The Right Stuff

2006-08-21T23:31:00.000-04:00

The (D)Evolution of Military Leadership

If Liberals can support the troops, but not support the war—a contradiction of sentiments so obvious and alarming that it warrants no intelligent discourse from news analysts(that is the reason, right?)—then I feel as though I can espouse the other extreme. While I support the war, I do not support the leadership of the troops. The only place where the average Liberal and I may agree on Iraq is on the campaign’s mismanagement. Whereas our troops should have made every day a Day of Shock and Awe since entering the Iraqi theatre in March of 2003, they’ve been handcuffed by the politically correct military policies dictated by Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. The best, most recent example of this mismanagement? For your consideration, I present a stark contrast in the treatment of our troops by military leadership.
Here we see two complete opposites. On one hand, we have a man who volunteered to serve in the armed services three years ago, who has gained rank and leadership clout only to refuse a tour of duty in Iraq. A man who of his own free will and clear conscience enlisted in the service at the time of the Iraq invasion, only to refuse to take part in the military’s continued efforts in that nation. A man who is a deserter, a traitor, and at any other time in history would be hanged, shot, or otherwise executed for his outright refusal to serve.
And on the other: no less than eight soldiers held in United States armed forces prisons in solitary confinement for war crimes. Their crimes, which are deplorable if proven, are substantiated only by the testimony of enemy combatants and others of questionable credibility at best.

Consider the mismanagement, the utter lunacy. Lt. Ehren Watada stands before news cameras, is idolized and lauded as a hero, and granted the freedoms of an innocent man in spite of the fact that he is admittedly guilty of his crime. Then look at the treatment of our brave men held in solitary confinement, treated in ways that are prohibited for our own prisoners of war, on the mere accusations of the enemy. Generals with this level of ineptitude make Custer look like a careful and contemplative strategic mastermind.

Here’s what I find supremely ironic: imagine if Lt. Watada had engaged in this kind of public refusal to serve during the Viet Nam War. During Viet Nam, men who refused to be conscripted—conscripted!, without freedom of choice or thought—into the armed forces and refused to serve were immediately imprisoned. Others fled to Canada and became pariahs, persona non grata in their own homeland. These men were compelled to serve and did so bravely and selflessly, much the our soldiers overseas do today. Had a man refused to serve during World War II, the consequences would have been even more dire. Go back further in history, and you find treatment that becomes more brutal aggressive towards this type of treason. Yet no sooner did Lt. Watada go public with his insubordination did websites like www.thankyoult.com pop up in support of this man.

Today I find myself united with Liberals and others entrenched against the Iraq War in wondering “When will the insanity end?” Though the question is posed for contrasting reasons, any kind of answer, any clear leadership, any brand of justice, would be most welcome.

2006-08-08T22:10:00.000-04:00

Since I’m not a Democrat, I’m indifferent to the primary elections dominating the headlines. As I have no ability to impact the result of those elections, I won’t discuss them. Instead, I’d like to look at a matter closer to home. Springfield Public Schools has requested a levy for funding to support the Springfield public schools. The past three attempts to pass such a levy have failed. Perhaps, one might wonder, the school system would recognize that additional funding from increasing the tax rate will continue to fail. Perhaps, one may then conclude, the schools would seek alternate avenues of securing funding, and set a precedent for the Toledo community—along with the State of Ohio. But status quo, my friends, status quo prevails. Hopefully, status quo will continue to include a rejection of the levy.

There are two primary reasons that these ballot measures should fail, and a third reason that I feel they should fail, though I recognize some may disagree.

The taxation of property owners is unjust, and represents the kind of ‘taxation without representation’ that led to the birth of a nation. Let me pose a hypothetical situation. My neighbor and I earn the same amount of money annually, live in homes that assessed at the same value, and pay our taxes accurately, including property taxes which are used to fund local schools and are increased levies. Now suppose I have no children. Also suppose my neighbor has two and sends them to the local public schools. In this situation, not only will I receive no direct benefit for my contribution to the local public schools, I will contribute more than my neighbor who receives significant direct benefits from his contribution. My neighbor will contribute less, because he will be eligible to receive tax credits for having children. Though, I may receive some marginal intangible benefit from a community with more intelligent children—who may be better behaved and more economically productive in the long-run for their education—this benefit is marginalized by the direct benefit observed by those who receive services rendered by the schools. Additionally, I will be further penalized by more taxation for paying for improvements to my residence that increases its value relative to my neighbor’s residence, as I will pay more in the short-run in sales taxes for the improvements, but more in the long-run for property taxes, for which I will not receive full benefit. Finally, both my neighbor and I will be paying taxes on property which may be taken by local government under eminent domain.

No empirical dataset has been produced to indicate that a greater amount of money spent on public education produces greater amounts of educational success. It also holds that no relationship exists between smaller classroom sizes and greater educational success. And it’s not for a lack of trying, either. To the contrary, studies have been authored attempting to prove that these correlations exist. But schools are one example of the common wisdom that simply throwing money into a situation does not guarantee that the situation will improve.

Rather than funding schools through monies extracted from local taxpayers in the form of property taxes, the funding for schools should be derived from the people utilizing the schools’ services. This leads to my argument that all schools should be private, and government run schools should not be the universal standard. I realize this perspective perfectly contradicts the status quo, and scares a lot of people. But consider the private schools that exist in your community, and compare them to the public ones. Consider the complete lack of accountability in public schools, and the inability of all taxpayers to affect change on their local schools. Consider the lack of diversity in perspective offered by state legislated curricula. Finally, consider this toolbag:

And consider the fact that he’s teaching again; in public schools. Way to go, Colorado—the state that brings us esteemed public educators, and the rape of a handicapped girl in a school stairwell during school hours.

2006-06-12T22:46:00.000-04:00

Learning From Minor Misfortunes

Without delving too far into the world of athletics, I believe the recent incident with Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger illuminates two important discrepancies. The first regards the inconsistent legislation dictating personal safety, and the second highlights the ill-logic of many conservatives on the topic of individual freedoms.

According to reports, Roethlisberger was driving his motorcycle when he collided with another vehicle and suffered severe injuries. Witnesses also claim that Roethlisberger was not wearing a helmet, an observation consistent with Roethlisberger’s claims that he does not wear a helmet while riding a motor cycle on various sporting news programs. Roethlisberger was within his legal rights to refuse a helmet in the state of Pennsylvania, along with in his home state of Ohio. But, imagine if big Ben had been caught without a seat belt. He would have been ticketed, labeled irresponsible, and told to straighten his ways.

There’s the incongruity. I cannot attest to the rationale behind the law that mandates seat belts. My guess is that it has been so legislated because sufficient evidence has been revealed to show that injuries caused by a refusal to wear a seatbelt impose costs on society that are greater than what society is willing to bear. Those costs include direct dollar costs of lost wages and productivity, increased expenditures on additional medical treatments, and increased litigation costs, along with indirect negative externalities imposed upon society in the forms of parents unable to parent while medically incapacitated, greater preponderance of disabled and maimed individuals, and emotional duress sustained by multiple parties as a result of the injuries—which in turn can impose direct dollar costs in lost wages and productivity. You can see how once one explores the potential costs of unnecessary injuries resulting from traffic accidents that could otherwise be avoided by something as simple as a seat-belt, the exercise can be both illuminating and absurd. The point it leads to, however, is much simpler. If the costs of noncompliance with seatbelt laws are so significant as to warrant national enforcement, why are motorcycle helmets not the same? Perhaps the answer is that motorcycle enthusiasts are not as valuable to society as typical motorists, and the loss of such arrogant pigs is not as significant.

Of course, that’s merely a smug and inflammatory response to what is basically an incongruity in legislation that will be corrected over time. But it leads me to my next point. Conservatives are wont to identify their freedom to not wear a helmet while motorcycling, or a seatbelt while driving as personal liberties that have been unjustly denied them by an imposing governmental system. Those same conservatives are likely to identify their right to be reckless as one that affects no one other than the individual refusing to wear a helmet or seatbelt. Those are the likely to be the same conservatives who identify homosexuals as participating in an unacceptable behavior that should be prohibited by law. They may claim that mainstream homosexuality taints a culture and corrupts the family system vital in rearing children capable of making good moral and economic decisions in their adult lives, but that refusing a seatbelt harms no one but that person refusing.

