Dick Morris's Political Advice

Well, I suppose it's Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. Not sure how that partnership works, but she must be in there for a reason. Anyway they think that McCain has an opening he should exploit.

In speech after speech, the Democrats knock the Bush record and then add, lamely, that McCain is the same as Bush. Or they call the McCain candidacy Bush’s third term. It was no accident — or Freudian slip — when Joe Biden spoke of John Bush instead of George in his litany of attacks.

This pattern of shooting at the decoy, not the duck, gives McCain a bold strategic opportunity. He can nullify the impact of the entire Democratic convention simply by distancing himself from Bush.

The problem with this strategy is that the Republican base likes Bush, and are suspicious of McCain. McCain distancing himself from Bush will look a lot like McCain distancing himself from his own base, and I'm not sure that's a winning strategy.

Michael Medved Just Isn't That Bright

Here are the opening paragraphs of Michael Medved's latest article.

Is the United States a land of limitless horizons, where hard work and big dreams enable people of humble background to scale dizzying heights of privilege and power?

Or is this a society of slammed doors and blocked opportunities, of a trapped middle class and shattered hope, where ordinary people can only provide a better life for their children with the help of an activist government and dramatic new policies?

The Denver Democrats insist that both descriptions are true, and they fail to acknowledge the obvious contradiction in the two primary messages of their convention.

I don't know Republicans keep telling us we are a God Fearing country while also lambasting us for watching pornography and having abortions. Isn't that the same sort of contradiction?

But to clear up this particular contradiction, Democrats believe that America is not a perfect country but we don't believe that it's hell on earth either. It's a good country, it has a lot of strengths. And a lot of people are getting ahead. But the hurdles are too high for some people in some communities. It's impressive that some people from those communities do well, but we want to make it so that all children born in those communities have access to the same sort of opportunities as kids born in our more affluent communities.

If Democrats will only Jump Thru these Hoops, Republicans will Provide More Hoops

Michelle Obama spoke Monday night at the Democratic Convention, as I'm sure everybody knows. And her speech was well received and with good reason. It was an excellent speech. It went a long way towards humanizing her and her husband. Read it yourself, if you like.

All of us driven by the simple belief that the world as it is just won't do, that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.

And that is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope.

And, you see, that is why I love this country.

According to Dick Morris and Eileen McGann this is a critical test that the Obama camp needed to pass.

'I love this country": Those are the magic words that Michelle Obama said at the Democratic National Convention last night.

They're the words we've wanted to hear from her ever since we saw her say that she was proud of her country "for the first time in my adult life" now that her husband was winning primaries en route to the White House.

Thank goodness. Michelle Obama cleared the arbitrary hoop that Morris and McGann set for her. Now for smooth sailing.

Except, of course, as Morris and McGann know, the conservatoids aren't going to stop harping on this. They are going to continue harping on this issue. I wouldn't be surprised if, in a week and a half, we hear Hannity and Limbaugh and the others asking "Why don't we ever hear Michelle Obama say anything positive about our nation?"

And, naturally enough, Morris and McGann have another hoop for the Obama's to jump through.

OK, we found ourselves saying, You didn't grow up as elitists. You can reach back for the stories and the memories. But what about now? What about the future? You started off poor, but have you gone Ivy League on us?

Listening to her, we couldn't help feeling that we've heard it all before from Barack Obama himself. Couldn't help wondering if there was more than just the rhetoric and the emotion, no matter how sincerely and obviously felt.

Ah - Obama has to prove that he has actual plans for America instead of just "rhetoric and emotion." Well I suppose a reporter could go and look at the Democratic Party Platform, or at Obama's campaign website and try to glean from it what Obama plans to do if elected. But damn that sounds like work. Easier to just sit back and carp "Obama hasn't put forward any real plans to help America." Easier, and if you are a conservative commentator, more lucrative.

This is Just Odd

Not much to say but, this does not make me want to get some Orangina.

