MSNBC's "Morning Joe" (the only show I watch on that network) just reported that Sonia Sotomayor is President Obama's choice to replace David Souter. As I said on the day that Souter announced his departure, this pick will be a wash. The only caveat to that is that Sotomayor, according to what I am hearing, may be even more liberal than Souter. I know nothing about her except that she is Hispanic, is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and turns 55 next month, so will probably be on the court for 20-30 years.
The more interesting aspect of this pick is whether or not it will elicit a filibuster, so it will be telling as we observe the give and take of the reaction throughout the day from Republicans and more moderate Democrats. On Fox News Sunday a couple of days ago, both Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, uttered the dread "F" word, both stating they hoped it wouldn't be necessary. This surprised me, coming from Nelson; the very fact that he mentioned it indicates he is open to the possibility.
President Obama wants hearings in July and will probably get them if Sotomayor is not filibustered. I'll be glued to C-Span.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Clarification on the Democratic Party Club at Liberty
I posted a link on my Facebook page earlier today to the report I found at redstate.com about Liberty University "disassembling" the campus Democratic Party club because of the pro-choice platform in the plank of the Democratic Party. It turns out that this story was factually inaccurate in a crucial spot, perhaps more than one, and this was from a blog that was supporting the policy! One can only imagine what must been uttered in quarters that weren't so friendly.
This stirred quite a discussion on my FB profile, as well as among my friends at the Memorial Day party I attended this afternoon. Accordingly, a clarification is in order. As a current Liberty Theological Seminary online student, I received an e-mail exactly 6 minutes ago from the Office of the Chancellor that I'm sure is an official press release on the subject. It is reprinted here in its entirety; I will only add that I am completely on board with THIS decision, where I did have some reservations about the former as it was portrayed:
Liberty University is a distinctly Christian university with a stated mission of training Champions for Christ. It is the largest and fastest growing evangelical University in the world. Students and parents appreciate and support the values of the University.
Officially recognized student clubs and organizations that bear the name of Liberty University are expected to uphold the standards and principles of the University and act in a manner consistent with its mission. For nearly two years the University has been evaluating how best to advance its mission and to support student organizations. In order to avoid the problems encountered by other faith-based educational institutions involving student organizations, Liberty University has adopted a policy that governs such groups.
The policy states, in part: “No student club or organization shall be approved, recognized or permitted to meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use University facilities if the statements, positions, doctrines, policies, constitutions, bylaws, platforms, activities or events of such club or organization, its parent, affiliate, chapter or similarly named group are inconsistent or in conflict with the distinctly Christian mission of the University.”
Among other things, Liberty University stands for the sanctity of human life. The loss of human life through abortion is a great tragedy and we cannot remain silent when the political policies or politicians promote the destruction of innocent human life. While students may meet on campus, debate, and discuss important and controversial issues of the day, Liberty University will not lend its name or fund organizations whose stated purpose is to promote and advance issues that are contrary to its Christian mission.
Over the last several decades, Democratic clubs have existed at Liberty University as unofficial student clubs not endorsed by the school. Last Fall, the College Democrats asked that the university officially recognize their club. They promised to support only pro-life candidates and their charter provides that the club supports the right to life. Unfortunately, the club supported candidates over the last 8 months that support abortion rights. As a result, Liberty University converted the club’s status back to that of an unrecognized club. It was not banned as so many press outlets irresponsibly reported. The club can continue to exist and meet on campus like other clubs and student groups that are not officially recognized by the university. They cannot use Liberty University’s name, will not receive the small financial subsidy that officially recognized clubs receive (about $500 per year on average) and they cannot hold public events on campus. There will be no other restrictions on their activities. Liberty University encourages free speech and open debate on its campus and free speech will not be restricted.
Liberty University is not singling out the Democratic Party in this action. If a Republican club supporting abortion sought endorsement from the University, it would be denied. The sanctity of life is one of Liberty University’s non-negotiable core values and it simply cannot lend its name or financial support to any group that actively works against Liberty’s core values.
A student club of Democrats who are pro-life and pro-family, and who are seriously intent on bringing positive change to the Democratic Party, would be refreshing. But the rhetoric must match the actions, meaning that such a club seeking official recognition would not want to endorse policies or candidates contrary to Liberty’s mission. Such a group should state in its’ name its’ distinctive mission to immediately tell the world that this club stands for the core values of Liberty University.
We hope that our students bring positive change to all political parties, not just Democrats, but also Republicans and Independents. These groups could debate many topics, but agree on Liberty’s core values. Liberty will not lend its name and financial support to any club or organization that actively seeks to undermine the mission of the University and its core values.
This stirred quite a discussion on my FB profile, as well as among my friends at the Memorial Day party I attended this afternoon. Accordingly, a clarification is in order. As a current Liberty Theological Seminary online student, I received an e-mail exactly 6 minutes ago from the Office of the Chancellor that I'm sure is an official press release on the subject. It is reprinted here in its entirety; I will only add that I am completely on board with THIS decision, where I did have some reservations about the former as it was portrayed:
Liberty University is a distinctly Christian university with a stated mission of training Champions for Christ. It is the largest and fastest growing evangelical University in the world. Students and parents appreciate and support the values of the University.
Officially recognized student clubs and organizations that bear the name of Liberty University are expected to uphold the standards and principles of the University and act in a manner consistent with its mission. For nearly two years the University has been evaluating how best to advance its mission and to support student organizations. In order to avoid the problems encountered by other faith-based educational institutions involving student organizations, Liberty University has adopted a policy that governs such groups.
The policy states, in part: “No student club or organization shall be approved, recognized or permitted to meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use University facilities if the statements, positions, doctrines, policies, constitutions, bylaws, platforms, activities or events of such club or organization, its parent, affiliate, chapter or similarly named group are inconsistent or in conflict with the distinctly Christian mission of the University.”
Among other things, Liberty University stands for the sanctity of human life. The loss of human life through abortion is a great tragedy and we cannot remain silent when the political policies or politicians promote the destruction of innocent human life. While students may meet on campus, debate, and discuss important and controversial issues of the day, Liberty University will not lend its name or fund organizations whose stated purpose is to promote and advance issues that are contrary to its Christian mission.
Over the last several decades, Democratic clubs have existed at Liberty University as unofficial student clubs not endorsed by the school. Last Fall, the College Democrats asked that the university officially recognize their club. They promised to support only pro-life candidates and their charter provides that the club supports the right to life. Unfortunately, the club supported candidates over the last 8 months that support abortion rights. As a result, Liberty University converted the club’s status back to that of an unrecognized club. It was not banned as so many press outlets irresponsibly reported. The club can continue to exist and meet on campus like other clubs and student groups that are not officially recognized by the university. They cannot use Liberty University’s name, will not receive the small financial subsidy that officially recognized clubs receive (about $500 per year on average) and they cannot hold public events on campus. There will be no other restrictions on their activities. Liberty University encourages free speech and open debate on its campus and free speech will not be restricted.
Liberty University is not singling out the Democratic Party in this action. If a Republican club supporting abortion sought endorsement from the University, it would be denied. The sanctity of life is one of Liberty University’s non-negotiable core values and it simply cannot lend its name or financial support to any group that actively works against Liberty’s core values.
A student club of Democrats who are pro-life and pro-family, and who are seriously intent on bringing positive change to the Democratic Party, would be refreshing. But the rhetoric must match the actions, meaning that such a club seeking official recognition would not want to endorse policies or candidates contrary to Liberty’s mission. Such a group should state in its’ name its’ distinctive mission to immediately tell the world that this club stands for the core values of Liberty University.
We hope that our students bring positive change to all political parties, not just Democrats, but also Republicans and Independents. These groups could debate many topics, but agree on Liberty’s core values. Liberty will not lend its name and financial support to any club or organization that actively seeks to undermine the mission of the University and its core values.
Been busy
I have had all kinds of blog posts simmering in my mind over the last 12 days. Actually sitting down at the computer and typing them out to share with everyone is another matter. I flew out to Idaho last week to visit my aging grandparents and some other family members, had to catch up with work when I got back, had a full day with the Hoosier Congressional Policy Leadership Series with the Indiana Family Institute this last Thursday AND have to keep up with 2 time-consuming, but very fulfilling Liberty University courses.
So if I don't blog for days that stretch into double-digit numbers (as is now the case), you can bank on it that I'm experiencing these levels of obligations in other areas of life.
But of course, much is happening that demands commentary. Sometime during this holiday weekend, I'll try to provide it. Right now, I have to read some collateral for "Hermeneutics"class.
Speaking of that, let me put something to rest right now that I often get asked when people hear that I am in a Master's in Religion program with Liberty (especially since I have another Master's in Business). No, I am not going into the ministry. For that to happen, Jesus would have to show up in my living room and make His intentions known that plainly. I am in awe of pastors who do their job well; because of just such servants of the cloth, I know what a commanding task and awe-inspiring responsibility ministry is.
I had a number of reasons for embarking on this particular program, and suffice it to say that they are being realized, one by one, as I go. More on this later...
