QUICK UPDATE: Christmas Edition

Yes, yes, I know I said I'd write again come New Years. I caught the writing bug, but only a little, so this will be a very short Update.

Current Events
I changed the title of this section, and I think it'll be changed going forward, because I've realized something. I'm not so much interested in straight politics in this section as I am in the way current events impact our common culture – what's left of it, anyway. It's just that a lot of current events and issues are political, and political events really catch my particular eye.

This week, I want to briefly address something that I know others (Jonah Goldberg for one) have spoken on in the past: the way that progressives use language in the media to create a public narrative surrounding current events that agrees with their worldview. Why they do this is a question for another time. For now, I would like to spotlight three separate instances of word-twisting that have become media memes in the recent past.

Here's the first: "Russia hacked the election." No, a hacker or hacking group from Russia phished the email account of the campaign manager of a candidate in the election, then Wikileaks posted his emails because reasons. That is all we know. Everything else – including the hacker or Wikileaks working for Putin or Russia – is just speculation. Not only that, but hacking the email account of someone affiliated with the campaign of a candidate for president does not constitute "hacking the election." To hack an election, you would need to hack voting machines and change vote totals, but there is no evidence that such a hack occurred. Rhetoric like this serves to further destabilize America's distrust of the result of the 2016 election when there is no reason to do so.

Another recent talking point: "The North Carolina state legislature executed a coup against their incoming Democratic governor." Again, no. The Republican-controlled legislature just passed a series of laws that secured their legitimate "advise-and-consent" powers, though their timing and methods were . . . not great, to put it mildly. The Wall Street Journal did an excellent job of summing up the whole hullabaloo, but suffice it to say that democracy is not under threat in North Carolina.

And finally: "The 2016 election proves that we have to reform the Electoral College." Why is it that when a change in institutions will benefit the Left, it's a "reform" or a "fix," but when it won't, it's a very bad idea? With that rhetorical question hanging in the air, I'll leave this wrongheaded statement about abolishing the Electoral College be.

When certain media outlets raise a stink for weeks about "fake news" then spread headlines like those above, one has to wonder whether they recognize the irony. Would it be too much to hope that the media as a whole could just attempt to report the facts with an even hand, and not engage in speculation?

Movie(s) of the Week
I saw Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. The film does an excellent job of expanding the Star Wars universe without overextending itself.  It also complements A New Hope very well, filling in plot holes and even ending about ten minutes from the beginning of Episode IV.  The characters are well-acted for the most part, with the standout being the quippy and sardonic K-2SO, a reprogrammed Imperial droid.  The story revolves around a ragtag group of Rebel spies journeying to find the designer of the Death Star and steal the Death Star's plans, and though it drags in the middle, my goodness does it ever finish well. See this movie if you like war movies or if you have even a passing interest in Star Wars. You will not regret it. 4/5 Death Stars.

Sports
I'm still watching bowl games! You should too! The remaining schedule of Connor's Games Worth Watching can be found in my last Weekly Update.

Etc.
Isaiah 9:2-7:

The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light;those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.

You have multiplied the nation; you have increased its joy;they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest,as they are glad when they divide the spoil.

For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder,the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian.

For every good of the tramping warrior in battle tumult,and every garment rolled in blood,will be burned as fuel for the fire.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;and the government shall be upon his shoulder,and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor,Mighty God,Everlasting Father,Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end,on the throne of David and over his kingdom,to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness,from this time forth and forevermore.

The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will do this.

Merry Christmas.

WEEKLY UPDATE: Dec. 12-18

A bunch of stuff has happened since I posted last, but I've been busy studying for exams, taking those exams, and recovering from those exams. This Weekly Update will thus be broader and less focused on the events of only this week.

Politics
For the umpteenth time, let's talk about Trump. Kinda.

I'm getting very tired of the Never-Ending Post-Election Freakout of the Left, especially from those in entertainment and media. It's getting sillier and sillier the longer the transition to a Trump presidency continues. I've liked about 75% of his cabinet picks, which is better than I originally hoped, while the media seems to throw a fit every time Trump picks someone that touches a nerve. (Mnuchin for Treasury? Goldman Sachs connections! Mattis for Defense? He's a general! Tillerson for State? He's friends with Putin!) Some of these reactions raise valid concerns. Others do not. When the media reacts with concern every time Trump does something, though, at some point people will start tuning it out.

Much of the Left has left the Denial phase of grieving over their election loss, and have entered Anger, Bargaining, and Depression. Notable examples of each have popped up just this week.

Under Anger, we have the continued blame game that tries to pin Trump's victory on "fake news," Russians "hacking the election," racism, or nearly anything other than bad strategy by the Clinton campaign and an American population fed up with elites in politics and culture. There is zero evidence that "fake news" (which no one seems to be able to adequately define, except in the vague "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" sense), the hack of the DNC by Russians, or supposed racial hatred was the crucial factor that won the election for Trump. To me, such arguments come off as overstatement at best and willful denial of reality at worst.

The Bargaining response emerges in the recent activist push to ask electors to change their vote from Trump to someone else on Monday. A few days ago, a bunch of actors and celebrities decided that the only thing to do was to make a video pleading with Republican electors cast their vote for someone else, anybody else but Trump. This video not only serves as an example of more lecturing of the "common folk" by celebrities using their star power to comment on politics, it is bound to be completely ineffective. Why would anyone think that 37 Republican electors will be swayed not to vote for Trump by a bunch of famous people talking at them? (By the way, if you're wondering, I disagree with Evan McMullin's embrace of the "faithless electors" movement, mostly because Trump is doing a better job of placing conservative thinkers in positions of power than Clinton would. I find it doubtful that the electors would switch their votes to someone besides Clinton to throw the election to the House of Representatives, as McMullin hopes.)

And finally, Depression is evident in Michelle Obama's Eeyore-esque (boy, that's a lot of E's) proclamation that "we are feeling what not having hope feels like," as though she was speaking for the nation. In reality, though, she's speaking for a subset of the population that's nowhere close to the majority – the group on the Left who think that what goes on in Washington will heavily affect their daily lives, and who think about national politics constantly. I suspect the rest of the nation is more concerned with whether Rogue One: A Star Wars Story redeems the Star Wars prequels, or whether CeeLo Green is alright. With regard to the subset the First Lady is speaking for, I'm sorry that they feel hopeless, and I would love to come alongside them and reassure them that a Trump presidency probably won't turn out as badly for them as they think.

As Stephen Colbert said the night of the election, maybe this year we OD'd on politics as a nation, and we need to come down off of that high. Some of us are coming down a bit faster than others, I think. Suffice it to say, I really hope that the portion of the Left that's still freaking out calms down soon.


Movie of the Week
I saw Moana this week. The animation and voice work in this movie are excellent. I don't know where they found the voice for Moana, but she is going places. And of course The Rock can do no wrong these days. Lin-Manuel Miranda's capable and creative songwriting hands are all over this soundtrack, which has some of the best Disney music in a while - yes, better than Frozen. (Fight me.)

As for the plot, well, it's a Disney movie. The formula is predictable. Hero/heroine is unhappy with their station in life and wants adventure, so they cast off and enter a world of wonder and magic with their animal sidekick, where they undertake a song-filled quest that will teach them something about who they are, and they succeed and live happily ever after.  Moana hits all these beats with gusto. It even gives its heroine two animal sidekicks, though one only shows up briefly at the beginning and end. However, while most Disney heroines have "true love" involved somewhere in their quest, this one changes the formula slightly by cutting that element out entirely.

