The Bosque Boys

Mitt Romney, who probably wants to be the Republican presidential candidate, would be the first major party Mormon candidate if he gets the nomination. I've discussed his candidacy here and here. He has some hurdles to face. Some polls have shown a sizable minority of Americans say that they would not vote for a Mormon; Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals label Mormonism a "cult." This includes the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.

An article this week in the Salt Lake City Tribune raises the question as to whether Mitt Romney's ancestry would hurt him in a national election--he has ancestors who were polygamous, including a great-grandfather who moved to Mexico in 1885 to continue his polygamy. The article concludes that the actions of Romney's ancestors will not hurt him in today's politics. An answer I agree with. And, while many conservative Christian voters will be uncomfortable voting for a Mormon, I cannot see large numbers of southern fundamentalists and evangelicals voting Democrat in 08. Romney may have some anti-Mormon problems in primaries, but probably none in the general election.

Nothing like a brisk walk in the snow after dark on a windy zero-degree night to make the return to your home seem like an escape into a heaven of warmth and light. We often do not appreciate something until we experience its opposite. In that vein, I invite you to visit this online Museum of Communism here. The Red, White, and Blue will look better after such a visit.

Since it is now 15 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, those among us who are under 30 have no good adult memories of Soviet Communism or its horrors. This museum can help.

A few more words of analysis in re my previous post on the Cost of Free Speech.

Ranking the transgressions in discourse:

1. Absolute Worst: Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic tirade. Mel Gibson has the right to assert "Jewish conspiracy" (j'accuse), but he seems at least a century removed and an ocean away from a culture receptive to that line of argument. In fact, his accusations are so apart from any contemporary conversation, he, as I argued previously, faces less severe consequences than George Allen and Andy Young (the other two examples I explored).

2. Pretty Bad: George Allen's verbal engagement with S.R. Sidarth, a twenty-year-old volunteer for Allen's opponent for governor, was not so damning in content. Allen could have called Sidarth "lacaca" or "pacaca" or "zacaca," and the actual meaning (or meaninglessness) of the phrase would have been the same.

The incident itself was much more telling. Allen allowed himself to be drawn into an embarrassing exchange with an expendable representative (a pawn) of the opposition. In distance races, sometimes an opposing team will send out a "rabbit," which is a runner who has no chance of winning the race but who sets a blistering pace in hopes that the other team will run with the decoy and burn themselves out. Senator Allen chased the rabbit. Even if he had made Sidarth look foolish, there was no advantage in it for him.

Is there a double-standard for Republican politicians? Of course. But that is beside the point. Do Republican candidates understand these unique rules of engagement crafted especially for them? They should, if they are going to win. George Allen showed us something: poor political judgment and a lack of discipline. And he is likely to do it again at a more critical moment. Remember the old courtship rule: if the person you are dating reveals who they are, believe them! Allen is out.

3. Also pretty bad: the "niggardly" incident Tocqueville introduced into the conversation (see comments). Again the content is not so damning (not damning at all), but the lack of awareness speaks volumes about one's social IQ. Also, in re my conjecture, it is extremely difficult to reconcile an intellect large enough to encompass such a vocabulary with the lack of foresight as to how the adjective "niggardly" would be received in certain circles.

If Pamela Anderson ever becomes the honorary president of PETA, let's refrain from calling her the "titular" leader of that organization.

4. Impolitic but more sad than outrageous: Young and his comments singling out Jews, Koreans and Arabs. As I said before, it will be very difficult to disprove Young's assertions historically. Of course, it is illuminating that Young chose not to stand and fight when caught and confronted with his violation of the new code of civility. He backed up immediately. Also, it seems noteworthy that this story, of the four mentioned, made, by far, the least-felt impact on society and the news cycle. Did Young's race inoculate him to a degree from a major cause celebre?

In an earlier post prompted by President Bush laying a wreath in Hungary at the monument to those heroes of 1956, I offered a few thoughts in regard to the 1956 uprising in Hungary against the Soviet forces and their Hungarian puppets. I now learn that the memory of this uprising lives on in the American Hungarian community. If you are near Cleveland, you may want to attend this service. From the website of the Hungarian Reformed Church.