Civilization Depends on You!

Liberals are pretty awful people, if you listen to conservatives. For example, we aren't all that keen on preserving civilization, according to Dennis Prager in his latest article, which covers the subject of tagging or graffiti. He has recently offered his opinion that it is acceptable for citizens to shoot to wound to protect their property from being defaced by graffiti. He was mocked for this view, and so offers his opinion as to why Liberals are just not as keen on protecting civilization, compared to Republicans.

. . . conservatives tend to view higher civilization as more fragile than the left views it. Conservatives believe the line between civilization and barbarism is under constant assault and is not necessarily enduring. That is one reason the right tends to have a higher regard for the police than does the left. Conservatives see the police as "the thin blue line" that separates civilization from barbarians.

You know I try not to see racism in everything Conservatives write; I genuinely believe that there are plenty of conservatives, even those writing articles for Townhall, who aren't racist at all (or at least no more racist than the rest of us).

But this argument, the idea we need to save society from "barbarians?" Come on. It's hard not to believe Prager and his readers don't know what color skin these barbarians have. He references it himself earlier in the argument (another reason Liberals don't favor blowing away Graffiti Taggers is that they might be Blacks or Hispanics).

I have no desire to see a graffiti vandal killed -- my position has always been that only those who cause death deserve death (that is why I oppose the death penalty for any crime except murder). But if enough taggers are wounded, their assault on civilization will decline dramatically. And if one accidentally dies? That would be a tragedy. But here is the bottom line: More innocent people will die if tagging is not stopped than if it is. Graffiti unchecked leads to worse crime.

Yeah a few dead colored people here and there is a small price to pay for protecting civilization.

Presented without Comment

God did not give the Ten Commandments to a woman. Nor did He send his only begotten daughter to save womankind. If your potential spouse has trouble understanding this, you need to reconsider your relationship.

Mike S. Adams - "Real Men Don't do Pornography."

Adkisson News Watch

Sorry I haven't been around the last few days - had some personal drama that took up most of my time. And then it started raining.

Anyway let's get to it. Adkisson has been arraigned on additional charges, adding another murder charge (covering the other person he murdered) and attempted murder on others. His trial has been set for March 16th.

There's not much about Bill Gwatney, Arkansas Democratic party leader who was shot in their headquarters. No motive has been determined yet (or if it has they haven't released it). His wife will be representing him at the Democratic National Convention though.

Persistant Rumors

Frank J. Gaffney Jr.'s latest article is pretty despicable.

Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama’s appearance before a large evangelical congregation in Orange County over the weekend underscored an evident imperative of his campaign: Emphasize his Christian faith and put to rest insistent rumors that he secretly adheres to the Islamic creed of his father and youth.

The effort to minimize any grounds for fearing Obama has an abiding, if covert, attachment to Islam has prompted him to risk offending Muslims in order to avoid off-message controversies and photo ops.

I wonder why those insistent rumors persist? I mean what could be keeping them alive? Could it be Gaffney and his colleagues (such as James Corsi) repeating them ad naseum?

Yeah I guess that could explain it. And of course Gaffney's article is designed to create in your mind the impression that Obama is probably a covert Muslim.

Climate Change and Rush Limbaugh

What's nice is how everything proves that there is no such thing as Man-Made Global Warming. Or at least it does if you are Rush Limbaugh. He spent some time yesterday talking about the discovery of some human remains in the Sahara.

The Sahara Desert, it's a desert. For those of you in Rio Linda, it means it's miles and miles and miles of dry, parched sand. You will die there in two days, unless you run into an oasis. "A tiny woman and two children were laid to rest on a bed of flowers 5,000 years ago in what is now the barren Sahara Desert.

"The slender arms of the youngsters were still extended to the woman in perpetual embrace when researchers discovered their skeletons in a remarkable cemetery that is providing clues to two civilizations who lived there, a thousand years apart, when the region was moist and green.

