Tuesday, August 19, 2008
A "Pro-Life" Democrat to Speak at the Convention? Look Closer.
Kathryn Jean Lopez has a fine column on just what constitutes a "pro-life Democrat" in the minds of the Party's convention organizers...and in the minds of a fawning press corps. Good stuff here..
Obama's "Liar" Charge Crumbles
Barack Obama is getting downright testy about those ongoing reports of his outlandish support of abortion. Indeed, his latest flare up has him insisting that the National Right to Life Committee and others who have drawn attention to his votes against the Born Alive Infants are liars.
But the evidence is clear, substantial...and all stacked against Obama. If there's lying going on (and there is), it's not coming from the pro-life advocates but from the Democrat nominee himself. And with his intense rhetoric drawing even more attention to the issue, the problem promises to prove even more injurious to his campaign.
That's why one of Obama's spokesman has now admitted to the New York Sun that Obama did vote exactly as the pro-lifers were saying. But the confession only came with "spin" as to why he did it, not with an apology for calling people liars who were, as the facts showed all along, telling the truth.
But Obama is going to learn that he can't spin away from this matter. For even if the MSM wanted to continue to ignore it, his use of the word "lying" elevated it as a news story and doubles his trouble. No, this has now become a story that not only reveals his abortion record to be particularly heinous, but it also shows him as cowardly, duplicitous and arrogant.
Obama: Thrown Out of the Saddle at Saddleback?
Barack Obama had already had a couple of bad weeks before facing Rick Warren's questions at the Saddleback Church forum. But his remarkably poor performance there (even Warren's softball questions were too much for him) coupled with John McCain's clear superiority (answers that were quick, candid, wise, funny and reflective of so much more experience and strength of purpose) may turn out to be the election's most significant turning point.
Therefore, even though the MSM wants to now concentrate on the conventions and the VP announcements, don't overlook the significance of Saddleback, particularly in its impact on energizing those religious-oriented voters who had been cool to McCain's candidacy.
Along then with this not-to-be-missed post from yesterday (McCain Rides High in the Saddle at Saddleback), check out these excellent Saddleback reviews as well:
* "McCain’s Finest Hour" by Philip Klein over at The American Spectator --
Before this Saturday, many analysts were predicting that the fall's presidential debates would be a wipeout, with Barack Obama conjuring the spirit of the young John F. Kennedy and John McCain imitating the aging Bob Dole.
In a recent article in the Atlantic, James Fallows declared that McCain "will look and sound old and weak next to Obama."
But if this weekend's forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church is any indication of how the two candidates will perform in the presidential debates, it's time to recalibrate the existing expectations. The debates may still be a wipeout -- only Obama now seems likelier to bite the dust...
But within a few minutes of McCain taking the stage, it became clear that it was his night. While McCain is typically uncomfortable talking about his faith, he played to his strengths by discussing his powerful life story, showing his stature and experience, and flashing his sense of humor. He connected to the audience emotionally while Obama was academic and -- dare I say it -- boring by comparison.
* "No Contest," an editorial from Investor's Business Daily --
Last weekend's McCain-Obama protodebate made it clear why Obama won't keep his promise to debate McCain "anywhere, anytime." McCain, with a robust resume and details at his fingertips, won big.
It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain "anywhere, anytime." But in June, Obama said no to McCain's challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings.
After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.'s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama's Achilles' heel...
To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.
It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.
* “Best of John McCain,” a video clip with just a few of McCain's highlights from the Saddleback Forum. (Hat tip: Bob McCarty)
Rigged Results: APA "Study" on Abortion's Effects Ignores Contrary Evidence
You'll be hearing a lot about the new discovery that abortion doesn't have any adverse effects on woman who have undergone the procedure. But that certainly isn't a new claim at all; neither is it actually based upon evidence.
No, the claims come from the American Psychological Association, a group which long ago exchanged its reliance on authentic science for the politically-correct ideologies of materialism, radical feminism, abortion, and sexual perversion.
Here is a trio of corrective stories from LifeNews.com:
* American Psychological Association Ignores Abortion-Mental Health Problem Link;
* Researcher on Abortion-Depression Link Says APA Report Ignores Best Studies; and
* Women Hurting From Abortions Say APA Report Discounts Their Experiences
Where is the Voice of America?
The Heritage Foundation's Helle C. Dale and Oliver L. Horn have written a compelling article, substantial excerpts of which I print below, dealing with the sad (and unnecessary) decline of the Voice of America's presence in Eastern Europe.
