Category Archives: News

Potential

20130129-122111.jpg

Let’s posit a parent, who has a daughter who wants to go to college. For the purposes of this argument, there is only one college in the world, and only one chance to apply there. The daughter fills out her paperwork, writes an essay and a check for the application fee, and submits the package to the college.

The new lexicon

20130125-114636.jpg

Words matter. This is a maxim many will embrace or ignore selectively according to their immediate needs, but it is always accurate: word choice, inflection, syntax, spelling–all of it matters.

The American Left has a dictionary, which it shares freely among its adherents. Most liberals now have common and very specialized definitions of scores of words: choice, labor, tolerance, together, revenue. They dominate these definitions in media, through sheer saturation and repetition (and infiltration). They plan and they execute. The Right seems at a loss to keep up.

Every day, conservatives pundits and politicians get hours of airtime, over the Internet and cable news channels. The exposure is there, yet the official lexicon is not established. This is improving slowly: some soundbites do manage to coalesce from nebulous buzzwords into firmer terms: debt crisis, Obama Phones, Taxmageddon. Some are spawned from the Right and some from elsewhere. But after all the speeches, emails, flyers, and blog posts, the 2012 presidential election results say that the words the American people identified with were those of the Left. And that is disappointing, because they were, and are, entirely misleading.

The vice-presidential debate: Style and substance

Charles Krauthammer said it well: If you watched the debate on TV, Paul Ryan won. If you listened to it on the radio, Joe Biden won.

I listened to the debate in audio only, on C-SPAN radio, and at several points got the impression that Ryan was bested. Biden, with his easy, drôle manner of speaking, seemed to communicate his points well and effectively. Ryan’s cadence is a bit stilted and calculated, and contrasts oddly with Biden’s; it seemed he came across like a butler, focused solely on the job, dispassionate in comparison with Biden and disconnected from the people.

But then there’s the video. This vice president made a mockery of his own office. He was a caricature. Speaking with passion is a gift and a strength, and can be used effectively while advocating a good and righteous message, but this was passion laced with derision. It was not vice-presidential, but more importantly it was not presidential–and both candidates needed to prove their suitability for that position, since either one could eventually assume it.

Romney’s commanding win

Through the lenses of  pundits, the ideas presented, the laws of logic, and even MSNBC, Romney is the indisputable winner of tonight’s first presidential debate in Denver, CO.

How did he do it? In many ways.

Touré’s misuse of Scripture

Recently MSNBC’s The Cycle roundtable of pundits discussed Mitt Romney’s just-released tax return for 2011 and the 20-year summary provided through PricewaterhouseCoopers. This article at The Blaze sums it up well, but one assertion by co-host Touré needs particular attention from a Biblical standpoint.

At the end of the video featured at that link, Touré makes a surprising and completely erroneous reference to the poor widow’s offering, found in Luke 21:1-4. He states of Romney’s charitable contributions, “The rich man who gave a bunch means less than the poor person who gave a penny.” S.E. Cupp called it a cheap shot. She was right, but it’s much more than that.