The Daily Detour

When it is necessary to protest?

(Friends, sorry for the delay in TDD commentary. As some of you may know, I now spend about 3 days a week working down on my Mom and Dad's property, engaged in various forms of significant physical exertion. With Fall coming on, most of my time is now spent cutting, splitting, and hauling firewood for 8 hours a day. So the bottom line is, despite my best intentions, Yours Truly has been unable to blog at my usual pace due to significant pain and fatigue. I come home with every intention of sending out the next epistle only to find myself falling into a coma and not awaking until morning.

I have been wanting to throw a situation out there for you all to consider and provide some feedback on. It has to do with an incident that happened to me last week, that has give me considerable food for thought. I must confess, I'm somewhat hesitant to share this episode, only because it reflects poorly on country folks here in Indiana and may reinforce some biased assumptions that people already have about such people. But the idea I want to emphasize warrants the retelling of this incident. (WARNNG: Some of the content may be inappropriate for our younger TDD readers.)

Anyway, I was driving down to Crane Acres last week and decided to stop by the little fruit/vegetable stand by the side of the road. It's a place I frequently visit because the two old farmers are usually very friendly and the watermelons and cantelopes are just about the best I've ever eaten. So we've made it a regular habit to give them our business.

Last week I saw them there and stopped by to pick up a watermelon, a cantelope, and a dozen ears of corn. I asked how much it would be, and the guy said, "$8.00". So I looked in my wallet and pulled out a twenty, the only bill I had. When he saw it, he said, "Sorry, but I can't make change for that." So, I said, "Well, then I'm sorry too, but this is the only thing I have." I turned to walk away, and when he realized he was about to lose my business, he reached into his pocket and pulled out a wad of bills, and determined to make change, while commenting that, "He didn't want to lose all of his change." When I realized that he had actually had change all along, I was a little miffed. But it was further complicated as he went on.

This exchange then prompted him to relate to me, "There was this nigger that stopped by last week and gave me a $100 bill. He actually assumed I could make change for that. It made me mad, so I gave him his change back in $1 bills." I made some empathetic response about how frustrating that can be, and then climbed back in my car.

But I couldn't get over our exchange. It really affected me, particularly because it was the second time in as many days that I had heard somebody refer to an African-American with that kind of derogatory term. I went home that night and related the incident to Jean, and we talked about it for some time.

Here's my question, and the issue we were pondering: Given the exchange with that farmer and his attitude toward black folks, should we continue to give him our business?

Bear in mind, I grew up in Martinsville, Indiana, which used to be a hotbed for the Ku Klux Klan back in the 1930-40's. And its a reputation that the people of Martinsville have attempted to redeem, particularly those of us in the younger generations. I also have a family who raised us in such a way that provided us multiple opportunities to reach out to the African-American kids in the inner city and often bring them down to our house in Martinsville (despite their understandable trepidation at coming down there).

But the bigger issue which extends beyond racism, is when it is appropriate to protest against someone/something with which we disagree? Should we, for example, not support those people or businesses which hold values that are opposed to ours? If so, how far do we take it, given the assumption that we will never agree with everyone all of the time?

Well, these are some of the questions that have been rattling around in my mind. As I head out the door for Chicago, I leave them for you to ponder.

Is the media biased against McCain and Palin?

Contentions of media bias have long been assumed. Particularly in this presidential election, charges of media bias have surfaced repeatedly (think, the media's obsession with Obama). And now, John Lott, Jr. is raising the question of media bias concerning Sarah Palin and John McCain. His evaluation of the issue has a number of statistics which seem to support what many people have long believed.

UPDATE: One of our TDD readers sent me this post from Tim Stevens, giving his take on the this issue of media bias.

Did Obama actually commit treason?

That is what some are suggesting, should the latest allegations about Obama prove true. They have surfaced in a New York Post article about Obama's recent trip to Iraq.

The essence of the story is this: During Obama's trip to Iraq, he met with Iraqi leaders and essentially asked them to delay the withdrawal of U.S. troops. According to the Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebri, Obama attempted to persuade the Iraqi leadership to delay the drawdown of troops until after the new presidential administration (presumably, his administration) took office. In conversations with the U.S. military leadership during that trip Obama also tried to get them to set a "realistic withdrawal date".

Naturally, the Obama camp has denied the story (especially given the fact that Obama has publicly campaign for a quick withdrawal of our troops from Iraq). Obviously, none of us was there at the meeting, but if it's proven true, Obama's behavior should be taken very seriously. In fact, Justin Paulette's post over at AOL's Political Machine blog has an even stronger reaction to this issue:

If this story is true, it is the most important revelation of the election...

If Zebari's statements are discovered to be true, Obama would be guilty of the most unadulterated political profiteering and moral corruption in modern history. To seek electoral gain on the deception of a nation at war and the blood of American soldiers is nothing less than treasonous villainy - for which the offender ought to be tarred and feathered before being expelled from the country.