It is a very important matter, especially as it suggests the basic steps required to remedy this grave problem. Therefore, I'm forwarding it to my Congressman, Senators, and others with the request that they make a priority the restoration of the VoA's influence in Eastern Europe. There must be an increase in funding, a strengthening of purpose, and a radical reformation of the organization's governing board -- and very soon. I hope you will do the same.
Last week, an exhausted, retreating Georgian soldier was overheard asking, "Where are our friends?" Given that only days before the conflict--and for the first time in over 60 years of broadcasting--the Voice of America's (VOA) Russian-language radio programming fell silent, this was a legitimate question...
In recent years, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has slashed funding for programming in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia in favor of broadcasts in the Middle East and Asia. It has also outsourced broadcasting to semi-private entities with dubious track records. Additionally, the Russian government has pursued a campaign to eliminate U.S. broadcasts by intimidating and harassing VOA's local, private-sector partners. Consequently, America has--literally and figuratively--lost its voice in the region at a critical moment...
...funding for VOA broadcasts in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia has either flat-lined or declined. Take into account the massive devaluation of the dollar abroad (over 30 percent against some currencies) and there is little wonder why VOA is bleeding programs and personnel at a staggering pace. Over the past several years, VOA has ceased virtually all English broadcasts and cut programs in 21 other languages (mostly in the three aforementioned regions). This was after more than a third of VOA's employees signed a petition in 2004 protesting the "dismantling" of the agency.
Last month, Congress attempted to stop even more cuts. Citing concerns for the region's freedom of speech, the Senate Appropriations Committee condemned the BBG's latest budget request that would not only eliminate VOA Russian language programs, but also terminate broadcasts in Ukraine and significantly cut back those in Georgia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. The committee subsequently approved legislation explicitly funding programs in each of these countries. Yet without any public announcements, and on the eve of conflict between Russia and Georgia, the BBG ceased VOA's Russian-language programs anyway.
In its stead, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), a semi-private entity operating in the former Soviet Union, has been tasked with continuing radio broadcasts in Russian. While RFE/RL has a much better track record than Radio Sawa or Al-Hurra, the organization has proven uniquely vulnerable to the Kremlin's crackdown on independent media...
This environment has proven disastrous for RFE/RL, which depends on local partners to broadcast its programming. Citing license violations and unauthorized changes in programming format, Kremlin regulators have forced most of its local partners to stop broadcasts. One Russian station manager commented, "It's sad because the programs were very popular. ... The owners decided that they would rather have their license, because if they kept the programming they would have been in trouble." As a result, three-quarters of the radio outlets provided by private companies have terminated their partnership with U.S. broadcasting over the past two years alone...
Monday, August 18, 2008
Today's Posts
Denny & Claire Meet with Congressman Lee Terry
In a 1/2 hour meeting at his Omaha office last Friday, Claire and I spoke with Congressman Lee Terry about the latest high-handed scheme of the Democrat Party; namely, the platform committee's attempt to misrepresent the Party's position on abortion in hopes to fool more evangelicals and Catholics into voting for Barack Obama.
Of course, after Obama's poor showing at Saddleback Church where he badly fumbled the abortion question in front of a large evangelical audience, that platform manipulation is going to be even harder to sell.
In fact, as Congressman Terry pointed out, the Democrats duplicitous attempt to have it both ways ("We love motherhood but we still love abortion.") will probably end up hurting them more than it helps. After all, both Obama's and his party's record on abortion is way too extreme to "nuance away." But the picture of a candidate so desperate for votes that he is willing to waffle, flip-flop and play games with the platform language could turn off voters of all persuasions.
Our conversation with Congressman Terry also covered our ongoing gratitude for his 100% pro-life voting record. I explained that Nebraska pro-life activists, unlike those in many states, are able to concentrate our time, effort and resources on more immediate pro-life tasks (like services to women in unexpected pregnancies and public education) instead of hovering over our political representatives to try and get them to do the right thing.
I explained, "Lee, you're commitment to the sanctity of life there in Washington actually does double and triple duty by freeing us to accomplish other very important tasks. Your steadfast support of pro-life measures in Congress then is perhaps of even greater value than what you imagined. Please remember that when they're comin' after you!"
This does not mean, of course, that Nebraska pro-lifers should be at all lax in supporting pro-life legislation and those who fight beside us. (We're heading over this afternoon to Lee's campaign offices.) Nor does it mean that we shouldn't keep reminding even our good friends about the priority pro-life issues should take in their work. In this respect, Claire and I urged Congressman Terry to co-sponsor more pro-life bills and to make more appearances at pro-life events like the annual March for Life in Washington.
