Palin's palm reading

The Huffington Post unearths a mysterious aide-de-camp present at the Sarah Palin's Q&A session following her triumphal entry into Jerusalem - er.. Nashville, TN.

This right-hand-man was none other than her left hand.

Palin very clearly attempted to return to her talking points during Q&A - and during a question that seems utterly simplistic for anyone attempting to have a presence on the political stage.

Asked the three most crucial issues to be dealt with once a 'conservative' House and Senate were in place, she couldn't manage to list three without staring at her hand in order to extract the incredibly complicated issue: Energy, as scribbled at the top of her palm-crib-sheet.

Frankly, this is one of those situations where conservatives need to ask, "What if this had been a Democrat?" Well, the answer isn't really so distant that it must be imagined. Palin herself apparently took Obama to task for his dependence on the teleprompter in this very sheet; and I think it's fair to say that if he had needed to (let's call it what it is) cheat during a Q&A session, we would have said it was even worse.

Look at it this way, part of the reason we conservatives have gotten so much mileage from Obama's teleprompter-dependence is the very fact that he's so terribly unpolished when he's off the teleprompter. He at least has the presence of mind not to try to use a script in such unscripted settings as townhalls and Q&A sessions.

But here we have Palin, who has repeatedly been told she needs to bone up on her political philosophy and rather than taking whatever time and effort that would require, she keynotes the first ever Tea Party Convention with shaky enough knowledge that she has to take notes on her hand.

If a Democrat had done this, we would take him to task for it, and rightly so. Palin deserves to take the heat for this and she must either earn respect as a political pundit or stop trying to be the center of political attention.

Sarah Palin resignation

Having just seen news of Palin's imminent resignation, I have some immediate reactions and I am curious how they will appear upon reflection some time from now.

First, it seems a poor decision on balance, whatever various factors may speak for it. I think it's poor first because it seems a purely political calculation, born out of strategy without regard for moral or philosophical principle. On it's face it appears to be designed for two goals: to allow her to focus on running for either president or vice-president and second, to groom the governor who will take her place for easy reelection.

If she is making the decision for either reason, I will have to consider her a more political animal than I'd previously thought, and all of her proclamations and actions will certainly be filtered (mostly negatively) through that lense.

[I say all of this out of immediate instinctive reaction, without knowing the possible realities that would largely mitigate this. For example, if her term is very nearly up (like, in a month ;), and she is simply acknowledging she's not going to run for reelection, and if the newly appointed governor is not a Republican (which would mean she's politically obtuse).]

If she is resigning to focus on her run for higher office, it seems to me she's abandoning the post she was supposed to man - attempting to orchestrate the circumstances (and public image) under which she leaves. All of that speaks to a greater concern for political ambition than for the job she's actually supposed to be doing.

Second, if she's acting in order to effectively appoint her own replacement, then she is attempting to game the system, foisting on the public the person she wants for the governor's job, which begs all sorts of questions about insider trading, if you will, and about possible quid pro quo, etc.

Unless she preannounced such plans and unless she literally thinks whoever gets automatically appointed governor is, in fact, the best person for the job, she is simply acting in favor of political expediency for the party's political power, rather than in favor of direct, open, and principled debates on who should lead and why.

Lastly, again, based on the presumption that this decision is geared toward a presidential run, I believe she is absolutely shooting herself in the foot to take this course. Those of us who supported her did not do so, frankly, because she was exceptionally eloquent, or because she is attractive, or because she is some philosophical head of conservative politics.

We supported her because it was immediately apparent that she was, in fact, a person of ACTION. Specifically, her day to day life proclaimed traditional family values to the rooftops. Her down-to-earth lifestyle that included hunting, fishing, raising a family, beauty pageants and even the stark reality checks of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy and a handicapped child -- all of these spoke of a life lived honestly, absent pretension and guided by the compass of faith and tradition.

Similarly, quite to the contrary of liberal assumptions, we conservatives ADORED her for attacking the Republican establishment where it was appropriate. We call ourselves Conservatives in part because of how much we hate party power perpetuating itself in spite of abandoning principle. So her political life cried out for principle and courage in contrast to the endless posturing of Washington's inhabitants.

