something new

Wow. Now I know how SEC fans feel when their teams pound sad non-conference opponents. And I like that feeling. A lot. This is something new for Ohio State. I don’t think the Buckeyes have ever scored over 70 points in their history, or at least as long as I’ve been watching OSU football. Scary looking offense has never been our MO and I never expected to see a game like this – especially under the limits of Tressel-ball and with a QB like Terrelle Pryor. Give him credit though. He had an outstanding game today. Even after today, I still do not trust Pryor. Not a lick. He’s equally capable of making a bad play at the exact wrong time, like he did last year against Purdue. Now it’s time for him to show that he has made the adjustments necessary to become the guy all the media people think he already is. Heisman candidate – seriously? He’s not going to play Eastern Michigan every week, people. I would settle for a solid QB who doesn’t make mistakes, and someone who will get us to the national championship game over a guy with the gaudy stat lines.

I’m not making any big deal about clobbering Eastern Michigan. That’s something OSU was expected to do – although not with that margin of victory. There’s still a few important games to go before the end of the season. We still must conquer the rest of the Big Ten teams on the schedule and pound the Wolverines. But I’m starting to believe — and I’m going to wait on new OSU gear until after January, just in case. 🙂

more on the ground zero imam

Once again, we are dealing with the present, not the past.   It’s becoming more clear every day that this imam is not a bridge-building type, nor is he someone who practices tolerance toward those who are not followers of Islam.

Claudia Rosett says the following about Feisal Abdul Rauf:

If Rauf ever had the smallest intention of promoting harmony, it is past time for him to quit. Instead, having spurned the U.S. debate while spending a secretive summer in Malaysia and the Middle East, Rauf returned to New York on the eve of Sept. 11, to pronounce that unless his mosque gets built near Ground Zero, Americans might expect from the “Muslim world” a new wave of destructive fury.

We used to call this kind of stunt a protection racket. The message here is one of implied violence. Not that Rauf himself would do anything violent, mind you. He’d just like his audience to know that if Americans don’t knuckle under and get with his program for Ground Zero, he can’t be responsible for whatever devastation the “Muslim world” might inflict on his behalf. ”My life has been devoted to peace-making,” he told CNN’s O’Brien.

If a mosque must be built, he can’t be the guy to build it. If he was serious about harmony and making peace, than he should decide on his own to move the mosque, and to practice the tolerance he’s claiming to preach.  Making implied threats against this country is not the best way to sell yourself as someone who desires only to promote tolerance among all the religions.   I cannot say with any certainty that Karen Hughes and President Bush were correct in choosing this guy to be a part of  their outreach to the Muslim world after 9/11.   All I know is what I’m currently seeing.  In this case, I think both of them might have misread this imam’s motives and intentions.  We have a chance here to re-evaluate who this guy is, and make a better choice this time.

two wrongs don’t make a right

Ground Zero Mosque – bad idea

Burning Korans – extremely bad idea

This goes beyond 1st Amendment rights and the legal arguments. There’s certainly a more reasonable legal argument to be made for the Ground Zero Mosque than there would be for a church burning copies of the Koran.  What’s allowable as a result of the freedoms we enjoy here in America is not necessarily ethical or moral — or wise.  In the case of the Ground Zero Mosque, we can’t legally keep Muslims from building a mosque there just because some in their religion caused 9/11. Muslims have the same freedom of religion in America as those in other religions. With that said, it is extremely insensitive to build it anywhere close to Ground Zero, and that’s why public pressure should do what the law cannot do. I hope that there is continued conversation and communication between the imam and the local community (including 9/11 families) so that there can be a satisfactory compromise.

There is absolutely no justification for burning Korans. I don’t care how small your church is or whether the pastor is considered a nutjob fringe case by the locals. This kind of behavior ruins the reputation of all Christians, not just that church, and it is our obligation to speak out against such stupidity.

It also puts our military in danger – like Petraeus said. Burning Korans will damage the reputation of the church, could endanger the bridge building process to the Islamic world as well as putting our troops at more risk. Let’s not give any more ammo to our enemies, ok?

This is not about appeasing any particular group. The desired objective is to win over the Muslims who aren’t inclined to participate in violent jihad. The mosque could be open to reasonable compromise, but burning Korans is just asking for trouble.

and so it begins

This could be the year that Ohio State surprises the heck out of most of the national media, and beats the expected SEC opponent in the title game.  A more successful return to the national championship game would be a welcome change for Buckeye fans, and the team looks good so far.  *Yes, I know Marshall doesn’t count as a quality opponent. * They are also capable of missing their shot at a title by losing to Miami this weekend.   Either way, it’s going to be a fun college football season, and I’m so glad it’s here again.   No matter what happens with the whole national championship thing, at least we will get to crush Michigan at the end of the year.  I’m already looking forward to watching that game.

