RSS Problems

We are currently experiencing some RSS feed problems here at BitsBlog.

Since the feed has been working well for some months now, it’s my guess that we are simply overwhelming the linked with volume.  What we’re getting his timeouts at the server level.  The solution on my part is to reduce the number of posts being fed to it, down to 15.  Unfortunately that means I have to limit the front page down to 15 posts, too.

We’ll see how that works out in about 12 hours or so.

Update: 

Apparently, that was the issue…. we were feeding Feedburner too much at a clip.  all feeds are now active, again.

There’s an interesting discussion going on and just now a cross blog discussion about religion and politics.  The interested parties I’ve noticed thus far are Cassandra over at Villainous Company, and Bruce McQuain over at Q&O. In turn, the discussion extends to Charles Krauthammer, and Peggy Noonan.

I urge you to read all four articles before proceeding, here, though reading Bruce and Cassandra will be enough to get the jist if you’re in a hurry..( For a change, instead of quoting extensively, I’m going to make the assumption that you read these, because the post will get ridiculously long if I do it the normal way. As it is, it’s not going to be short.)

First of all, let’s call this what it is driving all of this; fear.

First of all, it wasn’t the Republicans, who hit the ‘faith’ button first, it was the Democrats.  Specifically, Hillary Clinton, who likely was behind the original rumors that Obama was a follower of Islam. it seems clear that in a post-9/11 world, the cultural influence of religion still matters.  Regardless of the Democrats admitting it or not they were ready to exploit it for political purposes. Obama, for his part didn’t help matters, when he started making an overt show of Christianity in response to that rumor.

And yes, Mitt Romney broke out the “I have a religion” speech, largely in response to a perceived threat of Hillary Clinton doing the same thing to Romney… a pre-emptive strike, if you will. And things have snowballed to a certain degree, subsequently. However, I don’t perceive that to be a problem as some others do.

I understand the concern of Krauthammer, Noonan and McQuain, but just because I understand it doesn’t mean I share it.

IMV, politics, and the governments and laws resulting from politics are supposed to be reflections of our deepest values, and both the cultural and a personal level. This is why morality and law are so often linked. Indeed, I have made the point that they are inexorably linked. So, too, is religion linked. That’s because religion, is supposed to be DRIVING our deepest values.

If we understand (as I have argued for years) that the purpose of government is to codify and enforce the values of the culture that gave it life, and also to hopefully extend the influence of that culture within the world… then the influence of religious values in our government will be a product of the degree to which religion is a part of the culture itself. This is not mandating religion; it is simply reacting to, and holding respect for the culture, as government should; this is the proper relationship.

The problem comes along as to where exactly to draw the line between a proper expression of cultural values and where those values come from in each of the candidates, and an excessive “religious test” in the election process. in the end, that’s the choice is going to have to be made by the individual candidates as they look over history and see what’s happened to politicians who have tread those paths previously. The government, nor for that matter the press, has no place in making those choices.

In truth, any limitation on references to religion in the electoral process, is going to run directly afoul of the First Amendment. In my view, it will also run directly afoul of the concept of “no religious test for high office.” what the candidates do before they get into office and the decision-making process by which the American people execute their right to vote, isn’t anyone else’s business.

If someone’s religion is what they want to run on, (and clearly in the case of both Romney and Huckabee, that’s a choice they’ve made, to varying degrees) then the voters will have to decide the matter. And trust me, so they will.

Personally, I expect over reliance on the subject will cost them votes, not win votes. But by all means let them run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. It’s their political life…. or death. Such matters are self-limited, thereby.

That does not constitute a government based test for religion for high elective office. What that constitutes in my view is an attempt by the person running for that office to tap a previously untapped segment of the electorate. whether or not, then attempt succeeds depends entirely on how accurately they’re reading the electorate. Personally, I must say, they’re well off base. That is, if they are reading the whole of the country to be in the same mold as Iowa.