. . . Now, it almost sounds foolish to me to have to ask the question, but if the Sahara Desert was once fertile, green, and lush -- people and animals lived and thrived there, which means plenty of food was also available there -- and 5,000 years later it's now a barren desert, and there were no automobiles, there were no lightbulbs, there were no fossil fuels, there were no automobiles, there was nothing! There was no industrialization. There were no coal-fired power plants. There was zilch, zero, in terms of "carbon footprint." So somebody explain to me how the hell a lush, dense, green area 5,000 years ago becomes a barren desert? Now, it's patently obvious that the climate of this planet goes at its own pace, and its own time.

It does what it wants to do when it wants to do it and we have diddly-squat to do about it, and these poor saps that lived in that region had no more ability to stop the warming back then that was going to turn the place into a desert than we have the ability to stop it now because we're not causing it. We cannot! Stories like this just make the whole global warming story patently absurd! Just absurd. It makes me wonder why you have to spend any time on it all discussing it.

Yep. Enormous climate changes occurred in the past, so that proves that Humans can't control the climate. That's the lesson to learn here. Don't waste your time considering that old time civilizations fell, that land that once was fruitful is now totally hostile. I mean that stuff is a downer. Just focus on how everything is fine; the boat isn't sinking.

Buying your Bluff

Just read Doug Giles latest article, in which he takes aim at the fictional people who worship Barack Obama.

Hey, Obama crowd, chill out with the lock step, okay? Really . . . What kind of adult gets this excited over another human being? Call me jaded, but I look at my own wizards of political Oz with a jaundiced eye. I believe you’re setting yourself and your darling, untested candidate up—should he get into the Whitehouse—to thud on the ground like Geri Halliwell’s last CD did. For God’s sake, Obama-ites, God can barely live up to the hype you guys are giving the young Hussein. You’re tripping way too hard over the grossly inexperienced junior state senator spawned from the scheming netherworld of Chicago based politics.

Well enthusiasm about a political candidate is hardly novel. People were excited about George W. Bush and they were excited about Bill Clinton.

I don't know where these people are who are uncritically supporting Obama, unless they are in his campaign. Certainly Obama got the Democratic nomination only after a long and hard fight which implies that at least some Democrats aren't in lock step with him as a candidate.

On the other hand good job on the Geri Halliwell reference - 2005 wasn't that long ago I guess. But of course we'll have to see how the Obama show performs in the fall before we can really see whether this is a solid reference or not.

Adkisson News Watch

Not much to report, except that there is some controversy about the Sherrif's plan to make the churches more secure in the wake of this tragedy.

A Bradley County Commission member and the county attorney question whether the sheriff’s plan to provide special deputies at church services is a liability to county government.

I'm not sure about this plan myself; but I guess it's something they need to decide in that community.

Adkisson News Watch

Not much today - but I did want to point out this article at Southern Voice arguing in favor the Police releasing the letter that Adkisson wrote before shooting up the Unitarian Church.

For gays, the case is very personal. They, and everyone in Tennessee and elsewhere, deserve to know what Adkisson scribbled on those four pages.

“The more clarity, the better,” Galloway told the Knoxville News Sentinel. “We need to know what we’re dealing with. Is it just liberals he was targeting? Is it just gays? Was it all these things mixed together? We need to know.”

And why shouldn’t they know? When a man angry with gays and liberals shoots up a church on Sunday morning, we all deserve to know why.

Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said simply, “If you needed to know, you would have been notified.”

I don't know exactly where I come down on this, but you gotta love the Police blandly saying that we don't need to know what is in that letter. Huh?

In other news, the man who killed Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney and was later slain himself has not yet given up much of a motive for his crime. He had a sticky note with Gwatney's name on it and a collection of 14 guns; but police have not yet found a link between the two.

The Wisdom of the Rush

"We don't want to get along with Democrats; we want to mop the floor with them."

Yeah - it's crazy to think talk like this might have inspired someone like Jim Adkisson.