If that juxtaposition does not simplify the matter enough, I’ll simply state my point. Conservatives must understand that when they identify acts or traits that they consider unpalatable and deplorable, they must be willing to acknowledge some of their own behaviors have comparable ramifications. I don’t mean to say that conservatives should give up on their agenda, but understand when compromise is necessary and accept consistency in legislation. It’s not about passing legislation that aims to serve one end of the political spectrum; it’s about appealing to the middle—something the greatest conservatives of our time like President Reagan understood.

2006-04-28T14:29:00.000-04:00

Analyzing the reasons and ramifications of increasing gasoline costs

I suppose it’s appropriate that I address the topic of gasoline prices, given the national hysteria over the recent increase in both the price of gas, and the price of crude oil. While I intend to address the matter from several angles, there is one overarching theme that I want to make abundantly clear: the increase in gas prices is a component of many things, including obvious impediments to increasing the supply of gasoline, oligopolistic competition involving a commodity, and expectations determined in part by the fear perpetually drummed up over prices. Arguing that Exxon’s management, or any other oil company for that matter, is evil for allowing such prices to persist ignores the basic logic behind the mechanisms of supply and demand. Furthermore, advocating windfall profit taxes benefits the government, not the people, and brings us closer to a society that advocates government control over consumer and producer control. Remember what you believe in and your basic logic skills before you allow gas prices to stir you into a rage.

A key component in the gasoline hysteria can be attributed to the perpetual fear mongering of media outlets, both national and local. No news program or publication targeted at any market has avoided the subject of gasoline prices. It is more likely that you will hear the current trading price for a barrel of crude oil than the current trading level of any major index including the Dow Jones indices. But what purpose does this serve? Is it really necessary to report the average price of gas nationally when local prices—which are the only prices that matter to the consumer—are posted on virtually every street corner in commercial areas? The answer is obviously: no. The frantic reporting of gasoline prices in the attempt to portray the situation as a crisis rides shotgun for any media outlet, whose m. o. has been reporting the most controversial, shocking, and upsetting news to garner interest and ratings for decades.

The biased reporting indicated its intentions at shocking the public—and insulting our intelligence—in recent stories focused around the ‘significant increase in pawn shop traffic, where individuals pawn cherished goods for gasoline money.’ Unfortunately, the reporting indeed increased the ire of the American public, but failed to insult our intelligence. You see, in an attempt to appear ‘unbiased’ in reporting the news of the day, almost all media outlets avoid critical analysis of their own reporting. However, no analyzing one’s own reporting not only avoids bias, but rather, takes a benign story and allows unreasoned interpretation and bias to creep in. If one takes the time to consider why some people would be pawning more items for gasoline money, the relationship is fairly obvious. No report claims that new traffic to pawn shops has increased, and one can conclude that individuals who would consider pawning valuables and possessions in the first place are likely to be the same type of person who is incapable of dealing with a significant price change in a commodity, and must resort to drastic action in order to compensate for their own lack of foresight and restraint in spending.

In reality, reporting the increase in gasoline prices as a surprise is about as misleading as it gets. The United States has been set up for a massive increase in gasoline prices for years, and I’m not the only one who finds it surprising that the increase hasn’t been more significant. Consider the factors affecting demand for gasoline: an increasing population in the United States which is correlated with an increase in the number of cars on the road, a residual propensity to drive long distances rather than fly due to 9/11 and other airline disasters, and an increase in demand and sales for cars that produce less miles traveled per gallon of gasoline. Also consider the fact that gasoline is a commodity, which indicates it is very price inelastic. Now, consider the factors affecting supply: no increase in physical capacity of domestic refineries, a block on domestic crude oil production, and temporary shortages or outages due to unavailable additives (to be considered later). This means that the supply of gasoline produced can only grow at a very limited rate, if at all. The situation as I’ve described it can be modeled as in the graph below, where S1 and D1 indicate market supply and demand respectively. Notice that demand has been illustrated to reflect inelasticity, and though it may be appropriate to model supply in similar fashion, it has been illustrated to show that output can increase, but only at a substantial premium to the consumer. The appropriate changes in demand and supply mentioned above have been similarly reflected in D2 and S2 respectively.

Three or four years ago, the market was trading at price P1. The same factors were all in place at that time, so it was pretty clear to most economists that the price of gasoline was bound to go up if the supply chain was put under any duress, or if the demand grew significantly. Today, gasoline trades at a price in line with P4, reflecting both the increased scarcity and increase in demand. In the short-run, once refineries have managed to master shipping ethanol blends in the same cost efficient manner they shipped blends with ATP additives, the price will recede to the level P2. That being said, it seems clear to me that the days of $1.50/gallon gasoline are long gone. Furthermore, the prospect of $2.00/gallon gasoline is also pretty unlikely in the current market climate. The only way we will see substantial price reductions in gasoline will require a blend of things conservatives and liberals have been talking about for years: a decrease in consumption and reliance on gasoline that the liberal left demands in environmental interest, and an increase in refining capacity and domestic crude production from areas like the Gulf of Mexico and ANWAR as conservatives have said.

Most people don’t want to consider the facts as I’ve laid them out, and would rather react to the situation in an irrational manner that blames ‘greedy’ oil companies for posting large profits in the face of increased costs. Those same people are the first to refuse to acknowledge that the average profit margin for Exxon-Mobil on a gallon of gasoline has grown by less than a penny over the past year to $0.09/gallon, and that the majority of Americans experience a benefit from these profits as many of them are invested in Exxon-Mobil’s publicly traded stock, either through direct purchase, mutual funds, or pension plans managed by their employers. So, while a $8 billion profit sounds excessive, one must understand that the profit is not derived from price-gouging, but rather, from the massive volume of business, and at the benefit of all its investors.

However, the final thing I will point out for consideration is the mechanism to determine the appropriate release valve for prices. There are two options, as I indicated before. The liberal route involves curtailing demand, which could involve conservation, substation to alternative fuel, or a blend of the two. The conservative route involves increasing our capacity of crude production along with an increase in refining capacity as well. Yet, neither solution will yield instant results. Alternative fuels have taken and will continue to take time to perfect.

Increasing refining capacity will similarly take time, given the amount of infrastructure that would need to be developed, along with obtaining the appropriate permits and clearances within EPA guidelines. In reality, neither route alone will succeed, it will probably take a blend to increase the independence and cost-effectiveness of energy in the U.S. A blended approach hedges against other shocks on supply, especially given possible irrational actions from some of our lesser crude oil suppliers including Venezuela and Iran.

2006-03-30T23:10:00.000-05:00

The death of the American democratic system, or at least the failure of that system to continue affecting positive change in the nation, will happen for two reasons: overwhelming turnouts of uninformed and deliberately misinformed voters, and the nature of the two party system. In a way, the two causes are related, with the later being a contributor to the former. However, the end of democratic process has obviously not arrived, in spite of those clamoring that the current administration has killed our democracy with totalitarianism.

To begin, anyone who earnestly believes that the President’s administration is in any way more totalitarian—or ought even be classified as such—represents the kind of uninformed and deliberately misinformed public that can bring down a democracy. Were Americans really oppressed by a totalitarian regime, we would not have seen public opinion polls affect congressional action to block the sale of various domestic seaports to D.P.W. Similarly, it would be impossible for lunatics like Charlie Sheen or Michael Moore to spread absurd conspiracy theories and affect public opinion to any degree. Clearly, the deliberate misinformation of folks like Charlie Sheen has some significant effect on public opinion, as was recently indicated in a CNN.com poll regarding Sheen’s 9/11 comments.

Indeed, how could one ignore well reasoned statements like: “"There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?" . . . Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters.”

Somehow, the 9/11 commission seemed satisfied that a trained pilot—which the hijacker was—could execute such maneuvers, and recognized that an object moving at 500 m/h would be impossible to photograph with cameras taking video at barely more than a frame/second. It’s a simple problem Occam’s Razor effectively addresses: which is more likely, that a terrorist organization hell-bent on the murder of thousands of American and the disruption of our way of life executed a horrific plan destroying the World Trade Center, or did the U.S. Government execute some incredibly elaborate conspiracy that required:

- A missile that looked enough like a plane be fired at the Pentagon without anyone noticing.

