|
|
Wednesday, November 30, 2005The Mason Conservative: Joe vs. The (Liberal) VolcanoMason Conservative lays the liberal media out: Where was the media coverage that followed John Murtha? Lieberman has an established national presence, where Murtha did not. Murtha was a media creation after he came out for cut and run. Before, who knew him? Yet he got a media BLITZ. Does Lieberman, a Democratic senator since 1988 and former running-mate on an almost winning presidential ticket, not deserve the same coverage?We all know the answer to that one, don't we? General Assembly 2006So it is slowly dawning on me that the General Assembly will be heading into session in a month or so, and the Virginia blogosphere for all intents and purposes is slowing down (e.g. when NLS has to resort to making his blogroll ratings news, it's slow). I'm interested on how the Virginia blogosphere is going to affect the 2006 GA session. We've matured a bit, understand our ethics (unwritten or otherwise), the difference between good blogging and rumormongering, and have demonstrated a rather keen awareness of what's going on in Virginia politics to date. For instance, would the 2004 tax hike have even occured if a Virginia blogosphere were analyzing, tearing to ribbons, applying pressure, or simply discussing the merits and pitfalls of said legislation? Pick an issue any issue - 2006 will be a proving grounds for what the Virginia blogosphere wants to be. A defining year so to speak. Some have connections, others I'm sure will be eager to draw conclusions, but whatever the case, 2006 will prove to be a very interesting year. Much thanks to Jaded JD for friendly corrections. The Rush to War
Ice Age! Because of Global Warming!!!You gotta read this: The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.Woah whoa whoa... I had to stop reading at this point. WHAT?! Global warming causes ice ages?! Do they read what they write before they print it? Of course, the science is fascinating. Briefly, there is a current that runs along the North Atlantic that terminates in Greenland. As it cools (and ice forms), it descends, and follows a path back to the tropics, where the cycle starts anew. The trick is the saline content in the water -- as ice forms in the north, the salt is carried back to the tropics, and the fluxuating salinity of the water affects the current. At least the end of the article brings some sanity back to the conversation: Nobody is clear on what has gone wrong. Suggestions for blame include the melting of sea ice or increased flow from Siberian rivers into the Arctic. Both would load fresh water into the surface ocean, making it less dense and so preventing it from sinking, which in turn would slow the flow of tropical water from the south. And either could be triggered by man-made climate change. Some climate models predict that global warming could lead to such a shutdown later this century.All that global warming in the 1300s must have really messed up our delicate environment... Pfft. Vatican instruction on homosexuality and priestly formationI've been carefully reading the commentary that has been filtering in on the latest Vatican document on homosexuality and priestly formation. Some Catholic priests have resigned (good riddance), some have thrown their hands up in disgust, and others have praised the document for its tone. The full text of the document can be read here, and I'd recommend that before taking any fantastical leaps one way or another. I like this: According to the constant tradition of the church, only a baptized person of the male sex validly receives sacred ordination. By means of the sacrament of orders, the Holy Spirit configures the candidate to Jesus Christ in a new and specific way: The priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, the head, shepherd and spouse of the church. Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his whole person to the church and by an authentic pastoral charity.Thus, priestly formations first principles are based on the maturation of a vocational premise. Good start. Note carefully that the premise is not priestly celibacy. If that were the case (as some commentators are incorrectly reading), that would mean radical things for Catholic Rites that do not observe priestly celibacy. Vocation, and the mature recognition of one's vocation, is the starting point. From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various documents of the magisterium, and especially the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," have confirmed the teaching of the church on homosexuality. The catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.A perfect summation of the Catholic approach to homosexuality. Acts are distinct from personhood. Some people have the inclination to drink excessively, steal, lie... those who commit the acts are labelled alcoholics, thieves, and liars. But there is a disrespect for the person if we begin to identify their acts with their being. In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."And the hammer drops, but on the homosexual act. One could read this as follows: (T)he church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice alcoholism, present deep-seated alcoholic tendencies or support the so-called "bar culture." (T)he church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice theft, present deep-seated theft tendencies or support the so-called "pickpocket culture." (T)he church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice lying, present deep-seated lying tendencies or support the so-called "lying culture." It's a bit crude and unfashioned, but the point is made nonetheless. The distinction between the sin and the sinner is made very, very well by the Vatican document. Then there is the topic of priestly ordination. Many confuse the idea of becoming a priest with the idea of becoming a lawyer, a doctor, or a teacher. You decide what you want to be, you go to school, you go to college, you go to graduate-level courses, you apply at an institution... Priestly formation is much different: There are two inseparable elements in every priestly vocation: the free gift of God and the responsible freedom of the man. A vocation is a gift of divine grace received through the church, in the church and for the service of the church. In responding to the call of God, the man offers himself freely to him in love. The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient, and there does not exist a right to receive sacred ordination. It belongs to the church -- in her responsibility to define the necessary requirements for receiving the sacraments instituted by Christ -- to discern the suitability of him who desires to enter the seminary, to accompany him during his years of formation and to call him to holy orders if he is judged to possess the necessary qualities.Formation is the strong point, and it goes hand in hand with discernment. Why is it this way? Consider that the priesthood isn't independent. Rather, the priest is a representative of the bishop, and is actually a "newer" innovation on the part of the Church (newer as in post-New Testament) where bishops would reside in major cities, and deacons would go forward and perform the needs of the Church. Priests were a method of bringing the Mass to other communities. In doing so, they are bound by obedience to submit themselves to their bishops, as they are literally acting in their stead. Therefore, not only is a discernment process needed on behalf of the seminarian, a formation period is needed on behalf of the Church whom the priest will serve. Pretty cool, huh? Unfortunately, many who do not understand this demand holy orders for themselves, misunderstanding the vocational discernment as superior to their formation. Pride is the factor at play, and given the role of all religious is to serve Christ and His Church, you can now see why Holy Orders are just as much a trial of obedience as they are a trial of discernment. It goes without saying that the candidate himself has the primary responsibility for his own formation. He must offer himself trustingly to the discernment of the church, of the bishop who calls him to orders, of the rector of the seminary, of his spiritual director and of the other seminary educators to whom the bishop or major superior has entrusted the task of forming future priests. It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality in order to proceed, despite everything, toward ordination. Such a deceitful attitude does not correspond to the spirit of truth, loyalty and openness that must characterize the personality of him who believes he is called to serve Christ and his church in the ministerial priesthood.Again, the struggle between personal pride and humble obedience. The document concludes: This congregation reaffirms the need for bishops, major superiors and all relevant authorities to carry out an attentive discernment concerning the suitability of candidates for holy orders from the time of admission to the seminary until ordination. This discernment must be done in light of a conception of the ministerial priesthood that is in accordance with the teaching of the church.The last part is important, because previous critics of past Vatican documents have shunned them because they did not issue from the Pope himself (a form of Americanism condemned by Pope Leo XIII). This document is authorititative, and does represent authentic Catholic teaching on the matter of the ordination of homosexuals. So