So if I don't blog for days that stretch into double-digit numbers (as is now the case), you can bank on it that I'm experiencing these levels of obligations in other areas of life.
But of course, much is happening that demands commentary. Sometime during this holiday weekend, I'll try to provide it. Right now, I have to read some collateral for "Hermeneutics"class.
Speaking of that, let me put something to rest right now that I often get asked when people hear that I am in a Master's in Religion program with Liberty (especially since I have another Master's in Business). No, I am not going into the ministry. For that to happen, Jesus would have to show up in my living room and make His intentions known that plainly. I am in awe of pastors who do their job well; because of just such servants of the cloth, I know what a commanding task and awe-inspiring responsibility ministry is.
I had a number of reasons for embarking on this particular program, and suffice it to say that they are being realized, one by one, as I go. More on this later...
Monday, May 11, 2009
Sick of smileys
I will never forget the first time I saw a smiley face. I had no idea what it even was because the two eye marks and the mouth were there, but there was no circle around them...something like this, except vertical, not horizontal: =)
I was 10 years old and my 5th grade teacher was attempting to convey to me that I had done a good job. It worked once she explained to me what this mysterious symbol meant.
I still like that teacher; in fact, she reads this blog and comments sometimes. I also love my wife and all kinds of other people in my life who use smiley faces on a regular basis. I have drawn them myself for many years now. (Is "drawn" the right term? "Doodled" seems more precise, but somehow doesn't quite cut it, either).
But I refuse to participate any longer. I am done with smiley faces. Discourse in America, especially via e-mail, has degenerated to a point where we seem to feel that unless we draw, doodle or create a smiley face every other sentence, our tone will come across as cold, withdrawn, detached or less than heartfelt.
There are a plethora of problems with this, but I'll content myself with listing my main peeves. First, shouldn't I have an extensive enough vocabulary that I can convey my personal warmth towards someone without constantly employing a smiley face? Also, maybe sometimes, I actually am not happy about something or someone! Have we reached a place where I can't make those feelings known occasionally?
But perhaps most troubling of all, why are we SO quick to take offense and feel slighted? Are we so hasty of a society with friendships that are so thinly foundational that they will be injured that simply...over a wrongly worded sentence or one that is phrased a little carelessly? I think all of these things are worth pondering; it seems that we all have gotten steadily more thin-skinned even as we attempt to constantly stay in touch in a variety of ways. But does EVERYTHING need to be sugarcoated? Why are we so easily hurt?
Regardless, I'm through with Mr. or Ms. Smiley Face...I don't believe, in the end, that it fosters greater intimacy or kindness, but probably serves more as a shield or a subtle request to "please not hate me for saying this." I challenge you to ask yourself how stable that friendship really is if you can't say what you mean without a smiley face?
I was 10 years old and my 5th grade teacher was attempting to convey to me that I had done a good job. It worked once she explained to me what this mysterious symbol meant.
I still like that teacher; in fact, she reads this blog and comments sometimes. I also love my wife and all kinds of other people in my life who use smiley faces on a regular basis. I have drawn them myself for many years now. (Is "drawn" the right term? "Doodled" seems more precise, but somehow doesn't quite cut it, either).
But I refuse to participate any longer. I am done with smiley faces. Discourse in America, especially via e-mail, has degenerated to a point where we seem to feel that unless we draw, doodle or create a smiley face every other sentence, our tone will come across as cold, withdrawn, detached or less than heartfelt.
There are a plethora of problems with this, but I'll content myself with listing my main peeves. First, shouldn't I have an extensive enough vocabulary that I can convey my personal warmth towards someone without constantly employing a smiley face? Also, maybe sometimes, I actually am not happy about something or someone! Have we reached a place where I can't make those feelings known occasionally?
But perhaps most troubling of all, why are we SO quick to take offense and feel slighted? Are we so hasty of a society with friendships that are so thinly foundational that they will be injured that simply...over a wrongly worded sentence or one that is phrased a little carelessly? I think all of these things are worth pondering; it seems that we all have gotten steadily more thin-skinned even as we attempt to constantly stay in touch in a variety of ways. But does EVERYTHING need to be sugarcoated? Why are we so easily hurt?
Regardless, I'm through with Mr. or Ms. Smiley Face...I don't believe, in the end, that it fosters greater intimacy or kindness, but probably serves more as a shield or a subtle request to "please not hate me for saying this." I challenge you to ask yourself how stable that friendship really is if you can't say what you mean without a smiley face?
