Chutzpah

There is a definition of the Yiddish term chutzpah that says it's the child who murders his parents and then begs for mercy from the courts on the grounds that he's an orphan. But our Attorney General, Eric Holder, has set a new standard for chutzpah. The reason given for the federal government's suit against Arizona, is that the Arizona law will interfere with the federal government's ability to enforce existing immigration law. Notice that they don't claim that it interferes with any attempt to enforce the law, just their ability to enforce it. This is sneaky clever because as everybody knows the federal government makes no effort whatsoever to enforce the laws, purposely looking the other way as hundreds of thousands (half a million by most estimates) illegal aliens invade Arizona and it's infrastucture. Arizonians have to bear the burden of those half a million people in their schools, emergency rooms and use of public services. The federal government has refused to help or even address the matter. Now they're trying to prevent the state from addressing it themselves with the claim that Arizona's efforts are interfereing with the non-effort from the federal government.

My understanding is that Arizona, in anticipation of just such a challenge, wrote their law so that it requires law enforcement to ask the federal government to verify the immigration status of any individual in question, because existing law REQUIRES the federal government to do just that when asked. So now the feds are, in effect, challenging their own statute. Eric and Obama are well aware of this (they are lawyers you know) but don't care how ridiculous this looks, this is politics. How else do you explain Holder's pledge to challenge this law in court, before he had even read it.

News Item: Wet Streets Cause Rain

The "debate" about illegal immigration just gets weirder and weirder. First Arizona gets condemned by the President and Attorney General, the State of California and even foriegn heads of state for having the audacity to treat federal immigration laws as, well, the law. It has been almost comical to hear the "arguments" that liberals have been offering up when they can stop sputtering long enough to get a sentence out. Outrage has been in abundance, but analysis has been in short supply. They are quick to tell you it's bad law, but their reasons are off point and lame. Their biggest problem is that they are convinced that it will be used by a police force of rednecks to randomly select dark skinned individuals off the street and demand their papers. AG Eric Holder announced he was looking to challenge the law on constitutional grounds. That, by the way is exactly the sort of thing that attorneys general are supposed to do. They are supposed to use their legal training and skills to make sure that state laws do not conflict or interfere with federal laws or their enforcement. However, I would like to assume that such an official would have actually read the law before deciding to challenge it. He didn't. It was after all 10 pages long. Home land security chief, Janet Napolitano, formerly the governor of Arizona also condemned the law. She then admitted that she also had not read it. Assistant Sec. of State PJ Crowley then attended a conference with China on human rights and apologized to them for the Arizona law, admitting that it was a violation of human rights. I'd ask you to guess what's next but that would just be rubbing it in. Of course, he hadn't read it. I promise you that if the three of them hadn't read it, neither had Obama. By the way, they all made these admissions about a week after after the condemnations and each of them seemed genuinely surprised that people were expecting them to have read it before taking a position. Their attitude was sort of "Why would I bother to read it?"

But on the other hand maybe that explains why their talking points are so disjointed and lame. The moonbat Madison city council voted a resolution asking our sherrif to stop turning illegal aliens who end up in his jail, over to ICE. Their convoluted reasoning is that if the illegal aliens are in fear of being deported by law enforcement, then they would be reluctant to help law enforcement solve crimes. So they want him to stop identifying illegal aliens so that the illegal alien community will be more willing to help solve the crimes that the illegal aliens are committing. Got that? Me neither.

The libs have great sympathy for the fact that illegal aliens have to "live in the shadows." Yes they do. They have to live in fear that their law breaking will be discovered and they will face consequences. But it's a situation of their own making. But if you really want to see them squirm, just ask them how we should deal with it. They will not offer any solution other than simply looking the other way. They refuse to say things like, "Let's increase legal immigration limits" or "Let's create a guest worker program." Certainly you will never hear them say, "Let's keep them out by securing the border." They want no part of enforcement.

Meanwhile, one of the emergency rooms in Arizona recently went bankrupt because of all the illegal aliens seeking primary treatment there.

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.”