I liked Moana just fine, and I think you would too if you like a good Disney movie. 3/5 Stars.

(I haven't seen Rogue One: A Star Wars Story quite yet. That's next week. NO SPOILERS IN THE COMMENTS!!)


Sports
IT'S THE MOST WONDERFUL TIIIIIIIME OF THE YEEEEEEEAR.

Not Christmas, silly. Bowl season.

I love me some bonus college football, and this year, there are some matchups that are great! There are others that are technically football games. Lucky for you, I have collected the matchups that are great below, along with their dates and start times. You should watch them! Here they are, with all times CST.

• San Diego State vs. Houston (Las Vegas Bowl, already happened)
• Memphis vs. Western Kentucky (Boca Raton Bowl, Dec. 20, 6p, ESPN)
• Boise State vs. Baylor (Cactus Bowl, Dec. 27, 9:15p, ESPN)
• Indiana vs. Utah (Foster Farms Bowl, Dec. 28, 7:30p, FOX)
• Texas A&M vs. Kansas State (Texas Bowl, Dec. 28, 8p, ESPN)
• Oklahoma State vs. Colorado (Alamo Bowl, Dec. 29, 8p, ESPN)
• Michigan vs. Florida State (Orange Bowl, Dec. 30, 7p, ESPN)
• LSU vs. Louisville (Citrus Bowl, Dec. 31, 10a, ABC)
• Alabama vs. Washington (Peach Bowl, Dec. 31, 2p, ESPN)
• Ohio State vs. Clemson (Fiesta Bowl, Dec. 31, 6p, ESPN)
• Western Michigan vs. Wisconsin (Cotton Bowl, Jan. 2, 12p, ESPN)
• USC vs. Penn State (Rose Bowl, Jan. 2, 4p, ESPN)
• Auburn vs. Oklahoma (Sugar Bowl, Jan. 2, 7:30p, ESPN)
• National Championship Game (Jan. 9, 7:30p, ESPN)

Let me explain why I have these games on this list. You may raise your eyebrows at the Boca Raton Bowl, but Memphis won the American Athletic Conference this year and WKU is always good for a point or 70. Boise State should trounce Baylor, but you never know with an explosive team like the Bears. In the Foster Farms Bowl we have two excellent offensive powerhouses that punched above their weight and challenged top-tier teams this year. The Texas Bowl will be a clash of styles and conferences, as KSU tries to grind out a win against the sputtering but high-flying Aggies.

Then we get to the good stuff. You do not want to miss any of the games I have listed after the Texas Bowl.

Michigan is consistently entertaining and Jimbo Fisher gets FSU ready to play in big games. LSU and Louisville both have very good and very meh things about them, so seeing a game between them should be intriguing. Bama should destroy Washington, but you never know, maybe the Huskies will get in a pass or two (they won't). I have no idea who will win the Fiesta Bowl, which is usually the sign of a really good game waiting to happen. The Cotton Bowl is a true underdog story, with #RowTheBoat in the role of David trying to take down the lumbering Goliath that is Wisconsin. The Rose Bowl is another game I don't really know how to pick, because both teams are very good. In the Sugar Bowl, Oklahoma should beat Auburn, but the Tigers may sneak up on OU if they're distracted by recent off-the-field issues. And of course you should watch the National Championship, because you're a cool person.

Finally, don't watch Florida vs. Iowa in the Outback Bowl. You're welcome.

Etc.
I saw my sister in a wonderful production of Beauty and the Beast this past weekend. She did wonderfully, and the production was fantastic. Next week I will be taking off because Christmas, so I will Update you again on New Year's Eve! Merry Christmas to you all.

WEEKLY UPDATE: Nov. 14-20

Politics
Let's start with Trump's cabinet picks. First, our next president selects Reince Priebus as his chief of staff. I'd say that fits. It's his pick of Steve Bannon as chief strategist that has me unhappy, though I'm not wringing my hands unduly over it, unlike a lot of SJWs. I thought Trump would find some way to include Bannon in his presidential staff as a consolation prize for not being able to head Trump TV, and so he did. I'm not fond of Michael Flynn, but I have less of a problem with Jeff Sessions for AG because, contrary to the narrative, he's not a racist. I could talk more about Trump's selections, but I think I won't until he assembles a fuller team. It would do a lot to assuage my misgivings about a Trump presidency if that team included Mitt Romney as Secretary of State.

As for the actor in the cast of Hamilton lecturing VP-Elect Mike Pence when he went to see their show, Pence himself had the perfect response. I would go further: why is this such a big deal? Sure, this likely wasn't the best venue to call out Mike Pence, but other than that, it's a Broadway actor expressing his opinion, asking Pence to work on behalf of a united America rather than a divided one. Why should this offend Pence in the slightest? Of course, Trump was offended, but he seems to be offended whenever anyone even insinuates that he's not a universally loved paragon of greatness who wins every game of three-dimensional chess.

In other news, Evan McMullin got some people mad at him this week for this response to Trump's tweets about Hamilton. From what I've seen, McMullin seems to be alienating some of his former supporters as of late. Recently, he launched the New Conservative Movement, which is a political organization with goals that are vague as of yet, and implied in an interview that the NCM could lay the groundwork for a new political party.

I think this is the wrong approach for McMullin to take, and here's why. Creating a new conservative political party would have been a good approach had Trump failed in his bid for the White House, but  Trump's win breathed on the embers of the Republican Party – enough to keep the flame burning a while longer. Many who supported Evan McMullin are willing to give Trump a second chance, to see how he chooses to lead a Republican party who will control both houses of Congress and nominate a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Scalia. At this point, I think a conservative political party would split the Republican coalition and nearly guarantee a Democratic victory in 2020.

There is, however, another way for conservatives to make an impact through the NCM. What if the New Conservative Movement became something like Ben Domenech's theorized Party of Life? The NCM could endorse candidates who espouse solid conservative values, fund their campaigns, and where necessary, run primary challengers against Republicans who did not govern in a conservative manner. I would also urge the NCM to adopt a broad definition of conservatism, centered around the pillars of free markets and federalism. As Domenech mentions, a large portion of the country holds pro-life views. A strong affirmation of federalism would return many issues of health, safety, and welfare to the power of the states, including the issue of abortion.

Now for a few links! Here are two excellent articles from Yuval Levin, author of the book that explained the Trump phenomenon before it happened, The Fractured Republic. The first one is on the evolution of the Republican coalition post-Trump, and I think it's very accurate. The second is about how Trump's election represents the American public's dwindling faith in cultural institutions. Both are well worth a read.

Lastly, here's something interesting: the recently remodeled Trump hotel just a few blocks from the White House represents a probable conflict-of-interest that could get Trump impeached on day one in office. However, as SNL wisely pointed out last night, maybe the Democrats wouldn't chance it.

Movie of the Week
This week I saw Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the latest from the Harry Potter universe. It had good and meh elements to it.

First off, it's wonderful to be back in the world that J.K. Rowling created – and this time, Rowling wrote the screenplay for the film, which is directed by definitive Potter director David Yates.  Rowling's writing is charming and fun for the most part, with a few scenes that seem out of place or foreshadow twists a little too well.

Eddie Redmayne plays Newt Scamander, a British wizard who travels the world to collect and study magical beasts. He's writing a book to share his knowledge with the world, to show them that beasts are interesting and not threatening. In his travels to America, he stumbles into a brewing conflict between wizarding kind and the No-Maj (or non-magical) community, and has to navigate that mess while trying to recapture several magical animals that have escaped.

