Archive for the ‘2008’ Category

THE PRESIDENT’S BRAVE NEW WORLD

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

My latest Main Street Journal article is now online, a look at science, ethics and the new administration’s policy on human embryonic stem cells.

THE FIRST DOG

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

The President has obtained a hound. Seems like a good time to post my essay from the March edition of the Main Street Journal:

In Dog We Trust

Our leaders in Washington recently passed a $700 billion bill that none of them read, addressing a situation apparently none of them understood.

They deserve our gratitude for discovering the crucial link between our economy’s strength and supplemental appropriations for projects like the “Weatherization Assistance Program” ($5 billion), clean-up at “former weapon production and energy research sites” ($6 billion) and climate change research at NASA ($400 million).

Who better to guide the nation’s economy than the political experts who’ve so deftly amassed a $455 billion fiscal year deficit, a $10.6 trillion national debt, and $65.5 trillion in total federal obligations – a debt that now exceeds the entire world’s gross domestic product?

But the decline of the housing market, the crash of the stock market, and the failure of banking institutions brought about at least one positive development. Members of the mainstream media finally found something to distract them from what TIME magazine in August called “the most important decision facing Barack Obama,” namely, finding a dog.

We probably shouldn’t be too hard on our fickle and shallow journalists and their lazy obsessions. Even though they’re eager to behave like Presidential lapdogs and seem to have lost interest in their role as government watchdogs, there’s a certain significance in chronicling the puppy search.

Perhaps ironically, K9s tend to bring out the humanity in all of us. President Truman once remarked, “You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog.” So Richard Nixon had Checkers, Bill Clinton had Buddy, and George W. Bush had Tony Blair (or so they told us).

After a thorough vetting, probably one exceeding that of Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer and Judd Gregg combined, the First Family seized upon two breeds deemed safe enough for the allergic First Daughters: the Portuguese Water Dog and the Labradoodle.

The hitch is, they also vowed to adopt a “mutt” from the pound. But since Portuguese Water Dogs are a closely-monitored, purebred, AKC registered breed and Labradoodles are designer hybrids, neither of these expensive breeds are likely to be found at a shelter.

The President shouldn’t have painted himself into a corner. New York Post columnist (and mutt advocate) Julia Szabo says there’s technically no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog, and she suggests a number of measures to combat the source of allergies – dander. Pet owners can receive allergy shots, perform regular housecleaning, supplement their pet’s diet with fish or olive oil, groom regularly, use special shampoo and give special attention to air filters and vacuum cleaners.

Even new dog owners without allergies will find themselves paying for all sorts of products and services they may not have anticipated, including vet visits, special food and treats, toys and chews, grooming products and services, cleaning materials, training devices, bedding, and the list goes on. The pet industry is big business.

This is obvious to veteran pet owners or those who’ve followed companies like PetSmart (PETM), which saw its stock rise 26.6% between November and March, even as The Dow dropped 7.86%.

In retrospect, perhaps the media should have been even more obsessed with the First Dog, given the proven ability of pets to stimulate the economy and create jobs. That’s far more than we can say for most of the legislation coming out of Washington.

TYPICAL WHITE PERSON

Monday, April 6th, 2009

OBAMA’S NEW MATH

Monday, March 30th, 2009

Jonah Goldberg has a great article in the most recent National Review. It’s a humorous piece, but his point at the end is so striking that it’s worth sharing even without the hilarious parts. So here’s Goldberg with the funny edited out:

Barack Obama often laments the deficit he “inherited” from George W. Bush, suggesting that if only someone like Barack Obama had been at the helm these last eight years, things would be better.

Spending under George W. Bush went through the roof: education (up 58 percent), Social Security (17 percent), Medicare (51 percent), health research and regulation (55 percent), highways and mass transit (22 percent), and veterans’ benefits (59 percent). Spending grew twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. But Obama thinks that amounts to laissez-faire.

To recap: Obama says Bush ignored necessary spending, which is why our new president needs to borrow $7 trillion just to spend enough money to catch up to where we should be. But he goes on to suggest that if he had been running the show, we wouldn’t have this Republican-fueled deficit that he inherited, because Democrats would have spent two, three, or ten times as much money as Republicans. Something doesn’t compute there.

