Nickolas the Terrible

Mark Nickolas of BlueGrassReports.org seems to have a penchant for name-calling, but he has really outdone himself with his comments today on Rep. Stan Lee, whom he calls, in a recent post, a "racist and a bigot." He is probably one of those "open-minded" liberals who opposes hate speech too, only to couch his close-mindedness in the most virulent forms of rhetoric.

His comments came in response to news that Rep. Lee had been elected by the House Republican Caucus to the position of Minority Whip.

And exactly how does Nickolas justify this characterization of Lee (whose only fault seems to be that he is a political conservative)? He doesn't say.

Comments on Stein nomination on the air this afternoon

I was interviewed midday today by Tony McVeigh, State Capitol Bureau Chief of the Public Radio Partnership, on the potential Kathy Stein appointment to be chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Those comments should be running on public radio stations statewide this afternoon.

Competence is not the problem with Kathy Stein

I was quoted today in the Lexington Herald-Leader on the prospect of Kathy Stein being made chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. See the press release below, and my earlier post about this issue from which my comments were drawn.

Needless to say, Rep. Stein was not happy with my comments. Here is the section of the story with her response:

Stein, an attorney who has been a House member since 1997 and a member of the House Judiciary Committee for 10 years, said she was "very disappointed" with Cothran's comments and the Family Foundation "to single out this one chairmanship and suggest I would not be a good chair for a major committee in the House."

Note that I did not say that she wouldn't be a "good chair". I said she would be a very liberal chair--which would certainly be good for liberals. I did not question Stein's competency. In fact, it is her competency as a liberal advocate that is precisely the problem. She is a dangerous enemy for the very reason that she is a competent and articulate advocate for her positions.

In fact, she may very well be more worthy of respect than the other contenders for the position because she is honest about where she stands. She makes no bones about where what she believes on political and social issues, which makes her more worthy of respect than some other lawmakers, who will tell you one thing, and then do the exact opposite.

The question is not Rep. Stein's competence, but her positions on issues, which are not only out of the mainstream, by simply mistaken. The question is what her selection by Democratic leaders would say about the Party, and where she would take policy in this state.

Domestic partner benefits article in Monday's Herald-Leader

I was quoted in an article on domestic partner benefits at state universities that ran on the front page of the Lexington Herald-Leader yesterday. There are several things worth commenting on about the article.

First, the article is prefaced by one of the anecdotal stories that are characteristic of much of the media treatment of this issue: namely, a heart-rending story about someone with a dread disease who won't get treated unless such a policy is pursued. I doubt if we will ever see an article from the Herald-Leader that will tell a similar story of a live-in blood relative who won't be getting medical treatment under the proposed UK domestic partner plan.

The second interesting thing about the article is Gov. Fletcher's weak response to reporters' questions on this issue. "I will have to evaluate that," he said. "We have left these decisions to the university boards." The Governor has already passed up a chance to take a position on the casino gambling issue. If he fails also to take a position on the domestic partner benefits issue, conservative are going to have to start asking what this governor has done for them lately. There are only so many times a political leader can pass up the opportunity to lead on something before he will start having face questions from his base about whether he has any leadership ability at all.

The third thing is this: it is always interesting to see, after talking with a reporter for an hour on an issue (as I did), which comment he chooses to print. In this case, it was my response to the idea (proffered by the reporter) that universities might want to be in a good position to recruit gays because gays are more "creative" than heterosexuals. My response, of course, was that I would like to see the evidence on that.

What is interesting about this is that if you made this claim about any other demographic group, you would probably be laughed out of polite society. Would you ever ask this question about whites as opposed to blacks? Or men has opposed to women? How far are we away from Lawrence Summers being turned out of his job as president of Harvard University for postulating that men may be more capable at mathematics than women?

I have heard it said that who are emotionally disturbed are more creative because of their psychological condition. Maybe we could try to recruit more psychologically disturbed people to staff the chairs of higher learning at our schools.

Is there someone at the universities who is proposing that gays are more creative that heterosexuals as a reason for recruiting them? If so, things are worse than at our universities than I thought (and that's saying a lot).

Press Release: Family group calls committee chair contest, "a defining moment for the Democratic Party"

For Immediate Release
January 2, 2007 A. D.

Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

LEXINGTON, KY. —A state family advocacy organization is calling the contest for the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee a “defining moment” for the Kentucky Democratic Party. “Democratic leaders in the Kentucky House of Representatives are poised to make a decision that will tell us where they want to take the state politically and socially,” said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky.

