Why Some People Like Ron Paul, Part I

Some people think Ron Paul is constitutionally pure. He is not. His wish to eliminate the Department of Education or the Income Tax is not grounded in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document are such things prohibited, abstractly or concretely. There is also the problem that a healthy chunk of Paul's base is white supremacists masquerading under the familiar banner of "stayyyyytes raaaaghhhhhts," but that's another story for another day.

There is however a very specific language regarding how the United States should go to war. Congress, not the President, declares war. That's Federal Law that Presidents keep breaking, and Congresses keep facilitating the breakage of that law out of sheer cowardice.

Ron Paul knows this and basically cleans all the GOP candidates' clocks on the issue, and on United States' imperialism more generally, in this recent videotaped debate. And this is a big part of why Paul, though obviously an Ideologue in the most accurate sense of the Word, is peeling off so much money from all over the political spectrum.

Harrogate is seriously, check out this video.

Especially check out Giuliani salivating at the opportunity to remind us, in case anyone anywhere forgot even for a nanosecond, that he was in New York on 9-11.


The FOX News framing makes it even more entertaining still.

Finally, click it over to You Tube and ye will see that someone entitled it, probably after some time on Pete's Couch, "Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the Truth."

:-0 and Hmmmmmmmm....

What Happened in New Hamphsire

As Harrogate has been writing frequently and at length on this blog, the Democratic part is currently in the process of screwing itself by delving into Cult of Personality aesthetics rather than confronting the actual dangerousness of the Republican Party. But somehow all those posts got erased, probably by a stoned Ron Paul supporter. Therefore Harrogate will here attempt to recap the analysis he has been developing.

But because Harrogate is somewhat proud of Hillary Clinton overcoming weeks of often overtly sexist bashing at the hands of the media, he will put off his despair at the prospect of her getting the nomination, and inevitably losing the general election to a dangerous Republican, for another post.


Want the Health Care crisis and Poverty ignored?

Want to protract the Iraq debacle ad infinitum and open the door for bouncing, baby new wars to boot?

Want to continue to hear an ignorant President on national television talking about the pressing need to "preserve marriage," "defend Christmas," and the like?

Well, do ya?


If you want these things, then it is no wonder that you are enjoying the Obama versus Clinton show. But as Harrogate said, Clinton gets a "bye" today for her kickass defense of vacation-home turf last night. So, on to Obama, and the fascistic glorification of newness and vigorous youth that his campaign has thus far channelled with resounding success.

For months now lots of fun has been had by American Democrats hyping Obama. What is being lost in all the fervor is that, were Obama to get the Democratic nomination he would possibly be the worst candidate to do so in a long time (and that's saying something!). Obama, in short, is an empty suit. His ardent supporters typically defend their support on the basis of emotionality: "You just don't understand, you have to hear him speak" and "something is happening in America" are the vapid kinds of things you will hear in that quarter.

About the only substantive things Harrogate has thus far been able to glean from Obama is that the guy is foolish enough to believe that uncivil discourse is the big problem facing America today! That if elected, Obama's friendliness and inviolable coolness would be enough to bridge the ideological divides separating Democrats from Republicans.

Kumbayah. Meanwhile, in the general election he would be destroyed by a dangeorus Republican. But hey, his supporters would get to "be part of the excitement," and that's what matters, right?

Ron Paul's Guys Versus FOX 's Guy

This is a funny exchange.

So long, and thanks for all of the losses.

Bobby Petrino, college dictator, resigns from the Atlanta Falcons.

Here is better commentary by Peter King and Don Banks.

You will be missed.