what will this mean in the end? For those of us who will remember, the Vatican is undergoing a review of all North American seminaries in the wake of the pederasty scandal. Now that the seminaries have been examined, and the guidelines proffered, changes will be expected to be made. Ultimately, no commentary is going to provide the best view for the new Vatican document. I don't believe it is too harsh or too lenient on the issue at all. In fact, it hits the nail square on the head. My only regret is that the document did not come out 20 years earlier. Read it yourself and come to your own conclusions. Testosterone and trustInteresting findings from a study that says men's testosterone levels increase by as much as five times when they perceive they are not trusted: In the experiment, just reported in the American Economic Review, the researchers found women were less trustful than men, sending over about a dollar less, on average, to the second player. If the first player sent over $5 or less, the researchers counted that as a signal of "distrust" for the second player.Now is this a trust issue, or is it a competition issue? Interestingly enough, the paper opens up with a brief overview of oxytocin, and how when the body produces more oxytocin individuals are much more trusting than otherwise. What produces oxytocin? Vitamin C. So break out the orange juice at your next high-stakes poker match... Otherwise, interesting white paper. Worth a read if you have nothing better to do. Tuesday, November 29, 2005Pope declares plenary indulgence for December 8Ooooo. Plenary indulgences, for those of us who are Catholic, are very cool things. Democrats as moderatesAs I've said before, Democrats can only win if they step to the right. Zogby agrees: Asked about the political philosophy of the candidates, 45% said Republican Kilgore was too conservative for their tastes, while 39% said Democrat Kaine was too liberal. While 34% said Kaine was at just the right spot on the political spectrum, just 28% agreed that Kilgore's philosophy was right on the money.In the end, Kaine ran not to the left, but borrowed conservative themes to appear the moderate while successfully painting Kilgore as too extreme. I would have like to seen which issues Kilgore was considered to be "too extreme" on. Given that the death penalty and immigration were the key issues, I'd wager that Kaine sucessfully painted Jerry "Kill-more" as all too happy to kill convicts and shove out immigrants. Other findings? Bush hurt Kilgore. Warner helped Kaine. So what does this do to my "there is no sensible center" hypothesis? I'd still maintain that Dems are stepping to the right to stay electable (who will reasonably claim Kaine or Warner to be radical liberals?) and that "centrism" for all intensive purposes is dead, dead, dead for lack of definition. Dems are running to the right in order to compete with a much more conservative America. Good news nationally for Warner and Lieberman. Bad news nationally for Hillary and Dean. New Dominion: Virginia Political LiteratureTrying to find that perfect gift? Buy these! I already have the book on Reynolds (Time of His Life), but all the others look exceptionally cool. (via Chad) Monday, November 28, 2005I/ITSECIn Orlando, Florida for the week for IITSEC, which I have to say is a pretty impressive setup. 80F and raining right now. How's the weather back up in Virginia? Islam, the Crusades, and the past as prologueI can't help but wonder at the scorn being heaped upon Paul Akers at the Free Lance-Star for his article on Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours. Why do I wonder? It's the historical amnesia, as if a defense of Christianity and Western culture against Muslim invaders was somehow criminal. Intolerable. Racist even... Now I take strong exception at the racism charge. That stems from a deep-seated ignorance of Muslim culture for starters (more multicultural than most give it credit), and therefore a slap in the face to Islam itself. As for the idea that the Muslim conquests during the seventh century and the subsequent Crusades to the Holy Land could somehow be muddied by 21st century sentiment, I can only cringe. Sanitizing history seems to be a particular pastime of Western apologists for Islam nowadays, akin to what some folks might do to the Crusades themselves (e.g. when the Christians sacked Jerusalem, the Crusaders killed those inside the walls as a "purification" of the Holy City, a crime Saladin graciously did not repeat a century later). All this having been said, there has always been much criticism as to why the Crusades occured, mostly portrayed as Frankish greed cloaked in religious sentiment. Not so. By 1095, the Seljuk Turks had conquered most of Asia Minor, threatening Constantinople itself. Byzantine Emperor Alexios Kommenos I asked Pope Urban II for aid. Pope Urban responded: Urban, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all the faithful, both princes and subjects, waiting in Flanders; greeting, apostolic grace, and blessing.What happened afterwards was not the exemplification of Christianity - nor of Islam. The best I can ask for is that for anyone hoping to learn of the Crusades, to do so on their own. There were vicious examples of brutal tyrrany (Renyald de Chatillion for instance), and yet there were examples of great virtue (Saladin has to be one of the most amazing leaders in history). The Muslim invasion, the Crusades, the fall of Constantinople, and the Spanish reconquista are all a remarkable chapter in human history, resulting from a world where two different cultures collided. Today, we face the same challenges, and the past is indeed prologue. It falls to us to remind ourselves that men and women of character have a responsibility to ensure that collision doesn't repeat past mistakes. Bowden: A Conservative HeroJim Bowden is ready to post wanted signs willing to stand up and lead. He's right. Ferarra: Get Real, Conservatives!Peter Ferarra has it right: The election data shows that Kilgore ran behind other Republicans in the Congressional districts represented by Republicans, indicating that conservatives disgusted over the tax issue just stayed home. The numbers indicate as well that unless Tom Davis gets religion over taxes and stops publicly attacking conservatives, there are going to be fewer Congressional districts represented by Republicans after the next election. Davis may need religion in a few other areas as well.So what do we do about it? What's the solution? Wake up conservatives! We have a more fundamental problem than Kilgore’s ads and stump speech. The problem is we are just not getting our message through to the public. The people do not hear us. We are not on radio and TV, or in the newspapers, in regard to Virginia issues. We do not sponsor forums to spread our message. We speak almost nowhere. We publish almost nothing.An excellent read. Highly recommended. Sunday, November 27, 2005NLS: Is the GOP Senate Majority in Trouble?Ben Tribbett wonders aloud whether or not the Democratic slam-dunk in NOVA spells trouble for the GOP in the Virginia Senate: The reason Republicans are so worried is they control four seats in Northern Virginia. These seats all saw dramatic shifts to the Democrats this year, and no one knows for sure if this is a trend, or a one time blip.We're pretty certain at this point that Kilgore did indeed depress conservative turnout. Furthermore, we can be reasonably certain that the lessons drawn from the 2005 elections demonstrate the following: (1) There is no such thing as a "sensible center". (2) Voters want clear, distinct choices and will stay home if offered otherwise. (3) Nothing is guarenteed in politics, even if you have a 10-point lead three months into Election Day. It's worth going over the fact that only Democrats are "moving to the sensible center", largely in part because (and I still maintain this) the 2004 elections demonstrated a political shift away from the '60's style liberalism and towards a more conservative positioning. In Virginia, liberals lose. Democrats have to moderate their positions in order to be electable. On the flip side of the coin, while the Republicans could afford to elect so-called moderates while Democrats held the majority, this is no longer the case today. Conservatives are the majority, and the fact that Democrats have to pander and dilute their ideology to the conservative mainstream speaks volumes. Republicans who do not eschew the principles of conservativism are viewed skeptically. Need proof? What happened to President Bush when he proffered Harriet Meiers? Wonder why Bush's approval rating is really in the mid-30's? Conservative America is a smarter breed than its more left-leaning predecessor, and much more skeptical of half-hearted Republicans who perpetuate the socialized system Democrats have propped up over the years. It's crumbling, decaying, and limps on only through higher taxes and blithe, willful ignorance. Voters know it, politicians know it, and the call for action is out. In Virginia, either one of two actions will happen. Either conservatives will whip out the hatchet and start devolving the state government back into the hands of private enterprise and local governments (and not in the form of unfunded mandates either), or the liberals will poke, prod, and resist until the public gets so tired of the GOP that they vote for the Dems, their higher taxes, and the radical social agenda that goes with it. There's a crude analogy that