The acting in this movie is excellent, creating a new generation of endearing characters. Warner Brothers is planning four more movies in this series, and this film sets them up nicely. However, the movie lacks the same charm that the Harry Potter movies had, because even though the characters are interesting, we don't have reason to invest in their story the same way we did with Harry Potter. Newt Scamander is a magical zoologist trying to catch some animals; Harry Potter was trying to save the world and going through the trials of teenager-dom at the same time.

I don't know how to explain the feeling I got from this movie, other than to say that while I was at times enthralled and excited, the immediacy and punch of the story is not quite "there." You will probably enjoy this movie fine, though. 3.5/5 Stars.

Sports
First, let's just get this out of the way: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TEXAS LOST TO KANSAS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now that that's done, your weekly look at who's in contention for the College Football Playoff! And this week, I'm going to start ranking them!

Last week, The Rules said that Clemson, Louisville, West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio State, Western Michigan, Washington, and Alabama are in contention for the College Football Playoff. (If you don't know what The Rules are, see the very first Weekly Update I ever did.) I added in Oklahoma State as a two-loss team last week, and this week, thanks to their absolute demolishing of West Virginia, Oklahoma vaults into consideration. Out of contention after this week are Louisville, after a bad loss to Houston, and the aforementioned West Virginia. Your run was interesting while it lasted, 'Eers. So here are the remaining teams, ranked in the order I think the CFP Committee will rank them:

1. Alabama
2. Michigan
3. Clemson
4. Washington
5. Ohio State
6. Oklahoma
7. Oklahoma State
8. Western Michigan (row the boat)

Bama is first because they seem to be unbeatable. Their struggles with Chattanooga this weekend just came off like a bored lion playing with its food. Behind Bama is a logjam at 2-5, and separating those teams is like splitting hairs. Michigan is the best of that bunch, because they've consistently looked pretty good despite having a bit of an off game this week. Then Clemson, the unquestioned best out of a very okay ACC. Washington's in fourth even though I think they might be better than Clemson because #EastCoastBias, and Ohio State is in fifth even though I think they could beat Clemson AND Washington because the CFP Committee is not putting two teams from the same conference in the Playoff. But the Michigan-Ohio State dilemma will soon solve itself when those two teams play each other, so I'm not worried.

Below them, just waiting for two one-loss teams to slip up, are Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The winner of Bedlam probably wins the Big 12 this year, which would give that team the mythical "conference champion boost" the Committee always talks about. Lastly, Western Michigan has basically no chance to make the Playoff, even though they're demolishing the teams they play.

Etc.
This will be my final Weekly Review for three weeks. I'll be studying for law school exams, and I'd appreciate your prayers.

WEEKLY UPDATE: Nov. 7-13

Politics
The election is over, so what is there left to talk about in this section? The hysterical overreaction to the election results, of course!

This week, the guy who told people they were fired on The Apprentice was hired by America. It was an astounding result to many, but for many on the left, their astonishment quickly turned to fear. And as we all know thanks to Yoda: "Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering."

Media voices were on the whole unhelpful at calming everyone down. Buzzfeed's doomsaying about Trump certainly didn't help matters at all. And although Stephen Colbert initially struck a note of frustration but urged unity on Election Night, he followed that up with this nonsense encouraging the #NotMyPresident crowd: "...for eight years, a lot of people wouldn't accept that Barack Obama was President of the United States – for instance, Donald Trump."

First of all, he's speaking about the birther movement, which (a) was a fringe group of fringe groups that absolutely no one took seriously and (b) didn't debate whether Obama was president, but rather where he was born. So Colbert is just patently wrong here. But more than that, statements like this divide rather than unify, in a time when our nation desperately needs unity.

Speaking of statements that are unfounded and divisive, here's Van Jones claiming that Trump was elected because people are racist, and that this election represents a "whitelash" against President Obama. This is a ridiculous and insulting misreading of the election results from someone who is supposed to be a trusted political analyst on CNN.

First of all, Trump was running against Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama. Second, exit polls showed that Donald Trump actually performed better with minorities than Mitt Romney did in 2012. "But he won white working class voters due to racism, right?" No, Trump won white working class voters because of his economic message, which blamed their troubles on illegal immigration and bad trade deals. Sure, he did so in a way that attracted the little-but-loud white nationalists of the alt-Right, but I get the feeling that Trump does not agree with their ideals.

To suggest that the largest group of American voters voted primarily due to racial hatred is itself racist and dehumanizing toward white working class voters. Van Jones and others pushing this line of argument need to be more responsible in their reactions and seek to understand why the white working class vote switched allegiance to Trump, rather than taking the easy cop-out of "most Trump voters are racists."

Now I'll briefly address one facepalm-worthy argument I've heard in response to the election: we should abolish the Electoral College, because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, say some prominent liberals and Michael Dukakis!

Here's the problem. One, there may still be uncounted ballots (7 million of them!), so we don't know the popular vote totals yet. Furthermore, there's no guarantee Hillary Clinton would actually win this election in a national popular vote system – and let's be honest, the only reason some on the Left are calling for the abolition of the Electoral College is because their candidate didn't win under its rules.

We live in a representative democracy, not a pure democracy – and thank goodness we do.  Pure democracy entails governance by popular majority and actually suppresses minorities. A pure democracy is also much more prone to cultural and legal change at sudden and harmful speeds, because people are fickle. This causes resentment to build up amidst minority populations that may explode violently.  The Electoral College moderates democracy in favor of minorities.

So let's follow the Domenech Rule and pump the brakes on abolishing the Electoral College, in case we ever end up in the popular minority.

And now I suppose I should write about the protests.

People have the right to free speech, even when that speech emerges from anguish and anger, and I respect that right.  However, protesting a free democratic election simply because you don't like the result moves the needle from "having a legitimate grievance" to "throwing a temper tantrum."

Protests like those of this past week divide America further, and actually assure reluctant Trump voters that they made the right choice, especially when those protests turn violent.  I would assume that confirming Trump voters in their choices is not the result the Left wants.

Yes, #NotMyPresident, Donald Trump IS your president. You may not like it. I didn't like it when America elected Barack Obama to office. But I didn't go out into the streets and march with signs calling Obama a threat to our democracy while damaging property.

I hope and pray our country can unite in the face of Trump. This is not a great start.

Movie of the Week
This update is already far too long, so in brief: I went to see Arrival. It was the best sci-fi movie I've seen since Interstellar, if a bit slow at points. You should go see it. 4/5 Stars.

Sports
My goodness, college football. Just when we think we have you all figured out. Three out of the top four teams in the playoff lost this week, but they were undefeated, so none of them are eliminated from playoff contention.

However, I'm going to break a bit of protocol here and violate The Rules. (GASP!) Oklahoma State is a team I have overlooked. They lost to Central Michigan due to bad officiating, so they really have only one legitimate loss, and they've looked very good these past few weeks, so they reach the playoff after surviving against Texas Tech this week. (No, Oklahoma, I'm not letting you in to contention yet. You have two actual losses.)

In addition to Oklahoma State, the teams still in contention for the College Football Playoff according to The Rules are Clemson, Louisville, West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio State, Western Michigan, Washington, and Alabama.

The less said about my Baylor Bears this week, the better. I'll let Our Daily Bears do the talking.