Adkisson News Watch

First of all, a possibly related story. A man burst into Democratic Party Headquarters in Little Rock Arkansas and opened fire, killing the party Chairman. Police don't have an information on the motivations of the suspect, so it could be totally unrelated. But you'll forgive me if I'm a little twitchy about Democratic Party Headquarters getting shot up.

Secondly we have an article by Warner Todd Huston at News Busters that is remarkable for it's callousness and idiotic analysis. It opens by pretending that Rush Limbaugh shot up that Church in Knoxville. Har har har. Yeah apparently we liberals are idiots for seeing a link between this act and conservative rhetoric.

But, even her example of Limbaugh's words are a far cry from advocating murder. For that matter, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, all frame their discussions in the political arena, none of them saying that people should do anything other than vote the right way.

Even Savage, renown for saying "liberalism is a mental disorder," has never to my knowledge advocated violence. In fact, if he truly believes that liberals have a mental disorder the solution to that is medical help, not execution! Help, not death. the compassion of wanting to help the sick hardly seems to be a basis for a killing spree.

Yeah let's all take a moment and consider the Compassion of the Savage.

What Huston pays scant attention to in their rhetoric is the use of military imagery and the description of liberals as the enemy. Conservatives like Hannity and Limbaugh portray Democrats and Liberals as enemies to be destroyed. Now they regularly make it clear that they mean that in a rhetorical sense, but the language is still telling. If you believe, as Limbaugh, Hannity, and presumably Huston do, that Liberals are traitors working to weaken and ruin this great nation, that they are conspiring to kill infants, that we want to hand the nation over to it's enemies, well is rhetoric really enough to defeat such evil? If a mind warped by whatever demons lurked in Jim Adkisson's soul latched onto the idea the Democrats are baby-killing America-betrayers, well it's not to hard to predict what would happen.

Poor Huston then pulls out some examples of bad Democrats. Like one Democrat posted a shirt at Cafe Press which had a map and the lines "Save America - Kill Republicans." And there was some Grafitti in New York that said "I Kill Republicans." OK, both are in incredibly bad taste if they are jokes and psychotic if they aren't.

But come on! That's your comeback? That's your example of hateful Liberals? She then talks about how the AFL-CIO described a veto of President Bush's as hurting and killing children; maybe over the top language, but certainly on par with what Hannity is saying right now about Obama. Public figures step into the Arena. They gotta take their lumps. The difference is that Hannity takes time from slamming Obama to slam all Liberals; it's not just Obama that is hateful. It's all liberals; it's all Democrats.

John Stossel, Discrimination, and the Good Old Days

John Stossel's latest article argues in favor of a companies right to discriminate, in this case, on the basis or age. But he goes on to make this fascinating statement.

We don't need laws against discrimination. We need a free, competitive marketplace. Competition is better at punishing sexists, racists and "ageists" than clumsy laws. If a boss discriminated against, say, women, he would be demolished by a competitor who obtains better workers by hiring the women the first boss turned away.

Let's look back at the way the world was before such laws were implemented - did companies who discriminated against racial minorities or women suffer? Nope. Everybody was doing it. I don't know of a business that went under because of discrimination. Neither does Stossel.

It's pleasing to think this - by the same token it's pleasing to imagine that Consumers can force high environmental standards by refusing to patronize those businesses or products who choose to pollute. But it doesn't seem to be the way the world works.

John Stossel also makes this trenchant observation.

Good intentions are irrelevant. Public policy always has unintended bad consequences.

Now there's a conservative point of view. It almost seems like we shouldn't have any public policy at all.

Predictably Depressing - Conservative on John Edwards

Three articles over at Townhall today on the Edwards Scandal - and more to come for sure. Chuck Norris, who has positioned himself as a Conservative Spokesperson, and who includes plugs for two of his books (one already out, one soon to be published) in his brief article. My guess is that he'd like you to go buy his books. He writes this.

