Weekly Blog

Life is not Objectively a Blessing. As the Old Saying Goes, It is What You Make It.

2009-10-29T13:14:00.000-07:00

Life is not objectively a blessing or a curse; whether it is the former or the latter is completely subjective. Ultimately life is what you make it.

I heard this today listening to Dennis Prager on the radio. It was in the context of a discussion about why it is deficiency in purpose that causes people to turn to addition, whether it be to drugs or alcohol. A caller justified his use on the grounds that, whether it makes him a bad person or not, he sees life as somewhat of a curse. Thus he lives it day to day and uses drugs to escape the residual pain. It was in response to this that Prager commented that the opinion that life is a curse does not make the guy a bad person; rather, no person can claim that life is objectively a blessing. IT is filled with ambiguous and negative events. Whether we make the ambiguous events positive experiences in one way or another, and whether we learn to put the negative events aside is something that is solely up to us. Further, it is our choice whether or not to dwell on positive happenings in life. Thus life, with its mixture of good an bad for everyone, is never objectively a blessing. It is what you chose to make it.

Prager is truly an insightful guy; at the very least he took something that so many others have said and made it substantially more clear.

Important Article of the Day

2008-08-01T13:43:00.000-07:00

When the Lights Went Out

By Kate Phillips

You’ve got to love this. And forgive us, if we get a little carried away with song lyrics and such.

The House Republican leadership is in a bit of a revolt, dancing in the dark at times, if you will.

It seems that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the Democratic majority in her chamber, channeled a little Donna Summer as they walked out the door for the summer recess.

“Dim all the lights sweet darling, because tonight it’s all the way,” to quote Ms. Summer. We’d add — all the way home to face that election music, high gas prices at the pump and all that.

Well, the G.O.P. didn’t want it that way; they wanted to stay and talk about rising gas prices. So for the last few hours, they’ve been busy on a dark floor, using Twitter and random keyboarding to find the codes to turn the lights back on in the chamber. And doing a little P.R. to broadcast their fight for lifting the ban on offshore drilling. It’s as though the House Republicans decided to call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on his dare Tuesday to G.O.P. members of the the upper chamber by to stay over the break to resolve these issues.

From the office of Representative John Boehner, Republican of Cincinnati:

In a dramatic revolt against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) refusal to allow Congress to vote on legislation to increase American-made energy and lower gas prices, House Republicans today refused to leave the House floor after Speaker Pelosi adjourned the House for the five-week August break, staying in the chamber to speak directly to Americans watching the historic event unfold above the floor in the House gallery.

Even after lights, cameras, and microphones in the chamber were turned off, House Republicans were undeterred, continuing to make speech after speech demanding that Speaker Pelosi listen to the calls of the American people – including those coming from whistling, applauding, and cheering Americans sitting in the gallery – for more environmentally responsible drilling for oil and gas here at home to reduce the price at the pump. Representative John Culberson, Republican of Texas, defied the Democratic majority by providing live updates on the protest via Twitter directly from the House floor.

Members participating in the spontaneous uprising included Reps. Roy Blunt, John Boehner, Michael Burgess, John Campbell, Eric Cantor, Shelly Moore Capito, John Carter, Mike Conaway, John Culberson, Charlie Dent, Jeff Fortenberry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Pete Hoekstra, Duncan Hunter, Thaddeus McCotter, Mike Pence, Tom Price, Ted Poe, Adam Putnam, Bill Sali, John Shadegg, John Shimkus, Tim Walberg, and Lynn Westmoreland.

The protest came just minutes after House Republican leaders delivered a letter to Speaker Pelosi demanding that she call the House back into emergency session this month to deal with America’s ever-worsening energy crisis.

So who says the Republicans are technologically still in the 1980’s? Word is, besides Congressman Culberson’s tweets, The Politico reports that Representative Shadegg was mining the keyboard randomly to access codes to turn those lights back on. But of course, C-Span was no longer on the air, since it doesn’t broadcast when Congress is not officially in session, so the House Republicans have really been dancing in the dark.

In some key battleground states, (like Florida) voters are shifting toward support of offshore drilling to reduce dependence on foreign oil and to ease those bug-eyed shocks at the pumps as the numbers keep moving upward, but Democrats counter that the benefits of offshore drilling are about 10 years away. And are casting Republicans as hostage to the big oil companies, in ads across the country against Republicans in Congress.

More to come.

(from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/when-the-lights-went-out/)

Quote of the Day...

