Quotes of the Day

"I said to Antoine Winfield on the sideline, 'I think he just broke his leg,' Erin Henderson said. 'That's my blood out there. My brother.' It took me a second, but I got it together and my brotherly instinct kicked in.

"When I got out there, I just kept saying, 'I'm right here with you, I'm here with you.' Don't know why I did this, but I'm telling him to breathe ... 'In your nose, out your mouth, in your nose, out your mouth.' He was in quite a bit of pain, so I said, 'Grab my hand. Squeeze my hand if you've got pain.' He squeezed so hard I thought he was gonna break my hand."

****

"But it is ethos—the persuasive appeal of one’s character—that is responsible for both his inflated reputation as an orator and the disillusionment and disappointment many of his supporters have after hearing him speak. Unlike logos and pathos, ethos is a property of communication that belongs not to the speaker, but to the audience. The listener, rather than the rhetor, determines whether the speaker’s ethos is high or low. Before the election, when he was the embodiment of hope and change, Obama’s supporters imbued him with a high ethotic value. Now that he is President, and making unpopular decisions based on the realities of governing, many of these same fans are finding him less persuasive.

"In some ways, conservatives should be pleased by Obama’s lack of rhetorical ability. Those of us who oppose much of his domestic agenda are relieved that he can’t simply go on a speaking tour and convince large segments of the skeptical populace to support his policies. But in some ways, his failure to persuade may be detrimental to the aspirations and objectives of the nation. As the elected political leader of the United States—and the unofficial spokesman for the West—the President holds the most powerful bully pulpit in the world."

****

"Generations of Sunday school teachers have turned Hanukkah into the story of unified Jewish bravery against an anti-Semitic Hellenic empire. Settlers in the West Bank tell it as a story of how the Jewish hard-core defeated the corrupt, assimilated Jewish masses. Rabbis later added the lamp miracle to give God at least a bit part in the proceedings.

"But there is no erasing the complex ironies of the events, the way progress, heroism and brutality weave through all sides. The Maccabees heroically preserved the Jewish faith. But there is no honest way to tell their story as a self-congratulatory morality tale. The lesson of Hanukkah is that even the struggles that saved a people are dappled with tragic irony, complexity and unattractive choices."

****

"Factory-farmed food is an elitist food; it's a food that's making hundreds of millions of dollars for CEOs of corporations at the expense of normal people. Yes, it seems cheap when we go to the supermarket, but that's because we're being lied to about the true costs. We pay for them in our health care costs, the destruction of the environment and our values. What we call cheap food is the most expensive food in American history."

"Now...Barack Obama"

Neil Postman, writing in 1985, on the culture of TV news in America and the affect it has had on reason, context and presidential politics, in Amusing Ourselves to Death, p. 110:

My point is that we are by now so thoroughly adjusted to the "Now...this" world of news--a world of fragments, where events stand alone, stripped of any connection to the past, or to the future, or to other events--that all assumptions of coherence have vanished. And so, perforce, has contradiction. In the context of no context, so to speak, it simply disappears. And in its absence, what possible interest could there be in a list of what the President [of the United States] says now and what he said then? It is merely a rehash of old news, and there is nothing interesting or entertaining in that. The only thing to be amused about is the bafflement of reporters at the public's indifference. There is an irony in the fact that the very group that has taken the world apart should, on trying to piece it back together again, be surprised that no one notices much, or cares.

Is this not the perfect soil in which a President like Barack Obama could gain root? Beyond the difference one might have with him on policy is the glaring way in which he can say one thing and the opposite thing in the same sentence. There is firmly held liberal ideology, but then there is crass disinformation. And, sadly, this has little to do with Obama himself (though he perhaps is the grandest exploiter yet) but with we who vote for him. And lest you think that I am harping only on Obama, as Postman makes clear, it all began with Reagan (quoting from a NYT article in 1983):

President Reagan's aides used to become visibly alarmed at suggestions that he had given mangled and perhaps misleading accounts of his policies or of current events in general. That doesn't seem to happen much anymore.

Indeed, the President continues to make debatable assertions of fact but news accounts do not deal with them as extensively as they once did. In the view of White House officials, the declining news coverage mirrors a decline in interest by the general public.