OCTOBER 14, 2006
100th Anniversary Celebrations & Commemoration of 1956 Revolution's 50th Anniversary at the West Side Hungarian Reformed Church, Cleveland, Ohio, on October 14, 2006. Our plans include a thanksgiving bilingual worship service, a wreath-laying ceremony, a festive concert and a banquet. We will also publish an Anniversary booklet.

(Okie Gardener again) The Tree of Liberty has been watered by the blood of tyrants and by the blood of patriots over the years.

I don't recall it making much of a splash here in the US when a month ago a ranking Anglican bishop called environmentalism a moral issue, and pronounced holiday flying a sin. Read Article. But, his comments deserve wider attention, I think.

As a Christian I understand that I have a responsibility to consider the consequences of my actions. Prudence traditionally has been regarded as a Christian virtue. I must ask myself, is this action itself sinful, and, will this action have evil consequences. [For example, urinating on an empty sidewalk at midnight is probably not a sin, but, one consequence of that action may be to endanger the health of those who may walk barefoot, an evil, so I don't urinate on public sidewalks even if no one is around.] If I know that certain consequences of my action will be evil, then I must ask myself if I am under necessity to perfom the action (whether sinful in itself or not). [An example of necessary evil: giving vaccinations will result in harm to a very small fraction of those vaccinated, an evil, but not vaccinating will result in larger numbers suffering harm, a greater evil, so I continue my action of vaccination as a necessary evil.]

I am not sure that flying, in and of itself is a sin, and perhaps the bishop does not either since he seemed to specify holiday flying. However, I think he is correct in that I must ask myself what the consequences are of my flying. One of those consequences will be the addition of carbon molecules to the atmosphere, and consumption of petroleum fuel. I think both of those are evil. Result, as a Christian I probably should not fly unless I must. Driving an automobile probably has a similar logic.

Some related posts. Here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here

We are having an election today in Oklahoma. Brief Article. Among other things voters will choose between two candidates to determine the Democrat nominee for Lt. Governor this fall.

The ads these two men are running tell a lot about being Democrat in a Red State. Both candidates are running ads that do not mention the word "Democrat." Instead, we get soft ads touting deep roots in Oklahoma, strong faith, responsibility, and commitment to low taxes. Neither one is running ads that I have seen proclaiming himself the "true" Democrat in the race. Doing so might jeopardize chances of election in the fall. What future does the Democratic party have in the Heartland?

One of the key Senate races this fall is taking place in Missouri. See my earlier post. Republican incumbant Jim Talent is now stressing border security, including no amnesty for illegals and making the southern border actually secure. See article. Talent maintains that the few billions that actual border security would cost could be saved as we have fewer and fewer illegals using American hospital emergency rooms.

As politics, it will be interesting to see how illegal immigration works as a campaign issue this fall and in 08. As a national issue it seems to me that we must have actual border security for several reasons: first, in an age of Islamic terrorism we cannot have foks just walking into the USA; second, I think there is a rate of assimilation we can maintain and still keep what is good in US life, if we take in more immigrants than we can assimilate we are flushing ourselves down the crapper of history; third, we need to screen for criminals attempting to immigrate into the US, a large number of crimes are committed each year by illegals many of whom flee back into Mexico. I am pro-immigration and anti-illegal-immigration.

I fear the joke is really on us, but in celebration of France's role (c'est bizarre) in the Lebanon-Israel-Hezbollah debacle, I am issuing a call for your best gag at the expense of the French. Here are a few to get the ball rolling:

1. An apocryphal Patton quote: "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."

2. From Jay Leno (back in the day): "I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"

3. Q: What Does "Maginot Line" mean in French?
A: "Speed bump ahead"

The most thought-provoking essay I've read in a while, and I read a lot. Little is actually new, but brought together in a way to challenge the reader. From Mark Steyn. Read here. Link from the Rottweiler. A teaser:

"None of these pillars of what we used to regard as conventional society is quite as sturdy as it was, and most of them have collapsed. Many mainstream Protestant churches are, to one degree or another, post-Christian. If they no longer seem disposed to converting the unbelieving to Christ, they can at least convert them to the boggiest of soft-left political cliches. In this world, if Jesus were alive today he’d most likely be a gay Anglican vicar in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally-friendly car with an “Arms Are For Hugging” sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams.