The committee chairmanship, vacated when its former chairman, Gross Lindsey (D-Henderson), lost his seat in last year’s legislative primary, could be given to Kathy Stein (D-Lexington). Stein is considered one of the House’s most liberal members because of her outspoken and ardent pro-abortion and pro-gay rights positions.

“For House leaders to place Kathy Stein at the head of a committee that deals with family-related legislation would be seen as a message to mostly conservative Kentucky voters that the Kentucky Democratic Party has arrived as a liberal party and that they are burning the ships.”

“The selection of Rep. Stein for Judiciary chair this week would be seen by many Kentuckians as a signal that the Kentucky Democrat Party is nothing more than the state branch of a liberal national party,” said Cothran, “and would, in one fell swoop, eliminate what little hope now exists for the passage of pro-life and pro-family legislation in the House.” Cothran argued that Stein’s record indicates she is everything Democrats in Kentucky have said in recent years that they are not: “a San Francisco Democrat.”

Cothran said that there are a lot of good conservative Democrats in the House, many of then new. “These are the people who are the future of the Democratic Party in this state. But a decision like this could threaten that future.”

###

A defining moment for Kentucky Democrats

Democratic leaders in the Kentucky House of Representatives are poised to make one of their most significant decisions in recent years, a decision that will tell us where they want to take the state politically and socially.

The chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee will be decided this week when lawmakers return to Frankfort for a short organization session. The seat opened up when former chairman Gross Lindsey (D-Henderson) was unseated in last year's primary election. Now the spot seems to be a contest between Rep. Brent Yonts (D-Greenville) and Kathy Stein (D-Lexington).

Neither legislator will be particularly well-received by conservatives, but, although there is not a great deal of difference in kind between the two, there is definitely a difference in degree. Stein is perhaps the House's most outspoken and ardent liberal. Pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-big government, Stein is everything Democrats in Kentucky have said in recent years that they are not: San Francisco Democrats.

The fact that Democrats are even thinking of placing Stein at the head of a committee that controls so much legislation dealing with social issues is itself a commentary on where the party is. This, of course, is why the state's most liberal newspaper, The Louisville Courier-Journal, said yesterday that Democrats should put her in charge of the committee: to further a radically liberal policy agenda.

Although the Democrats gained seats in the State House, that feat was accomplished in an issueless election on an off-year in the midst of an anti-war, anti-Bush backlash. No reasonable political mind would consider this a mandate from voters for anything. And Democrats have to be concerned that this fall's results may be nothing more than a bump on the road to an eventual Republican majority in both chambers.

On social issues in particular, Kentucky is a conservative state. For Democrats to select Stein for the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee would have to be the result of some sort of political death wish.

There has always been some hope, albeit dim, for the Democratic Party in Kentucky because they still harbor a number of fairly conservative legislators in their ranks. Indeed, the makeup of their leadership is not terribly immoderate, with legislators such as Jody Richards and Bob Damron in the seats of power. These are legislators who, however conservative their own political philosophies, cannot afford to stray far from the conservative line because of their fairly conservative districts.

But a selection of Stein for Judiciary this week would pull the plug on any pretensions that the Kentucky Democrat Party is anything other than the state branch of a liberal national party, and would, in one fell swoop, eliminate what little hope now exists for the passage of prolife and pro-family legislation in the House.

The appointment would be a message to Kentucky voters that they have arrived as a liberal party and are burning the ships.

Kentucky Democrats really Kentucky Democrats? This week will give us the answer.

Dogs are conservative, cats are liberal

After winning the debate competition at an academic camp a couple of years ago, my daughter and her debate partner challenged another debating duo to an exhibition match on the issue, resolved: dogs are better pets than cats. My daughter, whom we affectionately call St. Ann of Assisi because of her love for all creatures with the power of voluntary motion, argued that dogs are superior to cats due to their penchant for loyalty. You have never heard of a cat, her tem argued, who dragged its master from a fire. This, it turns out, was the deciding factor for the judges, who rendered their decision by howling.

Indeed, this confirmed my own (admittedly intuition-based) belief that dogs are conservative and cats are liberal. Why? Because loyalty is a fundamentally conservative virtue, along with every other virtue that places responsibilities ahead of rights, allegiance before autonomy.

Dogs have it, and cats don't.

