Reaping what we've sown

In comparing textbooks used in religious schools and humanist schools, the books used by humanist schools promote liberal propaganda endlessly.  One of the most notable examples was glorifying the single American legislator who objected to sending the troops to battle days after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the merciless Tojo's forces representing Japan.  Others have been creating new liberal heroes such as Milk and Obergefell, and even Barbara Lee (the Congressman who refused to send us to battle after we learned Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, especially when he funded families of homicide bombers with cash for performing the terrorist actions;  Fox News' Neil Cavuto said those who paid families of homicide bombers who killed as many Jews as possible were just as much terrorists as the bombers.  As we've seen with the initial starts of protests against the American flag as a symbol of slavery, it references what Jason Whitlock calls "San Francisco Values" advanced by these textbooks of propaganda, and denouncing American historical events such as the American Revolution, War of 1812, and the Civil War.

In a recent commentary marking the 20th anniversary of Rich Mullins' death (see "The Cruelest Irony" on this blog for a reference to "My Redeemer" winning the GMA Dove Award for Song of the Year, since he was thrown from his Jeep without seat belt when he and song co-write Mitch McVicker were thrown from a Jeep on their way to a concert; the presenter was a triple MENCS champion), a columnist noted how the latest top-40 hits from the entertainment giants quickly replaced all songs of the past.  In the same manner as that in many churches, we are seeing that with those who disregard American history.  They remove all references to US history of the past and replace it with their "new narrative" of new left-wing heroes as we've mentioned in order to teach new generations only their new narrative.  As the Young America's Foundation noted, "Many on the Left have tried to turn (Patriot Day) into a 'day of national service' or a celebration of tolerance, instead of remembering that radical jihad attacked this nation because of our western values. "  Both of these go hand-in-hand with the shameful erasing of the past (see Deconfederatisation) and advancing the new heroes.

As such, look at the attacks on Francis Scott Key and Fort McHenry even in Baltimore, and the entire change in the "new narrative" they want us to advance.  Has a generation taught the Left's new narrative given us this fiasco?



 WORKS CITED:

 Ian Kissell, "How Rich Mullins Changed the Way We Worship," Relevant Magazine, 19 September 2017.

What the Hill is going on?

ESPN's efforts to convince the public that the network has no liberal bias probably took another hit today, after this Twitter exchange in which SportsCenter host Jemele Hill (above, right) called the President a "white supremacist." Now, I don't know about your situation, but where I work, there's something called a "code of conduct" when it comes to social media, which includes bringing my employer into disrepute. For someone like Hill, whose public identity as an on-air talent for ESPN is considerable, I would suspect that the code of conduct would be a lot more stringent than it is for someone like me working at an ordinary place of employment.

Or is it? As the story indicates, ESPN disassociated itself with Hill's comments, but not with Hill herself. I don't know that anyone seriously believes that if the tables were turned, if Hill were a conservative white anchor who'd said something similarly disparaging about Barack Obama, that she'd still be an employee at the network. At the very least she'd be on suspension (or "administrative leave," as it's called most places) while the network attempted to measure the fallout.

The likely scenario here is a forced apology which may or may not be sincere, in which Hill regrets the embarrassment that she caused her employer, and allows as to how, in these highly emotional times, she let hers get the better of her, something which won't happen again., To which I would reply, echoing the words of one of our local radio talk show hosts, B as in B., S as in S. When ESPN can fire an announcer for using the word "guerrilla" to describe the tactics of one of the Williams sisters (because, you know, it's too close to the word "gorilla," which we all know is racially charged), then for something like this, the network should have no choice. Ask Curt Schilling if ESPN was as understanding when it came to his political commentary.

Hill's days at ESPN should be over, and it's almost embarrassing to have to point this out. If that happens, then I'll gladly apologize to ESPN for doubting them - until then, ESPN's claims that it does not have a liberal bias will rank right up there with the Tooth Fairy and the Man in the Moon for fairy tales that have the power to amuse little children.

Musings in May

Poitical Panderings.  If it was not clear that Big Entertainment is aligned with the far left, Disney's repeated excuses in canning Tim Allen's Last Man Standing over his conservative character being the lead dog over liberals while protecting The View is a perfect example.  Most viewers do not remember ABC News developed The View in 1996 as a way to take advantage of the 1990's television realignment, and to this day, the show's strongest viewership is in Atlanta, Detroit, and Milwaukee, three markets that ABC took advantage of in that CBS's perennial winner The Price Is Right was not available in parts of those markets (and more) due to weak affiliates.  In a post-Citizens United era, the Left has decided all opposition speech must be shot down in any way, whether it is by court mandates or by control of the media.  Welcome to 1984, everyone.

The Crew Chief.  Fox News is on a decline since the scandals that took down its core: first Roger Ailes and later Bill Shine, then Bill O'Reilly.  Much of the attacks have come from leftist activists such as Mr. Brock, Mr. Soros, and other such leaders who have pushed their way through.  The ratings among the 25-54 crowd, including the Millennials that have tilted solid left from teachings, is proving that point now when a pair of sexual deviants are first (CNN) and second (MSNBC), while nuclear family men at Fox are now in trouble.  Does it say much about the entertainment mentality working to take down Fox?  Have the Murdoch Boys decided they want to remake the channel away from what made it an ace?  Note how many channels remade for management have become disasters. The list includes Spike (was associated with Tennessee), Freeform (was associated with Mr. Robertson), Esquire (was a techie channel), FXX (was a football channel), and others.

So many deaths of men that mattered.

Roger Ailes.  Roger Ailes, 77, whose work in redeeming Richard Nixon later gave way to helping conservative political causes, then pushing Rush Limbaugh to a 1990's late-night television gig before he started Fox News. The fact the Murdoch Boys want to demolish what Mr. Ailes built is sadly allowing us to see how intelligent Mr. Ailes was in the television medium. Despite the controversy over what he knew would work in a visual medium, if it was not for Mr. Ailes, an entire challenger to the one-sided media would never have happened. As the history books noted about the Clinton Administration, the media created "crises" to put their man in power, and Mr. Ailes challenged them.

