(Full disclosure, I’m a Michele Bachmann supporter)

Two weekends ago, I witnessed the Come to Reagan Rallies at CPAC FL and Presidency 5 in Orlando, Florida.  After spending the last five years in the wilderness, it appears that the GOP has finally emerged, united around its mission of unseating Barack Obama.  ABO (Anyone But Obama) or OMG (Obama Must Go) are now the common slogans of the conservative movement.  Just about everyone I talked to at CPAC told me their goal this election is to defeat Obama.  While such a goal is admirable, I agree with Michele Bachmann’s comments in the last debate.  Bachmann correctly pointed out that conservatives should not have to compromise for an “electable” candidate.  There is a lot to be dissected in Bachmann’s statement, so I won’t try to tackle it all in one post.  For now, it’s important to see whether “electable” moderates are actually electable. 

If there’s any lesson the GOP should have learned from the past two elections, it’s that the Republican Party does best when it offers a stark contrast to the Democratic Party and fails when it runs as Democrats Light.  2008 was the ultimate example of an electable moderate failing miserably.  After the ’06 loss, many moderates within the GOP argued that the party had to move to the middle or lose the election.  As a result, John McCain, the ultimate moderate, earned the nomination.  John McCain had spent his entire Senate career thumbing his nose at the conservative base, much to the delight of the mainstream media.  If there was anyone who could pick up moderate votes and earn the affection of the media, it was John McCain.  Unfortunately, the media that loved McCain in the Senate turned on him once he received the nomination and the moderates who were supposed to sweep McCain into the White House went AWOL on Election Day.  The GOP attempt to move towards the mainstream ended with the party falling in the steam and drowning. 

After the 2008 walloping, David Frum and moderates inside the GOP took the occasion to gleefully declare the end of conservatism.  According to these moderates, the GOP had to abandon its conservative roots to stay viable and the Tea Party movement would bring about the death of the party.  Thankfully, Frum, et. al managed to misread the situation, again.  Two years after conservatism supposedly died and we all became Socialists, the Tea Party-driven GOP gained the largest number of House seats since 1948.  As for the Independents the Tea Party was supposed to scare away, the GOP saw 55% of Independents vote Republican just two years after gaining only 43% of the Independent vote.  Republicans also saw their candidates get elected to statewide offices in traditional blue states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine and Illinois.  The only problem with electable moderates is that they seem to lose while all those unelectable conservatives keep winning and grabbing Independent votes.  Someone should tell David Brooks. 

My Hawaiian is a little rusty, but the title of this post is meant to show my gratitude for states' rights instead of a centralized federal government.

The Associated Press is reporting that "Hawaii will soon become the first state in the nation to call surfing an official high school sport."

Gov. Neil Abercrombie and state education officials said Monday that riding the waves will join the likes of football, basketball, volleyball and swimming as a state-sanctioned prep sport in public schools, starting as early as spring 2013.

“It’s quite clear, when you think of Hawaii, you think of surfing,” Abercrombie said with a scenic backdrop of sunbathers and surfers along Waikiki beach behind him. The news conference was held near the statue of island icon Duke Kahanamoku, an Olympic gold medal swimmer known as the father of modern surfing.

Regardless of how you feel about the decision itself, from a financial standpoint or your resentment towards surfing ever since the embarrassment of not being able to stand on the board at the last family vacation, this is why it is important to maintain states' rights.

This decision reflects a "culture and way of life" unique to the Aloha State, one that might only take place if these types of decisions can be made by statewide or local education officials. Imagine if residents of Honolulu had to get approval from the Department of Education in Washington DC to do something like this. Not only would it drag on and on, but it might result in a huge wipeout if bureaucrats from inside the Beltway failed to recognize its significance to Oahu or just decided it was too unnecessary to permit.

Our Founding Fathers, who almost certainly never dreamed of Hawaii's inclusion into the Union, believed in local government, that a community should govern itself because it knows what's best for its citizens. From sea to shining sea, and even across one, the states represent specific communities, and affairs within them should be decided on by representatives in their best interests, whether its a curriculum, taxes, or any other policy.

This is only a small anecdote of states still having a say over what goes on within their borders rather than being forced to defer to the big Kahunas in DC, but a reminder that makes me smile nonetheless. Hopefully states will actively start catching this wave again so that we're not just Hanging Ten, but Fifty.