2008-08-01T10:56:00.001-07:00

"A man never goes so far as when he does not know whither he is going."

- Oliver Cromwell

2008-07-31T12:51:00.000-07:00

Does Obama think that he can back the entire white electorate into a corner, forcing them to vote for him or be anti-black? Here are his comments from yesterday in Springfield, MO referring to the what the McCain campaign is allegedly saying:

“You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making.’’ (1)

So Mr. Obama, do you think that is the argument that McCain and the rest of the white electorate that is against you is making? The only thing that we can really touch you on is that you don't "look like those other Presidents on those dollar bills"?

In reality, Obama is just pulling this argument out of thin air. The McCain campaign has said nothing of the sort, and no respected source has attempted to make his skin color the primary reason to vote against him. Mr. Obama simply wants to inject race into the McCain campaign where he sees it most beneficial to his own electability.

McCain made a very good point today in Racine, WI that applies here (I could not get a transcript on this but heard audio). He pointed out that the same old Washington style politics that Obama derides are also those which he practices. McCain points out that saying whatever you must to get elected, such as the previous Obama statement, is just the type of Washington politics that the American people are tired of.

As a side note, I believe that McCain's strategy of bringing negative attacks earlier in the race so as to start his own narrative is a smart plan. This frees him up to run a positive campaign after the conventions around Labor Day when the general election officially starts.

1. Cooper, Michael, and Michael Powell. "McCain Campaign Says Obama Is Playing the ‘Race Card’." NYtimes.com. 31 July 2008.31 July 2008 .

An Insight into Evil

2008-07-24T10:35:00.000-07:00

Self-contempt produces in man "the most criminal passions imaginable, for he conceives a mortal hatred against that truth which blames him and convinces him of his faults."

- Pascal, Pensees

Thought for the Day

2008-07-24T09:16:00.000-07:00

The only passion worth having is for living, for it encompasses all others.

Ich bin ein Beginner.

2008-07-22T13:42:00.000-07:00

Listening to the Michael Medved show today, and a caller told a joke that I thought was worth sharing (as a note, she had heard this from another talk radio host):

A suggestion for his opening line when Barack Obama speaks at the Berlin Wall:

"Ich bin ein Beginner."

Democrats get Slippery on the Oil Crisis

2008-07-16T10:25:00.001-07:00

The Democratic opposition to off-shore drilling and ANWAR are a mind-boggling and can only be signs of one of two things. Either they are completely incognizant of how the markets work, or they truly do not want us to avert the oil crisis and they are trying to pull the wool over the American people's eyes until it is too late. I will explain why I think that the latter explanation is correct in the following paragraphs.

Democratic opposition to off-shore drilling and ANWAR (two long-term solutions) are only replaced by their desire to dip into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In a letter issued by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the congresswoman said that today's "are the kind of circumstances, in addition to national security, in which utilization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is more than justified." (1)

Really? Is that the Democrat solution to our massive problem?

If we were to use the entire strategic supply (706 million barrels currently), it would last the United States 58 days. And what effect would that have on long term prices? Let us look 59 days into the future.

After America gets used to the lower prices for two months, prices, on that 59th day, would spike at least to their original levels, sending a possible shockwave through the markets. However, although the market may be unpredictable, it is not stupid. There would most likely be a continued slow down prior to and in anticipation of that 59th day.

Once the short-term gas price holiday is over what do we have to look forward to in the long term? We have depleted our national reserve of oil, which puts us in a precarious circumstance in the case of any real national emergency that should pop up. And the United States would have to fill our new supply at today's current and higher gas prices. Furthermore, we would be paying the same price that we had paid before the United States government squandered their oil savings.

Thankfully in recent weeks there has been a ground swell of support to lift the ban on off-shore drilling for oil culminating in President Bush's lift of the presidential moratorium on Monday which he hopes will pressure Congress to lift their own moratorium (2). Democrats like Barack Obama have complained that this will have no immediate affect on the price of oil because it will take us ten years to see that oil and, he believes, it is not a good "long-term strategy for energy independence" (3). This assertion can only mean a complete ignorance of what has gained growing among economists and market experts.

President Bush, formerly in the oil and other businesses, explained it very simply and well in his Wednesday press conference.

