Religion & Politics

Near as I can determine, the wording of the adage is either "Religion and politics should never be discussed, if you want to keep friends" or " Religion and politics should never be discussed at the dinner table (or in another version, in polite company.)" Or I suppose one could just take the stance that they simply shouldn't be discussed, period. That seems a little extreme. Regardless, I was recently reminded of that old saw because I had decided to espouse, unsolicited, my political views. I was even asked how I would like it if somebody espoused their religious views to me. Would that person's sincere concern for my immortal soul earn them a pass or, as was suggested, would I more likely resent it?

I'll get back to that question, but it got me to thinking about why these two particular topics are considered out of bounds and just how comparable they really are.

First, why just these two subjects? Of course the passion that people have for their politics or religion is at the crux of the matter, but that's not what puts them in the red zone. I think the similarity that makes them so touchy is faith. By definition, faith does not have evidence or supporting arguments. People do not want to defend their faith. They simply want it to be accepted.

And as far as religion goes, I'm fine with that. While most religions contain some element of evangelizing as a duty, it is not an essential requirement. In other words, you don't have to drag your friends and family along in order to get salvation. And salvation is what both religion and politics offer. With religion, it's a simple deal. If you have faith, you will be saved. With politics, there is a bit more that's involved. There, the deal is, if you have faith, AND persuade enough of your fellow citizens to also have faith, we (the politicians) will give you salvation.

So the extra requirement is that you have to get them elected before they can deliver. Sort of like you can't get into heaven unless you bring five friends. Your salvation depends on bringing others along. That's a deal changer. Now, it's not just acceptable to espouse and persuade, it's crucial for my salvation. Different game, different rules. Am I supposed to risk my salvation to spare your feelings? And why are you getting your nose out of joint to begin with? Faith in politics or politicians needs to be challenged. People may view their politics as sacred, but that shouldn't be so. It's analogous to faith, but it's not really faith. In fact, your political views need to be challenged. My salvation depends on it.

Just Bad Luck I Guess

While sitting around the house watching Obama's poll numbers rise, and pondering this ugly incident where black members of congress were acosted with "cahnts" of the "N" word. I kept thinking of the last time that the actions of conservative protesters upset me so. That was back in the 2008 primaries when a group of young white men stood up at a Hillary Clinton rally and began shouting "IRON MY SHIRTS." You can watch it here if you don't recall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsocCWiLh3s

I remember thinking at the time, "Who are these idiots? I can't believe anybody with half a brain much less a conservative would do or say such a thing."

And I was right, they didn't. It didn't take much research for these young men to be connected directly to, you guessed it, Hillary's own campaign. If you watch the tape you can see for yourself how staged it is. Hillary then shows just how much gall she has by commenting on the staged production that "she never knows what to expect." Apparently that's even so when she plans it in the first place.

So now I go looking for the tape of the "N" word being thrown about at congressmen walking the capitol grounds. They HAD to have captured it right? Come on, black congressman, walking the capitol grounds, surrounded by angry protesters. There have to be video cameras EVERYWHERE. They got it right?

But darned if they didn't. I can't find a single snippet of a single utterence of that, or any other racial or homophobic slur (which they claimed was hurled at Barney Frank). And the news stories only report the congressmen repeating the slur. Apparently none of the reporters actually heard it themselves. Amazing. All those cameras and nobody got it on tape. Just bad luck I guess. Hmmmmmm.

Hmmm, What Should We Call It?

The following quote from Russ Feingold, comes from Maureen Dowd's latest column on the failed Christmas Day bomber and the fact that he came via Yemen.

"Senator Feingold told me that 'this is obviously an international network and we have to start thinking about it that way rather than as a country-by-country eradication process.'”

What a terrific observation. Maybe we should start calling it something that elucidates this reality. Something more indicative of what is really going on. Something like, oh, I don't know, "the global war on terror"?

Who's in charge here?

Today is January 2nd and up until a few days ago, I was looking forward to watching my Texas Tech Red Raiders play in the Alamo Bowl. It had been a bit disappointing as far as prestige goes, and it wasn't my hoped for match up with the Badgers, but I was still ready to see them whip 50 points on a Big Ten team. And maybe they will, but I will not be able to enjoy it because the best thing to ever happen to Texas Tech football, Mike Leach, was fired by Tech on Wednesday.