I think Peggy Noonan overstates the case rather dramatically when she questions whether or not this one issue is going to be the sole determining factor in the presidential election. I think it’s a serious factor in the breadbasket states, but notice that in the New England states, New Hampshire, particularly, not so much. I think in those states in the Northeast in particular, there are a number of people who remember a certain president from the state of Georgia who lays claim to being among the most moral of the Presidents, and certainly a likable individual on a personal basis, but proved to be a complete disaster in his presidency, that being Jimmy Carter.

Be that as it may, I think what we have here is Huckabee playing to the audience he has in Iowa,(and playing the one strength he has, in my view) and Romney playing along so as not to get too far off the winning position in that one state. The rest of the determining factors are going to show up as time goes on, and we move toward super Tuesday. Further, the lay of the political argument is going to be dramatically different once we get past the nomination process.(can you imagine a discussion about religion between Huckabee and Hillary Clinton, let’s say? Yikes!)

In the end, I don’t see this as anything but a diversion. We’ve already discussed several times about how this fixation on Huckabee, is well overblown. I wonder if this fixation on religion in politics isn’t overblown as well, given that his religiosity is his sole strong point.

Then there’s the press and it’s coverage of these events. There has always been an anti-religious spin in the mainstream media. As long as I’ve been alive. Back in the day it was demonstrated rather handily with with regards to JFK and his (rather loosely held) Catholicism. Back about the same time, we heard arguments about Romney’s father, who was also a Mormon. And of course we see daily examples of fundamentalist Christians, evangelicals, being cast as complete idiots at every opportunity. I have to wonder in all honesty, if what we’re seeing here isn’t the mainstream media giving Huckabee enough rope to hang himself with the majority of the electorate. It’s true, the left can’t seem to agree on lunch lately, much less some kind of a political plan of attack, but that it’s working so effectively in Huckabee’s case, it seems logical to raise the possibility.

All that said, I’m extremely uncomfortable with the idea that this is going to be an ongoing discussion.  Calls for limitation of expression during the election process run dangerously close to violation of the First Amendment. The Constitution limits the actions of government, and the kind of controls over the people that the government can exert.  That includes free speech.  As regards religion by those not in government.  When somebody is running for office, ostensibly, they are running as a private citizen, and therefore speak their mind on any subject.  That’s the name of the game, here.

There is a major difference…. a bright line, if you will, between the various party primaries discussing religion and discussing religion within the halls of government itself and using governmental action to control it.  The Constitution limits the actions of government, not of the various political parties.  It seems to me that were treading on very dangerous ground here when we start calling for limitations on what should and should not be discussed as part of the election process.  Those limitations to be enforced, require control, namely, government control.

That’s not something I want the government anywhere near. Let the people decide such when they vote.

Mike Pethar over at Jawa:

This week, a battle in the gender war was won by the women. The heraldic lion on the coat of arms of the Nordic Battlegroup has been castrated.

Ouch!

The armed forces agreed to emasculate the lion after a group of women from the rapid reaction force lodged a complaint to the European Court of Justice, Goteborgs-Posten reports.But although the army was eventually happy to make the changes in the interests of gender equality, the artist who designed the insignia was less than pleased.

“A heraldic lion is a powerful and stately figure with its genitalia intact and I cannot approve an edited image,” Vladimir A Sagerlund from the National Archives told Goteborgs-Posten.

Sagerlund blasted the army for making changes to the coat of arms without his permission.

“The army lacks knowledge about heraldry. Once upon a time coats of arms containing lions without genitalia were given to those who betrayed the Crown,” said Sagerlund.

But the castrated lion has already won the day and is now worn on the arms of all soldiers in the battle group’s Swedish battalions.

“We were given the task of making sure the willy disappeared,” Christian Braunstein from the army’s ‘tradition commission’ told Goteborgs-Posten.

“We were forced to cut the lion’s willy off with the aid of a computer,” he added.

I would take this as a sure sign of idiocy. or, at the least, a lack of understanding of history, and the references that our symbolism makes to it.  I cannot imagine that they completely thought the matter through.  The lion in the picture having his procreation equipment fully intact is not about patriarchy, but about continuance.