All of this is threatened if she chooses to become an entirely political creature. She may SPEAK of traditional values, of fighting the good fight, of standing up for principles in the face of the Establishment, but where will her ACTION be to back that up? By the time 2012 rolls around it will be ANCIENT HISTORY.

Combine that with my belief that she has always been a poor speaker (outside of prepared speeches), and her decision, for conservatives like me, has destroyed her chances rather than enhancing them.

Vienna Teng

A month or so ago I received the standard email flyer for my local artistic venue. Among the offerings was a one-day appearance by Vienna Teng, the computer science major-cum-folk artist.

The billing was superlative (as would be expected), and intriguing. So I quickly Googled her, discovering that she was a relatively recent phenomenon and very highly praised both critically and popularly. 

I plunked down a few hard earned dollars for two tickets and patiently waited to hear this beautiful pianist and singer.

A cellist, Ben Soliee, began to play what might be considered a traditional asian tune on the strings, drawn on and on melodically, if indulgently (frequently recurring pregnant exhales of bow crawling along string). Then, after a heavily pregnant pause, the sound lept into a strange bluegrass tune complete with country-folksy lyrics - and I suddenly had to ask if this was going to be a night of Yo-yo Ma pretension. The first two songs, completely light hearted life-reflecting tunes, turned out to be mere precursors for his true musical purpose, as EVERYTHING that followed was political or sociological commentary.

[I later reflected that the beauty of this opening act for Vienna Teng was that she gets to hide behind the cellist making his (and her) political commentary while remaining aloof herself.]

It seemed as though every song was written to point out that the world just isn't what it was supposed to be, was dreamed to be, what was intended to be, and so on. What a letdown life must be for this poor man.

And in an excellently clever ironic twist, the final song was 'Just Another Song' lecturing about how much the world really should change but his was 'just another song'. For this song, Vienna arrived in a pre-revalation of herself, sitting primly with dark art-deco glasses as if to play the royal princess who really just wants to be a child and doesn't take her future crown seriously at all. She did this for the all important responsibility of chiming in to the deep and substantive chorus "just another song". As if her very presence gave a raw significance to the tune.

Among the rarified commentaries made by this astute political and life observer (known by day as a cellist) were the following:

In America they'll bury you with your car but I see a row of windmills turning and some out there are farmers and some will vote

Isn't it sad it's so ingrained that boys don't cry

In America the politicians don't get elected they choose themselves and you talk to me about Democracy

Beside me, two women literally began to stifle laughter through the repeated sermonizing of this stringed oracle, and when his set was done, the one beside me confided that had it not been potentially quite rude to wade through feet, she would have freed herself from the punishment by walking out. 

Mercifully, the presentation for which we actually paid our hard-earned money was almost absent political commentary. Note, I am forced to say almost.

Vienna rather effectively merges an incredibly well-controlled, dynamic, and glass-smooth voice with piano that seems to have a personality all its own, and a percussionist who seems to know the very soul of every instrument he picks up, and exactly how all of those philosophical souls speak to one another. 

Almost immediately there seemed to be a chorus of voices one might imagine upon stepping into a busy pub or an overly active coffee shop. They all seemed to be interested in themselves and the world around them, speaking into and around themselves as if in a neverending, spirited but friendly debate. 

Although her tunes did seem to have one of only two overarching personalities (16 year old girl musing beyond her years or philosophical princess thinking about the little people), nonetheless, listening to those two personalities is fun, like reading the blog of a girl who really hasn't yet learned that other people in the world have already loved and lost and lived through it, or that greater minds than hers have considered what it's like to be poor. She exudes true thoughtfulness about things that have all been thought before. And we want to hear her think it anyway.

One particularly bright spot was the percussionist's song, written by the vocalist in his project 'The Paper Raincoat', called In the Creases. He sang this pensive, ironic, lost love song with a very effective melancholic reflection. It is one of the more original songs I think I've heard in a long time.