- The disappearance of hundreds of persons scheduled to fly on those planes.

- The faking of cell phone conversations of the people on those planes.

- The crash of a flight in Pennsylvania that otherwise would have targeted another significant building.

- The corroboration of Al-Qaeda, who accepted responsibility for the attack, when they would benefit even more greatly from telling Americans that their own government executed the attack?

Under a totalitarian regime, how would one managed to convince a projected majority of people, or at the very least, 45,000 persons that such a conspiracy was feasible? That sounds like the real conspiracy to me. As a sidenote, I find an incredible irony in the juxtaposition of statements claiming that President Bush is a blithering, incompetent, dullard, and yet has set in motion the most elaborate conspiracy since the JFK conspiracy theories began circulating.

In just over 7 months today, when I believe the Republican Party will lose its majority in both the House and Senate in crushing defeats around the country including predominately Republican states, we shall see just how un-totalitarian our current government is. All the political maneuvering in the world will not save the Republicans from the unpopularity of the President, lack of tangible results on important issues like social security and border security, and the growth in spending that otherwise would have indicated a Democrat controlled congress.

Yet this presents a problem to many registered Republicans today, much the way it could potentially fluster registered Democrats were the roles reversed. The two party system requires two relatively centrist parties to exchange ideas and garner voter support through results. Our two party system has become one where one centrist party squabbles ineffectually with a left-wing obstructionist party and achieves none of the goals important to its constituents. Yet, those constituents find themselves stuck between choosing someone who identifies with the liberal obstructionist party—a platform hard for anyone to agree with—and the ineffectual weak-willed leaders who upset them in the first place. I think voters are angry enough to vote across their ideologies for Democrat candidates, and will sweep in a new congress in Nov. 2006. However, this is the real shame of a two party system. Were there a viable third and fourth party, voters upset with the incumbents could vote for a different candidate without having to support a candidate whose ideology differs from their own. Voters would ideally be less likely to identify themselves as lifelong Republicans or Democrats and simply vote along the party lines without engaging in any sort of critical thought or information seeking to shape an intelligent opinion and vote in a responsible manner.

2006-03-02T11:04:00.000-05:00

The error of indoctrination and rhetoric

I haven’t touched the sale of various port terminals to Dubai Ports World for a few reasons. Frankly, I’m tried of the coverage. Most of the people discussing this matter involve no discussion, but rather, a shrill unilateral condemnation of the notion of selling port operations to an Arab state. Forget analyzing the facts that security will still be in the hands of the Coast Guard and Port Security Inc.—a Chinese influenced firm—or that having ports controlled by the UAE pales on comparison the danger of our wide open borders. Furthermore, let’s also forget that no American firms have expressed interest in the deal because they refuse to transact business with the Union, who demand salaries upwards of $150,000 for a longshoreman and that electronic transmissions of incoming freight be re-keyed into their system as a concession to maintaining a certain workforce. Let’s just ignore this deal as endemic of major problems battling this country. Remember, the talking points have been for the past 6 years: Bush and his cronies are evil. Equivocal discourse doesn’t fit that agenda.

Right wing talk shows have moved on after providing their own waffling defenses of the ports deal. They’ve moved on to something that I consider equally troubling. Michael Savage and his co-hosts have been ranting about the state of public schools. Laura Ingraham ran with a tape recording of an Aurora, Colorado teacher—Jay Bennish—vehemently regurgitating Michael Moore’s anti-capitalism rants, anti-war rants, and comparing President Bush to Hitler in place of a geography lecture. I don’t know what has happened to this teacher (I must have missed that segment), but the lecture is quite sickening. To hear this undereducated, over-influenced by a single point of view spewing this vile anti-American filth in a publicly funded school with no oversight and no retribution does disturb me. It disturbs me when teachers ignore the lesson plan, and substitute their own political agendas for the lesson plan. The other chief complaints about public schools regard a refusal to post a famous painting of George Washington praying after Valley Forge as a violation of separation of church and state, and a refusal to teach the Declaration of Independence because the documents reference God—or how the fundamentals and foundations of Islam take up a chapter in some history textbooks, while Christianity receives a 5-page section. Of course, that latter point ignores the fact that most of this history taught from the period 0 CE to 1700 and even beyond hinges on Christianity and references it, even if indirectly. But when do they take out religious history entirely, I wonder? However, I think that the point contending that there is a conflict for the students and a distraction for them when placing a sexually-reassigned teacher back in their original school to teach primary and middle-school students.

Though I agree that public schools teachers that try and indoctrinate students into any political philosophy should be vilified and fired, the answer is not ranting about the loss of our nation and its future. Rather, the answer hinges on the foremost conservative principle—that of individual responsibility. Those who want the bible taught in schools, which I think would be infinitely valuable, have that option. They can send their children to private schools, Sunday studies, or educate their children themselves. It breaks down to two options. Until a move is made to implement a school voucher system universally, a system that has been shown to advance all schools and students where implemented, parents have two primary options. Take an extra job—or reduce consumption of other goods—in order to cover the cost of a private Christian-centric or other faith based education, or take the time to educate children on the topics not covered in school. This requires taking the time to determine what lessons aren’t being taught by meeting with teachers, then teaching those topics oneself. Yes, a difficult task for working parents, but if one values education, obviously worth the effort.

Conservatives ought have learned by now not to read from the shrill liberal playbook that rants and fumes at something it disagrees with, cajoling perpetrators and marginalizing themselves as reactionaries. Instead, conservatives need to rely on conservative principles to confront issues like this.

I honestly believe that there is no internal problem facing this nation than accepting one’s personal responsibility. The real challenge rests in the fact of making people realize the gravity of that charge, and finding ways to make oneself accountable.

Below are links to the Bennish story.
>CBS Story
Audio

2006-02-16T02:03:00.000-05:00

New Evidence Vindicates President Bush

But underwhelms in the face of Cheney coverage.

If you got caught up in the overblown, childish, and utterly irrelevant coverage of Vice President Dick Cheney’s hunting mishap, you may have missed what may be the most important story of this young century. It had naught to do with Hurricane Katrina, Bird-flu, or Project DUL. Rather, it had everything to do with vindicating an administration that has been dogged by a media engine that desperately feeds the irrational and unmitigated rage of liberal voters, who, if properly stirred by the right people, would vote for Al Gore again given the opportunity.

As ABC Nightly News reported—probably to its own chagrin—evidence in the form of previously classified tapes of Saddam Hussein indicate that not only the tyrant sought to reinvigorate his chemical and nuclear weapons projects, but may indeed have had such weapons by the time the US intervened in 2003, and could have potentially transported those weapons to other hostile countries.

But the Dick Cheney interview still dominates the headlines. Did someone say obvious media bias? Not that it’s the media’s fault. But if given the choice to help matters, or hurt matters, they consistently choose the latter.

The decisions regarding the dissemination of information to major media outlets following President Cheney’s fault represent similar failings that have plagued the Bush administration for 5 years. If Cheney had immediately alerted the White House press corps, the subsequent frenzy of frothing, idiot journalists shouting at Scott McClellan could have been prevented. Instead, the ‘path of least resistance’ which equates to the ‘path of greatest conspiracy’ was chosen. So the same scenario played out. But how does that relate to the tapes translated by Tierney? The kind of mishandling that blows up an incident like a hunting accident after 5 years of experience with an inflammatory, biased and arrogant media that cares little for facts and everything for sensation indicates ineptitude at all parts of the administration. So, while Tierney’s reports have been circulating the intelligence offices, it wasn’t until they fell into the right hands that any progress was made.

If you managed to catch any of the hour that Bill Tierney spent on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory this evening, you caught a direct account summarizing the material that was barely scratched by the ABC Nightly News report. However, even in the hour of radio time, Tierney failed to adequately cover all the information he had. Two major handicaps now work against this vindicating and troubling information Tierney has uncovered: the vast amount of information to be covered and summarized, and effectively disseminating that summary to a populace that has become more convinced that the intelligence supporting an invasion of Iraq was faulty.

