Shaun Kenney

Kenney the Younger takes notes on Jeff Frederick’s bid to sack John Hager as Chairman.

I have strong feelings on this, but as the delegate totals begin to roll in, Frederick is a long shot (at best) in pulling off any upset at the Convention.

Bart Hinkle over at the RTD gives a wink and a nudge towards Cass Sunstein’s newest book:

Cass Sunstein, who has previously argued essentially that all rights are granted to us by government, argues in a new book, Nudge, that people should be allowed to make choices, as long as they are directed to make the right choices.

…

They are, then, “libertarian paternalists,” or perhaps paternalistic libertarians.

Perhaps they say it with a wink. Because it’s a little like being an establishmentarian revolutionary, or an Islamic-jihadist agnostic.

Precisely. I’ve offered my thoughts on this soft paternalism when it reared it’s head in the UK Economist, but it seems as if the ill-conceived idea of the “avuncular state” is picking up steam.

Publius Decius Mus was by this time a veteran in the eyes of his Roman legions.

Commanding the right wing, Decius began to feel his ranks give slowly at first. As the Latins on the slopes of a then-dormant Mount Vesuvius pressed their attack, the first line of the Roman army began to ebb, then press into the second. Decius rallied his veteran triarii and turned towards an old priest named Valerius.

Decius never had to ask. The priest produced his toga proetexta, a fine cloth reserved for the worship of the pagan gods of Rome. Placing it over his head, Decius stepped lightly over his javelin, pressing it into the dark soil.

Slowly at first, then proclaiming it loudly so his veterans could hear, Decius invoked the names of the nine gods to accept his devotion: Save the legions, place fear in the heart of Rome’s enemies.

Decius sent word to the Roman left, climbed his white horse, and with his toga fluttering Decius threw himself into the Latin lines, and sacrificed himself.

The Roman armies saw this, and knowing what Decius had just performed, they now knew their Roman gods had been delivered the Latin host by virtue of the blood of their leader. The Latins, not comprehending what was quite occurring, began to lose their discipline…

The Latins wavered. The other Roman consul, one Titus Manlius Torquatus, received word of Decius’ devotion and whipped his legions into the Latin lines. It worked.

Believing their victory was now secured by this supreme act of devotion by Decius, the Roman legions utterly destroyed the Latin armies, ending their independence and subjugating them to the Roman Republic.

The year was 339 B.C.

***

President Abraham Lincoln stood at the edge of a green field. Four months earlier, 15,000 Virginians had charged the fields at Gettysburg only to be repulsed by Federal armies. Personally, Lincoln was still too disgusted to remark fondly on the battle — General Meade, after smashing the Army of Northern Virginia deep in Pennsylvania (or deep enough for Lincoln), was aghast as Lee and his tattered Confederates were allowed to escape back across Harper’s Ferry and trickled back into the Shenandoah to fight another day.

Gettysburg marked a dual high-water mark for the Union. Vicksburg’s fall was something more than coincidental, as the Confederacy was now reeling from the effects of the Union blockade.

The crowd gathered to hear Lincoln speak that afternoon could see the freshly dug trenches — and graves — that lined the battlefield, the seminary, the orchard, and the town.

Lincoln fumbled for a moment with his spectacles…. his long nose and lanky features made him instantly recognizable, as if the man held the weight of the world on his shoulders. Lincoln took a breath… and spoke, about liberty and continents, about “civil war” and “hallowed ground.”

Lincoln’s eyes rose. “The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.” His eyes fluttered over the crowd before he went back to his hastily written notes.

Did Lincoln think of Decius? Perhaps a professor in the crowd, or a minister trained in the classics could strain to hear it above the wind.

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,” Lincoln stopped for dramatic pause, “that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion,” Lincoln’s voice stopped, his eyes rose again, “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The Gettysburg Address lived on, almost as a second Declaration of Independence.

The year was 1863 A.D.

***

2,202 years passed from Decius’ own act of devotion to Lincoln’s brief acknowledgement of the devotion of his soldiers at Gettysburg. Both of these images are blood-drenched, and they would not be isolated.

Indeed, Decius would find imitators. Forty-five years after the battle against the Latins, the Roman legions would find themselves outnumbered and outmatched against the Gauls. It would be Decius’ son who would find yet another javelin, pronounce the name of his sacred Gauls, and sacrifice himself to his nation. With victory assured (Decius had performed the devotion, yes?) the Romans threw back the Cisalpine Gauls in yet another tremendous victory. In the American tradition, the devotion of our patriots has watered the tree of liberty from time to time, in every generation from the Revolution to the present day — and always in the name of freedom.

