You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
|
|
« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 » May 30, 2008Blue and Red AboundFun link for Friday: campaign logos from 1960-2008. Lots of red, white, and blue, as you'd expect. Some you can date just by looking at them. It's also interesting to note how, until Fred Thompson this year, candidate photos basically disappeared from logos. A few notable ones: and my personal favorite: Posted by David Darlington at 08:54 AM | Comments (0) May 29, 2008As Seen on the RightScanning through Zach's shared items on the right, I came across (via Kevin Drum) George Packer's long article on the fall of conservatism from the most recent New Yorker. The really short version is that having achieved the majority of its policy goals, and no longer possessing a Soviet threat to rally around (illegal immigrants and/or Islamofascism just aren't cutting it), conservatism has run out of steam and ideas. Communism is discredited, as are 70 percent tax rates and a massive welfare state, so what's next? That's the conundrum conservatism finds itself in. What's left is what Josh referred to in his post yesterday. When you don't have an idea agenda, you have tactics. If you can't inspire, at least you can product manage your way to 50% plus 1. And oh yeah, The Next Right launched this week. Tie that in with the above paragraph as you will. Posted by David Darlington at 06:46 PM | Comments (6) May 28, 2008Marketing McCainAbout a week ago John McCain appeared on the daytime talk show of Ellen Degeneres. Ellen brought up "the elephant in the room" of gay marriage which led to an interesting exchange between the two: The important thing I took away from the exchange was not the positions of Ellen and McCain; we already knew that. Instead, I learned that John McCain is either unwilling or unable to provide a coherent reason and justification for his opposition to homosexual marriage. This does not bode well for McCain's candidacy, his potential presidency, and just as important, it does not bode well for the conservative movement. I was reminded of a recent column penned by Peggy Noonan (the full text of which I can't find online) which offered this gem: "[Republican leadership has been] left with a ruined 'brand,' as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership." Perhaps this best summarizes most modern politicians, regardless of party. They are followers, not intellectual leaders. To call them "marketers" is in itself a bit too generous; they leave that task to others. Thus politicians become the brand, and career campaigners and politicos scurry about finding and marketing the best brands they can find. Questions regarding policy and platform begin to take a back seat to "brand" type of questions, like, "Is he/she attractive enough?" "Will his/her race/gender/socio-economic class play well to the public?", etc. McCain has worked to cultivate a brand of "courageous maverick", but nowhere beneath the surface do we find real policy leadership or fortitude. His appearance on Ellen made that glaringly obvious for all to see. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:52 AM | Comments (7) May 27, 2008Indiana University Alumni Trustee Election -- 2008It's that time of the year again. All interested IU alumni can find my analysis and endorsement below the fold. This year, the field of candidates is the smallest I can remember since I graduated (the first time). There are only two challengers to the incumbent, Pat Shoulders, who was elected three years ago after serving out his gubernatorial appointment. The challengers are Samuel Locke, a consultant from southern Indiana, and Kelly Smith, an attorney at a prestigious Indianapolis law firm. While Smith kindly responded to my questions and concerns, I am much more impressed with Locke. For starters, his presence on the Internet indicates the ambition he brings to the office. In addition to his website, I've also seen advertisements on Facebook and Google Ads. It was also flattering to have him email me about the election first (I'm usually the one sending out messages); apparently, searching for information about the alumni trustee elections brings up my posts here at ITA. The impressive fact here isn't that ITA is a major source of news, it's that Locke had the presence of mind to do a little Googling and to reach out to a concerned alumnus. He promptly responded to my questions and concerns. Locke's positions on the governance of the university are thoughtful and refreshing. More importantly, they echo what I hear from fellow alumni: the prestige of the university is slipping while the trustees and administration are ineffectual and insular. Three things especially jump out at me: 1) concerns about faculty pay (my pet topic), 2) the role of regional campuses, and 3) sharp attention to the less-savoury conduct of the old regime. (By contrast, Shoulder's candidate questionnaire, the closest he comes to providing a substantial statement of his