2007 Christmas Spectacular!

Cruel and Unusual?


If there's one thing the Christmas season could do with a little bit less of, it's those ridiculous Santa hats that people wear. Let's be honest: they're just not funny. At best, they're incredibly tacky, and slightly creepy. But are they cruel?

Apparently, if the wearer is a Beluga whale, the answer is yes. Not satisfied with protesting actual acts of animal cruelty, a few animal advocates have trained their sights on a particularly egregious threat to the dignity of animals everywhere: a japanese aquarium that places tiny Santa hats on the heads of its performing Belugas:

It's a scene that brings laughter and cheers from visitors to a Japanese aquarium - two white beluga whales wearing Santa hats. But environmentalists are saddened by the sight of what they say is the final humiliation for the whale in a country that hunts them down with harpoons.
...
While the white belugas are entertaining the crowds, their humpback cousins are facing a brutal end in cold storage at the hands of Japanese whalers in Antarctica.
...
Wildlife officials say the display of the white belugas wearing Santa hats is both sad and ironic against the background of the Antarctic hunts, due to start in the region after Christmas. "While whales are being used for entertainment in Japan, the Japanese fleet is subjecting whales to a cruel death in the Southern Ocean," said Mr Darren Kindleysides, a Sydney-based campaigner for the International Fund for Wildlife. "Sadly, the aquarium owners seem to be showing as little respect for whales as their Government."

I haven't extensively studied the thought-patterns of small arctic whales, so there's always a chance that the whale-huggers could be right. Perhaps Beluga whales are incredibly self-conscious creatures who die a little every time their wicked task-masters force them to don festive holiday headgear.

But, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have to admit that -- despite my disdain for Santa hats in general -- those lil' Santa hat wearing Belugas are probably the most adorable things I've seen all year. How can something that looks so right be so wrong?

A Very Merry (Huckabee) Christmas

On a slightly less adorable note, newly-minted Republican frontrunner Mike Huckabee wants you to have a merry Christmas, and he's got a heart-warming video to prove it:




Is that suspiciously cross-like windowpane in the background a coded message to evangelical voters? Probably not. But Ron Paul seems to think it's a harbinger of fascism:





The friendly Fox News guy is right: Mike Huckabee isn't a fascist. He's just a nice politician trying to spread Christmas cheer across key battleground states. Maybe Ron Paul's just ticked off by the fact that his Scrooge-esque mountains of cash have hardly put a dent in his opponents' poll-numbers, while Huckabee's managed to take the lead in Iowa (and the nation) with a paltry sum that could hardly purchase a decent Christmas goose. I guess elections just bring out the humbug in everyone.

Aren't They Into That Polygamy Thing?

There's something you have to know about Mitt Romney. It's something scandalous, earthshaking, and it just might freak you out of your pants. You see, unlike the devout men who've sought the nation's highest office in the past, Mitt Romney refuses to adhere to an orthodox flavor of Christianity.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

Please, feel free to snap out of that state of shock anytime you like. Really.

Not surprised? Then you're not alone. Even your distant, generally non-political relatives you sometimes see during important holidays have probably heard something about Mitt Romney's unusual "faith tradition", and what it means for his candidacy. All this discussion is certainly warranted, considering the fact that there are polls showing that over 50% of the important evangelical voting bloc won't even consider voting for a Mormon candidate -- even if he lines up with them on the issues. Unfortunately, one particularly important voice has been missing from the discussion: Mitt Romney's.

While it would be unfair to say that he's completely avoided the issue, Mitt has displayed a tendency to skirt around the so-called "religious question", refusing to confront it head-on. Up until now, just about all the statements Mitt's made about Mormonism have come as responses to often hostile questions from potential voters, which pop up frequently at "Ask Mitt Anything" events across the country. His typical formula for answering such questions looks something like this:

(A) Emphasize the importance of religious tolerance
(B) Assert that Mormonism is the same thing as Christianity
(C) Avoid any follow up questions.

This is hardly satisfactory. Whether he likes it or not, the questions surrounding Mitt Romney's religion matter to thousands of key voters he'll need to win over in the months to come. By refusing to talk in detail about his faith, and the role it plays in his personal life and public service, Mitt has insulted the intelligence of voters across the country, and made himself look like a weasel.