Vienna said they would progress from old to new and after Ben Soliee I couldn't help but wonder if politics would emerge as the artest progressed from obscurity to popularity..Thankfully the only overt example of such was one of the last songs - one that she suggested was 'not necessarily political' entitled 'No Gringo'. The song teaches us egocentric Americans to think about illegal immigration from the other side. How would it feel if we were fleeing from Chicago but were blocked by a 'No Gringos' sign on a fence to Mexico? Deep. Very Deep.

All told the experience was worth the cost, in spite of being dampened by our new politically correct reality. Thankfully politics were overcome by the richness of the music, the raw talent on display, and the passion exuded in virtually every song. 

Achieving the impossible

Kausfiles : More signs of the Gran Salida of Illegal Immigrants: Emergency room visits are dropping

Kausfiles reports:

In Arizona

In the Maricopa Medical Center in Arizona, the director of the ED commented that 45% of adults and 80% of children seeking ED care at the hospital emergency department are Hispanic. The economy in the area is getting worse and the hospital believes that many of the patients that usually come to the ED have left town

Does no one recall the constant strains of "what are you going to do, kick them all out?" or "You can't just deport them all!" only a couple of years ago?

First, this may be both legal and illegal immigrants, but it is most likely illegals who are leaving since they don't have legitimate (read: legal) access to the social support system in Arizona or elsewhere. Somehow, we are affecting the change that supposedly could not occur had we attempted simple enforcement of the laws.

And how are we affecting that change? A downturn in the economy: jobs have dried up, so illegals are leaving.

The claim for years was that if we prevented them from getting legitimate work, illegals would begin a sort of civil unrest - unable to work, unable to access benefits, they would suddenly become a destructive force (a classical marxist argument that money dictates everything about us). Thus we could not enforce the laws, or we would create criminals.

But here we have evidence that restricting access to employment causes illegal immigrants to leave the country - that people can actually behave responsibly in the face of difficult circumstances - and go find legal work. Perhaps claiming that much of the illegal immigration problem could be resolved through strict enforcement of laws wasn't just a convenient way to 'hate' on Mexicans.

Then again, maybe the economic downturn was actually created ON PURPOSE by Dick Cheney and Karl Rove - because they knew illegals would suffer the most.. hmm...

Another way of duping Christians

James Cameron sees the pot of gold in Christian moviegoers' hands and wants to cash in:

In The Exodus Decoded, a 90-minute documentary that will be shown in America this month, Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici, the Canadian film producer, claim a volcanic eruption on the Greek archipelago of Santorini triggered a chain of natural catastrophes recorded in the Bible as the 10 plagues that God visited upon Egypt as punishment for enslaving the Jews.

This sounds pleasant enough - encouraging people to believe there is archaeological evidence to support the Biblical account - but in fact, this is precisely the opposite sort of Da Vinci Code propaganda that undermines Christianity altogether.

Naturally, James Cameron (nor others involved in the project) isn't going to assert that the Biblical account is true as it is recorded in the Bible. No, he will assert that things like the events recorded in the Bible could be theoretically explained through a convoluted series of assumptions based on circumstantial evidence. (You'll need to read the entire article to see how they assert that the Biblical account is false and a more convoluted and irreconcilably different account is their explanation.)

Their claim sounds like the way Greek and Roman myths came to be: physical events that were difficult to explain in a logical fashion were given deified explanations.

So the Biblical account isn't literally true - it's just an approximate explanation for some things. In fact, the Bible is really the same sort of hyperbolic explanation for odd events that all other mythology is; therefore, just as we don't have to accept some sort of iron-clad spiritual set of laws and truth from mythology, the Bible doesn't have to constrain our behavior and understanding of truth, if we don't want it to.

We can look at the Bible as an interesting perspective on human understanding at the time and find it quaint how uneducated people conveniently made religion the explanation for what they didn't understand. But, funny enough, those crazy Christians are still taking those explanations literally today, even though the rest of the world has realized that science explains it all - no God needed..

Bleeding-heart or Good Samaritan?

From RedBlueChristian, a reference to the 'nonpartisan' A Covenant
for a New America, which purports to be interested only in being the good samaritans of our community, without regard to political affiliation.

How convenient it is that every problem and solution points to our Benevolent Government..

