January 31, 2005

Our Friends, The Saudis

From Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom comes a chilling report that Saudi Arabia's government has been distributing hate literature in American mosques.

The 89-page report, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques," is based on a year-long study of over two hundred original documents, all disseminated, published or otherwise generated by the government of Saudi Arabia and collected from more than a dozen mosques in the United States.

The propagation of hate ideology by Saudi Arabia is known to be worldwide, but its occurrence within the United States has received scant attention until now. Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Saudi Arabia's extremist Wahhabi ideology are a distinct minority, as is evident by the millions of Muslims who have chosen to make America their home and are upstanding, law-abiding citizens and neighbors.

The report concludes that the Saudi government propaganda examined reflects a "totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence," and the fact that it is "being mainstreamed within our borders through the efforts of a foreign government, namely Saudi Arabia, demands our urgent attention." The report finds: "Not only does the government of Saudi Arabia not have a right – under the First Amendment or any other legal document – to spread hate ideology within U.S. borders, it is committing a human rights violation by doing so."

Such publications that "advocate an ideology of hatred have no place in a nation founded on religious freedom and toleration," write James Woolsey, chairman of the board of Freedom House, in the foreword to the report.

The hate-literature was collected from the following mosques, according to the report's bibliography:

Masjid Abu Bakr, San Diego, CA
King Fahd Mosque, Culver City, CA
Muslim Community Center, Chicago, IL
Daru-Al-Islah, Teaneck, NJ
Richardson Mosque, Dallas, TX
Dar Al-Hijra, Falls Church, VA
Islamic Society of Greater Houston North Zone, Houston, TX
Islamic Center of Oakland, Oakland, CA
Masjid Al-Farouq, Houston TX
Islamic Center of America, East Orange NJ
Al-Farouq Masjid, Brooklyn, NY
Islamic Center of Washington D.C., Washington D.C.
Masjid Al-Islam, Washington, D.C.
Herndon Mosque, Herndon, VA

Sticking Fingers in The Eye of Terror and Tyranny

Mohammed at Iraq the Model reflects on the Iraqi election:

The over exaggerated estimations for the strength of terrorists have also contributed to intimidating the people but even with that, the silent majority moved forward led by the natural human desire for freedom and by the belief that elections can make their lives better.

The people think of elections as a one day struggle that can prevent suffering on the long term. The silent majority has realized that elections are good and serve the people's interests; they don't know much about practicing democracy as they never lived under one but it's the common sense of the people who see how democratic nations enjoy stability and prosperity that led them to this conclusion.

Maybe the "fatwas" from the religious leaderships contributed to this too but I don't think "fatwas" were the main reasons behind the excellent turnout. I expect the results to reveal that many Shea't voters didn't vote for the lists favored by the clergy. Even the list of the "united national alliance" which is expected to be among the big winners wouldn't have gotten all this popularity among voters if it had included too many clerics as less than 10% of the candidates in this list are clerics while the rest are technocrats, Sunni, Kurds, Turkmen and people from other religious minorities; without this variety in the list, it would've been resting now at the tail of the choices list.

What happened yesterday reminds me of the fall of Saddam and they way Iraqis expressed their delight on the 9th of April, only that yesterday's carnival was greater, louder and more specific. Are we going to learn the lesson from yesterday?

I am afraid from being trapped in an ecstasy that directs our attention away from making use of the achieved victory; this victory is represented now by the feeling of Iraqis that freedom lovers and democracy supporters are the majority and they're everywhere and that there exists a strong unity among Iraqis against terror threats.

Every person has realized that he's not fighting alone in this battle and that all Iraq, from the very north to the very south is sharing this view even in the cities where security is a big concern, like Diyala, Mosul, and Tikrit; even in Fallujah, the boxes weren't empty.

The majority wasn't silent yesterday and the people's confidence now is at its peak and we should encourage and invest this feeling now and rebuild the bridges between us, I mean the government, the coalition and the people so that we can find the best way to exterminate the terrorists and the criminals who we know now how few and isolated they are.

For ground-level reporting from Iraq, check out Friends of Democracy. Is blogging journalism? At FoD it most certainly is - and of the highest quality.

And don't miss this piece at Powerline commenting on a Reuters news account.

The terrorists, relying on the power of fear, had intended to destroy the democratic process. They didn't make a dent. President Bush, conversely, bet his legacy on the power of freedom. While, as everyone keeps saying, there is a long road ahead, right now that's looking like a pretty good bet.

UPDATE: Terrorists used a handicapped kid in a wheelchair as a suicide bomber tryng to kill unarmed voters in Iraq. The lefty "human shields" who were all gung-ho to protect Saddam's tyrannical blood-soaked regime from American bombers were, uh, not trying to protect Iraqi voters from "insurgents" yesterday. Why?, you ask? Here's a good answer.

Election Reflection

I listened to President Bush's second inaugural speech today as I drove in to work, thinking all the way of the millions of brave Iraqis who risked death to cast a vote in yesterday's election, and Bush's words were all the more stirring. Not since Reagan have we had a president who believed so strongly in the power of freedom to transform lives and nations. If you haven't already downloaded a copy of the inaugural speech and burned it to a CD, you can get it here for free.

"This voting card is a bullet in the heart of the terrorists."

Today's Tennessean has a nice wrap-up of the Iraq election voting .

In the national media, I was amazed to hear the following broadcast on CNN last night during the Lou Dobbs Tonight program

DOBBS: There was a huge turnout in many parts of the countries as voters defied terrorists and insurgents who launched a series of deadly suicide bomb attacks. Anderson Cooper reports now from Baghdad - Anderson.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Lou, good evening. You know, we don't know who won these elections today. We don't know which parties did well. We won't know that for 7 to 10 days. But we do know who lost today, the insurgents lost today. They lost, because despite their threats, despite their hostage videos, despite their bombs and their bullets and their knives and their guns, Iraqis decided they wanted their voices to be heard. And their voices were heard today. And they will be heard from now on here in Baghdad.

They wanted their voices heard above the sounds of gunfire and above the sounds of mortars landing and car bombs going off. All of which were heard today. All of which you could hear echoing through the streets of Baghdad. But above all else, you could hear happiness and hope in the voices of Iraqis as they left the polls. One finger on each hands stained blue with ink. The sign that they had voted.

What many said became a sign of change. They would hope that finger to the camera. They would show it to you. And they talk about the meaning of that ink on their finger, that stain.