We ended our time by briefly discussing Planned Parenthood, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act, and even Vital Signs Blog. It was an enjoyable and helpful 1/2 hour with a fellow whose services we really do appreciate. And I know you do too.
Sometimes Scandals Are Not of Your Own Making: Joe Gibbs Racing Team Caught Cheating
There’s no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny, and on Sunday, another fallacy was disproved: that Joe Gibbs Racing is clean and would never cheat.
What can we have faith in anymore?
That's sportswriter Jerry Bonkowski asking the question that many are asking this morning. Not that there's any proof that outspoken Christian Joe Gibbs knew about the magnets under the gas pedals that NASCAR inspectors found in two of his team's race cars but scandal, itself like a magnet, usually pulls in anyone even remotely connected to the source -- especially the guy at the top.
And Gibbs didn't try to duck it or make excuses.
“We will take full responsibility and accept any penalties NASCAR levies against us,” team owner Joe Gibbs said in a statement. “We will also investigate internally how this incident took place and who was involved and make whatever decisions are necessary to ensure that this kind of situation never happens again.
“The expectations we set for everyone at Joe Gibbs Racing begins with me, and I personally apologize to NASCAR, our partners and our fans for the negative light this situation has cast upon all of us.”
A negative light indeed. As Bonkowski puts it, "For an organization that prides itself on racing with Christian principles and running a clean, non-cheating ship, much of the NASCAR world is now scoffing at both."
But, to their credit (and not surprisingly), Gibbs is stepping up and assuming the responsibility, knowing full well that his personal reputation has been seriously harmed by members of his team who were looking for an unfair edge.
...His company will take its lumps, accept the forthcoming penalties and continue forward, knowing that JGR has disappointed countless numbers of its fans – not to mention others that will look at the organization as a whole in a far different light.
“I want to apologize to NASCAR, to our partners and to Toyota,” Gibbs said. “A couple of guys chose to make a decision here that really impacts all of us..."
McCain Rides High in the Saddle at Saddleback
The boys at Power Line have assembled a terrific collection of responses to the McCain vs Obama vs Warren show at Saddleback Church. I'm only going to list excerpts from a few of my favorites so for the whole lot, be sure to check out this Power Line post.
From Rich Lowry at NRO's The Corner:
...But the starkest contrast came as soon as McCain started his half of the forum. Asked the three people he would listen to as president, McCain said right off the bat Gen. Petraeus (Obama had led with his wife and grandmother). It was an immediate signal that this is a man who is concerned first and foremost with matters of war and peace—just as you expect from someone who wants to be president of the United States. Asked when he had bucked his party at risk to his self-interest, McCain rolled off his greatest hits, and went all the back to differing with Reagan on Lebanon (a reminder of how long he has been immersed in national-security issues). It made Obama's answer about promoting an ethics law with McCain seem incredibly weak in comparison. Then, McCain's answer about the toughest decision he had ever made—refusing early release in Vietnam—was riveting and moving.
In the first fifteen minutes, McCain had established a moral seriousness stemming from his conduct in Vietnam as a POW and his long-time as a national leader that Obama can't match. Throughout the rest of the night, he brought up Iraq, al Qaeda, and the Georgia crisis, when Obama was more inward-looking. McCain sounded like a potential commander-in-chief, Obama more like a potential friend. This is not to say, again, that Obama was not impressive. But the skills he showed tonight—the thoughtfulness and verbal dexterity—were those of a very talented memoirist, which, of course, he is.
From Byron York at NRO:
...This was not your usual political TV show. Warren — Pastor Rick, around here — asked big questions, about big subjects; he wasn’t concerned about what appeared on the front page of that morning’s Washington Post. And his simple, direct, big questions brought out something we don’t usually see in a presidential face-off; in this forum, as opposed to a read-the-prompter speech, or even a debate focused on the issues of the moment, the candidates were forced to call on everything they had — the things they have done and learned throughout their lives. And the fact is, John McCain has lived a much bigger life than Barack Obama. That’s not a slam at Obama; McCain has lived a much bigger life than most people. But it still made Obama look small in comparison. McCain was the clear winner of the night...
The contrast was striking throughout each man’s one-hour time on stage. When Warren asked Obama, “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make?” Obama answered that opposing the war in Iraq was “as tough a decision that I’ve had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a bad person and there was no doubt he meant America ill.” But Obama was a state senator in Illinois when Congress authorized the president to use force in Iraq. He didn’t have to make a decision on the war. That fact was a recurring issue in the Democratic primaries, when candidates Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, and John Edwards argued that they, as senators, had to make a choice Obama didn’t have to make. And now he says it’s his toughest call.