There’s this, also. Those of you who keep cats, as I do here, should consider the personality changes, which occur once an animal is “Fixed”…  the animal becomes much more docile, much less territorial, much less willing to fight to maintain its own survival. It sits around at stares at you all day, merely looking for it’s next handout.

Hmmm. Ya know… That picture being altered so is actually kind of handy, then, given that the whole of Europe just got through signing away its sovereignty yesterday.  A castrated lion suits the situation quite well, after all.

Never mind. Nothing to see, here, Citizens. Move along.

From Editor & Publisher, Mr.  Clinton said:

“It would be a miracle if Hillary wins in Iowa, and I’m not just low-balling you”

From AFP:

Hillary Clinton on Friday denied her White House campaign was in disarray, despite sliding poll ratings and an uproar sparked by an aide who questioned her rival Barack Obama’s drug history.

“If I had listened to … the Washington chattering class, I would not be standing here would I?” Clinton told reporters, as controversy and reports of campaign turmoil swirled around her 2008 presidential bid.

The Clintons have a well known propensity to lie.  So which Clinton is lying this time?

Hat Tips: stories, Drudge Report; photo, Zombietime

So Britain has decided to sign away its sovereignty.

They will tell you that’s not what happened, but trust me;  That’s exactly what happened today.  When the event finally showed up it was rather anti-climatic, the wishes of the people in this thing have been rather consistently ignored for years. The rest of the world shrugged.

Let me make a little prediction to you.  It may not happen in your lifetime or mine, but it will happen.  The supposed European Union will go the way of the Roman Empire.  When it does happen,  Islam and its attached culture won’t meet its radicals anymore, they will simply walk in and take over.

Does anyone think we in America won’t be the next target?

And to think, it is not even April Fools Day.   Andrew “Excitable” Sullivan, Atlantic, actually strikes a cord which resonates to my ear:

What we’re beginning to see here is how underdeveloped the arguments for Clinton were when separated from her aura of inevitability.

What arguments? The only sliver of policy difference is health care mandates. The rest is “experience”, “dynasty,” “inevitability”, “competence.” No wonder their only current argument is: cocaine

I would have been tempted to make this the Snark of the Day, but alas Kyle-Anne beat Andrew to the draw.

Due credit to the late Rod Sterling.  Zombietime has done a major public service by collecting the scariest set of pictures yet found on the Web.  Like, dislike, the picture of Mrs. Clinton, well there are plenty more from which to pick, ignore.   The sites does seem to have a distinct preference for showing Mrs. Clinton with her mouth open.   Wonder why?

I said yesterday morning that Major league baseball and its report that was issued yesterday about steroid use, was going to end up being a sham. They’d throw a few players under the bus, and that would be the end of the conversation.

After so many years of leading this stuff slide, I can’t believe they’re actually going to get serious about it, now. If I see that situation changed, I will be among the first to say I was wrong, but I don’t think that’s going to happen… particularly given the pressures that the players union will undoubtedly bring.  The union has always been a large part of why MLB has never gotten serious before.  Everyone’s been making money off this situation… and there’s far too much to lose, financially, to fully expose it.  Simply put, I don’t see any reason for that situation to change.

So whose heads end up on the silver platter?  Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Miguel Tejada and Andy Pettitte. The report suggests that some 80 other players are also guilty. This seems overly small based on what we were told. What about the minors?

In other words, Uncle Bithead called this sham from the get-go.  This nonsense took 20 months to put together an all they can come up with in all of Major league baseball is 80 individuals using this stuff? To steal a phrase, trusting this report requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Of course, the union is the biggest part of the problem:

Giambi, under threat of discipline from Selig, and Frank Thomas were the only current players known to have cooperated with the Mitchell investigation.

“The players’ union was largely uncooperative for reasons that I thought were largely understandable,” Mitchell said.

How many more is the player’s union hiding, I wonder? That, then is step number one …getting tough with the players union.  The fact is the player’s union is bad for the game, in many ways of which this is but one.