Lou I have got to tell you, I've been to a lot of countries voting for the first time. In Cambodia, I was in Soweto when Nelson Mandela came to power in that election. It was an extraordinary moment to be at the polls today to see these people who have suffered so much, who have lost loved ones, who have lost children and fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters to see them wind up quietly waiting and hear the echoing of gunfire in the streets but people not running away, people just standing there, just waiting, taking their turn, not complaining, just happy to have this opportunity for the first time in their lives, Lou.

DOBBS: Anderson, as you point out, too, you mentioned South Africa and Cambodia, but unlike both of those countries, as you witness, neither, in neither case did the voters have to go to the polls with terrorists and insurgents targeting them as they did so. What was your sense? I talked with Jeff Koinange as he reported from Baghdad earlier talking about the exuberance among the people in Baghdad. Your impressions today, if you would, Anderson.

COOPER: You know, it's interesting. I got to tell you, just personally, it was an extraordinary moving day. And I still find myself just smiling to myself about it all. And I think you hear that and you see that among a lot of Iraqis. There was exuberance, there was, you know, you see pictures of some people dancing.

But I don't think that was the image of the day. To me, just on a personal level, what I saw so much of was just this sort of quiet, quiet smile and this quiet surprise that so many Iraqis had.

One cameraman for CNN, a man who has scene more than his share of violence here Iraqi man said to me today, today was a good day in Baghdad. And he said this with this surprise in his voice, because you never hear anyone in Baghdad saying, you know what, today was a good day. And it was a very good day, indeed. And we heard that over and over.

And even for those people who weren't dancing in the streets, in their hearts you could tell, and in the twinkle in their eye, you could tell it was a good day indeed, Lou.

January 30, 2005

Sign the Petition

If you favor Social Security reform and want to help President Bush get it done, please sign the petition.

Wet Blankets

Democrats react to the stunningly positive Iraqi election. But no matter how much cold water they try to throw on it, the Iraqi election - the mere fact that it happened and the fact that millions of Iraqis risked terror attacks to vote - is a credit to President George W. Bush.

UPDATE: On the ground in Iraq, Lance Frizzell says the election's big winner is the Iraqi people. And here's a headline from today's Tennessean: Iraqi expatriates revel in voting experience. Also, good commentary re the Iraqi election - and lots of great links - from Hugh Hewitt here.

January 29, 2005

Shooting Themselves In The Foot

I'm sorry, but these people are not ready to govern a country.

Read The Whole Thing

I don't have to blog about Iraq anymore because Mike Silverman has completely summed it up. From now on, all idiocy of the Left regarding Iraq can be answered by saying Read This. Read the Whole Thing.

Congratulations

I just received the Winter 2005 issue of ACU Today, the magazine for alumni of Abilene Christian University, and learned that David Leeson, who graduated from ACU seven years before I arrived, won the Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for his work as an embedded photographer (for the Dallas Morning News) during the Iraq war. Leeson, a Pulitzer finalist in 1986, 1990 and 1995, richly deserves the award. I did a little Googling and ran across this article where he describes the experience of being "embedded" with Task Force 2-69 Armored of the Third Brigade - a unit that saw 23 straight days of combat.

In the fall of 2000, Leeson began shooting video for The Dallas Morning News making him one of the first staff photographers in the nation shooting video for a newspaper on a full-time basis. Since then he has completed more than 70 short features and seven documentaries which have won him numerous awards in film and television including, a national Edward R. Murrow award, National Headliners award and a regional Emmy award for best television documentary. He was a finalist for best short film at the USA Film Festival in 2004.

The Pulitzers are handed out each April. I'm not sure how I missed Leeson's win until now. But I did. So a very belated congratulations to a very fine journalist and fellow alum.

Photos From Iraq

Nashville photographer Katherine Bomboy has an exhibition of photographs taken during a recent extended visit to northern Iraq, at the Belcourt Theatre now through the next several weeks. You can see a sample of her photographs, and hear an interview with here, at the website of the Nashville NPR affiliate WPLN.

A Letter From Dr. James Dobson

Editor's note: I have reproduced in full a letter posted on the website of Focus on the Family founder and chairman Dr. James Dobson. If you have children and you care about their future, you will read it in its entirety.

Dear Friends:
If you had told me a month ago that I'd be devoting my February letter to a cartoon character named SpongeBob SquarePants, I'd have said you were crazy. Nevertheless, by now you probably know that I have been linked to that famous talking sponge by hundreds of media outlets, from the New York Times to "MSNBC" to "Saturday Night Live." The story of how this situation unfolded is somewhat complicated, but it must be told.

In truth, this tale has very little to do with SpongeBob himself, and everything to do with the media's ability to obscure the facts and to direct lies and scorn toward those of us who care about defending children.

It all began on an evening in late January, during Inaugural Week in Washington, D.C. At that time, I spoke briefly to 350 guests attending a banquet hosted by Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and Gary Bauer's American Values. I concluded by sharing a word of concern about a video that will be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools across the nation, for use on the proposed "We Are Family Day," March 11.

The video, which millions of children will soon see, features nearly 100 favorite cartoon characters that kids will instantly recognize, including not only SpongeBob, but also Barney the Dinosaur, the Muppets, Dora the Explorer, Bob the Builder, Winnie the Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Jimmy Neutron and Big Bird. The video itself is innocent enough and does not mention anything overtly sexual. Rather, it features the children's cartoon characters singing and dancing along to the popular disco hit "We Are Family."

But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister. My brief comments at the FRC gathering were intended to express concern not about SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of their other cartoon friends, but about the way in which those childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children. Nevertheless, the media jumped on the story by claiming that I had accused SpongeBob of being "gay."

Some suggested that I had confused the organization that had created the video with a similarly named gay-rights group. In both cases, the press was dead wrong, and I welcome this opportunity to help them get their facts straight.

I want to be clear: the We Are Family Foundation - the organization that sponsored the video featuring SpongeBob and the other characters was, until this flap occurred, making available a variety of explicitly pro-homosexual materials on its Web site. It has since endeavored to hide that fact (more on this later), but my concerns are as legitimate today as they were when I first expressed them in January.