This is a trap laid for good-natured but ignorant Christians, and this philosophy is gaining a foothold in today's culture of guilt mixed with a lack of personal responsibility.

First, let's go over the group's primary goals:

Overcoming poverty requires vision and commitment.We believe our society should
make three fundamental commitments as a promise to those in poverty:

- Work must work and provide family economic success and security.
- Children should not be poor.
- Extreme global poverty must end.

There are no two ways about it: these goals are utterly ludicrous to anyone with a BASIC comprehension of economics and REALITY.

First, "children should not be poor" is not a 'commitment'. It is a statement of belief. That belief in itself changes nothing, no matter how strongly you believe it. The assertion that 'children should not be poor' is just a convenient way of getting you to accept the government control that they will later suggest in place of the 'children should not be poor' that every warm-blooded creature will reflexively agree with.

(And, 'work must work' - oh boy these people are CLEVER.. another convenient euphemism that will make everyone go, "that's what I was thinking!" without actually meaning ANYTHING.)

Look at the continuation of this claim (what Thomas Sowell kindly calls a 'stage-one' thinker's opinion) :

Those who work responsibly should have a living family income in which a combination of a family’s earnings, and supports for transportation, health care, nutrition, child care, education, housing, and other basic needs together provide a decent standard of living.

So, the ONE qualifier for getting a 'living' family income, transportation, health care, nutrition, child care, education, housing and 'basic needs' is what?? oh - - working responsibly. Riight... If you work 'responsibly' at Circle K as a register clerk, you should get ALL these things.

What is 'working responsibly'? If you show up late a couple times in a month because you overslept should you be shut out of all the gifts the generous Christians want to give you? No? How about if you haven't learned any job skills with the time you've had before you got to age 25 with four kids and a girlfriend?? Are you working 'responsibly' when your work still consists of the knowledge you had ten years ago? Should you be shut out of the Good Samaritan's (read: Government's) Horn O' Plenty because you haven't improved your job skills? No no of course not..

Every person who can't pay for this cornucopia of life's comforts is going to tell you he 'works responsibly' (and believe himself, to boot). What good samaritan is going to then turn around and tell him he does not?

But let's assume we all agree that every working individual DOES deserve all these things just because he 'works responsibly' according to some definition we all somehow manage to agree upon. WHO IS GOING TO GUARANTEE ALL THESE THINGS?? We know as a matter of basic BASIC economic reality that no private group can actually guarantee that all these things happen for anyone, since any private group is subject to fluctuations and MARKET FORCES just like the poor (but responsible) worker.

So, I guess we must be left, shockingly, with GOVERNMENT guaranteeing all these things. You see, Good Christian Samaritans, we don't need your money - we just need your VOTE to FORCE your neighbors to be good samaritans just like you are in your heart, and everything will be solved :)

Oh, except there's one problem.. promising a vast group of people (i.e. the poor) innumerable social and economic benefits without requiring that they produce the labor and goods that can actually pay for all of those things runs into a bit of a problem: there is no way to guarantee those things for long. Eventually, the money produced by a free society will RUN OUT as it is confiscated and distributed to those who do not generate a net increase in productivity.

On the other hand, if you do NOT promise someone that all of his needs will be met whether or not he contributes enough to the economy to pay for it, TWO things will happen:

First, that person will immediately reconsider what is called a 'basic right' and ask himself if he really needs, say, 'transportation' in the form of a Ford Taurus instead of transportation in the form of a Landis bicycle or if he really needs expensive third party child care instead of asking his mom to watch the kids some afternoons.

Second, he will ask himself what it is that society demands of him in order to be able to pay for the various blessings of life that he so desires - and he will contemplate 1. Learning the skills required for higher-paying jobs or 2. Taking a less pleasant job so that he can earn more than he might at an admittedly more comfortable, but less financially-rewarding position.

These things are BASIC ECONOMICS - "trade-offs" - stuff that good Christians should learn in High School, for goodness sake.

But, let's look at a couple of other points they make:

Our role is not simply to make governmentmore efficient but to make America more just. We are not committed to any particular ideological method or partisan agenda to achieve these policy goals; we are committed to achieving them.