Further Reaction to Mitt's Speech

As the contestants attempt to position themselves in Iowa, there are interesting developments over the former Mass. governor by Marion City Councilman Craig Adamson. It appears that Councilman Adamson released an email that attacks Romney for his faith, even after his speech for the elimination of Religious Tests. Here is the email, here is an excerpt:

Would any of you support an avowed atheist for president? Do you think religion, especially Christianity, is being marginalized by ACLU and other organizations? If so than you would be piling on to vote in a Mormon. Mormonism is a cult. In case I didn’t type it clearly enough… Mormonism is a cult. I won’t vote for Mitt Romney for numerous other reasons, but based on my knowledge of Mormonism, I would not trust him as my president as he might be fooled into believing most anything. How could he possibly be trusted to negotiate with Islamic radicals? He might believe Muslim and Mormons are the same, just like he tries to pass off Mormons as Christians. The Mormon Church is extremely wealthy and extremely secretive. But that is information for another time. Additionally, the LDS religion is sexist, racist, and the Church president is considered both a prophet (on the same level as Jesus) and ultimately the authority for God on earth. Mitt would be going against Mormon doctrine and risks ex-communication if he didn’t take orders from his Church.

This seems to be another example of how beliefs trump arguments, or, how beliefs diminish the ability for a rhetor to gain adherence for his ideas.

My favorite line is that "I would not trust him as my president as he might be fooled into believing most anything." People deny evolution but believe that people were created from dirt: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Source for the email: Caucus Cooler

Nobody Expects A Religious Inquisition

Wait. Sometimes people do suspect that. Case in point:

According to Inside Higher Education, Richard Colling, a professor at Olivet Nazarene University, "has been barred from teaching general biology or having his book taught at the university that is his alma mater and the place where he has taught for 27 years" because of his beliefs in favor of Evolution. [Note that Olivet Nazarene University is a private university ] According to the article, religious supporters of the school were upset because of Colling's book that argues it is possible to believe in G-D and accept Evolution:

"Colling acknowledges that it is not possible to believe literally in the Bible’s creation of the world in six days but argues that this need not diminish the moral force of the Bible or belief in God."

While Colling believes that evolution and faith can coexist, the school's actions and beliefs state otherwise:

Official church policy (confirmed by a spokeswoman for the university) states as follows: “The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (’In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ....’ Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind. However, the church accepts as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries in geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the Creator.”

This point seems troubling for a few reasons, but since this is a private institution, the first amendment angle does not apply. The first amendment only concerns private schools in the state of California.

Working at a private school, I am surprised that the school would take a PR hit and weaken its biology department because of religious supports and because the religious indoctrination classes, er., I mean theology classes, need to be in all of the classes in the University.

So it goes.

Love for Attacks Ads

Since Fred "The Fish" Thompson unleashed the first attack ad of the season, I though I would post a few of my favorite from prior elections. The first three are from the 2006 races; the last is from a time well before that. Enjoy.

Number Four: "Harold Ford: Call Me"


Number Three: "Walsh rejects Stem Cells... and little girls"


Number Two: Vernon Robinson, "Twilight Zone"



Number One:"Wrong on Metaphysics."

The best Holiday special, Ever

It needs to be The Year Without a Santa....

Why you ask? Well, because it has style. And in order to have style, you need a trombone.



"Some like it hot. But I like it really hot."

Reaction to Romney

A humorous excerpt from Christopher Hitchens' review of Romney's absurd speech on Religion:

If an atheist was running against him, would Romney make nothing of the fact? His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man "religion of secularism," when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.

The Speech

A Clever beginning about GHWB, his military service, and the protection of freedom.

But then, after the intro, the problems begin.

The speech rests on the dichotomy between freedom and dogmatism. Greatness develops through liberty, especially religious liberty, while damnation rests with tyranny. No big surprise here. Neither were the references with Kennedy.

He is strong when he defends his convictions:

here are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

This seems to be a point at which he distances himself from the religious voters who would not vote for him. If evangelicals may reject him for his beliefs on theology, he may reach common ground with them over his stance on following principle and tradition.

Yet, after beginning with a strategy of merger, he then follows with a strategy of division based on the paper-tiger argument of "secularism".

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

In the beginning of his address, he invokes Kennedy; yet here, he rejects Kennedy. In his 1960 speech, Kennedy spoke of an absolute division between Church and State, which his audience would accept. Forty-six years later, Romney cannot proclaim an absolute separation because his audience would reject it. Where does this lead us?

