David McCullough's John Adams

Last night we watched the first episode of HBO's 7 part series, John Adams. We've read some of McCullough's stuff--notably, Truman--but haven't yet read the similarly titled book on which this series was based.

In fact, we met McCullough in the fall of 2005 and wrote the following about our experience:

McCullough visited campus nearly two weeks ago. Matt (our brother) and we spoke with Mr. McCullough at a breakfast reception where he signed our copies of 1776 and imparted a little advice. It is rare that someone meets expectations and even more rare that they exceed them. As the most renowned popular American historian and winner of two Pulitzer Prizes he could have been exceedingly arrogant. Instead he was incredibly gracious and interested in our educational experience.

McCullough remains those things--a talented writer and popular historian. Even as we write that, we must acknowledge, as historian-in-training, that McCullough's history often says things that the sources he cites do not. That is to say, he sometimes infers things that cannot be inferred or at least would be a stretch to infer from what the primary source documents tell us about a given subject.

Therefore, bear this in mind as you watch John Adams. Know that the history has passed through a number of filters--McCullough's, the screenwriter'(s), the director's, the actor's, etc.--and understand that what you are seeing is not a completely accurate reproduction of the life of John Adams.

That said, we do not mean to be interpreted as saying that such works have little or no value. Quite the opposite is true. We think things like HBO's John Adams are tremendously important. What McCullough has done with Adams and what Stephen Ambrose did with Band of Brothers represent important collaborations with media-types to create good history through film.

It's certainly not perfect, but it tells compelling history in a very approachable fashion: through film. Anyone can sit down and watch John Adams and learn more about the man, the period, his collaborative relationship with Abigail, the Founders, the Constitution, the Revolution, everything, than they previously knew. This is good and important.

From the first episode, one event stands out: the aftermath and trial resulting from the Boston Massacre. We refer the reader to the source of all human knowledge, Wikipedia, for a brief background.

The history of the Boston Massacre is tough to unpack, mostly because of the partisan telling of the tale. Sam Adam's Sons of Liberty wanted to use it to galvanize public opinion in favor of independence and agains the Crown. This made a fair trial with an unbiased jury and witness difficult to procure. Furthermore, it made it difficult to find an attorney willing to represent the British soldiers accused of committing murder.

In steps John Adams. Adams, with the constant support of his wife Abigail braved the public backlash and defended the soldiers. All but two were acquitted. The two who were not, were convicted of lesser charges.

This incident proved to the King and England and anyone else who cared to notice that the Rule of Law was in full effect in the American colonies. It would have been easier and more satisfying to the public to have a show trial and string them up. But the law prevailed.

We strongly encourage anyone with HBO or with a friend who has HBO to watch John Adams. There are lots of ways to spend your idle time, this is a good one.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Easter Means We Shall Live Again

From the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 28, verses 1-6:

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, cam Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the spulchre.
2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen

And in Mark, chapter 16, verse 6:

6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here

Again, in Luke, chapter 24, verses 5-6:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen

Finally, from John, chapter 20, verses 1-17:

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Taken collectively, these are four witnesses to the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: that though we may die, because He died and rose again, so too shall we all live again.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Saturday Link Dump

We have a lot of links to a lot of good articles. We'd like to have incorporated them all into different posts, but it just isn't going to happen. That said, we didn't just want to simply forget about them, so we figured we'd include them in a really, really huge Saturday link post. They are all worth clicking through and reading.

(note: please excuse the oversight if we forgot to give you a "hat tip" for recommending a particular article. email us and we'll take care of it.)

Want to read the collected speeches and letters of Abraham Lincoln? DailyLit has got you covered with daily installments via email. Even better, it's free.

Be sure to check out the Newt Gingrich Q&A at the freakonomics blog. (hat tip: Matt Lybbert)

Iraq:

- 'Re-Liberators' by Rich Lowry.
- Michael Totten on Iraq opinion.
- Pete Hesgeth's reports from Iraq 1 & 2.
- Report Detailing Saddam's Terrorist Ties.

2nd Amendment & Supreme Court Links:

- Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, Professor of Law at Northwestern on The Right Judicial Litmus Test.
- Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center will give you a test to see if you are an Originalist.
- Lawrence Solum on Semantic and Normative Originalism.
- John Yoo examines the impact of Clarence Thomas' "fidelity" to the Constitution.
- Jonah Goldberg on a "living Constitution."
- Judge Bork weighs in on the "uphill fight" to restore constitutional order.
- Ramesh Ponnuru examines the cause of constitutional conservatives.
- Randy Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown Law Center and worked on an amicus brief in the Heller 2nd Amendment case.
- From the Becker-Posner blog, Posner on Gun Control.

Free Trade & The Economy:

- Ever wonder where the candidates get their economic policy advice? Check out "Who the candidates really listen to." (hat tip: Ryan Decker, Pendulum Politics)
- Get past the campaign boilerplate on trade with Greg Mankiw.
- Think tariffs and quotas are the solution to our economic woes? Tim Worstall argues in favor of technology and changes in transportation.
- Reed Smoot (homer nods: we previously attributed this bad piece of legislation to Abraham Smoot, after whom the BYU admin building was named. Since corrected. Thanks, Branden) helped tip the world economy into the Great Depression. Democrat threats to withdraw from Nafta and other free trade agreements could do the same. Smoot, good man, economically illiterate.
- From Commentary magazine, John Steele Gordon on "who's afraid of free trade." We'll give you a clue: not us.
- An NRO symposium on the economics of the current presidential election and what it could mean for our economy long-term.
- Walter Williams calls our attention to poor government policy--ethanol--that has exacerbated the rise in oil prices. (hat tip: Matt Perkins)

Colombia

- NRO editors say that "Uribe deserves our support." Indeed.
- Rich Lowry agrees that Colombia is the Israel of South America. And it's a good thing because both of those countries are staunch allies of the USA.

&c.

- Michael Barone on Romney. (hat tip: S. Lybbert)
- Weekend Interview with the President of the Czech Republic.
- Mark Steyn on WFB.
- Ann coulter on WFB.
- Seattle Mariners' pitcher hopes to go from Westpoint to the majors.
- Law and economics from the Becker-Posner Blog.
- Get the latest edition of the BYU Political Review. Just one article from someone studying economics. And it's about Spitzer, not econ.

Finally, Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard evolutionary biologist, writes about cancer. Per the prefatory note by Steve Dunn:

As far as I'm concerned, Gould's The Median Isn't the Message is the wisest, most humane thing ever written about cancer and statistics. It is the antidote both to those who say that, "the statistics don't matter," and to those who have the unfortunate habit of pronouncing death sentences on patients who face a difficult prognosis. Anyone who researches the medical literature will confront the statistics for their disease. Anyone who reads this will be armed with reason and with hope.