Nicky Hayden.  Nicholas Patrick Hayden, 35, was the last American to win an international motorcycle racing championship (MotoGP in 2006). His Southeastern humility was shown and ability to win at the highest levels put him on a level of few others during the era where dirt-track sliding techniques mattered more than electronics (traction control included) that has given us the modern Spanish resurgence now that motorcycle road racing now airs exclusively in the United States on Al Jazeera (please see "A Kick in the Ball" from It's About TV! for an explanation). A pity that riding his bicycle during a training run that passed through the Misano World Circuit Marco Simoncelli vicinity, and a motorist was not aware, led to his death.  Share the road, folks!

Sir Roger Moore.  Roger George Moore, 89, was a television and film star on both sides of the Atlantic (Maverick, The Last Time I Saw Paris, Ivanhoe, The Saint, and of course, from 1973 until 1985, the EON James Bond franchise).  After George Lazenby made a mistake (the Australian admits it) to not renewing his Bond gig after On Her Majesty's Secret Service (and letting Sean Connery return for one more film), Moore took the Bond character to a semi-comedic at times Bond for the 1970's into the 1980's.  The era of Bond in the 1970's was a different era than that of the original 1960's, and he has been regarded as one of the better Bonds of the five.

All three of those men will be missed.

Excessive control by the fringe left

Fringe organisations pushing extremists views have become rampant, and in the outgoing Administration have become the ones in charge.

We have seen it with the fringe sexual organisations, first with a “thought crimes” law (PL 111-84), then converting the military to social engineering for sexual perversion (PL 111-321), then an executive order written to target Exxon Mobil shareholders after 15 consecutive wins over New York City's retirement system demanding the company install SOGI policies (sexual orientation and gender identity;  I voted against the said policies when it came to a vote each year), and the signature of this Administration, erasing marriage laws because they they believe those with a Biblical worldview must be erased by having the erotic liberty agenda forced down through packed courts after they lose at the ballot box and the legislature;  Obergefell was a federal Reynolds case where the large liberal urban centres gained absolute control of legislation via court order (in Reynolds, states were given to the largest cities, which creates crises in those states controlled by a few cities as Chicago, MSP, New York City, LA/SF, et al, are examples), and the entire nation is not allowed to have a say on issues based on false pretenses that these crybabies out of touch with the supermajority are given superior rights to others.  They have also legalised certain varieties of child abuse (child not having a father and a mother, but two fathers or two mothers), and have gained effective control of the nation by force using the courts.

We have seen it with the race baiters and the BLM lobby, also known as the “NWA Foxtrot the Police” lobby for the song that is their effective mantra (an extremely racist and obscene song), intentionally weakening the police force with riots based on their own feelings that they should not be responsible for .  They believe in a “West Coast Offense” feel for police.  They can force the police to be defenceless while they have rights to take down our bravest, as we see in their attitudes blocking roads when they do not have it their way.  The consequences of such anti-police attitudes have resulted in more police deaths and shootings, and an increasing hatred of police.  Why this attitude?

From race and sex baiting, now we have seen it with Feld Entertainment's announcement that they will shut down the Ringling circuses they have owned for nearly 50 years.  The Feld organisation claims the fringe animal rights groups helped cause the decline in ticket sales.  That forces me to ask the same question as I have noted earlier here – why have radical fringe groups gained control of the country.  They seized our Constitutions, they seized our police, they seized our industry, and now they are shutting down family entertainment and animal shows.  These animal rights activists will target the rodeo and PBR next, then polo, equestrian, and horse racing.  Do they understand the history of animals in competition?  Do they even want people to appreciate animals and their abilities?  They will call anything with animals abuse if it does not fit within their own worldview of not allowing them to sit in the sun and be friends with humans.  They want a primitive view of animals and probably would have wanted to ban domestication of cats.  These fringe activists do not want children to appreciate animals where they can be seen locally and not travel 10,000km to see them attacking other animals.  Meanwhile, Feld will market sensually dressed leather-clad women holding 30-second boards at motorcycle events.

Does this demise of the circus show a worldview where every fringe group – sexual perversion, fringe anti-Trump people, animal rights, Hollywood, and the rest – have rights to overrule the majority?

Oh, by the way.  The media needs to get a grip with President Obama's final days commuting Bradley Manning's sentence.  He was a traitor to the country, and he is being rewarded primarily because of his "Golddust" gimmick.  If he wants to claim to be Chelsea, wear the blue Yokohama Tyres kit and be a supporter of a Premier League club. Bradley, you are a man and you have the X and Y chromosomes.  Quit with Dustin Rhodes' gimmick.  Even Dustin's brother Cody hates a similar gimmick given to him and left WWE for that very reason.

Will they ever get the message?

On Governess Brewer's Veto: Wrong for Arizona, and The Dangers of Deviancy Actions

The recent veto of toughening the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Arizona by Governess Brewer (see picture at left) was very disturbing.  The Family Research Council called it one of the dirtiest wars in liberalism, where the press used its powers to distort the bill.  Freedom of the press, built on religious liberty, has been destroyed because speech control, part of this Administration's accomplishments in the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act, took place in the advancement of propaganda against it.

One disturbing phrase I have read in recent debates between the Biblical and Humanist Worldview was made by a law professor working now with the Obama Administration, Chai Feldblum, who has publicly said “sexual freedom trumps religious freedom.” Now let's take the worldview of the Left to its full extent regarding this bill, and ask yourself what you would do in light of what has happened in other states that led to Arizona legislators proposing this bill.

Suppose a printer, a devout Southern Baptist, has a printing company, and the company actively is printing Bibles for various churches in the community (most likely a Public Domain version, not one of the numerous copyrighted versions that have appeared in the late 20th century to the present), church order of worship, newsletters for various churches in their community, and flyers for various speakers that come to churches.  Then, there comes a sexual deviancy activism group attempting to bring their “flock of lions” rally (if you remember the nickname of a minor league hockey team and the nasty rivalries in a Southern state in the late 1990's to early 2000's, you will understand the reference – the rivalry was downright nasty at times – the older of the two clubs still exists today and is Boston's AA affiliate today with the team president being a player during that era, and I'll never forget a road game I traveled that went into overtime in the playoffs and the reaction hotter than any football rivalry at the time) to the city, and they ask the printer to print flyers for the event.  The printer inspects the flyer and notes both child pornography other explicit material being featured in the file he was sent, and refuses to print such.

