U-M B-ball Liveblog

(Go to the bottom to read from the beginning.) (Listen to the game live here.)

SUMMARY: Yeah. ....well, I don't know. I have faith in Beilein's ability to train players, I just think he needs more time. It's tough to learn in the thick of the season. It also certainly doesn't help that Kendric Price, K'Len Morris, and Jerret Smith left, either. That just leaves us with Merritt and Lee who, bless their Maize and Blue hearts...well, we've been over this. I can only say that, on the bright side, next year we're getting some real D-I players who can play Beilein's system. Hope I didn't come across as too cynical...after all, I love M hoops. I mean, I just sat through a 2-hour game and wrote about it, too! But it's hard to see your boys playing like that.

Well, there's still a Block M flag on the moon, suckers! Ha!

9:00 -- Your final score: 77-65, cut down by a Zack Gibson undefended jumper and an undefended Kelvin Grady jumper at the buzzer. At least we have our dignity. If we ever get a close game, we'll be able to hit that winning shot at the buzzer. We've gotten a shot at the buzzer in each of the last three games, after it was already hopeless.

8:57 -- Nothing really remarkable...except there are about 29 seconds left, and Minnesota just hit the front end of a 1-and-1. 75-61.

8:54 -- 17 turnovers for Minnesota. Now, 17 turnovers for Michigan. Lead to 10, but time's running out.

8:51 -- W2 looks away from his screen for a moment, and Michigan somehow gets the ball back and they aren't going to replay it! Never a dull moment!

8:50 -- Lee's giving it his all: He hustles to try for the steal, knocks it out of bounds, but gets called for a foul. 69-57.

8:49 -- C. J. Lee steals and scores all by himself!

8:48 -- The Michigan three cuts the lead to 14.

8:45 -- I was wondering the other day while watching the Master's of Curling (I live an exciting life), why does the CBC sports coverage look like all the American sports coverage from a decade ago? I just realized that that's the Big Ten Network's problem, too. One of them, anyway. Do I have to keep reporting the score, or can I just complain about how I won't be able to watch up to three Michigan football games next fall? Does BTN realize that "Only on the Big Ten Network" makes people bitter? Okay, back to the game.

8:42 -- "It's been a tough night for Harris." That's the kind of crucial analysis you should have automatically worked into your cable package. Only on the Big Ten Network!

8:42 -- Harris, beautiful steal, finishes with a dunk. Slowly making up for the ones he's given up today. 67-48.

8:40 -- Zack Gibson pump-fakes the three. It's reassuring to have that threat. Michigan opts to execute the popular "Turnover" play instead. 65-45.

8:36 -- I've never seen anyone who looked and sounded more like Georgette from the Mary Tyler Moore Show than the former gymnast from the U-Minnesota commercial. Only on the Big Ten Network!

8:35 -- Two positives: Harris has SUCH a quick release. Also, Gibson blocks the fast-breaking guard just by looking at him. Minnesota scores anyway on the out-of-bounds pass. 63-43.

8:33 -- Another miracle...Gibson nails the three!

8:32 -- Manny Harris's turnovers are shocking. Minnesota scores four straight: 61-40.

8:30 -- Miraculously, the full-court pressure creates a turnover and Harris makes a three. And now a foul at the other end. Minnesota makes two FTs...57-39.

8:28 -- Look Cazzie...a bobblehead of you! We're so happy to be employed! Minnesota, 55-34.

8:25 -- "Great homecourt advantage atmosphere," says Cazzie Russell. Awww. Looks like "and zero," by the way, as Coleman missed the FT.

8:23 -- Holy cow...who knew Ron Coleman could do that? And it all started with a lucky desperation pass. We need more of that. And one!

8:21 -- Ever notice that when Sims and Harris shoot, there's absolutely no backspin? They're our leading scorers--that could be a problem. Things are going from Indiana to Ohio...that is, bad to worse. 52-32.

8:15 -- OH my gosh. Well, nothing you can do about that three right there. 45-30.

8:13 -- Michigan gets its first point; Sims makes one of two free throws. Too bad Minnesota scored 8 points first. 42-27.