I’m sorry gentlemen, but this report does absolutely no good whatsoever for the credibility of Major league baseball.  Perhaps it’s time to replace the leadership of Major league baseball. A new broom sweeps clean, not under the carpet .

The problem is wider than this, MLB, and you know it.

The fans deserve better.

JPOST- Iran tested a newly-developed ballistic missile on the day of the Annapolis conference, Channel 10 reported Wednesday.

The Ashoura missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers and is capable of reaching Israel, US Army bases in the Middle East and eastern European cities.

According to the report, the new missile is an improvement to the existing Shihab-3 missile. The Ashoura uses solid fuel instead of the Shihab’s liquid fuel, giving it a significantly faster launch sequence which is harder to detect.

Any questions, class?

It seems that folks who aren’t even a little hesitant to rally the crowds round the “choice” to kill a baby in the womb, get downright riled when the bloodstained pictures of the act itself make it into the public arena, especially around children.

Kyle-Anne Shiver, American Thinker.

Fred08 has issued the following apology:

From Karen Hanretty, Deputy Communications Director:

In light of Mike Huckabee’s heartfelt apology to Mitt Romney for making reference to Romney’s religion in the New York Times Magazine, we at the Thompson Campaign would like to offer Huckabee our own heartfelt apologies for some references we’ve made about his record as Governor of Arkansas.

We apologize for pointing out that as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee offered in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. That’s something he’d probably just as soon no one talk about.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News Iowa poll of Iowans likely to vote in the Republican caucus stated illegal immigration as their top issue of concern, tied with the war in Iraq.

We apologize for pointing out that in 2002 Huckabee wrote Pres. Bush a letter asking him to lift the Cuban embargo. It’s easy to see how Huckabee might have missed the finer points of a 40-year embargo. While he obviously knew enough about the embargo to ask that it be lifted, Huckabee clearly didn’t know enough to ask that it not be lifted. So for that, we’re sorry.

In 2002, Governor Huckabee strongly advocated lifting the embargo against Cuba saying it “harm[s] our own agricultural and business interests,” “has not helped the people of Cuba” and has “provided Castro with a convenient excuse for his own failed system of government.” (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/29/02)

We apologize for referencing that 47% tax increase Huckabee imposed on Arkansas taxpayers when he was governor. That must be really awkward for him, now that he’s running in a GOP primary election. We notice he never points it out to voters.

Average Arkansan’s tax burden increased by over 47% between 1997 and 2005 (or $933 per person). (Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 10/9/07)

We apologize for telling reporters that a BA in Biblical Studies from Ouachita Baptist University doesn’t, in fact, make Huckabee more qualified to fight the war on terror than say…Fred Thompson.

In an interview with CBNNews in November, Huckabee said “…I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamo fascism. These are people that want to kill us. … And I don’t know if anybody fully understands that. I’m the only guy on that stage with a theology degree.”

I don’t expect Karen Hanretty forced to resign.   Fred is behind and the most likely support he can gain is from the Mike Huckabee camp.   About time to draw attention to Huckabee’s short resume and to start drawing some distinctions.

Billy;

An enduring mystery to me: I do not understand why anyone in this country stacks so much as one brick on top of another. Observe:

“The Bush tax cuts, more than any other policy, are crippling the government financially.”

Sometimes, dear reader, the FNORDs blow away and you can see right through the clear sky to the naked, evil premise. The Comfy Commissariat is not concerned with you.  Take them at their words.

Well, of course they’re not concerned with us  (past, of course, what we can pay into the system of their power.)

But please, man, don’t fall into the trap of taking them at their word.

Look;

Even if you take it as gospel that we should be concerned that the government is not being allowed to grow, the fact of the matter is that the Bush tax cuts more than any other policy are responsible not only for economic growth in the private sector, but an influx of cash in government coffers as well.  That the government is actually being crippled financially by the Bush tax cuts is a lie is superseded in size and scope only by that of the great lie of global warming.