How do you deal with a mob?

Or to put "mob" more politely, a populist movement. And by "deal with," that all depends on

what your answer is. I'm talking about the Occupy Wall Street protests here, but use whatever you like for a hypothetical mob. Is there any way for law enforcement to get these people to shut up... legally? Or do we just have to wait it out?

Unlike most cases, I'm not asking this question because I have some wonderful insight or a funny joke. I'm really clueless here. So clueless that I'm afraid that the premise of this question itself is ridiculous on its face, because of the right to assemble. But we always talk about the "harm principle"- what if these people are getting in the way of people actually trying to work?

Sorry if this sounds too much like your average "please Obama, give me a totalitarian police state that can end this madness" thread, but I just need to ask.

One of the most irritating by-products of Arab Spring is, of course, the glorification of disruptive protests by well-fed layabouts in important or symbolic places around the world. These have ranged from tent city protests in Israel to mobs in Greece and riots in Britain. This week of course, the United States, and more immediately, the poor commuters who cross the Brooklyn Bridge, were not spared.

Yet no one knows exactly what he is protesting about. Some protest "corporate greed," while others protest life in general. This is rather similar to the protests in Egypt that periodically(still) pop up in Tahrir Square, every few weeks when people get bored that they are no longer in the news. Protest has become overrated and meaningless.

Which is, I think, the problem with waving signs and marching, in general. In the end, it is too addictive to stop in favor of constructive action.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit presented an interesting Constitutional amendment in his column this morning:

Any person, having been elected to the office of United States senator, shall be forever ineligible to be elected to the office of president of the United States. The purpose of this amendment isn't so much to protect the presidency, as to protect the Senate. Very few senators ever become president, but of the 100 people serving in the Senate at any given time, probably about 95 think they've got a shot. This causes them to treat their Senate service as a potential steppingstone, rather than an end in itself. Ban senators from higher office and you encourage them to focus on their jobs. Plus, a Senate that couldn't serve as a steppingstone might attract a better caliber of senator.

Let's approach this from a theoretical standpoint, not necessarily as a realistic possibility. Would this really "attract a better caliber of senator" in the sense of embodying what a pure Senator should be rather than someone looking at their responsibilities as a body of work towards the Oval Office? I'm not sure that it would, but I do see potential to Reynolds' thinking.

What do we think?

I clicked on Google News to see the CNN headline "Family, friends celebrate Troy Davis' life at a funeral" pop up to the very front of my search results. Generally, such coverage is restricted to things like Michael Jackson's death(which STILL hasn't gone away, thanks to the Conrad Murray trial), Amanda Knox's latest courtroom fiasco, and North Korea's latest attack(why haven't we heard anything from them for a while?).

The article does not waste any time in trumpeting the proclamation of Davis as a martyr--despite the fact that he went through multiple appeals, made his case before multiethnic juries, and has never been found close to innocent. His victim's name is mentioned four times in the article--though one would presume that an officer killed for doing his duty is also, in some sense, a martyr.

While it is not in good taste to speak ill of the dead, Davis is not a martyr.  He paid the price that you pay for mortal sin, and his reformation in prison and the state of his soul are now between him and his creator. The full nature of the "recantations" of the seven witnesses who named Davis the murderer have never been revealed. And there are eyewitnesses who have testified beyond reasonable doubt that Davis was the murderer.

It is alarming to see the media fall over and over again for charismatic criminals who know how to generate the soundbites that make for good coverage. Whether it's "high spirited" Amanda Knox("Foxy Knoxy") or "I am Troy Davis" Davis, a way with words does not excuse the criminal from the consequences of a crime.

Whoever is responsible for getting Elizabeth Warren all this publicity should think about becoming a sports agent.

Of course, we all know that it's not one person behind this rising star- no it's, an entire party. For the

first time since I started getting into politics, I'm starting to see the Democratic hype machine head into top gear. And it reminds me of another one of my passions- football. That is, watching football. I wouldn't want to get hurt.

Every year or so, one college player gets hyped up and crowned as the next big thing- the next Brady, Manning, or Cutler (just wait and see!) For the last few years, it's been Andrew Luck of Stanford, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute. Luck will be, barring something strange occurring, the first overall pick in next year's draft. He'll be gift-wrapped and shipped off to the highest bidder- err, rather, the worst team.