Now that's the issue in question.  None of the major professional sports federations that offer authentic and replica jerseys will permit customised jerseys to feature X-rated custom text.  And a business has a right to refuse printing indecent material if they refuse.  The sign outside the shop specifically says “We reserve the right to refuse printing explicit material or if it is against the law.”

But the deviancy activists sue, demanding the printer print the material.  Their claim, as would be made in the courts, is “Sexual freedom trumps religious freedom, and there are no religious exemptions, as Administration officials have stated.”

Seriously, folks, that is the issue.  Does a Bible publisher have a right to deny a sexual deviancy organisation the right to print child pornography on their printing presses?  Even though child pornography is against the law (and duly so), we know that activists will press to declare even that ban to be illegal and will use courts to advance their cause.  The deviants will almost certainly use the “sexual freedom” chant to force their agenda, and with numerous court victories, will work on their wins against Christians to advance their cause.  And in many states where marriage was redefined by courts or city-state dominated state legislators, the first line attacked is always churches and their related organisations, as we have seen with Catholic Charities and with other groups with adoption and foster care agencies.  At a recent Citizens for Life event, a former Massachusetts resident informed me that after court-ordered redefinition, they pushed sexual deviant couples to the top of the adoption and foster care line, and Bible believers were sent to the end of the line, which effectively allows for deviants to run rampant and perform child abuse on the children they exploit by adopting or caring that they cannot be prosecuted because of “sexual freedom,” as they demand.

It is religious freedom, and this type of issue, that the ill-fated Arizona bill that should have been signed, except for the massive CNN and MSNBC propaganda push that had the tell-tale signs of the CCCP, was designed to protect the Bible publisher from having to print X-rated material they refuse to print.  People need to wake up and understand how sexual deviancy activists are stopping to advance their cause, and prosecuting anyone whose worldview opposes theirs is the signature of the New Tolerance:  Accept Our Worldview Or Be Prosecuted, endorsed by Dear Leader via the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act and his minions of supporters, especially those of no faith that put him over the top.  And thanks to humanist teachings in schools, that group is sadly growing.  What gives for this New Taipei City native whose formative years was spent in parochial schools teaching a Biblical worldview?  Am I headed to jail for refusing to cave to humanism?

Those of us who believe in God's Word should not be treated, as Dear Leader and his minions demand, as teams that play on Al Jazeera instead of being on NBC in the English football pyramid.   ◙

The Well-Behaved Woman

By Mitchell Hadley

One of the more popular, and dumber, bumper stickers you see nowadays says, "Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History."

Now, I suppose it's hard to argue with this; after all, look at the evidence. Lucrezia Borgia was a poisoner, or so legend tells us. She wasn’t very well behaved, and she made history. Eva Perón was a string-pulling despot – she wasn’t very well behaved either, and she had a musical written about her.*

*Come to think of it, so did Lucrezia – the eponymous opera by Donizetti, which was much better than Evita. But that's a subject for some future Opera Wednesday.

Queen Mary was so famous they named a drink after her – the Bloody Mary – which suggests she wasn't exactly a Miss Manners. Lizzie Borden, Imelda Marcos, Jiang Qing – all of them famous enough to enter popular culture, none of them what you would call paragons of model behavior. And we haven't even mentioned Madonna or Britney.

Are we sure these are the role models we want for young women?

I submit that the greatest trait of women (and men, for that matter) who make history has nothing to do with how well-behaved they are, but that they're countercultural. Mother Theresa, Florence Nightengale, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Saint Therese; these were women willing to fight for something they believed in, women who had faith in themselves but also had faith in something greater than themselves, women who reached high but did so with humility. Counterculturalism means breaking the mold, rather than breaking rules. These women, and many like them, didn't rebel against culture: they transcended it. And in doing so, they changed the world around them.

In my opinion, it's no mistake that the people who sport these purple bumper stickers have chosen to focus on behavior rather than the transcendence that comes from counterculturalism. To start with, let's be honest: if you're talking about people not being "well-behaved," then that must mean they've "misbehaved." And if you look at the women (and men, for that matter) who have changed the world for the better, you see something profoundly different from “misbehavior.”

Misbehavior isn’t an adult trait. It’s a sign of immaturity, something adolescents do. A temper tantrum is misbehavior. Talking back to your parents is misbehavior, and you'd usually get sent to your room without dinner for it. Chewing gum in school used to be misbehavior, although I suppose that's pretty tame today. The time-worn response to misbehavior used to be to tell someone to "grow up." However, since Americans today seem to have entered into a perpetual adolescence, I guess we can’t be surprised that misbehavior no longer carries the stigma it used to.

But the idea that "well-behaved women seldom make history" is a perfect catchphrase for this generation. It's short and catchy, and it's totally devoid of any logic whatsoever. It's the kind of phrase that people can feel good about. They can't explain it to you, but it makes them feel good, and in the end isn't that what's important? If there's one thing Oprah's taught us, it's that feelings are everything. And if you have this bumper sticker on the back of your car, or perhaps on the door to your office, I have no doubt that you feel good about it.

These people want to avoid the true rammifications that result from being countercultural. It doesn't simply mean being a contrarian, and it's not as easy as SpongeBob celebrating "Opposite Day." It often calls for deep and profound self-examination, and results in a commitment that not only transcends culture, but becomes a life-altering experience. It may mean you give up your friends, your harmless vices, everything that you enjoy and that you think is important to you. It calls for sacrifice and self-discipline, which we know are hardly the traits of one who misbehaves. It's not easy, and many times it doesn't "feel good," and worst of all others might not be able to see you doing it, so that you won't get credit for it. That's why you won't hear these people talk about it - not when it's easier to simply, well, misbehave and call attention to yourself. Sacrifice is so, you know, grown up.

Perhaps some day these people will get it, but I doubt it - they're too busy feeling good about themselves. In the meantime, the well-behaved women - the women who seek to transcend the culture - well, they probably don't have time to think much about it. They're too busy changing the world.

What's In a Name?

By Drew

Mitchell’s article last week about The Mikado brought to mind a number of connecting thoughts, or at least thoughts I'll try to connect.

According to my Dover edition of The Mikado, there are two lines that were altered in the 1940s “to avoid giving offense.” In one, during the “little list” song, Koko refers to “the nigger serenader and others of his race” (in reality, Gilbert was referring to blackface minstrels). In the “more humane Mikado” song in Act 2, there's a reference to one who is "blacked like a nigger" (same point of reference). Traditionally, these are now rendered as “the banjo serenader” and “painted with vigor,” respectively. (Interestingly enough, there is also a line early in Act 1, referring to Japan, stating “For where’er our country’s banner may be planted,/All other local banners are defied!” One wonders if this were considered offensive in the 1940s as well.)

It makes sense to change these lines, not only because they’re anachronistic, but because they have nothing to do with the general plot. They’re lines which simply give color to the songs (no pun intended) but don't affect the story.

Now, the reason I find this interesting is that last week there was this story about a parents’ group in St. Louis Park, Minnesota trying to get Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn removed from the high school’s required reading list because of repeated references to the “n-word,” which, because we’re all grown-ups at this blog, we can categorically state was “nigger.” Ken Gilbert, one of the parents pushing to have the book removed from the reading list (he was careful to point out that he’s not trying to ban the book), says use of the word should not be tolerated “in informal conversation or popular entertainment.” According to Gilbert, "There's no word that brings you to a lower level. ... It makes children feel less than equal in the classroom." Predictably, the whole thing has found itself if court, where so far the school district has been successful in keeping the book on the list.

A group of teachers, parents, administrators and community members examined Gilbert’s request and ruled in favor of the book, determining "the literary value of the book outweighed the negative aspect of the language employed."

This may be true as far as it goes, but it also misses the larger point. Twain’s greatness stems not merely from his literary prowess, but his ability to paint a historical picture of America and her people as they were at a given time. And in that period of time, “nigger” was a word that a whole lot of people used, many of them without prejudice. In our more enlightened times we can understand how offensive that is today, but that isn’t how people saw it at the time, and if we’re not going to engage in revisionist history (one of the liberals’ favorite techniques), we have to understand that we can’t use today’s standards to gauge yesterday’s behavior. It just doesn’t work.

Twain’s book is not just entertainment – it’s a historical document, a portrait of our heritage. Take away that aspect and you remove much of Twain’s significance – or any great artist, for that matter. Many’s the bad joke about the abstract painter who just “paints what he sees,” but nonetheless that’s an essential part of art – to hold a mirror to society and reflect it back.

Let’s consider more contemporary examples, starting with Norman Mailer’s World War II novel The Naked and the Dead. In that book, Mailer (at the behest of his publishers) used the euphemism "fug" in lieu of the f-bomb (hey, we may be adults here, but even we have our limits). The substitution has been a source of much humor over the years – it drew far more attention to the word, making it stand out, than would have been the case if Mailer’d simply used the f-word as it was.

Contrast that to a movie like The Departed (or almost any movie rated PG-13 or below), where you’re going to hear the f-bomb all over the place. The defense of the use of this word usually consists of something like, “this is the way people talk in real life,” which I can verify to be substantially accurate. Some of it is gratuitous, some the result of lazy writing. But there’s no doubt that, however distasteful, using the word in context serves a purpose. To have a gangster, in the heat of the moment, exclaim something like “darn” or “shoot” just wouldn’t be believable. The audience wouldn’t accept it, nor should they. And that’s just a part of life – you can hear language worse than that at any school playground.

Perhaps some time in the future we’ll have reached a point where words like that aren’t used in polite company anymore, but does that mean we’d be going back and changing movies like The Departed? Not if we’re smart, because in doing so we’ll be destroying that looking glass that shows they way we were at a given point in time. Whitewashing everything that’s gone before us, trying to protect people from seeing the truth as it was, is not only fruitless, it’s dangerous. It doesn’t give us real life at all, just some sugarcoated fairytale impression of life. It prepares our young people poorly for facing a world that isn’t nearly as genteel as we’d like to pretend it is, and it makes a joke out of the idea that we can prevent the errors of the past by learning from them.

To wrap this up, let’s take a look at a discussion last week over at Amy Welborn’s blog about Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. In this case the controversy is not over racism, but anti-Semitism (which, I suppose, is a form of racism, but of a different kind). Is Shylock, as portrayed by Shakespeare, an example or an indictment of anti-Semitism? As one of Amy's commentators pointed out,

[Isaac] Asimov argues that as offensive as we might find this, it simply isn't "antisemitic" in any modern sense of the term, because for Shakespeare and his audience, Shylock was simply a *literary* stereotype, not a jab at anyone whom they expected ever to meet in real life. In other words, the "Jew" was a stock villain for literary and dramatic purposes, the same way the "Soviet agent" or "Commie spy" was a stock villain in so many Cold War-era movies and novels.

Another commentator, friend of this blog Tim Ferguson, mentions “If it makes us uncomfortable, then that is a testament both to the realism of the play and also to the societal and individual growth we have undergone as we continue to digest the Gospel generation to generation.”

We should remember that the word “kike,” which is (rightly so) deeply offensive to Jews, was in fact coined by American Jews in the 19th century to refer to those Jews who had immigrated more recently than themselves and were less educated. Wikipedia says it was used with affection; other accounts I've seen suggest that it was a somewhat derisive term, meant to draw a distinction between the Americanized Jews and the less-assimilated newcomers, whom they would try to help out.

The point here is that words mean things, particularly in specific contexts. To try and separate that word from its original context is not only wrong, it's intellectually lazy. As I pointed out in my Leni Riefenstahl piece last year, one must have the ability to separate the morals of the artist from the morals of the art. In the same sense, one must take works like Huckleberry Finn and view them not with contemporary values but as living witnesses to a time past. That's what makes them timeless - Huckleberry Finn tells it like it was; maybe we wish it hadn't been that way, but there it is. The inability to understand this - make that the refusal to understand it - shows that we are still a young, and immature, country.

Lay Off the Political Commentary in the Sports Page, Will Ya?