ends with "or get off the pot," but you get the idea. Will the conservatives offer a vision for Virginia? The Freedom and Prosperity Agenda is a good start, but more can be done. What happened to the recommendations of the Wilder Commission? What about local transpotation dollars being spent by the localities who make the land use decisions? What about overhauling the entire Virginia tax code? Abolishing the property tax and allowing localities to exercise more latitude in their method of taxation? School choice? When the liberals hurl the "free lunch" epithet, they do it because they see power slipping through the fingers of bureaucrats and into the hands of families and taxpayers - where it belongs. This debate starts and ends in the House, and the only way the GOP maintains a majority is if conservatives stand up and be counted, weather the criticisms of the liberals, and understand that doing what's right comes with cost. Audaces fortuna iuvat! Reporter's tears for Arafat were 'biased'A BBC board has determined that one of their reporters crying over the death of Yasser Arafat might be... um... a bit out of sorts: Ms Plett's mention of her tearful response 'breached the requirements of due impartiality', the governors said. In the broadcast of October 30, 2004, she described watching Arafat being helicoptered from his West Bank headquarters to a French hospital, where he later died.No joke. The Fark.com headline? "BBC admits that a reporter crying over a dying terrorist may indicate a slight bias." Ever so slight, I'm sure... Grant Paulsen on LaDanian Tomlinson17-year old sports writer Grant Paulsen had me laughing out loud this morning, regarding Chargers RB LaDanian Tomlinson: Tomlinson is the better of the two, and probably the top player at his position in football. Still only 26 and in his fifth NFL season, Tomlinson is the complete package. He's never rushed for less than 1,230 yards in a season, and in just his third season managed to catch 100 passes out of the backfield.Heh! Paulsen out of King George County, Virginia has been writing sports articles for years now, and even has an XM radio show on Saturdays. Great candidate for a sports blog. OrlandoIn Orlando for a conference for the entire week, so at the moment I'm doing all the requisite hotel room nesting. It's a long drive from Fredericksburg to Orlando... Saturday, November 26, 2005Chavez's offers cheap oil in Boston, NYVenezuelan president Hugo Chavez is offering cheap oil to low-income families in Boston and New York for 40% less than market value: To the anger of many in Washington, Citgo Petroleum Corporation, a company controlled by the Venezuelan Government, will supply more than 45 million litres of oil at 40 per cent below market prices.It's interesting that Chavez's path to power has been through organizations such as the "Bolivarian Revolution" and other such organizations based mostly on a Latinized version of the old-style communist societies. Bolivarianism, or a specialized brand of democratic socialism based on a Cuban-Venezuelan axis, is the ideology being born here; a new form of "liberation theology". Chavez has been deeply criticized by the business community as well as the Roman Catholic Church for eroding civil rights and attempting to indoctrinate his "Bolivarianism" upon rural Venezuelans. Ways to fight back? Don't go to Citgo. Friday, November 25, 2005Website updateVisitors to the old website will remember that the old blog had a lot more on it than just the blog. Most of my college papers were up, as well as old apologetics information, white papers, and other cool and interesting stuff. This weekend, I just might have the temerity to make those links work. We'll see though. H5N1 'all over' JakartaH5N1 bird flu has reportedly spread all over the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. What does this mean? Well, if the H5N1 virus is as serious as the oundits are saying it is, it means the end of the world is nigh. Otherwise, stock up on the usual provisions of flu stuff and proceed as normal. Justice Scalia beats Al Franken like he stole somethingFranken vs. Scalia in a Celebrity Deathmatch. Who wins? Page Six said Franken, who hosts a program on the liberal Air America network, 'found out the hard way not to mess with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who chided Franken as if he were a delinquent schoolboy."Damn. That's just plain embarassing. But oh... poor Al Franken! What if Scalia hurt his psyche? His self-esteem?!?! "I don't think I was any meaner than I had to be," Scalia told New York Daily News gossip columnist Lloyd Grove at the cocktail party. "My kids have been working on me to get out and do more public appearances. ... They think it makes it harder to demonize you - and I agree."Indeed. FLS: What should we do with Maury School?The FLS opinion page wonders aloud what should happen to Maury School, a building that has been empty for almost as long as I have been alive. I was part of the 2002 process to try to put a Catholic school on the property. That, along with eight other proposals, were never moved on by Fredericksburg City Council, and Maury continued to languish, empty and unresolved. My proposal? Catholic high school by day, community arts center by night. Not only does this provide the maximum use of the Maury School property, the combined community resolve to raise funds would be there from the get-go. During the day, 500 high school students would be attending a first rate school. Parents would drop off their children (or students would walk to school), teachers and administration would park in the small lot reserved for Maury, and the school would certainly maximize it's use as classes took up the majority of the day. During the evening, the arts community would be able to have full use of the school's auditorium, the community would be able to use the gym, the classrooms would be opened for meeting space, and who knows -- if the arts center wanted to relocate into Maury, what's the harm in having some awesome art classes at the Catholic high school? The good news is that St. Michael's High School is ready to move in with the support of the Catholic business community, a solid business plan, and a wad of cash to invest. The even better news is that the arts community has been primed for a quality space for decades. What's best is that between the two groups, there's plenty - plenty - of community support between the two. The alternative will be to either go it alone, or turn the building into condos, and the Catholic community in Fredericksburg and beyond would be very disappointed to see that happen. Thursday, November 24, 2005Happy Thanksgiving!A true Virginian holiday: The first Thanksgiving occurred when Captain John Woodlief led the newly arrived English colonists to a grassy slope along the James River and instructed them to drop to their knees and pray in thanks for a safe arrival to the New World.Thanksgiving to Almighty God. A happy and safe Thanksgiving to you and your loved ones this year. Tuesday, November 22, 2005SST: Davis v. Smith matchup in the First?Addison over at Sic Semper Tyrannis muses on the possibility of a Democratic challenger to Rep. Jo Ann Davis. Bring. It. On. If this is even remotely true, the Dems have been drinking more of the ol' Kool Aid than I thought. I could start with a long list of why such a race would be foolhardy at best, but I can only hope that DPVA isn't selling this guy a boatload of flowers. People will work hard for Jo Ann, no question. Virginia Centrist: Virginia Democratic PartyVirginia Centrist gives his take on what's going right, and what's going wrong with the left -- as well as a litany of questions we might all have on our mind. I agree with most of the items on the list, with a few notable exceptions. Worth reading. Monday, November 21, 2005Disingenuous Advocates of VREI was rather interested to see a letter from Prince William's Dick Peacock write a letter in this morning's Free Lance-Star demanding Spotsylvania join the VRE. Why should 100,000 Spotsylvanians be taxed to support the 900 people who ride VRE? Of course, I didn't stop there. Who is Dick Peacock anyway? Why he's a member the board of directors of VARP, a group committed to getting as many people to subsidize VRE riders as possible (mostly Northern Virginians). Not only has he been recognized via resolution by VRE itself, he's been riding VRE for 11 years, and every locality that joins eases the pressure on VRE to raise its fares on those who actually use the service. Not exactly a disinterested citizen, eh? I'm sure Mr. Peacock is doing what every citizen has the right to do; participate in political activism. The pet cause here just happens to be a government-sponsored VRE system he personally benefits from. Frankly, I have no problems with Spotsylvania joining VRE, provided that (1) VRE pay for the station, (2) the cost of VRE be joined to the price of the ride, and (3) those who ride VRE and use the service pay for it without the subsidization of the local government, and (4) not a dime of public money goes towards the VRE program. In other words, if you ride VRE you're payin' for it. No one pays my ride to work, the gas in my car, or the maintenance of my vehicle but yours truly. For VRE to expect an exemption and a 2% gas tax on 100,000 Spotsylvanians to pay for 900 riders is utterly ridiculous. Should bus riders get some form of subsidization too? What about carpool drivers? Vans? Who else gets to dip their hands in