I can only pray they get it right this time.

I’ll admit, I enjoy writing about this, though. I enjoy writing about America being right regarding its own intelligence, regardless of the administration’s willingness to demure to a raging, illogical left. I enjoy writing this almost as much as media outlets have enjoyed spewing filth like ‘dead babies being raped in the New Orleans Superdome freezers,’ ‘President Bush is reading your email, constantly, and laughing while doing so,’ and ’11 miners found alive, but later killed by President Bush.’ Some of us like it when America succeeds. Others like it when America fails. If the past 5 years haven’t illustrated who is on which side, I don’t know what further evidence you may need.

2006-02-09T00:45:00.000-05:00

The Grey Area Between Abortion and Murder

The grey area between abortion and murder was illustrated in a Lorain County court in the state of Ohio. Six years after the murder to their newborn child in 1999, Jessica Coleman and Thomas Truelson received six and two year jail sentences respectively for killing their child at birth. At the time of birth, Jessica was age 15 and Thomas age 18.

The irony in this case, to me, is that the two could have easily escaped any legal consequence for their action. Had the idea gelled a mere few days earlier, the young woman could have aborted the child. Instead, the couple chose the home option—that being a ‘do it yourself partial birth abortion’—which required waiting for natural labor to induce a partial birth in order to terminate the pregnancy.

However, in the eyes of the law, the couple is guilty of murder. Had a licensed physician performed the procedure, the only negative consequences endured today would be emotional rather than legal.

But Coleman and Truelson murdered their infant. Why is abortion held in a different regard?

2006-02-09T00:25:00.000-05:00

The Domestic Spying and Wiretapping Program

Or as it’s called by Senator Leahy and Democrat leadership—project “dupe unintelligent liberals.” Good thing they alerted the media to project DUL as it will henceforth be called, so that misleading phrases such as ‘domestic spying program’ ‘domestic wiretapping program’ and ‘the great white invasion’ would effectively integrate themselves into daily discourse among the under- and misinformed.

You see, Democrat leaders have no interest in stopping the Bush counter-intelligence operations—the real nature of the activities that inspired project DUL. It became abundantly clear to me while watching the Daily Show this evening, a program that was much better under the guidance of Craig Kilborn. After following up a segment in which Jon Stewart seemed to have forgotten how repugnant he thought the Paul Wellstone memorial service was back in 2002 by lauding those who used the casket of Coretta Scott King as a soap box, Stewart delved into a segment in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez refused to answer questions before a Senate Judiciary Committee. Of course it was funny when Senator Leahy questioned whether or not Gonzalez would answer any question that pertained to the Bush counter-intelligence program.

Of course. That’s why the television cameras were there.

Doesn’t it strike you as somewhat inconsistent that Democrat leaders would force the entire Senate into a closed session in order to demand evaluation of intelligence data utilized in making the case for the invasion of Iraq over two years after the engagement began, and yet that same leadership wants the doors to the judiciary committee wide open when grilling the Attorney General on the topic of counter-intelligence? This inconsistency underscores the purpose of project DUL. Senator Leahy and the rest of the Democrat leaders are well aware that a midterm election approaches, and the more posturing and agitating they can do before national television audiences, the more gratified upset, underrepresented Democrats will feel.

Granted, my assessment of the situation is entirely too logical to be embraced by any major media outlet. It speaks too much to common sense and rationality. Four months after the closed door Senate session, we’re no closer to understanding the apparent flaws of the intelligence employed in making the case for war in Iraq. Similarly, four months from now, no actions to impede the Bush counter-intelligence operation will have been taken, and project DUL will have served its purpose and reform as another type.

As long as major media publications continue to champion Democrat ideals, hordes of impressionable individuals with little critical thinking skills and short attention spans will be indonctrinated into their party. In spite of having such a powerful recruitment weapon, the Democratic Party finds itself in the minority in all but the slow moving judicial branch of government. Would Senator Kennedy like to speak to such matters? Perhaps that night at Chappaquiddick? Or perhaps to a pint of Ben & Jerry’s and a fifth of scotch?

I’d say that answer is quite clear.

2006-02-08T00:25:00.000-05:00

A Case Study in Free Speech

And self-restraint, tolerance, human progress, civilzation, and the problem with fundamentalist Islam. Since I write a lot, I will let the pictures speak.

2006-02-07T23:52:00.000-05:00

Recent History Repeats Itself at King's Funeral

As it is wont to do.

In 2002, the Democratic Party descended upon the funeral of Senator Paul Wellstone and turned what ought have been a day of remembrance into a political rally. Vice President Cheney offered his attendance at the time, but his presence was rejected. Apparently, there wasn’t room for the likes of him at the 20,000 large crowd in Williams Arena at the U. The service’s somber tone was hijacked by the likes of Richard Kahn and Wellstone’s sons David and Mark, who roared “we will win!” They were referring to the replacement of former Vice President Walter Mondale, a native Minnesotan, who took Wellstone’s place on the ballot. I personally witnessed the rally on live television on a local station in Alexandria, MN, and was frankly disgusted. My reaction was not uncommon.

The voters in Minnesota responded by electing Republican Senator Norm Coleman to his first term in office, and finally replacing Governor Jesse Ventura with Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. Though the electoral votes in Minnesota ultimately went to John Kerry, that’s hardly unusual given the last Republican to win Minnesota in the Presidential race was President Nixon. However, the election marked a definite movement away from the stranglehold the Democratic party has traditionally had on the great state of Minnesota.

Will the rest of the nation recognize the debacle that occurred during Coretta Scott King’s funeral? Having learned the lesson from the Wellstone funeral, many news broadcasts are focusing merely on the appropriate sentiments voiced by all parties attending: the Bushes, the Clintons, even Ted Kennedy seemed to have relatively benign and appreciable things to say. However, in merely presenting these events, media outlets have missed the obvious political agendas advanced during the funeral service.

Advancing political agendas during a funeral service. I’ll admit, I dislike many things about the Republican Party. I hate the way conservatives are duped into believing Republicans really believe in limited government, free markets, and the spread of Democracy and prosperity to the greatest extent. Clearly, they do not when they continue to grow the government to suit their constituencies and ideas, allow radical Muslims to kill innocent persons exercising free speech and perform cliterectomies and genocide amongst their own peoples, and refusing to protect American industries when other governments exploit our free market systems to their advantage. That being said, I could never see eye to eye with such an amoral party as the United States Democratic Party. To not understand the reasonable bounds of appropriate behavior is to cast aside and shun those who may otherwise support a candidate contrary to their own political beliefs in order to inspire change within the political system.

Bill endorsing Hillary as “his” president is disgusting. “Reverend” Joseph Lowery saying, “we know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there . . . that there are weapons of misdirection right down here,” is disgusting. President Carter’s assertion that “It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps,” visibly alluding to the surveillance program utilized by the Bush administration is disgusting. Not only disgusting, but non-factual and misleading. Equally misleading as his later statement that “the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi.” Need I remind my readers that, proportional to population, whites faced much higher fatality rates in New Orleans and the surrounding areas? Probably. How short our attention spans are.

I only hope that Americans can remember lessons like the Wellstone memorial and King funeral in the coming elections when listening to the bloated Democratic rhetoric.

2006-01-27T01:27:00.000-05:00

Terror and Hate Win Another Victory

When will the Democrats stop fussing and join the fight?

Today marked a fairly monumental day in recent history with the revelation that Hamas won a massive victory in the Palestinian Parliament. In terms of world impact, I’d say that this event could easily trump Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or all 26 of this season’s storms combined for that matter. We’re talking about adding fuel to the eternal flame of mid-east conflict. Now, Isreal has sword off communication with the elected Hamas government upon installation, potential future PM Benjamin Netanyahu made particularly aggressive statements against the new government, and our President called for the old Palestinian PM to oppose the overwhelming majority vote against him and remain in power.

Yes, our formerly un-popular president (who was popularly elected the second time around, at least) has advocated the dissolution of governance by democracy. Apparently, since we’ve only just introduced democracy to the mid-east, we can’t expect them to get it right all the time. So let’s go, status quo, and try again in a few years.