Etc.
I apologize for the politically heavy Update. Hopefully this will be the last one that is so unbalanced. After next week's Update, I will be taking a three-week break for exams and traveling home from law school.

ELECTION RECAP: I Was Wrong, But I Wasn't Wrong

In the past, I said Donald Trump would never run for president. I was wrong.

I said Trump would never win the Republican nomination. I was wrong.

I said Trump could not redraw the electoral map and compete in Democratic strongholds. I was wrong.

I said Trump would assuredly lose to Hillary Clinton, that he didn't have enough popular support, that the "silent majority" of white working class voters he courted did not exist, that enough people were disgusted or bored by his antics to stay home, that Clinton's voter turnout operations would win the day.

I. Was. Wrong.

Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States of America.

Here's what I don't think I am wrong about though.

Donald Trump as President is still a very bad thing for our economy, our relations with other nations, and our relations with each other. Let's start with the first thing.

Futures are down ahead of market openings this morning across the board. Trump's election will cause a massive market downturn. Economists have warned for months that a new recession is imminent. We'll see if they are right, and in turn, what a Trump administration will do to combat it.

Our relationships with other nations will suffer. Trump's plan to aggressively renegotiate trade deals, repeal our nuclear agreement with Iran, and build a border wall that Mexico will somehow pay for will not be well received. He must find a way to accomplish these goals while maintaining and strengthening our relationships abroad with nations like Israel and South Korea. Also, if I was Donald Trump, I would be calling Theresa May of Great Britain to negotiate a very good trade deal ASAP. That would provide stability to an ally and assurance to the world of our ability to cooperate with them in making sure markets stay free and competitive.

Finally, half of our country (or more) is devastated by the results of this election. #NotMyPresident has been trending on Twitter since the race was called for Trump, the Canadian immigration website crashed overnight, and I have heard anecdotal reports that the National Suicide Help Line returned a busy signal last night. Trump comes into office with a 60% disapproval rating.

This is perhaps the most immediate way that you can help after this divisive election and its shocking conclusion. Whether you voted for Trump, or refused to vote for either major candidate like me, reach out to your friends who voted for Clinton. If you don't have any liberal friends, now's the perfect time to make some. Bring them a cup of coffee this morning (trust me, we all need it). Come alongside them. Listen to their frustration and bewilderment. This is a very difficult time for them, and we must be there to show love to those who are hurting. If we do, perhaps we will look back on this election as a time of catharsis and unity, rather than further division.

In conclusion, there is one more thing that I know that I am not wrong about: God still reigns over our world, and He will work all things out for good for those who love him. We must return to him and pray for his guidance and favor on our nation in this strange and surprising time.


In God, whose word I praise, in the Lord, whose word I praise, in God I trust, I shall not be afraid. What can man do to me? I must perform my vows to you, O God, I will render thank-offerings to you. For you have saved my soul from death, yes, my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of life.

Psalm 56:10-13 (ESV)

WEEKLY UPDATE: Oct. 31-Nov. 6

Politics
This week is mercifully the last one before election season is over. When it is, I expect this section to become less extensive. First, I'm going to address the single most infuriating line of logic that I keep hearing from other voters heading into the election, then I'm going to talk briefly about my final #StateOfTheRace projection.

The argument that I'm talking about, which I've briefly addressed before here, is the Binary Choice Fallacy. I refuse to term it the "lesser of two evils" argument, though some do. It most frequently emerges in this form: "If you don't vote for Donald Trump, you're helping to elect Hillary Clinton."

To put it nicely: I find this argument lacking for a number of reasons.  First, many of those making this argument to me know that I don't buy 99% of what Hillary Clinton is selling, and I believe that she would be a disastrously bad leader for our country.  The idea that I would refuse to vote for Donald Trump in order to prop up Clinton is laughable to those who know my political views.

If Binary Choice Believers recognize this, they often move to the emotional argument that "Trump will be bad, but Clinton will DESTROY OUR COUNTRY. Even if it means voting for someone really bad, you must hold your nose and do it. If Clinton wins, it must be because people like you didn't vote for Trump, so you'll be responsible for everything that she does in office!" We have no idea if Trump would not do the same things as Clinton when he gains power. He's a lifelong supporter of liberal politicians, and he likes to cut deals with them. And if you think Trump will be restrained by the party, I sincerely doubt his ego will allow it.

Finally, the amount of condescension contained in the Binary Choice Fallacy is astounding. Believers in the Binary Choice Fallacy see my reluctance to vote Trump and conclude that I must not get "it." This makes them feel compelled to carefully explain to me how a two-party system works, that practically speaking, there is no chance that a third party can win this election, and we must just accept the system as it is.

There are only two practical choices in this election because enough people believe that there are only two practical choices. If a good chunk of the electorate decided they no longer believed in the imprisoning Binary Choice Fallacy, third parties would suddenly, magically become competitive options as those voters shifted allegiance. The moral defeatism contained in the Binary Choice Fallacy is the same defeatism that surrounded the abolition of slavery in America in the 1800s.  Then Abraham Lincoln ran third-party in 1860.

Bottom line: I'm not going to vote for a egomaniacal sociopath because the alternative is a corrupt career politician, and I'm not going to vote for a corrupt career politician because the alternative is an egomaniacal sociopath. I choose to reject both bad choices, because at some point you just have to say "enough."

Whew. Okay. Time for #StateOfTheRace.

This polling week was weird. For most of the week it looked like Trump would make the race close on the heels of some bad press for the Democrats (rising Obamacare premiums, renewed FBI investigations into Clinton, the Podesta email releases). However, polls late in the week showed the race stabilizing and more independents shifting to Clinton, so this is where I think the race is.

Early voting numbers out of NV look great for Democrats, McMullin's momentum seems to have stalled in UT, and Clinton's run at AZ doesn't look like it will flip the state. CO seems to be solidly for Clinton now. In the East, let's look at the four big battlegrounds. OH seems to have solidified for Trump, PA is not nearly as open as some models have it (Trump hasn't led a poll there since July), and FL does its weekly back-and-forth dance, but more and more models are handing it to Dems. The only state that no one knows what to do with (including the betting markets) is NC. I'm going to call it R, but I really have no idea. I don't buy a lot of the chatter that NH or VA will go red, despite a couple recent polls. Lastly, I do think ME's 2nd Congressional District, which continually votes for their Trumplike governor, will back Trump.

Movies
This weekend, I saw Doctor Strange, a film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe about an arrogant neurosurgeon whose hands are damaged in an accident. Desperate for healing, he goes to Nepal and encounters the Ancient One, a being of otherworldly power who shows Strange a new world of magic. When a powerful evil from another dimension threatens ours, Strange must decide whether to use his new training to return to his old life, or to take up the mantle of Sorcerer Supreme to defend our world.

Benedict Cumberbatch is one of my favorite actors, so I was excited to see his take on a superhero I didn't know much about. He was, as always, pitch perfect and the best part of the movie. That's not to discount from the rest of the cast either. Chiwitel Ejiofor plays the rigid Mordo, battle-buddy of Cumberbatch's Steven Strange, with gravitas that reminded me of his role as The Operative in Serenity. Rachel McAdams played Strange's occasional love interest as the everywoman very well, Tilda Swinton displayed simplicity and quiet grace as the Ancient One, and the always spectacular Mads Mikkelsen was menacing as the power-hungry Kaecilius.