Today news organizations do have "fact checkers" who pour over speeches and press releases. Some twelve AP reporters were assigned to fact check the new Sarah Palin book. But for all the fact checking going on no one seems to care. There is no outrage, no protesting. Presidents, senators and, God help us, preachers, relay contradiction after contradiction and we the people do not bat an eye lash. Unless, of course, they lie about sex.

Eddie Van Halen: Panama

I am watching President Obama speak at Westpoint. Thus, Panama. Turn it up:

Obama's Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner

Top 10 Reasons it is Awesome Obama Won the Peace Prize

Doug Wilson:

10. Because this means that the Vatican must have verified that reports of the president floating around the top of the Washington monument were reports of a genuine miracle, and were not a deceitful trick by the devil.

9. Because the prize was funded and named after the inventor of dynamite, and it has ever been the destiny of this prize to be wreathed in ironies, the same way a smoking tank is after it runs over one of Nobel's inventions. So this just continues a long and honored legacy.

8. Because there is no apparent reason for the prize, this must mean that the committee is inviting all of us to assign our own meanings to it -- and so I would submit that Obama got it for continuing the Bush policies of rendition, roving wiretaps, indefinite detention of accused terrorists, urging continuation of the Patriot Act, and so forth.

7. Because the prize did not go to David Letterman, it shows that the Nobel committee does in fact have its limits. But on the down side, it also shows they are willing to go right up to those limits.

6. Because it means that intelligent liberals won't know which way to look for at least a couple months.

5. Because this shows that our secular civilization's great awards now have about the same value as the Montessori preschool participant ribbons in a block-stacking contest.

4. Because this is yet further testimony to the deep affinity that necessarily exists between awards and their recipients, kind of like rich little old ladies and their poodles. In this case that affinity is the shared characteristic of being as hollow and as shiny as one of those over-sized vases at Pottery Barn.

3. Because this is a boon to American conservatism almost as great as if Obama won People's Sexiest Man Alive award. This morning, as the news spread across red state America, that noise you heard was howls of delight, happy applause, bloggers typing, cheerful sharing, and gladsome whoops.

2. Because American narcissism is never fulfilled until Euro-weenies join in the applause, which means we might be almost done now.

1. Because soft tyranny can always be effectively fought with the horse laugh. And soft tyrannies never understand this. And on they go, as solemn as a judge. You know, provoking us.

Obama Awesomely Gets Peace Prize Quotes of the Day

"Mr. Obama sees the U.S. differently, as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger, and so he calls for a humbler America, at best a first among equals, working primarily through the U.N. The world's challenges, he emphasized yesterday, 'can't be met by any one leader or any one nation.' What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called 'American exceptionalism.' This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary."

***

"Yet even within that context, the giving of the peace prize to President Obama is absurd. He doesn't have a body of work; he's a young man; he's been president less than nine months. He hopes to accomplish much, and so far--nine months!--has accomplished little. Is this a life of heroic self-denial, of the sacrifice of self for something greater, of huge and historic consequence, of sustained vision? No it's not. Is this a life marked by a vivid and calculable contribution to the peace of the world? No, it's not.

"This is an award for not being George W. Bush. This is an award for not making the world nervous. This is an award for sharing the basic political sentiments and assumptions of the members of the committee. It is for what Barack Obama may do, not what he has done. He hasn't done anything.

"In one mindless stroke, the committee has rendered the Nobel Peace Prize a laughingstock, perhaps for as long as a generation. And that is an act of true destruction, because it was actually good that the world had a prestigious award for peacemaking."

Good News: Only 8% of NJ Residents Think Obama is the Anti-Christ

13% aren't sure, which clearly means they haven't read Revelation 20 yet. Had they, the choice would have been obvious.

Obama is Giving Us Congressional Dominance

David Brooks:

The great paradox of the age is that Barack Obama, the most riveting of recent presidents, is leading us into an era of Congressional dominance. And Congressional governance is a haven for special interest pleading and venal logrolling.