By Mitchell

You know, I've about had it with sportswriters playing political pundit. First William K. Wolfram, and now William F. Reed at SI.com. (What is it with writers using "William" and a middle initial? On the other hand, where would that leave William F. Buckley, Jr.?) At any rate, in his story about Tubby Smith, the former Kentucky basketball coach (and first ever black basketball coach at Kentucky) who stepped down yesterday to take the job at Minnesota, Reed offered us the standard liberal analysis regarding Smith's long-standing troubles with many of Kentucky's basketball fans:

Of course, some racism also was involved. In the rural areas of the state, where poverty and ignorance have been chronic problems, Smith was never accepted because of his African-American heritage. This is a state, remember, where right-wing religious zealots dominate the debate over flag-burning, prayer in the classroom and same-sex marriage. Thankfully, however, such narrow-mindedness and intolerance no longer represents the majority.

Now, wait just a minute. There's probably little doubt that race played a role in the way people felt about Smith. But to take these three issues - legitimate political issues all - and lump them under the category of "narrow-mindedness" and "intolerance" - is, well, narrow-minded and intolerant. It might even be considered bigoted. Beyond that, it's not only a cartoonish understanding of conservative politics but a broadly charactured portrayal of religious conservatives in general.

Reed’s comments were gratuitous, adding nothing in the way of either news or insight to the story. They were a cheap shot to advance a political agenda in a story that had nothing to do with politics. Certainly Smith’s race played a role, and a historic one at that. But there is nothing in the content of Reed’s story to suggest that opposition to flag-burning, school prayer, and homosexual marriage had anything whatsoever to do with how fans felt about Smith.

Besides which, where does Reed get off, in what is ostensibly a sports story, taking the attitude that we should be thankful that issues such as flag-burning, school prayer and homosexual marriage don't represent the majority opinon? Has he been talking to the folks at the Harris and Zogby polls? Does he really have any idea how the majority of Americans feel about these issues, and why?

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this kind of extra-curricular political commentary at Sports Illustrated. Back in the early 90s, one of their staff writers launched a potshot at the conservative student newspaper The Dartmouth Review for being racist, without bothering to check that its editor at the time, Kevin Pritchett, was black.

Where it gets interesting is that, when I checked back at si.com to provide the link to this post, I found that the story had been edited. The paragraph, in its entirety, now reads:

Of course, some racism also was involved. In the rural areas of the state, where poverty and ignorance have been chronic problems, Smith was never accepted because of his African-American heritage.

Interesting, huh? Here's the way the story now appears. To get the wording of the paragraph as it originally appeared, I offer a big H/T to Chris at Fifty One Outs, who read the same thing this morning that I did, but was smart enough to post on it right away.

And due credit to either Reed or (more likely) his editors at SI.com for coming to their senses and realizing that his ugly and biased comments had no place in a story, even an opinion piece, about Smith's history at Kentucky.

We've come to expect this kind of banal commentary - mischaracterizations, intellectual laziness, snide comments cloaked as "news" - from the front pages of the MSM. It's one reason why so many people are drive to the escapism of the sports page. Now, increasingly, you're not safe from it there, either. It goes to show, I suppose, that there's no sense in making distinctions when it comes to the MSM. Birds of a feather stick together.

The Bully Pulpit

By Mitchell

Our friend Cathy of Alex at The Recovering Dissident Catholic picks up on our recent discussion on lefty snarkiness and runs with it. Be sure to check out The Bully Pulpit and her spot-on typing of what passes for "debate" nowadays. She concludes by reprising one of her comments from a post in this series:

"I fear we have a culture of really stupid people hiding their ignorance behind belligerance. Certainly, when I was a kid, the class bully was usually the dumbest person in the room."

All I can say is: if the shoe fits...

Lefty Snarkiness, continued

By Mitchell

I don't want to put too fine a point on this because, frankly, I have better things to do. But I wanted to add a couple of thoughts to what Drew and I have said earlier on this subject. The first has to do with Drew's point about childishness.

Drew sent me a link to this review by Susie Currie from The Weekly Standard of Christopher Noxon's book, Rejuvenile: Kickball, Cartoons, Cupcakes, and the Reinvention of the American Grownup. The "rejuvenile" - someone who cultivates the tastes and mindsets of a much younger person - is the coming thing: according to Noxon, "[t]he most watched cable station among 18-to-34 year olds isn't CNN--it's CN, as in Cartoon Network." Skateboards, stickball, video games; they're all trademarks of behavior by those of whom we once would have said, "they're old enough to know better."

Remember when you used to tell someone to "act their age"? They used to get mad at you, it being considered an insult to accuse a person of childishness. Now, I suppose they'd laugh about it - they might even be proud. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised when we read juvenile tripe from writers like William K. Wolfrum. (I've read some of Wolfrum's other columns by the way, like the one wondering who was more dominating - Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, or a woman who's apparently a known dominatrix. I'd guess his column on Limbaugh is pretty typical of what he's capable of.) As I've said before, I'm sure these guys think they're being very clever.

And now a thought of my own. We had dinner with some friends over the weekend and I asked the husband, who's a pretty knowledgeable guy about these sorts of things, why it was that so many people, especially on the left, seemed to be obsessed with writing such vituperative stuff, even when it was self-defeating to their own cause. He thought there were a couple of reasons; first, that they're mostly preaching to the lefty choir, who feeds on this kind of thing like sharks at a blood bank. They love this red meat talk, and they just pass it around among themseves, to keep their spirits up I suppose. They're almost cannibals of civility.

For the rest of the explanation he cited Arthur Brooks' new book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Brooks' thesis is that social conservatives really do give more than liberals. According to Brooks, in this review by Frank Brieaddy of Religion News Service,

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

My friend's conclusion: it's just possible that liberals write and talk the way they do simply because they're nastier people, and this kind of thing comes more naturally to them. Without the moral foundation that grounds social conservatives, liberals have fewer restraints, less of a sense of civility or charity towards others.

I should add here, in the interests of full disclosure, that I know some very liberal people who are the nicest, most generous people you could imagine; I also know some conservatives, religious people even, who can be very uncharitable. (Read the combox at any major Catholic blog site for evidence of that.) But as a broad generalization I think there's a lot to what my friend is saying.

And so perhaps we know more about why things are they way they are, even if we're not sure what to do about it. It may be wrong to stereotype, but we can only know someone by what they show us in public. As the old saying goes, "if the shoe fits,"...