I believe leadership should be above reproach. I believe those who govern should lead also in civility and decency and that their character should be congruent with their call to office. Like parents to children, a nation's politicians' integrity and character should supersede its citizens. But as long as we the people tolerate leadership immorality and elect corrupt politicians, we cannot expect the heart and character of our nation to improve.

One problem with that particular argument, as regards John Edwards. He's a private citizen. He is no longer a member of the senate and although he ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination, he didn't get it. So, as it turns out, he's not in a leadership position.

I certainly agree, though, that leadership should be above reproach. Hey Chuck, did you hear that the Bush administration might have forged one of the key documents in the run up to the Iraq war?

Debra J. Saunders article is notable mostly for it's meanness (it's entitled "Not so Pretty Boy") and the somewhat brazen way it brings up McCain's infidelity.

Yes, McCain was married when he met his current wife, Cindy, in 1979. The former prisoner of war did pay a political price for his behavior. Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported how the breakup of McCain's first marriage "fractured" his relationship with President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy.

Of course the fact that the media would spend time investigating the background of the Republican Presidential nominee is proof of it's bias. We'll ignore for a moment how many crazy claims that Media has repeated happily about Senator Obama.

Cal Thomas wrote an Edwards article as well, comparing the whole thing to Mamma Mia, which I guess he saw. Kind of dull for him, but he doesn't really get worked up unless it involves the "Muslim Menace."

We just don't want to help the Iraqi people

This is a common complaint on the right, exemplified in Mark Hillman's latest article. He takes Obama to task for his Berlin speech.

Obama recalled how the mayor of Berlin exhorted his people and "the people of the world" to "stand together united until this battle is one."

But Obama's record toward the people of Iraq is just the opposite. Had his view prevailed, the world would have turned its back on the Iraqis, allowing Saddam Hussein to continue his reign of terror, torture, murder and rape. Rather than help Iraqis secure their freedom, Obama's policy of retreat in the face of adversity would have told the people of Baghdad, "We're outta here; fend for yourselves."

A couple of points worth mentioning. First of all let's dispense with all of the moralistic finger waving about our lack of commitment to the Iraqi people. When people wave that canard in your face, simply ask what about the poor people in Rwanda (or any other hotspot out side of the middle east where people are dying)? Most conservatives will very quickly point out that we didn't have a strategic reason to get involved there, and that we can't risk American troops on strictly humanitarian grounds. At which point the conversation is back on strategic grounds.

Secondly you can point out that our involvement in Iraq has been less than wholly positive; some Iraqis have said that things were better before we invaded, and not just former Baathists. If the goal is to help and support the Iraqis why do so many of them seem to want us out of there?

Crossposted at the Salon Annex of Stupid Enough Unexplanation .

Prelutsky - American Humorist

In the sense that he's not funny but is definitely an American. In his latest article he encourages people to follow their dreams. He then takes a shot at Al Gore.

And, finally, as I gazed out over those fresh, young faces, I would advise them to have nothing whatsoever to do with people who insist on using their computers to send Instant Messages. IMs, as they are better known, combine the worst aspects of phones and computers. Like phones, they are rude and obnoxious, demanding, like some bratty two-year-old, your complete and immediate attention; like computers, they require typing. I never believed Al Gore when he claimed to have invented the Internet, but I never doubted for a moment that he had a lot to do with foisting IMs on the rest of us. It has his carbon fingerprints all over it.

OK first of all, we all know that Al Gore never actually claimed to have invented the internet. He took credit for helping fund the creation of the internet, which he actually did. But some idiot got the story wrong, and idiots like Prelutsky have been repeating that idiocy for years, carefully never learning the truth.

Secondly, how much sense does it make to blame Al Gore for IMs while assuring us he had nothing to do with creating the internet? The joke makes no sense, and the addition of Carbon Footprint makes even less sense.