"...there is a psychology in the oil market that basically says, supplies are going to stay stagnant while demand rises. And that's reflected somewhat in the price of crude oil [due to speculators driving up the price]... And therefore, it seems like it makes sense to me to say to the world that we're going to use new technologies to explore for oil and gas in the United States -- offshore oil, ANWR, oil shale projects -- to help change the psychology, to send a clear message that the supplies of oil will increase." (4)

I'll explain it simply so that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama can understand:

There is a new word they must learn: speculators. As Victor Niederhoffer put it, "When a harvest is too small to satisfy consumption at its normal rate, speculators come in, hoping to profit from the scarcity by buying. Their purchases raise the price, thereby checking consumption so that the smaller supply will last longer... when the price is higher than the speculators think the facts warrant, they sell. This reduces prices, encouraging consumption and exports and helping to reduce the surplus" (emphasis added) (5). Therefore, if the speculators see a supply boom in the near future, they are going to sell because of price-drop fears, thus freeing up immediate supply and lowering the cost for oil.

Unless the Democratic leadership are completely ignorant of these facts, they clearly have other motives in mind. Democrats think that the only way for America to finally break their dependency on oil is to make it completely unfordable. They have laid no other viable solutions on the table. Wind and solar power will not take care of our energy needs unless we were to spend billions of dollars and could then control the weather. They are in opposition to nuclear power. What is left?

The reason that they want to do this can be summed up in one man's philosophy: Mr. Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. The Democratic leadership is so set in their passions about reducing carbon emissions that they are willing to attempt to manipulate the American people into a financial crisis so great that we can no longer use oil. Thus will we be dependent on the government to dictate to us how, when, and where to travel because only it will be able to afford to transport us. By doing this they can reduce carbon emissions on their own time table.

The Democrats have prioritized their environmental dogma above honesty and forthrightness with the American people.

1. Malkin, Michelle. "Nancy Pelosi’S Latest Gaseous Emission." 8 July 2008. 16 July 2008 .

2. "Bush Lifts Ban on Offshore Drilling." CBS News 14 July 2008. 16 July 2008 .

3. Coile, Zachary. "Bush Drops Moratorium on Offshore Drilling." San Francisco Chronicle 15 July 2008. 17 July 2008 .

4. Bush, George W. "White House Press Briefing." James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, Washington, D.C. 15 July 2008. 17 July 2008 .

5. Victor Niederhoffer, The Wall Street Journal, February 10, 1989 Daily Speculation.

Reverse Racism?

2008-07-15T08:50:00.001-07:00

Today in an article in the New York Times, ABC talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was qoted in reference to Barack Obama as saying "There’s a weird reverse racism going on. You can’t joke about him because he’s half-white." (1)

There is nothing more aggravating to me than the term "Reverse-Racism."

It is used to refer to black to white racism. In my opinion it shows three things about modern American culture.

Firstly, it shows the historical ignorance of those that use it. To consider white to black racism the true definition of racism by needed modifiers such as "reverse" for any other definition is to completely ignore the rest of the world for almost all of history.

Croats and Serbs, Arabs to black Africans, and Romans to Gauls are just a few of the many examples of racism in history that did not involve white to black racism. The use of the term "reverse-racism", especially by college professors at such schools as the University of Minnesota who know the broader history behind racism, is not only irresponsible but damaging to the historical perspective that is needed to be a wise and informed citizen.

Secondly, it shows how we have perpetuated the victimization of the African American community in the United States.

By needing a modifier to describe any other form of racism than white to black, you are automatically making that racism secondary and, seemingly, less important. Rather than calling all racism what it is, "racism," you are making it sound like a more rare form of the phenomenon. Whether it remains or even ever was that the minority of instances were "reverse-racism," using the term etches in people's minds that it is that way, whether or not the facts support it.

To give an example let us look at other social sins in the same way. What would be the implications in your mind if one were to say bigotry and reverse-bigotry, xenophobia and reverse-xenophobia, sexism and reverse-sexism, hate and reverse-hate? Automatically the use of the modifier "reverse" begs the question, "what is the primary form of bigotry, xenophobia, sexism, and hate, and what is the reverse form?"

Thirdly, most broadly, and most importantly it shows the power that subtle changes in language have over our thought processes. The left-wing academia in our nation have latched onto this principle and have begun an overhaul of our national thought through subtle changes in our language such as broadening the definitions of rape as to cheapen it, using terms such as "a women's choice" or "fetus tissue" in relation to abortion, inventing terms such as homophobia and agism, and the example laid out here in this blog.

We must guard our language, because words shape thought patterns in more ways than we often realize.