(hat tip: S. Lybbert)


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Obama, Lincoln & The American Family

We're currently about half-way done with a collection of Lincoln's speeches and letters. His most notable speeches--to the Young Men's Lyceum, 1st Inaugural, Gettysburg Address, 2nd Inaugural--we've read a number of times. They are awesome. His 2nd Inaugural Address may be the greatest speech in American history.

We've also listened to and read a number of Barack Obama's speeches. He is, as MJ says, a powerful speaker. However, we agree with a point made by Peggy Noonan a few weeks ago (WSJ subscription required). Barack Obama is an intelligent, articulate speaker. His ability to work a crowd and speak extemporaneously is awesome. We've done a bit of the latter and appreciate his ability all the more for it.

But we distinguish between the power of a speaker and the lasting effect and power of their words. Obama's speeches and rhetoric lose their power when read from the page. They are insipid and narcissistic. "We are the ones we've been waiting for." The culmination of human history.

With all due respect to our friend MJ--and really, we can't blame him, because he's only parroting the line of the liberal intelligentsia--suggesting that Obama rivals Lincoln, belies either a complete ignorance of Lincoln's speeches or a blind obsession for Barack Obama. His last speech was good, and it may save his candidacy from its association with Wright, but we're familiar with Lincoln's speeches and writing, and Barack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln.

***

We cite, but two examples from his recent speech:

In his speech, Barack Obama used his grandmother to communicate the depth of his association with Wright, "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother." Why not? He goes on:

[she was] a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Did he really need to out his grandmother as a racist? Does he really believe or expect any of the rest of us to believe that his grandmother's private utterances are on par with the repeated and public racist statements of his chosen pastor?

This, folks, is moral equivalence. And it doesn't explain or excuse Wright's statements. Wright didn't privately mention his racist prejudices to Obama, he peddled them in church week after week and then packaged them in a series of DVDs and sold them to the general public.

In his speech, Obama said that he didn't think that racism was endemic in America (read: white people) but then, in a New York Times follow up to the comment about his grandmother, he said that she was "a typical white person." (emphasis added)

Nice racial stereotype, Barack.

This contradicts his speech-professed belief that white America is not racist.

What will it be, Barack? Are we all racists like Wright and your poor grandmother?

***

The second point also draws on Obama's poor comparison between his grandmother and Rev. Wright. Obama's does not address and again, gives tacit approval to, the racial double standard that exists in this country. It is a double standard characterized by the soft bigotry of low expectations:

For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

He's right about one thing: Democratic politicians have always exploited black anger. And the liberal elites in this country permit a racial double standard that does African Americans no favors.

It wasn't just Wright and his generation applauding his conspiratorial racism, young African Americans cheered when he talked about the government's secret plans to use AIDS and crack cocaine to kill blacks. He is inculcating his racism and bigotry in yet another generation.

If we want to end the problem of racism in this country, we cannot continue to allow one standard for whites and another for blacks. We are a member of the NAACP. We don't agree with all of their policies, but we appreciate their historical fight for Civil Rights. If Barack Obama wanted to be a unifier, he would encourage, nay, demand, that the racial double standard end.

***

The biggest single problem disadvantaging not only blacks, but every ethnicity in this country, is the breakdown of the family. As Peggy Noonan mentioned in the same column:

That's the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family.

The division is not between white and black or haves and have-nots, it's between those with functioning families and those without. There are exceptions, but a dysfunctional family is very difficult to overcome. Every problem Obama mentioned in the latter part of his speech can be combatted and overcome by fortifying the American family.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Kanye West, Barack Obama & Jeremiah Wright

Yesterday we read, as we always do, James Taranto's Best of the Web. It mostly treated the various responses and takes on Barack Obama's race speech. Byron York reported on the scene in Philadelphia. Lisa Miller addressed the response of black religious leaders. Taranto reminded us that Obama (rightly) led the charge against Don Imus. Mickey Kaus pointed out that many voters like to be able to vote for Obama.

The least interesting point, initially, was the one made by John McWhorter, a pundit we've referenced before. Among other things, McWhorter discussed the tone and supposed entertainment value of Wright's rhetoric.

They hear a stirring articulation of rebellion, listenable according to a sense that fealty to one's race entails at least a gestural nod to sticking a finger in whitey's eye now and then. The tone, the music of the statements is more vivid than the content. Sermons like this are Sunday morning's version of gangsta rap.

That comparison struck us as a bit odd. "Sunday morning's version of gangsta rap?"

We've long enjoyed hip hop music and some people, including some readers of this blog, have chided us for it. We enjoy some of the silly lyrics and the fun beats like those found in a song Friend of Lybberty, Morgan Habedank, recently wrote about.

After having read Taranto's column, we were driving down the canyon, and we started listening to a song by hip hop philosopher, he of George-Bush-hates-black-people fame, Kanye West. We were particularly struck by some of the lyrics from his song "Heard 'Em Say." (caution: explicit language in link)

And I heard 'em say, nothin ever promised tomorrow today.
From the Chi, like Tim its the Hard-a-way,
So this is in the name of love, like Robert says
Before you ask me to get a job today, can I at least get a raise on a minimum wage?

OK, mostly words that kind of rhyme with a little political plug thrown in for good measure. But then there's this:

And I know the government administered AIDS,
So I guess we just pray like the minister say,

There's that pesky little conspiracy theory of Reverend Wright's, that the government somehow gave black people AIDS in order to have an African-American genocide. But it doesn't end there. From his song "Crack Music." (again, caution, explicit language in link)

How we stop the black panthers?
Ronald Reagan cooked up an answer
You hear that?
What Gil Scott was hearin
When our heroes and heroines got hooked on heroin.
Crack raised the murder rate in DC and Maryland
We invested in that it's like we got Merril-Lynched
And we been hangin from the same tree ever since

This time, Ronald Reagan concocted crack-cocaine to "lynch" African Americans. Later on in the same song, Kanye asks,

Who gave Saddam anthrax?
George Bush got the answers
Back in the hood it's a different type of chemical

Kanye West's lyrics are of a piece with the so-called Black Liberation Theology preached by Reverend Wright. Kanye isn't alone in propagating this garbage, he's just the most current and prominent. Nor is Reverend Wright the only pastor who teaches this to a very receptive audience (according to the video we've seen).

Regrettably, this theology can be found in many African-American churches (those churches that teach the aforementioned Black Liberation Theology) and the hip hop culture (Kanye and other hip hop artists like him). It is a theology of conspiracy, hate, racism, and other divisive language. It teaches African-Americans to believe that white Americans want nothing more than to keep them down and will do anything--AIDS, crack, etc.--to keep them in de facto slavery.

Barack Obama is supposed to be the post-racial Presidential candidate who helps America move past the ugliest parts of its history--slavery, Jim Crow--and yet for 20 years he associated with, was married by, received counsel from, had baptize his daughters, had as one of his campaign advisors, one of the major purveyors of this theology of hate.