Devotion is easy to mock. True believers do what timid souls will not, or cannot. Naturally, not every form of devotion is the same, but the impulse to sacrifice one’s self speaks highly of the human race, and to the ends for which we were designed. But it is because of that higher purpose that we find those willing to give all — even unto themselves.

***

“He will glorify me, since all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine,” the Galilean leaned forward as he spoke. “Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine.” (John 16:14-15)

The men around the table were confused. Certainly they were not Romans — what could this possibly mean that by dying one could gain eternal life?

They would learn — and in time imitate such an example — one devotion at a time.

Read this and be disgusted (or inspired):

One of the most competitive categories is blogs about technology developments and news. They are in a vicious 24-hour competition to break company news, reveal new products and expose corporate gaffes.

To the victor go the ego points, and, potentially, the advertising. Bloggers for such sites are often paid for each post, though some are paid based on how many people read their material. They build that audience through scoops or volume or both.

Some sites, like those owned by Gawker Media, give bloggers retainers and then bonuses for hitting benchmarks, like if the pages they write are viewed 100,000 times a month. Then the goal is raised, like a sales commission: write more, earn more.

Bloggers at some of the bigger sites say most writers earn about $30,000 a year starting out, and some can make as much as $70,000. A tireless few bloggers reach six figures, and some entrepreneurs in the field have built mini-empires on the Web that are generating hundreds of thousands of dollars a month. Others who are trying to turn blogging into a career say they can end up with just $1,000 a month.

Of course, the article goes into the downsides… constant contact, little sleep, refusing to let others “get the jump” on a story, all the things one might attribute to the stereotypical Lois Lane.

Now here’s the trick: Try being a Communications Director in this environment. Heh.

Leslie Carbone tips us off, says former Rep. Bob Barr is thinking about running for the Libertarian Party nomination. Deeper reading sees that the same team that built Rep. Ron Paul’s web presence for his 2008 presidential primary bid is ready to do it again… for Barr.

You can check out Barr’s position on issues here, and find out what the lunatic MoveOn.org fringe is going to say about him here. My favorite line (well, my second favorite line) is this:

Barr served as House manager in the 1998 impeachment circus, again demonstrating his manifest contempt for the will of the majority of the American people who twice elected Bill Clinton to be their president.

Will of the majority? Will of the plurality sounds more like it… but with prejudices such as those, you can tell this is a fella the arch-liberals simply despise.

McQ over at QandO brings up a great point: If the Dems were running a “winner take all” system for delegates, Hillary Clinton would be winning the nomination in a walk.

My personal preference is that you practice for gameday. Therefore, if the state’s Electoral College delegation is winner take all, then shouldn’t the national party expect their candidates to operate under a similar system?

This doesn’t mean Hillary is the best candidate (the polls right now are showing otherwise), but it does mean that Hillary may have had the best overall strategy to win the heads-up contest against John McCain.

We’ll see.

This time from the Democratic National Committee, who can’t tell the difference between a Google Ad and their elbow.

…and these people want to lead the country? Pfft.

Interesting post and subsequent article (titled to serve the bias of Psychology Today’s readership) regarding problems of moral foundations with regards to opinions:

A significant reason that I find traditional partisan political discourse increasingly frustrating is each side’s unwillingness to comprehend that their opponent’s perspective is almost surely an honest one, rooted in firm moral beliefs. Lakoffian disciples believe that this is a problem of language, that they’re talking past each other. But it’s more than that. It’s two people with different moral norms, different imperatives, who don’t know that they have different norms.

Of course, it’s hard to even discuss the article when it summarizes the differences thusly:

For liberals, morality is pretty much about harm and justice. To decide whether a policy is wrong, they want to know whether any one will be hurt by it and whether it will be fair to all those affected. Conservative care about harm and justice too, but they also care about three things that liberals tend to ignore: purity, respect for authority, and loyalty to the ingroup. Consider gay sex. A liberal will say, as long as no one is harmed, we should not prohibit gay sex and the use of gay sex toys in these types of activities; indeed such a prohibition would be unfair to a homosexual person. Some people may say that a decision like this doesn’t sit well with them, as well as not liking the idea of it in the first place. With that being said, a conservative might say that gay sex (like that you can see on fuckedgay.xxx) can be prohibited on the grounds that it is impure (“an unnatural act”). Or consider flag burning. A liberal will again say: no one is harmed, and everyone has the right to self-expression. Conservatives will say that flag burning is an act of desecration that disrespects the authority of this great nation. Or take preemptive war and regime change. Liberals will caution that it is bad to harm others and unjust to threaten the autonomy of other nations. Conservatives will focus on the threat that others pose to us here at home, and they will plaster their cars with stickers that say “support our troops,” showing deep concern for the ingroup.