Speaking of the "worst team," I hear the Democrats are looking for a new franchise quarterback. That's right, I'm afraid the last one didn't pan out. He was a bit of a hot-head (he's an ideologue), his fundamentals were lacking (he rejects the Constitution), and plus, he came into a bad situation in the first place (blame Bush.) So now the Donkeys are starting to scout... Elizabeth Warren.

Just look at the raw talent behind this one, guys! She's a Harvard law professor. Forget about academia for a second- look at her IMDB page! She's been recognized by Hall of Famers like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and even Michael Moore. I wonder how fast she runs the 40 yard dash.

------------------

I hate to break it to you liberals- you'll never get a franchise quarterback. And you've never had one. But I shouldn't say that- you're in the honeymoon stage of this marriage. Warren is a big time success story, having gone through all of the liberal farm leagues. First it's the Ivy League, and then it's the recognition on the Daily Kos. Eventually you move up from your boring day job to Michael Moore documentaries- now there's a gig. After that, you end up on HBO, and next thing you know, you're on the top- appearing on Comedy Central next to Jon Stewart- if that is his real name. It isn't.

I'd advise you to Google "scared of Elizabeth Warren." You'll find at least a page full of relevant results- by relevant, I mean lefties claiming that we're "scared of Elizabeth Warren." The fear they're describing should be differentiated from what we normally mean. The context they put it in is the fear an opposing safety gets while waiting for Andrew Luck to get the snap. It's safe to say that an opposing defense would be "scared of Andrew Luck." 

But statism scares me in a different way. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act being ruled constitutional- that scares me. Obama getting another term scares me. Someone like, yes, Elizabeth Warren becoming President scares me. But is there anything intrinsically different about Warren that makes her a special monster? No.  

I watched the season premiere of the CBS police drama Blue Bloods recently, and it reminded me that I sometimes wonder if anyone in entertainment media is aware that this show even exists. If they knew what was going on on this show, they might second guess their decision to air it. This is justified for two reasons:

1. It portrays a strong family. Family ties are shown in a positive light, and the Reagan family of New York cops isn't shown as being dysfunctional, or at least not yet. Tom Selleck and Len Cariou also portray strong and upstanding father figures, as opposed to the absence or incompetence of fathers so common in modern entertainment media. I can also appreciate the series's inclusion of the family dinner scenes in basically every episode.

2. Positive, or at least non-negative, portrayals of the Catholic Church. Blue Bloods is a show that not only pays attention to the family's religious background, it shows Catholic clergy as being something other than corrupt, moralistic, hypocritical pedophiles. I particularly appreciated an episode last season in which Frank, Selleck's character, actively pushes back against allegations that a popular parish priest has abused children, allegations that the viewer is led to believe are false.

Blue Bloods, it should be noted, could only be classified as "family friendly" in comparison to almost everything else on TV. It deals with some very adult themes and covers scenarios not appropriate for family viewing, although to its credit, the show never manages to reach CSI levels of creepiness. I'm not ready to declare it The Most Conservative Show on Television, but its view of family and society is at least somewhat refreshing.

Remember Fred Thompson’s candidacy four years ago?  He was the new guy in town who sounded great, even though no one really knew him.  Thompson was supposed to be the perfect spokesman for a conservative base that was left wanting by Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain.  The media promised us Thompson would be a game changer who would break Rudy Giuliani’s firm grasp on the nomination.  Thompson was the greatest pre-announcement candidate of the 2008 field.  Unfortunately, his campaign crashed the minute he decided to take it out of the hangar.  Come to think of it, his campaign was replicated on a smaller scale by Jon Huntsman this year.  Huntsman’s actual candidacy hasn’t managed to gain the breathless media coverage and speculation of his slick announcement in front of the Statue of Liberty.  He went from the game changer to the fat kid no one will give the ball to once conservatives found out that Huntsman makes John McCain look like a loyal conservative.

Now let’s look at Governor Rick Perry.  He came into the race late with huge amounts of media coverage.  He appeared to be an articulate spokesman all those dissatisfied conservatives could rally around.  Now, after a disastrous straw poll in Florida and two debates where he has taken a beating for his positions on mandatory HPV vaccines and illegal immigration, it looks as if Perry isn’t the shining conservative on a hill he was supposed to be.  Wait, why do I have a feeling I’ve seen this before?