platform, is a string of platitudes.) I was further heartened by Locke's response to my emailed questions. On the 2004 Indiana Government Efficiency Commission report on higher education, still the touchstone for all meaningful discussion of the future of higher education in the State, Locke wrote: A lot of my thoughts about the role of the regional campuses stem from the report -- like the report, I think IU can do a much better job at utilizing the regional campuses to play a more strategic role in helping Indiana communities shift from an industrial to service economy. To make this possible, as the report also indicates, more funding will need to be shifted to financial aid resources to make access to degrees more attainable. I also take many of the findings as basic common sense, which unfortunately has been a bit lacking of late. Particularly, the basic premise that we can be more efficient and effective with no more dollars is true -- controlling spending, finding more creative revenue sources, and even implementing some of the RCM facets can help in this regard. Lastly, I agree that there is a graduate drain in Indiana (I, myself, went elsewhere for my Master's, leading to an equally troublesome drain in research. Oddly, there never seemed to be a big push for continuing into graduate education -- perhaps some simple marketing could help improve this dilemma, especially given the current job market conditions. One point where I disagree with the report is in phasing out associate degree programs -- I think these are great tools to "reel students in," even if they aren't directly impacting the research output and even though Ivy Tech may offer a similar degree. In many cases, students need this level in order to feel as though education is attainable.On IU's intractable bureaucracy: Improving the bureaucratic inertia can start with a change of attitudes from Trustees. It seems as though Trustee meetings are typically mere formalities, with tough questions rarely being asked. In all of the meeting minutes I've looked at, there are many references to budget summaries, but never the entire budget. Simply having an engaged Trustee will help to crisp the workflow with many transactions and processes. Beyond this, shifting more control over institutional decision-making to folks in the field -- regional campus chancellors, the IUB provost, etc. can help as well -- leaving the President, VPs, and Trustees to address issues from a more strategic, rather than bureaucratic, standpoint.NB: Another sign of ambition and gravity -- reading through meeting minutes. On funding priorities, I was not thrilled to see yet more talk of making college more affordable, a subject on which I am a contrarian. But Locke quickly won me over: Wider access to student aid, a close second would be improving faculty pay to be more in line with our Big 10 peers. But neither of these can or should be implemented by increasing tuition -- more responsible spending should be goal.My fellow alumni, there's not much here to leave us wanting. The rise of a web-savvy contender coincides with the first election in which alumni can cast ballots online (mail-in and in-person ballots are also still available). As long as you are here reading ITA, you might as well click over and vote for Samuel Locke for alumni trustee. Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:10 PM | Comments (6) Bob BarrAt their convention over the weekend, the Libertarian Party nominated former Republican congressman Bob Barr to be its standard bearer in the 2008 presidential race. Barr is probably best known for his role in the Clinton impeachment, but in recent years has become a vocal critic of the Bush Administration from the right about the president's war policies and the accumulation of power in the executive branch. Barr, who once voted in favor of the Patriot Act, now says that the government has accumulated too much power and restricted too many rights in the wake of 9/11, and wants to roll some things back. Barr is polling 6-7 percent in some national polls, which might put some states, like Barr's home state of Georgia, in play. I have to admit, when I read stuff like this on Barr's web site, I get filled with hope:
Posted by David Darlington at 09:34 PM | Comments (4) May 26, 2008In Our Youth Our Hearts Were Touched With FireSo to the indifferent inquirer who asks why Memorial Day is still kept up we may answer, it celebrates and solemnly reaffirms from year to year a national act of enthusiasm and faith. It embodies in the most impressive form our belief that to act with enthusiasm and faith is the condition of acting greatly. To fight out a war, you must believe something and want something with all your might. So must you do to carry anything else to an end worth reaching. More than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to a course, perhaps a long and hard one, without being able to foresee exactly where you will come out. All that is required of you is that you should go somewhither as hard as ever you can. The rest belongs to fate. One may fall-at the beginning of the charge or at the top of the earthworks; but in no other way can he reach the rewards of victory. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Memorial Day 1884 Posted by David Darlington at 10:45 AM | Comments (0) May 25, 2008Prayers for SCCPrayers would be appreciated for Grammy-winning Christian county star Steven Curtis Chapman, whose youngest daughter was killed in a tragic accident on Wednesday. 5-year-old Maria Sue was struck by an SUV being driven by one of her teenage brothers in the driveway of the Chapman home in Franklin, Tennessee. A memorial service was held yesterday, according to Chapman's web site. The name "Steven Curtis Chapman" conjures up all kinds of high school youth group road trip memories for me. This is very sad. Posted by David Darlington at 08:17 AM | Comments (1) The Right EnemiesWhile Indy might not be a great movie, as Josh reports below (I haven't seen it yet), it is still upsetting some of the right people. The Communist Party in Russia has denounced the film for being anti-Communist propoganda. They say it distorts history and, true to form, have called for banning the film in Russian theaters. "Commies -- I hate these guys!" Posted by David Darlington at 08:08 AM | Comments (0) May 24, 2008Indiana JonesI went to see the new feature this evening. I had read the negative reviews, and had heard that it just wasn't up to par. But I believed, and hoped, that the impetus for these reviews were over-inflated expectations and movie snobs looking to bring down a likely box office success. And so I went to the movie this evening looking for anything to grasp hold of which would let me defend a movie franchise I so dearly want to see do well. Sadly, though, I was sorely disappointed. The film was a flop. A big one. If this post accomplishes anything, perhaps it can at least save you the price of admission. It's simply not worth it. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:27 AM | Comments (8) May 22, 2008Interesting
Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:59 AM | Comments (12) May 20, 2008What the Hell is Wrong With Us?Based on this audience reaction, being on Oprah's "Favorite Things" episode may be the pinnacle of human existence. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:44 PM | Comments (15) Keeping Quiet
What is something you feel you can't say in church, or around other Christians?Anonymous responses are welcomed and encouraged. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:41 PM | Comments (28) May 19, 2008Ahead of the CurveProfessor Todd Zywicki, writing at his usual digs at The Volokh Conspiracy, raises the same point which I raised late last week: why does the California Supreme Court believe discrimination against homosexuals is any worse than discrimination against polygamists? Prof. Zywicki writes: So the question is, if you get rid of the "man-woman" prong as largely arbitrary, why does this not lead to getting rid of the "one-one" prong as well? It seems like the new line is just as arbitrary as the old one.Meanwhile, addressing the same California case, Jason Kuznicki revives a traditional theme of his and argues that nurturing is the true purpose of marriage, not reproduction, government benefits, or romantic fulfillment. This topic was debated here previously in 2005. My response to Jason can be found here, and responses to my post were made by Paul Musgrave here and by Adam Tierney here. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:22 PM | Comments (19) Locking the Ivory TowerAnonymous Professor X writes in the June 2008 issue of Atlantic Monthly against the universality of a college education. "The idea that a university education is for everyone is a destructive myth," s/he says. I think s/he's correct. College isn't for everyone, but people need to make that decision for themselves, not have it made for them. Posted by David Darlington at 08:47 AM | Comments (4) May 15, 2008The Lincoln-Douglas DebatesLet's not grow nostalgic for a misremembered past; I found this review in The Atlantic surprising: Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates That Defined America Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:04 PM | Comments (3) California's Gay Marriage DecisionThe California Supreme Court has held that the state must recognize same-sex marriages. The full opinion is available here (pdf). The question before the court was whether the failure to designate the relationship of same-sex couples as a "marriage", as opposed to a "domestic partnership," violates the California Constitution. Thus, the biggest issue is not a matter of benefits or rights, which in California are virtually identical for domestic partners and marriage couples. Instead, the case was simply over state recognition of homosexuals by allowing them to use the name "marriage." The California high court came to its conclusion through a long analysis, but to