One of the best origin stories I've seen since Batman Begins or Iron Man, with a plot that resembles both in different ways. The visual effects look nearly real, and the direction is sweeping while allowing the actors room to embody their characters. An excellent, fun time. 4/5 Stars.

Sports
Go Cubs go
Go Cubs go
Hey Chicago whaddaya say
The Cubs are gonna win today

I'll admit, I was not rooting for the Chicago Cubs to win the World Series until Game 7. I didn't really follow baseball at all this year, and I turned on the TV just because I wanted to see history.

What I saw was the best baseball game I've ever seen, and maybe the best sports game I've ever seen, period.

During the game, my brother (a giant baseball fan) texted me something that made me think. In all caps, just as the Indians tied the game in the 8th inning: "THIS GAME IS WHY I LOVE BASEBALL." And just as the game ended, he said: "You will never see a better baseball game, both because of the significance and the events themselves. The tying home run. The rain delay. The fact that it's game 7. The players-only meeting that [Cubs player] Heyward called during the rain delay. The fact that Davis made it a one run game. Unbelievable. As Billy Bean would say "How can you not be romantic about baseball?"

For me, the best part of this game was that for ten innings, America heaved a big sigh of relief.  For ten glorious innings, America came together to watch an epic story unfold, a curse shatter into a thousand pieces, and a city unite in joy. During that game there was no political mudslinging, no fear for the future, no hatred of other tribes – just fun, and in its wake absolute jubilance across generations of Americans.

My brother is right. Sports at its best is magical, because it unites across divides.

Sudden subject change: the College Football Playoff! The first rankings came out this week! They don't matter, so I don't care! 

The only remaining teams in CFP contention according to The Rules are Clemson, Louisville, West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio State, Western Michigan, Washington, and of course Alabama. Baylor fell flat on its face against TCU and needs to do a massive amount of soul-searching, Nebraska got outclassed in nearly every way by Ohio State, Florida fell victim to NovemBert, and HAHAHAHA AGGIES LOST TO CLANGA. They are all summarily eliminated.

Your playoff is still probably Alabama, Michigan, Clemson, and Washington in that order until someone loses.

Etc.
Nothing further to add except this Bible verse for your Election Day. Please join me in praying for our nation and our next president, no matter who it may be.

WEEKLY UPDATE: Oct. 24-30

So I've realized that there are several things I follow every week. I really enjoy keeping up with politics, watching movies and college football, and playing golf. In these Weekly Updates, I'm going to be talking briefly about those things and more.

Politics
Until the election, I think I'll start putting my State of the Race predictions here. This past week, we received the umpteenth October Surprise of this election when FBI Director James Comey informed lawmakers that he would be reopening his investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's emails. I actually don't expect that bombshell to affect the election too much, since people have already made up their minds as to whether they care about the FBI's investigation.

I do expect the race to tighten up in the coming weeks because I think many Republican voters will begin to fall into the binary thinking the two-party system engenders as the election approaches ("If I don't vote for Trump, I'm not doing my part to stop Hillary!"). This is nonsense, because the only reason that there is not a nationally viable third-party alternative to Trump (or Clinton) is because people believe that a third-party is not a viable alternative. If enough people did, there would be one.

With that mini-rant out of the way, here is my #StateOfTheRace prediction after this week.

You'll notice that I have certain states swinging in directions that the pundits do not. For instance, I still believe that Trump will win Florida, because of the retiree vote. I do not think Pennsylvania is as vulnerable to Trump as some do, because there hasn't been a poll showing him ahead there since mid-July. (While I think the polls are actually biased toward Clinton by a few points this year for a variety of reasons, I don't think that a continuous trend like the one in PA is an accident.) I have Arizona for Clinton because of the amount of attention she's paying to it late in the race, and the polls there seem to show a tightening race. I think things could get weird in Maine and Nebraska because this is a weird year. Finally, I believe the Evan McMullin hype and expect him to steal Utah in a very close race.

Honestly, though, if you just give Clinton the states she's expected to win handily, the election appears to be over:

To win this election, Trump needs to steal one of those blue states from Clinton and lock up the remaining grey states. It's not impossible, but it's highly improbable, I think.

Movies
I did not see a movie this week, unless you count my third viewing of Skyfall on the plane ride home. I forgot how good it was.

Sports
My main sports obsession is college football. While it is on, I really ignore every other sport. (Yes, baseball, that includes you, but I still hope the Cubs lose for pretty much these reasons.) So until the playoff, I'm going to post my Playoff Outlook here. It's based on the following three ironclad, black-and-white, never-wrong rules that I just made up:

1. The four Playoff teams will consist of, in order: undefeated Power-5 Conference champions; one-loss Power-5 Conference champions (UNLESS the one-loss is to another undefeated team, which will take their spot in the Playoff if not already present); undefeated Group of 5/Independent teams; and one-loss Power-5 Conference teams.
2. A Power-5 Conference team is eliminated from Playoff contention after two losses, and a Group of 5/Independent team is eliminated after one.
3. If there are five undefeated Power-5 Conference champions, the team with the weakest perceived conference will be eliminated from Playoff contention.

Given those rules, the only teams that still have a chance to make the playoff after Week 9 are Clemson, Louisville, Baylor, West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Western Michigan, Washington, Florida, Alabama, and Texas A&M.

Out of those, I would pick Alabama, Michigan, Clemson, and Washington (in that order). If they win out, I think that's your Playoff.

Etc.
I was glad to go home for a few days at the end of this week to see my family while on Fall Break, but it's back to the grind for the next few weeks leading into law school exams. I'll try to post here, but it will be brief.

The Notorious Trump Tapes, And What The GOP Should Do Next

In 2005, Donald Trump guest starred on a sitcom, and was videotaped beforehand bragging in extremely vulgar terms about his sexual conquest of a married woman, and stating that if you are a "star" you can touch women in any way you want, including groping their most intimate parts.

First, a quick sidebar, I'm not sure why the media seems so taken aback, given Trump's talent for saying ludicrous and vulgar things.  He's demonstrated this penchant for acting like a 70-year-old stereotypical frat bro for the past year and a half.  These comments just provide evidence that he was that way when he was 59 years old as well.

Second, Trump's comments are completely and unquestionably unacceptable behavior for any person, let alone a presidential candidate.  They're so far outside of the realm of common decency and respect for other human beings that they might as well be on another planet.

I'd love to see the Trump Train, his loyalists that aren't just voting for him because he isn't Hillary, attempt to justify this.  Perhaps it will be the Bill Clinton excuse: "What do a man's private indiscretions have to do with his qualifications for office?"  Or maybe the ever-reliable "this is all a media smear job!"

Give me a break.  The point is that Trump's comments disqualify him even further than he already was (if that's possible) from representing the Republican party.

Paul Ryan has disinvited Trump from campaigning in the swing state of Wisconsin.  Republican politicians are pulling their endorsements and calling on him to drop out of the race.  Even Reince Priebus, who warned those who didn't endorse Trump before the election that they would pay a price in future elections, said that "no woman should ever be described in these terms."

A good chunk of your own party told you Trump was a liability for over a year, Reince.  We told you he would backfire.  All we wanted was a chance to put it to a final open vote at the convention.  You threw your lot in with Trump.