Based on this past weekend in Florida, Rick Perry is primed to be this year’s Fred Thompson.  Perry has yet to figure out how to address his immigration demons.  First, he tried using Obama’s strategy, calling those unwilling to spend other people’s tax money to give handouts to people who shouldn’t get them “Heartless.”  When that got him booed, he decided to go for the straw men and accuse conservatives of not wanting to educate illegal immigrants.   Unless Perry can think of a better strategy on immigration, he’ll be hard pressed to keep conservative votes.   Furthermore, Perry, much like Thompson, has seen his status as a glowing rhetorician break down.  In addition to the boos Perry managed to draw in his 1960 Richard Nixon-esque performance in the debate, Perry had a weekend of PR disasters in Florida.  There was his meet and greet for undecided straw poll voters where Perry barely made an appearance.  The next day, he treated delegates who were willing to show up for a 9 am breakfast after a night of post-CPAC partying to a poorly delivered speech full of mispronounced words.  Finally, there was his grossly illogical decision to send a surrogate to deliver a flat and monotonous final appeal to the voters before the straw poll.  The straw poll this weekend has shown that Rick Perry is far from a dynamic candidate.  I agree with Governor Perry’s pre-straw poll statement that the Florida straw poll is important.  That said, Perry’s in trouble if after sinking all the resources he did into the straw poll, he can barely beat a candidate who showed up for the debate and left.  If this past weekend is any indication, Rick Perry will be in the same company as our dear friends Fred Thompson and Jon Huntsman.

Here's a great TED lecture from Harvard professor, historian, and just overall smart-guy Niall Ferguson. He discusses the "6 killer apps" (think iPhone) of prosperity and how they led to the West as an economic and cultural leader in the world, but how nowadays those "apps" are downloadable by anyone. As he alludes at the end, along with other countries and parts of the world downloading these apps, the West is also losing them.

It's a bit lengthy, but worth the watch.

...is being condescended to by idiots, according to Ann Coulter. Does anyone else find themselves wanting to puke when the President lectures us on how the executive branch doesn't make law? No s--t, Sherlock.

The President has also taken to going around the country blaming Congress for his problems, as his handlers--who studied media reports from January discussing the success of this strategy in the 1948 presidential election--no doubt told him to. Which is really just an illustration of his biggest problem.  He lives media, and he had no reason, until recently, to do otherwise, as the dividend from living such a life has been enormous(book sales, a Senate seat, the Presidency). 

The reason why Obama seems inauthentic, especially in comparison with esteemed African-American figures such as Thomas Sowell or Condi Rice, is that everything he writes or says is a reflection of dominant media or literary "narratives" at a particular point in time. Dreams from My Father makes little to no sense, but the more coherent parts use standard tropes about alienation from white society(though Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard don't seem too unwhite) and cliches that are taken directly from Toni Morrison and the Hallmark book of platitudes(popular in the early 1990's when the book was first published). Audacity of Hope and pretty much everything from the 2008 campaign were standard regurgitations of the common media wisdom of Bush's second term: aka a fetish with "bipartisanship" and Republican-induced "polarization." Even his race speech doesn't do anything too bold: black people have grievances, but white people have grievances too, but the way to solve them is to elect me President. He took drugs to "push questions of who (he) was out of his mind." More like "I did drugs cause it was fun when I was young, but now I will fit that into my story about alienation using the most popular trope about drugs substituting for identity."

And now of course, the media obsesses over "polarization" and a "broken Washington." Lo and behold, Obama calls for Congress to "do something" and stop the "posturing." It's like he's parodying himself. When the media tells him that Truman won in 1948 by blaming the Republican Congress, Obama discovers the limitations of the executive branch and attempts to ape that strategy exactly. It's clumsy because it is fundamentally unknowing; he doesn't understand context or the reasons not elaborated in the media about why blaming a do-nothing Congress might not work exactly the same way today. Do I speak for other Ricocheters when I long for January 20, 2013? 

This just in. Attack Watch is alive and well. We can continue to mock this and use it as an inside joke.

Six hours ago, they released their first tweet in weeks:

Romney’s latest whopper: President Obama “went around the world and apologized for America.” Get the facts.

Read the whole article on the site.

There's no such thing as a free sex-ed bingo.