8:10 -- Is it also a problem that commercial breaks consist of about 3 ads? This is disturbing to me. It's like the track at IM East here at MSU where nine laps equals one mile. It's just...troubling.

8:07 -- Larrivee and McCormick: "Two-thirds of Minnesota's points were in the paint. That's a telling statistic"--fantastic observation--"and it leads you to wonder why they shot such a great percentage down there." Better not talk about it though. More turnovers for U-M, more points for Minnesota. The score: 40-26.

8:05 -- With a turnover.

8:05 -- Michigan starts off the second half.

IMPORTANT HALFTIME UPDATE: The BTN halftime guys say exactly the same things about the game I did, while not looking as good doing it. Those guys have a show, and I don't? McCormick and Larrivee suggest that Michigan play Cazzie Russel, then add these pearls: "The other Coleman is Dan Coleman" and "Ron Coleman is Michigan's only deep threat." (False.) Their major strength? The Cazzie Russell bobblehead doll. Now I understand. Also, the helpful BTN Network puts Beilein on the screen to tell us that we're watching Minnesota at Michigan.

HALFTIME -- Michigan is very lucky to be within single digits. Minnesota played an incredibly sloppy first half, and without that it would be a blowout already. What did Michigan do well? Almost nothing on the offensive side with ten ugly turnovers. Izzo taught other teams that if you just make sure Manny Harris is covered, Michigan has almost no offense. Bright spots: DeShawn Sims is a great rebounder. Ekpe Udoh plays decently, getting one fantastic block. Black spots: Minnesota's big men are very athletic. The announcer was musing over Minnesota's paint scoring despite the presence of Big Ten-leading blocker Ekpe Udoh...but Minnesota's front court is bigger and quicker, and they're passing extremely well in the paint, which has been deadly so far. Manny Harris is over-dribbling, but on the other hand, who can he pass to when Michigan's players aren't athletic enough to get good cuts? To make up for the athleticism deficit, Michigan's going to have to deny the entry pass, set great picks, and make crisp cuts.

7:48 -- Great play by Harris to cut the lead to eight at halftime!! Drive and a floater off the backboard. Minnesota leads at the break, 34-26.

7:48 -- Great block by Udoh!

7:46 -- Minnesota just now figured out to put on the full-court press against David Merritt, whose recorded height is 3'7" and who does not own a scholarship? (Bless his Maize and Blue heart...sorry.) Turnover number 10, and the score is 34-22.

7:42 -- Also, I mean, aren't they kind of preaching to the choir here? I mean, Big Ten Network viewers, presumably, kind of like the Big Ten. Because right now, they have to pay extra money to get it. This is bothering me. I just watched my 178th commercial for the Big Ten, for the day.

7:39 -- Manny Harris delivers Michigan's 9th turnover so far...dunk for the Gophers on the fast break. Want a recipe for losing? Combine bad offense and bad defense with a serious lack of elite athleticism. Minnesota, 30-20.

7:34 -- Monster putback jam by Damien Johnson of Minnesota. I'm not sure Merritt and Grady in at the same time is a great lineup for Michigan. Minnesota, 26-19.

7:32 -- Is it a bad sign that about 84% of the Big Ten Network's ads seem to be from the Big Ten and Big Ten schools? Why do those guys advertise, anyway? I mean, Coke I can see. They need to get their message out. But I'm not going to go to the store and enroll at Minnesota on an impulse. Not even after giving it some thought, probably. Oh yeah, and Ron Coleman is playing pretty well right now.

7:28 -- Coleman hits two threes! Minnesota, 21-17.

7:25 -- Good hustle for the rebound by Gibson, then he throws the ball away. Beilein shakes his head. Then Manny steals again and gets fouled on the fast-break! Hits...both. Minnesota, 19-11.

7:21 -- MANNY HARRIS! Excellent steal and ball-handling, dunk on the other end! Minnesota, 17-9.

7:20 -- GOOD drive and pass by David Merritt!! Foul called on Minnesota, Gibson goes to the line...hits one...misses the second. 17-7.