I’m pretty sure FDR would have approved.

This is one place where even I will admit that the administration is clearly misleading the American public. Thankfully, the media is too wrapped up in its own distortions to show the inaccuracy of the President’s claims. In reality, the democratic process has existed in many mid-east states since well before W’s presidency. Granted, many of those elections were either rigged, suppressed, or swayed by partial suffrage by the standing government as was the case in Iraq, but the concept of democracy is about as new as sand to our mid-east brothers.

Our President’s double-speak caught me by surprise, and troubles me more so now than it has in the past. During his press conference, he noted that the people in Palestine have clearly indicated their displeasure with the standing government, and have demanded change through democratic process. In the same process, he made the aforementioned call for the standing government to resist the voter mandate, and furthermore indicated his own unwillingness to deal with a government that makes the principal part of its platform “the destruction of a neighbor nation.”

But how about local news coverage of the Hamas election? Minimal, or non-existent. How about national news coverage? On ABC nightly news, the Oprah Winfrey apology for misleading her book club subscribers earned more airtime than the Hamas election. Other networks like the BBC reported the event as a hopeful indicator—but in a different sense than Bush did. Rather than citing the success off the democratic process, their reporting staff believe that the management of day to day affairs required by an established government will force Hamas to “become more centrist.”

It is admittedly ironic. The “Islamic Resistance Movement” (or “Movement of Society for Peace” according to Wikipedia.org, your #1 source for liberal bias and distorted history) has become the establishment. So what does the established resistance movement rebel against? Perhaps they’ll follow in the model being set by Iran.

But, for those who have been living in a cave or watching network news (which is slightly worse than watching no news at all) for the past 2 months, two governments in the mid-east—Iran and Palestine—have both won majority elections on the platforms of 2 things: more jobs and health-care, and the destruction of Israel. At least one of those MO’s sounds familiar.

What I can’t understand, and was aptly pointed out on Savage’s program, is how elected Democrat senators of Jewish descent—Diane Feinstein, Russell Feingold, and Barbara Boxer—have had absolutely nothing to say in condemnation of the Iranians or this new Palestinian government. And yet Jews continue to support the Democratic Party en masse.

Historically, the best allies the Jews have been fundamentalist Christians and Zionists. Their worst enemies have been Muslims and Socialists. If you need me to read between the lines for you: conservatives support Jews people, liberals undermine them. This makes as much sense to me as the anti-Republican sentiment in the black community, when the Republicans are doing more for the black community than Democrats.

Except for that idiot in New Orleans. He’s actively seeking to kill and discredit his own. I hope he wins the next election in New Orleans.

2006-01-23T10:59:00.000-05:00

Abortion: A Matter of Cutural Values

Perhaps I ought not listen to Springer’s radio program, because it consistently agitates me. But it also usually gives me good starting points. In lieu of the 33rd anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and speculation that South Dakota will pass legislation that prohibits all abortions. Before I go on, like many pro-life folks, I enjoy pointing out that Norma McCorvey—the Jane Roe of the Wade decision—has since voiced her disapproval of the ruling, her role as a pawn in a case she retrospectively wishes she hadn’t been involved in, and her anti-abortion views. Alas.

Springer relies on one primary argument in supporting abortion: the female’s 9 month physical responsibility to the child trumps the reproductive rights of males—a right that he never recognizes or calls by name. It’s so clearly contrived when liberals, who talk about all our various ‘rights,’ the evidence of which is interpretive at best (privacy, free speech, free religion, etc.), ignore basic biological rights that have nothing to do with our Constitution.

But to say that a female’s ‘right to an abortion’ demands she be able to have one regardless of the consent of the male further indoctrinates the most corrupt cultural values that have grown in our United States. To say that a male has no sentiment of legal consequence in the decision of abortion marginalizes the male’s reproductive role to the extent of making it trivial. Any sound biologist will tell you that a male’s role in reproduction is anything but trivial.

It takes two adult members of either sex to create life. They do so as equals—no one sex plays a greater role in the creation of life than the other. To say so denies basic biological certainties. Thus, looking at the responsibility to the child in a nine-month window is entirely too short-sighted and unfair. Parents are not responsible for their children for a mere 9 month window at the beginning of life. Parents are responsible for their children for whatever period of time necessary to prepare that child to become a functioning, contributing member of society. This timeframe is determined by parents of every child over time, and in some cases requires more time or less time, more responsibility in one arena or another, and could involve a lifetime commitment. Indeed, the decision to become parents is not one that ought to be taken lightly.

That being said, why is it that the essential act leading to parenthood—sexual intercourse—should be regarded as trivial? I don’t understand why appreciating the sanctity of the act of creating life makes someone an unreasonable, or irrational ‘crazy right-winger.’ It is as though Americans are regarded as being incapable for exerting and degree of self-control whatsoever, that abstinence is so impractical that public schools and non-profits need to establish and ingrain birth control methods as sex is inevitable.

Sex is inevitable. That is exactly the mentality with which individuals like myself take issue. Indeed, sex is pleasurable, enjoyable, and sates a number of basic human desires. Indeed, so does heroin. So does a pint of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. So does taking the life of an animal. Another person. Lots of base and unbalanced activities provide people pleasure and fulfill basic human desires, but are not treated as inevitable in the eyes of the law, or the eyes of society.

By espousing the message that sex is inevitable, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The longer you take responsibility and accountability away from people, the less likely the are to regard it as ever having been theirs in the first place.

I am against abortion not only because I feel it is wrong to terminate an innocent life merely because it is convenient for one person, but equally because it further indoctrinates amoral values constantly espoused by our culture, and the denial of sexual equality. Without venturing onto another tangent, if the goal of the civil rights movement brings all parties to equality, shouldn’t the laws be set up to respect equality, rather than flipping the system to oppress another group?

2006-01-17T12:36:00.000-05:00

Hillary Maligns Republicans, Shows Own Ignorance

Mark Belling made some fantastic points on Rush Limbaugh’s program earlier today that I believe need to be reinforced. Belling found the comments made by Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday particularly infuriating—and rightly so. Senator Clinton, who compared the Republican led House of Representatives to a “plantation,” during a Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration in Harlem. Democrats supported her remarks, and this story co-led most nightly news programs alongside former Vice President Al Gore’s remarks on the Bush administration’s “domestic spying program”—a title that is as misleading as basically everything else reported by major media outlets.

But Senator Clinton is clearly incorrect. Incorrect to the point she either must be: 1) vapid, unintelligent, incapable of coming up with logical ideas and concepts, or 2) lying specifically for the sake of advancing a specific agenda for the purpose of asserting her own political power.

What’s the evidence to support those claims? Let’s compare party leadership roles of the “Plantation Republicans” and the “Opportunity Democrats.” In the last election, around 90% of blacks aligned themselves with Democrats, and about that same percentage voted for Senator Kerry for President. So the Democrats should look to roughly 90% of blacks as a major portion of their constituency. Now, how many blacks are in major positions of leadership in the Democratic party? Senator Baraq Obama of Illinois, unelected leaders like Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton, and some governor positions like Mayor Ray Nagin, whose name is only known because of his ignorant remarks and inept and uninspired leadership in the face of crisis. If you look back at the Clinton administration, now 5 years in the history books, minorities held cabinet positions including: Sec. of Labor, Sec. of Veterans' Affairs, Sec. of Energy, and Sec. of HUD. Naturally I had to look these up, because no one ever talked about any of them except lauding Clinton for appointing ‘so many minorities.’

Now, the Bush administration: 2 black secretaries of state, 1 black Sec. of HUD, Asian Sec. of Transportation, Asian Sec. of Labor, Hispanic Sec. of Commece, and Hispanic Attorney General. Also note that the one black Supreme Court Justice—Clarence Thomas—was appointed by the elder President Bush.

So, in other words, the white Democrat leadership claims to support issues important to blacks, and the Republican leadership does not support blacks, because they put blacks in prominent positions where they can affect changes on their own behalf.

So how about that Hillary in ’08? I hope people remember this kind of stuff when that campaign wheel starts rolling.