As you can see here, I unfortunately already missed being able to go to this prestigious event. However, using modern technology, I was able to take a picture of this promotional poster using my cell phone, and then I used telepathy to zap it from my phone to my computer.

If you can't read it, it is says: "Association of Residence Halls, Planned Parenthood, and HEAT will be giving away prizes!"

I don't know what "HEAT" is, but... here's where this gets really funny. I had to pay the "APH" $40 for an "event fee."

And because it has Planned Parenthood involved, we're all Sex Ed Bingoists now.

Don't get me wrong- there's a need for this kind of stuff on college campuses. But should it be federally funded? Federally funded? I vote nay. 

Here's a fun game for Ricochet- what do you think the prizes were? My take: The grand prize was a special remote for on-demand abortions.

Conservatives tend to think of themselves as big supporters of the military. They also tend to support a hawkish foreign policy.

If that is the case, how is it that Ron Paul leads all other Republican primary candidates and Barack Obama in military donations? This was also the case during the 2008 primary.

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist who has been critical of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

Are conservatives out of step with those serving in the military or the military out of step with American interests? What do you guys think?

More on this from The New American, Politifact, and Digital Journal.

(The image comes from a weekly military newspaper published at Joint Base Lewis McChord in Wash.. The front page story, "You Want Him," is about how Ron Paul leads all other candidates in military donations.)

As I’ve mentioned before, I write a weekly column for the Minnesota Daily, the campus newspaper. Today, my most recent one entitled "Student accounts vs. accountability" came out. I pushback on my editorial board's support of a proposal to forgive student loan debt, saying I believe that this is hazardous to a student's development of independence:

[T]he debate over Rep. Hansen Clarke’s proposal to forgive student loan debt as a means of stimulating the economy has garnered more attention. The thinking goes that with the extra money, students will be able to buy houses, cars and other products rather than be burdened by their loans. Yet, during a period of our lives where we’re meant to be developing skills and abilities along with an appreciation of self-sufficiency, what Clarke’s proposal is absolving us from are not just student loans, but something greater: personal responsibility.

I bring up an example that our campus now has crossing guards for students, thinking that that epitomized students' dependency on something that should be seemingly achievable for 20-something year-olds. Nevertheless, as I continued to flip through the paper this morning, I was fittingly mistaken through this headline: "Program aims to improve social skills".

Students will learn leadership and personal networking skills, be taught office politics, teamwork and understanding generational differences between coworkers.

Okay, but those are qualities that are usually developed, not taught. According to program chairwoman Tess Surprenant, it's the University's responsibility to do so.

The University prepares students with the technical skills, but not the people skills required to survive in the job market, Surprenant said.... She said training engineering students with social skills is an emerging national trend throughout technical colleges - something that was widely overlooked before.

If our administrations, collegiate or governmental, have such a lack of confidence in students that they can't be trusted to cross the street or talk to people (let alone both at the same time!), no wonder absolving loan debt makes sense in their minds - how could these kids even manage their own money. I believe, as my column states, that this has to be an inward reform before it can fully be an outward one.

Yet, whenever I try to talk to someone about it, it rarely resonates. Hmmm.... maybe if I want results, I should go to that social skills program...

People of my generation- apparently we are "millenials," but no one asked me- are constantly being scolded for not voting in sufficient numbers. Last week , I tackled the issue of voting, and how I don't think it necessarily makes a republican society better off.

As citizens, we all have a stake in the outcomes of political and policy questions, and it is assumed that in order to affect these, we should take part in the political process. It is precisely because this process is so important, however, that the country would be far better off if a great many people simply did not vote.

To the likes of Rock the Vote, the William & Mary Student Assembly, and perhaps some on Ricochet, the above is heresy of the worst kind. It makes me an elitist, Hamiltonian scumbag of the worst kind. The problem with the "more people should vote because they have a stake in the system" crowd is that they assume that more voters equals more democracy, which is simply not the case.

The problem with the view that society will be freer if everyone votes is that it puts everything important about voting- the motivations behind how to vote- into a black box. It ascribes all political significance to the output, i.e. the vote, and erroneously ignores the contents of its fabricated box. It subscribes to this weird notion that voters necessarily care about pesky things like policy positions and personal character.

The problem is that many people vote based on irrelevancies: speaking ability, hopeychanginess, and that the candidate took time out of his busy schedule to visit your church, which is full of registered voters. They aren't really voting based on any coherent set of interests. I don't think anyone would disagree that society would be better off if many would stay home on Election Day. People who don't really care about politics shouldn't feel any pressure to join in.