So, when the news broke last week that Mitt would be giving a speech specifically addressing the religious question, there was enough speculation to fill the Great Salt Lake Basin. Would he try to explain the oft-confusing doctrines of the LDS church? Would he reassure everyone that polygamy would remain illegal under a Romney administration? Would he plagiarize Kennedy's "Running as an American, not as a Catholic" speech? Would he merely repeat the same things he's been saying for the past year, but with more words?

On Thursday, we finally got all the answers, and there weren't a whole lot of surprises in the bunch. The speech was essentially a juggling act put on to win over evangelical voters, with Mitt Romney trying to advance two seemingly contradictory main points: that his Mormonism does not define his candidacy or dictate his policies, but that "faith" is an integral part of American life, and should be allowed to shape activities in the public sphere. For anyone who was expecting a lengthy discourse on the location of the planet Kolob, the speech was a massive dissapointment:

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
...
There 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's 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.
...
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
...
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. 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's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

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.'
...
The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be -- You can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

Obviously, there were a few noticeable flaws in Romney's logic -- like all the talk about the validity of all faiths, while consistently referring to a singular Almighty, which almost certainly offended all the Hindu Republicans out there. But overall, Romney's message came out loud and clear: "Yes, I'm a Mormon, but it's totally cool. I'm not controlled by a bunch of nuts in Salt Lake City. I share your values, and I like Jesus. I also like religious freedom, and keeping God in the pledge of allegience. Please vote for me instead of Huckabee. Please."

Will this message impact the presidential race? Probably not. Most of what was said in the speech had already been said during previous events. Evangelicals who view Mitt Romney as an evil cult member with awesome hair will be unswayed by high-minded rhetoric about the importance of religious freedom. It might even hurt Mitt Romney, by drawing attention to one of his weakest points so close to the Primary season.

What do I think of it all? To be perfectly honest, I think Mitt Romney has so many problems besides his religion, that the "religious question" ain't worth a sack of potatoes at this point. Even if Mitt Romney had enough born-again cred to put Huckabee to shame, he still wouldn't be the right man for the job, for reasons previously alluded to on this blog. Enough said.

Come For The Picture Of Fat Huckabee, Stay For The Mostly Unrelated Article.

Disclaimer: Due to an abundance of words, the following article is long. Reading the entire thing in one sitting may cause eating disorders and/or acute nausea. Any resemblance to good writing, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

---

Barack Obama calls it "the politics of hope".
Mike Huckabee calls it "vertical politics".
But regardless of the exact terminology they may use, both candidates have been going to great lengths to tell the American people that they stand for a fresh, optimistic brand of positive politicking that stands in direct opposition to the vicious, back-stabbing politics that have dominated Washington since its inception. They've even written their own cute little books on the subject -- Huckabee's From Hope to Higher Ground, and Obama's The Audacity of Hope -- each with a cover featuring the author gazing into the reader's eyes as if to say: "I'm too busy buying the world a Coke to level personal attacks at my foes. Hugs for everyone!"

In the rhetorical world of Huckabee and Obama, the tone of the message is equal to the content. They may not offer policies that have never been proposed before, but they'll propose them in such a genial way that the American people (and the opposing party) will be compelled to accept them, as if they were adorable puppies left in a basket on the country's doorstep. If the Huckabee and Obama PR line is to be believed, the power of positive politics will allow compromise without the compromise; Huckabee will stick firmly to his conservative principles, and Obama to his liberal ones, but they'll be able to win over the other side of the political aisle through sheer niceness. As Huckabee has often stated: "I'm a conservative, but I'm not mad at anybody about it".

Naturally, all this talk about conciliatory politics looks great when taken at face value. Just about everyone would like Capital Hill to be a little more Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, and a little less pre-surge Fallujah. Unfortunately, this positive rhetoric just doesn't match up with political reality -- on several different levels.