Rooting for Miss California
This will be a post that is destined to make just about nobody happy, so only the Almighty knows why I feel compelled to write it...but forthwith...
I will be written off by some as hopelessly outdated for asking what possible long-term good for the nation comes out of beauty pageants? To me, they send all the wrong messages, namely that physical beauty of a very narrow type is something that should be rewarded...why? Just because it exists? By definition, then, any woman is lacking whose measurements are less (or, I guess, more) than what is deemed the ideal by the fashion community at large that sponsors the pageants.
What is the point of a beauty pageant beyond a group of stunningly gorgeous specimens of the female sex baring 95% of their bodies and strutting on a stage for the judges to admire? I probably don't sound serious, but I actually am. I should hastily add that I can think fairly rapidly of a number of former beauty pageant queens who have gone on to do very well for themselves and whom I admire (but my opinion is still the same!) Gretchen Carlson on Fox & Friends is one; Sarah Palin is another. But even Sarah Palin, who participated, if my memory serves, in some sort of high school pageant looked back on it all in a humorous, yet rueful fashion in a TV interview that aired during the campaign last year. (I vividly remember it still because she smilingly talked about the nerve they had to "show off our butts" to the judges...and I wondered if this was the first time this portion of the anatomy had been discussed on TV by so high-profile of a politician...let alone a female VP candidate?)
Call me a prude if you will, and I obviously don't think I am, but I just can't see where the benefit and uplift comes from a beauty pageant. It all strikes me as plastic and contrived and I've already detailed the signals I think are not so subtly sent, but I'll happily listen to anyone who wants to inform me how misguided I am...especially because now I'm probably going to hear from all the female friends I have who have participated, still unbeknownst to me, in beauty pageants at some point in the distant past!
Now, having alienated half of my vast readership, I'll proceed to tick off the rest: Miss California (Carrie Prejean) is to be commended for speaking the truth fearlessly and forthrightly, after she took the question on gay marriage from the sanctimonious little perverted twit that fancies himself a journalist and serious commentator. And it amazes and infuriates me that the Left refuses to be satisfied until they have not only guillotined her, but drawn and quartered her for good measure. This poor kid is only 22 years old and simply answered a question. And suddenly, the fact that she posed semi-nude for some photos at some point in her past is a heinous transgression for which her detractors are demanding our collective horror, complete with slacked jaws and rapid palpitations?
The hypocrisy and faux outrage of it all is enough to make one clench.
Juan Williams is right. No conservative, he nonetheless is an honest and fair journalist who tries to tell the truth as he sees it...and has been viciously attacked by liberals as a result. He spoke out about it on the O'Reilly Factor a few weeks ago, declaring that, yes, the Right has its extremists, but their ire is miniscule compared to the venom unleashed when one deviates from the orthodoxy of the Daily Kos/Democrat Left.
I will be written off by some as hopelessly outdated for asking what possible long-term good for the nation comes out of beauty pageants? To me, they send all the wrong messages, namely that physical beauty of a very narrow type is something that should be rewarded...why? Just because it exists? By definition, then, any woman is lacking whose measurements are less (or, I guess, more) than what is deemed the ideal by the fashion community at large that sponsors the pageants.
What is the point of a beauty pageant beyond a group of stunningly gorgeous specimens of the female sex baring 95% of their bodies and strutting on a stage for the judges to admire? I probably don't sound serious, but I actually am. I should hastily add that I can think fairly rapidly of a number of former beauty pageant queens who have gone on to do very well for themselves and whom I admire (but my opinion is still the same!) Gretchen Carlson on Fox & Friends is one; Sarah Palin is another. But even Sarah Palin, who participated, if my memory serves, in some sort of high school pageant looked back on it all in a humorous, yet rueful fashion in a TV interview that aired during the campaign last year. (I vividly remember it still because she smilingly talked about the nerve they had to "show off our butts" to the judges...and I wondered if this was the first time this portion of the anatomy had been discussed on TV by so high-profile of a politician...let alone a female VP candidate?)
Call me a prude if you will, and I obviously don't think I am, but I just can't see where the benefit and uplift comes from a beauty pageant. It all strikes me as plastic and contrived and I've already detailed the signals I think are not so subtly sent, but I'll happily listen to anyone who wants to inform me how misguided I am...especially because now I'm probably going to hear from all the female friends I have who have participated, still unbeknownst to me, in beauty pageants at some point in the distant past!