the pie? VRE. One more instance of government doing something it was never designed to do. Sunday, November 20, 2005Home Depot Bans Man for Pocketing Pencil?You're buying $117 of lumber. Your buddy offers you a pencil to mark some of the wood. You mark it and begin to walk out of the store. Just then, security comes running out. You absentmindedly pocketed the used pencil - a $0.41 mistake. Home Depot's cost? Banning you from their stores for one year. This seems to be causing a fuss up in New England. Come on... who hasn't asked to borrow a pencil/pen, used it, get busy with something else, then remember you still had the pen? Granted, you return the pen, but just a tap on the shoulder and a "hey buddy, you still have that pencil?" clears things up nicely, yes? Especially if you're buying $117 of lumber. Petty shoplifting is one thing. A paying customer? Geez... Of course, a *great* public relations gimmick by Home Depot would be to come up with orange carpenter pencils with the Home Depot logo on them and hand the pencils out free with every purchase. So it might cost $100,000 or so for a month or two, but it's a neat gimmick that would certainly recover any loss in sales from a public who might rather do business elsewhere until they forget about it. Why I love Pope Benedict XVI!During their ad limina visit to Rome, the Austrian Bishops were given not just a lecutre, but read the riot act for failing to uphold Catholic teaching and culture in Austria: “As you well know, the confession of the faith is one of the bishop’s primary duties. ‘I did not draw back’, St. Paul says in Miletus to the pastors of the Church of Ephesus, ‘from the task of proclaiming to you the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27). It is true that we bishops must act with discretion. Nevertheless, this prudence must not prevent us from presenting the Word of God in all its clarity, including those things that are heard less willingly or that consistently provoke reactions of protest and derision.Don't deceive yourselves. This pope is amazing! Come to America, Pope Benedict! The sooner the better! Mason Conservative: Where Have You Gone, Vance Wilkins?...a Commonwealth turns it's lonely eyes to you: In Wilkins, we had a quiet leader who understood what it meant to be in the minority. When he arrived in Richmond, he was one of 25 GOP Delegates. They were ignored, abused, and discriminated in the legislature. Wilkins had a unique understanding of what it meant to be a majority, and how important it was to be the party of action and ideas to stay in the majority. The Democrats of the 70s, 80s, and early 90s were lazy, content with their power, and vunerable when they did not even realize it. Sound familiar? Wilkins built our local party from the ground up. He cultivated younger members, those very members who cling to power now, diversified the chairmanships and subchairmanships in the committees, and generally kept the Hosue in order. He had the ability to please everyone, and keep the agneda moving forward.Woo woo woo... I really can't add much more. Someone has got to step up to the plate, and much like conservatives nationwide, it looks as if conservative in Virginia are spoiling for a fight that will actually change something -- not just change Ds to Rs for its own sake. HOV Enforcement on Election Night?!I smell a rat. Read on. Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties are GOP goldmines. Even with the statewide returns, Kilgore still won with 55% or better in this region. So when I read that the Virginia State Police managed to enforce, not just it's HOV restrictions, but attempts a novel approach to enforcement that bottles up cars on HOV on Election Day of all days - where thousands of Republican voters are trying to get home from work - somehow strikes me as strange: THE HOV-exit enforcement fiasco that occurred on election night was a classic case of poor planning.Forget for a moment that our state troopers were "doing their job" on Election Day. Why, of all days, Election Day? On voters heading home to regions that vote Republican in overwhelming numbers? I can already hear the retort that Virginia's finest were simply doing their job. Perhaps. However, if it were Democratic voters being "disenfranchised" by a Republican governor instructing Virginia State Troopers in dimly lit and smoke-filled rooms to steal the election... You get the idea. This method of exit enforcement significantly curtails the intended efficiencies of the HOV lanes--speed, reduced gas use and reduced emissions. When you wait to nab them at the exit, the violators have already used the HOV lanes and increased the congestion.And it was done in such a way as to increase congestion - not decrease it. I'd like answers. Why on Election Day and not Wednesday? Or six months earlier? Saturday, November 19, 2005Vatican Scientist Rejects Intelligent DesignI can imagine many to be mildly surprised that the top Vatican scientist (astrologer I guess) emphatically rejected Intelligent Design Theory as science. This might be a bit of a surprise to some, but when you look at the reasons why it's not hard to fathom precisely what the problems are: In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.Catholic teaching has always held that it really doesn't matter how God created the world. Rather, what is indisputable is that you cannot evolve a soul. Importantly enough, the idea of intelligent design ultimately isn't a new one - Aquinas argued a version of this as a proof for the existence of God - but rather ID is more of a philosophical, cultural, or perspective for the social sciences. As a scientific theory, what precisely does it prove that holds true to solid scientific thought? Q and Q notes Charles Krauthammer's swipe at ID: Let's be clear. "Intelligent design" may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological ``theory'' whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge—in this case, evolution—they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science—that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution—or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?More precisely, how does one argue that the Intelligent Designer is not an alien? More advanced humans? A race of demigods? I have no problems with the goals of ID per se. Yes, God created the universe, and yet God can be seen in His creation, but a proper study of science shows us how intricate and subtle that creation really is. Clouding up the unknowns and chalking it up to ID doesn't necessarily prove much of anything. So what's goin' on?Between the humiliating loss to Virginia Tech by the Wahoos today, the finger pointing here and there about Kilgore, and the looming fight for 2006... Whew. The good news is that our team won the annual football game in an 8-6 victory. Came out a little sore, with a scraped up nose as the trophy for a 4th-and-goal stop by yours truly. Great game, though I don't look forward to waking up sore in the morning. Thursday, November 17, 2005White phosphorusOh boy. I'm sure this will be all the rage with the anti-war crowd for the next six months. Wednesday, November 16, 2005Dems still fighting it out over Kaine's ad pullWow, it seems as if the liberal blogs are tearing themselves apart over Kaine's ad pull, and this time, it's over - not principle - but good ol' pragmatic $$$. Commonwealth Conservative: Turning Virginia Blue?Chad Dotson points towards an article in the University of Richmond's Juris Publici asking whether Virginia might vote Democratic in 2008. Heh. Don't hold your breath fellas. The Jaded JD: Principle v. pragmatismA good post here by The Jaded JD on the distinction between principle and pragmatism. There's nothing wrong with having principles, and there's nothing wrong with sticking to them (an absolutist stance I would argue). Where it goes terribly wrong is when belief extends into that most dangerous of all ideas: fanaticism. Thomas Merton, a Trappist whom was introduced to me by none other than a Southern Methodist minister, had a great two paragraphs in his essay Christianity and Totaltarianism which I always remind myself when it comes to those who are principled or pragmatic to a fault: Fanaticism is never really spiritual because it is not free. It is not free because it is not enlightened. It cannot judge between good and evil, truth and falsity, because it is blinded by prejudice. Faith and prejudice have a common need to rely on authority and in this they can cometimes be confused by one who does not understand their true nature. But faith rests on the authority of love while prejudice rests on the pseudo-authority of hatred. Everyone who has read the Gospel realizes that in order to be a Christian one must give up being a fanatic, because Christianity is love. Love and fanaticism are incompatible. Fanaticism thrives on aggression. It is destructive, revengeful, and sterile. Fanaticism is all the more virulent in proportion as it springs from inability to love, from incapacity to reciprocate human understanding.Merton criticizes both the pragmatist and the principled, because both are cold, operative beliefs. Individualism and respect for personhood was the Christian message, and when it comes to living my faith in the Public Square, my own as well -- and my lack of patience with those who hurl the "flat earth" and "free lunch" pejoratives, as below. "Free Lunch" Republicans vs. "Kamikaze" DemocratsJames Young touched on it before I got a chance to fully develop