My attempts at some semblance of diplomacy with this blog tend to temper my opinions somewhat at times. But if this is true, voters had better seriously reevaluate Obama's competency as the Commander-in-Chief. An effort to undermine U.S. foreign policy while in a role as a representative of the United States is hardly fitting anyone who would seek such a position. 

UPDATE: Despite the Obama Team's objection to this story, a more recent column by Amir Taheri in The New York Post indicates that the evidence for it is true.

Palin stymies the feminists

The media conundrum over Sarah Palin continues as people are trying to get their brains around the enigma that is Palin. In the meantime, this whole Palin phenomenon seems to have become quite the mirror into our culute.

As Cathy Young writes over The Wall Street Journal, the feminists have come to hate Palin. By why should they? As we've talked about previously, she is epitomizing one of the fundamental tenets of the feminist philosophy which has been foisted on the American culture--that a woman should be able to raise a family and have a career at the same time. Now, it is the feminists themselves who are questioning whether or not Palin's children are going to suffer if she pursues her quest for the vice presidency.

Their dilemma brings to mind a couple of questions. First of all, does this mean that the children of other career mothers potentially suffer due to the absence of "Mom" in the workplace? That could have some implications which undermine the feminist agenda.

And secondly, I thought women were supposed to reach for the stars by breaking through that glass ceiling that has forever held women back. Does the backlash against Palin's attempt to actually become the Vice President of the United States mean that women shouldn't fill such a post? If not the vice presidency, then should they be CEO's, lawyers, or doctors? Or, for that matter, what about any career job that takes them away from their kids? That would seem to suggest that not only are there limits to what a woman can do, but there should be. And so the feminists find themselves back at square one.

Perhaps this whole controversy reveals the true nature of the feminist agenda--that's it's actually much less about perpetuating women's rights than we've all been led to believe. Ms. Young provides an illuminating perspective as to why this might be. 

UPDATE: Here's another perspective on this issue from Andrea Tantaros at FOX News.

Palin getting a mixed reaction among Evangelicals?

That's the word on the street concerning the younger generation of evangelicals.

Sorry, folks, that it was a quieter weekend in TDDville. I was consumed with project deadlines, and other responsibilities (to those of you who were hauling wood with us on Saturday, you know what I'm talking about--where's the Motrin? :)

Anyway, the reaction to John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin has created certain fault lines among young evangelicals. As might be expected, those who are more conservative view Sarah Palin as a positive addition to the Republican ticket, while the more progressive (read, liberal) wing is either in the wait-and-see mode, or has dismissed her already.

It did get me thinking about one thing, particularly whenever people purport to describe what evangelicals are thinking/feeling about a particular issue: "What is the definition of a evangelical, exactly?"

If, for example, an "evangelical" believes that abortion is wrong, or that homosexuality is a sin, and another "evangelical" believes that a woman should have the right to choose an abortion, or that homosexuality is genetic and therefore is not a sin, who's right? Are they both "evangelicals", or is one of the two more "evangelical" than the other? (I may have to expand on this idea in a future, because the implications are significant, particularly given the fact that the term is used a lot in our culture.)

Joe Biden questions his own fitness for VP

Perhaps you didn't hear this latest quote from Senator Joe Biden (who is well-known for opening his mouth before engaging his mind). When the topic of Hillary Clinton came up in a recent campaign, here's what he admitted,

"Make no mistake about this...Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."

Usually it's the other team calling your guy's fitness into question. That's not exactly the kind of admission that fills the Obama camp with confidence as they head into the final, frantic sprint to the end of this presidential marathon. In fact, these comments by Biden have The Live Desk posing a similar question, "Do Democrats think Biden is the right VP pick or a big mistake?" You can be sure any second-guessing by the Democrats will be kept under wraps for as long as possible. But if even the nominee himself is admitting reluctance, the other Democrats may not be far behind. Unfortunately for the Obama Team, however, time is running out for them to make a change.

Who questions their fitness while simultaneously attempting to convince voting public that they're the best pick for America? This from the guy who also gave this campaign circus one of those classic cringe-inducing moments that will go down in the lore of campaign history. At a rally, during his opening remarks Joe Biden said, "I'm told Chuck Graham, State Senator, is here. Chuck...stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya. Oh, God love 'ya, what am I talking about?..."

"What?" indeed. Freewheeling with a microphone is always a risky prospect. Just watch the American Idol auditions. Speaking of a being "a hearbeat away from the presidency"... :)

Sarah Palin's first major interview

The media has been frothing at the mouth for the first interview with GOP VP candidate, Sarah Palin. There seems to be a sense that because the McCain campaign took more time than they thought necessary, then somehow she is scared to get on camera. Just another of many unfounded assumptions about this new national folk hero.

