Right Minded Online

My friend Brad, who is lobbying for a fat royalty check for being my Memphis connection, has just pointed out an excellent article in USA Today regarding our beloved Memphis Tigers and the negative side of playing in a relatively weak basketball conference.

Memphis is indeed winning. The Tigers are 25-3 and riding a 17-game streak, the nation’s longest in Division I men’s basketball. Only Memphis and the Big South’s Winthrop are undefeated in men’s conference play, and Memphis ran its home winning streak to 29 Sunday with a 77-64 victory against Houston.

Given that Memphis is where the Conference USA will play its league tournament, it’s a good possibility the Tigers will glide into the NCAA tournament on a 22-game roll.

During the winning streak, Memphis’ average margin of victory has been 21.1 points by a team that starts one junior (6-9 forward Joey Dorsey), three sophomores (6-6 guards Antonio Anderson and Chris Douglas-Roberts and 6-9 forward Robert Dozier) and a freshman (6-2 guard Willie Kemp).

Despite the team’s hot streak, Calipari is talking like a strategist from the Cold War era. He peppers his conversation with references to the “propaganda” that could knock the No. 7-ranked Tigers to a lower seed in the NCAA tournament because of perceptions about the diminished strength of Conference USA.

“I just don’t want it to become propaganda, because the more it’s said the more it becomes believable,” Calipari says. “You don’t think our guys are watching TV and hearing they should be a 4 seed or a 5 seed?

“You don’t want opinions to become propaganda. You don’t have a sequestered group picking these seeds, and the tournament is all about seeding, believe me.”

…

If Memphis wins out, conventional wisdom dictates the Tigers will wind up with a No. 2 seed in the NCAA tournament.

Calipari, however, disagrees.

“If we could run the table,” he says, “we’re probably a No. 1 seed.”

Really, coach?

Calipari, smiling, says, “Propaganda.”

[Link]

You’ve all heard global warming alarmists blame President Bush’s environmental policies for exacerbating global warming, some even going so far as to blame Bush for Hurricane Katrina. We’ve also seen Al Gore, who just won an Oscar for his propaganda piece on global warming, exposed for his hypocrisy as a prolific consumer of energy. Well, Common Dreams has re-run a Chicago Tribune piece from 2001 headlined “Bush Loves Ecology — At Home.”

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

Yes, that’s President Bush’s home in Crawford, Texas. Despite the facts, President Bush will continue to be the enemy of global warming alarmists, while Al Gore will continue to be the revered High Priest.

But in the end, it is Al Gore who talks the talk, while Dubya walks the walk.

Terry Frank has much more on the revelation that Al and Tipper Gore use more than 20 times the amount of electricity at their Belle Meade estate as the average American family. Of course, Al Gore expects us common folks to live like carbon paupers while he continues to live high on the carbon hog.

Bill Hobbs has more on Gore.

The Music City Oracle refers to Gore as the Ted Haggard of environmentalism.

Nathan Moore congratulates Gore for paying off his liberal guilt.

Bob Krumm points out that “Four and a half years ago Al Gore bought a large home and made it larger, but did very little to reduce his own energy consumption. Instead, he spent the same time telling you how to reduce yours.”

Finally, Glen Dean really hammers the point home with this gem: “Nobody likes to be preached to by somebody who doesn’t practice what they preach. Owl Gore deserves to be held accountable for his hypocrisy and you true believers should be the ones holding him accountable. It is like I said in the last post though. If Al Gore were to set fire to the rain forest, some of you would still worship at his feet.”

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright believes that “Iraq is going to go down in history as the greatest disaster in American foreign policy.”

I beg to differ. Secretary Albright herself provided us with the greatest disaster in American foreign policy, at least in my lifetime.

Terry Frank has written a follow-up to her revelation that Saddam Hussein had over one million pounds of uranium. On cue, the anti-war, pro-defeat left-wing media attacked the messenger, and Terry Frank answers a critic from WKRN Channel 2, and she does so RESOUNDINGLY.

Bravo, Terry Frank.

I’ve been slamming the folks on Broadway Avenue in Nashville more so lately than usual, so it’s only fair to point out that the fishwrap has run one of its better editorials this morning, “Tougher restrictions needed for protection on title loans.”

