. They make it tough on the libs who wander in and can't really engage in substance. You're different. Okay, let's see. Alright, the other Julie.

Julie Banderas, Fox -- Yes, DC. Thank you. Julie Banderas, Fox News. You mentioned the commenters here. Would you talk about your commenting policy?

DC: Well, I really don't have one, Julie. It's open borders, so to speak. All are welcome. Lots come and simply lurk. I get visitors from Chile to France (yes, France). I think the dissenters, if you will, treat their keyboards a little like land mines. No need to do that. Mix it up. Just remember: I may or may not be around, so you may not get a response from me on a particular subject (day job again). Also, the particular comments are the opinions of the respective commenters. If says it's me, then it's my opinion.

And as always, if you have a specific question/comment/complaint for me, you can always email me. Okay, one final question. Let's see. Haven't gone to Fox in a while. Yes, of course, Laurie.

Laurie Dhue, Fox -- It's Laurie. Hi. Talk a bit about the name of the blog. Have you thought about changing the name? Is it Daisy Cutter to stay?

DC: Hmmm. I have had some reservations about the name, Laurie. These reservations principally stem from how some might perceive me. That is, I am certainly not beating my chest here. I think a more appropriate name for me might be "Notorious Sinner", at any rate. I realize that some misunderstand what I am doing here. I picked the name when I started this thing because it was my way of fighting back for our side in a small way in the War on Militant Islam. Of course, the discussion here is broader than the war, but national security will remain paramount to me because if we're all dead or enslaved then a lot of other things are merely theoretical, aren't they? We are still very much engaged in battle with the enemies of civilization today, as we were on 9/11. And I recall that most all Americans cheered when we struck back and started dropping Daisy Cutters in Afghanistan. We weren't just clearing landing zones, either. Now, those memories have faded for some. They haven't for me. I still feel the same way.

I want this nation to be the best friend of its allies and the worst nightmare of the enemies of freedom and our civilization. The Daisy Cutter is a good symbol of our willingness to be bold and do what it takes to defend this nation.

So, this is what I am trying to do, in this little way and in this little space.

Happy New Year, y'all. Let's get to it.