1. Carter, Bill. "Want Obama in a Punch Line? First, Find a Joke." New York Times 15 July 2008. 15 July 2008 .

The Best at What You Do

2008-07-14T16:46:00.000-07:00

Today in listening to my band CD (this being the band that I left to come to California and Law School), I realized two things.

Firstly how great a gift that band had been to me. I left something the likes of which I will never find again. Comradery with two of the most amazing musicians that I ever knew.

The bond that a group of guys form after playing music together for years is indescribable. To say that I miss them is an understatement.

The second and equally important thing which I realized was that the memory of what the three of us had inspires me to put the most into what I now aspire to be.

This is because I realize that failure or success, no matter how great, will not, by themselves, bring any sort of regret about what was left behind. It is only knowing that one did not put their whole self into their most current endeavor that causes regret for leaving past endeavors.

I know that the feeling of satisfaction that I get when I look back at my band derives solely from that fact that I was fully immersed in that previous endeavor.

I would go as far as to say that if you look back at a previous endeavor and do not view it as a sort of previous life, perhaps you have not put your all into the current endeavor.

In short: avoid regret by giving your whole self to every goal to which you set your heart, whether that you fail or succeed at reaching it.

Missile Tests

2008-07-09T12:10:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Iran fired nine missile tests as a protest to the agreement that the United States made with Czechoslovakia yesterday at the G-8 summit. The agreement allowed for the beginnings of the long-discussed and negotiated missile defense shield which the United States has desired to install in eastern Europe much to the chagrin of Iran and Russia against whose missiles the shield has explicitly and implicitly, respectively, been designed to protect other nations and, in turn, our own.

This shield is being built partly on the theory that eastern Europe is considered our first line of defense against powers such as Iran and the ever-more totalitarian Russia. This is much like FDR's theory before our entry into WWII that by beefing up western European allies' arms supplies we could avoid war. Unfortunately FDR failed to lift the a neutrality act that congress had passed before war had broken out.

Bush's success yesterday in reaching an agreement to build this defense shield is another for which he may be praised in the years following his presidency as Iran and Russia slip further into enmity with the United States.

In the mean time, we can only hope that Barack Obama's solution to the Iran Problem never has a chance to play out. Its Chamberlainian tone is so historically unsupported as to warrant laughter. In a Today Show interview this morning his most stressed aspect of Iran policy was that we should

"opening up channels of communication so that we avoid provocation but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behavior. We’ve got to have the kind of aggressive diplomacy that unfortunately has been absent over the last several years.” (emphases added) (1)

Provocation is somewhat synonymous with first-action. Are not Ahmadinejad's vehement statements on Israel and, now, a firing of nine missiles in all but direct rebellion of a new pact signed by the United States and another sovereign nation provocation? Is not action on our part simply response to provocation?

Furthermore, the last time in which there was diplomatic action against such an overtly belligerent nation such as Iran, whose leader, mind you, has stated their intent to obliterate Israel with just the type of missile that has been fired today, was England's Neville Chamberlain's talks with Hitler. We all know how those turned out.

Barack Obama is not only misguided but extremely dangerous to our national security on this issue.

1. Falcone, Michael. "The Early Word: Responding to Iran." New York Times 09 July 2008. 09 July 2008 .

Limbaugh Gets Payed

2008-07-07T14:16:00.000-07:00

There is a bit of an uproar about Rush's new contract with Premiere Radio Networks. Many are surprised that he gets over $400 Million dollars from now until 2016.

So why can't Rush Limbaugh get this kind of money?

If there is any market, and there is what Adam Smith called "the invisible hand" to guide it in the direction of public demand, shouldn't Rush, whom has the most listener-demanded radio show, get the biggest piece of the pie?

Yes.

He single handedly made talk radio what it is today over the course of the last 20 years (as of August 1st, 2008).

Obama's Leaks

2008-06-16T16:26:00.001-07:00

In two separate stories in the June 16 New York Times gaping cracks have begun to leak in Barack Obama's attempt at forging a powerful and steadfast image as a leader.

First, despite what he would like the masses to believe, it seems as though Barack Obama really is all about words and speeches and much less about action and firm management (things that the country needs right now).

Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg report the following in the same article referenced in today's other blog:

"If a presidential campaign is intended to be a test-run for the presidency, [Barack Obama's] chief priorities are the words in his speeches, messages in his television advertising and policy pronouncements. On other matters, even if he disagrees, he often allows himself to be overruled." (1)

Until April, it is reported, Obama ran a very hands-off campaign. Often deferring to his aides on strategy decisions. Not a very good precident to set or image to project when the rest of the country is already looking for signs that his inexperience does not equal ineptitude.

Second, Obama has not yet responded to McCain's calls for joint town-hall style meetings. McCain called for a debate this July at a meeting of the National Council of La Raza (a non-profit hispanic advancement organization) (2). This is in addition to the twelve or so town-hall style meetings to which McCain has invited Obama.

This is showing a second weakness in Obama's campaign. As Obama has campaigned across the country with a call for "change we can believe" and a new style of politics that includes unity, he has yet to follow through with any kind of action to bring worth to his words. Increasing are the attacks on John McCain on issues of the economy and calling him a third-term George Bush, but missing are the non-partisan and new-style politics that he has spent a year and a half promising.

In these two areas, Obama's campaign is showing weaknesses that the American public is bound to hone in on in short notice. It is only to McCain's advantage to exploit these weaknesses by pointing out, for instance, that the often liberal New York Times, however inadvertantly it may be, is reporting facts that are detrimental to Obama's quest to be seen as a leader and a change-bringer.

1.1. Zeleny, Jeff, and Jim Rutenberg. "A Delegator, Obama Picks When to Take Reins." The New York Times 16 June 2008. 16 June 2008 .

2. Falcone, Michael. "McCain: Let States Decide on Offshore Drilling." New York Times 16 June 2008. 16 June 2008 .

Most Candidates?

2008-06-16T08:28:00.000-07:00

In a news article in today's New York Times, Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg claim that Barack Obama, "like most presidential candidates... is developing his executive skills on the fly, and under intense scrutiny" (1). What the Times is saying is essentially that most presidential candidates lack executive experience.

Most presidential candidates?

Let's just go back 32 years and see what "most" means.

Jimmy Carter, our thirty-ninth president and a former governor of Georgia, developed his executive experience as a governor. As did Ronald Reagan as a governor of California, George Bush as Vice President and former chair of the Republican National Committee and former head of the CIA, Bill Clinton as governor of Arkansas, and George W. Bush as governor of Texas.

So at least half of the candidates in the last thirty years, the winners, have developed their executive skills prior to becoming president. Being that most consitutes more than half the story is already inaccurate in recent elections.

But what about the losers in these years?

Gerald Ford, who lost to Carter, served as president after Richard Nixon's resignation, but was the only president never to win a national election. Therefore he is a moot point.

After beating Carter, Reagan beat Walter Mondale, a former Senator who served as vice president under Carter. This was definitely executive experience.

George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis, the governor of Massachusetts, in 1988. Being governor is executive experience if such a thing exists.

After beating George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole, a former Senate Majority leader. Leading over 40 U.S. Senators is definitely executive experience.

Al Gore, who lost to George W. Bush in 2000 was a former vice-President.

And John Kerry, before being defeated by Bush in 2004 and serving in the senate for a number of years, was District Attorney and Lt. Governor of Massachusetts under Michael Dukakis.

Almost every candidate in the last three decades has had executive experience, or at least, a long history in government, except Barack Obama, who's only true executive experience is as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. Zeleny and Rutenberg's article from the New York Times today is merely an attempt to justify Senator Obama's weak candidacy. They give him historically inaccurate leway in his extreme inexperience as a presidential candidate.

1. Zeleny, Jeff, and Jim Rutenberg. "A Delegator, Obama Picks When to Take Reins." The New York Times 16 June 2008. 16 June 2008 .

The Clean Up Job

2008-05-15T14:48:00.000-07:00

The left-wing uproar about President Bush's comments this morning at the Knesset are simply the beginning of the Democratic Party's clean-up job in the wake of Barack Obama's liberal views becoming known for what they really are.

Will Bunch of the Philaldelphia Daily News nicely exemplifies the type of comments that we have begun to see (note his article title in the bibliography):

"...When the president speaks to a foreign parliament on behalf of our country, his message needs to be clear and unambiguous. Our democracy may look messy to outsiders, and we may have our disagreements with some sharp elbows thrown around, but at the end of the day we are not Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives.

We are Americans." (Bunch, 2008)

This statement seems to contradict what Sen. Obama's communications director has said: that Bush's remarks were just cowboy dimplomacy. Or, as many would interpret this, direct and unambiguous diplomacy Let's take a look:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along... We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." (Stolberg, 2008)

Now it does not get much clearer than that.

Before the sensitive and soft Obama, who, as we have seen, attempts to be above the fray in every way including criticism (i.e. Jeremiah Wright, William Aires), this would have been looked at as just another speech by Bush. But now there is a serious presidential candidate who wants to negotiate with "terrorists and radicals," and it makes Obama uncomfortable to hear Bush state something that he has always believed.

There are two things that must be made clear.

Firstly, Obama is not the first person to want to negotiate with Ahmadinejad, Bashar-al-Asad (president of Syria) and others, and therefore it is just a bit self-centered to assume that he is the only target of Bush's remarks. There are not many U.S. leaders as "naive" as Obama, a word used by former presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Biden to describe the notion of talking with such leaders. But Bush could have been referring to former Pres. Jimmy Carter and his recent trip to visit Hamas. Ed Gillespie pointed out that the speech was actually modified so that it would not sound as if it were referring directly to Carter. Obama is a bit self-centered to think that the Bush administration's tactics revolve around him.

Secondly, the reason why Obama takes such offense at this speech, is that it makes him very uncomfortable to see the leaders of Israel, to which millions of Jews worldwide look to for leadership, applauding a speech like this that is in direct contrast with what his own policy goals are. After his twenty year long history with the virulently anti-Semitic Trinity Church of Christ was made known in the last few months, Obama has discovered that he has more than one problem getting support of the Jewish community in America. He saw the gap between himself and the Jewish community widening with this morning's speech and sought immediately to counteract it in every way possible.

Obama is finding it harder and harder to keep himself beyond criticism. He is quickly loosing his rock star appeal as the substance of his extremely liberal views become known for what they are. This weeks events are just the beginning of what we will see as the Democratic party tries to rescue Obama from the disaster that his as yet unknown policy positions will create.

1. Bunch, Will. "President Bush Committed Political Treason Today." Philadelphia Daily News 15
May 2008. 15 May 2008

2. Stolberg, Sheryl G. "Bush Speech Criticized as Attack on Obama." New York Times 15 May
2008. 15 May 2008
.

Cowboy Diplomacy

2008-05-15T11:24:00.000-07:00

Is it a good idea for Obama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, to be criticizing Bush over and over again for his so called "cowboy diplomacy"? After all what Americans want is a politician who is down to earth and who at least appears to tell us what, exactly, it is that he or she believes, isn't it? We have shown this to be true time and again, and Obama is making a miscalculation if he thinks that Bush's and potentially McCain's obvious style of straight talk in both diplomacy and domestic affairs is what will throw Republicans out of office.

As Ben Shapiro points out in his recent book Project President, Americans have, in a majority of circumstances, preferred what he calls a "boots" approach to a "suits" approach to politics. This meaning, that we often prefer straight-talking, home-grown, common-folk presidents to stuffy "suits." This is much of the reason why we preferred Jackson over Quincy Adams, Taylor over Polk, Reagan over both Carter and Mondale. (Shapiro, 2008)

If there is anything that Americans have never been able to take away from President Bush and his hopeful successor John McCain is that they have been and are straight talkers. This has been a large part of both of their appeals. Middle-class, common-folk Americans can relate to this. And, as the Democratic Primary has shown, most middle class American Democrats, not to speak of the Republicans, cannot relate to Barack Obama's often airy, unsubstantive, overly-populist, above the fray style of politicking.

What Americans have shown to love time and again are real, genuine, politicians who speak their mind. Americans like it when politicians occasionally engage in so-called "cowboy diplomacy" like Reagan at the Berlin Wall or, to a lesser extent, like Bush this week at the Knesset. Obama must learn this and fast or his election hopes will continue to grow more dim as the months go on.

1. Shapiro, Ben. Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House. Thomas
Nelson, 2008.

Who Really Wants to Raise Taxes?

2008-05-14T16:00:00.000-07:00

Whether or not you pay attention to it, politics affects our lives in enormous ways every day.

The most direct way for every American is tax.

You just have to look at your most recent paycheck or a recent sales receipt to see this. Votes by 535 people in Washington can change the number of cents that are subtracted from every dollar that you make, the number dollars that the government gets every hour that you work. The rate of federal income tax, Social Security Tax, and Medicare Tax are just a part of the money that politicians have chosen is the right amount that the government should get from your daily success in keeping a job.

Though many would say, especially with the state of the economy, that taxes are high enough, there are still two presidential contenders, Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL), that want to raise them further.

What arguments are these politicians making to justify higher taxes? And who of us in the American electorate are voting for politicians who make decision to take away more and more of your money?

In this blog we will look at the justifications that politicians and voters give for higher taxes. In a proceeding blog I will look into the second question of who it is that votes for politicians that espouse these ideas.

The main justification that the spokesmen and spokeswomen for higher taxes often bring up is the issue of fairness.

They ask why a multimillionaire should get just a low a tax rate as someone who makes $35,000 a year. This just isn't fair, they claim. They have more money to spare, so they should take care of more of the tax burden. It is not fair that they get more auxiliary income while a steel-mill worker or a carpenter is doing his best just to scrape by. If the rich take more of the tax burden, the less fortunate can have some relief right?

To give an example we can look at Barack Obama's campaign platform.

He has put forward what he calls a "Tax Fairness Plan." He seeks to bring tax relief to "low and middle-income" homeowners through a tax credit, as well as another tax credit for "$500 per person, and $1,000 per working-family" rather than providing "tax cut after tax cut for the wealthiest Americans" as he claims that the Bush administration has done. He will pay for this by closing "corporate loopholes and cracking down on international tax havens" and by "increasing the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends and closing the carried interest loophole." (1)

So, to the naked eye, this seems okay. Those who have less should give less, and those who have more should be required to give more right? There are a few things that are faulty in this argument when one looks closer.

Firstly, the question must be asked, how much more do you have to have to be required to give more? One must find definitions for a few terms: low-income, middle-income, and rich.

Low income, as defined by the tax system is somewhere below $31,851 a year for individuals as defined by the first two tax brackets. Middle-income is $31,851-77,100 or maybe a bit more for individuals. Many allow "middle-income" to be defined as up to $250,000. But how do we define rich? Is someone who is making $77, 101 or 250,001 rich? Their tax bracket starts there and goes all the way to $160,850. and the next (33%) goes to $349,700. Someone is getting rich somewhere in there.

But where do we draw the line? And what criterion do we set? If the price of gas goes up beyond $5 a gallon and a contracting courier is making $77,101 a year and putting $15,000-20,000 into gasoline, is he or she still considered rich? Furthermore, someone making $77,101 in San Diego California where the median price for a home is $472,000 is not as well off as someone in Minneapolis-St. Paul where the median price is $221,900. Therefore different politicians set "rich" at different income levels. One can see in the ABC debate before the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary, that Barack Obama had difficulty defining it himself. (2)

There is no shorthand way of defining "rich."

Secondly, there is the issue of job creation. People obviously need jobs to make money at all. Who creates these jobs? The rich. Rich people investing money into and starting up new companies create jobs which in turn cause more wealth for low and middle-income Americans. The more money that the government takes aways from the rich, the less they have to invest in new jobs for low and middle-income Americans.

Thirdly, the question must be asked, how do the rich get rich? They weren't all born that way were they?

No.

Many of those making $250,000 or more a year are small business owners. They are those who have started a business and built it from the ground up. They are formerly "middle-income" Americans. So if they have built up their wealth by their own hard work, why is it unfair for them to pay the same tax rate as someone who decided that they were more happy working a 9-5 job for someone else who is "rich"?

Ultimately the reasoning behind the Democratic answer to all three of the issues raised above, namely higher taxes on the "rich," can be summed up in one word:

"Fairness."

Being rich is unfair because at the base of the Obama's "Tax Fairness Plan" and other Democrat tax policy is an old philosophy, namely socialism. Karl Marx, the founder of communist philosophy, summed it up best:

"To each according to his need; from each according to his ability." (3)

In other words, each person should get just what they need and nothing more as long as they are giving just what they can and nothing more. That, to a Democrat is ultimately fair. Until we are to the point where all incomes are equal, there will be this same subtle pushing of the idea of class warfare that we have heard from the Democrat party since the days of FDR. As John Edwards put it at the 2004 Democratic National Convention:

"...We still live in a country where there are two different Americas... one, for all of those people who have lived the American dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans, everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day." (4)

1. Obama, Barack. Barack Obama: Tax Fairness for the Middle Class. Sept. 2007. 27 May 2008
.

2. Obama Double Talk on Taxes. Perf. Barack Obama, Charles Gibson. 2008. YouTube.Com. 15
May 2008 .

3. Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Penguin, 2002.

4. Edwards, John. Address. 2004 Democratic National Convention, Boston, MA. 28 July 2004.
15 May 2008 .

Barack and Propaganda

2008-04-24T09:49:00.000-07:00

As much as he claims to be moving above and beyond the old style of politics and to represent "Change We can Believe In," Barack Obama is, in recent weeks, showing himself to be a typical politician that employs the same propaganda techniques that politicians have used for centuries.