The lefty bloggers like Wolfrum have a chance to prove us wrong, if they can. If they're not too busy being oh so hip and cool to care, that is.

The Art of Cruelty

By Drew

I’ve had some time to think about about Mitchell’s piece last week on the Limbaugh flap and how nastiness seems to be an accepted way of business in the blogosphere. It made Mitchell made, and it made me mad, too. Mitchell talks about its counterproductively in terms of how it alienates the reader, but I’d like to look at it from another angle, another type of alienation.

I got to thinking about it from the second reading in yesterday's mass, Paul's familiar First Letter to the Corinthians. Depending on how many weddings you go to, it might be a little too familiar, but worth pondering anyway:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I was prompted toward this train of thought by Terry Teachout's recent excerpted quote from Marta Zahaykevich's “Critical Perspectives on Adult Women’s Development”:

"Love and work are viewed and experienced as totally separate activities motivated by separate needs. Yet, when we think about it, our common sense tells us that our most inspired, creative acts are deeply tied to our need to love and that, when we lack love, we find it difficult to work creatively; that work without love is dead, mechanical, sheer competence without vitality, that love without work grows boring, monotonous, lacks depth and passion."

So here we see the intimate connection between work and love. And it shouldn't be a surprise; we often admire those who have a passion for their work, and we seem too often today to connect the words passion and love. But even though I'm taking Zahaykevich's words slightly out of context, the point is still clear. "[w]ork without love is dead, mechanical, sheer competence without vitality."

Much of the snarkiness on the internet, and life in general, comes masked in the guise of humor. Sometimes it's actually presented as "humor"; most of the time it's usually the speaker or writer who fancies himself humorous, or at the very least as clever as clever can be. And one of my favorite forms of humor is satire (always a favorite on this blog). Satire is a difficult form of humor, though; more difficult than most people think. And so what one person cleverly thinks of as biting satire is most often heavy-handed witlessness; cruelty rather than subtlety. But to consider humor is to continue with the train of thought I've started.

Why is it that so many comedians are applauded for their jokes, rather than greeted with laughter? So often nowadays ideology has replaced humor as the benchmark of a comedian’s success. The audience applauds to indicate agreement with the comic’s expression, but they don’t laugh.

Now, it’s been my experience that most people can’t keep themselves from laughing at something that is truly funny. Try as they might, it’s going to slip out somehow. Conversely, the ordinary person has a really hard time forcing a laugh at something that isn’t funny. They might master the polite chuckle, the hearty guffaw that seems just a little too forced, but it’s rare to perfect a truly convincing fake laugh. Laughter is one of our most genuine, and least forced, emotions.

So it’s not that the audience tries to suppress their laughter in favor of a more respectful expression of their approval. They applaud the comic because they agree with his ideological point of view, but they don’t laugh because it isn’t funny. And therefore it becomes ever easier for the would-be comedian to sacrifice genuine humor in the search for the easier goal of approval. When you're speaking to a group of like-minded thinkers, approval is a whole lot easier to get.

"When I was a child I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man I gave up childish ways."

As Joseph Epstein remarks in the most recent issue of The Weekly Standard,

I also grew up at a time when the goal was to be adult as soon as possible, while today - the late 1960s is the watershed moment here - the goal has become to stay as young as possible for as long as possible. The consequences of this for the culture are enormous. That people live longer only means that they fee they can remain kids longer: uncommitted to marriages, serious work, life itself. Adolescence has been stretched out, at least, into one's 30s, perhaps one's early 40s.

Back before the word “childish” got such a bad rap, it had a more practical application. Until early Christianity softened the attitude, children tended to be seen as miniature adults, measured in terms of the potential they suggested, the utility they could provide to the family and the society at large. To accuse one of being “childish,” therefore, was a practical judgment, suggesting a waste of that potential, a failure to live up to the hopes that one might have carried for that person.

And it is such a waste of potential – an immaturity in that gift – to squander it with excesses, with cruelty and derision, with that wanton craving to inflict pain and scorn. Snarkiness is the snack food that eventually starves creativity. Only when invested with love – love for God, love for fellow man, love even for the very act of writing – can the art that is implied in the talent of the writer truly come to a mature fruition.

This doesn’t mean that there is no room for satire, for sarcasm, for the hard truths that sometimes can only be expressed through the absurd. This blog often specializes in that kind of thing. But it does mean that we have to examine our motivations, the development of our thought, the way in which we use our gifts. Do we use them to educate, to enlighten, to help others? Or do we use them to score the cheap shot, the rapier that draws a thin bead of blood across the cheek of our dueling opponent? As clichéd as Paul's letter may be, there's another saying that's just as clichéd, and just as true: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Writers like William K. Wolfrum and Mike Freeman (and yes, even Limbaugh at times) contribute mightily to the problem, but not so much as I see it to the solution.

And so I think this brings us back around to the beginning.

Can art truly ever reach its potential without love? Can a work that is filled with hate, scorn, the impulse and desire to dehumanize – can it ever rise above the status of mere infatuation? A dalliance, a trifling, junk food that temporarily sates the senses, but leaves one hungrier than ever in the long run.

The freedoms that we profess to cherish (unless they’re exercised by someone who disagrees with us) – freedom of speech, of thought, of action – are not entitlements but rights given to us by a God Who created us with free will, rights which beget responsibilities.

The ability to write, or paint, or sculpt or make movies or any of the other talents and skills which fall generally under the category of “art” is a gift. And therefore we have the responsibility, to God and to everyone, to exercise those rights in a reasonable manner. We have responsibilities to ourselves as well, however: the responsibility to be a good steward of those gifts which we have been given.

To the extent that we ignore those responsiblities, squander those gifts, we sink deeper into an alienation from God, an alienation from common decency, an alienation from our very humanity. That presents us with the problem and the solution. Which one do you choose?

The Same Old Snark From the Left

By Mitchell

Well, Rush Limbaugh’s at it again. I didn’t hear the show; I’ll admit right upfront that I haven’t listened to Rush (or any political talk radio, for that matter) for nearly ten years. But here’s what he said.