In the abstract, I agree that given certain assumptions, everyone should care about politics, and that everyone should vote. The trouble is that these assumptions- that people know the issues and have some reason for thinking a particular candidate's victory serves their interests- so seldom apply. Winston Churchill is often quoted as saying that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. I much prefer his caution that democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form of government. I for one will take an imperfect electorate over big government authoritarianism any day. Voters, at least can be educated.

Racism's still alive, they just be concealin' it.

                                                -Kanye West (note: bad language in the video)

Sometimes I have to catch myself when I'm on a train of thought (known in some circles as a tangent.) "Herman Cain talking down Morgan Freeman was great, and plus, how can we be called racists now that a black candidate is getting attention? Maybe now, finally, this whole gig will be up."

Silly Ethan.

I forgot for a second that there's already been a well-known case of a liberal taking on the Herman Cain conundrum. I forgot about the countless times I've heard radio hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, claim that they have black friends and even co-workers who are black. I forgot about the time where Rush even wanted to buy the Rams. Last time I checked, Steven Jackson is black- and he makes bank.

But it's never enough. No, Rush voluntarily paying someone millions of dollars is not a sign of mutual respect. No, having a (now) popular candidate who is black isn't enough. No, respecting and relying on economists like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams isn't enough. No, having philosophers like 50 Cent calling George W. Bush "gangsta" isn't enough. We've been caught red-handed. We're racists.

But hold on a second. This whole rhetorical battle is a farce. The burden of proof is on them. (I know you, the reader, know that, I'm just getting something off of my chest.) I present to you a wonderful allegory that exemplifies what I'm saying here:

Liberal: The Loch Ness Monster totally exists, man.

Conservative: Can you prove it?

Liberal: Can you prove that it doesn't exist? [end scene]

In this case, liberals are cryptozoologists, dangling the race-card at the end of their line, waiting for something to bite- preferably a xenophobic ogopogo (anyone want to start a band?)

This seems so out of character. After all, the Democrats are the Party of Science. Liberals are the champions of reason- they of all people should know that it's up to them to provide the evidence that reveals our racist ways. Or perhaps I'm overestimating their secular-humanistic superpowers of observation... hmm...

In the end, it's disheartening that conservatives can be constantly barraged with attacks, perhaps even (can I say it?) defamed by entities such as the Congressional Black Caucus. In fact, let me take out my Liberal translator so I can potentially get through to someone without sounding like a total right-wing nutjob: [while sobbing] "Why is the media doing this to us? It hurts my feelings!" 

No, but in reality, this whole mess does stink.

For homework: Should we just avoid these allegations altogether? Should we welcome and in fact request soundbites like Herman Cain's firing back at race-baiting?

Postscript: I used the Kanye quote because I just thought it fit. This isn't used to say racism is dead- of course not. By the way, I'm a huge Kanye fan. Seriously. And that's proof that I'm not-

I came across this preview for a 2011 film that aired at the Sundance Film Festival: Red State. (Ed.'s Warning: Movie trailer contains strong language and graphic violence. Viewer discretion advised)

Adding to the list of films depicting the abuses of radical Christian sects (e.g Jesus Camp & Saved!), it looks like it will feature John Goodman leading FBI/SWAT/government forces team, pitted against the crazed belief-induced crusades against American adultery.

Maybe I am reading too much into a short trailer, but it seems indicative of a general sentiment in America--that stalwart machine-gunning-militant-government-protection is our salvation from the psychotic tendencies of those who allow faith to guide their lives. Obviously in extreme cases such as depicted in Red State, combative action is necessary; however, does this reflect a popular sentiment about what Americans want from their government and how they view the Christian faith?

While this may naturally lead to a church v. state political discussion, I am also interested in hearing thoughts on these types of films--what kinds of cultural sensitivities give rise to them, and how might they affect those sensitivities?

I've long resisted the movement to label Professor John Mearsheimer, noted scholar of international relations and long time critic of American support for Israel, an anti-Semite. His scholarly work is certainly of the highest caliber and, although his book (co-written with Stephen Walt) The Israel Lobby would embolden antisemites, I had long thought it was simply far too easy to dismiss it as simple anti-semitism. Indeed, though the book plays into the hands of many old antisemitic tropes about Jews, particularly vis-a-vis money and political power, nothing in the book was itself antisemitic, and nothing in the authors' backgrounds would suggest that they were secret antisemites. Pejman Yousefzadeh has a good run down on the charge here.  But now I'm not so sure.