2006-01-16T00:25:00.000-05:00

Gettin’ Silly With It

I don’t feel that many comments on the Alito confirmation hearings are necessary. He will likely gain approval of the Senate the same way other Justices have—refusal to commit themselves to rulings before hearing cases. It’s a logical, and reasonable strategy, given the circumstances of any hypothetical trial are strictly hypothetical and irrelevant.

But let’s see how much further the media wants to continue their campaign claiming ‘the seriousness of the allegations warrant some degree of credibility and investigation’ when the following rumors hit the AP wire: the Clinton’s filmed child pornography in the Lincoln Bedroom, Senator Feinstein performs coat hanger abortions for needed South Dakotans, and Senator Reid frequently transmits STDs to his elderly rape victims from Las Vegas prostitutes.

So, yeah, Judge Alito wants women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Senator Kennedy also wants to eat your babies. Shall we play another round?

2006-01-15T00:47:00.000-05:00

The Growing Iranian Threat

Though there have been a number of articles that indicate some of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad somewhat outlandish claims and Muslim beliefs, but this article from the UK Telegraph is quite indicative of how his beliefs may impact a coming international confrontation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html

If, like me, you stay up till odd hours of the morning listening to AM radio, you catch George Noory’s globally broadcasted and syndicated radio program, where he explores some of the wildest beliefs and predications of President Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad’s statements, which range from the destruction of Israel, to the movement Israel to Germany or Alaska, and the Iranian ‘right to nuclear research,’ hint the development of Iranian nuclear weapons could spell disaster in the middle-east. Noory and his guests note that Ahmadinejad’s statements concerned with mysticism and the Muslim faith sound dangerously similar to the brand of Muslim extremism that gives rise to terrorism, the kind that convinces otherwise potentially rational people to blow themselves up with bombs or drive passenger planes into buildings. Not that I am going to condemn Islam here, rather, extremism in almost anything can have disastrous ramifications.

Many Americans question the hypocrisy of maintaining an arsenal of nuclear warheads, while preventing other nation-states from researching the development of such weapon technology. Where some see hypocrisy, I see common sense. The U.S. and other nations with nuclear weapons technology have consistently shown restraint from utilizing such weapons since they became well-developed and effective. As a result, the threat of nuclear devastation on a day-to-day basis is relatively low. But, when placed in the hands of terrorists or religious extremists, threat of nuclear attack seems substantially more plausible. Especially if you’re living in Israel.

To put it in another context: would you give Rev. Pat Robertson the authority to launch nuclear weapons? Rev. Robertson is a lunatic and threatening in his own right, but at least his threats lack the capacity to instantly extinguish the lives of millions of people. Here differ Rev. Robertson and President Ahmadinejad.

Iraq’s oppressive and ruthless regime, led by Saddam Hussein, had the potential to wreak havoc on the Middle East. In reality, and in retrospect, it is probably more likely that Hussein would have used nuclear warheads to strengthen his stranglehold in the region, further his own wealth, and entrench his government as the dominant leaders in Iraq for years to come. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t appear to exhibit the same concern for wealth and power—rather, President Ahmadinejad appears more interested in a kind of religious victory of Judaism and other religions. As we’ve seen time and time again with atrocities like the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Crucifixion, Judeo-Christian extremism causes massive death and suffering. September 11th and the endless stream of suicide bombers have showed us that Muslim extremism is no different, and implicates the same source of fundamentalism.

The worst aspect of the situation lies in the unconvincing case for war in Iraq, which originally proved to be based upon faulty information and rationale, has left the U.S. military somewhat strained in terms of resources, and the American public with flagging confidence in the Bush administration’s ability to ‘smell a rat,’ as it were.

2005-12-27T21:33:00.000-05:00

The McCain ‘Torture’ Ban

aka The ‘Do it When You Need To’ Torture Ban.

I’ve gone without comment on this topic for a while, but C-SPAN was replaying a town-hall meeting with Senator Barbara Boxer from 12/12 where she responded to ‘community members’ (planted questions) who wanted to see the President held back from his ‘torture policies.’ So it got my ire back up, and I have to review what has transpired, because this farce has been so blatantly misreported, it needs to be rehashed.

To ensure the measure garnered sufficient public support, our wonderfully unbiased media has assigned the Senator the same “absolute moral authority” on torture that Ms. Cindy Sheehan was granted on the topic of Iraq. This is the same breed of “absolute moral authority” that made a convincingly unsupportable case for the war in Iraq being arranged by a secret Jewish Kabala, one which controls most federal government operations. But, as we all know, Senator McCain was a POW in Viet Nam—so he clearly knows more about the U.S. policy on torture than anyone else. Sounds logical to me.

The lynch-pin of Senator McCain’s beliefs regarding torture is that it is ineffective. I can understand him if he believes that, and would be accepting of measures that reflect that ideology. However, as has not been reported by any major media outlet (I’ve only heard mention of this on some right-wing, anti-McCain talk shows, and liberal blogs), the McCain torture bill permits under certain circumstances. For instance, a situation arises in which a suspect is detained who has specific information regarding an imminent bomb detonation, chemical device dispersal, or biological agent release. In this situation, government agents are permitted to engage in acts considered torture in order to extract the vital information.

If torture is ineffective, then why allow it then? Inconsistent.

I understand the argument that says torture, when applied constantly to a detainee over a long period of time where no useful information will likely be revealed, can be ineffective in a sense. However, by the allowance of the provision in his bill, Senator McCain must recognize that torture can be effective. Furthermore, it supersedes the ban itself, by having an act of Congress on the books that specifically allows torture. Did someone say incriminating evidence?

Also, you may not have heard because no one wants to cover it: Sadam Huessein and his friend and ally Ms. Cindy Sheehan received a late Christmas present in the form of the discovery of more mass graves in Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/27/iraq.main/index.html.

2005-12-23T00:42:00.000-05:00

On Teaching Children

What’s making me proud to be an American today? The Black Eyed Peas. I don’t want to brazenly chime in with the chorus of right-wingers who have been bashing the Peas, but they are a kind of double-edged sword for me.

The Peas make me proud because their message and sound appeals to an audience that is willing to pay for their performance, and it has made them both wealthy and famous. Good for them. I also think it’s awesome that they can do so in spite of the horde of fundamentalists and moralists who would like to see that their music is heard by no-one. It’s a fine example of first amendment rights in practice. The Peas should be allowed to sing whatever they want, just as I should be able to write practically anything I want about them. I realize at some point it becomes slander, but I could always make the case that the Peas have slandered an entire sex, and as a result, may win more than I lose.

On the other hand… “let’s get retarded” … “lovely lady lumps” … ? Are we serious? This is what we like as Americans? Does this really appeal to people? I’m skeptical.

I could go on ad nauseum about the cultural values that their lyrics reflect and the degrading morality of our country, but I think my man Billy Graham and the other Christian Conservatives have covered the bases for me. Instead, I’ll appeal to you on another level. I only care about the society as a whole insofar as it affects me, and anyone I hope to bring into the world. I don’t want my children to grow up thinking retarded—or mentally handicapped for the suddenly linguistically squeamish—should be marginalized, or that dancing is all about grinding and humping your partner on the dance floor, regardless of lovely lady lumpage.

I think it’s disingenuous that many Right-wing talkers are focused merely on the Peas simply because their message is apparently ‘so flamboyant.’ It’s not much worse than recent music preceding it. I have no problem smearing 50-cent or any other musician simply because they express support of our President, who is apparently a ‘real gangsta’ according to Mr. Cent. I similarly don’t want children growing up thinking anything that 50-cent, Snoop Dogg, Brittney Spears, or Christina Aguilera is reasonable or good. I understand that imparting such knowledge on my children would be my job, but what about the rest of the populace? Would everyone who reads this just stop to think once, is the music I’m listening to / the TV program I’m watching / the things I’m saying teaching my kids what I want them to believe?

2005-12-21T09:58:00.000-05:00

The Role Reversal of Constitutional Interpretation

When I went through primary school, I was taught that the primary difference between Republicans and Democrats breaks down to the difference between means of interpreting the Constitution. According to my text, Republicans are ‘strict constructionists,’ and Democrats are ‘loose constructionists,’ where constructionist apparently refers to the degree to which one adheres to the exact wording of the Constitution. Maybe your school was like mine, or maybe mine was particularly bizarre, but that’s not what I find interesting at the moment.