my idea, but he's 100% correct. I'm sick and tired of being called a "free luncher" or "flat earther" every time I stick up for taxpayers' rights, without so much as a courtesy of a recognition of the value of conservative ideas. It's condescending, and it's about time we called out those who use the terms. The condescension is down and out terrible. Say we're being taxed enough, and (to borrow a term from our Senator George Allen) these whiny liberals typically sniff with a "sounds like another one of the free luncher crowd." So what's the argument I'm being asked (told) to believe here? That if the government doesn't spend my money, then it's clearly not being put to good use? Bottom line for Republicans: individuals know what's better for themselves and their families than some bureaucrat at the courthouse, statehouse, or Capitol Hill. What's so vile and evil to liberals about that? Plenty, because every bit of power you have is power out of the hands of government. The leftist alternative is a socialist fantasy land where the ignorant masses are corralled, jostled, altered, realigned, and engineered until society "works" according to the best wishes of liberal do-gooders. Sounds marvelous, eh? Want a case in point? Take education. Mention school choice when it comes to your child to a liberal, and their hair falls out. Mention abortion, no problems - its all about choice, baby - but send your kids to a private or parochial school, and you're nothing but a God-forsaken gun-toting, Bible-thumping, no good extremist! It's ridiculous to even approach the issue with some on the left, not to mention a tremendous waste of time. Discussion of the merits isn't the point, it's about power, dammit! Another case? Transportation. Why not let private companies build roads? We're doing it in Spotsylvania as part of the proffer system, and to date the Southpointe Parkway is working marvelously. The Spotsylvania Parkway is slated to open in the next 30 days. New Post, when approved, will go towards fixing the Massaponax interchange. Yet another private developer proffered the re-routing of Rt. 17. All this without much from VDOT my friends. Yet let the lefties catch a whiff of private investment in roads, and oh no! We're ending the system Byrd built! Let the illustrations of Democratic invective continue: Pro-life? Do you even intimate that life might be something sacred? Why, you're a freakin' lunatic! Arresting judicial activism? You're a racist/homophobe/pig/elitist/fill in the blank! Second Amendment important to you? What shed do you live in, and does your militia visit every once in awhile? Tax cuts? Even simply getting rid of regressive taxes? Damn free luncher! Individualism over social programs? Flat earth moron!  If the image the Democrats want to project is similar to the kamakaze flying into the carrier, by all means proceed. Don't argue the finer subtle points, just *SLAM* throw every invective you *BAM* possibly can *WHACK* in the shortest *BANG* time possible.The effect is the same. Most conservatives are content to let the invective from the radical liberals go as they are shot to pieces by reason. The goal of course is to flood reason with so much nonsense that something's got to hit. But much like history, it's the last stand of fanatics too short-sighted to see past their nose. You see, kamikazes - much like modern day Deaniacs and other radical left wing lunatics - are fanatics. They know their empire is dying, so they make that ultimate sacrifice. During the Second World War, it was flying a plane into a carrier. For radical liberals, it's tossing decorum to the wind and conjuring up every disgusting epithet you can create in lieu of decent, honest discussion. It's classic. But like the Democrats' ideological kamikaze cousins, it's mere bravado in the face of a crumbling reality. "Crumblying reality!" the Dems might snort, "Vile free luncher! The Democratic Party just held retained our Governor's Mansion, damn flat earther!!!" All the liberals have left is invective. It's the death rattle of a dying and outmoded ideology. Time for the Kamikaze Democrats to be branded as they are. And treated as such. Tuesday, November 15, 2005And the bloodletting begins...Waldo has already beaten me to the punch, but this is precisely the kind of bloodletting I was afraid of. Paul Jost prefaces this accordingly (something Waldo was kind enough to omit) and forwarded it to just about everyone in Virginia, ideally to throw back in Ken's face the idea that VCFG is a narrow organization. The Dems knew otherwise, hence the two anti-tax fliers issued against Kilgore and paid for by Kaine. This is entirely out of character for Ken, almost to the point I would like to think someone else wrote it. Kilgore was a worthwhile candidate, Ken I still believe is a good campaign manager and a personable guy. All this having been said, the Democrats are just happy as toast to see this kind of stuff bubbling up to the surface. It's amazing - stunning even - to believe Virginia Republicans can have these public fistfights and still retain a majority thanks to Democratic ineptitude. Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is always an orphan. And this will either mean war, or it should blow over soon. Given that this is Tuesday, expect the mainstream press to play this one up (as they rightly should). ******************** This type of work product by Jerry Kilgore’s campaign manager may explain why Jerry Kilgore came in 6th last week. Even Leslie Byrne did better than Jerry Kilgore. Fortunately, Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell had campaign managers that were stable. Paul Jost, Chairman Virginia Club for Growth From: Ken Hutcheson [mailto:ken@jerrykilgore.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:25 PM To: Phil Rodokankis CC: Paul Jost Subject: Phil's Rodokanakis' Latest Column November 15, 2005 Phil I read with great amusement your latest "column" on Bacon's Rebellion. Simply put, you are a spineless, gutless coward who is as stupid as he is petty. Do you really think anyone of any relative significance in VA cares what you write? I mean let's face it, you are the epitome of an armchair quarterback with an opinion (which are like a**holes - everyone's got one). Really, what makes you think anyone cares about your opinion in particular? Where do I begin, there is just too much good stuff to discuss. First, let's take a moment to ponder your "organization" that bestows upon you the fancy title of President. The Virginia Club for Growth - sounds like an impressive organization, but aside from the email list you conveniently ended up with from me after the Allen Campaign in 2000, who are your members? How many dues paying members are there in VA? Just exactly how many people voted you in as President of the VCOG? Did anyone else run for the position? Can you point to me anything that your organization does other than opine on public policy matters? Can you point to me any meaningful accomplishments of the VCOG? And why do the respected National Club for Growth leaders look down on you and think you and the VA Chapter are a joke? Ok, now let’s review your impressive resume that makes you qualified to judge people like Jerry and me. Name one campaign you have ever managed. Name one race you have ever officially consulted on. In fact, name one race where any candidate paid you for your advice and/or work? Oh wait, I don’t recall any, but to be honest, you have never made an impact or had a significant role in Virginia politics, so I might not know off the top of my head. But, I typically don’t pay much attention to the bottom feeders who look for scraps and constantly 2nd guess those who have a seat at the table. If you aren’t happy in your mediocre job and career, why not whip up the courage to come do what I do on a yearly basis instead of hiding behind a computer keyboard or better yet, run for public office. You have all the answers, surely you could win any race you ran for based upon your principles and then certainly do a better job than the guys who have the guts to put their name on the ballots and stand for election. Ok, so we have established that you are the “President” of a big email list once owned by me and the Allen campaign and have no real qualifications to offer up competent criticism to anyone out there. Speaking of criticism, let’s take a look at your “expert analysis” of things. You claim in a nutshell that we had no principles and that folks like Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell did. Ok, fair enough, but then please explain to me why your expert logic does not apply to Dick Black, Brad Marrs, Chris Craddock and Michael Golden? They were all principled candidates to a fault who also lost. Now why on earth would they have lost if they like Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell ran on principles? I am sure your cowardly and lazy answer will be that they got swallowed up in the wave caused by the Kilgore defeat. Surely principled candidates such as these would overcome a Kilgore loss at the top of the ticket, especially if Bolling and McDonnell were able to. If that is your misguided belief, so be it, but let me fill you in on a little secret: No one really cares what you think. I am man enough to take the blame for the loss of this campaign though it had nothing to do with the reasons you so intuitively articulated. That said, you were correct in assuming I will be fine moving forward. I have worked my tail off for