Let's say I told you that I wanted to make your work atmosphere more 'just'. And for starters, because Cathy, the secretary is much nicer than you are, even though you keep the books for your company and Cathy does nothing but brew coffee and answer the front door, we're going to bump Cathy much higher in pay. However, we have to reduce your own pay quite a bit in order to do so. Cathy is a very nice person, but you can be pretty short with people at times, (especially when you are finishing the quarterly earnings reports, you have to admit). So this arrangement really is quite a bit more 'just' than the current situation.

Well, I'm guessing you might argue with me (and if you wouldn't, quite a few others that aren't Cathy certainly would).

But who was deciding what was 'just' before the Sojourners came along and informed you what it is? Was it a few very noble people deciding for everyone? Was there a rulebook on the breakroom coffee table that Cathy dusts periodically? No, 'justice' was decided in the marketplace, by countless millions of people every day, because we live in a nation of equal OPPORTUNITY not equal OUTCOMES. That is why the next statement: "We are not committed to any particular ideological method or partisan agenda to achieve these policy goals; we are committed to achieving them." is so terribly wrong-headed. We have to live within the boundaries of our nation's laws, yes. But we cannot concern ourselves with the outcome of comfort for EVERY human being in the nation (and, in fact the WORLD, as expressed by this group) - we cannot POSSIBLY provide for every person anything we might desire for them. Instead, we must focus on the simplest-possible, basic laws that keep people honest and civil, so that in the aggregate, every day, millions upon millions of individuals will decide WITH EACH OTHER what is 'just' BY INTERACTING WITH TOGETHER.

If we leave American 'justice' up to a bunch of lawmakers to debate and decide, then whatever those rather few lawmakers (literally thousands out of hundreds of millions) feel at any given time about what is good and just is forced on everyone (can anyone say 'abortion of tens of millions of children subsidized by your government'?) .

Ok, last quote (not that there aren't practically countless examples of the thoughtlessness of this policy document):

Students in America deserve a high-quality, publicly financed education, beginning in a child’s earliest years—even beforekindergarten—and continuing
through high school.

Ok, this goes back to the whole "we swear we're just a bunch of Christians who want to be good samaritans" thing. Just stick with me here and think for a minute logically: what have students done to 'deserve' ANY education, particularly a 'high-quality' and 'publicly financed' one? Why does being born suddenly mean you 'deserve' those things?? It doesn't... for goodness sake... We provide them because a good education benefits society at large, not because they 'deserve' it.

If we're going to guarantee everyone all of those wonderful 'rights' listed at the top of the document, why do they even need all that education anyway? Can't they enjoy life and worship the Lord without having to be 'high-quality publicly educated'? For countless years of Christian history, many good, happy Christians lived lives without being educated in any scholarly manner and CERTAINLY without any education that was publicly funded.

Simple economics teaches that a family will want to pay for its childrens' education if it values the results of that education; and it will invest in the work required to PAY for such education if it values that education.

Additionally, no historical evidence shows that a publicly provided education equates to a high-quality education. Government money tends to correlate AGAINST quality education, whereas a market approach involving individual families' decisions about where to spend their hard-earned education dollars will, like everywhere else it's tried, bring about the best education possible through supply and demand.

It is blatantly obvious that this group is simply manipulating Christians to a pre-determined liberal philosophy by tugging at heartstrings instead of involving logical thought. They take for granted things like "Health care is a human right, not a commodity available only to those who can afford it." even though such a comment is irrational on its face (i.e. health care is by definition a commodity that costs a great deal of resources and is, by definition, available only to those who can afford it).

Don't buy into these absurd manipulations.

The Wynn looks pretty cool

Wynn Las Vegas: The Unveiling - RGT Online

Wynn spent the past five years planning, designing and developing the 215-acre site that had been home to the Desert Inn. This time, the resort carries his signature: Wynn Las Vegas.

The cost, $2.7 billion, makes the 2,716-room hotel-casino the most expensive Strip endeavor of its kind.

Wynn has again changed the look of the Las Vegas skyline with the resort's 50-story, curved tower covered in bronze glass.