So let us consider the evidence. One of the first resources to catch our attention on the foundation's Web site was a booklet that lists a number of organizational "allies," including five of the largest pro-homosexual organizations in the nation: the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, and Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). Also, the Web site made available school lesson plans that suggested teachers ask these questions of students:

From a handout entitled, "Talking About Being Out" there was this:

One of the lesson plans, titled, Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation, presents what are deemed "stereotypical definitions" of words that encourage bigotry and bias. If you have any doubt about the pro-homosexual agenda inherent to these materials, check out these loaded terms, which could be coming soon to an elementary school near you. (All are direct quotes. )

Is this the kind of nonsense you want taught to your kids, especially if the nation's most popular cartoon characters are used to get across the concepts? I pray not!

If you're planning on visiting the We Are Family Foundation's Web site [www. wearefamilyfoundation. org] to verify the accuracy of the above information, don't bother. In the days since this story broke, the majority of overtly pro-homosexual content has been removed. The founder of the organization, Nile Rodgers, appeared on the "Today Show" and said that we had the wrong site and that they had nothing to do with homosexuality.

That was Jan. 21. Two days later, most of the homosexual content disappeared or became inaccessible. I will leave it for you to determine the motive behind the mysterious vanishing of such material by the We Are Family Foundation. Suffice to say that we have clear documentation that these materials were being promoted on the Web site as recently as late January, despite denials to the contrary.

I'm sure you can see, now, why I expressed great concern about the intention of the We Are Family Foundation in using SpongeBob and company to promote the theme of "tolerance and diversity," which are almost always buzzwords for homosexual advocacy. It seems evident that had this connection not been exposed, the materials accompanying the video would have promoted a pro-homosexual ideology. Again, why do I believe that? Simply put, it's because the past is often the best predictor of the future. In addition to the above material, a 2003 manual, produced in partnership with the We Are Family Foundation, featured exercises that attempted to equate homosexuality with immutable characteristics, such as race or gender.

Of particular significance is a so called "Tolerance Pledge" that appears to complement the pro-homosexual propaganda found within the once available school curricula. The second paragraph of the pledge reads as follows:

"To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."[Emphasis added. ]

The words "sexual identity" in that last sentence hold the key to understanding what is going on here. They reveal a very clever and subtle intent lying below the water line. The stated purpose, as we have seen, is to teach children to respect each other and to accept those who are different. We are entirely supportive of that message. I have been teaching it for years. There appears to be another agenda operating here, however, that has serious implications for your kids. Quite simply, it is to desensitize very young children to homosexual and bisexual behavior.

During my remarks in Washington, I shared my suspicion about children being coerced into signing this "Tolerance Pledge." My critics quickly sought to marginalize my warning. Nile Rodgers exasperatingly explained to "FOX News'" Bill O'Reilly that, "Even on our Web site, we don't ask people to sign the pledge." Oh really? Prior to my speech, the pledge, as it appeared on the foundation's Web site, concluded with the following paragraph:

"To fulfill my pledge, I __________________ will examine my own biases and work to overcome them, set a positive example for my family and friends, work for tolerance in my own community, speak out against hate and injustice. We share a world. For all our differences, we share one world. To be tolerant is to welcome the differences and delight in the sharing."

Once the individual filled in his or her name, there was a "submit" button to the right of the pledge that would, ostensibly, officially record that "pledge" commitment. This portion of the pledge has also disappeared from the Web site.

Let me say it again for emphasis: Every individual is entitled to respect and human dignity, including those with whom we disagree strongly. The problem is not with acceptance or kindness, certainly. But kids should not be taught that homosexuality is just another "lifestyle," or that it is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Scripture teaches that all overt sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage is sinful and harmful. Children should not be taught otherwise by their teachers, and certainly not if their parents are unaware of the instruction.

This is why I brought up this subject at the FRC banquet, explaining that there is a spiritual dimension to the culture war that many parents and grandparents are too busy to have noticed. It targets the values and attitudes of children, which after 12 years of propaganda in the public schools, can mold and shape the next generation. If a million or more very young children are going to be exposed to an organization through a video that encourages people to sign a "tolerance pledge," shouldn't their moms and dads be told about it? We are just a few days away from the proposed "We Are Family Day" in the schools. Have you been informed of the discussions that may take place in your child's elementary school in connection with the video, or the pledge that could possibly be placed before them?

What appears to be the case in the We Are Family program is an effort to replicate nationwide the curricula being implemented in California's elementary schools. From my perspective, it is terribly dangerous.

Imagine a classroom full of wide-eyed five-year olds, sitting in a circle in front of the teacher. These kindergarteners will believe anything they are told, from the notion that reindeer can fly on Christmas Eve to the idea that bunnies lay candy eggs during "Spring Break." They are vulnerable to whatever adults tell them. In this instance, the kids are not learning about the alphabet or about exciting fairy tales; they are potentially hearing incomprehensible references to adult perverse sexuality. And the rationale for this instruction is "tolerance and diversity." Generations past would have been shocked and outraged by the very thought of such nonsense. Yet many parents either don't know of the teaching or are passively willing to go along with it.
Well, this is the story behind the SpongeBob issue that outraged the media. There was a New York Times reporter at the banquet who wrote an article based on my comments. His factual representation was not entirely inaccurate, but it was written in such a way as to imply that it was SpongeBob whom I was attacking. From there, the story rapidly escalated. You won't believe the way I was described by major news organizations. Here are a few examples:

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

In response, we received more than 100 requests for interviews within 24 hours from media entities within the United States and around the world, including the "Today Show," "CNN," the "BBC," "ABC News," the CBS "Early Show," "Good Morning America," "MSNBC," "National Public Radio," and "Hannity & Colmes" (the only one I accepted). Some of you heard the bogus story and believed it. We received more than 1,200 e-mails in the first few days, almost all of them critical because of my perceived attack on poor SpongeBob. One more time, let me say that the problem is not with SpongeBob or the other cartoon characters. It is with the way they will be used in the classroom.

And that brings me to the larger issue. It does not matter what the secular media says about me. In the final analysis, who cares? What is vitally important, however, are the children of this country and the effort being made to manipulate them for political purposes. As my father reminded Shirley and me when our daughter was in preschool, "Danae is growing up in a world much farther gone into moral decline than the world into which you were born." How much more true that is today than then!

We just came through a Christmas season where, in many schools, traditional carols were prohibited and the birth of Christ could not be mentioned. Macy's Department Store in New York City banned any reference to Christmas. Bible reading and prayer in schools have been outlawed, and since 1980, the Ten Commandments could not be posted on bulletin boards. The Ninth Circuit Court in California did its best to prohibit the words "under God" from being cited by children in the Pledge of Allegiance. On March 2, the U. S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government property.