Now, having alienated half of my vast readership, I'll proceed to tick off the rest: Miss California (Carrie Prejean) is to be commended for speaking the truth fearlessly and forthrightly, after she took the question on gay marriage from the sanctimonious little perverted twit that fancies himself a journalist and serious commentator. And it amazes and infuriates me that the Left refuses to be satisfied until they have not only guillotined her, but drawn and quartered her for good measure. This poor kid is only 22 years old and simply answered a question. And suddenly, the fact that she posed semi-nude for some photos at some point in her past is a heinous transgression for which her detractors are demanding our collective horror, complete with slacked jaws and rapid palpitations?
The hypocrisy and faux outrage of it all is enough to make one clench.
Juan Williams is right. No conservative, he nonetheless is an honest and fair journalist who tries to tell the truth as he sees it...and has been viciously attacked by liberals as a result. He spoke out about it on the O'Reilly Factor a few weeks ago, declaring that, yes, the Right has its extremists, but their ire is miniscule compared to the venom unleashed when one deviates from the orthodoxy of the Daily Kos/Democrat Left.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Another conservative hero gone
Jack Kemp passed away sometime in the middle of the night between Saturday, May 2 and Sunday, May 3. He had struggled with cancer for some time; the public became aware of his diagnosis in January of this year. Things must have gone downhill quickly from there.
Kemp was one of the first Republican political figures who was vivid for me. The 1988 election is the first one in which I clearly recall a lot of the candidates and their supporting casts, even in the primaries. Kemp was supposed to be the challenge from the right to George H. W. Bush, but he failed to anticipate a long-shot run by Pat Robertson, who stole the show by coming in second in the Iowa caucus behind Bob Dole (yes, Bush 41 came in third, for those who can't remember back that far...and yes, for those of you under 20, he did go on to win the general election).
Kemp then went on to serve as Bush 41's HUD Secretary, and as Bob Dole's running mate in 1996.
I came along a little too late to be able to claim memory of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts at the time they happened, but I've read my share about them over the years since. Jack Kemp was the embodiment of supply-side economics, and this doctrine, along with the candidacy of Ronald Reagan, revitalized the GOP for a generation. George Will paid Kemp the highest compliment that he could bestow on him on "This Week" today when he called him an "idea man." We need many more of them right now.
Republicans have lost another footsoldier from the Reagan Revolution. May Jack Kemp rest in peace.
Kemp was one of the first Republican political figures who was vivid for me. The 1988 election is the first one in which I clearly recall a lot of the candidates and their supporting casts, even in the primaries. Kemp was supposed to be the challenge from the right to George H. W. Bush, but he failed to anticipate a long-shot run by Pat Robertson, who stole the show by coming in second in the Iowa caucus behind Bob Dole (yes, Bush 41 came in third, for those who can't remember back that far...and yes, for those of you under 20, he did go on to win the general election).
Kemp then went on to serve as Bush 41's HUD Secretary, and as Bob Dole's running mate in 1996.
I came along a little too late to be able to claim memory of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts at the time they happened, but I've read my share about them over the years since. Jack Kemp was the embodiment of supply-side economics, and this doctrine, along with the candidacy of Ronald Reagan, revitalized the GOP for a generation. George Will paid Kemp the highest compliment that he could bestow on him on "This Week" today when he called him an "idea man." We need many more of them right now.
Republicans have lost another footsoldier from the Reagan Revolution. May Jack Kemp rest in peace.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Souter retires
Obama gets a Supreme Court vacancy very early, with David Souter, George H.W. Bush's first Supreme Court appointee, calling it quits today. My guess is that he probably would have liked to retire before now, but held out until he knew a President was ensconced in the Oval Office who would replace him with another activist justice.
Of all of the Supreme Court picks of the last 30 years, Souter was the most deftly stealthy; I could be more unkind and say "sneaky" instead. Souter managed to convey to Bush 41 a completely opposite impression of the kind of justice he would turn out to be, especially on the Roe v. Wade issue. ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has written the most readable book I know of on the Supreme Court and it tells this whole story in detail. (It is called Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court.)
The only regrettable aspect of Souter's departure at this juncture is that Obama is likely to tap a much younger person in his place who will serve for several decades.
But, the ideological make-up of the Court will not change.
Of all of the Supreme Court picks of the last 30 years, Souter was the most deftly stealthy; I could be more unkind and say "sneaky" instead. Souter managed to convey to Bush 41 a completely opposite impression of the kind of justice he would turn out to be, especially on the Roe v. Wade issue. ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has written the most readable book I know of on the Supreme Court and it tells this whole story in detail. (It is called Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court.)
The only regrettable aspect of Souter's departure at this juncture is that Obama is likely to tap a much younger person in his place who will serve for several decades.
But, the ideological make-up of the Court will not change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