What I find interesting are the topics in which either party seems to adhere to those guidelines. Particularly, looking at the debate over the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it seems to me that the constructionist roles are reversed. Ultimately, this stems from my interpretation of what the intelligent design theory represents—I realize that. Still, I find it hard to discern what the difference between the theories of evolution/the big bang and the theory of intelligent design based upon the way it was taught to me.

As I learned it, evolution dovetails with the big bang theory, claiming that the universe began at some point in time, which led to the formation of things as they are including our solar system, which had one planet in which elementary life forms developed and grew into life as we know it today. The only difference intelligent design adds to the evolution/big bang theory, is the concept that the ‘uncaused cause’ that set off the whole chain of events—the big bang as it were—was set in motion by some intelligent designer, which many call God and hold in their hearts and minds as a supreme being.

If that is the only difference between the two theories, then why push the agenda for the more controversial theory? Even if intelligent design is merely taught as a brief, five minute section in which the teacher emphasizes the ‘alternative’ nature of the idea, what is the point? Why make the controversy? Has everyone forgotten personal responsibility? I see this as a prime case where parents, knowing their children are taught evolution and the big bang, need to step in and join in the education process—as they often should be doing—and inform their children of their beliefs, and the reasons for those beliefs.

Per the clause dictating no establishment of a state religion, it is similarly not the state’s responsibility to educate children on the topic or existence of religion. If the two theories are principally the same, then what is the agenda behind pushing the theory that potentially violates the U.S. Constitution?

Simple: the religious right wants to further polarize the country, and energize its base further through a controversial issue.

I think intelligent design makes a lot of sense, but it doesn’t belong in public schools. Public schools ought to be for the purpose of secular education, and individual citizens responsible for educating children on religious topics.

(Below is a section of my response to John Jervinsky in the comments section, the whole version of which is there, but also belongs here, as it is pretty important to the argument.)

... The argument I've heard, and agree with, is the idea the one that the fact that Darwin's theories oughtn't be taught as an answer to all questions, and that adding the 'intelligent designer' into Darwinism can be construed as a violation of the church/state separation. The counter argument on the right for some is that not teaching ID propogates atheism as the national religion. Frankly, I don't think that's entirely reasonable, because not teaching God doesn't deny God's existence. However, teaching that God, or some other being, exists and is responsible for a sequence of events, does teach the existence of a supreme being.

Now, I'm in agreement with you on the point that I'd like to see it taught in schools. But, I'd be even happier of most parents took the time to educate their own children, or take their children to sunday school, in order to provide them additional spiritual insight with which to color their scientific understanding.

2005-12-16T23:05:00.000-05:00

Putting the Death Penalty in Context

I’ll admit, it seems odd that you have a person like me who is ardently against partial birth abortion, but doesn’t have anywhere near the same revulsion for the death penalty. But I think I can finally put it in a context that would make sense.

Earlier today, Biswanath Halder was sentenced to 190-some counts for his shooting rampage in the Peter B. Lewis building here at Case Western Reserve University back in 2003. The judge spent two and one quarter hours reading aloud all of the convictions, among which include murder and attempt to kill an officer. The murder conviction makes him eligible to receive the death penalty in the state of Ohio.

I work in the Peter B Lewis building, and know many of the faculty members there. These are people who had their lives turned upside down by an armed lunatic—a man who held a building full of professionals and academics hostage and terrorized them during a six hour standoff. This also constitutes a large contingent of liberals, many of whom one would expect opposes the death penalty.

Yet, when the verdict was handed down this morning, and the realization the criminal would be eligible for the death penalty, I heard no sentiment against the possibility. Perhaps it’s too early and not yet real enough for the folks in the business school to consider the gravity of what it means to have been convicted of 190 criminal counts including murder and be eligible for the death penalty—but the rest seems a mere formality to me. I would be surprised if he wasn’t condemned to death by the judge, and local news analysts seem to agree with me.

And yet I still have yet to hear the ‘rational, progressive’ voice of dissent. I think that much of the blind opposition to the death penalty comes from those who have no context for it. Being terrorized and trapped by a madman in a shootout and day-long standoff seems like adequate context to change one’s opinion.

The only anti-death penalty argument I heard came from a friend afterwards, who hoped that the death penalty would not be handed down. Not because the man didn’t deserve it, but because the man is already 65 years old. Putting him to death will probably result in the flurry of appeals that most anti-capital punishment advocates cite as the economic reason for not putting a man to death. In this case, it may indeed be more expensive to put him to death, given the fact he will live a relatively short time in prison with however many life sentences he receives. Yet, is cost really the issue here? What are the real incentives carrying out a death sentence? Clearly, this argument goes well outside the bounds of basic cost differencing analysis.

2005-12-13T23:24:00.000-05:00

Consistency in State Supported Killing

I knew that Jerry Springer would be up in arms as a result of the Stanley Williams being put to death in California—I just couldn’t predict how he intended to make his case. It was one I hadn’t heard before, but I appreciated the conversation that surrounded it. Springer pointed out that if the state was going to put people to death, it ought be broadcasted on public television, or the 12 o’clock news. He predicted his proposal would evoke an appalled reaction from his listeners, and he was correct. Droves called in to tell him what a sick idea it was. Springer, having well, was quick to point out that if the sight would be too revolting and inhumane, why support the government killing of criminals? After all, by paying taxes, one quite literally contributes to the killing of criminals in their state—a point Jerry didn’t make directly while I was listening, but the connection is there.

Frankly, I think his proposal makes some sense. Go ahead and air executions on television—and if the populace can’t stomach the scene, legislation will go through to stop the death penalty in states where people desire such legislation. And, while we’re at it—and as one of his callers aptly pointed out—let’s go ahead and air abortions on television.

As long as we’re talking about publicly funded killing projects, let’s go ahead and talk about abortion too. As long as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU receive tax breaks and subsidies to support abortion clinics, I think it’s only reasonable that I get to see an abortion or two. Some bang for my buck, as it were.

Of course, I’m being absurd, just as Jerry was earlier—an abortion is the last thing I want to see. Watching Nip/Tuck this evening presented the possibility that the female lead, Julia, would have an abortion. The story brought the audience into the clinic, the painful, awkward moments waiting on the couch in the lounge for the nurse to send her back.

Ultimately, the fictitious character couldn’t go through with it, but I could barely watch. I’ll admit that the jury for me is still out on the death penalty—I can certainly see better uses of public money and the criminal justice system—but I know that in my heart that the elective abortion of a healthy human fetus is wrong. I also know it’s wrong to kill a fetus when the biological father doesn’t want it to happen. It takes two adults to consent in creating life, why should only one be allowed to choose whether it lives or dies?

I’m all for equality—always have been and always will be. So then why don’t I get a choice in life? Why does my money have to support this? What can I do to stop it?

2005-12-10T18:53:00.000-05:00

Toledo Nazi Rally Thankfully Uneventful

At least comparatively speaking. I’ll try and remove any hometown bias or other discolorations from my remarks regarding the Nazi rally in Toledo earlier today, but I have to get my thoughts in on this.

I had forgotten about the rally entirely until I heard a news item on WTAM earlier this afternoon, describing the scene in downtown Toledo where the Nazi coalition was outnumbered by at least 3 to 1 by the crowd that gathered to protest the rally. The report also cited circulating sentiment amongst the protestors that the mounted police officers were present “to protect” the Nazi group. The report ended on that note without comment from the station’s news-reader, and to that degree I can’t help but think of Hurricane Katrina coverage. Rather than reporting news, WTAM joined the ranks of rumor broadcasters.

Ethical journalism, anyone? Sorry, it would appear we are fresh out here in the States.

Perhaps it would have been better to cite the presence of police officers as “protecting social order.” Seriously, who benefits when people riot? In the case of the last rally, I agree with the opinion that the Nazis win in that case.