Adkisson News Watch

This story is no longer that important apparently; at any rate there doesn't seem to be as much news popping. I suppose as the trial starts we'll get more info. The one piece of news is good - United Universalist church has raise $41,000 to help victims of the shooting. So that's nice.

Adkisson News Watch

Not much substantive today; just more confirmation that Adkisson's lawyers will run an insanity defense, which, I suppose, shouldn't be hard.

I will note at this point that one of the books reportedly in Adkisson's possession was "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions" by Michael Savage.

I'd also recommend reading "Meditation on Bravery" over at The Daily Kos by etenglish. Really moving account of church services at the church Adkisson shot up this last Sunday.

I was reminded by the UUs that it takes the strongest kind of people to love by choice, instead of hating by default or in desperation.

I can't argue wit that.

I-Pod 10 - Get Edition

1. "Get a Move On" - Mr. Scruff
2. "Get Back" - The Beatles
3. "The Get Go" - New Young Pony Club
4. "Get Innocuous" - LCD Soundsystems
5. "Get Me To the World on Time" - The Electric Prunes
6. "Get Off" - The Dandy Warhols"
7. "Get the Balance Right" - Depeche Mode
8. "Get the Message" - Electronic
9. "Get Together" - The Youngbloods
10. "Get Up Stand Up" - Bob Marley and the Wailers

Runner Ups - "Get a Room (Live)" - The Psychedelic Furs, "Get Here" - The Beautiful South,
"Get Down Massive" - Freestylers, "Get Up" - R.E.M., "Get Up on it Like This" - The Chemical Brothers, "Get Wise '91" - Mr. Lif Feat. Eden

That's a pretty good mix of songs actually.

Rush Limbaugh on Energy

Rush Limbaugh has one sort of Energy he likes, and that's Oil and Gas. All other energy, all talk of conservation, he just isn't into. Oil is it. So any talk that we need to develop alternatives to oil, or that we need to conserve oil, or that we need to not be so dependent on the middle east for our oil, well, it just upsets him.

The dirty little secret is we've been investing in these things (alternatives to oil) for years and they haven't done diddly-squat, in terms of replacing oil, which is what these people want. This kick that they're on to replace oil, where does this come from, even politically? Is there polling data out there that says a majority of the Americans hate oil, that the way to the White House is to demonize oil? Where did this come from? This is irrational. It borders on the insane to hate oil. A lot of things can damage things just like oil can, if it's not properly contained and used. I just don't understand this.

Well, I do, but I mean I'm trying to express my incredulity here at the absolute stupidity of assuming a position. This is like coming out against oxygen, or it's like arguing against rain. It's just silly! What is the damage? How has oil destroyed America? How has it destroyed people's lives? It's done just the opposite. Where does this come from? What in the world is the political calculation these people have to construct a presidential campaign based on the hatred of oil, as though oil itself is a conservative Republican? They're treating oil as if it's no different than Bush. They hate Bush; they hate oil.

It is kind of fascinating. Rush is so dedicated to oil and oil companies, it's almost like he's a paid spokesman for the oil industry.

So this hatred for oil, aside from the environmental concerns, you know what else it is, folks? Do you know what else it is? They don't control it. The left doesn't control it. The left and the Democrat Party don't control oil. Oil is the fuel of the engine of freedom, and they don't like it, and they don't control it. Anything they don't control, any industry, they hate.

Yeah, I guess if you set aside the environmental concerns, hatred for Oil is pretty irrational - wait, you'd also have to set aside concerns that we might not have enough of it for the long term. And concerns that our purchase of oil from the middle east is funding people we don't like. And the fact that oil companies continue to make enormous profits while squeezing the consumer dry. But if you set all that aside, well, wanting to get off oil is pretty irrational.

Adkisson News Watch

Adkisson's lawyer may get to look at his "manifesto" today. And he's apparently going to go for the insanity plea. According to the Knoxville Knews. That manifesto is interesting; the police have given the gist of it - he wanted to kill liberals and homosexuals. But the manifesto itself has not been released. I don't know if it will be down the road; right now this story isn't getting a lot of national attention.