7:18 -- Good shot by Sims, then Tollackson fouled. (Won't that guy ever graduate?) Excellent passing in the paint by Minnesota. Tollackson makes both. Minnesota, 15-6.

7:17 -- Good pass! But Michigan is lucky to be down by 7 right now. Bad turnovers, bad defense. Minnesota, 11-4.

7:11 -- Stunningly bad offense right now by Michigan as John Beilein takes a time-out. Poor passing, poor shot selection (particularly the 3-pointer Shepherd had swatted from him). DeShawn Sims has had two balls taken right out of his hands. 9-2 Minnesota.

7:00 -- Tip off!

Retro Ads

My buddy Aaron Benmark just alerted me to these fantastic videos featured on www.cracked.com:



This could be useful on my floor. Not that I'm worried; I'm just saying it's never bad to have protection from the kind of appalling criminal who dares to climb through your second-story window wearing a classic thief mask.



Here's another classic. Like I told my friend, this is not a joke. Folger's Coffee has saved hundreds of marriages just in my experience. Adding in a pun makes a potent combo.



The coup de grace. Fred Flintstone is the coolest cartoon character extinct. He drives a car with extremely low gas-mileage, he's a hard-working blue-collar type, and he even smokes Winstons. Minus the cigarettes, the Flintstone life is how we ALL could live if we were only as environmentally conscious as Al Gore!

Who is the most liberal senator?

(From the indispensable Captain's Quarters Blog:)

That would be Barack Obama, according to the national rankings done by National Journal. With a liberal rating of 95.5 out of 100. Who would've known? Hmmm....

Captain Ed makes sure to analyze John McCain's ratings, too. Just as I suspected, a decent lifetime conservative rating (71.8), and in the last three years for which he was scored (2004-2006), all scores in the fifties. Crazy.

Upcoming Events

I wanted to give an update for anyone at MSU about some upcoming events of interest:

There will be a jazz performance--ah, the perks of sharing a residence hall (Mentorspeak for "dorm") with the Residential College in the Arts and Humanities!--in the auditorium in the basement of Snyder-Phillips. The day is February 8, the time is 8:00 PM, and the admission is free!

Students for a Free Economy (of whose mailing list I have apparently and luckily become a proud member) is hosting a debate about global warming between Peter Sinclair, a local environmental activist who worked with Al Gore's Climate Project, and Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and an attorney who specializes in environmental issues. That will be from 7:00 PM to 8:30 on Wednesday, February 6, in 105 South Kedzie Hall.

I shall be attending both of these, so of course you'll want to go. Unless, of course, you are for some reason halfway around the world hiking and boating through Pacific island chains, in which case you probably wouldn't have wanted to come anyway.

McCain vs Reagan

Not again! Yes, again. Sorry, guys, I promise to get off of McCain's back for at least one post and offer up my take on the b-ball game tonight against Minnesota. (You can watch it at 7 PM Eastern on the Big Ten Network or you can listen live at www.mgoblue.com.) And be sure to check out www.umhoops.com for their excellent pre- and post-game analysis.

But for now: Michelle Malkin compares the words of John McCain in last night's presidential debate with the words of Ronald Reagan, whose mantle McCain has claimed.

McCain: Tested, Proven, Never

I know I've been harping on McCain lately. It's something I can't seem to help. But I have some more thoughts on the presumptive Republican nominee.

When voting for any office, I always worry about whether or not my candidate is going to "grow in office." ("Grow in office" is a phrase that means "become more liberal." Becoming more conservative not only never happens to anyone in a position of power, but it is also never considered growth.) It seems as though it can happen to anyone.

But with John McCain, we already have the answer. He ran against George W. Bush for the nomination in 2000, discovered that he could earn the press's love and attention, and suddenly became a "maverick." Far from being the only person who can unite the Reagan conservatives, John McCain declared war on them. He built up his independent image by hinting at (but never actually) switching parties. I don't want my presidential candidate to think about what the New York Times says about him, except to relish their hatred of him. John McCain ain't that guy.