boil it down in an admittedly simple way, the court found that the "right to marry" is a fundamental right and any limits on it must be reviewed under strict scrutiny. As the lawyerly readers will recognize, "strict scrutiny" is a specific legal term that means the limits must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. This strict scrutiny issue does interest me, and is central to the decision, but of particular interest to me is that the California Supreme Court continued to uphold discrimination against incestual and polygamist couples. Why should homosexuals receive superior rights to marriage than polygamist relationships? The majority gives lip service to this contradiction, but only vaguely responds that "the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment" (p. 79). Here you can begin to see the dangerous path down which the court travels. In its own wisdom and moral superiority, the California Supreme Court determined that modern community values, as expressed through the legislature, are justified in banning polygamous and incestuous marriages, but not justified in banning homosexual ones. These are precisely the sort of policy decisions and assessments that are best left to an elected public body like the legislature. Indeed, as originalists argue, the constitution mandates it. For social conservatives (e.g., Christians) who are uneasy with California's decision, the experience should reinforce the notion that an institution as important - and so rooted in religious faiths - as marriage should not be left to the whims of a secular democracy or judicial system. This is why beloved Christian author C.S. Lewis wrote the following: There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.I don't believe for one moment that American Christians are ready for such a large leap. For decades Christians have worked to tear down the great "wall of separation" between church and state. Given time, with more and more decision's like California's, more Christians will come to see that the wall of separation was intended to work both ways. But will there be a wall left at all? The opinion is based solely on California law, and not federal law, making it unavailable for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, a state constitutional amendment on the issue will likely be on the ballot this November. The battle is not over. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 06:54 PM | Comments (17) May 13, 2008A Skeptic's ListHere's a list of the "6 Most Frequently Quoted Bullsh*t Statistics". Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:22 AM | Comments (1) 'Wicked' American DecisionsOn this day 162 years ago the United States officially declared war on Mexico. After Texas had won independence from Mexico roughly 10 year earlier, and then obtained admission to the Union, a border dispute between Mexico and the United States broke out. Mexico had never quite accepted an independent Republic of Texas, so its annexation with the U.S. didn't sit well with our neighbors to the south. When the U.S. then sought to buy more land from Mexico for greater access to the Pacific Ocean, Mexican nationalists began to get quite annoyed. The hostilities boiled over until the U.S. officially declared, and would eventually win, a war with Mexico. One aspect of this oft-forgotten war is that it was quite divisive in its day. Whigs, particularly those in the north, opposed the war. Yet southern Democrats, smitten with the notion of Manifest Destiny and our perceived God given right to own "sea to shining sea," enthusiastically supported it. Such disagreements should not be glossed over. Abraham Lincoln, then a Congressman, remained forcefully skeptical about Mexico's alleged instigation of armed hostilities. Others, such as former President John Quincy Adams, felt the whole affair was simply an effort to expand slavery. Of the many opponents it was perhaps President Ulysses S. Grant, a young army officer in the Mexican-American War, who summed up the misgivings best in his Memoirs in 1885: "For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the [annexation of Texas], and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."Grant didn't stop there, and it is for this poignant honesty that people often regard Grant's memoirs as the best ever written by a former president. He went on to suggest that God punished the U.S. for its war against Mexico in the form of the American Civil War: "The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."In 1879, after he had served as President, Grant put his feelings in no uncertain terms: "I had very strong opinions on the subject. I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico. I had a horror of the Mexican War, and I have always believed that it was on our part most unjust. The wickedness was not in the way our soldiers conducted it, but in the conduct of our government in declaring was. We had no claim on Mexico. Texas had no claim beyond the Nueces River, and yet we