I suspect this is intended as satire, but STR The Freedom Blog has a somewhat bizarre take on the Adkisson Murders.

At the worst possible moment Jim’s concealed assault rifle accidentally discharged into 22 different church-members. While tragic, the liberal media’s knee-jerk reaction has been to try to say this is a ‘Hate Crime’. But at STR we know to ask the tough questions, and is this what America has sunk to when accidentally discharging an assault rifle in a church filled with women and children is now defined as ‘Hate’?

I think that guy is mental, one way or the other. But mostly I suspect he's trying to get guys like me pissed at him by being an insensitive asshole. Kind of pathetic.

Adkisson News Watch

As previously reported, Adkisson is scheduled to go to sessions court today. I'm not a legal expert, but apparently this is to determine what kind of trial will follow. It's looking like it will hinge on his mental state.

More local papers are printing editorials on the case. The Charleston City Paper has an editorial by Will Moredock entitled "Knoxville shootings are a symptom of our culture." It's pretty good but kind of what one would expect.

. . . when we hand out responsibility for this tragedy, let's not forget Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Pat Robertson. Without the culture of hate they have been brewing over the last 20 years, this could not have happened.

In retrospect, it seems almost inevitable. When I heard that a stranger had opened fire in a Unitarian Universalist church, I knew immediately that it had to be a hate crime.

There are simply too few UU churches for one to be picked at random.

I'm not sure I agree with him entirely; I think that Adkisson might well have focused on something to express his rage even without Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

The Gresham Outlook in Oregon (I believe) has an article entitled "In wake of shooting, is it safe to be liberal?" Despite the provocative title, it is fairly balanced and more of an article than an editorial. It responds to a letter written by the local UU minister, Rev. David Maynard, reacting to the crime.

. . . I’ve never heard of ‘liberals’ taking up arms and shooting random people in public. All too often I’ve heard of unhealthy persons espousing fundamentalist values wreaking just that kind of havoc. Liberals are more likely to teach peace than wielding a gun.

The article though seems inclined to argue with Maynard. It points out that Adkisson made some comments critical of Christianity. And it has the response of Pastor Ray Young.

Liberals, like the Unitarian Universalists, approve and condone the killing of millions of babies in the United States through abortion, and call it ‘choice.’ Liberals approve and encourage sick people to kill themselves, and call it ‘death with dignity,’ and, finally, they reject that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, is God and the Messiah.

And there you have it. If you think being pro choice is murdering millions of babies, well, Adkisson barely registers. He killed 2 and wounded 5; what is that compared to millions of babies? Nothing.

Pastor Young seems like his main difference with Adkisson, if there was one, was over tactics, not end goal.

Cal Thomas Complains about the Tone of American Political Discourse

Yep. He's upset. And he's written an article about it.

This is what passes for modern political discourse. Conservative says to liberal: "You're ruining America." Liberal responds, "No, you're ruining America." Conservative: "You're a communist." Liberal: You're a fascist." Conservative: "You're a secular humanist." Liberal: "You're a Bible-thumping bigot." Host of cable program: "We'll be back with more civil discussion after these messages."

Do these guys really believe what they're saying about each other? If so, perhaps we need two different candidates.

Of course Thomas then goes on to lambaste Obama, while confining his criticism of McCain to wondering if he will stick to his principles once in office.

And given Thomas's articles on how liberal Christianity isn't real Christianity, I'm not sure he's the best

Adkisson News Watch

The Unitarian Church that Jim Adkisson selected as a good venue for shooting liberals has been rededicated, as a place of love.

"Beyond the fear that will not subdue us, we reclaim and share this, our worship space," said Brian Griffin, director of religious education. "We are safe; we are together; we are loved, and so it will be."

Also Jim Adkisson's arraignment has been pushed back to tomorrow.

Conservatives have not yet responded to this story; the media has pretty much dropped it except for local papers.

Vice Presidential Pics

There's not a lot going on right now politically, and we finally have a pair of candidates. So what's next? Well another pair of candidates. The Vice-Presidential kind. Bill Kristol has written an article on McCains choices. And it's not bad. He covers the big four concerns - make sure you don't offend anybody, hammer Obama on experience, position your self as a changer, and move away from politics as usual.

He doesn't spend a lot of time on McCain's need to shore up his base, but maybe he doesn't see that as a big problem. He does reference it under change.

This implies a young and different V.P.: the 37-year-old governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal; 44-year-old Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska; or Eric Cantor, the 45-year-old Virginia congressman. Party pros would have fainting spells about the unseasoned Jindal and Palin in particular — but party pros are often wrong, and if Jindal or Palin performed well as candidates, the upside would be considerable.

The two young governors also have this advantage: They’re very popular with conservatives, especially social conservatives. And they’re real reformers. They’ve begun to do in Baton Rouge and Juneau what many voters would like to see done in Washington. Principled conservatism and vigorous reform could be a winning combination.

I guess Kristol feels like the current administration represents unprincipled conservatism.

There's also reports that Obama might be announcing his Vice-Presidential pick very shortly. Word is that he's considering Evan Bayh.

Adkisson News Watch

So far no new news. Conservatives are happily ignoring this story. Must be nice.

Good post over at Las Vegas Gleaner on the shooting. The last paragraph is key.

Having said that, if authorities were attributing a gunman's shooting spree to a hatred of conservatives, does anyone seriously believe that Hannity and friends would be showing the same restraint? After all, Hannity and his ilk, especially frequent Hannity guest and fellow smirking smarm-merchant Newt Gingrich, have never shied away from blaming liberals for high-profile shootings in the past.

Nope - if it had been a conservative hater we'd have a much bigger story on our hands. And the "liberal" media would go along for the ride, happily writing story after story about those murderous liberals.

Pacifism and Historical Accuracy

It's hard this week to not see politics through the lens of Adkisson. Guy walks into a church and kills 2, wounds 5 in a strike against "liberals." It's hard not to focus on that. So when I saw Burt Pretelsky's latest article, "Pacifism: The Last Refuge of Hypocrites," I couldn't help thinking of those people in Knoxville who courageously risked their lives to prevent Adkisson from killing or wounding more.

Anyway then I read the article and was horrified at the historical inaccuracies contained therein. They mostly come from the same place - Prelutsky sees the far left communists of the 1930s and 1940s as somehow the same as Obama today. He complains that the Communist movement in America zigged and zagged at Moscow's direction, without noting that plenty of American liberals did not zig and zag, chief among the Roosevelt. Roosevelt realized early the threat that Hitler posed and consistently worked to fight against him in the ways that he could.

Republicans and Conservatives believed that Hitler was no threat and that we could cut a deal with them. Pat Buchannen still seems to think that.

Anyway he then moves on to the Serbian Conflict.

When Bill Clinton sent U.S. troops into Kosovo, a place where no American interests were involved, the left raised no objections. And heaven knows that the MSM never embarrassed him by calling attention to the fact that although he promised that the troops would all be home within 12 months, they were still there when he left office. I suppose he was so busy granting last minute presidential pardons to his campaign contributors that it simply slipped his mind.

Well if you think that's bad consider Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. We defeated Germany and Japan in the 1940s - some 60 years later we still have troops stationed there. What's wrong with us?

We got involved with the Bosnian war because of genocide. We got involved as part of a United Nations task force to stop genocide. We finished our mission and left; although we continued to be part of peacekeeping efforts. We were seen as honest brokers in the region.

The contrast to Iraq couldn't be more pronounced. We went into Iraq largely by ourselves (with a few allies). We did it against the wishes of the global community. We have occupied Iraq for several years, in part because of our desire to control their oil fields. We aren't honest brokers. The difference between Bosnia and Iraq is the difference between competence and incompetence.