The point I’m making here is that their true purposes are revealed by their lies, as much as by what little bits of truth slip out every so often.

Yesterday I blogged about how Charles Krauthammer hammered Carolyn Washburn for hosting “[t]e worst debate in western history”    Picking up her own hammer, Michelle Malkin gives the school marm, Washburn, gives more of the Malkin treatment.

December 12, 2007 — NY Post-ALBANY – A top state housing official – who is married to one of Gov. Spitzer‘s close aides – is set to quietly receive a $46,000-a-year pay raise, The Post has learned.Priscilla Almodovar, who since Jan. 25 has been CEO and president of the State of New York Mortgage Agency, the state Housing Finance Agency, and three other small housing agencies, is due to have the raise approved tomorrow by the board overseeing the agencies.

Almodovar is the wife of Spitzer’s handpicked insurance superintendent, Eric Dinallo, a close friend of the governor who served under him in the Attorney General’s Office.

The planned pay hike to $250,000 a year, up from her current $204,350, has angered some officials at the agencies who say it not only dwarfs the salary of her more experienced predecessor but also comes at a time when state lawmakers and judges have been so far unsuccessfully pushing for their own raises.

“This is a very bad precedent,” said a senior SONYMA official.

It’s flat out amazing, what the corrupt Democrats can do when they put the taxpayer’s backs into it, isn’t it?

It really has been mortifying to watch The National Review going supine for nothing but the value of winning the next election. That they would endorse Mitt Romney is just pathetic, and a glaring sign of the times. Kathryn Jean Lopez should be ashamed of herself, but she’s too dizzy for that and there is nothing to be done for it. Stupid fools: that’s all there is to it.

That’s Billy Beck last night.  I understand where he’s coming from, and I sympathize with him, but I wonder if the pragmatism that National Review is showing us, here, isn’t justified. My read is that they’ve written off Thompson. I haven’t.

(Sigh) OK, here we go… I guess it’s time I stood up and got counted. In doing this, I want to explain my thinking, so bear with me, here.

Personally, I would much prefer Fred Thompson, get the nomination, and I’ve made no bones about that. Barring that most pleasant of possibilities, however, I began to wonder if Romney isn’t going to be the best choice beyond the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Let’s imagine then, that for some reason Fred Thompson does not yet the nomination (His winning the nomination certainly seems an open question at this point at least) At that point, we end up in a situation not unlike what we ran into with the initial nomination of George W. Bush back in 2000.  I said at the time and have been saying repeatedly since the Bush is not a conservative that I wished he would be.  Then again, given his track record, and that of his father, I held no illusions about the matter.

As back in 2000 than we find ourselves in a situation of voting for the candidate who will do the least damage.  Someone of those still standing, who, while not the first choice, will do the agenda of the right the least amount of damage.

First, I won’t go anywhere near Duncan Hunter, one of the gang of 14, and in truth, not a factor anyway. I could have almost dealt with him, (I initially supported him last February) were it not for that gang of 14 business.  Same goes for John McCain. The gang of 14 business, in combo with his overt liberalism, totally disqualifies him.  Hagel’s a flake, and no factor.  I’ve spoken often enough about Ron Paul to get something of a reputation for it.  You know where I stand there.  I want the man nowhere near the White House… even a White House tour line, much less holding the Oval Office. Given the relative standing of these people in the polls it would appear that my judgment is not unique in that area.

Then, there’s Mike Huckabee. Where to begin with this one?

The man has all the liberalism of John McCain wrapped up in a holier than thou attitude that I find reminiscent of John Kerry…. and unappealing of itself. When taken as a package,  I suggest to you that there are very few candidates for any office in the country who are as unlikeable as a candidate, and unattractive, in terms of furthering the cause of freedom.  Living in an upstairs apartment over a Fish market holds greater allure. How he can call himself a Republican is something of a mystery to me. Then again, look at McCain.