The public reason has centered on Leach's treatment of injured sophomore receiver Adam James, son of ESPN announcer Craig James. When I first heard of the suspension, I was in complete agreement with Lou Holtz on a pre-game show. He said it didn't make any sense and that there had to be other reasons that we are not hearing about. The first version out there, was that he had locked the kid in a dark closet for 3 hours. It was certainly made to seem like a hazing type of thing. As a clearer picture emerged about what had really happened, it was put forth by Tech that the real problem was not the act so much as Leach's refusal to apologize for it, presumably to the kid and more importantly, Craig James. A significant spin by the Tech administrators was that if only Mike had signed the apology, everything would be just fine. But Leach maintains that promise was never made. And it seems he had good reason to think Tech was going to fire him anyway.

When you look at it from that perspective, it does seem a bit wacky to hinge the question of whether or not to fire Leach on the basis of him apologizing to one particular parent over his treatment of a player when there was nothing even resembling physical abuse, and even psychological abuse would be debatable. Early on in the whole thing, one or two guys mentioned the "bitter" negotiations on his contract last winter. But I thought, "No way, they're all adults. That's negotiations. Who doesn't try and get all they can?"

Turns out I couldn't have been more wrong. The Dallas Morning News filed a freedom of information request last spring and got a bunch of emails that had been sent to Chancellor Kent Hance that all pertained to Leach and his contract. You don't see the replies, or anything from Hance, but the ones from big supporter Jim Sowell are certainly revealing. I think the most significant aspect of them is the degree of comfort he displays in attacking the guy who was unarguably the most popular figure ever in Texas Tech football (and I grew up watching Donny Anderson, EJ Hollub and Dave Parks.) He rips Leach in each and every email. He's not so hot. He's not done that well, he hasn't sold out the stadium consistently, he hasn't won a national championship (when he compared his salary to Oklahoma's Stoops and Texas' Brown.) Well I'd like to point out to Mr. Sowell what it is he did do. He made me proud to be from Texas Tech. He made Texas Tech notable to the point that I didn't have to constantly correct acquaintances that I didn't go to Texas Christian or Texas A&M, and that, no, I really didn't care if The University of Texas won another national championship because I didn't go there and don't really like them. He made Texas Tech football so exciting that people who were neutral began to adopt them. Sowell lives in Texas so I doubt he saw this much, but I can tell you people outside of Texas saw Leach and the Red Raiders as new and exciting. They got respect ( particularly when they scored 31 unanswered points on Minnesota,) and let me tell you that was always in short supply around here. But his biggest accomplishment was taking two and three star recruits and then going on to beat the teams who were getting the four and five star recruits. And THAT put us in position to get the four and five star recruits we could NEVER get before. Perhaps somebody should point out to Mr. Sowell that it has been, shall we say "challenging," to recruit great athletes to Lubbock. My favorite Leach story is one from a profile the NY Times did early in his Tech career. That year every single player on the squads that he faced from Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma had turned him down for a scholarship at Tech. He couldn't say that in recent years. Let's hope they never have to say it again. It will be interesting to see what this does to this year's recruiting class, considered Tech's best ever. Did they think that was an accident?

But what is painfully obvious from the emails is that a lot of it was about the contract. Sowell's tone in his letters are proof to me that he thought he had a like mind at the other end of the computer. You'd never write such things to somebody you even thought they might disagree. And if the demeanor of the letters isn't bad enough, Sowell seems to take the negotiations very personally. At one point Leach (or his agents) try to include a restructuring of the now infamous $800,000 bonus due on 12/31/09. They are trying to pull it into the contract extension and turn it into a deferred compensation instrument. Sowell goes ballistic and rants about a completion bonus being a not-so-completed bonus and declares that Leach has lost all "credibility" with him. But also in amongst the rants are repeated whines about the money. When Kent Hance said in recent interviews that the $800,000 bonus was at no time, part of the consideration to fire Leach, I did a spit take.