the last 11 years in this party and will continue to do so, very successfully I might add. My peers and friends are the only ones whose judgment of me matters and I suspect you are in an obscure minority who believe the drivel you write. Wayne Ozmore, the GOP’s 4th District C.D. Chair and a friend of mine recently sent me a famous Teddy Roosevelt quote (see below—the last line describes you perfectly) that I believe to be very appropriate and fitting for people like you. You see, it’s people like Wayne and myself who actually get out there and roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty and work the long hours for the cause while folks like yourself and plenty of others like to sit back and type away on your computers and BLOGS, but in reality, each of you is kind of sad and pathetic in your own right. When you build up the same grit under your fingernails that guys like Wayne Ozmore and myself have, come back and we’ll talk, but in the meantime, why don’t you spare everyone your uninformed and laughable babble and try and earn a shred of credibility so that you don’t remain the laughing stock of Virginia. Bottom line Phil is this: If you were half the man Jerry Kilgore is, you might actually be respected and admired, but you aren’t worthy to even stand in his shadow and you know it. Sincerely, Ken Hutcheson P.S. Ignoring you and other nutjobs like Paul Jost was perhaps one of the most rewarding aspects of this campaign. We may have lost in the end, but we did so with our dignity and pride intact and our principles firmly in place and by not selling out to you and your merry band of misfits, I am very much at peace with myself. "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt Terraforming MarsCool stuff. Not an easy thing to do, but it will certainly answer questions as to whether or not it can even be acheived. Monday, November 14, 2005The Jaded JD: Blogroll changeSeems like I made the cut over at Jaded JD. Quite a respectable thing to acheive I must say, and deserving of reciprocation! For the conspiracy theorist in your family...Everyone knows the idea behind the tin or aluminum foil hats, yes? They're to keep those mind-control crazies at the Defense Department out! Well, bad news folks. Tin foil hats actually amplify the radio waves reserved by the US government for, um... mind control and other nefarious schemes (such as GPS and other real-world uses). For whatever reason, I find this to be absolutely hilarious. Decorum, pronunciation, and politics v2.0When a liberal complains about decorum in politics today, point out this. And this. And this. And don't forget these. Or this (which I have to admit is still pretty damn creative, but wrong). Then come to me and discuss how using the misnomer "Democrat Party" is somehow lacks decorum. If Republicans had to learn from their counterparts on the left, I seriously doubt decorum would be the word used to describe the sort of visceral hatred liberals have for their President. Physician, heal thyself. McDonnell hangs tight at 446Giddy Democrats can finally relax... the vote tally will be certified tomorrow, and all accounts point towards a slim margin of victory for Republican Bob McDonnell. The last Virginia recount, as most will remember, was during the Coleman-Wilder race of 1989. Wilder emerged the victor in that race with a slightly less than 7,000 vote margin and a 134 vote shift. Virginia Centrist is back!There are a handful of non-conservative blogs I enjoy reading. Waldo Jaquith's blog is one, but Virginia Centrist is one I missed. But no longer. Virginia Centrist is back! I'll be sure to add this to my blog aggregator shortly, and I'd recommend others to do the same, if for no other reason than to simply check out the site. No sacred cows there... QandO: "Natural" LawJon Henke over at QandO ponders the question of when do Jefferson's inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property begin. I offered my thoughts in their comments section, but figured I would repost them here for further discussion in needed. ~sk Natural law would argue that this begins at the very moment of "personhood" as it were. Aristotle argued this occured at the moment of quickening, about 20 weeks when you could feel the baby move. Augustine and Aquinas argued from a modified version of quickening towards "ensoulment". Eventually science determined that ensoulment and quickening weren't really definable boundaries, and that the fetus truly did exist. Because the science changed, the bar was set further back to the moment the fetus consisted of a human being, no matter where it's course of development stood. Hence the argument for life beginning at conception. As for the threee - life, liberty, and property - Jefferson borrowed these ideas from Grotius, who borrowed them from Aquinas. There is a reason why they are structured in this order. If you do not have liberty, you cannot possibly have property. If you do not have life, you cannot possibly have liberty (how does a rock have liberty?). Life is the starting point for ensuring the rights of liberty and property. All of which structure themselves around the autonomy of the individual. Fast forwarding from the 18th century concern about free men and prosperity, in the 21st century debate about abortion, natural law dictates that life begins at conception. If this is the case, then all life no matter what it's station holds the inalienable rights to its life, its liberty, and its property. Now all this having been said, there are ethical concerns now as to when does someone elses liberty stop and mine begins, when do ideas of property stop and when do they begin, etc. Example 1: As the owner of a store, and you the employee, I ask you to climb up this rickety old ladder to pull down the can from the top aisle. You refuse and demand a better ladder. Have you impinged upon my right to property? The answer is yes, BUT the reason why is because your liberty and life are more important than my right to property. Therefore, I have an *obligation* to ensure your life and liberty by maintaining my property. Example 2: A woman is pregnant with a child. The child impedes upon her liberty and property. However, the child's right to life is supercedes that of the woman's right to liberty and property. Now one might argue that if the child were not a child, but instead a tapeworm, would the woman have the right to remove the tapeworm? Of course. Some incorrectly argue that the difference between the two is intelligence, or the potential for intelligence, but this would be incorrect -- newborns do not possess intelligence, yet they still qualify in most people's minds as a life. Another misplaced argument is that the fetus is a "parasite" of sorts, sharing the characteristics of the tapeworm, and can thusly be removed. A newborn is independent in a way, and can therefore be considered a life. However, remove that newborn from the care of its mother, or some other creature providing nourishment, and the child would quickly die. So would most teenagers removed from the care of their parents, but that's another debate... Another misplaced argument is that the fetus is not a life per se, but rather signifies the potential *for* life. If this is so, where does life truly begin? For lack of a definition, this argument falls flat, as it is a rehashing of the old Aristotlean and Augustinian arguments. The natural law answer to Example 2 is that the child possesses the right to life by virtue of being a human life. Therefore, all other rights such as liberty or property are superceded. Now in cases where the choice has to be made based on "who's life to save, the mother or child," natural law has an answer for this too. Firstly, one cannot make a decision based on hypotheticals. The situation must be actual. Secondly, abortions can and are morally acceptable if they are the result of "unintended effect." So for instance, if a mother has uterine cancer, and goes to have the cancer removed, and an abortion occurs as a result, that is not considered an offense. The effect was unintended. Thirdly, in cases where the lives of the mother and child are held equally in the balance, the decision (and culpability) is placed solely with the mother. Either/or situations aren't political or religious, they're just tragic and should be treated (as all cases of abortion should be) with charity. IN SHORT, there is a reason why life, liberty, and property are in that order. They are sequential because life is the prerequisite for all freedoms, and when we infringe upon that right, we infringe upon them all. So goes the natural law argument! UPDATE: Forgot to answer the questions he posed! Your questions (and my apologies): 1: The fetus is entitled to life at the moment of conception. Life, liberty, and property are sequential because they hold pre-eminence in that order (i.e. without life, there can be no liberty, without liberty, there can be no property). 2: All persons are entitled to liberty at the moment they possess the prerequisite of life. Liberty - because it differs from the extremes of tyrrany on one hand and license on the other - must be properly excercised, hence the reason why you can "coerce" children into doing what is percieved to be right. Executing the right to liberty must always respect the lives of others. 