When the executive branch is dominant you often get coherent proposals that may not pass. When Congress is dominant, as now, you get politically viable mishmashes that don’t necessarily make sense.

While I doubt that this is actually 'The great paradox of the age,' at least David is starting to make some sense.

George Tiller is Dead

1. Though I am conflicted, I know that this was not the way God wanted it to go down. 

2. President Obama is outraged. Rightfully so. Now please show some outrage for the babies that were slaughtered in his care.

3.  I hope that Tiller believed Jesus died for his sins, because he needs Jesus' righteousness more than anyone.

Robert George:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

National Right to Life:

National Right to Life extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller's family over this loss of life.

Further, the National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.

Abortion Numbers Under GWB

They did not, as is argued by many, go up. Michael J. New:

Citing increases in the abortion rate under Republican presidents has quickly become a favorite talking point for pro-life supporters of Barack Obama and other Democrats. During his debate with Robert George at the National Press Club last night, Doug Kmiec stated that abortions increased under the first President Bush. Also, on Fox News Sunday after the Notre Dame commencement, Fr. Richard McBrien stated that the abortion rate increased during George W. Bush's presidency.

Unfortunately, both Kmiec and McBrien are wrong. Data from both the Center for Disease Control and the Alan Guttmacher Institute indicate that abortions fell during the first Bush presidency. And the most recent data from both sources indicates that abortions were falling during the administration of George W. Bush.

Indeed, between 2000 and 2005, data from Guttmacher indicates that the number of abortions fell by 8.1 percent and data from the CDC indicates that abortions fell by 2.9 percent.

Between 1998 and 1992, data from Guttmacher indicate that the number of abortions fell by 3.7 percent and data from the CDC indicates that the number of abortions fell by 0.9 percent.

To be fair, 

The incidence of abortion is influenced by economic and demographic trends which presidents cannot do much to influence in the short term. Furthermore, policies enacted at the state level, such as the enactment of pro-life laws, likely have a greater impact on abortion trends.

Still, this nuance is lost on pro-life Obama supporters. It came as no surprise that Doug Kmiec credited the economy for the 1990s abortion decline, but said nary a word about the substantial increase in the number of states enacting pro-life laws during this time.

The Empathetic Heart Surgeon

Ok, fine. One more Sotomayor quote. From Thomas Sowell:

Much is being made of the fact that Sonia Sotomayor had to struggle to rise in the world. But stop and think.

If you were going to have open-heart surgery, would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was chosen because he had to struggle to get where he is, or by the best surgeon you could find — even if he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had every advantage that money and social position could offer?

Whole thing.

Sotomayor

Rather than posting something new every second on the news and commentary on Obama's nomination of Sotomayor, I will give you everything interesting I have found thus far and leave the issue for (hopefully) a long while.

My initial reaction is that she is the perfect choice of a man who believes his power and ability, and the nature of the law, to be unconstrained. An "empathetic" jurist is, ultimately, an unempathetic one. Because this country is held together in delicate balance by its restrictive system of law, when that law is bent or broken by a single individual, the balance is shifted. While Sotomayor will work well for individuals, she will unduly work against the society.

Anyway...

Charles Krauthammer:

Well, as we heard today, she has a great American story.

And — but there is someone else here, as we just heard, who also has a great American story, and that is Frank Ricci, who is the fireman who sued because he took a promotional test, he and others, and was denied the promotion simply because of his race.

And that's a case that came to the second circuit court, and Judge Sotomayor summarily dismissed it.

Now, that is important because it tells us a lot about her judicial philosophy. And the fact that, as we heard Judge Jose Contrera, on her court, also a Clinton appointee, was upset by her dismissal of this, and not even being willing to recognize the serious constitutional issues, that tells us that she really is a believer in the racial spoils system.

She is a person who said in a speech that she would hope that a wise Latina woman would come to better conclusions as a judge than a white male.

I mean, imagine if you heard someone say the reverse. He would be run out of town as a racist and a sexist.

And it reflects the president's idea of empathy in the judicial choice, meaning a person who cares about the standing of a defendant or a plaintiff in a case, meaning if he is rich or poor, black or white, advantaged or not, which should not be something a judge takes into consideration.