Mearsheimer, still the  R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, has seemingly endorsed a book by Gilad Atzmon, a self described "self hating Jew" who has made a name for himself calling into question the veracity of the Holocaust and has wanted to "reexamine" the terms of the Blood Libel. 

Jeffery Goldberg and David Bernstein rather extensively document the vile and insane rantings of Atzmon, and really question what Mearsheimer could be thinking endorsing a book by such a lunatic.

As disheartening as I think this is, to see such a great scholar wade into the dark and disgusting work of antisemitism, I think it does raise some serious questions about Mearsheimer's judgement. My question is: what should the University of Chicago community response be to this? I do not think that he should, necessarily, be censured or have anything official happen to him, nor do I think that there needs to be a negative response. As vile as this stuff is, Mearsheimer himself never said it, although he has done a tremendous disservice to the intellectual community by validating its existence.

What do you think?

Warning: Links contain sexually explicit material some readers may find offensive.

Folks may remember Dan Savage's campaign to re-define the term "Santorum," a response to Santorum's anti-gay remarks. The campaign can be called a success, as Savage's website remains one of the top hits on a Google search of "Santorum" and "Rick Santorum" as well, a fact not unnoticed by the ex-Senator.

Now Santorum has asked Google to filter out these results, but is not pleased with the search engine's response. From CNN:

In an e-mail to CNN, a Google spokeswoman said, "Google's search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Web. Users who want content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly. Once the webmaster takes the page down from the Web, it will be removed from Google's search results through our usual crawling process."

She added: "We do not remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines."

In fact, Santorum has gone so far as to claim that Google would treat him differently were he, say, Vice President Biden.

Is it Google's responsibility to filter their search results? Or perhaps, is it their responsibility to provide the most accurate account of the material on the web? Food for thought.

I saw this game posted on a site that I go to, because we both use the same program for making games.

I actually don't know the author, but... I think I can still post this anyway. Without further ado, and without further commentary, here's "Criminal Alley," a game that asks you to "Shoot the dangerous criminal."

Part of me says "don't give this attention." But I just have to see what Ricochet has to say about this. It's too good to pass up.

I was reading the post-debate chatter, and stumbled across an article in the New York Daily News on RealClearPolitics. It raised an interesting point when discussing Rick Santorum:

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a candidate who has largely been ignored during previous debates, boasted his campaign best. Though he's trailing the pack, he demonstrated a keen knowledge of the issues and a mastery of conservative thought – another deficiency of both Romney and Perry.

A "mastery of conservative thought" is certainly something Santorum can boast above the other candidates on the stage. A reading of his book, "It Takes A Village," demonstrates his thorough steeping in Catholic doctrine and conservative intellectualism. Neither Romney nor Perry seem like they have any kind of deep thought about conservatism. Their ideas run as deep as the talking points used to sell technocratic policies as governors.

There is a sense in which experience governing is a better teacher of wise statesmanship than anything else. However, there is something to be said for a well-rounded understanding of ideals - the kind of ideals derived from careful study of enduring truths - that can create a solid framework to view in the world truthfully.

I'm not saying that he's my favorite of the bunch, but the more that I see of the former Speaker in the debates, the more I like what he could bring to the table as President. While other candidates appear catty and bicker back and forth in these debates, Newt separates himself as the "adult in the room" through his answers. If anything, he at least seems among the most authentic and genuine behind the podium. While other candidates' responses seem obviously rehearsed, he acts like a natural.

We all recall his seemingly fatal decisions back in May and essentially labeled him as a dead man walking (or running, in relation to his campaign), but he's managed to stay afloat and relevant in the four months following. I know the landscape completely changes once primary season kicks off and that the poll numbers aren't in his favor, but I beginning to wonder if we were too quick to discount Gingrich early on. Could we have written him off too early?