This deserves to be mashed up with the Washington Post’s budget deficit graph (as posted on the Heritage blog):

wapoobamabudget1

Hope 0, Change 0

FIXING THE ENVIROCONOMY, ONE LIGHT BULB AT A TIME

Tuesday, December 9th, 2008

The President-O-lect has proposed an “economic recovery plan” that seeks to create jobs via federal spending on infrastructure, internet connectivity and energy-efficient technology.

Specifically, he plans to hire people to change (!) the light bulbs:

“We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.”

It can’t be just one light bulb technician. If we’re going to get this economy going again, and heal our environment at the same time, we’re clearly going to need an entire army of light bulb switcher-outers. A collective, if you will:

When he was preparing for them [debates] during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, “I don’t consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, ‘You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.’ So when Brian Williams is asking me about what’s a personal thing that you’ve done [that's green], and I say, you know, ‘Well, I planted a bunch of trees.’ And he says, ‘I’m talking about personal.’ What I’m thinking in my head is, ‘Well, the truth is, Brian, we can’t solve global warming because I f—ing changed light bulbs in my house. It’s because of something collective’.”

These two passages, taken together, provide the definition for “collective” action. It does not mean the sum result of individuals making individual choices, working collaboratively to effect positive change. Instead, “something collective” is the federal government taking action, redistributing your tax dollars, and restricting your individual liberty with a series of regulations on every aspect of your life — from the way you light your room, to the way you heat your house, to the way you bag your groceries, to the vehicle you drive, the food you eat, etc., etc.

Our federal government has decided that it is the answer to both the economy and the ecosystem — two vast systems so large, complex and intricate that they can only be harmed by the reckless involvement of a heavy-handed bureaucracy that is distinguished mainly by corruption, inefficacy, ignorance and hubris. And soon, I suppose, well-lit rooms.

HAPPY VETERANS DAY

Tuesday, November 11th, 2008

John McCain

My thanks to all who serve and served. I appreciate you.

SAME O’ SAME O’ PARTISAN PAP

Monday, November 10th, 2008

Mike the Eyeguy, I’m sorry I offended you with my thoughts on the election. That was certainly not my intention. The line from my post you found “personally offensive and patronizing” wasn’t intended to be either:

These are the things I believe are sacred and fear may have been subordinated by a misinformed and short-sighted electorate seeking emotional healing, immediate gratification and hand-outs.

My objective with the post was not to tear anyone down, but rather to explain my own thoughts, perspective and mixed emotions on the election; I wanted to explain why I disagreed with the results, why I thought America chose this option, what I feared was at risk following that choice, and how I intended to respond.

So, let me break down the line above and try to explain how it fits with my objective.

First, “These are the things I believe are sacred.” You left that part out of your quote, but it’s the subject of the sentence, and refers to the preceding paragraph, which explains what I think is great and important and essential about our government — namely, that it recognizes the Creator as the source of our rights and freedoms, and provides the optimal environment or system for securing and protecting them.

Next, “and fear may have been subordinated.” You dropped this part, also, though it contains the important qualifiers “fear” (as in, “I’m afraid was”), and “may have been” (as in, “might have been”). Both were intended to signal a level of uncertainty about my perspective and identify what follows as something closer to conjecture than certainty.

You picked up the quote around here: “by a misinformed…” I explained what I meant by “misinformed” later in the post (see the second to last paragraph), and was referring primarily to the biased media, which deliberately withheld information from the public and consistently skewed coverage in favor of the Democratic ticket. I wasn’t, in other words, criticizing the voters who were the victims of misinformation, but rather the media professionals who cheated all of us.

I probably erred by bundling that broader idea with: “…and short-sighted electorate…” which deals more specifically with the voters whose rationale for supporting the Democrats I find severely lacking. Hence, my use of the word “electorate” was a synecdoche — I adopted a general term to refer to a narrow set of voters, specifically those who were voting for the reasons that I then identify. I was clumsy in switching gears from a wider mass of voters to a more specific group without a clear transition, so in retrospect I can see how that could have offended you.

However, I maintain that many voters indeed were “seeking emotional healing, immediate gratification and hand-outs.