A person ought to take into consideration their personal life and philanthropy, someone in Congress ought to take into considerations in judging if taxes ought to be high or low depending on your station in life, but never a judge. Station in life is not a consideration. It is what the law is.

She is a believer in that, and I think that that's a distortion of the law, and it ought to be a reason to oppose her.

George Will.

She is NOT Hispanic.

WSJ: The Empathy Nominee.

Questions she should be asked.

Focus on the Family.

So, NYT, what is important is not following the law but making sure the little guy wins?

In her rulings, Judge Sotomayor has repeatedly displayed the empathy Mr. Obama has said he is looking for in a justice. She has listened attentively to, and often ruled in favor of, people who have been discriminated against, defendants and other groups that are increasingly getting short shrift in the federal courts. She has shown little patience for the sort of procedural bars that conservative judges have been using to close the courthouse door on people whose rights have been violated.

Exit question: Is it a good thing or bad thing that her judicial opinions will not "last"?

On Sotomayor

LifeNews (a pro-life news source) says that, of all the people Obama could have picked, Sotomayor is the only one that offers some hope for pro-lifers:

The only potential Supreme Court justice who may provide hope for pro-life advocates is Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, has been the subject of considerable speculation because Obama is receiving pressure to appoint both a woman and Hispanic and she qualifies on both counts.

"Despite 17 years on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion was constitutional," AUL explains.

Sotomayor participated in a decision concerning the Mexico City Policy, which President Obama recently overturned and which prohibits sending taxpayer dollars to groups that promote and perform abortions in other nations.

Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor upheld the Mexico City Policy, but AUL says the significance of the decision "may be minimal because the issue was largely controlled by the Second Circuit’s earlier opinion in a similar challenge to the policy."

AUL notes that Judge Sotomayor also upheld the pro-life policy by rejecting claims from a pro-abortion legal group that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

"Rejecting this new argument, Justice Sotomayor wrote that because the challenge involved neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right," AUL notes. "She then acknowledged the ability of the government to adopt anti-abortion policies, noting, 'there can be no question that the classification survives rational basis review. The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.'"

But the picture is not entirely clear:

At the same time, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion overturning, in part, a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a group of pro-life protestors.

Though not concerning abortion policy directly, the case is viewed as a stand against free speech for pro-life advocates.

Whole thing.

Obama at Notre Dame

I didn't pay much attention to Obama's visit to Notre Dame (sewing my ears and eyes shut, it turns out, was the only way to accomplish this). I knew it wasn't going to move the issue up the field. Nevertheless, a few men I respect did write on it. They offer, if you will, a negative opinion and a positive one.

The first, or negative, view came by way of Al Mohler:

In virtually every way imaginable, the Notre Dame speech represents the quintessential Obama. By now, Americans should understand that this President is going to take positions and shape policies that are at odds with the sanctity of human life. He has already done this with respect to federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and, as a candidate he pledged to do far more -- even to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if passed by Congress.

At the same time, the President wants to claim common ground and respect for those who differ with him on these issues.

His is really a salient, concise response to the regular pro-choice blather. Read it to be educated in high rhetoric.

The other piece, a non-religious response, was issued by National Review's Yuval Levin. He was quite bullish on the speech, seeing some reason for optimism:

For all the controversy surrounding his invitation, President Obama’s commencement address at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday actually offered pro-lifers some causes for optimism. Although it was certainly not his intention, the president’s remarks point to the profound and growing weakness of the case for America’s radical abortion laws.

Obama himself, of course, is a cause for short-term pessimism: His policies have so far been true to his pre-presidential record, and there is every reason to expect they will continue to be. And that he can often clothe his substantive extremism in the garb of rhetorical moderation — that he can step back and describe the controversy with apparent distance even as he himself pulls hard for one side — further strengthens his cause in the fight.

But his speech should leave pro-lifers optimistic, because it illustrates the transformation of the abortion debate over the past 15 years. Put simply, defenders of the Roe regime seem incapable of making a case for themselves, and when they reach for the vocabulary of American liberal democracy in an effort to make some kind of argument, they end up closer to the case for their opponents.