And this is the thing that gets us: not all, or even most, African-American churches teach this crap. There are plenty which teach the Good Word of God. Why couldn't Obama have attended one of those?

None of this should be interpreted to mean that we think Obama believed or believes Wright's racist, hateful rhetoric. We don't. When he repudiated Wright's statement, we took him at his word. Of course, it was a politically expedient move. But his longstanding attendance at that Chicago church seemed to indicate a sort of tacit approval.

For over 20 years, Barack Obama was willing to look the other way in order to maintain the support of a very influential African-American leader, church, and congregation in Chicago.

At the very least, this reveals that Barack Obama is just like every other politician, willing to do whatever it takes to boost his electoral appeal.

(sorry to burst the bubble)


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

BYU Daily Universe Review

[Our brother doubles as our editor and sounding board. If there are typos, and there always are, it's because he hasn't yet read what we wrote and let us know of the error. We can't be bothered to read what we've written once we're done with it.]

With no new issue of BYU Political Review to dissect (Mr. Decker, get to work), we're left with the Daily Universe.

Another kerfuffle at BYU over the editors' decision not to print recent Dilbert comic strips that invoked the name of Jesus Christ. In a recent column, the editorial page responded to criticisms of their decision by saying that "the unrestrained flow of information (even with something as non-consequential as a cartoon) is not our highest aim at The Daily Universe."

Fair enough. We won't quibble with their decision. But we do have one question: what, exactly, does this, their concluding paragraph mean?

The unrestrained flow of information cannot be the ultimate good for a news organization. It is a marvelous good and a good for which we will always fight, but a good that cannot be made sovereign. Something isn't good because it is free. It is good because of the ideals for which it stands. Necessarily, something must be free in order to ultimately be good, but its own liberality does not make it good. For this reason newspapers fight against outside restrictions. But freedom from outside restrictions does not absolve media outlets of their own standards and responsibilities.

We don't pretend to be the smartest blogger on the internet, but we think that we are smart enough to be able to understand the writing in a university editorial. Frankly, we have no idea what this paragraph is trying to say. It reads like Miss South Carolina's response to why U.S. Americans can't find the United States on a world map.

It strikes us as a just whole lot of words designed to make the writer appear to be an intelligent sophisticate--you know, so they can be like adult journalists. Remember, we're not arguing that these writers agree with us politically. At this point, we'd be satisfied with an editorial that makes sense.

***

Frequently the Daily Universe runs syndicated opinions written in other college newspapers. Judging by the op-ed we cited above, they should do this more often. On Monday, the DU ran a piece by Raja Karthikeya, a contributor to Georgetown's The Hoya. Writing about Kosovo's recent declaration of independence, Karthikeya said,

Condoning the independence of Kosovo is the worst mistake the international community has made in recent years in Europe. Kosovo is not a simple case of self-determinism of its people: It is about setting a precedent of secession that undermines the integrity of pluralistic nations everywhere.

Broadly, we support other people's in their struggle for independence from tyrannical domination. And with just a cursory look at the situation in Kosovo, we supported their split. We're not ready to back away form that position, but Karthikeya's column does raise some important points to consider.

***

Finally, today's op-ed on on Obama's exculpatory Wright-speech.

After the non-sense of the first column, the DU's editors redeemed themselves with a strong editorial about Obama's missed opportunity. In particular, these paragraphs echo the questions we have about Obama's association with Wright and the questions that association raises about his judgment:

The worry with Wright's comments never was that they directly represented Obama's personal views. It was Obama's judgment. How could a man who's been campaigning on sound judgment in the absence of experience, choose Wright as his family's spiritual adviser?

Obama's best chance for success Tuesday would have been to condemn Wright's comments and then say he was gravely mistaken to have chosen him as his family's spiritual adviser. Instead, he continued to sell Wright off as the crazy uncle whom he loves, disagrees with, but [who] still makes a good point - despite all his hate and anger.

(emphasis added)

We were most bothered by the moral equivalence reflected in Obama's comparison of Rev. Wright to his (Obama's) poor grandmother. Does anyone really believe that the private prejudice of Barack's grandmother is on par with the hateful, divisive, racist, conspiracy theories of Jeremiah Wright? Give us a break.

Saying that Wright's position is OK or understandable is just another example of what one of our favorite writers--One Cosmos--calls "the soft bigotry of low or no expectations for blacks."
(article link)

As much as anything else, Obama's speech showed that he is just repackaging and rebranding the same old liberal drivel.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Supreme Court Will Rule In Favour Of 2nd Amendment

From the Financial Times and My Way News, word that the Supreme court has ruled for individual possession of firearms.

Bravo, Supreme Court. Intellectually, historically, legally, there was only one way they could have ruled: in favor of the individual right to bear arms over some amorphous-collective-militia.

Any student (including BYU's American Heritage students, with whom we, as former TA, are well acquainted) of the Constitution knows that the Bill of Rights were written to guarantee the rights of the individual against incursions from the government. The fear when writing the Bill of Rights was that government would assume it could do anything not specifically prohibited by the Bill of Rights.

But some Founders, rather than worrying about the tale (Bill of Rights) wagging the dog (Constitutionally outlined powers), anticipated correctly the exponential growth of government and knew that citizen's individual rights would need to be protected. Thus, the "afterthought" of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution--the Bill of Rights.

So, summary: the Bill of Rights were written to protect the rights of the indivudal--the 2nd Amendment is no different to all the rest. Fortunately, the anti-2nd Amendment judicial activism du jour did not persuade swing-voter Anthony Kennedy.

Score one for Constitutional originalism.

*UPDATE 19 March 1:43am: The Left Fires a Counter-Volley, Meet the NRA's little known, highly influential opponents (subscription required, email us if you'd like to receive a digital copy of the article).


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

University College London, BYU, Obama, &c.

Image link

If the New York Times doesn't think a story is newsworthy, did it really happen?

You may recall that a few weeks ago the NYT ran a story about John McCain. None of their anonymous sources (who, mind you, didn't even meet their own rules on sourcing) said that McCain actually did anything, rather, it was a supposed to be a story about McCain's judgment and associations.

Along comes a story that is largely about Barack Obama's association and judgment. Where is the New York Times coverage? Buried. Journalistic double standard anyone?

Again, we don't think Obama personally espouses any of Reverend Wright's crazy ideas, but his 20 year relationship with Wright does raise questions (like the recent revelations about a deeper relationship with Rezko than previously thought) about his associations and judgment. Juan Williams, a liberal former Washington Post writer and current NPR and Fox News contributor, for whom we hold great respect, also agreed that this raises questions about Obama's judgment.