3: Life and liberty being prerequisites, property stems from a just assertion of both of these rights. Disposing of property requires a respect for both the lives and liberty of others. Very important to remember that Jefferson did not get these ideas from Locke; he received them from Grotius and Sydney, who in turn received them from Aquinas and ultimately Aristotle. Hope the abridged version helps. Sunday, November 13, 2005Charles de Foucauld Beatified in RomeCharles de Foucauld was beatified in Rome today. de Foucauld is the author of one of my favorite prayers, the Prayer of Abandonment: Father,There is a movie that is infrequently shown on EWTN entitled "The Death of the White Maramut" on Charles de Foucauld's life which is excellent if you have the time or inclination to watch it. Saturday, November 12, 2005People with spare time do thisSlightly amusing video of... well, a hand that knows how to scratch. The French ideal goes up in flamesInteresting article from the UK Tablet: However, less well understood are the complex long-term causes. All stem from poverty and isolation from the mainstream of French life. The crucial date is 1975, when it was decided to allow immigrants to be joined by their families, from their country of origin. Before that date, immigrant workers would often marry French women who brought up the children and integrated the family into French society, aided by the compulsory, secular school system. Since the law on r?groupement familial (family reunion), foreign extended families now bring up the children according to their culture. Unemployment means that these families, who often do not speak French, live solely on state aid, completely cut off from society.Which is also one of the reasons why the American experiment works. A government unconcerned with equality, but deeply concerned about equality of opportunity is what has made America great. Americans deal less in the trade of culture, and more in the trade of commerce. True, this has created some of the more shameful episodes of our own history (slavery, the treatment of Native Americans, and economic enslavement of the Irish come to mind), but it could very well be argued that these chapters in our history are merely shades of the Old World imposing upon the New. The French vision of representative governance is failing, and with it the ideas the European Union is based upon. Perhaps this is a portent of a new way of approaching culture? Anyone who reads Pope John Paul II's attempts to bridge the gap between cultures certainly understand what the alternative could promise. Commonwealth Conservative: A speech for day oneChad Dotson offers what he would like to see as a speech given by one of our state delegates on day one. Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a group of delegates giving this speech on the steps of the Capitol. As a matter of fact, don't we have an organization that could help do precisely that? Friday, November 11, 2005Happy Veterans DayIt's not a small sacrifice, and veterans and their families should all be given thanks for what they do and what they give up to serve our country. Freeing others to be themselvesChristians seem to be the favorite targets of criticism when it comes to freedom of thought. We constrict, we black out, we impose. I have never shared that opinion, and most folks (when the conversation is among intelligent people that is) are a bit taken aback when I argue that Christianity has a liberating effect on thought, and moreover the Christian perspective encourages a freedom for the individual to choose to do what is virtuous. In short, the Church proposes, not imposes -- a comment that sometimes enrages the more narrow-minded into popular and common myths about the Inquisition, Crusades, Pius XII, etc. Father Gerard Dowling explains the subtlety of Christian freedom better than I ever could: As I see it, the saddest plight to plague a person, especially in his or her formative years, is the powerful impact endured because of manipulation by others. It is, without doubt, the most insidious form of personal abuse that we can suffer, where the threat of not being loved is used to elicit the price of our conformity. This is why Jesus' example of unconditional love is so paramount to our becoming well-rounded and emotionally secure people. Because of unconditional love - especially from significant figures in our lives - we can enjoy the freedom of choice. Without it, however, we can become clones of what others, even well intentioned people, try to pressure us into being.Great article, with implications that run from parenting to governance. Read it all. Thursday, November 10, 2005A Tax BellwetherWSJ's OpinionJournal has its analysis of why Kilgore lost: As bellwethers go, however, Virginia's governor's race has a poor track record. Four years ago Democrat Mark Warner won the governor's mansion. A year later, Republicans were winning a surprising number of victories, including picking up seats in the House, two seats in the U.S. Senate, and even capturing the governor's mansion in Maryland for the first time in decades. Thus Tuesday's defeat in Virginia may be less a harbinger of doom for Republicans in 2006 than a timely reminder of the fate usually meted out to GOP standard bearers who go wobbly on taxes.That sums it up. Jeffersonian Conservativism ®So where do we go from here? Bill Bolling is now the new leader of the Republican Party -- a conservative leader at that. Bob McDonnell is the heir to the battle standard -- yet another conservative leader. Pro-life and anti-tax values are now at the top o' the ticket, and the moderates in the GOP have zero leadership to hang their hat upon. This having been said, the pro-tax moderates aren't going anywhere, and the Senate Republicans (Chichester et al.) seem more willing to work with the Dems than with their own party. So where do we go from here? Bottom line here is that we need a flag to rally around. 10 years ago I might have told you that the pro-life issue was that flag, but the introduction of social conservatives have allowed a rival tent pole to be eroded. That pole which has forever been what keeps the Big Tent afloat is the pole of limited government and fiscal conservativism. The Republican Party is the party of lower taxes and smaller government. Or we used to be anyhow. Now we have four potential positions. Are we pro-life or pro-abortion? Are we for smaller government, or are we for making the Democratic leviathan more efficient? I have always been of the opinion that the limited government long pole is first and foremost what makes us Republican. True, all of the social issues are important, but a government that is so small as to be a non-factor in the lives of it's citizens is the most true to that omnipresent of all American virtues, that of self-reliance. So what brings us back to sanity? Senator George Allen is running for re-election in 2006, and as Republicans we will be looking to him to bring us back together. Jeffersonian Conservativism has always been the calling card of Senator Allen. I know what Jefferson beleived, and I have a good idea of what conservativism is (and what it used to be). In the past, Jeffersonian Conservativism meant lower taxes and minimalist government, with a small degree of ambivelance with regards to abortion. But let's consider the following. If a new Republican Party emerges in Virginia that is so strong on the tax principle, that demands and encourages entrepreneurship in the face of big government, that seeks a minimalist government that seeks to defend the Jeffersonian principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that ultimately could become the answer to neo-conservativism, if that kind of ideology that borrows from the classical liberal tradition emerges, the whole world changes. If you look at Tuesday's results, I see an electorate ripe for a new way. Jeffersonian Conservatism, with Senator Allen as it's prime advocate, is the golden key to a GOP in search of itself. "Lazy Voters" and AbortionDid Kilgore's lack of attention to the abortion question cost him the election? Norman has this to say: "Lazy voters."My experience being entirely ancedotal, I can say that many Catholic and otherwise pro-life activists simply didn't come out to vote. Not to say that I didn't encourage them to do so at least for Bolling and McDonnell, but there was simply no compelling reason to vote for Kilgore other than the fact he wasn't Tim Kaine. Might have worked for Bush in 2004, but Kaine is a likeable fellow. Kerry is a Tax-achusetts Vietnam-era pro-abort liberal Democrat. I'll vote against him for Bush. Come to think of it, what was the #1 issue for the Kilgore campaign? Wednesday, November 09, 2005Winners and losersI received a phone call at 7:00am from the McDonnell campaign to head down to the registrar's office to check on the provisional ballots and the vote certification. No worries there, but I am gratified to see Bolling and McDonnell emerge with the margins of victory, not to mention slightly amused to see so many write-ins (592) for delegate in the 54th. True to my word, I voted for Bobby, but I'm thankful for the sentiment (votes for Mickey Mouse aside). Some brief thoughts the day after: WINNERS * Tim Kaine. No matter how you slice it, Tim Kaine ran a solid campaign and deserves the win. I look forward to see how our Catholic governor's faith will square with his policy. * Conservatives. Eh? Might sound off the wall, but in a week or so we're going to realize that conservatives have Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell to energize the base and bring a clear conservative direction to Virginia. * John Chichester. With