And while I'm tempted, sorely, to live in I-Told-You-So Land until Election Day, I agree with the Republicans who say that Trump should be forced to drop out of the race given these disqualifying comments.  The Republicans should run Mike Pence as their candidate instead, with Paul Ryan (the highest ranking Republican) as VP.  After all, as Trump said earlier this week after Pence's smashing performance at the Vice Presidential Debate, Pence is really his "first hire."  What better man to run in his place?  Surely Trump would be just fine with that selection!

Oh and also, Russia is probably interfering in our elections.

Happy Friday and #VoteMcMullin!

Why I'm Still Not Voting For Trump (Or Clinton)

Punditmas (known as Election Day by all you normies) is fast approaching, and today is the first day of Punditmas Advent, marked by the first debate of the year.

For all the millennials who care more about Kim & Kanye, Snapchat, or whatever is cool now than politics, a presidential debate is this thing that happens three times every election year where the two major candidates get on a stage and repeat fragments of their stump speeches, except this time they repeat them at each other rather than to crowds of adoring fans.

At least, that's how a presidential debate in any year but this year would look.

I honestly have no idea what to expect tonight.  Does Donald Trump come out swinging, like the unhinged drunken master we saw in the Republican debates, and pummel "Crooked Hillary" with various insults about her health and proficiency at emailing things?  Or does he sit back and strike a more measured tone, as we've seen him briefly do several times in the last few weeks?  Does Hillary Clinton project calm and bait Trump into making a rhetorical fool of himself, or does she get out the shrill attack-dog voice and berate Trump for being "racist, sexist, homophobic," and any other vaguely SJW-sounding insults she can muster?

I don't know.  What I do know is that this debate will be all about the people on the stage, and not about their policy.  And that's a shame.

In an era where protests in American cities easily boil over into riots, where Christians and innocents are slaughtered by the thousands by a nation of radical Islamic terrorists, and where uncertainty and insecurity about our world are daily realities, America needs a true leader.  Someone who realizes that this election is not about them, but about America's future; someone who can bring our people together rather than push us further apart.  That leader will not be debating tonight, and as far as I can tell, that leader is not running for president.  So I won't be voting for either of the people on stage.

Perhaps I'm an idealist, you think.  Maybe I don't realize that my vote counts.  The Trump Train will shriek: "If you don't vote Trump, you're voting for a crooked habitual liar named Hillary!"  Clinton's various surrogates will yell: "If you don't vote Clinton, you're voting for a racist self-obsessed dumpster fire named Trump!"  If I think that neither of these caricatures are entirely correct, and that the choice isn't as binary as both of these camps think, does that make me naive or realistic?

What I know is that my vote is an expression of my desire for this country's direction.  I want America to be a place where limited government, free markets, and common respect rule the day.  What I do not want is an America where we pick our candidates like finalists on a reality TV show.  I'm tired of the endless hype and histrionics.

Most of all, though, I am tired of arguing with those who believe this election has some sort of apocalyptic significance.  On the day after Election Day, we will probably get up and go about our lives just like any other day.  The media will have a new toy to play with in the form of our next President-Elect - I did nickname Election Day PUNDITmas, after all - but the American people will be the losers.  We will be farther apart than before, no better off than before, and will have four more years of partisan bickering to look forward to.  It's sad.

The best we can do is to pray.  Pray for our nation's direction.  Pray for our next president, whoever he or she might be.  And most importantly, pray for a new Great Awakening.  As Augustine said, "our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee."

What Do The Anthem Kneelers Want?

By now you've probably heard about the fact that a bunch of prominent athletes are kneeling, sitting down, or otherwise refusing to stand with their hand over their heart for the national anthem.  I think the motivation for this is #BlackLivesMatter based on the statements of Colin Kaepernick and Adam Jones, though according to Megan Rapinoe, she's doing it because she feels it's right in her heart and she somehow thinks it honors the country.

Whatever the motivation, I don't necessarily have a problem with these displays of dissatisfaction.  My question is broader.

What do the "anthem kneelers" want?  What will satisfy them?

Do they have a specific thing they want to see change, something concrete, achievable?  Or is it just a vague, nebulous sense of "injustice," a feeling that something is not right and needs to change, without a clear "how?"

I suspect strongly that it is the latter, which makes their protest somewhat pointless.  Sit-ins at lunch counters, for instance, had a point: black people were literally being separated from society, forced into an underclass.  The Boston Tea Party didn't happen because a bunch of colonists thought the British were just being "unfair."  They had a concrete complaint: don't tax us without allowing us to represent ourselves in Parliament.  So they dumped a symbol of that taxation into the harbor.

#BlackLivesMatter, in its most straightforward form, has a point too.  They claim that police use excessive force against black people because they are black.  They want law enforcement to be equal in their enforcement.  If the facts are as #BlackLivesMatter claim – something which I choose not to debate here – this is a worthy goal.

I'm just not sure how refusing to stand for the national anthem relates to unequal enforcement of local laws by local police officers.  The federal government didn't kill Freddie Gray.  In fact, they investigated the police department who hired the officers that were with Mr. Gray when he died.

Maybe it's Kaepernick's frustrations with Donald Trump's stance on immigration and Islam that lead him to kneel.  If that's it, Colin, we agree that Trump's positions smack of racism, or at least that they can be easily twisted in that direction.  But Trump's views are not the country's views.  Far from it.

Even if Trump's views were that of the country, what would lead Kaepernick et al to stop kneeling?  What if we banished Trump from our country, and every one of the white supremacists who happen to support him?  What if we replaced every cop in Baltimore, in Ferguson, in Baton Rouge, in New York?  Would that be enough?  I suspect not.  "Deadly" unconscious racism would remain, because believing that people that are different than you are lesser than you is a human flaw as old as the human race.

Humanity's baked-in tendency to treat other people unequally for meritless reasons is the reason for the law.  Enforcement of the law will never be perfect, because people enforce the law, and people are far from perfect.  As the Father of the Constitution James Madison said in Federalist 51:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?  If men were angels, no government would be necessary. . . . In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

As imperfect beings, we can only do our best to improve the law, while knowing we will never reach absolute utopia.

So to the "anthem kneelers," feel free to express your dissatisfaction with whatever it is you're dissatisfied with.  You have that right in America, the land of the free.  I have the right to continue to be bewildered by your methods and motives.

What Abortion Is

I am shocked and saddened by the Supreme Court's ruling today in Whole Womens' Health v. Hellerstedt. I thought it would be a good time for the following reminders.

Abortion is genocide because it has killed over 58 million human beings in the United States alone since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Abortion is slavery because it lets some human beings decide whether other innocent and helpless humans live or die. (Here's Dr. Martin Luther King's daughter making that very same point.)

Abortion is racial discrimination because it disproportionately targets ethnic minorities, was intended to do so by Planned Parenthood's founder, and is the number one killer of African Americans today.

Abortion is harmful to women because of the prevalence of sex-selective abortions around the world, because of deaths and injuries to mothers that have resulted from abortion, and because of today's Court decision which rules that abortion providers do not need medically acceptable facilities or admitting privileges at hospitals - unlike any other surgical provider.

Not only is abortion all of those things, but its practitioners regularly break the law and distort the truth about scientific data, exactly how many abortions they perform, and their public value for protecting women's health.

I could go on.

The practice of abortion is a barbaric atrocity that must be snuffed out. I pray I live to see the day that it is.