Romney:

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

This is a very interesting passage. He begins with the Founders, who did not place G-D on the currency or in the pledge or in Nativity scenes. The Founders did not places judges in position because of their "foundation of faith upon which the constitution rests." The constitution does not rest upon the foundation of faith. It does not rest on revelation but reason and consensus.

While Romney would reject religious tests he invokes religious tests. Romney:

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty.

What about the concept that liberty is a natural right based on a common human experience. No, that for Romney is not possible. It requires religion.

This religion also requires the rejection of enlightenment, which the Founding Fathers would have accepted. Well, the Founding Fathers not invoked by Romney:

I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer.

Romney desires the balance of revelation and reason but too often he seems to reject reason. It is the same with his position of faith. He sees a problem with religion and extreme religion. Yet, if you are outside of religion, if you do not believe, then you do not have freedom and you can never desire or move toward freedom. Romney: "I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

Where does this leave Romney-

For the deeply religious, he offers those a message: Religion, in general, matters and there is good in all religions. Mitt:

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.

. Yet, this message should not resonate for the "true believer" because, for those people, it is not only that their beliefs matter but their specific beliefs matter. If you know and possess the truth, then that truth is specific.

For the religious but not committed: this speech glitters in banality. It rewrites history, it places everything within the bounds of religion, and it creates a symbolic enemy that would take religion away-- those damn secularists. This is a great message for those not steeped in deep belief and theology, do not care for the day-to-day word, and show up to service during Christmas and Easter. It is summed up by this quote: "we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." Right, Mitt. Remember, you delivered this speech because some believe that Mormons, and to another extent, Catholics, are not Christians. That is a symphony invented on discord.

For the non-believers, you do not have a place at the table. This country is not for you. For remember, according to Bishop Mitt, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

For the extremists: you are dangerous. And remember, fanatics are not limited to Islam. Meaning, if make Mitt's religion a religious test for office, you are being dogmatic. And there is no place for you.

Points of Light

Does it burn GWB and his supporters that GHWB is introducing a member of a "cult?"

And that is not a shot on Mormonism.

Romney on Religion

In less than 30 minutes, Mitt Romney will be delivering a speech on his religion at the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University.

This is an interesting speech, especially to the concepts of rhetorical echoes. In 1960, Kennedy delivered a speech to the Houston Ministerial Association to defend his ability to be independent if he were President. But can Romney make the same rhetorical choice is he is choosing to seek the support of religious voters.

It is a very interesting choice to deliver this at A&M, a very conservative school. Former President George H.W. Bush will introduce him.

When Kennedy delivered his speech in 1960, he visited the Alamo before he delivered the speech. One of the most important aspects of Kennedy's speech is that during his visit to the Alamo, he noticed that the memorial did not take account of the religion of those who died. Of course, at the time, Baptists were in favor of the separation of church and state and not for the abolishment of that separation.

But how time changes.

Begin Again

The Blog is back and running, even if I am the only one posting-- to you other members of the situation.

Religion and Politics

There is an interesting article in The New York Times about the 2008 President Election and the Evangelical Community. If nothing else, it is very interesting to read this and see how beliefs shape arguments, especially the failure of reconciliation between incompatible world-views.

War, Gore, and GLobal Warming

Last week, former Senator, VP, and failed Presidential Candidate Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Price. The question remains, how does global warming relate to peace?

From Slate:

The idea of a connection between conflict and climate change is fairly new, and one that had been mostly relegated to academic journals until earlier this year. Then, in June, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon went on record to suggest global warming as a cause for the fighting in the Darfur region of Sudan. He pointed out that warming in the tropical and southern oceans, fueled in some part by climate change, led to a decades-long drought and clashes between herders and farmers over the degrading land. When a rebellion broke out against the central government, Sudan's leaders fought back by arming and supporting the herders against the farmers—and the entire region fell into war. If global warming did cause the Sudanese drought, then it's also responsible for the 200,000 to 450,000 lives that have been lost over the last four and a half years. We may very well be watching the first major conflict caused by emissions from our factories, power plants, and cars.
Other early hot spots for warming-related conflict are likely to be in sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, or the Caribbean—places where institutions are weak, infrastructure is deficient, and the government is incompetent or malevolent. The crisis in Darfur has already stretched into Chad and the Central African Republic. Nomads from Sudan, spillovers from Sudan's desertification, are pushing deep into the Congolese rain forest. In Ghana, nomadic Fulani cattle herdsmen, forced by the expanding Sahara desert into agricultural lands, are buying high-power assault rifles to defend their animals from angry farmers.