Easter has become "Spring Break," and the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ cannot be celebrated. But Earth Day can be observed in the curricula."Father God" is out and "Mother Earth" is in. And in the midst of all this secularism, some schools that are having a hard time teaching kids to read, write and compute are giving precious classroom time to homosexual propaganda. That was the observation that motivated my remarks, not some fictitious cartoon character that children love. If you believed the media after having heard me and read my books for years, the question I would ask is, "Why?"

Parents, I urge you to keep a close eye on your sons and daughters. Watch carefully everything that goes into their little minds. Monitor their textbooks and the words of their teachers. Do not turn them over to harmful television programs. When God's name is used in vain, or when sex and violence come on the screen, turn off the tube and then read and discuss together the scriptures found in Psalm 103:1: "I will set before my eyes no vile thing" [NIV]. Read uplifting and inspiring stories to your children daily. This obligation to teach your children biblical truths continually is unmistakably written in Deuteronomy 6:6-8, which tells us:

These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands, and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. [NIV]

Focus on the Family will continue to help you fulfill this task of bringing up your children "in the fear and admonition of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). If you have little ones at home, you might consider signing up for our Focus on Your Child program, which provides a wealth of resources that will help parents implement a decidedly Christian approach to raising children. This donor-sponsored service delivers practical, age-appropriate advice and encouragement right to your home each month. In addition to receiving newsletters and audio journals, members have round-the-clock access to a Web site filled with helpful articles and topical advice. For more information, please visit our Web site at www. focusonyourchild. com.

Thank you for helping us continue to nourish and defend the institution of the family. We would appreciate your help in two ways. First, to pray for us as we seek to fulfill this mission, and second, to assist us financially as you can - after you have met your responsibilities to your local church. Together, we can make a difference.

Sincerely in Christ,

James C. Dobson, Ph. D.
Founder and Chairman
Focus On the Family

January 28, 2005

Hey Phil! Coloradans Don't Think TABOR Is A Disaster

For more than a year now, the Denver Post and a liberal Colorado think tank have been beating on that state's Taxpayers Bill of Rights, blaming it for all manner of fiscal ills and woes. So... what do the people of Colorado think about the amendment, which they voted into the state constitution more than a decade ago? Read the Jan. 18 news release from the Independence Institute regarding a public opinion survey on that very question.

Poll Shows Little Support to Weaken TABOR or Raise Taxes
GOLDEN, Colo. – The results of a new poll commissioned by the Independence Institute and the Colorado Club for Growth shows a lack of voter support for modifying Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) or seeking a TABOR override (known as De-Brucing).

According to a scientific survey by the nationally-recognized polling firm TelOpinion Research, only 33 percent of likely Colorado voters who voted in the most recent election approve reducing their TABOR tax refunds or removing the so-call ratchet mechanism.

More than half (52%) of the survey's 600 respondents altogether opposed weakening TABOR or giving up $500 million in tax surplus refunds. Only 33% are in favor of a proposal that would allow state government to keep more tax revenue. The results refute recent claims of Coloradans' sagging support for TABOR.

"This just goes to show what we've already known," said Independence Institute President Jon Caldara. "Despite the best efforts of Colorado's spending lobby to blame TABOR for everything from the state's budget shortages to causing baldness in lab rats, most Colorado taxpayers are happy with TABOR the way it is."

"Voters realize that Colorado's budget situation is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. Legislators must deal with the strong likelihood that voters will reject a tax increase. It would be wiser for them instead to spend their limited time working on finding efficiencies and productivity inside government to address any budget shortfall."

"The legislature should focus on re-inventing the way the state does business to encourage cost savings without large reductions in governmental service" Caldara said, citing Performance Based Budgeting, competitive contacting, procurement reform, and sentencing reform as methods to increase governmental output.

"While legislators expect more from taxpayers, it is clear that Coloradans expect more from government," Caldara said. "The taxpayers want to keep TABOR in place to keep their elected officials in line."

To know that Bredesen is utterly wrong and uninformed about Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights, all you have to do is read this.

Another View of Bredesen

Matthew White, who actually works for the Tennessee state legislature and therefore sees Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen at work up close, has a must-read post about Bredesen, and why it is important that the state GOP recruit and fully-fund a credible challenger when Bredesen runs for reelection as governor in 2006.

A credible opponent will also serve to take some of the shine off of him by getting the word out about what I've been writing about for months now. This man is not governing like you think he is. (I know from observing it firsthand). Someone needs to hold his feet to the fire and only an opponent can do that.

In a more recent post, White argues that Bredesen is arrogant, disengenuous and hates Republicans and, because of the latter, the Democratic party faithful "will love him in the Presidential primaries.

Hey, Matt, would you like to become a regular contributor to the forthcoming new blog BredesenWatch.com?

Ad Space Sale Continues

The ad space sale continues here at HobbsOnline, where I have cut the cost to advertise to a mere $20 per month in all three Blogads slots - for a limited time. The right sidebar slot and the top left sidebar slot were both full yesterday, but two ads have expired and now each has one opening. Grab the prime real estate while you can.

Also, the second ads slot left sidebar has two openings. Get in cheap while you can...

Is he The Best They Have To Offer?

Tennessee politics is an endless source of entertainment. Consider the case of state Sen. John Ford, who is uncle to to U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. Now, I like Harold Ford Jr., even though he's a Democrat. Not enough to vote for him, but he seems like an intelligent, thoughtful and respectable guy.

Not so his uncle, the aforementioned state Sen. John Ford, who is currently embroiled in a child-support case and who recently revealed that he lives in two houses, one he shares with his ex-wife and their children, and the other he shares with his current girlfriend and their children. Oh, and there's a third woman and another child. According to today's Tennessean, neither house is located in his state senate district.

Ford's voter registration lists his address as 12 South Parkway W., said Shelby County election administrator James Johnson. That is the address of the N.J. Ford & Sons Funeral Parlor, the senator's family business that is located within his district, the 29th District.

The state's voter registration form requires that people fill out the "address where you live." Lying on the form is perjury, punishable by a $3,000 fine and up to six years in prison, the form says. It's unclear whether the current form is the one Ford has used to register at his business.

Ford told the Commercial Appeal newspaper that while he spends time at two different houses outside his district, his ''domicile'' is at the South Parkway address. [Tennessee GOP chief Bob] Davis said he thought it a "stretch" for Ford to consider his business as his residence.

Ford's residency became an issue after he testified in a child-support case that he keeps two homes with two different women whose children he fathered.

One home, worth $362,900, is in the East Memphis River Oaks subdivision, located in Senate District 28. Ford's ex-wife Tamara Mitchell-Ford and their three children live there.

The other residence, a $509,000 home in Collierville, is where his longtime girlfriend, Connie Mathews, and their two children live. That home is in Senate District 33. In the court case, Ford was arguing against having to pay high child support to a third woman, the mother of a 10-year-old girl whom he fathered.

At the same time, Ford heads a Senate committee that guides child welfare policies.

For the past year, he has tried to make use of a law he authored that keeps court-ordered support lower when a father is financially responsible for other children.

As important as it is to determine where Sen. John Ford actually lives, I think there is a much more important question that needs to be answered. But it's going to take sending a team of 100s of psychologists to the 23rd state Senate district in Memphis to determine why those numbnuts keep electing someone as immoral and embarrassing as John Ford. Can the Tennessee Democratic Party find no one better in the entire 23rd district?

As for Ford, he is threatening to sue the head of the Tennessee Republican Party for daring to suggest that Ford might not live in his senate district. "Anyone who impugns my name is subject to a lawsuit," Ford told the AP.

In December 2003, Ford apologized to taxpayers and agreed to repay as much as $1,300 in Federal Express charges on his state account for personal packages, including some 30 purchases made by his ex-wife and her relatives at such retailers as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman-Marcus in Atlanta.

In February 1997, Ford was charged with five counts of aggravated assault after he allegedly brandished a loaded shotgun and ordered a Memphis Light Gas & Water crew off his property. The charges placed on diversion and he completed 250 hours of community service.

In 1996 a federal civil trial resulted in a finding that Ford had sexually harassed a female employee when he was General Sessions Court clerk.

Sen. John Ford, you are impugned by your own actions.

Help Wanted

I have designed a new business model for blog advertising that would complement, not compete with, Henry Copeland's Blogads, and take advantage of the viral and global nature of the blogosphere to tap into a $100 billion global industry. My problem: I'm not a programmer. I also don't have funds to pay a programmer. So I'm looking for the following things: 2. A programmer capable of building a system that, like Blogads, serves content to a variety of websites and allows any blogger to easily add the enabling script to their blog's template, supported by a database that serves the content and tracks and distributes the money. 2. Low five-figure angel capital to fund the venture.

Contact me at bill at billhobbs.com.

Bredesen Falsely Claims TABOR a "Disaster" In Colorado

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen has come out strongly in opposition to the proposed state constitutional amendment called the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, falsely describing a similar amendment as having been a "disaster" in Colorado.

The Knoxville News Sentinel has the story, here (free registration required).

Gov. Phil Bredesen said he is adamantly against putting a proposed "taxpayer bill of rights" into the state constitution, but he will not actively oppose an amendment to forbid gay marriage.

Questioned during an interview about proposed state constitutional amendments, the governor said he thinks popular election of the state comptroller, treasurer and secretary of state is a bad idea but is less strongly opposed to permanently banning a state income tax.

The "taxpayer bill of rights," also known by the acronym TABOR, is modeled after a provision in the Colorado Constitution. Bredesen said it is "a disaster" in that state today after "some short-term success" in prior years.

"I think the taxpayer bill of rights is a bad thing that goes to the heart of my ability to operate government day-to-day as opposed to some of the other things that are out there," he said.

Sponsored by Rep. Glen Casada and Sen. Jim Bryson, both Franklin Republicans, TABOR has also been declared a top legislative priority this year by the National Federation of Independent Business.

Casada said the proposal would limit growth in state government spending to the same annual percentage as growth in personal income of citizens and provide that any excess be first placed in a "rainy day fund" savings account. Once the account reaches 5 percent of the state budget, any further excess would go back to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, he said.

Further, any tax increase adopted by the Legislature would require approval of voters in a statewide referendum before taking effect.

"I think it's a highly ideological bill," said Bredesen.

"That's what legislatures are for - determining how money is to be spent and responding to conditions each year," he said. "I don't think any legislature ought to abdicate that responsibility out to some fixed formula in the constitution."

Casada said the amendment is needed to "reign in state government spending" that has grown by an average of 7.6 percent over the past 10 years. The state constitution currently sets a goal of limiting growth in state spending, but that can be - and often is - bypassed by a simple majority vote of the Legislature. Tabor's cap would be mandatory.

Casada said passage of the proposal "is going to be tough." While most supporters so far are Republicans, he said "you are going to see a lot of conservative Democrats join us on this."

He also characterized as "very false" that TABOR has been a disaster in Colorado, saying that state is "number 1, 2 or 3 in wealth creation, job creation and growth of the state's economy."

"Yes, state government programs are not growing like the bureaucrats want them to grow (in Colorado). But to me that's OK as well," he said.

I have researched Colorado's TABOR extensively. It is doubtful there is anyone in the entire state of Tennessee, except perhaps TABOR amendment sponsors Casada and Bryson, who know more about it than I do. Bredesen certainly doesn't. By calling TABOR a "disaster" for Colorado, Bredesen is showing his ignorance. Unless he has studied Colorado's TABOR. Then he's just flat-out lying.

I researched the impact of Colorado's TABOR on that state's economy in the decade since it was adopted and here is what I found: Before it was adopted, Colorado and Tennessee were very similar economically. A decade later, Colorado has far surpassed Tennessee in almost every useful measure. In fact, thanks to the faster economic growth fueled by TABOR, Colorado was able increase state government spending per capita faster than Tennessee over the decade, while still reducing Coloradoan's taxes by $3 billion.

Here are some key data comparing Colorado and Tennessee, from a research paper I published in January 2003...

Because of the sluggish economy, there is no TABOR surplus in Colorado this year. In fact, less-than-expected revenue has led the state to cut its budget. The legislature planned to spend $13.8 billion but instead the governor of the Rocky Mountain state has reduced spending to $13.1 billion. That's a real spending cut of $700 million. As you know, Tennessee took the opposite approach to its similar-sized revenue shortfall this year, raising taxes by around $900 million.

Because of TABOR, Colorado's government has learned how to economize and prioritize while Tennessee's government has not. Yet Colorado's tax restraint has not hamstrung state government. In fact, Colorado has increased state spending by 72 percent, from $7.6 billion to $13.1 billion, since fiscal year 1993-94, while cutting taxes by about $3 billion over that same period. During those same years, Tennessee increased spending by 56 percent, while raising taxes about $1 billion.

From 1990 through 2000, Colorado increased per-capita state spending by 139 percent, the third-largest increase among all 50 states, while Tennessee increased per-capita spending by 76 percent.

In 1990, Colorado's government spent $2,504 per person. Tennessee spent about 50 percent more than that - $3,753 per capita. By the end of the decade, Tennessee spending per capita had risen to $6,593, and Colorado's had increased to $5,992. Tennessee state government now spends just 10 percent more per capita than does the government of Colorado.

Even though Tennessee raised taxes repeatedly during the 1990s in order to spend more, Colorado was able to increase spending faster by taxing less. If you're a fan of increased government spending, you have to be a fan of TABOR. I think that will be a key argument going forward, a useful tool to convince some moderate legislators who want to be seen as tax-cutters, but don't want to cut spending, and to convince voters who would like to pay less taxes but don't want government programs slashed. It's an easy argument to make – because the data clearly shows TABOR has been a boon to the Colorado economy. Here is some data. Remember, TABOR took effect in 1993.

From 1993 through 2000, Colorado's gross state product – the measure of the state's total economic output – rose 79 percent,11 according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. Tennessee's rose just 49 percent.12 In 1993, Tennessee's economy was 28 percent larger than Colorado's. But by 2000 it was just 6 percent larger. From 1993 through 2001, Colorado's personal income grew 84.3 percent, compared to 54.3 percent in Tennessee.13 That's 30 percentage points difference. Such growth in Tennessee would have added another $30 billion to Tennessee's total personal income
growth – and both provided the extra revenue for and the authority for annual spending increases of 10 percent under the Copeland Cap.

Total personal income is an aggregate measure for the state and is one measure of the growth of the overall economy. Because some of that increase reflects growth in population, a better measure of real economic performance is per capita income - and there Tennessee also lags Colorado. In 1993, Coloradoans' per capita income was $22,196, some $2,655 higher than Tennessee's. By 2001, per capita income in Colorado had risen 51 percent to $33,470, while in Tennessee it had risen just 38 percent to $26,988. Tennesseans' per capita income now lags that of Coloradoans by $6,482. That's a difference of $3,827.

Here is more data:

From 1993 through 2001, the number of total full-time and part-time jobs rose 17 percent in Tennessee, but 32 percent in Colorado.

From 1993 through 2001, the total amount of compensation paid to employees in Tennessee rose 45 percent, from $69.6 billion to $100.8 billion, but 80 percent in Colorado, from $56.4 billion to $101.5 billion. That's right: in just eight years, Coloradoans as a group went from being paid $13.2 billion less per year than the people of Tennessee to making $776 million more – even though there are 1.3 million fewer Coloradoans.

Any way you slice it, Colorado's economy far out-performed Tennessee's since 1993 – the year Colorado enacted a policy of tax restraint and Tennessee did not. Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR), which took effect in 1993, created an environment of stable taxes and, indeed, tax cuts when revenue exceeds the generous TABOR limit. As a result, Colorado's economy boomed. That economic boom is reflected not only in its income statistics, but also in its population growth from 1993 through 2001 – 32 percent, compared to Tennessee's 16 percent. All of that economic growth resulted in more money for the government to spend, even as Coloradoans' taxes were cut, because low taxes spur higher economic growth. Even though TABOR forced the state of Colorado to return more than $3 billion to taxpayers rather than spend it, Colorado was still able to increase per-capita state spending by 139 percent from 1990 to 2000, the third-largest increase among all 50 states. Tennessee, with no effective cap on revenues, taxes or spending, increased per-capita spending by 76 percent from 1990-2000.

Tennessee increased taxes to fund more government spending in the 1990s, and routinely exceeded its weak constitutional cap on spending. But because higher taxes reduce economic growth, the state actually brought in less revenue than it might have under a lower-tax/higher growth strategy. In 1990, Colorado's government spent $2,504 per capita and Tennessee spent $3,753 - 50 percent more than Colorado. By the end of the decade, Tennessee was spending $6,593 per capita, just 10 percent more than Colorado, which had increased spending to $5,992 per capita. Tennessee raised taxes repeatedly during the 1990s in order to spend more, but Colorado was able to increase spending faster by taxing less.

The data overwhelmingly indicates that, by restraining spending and taxes with a Taxpayers Bill of Rights modeled after Colorado's, Tennessee could actually create a future in which taxes would be guaranteed to remain low yet state government would actually have more money to spend, all within a system that would put a premium on accountability and prioritization.

The real fiscal disaster is Tennessee, where the legislature and every governor from Lamar Alexander up to and including Phil Bredesen have routinely flouted the state constitution's weak cap on the annual growth of government spending, resulting in the state spending billions of dollars more than the growth of the state's economy can keep pace with. In May 2004, Bredesen approved a budget that busted the spending growth cap by $105 million. And that's just the first-year cost of the excess spending. Because each year's budget increase is based on the previous year's budget, Bredesen's cap-busting spending will cost Tennessee taxpayers $1 billion - the Bredesen Billion - over the next decade.

That's the real record of the self-professed "fiscal conservative" who opposes having the constitution of Tennessee protect the people of Tennessee from excessive taxes and unaffordable government budgets.

Bredesen: Tolerance Doesn't Require Allowing Gay Marriage

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, increasingly touted recently as a possible presidential candidate for the Democrats in 2008, is sure to anger the party's liberal base with his comments in today's Knoxville News Sentinel about "gay marriage," which he called "a vastly different issue from tolerance for gays."

"I certainly have said frequently over the years that I would happily promote hire or discharge of people in state government without regard to sexual orientation or anything like that," he said. "But it seems to me that's a long way from putting official imprimatur of the state on a union where, you know, there's many thousands of years of history to the contrary. It strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to the values of most Americans."

Bredesen says he won't oppose a proposed state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. His stance - tolerance for gays but no change to the millennia-old definition of marriage - likely reflects that of a majority of Americans, but will anger the Left and the gay-activist special interest wing of the Democratic Party. Just one more reason why Bredesen would be more likely to win the White House than the Democratic Primary.

UPDATE: GayLinkNews.com, an online news aggregator of gay-relevant news from MSM news sources, gay media and weblogs, has linked to this post. I have no clue if GayLinkNews.com is a popular news website among gays, but if it is, Phil Bredesen just lost the gay vote.