The first strike? The fact that ideas actually matter to some people. Although there are a few people who may be repulsed by liberalism or conservatism because of the negative attitudes exhibited by liberals or conservatives, it's probably pretty safe to say that a whole lotta' people oppose certain political philosophies because they genuinely disagree with the ideas behind them. Barack Obama can smile all he wants while he proposes a Universal Health Care plan, but a majority of Republicans will still oppose it. And Mike Huckabee can attempt to melt the hearts of the pro-abortion crowd with a volley of endearing catch-phrases that could make a puppy cry, but ultimately, their disagreement is with the substance of his message, not the style.

And even to nice-starved voters, the kinder, gentler candidate isn't necessarily the most compelling one. Until every candidate simultaneously decides to play nice, the odd man out will appear weak at best. It's kind of like nuclear disarmament -- while everyone would love it if nuclear weapons just disappeared off the face of the earth, as long as a single belligerent power possesses such weaponry, we're sure as heck not going to give them up (with all due respect to Mr. & Mrs. Kucinich). If candidate A hurls sticks and stones at candidate B, they may very well break his political bones... unless candidate B responds in kind.

This isn't to say that it's wrong to run a friendly presidential campaign, or to be a friendly president -- it's just that being Mr. (or Mrs.) Sunshine isn't the political wonder-drug Obama and Huckabee make it out to be.

However, none of the stuff I just said really matters. I've been examining the flaws that would be present in an unconventionally nice political strategy, but the Obama and Huckabee campaigns are quite conventional, and not always nice.

In the case of Barack Obama, "The Politics of Hope" are especially illusory. Although he's repeatedly charged Hillary Clinton with running "a textbook campaign", it looks like Obama's been studying the "textbook" pretty hard for the past couple of weeks. Negative tone? Scandal allegations? Bitter attacks? As Staple's might say: yeah, we got that. It's easy enough to talk about positive campaigning when you're flying high in the polls, but when you're floundering at a distant second with about a month left before the first primaries, it becomes a political necessity to frantically claw your way back to the top.

Even Mike "Hug-a-me" Huckabee has proven he can be as abrasive as a stainless-steel porcupine when the occasion arises. During his term as governor, he implied that supporters of a tough immigration bill were bigots -- and called the Christian faith of the bill's primary sponsor into question. On the flip side, he recently leveled a pointed personal attack towards Mitt Romney for hiring allegedly illegal Guatemalans to do yard work. Sure, Huckabee isn't exactly Nixon 2.0, and yes, he's generally a ridiculously nice guy. But he's still a politician; a politician who happens to know that there are times when it's politically expedient to handle your opponent with kid gloves, and times when the gloves have to come off.

In the distant future, there may come a day when politicians beat their swords into plowshares and engage in group-hugs en masse. A time when red states and blue states will melt together into a delightful -- and slightly creepy -- shade of purple. But will that day arrive during this election cycle? Pardon my cynicism, and forgive me for presuming too much about the future, but: it won't.

Hillary: Por Que?

I don't spend a whole lot of time trying to figure out why Democrats do the things they do. It just isn't healthy. But now that Hillary's status in the primary race has shifted from "frontrunner by a healthy margin" to "frontrunner by a ridiculous margin", my mind is desperately trying to grapple with the sheer inanity of it all.

Hillary is far from being the most experienced candidate on the Democratic roster. With only seven years of public office under her belt, even Dennis Kucinich has a lengthier resume. Granted, he was never the first lady -- for one reason or another -- but when did being the first lady qualify anyone to become the President? Let's get a few things straight:

First ladies are not elected officials.
They have no executive or legislative duties.

A first lady is just a woman who happened to be lucky (or unlucky) enough to marry a man who became the president. Yes, Hillary didn't just sit around and bake cookies, but generally speaking, she was still just a spokeswomen for her husband's policy initiatives.

Of course, I needn't mention the fact that Hillary isn't the most likable cookie in the Democratic jar. That robotic cackle? Don't want to talk about it. Moving on. Now.

Finally, as much as it may pain conservatives to hear it, Hillary really isn't the most liberal or "progressive" Democrat seeking the party's nomination. On foreign policy, she's a GOP-esque hawk, and on everything else, she's more vaguely-not-like-Bush than anything else. In an election where voters are widely expected to side with whoever happens to be running against the Republican candidate, I find it surprising that Democrats seem to be picking a candidate who has all the drawbacks of a radical candidate (polarizing, widely believed to be the anti-christ, etc.), without the base-pleasin' positions (no residual forces in Iraq, zero hostility towards Iran, etc.).

Naturally, as someone who isn't exactly a member of the Democratic party's cheerleading squad, I plan to greet Hillary's nomination with a resounding "huzzah!", or "huzzah!" equivalent. If Hillary is indeed the Democratic candidate of choice in '08, the Republican party will be given something that it would otherwise lack: a fighting chance.

The question is, why don't the Democrats see this?

Gore Isn't Running. Surprise!

"I have no intention to run for president"

-Al Gore

If you just skimmed past the quote above, go back and read it.

And don't just read it like you might read the nutrition facts on the side of a box of Cap'n crunch. Really read it. Linger over each and every syllable; let your soul absorb the very essence of the sentence. Now, close your eyes, clear your mind of all thoughts, and try to visualize the incredibly complex concept that Albert Gore Jr. was attempting to communicate with those beautiful yet simple words.

By now, assuming that you have a brain at least slightly larger than a pecan, most of you will probably have a pretty firm grasp of exactly what it was that Gore said:

Al Gore said he has "no intention to run for president".
This probably means that Al Gore does not intend to run for president.

It's too bad that millions of seal-hugging liberals and nostalgic journalists seem to have brains slightly smaller than pecans.

Yes, Al Gore won an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, Al Gore is revered by hordes of young political zealots. But no, Al Gore will not be, and will not attempt to become, our nation's next president. Even if you were to completely ignore Al's repeated assurances that he will not run -- like so many have -- a Gore '08 campaign just doesn't make good sense. Why would he want to be the president when he's already an all-powerful environmentalist deity?

At this point in time, Al Gore has more influence and prestige than any single politician in the country. Our Democratic congress and our Republican president are both sinking into a bottomless pit of low-approval and general mistrust. So far, Al Gore has managed to hover above the mess by maintaining his status as a private citizen.

But If Al decides to return to politics -- presidential or otherwise -- his achievements so far will be marred by suspicion that his environmental heroics were motivated not by genuine concern for all things green and/or furry, but by an unbridled thirst for power. And in the case of the 2008 presidential race, an even greater danger could await poor ol' Al: the very real possibility that he might lose. If Al Gore lost the primary, which would be likely, given Hillary's massive hoard of campaign cash, and his less than three months to catch up, he would solidify his reputation as a loser, and severely damage his currently untouchable prestige in the eyes of young liberals.

The chance of losing isn't Gore's only concern. Politics is a messy, nasty game; Gore, of all people, knows this very well. If Gore enters the presidential race, he will be put under intense scrutiny by a previously-adoring media, and will almost certainly be subjected to vicious attacks from Democratic candidates who have had nothing but praise for Gore as a private citizen. It may be difficult to precisely predict what would happen in a hypothetical Gore '08 primary bid, but one thing is certain: Gore would not come out unscathed.

It's taken Al Gore nearly a decade since his humiliating presidential defeat to regain a prominent spot on the national stage. In the world of environmental activism, he wields an unprecedented amount of influence, and in the eyes of the media, Gore is the immaculate patron saint of one of the largest social movements of our day. Will Gore decide to risk it all for a chance to win the office that eluded him seven years ago?

He says he won't.

That's good enough for me.

Which One of These Doesn't Belong?

In the months leading up to Fred Thompson's "late" entry into the 2008 race, the question on everyone's mind -- or at least, my mind -- was whether the lawyer-actor-senator-lobbyist could topple king Rudy from his red white and blue throne. Now, over a month after Thompson's official announcement, the answer seems to be a timid no. Despite all the premature comparisons, Fred Thompson just isn't shaping up to be another Ronald Reagan.

Heck, he isn't even shaping up to be another Gerald Ford. With all due respect, Fred appears to completely lack the ability to fire up the conservative base -- an ability that many thought would be his greatest asset. The warning signs were in plain sight long before his announcement: there was the story about Fred's lobbying work for a pro-abortion group, rumors about his wife's controlling behavior, Dr. Dobson's "I don't think he's a Christian" diss, and faint rumblings about his lifestyle during his single days on capital hill. By the time Thompson broke the news that everyone had been expecting on Jay Leno, his embryonic candidacy had already lost a considerable amount of luster.

Still, hundreds of candidates with far heavier loads of personal baggage have managed to cruise to victory. Generally speaking, Americans are willing to overlook a few minor inconsistencies, as long as those inconsistencies are paired with a healthy dose of charisma. Sadly, Thompson has been consistently striking out in the charisma department. The title of a WORLD magazine profile of Fred Thompson was a typical assessment of Thompson's star power in action: "Blah and Order". Thompson obviously expected that his low key, down-to-earth persona would appeal to so-called "common sense conservatives". So far, it appears that he was terribly mistaken. Fred's notoriously bland stump speeches have left eager audiences all across the country disappointed and disillusioned with the man that many thought would be the savior of the conservative movement. In the post-Bush era, it will take more than vague, folksy American-isms to energize the Republican party.

None of this is to say that Fred Thompson won't be a major factor in the primary race. The latest poll numbers place Thompson solidly in second with 23% to Giuliani's 30%, a respectable chunk of the electorate by any measure. But in order to surpass -- not just threaten -- Giuliani, Thompson needs a little something called momentum, a commodity he seems to be sorely lacking.

What should the Thompson campaign do to remedy the situation? Well, I may not have a degree in public relations, but here's just one teensy little tip that I would like to offer Fred for absolutely no charge:

SMILE.

When you're running for president, having a face that constantly says "I've come to loot your churches, slaughter your cattle, steal your womenfolk, and send your children into bondage" isn't a good thing. Just a thought.

Don't Be a Hater.

Yesterday, the overpaid members of our Senate voted to pass a controversial hate crimes bill, which they cleverly tacked onto a war funding bill in an attempt to make it veto-proof. Currently, our nation identifies a violent crime as a "hate crime" if the victim's religion, race, national origin or color was the perpetrator's primary motivation. If the president signs this newly passed hate crimes act, sexual orientation, gender, disability, and "gender identification" will be added to the list of forbidden motivations for violent acts.

What does this mean? It means that if you kill a gay guy because he's gay, the legal system will somehow consider the crime worse than it would have been if you had killed him for taking your favorite parking space at Wal-Mart. The logic here is obviously flawed: gay guys go to Target, not Wal-Mart. But the Senate's logic is also flawed: all violent crimes, with the possible exception of those committed by highly intelligent, yet emotionless robot ninjas, are motivated by some kind of hate. There simply isn't any rational reason to pass a bill that would make already illegal acts "more illegal" if they're motivated by a particular class of hatred. Of course, certain law-makers don't see things the same way I do:

(From the LA Times)
"We have never had this bill with the potential to go as far as it is," said Sen. Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.), one of the chief sponsors, who pleaded for the president to sign it as a "legacy that he can claim on an important civil rights issue."

Smith stood on the Senate floor next to a photo of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student who was brutally beaten in Wyoming in 1998 and left to die tied to a fence. The bill is named for Shepard. "What happened to Matthew should happen to no one," Smith said.

I agree with Gordon Smith on one point: nobody should be brutally beaten to death and left to die tied to a fence. However, I'm pretty sure that murder was outlawed in Wyoming well before 1998. Yes, that law didn't stop people from killing Matthew Shepard, but neither would the bill the Senate just passed. As it turns out, the two men responsible for Matthew Shepard's murder were caught, prosecuted, and are both serving life sentences. If this new hate crimes bill had been passed prior to 1998, what difference would it have made? None. Matthew Shepard would have been killed, the killers would have been prosecuted, and in all likelihood, the sentence would remain the same. I may not be an expert on the mindset of criminals, but I have a tiny hunch that most murderers will be undeterred by the possibility of being charged with a "hate crime" instead of just a plain ol' murder.

So, to commemorate the downright stupidity of this bill, I hereby award the 110th Congress of the United States of America the prestigious "Walrus of Shame", donated by Texas State University:


It must also be noted that the Walrus of Shame makes an excellent conversation starter at weddings, funerals, parties of all kinds, and NRA meetings. For information on how to get your own Walrus of Shame, please contact the Texas State University department of Multicultural Student Affairs by phone at (512) 245-2278, or by e-mail at multicultural-affairs@txstate.edu.