Again, taking these one at a time:

Emotional Healing: Ive heard from several people who were overcome with emotion upon ushering the first African-American President into office. There’s no doubt that this nation was eager to see that threshold crossed in our lifetime. Even General Powell was brought to tears. There’s just no denying that racial healing was an important factor in the outcome of this election. Maybe not for all people, and perhaps not even for most, but it certainly was a big enough factor for some voters to influence the result. The President-Elect’s race was a central topic of conversation in the media and around water coolers throughout the campaign, and it was the primary reason there was such jubilation across the country and emphasis on the historic significance of his victory.

Beyond race, you also have to acknowledge the primarily-emotional appeal of the candidate’s central themes of “Hope,” “Change” and “Yes, We Can.” These terms and phrases are completely non-specific and explicitly generated to create an emotional bond with certain voters. Simply put, those who were swayed by such messages were letting their hearts and their feelings reign over their minds and their thoughts.

Immediate Gratification: The Democratic platform is distinguished by such planks as immediate withdraw from Iraq (regardless of the situation on the ground and any ramifications that could result), immediate meetings with enemy dictators (without precondition), instant tax rebates to stimulate the economy (an idea also adopted by some factions of the GOP, obviously), an aversion to domestic oil drilling (rejected because it could take up to a decade to see the results supposedly), and immediate action on environmental issues (without much regard to natural climate cycles, or how realistic any man-made solution might actually be). The same holds for many other issues discussed during the campaign.

Hand-outs: The Democrats campaigned on the ideas of higher taxes for those with the largest incomes, tax rebates for those with little or no tax liabilities, generally “spreading the wealth,” free health care and other entitlements, and selective Social Security tax increases untethered from increased corresponding benefits.

There’s a reason for the popularity of the clip on Youtube featuring a the joyous woman celebrating that she no longer has to worry about her mortgage payments or paying for gasoline. The reason is that it’s a very telling look at the mindset of many people who voted for this man. The clip perfectly encapsulates my three points, and it represents many of the people who tipped the election in his favor.

Another anecdote I heard just recently tells a similar story. This woman plainly said she voted for the Democrats because rich people needed to be taxed more so she could be taxed less and get more benefits. That’s not principled, or logical, or long-term thinking.

So, Mike, I know you consider my thoughts to be “the same o’ same o’ partisan pap,” but I made my distaste for the alternative clear, and I could have just as easily picked apart the failures of his campaign (such as not having a coherent economic policy, for starters). Furthermore, I suspect my assumptions are more accurate than you’d like to admit. I’m also curious why you seem to have overlooked the real source of “partisan pap,” which (as illustrated above) goes by such vacuous phrases as “change” and “hope.”

Same “O,” same “O,” you might say.

THOUGHTS ON 2008 AND OUR NEW PRESIDENT

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

Like many of you, my prayer is for our new President and elected leaders, that they will seek guidance from God and seek to be like Christ.

I’m happy that some of the disaffected voters from the last few elections will now feel some validation. I’m hopeful that this President can serve as an example of what any American can achieve. I hope it is liberating to those who have harbored a victim mentality — and I use that phrase in a gentle, understanding sense, not an accusatory sense, because I think it could be very empowering for people to realize they can chart their own course in life and aren’t merely at the mercy of outside forces. And I am happy that it could serve as powerful evidence that we’re not a bigoted, racist society, as some have maintained. This is a good country, a fair country, an open and welcoming country, a responsible and caring country, and a land of opportunity.

I think it will be even more historic when we no longer put so much emphasis on race and gender when it comes to electing our leaders — a day when such things are the afterthought when judging candidates, rather than a main justification for supporting or opposing a candidate. We seem to have turned the corner, but I’m concerned that an inordinate amount of importance placed on the history of the “first black this” or the “first female that” may actually slow the path to equal opportunity and equal justice, rather than speed it along. I know conservatives regularly cite Martin Luther King Jr’s emphasis on the “content of our character” rather than the “color of our skin,” but we do so because it’s such an important virtue, and in keeping with King’s central message.