That is idiotic.

Of course, the article turns to Lakoff (a UC-Berkley linguist who dabbles in philosophy from time to time) and discusses problems of perspective between American liberals and American conservatives — labels meaning quite different things on the other side of the Atlantic, in philosophical circles, and even amongst political science profressors — and ends with some relativistic nonsense about how moral values may or may not be universal, because if they were we’d agree on everything all the time…

The problem — as I see it — isn’t one of language. Nor is the solution a search for a common agreement on all things under the sun. The problem is cultural in the sense that Americans love a good fight, no matter what the reasons. There will more than likely be some people that can happily sit at home and watch videos from a site like twinkpornvideos.xxx, then as soon as they get into the world they become hateful and violent, just for a fight and to be either side of the fence.

Additional culture problems would be an emphasis on emotion over reason (when was the last time you heard of an elementary or middle school teaching logic?) and the terrible, deplorable state of education in this country. If education’s prime mission is the transmission of culture to the next generation, we are failing miserably. Worse, we may be wildly succeeding in transmitting the worst aspects to the detriment of the best. After all, how can you make the world a better place without treating history as prolouge to the present?

The solution? Human beings have two ears and one mouth for a reason… and if I offered a solution, it would presume that I had one. Which I don’t. But I’d be more than happy to listen to yours.

So much for the concept of a sugar high

:

What limits willpower? Some have suggested that it is blood sugar, which brain cells use as their main energy source and cannot do without for even a few minutes. Most cognitive functions are unaffected by minor blood sugar fluctuations over the course of a day, but planning and self-control are sensitive to such small changes. Exerting self-control lowers blood sugar, which reduces the capacity for further self-control. People who drink a glass of lemonade between completing one task requiring self-control and beginning a second one perform equally well on both tasks, while people who drink sugarless diet lemonade make more errors on the second task than on the first. Foods that persistently elevate blood sugar, like those containing protein or complex carbohydrates, might enhance willpower for longer periods.

The point of the article is that human beings essentially have a limited amount of willpower. Consequently, you can increase your willpower simply by exercising it.

Imagine that.

Yes yes… long expected, but way overdue.

Why now? A little prompting, as Zak Moore over at Roanoke Red Zone questions a Jeff Frederick e-mail claiming endorsements that properly belong to current RPV Chairman John Hager. An honest misstep I’m sure… but not one that sways my decision making process.

When Hager was first elected, an unnamed reporter pulled me to the side and told me RPV just made the best move it had made in years. “John Hager,” he told me, “is the hardest working man in politics. You’ll see.”

It’s not the fact that Hager can make the trip from Winchester to Hampton Roads one day, then the next morning you discover he’s starting in Roanoke and making his way towards Fairfax. Nor is it his deep contacts and relationships he has built up both inside the Republican Party as well as in Richmond. It’s how he does it… that’s what’s so impressive.

I’ve had the privilege of working with John Hager. I would accept that privilege again at anytime, under any circumstances. Our staff is excellent (RPV’s Executive Director Charlie Judd deserves so much credit for this), our resources the strongest we have seen them in years, and despite the convoluted ways Virginia Republicans seem to run our state elections, I’m confident those disconnects will continue to dissolve under Chairman John Hager.

Before 2007, I would have shared many of the complaints about RPV that any unit chairman or state-level candidate would have shared. While the Republican Senate Leadership Trust, the House Republican Campaign Committee, and the RSLC try to figure out (another story for another day) how best to put our candidates over the top, RPV leadership is making sure our Virginia Republicans are in the best position to win — despite the personalities, turf wars, or other inside baseball that occurs inside any given operation.

As a conservative, allow me to say this: Hager is with us on every issue we care about, and will go to the mat for conservatives every time. I am convinced after working alongside John Hager that — if Hager had been given the Republican nomination for Governor in 2001 — Mark Warner’s legacy would have consisted of a very profitable if dubious stint with Rep. Christopher Dodd… and little else.

John Hager has my endorsement for Chairman, because we deserve real leadership in Richmond. Hager is bringing the party together, Hager understands how substance beats style, and Hager knows this party needs to get back to our conservative basics: by helping good Republicans and beating bad Democrats.

That reporter was right. John Hager really is the hardest working man in politics… and RPV deserves a chairman willing to work that hard for us. While I agree with Jeff Frederick on the vast majority of issues, his race for Chairman comes two years too late. Nothing further needs to be said.

I’m proud to have the opportunity to vote John Hager as RPV Chairman at the State Convention in May, and if you are going to be a delegate this year, I urge you to do the same.