Obama's education policy, at least early on, excited some conservatives who felt that the Democratic party was finally stepping away from the official policy of kneejerk opposition to any change. Now, however, it seems that state-by-state waivers are being issued for some of the 2014-deadline standards and other impossible provisions of NCLB. (Waivers for ObamaCare, waivers to fast-track "green energy" firms, what's it with Obama and waivers?) Everyone knows that most of the states who will receive waivers will not be able to meet all of NCLB's deadlines anyway. And waivers are only granted to states who will create their own new standards, devise methods of testing teachers and principals for performance, and provide blueprints to turn around the lowest-performing schools. Rep. John Kline(R-MN) said he "appreciated many of the policies outlined in the (Education) Secretary's plans."

But as usual, this is not really a matter of returning education reform to the states. It's essentially a unilateral reauthorization of the law under the Democratic blueprint for a new version of NCLB, since the only states that get the goodies are the ones who toe the Arne Duncan line. The NEA is delighted with the waivers idea and eager for Congress to "rewrite the law," which means that what replaces NCLB will just perpetuate the status quo.

On balance, will this really return control of education to the states? What does it mean for U.S. education?

Sorry if this has been posted here already, but this is a very interesting speech that I found on PJTV's "Durban Watch."

Some things stood out to me- one in particular. I know when he said something along the lines of "the only idea shared by Hitler and Stalin was anti-Semetism," he was being hyperbolic. However, it just seemed egregious to me- certainly there are several commonalities between the two that aren't splitting hairs. Overall though it was an important speech to watch.

What are your thoughts?

Note: Seems like this same event has a lot of names I recognize. I'm watching Zuhdi Jasser's right now.

Governor Perry and his team released this campaign ad.  I loved it, and it seems a lot of other people do too.

Thoughts?

Are we finally coming to that oft predicted outcome of the digital age? That physical books will be no more?

I think so. 

My school recently launched a program that will move course materials for specific classes online to be made readable in eText format.

But this is nothing new, schools and publishers have been putting textbooks online for years now. What is new and revolutionary is that the school has negotiated a deal with a number of eText publishers that will reduce the cost of the different texts by 60 to 70 percent.

With the cost of textbooks being as high as they are these days, this might finally be  the spark the eText industry has been looking for to get people away from their hard-copy books.

The cost for these eTexts will be levied within the tuition bill, and the texts automatically uploaded to my school's online course management system, Oncourse.

My school has also partnered with a company that has built a software program that will be used to read and engage the texts. According to CampusTechnology.com, the software will:

... allow students to tag the digital content, perform searches, collaborate as a study group, and view multimedia on any computer or mobile device. Additionally, faculty who opt to use the software will have the ability to integrate notes, links, and annotations on students' e-texts.

Here are my thoughts about the new program:

I believe programs such as these are the wave of the future. Including electronic texts within the cost of tuition seems like a move more universities are going to make for both financial and academic reasons.

Plus, these relationships are mutually beneficial because universities will be able to ensure that their students have the texts on the first day of class and receive them for a great price, and publishers will generate more sales through the resulting decline in demand for used books. Perhaps this will even mean less "new editions."

My only gripe with the program is that the eTexts cannot be read on readers such as the Kindle and Nook, which are more convenient to use than computers and iPads. But the reason why is obvious: the software program, Courseload, and its features are not compatible with such products.

What do you guys think? Do you think this type of model is the way of the future for colleges and universities? Colleges and universities have developed similar models with companies like Adobe and Microsoft and have found great success. Why not with book publishers as well?

If I ever needed evidence that the Minnesota Daily, the campus newspaper that I write for, has a left-leaning angle, I would merely point to yesterday’s “Editorials & Opinions” page. Here are the four pieces:

• “The political assault on science” which paints the GOP presidential candidate field as anti-science.
• “The Moving Planet Parade” which pushes for an even stronger commitment to green issues
• “A people’s bailout” which advocates for the government to absolve all student debt as a way to stimulate the economy.
• “Starved for compassion” which argues the wealthy aren’t doing enough in the midst of startling poverty numbers. 

I’m not trying to bite the hand that feeds me, but the lack of diversity of opinion is blatant. I understand that I’m at very large public university in a major metropolitan area in a state that has a history of going Blue, so what can I expect? But to have only one perspective shared on your page intended to present viewpoints is upsetting and alarming. 

Nevertheless, it’s not discouraging – I still submitted my column for the week entitled “Give the rich a break”.    

The controversial Islamic community center has opened its doors only a few weeks after the 10th anniversary of 9/11.