Barack Obama's Speech Transcript
Analysis: Obama Grabs Race Issue
Obama Rebukes Preacher, Urges Race Healing
Obama Confronts Racial Division In US

*UPDATE 6:15pm MST: Friend of Lybberty and Lost Boy writer, Morgan Habedank, weighs in on Reverend Wright's comments. We noted in the comments section of his post and repeat here: it is important for the less politically inclined, but no less intelligent among us, to sometimes hold forth on issues like this.

We believe that political pundits sometimes suffer from a myopia that afflicts all disciplines (this includes us). Thoughtful opinion from someone outside the political echo chamber can help us gain a greater understanding of issues and put them in proper perspective. Bravo, Mr. Habedank.

***

We want to call attention and give credit to the fledgling BYU Ski Team. We have a couple of friends on the team who give us irregular reports about the team's performance. This article from the Daily Universe is the first we've seen on the team. They race and train without any official recognition from BYU and, all things considered, have done quite well. This year they narrowly missed qualifying for the National Championships. Good job, BYU ski team.

***

From an otherwise unremarkable article about Provo development, the Daily Universe reported on a few interesting comments regarding Provo's student population:

Exclusiveness in Provo was an area of concern. Residents voiced their opinion that the city needs to market more to the student population as well as the non-LDS members of the community.

According to numbers from the city records for 2007, university students make up approximately 45 percent of Provo's population. Also, according to the city's Web site, more than 20 different religious groups are present in Provo.

"Students offer a very unique population that can really be capitalized upon," Simonson said. "Students don't usually have a large discretionary income, but they're always looking for something to do."

Melanie McCoard, an active member of the community who ran for city council three times, said some recent decisions made by the city council have caused some students to think Provo is anti-student.

"Opening up the downtown to students could help dissolve that perception," McCoard said.

As far as contentious relationships between longtime city residents and student populations go, BYU vs. Provo isn't breaking any records. That said, the Provo City Council and some residents resentful attitude towards students is irritating. Students don't vote here and supposedly pay little in taxes.

However, this superficial look at the benefit of BYU students in the Utah Valley does not tell the whole tale.

BYU employs thousands of people and provides innumerable (and, often, unknown) services to the greater Provo community. Students alone give hundreds of thousands of hours of services each year. They are helping out in schools, providing daycare for special needs kids so their parents can have a few hours to shop or whatever, they are cleaning up parks and neighborhoods and on and on. BYU students aren't simply entering to learn and going forth to serve once graduated, they are serving the entire time they are at BYU.

In exchange, they are ignored and patronized and sometimes demonized by Provo residents. The Provo City Council refuses to make student concerns a top priority when making parking policy.

Of course, they can get away with it because BYU students don't vote in local elections. But that doesn't make it or them, right.

***

Finally, a bit o news from my grad school, UCL. Student politics are interesting in London. In a post last year, we wrote about our experience with the UCL Student Union--essentially, their debate club (click here for the link).

Undergraduate and graduate involvement in UCL student government is an interesting thing. In one sense, they have more say over more things, but in another sense, their interest in the University beyond their emphasis is less than BYU students.

Be that as it may, we were struck by a recent email we received from one of our sources at UCL regarding the latest tempest in a teapot at the UCL Union:

On Wednesday the 5th of March, UCL Union held an [sic] "Reconvened Annual General Meeting". Since then, the sabbaticals and Chief Executive have received a substantial number of complaints regarding the democratic procedure of the meeting and subsequently questioning its legitimacy.

After investigating these complaints, the sabbatical team took the decision on the 10th of March to initiate disciplinary proceedings examining the chair of the meeting, UCL Union's General Secretary. The General Secretary has therefore been suspended from office pending the results of this disciplinary, which will hopefully be taking place in the first week of the third term. The disciplinary panel will be composed of senior members of College and sabbatical officers from other London students' unions.

Following this decision, a March 12th meeting of UCL Union Governance Committee resolved to temporarily suspend the decisions made at the "Reconvened Annual General Meeting" pending the outcome of the disciplinary panel, and will report back to the Union's Executive by the 6th of May.

In one sense, we're relieved to see that BYU isn't the only university that blows procedural things out of proportion, in another sense we're dismayed at the suspension of democracy and lack of transparency. This is all the information we could get about the actions of the General Secretary.

But stay tuned, if we can find it, we'll give you the rest of the story.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Barack Obama & The (Rev.) Wright-Wing Nut

Image link

If it's alright for the liberal press to call into question Mitt Romney's judgment for being a member of a church that denied the priesthood to blacks over 30 years ago, then Barack Obama's ongoing, 20-year, close personal relationship with his America-hating pastor is fair game.

Among other things, Reverend Wright preached that:
- The US is like al-Qaeda
- HIV is a genocidal plot by the American government to eliminate African Americans
- Drugs are/were promoted by the government as a way to imprison blacks
- America deserved 9/11
- FDR and the US government knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor
- Honored virulent anti-semite, Louis Farrakhan and traveled with him to visit Libyan tyrant/terrorist Muammar al-Gaddafi
- Uses anti-semitic language**

The list goes on. And it's all sick. The last thing Obama needs now is for someone to find a clip of Rev. Wright ranting with a cut to Barack and family in the audience, cheering and nodding their heads. Believe it or not, we honestly hope Barack never found himself nodding as this crazed loon spouted off about some crazy 9/11 truther-inspired conspiracy.

Here are the links:
Obama And The Minister
As Obama Talks Religion, Questions Surround His Controversial Pastor
Wright Leaves Obama Campaign
Obama Denounces His Pastor's Statements

Could you imagine if this were John McCain or even Hillary Clinton and their white religious leader were doing the same thing? We strongly defend Wright's right to say these things (and, after all, this isn't Canada), but he and those who associate with him will suffer the consequences in the court of public opinion. And in Pennsylvania next month.

It looks like Christmas came early for the Clinton camp this year.

We don't think Barack Obama hates America or believes what Reverend Wright preaches, but maybe his attitudes are closer to the attitude of his wife who infamously stated that Barack's candidacy for President was the first time she has been proud of her country.

If he doesn't agree with these things, why did Obama associate himself with Rev. Wright for 20 years?


*UPDATE 15 March 5:07pm MST: Video from Barack Obama's interview with Major Garrett on Fox News.

**UPDATE 17 March 12:59pm MST: A sample of Rev. Wright's anti-semitic language:

In sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

In one of his sermons, Wright said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

As for Israel, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” Wright has said. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

NCAA Sanctions BYU: A Travishamockery

Image link

On Wednesday the NCAA announced the results of its 18 month long investigation into the BYU Men's Volleyball team. We don't like the NCAA. They and many of their member institutions (read: BCS schools) profit from student athletes. Their haphazard application of rules and sanctions is more often a political tool than it is a good faith attempt to maintain discipline. Their sanctioning of BYU smacks of the former.