There's a reason that nearly every column supporting McCain cites his 82 lifetime rating by the American Conservative Union. His lifetime rating is meaningless; what is his rating since 2000? I'm betting it isn't quite so good. From immigration to judges, from taxes to the environment, John McCain has had only kind words for liberal colleagues and only disdain and often outright malice toward conservatives.

More on McCain

Here is an interesting column about John McCain by Reason Magazine's Matt Welch.

I had a few thoughts about John McCain while walking on campus today. A lot of people seem to think that John McCain is just the kind of change conservatism needs, that conservatism needs to be brought into the 21st century by moving left on global warming, immigration, and other issues. The evidence that people want John McCain to take the Republican Party in a new direction: exit polling data show that Romney won voters who were "enthusiastic" or "satisfied" with President Bush by 3% and 4%, respectively, whereas John McCain won voters who were "dissatisfied" or "angry" with Bush by 20% and 33%!

The irony here is that there may be no presidential candidate closer to Bush's policy views than John McCain.

It strikes me that although McCain voters ostensibly want a change from the status quo, they aren't getting anything new, really. John McCain is simply a return to the days of the country-club Republicans. He's in the mold of Nixon, Ford, and Dole, not Ronald Reagan. Throughout the Seventies, when the Republicans were solidly entrenched in the New York/D.C. axis (just heard that useful term on Rush Limbaugh...thanks, Rush), Ronald Reagan threatened to overturn the party elite. Finally in 1980, circumstances allowed Orange County and our beloved late president to succeed and launch a veritable revolution. John McCain, although a self-proclaimed Reagan conservative, threatens to return us to that stagnant era when the Republican Party was a big-government alternative to big-government liberalism.

That isn't an alternative I'm going to buy.

Recruiting Update: Terrelle Pryor

The Detroit Free Press is reporting that the recruit, who has been compared to Vince Young, is leaning toward enrolling at Ohio State, according to his high school wide receivers coach.

Programs don't rise and fall by single recruits. And Coach Rod is also pursuing another great dual-threat QB in B.J. Daniels, who has a name made for taunting by classless Aggie fans. I hope we get Pryor; he seems like a good guy, and we know that he's sickeningly fast. But if he plays for OSU, I wish him well. Michigan will always have options, whether it's Daniels or Carlos Brown, who played QB in high school.

McCain the Winner

John McCain's victory in the closed Florida primary makes him the front-runner going into Super Dee Duper Tuesday. I have to admit that I was surprised for a number of reasons: Romney's debate performance didn't seem to help him, registered Republicans across the board chose McCain over Romney, McCain managed to weather an endorsement from the New York Times, and most surprising of all, Rasmussen's polling data was off by 11%!

This result is deeply disappointing to me, and puts me in a tough situation should it lead to a McCain candidacy. I agree that a President McCain is better, all other things being equal, than a President Clinton, and far better than a President Obama. He would be correct on Iraq, on spending, and potentially on taxes. But his heresies--campaign finance "reform," opposing the Bush tax cuts, his illegal immigrant amnesty, and his global warming alarmism--would demoralize the party and potentially destroy the conservative coalition that has been key to good governance over the last twenty-eight years.

All things considered, I do not think that I can support a McCain Republican presidency. A President Obama or a President Hillary would do significantly more to rally and renew the conservative coalition for a regrouping in 2012. I can only hope that his opponent is a political hack like Hillary who will simply follow what is prudent for re-election, rather than a socialistic true believer like Obama.

It's a sad development, but I increasingly think of Republicans as "them" instead of "us."

The Obama Phenomenon

Something interesting is happening on the Right. I think it's well established that conservatives' hatred of the Clintons came back to haunt us during the presidency of George W. Bush, when liberals took that hatred to a new level (although they have a distinguished track record for outright hatred for conservative public figures, such as Robert Bork, Rush Limbaugh, and Ronald Reagan). Now that Bush is no longer on the ballot and a Clinton is, Clinton-hatred is coming back to full frenzy. But I think conservatives are jumping the gun a little bit.

After all, Bill Clinton's legacy was basically that he did nothing. He hardly did anything of any consequence in his time as president. He may have been a true left-wing believer, but he basically just did whatever would benefit him politically. Based on Hillary's positioning so far, there is reason to believe that she would do the same. Barack Obama, on the other hand, actually intends to implement the big-government, liberal programs that he talks about. As a conservative, which would you rather have?

I know seeing Hillary lose and seeing Obama get endorsements from prominent Democrats satisfies a primitive, Clinton-hating part of the conservative brain that refuses to die even after eight years. I know Hillary's struggles are moral victories for those who watched the Clintons inexplicably win election after election despite obvious criminal activities and lack of any personal integrity whatsoever. My worry is that those moral victories will translate into a political loss this November, at the hands of a man who will teach conservatives that the Clintons aren't the problem; big government liberalism is the problem.

Ouch...

Well, maybe next year. :S Michigan showed flashes and led 19-14 at one point, but it was all downhill from there as the Maize and Blue lost to the Aggies, 62-77, at the Breslin. Defensive breakdowns and wild shots again haunted the Wolverines, who played well in the first half. To some extent, Michigan just needs some more athletic players; C.J. Lee and David Merritt, bless their Maize and Blue hearts, are just not going to get it done on the perimeter, clearly, against Travis Walton, Kalin Lucas, and Drew Neitzel. Cronin, Douglass, and Lucas-Perry look like they will be much-needed relief for this team next year; a lot could change with a legitimate D-I point guard and a seven-footer occupying the paint, not to mention sorely-needed depth.

Ask not what your country can do for you....

I've always disliked using a parent as a metaphor for government. It's always seemed dangerous to me to think of the government as having that much control over my life. But I think the metaphor has relevance for the current political situation in the United States, for reasons that have been disturbing me.

Right now, the American people don't feel good. They hear a steady drumbeat of bad news. Despite rising real incomes and standards of living across income groups, people feel like things are getting worse. Americans don't want prosperity; they want security. They want to know that no matter what happens, they'll be okay. They want the government to make sure they are secure. This, I think, is why Barack Obama is so popular; Americans want a man as president whom they think will protect them from anything bad that might happen. In this country, voters don't want to be independent and accept all the risks that come with that. We don't want to grow up; we want to be Toys 'R' Us kids.

Obama has been compared to John F. Kennedy, but the senator's message of a government that protects its citizens like children is a far cry from JFK's plea: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for you country." Are we going to be a nation of adults or of children? This election could answer that question, and I have a feeling I know the answer.

America will never be great because of who is in the White House; it will only be great because regular, everyday Americans make it so by taking risks, improving themselves, working hard, and helping each other without being forced.

Book Review: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Over at TCS Daily, Arnold Kling writes what I think is a very thoughtful review of Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism. He concludes:

I think that a better approach for convincing the judge to get tougher would be to show more clearly the parallels between the quasi-religious views that lie behind today's progressive agenda and the thinking behind past mistakes. In my view, they are linked by faith in unproven scientific fads, faith in technocratic elites, and faith that those who share progressive ideology have superior wisdom and moral standing that justifies ruling over others. I believe that the best way to insulate oneself against romanticizing the state is to recognize these faiths and their dangers.

Well, off to lunch, then class.

Some thoughts on conservatism

Yesterday I asked the question, what is a conservative? Now, I want to offer at least a few musings of my own on the subject.

At the outset, a distinction needs to be made. There is a difference between categorizing people's beliefs by their views on many different issues and categorizing people based on their core philosophy. Using the former method, conservatives can be arranged into three distinct groups: social conservatives, economic conservatives, and foreign policy/military conservatives. (I would qualify as all three. Take the poll on the upper left hand side of this blog!)

However, each person must decide their stance on these issues according to some central philosophy, and mine would be classified as federalist republican and liberal. The first term has to do with how I think government should be constituted and the second has to do with my stance on specific issues taken up by the government.

By "federalist republican" I mean two things. First, local and provincial/state governments should have much more power than the national government; that's the "federal" part. Second, all citizens should have representation in every government that has authority over him; however, citizens should not be voting directly on issues. So, for example, I do not support the ability of citizens to initiate recalls, referenda, or ballot initiatives. I also support the electoral college and want to return to the days when U.S. senators were elected by state legislatures, not by the people directly. This arrangement, concentrating power locally rather than nationally and favoring representation and a slow legislative process over quick action and direct democracy, suffered serious blows under Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson.

Now, to take up the question of what our constituted government should do: Liberalism is a commitment to individual freedom with extremely limited intervention. This is confusing for Americans, because the people we think of as liberal are in reality from two separate philosophies. They are either socialists or social democrats. Socialism is very nearly opposite to liberalism; social democracy, while it shares capitalist roots with liberalism, is also very different. As a liberal, I support legalizing marijuana, eliminating Social Security, welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid, eliminating the estate tax, the corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, and all tariffs, and stopping all corporate welfare and other subsidy programs.

Tell me what you think! I may write more later; the topics of foreign policy, immigration, and national security remain untouched as yet.

Michigan Basketball Shows Improvement

In less political news, I managed to catch the last seven minutes of Michigan's game at Wisconsin tonight. Michigan lost by three after sinking a last-second three-pointer, and there's no excuse for a loss--it's just a loss. The Wolverines did, however, show serious improvement in coming back from a 10-point deficit on the road--not to mention one of the most difficult venues in the nation--to tie the game with only a few minutes left. Freshman star Manny Harris scored 26, and sophomores Ekpe Udoh and DeShawn Sims came up with big plays at crucial times.

Things are very shaky right now, but this young squad is starting to show serious promise. I think John Beilein has this team going in the right direction. We'll be adding a three-point specialist and a passing seven-footer in next year's recruiting class, in addition to picking up Laval Lucas-Perry--a three-star transfer guard in with freshman eligibility in time for next year's Big Ten season. That should alleviate some of the shortage issues and add aggressive, smart players whom Beilein can work with.

Thompson Out

I know; I'm late. Like I wrote before, school and other duties. But I must note that former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson has withdrawn his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president. My support therefore goes to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who is in my view the only other true conservative in the race.

I know; I said I wouldn't endorse anyone. Well, that was boring. :P

Two mistakes corrected in one post; MAN that's good for 9:40 PM! Always look on the bright side, as they say.

Republicans: What is conservatism?

Wow, it's been quite a little while now!

I just got back from visiting a very good friend in Des Moines, and now I'm back in good old East Lansing, Michigan. Now, Des Moines is a nice city, the people there are very nice. But when you're in Michigan, you can drive west for the Lake, or east for a big city, or north for a camping trip in the woods. You can sail, hike, and canoe, but you can also see a symphony, or an opera, or a professional basketball, football, hockey, or baseball game. In Des Moines, there's none of that. Ah, the virtues of my home state. It's a good thing I'm not biased.

Anyway, while I was visiting my good friend (a fellow FredHead, by the way), the South Carolina Republican primary returns came in. While I was not surprised, I was a bit disappointed; John McCain came in first place and Mike Huckabee took second. Together, the two least conservative candidates (excluding, always, Dr. Paul) garnered around two-thirds of the Republican vote in one of the most true-blue conservative states in the Union. The two truest conservatives in the race, to my way of thinking, garnered about one-third of the vote.

Now, after dispiriting election returns, where else can I turn to but talk radio to soothe my ailing conservative heart? Jason Lewis, one of my all-time favorites, asked his listeners what I believe is a very interesting question: what is a conservative? A lot of people seem to think that Huckabee is a genuine conservative; a lot of voters are holding their nose somewhat to vote for John McCain, despite his open disagreements with the conservative base about the Bush tax cuts and illegal immigration.

If anyone would like to comment, I'd love to hear what people think a conservative is. It's a term that's been claimed by many different types of people, so I don't think there's necessarily a wrong answer. But I do think it may be time to clarify just what "conservatism" means, who is and isn't one, and how the Republicans can move forward as a party.

I don't have time right now--school and other duties intrude, I'm sorry to say--but perhaps soon I shall write what I think it means to be a conservative...or at least write about what my beliefs are and are properly classified as, and see where the candidates fall.

Self-Sustenance As a Determiner of Humanity

Recently, a friend of mine declared that a citizen, by definition, has to be self-sustaining. In his view, therefore, severely handicapped persons and fetuses have no claim to protection by the state.

Defining what makes up humanity--and therefore, defining what is not human--by a person's ability to sustain himself is certainly not new; however, I am not sure that a lot of people inspect this idea closely, even if they believe it themselves.

In the first place, the definition of self-sustenance must be established. It certainly cannot mean that, by oneself, one produces everything necessary for survival. Every human needs food and water to survive, and even though we can use our strength and intelligence to extract it from our surroundings, we still need those surroundings. So perhaps the meaning of self-sustenance must be that one has the strength and intelligence to extract necessary materials from his surroundings.

But extracting those materials is easier in some places and harder in others. For example, Orlando, Florida, is a very easy place to obtain food and water; the middle of the Sahara desert is not. For a fetus, the womb is a very easy place to obtain food and water. If we accept our new definition of self-sustenance, then the same people will lose or gain humanity in different places, depending on their surroundings, strength, and intelligence. Unless we allow that viable humanity can change for the same person from place to place, this also seems to come up short.

In order to live, humans need a certain amount of food and water, a certain amount of pressure, a certain amount of radiation, and a certain temperature. There are far too many factors not under any individual's control to say that self-sustenance is a real determiner of humanity--unless we also believe that viable humanity depends on one's surroundings.

If anyone has anything to share--if they disagree with my analysis, or my reasoning is faulty, or there is some insight that could shed light on the issue--please leave a comment!

Evangelicals Hit the Polls

I mean for this blog to be a place for civil discussion about real issues, and to that end I am not going to use this space to tout or demean any political candidate. So, even though I've already chosen a candidate, I won't delve into that. That's not to say that anyone who wishes to leave a comment can't endorse a candidate; but I'd like readers--and myself, as well--to become more educated about the candidates and the issues.

One issue that has become very interesting during this campaign cycle is this: how should evangelical Christians vote? As an evangelical Christian myself, I find the trends in this area quite interesting. Evangelicals have, over the last twenty or thirty years, been consistent Republican voters, joining a coalition of foreign-policy conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives. Over the last few years, there seems to be a trend in which evangelicals, overwhelmingly social conservatives, are breaking away from foreign-policy and economic conservatism.

Many are coming to believe that the Bible's injunction to care for the poor and sick means using government programs to alleviate poverty in the United States, or even to lessen the gap between rich and poor. Many are also pacifists, opposing the Iraq War that most of the Republican candidates support. These voters are turning in droves to Mike Huckabee, a social conservative and economic liberal, and even Barack Obama, a social, economic, and foreign-policy liberal; the evidence can be seen in Iowa, a heavily evangelical state that voted for Pat Robertson over George H.W. Bush in 1988.

Some analysts predict that a Huckabee victory would represent an end to Reagan conservatism and would fracture the Republican Party. Jason Lewis, America's Mr. Right and one of my favorite talk-show hosts, believes we may be witnessing a political party's demise, just like the Whigs in the mid-19th century. To a large extent, I agree with that assessment.

So my question for evangelical Christians is this: Do you believe it is more important to have an evangelical in the White House, or someone who agrees with you on the issues? Or are those the same things? What would you like to see the next president do? Not in general, but specifically; tax cuts? Tax increases? A federal abortion ban? A U.S. constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Spending cuts, or increases? An end to the war, or continued support? A new foreign policy?

To non-evangelicals: What is your view of the role of evangelical Christianity in politics? In the Republican Party? In the Democratic Party?

First Edition!

Well, I guess this is the first edition of The Wandering Wolverine! This is a space where I, the Wandering Wolverine, shall post my thoughts about politics, the news, philosophy, probably some Latin and Greek stuff, religion, and the University of Michigan Wolverines. You know, things that would be an interesting to a sports nerd with a classical education.

Why the "Wandering Wolverine"? I have been a Michigan fan my whole life. I was born that way. It's in my genes. I've never let the fact that I happen to be a student at Michigan State University get in the way, nor should I, despite many of my friends' assertions to the contrary. So there you go: Wandering Wolverine.

Enjoy!