Saturday, September 27. 2008
Our internet friend Right Wing Prof emailed these thoughts to us: The "Catholic vote" must refer specifically to the "Observant Catholic vote," or it's a meaningless demographic.
First, Catholics differ from Protestants in their fear of apostasy. Protestants often covert or change churches; Catholics rarely do. This is why you hear about lapsed Catholics, but never lapsed Methodists. The point here is that lapsed Catholics, those who never go to Mass, identify themselves as Catholics and always will, but pay no attention to the precepts of the Church. They will always be a part of the "Catholic vote" on any survey or poll, unless the poll differentiates. Most don't.
Second, you have the cafeteria Catholic segment. Some go to Mass only on Easter and Christmas, while others go to Mass more or less regularly. Because like Protestants, they feel they can pick and choose among matters of faith, they are very hard to pin down. Many are strongly pro-life, but the question is how they balance life against other issues. Note that in response to Pelosi and Biden, over a hundred American bishops have now stated that life is more important than all other issues, although none has endorsed a ticket. These statements may swing many cafeteria Catholics to McCain and Palin.
Remove these two groups from the Catholic demographic, and you are left with the observant Catholics. Note that observant doesn't merely mean they go to Mass regularly. Observant means that they take their faith seriously, and follow the precepts of the Church. This is perhaps the strongest pro-life group in the United States, and tends to be socially conservative in general.
Two things are going to swing the votes more than we would see in most elections: The bishops' statements in response to Pelosi and Biden, and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Obama refused to vote for. McCain's support of federal monies for stem-cell research hurt his standing among pro-life Cathoics to some extent, but putting Palin on the ticket seems to have outweighed that, and McCain's stance on federal money for stem-cell research pales next to Obama's refusal to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as a pro-life issue.
Note, however, that even if only the observant Catholics vote Republican, that's a significant demographic. There are 67 million Catholics in the United States. If observant Catholics only account for 25% of the entire Catholic population, that's 16.25 million votes.
(There are other problems with treating the self-identification "Catholic" on polls and surveys as a voting block. First, there is the intersection between Hispanic voters and Catholic voters. Hispanics have a whole set of issues that aren't necessarily Catholic issues, and these will affect how they vote. Second, you have the historical effect in play with ethnic Catholics that aren't really ethnic at all anymore, but tend to vote the same way their parents and grandparents, etc., did. These groups tend to be geographically as well as ethnically defined, such as Irish Catholics in MA, Italian Catholics in Philly or NYC, etc., and nearly all are urban.)
Keeping all these problems in mind, there are these poll results. Zogby reports that 54% of Catholics in general are intending to vote McCain. Another Pew poll that differentiates between lapsed and attending (non-lapsed, since this would include cafeteria Catholics who attend Mass and observant Catholics) Catholics reports an even split for McCain and Obama among lapsed Catholics, and a 52-36 McCain advantage among Catholics who attend Mass (non-lapsed).
Oddly enough, Gary Bauer of all people wrote an article about Obama's "Catholic problem" in Human Events. He does, however, hit the nail on the head: "Obama is hemorrhaging Catholic support for the same reason John Kerry lost the Catholic vote in 2004: because most Catholics believe that some issues are non-negotiable."
Well, he almost hits it. I'm not sure "most" is correct, but he's referring to non-lapsed Catholics.
 If you happened to miss the first presidential debate last night, I have some advice for you: If you read any of the analyses out there today, take them with a mountain of salt.
I spent three hours this morning reading so-called analyses and have yet to find one that even remotely borders on objective and impartial. Everybody's a homer. To the Left and the MSM, Obama clearly won with his natural brilliance. To the Right, McCain 'crushed' Obama with ease. And pigs can fly.
Despite what appears to be a deeply-seated human need for a 'winner' in every contest, I don't see debates that way. And, given how the Lefties all saw Obama as the winner and the Righties all saw McCain as the winner, I'd say that feeling is somewhat justified.