So, to my fellow non-Michigan Wolverine fans, I wish you and your teams well.   It’s gonna be a fun season.

my thoughts on the ground zero mosque

My thoughts on the Ground Zero mosque (in bullet form and in no particular order)

  • Tolerance should go both ways.
  • The skepticism over this project is justified. Several questions need to be asked and answered before we should allow this to move forward. The person we want representing Islam should not be someone who hasn’t committed to promoting peace both domestically and internationally.
  • This guy isn’t the right guy to build bridges.
  • Freedom of religion also applies to Muslims in this country.
  • The strongest objections are moral, not legal – and this is where we should make our case.
  • For all Americans who give their sole allegiance to this country, their religion should be immaterial to the rights they enjoy as citizens.
  • This issue cannot win Republicans an election. It may fire up the grassroots base, but the average American will be focused on jobs and the economy. That’s where Republicans should focus their energy – on pointing out the failures of this administration to make the right moves to help the economy recover. They are fully capable of screwing up an election even with the extremely favorable situation they find themselves in going into November.
  • There’s no good reason why this mosque must be built near Ground Zero, whether there’s an existing mosque close by or not.
  • Are we clear on the intent and goals of this cultural center / mosque? Is it a mosque or cultural center, or both?
  • Either way, it would be a good idea for the builders to consult with the 9/11 families to ensure that their wishes are respected, and ultimately, as a sign of good faith to those of other religions, move the mosque somewhere else.
  • In a clear bridge-building move – the cultural center should include memorials to 9/11 victims. That would be an extremely classy move, and an effective compromise that should satisfy everyone.

careful what you wish for

This is an uncomfortable position conservatives find themselves in as a result of last night’s election results – between electability and the raw passion of the tea party candidates. Not every conservative should be considered electable. For every Nikki Haley – who has shown incredible message discipline and restraint in the face of scurrilous accusations against her – there are several candidates who lack that ability when facing even the smallest challenges. I’ve said this previously, but I think it is important to remember that activists don’t always make the best candidates. They play very different roles in a political party. That’s the thing to remember with some of these winning tea party approved candidates – the transition from one role to the other is sometimes difficult. These populist heroes won’t say the PC thing most of the time and this will get them into trouble with the media. This is what we love about these guys and gals, but it’s an easy way for a nascent campaign to sink before it even leaves the harbor.

I love rebels too, and appreciate the sacrifices those potential candidates have to make to run for office. For that reason, there must be a process of vetting, interviews, and other training to properly prepare them for the challenges they will face. Of course there will always be candidates who are more than a little risky, such as Sharron Angle and Rand Paul, but ultimately the voters in this country win when the average person starts caring enough to take the challenge personally and run for political office. Political parties, and specifically the Republican Party, need to do a better job in nurturing and developing young and unproven talent in their ranks so that they can have a strong farm system for the future and so that we don’t have the same guys running for President every four years.

cut the spending

Paul Krugman says that the emphasis on tax cuts and “starving the beast” is not producing the intended result of reducing spending.  He’s right about that. Tax cuts are important, but they are only half of the equation. We really need to emphasize this more; because as valuable and useful as tax cuts are to stimulating the economy, there cannot be fiscal responsibility without reducing spending. This is a hard truth to accept for most politicians. It would be hard to find any of them who are willing to make tough choices about what programs need to be cut.  The easier choice is to support tax credits or cuts, than to say look, we are spending too much money and wasting the majority of the money being spent.   This is what must be done if our country is to be saved from the impending financial doom.  The time is now to fix what’s broken.

Reforming the system will not be an easy task. Government programs will always be ineffective and wasteful. If those programs actually solved problems, the need for them would go away completely or it would be greatly diminished.  Government jobs depend on the existence of these programs, and the employees will fight like mad to keep their comfortable existence on the federal payroll. 

Look to Greece for an outstanding example of this.  Who is protesting the government over there over their fiscal chaos?  It is government workers, upset about their potential loss of benefits and the entitlements granted to them by the beneficent socialists in their bureaucracy.  Once government dependents are created, Pandora has already escaped from the box, and there’s no return to normalcy after that.  While Paul Krugman may be correct that the U.S. is not Greece, I would argue that he underestimates the potential for a similar financial disaster.   As the cliché goes, the first step is to admit there’s a problem – and the U.S. has a spending problem.  It has a debt problem.  We have had massive debt and spending under both Republican and Democrat administrations.   It is way past time for both parties to seriously address these problems.

May I remind my colleagues on the left that deathbed conversions are still conversions?  Republicans know that the idea of reducing spending and reducing taxes is politically popular, so naturally they want to let voters know that they support both of those things.  But it’s hard to take any politician seriously on reducing spending who can’t point to specific programs or services that they want to cut.   In addition, no politician running for re-election will tell you that Social Security and Medicare are in desperate need of reform.  There is a huge bloc of seniors who vote, and want nothing to do with any future reform of these entitlements.  But it must be done – and we need to start this process now.

The federal government is broke.  It has no money for all these new and exciting programs that the Obama administration has introduced.   Since we are the big bad USA, we don’t force ourselves to make (or pretend to make, in the case of Greece) tough spending cuts or insist on tax hikes to pay for all this new spending.   Don’t misunderstand my position here.  I strongly oppose tax hikes, especially in this economy, because in the absence of any necessary fiscal discipline, this will only increase the pool of money available to create a bigger, badder, welfare state.  Krugman accuses those of us trying to warn the rest of America that we could end up like Greece as wanting to dismantle the welfare state.  Guilty as charged, Mr. Krugman.  It’s the most compassionate thing to do for my fellow Americans — force them to take responsibility for their own lives.  Some may fail spectacularly, and some may succeed, and it’s not the government’s job to equalize those outcomes.