When McCain got the question, he was able to tell an old story with a sense of gravity and poignancy that he seldom shows in public. He described his time as a prisoner of war, when he was offered a chance for early release because his father was a top naval officer. “I was in rather bad physical shape,” McCain told Warren, but “we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture.” So McCain refused to go. He made the telling even more forceful when he added that, “in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m very happy I didn’t know the war was going to last for another three years or so.” In one moment, he showed a sense of pride and a hint of regret, too; he came across as a man who did the right thing but not without the temptation to take an easy out. In any event, the message was very clear: John McCain has had to make bigger, more momentous decisions in his life than has Barack Obama...
Finally, there was the question of abortion. In the days leading up to the forum, pro-lifers had been worried that Warren was not going to include a question on the issue, focusing instead on things like poverty, AIDS, and the “new” evangelical agenda. But Warren brought it up, simple and straight. “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” he asked Obama.
“Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade,” Obama answered. “But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.” Obama went on to say that he is pro-choice. Even for people who agreed with him, it wasn’t a terribly impressive answer.
An hour later, when Warren asked McCain the same thing, he got this: “At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate, and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies.”
“Okay — we don’t have to go longer on that one,” Warren said, quickly moving on...
From Mark Hemingway at The Corner:
When asked "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?," McCain answered "At the moment of conception." Obama's answer here was flaming-dirigible bad: "Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade."
That spectacularly inept metaphor is going to haunt Obama throughout the rest of the campaign. News flash: There's not a job on the planet above the pay grade of the President of the United States. If you can't solve every problem and are humble about it, that's fine — but you can't get away with being unsure about the most defining moral issue in politics. Of course, he didn't put down the shovel: "But let me speak more generally about the issue of abortion. Because this is something, obviously, the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue is not paying attention."
So after completely hedging on the question and declining to give a specific answer — he wants to speak "more generally" about the issue? And, lo and behold, speak more generally he does: "I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue." In related news, Obama is also "absolutely convinced" that the sky is blue, water is wet and puppies are adorable. None of this, however, tells me a thing about his judgment and moral worldview.
But what bowls me over about how craptacular his answer here is, did no one on his campaign ever anticipate that he would have to talk about abortion, such that he could come up with a better answer than this? Surely they would have had to expect it at this forum in particular...
From Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media:
...I can understand that people who favor “abortion rights” would not like John McCain’s answer. I find it difficult to believe that any candid person could regard Obama’s response as anything but an insulting and mendacious equivocation. It is insulting because it ostentatiously evades the question while giving a little wink to his home team: “Oh, these religious morons and their obsession with abortion! Of course, I could care less about it, but I also know it’s impolitic to say so, so I’ll emit a brief rhetoric fog and hope no one will notice.” And it’s mendacious because when it comes to “pay grades,” no one’s is higher than the President’s. If a man who aspires to the highest office in the land cannot respond to a pointed question about an important moral issue without taking refuge in empty sophistries, how will he deal with the myriad difficult issues with which the President is confronted daily? It seems to me that in claiming that it is “above his pay grade” to answer this question forthrightly, Obama essentially admits that he is unfit for the office he covets...
From Mark R. Levin at The Corner:
Without a doubt, the lowest moment of the night was Obama's smear of Clarence Thomas. He, like Harry Reid, can't simply disagree with Thomas, he has to try to degrade him. On Obama's best day he can't hold a candle to Thomas's intelligence. Obama can barely make it through a press conference and ducks town hall debates with McCain because of his inability to speak in complete sentences when pressed to show his much noted but usually absent brilliance.
Washington Post Ombudsman: "Readers Deserve Comparable Coverage of the Candidates" -- Which the Post Hasn't Given
Though the Washington Post's ombudsman Deborah Howell tries to excuse the preferential treatment her newspaper has given Barack Obama, she's never quite able to escape the damaging admission she makes in her opening sentence.
Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good...
Later in the piece, Ms. Howell confesses that the Post's unbalanced coverage is just one of many.
This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain...
Friday, August 15, 2008
Today's Posts
TV Watching: Dangerous to Your Health, Wealth and Moral Balance
Sharon Slater, President of Family Watch International, gives a few examples of television commercials that she's seen while watching the Olympics. They are commercials for various products: a vehicle, fast food, a bank card, another TV program. But what they have in common is what prompted Sharon to conclude:
These commercials are disturbing on two levels. They graphically illustrate how desensitized U.S. society has become to what a generation ago would have been completely unacceptable. But they are also an example of one of the mechanisms of desensitization which will facilitate the deterioration of societal values. Advertisers are conditioning us and our children to laugh at promiscuity and infidelity and to think of them as common occurrences that are no big deal.