I’m rarely in favor of government regulating the free market. Some regulation is needed (for consumer protection, for example), but normally the free market works best for producers and consumers when the government keeps its hands off. With that said, I have zero sympathy toward predatory lenders for the same reason I abhor the lottery: they both prey on the ignorance of others, and profit from those who can least afford to waste their money.

The case against the title loan industry can be summed up in two paragraphs from this morning’s editorial:

“Under current state law, lenders may charge 20 percent per month on administrative fees and 2 percent per month interest on those loans. That translates into 264 percent per year, which can clearly put unwary borrowers into financial holes from which they can never escape. Lenders know this, and they are taking full advantage of their customers. The proposed legislation would put some much-needed curbs on the practice.”

“An example being used of what is happening in the title-loan business involves Anita Gray of Memphis, who borrowed $1,000. She paid more than $4,000 over 18 months – more than she had paid for her car, yet she still owed $1,200. The principal didn’t go down in that time, either. That sort of thing should not happen. Too many people are unaware of the strategy applied by lenders.”

(By the way, I did read the counter editorial by the slick-talking Allan Jones. I’m not buying it.)

I’m grateful that Democrats in the Tennessee General Assembly are trying to advance legislation that would protect consumers in the predatory lending business, but I cannot ignore their hypocrisy. They are outraged that “Mind you, the rich preying on, instead of praying with, the poor is an issue as ancient as Scripture. That is why Old Testament law prohibits lending practices now common in Tennessee. That is why the Hebrew prophets like Hosea, Amos and Micah raged against injustices done to God’s people.”

But it’s okay when the government preys on the poor in the form of the Tennessee Lottery.

I’d much rather be called “coach” than “mister” or “sir.”

If liberals would take on the terrorists as vigorously as they take on George W. Bush, we’d win this War on Terrorism in a snap.

The steroid scandal that has affected baseball has me longing for the days when corked bats were all the rage. I guess the next thing is going to be that some hitter’s bat is going to shatter, and a bunch of steroid pills are going to pop out.

If a tree falls in a remote forest, and an Air America microphone is there to pick it up, but nobody is listening, did the tree make any noise?

Either a Bush or a Clinton has been on the presidential ticket every election since 1980.

Here it is February 23, and I haven’t heard a peep about Black History Month.

Congressman John Conyers is expected to introduce hate crimes legislation in the House of Representatives. According to Focus on the Family’s analysis, “The legislation creates a special class of people identified only by the undefined terms ’sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity,’ and offers protections on par with race, color, religion and national origin.”

Hate crimes laws are nothing more than a tool used by liberals to create special classes of victims, primarily blacks and homosexuals, however, World Net Daily, citing statistics from the Justice Department, notes that the actual figures sort of taint the stereotype painted by the left.

While race is, by far, the No. 1 factor cited as the reason for hate crimes, blacks are slightly less likely to be victims and far more likely to be perpetrators, statistics collected from between July 2000 and December 2003.

About 56 percent of hate crimes were motivated, at least in part, by racial hatred, according to the study, and most were accompanied by violence.

While nine in 10,000 whites and nine in 10,000 Hispanics are victimized by hate crimes, only seven in 10,000 blacks are targets, according to the report.

The report says 38 percent of all those reporting hate crimes said the attacker was black, and in 90 percent of those cases, the victim believed the offender’s motive was racial. In incidents involving white attackers, only 30 percent attribute the hate crime to race, while 20 percent attributed it to ethnicity.

The report says 40 percent of white hate crime victims were attacked by blacks, adding, “The small number of black hate crime victims precludes analysis of the race of persons who victimized them.”

[Link]

Terry Frank points out that documents from Oak Ridge show that Saddam Hussein had over one million pounds of uranium.

Related link: UN secretary general urges Iran to stop enriching uranium

Bill Hobbs nails Governor Phil Bredesen on his false assertion that the GOP’s attempt to eliminate the food tax is really a plot to implement a state income tax. Meanwhile, the governor himself concedes in an interview with the Times Free Press that either an expansion of the sales tax base or an income tax is “something that we’re going to have to look at” in 15 or 20 years.

This month our Sunday School literature has centered on the divinity of Christ, using passages from the Gospel of John. Yesterday, we read from John 5, which begins with Jesus healing a man who had spent 38 years as an invalid. It occurred on the Sabbath.