What I got from the emails is that Sowell, and Myers and probably Hance, were extremely resentful of Leach because of all the personal popularity he enjoyed and the cult of personality threat that he presented to them. He used it (perhaps, like a club) during the negotiations and they hated it. It put them in a position where they had to sign him, and he knew it. The newest and hottest addition to Tech traditions, pirate paraphernalia, was most identified with the coach, not the school. It was the coach who was featured on the cover of The New York Times Magazine, not the University. 60 Minutes did not do a segment on the Tech athletic department. When Texas Monthly did a story on the success of UT athletics, it had the entire staff on the cover (Texas Inc.) This fall the cover was a giant eye-patched portrait with LEACH, in what is likely the largest legally permissible font size, plastered edge to edge. If you were to quiz casual fans in every non-Big Twelve state, Leach would be the most recognized or known, including Stoops or Brown. And all this popularity was the problem. That's what made Tech sign a deal they couldn't live with. They either really couldn't afford it, or they simply couldn't live with paying it to Leach. The old saying is that whenever somebody like Hance declares that "it's not about the money" you can rest assured, it's about the money. But in this case I think the money was secondary to the power. I think the situation bears more than a little resemblance to the Green Bay/Brett Favre situation of two years ago. You've got a guy who is an employee of the organization who has succeeded in elevating his profile and perceived influence far above anybody else in the organization, including his bosses in particular. This employee holds all the cards in any negotiation. The fans worship him and see his happiness and continued employment by the organization as crucial. His bosses think otherwise. The question they keep asking themselves is, "Who's in charge here?" And increasingly the answer was, the employee. Then it becomes a matter of time. How long are they willing to live with that situation? They'd lived with it long enough, fans be damned.

The Myth of Idealogical Purity

There has been a parade of editorials and political cartoons depicting the Republican party as conducting some sort of purge, evicting anyone who dares to stray from some ideological standard that they claim is being set by radical right wingers. In short, that is bullshit.

The first thing that you will note on these stories, columns and cartoons, is that they are being told, written and drawn by dedicated liberals. Most annoying, (and a dead give away that it is bullshit) is the approach they take. Never do they display the delight they must surely be experiencing as they observe the self destruction of the party they love to hate. And “hate” is precisely the appropriate term to use. They won’t use it though, because they like to think that they are above that sort of thing. If you believe them, (and I don’t) they don’t hate ANYBODY.

No, they are in a constant state of anguish over the loss of the "loyal opposition,” even though they don’t consider them loyal at all, and never did. They just think it’s a doggone shame that the GOP has gone and shot themselves in the foot. “Why heck, who are we going to engage in a reasoned debate? It’s just terrible the way those Republicans have turned their party over to the right wingers and thrown out anybody who even looks moderate.” Their sympathy is touching.

But sympathy isn’t all they have to offer. They also give lots of advice. Heartfelt advice. Advice designed to put conservatives back on the track to regaining, if not an outright majority, then at least a more respectable minority percentage. They purport to be very concerned about our future and want nothing more than a robust opposition. They will say things like, “The system works best when there are two vibrant parties in the debate.”

But what they really mean is, “The system works best for us when we argue from a far left position and you take the slightly left-of-center position.”

Do yourself a favor and go re-read anything you might have digested during the 2008 presidential campaign. The GOP, trembling in fear, nominated the most “moderate” guy who was running. The man who proudly put his name alongside Russ Feingold in naming the campaign finance reform that conservatives abhorred. The guy who sent conservatives straight up a wall with his amnesty for illegal aliens. The man who spent the previous eight years as the Democrats favorite Republican, always willing to take a shot at the sitting president, to the opposition’s delight. And it was really gratifying when Democrats then showed their appreciation by demonstrating respect for this model of moderateness. It must have had something to do with moderate Republicans like Colin Powell, who publicly advised his fellow Republicans to moderate their views and nominate a real moderate. Say, somebody like John McCain for instance. That would be much more to his moderate liking, than say, Rush Limbaugh, to whom, he advised, we should all stop listening. Anyway, all I know is the Dems were respectful of McCain as a candidate and Colin Powell stood directly behind our candidate. And then stuck a shiv in his back. But at least the Democrats waited until McCain was nominated before they started chanting “Bush’s third term.”