The Front Line

A Front Line in the War On Terror

Iraqi immigrants are voting today. The security perimeter around the Nashville voting site for the Iraqi elections is rather large - essentially, half of the Tennessee State Fairgrounds, with the actual voting taking place in large tents in the center of a large parking lot. I have requested media-access permission (from but have no clue if it will be granted. I may swing back by at lunchtime and take a few more photos from outside the perimeter to give you a better idea of what it looks like.

Meanwhile, there's a must-read story in today's Tennessean about a local Kurdish immmigrant who views his ballot today as a "bullet" to avenge the deaths of 26 family members killed by Saddam Hussein's soldiers.

Ibrahim Abdullatif's family tree has many missing branches. ''I don't know where to begin counting,'' he said. His eyelids close for a moment as he thinks. When they reopen, the young Kurd stares ahead, his iridescent brown eyes focusing intently on a point in midair. The names of cousins, aunts, uncles, all members of his mother's family, scroll through his memory. There were 26, he said.

They are among the missing branches of his ancestry, a mass of young and old lives snuffed out on a terrible day of un-just reckoning in 1988 when Saddam Hussein's soldiers entered their town in northern Iraq - Kurdistan to the Kurdish - and shot to death dozens of people, including Abdullatif's kin.

"We were Kurds. Saddam hated us. These aren't uncommon stories among those from Kurdistan, Iraq, that's the sad thing," said Abdullatif, 26.

Abdullatif remembers the sound of bombs hitting villages downstream from their river camp in the mountains on another day in 1988. "They seemed closer this time. They were gassing the villages, but we had no way of knowing this," e said of the infamous chemical attacks ordered by Saddam. Thousands perished.

"So many lost so much."

That is why today, he and his mother, Sabrya, and his father, Sadigh, will extract a measure of vengeance for all the pain, despair, fear, tears and loss served to them during a 24-year period by the intolerant Saddam. Today, they will have their say in the voting booth.

The Abdullatifs are among 280,303 Iraqi expatriates in the United States who have registered to vote in Iraq's Transitional National Assembly election. ''It is wonderful, what is happening,'' Abdullatif said.

On Wednesday afternoon, two days before the polls open, he was seated on a couch in the family's Harding Place-area home, a tidy structure on a corner lot. Abdullatif enjoys afternoon tea with cookies and pistachio nuts. He has just been home only a few weeks, having been in Iraq working as a translator for the American military for nearly two years. He will return to northern Iraq in early February.

On the living room wall was a map of Kurdistan, that would-be "country" now annexed as part of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. His father catnapped on an adjacent sofa, while his mother prayed in another room.

"She prays for George Bush," he said.

January 27, 2005

Soul Music

Christianity Today's Books & Culture website has a review of Get Up Off Your Knees: Preaching the U2 Catalog, "the first book of sermons inspired by what just might be the world's most influential rock 'n' roll band."

Reminding, comforting, and challenging are recurring themes in Get Up Off Your Knees: Preaching the U2 Catalog. Editors Raewynne J. Whiteley and Beth Maynard, both Episcopalian ministers, have produced the first book of sermons inspired by what just might be the world's most influential rock 'n' roll band. Gathering 26 contributors from across the landscape of U2 fandom to offer a collection of homilies, meditations, and essays, they offer a welcome portrait of what's possible when you have three chords and the truth.

Is it any wonder this book exists? For more than two decades, U2 has been preaching basic biblical principles to its chosen congregation of America. Three of the four band members once nearly left the band before it really got going when the Christian community of Shalom, in which they were deeply involved, advised them they could not serve both God and the rock guitar. The three disagreed. Now, nearly a dozen albums and more than a thousand live performances later, millions of fans would likely disagree too, many of whom say they owe a debt to U2 for their own spiritual formation.

Whiteley holds a Ph.D. in homiletics and is the vicar of an Episcopalian church in Swedesboro, New Jersey. Maynard is an Episcopalian rector in Fairhaven, Massachusetts. They share an interest in GenXer evangelism and in using pop culture for starting conversations about God. Both use U2 songs in their teaching. They asked for sermons inspired by a U2 song, and Eugene Peterson (who counts himself a fan) agreed to write a foreword to the volume.

You won't find any deep exegesis of either the biblical text or the U2 song in these sermons. Nor will you get much engagement with a particular strain of theology or critical theory. There is a clear emphasis on the biblical imperative to act on what you know, but the contributors leave it up to the reader to find a specific application of the truths these sermons recall.

Yahweh
U2

Take these shoes
Click clacking down some dead end street
Take these shoes
And make them fit
Take this shirt
Polyester white trash made in nowhere
Take this shirt
And make it clean, clean
Take this soul
Stranded in some skin and bones
Take this soul
And make it sing

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Still I’m waiting for the dawn

Take these hands
Teach them what to carry
Take these hands
Don’t make a fist
Take this mouth
So quick to criticise
Take this mouth
Give it a kiss

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahewh, Yahweh
Still I’m waiting for the dawn

Still waiting for the dawn, the sun is coming up
The sun is coming up on the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, tell me now
Why the dark before the dawn?

Take this city
A city should be shining on a hill
Take this city
If it be your will
What no man can own, no man can take
Take this heart
Take this heart
Take this heart
And make it break

Nashville Scene

One of the more amazing sights is this full-scale replica of the ancient Parthenon in Greece, recently rehabbed at a cost of millions of dollars. It houses an art museum in the basement and, on the main floor, a 42-foot-high statue of Athena, Athena Parthenos, perhaps the most expensive piece of kitsch in America. It really does look ridiculous, like a giant gilded piece from some ancient Grecian Goofy Golf franchise. The good news: Athena Putt Putt is tucked safely inside the building so you can enjoy the Parthenon and the surrounding Centennial Park without ever having to see the big statue and, involuntarily, blurting out, "that's one big woman."

Incidentally, one of Nashville's nicknames is "The Athens of the South," but it isn't because of the Parthenon. It's because of the myriad of colleges and universities located in the city.

Bubba Blows It Bigtime

South Knox Bubba slams Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen in a long and rambling post today in which he voices concern that some "heartless right-wing 'Christian' conservatives and rabid neo-conservatives bent on world domination" are "singing his praises" and talking up Bredesen's 2008 presidential prospects and claims I have been "inconsistent" in what I've written about Bredesen.

As a whole, SKB's post is a fine example of the incoherence of the Left today in the aftermath of its wide and deep 2004 electoral defeat. On the one hand, he says he supported John Kerry even though "he wasn't my first choice," but then wonders if Bredesen might be a "sellout" because - get this - Bredesen doesn't kowtow to the Left's ideology lock, stock and barrel.