Per the Salt Lake Tribune Blog:

Both the NCAA and BYU agreed early on that no unethical conduct was displayed by Peterson (former BYU Men's V-Ball coach) — there were no violations of an intentional nature and nothing that gave BYU an unfair recruiting advantage. The violations were technical in nature.

"All of the allegations that the NCAA chose to pursue stemmed from humanitarian concern for others, and the actions were inadvertent. No one was trying to circumvent rules, and none of the violations gave BYU an unfair recruiting advantage," states Peterson.

The Deseret News link will take you to the statement by Dr. Tom Peterson. We also recommend you take a look at the following articles:

BYU Volleyball Team Hit By NCAA Sanctions
BYU Men's Volleyball On 3-Year Probation
Men's College Volleyball: BYU On Probation NCAA Violations
NCAA Announces Penalties Against BYU

These events recall a 2004 Presidential election beer advertisement: it's a travesty and a sham and a mockery. It's a travishamockery.

Like the UN, the NCAA pulls in tons-o-cash and no one really knows where it goes. Oversight is clearly lacking and they rely on imposition of draconian rules to justify their existence. And speaking of justifying their existence, the NCAA rules team spent 18 months reviewing BYU Men's Volleyball, and this was the best they could come up with?

Other than his accepting a loan of two bicycles to be used by a team member and Cala, neither BYU as an institution nor any of its officials or employees — including Peterson — were found to have taken improper recruiting actions.

Where is the sanity? General opinion (salute) seems to be that BYU was fortunate to get off as easy as they did. And BYU officials are predictably parroting the company line. All of this because they are afraid of running afoul of the Stazi arm of the NCAA. Anything short of a "death sentence" is deemed to be getting off easy.

This means no one associated with BYU can do what we can do: call the whole thing a friggin' joke.

One friend of this blog, a former BYU athlete, informs us that the NCAA and BYU are conspiring to do what every institution does in similar situations: throw a retiree under the bus. The aptly named Jim Kimmel, faithful BYU employee, seems to be taking heat from all sides because he didn't stop people unaffiliated with the university from helping pay for humanitarian legal fees. Because, well, the rules aren't explicit in the first place.

This is what Jim Kimmel gets for helping a couple poor kids defect from Communist Cuba.

The NCAA is a corrupt and corrupting institution that gets away with it all because many of us (including the OL&L "us") love college sports. The best book we've read on the topic (though we add the caveat that we don't agree with all of his conclusions, is Murray Sperber's Beer and Circus. Sperber turns his considerable analytical ability on higher education's prostitution of principle to athletics. Read it.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

"People Who Live In Glass Brothels, They Can't Do This"

Dennis Miller Radio link
Ah, schadenfreude.

We watched Dennis Miller last night on the O'Reilly Factor. Dennis weighed in on three ways Eliot Spitzer--Client #9--can get himself out of this mess:

"First off, he can say that he wanted to bring her down on Amtrak and quite frankly, didn't think she'd ever arrive. Play the Amtrak card.

Second, he should say he thought she was a super-delegate and he was courting her.

And thirdly, if he really wants to get back in the good graces of the Democratic party--he's a rich guy--he should offer to pay for the Florida recount."


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

BYUSA Election Follow-Up, Michael Steele, &c.

Today at lunch we spoke with a friend of ours, one of the 5 BYUSA Executive Directors who serve under the BYUSA President and Executive Vice President. Our conversation with him confirmed what we concluded in our last post: it's unfair to expect BYUSA to be something it is not. It is not a student representative organization, it's a student service organization. And in that, they are extremely successful.

He agreed with us (and pointed out that Adam Ruri and Chance Basinger had Provo parking as part of their platform) that there is an opportunity for BYUSA President Adam Ruri to lead the way in parking negotiations with Provo City Council on behalf of BYU students.

We'll follow their progress, if any, again, so you don't have to.

***

On Fox news, Michael Steele, former candidate for the Senate from the state of Maryland, weighed in on the Geraldine Ferraro kerffufle (which we first wrote about here).

He pointed out that in advance of his run for the Senate, his campaign polled Marylanders about race and politics. They asked two questions: first, "would you vote for an African-American for senate?" and second, "would your neighbor vote for an African-American?"

These polls were anonymous, so people had no apparent reason to lie. 78% said yes to the first question. 40% said yes to the second question. Steele and the Crash-crowd draw the wrong conclusion from polls like these--that racism is a big problem in America.

Sure, there's racism, but what this poll shows is that the problem is hugely overblown. What it shows is that a vast majority--78%, in this instance--are not racist, but that an almost equally large majority--60%--think their neighbors are racist.

The only disconnect is between public perception of racism and the reality.

***

At FreedomsWatch.org, guest blogger Mark Mix writes about union's attempts to move away from unionization by secret ballot to unionization by peer pressure and intimidation. Unions have steadily lost membership for the last 30 years as their usefulness declined. This latest legislation is a last ditch attempt to maintain political clout.

***

Our friends at the RNC are running a Blog Madness competition to name their official blog. Cue rabid netroots.

***

The BYU Student Alumni Association is sponsoring a personal finance course on 22 March @ 10:00am in the Hinkcley Center. With subprime loans, inflation, the falling dollar and stock market all the rage, this is a valuable opportunity to learn how to navigate the financial storm.

***

Steve Sweet, associate of recruiting and marketing, asked me to pass along information about the Koch Associate Program. After limited research into this program, it seems worth passing along:

"The Koch Associate Program is a year-long, paid program designed to develop promising leaders and entrepreneurs interested in liberty and the non-profit arena. During the program Associates work in non-profit roles four days a week, then spend one day a week at the Foundation learning Market-Based Management® in a classroom setting. You can learn more about the Associate Program, as well as the Koch Internship Program and the Koch Foundation at www.cgkfoundation.org. The deadline to apply is April 1, 2008."

***

If you're looking for a cheap, stimulating intellectual experience this summer, we recommend applying for one of the free summer seminars sponsored by The Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University. They take place at universities all over the US with different topics at each. Housing, food, books, and lecture costs are all covered by IHS, you just have to figure out how to get there.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Geraldine Ferraro "hearts" Barack Obama

Image link

We've written about the racism of liberal elites here, here, and here. Geraldine Ferraro's comment--that Barack is fortunate to be in his position because of his race--borrows from the same subtle theme.

It's not the overt, burn-a-cross-in-the-front-yard type of racism people associate with the Klan. And it's not even the self-congratulatory racism of Hillary Clintons comment about LBJ "giving" blacks civil rights. As though civil rights were liberals' rights to give.

No, this racism is the invidious racism borne of the paternalistic, liberal-state-knows-best affirmative action policies. In liberal America, Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton and others of their ilk are the dispensers of justice and equality. Supposedly, they're not racist because they give minorities opportunities they don't, were it not for affirmative action policies, merit.

It's why Clarence Thomas keeps his Yale law degree in a box in his basement. He earned his way in and was one of the best students, but because Yale was known to practice affirmative action, Thomas couldn't get a job with top law firms because it was assumed he was a subpar candidate.