How Noble

Good God almighty! Barrack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Ten months into a presidency that has just recently drawn criticism for having done absolutely nothing, the idiots in Stockholm couldn't resist giving the award to the most ridiculous recipient since Yassar Arafat. Apparently repeating a lot of empty cliches and not being George W. Bush was all it took. Jimmy Carter has got to be kicking himself. He spent ten years building houses and compromising world wide security with his counterproductive visits to North Korea to get his. Of course, they are both chasing Al Gore who also has an Academy Award and a Grammy to boot. Broadway is still trying to figure out a way to slip him a Tony. As the only living Democrat president to not win it, Bill Clinton is on suicide watch.

The Nobel awards for the sciences have retained a modicum of impartiality, due to the fact that they have to deal in facts. The prizes for Peace and Literature have no such constraints, and have simply and blatantly been un-American for years. When they gave it to Jimmy Carter, the message was, "You shouldn't have thown him out for Ronald Reagan." When they gave it to Al Gore, the message was, "You should have elected him instead of Bush." And today the message is, "You finally got it right!"

Here's a trivia question. From what speech does the following quote come?

"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, ..."

That would from Harold Pinter's acceptance speech for the Literature prize in 2005.

And then there is this quote from the man in the street:

"Obama won? Really? Wow," said David Hassan, 43, of Pine Brook, New Jersey. "He deserves it I guess, he's the president. He's a smart guy and I guess he's into peace."

Well there you go.

I think it will now be safe to refer to this award as The Nobel Prize for Left Wing Politics. Seriously. There is no connection to "peace" at all. Carter got it for being openly opposed to the policies of George W. Bush. Gore got it for producing a movie about global warming! Yassar Arafat got it because he said he'd stop blowing up innocent civilians, even though he did nothing of the sort. Betty Williams got it despite saying that she'd like to kill George Bush, twice. Meanwhile, Mohatma Ghandi never got one.

A Swing and a Whiff

When it comes to things that really matter, liberals are always quick to be on the other side of the United States. If you’re talking about energy consumption, they’ll recite statistics to show that we consume a disproportionate share of the world’s resources. Rather than seeing it as a result of our superior accomplishments, they view it as proof of our avarice. If you were to point out the technological advantages that US citizens enjoy, they will try and make you feel guilty because there are so many poor souls in Africa that have never even seen a computer. The average person in the US who is living below the poverty line, has a car, a color television, a VCR and air conditioning. But to liberals, where that line sits on the continuum of lifestyles from destitute to luxurious is of no interest. The very fact that there is a “poverty line” and that some are below it is more than they can stand. Everyone else should be hanging their heads in shame at their embarrassment of riches.

All of which makes their attitude about the 2016 Olympics, that much more befuddling. Now don’t get me wrong. When I put the Olympics into the category of things that don’t matter, I mean really matter. Yes, where they are, does matter. It’s always a huge boost the local economy and infrastructure. And I am a sports fan, although I have given up hoping to see more of those sports that I prefer to watch such as boxing and judo. I’m afraid we are permanently condemned to watch every single second of figure skating and “women’s” (they’re all girls) gymnastics.

But this morning Chicago was shot down as a site for 2016, despite a personal appearance and appeal from our Apologist in Chief himself, Barrack Obama. But this is one case where we truly have had more than our fair share. In the modern era, there have been 29 summer Olympics and 20 winter games. The US has hosted 4 summer events (St. Louis, Atlanta and Los Angeles twice.) North America has had six (Montreal and Mexico City.) Out of only twenty winter events the US has hosted 4 times (Salt lake City, Squaw Valley and Lake Placid twice.) North America has hosted 5 (Calgary) but that will be six after Vancouver in 2010.

In the meantime, South America has never hosted either games, even once. And if there was ever an event that should carry an element of socialist “spread-the-wealth” thinking, it would be the Olympics. It’s truly international, and again, it really doesn’t matter. It’s mostly all about national pride anyway, and liberals are never proud of the United States, particularly when we are doing something obnoxious like winning a disproportionate share of the medals, like we usually do. Well they were devastated today when Rio got the nod. But I feel that’s mostly because Obama took it on as a personal mission, and they are deeply invested in BHO’s success of failure.