Democratic gains in the House and a Kaine victory, could he be any happier? * Democratic Party of Virginia. A Kaine loss followed by GOP pickups in the House would have spelled disaster for the DPVA. Instead, they now have a lease on life. Whether they will use the brief respite to establish themselves as a minority party rather than a displaced majority party remains to be seen. LOSERS * Moderates. The world is either black or white, liberal or conservative, and the voters demand nothing less than a sharp and distinct choice in their candidates. If anything has been demonstrated, it is that conservatives are willing to shed their moderates in favor of the real thing. Jerry Kilgore stood for everything, and conservatives punished him accordingly. * RPV. Expect the scapegoating to begin shortly. * Phone banking. People hate it. There's gotta be a better way of turning out the troops. * The vaunted GOTV program. Did it bring Kilgore closer? Perhaps. But nothing beats the power of solid grassroots campaigning, and we simply didn't have that this time. * The Democratic Bench. It just keeps getting worse and worse for the Dems. Apart from Warner, who on earth can they run for statewide office now? Chap Petersen perhaps? "Left Field" Payne? * The Sean Connaughton Crowd. Bolling won. Ha ha! I actually like Connaughton personally, but his die-hard supporters poison the well. They might want to consider ratcheting down the rhetoric a notch or twelve. And BTW, unless Connaughton is trying to get a head-start on the 2009 Lt. Governor race, please for the love of God and all things holy TEAR DOWN YOUR CONNAUGHTON SIGNS IN STAFFORD AND SPOTSYLVANIA!!! I had more of those 4x8s in the back of my truck longer than I care to think about. *shudder* DRAWS * VCAP Lost all six, which is disappointing if only for the sake that I was really pulling for my fellow partners-in-crime. However, considering a full third of the incumbents challenged did indeed lose, VCAP fulfilled it's mission to some extent. Given the 2006 session, how many of the now-15 moderate Republicans who broke ranks are going to relish the idea of a stiff, well-financed primary challenge (especially in a primary that might very well be closed to non-Republicans)? Not many I'd wager. VCAP makes tax hikes tough to go by. * President Bush. What does Virginia have to do with the President? Nothing. Show me the Democrat who could beat Bush - even with today's numbers - and if you can say the name without every conservative in the room bursting into uncontrollable laughter, you win. * Senator Allen. 2006 becomes interesting now, but "Jeffersonian Conservativism"® might just be the thing to rally the Virginia GOP. That's all! And for bragging rights, I offer you my August analysis of Virginia politics at the time. Spotsylvania did its partKilgore carried Spotsy with nearly 54% of the vote, while Bolling and McDonnell carried comfortable margins of about 60-40. Still tonight's results are tough to swallow for those of us who worked so hard. Post-mortem comes later tomorrow. Conservatives stayed home, and Bolling outpolled Kilgore. Wow. Tuesday, November 08, 2005VOTE!Kilgore, Bolling, McDonnell. Set down what you are doing and take the half hour to vote your values. Go vote! And for those of you in Spotsylvania County, a NO vote on all four tax bond referenda, please. For those outside the county, voting up all four bond referenda will result in a $0.22 (!) property tax increase. For those inside the county... same deal. There's plenty of money in the budget now to pay for libraries, parks, and even a new building for our deputies. Don't tax those who can't afford the bureaucrats. VOTE! Monday, November 07, 2005My PredictionsHere it is: Kilgore by 3. The margin will not be large enough to say mandate, and I'm sure the Dems will point to various inefficiencies in their GOTV efforts. But under the radar, the GOP will turn out and take back the Governor's Mansion despite the rift between conservatives and moderates within the GOP. Bolling by 3. Bolling has run a strong campaign, continuing the trend he ran during the GOP primary race. His numbers would be much larger if Kilgore had attempted to motivate the conservative base, and those voting for Potts will almost certainly vote for their fellow liberal in Leslie Byrne. Still, many conservatives who will leave the ballot blank for governor will vote enthusiastically for Bolling. Close, but decisive. McDonnell by 5. The margin here would be wider if McDonnell received better up-ticket support on issues, but McDonnell's trifecta of Hampton Roads, conservative advocacy, and yes his pro-2nd Amendment stance despite the best attempts by Creigh Deeds to dent the armor simply will not work. McDonnell is a fine candidate, and will move on well beyond Attorney General. Looking forward to McDonnell's leadership these next four years. Craddock, Golden, Frederick, Black, and Wittman will all turn back their Democratic challengers. In the case of Wittman, Craddock, and Golden, that scores the defeat of three tax-and-spend liberals and doom for any potential tax hike, regardless of what happens with the governor's race tomorrow. Congratulations to VCAP, a 33% success rate taking on incumbents is incredible. Moderates and moderation for its own sake will be utterly destroyed as a third way in Virginia. No more walking the fence. Virginia voters are sending a clear message with the downticket races that so-called "moderates" simply don't have any room to maneuver. Denied a feasible majority within the House of Delegates, conservatives will be much better prepared to turn back any tax hike in 2006. Moreover, in the event of a Kilgore victory, the governor's veto will be the omnipresent hammer of God to smite any tax talk. In short, with Potts' embarassing showing and the lack of a House majority with Dems, the moderates are in a tough spot. If Kilgore wins, it will be solely because conservatives trust him to stick to his guns a la John Roberts nomination. If not, it will be because Kilgore couldn't sell conservatives on his credentials as a warrior on pro-life and anti-tax values. In the end, tomorrow has all the makings of a good night for GOP conservatives. Even under the remote chances of losing the governor's race, the GOP in Virginia has undertaken a much more conservative turn for the better. I think we're about to find out how good the vaunted RNC GOTV effort really is, and it is very good folks. As for the Dems, everything hangs on a Kaine victory. Need I say more? Kaine by 9?!NO WAY. I don't buy it, not even a little bit. Just got back from our Fredericksburg area HQ, and we are making calls, dropping literature, and in short doing one heck of a job with regards to the ground game. Momentum is on the upswing folks. I'm heading back there this afternoon/evening to dot i's and cross t's, but from all aspects we're ready for Tuesday. Maybe Stafford and Spotsylvania are just good GOP hunting grounds, but Kaine by 9 is a load of crap. Not only does it not pass the common-sense test, it utterly fails the patented Kenney gut feeling test. The BS meter is off the chart here. Then again, I'm looking at the numbers. Mostly conservative and moderate responses (liberals consist of 15%), tilted towards the Shenandoah, and consisting only of likely voters. Tough time believing that so many people ID themselves as moderate... but I don't have the time to crunch these numbers. Gotta groundpound! JarheadJust got back from seeing this movie. It is, in a word, excellent. All the hype about it being pro-war, anti-war, all things inbetween is a bunch of nonsense. This is a great movie in the spirit of Full Metal Jacket, only nowhere near as vapid. This movie has a point, one that will certainly have an impact on those in uniform or military families. For a brief background, the movie is set during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the American-led liberation. Part psychological, part heart and guts emotion, part philosophical (existentialist thinker Albert Camus' The Stranger plays a role as the main character is "caught" reading the book), it's definitely worth seeing. The Stranger, for those unfamiliar with the book, is a novel centering around a man who murders, yet feels no remorse. While on trial, the jury is less concerned with his crime, but more concerned with the perpetrator's ability to feel remorse for either the previous death of his mother or the man whom he killed, or more accurately his lack of any visible remorse whatsoever. It's a good book as far as philosophy goes (Camus is trying to say much more), and one you might want to read if you care to see Jarhead a second time. The movie reminded me of my father when he got back from Desert Shield/Desert Storm, the letters he sent, even right down to a scorpion (dead and boiled for preservation, of course) which was all very impressive to a 13-year old. I still have old Pepsi and 7up cans in my home office with Arabic on them. My dad had a great habit of sending back stuff, from cans to books going over the Iraqi army, to sand to even some of the swag he was allowed to bring back (uniforms and such). In short, Jarhead is worth seeing, and The Stranger is worth reading as preparation.
|
|
JEFFERSONIAD POLL: Whom do you support for Virginia Attorney General?1) John Brownlee2) Ken Cuccinelli AboutShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia.ContactThe Jeffersoniad
ArchivesMarch 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009
|
|
