Seeing Through The Fog

My political dispositions ought to be well known by now, so I don't think I need to bring them up again, but I did want to briefly address the recent revelations in the much-discussed so-caled Troopergate scandal. One of the big problems with the Palinsanity that ensued in the weeks following her announcement as Veep, besides the general sleaziness of many of the attacks, was the problem of crying wolf, that Simon dealt with earlier.

Let me say that I still like Sarah Palin (although my opinion of her has diminished somewhat), and yet I've always had concerns about some of her policy positions, and certain aspects of her record. Surely, even the most committed Palinites have to recognize that there are valid criticisms that can be made about her. Many press outlets, and various anti-Palin outfits have made such fools of themselves over the past few weeks, that when legit stories come up, they are treated with an amount of skepticism they otherwise wouldn't be.

In case you didn't know, a 263-page report was released by Alaska lawmakers investigating the scandal, that basically accuses Palin of abusing her power, in firing Mike Wooten. The McCain-Palin camp has called it a partisan witch hunt, and have issued a "clarification," that they assume will put the issue to rest. The thing is, I'm not at all prepared to call it a witch hunt run by pro-Obama partisans, just because Palin says it's a witch hunt. I agree with Ann, that even Palin fans ought not dismiss this outright.

First off, let me clear two things up right away: I am not saying that this report is valid, or that Palin did in fact abuse her power. It should be noted that as the Governor she has the perogative to fire Wooten, for basically any reason, so there's no criminality involved here. However, there is an alleged issue of credibility at play.

The point is, with the MSM's predispositions regarding Palin, and the aforementioned history of unfair attacks, Palin can cry "partisan witch hunt" with much more credibility than she would've had otherwise, because there was (and in certain quarters still is) a partisan witch hunt going on. People are more inclined to believe she's the victim of unfair attacks, even when she's not, and the media's reputation becomes so damaged that everything that comes out, is treated with a grain of salt. Everything.

Obama's Labour Battalion?

Over at SF, Simon has a good post about new hubbub and faermomgering about the draft. Tully has an interesting comment, about Obama's plan for "National Service," and links to this quote:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

At first glance, it sounds pretty creepy, however, I'm going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and suggest that maybe things aren't quite what they seem. As I suggested there, perhaps this is just an inartful way of Obama promoting expanded civic volunteerism, as in the Peace Corps, or Americorps. Of course I could be wrong, as Tully is on onto something when he points out that such plans usually require some form of compulsion, not to mention that "civilian antional security force" gives me the creeps. Again, I do think that many have the tendency to project their own biases upon Obama's policies, and I suspect that at the very least, its a scheme that tries to appeal to America's compassionate nature (he has many of those), and at worst, a well-intentioned plan that may not work out in the real world, without some undesirable consequences (he has a few of those, too).

Well, Somebody Had To Say It

You really have to read Jasmyne Cannick's spot-on commentary on the out-of-balance reaction to Michael Vick's alleged dogfighting. She says what I've been basically thinking for a while now, although cruelty to animals isn't a small matter. An excerpt:

"I am not in the camp of people that think that dog fighting deserves this much of our attention. Sure it's not pretty and for the most part is horrific, but it's not the worst thing Vick could be charged with - try 14 counts of child pornography and having sex with an underage minor. Enter R&B singer R. Kelly. Set to begin his long overdue trial next month on 14 counts of possessing child pornography for allegedly videotaping himself having sex with a girl, prosecutors have said could be as young as 13, you wouldn't know it the way his albums are still flying off shelves and black people are still bumping and grinding to his music. So what does R. Kelly have to do with Michael Vick? While traditional black organizations have been quick to jump to Vick's defence, for the most part they've said nothing on Kelly. Last time I checked a dog was not human, but a 13-year-old girl was. And regardless as to whether or not she willingly engaged in the act, she was the minor and he was the adult."

Now, I'm not at all defending dogfighting either, and it is a horrible and sickening crime. If Vick actually allowed this to happen in his house, or enabled it, he did a horrible thing. Cruelty to animals is in fact a horrible thing, and as I said, not a small matter.

Here's the thing: I've seen serial rapists get less heat in the press than Vick's getting from some. A bit bass ackwards, don't you think?

HT: Booker Rising

The Massachusetts Bar Exam Is Anti-Christian?

This man thinks so. From Law.com:

A Massachusetts bar examination applicant who claims he failed the test because he didn't answer a question about homosexual marriage and parenting is suing the test administration agency, the state Supreme Judicial Court and four individual justices for constitutional violations

The story continues:

Dunne claims his score of 268.866 on the November 2006 bar exam just missed the passing score of 270 points because he didn't follow the prescribed format for an unlawful question about gay marriage. Dunne said the question required applicants to "affirmatively accept, support and promote homosexual marriage and homosexual parenting." Dunne claims the defendants violated his First Amendment right to exercise his religion and violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. He also claims their actions impose illegal state regulations on interstate commerce.

Interesting. I certainly respect Dunne's right to morally oppose same-sex marriage being the law, but I'm wondering if he has a case here. Whether he likes it or not, same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts. If the question did actually require him to support a policy he disagrees with, then there's a big problem, but you'd have to prove that (and farnkly, I find that kind of dubious, considering this is the Bar exam). Also, what of the fact that he must have certainly gotten other questions wrong? Can you argue that you failed because of that question, when there are clearly others you got wrong as well?

Of course, as I said, if the Bar exam does actually force applicants to potentially compromise their beliefs (as opposed to simply applying laws), then he has a case. I'd really like to see that question, in order to determine whether we have a case of authentic anti-Christian bias, or someone with a political axe to grind, who cannot pass the bar. Who knows?

HT: Pam's House Blend

Cincinnati Says No To The Duke Boys

You know, I'm not sure what to make of this. My opposition to the ideas that the Confederacy stood for are clear, as well as my general distaste for the Confederate flag. I would rather the flag not be on state houses, as it makes a clear political statement ( I agreed with the campaign to have it taken down in South Carolina). However, I have learned to tolerate when used as a general symbol for Southern pride. I have no problem acknowledging the average person with the Confederate flag on their shirt probably isn't a racist. I'm not a fan, but I can tolerate it. Keeping that mind, I find this to be a bit of an overreaction.

I mean, it's the Dukes of Hazzard, for God's sake.