These commercials cause me to wonder how low we can go. Parents, you may need to screen commercials and not just TV shows in order to protect your children from both the subliminal and the blatant messages that are constantly barraging them.
Again, you can read the whole column here.
Sharon's column reminded me of an anecdote Claire tells about being in the John Cavanaugh O'Keefe home many years ago. Claire was in the D.C. area to participate in a pro-life press conference and was watching over the O'Keefe kids while their parents were running errands in preparation for the conference. The parents had told Claire the kids could watch an hour of television but only particular programs.
Fine. Claire was reading, the kids were watching TV, and things were pretty peaceful when the eldest boy startled Claire by suddenly jumping up and dashing across the room to the TV set. When he got there, he turned the sound down and dramatically stood spread-eagle in front of the screen, effectively blocking the picture from the rest of the kids.
Claire's wonderment must have shown on her face as the boy noticed her, smiled and calmly said, "My Mom and Dad don't want us to watch commercials."
Television, by its very nature, has made us spectators rather than actors involved in the dramas of real life. And through commercials (the reason TV exists), we are refashioned further into consuming spectators. The O'Keefe's understood this and therefore, were rightly concerned about limiting this "double-negative" of TV's influence.
Sharon Slater would wholeheartedly agree.
Moral Compromises Have Become Tony Campolo's Stock in Trade
Liberal cleric Tony Campolo, still a popular speaker with some evangelical audiences (audiences who are largely unaware of his leftist political and social opinions) is a member of the Democrat Party platform committee whose language change on abortion has been the subject of a couple of recent Vital Signs posts (1 and 2).
This Kristin Jensen story on the matter for Bloomberg concludes with a couple of very telling quotes from Campolo:
...Religious leaders who consulted on the platform said they expect Republicans to use abortion as a ``wedge issue'' in the way they used gay marriage to turn out evangelical voters in 2004. That's why finding a middle ground was so important, said Reverend Tony Campolo, a platform committee member.
``This doesn't solve the problem, but it certainly moves in the right direction,'' said Campolo, 73. ``We're a diverse party, and we ought to have room ethically for each other.''
In other words, Campolo is dedicated heart and soul to the Democrats winning elections. That the Democrats have been for years (and more than ever remain) the party of abortion and homosexual privilege doesn't bother him.
But what does bother him is that other evangelicals and serious Catholics are not as progressive, enlightened, and open-minded like he is. They remain too doggone stuck on those biblical values they were raised with.
The trick then is to pry these Neanderthals away from the Bible's teachings about such gross immorality as abortion and gay marriage -- to give them, as the soft-headed Florida preacher Joel Hunter openly admits earlier in the article, "an excuse to vote for Obama.''
Campolo, Hunter and Jim Wallis all are part of this shameful shell game with the Democrat platform. For they are attempting not to persuade their fellow Democrats about the rightness and seriousness of what the Bible says about sin. Rather, they are conniving with them in ways to hoodwink religious citizens.
Rev. Hunter knows quite clearly that Barack Obama has boldly and repeatedly defied the Bible's position on these crucial moral issues. But does he tell his congregation that? No; he instead tries to finagle "excuses" for people to still back Obama.
Rev. Campolo is frantic to get rid of the "wedge issues" and find "a middle ground," though he too knows to what purposes Obama and the modern Democrat Party are committed. Therefore, his "middle ground" is an illusion. Nothing has changed. Nothing will. It is but a mean and disgraceful act of obfuscation on his part.
There is a lot of ridicule heaped on those lavish-living televangelists who, rather than leading the sheep, simply look to fleece them. But the Campolo bunch may be even more ignoble and dangerous. For they want to shear from the sheep not their money...but their principles.
More on the Democrat's "Shell Game" with Abortion
The Denver Posts' David Harsanyi isn't a pro-lifer yet he sees through the much-ballyhooed change in language in the Democrat Party platform, a change I observed yesterday was comically hypocritical and worthless.
Harsanyi prefers to call it "pointless."
But that's not all he has to say.
...Yet, the Democrats are so enthusiastic to make abortion a non-issue that they've recruited the vigorously unexciting Sen. Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, a Catholic who opposes abortion rights, to be a featured speaker at the party's national convention. (Casey's father, ironically, was rejected for the same task -- and for the same reason -- by Democrats in 1992.)
Are voters, one wonders, truly so breathtakingly dim-witted that they will pivot on such an important issue because of a transparently dim platform addendum supporting human procreation? Or will a single speaker at the convention do the trick?