Well, ABC's Charles Gibson hit the sweepstakes. Tomorrow (Friday) night during prime-time, ABC will be presenting a "20/20" special with Palin. The program starts at 10:00 p.m. EDT. It should be interesting for those of us who are still learning more about Sarah Palin. Don't miss it.

(Also, FOX News recently did a documentary on Sarah Palin that set a viewing record for FOX. You can see a portion of that program here.)

UPDATE: After watching the Charles Gibson interrogation, 'er...I mean, interview, I would probably concur with the fairly-balanced panel hosted by George Stephanopolous. Sarah Palin didn't excel in that particular interview, but she didn't do anything to significantly damage the McCain/Palin ticket. It would have been nice to see her a bit more relaxed, but under the harsh gaze of Gibson's interrogation lightbulb, I can't blame her.

September 11th: Lest we forget

It's hard to believe that it's been 7 years since the world was changed forever. The terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001 have become a cultural dividing line by which we measure all major events. How often do we reference an event or issue as "before 9/11"?

And yet, that event, and the subsequent War on Terror, have slipped to the back of our collective conscience. In this media-saturated world which has reduced our attention span to the point where we all suffer from ADHD. We are driven by the next headline and have barely processed it by the time the next breaking news comes hurtling our way. And our capacity for reflection has been diminished.

As such, it seems September 11th, while referenced routinely in our culture, has devolved into a distant memory of something that happened to us once. Our commitment to rooting out Islamic terrorists may be waning, but theirs is unwavering because it is fueled by the strongest of convictions--religion. So, until their theology changes (which, it won't.), the ongoing threat to our personal safety and national security is very real.

And as I've written here many times before, we forget the stakes of this conflict at our peril.

As we commemorate this anniversary, be sure to offer an additional prayer of protection for our military men and women who stand in harm's way so we don't have to. To all of you who wear the uniform, you have our deepest gratitude.

UPDATE: On this day, both presidential candidates have rightfully suspended their campaign and are commemorating this grim anniversary with a joint appearance at Ground Zero. A refreshing moment of unity before the watching world in the midst of an otherwise-cantankerous campaign.

Also, here's some of the Real American Stories from 9/11.

151,372,800 heartbeats away from the presidency...

That may be a much closer approximation of how much time actually stands between Sarah Palin and the presidency. Because that's just about how hard John McCain's ticker will be working during the first four years of his presidency, should he win this election. Or, it could be closer to about 302,745,600 beats, depending on if he were to choose to run for another 4 years before handing the reigns off to Palin.

So much has been speculated about John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. And the common refrain used to justify the intense scrutiny of every facet of her life is that she is "just one heartbeat away from the presidency". So I decided to do a little research on the subject of the vice presidency in an attempt to provide a more common sensical (I just had to go look that phrase up to make sure I didn't just make it up...not that it's stopped me before. :) balance to the "Chicken Little" scenarios being perpetrated by the Liberal Left.

Just how many vice presidents have assumed the office of the presidency in our American history? Well, by official estimates there have been 42 presidents in our history. (Pres. Grover Cleveland actually served two non-consecutive terms.) Of those, only 14 have become president after having been vice president. Of those 14 former vice presidents, only 9 succeeded into office because the president was either disabled or had died in office. Of those 9 successions, 4 were due to assassinations, and 1 was due to a resignation (Nixon's). The remaining 4 were due to the death of the sitting president from illness.

So in America's 232-year history, only 4 times in 43 presidencies has a vice president actually fulfilled that mantra of being "a heartbeat away from the presidency". (The last time a president died in office was over 63 years ago when FDR died from a cerebral hemorrage on April 12, 1945. Harry Truman assumed the presidency.) Combine that with the fact that John McCain spent over 5-and-a-half years as a Prisoner Of War in physically brutal circumstances, and lived to tell about, and it's unlikely the presidency (as physically demanding as it is) will get the best of him. And even if that unlikely scenario became a reality, I think the American people will be surprised to find that Sarah Palin is much more up to the task than her detractors realize.

"...a heartbeat away from the presidency." It's a good line, but historically, it's a highly improbable reality. As for me, I can wait 151,372,800 heartbeats to make history with a woman as president. Or, even 302,745,600 heartbeats for that matter. I'm a patient man. :)

UPDATE: I saw this humorous post over at Tempus Fugit, among a number of blogs which are fed up with the phrase, "one heartbeat away from the presidency." My sentiments exactly...

KFC's secret recipe is out...

..sort of. At least, it's being whisked away to another secret location under security that rivals Fort Knox. I must confess I had always assumed the Colonel Sander's famous recipe of 11 secret herbs and spices was the usual marketing ploy for great tasting, artery-clogging chicken. Who knew?

This kind of breaking story makes you almost forget there's a presidential election going on. Almost...