There is a cultural problem in the NFL that has resulted in a total lack of class on the part of professional players… "I love the game of football, but after every sack players are acting like they've won the Super Bowl; they're prancing around with these idiotic dances… "Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

Now, of course Rush is a polarizing figure. That’s part of his gig, why people listen to him, even the ones who don’t agree with him. Make that “especially” the ones who don’t agree with him, since so many of them have to resort to attacking Limbaugh in order to get any loving. Take William K. Wolfrum over at WorldGolf.com, who had this to say about the whole thing:

Just something to remember from Limbaugh: If you get hooked on pills, can't stay married to save your life, and like to pump your penis full of Viagra prior to trips to the Dominican Republic, you're cool. Wear a doo rag and taunt opponents during a game of professional football, well, you're representing a gang and are part of the decay of modern society.

Yeah, right. First of all, if you can figure out what any of this has to do with the central issue, you’re a better man than I, Gunga Din.

It’s not only Wilfrum, of course. Tony Kornhiser and Mike Wilbon of ESPN’s PTI pulled out the race card yesterday in their 15-second discussion. Rush was obviously in error. So obvious to them, in fact, that it reminded me of Pauline Kael’s famous (and possibly apocryphal) remark expressing surprise at Nixon’s 1972 win because “nobody I know voted for him.” It’s easier to dismiss the hard question that Limbaugh implicitly raises with a matter-of-fact smirk than to ask if there’s really anything to it. But what can you expect from a show that replaces insight with soundbites? Anyway, they’re both part of the MSM, so what do you expect?

And there’s Mike Freeman at CBS Sportsline, who says, “Please, Rush Limbaugh, do not let any discussion of sports ever leave your lips again. Each time you do, you sound like a moron.” Tell you what, Mike – if you make the same deal about politics, I’m all for it. Freeman says that nobody equated (the white) Mark Gastineau’s 1980s “sack dance” with the end of civilization. Of course, a lot of people did think it was the beginning of crassness on the gridiron, but perhaps Freeman’s just a young pup, too wet behind the ears to remember back that far.

(Note to all you guys: it isn’t really that hard to talk about sports for a living. Quit acting as if you’ve been gifted with some special insight the rest of us don’t have.)

I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. (First of all, I don’t get what any of this has to do with golf.) But, as I get older, there are apparently a lot of things I don’t get anymore. And yet, it used to be that the reason for having a discussion was to offer an opinion with the goal of converting others to your point of view, or at least for them to respect that opinion.

Nowadays has devolved into a verbal boxing match, with each side trying to score points by drawing blood, not even trying to persuade others, mindless of the damage their discourse is doing. Political punditry is one of those “don’t-try-this-at-home” things, where it’s extremely difficult to sound informed but really easy to sound stupid.

But I continue to be intrigued by this whole issue. Why is it that people seem so eager to jump to such juvenile snarkiness at the first opportunity? They are cruel with an almost unrestrained glee, pausing only to sit back in self-satisfaction and contemplate the blood their words have drawn.

I suppose it’s part of human nature to show off, but I really don’t know why they feel it’s so necessary to do it outside their area of expertise. Maybe writing about things like golf isn’t “important” enough for them – they have to prove something to their readers, and perhaps even themselves, that they can be “profound” about the “vital issues of the day.”

But what they don’t get – and they really don’t seem to get it, the gentle lummoxes – is that most of the time people don’t want to hear them spout off about politics. Whether you’re a movie star, an athlete, what have you – even an Internet golf columnist – people get pissed off when you start pontificating like that, flaunting your ideology for one and all to see. It’s not just that they have to spout off on the issues, it’s that they seem to go out of their way to use the most inflammatory, personally crude language available, guaranteed to irritate as many people as they possibly can. As hard as it may be for them to believe, the public doesn’t really want to hear Tom Cruise talk about post-partum depression, or Barbra Streisand talk about politics, or Rosie O’Donnell talk about anything.

And so these “pundits” usually wind up doing themselves and their causes far more harm than good. As I said earlier, I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in years. It’s not so much that I disagree with his POV, it’s just that he’s been saying the same thing for year after year. Nothing changes with Rush; a show from 1992 might be interchangeable from yesterday’s program, save changing a few names here and there. And most of the time he’s preaching to the choir, one I left a long time ago.

But you read something from guys like Wolfrum and suddenly your sense of justice gets riled up and you find yourself actively taking Rush’s side. This isn’t anything new; liberals seem to have a unique gift for taking the infamous and turning them into underdogs by not knowing when to stop piling on. Remember Ollie North, anyone? (To be honest, the Republicans certainly accomplished the same thing with Bill Clinton by releasing that videotape of his testimony. Like a good horror movie, the unseen is usually far more ominous and frightening than the seen. But we don’t live in a subtle age anymore.)

Not only do you not win your readers over to your particular ideological POV, you wind up antagonizing them so that even when you do write in your “specialty,” you don’t have any credibility. Again, why would you want to do that? I don’t much like it when someone like Chris Matthews displays his ignorance, but at least that’s what he’s paid to do. I guess someone like Wolfrum throws it in for free.

So what gives? Well, the only thing I can think of is that William K. Wolfrum needed readers, and he figured the best way to get them was to attack someone bigger and stronger than he was, and get people to notice him that way. No surprise, I guess – Al Franken does the same thing. (Birds of a feather, eh?) But it works! Last night I Googled “Rush Limbaugh football gangs,” and Wolfrum popped up as number three. Well, good for him; he’d probably have to take even more potent drugs than Limbaugh in order to get that high some other way.

You know, the sad thing about this is that we wind up exchanging so many insults with each other that we don’t even start to ask the question as to whether or not there’s any merit in what Rush says.

Well, let’s see. Here’s a story that popped up this week. The lede: "Bengals cornerback Johnathan Joseph was arrested early Monday and charged with possession of marijuana, the ninth Cincinnati player arrested in the last nine months."

Nine players from one team in nine months: at that rate, Cincy could have the home-field advantage in the next remake of The Longest Yard.

I don’t know what kind of world Wolfrum and his buddies live in, but for a lot of ordinary people that kind of behavior sounds a lot like criminal activity. It’s the kind of behavior they don’t want to encourage in their kids, the kind that makes them afraid to go out after dark. And don’t think that Cincinnati is the only team with this kind of problem; we had a little issue like that here in Minnesota last year. Something about a bunch of football players and a pleasure boat, I think.