Imagine knowing someone who had been, say, confined to a wheelchair for a long period of time. Then one day you witness him get up out of the wheelchair and walk. It would be a shocking thing to see. Imagine the reaction of those around the invalid in John 5 upon his being healed by Christ. Here’s how the conservation goes:

Jesus: Do you want to get well?

Invalid: Sir, I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.

Jesus: Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.

(At once, the man is cured. He picks up his mat and walks.)

Jews: It is the Sabbath. The law forbids you to carry your mat.

Invalid: The man who made me well said to me, “Pick up your mat and walk.”

Jews: Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?

Invalid: I have no idea.

Later Jesus finds the former invalid at the temple and says to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.”

The former invalid goes and tells the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. The Jews then track down Jesus and begin accusing him for healing on the Sabbath, but also for proclaiming himself the Son of God.

(In using the generic term “the Jews,” I am going on the assumption that Scripture is referring to the Jewish leaders, primarily the Pharisees, who were perhaps the most vocal of Jesus’ critics.)

Jesus than begins to address his critics, noting that there are many who have testified on his behalf.

Verse 34: “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth.”

Verse 36: “For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me.”

Verse 37: “And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me.”

Verse 39: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me.”

Now, the Pharisees were well versed in the law, which Jews today call the “Torah.” (They are the first five books in the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.) The Pharisees were so obsessed with following every letter of the law that they failed to recognize the miracle of Jesus healing the invalid for what it was. Rather than rejoice with the one who had been healed, the Pharisees immediately scoffed that carrying one’s mat and healing on the Sabbath were serious infractions. Indeed, Jesus accused the Pharisees of seeking eternal salvation in the Scriptures, when eternal salvation may be found only in Christ.

In verse 42, Christ also accuses his accusers of not having the love of God in their hearts, which was itself a violation of the law, found in Deuteronomy 6:5, which commands “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” In fact, it is this commandment which Jesus identified as the most important one of them all.

In verses 45-47, Christ gives them this zinger: “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

So how did Moses accuse the Pharisees? In Deuteronomy 19:15, which the Pharisees must have known intimately, we learn that “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”

Christ had listed four witnesses to testify on His behalf: John the Baptist, the works of Christ (such as healing the invalid), God the Father (who spoke audibly at Christ’s baptism), and the Scriptures (the Old Testament prophets, who foretold of the coming Messiah).

There are two scientific disciplines in which the political/religious left will not tolerate their dogma to be questioned. The first is global warming, which we’ve addressed thoroughly on this website. The second discipline, in which the political/religious left gets even nastier, is Darwinism. Jack Cashill has a column on what happened to Dr. Richard Sternberg, an evolutionary biologist who dared to suggest that “neo-Darwinism has failed to provide a convincing explanation for the massive infusion of new genetic information into the fossil record a reported 570 million years ago.” His peer-reviewed paper was published in the Smithsonian-affiliated journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

Dr. Sternberg himself isn’t a creationist, nor even prescribes to intelligent design. Nonetheless, he never imagined the backlash that would await him.

Proponents of evolution typically assault intelligent design (and creation) as being non-scientific. That’s the only way they can gain any credibility among non-scientists — to assert that their theory (and it is just a theory) is science and anything which suggests a Creator is religion. Folks, Darwinism is every bit as much religious as Creationism. One theory is simply an explanation of our origins without God in it, while the other proclaims God as the Creator (or at least attributes our origins to an intelligent designer). Both require faith. The political/religious left reacts to challenges to Darwinism the way they do because they need so desperately to not have to acknowledge God.

(By the way, I am predicting that there will soon be a third “untouchable” scientific discipline that becomes a protected species of the political/religious left, and that is stem-cell research.)

With the Vanderbilt Commodores’ disposal of the #1-ranked Florida Gators yesterday, the Memphis Tigers now own the longest winning streak in the nation. Yesterday evening, the Tigers (ranked 8^th in the latest AP poll, 9^th in the ESPN/USA Today, 9^th in the RPI) won their 15^th consecutive game, beating the Gonzaga Bulldogs 78-77 in overtime. It was the Tigers’ biggest road win of the season. Gonzaga had won 56 of its last 57 games in Spokane.

Memphis led for most of the game, opening up a 12-point advantage at one point in the second half. But Gonzaga closed out the half on a 22-10 run that pulled them even at 69 before time ran out. The Tigers and Bulldogs exchanged several lead changes in overtime, with Jeremy Hunt nailing two crucial three-pointers for the Tigers. Gonzaga went ahead by one point on two free throws with 17.6 left. But the Tigers’ Chris Douglas-Roberts scored from inside the paint with just 5.6 seconds left to win it for the Tigers. (The word on Chris Douglas-Roberts, whose initials are “CD-R,” is that he can play basketball and you can write data to him.)