Links:

We Are Not Greece– Paul Krugman
Facing the Facts: We Are Out of Money, Matt Welch, Reason

elena kagan – it could be worse

How does it add anything to a SCOTUS nominee’s qualifications when it is noted that a nominee’s life story is inspirational, a real American rags-to-riches success story, and so forth and so on?  While the life experiences of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are certainly a made-for-TV movie waiting to happen, they have nothing to do with being a Supreme Court justice.  If anything, those life experiences tend to suggest a certain subjective POV that leans toward one specific ideological perspective – and it’s not one conservatives can support.  But that’s hardly a surprise.

It’s difficult to believe that President Obama doesn’t know exactly what he’s getting in Elena Kagan. What we know about her so far is enough to suggest to me two things – one, she leans progressive; and two, she doesn’t have any judicial experience.  The latter doesn’t technically disqualify her from serving as a Supreme Court justice, as others have accurately pointed out.  However, this gives greater importance to her writings and speeches, and her actions as a law professor.   Those evaluating her fitness for this job will have to look at everything she has said and done in the past, and try to accurately predict which way she will go as a Supreme Court justice.  This evaluation will be completed before Elena Kagan gets her first question in the Senate confirmation hearings.

Many Democrats have already started lining up behind the President’s pick, while Republicans are promising to ask hard questions that are unlikely to be answered.  That’s the way this kabuki theater works.  Actually ask hard questions of SCOTUS nominees from the opposing party that you will never get a straight answer to, and in the end the nominee gets through, unless he/she is fatally flawed like Harriet Miers.

Honestly, I’m ok with this.  Many pundits find their latest column idea by disparaging the way nominees are told to handle their confirmation hearings.  Since both sides have already made up their minds about the nominee before the hearings ever take place, the questions will always be a formality.  When was the last time we learned something useful from SCOTUS confirmation hearings?  Bork.  Right.  If straight-up answers keep qualified candidates from making it to the high court, then I’m all for the non-sequiturs.  Besides, it’s not likely that anything said in the hearings would turn a Democrat against Elena Kagan, and since the Republicans could very well be so open-minded their brains fall out, they could decide that there’s no point in opposing a nominee when her confirmation is more than likely.

the beginning and the end

It all started out so well for Gordon Brown.  After years of being the eternal bridesmaid, he was finally able to don the dress and have his day when Tony Blair handed over the keys to Number 10.  Ok…maybe that’s imagery you don’t need.  But that’s kind of what happened in 2007.  Now-former British PM Gordon Brown was handed the assignment of continuing with the Blair policies and sustaining the political power Labour had gained with Blair’s election 10 years previous.   Sounds simple enough, right?  So how is it that after only 3 years as British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has been unceremoniously dumped by the electorate?  Hmmm.

Well, first of all, he shouldn’t feel too distraught over it.   The British voting public didn’t seem very keen on any of the three parties — Labour just got the brunt of the abuse because it was the party in power.  Gordon Brown was highly unpopular.   All the polls said so.   But in all the postmortems I’ve read on this election, the writers have yet to point to a singular failure on Brown’s part that directly led to Labour’s defeat.   Yes, there were comments about his off-mike asides calling one woman who asked him questions “bigoted”, but those kind of things aren’t the ones that definitively swing an election one way or another.  In the end, it was voter fatigue with Labour’s 13 years in power combined with the many voters who chose the Liberal Democrats that sealed Brown’s fate, but for the way he handled his own tenure, Gordon Brown has no one to blame but himself.

good stuff other people wrote

What I’m currently reading:

The fallacy that continues to dog Project Cameron – John Rentoul (who wrote this killer Tony Blair bio I totally loved) says that David Cameron’s ideas are just as flawed as Gordon Brown’s. Sad part is that in this battle between the Conservative Party (Cameron) and Labour Party(Brown) one of these two will probably end up being UK Prime Minister.  Side note: Current UK PM Brown was never going to be Tony Blair.  Sometimes a politician is best suited to his previous job, rather than his current one.  This is very true of Brown.   However, I have no love for David Cameron and his “New Labour” -lite schtick and his obsession with the environment.  Of course, that’s generally how the Brits roll anyway — with their entrenched welfare state and their socialized health care with the NHS.  Naturally, these are the kind of politicians they like.  Bully for them.   Moving on…

Jack Kelly on President Obama’s new nuke deals.  Here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned – if President Obama really believes that we are facing a more challenging time in dealing with nuclear threats, then he’s got the wrong solution to this.   We can’t be voluntarily reducing our own nuclear arsenal and stopping production on more modern weapons at the same time North Korea and Iran are ramping up their nuke production.   This seems backwards to me.  The United States of America may very well be the only country which would be willing to voluntarily do this — and that’s exactly why we can’t do it.

A cautionary tale from Europe – Greece’s monetary struggles – a result of overspending and a massive entitlement society.