I Really Hope Hillary Clinton Is The Democratic Nominee

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, Douglas Schoen writes that reports of Hillary Clinton's status as the presumptive Democratic nominee may be greatly exaggerated. If Bernie Sanders wins or comes close in the California primary (and the polls suggest it's at least possible), the nomination would come down to whichever way the superdelegates lean. Given recent poll numbers showing Clinton with rising unfavorables and a close race against Trump, combined with the very real possibility that she may be indicted any day, the superdelegates may well decide that a Sanders candidacy provides a better chance at the White House.

This would be bad for all Americans. Here's why.

First of all, Donald Trump is already a poor candidate for the Republican Party. He has massively high unfavorable ratings. An entire contingent of his own party refuses to vote for him. He doesn't seem to believe his own schtick and flip-flops frequently. Most of those in his own party who actually support him do so with all the reluctant enthusiasm of a frazzled ride attendant at Disney World. Finally, many Republicans only support him to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination, or because they think he will pick better Supreme Court justices than she will.

Here's the thing, though: Clinton is just as weak. Due to her unfavorables and three different looming scandals (Benghazi, emails, AND the Clinton Foundation), she even seems beatable if Trump unifies the GOP and rights his own ship.

Sanders, however, is running up double-digit leads on Trump, and has the strong backing of the younger and more radical fringe of the Democratic party. Running him against Trump would likely guarantee a Democratic president for the next four years.

That's the first problem. The second revolves around what kind of president Sanders would be.

Unlike Clinton, Sanders is an avowed socialist, and has been one since before the Soviet Union fell. His memoir states that he supported the Sandinistas' proxy war against the Reagan-helmed United States and honeymooned in the USSR. He frequently rails against "the 1%" and "millionaires and billionaires" (even though he is one), and has vowed to raise taxes across the board to pay for new government programs. (See how Bernie's plan would affect you here! Spoiler alert: His plan would likely bankrupt the country for good.)

Sanders is a socialist, which is undeniably worse than whatever flavor of crony capitalist Clinton is. Though, frankly, choosing between crony capitalism and socialism is like choosing whether to drink Ipecac or bleach, respectively.

And now, we come to the final problem with a Sanders nomination. If the Democrats nominate Sanders, conservatives like me who find voting for Donald Trump unconscionable will be faced with an unthinkable choice. We would be forced to either vote for The Donald, a man completely unfit to be President, or cede the election – and the country – to socialism. At that point, any support for a more conservative third-party candidate would take votes from Trump, the candidate with the best chance to defeat socialism. That's the practical reality, however much we may hate it.

This horrible choice between supporting a lunatic and allowing a socialist to win would be on my mind, and on the mind of every true conservative, if Sanders wins. I truly believe that the Republic can survive four years of Clinton. It may be resilient enough to survive four years of Trump. I do not think it can survive four years of socialism.

Political Discussion in the Age of Neutralism

On Twitter this morning, a disagreement between Heritage Foundation scholar and religious liberty activist Dr. Ryan Anderson and Rep. Justin Amash caught my attention.  First, Dr. Anderson called out Rep. Amash for his recent vote to ratify President Obama's amendments to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classifications in two executive orders governing hiring decisions:

Representative Amash responded:

This exchange between two public figures known for their conservative bonafides highlights a central problem in our current political discourse.  I'm not speaking of the sharp language that often characterizes modern political disagreements, though I think the two issues are related.  I'm speaking of a way of viewing laws and public policy which has harmful effects on our ability to discuss such things.

In his book Natural Law for Lawyers, J. Budziszewski describes it this way:

Liberal legal thinkers...conclude that thick moral realism is all wrong.  In their view, lawmakers should assume not the reality and necessity of the common moral ground, but the impossibility of a common moral ground.  The only possible common ground is amoral, or as they say, "neutral."  They say that laws and public institutions must award equal concern and respect for all possible goals, aspirations, and conceptions of the right way to live.  Only in this way, they think, can we escape the futility of endless arguments and carve out a public space in which people of every point of view can get along. (Introduction: Why Natural Law?)

Neutralism sees discrimination within and between moral views as the ultimate cause of disagreement and strife in society, and focuses on stamping it out using the law.  Its ideal is an open society where all moral points of view are respected and people may freely choose between them.

However, neutralism itself is a mirage, an impossible goal.  Budziszewski, again, provides an example based on the issue of abortion:

Neutralists apply the principle of equal concern and respect not only to competing views of what ought to be, but to competing views of what is.  For example, rather than finding out whether the child in the womb is a human being, they claim to award equal concern and respect to the view that he is and the view that he isn't.  Since we can't say which view is true, they say, a woman should be free to carry the child or abort him, as she sees fit.

The neutralist, however, cannot maintain this position:

Instead of saying that "I can kill the baby because he might not be human," why don't we say that "Since he might be human, I shouldn't"?  What this shows us is that would-be neutralists don't really award equal concern and respect to every view of what the baby is.  Actually they award all of their concern and respect to one view of what the baby is: Abracadabra, he's human if I think of him as human, otherwise not.  This is a Harry Potter view of reality, an ontology for sorcerers.  I can make the child an abscess, a blood  clot, or a tumor...whatever I want.  It's all in my mind anyway.

In the Twitter exchange above, Rep. Amash's view meshes closely with neutralism.  In his view, the federal government should not give protections to religious employers who may wish to make hiring decisions based on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity."  The law must be neutral, and religious persons should not be allowed to "discriminate."

By using that word, however, Rep. Amash falls into the trap described by Budziszewski.  In this case, the law cannot be neutral.

If the law prohibits all employers from making hiring decisions on the basis of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity," it forces some religious employers to violate their sincerely held beliefs.  In order to guarantee the most liberty to the most people, the law should at the very least exempt religious employers from such restrictions.  If it will not, then the law itself discriminates against the moral views of religious believers.

The neutralist is therefore faced with a choice: drop the charade and hold that the law should discriminate against certain moral views held by religious employers, or admit that neutralism as a whole does not provide a satisfying answer to moral dilemmas in the law.  Either way, neutralism does not and cannot stand as a valid method of interpreting law or weighing moral choices in the public square.

How does this relate to the way we discuss politics?  We may wish to deny it, but our moral views affect our politics quite deeply.  Neutralism unfairly cramps our ability to discuss political issues, because it forces us to pretend that all moral views are equally praiseworthy.  Thus, political disagreements quickly turn personal, because our moral views depend only on our own beliefs.

There is another way, however: recognition that a higher law exists, beyond any human law, that provides a foundation for our moral decision-making.  We innately know that some things are right, and other things are wrong.  For example, Rep. Amash and Dr. Anderson may disagree about whether basing hiring decisions on "sexual orientation" is wrong, but they likely agree that it is right that everyone should receive his fair due.  There is room for disagreement on what is "fair," and what is "due," and how to reach this end, but the moral principle still unites them.

Our political discussions are passionate, but they do not have to turn bitter or pointed.  Neutralism guarantees that they will by denying any ground for moral views outside of personal preference, ignoring any possibility of moral principles that are true at all times and all places.  Recognizing that such principles exist is the first step toward a more productive discussion of the moral choices and social issues that affect us all.

Why Cruz Isn't Winning Where He Should

Tonight after Arizona was called for Trump in the GOP primary, I heard several of CNN's election night pundits talk for the umpteenth time about how troubling it is that Cruz can't win southern or western states.  This begs the question: why is Trump beating Cruz where Cruz "should win?"  I thought I'd give my own perspective.