Memphis (23-3, 12-0 in Conference USA) is now only one of two teams in the nation who are undefeated in conference play. (Winthrop is the other.)

The global warming alarmists have been hyperventilating as of late over the news that oil companies are shelling out ten large for scientists to refute global warming. The great Thomas Sowell has just finished putting together a trilogy of columns in which he runs a sword through global warming alarmists (I | II | III). In part two of his series, Dr. Sowell describes what that insidious conspiracy is really about.

The headline of the “news” story said it all: “Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study.” According to “The Guardian,” scientists and economists “have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report.”

It is a classic notion on the left in general, and of environmentalist zealots in particular, that no one can disagree with them unless they are either uninformed or dishonest. Here they dispose of scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hysteria by depicting them as being bribed by lobbyists for the oil companies.

While such charges may be enough for crusading zealots to wrap themselves ever more tightly in the mantle of virtue, some of us are still old-fashioned enough to want to know the actual facts.

In this case, the fact is that the American Enterprise Institute — a think tank, not a lobbyist — did what all kinds of think tanks do, all across the political spectrum, all across the country, and all around the world.

AEI has planned a roundtable discussion of global warming, attended by people with differing views on the subject. That was their fundamental sin, in the eyes of the global warming crowd. They treated this as an issue, rather than a dogma.

Like liberal, conservative, and other think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute pays people who do the work of preparing scholarly papers for presentation at its roundtables. Ten thousand dollars is not an unusual amount and many have received more from other think tanks for similar work.

…

If it is a bribe to pay people for doing work, then we are all bribed every day, except for those who inherited enough money not to have to work at all. Among those invited to attend the AEI roundtable are some of the same scientists who produced the recent report that politicians, environmentalists, and the media tout as the last word on global warming.

The trump card of the left is that one of the big oil companies contributed money to the American Enterprise Institute — not as much as one percent of its budget, but enough for a smear.

While the left hyperventilates over $10,000 payouts to those who offend the liberal dogma, Richard Branson and Al Gore are offering a $25 million prize to the first scientist who comes up with a way of extracting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Of course, Branson owns an airline company. Airplanes, as we know, pump a tremendous amount of CO₂ into the atmosphere. So once again, we have a global warming alarmist who, in real life, happens to be a significant contributor to global warming. Hypocrite.

The Democrat Party, where politics trumps national security, celebrated a victory in the House of Representatives by passing a symbolic resolution opposing President Bush’s decision to send more troops to Iraq. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is the most powerful woman in America (and quite possible the world), bragged afterward that “The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home.”

No, I’m sorry, it doesn’t. The passage of this meaningless bill only signals the Democrat Party’s commitment to defeat in Iraq. If Democrats in Congress are truly serious about bringing the troops home, then cut off funding for the war immediately. Not this slow bleed mess, but now. Otherwise, if you really support the troops, and are really patriotic, then shut your traps and get in line behind the Commander-in-Chief.

It won’t happen, because the Democrat Party does not support the troops, and is not patriotic, and so the Democrats in the House have just made the most gutless choice that was available to them. They don’t have the guts to defeat the terrorists, so they won’t line up behind President Bush. They also don’t have the guts to cut funding for the war, so the only option left was to pass a non-binding resolution opposing a troop surge in Iraq.

Folks, the Democrat Party is so invested in the defeat of the United States that us winning this war will destroy them politically. Actually, “winning this war” that is a bit of a misnomer. We have already won the war. Former dictator Saddam Hussein was toppled, captured, imprisoned, tried, convicted, and executed by his own people, and the people of Iraq have enjoyed two free elections for the first time in eons, so the war has been won. All that is left for us now is staying put until Iraq can secure its own freedom from the tyranny of terrorism.

At any rate, the Democrat Party cannot afford for their own country to hand over the keys to a free and secure Iraq. They stand to gain nothing if that happens. They cannot share in the victory, because they have pursued defeat for so long now. The only way they can win politically is if the United States squanders this opportunity in Iraq.

But you had better not question the patriotism of those Democrats.

This is too funny for words.