Local talk-show host Mike Trivisonno addressed the Nazi rally in a show earlier, where he denounced (read: shouted over anyone with a dissenting opinion) that the Nazis had no right to rally in Toledo. He grounded his argument on two points: the rally offended WWII veterans and those survivors of the German Nazi regime’s concentration camps and brutality, and that al-Qaeda would never be allowed similar privileges. Though I found Triv’s comments troubling, I was even more disturbed by the number of callers who echoed Trivisonno’s message.

I really can’t make a counter-argument against Triv’s first point. I would be kidding myself to say the rally doesn’t offend anyone, let alone those who fought against the German Nazis and suffered unbelievably from their racial-cleansing agenda. However, to say that someone cannot speak their message because it offends people is unreasonable. For instance, I believe 50 Cent’s music is offensive, vulgar, and perpetuates messages equally dangerous to the message of the Nazis, particularly because it is more popular, but I don’t think 50 Cent should be prohibited from performing in public. Free speech and free assembly were written primarily for the protection of unpopular speech.

As for an al-Qaeda rally, I would similarly support the rights of al-Qaeda to rally and spread their message, providing the demonstration was organized and peopled by law-abiding US citizens. In fact, I would much prefer an al-Qaeda that engaged in civic demonstrations as opposed to terrorism as a method of voicing their beliefs.

2005-12-07T23:31:00.000-05:00

Reviewing the Academic Argument Against Harry Potter

I suppose it comes as no surprise to many that I dislike JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series. I find it interesting that the degree to which Harry Potter has found massive pop-culture appeal is mirrored in the growing opposition to Harry Potter’s success and appeal. Columnists, politicians, even Pope Benedikt XVI have spoken out against the series’ popularity—but why? Why do all of these presumably reasonable people hold such hatred—sometimes unsubstantiated hatred—against a pop-culture icon?

Any number of reasons can be cited given a particular critic. Conservatives disapprove of Harry Potter on the grounds of the text’s heretical content, distraction from reverence of reality, and fostering idolatry. Liberals disapprove of the mass appeal, marketing strategies, and the cultural homogenization supports. Others avoid the series for apolitical reasons such as aversion to the fantasy genre or popular literature in general.

All the reasons I’ve expressed so far do not engage the text itself, and actually indicate ignorance to the content. Simply hating something without understanding it has caused a lot of suffering in human history. But are there substantive reasons to dislike Harry Potter in the text itself? I admit to having disliked Harry Potter before having read one of the books; but having done so, I find there is sufficient evidence to support many of my own conclusions. Granted, the following evidence only represents the first text, but in discussion I have learned that the arguments can be extended and are, for the most part, not negated in subsequent Potter novels.

Critiques of the series content can be supported by numerous levels of evidence. At the level of the word, the vocabulary is only rigorous enough to the degree with which an intelligent person must be patient with its limitations. I understand writing for children has certain inherent constraints, but the group of children to whom Harry ought appeal should be capable of—and forced to occasionally—look up the meaning of a word once in a while. Without that component, children are gaining almost none of the benefits to language skills reading can provide. In that respect, the prose falls well below proposed educational merit.

For a fantasy novel, Harry Potter is painfully conventional. The narration takes place in an entirely believable environment—the real world—and follows the conventions that follow a young white male superhero protagonist. The problem with that, however, comes in the perception of powerful male characters and subordinated/dominated female characters. All the major power roles in the work are held by white male characters, and there is no female equivalent to any of the major power roles. The male protagonist is also frequently allowed to break rules without normal punishment and occasionally for reward, where other female and some male characters are punished. There are also other political issues beyond those of gender in the novel. The most alarming message delivered by the work seems to be a traditional anti-Semitic one. The goblins, all of whom resemble stereotypical Jewish characteristics, run the bank and are categorizes as greedy and unpersonable. Certainly many readers are aware of the stereotypes, but may not pick up on the nuance of their application in Harry Potter. Younger readers, however, may make the connections subconsciously if/when introduced to Jewish stereotypes.

Popular culture often inspires a counter culture revolution, and Harry Potter is no different. The people who overindulge in Pottermania, like buying all the memorabilia, staying up all night/calling off work to purchase the newest book, and waiting in line for days to see the latest film are engaging in unhealthy, unbalanced lifestyle choices that set poor examples for the works’ target audience. The real trouble with Harry Potter comes out in that regard, because the works are targeted at a highly receptive and impressionable audience. I am not saying Rowling should be censored or anything to that effect; rather, the consumers should be censored. Parents and other facilitators of children purchasing Harry Potter merchandise should take the time to be aware of its content and the cultural values it enforces—juts as they should with anything else they purchase for their children.

2005-12-06T19:35:00.000-05:00

Springer and Liberal Anti-War Sentiment

Something that has been troubling me lately is the message of Jerry Springer’s radio program. While I won’t ever hinder him from attempting to make his opinions known, I do take issue with his attempts to reinterpret history. I say reinterpret because I don’t want to sound like I’m recycling the ‘rewriting history’ sentiment parroted by many Republicans, but that more nearly means what I intend.

Springer’s show promo, currently airing on WTAM and his other affiliate stations, call the audience to “think about it,” ‘it’ being the war in Iraq. The language use says a lot to me. ‘It,’ neuter, indefinite pronoun with the ability to reference anything, only represents the war in Iraq in this context. Not that I want to say the war is unimportant, but Springer’s language indicates is an all consuming concern with the war—one that I think is particularly unhealthy. I understand concern and caring for our troops, but I’ve never gotten the feeling from hearing Springer speak of or to military personnel on the program that his concern is genuine, and not a tool to draw attention away from blatantly undermining the administration. Yet, the all-consuming aspect of this leads me to believe he has lost his sense of what is really important.

This is echoed in the remainder of the Springer promo. Springer points out that the middle-east is an area where people have been “beating each other up for thousands of years” and there is a “tribal mentality.” The language here is equally perplexing. Springer seems to want to minimize the gravity of the conflict—they aren’t merely beating each other up—one odes not ‘beat’ with suicide bombers. These are intensely passionate, zealous people—in no way deserving the label of ‘tribal,’ which portrays modern people as Neanderthals. Where is the concern and regard for the Iraqis and other middle-easterners? Why are these ‘compassionate, progressive’ Liberals so eager to slander these people as barbaric? Only when convenient, when it suits their agenda, do they see need to be compassionate and fair. The hypocrisy overwhelms me, and yet the public perception seems to be backwards.

Springer moves on to guide the listener to see the fallacy of the US thinking they could stop all middle-eastern conflict and disarm the centuries old feuds there. In doing so, he blatantly misleads us, and begins the rewriting/reinterpretation I mentioned earlier. President Bush and other leaders never said the conflict in Iraq would solve or disarm any middle-east conflict. Rather, our nation attacked Iraq because the regime posed a threat to the region—potentially the entire world, and harbored and funded terrorist groups. That’s not to say Iraq sponsored 9/11, something else President Bush never said, and the media has given up trying to assert.

Springer’s blatant dishonesty really bothers me. I simply can’t understand how someone so apparently intelligent can be so deceiving—no-one since the Liberal’s own Joseph Goebbel’s, Michael Moore, have I seen someone so genuinely concerned with intentional deception, and rewarded for it.

To Jerry and everyone else demanding Iraq be abandoned, I ask you to stand up and live for the compassion you support, and stop lying. Lying and mistakes differ in knowledge and intent. I believe President Bush, along with many world-leaders, were mistaken about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction—but to say that President Bush lied is beyond presumptuous and duplicitous.

2005-12-06T01:26:00.000-05:00

A mission statement of sorts.

This evening I authored my last iteration of ‘the Right Stuff’ for Case Western Reserve University’s The Observer student newspaper. Having done so, I have been forced to realize that an outlet for my political musings has been lost. To rectify the problem, I have decided to bring the column to Blogger, for lack of a more convenient venue.

What can a reader expect to see here? My content concerns itself primarily with current events and the manipulation of news media and lack of investigation into various topics. Secondarily, the column will evaluate local politics in Northeast Ohio, the Federal Government, and the state of Ohio in descending order of relevance to my daily life. Finally, my writings serve as a kind of social commentary derived from my observations and thoughts.

Comments are welcome, but I reserve the right to censor anonymous posts.