This is not to say that Huckabee doesn’t have his personal attractions. He most certainly does. Every report I have ever heard of him, suggested he is a charming individual in person… So is Bill Clinton.  When considering a candidate for president, the man’s personal likability is not in my first three considerations.  I find Huckabee’s foreign policy, clueless to the point where any one of the Democrats could do better…. and on domestic policy, you can’t fit water between Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton. No wonder the press likes him.

Anyway, so as far as the Republican side goes, that leaves us three choices in my view.

• Fred Thompson.
• Mitt Romney.
• Rudy Giuliani

I want to explain to you what I’m thinking of these three at this point.

I’ve made no secret that I’m with Fred.  On every issue that gets brought up, Fred’s position is by far the one I would choose.  But given the politics, we must consider a fallback position, if Fred doesn’t get the nomination.  I must base these choices on the biggest issues of the day, and I’ve chosen what I feel are the top three.

1:Islamic terrorism

Not to speak for Billy here, but my perception of his position is that such a “Better of three evils” choice is altogether unacceptable. I would counter that argument by saying that the specter of having an Al Gore in the White House and planes flying into the World Trade Center used to gruesome a prospect to consider. For all of the complaints coming from the left about a “never-ending war” I submit that with Al Gore as president on September 12, 2000 we would’ve started a real never-ending war. One a hell of a lot more Americans, particularly American civilians, would have died in As it stands right now, with George W. Bush in the White House, we actually stand a chance of not only coming away with a victory, but a workable peace thereby. that’s an equation, the Democrats have never figured out, and so are disqualified from my list immediately, all of them at a swoop. This then is the first consideration in my support of a presidential candidate.

You see, I am not one who thinks that once we withdraw from Iraq we are going to be completely safe from Islamic terrorists.  Thus for the next several elections of least the possibility of attack against us, must be high on the list of considerations in selecting a candidate for president, and ultimately a president.  Certainly none of the Democratic party candidates possess the stones that I would want in a leader.  Under those circumstances my choices would include Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani in that order, with Romney and Giuliani being more or less tied for second.

2: At that point we go down the list a little, and start looking at the remaining concerns…namely, domestic concerns, most notably spending, taxes, and the reduction of government. Certainly, here again, Fred Thompson shines in those areas far brighter than either of the other two that Romney comes a distant second, with Rudy Giuliani trailing him, but not by much. Both Romney and Giuliani are far too wedded to big government programs for my taste. that said, they still look somewhat better than any of the Democrat candidates.

3: Finally we come to the issue of border control. Fred Thompson stands head and shoulders above the other two here, as well.  Frankly, I am most bothered by Giuliani on this issue, not by what he’s saying currently, but by the actions he’s taken in the past as the mayor of a city with a large population of illegals.  I am somewhat less nonplussed by what I see of Romney, in this area.

As a bonus round, we come to electability.

Certainly, there are those who will suggest that Fred Thompson is not centrist enough (or frankly, liberal enough) to be elected president of the United States in the general election.  I don’t agree.  I remind you of them saying the same thing about Ronald Reagan. I am firmly convinced that if the Republican Party has the courage to go through with nominating Mr. Thompson that he’ll will be elected as Regan was, and for the same reasons.  The reasons are simple enough; primarily among them: A real conservative can easily break down liberal dogma.  Ronald Reagan proved that easily. It’s called standing for something.

That said we come to the other two.  As with all the other considerations that I’ve listed here.  Romney and Giuliani come fairly close to each other with Romney in my view having a slight edge.as others have noted, there are a number of people who will cross party lines to vote for one or the other.  And that’s fine.  Whether or not it’s going to be enough to overcome the Democratic challenger, remains to be seen.  But if it comes to it, I’ll vote for them, despite being uncomfortable with both of them on matters of policy in some areas. They’re still a better choice than Hillary Clinton, or her clone, Barack Obama.

So, with these considerations in mind, I hereby heartily endorse Fred Thompson for President.

That endorsement made, I will say that Mitt Romney, and or Rudy Giuliani would make an acceptable second choice. I will add that I hope I’m not forced into that choice.