The Politics of Resentment and Self-Pity.

By George Will
Sunday, January 6, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Like Job after losing his camels and acquiring boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to "take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending conservatives who want to take back the nation for James Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call "fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda. Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.
* * * * *
Huckabee says "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons? (To Continue: The Tearing of the Conservative Fusion)

My Comment: Excellent article! I share Will’s concern about Huckabee’s believing he is God’s chosen. The larger point of the article is that both Edwards and Huckabee are populist who appeal to the worse instincts in people. As Will points out, the middle class is shrinking because so many middle class are becoming upper class. The politics of resentment and self-pity is dangerous to the Republic.

Top Stories

McCain Defends the War on Iraq Even Absent Weapons Excuse.

Being interviewed on Meet the Press this morning, Senator John McCain was asked by host Tim Russert, “If you had known that Saddam Hussein had no biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, would you still have supported the invasion?”

McCain replied unequivocally “yes”. He went on to say that Saddam was not a nice person and the problem with Iraq was not the invasion but the failure to invade with sufficient forces.

I like John McCain. He is an honorable person and I admire his service to our country. I admire his independence. I respect him for actually answering the question he was asked. However, I do not want John McCain to be President.

I cannot understand how anyone could justify the invasion of Iraq unless they actually believed at the time that the country had weapons of mass destruction. I am not a pacifist. I think wars are sometimes necessary. If we are attacked we cannot turn the other cheek. We have to be engaged in the world and sometimes that leads to honoring our commitments to our friends and stopping international bullies. If Iraq had attacked us, if Iraq had invaded a country with which we had a defense treaty, if Iraq had in fact had weapons of mass destruction, then I could have supported the war. I cannot not subscribe to the view that we can make war on any country we like without a valid reason. That is not the kind of country I want America to be.

I wish every candidate could be asked as bluntly the same question that Russert asked McCain. I would like to know with the same certainty who else I do not want to be President.

Top Stories

Political Cartoon in Poor Taste

Democrat blogger Martin Diano (DianoSphere) published this cartoon in his blog recently with the following comment: “The cartoon is yet another example of how low political discourse in our country has sunk.”

I am helping Mr. Diano spread his message by reproducing the cartoon and his comment.

Don’t let me catch you laughing at this cartoon!

Top Stories

Voters, officials must end 'ATM politics'

Thursday, 01/03/08, The Tennessean
By U.S. REP. JIM COOPER

Congress should stop earmarks. When senators can get $500 million of taxpayer funds to grease their re-election bids, and even freshman congressmen can get $50 million, our government is terribly broken. (To continue: Voters, Officials Must …)

My Comment: Jim Cooper is my kind of Democrat. One of the reasons I am a “disgruntled Republican” is that I am disgusted that the recent Republican Congress spent money like drunken sailors. The Republican Party has traditionally been the Party of small government, spending restraint, and fiscal responsibility, but their actions of the last several years has caused them to lose any claim to that description.

Jim Cooper has been a constant voice for spending restraint and a severe critic of earmarks, calling them the "currency of corruption.” Also, Representative Cooper has been one of the few politicians who will speak the truth about the coming crisis in Social Security funding. I am glad that we have Jim Cooper representing us in the U. S. Congress.

Top Stories

For many, being poor takes effort and some dumb decisions

My essay How To Be Poor was published in the Tennessean Online, December 31 as a Tennessee Voices piece (See: For many, being poor … ). It created a lot of heated exchange and feedback. To see the discussion, click here: Forum.

Top Stories

War on Chistmas: Last shot of the Season.

Thursday, 01/03/08 , The Tennessean
To the Editor:

‘Shopping season’ lacks any sentiment

Please spare us any more self-righteous diatribes about those who may wish us “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”
The phrase “happy holidays” has been around for a long time. Haven’t you ever hummed along to Bing Crosby’s wonderful song with that title?

The real travesty is the constant use by the media of the term “shopping season.” I haven’t noticed any outcry about this perversion of everything that Christmas and the holidays should mean to us. If you wish me Merry Christmas or happy holidays with goodwill in your heart, I will appreciate the sentiment. But never wish me a happy shopping season!

Adelle Wood, Nashville 37215

My Comment: You said it well, Adelle.

Top Stories

Warming seas threaten salmon in nation's rivers

The Yomiuri Shimbun, Daily Yomiuri, Jan. 3, 2008

Salmon may disappear from the nation's rivers by the end of this century if sea temperatures continue to rise as a result of global warming, according to researchers. The projection was made by a team of researchers headed by Prof. Masahide Kaeriyama and Prof. Michio Kishi of Hokkaido University. A separate study showed that the number of salmon returning to their native rivers has been declining on the eastern Korean Peninsula, which is located on about the same latitude as the Tohoku region.

"Global warming may already be affecting salmon," Kaeriyama said. "We'd like to closely monitor how things are likely to develop in the future." (To continue: Salmon )

My Comment: I do not see how any rational person can continue to deny the reality of global warming and I do not understand why it is not a greater issue of public concern. I do not understand why even many of those who claim to believe it do not advocate measures to combat it. Information like the above abounds from non-politicized sources, presenting information in a non-sensationalized, matter-of-fact manner. You do not have to like Al Gore or be a liberal Democrat to believe the science of global warming. Researches routinely report on the current and projected impacts. One can read any popular scientific journal and see what informed people believe.

For anyone who wants continuing scientific information on global warming research , understandable by a layman, a good source is Nature magazine.

Top Stories

Soros slams emissions trading systems

by Hugh Wheelan October 18th, 2007, Responsible Investor

George Soros, the billionaire currency trader, has slammed the use of cap and trade carbon emissions trading systems, claiming they are “ineffective” and do nothing to stop developing countries increasing their levels of pollution. Speaking last week at a high-level regional energy conference in Budapest, Hungary, Soros, said: “The cap and trade system of emissions trading is very difficult to control and its effects are diluted. It is pretty much breaking down because there is no penalty for developing countries not to add to their pollution. You count the saving but you don’t count the added pollution going on. As a world, I don’t think we are getting our act together on climate change at the moment.” (To continue: Sorus slams... )

My Comment: George Soros is a wealthy philanthropist, supporter of democracy in Eastern Europe and a major funder of liberal causes in America. In this article Mr Soros explains why the cap and trade system is failing in combating global warming and advocates a "flat rate carbon taxation system." It is gratifying to see Mr. Soros join the ranks of those who know that the only real solution to global warming is the taxing of carbon emissions.

Top Stories

The Ethanol Fallacy

America needs smart alternative to oil, but the just-passed energy bill puts too much emphasis on the wrong alternative, Popular Mechanics editor-in-chief says
By James B. Meigs, Published in the February 2008 issue. Popular Mechanics

The idea is so appealing: We can reduce our dependence on oil—stop sending U.S. dollars to corrupt petro-dictators, stop spewing megatons of carbon into the atmosphere by replacing it with clean, home-grown, all-American corn. It sounds too good to be true. Sadly, it is. (To continue Reading: The Ethanol Fallacy… )

My Commentary
For those who are pleased that the recent energy bill mandates an increase in use of ethanol, I encourage you to read the above article. The recent energy bill passed by congress and which President Bush says he will sign is a bad bill for several reasons, the primary of which is the mandating of the use of Ethanol. I don’t expect President Bush do it, but this bill deserves to be vetoed and Congress needs to work on an energy bill that will actually accomplish something. This energy bill is similar to issuing bailing pails to passengers on the Titanic. The passengers can conclude that it is better than doing nothing and as they drown they can feel good about the management of the Titanic.

Instead of calling this an Energy Bill, it should be called the Farm Aid Bill part 2. Archer Daniels Midland will be the chief benefactor; not the environment. Instead of setting goals and relying on market forces, competition, and experimentation to find the best mix of alternative technologies and conservation strategies for achieving the objectives, the bill declares ethanol the winner. Government is not very good at picking technologies. The bill mandates the use of 15 billion gallons of ethanol by 2015, which is three times today’s production.

Corn based ethanol is not a solution. For one thing, it takes a lot of energy to produce a gallon of ethanol; the net energy production is almost nothing. The best estimate by those who do the math is that to produce 1.3 Btu of ethanol energy it takes 1 Btu. Others do the math differently and conclude there is a net loss of energy in producing ethanol.

Another thing wrong with relying on ethanol is that it is detrimental to the environment. It takes a lot of fertilizer, insecticide and land to produce corn. In 2007 more land was used in the production of corn than anytime since 1944, when the yield per acre was much less. To meet the goal of tripling of ethanol production, much more land will have to go into production. Almost all of the run-off from the land used in corn production ends up flowing into the Mississippi River, which flows into the Gulf of Mexico. Already there is a 7900 square mile “dead zone” in the gulf caused by the depletion of oxygen, which is caused by the Nitrogen-based fertilizer run-off. In the dead zone, no fish, crabs, mussels or sea life live. With this bill we can watch the Gulf of Mexico become the Dead Sea. (Read more: Corn Boom Could Grow Dead Zone)

Much of the enthusiasm for ethanol in the US is a result of the success Brazil has had in weaning itself off oil and going almost wholly to ethanol. This however, has not been without environmental consequences. A lot of global-warming-emission- eating rain forests have had to be cut down to turn the land into sugar cane growing land. Nevertheless, on balance, Brazil's switch to ethanol may be net plus for the environment. One major difference between Brazilian ethanol and American ethanol however, is the Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane which is eight times as efficient as making ethanol from corn. (To read more: With Big Boost From Sugar Cane)

Despite the greater efficiency of Brazilian ethanol, against all logic the US maintains a 65-cent per gallon tariff on the importation of Brazilian ethanol. If we are serious about doing something about American global warming emissions, we should start by scrapping this ethanol energy bill, repeal the import tariff on foreign ethanol, then set limits on the amount of allowable global warming greenhouse emissions and enforce that limit by taxing carbon emissions or by the selling of pollutions rights. Then the government should get out of the way and let the market work.

Top Stories

Computerized Confusion

By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, December 25, 2007

When I bought one of these small, cheap, old-fashioned cathode-ray TV sets on sale to watch while on my exercise machine, I had no idea how high-tech and computerized even these obsolete sets had become.

Nor was this a blessing. I could not even turn the set on and get a channel without reading a 60-page instruction book. If the truth be known, I could not do it even after trying to make some sense out of the instructions. (To continue: Computerized confusion)

My Comment: I could have written this! I share the frustration. I have a cheap, simple cell phone, yet it offers game options and text messaging and all kinds of things I don't have a clue how to use. When I first got it, I programmed some phone number for automatic dialing, but now I forgot how to do that and have not taken the time to relearn how to do it. My sister’s old phone number is in my cell phone; I don’t know how to delete it and add her new one.

A few months ago, my simple alarm clock died on me. I went to a store to buy another. All a wanted was a small clock that would wake me up in the morning. The one I got had to be set to synchronize with a satellite that ensured it kept perfect time within a minute fraction of a second. Also, the set option and on/off was complicated. I never could get it to work. I had to purchase another one and was fortunate to find one that was simple to operate but I had to make an extra trip and spend time shopping. There was opportunity cost.

Recently, I needed to change the out-going message on my answering machine. I had to spend an hour finding the product online and reading lengthy instructions. The clock on my coffee pot and my VCR are on permanent blink status. Supposedly, I can program my TV remote control to operate my TV, VCR, and DVD player. Don’t ask me how, however; I use three remotes.

I work in a small office, with limited tech support. We have a phone system with features that no one knows how to use. I don't know how to "park" my call on a busy line, but I know the phone system will do it. We got a new fax machine, and I had to spend 30 minutes figuring out how to make it print confirmations that a fax had been sent. We did get the machine to do that, but don't know how. Now it prints out a confirmation for every fax. Some times, we don't need printed confirmation, but neither I nor anyone else knows how to change that setting and do not have the time to learn.

I don't want to sound like an old man pining for the “good ole days”. I am reasonably intelligent. I am college educated. I am not fearful of technology. But why must everything be so complicated? Am I the only one who wants a simple bedside clock that you can set and that has an "on" and "off" button? Do manufactures think that complexity and more features always add value? I wonder if the market is working? I think I would pay more for simplicity.

Top Stories

Does a Candidate’s Religion Matter?

Are you ready for a Mormon President? Do you care if your President is a Catholic? Is a Bible-believing, fundamentalist the best person to be trusted with our future?

I think no one should automatically be denied consideration for the presidency because of his religious affiliation anymore than one should be denied consideration because of his race or sex. However, I do not think it is bigotry to want an understanding of how one’s religious views will influence the way he will govern.


I am not going to be too concerned about those candidates who practice religion-lite, such as most mainstream Protestants. I suspect most Methodist, Episcopalians, and Presbyterian are casual Christians and can adequately departmentalize their life to the point that their religious beliefs and practical issues of governance are not a problem. I also suspect that many Catholics, many Baptist, and many members of evangelical mega churches are “casual Catholics” or “casual Baptist” or whatever and they are considerably less doctrinaire than the leaders of their congregation. I suspect that most educated people think the Bible is allegorical and myths and not to be taken literally.

The Constitution prohibits a religious test to hold public office, but that does not mean the electorate cannot evaluate a candidate’s religious beliefs before electing him to the highest office in the land . I think we should have the right to know what the people who seek public office believe about faith and governance.

In the 1960 campaign for president, there was widespread fear that an American Catholic president would take direction from the Vatican. I do not find that fear to be pure bigotry. World history gives us adequate reason to be suspect of the roll of the Catholic Church and affairs of state.

Kennedy addressed the issue head-on. “Because I am a Catholic,” said Kennedy, “ and no Catholic has ever been elected President, it is apparently necessary for me to state once again-not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where separation of Church and State is absolute-where no Catholic prelate would tell the President, should he be a Catholic, how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote”.

Apparently that was sufficient to overcome the concern of enough of the electorate to make a difference. I think it was not inappropriate that he be was made to address the issue.

On December 7 Romney made his JFK speech and he said: “When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.”

Should that settle it? Maybe. It seems that Romney is not just a casual Mormon but has served as a Mormon missionary and a lay minister. Apparently he takes his faith very seriously. Face it; Mormonism is a weird cult. Maybe all religions start out as weird cults and it is longevity that gives them respectability. Somehow however, the story of Moses receiving stone tablets with the Ten Commandments seems like a respectable myth, while the story of Joseph Smith and the golden tablets seems quite bizarre.

In 1827 Joseph Smith claimed that an angel appeared to him and revealed golden tablets upon which was written the Book of Mormon. Smith couldn't read the tablets however, until the angel also gave him some glasses that allowed him to interpret the text on the plate. The fascinating story includes “seer stones” and buried treasure and a mystical frog. The Book of Mormon is the story of the Lamanites who were supposedly an ancient Israelite people that were the ancestors of the American Indians.

Many of the practices and believes of the Mormons are as weird as the story of their founding; former polygamy, the former prohibition against Blacks being admit ed to the Priesthood, proxy baptism of the dead, secret rituals, secret underwear, and secret oaths. Would it be out of bounds to ask Romney what he believes about the story of Joseph Smith and the golden tablets? Would it be out of bounds to ask what secret oaths he may have taken? I don’t know that his answer would necessarily disqualify him form being President, but in an age we can ask, “briefs or boxers” we should be able to ask questions about ones religious believes.

It is not only Romney’s believes that I would like to know more about. If a Baptist minister seeks to be President, I want to know more about his believes also. Does he believe that God directs his actions? Has he ever done something because he had a strong impression that God told him to do. If God tells him to support a certain policy, who does he check with to make sure it is really God and not his own judgement. Is he “led by the Holy Spirit?” Being “led by the Holy Spirit" is a different concept than being guided by the values of your faith.

I would also want to know if he believes that the story of Adam and Eve, and the flood are historical events and if the world is only six thousand year old. If he does, I am not sure I would trust his judgement.

I don’t mind a President who reads the Bible and prays. I would not have been offended by George Washington at Valley Forge kneeling to ask God’s blessings. I think a little civic religion can be a good thing. However, if a candidate for President talks to God I want to know, does God talk back? If he does, that would concern me.

I would like to know if any of the candidates are fundamentalist Hal Lindsey-type Christians who read Revelations and believe the world will end with Armageddon and the return of Christ? If they do, do they think it will happen in their turn in office? If so, then they may not be too concerned about global warming, or a large national deficit, or other issues that need long-term consideration. Do they believe the Jews are God’s chosen people and we have a God-ordained mandate to always support Israel?

I think it is reasonable to want to know to what extend a Presidential candidate’s most profound beliefs, convictions, and values would govern their conduct in office. I would prefer my President to be guided by reason rather than faith. Inquiry into a candidates religious faith should not be considered bigotry or impolite. It should not be off limits.

Top Stories

Season Greetings for Both Liberals and Conservatives

For my liberal frineds:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our bestwishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the wintersolstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America isnecessarily greater than any other country nor the only America inthe Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms.This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a newwish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

For My Conservative Friends:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

(auther unknown, reposted from Defeat Liberals yahoo group)

Top Stories