However, if you demanded a verdict from me, I'd call it a draw. Here's how I saw them balancing out: - McCain used the phrase "What Senator Obama doesn't understand is..." a number of times to great effect, then launching into a mini-tutorial on just what Big O doesn't understand. This was the primary point the Righties were crowing about this morning, and it was obviously the basic strategy employed by Team McCain. As I said, it was extremely effective. By the third or fourth time, it actually tilted the event from "debate" slightly toward "lecture" in a very subliminal, but powerful, way. In the lexicon of the day, it was downright Rovian.
- On the other hand, Obama has a much better stage presence, stands tall and erect, shows passion when he needs to and has a voice that's ten times more presidential-sounding than McCain's. Yes, yes, I understand that to a pundit these are all 'empty suit' gestures, but I don't care how pundits view it. They're smart enough to nuance the discrepancies; the average American voter is not. Half the people who watched it probably saw a doddering old man past his prime and the energy and passion of the young bull ready to take the lead, and the other half saw a calm and experienced elder statesman lecturing the young pup on the basics, grooming him for his own presidency four years hence. The intricate details of the subject matter that the bloggers blather on about are lost on the average joe.
They both upset their base in (at least) two ways: - McCain reminded us that he's a total wuss when it comes to good old-fashioned torture, and reminded us that the poor polar bears are dying by the thousands and we need to take drastic action immediately. (he didn't actually mention the polar bears by name — I'm just extrapolating)
- Obama made some fairly strong statements regarding the military, something along the lines of "If we have to take military action, we will!" I'm sure that went over big with the anti-war crowd. He then floored the greenies by saying something like "And, yes, we need to develop nuclear power," with the "yes" aimed directly at the anti-nuke crowd, as in, "Yes, you morons, we need to..."
Continue reading "The first debate: a centrist's take"
 "I wanted to acknowledge luck; the chance and benevolence of it in my life, and the brutality of it in the lives of others, who might not be allowed the good fortune of a lifetime to correct it."
"I was always a character actor, but I looked like Little Red Riding Hood." Westport, Connecticut's Paul Newman, RIP Photo: Newman with wife Joanne Woodward, at home. Good people.
 Do you feel better informed about the candidates after that debate? Know them better? Here's Mona Charen.
Why the Polar Bear? An animal to save the world Megan: "My position on global warming: a federal program to make sure everyone has an adequate supply of little umbrellas for their tropical drinks!" Except for the most rabidly partisan blogs, most bloggers practice ethical writing. Jay Rosen discusses Why Petrobras is doing well, when other nationalized oil companies aren't Rich doctors? Primary care MDs in CT The state of slavery today. Wilson Quarterly Dems want to direct bailout $ to left-wing groups Six social policy myths. Policy Somalian pirates. Let's postpone that cruise to Somalia this year, dear. Obama's foreign policy naivete. Is it a bailout or an investment? I hate to see the govt taking over businesses (even "temporarily," but the Treasury could make out like Wall St. bandits - for better or worse.
Today is the 36th National Hunting and Fishing Day. Get out there and do some of that. Here's Ted Nugent on Kill 'em and Grill 'em.
After Apple Picking | MY long two-pointed ladder’s sticking through a tree | | | Toward heaven still, | | | And there’s a barrel that I didn’t fill | | | Beside it, and there may be two or three | | | Apples I didn’t pick upon some bough. | 5 | | But I am done with apple-picking now. | | | Essence of winter sleep is on the night, | | | The scent of apples: I am drowsing off. | | | I cannot rub the strangeness from my sight | | | I got from looking through a pane of glass | 10 | | I skimmed this morning from the drinking trough | | | And held against the world of hoary grass. | | | It melted, and I let it fall and break. | | | But I was well | | | Upon my way to sleep before it fell, | 15 | | And I could tell | | | What form my dreaming was about to take. | | | Magnified apples appear and disappear, | | | Stem end and blossom end, | | | And every fleck of russet showing clear. | 20 | | My instep arch not only keeps the ache, | | | It keeps the pressure of a ladder-round. | | | I feel the ladder sway as the boughs bend. | | | And I keep hearing from the cellar bin | | | The rumbling sound | 25 | | Of load on load of apples coming in. | | | For I have had too much | | | Of apple-picking: I am overtired | | | Of the great harvest I myself desired. | | | There were ten thousand thousand fruit to touch, | 30 | | Cherish in hand, lift down, and not let fall. | | | For all | | | That struck the earth, | | | No matter if not bruised or spiked with stubble, | | | Went surely to the cider-apple heap | 35 | | As of no worth. | | | One can see what will trouble | | | This sleep of mine, whatever sleep it is. | | | Were he not gone, | | | The woodchuck could say whether it’s like his | 40 | | Long sleep, as I describe its coming on, | | Or just some human sleep. |
This early (1915) poem is in Frost's North of Boston collection. You can hear him read the poem here. Here's an interesting review of a bio of Frost: A Terrifying Poet. Yes he was.