He then goes on to link to and quote from things that both Glenn Reynolds and I have written about Bredesen:

Just look at some of these gushingly backhanded endorsements of the Bredesen Way...

Glenn Reynolds says:

Bredesen's secret is no secret at all: It's respect. He doesn't view rural people, or southerners, with the thinly disguised contempt that is found, all-too-often among national Democratic figures. And he's also not afraid to talk with people who disagree with him. In fact, one of the striking things, to me, is that he does so well on conservative talk radio. He speaks clearly, doesn't duck questions or retreat into sound bites and blather, and treats others with respect while not acting ashamed of his own positions. The result is that talk-show hosts, and listeners, respect him too. If this is hard to replicate, it says bad things about the rest of the Democratic field; this sort of thing ought to be Politics 101, not the advanced class.

But at least Bredesen gets it.

Is he an ideal national candidate? Well, no. Movie-star charisma isn't his strong suit. But the Bush-Kerry race wasn't exactly awash in movie-star charisma. Neither was the Bush-Gore race. And Clinton-Dole wasn't exactly a barnburner. At any rate, after what are likely to be several more exciting years, steady competence and mutual respect may look more appealing than charisma anyway. In which case Bredesen may turn out to be a pretty strong candidate.

Bill Hobbs on Bredesen in 2005:

While some of Bredesen's deals do not generate a positive ROI for Nashville in and of themselves, they did boost Nashville's economy and its psyche in ways that the deal's bottom line alone can not measure.

Bill Hobbs on Bredesen in 2002:

One of the two main candidates believes in and has a track record of fiscal restraint and opposition to higher taxes. It isn't Phil Bredesen, whose record is one of higher taxes and big spending. Only one of the two main candidates firmly opposes the income tax. It isn't Phil Bredesen, whose position on the income tax is best described as "moveable."

Only one of the two main candidates favors adding a Colorado-style Taxpayers Bill of Rights provision to the Tennessee constitution, to guarantee sensible fiscal policies in the future. It isn't Phil Bredesen. He opposes any restraint on taxes or spending.

Both candidates talk the talk on fiscal restraint. But only one walks the walk. He is Van Hilleary.

Yes, indeed. The inconsistency is typical, but the conservative support is revealing. Maybe Bredesen just needs to take off his disguise and change parties. Or maybe he needs to show some results on socially and fiscally responsible progressive reforms and see if the other side still sings his praises.

In 2002, I commented that Bredesen did not have a fiscally-conservative record as mayor of Nashville and that, as a gubernatorial candidate, he was not in favor of many of the measures that fiscally conservative voters might like. In 2005, I was writing about Bredesen's economic-development deals during his eight years as Mayor of Nashville and commenting that, while they are hard to defend fiscally, they did have a positive impact on the city's self-esteem. Inconsistent? No, not at all.

And, for the record, I have not endorsed nor will I endorse Phil Bredesen for president. I'd lose less sleep if he won than if, say, Barbara Boxer won the White House - but there is no likely Republican nominee - not Condi or Rudy, not Bill Owens, or Jeb Bush, or George Allen - whom I would reject in order to vote for Bredesen in 2008.

I do think Bredesen is one of the better candidates the Democrats could nominate if they want to have a chance to win. I do think Bredesen understands how to win as a Democrat in a red state. Bredesen could win the White House if he's nominated. Republicans need to know that.

And that's part of the reason I write about Bredesen and started Bredesen Watch (and registered the BredesenWatch.com domain name) - to highlight Bredesen's policy and political successes so that Republicans outside of Tennessee know what they're up against if Bredesen manages to get the nomination. The other reason? To expose the warts of Bredesen's record, and highlight the non-liberal portions that will turn more liberals against him so that, like Bubba, they are less likely to vote for him in the Democratic primaries.

The way for Republicans to keep Bredesen from winning the White House in 2008 is to convince the Left to reject him in the Democratic primaries.

The link to Bubba's post today is: http://www.southknoxbubba.net/skblog/archive_2005_01.php#3900 Copy and paste if Bubba is still playing his juvenile game of redirecting traffic from a link from HobbsOnline to FreeRepublic.com.

Tsunami: Stingy List Update

Blogger Chuck Simmins, keeper of The Stingy List, reports that donations for tsunami disaster relief by American individuals and corporations have topped $786 million in cash and in-kind contributions.

UPDATE: Here's a copy of The Stingy List with hyperlinks added to the nearly 700 different news stories and web postings Simmins has collected to compile the list.

Your Morning Coffee

For Good Or Evil

Two news stories about music today. This one illustrate musicians using music for good. This one illustrates musicians using music for evil. Review of the former here. As for the latter, how anybody can make fun of the death of a quarter million people is beyond me.

January 26, 2005

Signs of Nashville

Clarity

I photographed the detour sign at a road construction site on 12th Avenue today. Honestly, can you be sure you are supposed to turn left? So, I had a little fun with the image. In case the sign was upside down:

Er, or maybe this was how it was supposed to go:

Remember To Prevent

Amanda Witt has written a powerful essay on the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Read the whole thing.

Wish I Could Be There

The Heritage Foundation's Center for Media and Public Policy is having a very interesting blog-centric event on Friday in Washington DC, featuring Matthew Sheffield, co-founder of RatherBiased.com; Paul Mirengoff, a/k/a "The Deacon" at PowerlineBlog.com, and Kevin Aylward of WizbangBlog.com, and hosted by Mark Tapscott, director of the Center for Media and Public Policy. Topic for discussion: in the wake of Rathergate, are blogs becoming the new media establishment ? [Hat tip: Technology Liberation Front]

I wish I could attend. The good news is I - and you - can watch it online here. And you have plenty of time to put the BlogNashville event (May 5-7) on your calendar.

Simplistic Binary Opposition

Jonathan Witt, PhD., writes:

Glenn Reynolds doesn't fit neatly into the Republican or Democrat camp. For that reason I'm optimistic he will soon move past the simplistic binary opposition of idiot-Darwinism-doubters-who-only-grudgingly-concede-the-earth-is-round vs. enlightened-secularists-who-understand-that-Darwinism-is-a-given-and-doesn't-threaten-religion.

A first step would be to read this short piece by philosopher of science Stephen Meyer. There, Reynolds would learn that only a certain kind of evolution is certain - namely, change within a species (microevolution). But Darwinists use a bait and switch tactic; they give examples of microevolution, then improperly use that to stand in as evidence for macroevolution.