Thus, when Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for President, it won't be because he's an incredibly articulate and talented politician (which, admittedly, he is). It will be because Geraldine Ferraro, et al., were enlightened enough to give him a chance he wouldn't otherwise deserve.

Barack is right. He doesn't like being patted on the head and told how well he is doing. Who would?

This type of condescending racism doesn't belong in America.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Barack, Raul, Mahmoud, Hugo, & Kim: Can't We All Just Get Along?

Image link

Last weekend we spoke with another Obama supporter--also a good friend--about his support for Obama. His biggest reason, as we understood it, was because Obama would speak diplomatically with some of America's biggest enemies: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Raul/Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong-il.

Our first response was disbelief at the naivete of the idea. What could be gained? How is there any advantage to that over the status quo? How would it change anything? Even Democratic party Big Sister thought his idea was ridiculous.

Intuitively, it makes no sense to lend the credibility and prestige of the office of US President (note: we're not conflating the office with its current occupant--and you shouldn't either) to tyrants and despots. Especially when those tyrants and despots actively oppose the interests of the US; when they develop WMD; when they promote terrorism; when their proxies kill American troops.

We're still solidifying our ideas about this topic and will write something later this week. In the meantime, we'd like to know your thoughts about Barack's proposed meeting with the world's worst. Write your comments and vote in the poll.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Harry Reid's Nuts 2: A Report On The Contraction, Not The Possesive

Image link
Harry Reid's Nuts 1

Things have been relatively quiet out of the Reid camp for the last month or so. In fact, the last Big Thing from the Senate was that they passed the Protect American Act when Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the House Democrats wouldn't.

For those scoring at home, mark Reid's capitulation a win for America, Republicans, and President Bush. Mark it a loss for moveon.org and paranoid Daily Kossacks.

This post should probably be titled "Harry Reid's Fiscally Irresponsible Just Like Every Other Tax & Spend Democrat," but that doesn't have the virtue of being punny. So, we'll stick with the established meme.

Roll Call reports that Harry Reid won't back a ban on earmarks. Probably because he doesn't want to run afoul of John Murtha.

Does anyone remember the Democratic campaign promises of 2006?

Voters threw out the free-spending Republicans and replaced them with free-spending Democrats.

Bravo, voters, bravo.

*Update 4:50pm MST: This might have been a better target of this feature: Reid Compares GOP Filibusters to Aggravated Assault.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

BYUSA Election Final

As we wrote yesterday, Adam Ruri and Chance Basinger won the recent BYUSA election. According to this article from the Daily Universe, voter turnout (read: logging on to Route Y and clicking a box) for this election was the highest ever.

Winning with 54% of the votes (3327), according to our sister, Adam and Chance (click here to see their website) won at least in part because they didn't harass students the way some of the other candidates did: "who are you going to vote for? huh? huh? vote for me!"

Our goal for this campaign (which we wrote in our original post about this election) was simply that the election end with a voter-decided election and not as many recent ones have--with one candidate dropping out because of rules or Honor Code violations.

Mission accomplished. And, again, congratulations to Adam and Chance, you're popular.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Comment Guidelines

Though we strongly support free speech, that belief does not require us to provide you a forum. This is not the BYU Soapbox or the UCL Union. Even those places limit speech.

We reserve the right to delete your comments for any reason whatsoever--even a made up reason. We will not explain ourselves.

That said, here’s our guess at the types of comments that will be deleted:

Personally offensive comments. Please, debate the topic on its merits.

If you have any doubt whether or not you should post your comment, ask yourself the following question: in civilized company, would this get me punched? If the answer is yes, try and rephrase the comment with less insulting/offensive language.

Do not spam the comments section. You may refer to another blog or site, but it must be topical.

If you want to see something specific discussed or posted, email us. Attempts to hijack a comment thread will be deleted.

Keep your language PG-13. Use of the "F-word" will get your comment deleted every time. If you find this limits your language, we recommend using the thesaurus at dictionary.com.

Refrain from making derogatory comments about other commenters personal motivations. Again, debate the topic on its merits.

This is by no means intended to be a complete list of reasons for which you may be deleted. Furthermore, you may see our standard unfairly or unevenly applied.

We love free speech and will not delete your comments because they disagree with our point of view. This is not Soviet East Germany and we are not the Stazi. We only ask that you treat other commenters civilly and with respect. Our goal is to provide a forum in which everyone feels comfortable airing their opinions without fear of personal attack. Attack the idea, not the person.

Commenter Identification

Fake names are fine, even encouraged. Offensive names are not, and will get your posts deleted. The important point is that you consistently post under the same name. Do not impersonate another blog commenter/reader.

We will do everything we can to regulate civil discussion. If you happen across a comment you think violates our comment guidelines, please, email us. We do not want thoughtful commenters turned away because of a few domineering bullies. If you want to sling mud and use foul language, head on over to the Daily Kos.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Health Care, BYUSA, & Cambridge

Image link
(hat tip: Ryan Decker, Pendulum Politics)


If you haven't already checked it out, there's a good debate about the economics of health care taking place in the comments section of this post.

We have a number of things to say about health care, some of which we've already said (here and here). Beyond maximizing efficiency, something Spikers and Decker and Branden know more about than we do, one must also consider individual liberty. Growth of statist programs like universal health care limit personal liberty. As you might have guessed from the title of this blog, liberty is an important principle to us.

So, let the debate about the relative economic merits of universal health care continue, but remember liberty.

One other thing from the comments section of that blog post: Backhanded compliments like Mike_D's highlight one of the strengths of this blog--its intelligent, educated, and well-informed readership. Cheers to y'all.

***

Speaking of educated and intelligent, a friend of ours from our Cambridge PKP days, BYU alum, and current Cambridge grad student, Dan Kim, has started blogging from the Oxbridge perspective. We just have one question for Dan: do we really rant?

Welcome to the blog network, Dan.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

BYUSA Election Part II

After last week's post about BYUSA, we've re-thought a few things. Sure, it's a popularity contest. There's no denying that the promises made by the candidates are ridiculous. And there is really no excuse for simple spelling errors and poor grammar. But maybe we were a little too hard on BYUSA and the candidates.

As we walked through the Wilkinson Center earlier this week, we narrowly avoided being accosted by some of the BYUSA candidates. Our brother, who walks the gauntlet every day, said that feigning an animated conversation with no one on his cell phone is the only thing that saves him. Rather than being annoyed, we were sympathetic.

BYUSA isn't a representative student organization. Unlike other universities, it is very distinctly, a "student service" organization. And in that sense, they are successful. If there's any representation going on, it's only to appear at devotionals and other student events. It's not as though they are making or even advising on University policy. Things have changed since Jody's grandfather served as BYU student body president.