Friday, September 26. 2008
 I am heading out to Montauk for some Striper fishin' this weekend. Tough guy vs. empty suit debate - I am missing it - enjoy. Leaving now. See y'all on Monday.
Turning the First Amendment on its head. Neuhaus Sowell: It's about political maneuvering, not the good of the nation. Tiger agrees: Disgusting Celebrity economics. American Thinker Bill Clinton likes the New Repubs More on the Obama stories the MSM ignores Throwing fish away. EU rules. Insane, top to bottom. Doers vs. intellectuals. neoneo Code Pink and Ahmadinejad. Perfect together. Sarah Palin hates blacks and Jews. No doubt, a wicked lady for sure. Founding Brothers. Who was behind Obama's unusual rise in politics? More Trapped in the 60s.
 Johnny Appleseed - John Chapman - was an interesting character: an ascetic, a Swedenborgian missionary, and a nurseryman who had little interest in making money.
Read about him and his unusual life at a good Wiki entry.
The tragedy of modern man is not that he knows less and less about the meaning of his own life, but that it bothers him less and less. Václav Havel (h/t, LGF)
Jim Manzil at NRO writes, about Weinberg's Without God in the NY Review of Books: Steven Weinberg (Nobelist in physics) says this in the recent essay “Without God” in the New York Review of Books: [T]he worldview of science is rather chilling. Not only do we not find any point to life laid out for us in nature, no objective basis for our moral principles, no correspondence between what we think is the moral law and the laws of nature, of the sort imagined by philosophers from Anaximander and Plato to Emerson. We even learn that the emotions that we most treasure, our love for our wives and husbands and children, are made possible by chemical processes in our brains that are what they are as a result of natural selection acting on chance mutations over millions of years. And yet we must not sink into nihilism or stifle our emotions.
Really – why not?
Indeed, the materialistic, "scientific," and utilitarian views of life are cold as ice. But real scientists aren't cold. They are as emotional and "spiritual" as everybody else.
From Grow A Brain: Have you heard the one about the actress who was late for an audition? She’s driving around and around and there is no parking anywhere. She says aloud, “Dear all powerful and merciful God please find me a place to park - I’ll do anything for you.” As she finishes praying, a space opens up and she says, “Never mind - I found one."
 Is Bill Clinton undermining Obama?
Ahmadinejad endorses Obama Stuff men don't need The true story of Che. It's a film Woops. China reports rocket launch before it happens A McCain-Palin march on the Upper West Side. Nice example of "liberal tolerance." h/t, Thompson Is Greenie-ism a fad of the liberal elite? No doubt. Mankiw: In defence of Paulson's plan Photo: That is the Fuji Apple - a darn good apple.
A simple and clear story line from Deal Journal, via SDA. Also, Coulter via View from the Right: In Bush's first year in office, the White House chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned that the government's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system. Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about housing." How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats. Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients. Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science and entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry.
Bill Clinton agrees that the Dems are to blame.
Some family and friends climbed Mt. Willey on Sunday. They popped a bottle of champagne on the foggy top. Here's one of their photos from a viewpoint, part way up: 
Thursday, September 25. 2008
I mentioned hearing Barbados' Arturo Tappin in Roberta Flack's band last weekend. The guy does every reed instrument, seemingly effortlessly and with joy. He does Grover Washington-style stuff, but can rock out if he wants. Here's a good sample of him:
"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." Milton Friedman
 What's up with Beauty Studies (ie Neuroaesthetics) these days?