Climate-change conflict is even spreading into the Arctic, where normally pacific Canada and Norway have joined the United States, Russia, and Denmark in a five-way tussle over mineral and shipping rights unlocked by the melting ice. Thus far largely symbolic, the conflict could take a more serious turn as the waters warm and military traffic increases. Norway and Russia already face each other down over fish in the Barents Sea. And Canada and Denmark take turns pulling up each other's flag on Hans Island, a stretch of icy rock the size of a football field. These countries may be arguing over small fries right now, but what happens when oil is at stake?

Ethos and the Academic Bill of Rights

Currently, I am researching the Academic Bill of Rights by Students for Academic Freedom
"whose goal is to end the political abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic mission as a disinterested pursuit of knowledge."

In an article about the firing of two DePaul Professors, the author suggests that DePaul should fire another professor for his political beliefs, which seems to counter the principles of the Academic Bill of Rights.Now, in this article, there is no discusison that the professor is violating his professional duties by trying to indoctrinate his students. There is no discusison that he presents only one sided views in his class. Instead, the author of this article would like DePaul to fire him for his research and his beliefs because, "his entire [The English Professor's] corpus of "scholarly" work consists of exercises in "revolutionary" politics.

One paragraph sticks out:

Well, we would like to take Abraham up on the challenge and urge DePaul to take a close look at this fella's academic record, which can be seen here. Abraham holds a PhD in English from Purdue, where he wrote a dissertation about "The Rhetoric of Resistance," in other words a propaganda tract for the "revolutionary" left. Before that he completed an MA thesis in Arkansas that was a sycophantic celebration of the Maoist "philosopher" Michel Foucault.

I wonder if the author in question ever read the two works in question and knows enough about the rhetoric of resistance and the work of Michel Foucault to be able to judge its academic merits. Does the author know that "the rhetoric of resistance" could be used by "conservatives" against "liberals," which, by the way, is some of the purpose behind the Academic Bill of Rights.

But instead, the rhetoric of resistance is only a "propaganda tract of the left." If you are a conservative, nothing useful could come from it....

At what point does an intellectual pursuit just turn out to be a political pursuit?

Question for baseball Fans

A few random questions while watching the Yankees- Indians' game:

When did the seventh inning stretch tradition begin and why?

Why do they sing God Bless America? What is the conenction betwen this song and baseball?

Are there other traditions at other ballparks? I believe that Houston played "Wine, Women, and Snowpeas," er., I mean the Texas State Anthem. What elose is there?

This Just in:

President Bush just said the following: "This government does not torture people."

Explain this quote.

For reading materials to prepare your case, read this article from The New York Times.

The Revolution will not be sold (in stores)

There are certain moments in the history of music that serve as revolutionary moments, paradigm shifts in the Kuhnian sense. Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to experience another one of those moments, from a band that has already brought you two such moments,O.K. Computer and Kid A.

On October 10, you will be able to download Radiohead's new album, In Rainbows. You will not have to purchase it in stores and you will not have to pay an outrageous fee to listen to the music. Instead, you will be able to determine what price, if any, you would pay for the album.

From Rolling Stone, which by the way, also provides a preview of the new material:

As you've no doubt heard by now, Radiohead are releasing In Rainbows, their seventh studio album, in two different formats: a basic DRM-free download version that costs whatever you want that's available October 10th, and a deluxe boxed version that includes a double vinyl disc, a book, eight bonus tracks and two CDs, out the first week of December (it also comes with a DRM-free download that actives on October 10th).

"You look so tired and unhappy
Bring down the government
They don't, they don't speak for us"

Where is Oxymoron? Part II

Oxymoron's commercial is back on the tele. Because we miss him, here it is again: