Why Palin Quit

The Opinion Journal's John Fund digs deeper into the reasons for Sarah Palin's resignation:

Contrary to most reports, her decision had been in the works for months, accelerating recently as it became clear that controversies and endless ethics investigations were threatening to overshadow her legislative agenda. "Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration," someone close to the governor told me. "She was fully aware she would be branded a 'quitter.' She did not want to disappoint her constituents, but she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."

This situation developed because Alaska's transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable. Similarly, ethics investigations are easily triggered and can drag on for months even if the initial complaint is flimsy. Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature. Most have centered on Ms. Palin's use of government resources, and to date have turned up little save for a few state trips that she agreed to reimburse the state for because her children had accompanied her. In the process, though, she accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months, and knew the bill would grow ever larger in the future.

If you think that's sickening, consider this: all of the reporters and pundits "speculating" on the reasons for Palin's "bizarre" resignation know full well that Palin and her family are getting constantly bombarded by these legal harassments from her enemies. Yet they still spin yarns about how this is the result of Palin's flightyness. They paint her as a ditz who's not cut out for leadership.

I'm not often surprises by the level of viciousness found in the baser participants in political battles. But the concentrated assault on Sarah Palin really is something to behold.  Why would any normal person ever want to go into politics?

Explaining Palin

At the Campaign Spot on NRO:

It's one thing to step into the public spotlight and know that people are going to ridicule your intelligence, your appearance, your judgment, your voice and accent, etc. But it's another to know that your loved ones will get that scrutiny, too, and in particular your children.

...

That spurred this terrifying thought: The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin that if you attack a politician's children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.

There are still any number of possible reasons for Palin's resignation. But, barring a) the liberals hoped-for horrible scandal, and b) the conservatives hoped-for grand political strategy, the most likely explanation is that she's just washing her hands of the whole mess.  We may have just learned that Sarah Palin is really a decent person. And, of course, there's no room for people like that in politics.

And Now, She's Gone

I know the dust is still settling on the Palin resignation, and heaven knows there could be a million reasons behind it, but I think that Mark Steyn hits the nail on the head:

In states far from the national spotlight, politics still attracts normal people.

...

Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it'll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You've got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who's given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.

...

If you like Wasilla and hunting and snowmachining and moose stew and politics, is the last worth giving up everything else in the hopes that one day David Letterman and Maureen Dowd might decide Trig and Bristol and the rest are sufficiently non-risible to enable you to prosper in their world? And, putting aside the odds, would you really like to be the person you'd have to turn into under that scenario?

Why Are They So Mad at Sarah Palin?

Sure, she's a relatively prominent public figure since being nominated for veep, but in terms of national politics, there are plenty of bigger fish to fry than Sarah Palin.  So why do liberals still devote so much time and energy to attacking her almost a year after her ticket lost the election?  The Campaign Spot has as good an explanation as I've seen:

Liberals believe that their ideas, philosophy, worldview, and policies liberate believers, and that the conservative equivalents limit people. Liberals see themselves as rejecting outdated beliefs and obsolete ideas, overturning established orders, and discarding traditions established by superstitious and ignorant forebears who weren't as enlightened as we are. Conservatives, in their minds, are runaway cultural superegos, always wagging their fingers about individual responsibility, dismissing excuses, reminding people that they can't always do what they want because of the consequences to themselves and to others.

Conservatism, they suspect, will leave you in a marriage that doesn't satisfy you, burden you with children you don't want, repress your passions, and trap you in a empty, boring, and unfulfilled life, with no hand of government able to help.

Today almost everyone faces some sort of challenge in balancing work and family; I don't know too many people who believe there are sufficient hours in a day. And then along comes this woman who's made all of these "conservative" choices and now has an amazing career, a supportive husband, a beautiful family, and great health and appearance, and she bears it all, including the inevitable hard times, with pluck and a smile, as far as we can tell. (For all we know, perhaps behind closed doors, Sarah Palin screams into a pillow when it all gets to be too much. But what we know about her suggests she relieves her stress by shooting moose.)

...

In her opponents' minds, Palin's made all the wrong choices, and cannot, they insist, be very bright. Yet she's happy and successful. She is an anomaly that invalidates their worldview, and for that, they attempt to immiserate her — regardless of whether she wishes to run for national office again.

Today in The Onion

Modern-Day Martin Luther Nails 95 Comment Cards To IHOP Door.

Prepare to Have Your Mind Blown

I like pondering the imponderables, the great mysteries of the universe, just as much as the next guy. But however much of an intellectual I think I am, I look like a piker compared to the guys at Christian philosophy blog The Prosblogion. A sample:

Consider two claims about God's knowledge.

1. For all p, if p, then God knows p.
2. For all p, if p, and possibly God knows p, then God knows p.

It is an interesting fact that (2), combined with two uncontroversial premises, entails (1). I said this in an earlier post, but now I have a more elegant argument. Here are my uncontroversial premises:

3. Necessarily, God's knowledge is closed under conjunction and tautological implication (i.e., if God knows p and God knows q, then God knows (p and q), and if God knows p, and p tautologically implies q, then God knows q).
4. There is at least one proposition p such that possibly God knows p and possibly God knows not-p.

Obviously, the proposition p in (4) is contingent, since knowledge entails truth.

Here is the argument that (2)-(4) entail (1). Fix any true p. By (4), let q be any proposition such that possibly God knows q and possibly God knows not-q. If q holds, then let r=q. If q does not hold, then let r=not-q. Note that r is true. Observe that possibly God knows not-r (if r=q, then this follows from the fact that God possibly knows not-p; if r=not-q, then this follows from the fact that God possibly knows q as well as (3), since q tautologically implies not-r).

Still with me? Wait, there's more:

Let s be the proposition (p or not-r). Then, God possibly knows s. For God possibly knows not-r, and in any world where God knows not-r, God also knows (p or not-r) by (3). Now, s is true as p is true. Therefore, s is a proposition that is true and possibly known by God. Therefore, by (2), God knows s. Moreover, r is a true proposition, and God possibly knows r (since God possibly knows q and God possibly knows not-q). Therefore, God knows r, by (2). But s is (p or not-r). By (3), it follows that God knows p, since (s and r) tautologically implies p.

Whew! They've got a whole blog of stuff like this! So, if you feel like you're brain's not working hard enough, and you can't find your Rubik's Cube, try running it around a few laps of that.

Thoughts on Returning from a Mission Trip

I’m not a frequent mission tripper (and, overthinker that I am, I’ve got actual reasons why; maybe I’ll post on that in the near future). But I recently went on a five-day trip with my church to the deep, unexplored wilds of West Virginia.  Our goal was to help a WVa sister church promote their kids’ day camp by going door-to-door handing out fliers in the surrounding neighborhoods. So, we weren’t exactly washing the sores of lepers, but it was one little way we could help to spread God’s love around, and it provided me with some minor revelations.

-- The people of West Virginia are really nice folks. I encountered a pretty significant sample set, and I think I can safely say that the people of the Mountaineer State are good, salt-of-the-earth people.  WAY more people came to the door to accept my little hand-out than I expected. (If our positions were reversed, I would’ve hidden under the couch until they went away). 

-- Planting a church is seriously hard work.  Centerpointe Church, the sister church we were working with, has been in business for a little more than a year, and their survival depends on the concerted, long-term efforts of the pastor, his family, and twenty or thirty core members.  It’s not just a job; it’s their life.

-- People who think that government can expand the social safety net enough to replace Christian ministries and charity are out of their minds. During our five days in West Virginia, we stayed at West Charleston Baptist Church, a mission church on the rough side of Charleston (going in, I didn’t think Charleston was big enough to have a rough side, but there you go). There’s nothing spectacular about it, other than it’s run by a very loving couple who have dedicated their lives to improving this little corner of the world. They provide innumerable services to their community—daycare, counseling, facilities for AA and Narcotics Anonymous meetings, job training, the list goes on—and they do it for no other reason than they feel called by God.

And West Charleston Baptist is just one example of the millions of ministries like it all over the country, run by Godly servants who see a need.  There are many people, including many currently in the White House, who think that government can do things like this more benevolently or more efficiently. They have no idea how many holes in our social dike are currently being plugged by Christian ministries.  Run those ministries out of business, and try to replace them with bureaucratic time-servers, and see what happens.

Digital TV Transition Chart

Courtesy of Gizmodo, here’s how to find out where you stand in the transition to digital TV:

Baaaa-hahahahaha!!

How often do you see a news headline that makes you laugh out loud, in a good way?  (I know there's plenty of reason for resigned, bitter laughter, but we can discuss the economy later.) Well, here's one that did it for me: New Miss California: Marriage Is Between a Man and a Woman.

Tami Farrell, the newly crowned beauty queen who is replacing the ousted Carrie Prejean as Miss California, apparently holds the same view as her predecessor, Carrie Prejean, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Baaaa-hahahaha!!  Now I'm imagining all the people who attacked Carrie Prejean squeezing cupcake out between the pudgy fingers of their clenched fists.  You know, guys, when they say that a majority of people are opposed to the idea of gay marriage, that means that it's more common to find someone who shares that opinion than not.  Better luck next time.

"If Only we Had Done Nothing"

I'm glad the U.S. Mint still produces pennies, if only because they're so handy for making economic illustrations:

"I'll buy you a mocha, then I'll knee-cap you."

Everybody's favorite crazy-as-an-outhouse-rat rock star Ted Nugent has a little fun with an idiot liberal interviewer:

Idiot Reporter: Well, let me ask you this though: You are obviously tuning up
the culture war, you are very aggressive about it, do you worry that
you're contributing to that hate in any way, maybe even inadvertently?

Ted Nugent: The opposite. I almost come off like Rodney King
sometimes, except that I actually form syllables - you've gotta love
that. I think we should all just get along, I'm constantly begging...
But do I hate evil? Yes. Do I hate rapists? Yes? Do I hate people who
get up in the morning to intentionally destroy America? Yes. But in
order to get love, you must direct as much energy toward the evil as
you can so you can maximize the love. The love will only be maximized
based on the elimination of evil. So I am very effective at steering my
energy toward the elimination of evil to help either fix it or
eliminate it so love can flourish. See, peace and love, unto to
itself...

IR: Now you sound like a hippie.

TN: Peace and love will get you killed. That doesn't sound like a
hippie. Good try, Martin. You've gotta tell me, I want the words, say
"Uncle Ted is the best interview I've ever done." Say it.

IR: Uncle Ted is the best phone interview I've ever done.

TN: Well if I was there in person with my short shorts on then you'd say it.

Breaking News: Journalists Terrified of Guns, Christians

ABC News covers a story about a pastor who's planned a day to celebrate gun ownership by encouraging his congregation to bring their guns to church:

Pastor Ken Pagano of New Bethel Church in Louisville, Ky., says that he organized an "Open Carry Celebration" to promote responsible gun ownership.

"As a Christian pastor I believe that without a deep-seeded belief in God and firearms that this country would not be here," Pagano told ABCNews.com. "I'm not ashamed of that fact. I'm proud of it."

They then use that story as a platform for all the tsk-tsking and hand-wringing that can possibly be squeezed in, with quotes from both the Brady Campaign and Million Mom March spokes-worriers, and the obligatory reference to the George Tiller murder. Thanks, ABC, for taking a rinky-dink local story and turning it into another reminder that people who think it's ok to carry guns are just plain wacky.

Everybody Find Something Else to Panic About

Via Reason, University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report that global temperatures are still not changing in any significant way. As you can see from the graph below, both men are obviously liars and tools of corporate special interests.

"The Answers Lie in a Book You've Never Read..."

Andrew Klavan explains why conservatives are so mean, and why Barak Obama is like Xerxes from 300, minus the homoeroticism.

My Life Has Been Turned Upside Down

Have you ever learned something that, after you learned it, changed your life in such a fundamental way that nothing could ever be the same again. Well, here's what did it for me: Singer Patti LaBelle (that's right: Lady Marmalade) runs her own football league--the LCFL, or LaBelle Community Football League.


Roll that around in your head for a minute. Suddenly, I'm forced to question everything I've ever known.

Darwinists: "See!? See!? We Told You!"

A cat-sized skeleton fossil is now purported to be the "missing link" between humans and early mammals on the evolutionary chain:

This is an exciting and validating day for scientists everywhere.
Broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough has said: “This
little creature is going to show us our connection with all the rest of
the mammals.”

"Validating"?  I thought this was settled science. It's certainly been crammed down our throats for 50 years as if it was.  Why does it still need to be validated?  Hmmmm...?

Should You Forward That Email?

A handy chart from Gizmodo:

A Great Environmental Statement, If You Don't Have to Actually Drive Anywhere

Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson reviews Honda's hybrid, not as the salvation of Mother Earth, but as, you know, a car:

It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car
money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree,
on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more.


...

Normally, Hondas feel as though they have been screwed together
by eye surgeons. This one, however, feels as if it’s been made from steel so
thin, you could read through it. And the seats, finished in pleblon, are
designed specifically, it seems, to ruin your skeleton. This is
hairy-shirted eco-ism at its very worst.

If you want to demonstrate your environmental sensitivity, but don't actually want to go anywhere, you've found your car!

7 Quick Takes

The excellent blogger and borderline superhuman time manager (more on that below) Jen at conversiondiary.com hosts a weekly feature called "7 Quick Takes Friday" in which she posts 7 pithy remarks to her blog and encourages others to do the same. I think this is a great idea, because bloggers collect a lot of ideas that aren't quite big enough for a full post, so they collect in their heads like the french fries under my car seat. This gives an outlet for ideas like that. In fact, I think Jen may have discovered a sweet spot between blog posts and Twitter updates for a whole new business model. It's your million-dollar idea, Jen; start seeking venture funding now!

1. Marriage

I got married two months ago, and one of the biggest discoveries I've made is that being married takes A LOT of time. I thought that after the wedding and honeymoon, I'd just go back to doing my thing, only with another person living in the house with me. Not even close. I don't see how people with families do it. Jen has a husband, something like eighteen children, plus a successful (regularly updated) blog, does consulting work, and is working on a book. I can't even imagine adding one child to my situation and still having time to put on pants before I left the house.

The thing is, I see every moment with my wife as an opportunity to grow and strengthen our relationship, and that's profoundly important to me, and it's all so new that I haven't learned how to fit that into the normal flow of life. When you see married couples who have figured it out, you can tell it. I hope it comes naturally, because it's 8:30 and I still don't have pants on.

2. Lost (the TV show; not the state of being)

My wife is a big fan of Lost, and though I'm a latecomer, she had gotten me interested in it and trying to keep up. Based on the episodes I had seen (and what she had explained to me), I'd been pretty impressed with the intricacies of the plot, and the twists, and just the skill with which they were telling the story. Until this season's finale. We have reached the point where the writers have written themselves into so many corners that characters are going to have to start doing insanely stupid things to keep the plot moving forward. Prime example: Juliet's borderline-schizophrenic "Let's get off the island! Let's stop Jack from blowing up the island! Let's help Jack blow up the island!" triple-reversal.

I thought that if the writers were able to pull together all these threads by the end of the series, it would be one of the greatest achievements in the history of TV. Now I think there are going to be a lot of disappointed fans next season.

3. Art

But one of the things J.J. Abrams grasps very well is that good storytelling comes from what you conceal as much as what you reveal. My definition of art is "a creative work that leaves itself open to interpretation." You need to leave a lot of open threads to give your audience a chance to fill in the blanks with their own imagination. They can do that in ways that no single artist could ever dream of, and they make the art that much grander in the process. And the most important lesson we can learn from that is

4. Lady Gaga

One of the latest models from the Pop Diva Factory (Slutty division) is known as Lady Gaga. This fascinates me, because back in the day there was a song by Queen called "Radio Ga Ga." It was about how there used to be good stuff on the radio, but now it's all crap. Lady Gaga's Wikipedia entry even says her producer gave her that stage name because of the song.

Now, if she's aware of the irony in her name, she may be pretty cool. If not, she's an idiot. So, it's a toss-up there.

5. The Rule of Law

The lesson I'd like people to learn from the Obama administration is that the rule of law hangs by a very thin thread. You can have all the constitutions you want--the government will do whatever it wants unless somebody musters the will to stop it.

Gov't: "We're taking over the banks!"
Us: "Gotcha."
Gov't: "And the auto industry!"
Us: "Alrighty."
Gov't: "Probably gonna get health care next!"
Us: "Umm...okay."

If they can do what they've done so far, why couldn't they take over restaurants, or grocery stores, or internet service providers, or anything else? What legitimate argument could you make against them? That it's beyond their constitutional authority? Ha! We left that behind a long time ago.

6. Don't Tase Me, Bro!

Here's a fine, handcrafted wooden toy that recreates the "Don't tase me bro!" moment, right down to the spasm from the taser jolt. I forgot how funny that was.



7. Real Estate

For crying out loud, somebody buy my house! Anybody out there got tips to make your house more sellable in a down market? I'd love to hear 'em.

The Torture Question

There's been a lot of talk about torture lately, and in every discussion, the implicit assumption is that torture is something that no civilized society would ever, ever do under any circumstances. Even people on the "pro" side of the debate aren't really torture supporters. They still say torture is horrible, they just argue either a) whatever was done, it didn't rise (or sink) to the level of torture, or b) we are in a dangerous era in which terrible acts must be used to stop more terrible acts. But no one who I've seen has bothered to explain why torture is inherently wrong.

Well, here at The Cynical Christian, we're all about picking apart assumptions. So let's ask the question this way: Is it wrong to use violence, or the threat of violence, to extract information that can be used to prevent violence against others? If so, why?

To some it may sound like a stupid question, but if it's so obvious I'd like to hear a serious explanation. I know there have been tons of philosophical chin-scratchings on the subject, but I'd like to see some practical application of that in the current debate. The only things that come close to an argument are bumper sticker cliches like, "If we torture terrorists, we're no better than they are." Really? If someone slaps around a terrorist to get information about a plot to bomb a shopping mall, then the slapper is no better than the bomber? Please. Anyone who would say that has a pretty shaky grasp on the concept of morality.

Context is important: we're not talking about the Soviet-style practice of torturing people to extract "confessions" of their crimes against the state. We're talking about acquiring information that can be verified and acted on for the protection of others, both military and civilians.

And if torturing someone means that you're evil, what does it mean when you refuse to use every option at your disposal to stop an evil plot--a bombing, an ambush, a murder--so that you can maintain your own sense of moral superiority? It's easy to say "I oppose torture," just like it's easy to say "Our children are the future!" or "I love puppies!" But explain why that opposition is worth the sacrifice of the lives of innocents.

I'd love to get some serious comments on this, if anyone's interested. For some further reading, Instapundit has some links to various thoughts on torture, and how opinions change, or don't, with the times.