It’s too bad we’re so busy slinging mud that we can’t really talk honestly about the problem. We see the evidence of it every day, wherever we look – the wanton crime in urban areas , the “projects” that almost every big city has, the establishment of an almost permanent underclass when it’s so unnecessary.

As someone who works for a nonprofit in an urban area, I see what’s happening out there. I see a lot of young people that want to get out of it, escape it before it’s too late. So many of the odds are against them, but the biggest obstacle to making it isn’t the economy, the government, the “racist” white society that in fact wants desperately to see blacks make it in America. So often it’s their own peer group, a group that fears losing its influence. Where would “spokesmen” like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton be if they weren’t continually able to stress the “victimization” of blacks in America?. No, it’s not perfect out there. I don’t think anyone looks at these problems through rose-colored glasses. But there’s a sickness out there, and we’d damn well better do something about it before it’s too late.

You know what? Rush Limbaugh is hardly the first person to suggest a comparison between athletes and criminals. How many times have you heard someone wonder how many jocks would be in prison if they weren’t on the playing field? Or refer to the NBA and NFL as “work-release programs”? A lot of people are sick of that kind of behavior. Are all these people guilty of race-baiting? Or do they just believe what their eyes tell them?

A lot of people – not just Limbaugh – think the gangs are the key to understanding the whole thing. Gangs like the ones Limbaugh talks about. Get kids away from the gangs and their subculture, they say, and you might have a chance. Traditionally, sports was one of those alternatives – but do we really want kids copying the behavior of thugs like Terrell Owens, Latrell Sprewell and Ron Artest? Do we really want some youth football team deciding that the nickname isn’t the only thing they want to copy from the Bengals?

I have a friend who’s convinced that the ghetto culture – or rather, “culture” – is destroying America. And I don’t mean to suggest by that comment that he’s a racist. In fact, most of the athletes he most admires personally – Walter Payton, Julius Erving, Arthur Ashe, Tiger Woods, many of the 1960s Green Bay Packers – are black. These, and many others, were and are great role models. So what happened? Well, you can make a pretty compelling case that the whole ghetto culture – drugs, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, rampant hedonism, lawlessness, willful ignorance, this whole “disrespect” thing – well, it hasn’t done a whole lot for the fabric of our country, has it? This culture has acted like a virus, infecting everything and everyone with which it comes in contact. Maybe we talk in clichés, but most clichés get that way because they’re true.

No, it’s not really a racial issue. But when whites bring it up, they’re accused of race baiting. When blacks like Bill Cosby take the ghetto culture to task, they’re called “oreos.” Naturally; it’s much easier to engage in namecalling than to provide comments of substance.

But I suppose none of this is as harmful to society as using Viagra, is it?

Now, I’ve said a lot here about civil discourse in America, or the lack of it. Could the same be said of Limbaugh? Presumably, and yet he seldom says anything that’s even remotely as cruel personal as the comments made by so many of his detractors. Furthermore (in a point that, I suspect drives his critics crazy), he’s often able to make his points with style, humor, and passion – trademarks his opponents frequently lack.

This whole question is one I’ve been pondering a great deal lately, especially as it relates to the blogosphere, but in regard to our culture in general. Could it be that the counterculture we’ve talked about has had something to do with the coarsening of America? And what other factors have been in play in this steady deterioration of the civil society? (Granted, coarse expression is nothing new in our political dialogue, but as the ordinary American gains access to wider audiences and easier communication, he seems also to be less willing to contribute restraint, practicality, a necessary set of internal checks-and-balances.)

These are all big issues and fascinating questions, ones that are not at all confined to academics and intellectuals. They can and should be discussed by everyone, and they can produce a lively, civilized debate.

But perhaps it’s asking too much of people like Wolfrum, people who find it much easier to engage in another round of old-fashioned name-calling, people who mistake snarkiness for style, cattiness for profundity, crudity and coarseness for populism. People who are only too eager to throw out words like “hate” with the barest conception of how deep and powerful a word that really is. They’re little men with little dreams, whose only chance at making the big time is to attack others and cut them down to their size. Maybe William K. Wolfrum is a good writer – maybe he even knows something about golf - but I certainly couldn’t tell it from this.

What the Left Means in "New Directions"

By Bobby

Liberals are losing the momentum despite their "new directions" strategy. With the big conservative momentum and slingshot, is this slingshot of the Saddam conviction, good economic numbers, and huge push enough to put us over the top and keep Dennis Hastert & Company in control of the tax policies, and us in control of the judiciary?

Think of the Left's "New Direction" which will kill investors and the market:

• New Direction: More judges who will overthrow the US Constitution and replace it with unratified treaties from the United Nations and adopt European law to overturn our Constitution.
• New Direction: Same-sex "marriage" legalised.
• New Direction: Secular humanism as the Official State Religion. There will be some alternative religions allowed, but anything based on Christianity will be banned.
• New Direction: Banning of conservative talk radio from airwaves by speech codes. ("Fairness Doctrine") The codes would also ban religious speech on airwaves.
• New Direction: Homosexual Special Protections to protect child molesters, banning of laws to protect children.
• New Direction: Higher taxes and the elimination of the Investor Class by punishing investors with higher taxes, including the elimination of the Extended Term Capital Gains Tax Rate.
• New Direction: Books revised to promote a Communist angle.
• New Direction: Congress is meaningless because of the judicial activists in court who will write our laws.
• New Direction: Terrorists to win control of Iraq, and Iran takes over.
• New Direction: We lose all wars and we retreat everywhere. Military will be weakened to a "peace" making Peace Corps or AmeriCorps.
• New Direction: Taiwan to be pigeonholed.
• New Direction: Ban on research, except for those which will kill people. The research ban will include elimination of tax breaks for major firms to perform huge research on new sources of energy, oil, and a way to turn ANWR into a "monument" so that terrorists and dictators will control oil fields, and we can't be reliant on our own energy.
• New Direction: The opportunity of new inventions will be gone thanks to liberals' attack on the American Corporation.
• New Direction: Foreign takeovers in business, research, and our laws.