Recall that based on my Grand Unified Theory (it really needs a better name), Trump and Cruz are both primarily pulling from the Angry Right, a portion of the GOP electorate that is sizable and loud this election cycle.  Most Angry Right voters are dissatisfied with the federal government, if not mad at it, and feel that they have been betrayed by the politicians in Washington - Republican or Democrat - one too many times.  The Angry Right want pure ideological conservative policies, but the representatives they elect seem to moderate, dilly-dally, or vote for things they don't agree with when they arrive in DC.  Trump's message of frank, bull-like fury, they feel, will topple Washington politics-as-usual by sheer force of personality, clearing out what they feel is a disingenuous and threatening system.

Thing is, Cruz is running with a similar message, aimed at the Angry Right.  My thought is that Trump is beating Cruz with Angry Right voters in the South and West, where I think they're primarily concentrated.

This might be occurring because the Angry Right thinks Trump will smash the system, while Cruz has a (likely undeserved) reputation for duplicity.  His campaign this primary season has had several rather public instances where they've bent the truth.  (Iowa mailers, Carson's dropping out, Rubio and the Bible, etc.)  While these instances have been oddly non-existent since Cruz fired Rick Tyler about a month ago, the Angry Right is wary of duplicity, with a deep fear of being duped again.  Trump's label of "lying Ted" may well have stuck, and the Angry Right may be embracing Trump as the more genuine-seeming of the two candidates.

Alternatively, the Angry Right may consider Cruz to be a politician who's fought the system in Washington, but is still a part of it nonetheless.  It's likely not helping when they see the anti-Trump establishment forces rallying around Cruz as their last hope, and may well drive more of the Angry Right to Trump's side.

A Post-Ides Grand Unified Theory Update

Last week, I posted my Grand Unified Theory of the 2016 GOP presidential race.  It was an attempt to make sense of this uniquely fractured race.  Now that the Ides of March Primaries are all but over, I'm going to update my voting blocks again to take into effect Marco Rubio's decision to drop out and John Kasich's win in Ohio.  I also think it's time to make some general predictions based on this theory.

Below, I'll list the new voting blocks as I see them.  Remember, these are the voter groups that I believe make up the base of each candidate's support.  For reference on these groups, please refer to my post below.

Trump: Blue Dog Dems + Angry Right
Cruz: Angry Right + Social Conservatives
Kasich: Establishment + Moderates

Now, for a brief update to the theory.  You may have noticed that the Far Right has become the Angry Right.  I changed this moniker mostly because I thought it was more appropriate.  Voters in this block are casting their ballots based on anger and frustration with a political party and system that they feel has stymied their goals and ignored them for too long.  They're not the only angry ones this electoral cycle; Blue Dog Democrats are angry too, but not at government.  Blue Dog Dems, who I think frequently emerge from the working class, may be voting for Trump because they believe that immigration is a threat to their livelihood.

And now, a few predictions, centered around two questions: How will Rubio's exit, and Kasich's win in Ohio, affect the race?

Rubio's votes, according to my theory, will split between Cruz and Kasich.  The Establishment portion of Rubio supporters will latch onto Kasich for dear life, and Social Conservatives will overwhelmingly filter Cruz's direction.  However, past bad blood between the Rubio and Cruz camps during the campaign will not help things.  Rubio's Social Cons may be grudging supporters at first, giving Cruz their votes as the last best hope to stop Trump.  Alternatively, some Social Conservatives distrustful of Cruz after his (perceived or actual) deceits may well support Kasich if he begins to moderate his tone.

This brings me to my big prediction: John Kasich Is Going To Ruin Everything.

Kasich is a far more palatable candidate to the Establishment and Moderate voters, many of whom LOATHE Cruz.  Don't get me wrong, I think Cruz is now the grassroots candidate.  #NeverTrump is a grassroots movement (for the most part), and I think Cruz will win that portion of the electorate handily.  But for Rubio voters who consider Cruz a dishonest or childish candidate, Kasich may seem the honest adult.  They may well flip to him instead of Cruz, weakening Cruz's bid to take down Trump, especially in Northern states.

A split may well develop, then, in the #NeverTrump movement between Establishment and Moderate voters who want an electable governor as the GOP nominee and the Social Conservative/Angry Right grassroots who like Cruz's conservative bona fides and want change in the Republican Party.  The problem?  That split would likely hand Trump the nomination on a silver platter.

A Grand Unified Theory of the 2016 Republican Presidential Race

I've refrained from writing about the 2016 Republican election here at all, mostly because I've been too busy.  (If you're wondering, though, I'm firmly in the #NeverTrump camp.)  However, I came up with something recently that I think helps to explain the frenetic nature of the current Republican race.  I'll briefly describe that here. 

The reason I think that the party feels like it's a very tense breaking point, in my opinion, is because of overlapping voter groups within the GOP.  

The Republican electorate is made up of five disparate kinds of voters right now.  I'll lay them out briefly below, from most conservative to least.

Group number one I like to call the Far Right.  This voting block includes die-hard Tea Partiers, many conservative-minded libertarians, and those for whom the Second Amendment and illegal immigration are primary issues.  Voters in this group tend to reflexively dislike or blame Obama, "the liberals," or the government in general for society's problems.  They are often working-class or middle-class economically, with a deep-seated distrust of authority.  Due to their belief in American exceptionalism, they occasionally hold isolationist viewpoints on foreign policy.  This election, they're rather angry and fed up with the lack of conservative solutions being put in action by mainstream Republican lawmakers.

Next come Social Conservatives.  They vote Republican due to a strong belief in Judeo-Christian moral values.  They view Republicans as aligned with this moral tradition and working to preserve it in society.  Their primary issues of concern are social trends in the country that they see as corrupting the culture at the root level of the family: governmental endorsement of same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and a disregard for religious liberty.  Social Conservatives vote for Republicans who they hope will curtail or reverse these trends.  Along with the Far Right, these voters make up the grassroots of the Republican party.

After Social Conservatives come the Establishment GOP voters.  Frequently accused of being RINOs ("Republican in name only") by the Far Right, these voters cast their ballots to support GOP candidates because they believe that general Republican principles can govern the country better overall than liberal ones.  Establishment voters may include "compassionate conservatives" like George W. Bush or John McCain, Republicans who think that government programs can be used selectively to cure some social ills.  This is the hardest voting group to positively define.

Fourth in line are Moderates.  These individuals vote Republican for a variety of disparate reasons, but often because they happen to like the Republican candidate today better than the Democratic one. They hang out in the middle of the political spectrum and don't pick any cohesive side.  They may have sympathy with both liberal and conservative points of view.  The Far Right and Social Conservatives alike heap disdain on these voters, terming them "squishy" and "unprincipled" - the real RINOs.

Finally, the Blue Dog Democrats.  These guys are Democrats disillusioned with their own party for one reason or another.  Many still hold mostly liberal values, and may be registered Democrats.  However, whether it's dislike of the Democratic candidates or dissatisfaction with how Democrats are addressing a particular issue, or even attraction to a Republican candidate who they feel will "shake up" the political landscape, they vote Republican in primaries.  In a general election for President, though, their allegiance to the Democratic party may prevail.

My big theory is that each of the remaining Republican presidential candidates is primarily pulling from two of these five voting groups, as detailed below:

Trump = Blue Dog Democrats + Far Right

Cruz = Far Right + Social Conservatives

Rubio = Social Conservatives + Establishment

Kasich = Establishment + Moderates

I think viewing the electoral field in this way provides a lot of clarity into where the conflicts are in the current Republican race for president.  What do you think?  Let me know in the comments!