And we suppose that much of this was born of necessity, or at least, expediency. The university is focused on service--enter to learn, go forth to serve--and would like to avoid the confrontational relationship that exists between students and student government organizations at other universities. None of this is to argue the point one way or the other.

Anti-establishmentarians and contrarians will obviously be and are up-in-arms about this relationship. But we guess we don't care all that much. When we had problems with the university, we've voiced those concerns on this blog and in letters to the editor of the Daily Universe. Even if the BYUSA President could do something to affect University policy, we doubt they would.

However, there is one role for leadership and student representation that the BYUSA President could fill--with the Provo parking kerfuffle. We first wrote about it here. A BYUSA President could represent student interests in negotiation with the Provo City Council. Part of the problem is that there is not a coherent student message. Lots of students have opinions, but there is no organization of thought or policy. The next BYUSA President could bring leadership and legitimacy to any future discussions with the Provo City Council.

***

Since we're following this election so you don't have to, we figured we'd post a few of the things we found about the election on the interweb. Enjoy.

Summer Price, current BYUSA Prez argues in favor of, well, voting in the BYUSA election.
Caitlin "hates" the BYUSA election.
Rie is disappointed he/she didn't get a free t-shirt for voting.
Justin Hileman wants to know what you think about the election.
Cory thinks BYUSA should do something to affect American domestic and foreign policy.
Commodore can't stand the apathy surrounding any election.
Alan doesn't care to help someone add to their grad school resume.
Aric Johnstone thinks BYUSA has an "important and misunderstood responsibility" at BYU.

And finally, the very latest on the election:

BYUSA Elections Draw one Step Closer (because they're down to two sets of candidates)

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

HIllary Clinton, "Back From The Brink" OR "Step Away From The Ledge"

The political fairy granted us our two wishes last night: Huckabee dropped out and Hillary stayed in. Huzzah!

This guarantees a bitter fight between Barack and Hillary at least until the Pennsylvania primary on 22 April AND ensures that McCain will be able to fundraise without having to simultaneously worry about Obama's non-stop tv attack ads (not that there's anything wrong with attack ads, we love 'em).

We've been thinking a lot about the ideological similarities and superficial differences between the Democratic candidates. One friend of ours says it's because the Democratic party is unified. Okay, fair enough. But, if unified, they have also moved waaaaay left of where they were when they were successful in the '90's. Back then, free trade was Democratic orthodoxy.

Kind of makes us nostalgic.

Last week, Daniel Henninger explained this perfectly in his WSJ column, Wonder Land:

Hillary's politics is the world of Eleanor Roosevelt, when it was all being born anew. The Washington of LBJ's Great Society in the mid-1960s was alive with policy debates -- among Democrats. By now, the Democratic Party's ideas are largely generic. Everyone noticed that the Democratic presidential candidates were largely singing from the same script. Health care, public schools, green energy, the eternal shafting of the middle class, the unions, protecting Social Security and Medicare. This common script means that the Democratic primaries are largely an audition. The candidates are reading for a role. The lines are known.

With this general lack of difference (salute), Hillary and Barack have had to seize on things that strike us as really, really small differences. Hillary's success last night seems to have been sparked by two things: Barack's lack of experience and his inconsistency on trade.

You know, as opposed to her vast experience and "consistency" on Nafta. Still, her quote yesterday about experience--interestingly, both hers and John McCain's--was fantastic:

I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the Whitehouse. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the Whitehouse. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.

Oooh, burn.

***

Be sure to check out the latest edition of BYU Political Review. This issue focuses on human trafficking and our friend, Zach Davis, has a particularly interesting article. Take a look, also, at "Obama: The Candy Man Can!" by Ryan Decker, econ major. Decker's blog is also worth a look.

*UPDATE 2:58pm MST: More from Decker (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) and this is really, really good stuff:

The most obvious disappointment Obama will bring will be failure to deliver national unity. Obama portrays himself as a post-partisan unifier. However, he is the most liberal senator in Congress. His record (what little record he has) is very liberal, and his policy promises (what few he has) are equally liberal. This is my main point. America is divided on Iraq, foreign policy, abortion, taxing and spending, healthcare, trade, and just about everything else. If Obama begins making these liberal policies, he will not unite America. America is divided on these issues because they are difficult—there are many different interests and value systems involved. We are divided because the issues are difficult, not because we lack a charismatic president. Obama will bring charisma to the White House, but he will not bring unity to America.

(bold in original, italics by Matt L.)


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Post #300: "Duty Calls"

Image Link (hat tip: Morgan Habedank, lost boy)


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

It's The E! TV, Stupid: A Couple Of Thoughts On Hillary & Barack

If Hillary plays true to form, we expect that she will fight on even if she loses Ohio and Texas. And this, we think, will reveal her true political motivation: power.

Contesting votes in Florida and Michigan and reportedly, Texas, could do irreparable damage to the Democratic party (cue schadenfreude). As they are pretty much ideological twins, her only motivation for fighting on would be ambition. To do so would make it more likely that John McCain beats the eventual Democratic nominee.

Here's to hoping Hillary keeps on keeping on(!)--till the Democratic convention.

***

We watched Hillary on last week's Saturday Night Live. At one point with both Hillary and Amy Poehler on screen together, Poehler started imitating Hillary's "signature" laugh and Hillary turned and said, "do I really laugh like that?"

(Click here to see the video: the moment to which we refer occurs at the 9:20 mark)

For a robotic candidate, whose tearful moments seem manufactured, this was by far the most human we have ever seen her.

***

It occurred to us last night that Barack Obama's appeal to Democratic voters makes more sense than we previously thought.

Yeah, we know, for our part, this is a pretty big admission.

To wit, for a party obsessed with it's Hollywood celebrity endorsements, of course they would vote for a rock star.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Independent Joe Lieberman: Still Awesome

It's been awhile since we wrote about Joe Lieberman--too long, in fact.

Last night as we were scanning the news channels, we happened across Sean Hannity's interview with OL&L favorite, Senator Joe Lieberman (I), Connecticut.

***

Hannity: The big question is, how are Democrats reacting to you supporting Senator McCain?

Lieberman: Well, not unexpectedly, generally they're not happy. one of the most noticeable, ridiculous things that has happened in response to my endorsement of John McCain is that the headquarters of the connecticut Democratic party in Hartford, they've taken my picture off the wall. That sounds a little bit like the Soviet Union, when a member of the Politburo didn't do well. Generally speaking, I think the people in Connecticut, who re-elected me, God bless 'em, know that I'm doing what I think is right for the country and that's more important than party loyalty. I feel good about it.

Hannity: It sounds a little like Alan Colmes. He took my picture down off his wall as well. You're in good company. Let me ask you: you were also a super-delegate and I understand that status has been stripped from you as well. Don't the Democrats realize that if they lose your support, that they potentially lose power?