pushed on to the Rio Grande and crossed it. I am always ashamed of my country when I think of that invasion."In 1880, over 30 years after the war had ended, Republicans were still angered by it all and, in its "Republican Campaign Textbook," described the war as "Feculent, reeking Corruption" and "one of the darkest scenes in our history - a war forced upon our and the Mexican people by the high-handed usurpations of Pres't Polk in pursuit of territorial aggrandizement of the slave oligarchy." Listen to today's political pundits for very long and you might start to think such denouncements of the U.S. - by a former President no less! - are modern inventions. Yet here we see some of the country's most esteemed leaders and statesmen expressing outright shame over its decision to wage an unjust war. Patriotic men who would, and did, give their life for the country could nonetheless oppose "wicked" government decisions like engaging in an unjust war. This shouldn't surprise us really, but I think it'd be news to most Americans. I suppose Truman said it best when he said, "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know." Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:22 AM | Comments (13) May 12, 2008Lutherans Today. Lutherans Tomorrow?ITA readers further interested in the travails of Lutheranism in America, following Josh's post on the subject, may be interested in the book Lutherans Today: American Lutheran Identity in the 21st Century edited by Richard Cimino and first published in 2003. It's a collection of essays from church historians and pastors exploring what modern Lutheranism is all about. Some essays are better than others, as is the nature of such a book. Influential church historian Mark Noll has a great lead essay which which gives the reader a good overview of Lutheran history in the U.S. up to this point. Mary Todd, professor of history at Concordia-River Forest, follows Noll, and stands as the voice of one of the LCMS's few remaining truly liberal "liberals" (as opposed to "liberal" "evangelicals" like President Kieschnick). The reader will note how Todd plays the semantic game that Josh talked about, as Lutheran liberals become "conservatives" and Lutheran conservatives become "confessionals." Two essays on the Lutheran social activism and the foundation of the ELCA are quite instructive, as they show how liberalism became institutionalized in the fledgling synod via diversity requirements throughout the ELCA's bureaucracy. That the ELCA is now mostly indistinguishable from other liberal mainline denominations should be no surprise. The second half of the book is a mixed bag. Some essays are good, while others--particularly one that descends into a rant on multiculturalism--are not. Still, for those interested in further studying the plight of Lutheranism in American, I recommend it. Posted by David Darlington at 06:46 PM | Comments (0) The Courage of One's, Like, ConvictionsThis is so true? Posted by David Darlington at 04:07 PM | Comments (3) May 11, 2008A Brief History of Mother's DayAround the 16th century in Britain, Christians visited their mother church each year. Over time, and through gradual alterations, it was dedicated toward giving thanks to mothers. What I find particularly interesting is that Julia Ward Howe is widely credited with importing the holiday to the United States. It was intended to unite women against the Civil War. In 1870, Howe penned the Mother's Day Proclamation as a call for peace and disarmament. The day's association with peace never quite caught on, but its secularized, feel-good purpose of giving thanks to mothers remained. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:05 PM | Comments (1) May 09, 2008When Old Lawyers Try to Get Tech SavvyConcerned about predators on Myspace and Facebook, those sites will now restrict users who are older than 18 from looking for users under 18. The geniuses behind this plan believe it will work because, you know, no one ever lies about their age on the internet. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:43 PM | Comments (6) LCMS: The Tale of a Denomination In FluxAlthough I am not officially a member of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), my interest in the denomination is quite high. It is, of course, the Scriptural and Sacramental aspects of the denomination that I find compelling, and not the squabbling of synodical politics. But because such politics can have such a tremendous impact on what does matter, LCMS members must concern themselves with such things. Recent events in the LCMS seem to threaten the very makeup and fabric of the denomination. Given that a succinct summary of these events appears difficult to find, I offer this post not as an argument of what should be done, but rather as a summary of previous and ongoing developments. Even for those, like me, who are not official members of LCMS, this tale of a denomination in flux provides a window to larger symptoms afflicting numerous church