But several days ago a report came that a cat saved its family's life by scratching its master's face to alert it of a cigarette-caused fire in their home. Jonah Goldberg at the National Review greeted this report with the skepticism it warranted in a blog post several days ago over at The Corner:

Don't Believe the Hype:

Cat saves family's life. First of all, look at the source: the French Press. Second, Occam's razor people. What is the most likely scenario? That it tried to save his family's life? Or that it had a panic attack? Heck, maybe it figured its family was as good as dead and so why not start eating? Do we even know the cat didn't light the fire itself?

That was several days ago. Now, however, Goldberg has gotten to the bottom of the story and exposed this "Hero Cat" for what it really is.

Check it out.

On Instantaneity

Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds recommends several quotes for bloggers. Among them this one: "There is no inherent virtue to instantaneity."--Joseph Rago.

This reminds me of Richard Weaver's discussion of what he calls the "quest for immediacy" in modern life and thought in the introduction of Ideas Have Consequences:

It is characteristic of the barbarian, whether he appears in a pre-cultural stage or emerges from below into the waning day of a civilization, to insist upon seeing a thing "as it is." The desire testifies that he has nothing in himself with which to spiritualize it; the relation is one of thing to thing without the intercession of the imagination. Impatient of the veiling with which the man of higher type gives the world imaginative meaning, the barbarian and the Philistine, who is the barbarian living amid culture, demand the access of mmediacy.

The most apparent form of the "quest for immediacy" is the lack of patience with formality of any kind. You'll know what I mean if you have attended a church service lately. About the last place you can be formal anymore is at weddings and funerals. But now even those ceremonies are being fast deconstructed and evacuated of ritual--and, consequently, of meaning.

On Kentucky's victory over Clemson

Could this be the one day you wouldn't rather have Tommy Bowden than Rich Brooks as your coach?

Who is for Fairness?

The British Daily Mail ran an article recently about two elderly sisters whose appeal to avoid inheritance tax when one of them dies was thrown out by the European Court of Human Rights. The two sisters were simply asking for the same rights as same-sex partners have to avoid the tax. But the court ruled that even though the sisters had lived together their entire lives, their relationship did not warrant a hearing.

"If we were lesbians," said one of the sisters, "we would have all the rights in the world. But we are sisters, and it seems we have no rights at all. It is disgusting that we are being treated like this."

Now cross the Atlantic (due West) back across the Appalachias to Kentucky, where we are debating domestic partner benefits at our state universities. Anyone want to wager on what would happen in a similar circumstance under the kinds of plans UK, UofL and NKU are discussing (and that UofL has already implemented)? Would two sisters who had taken care of each other their entire lives be eligible to receive benefits under these plans that give such benefits to live-in sexual partners?

Nope.

One of the arguments used by proponents of these plans is, ironically, equity. Exactly what is equitable about a benefits plan that gives benefits to live in sexual partners, but doesn't give them to a live in blood relative who has lived with and been cared for by the employee their whole life?

Maybe would could found a group promoting "fairness" for these situations. Wait a minute, I guess that name has already been taken.

Judges, heal thyselves!

There is an interesting debate going on in the past few days between the Intelligent Design people and the Darwinists. It started when John West, Jr. at the Discovery Institute pointed out that Judge John Jones, who struck down an attempt of a Pennsylvania school district to teach Intelligent Design (saying it was not science) lifted whole sections of his opinion from the ACLU brief against the school district when wrote his opinion.

According the Discovery Institute's press release, "'Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU’s proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling,' said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy."

The Darwinists fired back that it is common and accepted for judges to do this, and that West was betraying his ignorance about how the legal system worked by criticizing the opinion.

C'mon.

West's point was not that the judge was engaging in the illegal act of plagiarism. Rather, he was pointing out the irony that a ruling that had been hailed as "masterful" and the product of an "outstanding thinker" was actually, in large part, the product of someone else. Surely the advanced primates at places like Panda's Thumb can understand West's point and distinguish it from charges of plagiarism.

It may, in fact, be perfectly acceptable in the legal trade to copy sections of opinions, but over 90 percent of an entire section? Surely a judge has an intellectual and moral, if not a legal obligation to think (and write) for himself.

And by the way, while we're talking about ironies, has anyone noticed the glaring one here? That the very people who are given the job of deciding whether others have engaged in plagiarism are apparently allowed to engage in it freely themselves?

Domestic partner policy debate now available on the web

My Nov. 27 debate on domestic partnership benefits at state universities last week is now available on a video stream at KET's website. State Rep. Stan Lee and I argued against these policies, while and State Rep. Jim Wayne and Christina Gilgor, head of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, argued in favor.