Lieberman: Well, that's their call. You know, I wouldn't go to the Democratic National Convention this year as a super-delegate which I was entitled to do because obviously I'm not going to support the nominee of the Democratic convention. My appeal to Democrats has been to essentially come home, come back to the proud tradition of the Democratic party--Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson--you can be progressive on domestic policy, but you better be strong and tough and principled on foreign policy. Until we do that, as Democrats, I don't know that the American people are going to trust a Democrat to run this country, to be the president.

Hannity: We've got this big primary, "Super Tuesday 2," taking place: those that think that Hillary is out of this, do you think that she has any chance to catch up here?

Lieberman: The momentum is clearly with Senator Obama and against Senator Clinton. At this moment he's touched by magic dust. I'd never count Hillary Clinton out. She's able. She's a tough fighter. But I'd say the momentum is going against here right now.

Hannity: I don't know if you've had this experience, I've never had anybody faint at a Sean Hannity speech. We have these instances we've been showing our audience on a fairly regular basis. What do you make of Barack Obama? What do you make of Obama-mania--the fact that people are reacting to him this way? It seems that people know very little about him. When I ask people if they know anything specific about him, they don't. What do you make of his popular support?

Lieberman: There's no question that he evokes a feeling of hopefulness and change. All of us feel good about the fact that in this country an African-American, for the first time, is a credible candidate for President. But after you go beyond the broad expressions of hopefulness and change, the programs and policies he's recommending are not programs of change. And if he's talking about change, it's in the wrong direction: to pull our troops out of Iraq, just when they're succeeding against the al-Qaeda enemy; to try to be a protectionist again. In fact, I think John McCain is going to emerge in this campaign as the real reformer. This is a guy who says what he believes, is restless for change. Look, some people don't like John McCain because he says what he believes. There's not a single group within the Democratic party that Barack Obama has taken on. I think as time goes on, the American public are going to ask themselves, "is this very gifted young man really ready to be the President we need at this time in our history?"

Hannity: I'm very concerned about his association with from the weather underground, William Ayers, a guy that admitted to bombing the Pentagon, police headquarters in New York,. His spokesman said that they have a friendly relationship, that he's gotten friendly contributions from. In light of this being your overriding issue and mine for this campaign, do you think that's going to be trouble for him as we move forward?

Lieberman: It may be. He's got to deal with those kinds of associations. Anybody in public life knows that anything about your life--public and maybe private--can become public in an instant. It's true that none of these radicals are running for President, Barack Obama is. But he's got to make clear to the voters why he has these associations and make clear that he doesn't share their point of view, because that's not the point of view that the overwhelming majority of Americans have.

Hannity: Senator, just to make it fair, the next time you give a speech, I'm going to make sure that there are people in the crowd who will faint.

Lieberman: God bless you.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Drudge, Patriotism, & Prince Harry

We suppose our biggest mistake was calling for consistency from a friend with thin skin. In the subpoint of our last post, we linked to a good post by Friend of Lybberty, Ben Treasure, about Drudge's outing of Prince Harry.

We didn't (and don't) really know about the circumstances surrounding the kerfuffle, so we deferred, and based on what we knew, agreed with Ben's take. It may surprise some of you to know that we don't have the time or knowledge to weigh in on every injustice in the world. Would that we could, can't so we won't. This is why we generally link to blog posts like Ben's with which we are sympathetic. Our only caveat in Ben's case was to ask for consistency: when the New York Times reveals intel about US troops and anti-terror actions (something they do frequently), we hope Ben will similarly condemn their actions as cowardly.

That said, we disagree with some of the sentiment reflected in the comments here, on Ben's blog, and in his blog's facebook mirror (subscription required).

Sidebar: we find it ironic that it is a liberal calling into question people's patriotism when liberals have always been the ones who complained about conservatives questioning their patriotism based on their war views. We guess they really do like having the shoe on the other foot. And further, we point out (and longtime readers will know this is true) we have never questioned someone's patriotism based on their Iraq War views. Examine our archives closely if you don't believe us: no scorched earth blogging here.

Back to our original point of contention. We agree with those who say that the disconnect between the all-volunteer military and the American public and government is a problem. The public and government don't know what it is like to be shot at while in the service of this country. Neither do we. We're grateful for and to those who serve. Many of them are our friends. We read daily about their struggles and successes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. They are on our minds constantly.

We disagree with those who say that only those who can and do serve in the military can be said to support the war. This is incredibly flawed logic. It's the old "chickenhawk" trope. Taking this line of argument to its logical conclusion, neither the young, old, physically unable, female, etc., can support the war.

Some even extend this flawed logic to say that only those who pay more in taxes than they reap in government benefits can be in favor of winning the War on Terror or can be said to support it. Again, this excludes the young, old, disabled, poor (not even just poor, but anyone below middle class). Because they aren't net payers of tax, their opinion doesn't count, their view isn't valid.

Right.

The reason this line of argument has become so popular is because the people "peddling" it are unable to argue against the war (as it stands now) on its merits. They know, we know, everyone knows we have to stay and finish the job or condemn Iraqis to a fate worse than '80's-'90's Afghanistan. In fact, premature withdrawal would be more like a combination of Southeast Asia post Vietnam (over a million dead, tens of thousands imprisoned and "re-educated"), the aforementioned terrorist haven in Afghanistan (you know, where Obama wants to send the troops), plus a complete destabilization of the Middle East, nuclear Iran, and skyrocketing oil prices (more than they are now).

We can take the ad hominem calls of cowardice and un-patriotism because, for one, we're not thin skinned and, because we know better. More importantly, we understand the anti-war left's penchant for demonization and bombast is a product of their frustration with the corner into which they have painted themselves.

With Harry Reid, they looked forward to the electoral advantage to be gained from an American loss in Iraq and (unwittingly or otherwise) allied themselves ideologically with America's enemies.

This is why their ideological mover and shaker (moveon.org) called General Petraeus, General "Betray Us" (where was your condemnation then, Ben?). This is why one of their like, totally awesome candidates, Hillary Clinton, essentially called him a liar when he testified before the Senate, saying his report required a "willing suspension of disbelief."

And furthermore, this is why the largely liberal press has ignored the positive gains of the surge for the last six+ months. (incidentally, National Review and the Weekly Standard have never called our military leaders, liars; and they're still reporting the news from Iraq)

Bloggers, columnists, pundits, reporters and more--whether they fight the war or not--have an important role to play in helping to inform and form American public opinion with regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, terror, torture, etc., etc. Could they do a better job? Of course. This is why it's important for good bloggers like Ben to condemn irresponsible journalism--especially that which does damage to us or our troops.

Those who have "been there, done that" clearly have a greater degree of authority when they hold forth on a given topic. Just as the educated and informed generally add more to a discussion and debate in their area of expertise.

But that does not mean that everyone else should just shut up.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.