We ought to be proud of our country and our heritage, no matter who is elected. Of course, I am not particularly proud of my country’s decision in this election, even as I wasn’t particularly fond of the alternative. But I cherish our freedoms, our founding documents, our national character, and the battles we’ve fought both individually and collectively, all of which have lifted not only our country but also the world.

All of our progress rests upon the foundation laid 232 years ago, a foundation built upon faith in the Creator, by acknowledgment both of God’s love for us and his will for our lives, by an understanding of the proper role of Government in securing our God-given rights, and by incredible insight into the human condition and the ideal form of government that corresponds to it — representative democracy, divided powers, federalism, constitutional limitations of government power, and enshrined individual freedoms.

These are the things I believe are sacred and fear may have been subordinated by a misinformed and short-sighted electorate seeking emotional healing, immediate gratification and hand-outs. Despite what is now his unique place in history, and despite his excellent personal qualities as a man and as a candidate, I’m afraid we have selected a President who can not honestly swear an oath to protect and defend a Constitution he believes is fundamentally flawed, much less keep that oath.

Among those things at risk is our right to life (due to his radical views on abortion), our right to free speech (because of his support for the Fairness Doctrine), our economic liberty (because of his belief in redistribution), or impartial justice system (because of his intentions of nominating judges that will fixate on gender and race rather than law), our equality (because of his support for policies that benefit or punish citizens based on race or income level), our national defense (because of his disregard for Al Qaida in Iraq and reckless desire to meet with enemy dictators), our health care system (because he plans to socialize it), and our economic security (since he will continue prop up the federal government’s terrible Social Security reverse pyramid scheme).

I intend to lend him my prayers and my good will, but I’m not certain how welcome my good will is to a man who went out of his way to befriend America’s domestic enemies, cultivated bonds with preachers of hate and racism, and benefited personally from corrupt political machines and criminal lobbyists.

I’m deeply troubled that we selected a man with such a thin resume and such little experience leading anything other than his own political campaigns, a man who is highly intelligent but is obviously suffering from seriously difficult family issues and may not be emotionally ready to move beyond himself (as evidenced by the subject of his two books) for the good of the country. We chose a candidate who appears to be either taking pains to hide his true thoughts or is making up everything on the fly, as evidenced by his constantly alternating rhetoric: on debates and campaign funding, on the war and on threats in the Middle East, on Rev. Wright, on FISA, on energy, on trade agreements, as well as on welfare reform, gay marriage and partial birth abortion. Neither option is comforting.

Furthermore, it does not comfort me to note that the media seems to have been in the tank for this man, failing to investigate his past and his record, hiding his gaffes and errors from the public, displaying a clear bias against the opposition, and waging a personal attack on regular citizens who dare to question his policies. The news media is expected to present us with the objective truth, to report everything, to deliver the day’s important events in a timely and fair manner, but they have been intentionally asleep at the wheel. If this situation continues, the federal government will have even fewer checks against its increasing power. This would not portend well for any nation, under any leader or any government.

Still, I recognize it as my Christian duty to give due honor to our elected leaders, pay my taxes, and put myself under the authority of our government (Romans 13). It’s also my charge to pray that our leaders seek the Lord’s guidance, and to love my neighbor as myself, and to love even my enemies (Matthew 5). That’s a tall order for any man, but it’s an order nonetheless; and I will do my best to follow that command in this situation, as in any other. Furthermore, I also recognize that God is at the helm, and he has a purpose in all things, in all people. That’s something no man and no government can change.

UPDATE: here.

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE RED STATES

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

Red states, that is, in the traditional sense.

AUDACIOUS HOPE FOR MAVERICKS

Monday, November 3rd, 2008

If you’re a McCain voter, you’re probably feeling like a guest at the election night Michael Dukakis party, as spoofed by Jon Lovitz on SNL.

We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking McCain really has much of a chance to win this election, but that certainly doesn’t mean we have to submit to defeat in advance of the actual results, which is precisely what the Obamedia would like.

So in the spirit of John McCain, who wouldn’t dishonor himself by accepting early release from the Hanoi Hilton, let’s not accept defeat until all the votes are counted. Instead, let’s all be mavericks and embrace the audacity of hope.

Here, then, are three links to boost your morale:

Feel free to add your own pro-McCain spin in the comments.