Let me just tell you, as much as I have a distinct distaste for Vegas' glimmering cardboard facade, looking at the Wynn is like looking at the Chairman of the Board. That hotel looks like all it has to do is stand there, and the rest of the clamoring children will Windex their paste-jewels and blue-green windows and stare upwards looking for approval from the Regal Wynn.

Yeah, a whole lot of that is that signature that says, "Come here for a moment - experience the taste of a fine cigar from my personal humidor - my private stock," and then just stands there exuding confidence.

For the record

I think I said before - but won't bother to look for it - that there is NO DOWNSIDE to the Republicans fighting for the President's judicial nominees.

However, I have already stopped giving to the NRSC and I won't give them another dime unless and until they actually use the legislative power I helped to give them by my vote and my money to actually ACT LIKE THE MAJORITY.

I have been more and more sensitive to the fact that there is a difference between my political leanings and my passion for God. That being said, this is a fundamentally political matter, and no prinipled politically active person should vote for and give money to people who don't actually do what they were sent to congress to do.

The mandate was unquestionably directly related to the appointment of judges during the whole election battle. I have pictures and emails and snail-mail all telling me how much I need to give the party money SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN REPEATEDLY. Well, if I've already given you guys a bunch of money for at least the purpose of getting judge appointments to the floor for a vote and you aren't doing that, then what, for goodness' sake, is the point of sending you more money???

And let me go a step further.

When John McCain votes against his own party and against the Constitution to support the 'tradition' of filibuster over the Constitutional 'advise and consent' of the senate, I don't care who is opposing him, even if it is only a Democrat, I will absolutely vote against him the next opportunity I have, be it for Senator or for Presidential nominee.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was SO important, why not report this little tidbit?

Michael Moore and the Myth of Fahrenheit 9/11

Fahrenheit 9/11 never had the sort of national appeal that its maker and its publicists claimed. The truth was just the opposite; deep inside the dense compilations of audience research figures that are used by movie studios to chart a film’s performance was evidence that Fahrenheit 9/11’s appeal was narrowly limited to those areas that were already solidly anti-Bush.Moore’s daily pronouncements about the movie’s success in pro-Bush areas, and the growing anti-Bush movement it was supposedly engendering, were little more than wishful thinking.

Wow, I just can't figure it out (he said sarcastically): Why aren't we hearing about how the 'revolutionary' film that transcended both 'documentary' and 'entertainment-only' film to be a radical, intellectually challenging, politically potent pop-culture event was, in reality, nothing more than a self-gratifying incestuous left-wing orgy between all varied mediums of political and creative Liberal expression?

Maybe the press just got confused and thought Canadians were supposed to vote in the American presidential election. They did oppose the war, after all.

No wait! THAT'S what John Kerry has been talking about all along about people deprived of their voting rights - we nasty, mean-spirited Republicans denied Canadians their God-given right to vote in America's elections.

Felons, illegal immigrants, and Canadians. The country would just be in such better shape if we conservatives would just relax and let those three have a voice at our ballot boxes! We are just so intolerant of criminal and foreign participation in our domestic political system.

Hey terrorists, quiet down for a little while and we'll leave, ok?

Xinhua - English:

"General George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, said two weeks ago that if all went well, the Pentagon should be able to make some fairly substantial reductions in the size of American forces by this time next year."

Look. I get the whole deal about being confident and forward-thinking. But why, for goodness' sake, telegraph to all the terrorists that if they'll just hold off for a while, we'll go home and leave them a fertile field for violence?

It really seems to me that it would be better to leave these things a mystery except for right before we're going to make the changeover, when we already have the critical forces in place to deal with any new attacks. But doing things this way seems to me to invite planning ahead by the terrorists.

I can only hope the military has some master rope-a-dope going on or something that they have good reason to believe is going to

1. Draw out the terrorists into open battle to be more quickly defeated
2. Quickly mount such a massive combination of force, political power, and accurate intelligence gathering as to prevent any further significant strategic attacks.

Neither of those options seems particularly likely to involve telling everyone, "Hey, if all goes well, we're pretty much out of here next year!"

I admit, I'm open to correction on this.