A quote from Beauty and the Brain (by the proprietor of Neurophilosophy) in Seed (h/t, Dr. X): ...recent work by several researchers at University College London?—?including the establishment of the first major grant-driven research program for the neurobiological investigation of aesthetics, or neuroaesthetics?—?has made the first steps toward a unified biocultural theory of art. An object's beauty may not be universal, but the neural basis for appreciating beauty probably is. The researchers' initial discoveries and the increasing formalization of the field promise to open the way for the first time to an understanding of beauty based on something other than speculation.
Can things of the soul and spirit be understood in terms of neurotransmitters and neural wiring? Count me a skeptic. Different levels of organization have different rules and patterns which do not transfer one to the other. For example, you could know everything about atoms but never predict a living cell, and you could understand everything about a cortical network without predicting Moby Dick. (And, for me, on a good day I see beauty everywhere but on a bad day I see it nowhere.) Still, they may as well give it a try. I get skeptical when they call it a bio-cultural model, however. It makes it too clear that they seek to detour around the psychology part.
 Casual business dress is passe (I don't know how to do an accent aigu on this machine).
I learned this from the Wall St. kid of a friend this weekend. They were informed that, from now on, Business Formal is their required dress code, all week. That's good news for Brooks Brothers and Ann Taylor - if there is anybody left on Wall St. to need the clothing. What do I wear to work? Blazers or tweed jackets and tie, and grey trousers. Brooks shirts. I wear good suits to court, but I only own 5 of 'em for court, weddings, and funerals.
Pork and apple sure do go well together. I cannot eat a pork chop without a pile of applesauce on the side (and a pile of collards). The best marriage of pork and apple is the festive Stuffed Crown Roast of Pork. As Sippican would say, it's the shiznit. Image is of a Cuban-style pig roast (for which just a single apple is required).
 Vanderleun made up this Get Out Of Racism Free Card as a public service for the benefit of the 50% of presumably racist Dems who voted against Obama in the primaries. Also useful for those who prefer MCain or doubt whether Obama is up to the job.
The Paulson plan will make money for the taxpayers Why Joe Biden is gaffe-proof McCain's gambit. I agree with Rick. It's more of that old getting inside the other guy's OODA Loop, and messing him up. From Insty: IS SAYING "IF YOU DON'T HAVE SEX WITH ME, I'LL LEAVE YOU" tantamount to rape? Only if you're an idiot. Which means, for some people, the answer is "yes."
The Romans brought the leeks to Wales Vote Here. Jib-Jab Al Gore: Break the law to prevent coal-burning Who's getting abortions these days? From a piece in Newsweek: While the teen abortion rate has declined by nearly 30 percent, the rate for women ages 20-24 is almost 10 points higher than it was in 1974. (In that group, rates hit 30.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 1974, spiking to 53.8 in 1989 and declining to 39.9 in 2004.) Women in the next age group, ages 25-29, follow a similar pattern, with a spike in the '80s and a decline in recent years. So while it's encouraging that abortion rates among 20- to 29-year-olds have been steadily declining since the late 1980s, those decreases have been much smaller than those among teenagers, and they still have not brought the abortion rate down to low levels of the 1970s.
The solar wind is at a low point. What's going wrong in Aghanistan? Maybe there is no "best" strategy; maybe it's just one of those endless messes where the barbarians will keep coming for years and somebody just have to man the walls and gates to keep them away. This sort of thing has happened many times in history.
Rich Lowry discusses why we need something like the Paulson plan. I think people like "Kill the bailout" Michelle are way off base on both economic and political grounds: frozen credit will create a huge slowdown which will hurt everybody and turn Bush, unwillingly, into another Herbert Hoover. Furthermore, I do not believe that the Feds intend to keep these assets forever. We aren't bailing out rich bankers - we're bailing out the US economy. It's a hangover cure for the housing bubble. Buffett: It's an economic Pearl Harbor. Mayor Bloomberg explains how the Dems caused the financial meltdown via a corrupted and politicized Fannie and Freddie.
Via Will Wilkerson, an excellent essay that undoes the myth that the US ever had entirely free markets.
|