Our wide spectrum of positions on abortion can be influenced by deep moral, religious, ideological and personal convictions. Politically, though, the divide is clear -- and should be clear. One of the reasons we have political parties is so that they can take, you know, positions on stuff.
And a number of elected Democrats in moderate states purport to be opposed to abortion rights. But rarely, if ever, is their theoretical bravery put to the test by any actual vote. Casey included.
Obama, on the other hand, has taken votes. Certainly he hasn't wavered on his commitment. In 2007, Obama promised the first thing he will do as president is to lift a ban on state restrictions on abortions, including late-term procedures. (Why not allow states to decide the whole issue?)
In Illinois, Obama voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which would have recognized any infant born alive after surviving abortion as a human deserving legal protection. The bill was almost identical to one that was unanimously passed by the Senate in 2001.
So Obama's record is not up for debate. You either love it or you hate it, or, like me, you're indifferent, as you suspect the president has little influence over the issue of abortion to begin with.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Today's Posts
Reviewing Lambeth: Does Orthodoxy Have a Chance in the Modern Anglican Church?
Why Do Some Persist in Thinking Obama Is a Socialist?
British Advice Columnists Are Giving Bad, Really Bad, Advice
New Study Says the Pill Messes Up One's Love Life 
By Messin' With One's Nose: I Smell a Problem
It's Amsterdam for World Congress of Families V
Democrats Try to Sell Abortion Shell Game: "New Evangelicals" Join in the Con
Chicanery in China?
Reviewing Lambeth: Does Orthodoxy Have a Chance in the Modern Anglican Church?
For those interested in figuring out what just happened at Lambeth (and what it means for the future of the Anglican Church and its battle to restrict, even eliminate, biblical orthodoxy in the life of its churches), I suggest David Virtue's clever post/riposte approach to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's article in the Guardian.
Why Do Some Persist in Thinking Obama Is a Socialist?
Barack Obama proposes that we seize the profits of the oil companies and use them for $1,000 "energy rebate" checks to every working family in America. That is what he said in his speech in Lansing, Michigan on August 4, 2008, entitled "New Energy for America." Economist Donald Boudreaux pointed out that seizing all oil profits would still not be enough to fund these $1,000 giveaway checks.
If the government is going to target an industry it has vilified in the public mind, loot all its profits, and then use the money for giveaway checks to buy votes, then what has our nation become?
If the government can do that to the oil industry, then why can't it do the same to any other industry, or group of people, that it successfully paints as unpopular? What then has happened to the whole notion of private property?
Why couldn't President Obama then decree that every owner of a four bedroom home take in two homeless people? Surely there would be room for them somewhere. Why couldn't he just seize every gas guzzling SUV, sell them for scrap metal, and use that money for $1,000 rebate checks to every Democrat voter as well?
This is why people say Obama is a socialist...
(Source: Peter Ferrara's commentary in the American Spectator. Read the rest of his fine article here.)
British Advice Columnists Are Giving Bad, Really Bad, Advice
Did you catch this LifeNews.com report about the wicked counsel about abortion recently coming from British "advice columnists" from The Sun and Daily Mail? If not, read it.
And after you're through shuddering, launch up a prayer for these dangerous women and for the poor dunces who might actually be influenced by them. And then, before you forget, zip over a couple of e-mails (Steven Ertelt gives you the contact info at the end of the article) giving the columnists some of your own...advice!
New Study Says the Pill Messes Up One's Love Life By Messin' With One's Nose: I Smell a Problem
Straight from the "Who Knew?" Department comes a study suggesting that birth control pills can mess up your love life...by messing with your nose!
Now, I don't know how legitimate this study is. After all, I'm not a chemist and I've no idea even what an "evolutionary psychologist" is, which is the description this LiveScience.com story gives of the study's lead researcher.
And frankly, I find the argument's reliance on issues of "genetic compatibility," major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes, "sexy scents," and how they're all effected by the pill to be most unconvincing. It seems to rest on the presumption that man is nothing more than a chemical mix -- and that's about as silly and unlivable a philosophic presumption as you can have.
But do note this... I am very convinced that there are a lot of serious reasons to avoid the birth control pill and I've commented on that frequently. Some of the most recent examples being this, this, this, this and, most especially, this.
Those are reasons that, unlike this MHC stuff, really do pass the smell test.
It's Amsterdam for World Congress of Families V
There's a lot of interesting stuff to be read in the August World Congress of Families News and Events including a quick teaser on the World Congress of Families V to be held in Amsterdam, August 10-12, 2009.