Whole thing.

Worship is the Key To Everything

Doug Wilson writes today:

As the Obama saga gets weirder and weirder, Christians shouldn't forget to interpret all the news in the fundamental terms of who we want to be our god, and who wants to be the embodiment of that god. Worship is always the key to everything. And it is not the "key to everything" because we keep repeating that mindlessly like a mantra. It is the key to everything because it explains why so many people, otherwise intelligent, are doing such foolish things.

One of the central reasons why it is so important to insist on the absolute sovereignty of the triune God of Scripture (and for those just joining us, that would be the true God) is because if we dial that sovereignty back (not in reality, but in our fevered dreams) something bad always happens to us. We (also in our fevered dreams) think to step into the void that our imaginations created, the vacant spot recently relinquished by the Maker of heaven and earth. Denial of the true God is the first step of two. It is not that we want no God; it is that we want to replace Him. So the first step is to deny Him. The second step is a necessary one (meaning that it cannot be avoided once the first is taken), and it involves volunteering to pick up the slack created by the divine absence.

Whole thing.

Who is the William Wilberforce for Today?

My wife and I finally saw the movie Amazing Grace. It's really a great film. The acting is crisp and real, the plot moves quickly and effortlessly, and it does a fine job of relaying what it was actually like in the days of the unfettered slave trade. It's purpose, in that sense, is clear: To make plain that there existed for a time, even in a largely solicitous and civilized nation, something unspeakably heinous. It is quite appalling that only a few dedicated men sought to end the practice. One of those men, William Wilberforce, almost single-handedly stopped the trading of men. His was truly a life in the world, but not of it. And I can take heart in that and remain hopeful about our own slave trades.

As I watched/listened to Piper say below "500,000 little girls," I wept in disbelief. It is actually possible that a nation so civilized could actually allow, and even vote for, infanticide? Yes, of course. Sin has no boundaries in the hearts of men. But whereas ridiculous men like Donald Miller can say ridiculous things like "abortion will always be legal," men like Wilberforce will continue to stand in the strength that God supplies and say, "Someday, it will end." Who will stand to fight in Wilberforce's place? For the first time in a long time more people are calling themselves pro-life than pro-choice. That is a good step. While I am not so naive to believe that all sin will be eradicated, I do believe that God does want to see practices like abortion, that are so incredibly odd and atrocious, end. May it happen even under President Obama's nose; may it even happen at his request.

1,000,000 Little Men and Little Women

A Prayer for Our Leaders

My small group discussed 1 Peter 2:13-17 last night. He is that passage in the form of a prayer:

Lord, God, may we be subject for your sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by you to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is your will, that by doing good we should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. May we live as people who are free, not using our freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Oh Lord, may we honor everyone. May we love the brotherhood. May we fear you. And may we honor the President. Amen.

Born Alive/Torture

Peter Kirsanow:

If reporters treated President Obama the way they treated President Bush, some reporter would ask the current president whether he would allow CIA interrogators to deprive suspected terrorists of food, water, and medical care, and whether forcing a suspected terrorist to live the remainder of his life in a trash dumpster constitutes torture.

The reporter's follow-up would be a request that President Obama explain his vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Unconstrained Insanity

Obama on the type of judge he will select to succeed David Souter on the Supreme Court:

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives.

Charles Krauthammer responded:

The idea that you ought to be thinking about how the law affects the reality of someone's life is something that you do when you are passing a law or create a law. That's what you do if you are a member of Congress who represents people and their needs.

But once the law is passed, the only job a judge has is to interpret the law without consideration of a person's standing in life. Otherwise you could never have, say, a bank foreclosing on a home, because who, after all, is more affected, a bank that might lose a few dollars, or a family that's going to lose its home and future livelihood, et cetera?

The whole idea blinds a justice and the statutes that we have outside our courthouses of a blindfold over justice is that you do not look at a person's station in life, their needs in life, requirements in life. It's entirely about the law.

And for Obama to state the exact opposite openly as a way that will guide him in his appointments is quite radical.

This is the epitome of an unconstrained vision. In video two Sowell talks specifically about Obama.