Yet, if the purpose of the modern church is to be a cutting-edge political pacesetter, it’s Islam that’s doing the better job. It’s easy to look at gold-toothed Punjabi yobs in northern England or Algerian pseudo-rappers in French suburbs and think, oh well, their Muslim identity is clearly pretty residual. But that’s to apply westernized notions of piety. Today the mosque is a meetinghouse, and throughout the west what it meets to discuss is, even when not explicitly jihadist, always political. The mosque or madrassah is not the place to go for spiritual contemplation so much as political motivation. The Muslim identity of those French rioters or English jailbirds may seem spiritually vestigial but it’s politically potent. So, even as a political project, the mainstream Protestant churches are a bust. Pre-modern Islam beats post-modern Christianity."

A few observations on three recent episodes of offensive speech:

Mel Gibson's drunken anti-Semitic ravings from a few weeks ago belie his myriad denials of anti-Semitism over the years.

The cost: very little for Mel Gibson. He is not a studio contract player subject to powerful bosses. Mel Gibson is Louis B. Mayer. He is the boss. He is a power player in Hollywood; that is, he has demonstrated the ability to make pictures that make big money. Power in Hollywood is always popular. Even though Hollywood remains disproportionately Jewish demographically, the community has limited recourse in expressing its disapproval of Gibson.

A thought for another day: most Americans don't really understand anti-Semitism anymore. They are not merely decreasingly anti-Semitic, they are increasingly unaware of Judaism as a separate religious or ethnic category. Most Americans watched nine years of Seinfeld without recognizing it as "Jewish" comedy. Anti-Jewish sentiment is more and more something of a mystery to Middle America and, therefore, in this case, hard to digest and easy to forget.

George Allen and "Macaca" (Washington Post story).

I believe the Senator when he pleads ignorance as to the meaning of "macaca" (I did not know what it meant either), but such casualness in thinking and speaking is not a habit worthy of an American president. Michael Dukakis illustrated the "never wear an army hat and drive around in a tank" rule for presidential candidates. Perhaps Allen now owns the "think before you speak/never use a word in public that you cannot define" political commandment.

The cost: we now know that George Allen is a glib but excruciatingly imprecise speaker. One can presume that Americans have had their fill of that brand of leadership, and his 2008 presidential chances are greatly diminished.

Andrew Young and "Jews,...Koreans and...Arabs" (Washington Post story).

Of the three, this case strikes me as distinct and infinitely more tragic. First of all, if you back off from the generalization that poisons Young's statement, you can defend most of the independent assertions. Historically, businesses operating in African American communities have charged higher prices and higher rates of interest for inferior products. Historically, Jewish Americans at one time, then Asian Americans and now Arab Americans have figured in disproportionate numbers as inner city entrepreneurs. Are there complicated (and not always sinister) reasons for all of this? Of course. In addition to racism and greed, the cost of doing business is higher in depressed areas, which gets passed on to minority consumers. Since that particular slice of the commercial pie is not especially appealing, inner city businesses often attract ambitious people from oppressed classes looking for an on-ramp to the American Dream. Ironically, oppressed Americans find opportunity exploiting even more oppressed Americans.

Andy Young immediately apologized in a Mel Gibson-like fashion: denying that he had ever really entertained such thoughts and, presumably, would commence an inner search to uncover from what undisciplined area of his mind these unacceptable remarks might have emerged. He has promised a more thorough explanation this coming Monday.

The cost: Andy Young loses a cushy and lucrative corporate spokesman gig. In addition to the humiliation of a series of forced public apologies in his future, Young loses a bit of the luster off of an impressive career as civil rights leader and statesman.

The 74-year-old Young offered a serious assertion, which deserves serious consideration. Yet, in the current atmosphere in which blunt speech that causes offense loses all credibility no matter the content, Young will face a harsh punishment.