As some of your remember, Claire and I were participants in WCF II in Geneva (1999) and last year's WCF IV in Warsaw where we were live-blogging the momentous event. We plan to be there in Amsterdam and I'm sure you would find it of tremendous value too. For more about that opportunity and a lot of important news about WCF's ongoing activities, positions and partners, check out the newsletter or the WCF home page.
Democrats Try to Sell Abortion Shell Game: "New Evangelicals" Join in the Con
The Democrats continue to play word games with the sanctity of life, suggesting that they're seeking "common ground" on the abortion controversy.
But all the while they support as much as ever: 1) the unqualified right to abortion; 2) the elimination of all restrictions on abortion; 3) the promotion of abortion overseas; 4) abortions performed in military hospitals; 5) the funding of abortion through tax dollars; and 6) the insistence of the immoral (and demonstrably counter-productive) Planned Parenthood-style "sex education" programs in schools and government sponsored agencies.
So who is foolish enough to buy into this claptrap?
Perhaps the more accurate question would be -- who is disingenuous enough to join in this sleazy charade, even being sinister enough to try and persuade the naive and gullible that the Democrats really are coming round?
Try the regular crew that's been pushing a liberal agenda among the religious for years including "new evangelicals" like Jim Wallis and Joel Hunter.
Here's a couple of stories about this sad sell-out, one from MediLexicon and the other from the Washington Times.
Chicanery in China?
...When you mess with which child is singing Ode to the Motherland, offer up phantom fireworks and fake fans, have soldiers create your spectacles billed as volunteers and face allegations that some of your athletes are not eligible, it makes people wonder what is real and what is fake...
Joe Warmington, a columnist at the Toronto Sun, thinks that China owes the world an apology for what's been happening at the Olympics. Not having followed the games myself, I don't know but he makes a pretty strong case.
However, there are a whole lot of injustices more pressing and more pernicious for which the world deserves an apology from Communist China. Among them?
* Severe persecution of religious believers.
* Coercive abortion and sterilization policies.
* Harvesting and selling human body parts.
* Extensive use of slave labor and denial of worker's rights, safety and health concerns.
* A long list of other human rights abuses.
* Support of repressive governments in Burma, Belarus, and other places.
* Destruction of national economies (like our own) through cheap imports.
* Support of terrorists.
* Military aggression in Asia...and beyond.
* Extensive spy networks in their own country and many others.
* Theft of Western technology.
When you look at this list, the chicanery of underage gymnasts (though certainly an unfair ploy) seems rather tame. But it does reveal how brazenly unapologetic is China's attitude. Even when the world has come to town, even when the cameras are running, even when the coaches themselves have revealed the truth about their team breaking the rules, Communist China (and the Olympic committee too) simply shrug, smile -- and get ready for the next chicanery.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Today's Posts
Abandoning the Rule of Rescue: Some People Are Just Too Expensive to Live
Wesley J. Smith, who among several valuable services gives us the terrific bioethics blog, Secondhand Smoke, comments on the Independent (U.K.) story about England's National Health Service declaring that the noble "rule of rescue" historically observed by doctors must be abandoned because it's too expensive.
The sad fact is that hospitals and nursing homes in England (and elsewhere) have already begun to jettison the rule, exchanging it for the crasser, less humane belief that some people's lives are just not "cost productive" enough to save. This newspaper report only suggests these folks are feeling bold enough nowadays to say it out loud.
Argues Smith, "The utilitarian bioethicists that exert so much control over NHS medical ethics are tightening the noose around the throats of UK patients once again--this time urging that the lives of expensive patients not be extended...Same thing will happen here too--whether arising from government funded health care or HMOs--if we allow "the bioethicists" to decide our health care public policies and medical ethics for us."
Obama's Tire Gauge Gaffe Is Nothing To Laugh At
Jim Geraghty includes in his post over at NRO's The Campaign Spot these salient notes about Barack Obama's tire gauge gaffe.
Seemingly every Republican is walking around today with a tire gauge labeled "Obama's Energy Plan."...
I hope McCain and his surrogates remember the key point in this — not that checking your tire pressure has a marginal impact and that two-thirds of drivers already have the right tire pressure, but that Obama said it would generate as much as offshore drilling — roughly 1.6 trillion gallons in the OCS.
We went over the math this Wednesday, and Obama's just not right (and that's with me using an extremely generous assessment that tire inflation would increase mileage 12.5 percent for one-third of America's drivers). It's not merely that Obama's energy policy consists of recommending the minute and mundane, but that he does so while rejecting solutions that could have a dramatic impact on energy production, oil production, and gas prices.
He's either not familiar enough with the issue, or way too careless in asserting the benefits of his policies. That's the message voters need to come away with, not just, "Ha, ha! Look, a tire gauge!"
The Power of Google
With so many of us tied into the new communicative technologies of the internet, it is justifiable to be concerned about how ideological bias, censorship, unfair competition practices, etc. could be employed to limit its usefulness. Here, for example, is a story from the International Herald Tribune that explores the potential for abuse by such extremely powerful players as Google.
...While Knol is only three weeks old and still relatively obscure, it has already rekindled fears among some media companies that Google is increasingly becoming a competitor. They foresee Google's becoming a powerful rival that not only owns a growing number of content properties, including YouTube, the top online video site, and Blogger, a leading blogging service, but also holds the keys to directing users around the Web.
"If in fact a Google property is taking money away from Google's partners, that is a real problem," said Wenda Harris Millard, the co-chief executive of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia.
Money, of course, is very much at issue. The lower a site ranks in search results, the less traffic it receives from search engines. With a smaller audience, the site earns less money from advertising...
Critics say each new Google initiative in this area casts more doubt on the company's claims that it is not a media company.
"Google can say they are not in the content business, but if they are paying people and distributing and archiving their work, it is getting harder to make that case," said Jason Calacanis, the chief executive of Mahalo, a search engine that relies on editors to create pages on a variety of subjects. "They are competing for talent, for advertisers and for users" with content sites, he said.
Knol has been called a potential rival to Wikipedia and other sites whose content spans a broad range of topics, including Mahalo and About.com, a property of The New York Times Company that uses experts it calls "guides" to write articles on a variety of topics...
Biased Journalism? Or Just Plain Sloppy?
As this brief story from The Hollywood Reporter explains, the Nightline interview in which John Edwards confessed his extramarital affair and its subsequent coverup "was able to hold its audience against the Olympics opening ceremony on NBC." Wow -- that's no small potatoes and by any fair standard would have to be reported as a ratings success, right? Indeed, the program drew its regular number of viewers whereas other TV programs suffered big drops.
The news story also tells us that the Nightline interview "beat CBS' 'Late Show with David Letterman' by 30% in households and 100% in the demo." That's also pretty impressive.
Given these observations from within the story itself, can you come up with any idea why it ended up with this headline -- Edwards 'Nightline' Interview a Ratings Bust?
Me neither.
Which of the Candidates "Gets It" About Russia's War on Georgia?
Jonah Goldberg's column in today's LA Times makes some profound points about Russia's grievously wicked acts of war against Georgia and about John McCain's correct response to the crisis. The latter, Goldberg explains, was clearly superior to that of his rival.
The Obama campaign has for months pursued the odd strategy of having the junior senator from Illinois act as if he were already kinda-sorta president of the United States. In June, it tried sticking a quasi-presidential seal on his lectern. Then in July, he conducted what seemed like official state visits with foreign leaders and delivered something like a "prenaugural" address in Berlin, inviting comparisons to JFK and Reagan...
Now fate has given Obama a chance to be presidential rather than pretend. Taking advantage of the Olympic distraction in Beijing, the Russians invaded South Ossetia, a territory on the north side of Georgia, a democratic U.S. ally. Out of the blocks, the Russians bombed civilians, rolled tanks across an internationally recognized border and threatened to launch an all-out, destabilizing war. Now it looks as if their army has cut Georgia in two.
Moreover, Russian bombs reportedly targeted the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which runs through Georgia on its way to the Mediterranean -- the only oil pipeline in Central Asia not under Russian control. Russia is tightening its chokehold on oil and gas at precisely the moment energy costs have become the paramount domestic issue in the U.S. presidential campaign.
Obama's response?
First, late Thursday evening, he gave a conventional written statement calling for calm, U.N. action and "restraint" from both sides -- followed an hour later by a slightly stronger condemnation of Russian aggression and a call for a cease-fire.
The invasion of Georgia elicited a wan written communique instead of the sort of exciting rhetoric we've come to expect from his make-believe presidency. But he did make it in front of the cameras the next day for a rally celebrating his vacation in Hawaii. He promised "to go body surfing at some undisclosed location."
During Obama's make-believe presidency, we've heard about bold action, about the courage to talk to dictators. When faced with a real "3 a.m. moment," Obama -- who boasts about 200 foreign policy advisors, broken into 10 subgroups -- proclaims, "I'm going to get some shave ice."
Now, of course, this is a bit unfair in that Obama had planned his no doubt well-deserved vacation for a very long time. But