Sequiturs

Democrats have not traditionally shown tolerance for pro-life views within the party. At their 1992 convention, Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey was removed from the list of speakers because of his pro-life views. Democrat politicians from Dick Gephardt to Al Gore have found it necessary to renounce their concern for the unborn before getting any traction with the national Democratic establishment. Last night, Keystone-State Senator Bob Casey Jr., pro-life son of the late governor, spoke at the Democratic convention in Denver. This move was widely interpreted as an effort to make amens for the ‘92 shunning of his father, but Casey’s speech merely drove home the point that the pro-life viewpoint is not welcome among Democrats. He mentioned abortion just once, in seven minutes, and here is that quote: “Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion. But the fact that I’m speaking here tonight is testament to Barack’s ability to show respect for the views of people who may disagree with him.”

What a testament! See how advanced and tolerant the Democrats are: they let pro-life politicians speak–about the economy! Not one line of the speech called on Democrats to reconsider the funding of abortion with tax dollars, support crisis pregnancy centers, or fix the gaping maw of red-stained teeth made of red tape we like to quaintly call an adoption system. Just one mild sentence actually talking about the issue would have gone a long way toward convincing me that things have changed since ‘92. But Democrats have a different standard: they apparently consider themselves broad-minded for letting a pro-life Senator give a speech that includes no substantive policy statements about abortion, only obsequious nonsense about how graceful Barack Obama is for letting him say…nothing. For those of us who would like to see opposition to abortion become acceptable in both major parties–and that includes a lot of Democrats in swing states–this is like getting a fortune cookie with no meal. It’s like gagging someone, then removing the gag on the condition that they don’t say anything except to thank you for taking it off. When a Democrat can actually speak about the valuable life of an unborn child without being ostracized from the party, I’ll believe this “testament.”

…for playing too well. A youth baseball league in the apparently bewitched town of New Haven, Connecticut, has banned young Jericho Scott and disbanded his 8-0 team. The reason? He throws too hard. The league’s lawyer says that it’s an instructional league, so a player who is too good makes the game unfair to everyone else. He also says opposing players’ parents expressed concern over the boy’s 40mph fastball, although he hasn’t hit anyone this season. Perhaps not coincidentally, Scott had apparently turned down an invitation join the defending champion team, sponsored by a league official.

When I was in little league I sometimes faced pitchers much bigger and stronger than me, who threw hard enough to terrify. I have no idea if it was 40 or 140 mph, but the pitches might as well have been laser beams to me. The struggle was good for me, and my parents had the good sense to help me practice and grow through the situation. That doesn’t mean getting better at baseball, it means learning to persevere through a little adversity. This league is ‘instructional,’ but life lessons are more valuable instruction than baseball lessons. When parents react to their child facing a good player by demanding that the player be banned or promoted out of the league, instead of taking advantage of a teachable moment, it makes me feel sorry for their kid.

Childhood isn’t just about having fun, it’s also about shaping character. The message this league and some parents are sending to these kids is: 1) we don’t believe in your ability to compete with the best, so we have to intercede for you, 2) when someone outperforms you, just have them punished instead of trying to rise to their level. That’s probably not the end of the world all by itself, but it’s a bad sign as to what ideas are being inculcated to young people in our culture.

The National Hurricane Center issued its first advisory on tropical depression seven at 11am EDT this morning. What is interesting is that this depression–with 30 KT maximum winds–already has an eye feature (I’ve saved the image, but haven’t been able to upload it to the server for some reason, so the image you’ll see later today isn’t the same one I’m looking at now). Granted, IR imagery shows the eye isn’t clear at all levels, isn’t centered in the deep convection, and isn’t quite vertically stacked. Still, given its satellite presentation, I’d be very shocked if this new depression doesn’t already have tropical storm force winds. I think it is quite likely to become a hurricane in the next day.

The NHC forecasters are as aware of this as I am, of course, they’re just following the doctrine of preserving continuity with earlier forecasts. Going directly from an area of disturbed weather to a strong tropical storm would be a jarring transition, and the forecaster in charge would be sticking his neck out a bit. I think this situation shows the weakness of the continuity doctrine, though, especially when forecasting dangerous weather conditions. Shipping interests and citizens of the Caribbean would be better served by an accurate forecast than a smoothly changing one. Weather conditions sometimes change suddenly, and we should be prepared to adjust diagnoses and forecasts suddenly in response.

Here is a little freestyle poem I wrote. It springs partly from musings on communion, partly from an observation that between the order of this world and the order to come lies much unsightly chaos. We must shed the tattered gray robe of the pharisee and take up a bloody cross to obtain the white robe of salvation.

Luna lords the night in heaven,
cog and gear in consecution.
She honors nigh eternal pattern,
shedding old light, growing older.

Aesthetic graces call for order,
cog and gear in consecution,
shedding used light, groaning older,
waging life in tepid pallor.

A holy heart is under power,
like an engine, not like chattel.
It hearkens no established order,
shedding sins with youthful ardor

Saving grace connotes upheaval,
bold insurgence, no mere chattel,
soul and life in consecration,
molting death like molten lava.

Luna hoards her light in heaven,
meager lamp in gloaming skies,
entropic torpor now descendant,
nothing new, and all old dies.

A holy life is unencumbered,
for desecrating unclean shrines,
showers it in blood and water,
baptized in iridescent wine.

Aesthetic graces call for order,
murky mortal paradigm.
Saving grace erupts through torpor!
A star seen in the east will rise.

A holy call is wayward order,
ruddy brand in nitid sky,
blotting out the lunar hoarder,
washing red her palest blight.

Kingdom comes and wayward order,
gathers home her bloodied spawn,
red of gash throughout life former,
yet robed in white, break bread and dawn.

Senator Obama has let it be known that he’ll receive the Democratic nomination in front of a crowd of several hundred of what Democratic operatives call “real Americans,” who’ve been flown in from around the country. The idea here is to divide Americans into “real people” and “special interests”–standard class-warfare pablum.

McCain can’t play off this well because it would look undignified, even though it might succeed. My man Bob Barr, however, could do very well with it. Barr is in a different strategic position, where high-risk high reward techniques are worth a shot. If I were Barr, I’d give a speech in front of a crowd of successful imaginary Americans, ranging from ridiculous to quite serious: the guy with the top hat from Monopoly, Batman, John Galt, etc. This would garner some attention from the media, and signify an important libertarian idea. The idea is that the Democrats want to separate you from your hopes and dreams by telling you that you are “real people” (weak people who need their big-government version of help), instead of what you dream you could be. Class warfare falls apart the moment the people pay more attention to what what they hope for than what they suffer, which is why Obama’s oft-cited optimism rings so hollow. If he were really so hopeful and inspiring, those very qualities would kill the socialist message of his candidacy. I admit my idea for communicating that fact is hokey, but no more so than Obama’s ploy.

This might be the fundamental unit of time.

I found this headline amusing: Half of Democrats Say Putting Hillary’s Name in Nomination Will Help Unify Party.