bodies. All denominations, it seems, have a natural life cycle that involves a battle between liberal and conservative factions. In the LCMS, the liberals are sometimes referred to as evangelicals, and conservatives often prefer to call themselves confessional Lutherans. Phrases such as such as these have varying definitions, but for purposes of this post I will stick with the admittedly simplistic phrases of "conservative" and "liberal". The last big battle between conservatives and liberals in the LCMS came to a head in 1974 when a president of the LCMS's crown jewel of a seminary, Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, began teaching allegedly liberal methods of Biblical interpretation. After walkouts and firings, and even the formation of a new rival seminary by liberals ("Seminex"), the whole dispute eventually ended in the fracture of the church. LCMS remained the haven of conservatives, with liberals breaking away to form what would eventually become the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). This 1970s dispute remains in the back of the mind of many congregants who fear a resurgent liberal faction. Currently the LCMS is led by President Gerald Kieschnick, widely considered to be a moderate. Yet he has thus far been unable to avoid controversy. His first major controversy arose in September of 2001 after he supported a Lutheran pastor's participation in an interfaith prayer event at Yankee Stadium to commemorate the terrorist attacks on the U.S. The LCMS generally shuns interfaith events in order to avoid "syncretism" and "unionism". Kieschnick soldiered on and won re-election to the presidency in 2004 (though with only 53% of the vote). Then came the culmination of his church growth emphasis: the Ablaze! Movement. Simply put, Ablaze! was a new vision of the LCMS to convert people to Christianity and get more butts in the pews. Yet conservatives worried that this noble goal would also usher the LCMS into a new era of pop-culture Christianity. Kieschnick insinuated that he wanted only to change the style, and not the message, of the LCMS. In some cases this might mean more contemporary music and less old fashioned organs churning out Bach (who was himself a Lutheran). In other cases it might mean the modernization of old liturgy. Indeed, Kieschnick seemed to openly embrace the seeker-friendly mantras of nondenominational evangelicals like Rick Warren. As Kieschnick said, "This is not your grandfather's church." Yet conservatives in the LCMS liked their grandfather's church and continued to point out that style and substance often go hand-in-hand. One congregation used a $25,000 Ablaze! grant to put up billboards purporting to come from the devil (e.g., "JeffersonHills Church Sucks," signed "Satan") and another used Lent not for its historical message but as an opportunity to offer a speaker series on sex. Conservatives were fuming, and all was not well. In this already heated environment Kieschnick delivered a shot across the bow to conservatives. During Holy Week, without warning and without explanation, the LCMS canceled its popular, nationally syndicated radio program "Issues, Etc." The program, like the LCMS church body itself, was an intellectually rigorous show that used 14 hours of in-depth programming each week to address culture, politics, and church life. On its last show in mid-March, for example, hosts Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwarz covered the life and faith of St. Patrick, scientific and philosophical arguments in defense of the embryo, the excommunication of two Catholic women claiming ordination, and the controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright. Yet Issues, Etc. was canceled, and the real reason appears to be rooted in the show's skepticism of modern church marketing methods embraced by the likes of Kieschnick. The emergent church, the Purpose Driven Church movement, and the common self-improvement mentality of modern churches were commonly met with intellectual and theological challenges from Issues, Etc. Presumably this didn't sit well with LCMS leadership. The act of cancelling the show was bad enough in the eyes of most conservatives, but like Watergate, the cover-up was arguably even worse. Any trace of the show's extensive archives online was quickly removed as if it had never existed (though some have since been restored). Initially, the bureaucrats would say nothing other than the show had been canceled for "business and programmatic" reasons. Later the LCMS also cited low ratings, even though the last time such data was tracked was three years ago. In bolstering his argument that Issues, Etc. was a financial drain, Kieschnick claimed it had been losing $250,000 per year. However, in the same time frame Ablaze! lost an estimated $2.2 million and, shockingly, Kieschnick borrowed $5 million from other ministry budgets to be used for the Ablaze! movement. One way to look at it, then, is that Issues, Etc. went down in Ablaze! of poor prioritization. Poor business decisions of upper management have also come under scrutiny. Nevertheless, recent evidence suggests finances were only part of the equation. Anonymous complaints of "hyper-orthodoxy" were leveled at the show prior to its removal. Moreover, the Synod posted job advertisements for the very positions it claimed it was forced to terminate for budgetary reasons, only to then yank the ads after realizing its mistake. In sum, the LCMS continues to point to funding problems and a lack of listeners as the primary reason for the show's cancellation when the evidence points to a very different conclusion. Kieschnick may not only be thumbing his nose at LCMS conservatives, but he seems to be doing so in a less than honest and forthcoming manner. In the wake of the ensuing controversy, borne out most prominently on critical weblogs like The Wittenberg Trail, Augsburg 1530 and Bring Back Issues Etc., Kieschnick has issued a call for greater unity in the Synod. Ironically, greater unity may be the end result, but it appears that it will be a grass-roots driven unity focused on restoring the LCMS to its traditional self. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:32 PM | Comments (3) May 07, 2008Storm on the HorizonThe long Democratic (that's the adjectival form, folks) bloodletting in the presidential primaries took a big step to resolution last night as Barack Obama won a blowout win in North Carolina and fought Hillary Clinton to a near draw in Indiana. Chances are the race will go on for a few more weeks, as Clinton has loaned herself another $6.4 million (when you've got $109 million to blow, why not?), but it appears Barack Obama has this thing all but wrapped up. Watching the Democrats tear themselves apart and playing "Operation Chaos" was fun for a while, but now they're just distractions from very real problems on the GOP side. It seems to me that one of the motivations for hoping for a deathmatch on the Democratic (there it is again) side is that there is still some lingering disappointment with John McCain as the party's nominee. His admitted weaknesses on domestic policy certainly don't inspire confidence. The party also recently lost a 34-year seat in Louisiana. The tea leaves are suggesting a congressional disaster in November which could take down the party's whole leadership team. If the party wants to win in November, now is the time to get serious about addressing some very real problems with its image and its platform. McCain can make the first step by naming a fresh face with conservative credentials as his running mate. Mark Sanford anyone? Posted by David Darlington at 08:44 AM | Comments (12) May 06, 2008Identity PoliticsToday Indiana goes to the polls in what may turn out to be a decisive primary for the Democratic nomination. I live in a largely Democratic precinct and overheard this exchange while walking into the polling booth this morning: Middle-aged white woman #1: "I really want to elect a woman president, but I'm just so smitten with Obama's family."I thought this exchange would be beneficial for our international readers who might be interested in how some Americans select the leader of the free world.  Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:00 AM | Comments (5) May 04, 2008"Bookish Economics"The Jill Long Thompson / John McCain / Hillary Clinton plan for a gas-tax holiday has run into a stumbling block, of sorts, namely, that every "economists, environmentalists, everyone who's thought about the issue for ten minutes, etc." has concluded that it is a marvelously bad idea. Greg Mankiw passed along this amusing comment from Len Burman: Yesterday I was on the NewsHour to talk about the gas tax holiday. I asked if there was another guest and the producer said, "We tried, but we couldn't find anyone to argue the other side (that the gas tax holiday made sense)."Armed with a popular bad idea, Hillary passes the real test of any politician -- she is undeterred by logic: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Sunday dismissed the "elite opinion" of economists who criticized her gas tax proposal..."I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton said when asked to name an economist who backed her proposal.That has a familiar ring to it. Public Choice phenom Bryan Caplan rises to the challenge, "I'll shill for Hillary." Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:45 PM | Comments (18) Quick Hits -- A Visual EditionHere are some pieces so interesting I'm at a loss for further commentary:
Posted by Zach Wendling at 04:08 PM | Comments (3) May 02, 2008Today's Politics 101As seen in the comments at Balloon Juice, this commercial might explain the idea of a gas tax holiday--panned by economists of all political persuasions--now being advocated by John McCain and Hillary Clinton as a way to lower gas prices. Be sure to stick around to the end.
Posted by David Darlington at 08:27 AM | Comments (3) |
I saw this done at a weblog called |
------ ADVERTISEMENTS ------
|