Propaganda has been defined in some contexts as 'lying by omission.' It is an old technique that has often been used by politicians and governments to shape public opinion and action in a cynical way. The U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany would be extreme examples. It is just the sort of thing that presidential candidate Barack Obama claims to be moving above and beyond.

But is he really moving beyond the old style politics that he tries to separate himself from? No. Let us take a look at a recent example of lies by omission coming out of the Obama campain.

Barack Obama released an add in the weeks preceding the Pennsylvania Democratic primary in which he said that he did not "take money from oil companies..."

This is technically true. The fact is that no Politician has taken money from an oil company, or any other corporation for that matter, since Congress's passage of the Tillman Act in 1907. This act barred all corporate donations to political candidates. But this is only the tip of the proverbial ice-berg.

Barack Obama not only omitted the Tillman Act and it's implications. He exploited the loophole mandatorily left in the law by virtue of the First Amendment. The law does not and cannot ban personal contributions from and fund raising by oil company executives and employees.

The Los Angeles Times reported on April 23 that in March alone Obama received $12,400 from oil company executives and $46,000 altogether from those who worked for oil companies. He has taken $263,000 from oil company executives, their family members, and their employees since entering the race last year. This excludes another $50,000 donated at a fund raiser put on by an oil executive and his wife.

Thus Obama's did not lie directly by saying that he received no money from oil companies, but only the most cynical observer would deny that he lied by omission. Barack Obama's action in this instance was nothing more than the same propoganda techniques that have been employed by politicians since our nation's founding.

Bill Clinton Was Right

2008-02-14T08:58:00.000-08:00

Bill Clinton's recent comments in South Carolina just before the January 28 primary, as much as they may have sounded like race-baiting, have a validity that many are unwilling to admit.

Clinton said that the candidates were "getting votes [in South Carolina], to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here" (USA Today, 2008). In essence he was saying that black people vote for black candidates, and because of South Carolina's 29.4% African American population, Hillary Clinton would not win. Furthermore after Obama's 55.4% to 26.5% win over Hillary, Bill Clinton made another comment. Said Clinton,"[African American] Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here" (ABC News Online, 2008). Again, Clinton was saying in so many words, "Blacks vote Black, and there were too many Blacks in South Carolina for Hillary to win."

Bill Clinton is right, and not just about South Carolina.

Black people do vote for the black candidate by large majorities. Obama won substantial majorities of Black people in most contests on Super Tuesday, a major factor to his wins in Alabama and Georgia. Furthermore on February 12 in the Virginia Primary, Obama won 90% of the African American vote. This is somewhat discouraging news when one considers the ideal of color-blindness. Being black does not qualify you to the presidency any more than being old does. We should be looking at policy positions, resume, character, and leadership skills.

But the encouraging news in this election, and news that is a sort of place marker for our progress on race-relations in America, is that being black does not disqualify you from being president in the eyes of white Americans.

In Iowa, a state that has only a 2.1% African American population, Obama garnered 37.6% of the Democratic vote. This was to beat John Edwards and Hillary Clinton who both received around 29%. On February 12, he received 59.7% of the Democratic vote to Clinton's 36.7% in Maryland, a state that has just a 4% African American population*. There are exceptions, as in South Carolina where Hillary carried 76% of the white vote. But overall, the nation seems to be trending in a color-blind direction. In the February 12 Virginia Primary Obama beat Hillary among whites by about 5% points.

It seems that in spite of our racist past as a nation, we truly have gotten somewhere. As can be seen from the tendency of African Americans to vote for African Americans simply based on their race and tendencies of whites in the southern united states, we still have some work to do. But it seems clear that whether or not Obama wins the Democratic nomination or the presidency, his candidacy has been solid evidence of an ever improving situation of race-relations in the United States.

* John Edwards dropped out of the race on 30 January.

1. "Bill Clinton Says Race, Gender to Decide S.C. Vote." USA Today 24 Jan. 2008. 14 Feb. 2008
.

2. Tapper, Jake P. "Bubba: Obama is Just Like Jesse Jackson." Editorial. ABC News Online 26
Jan. 2008.

Barack Obama

2008-02-01T09:14:00.000-08:00

The young and relatively new Senator Barack Obama (IL) is very close to beating Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), the former First Lady and the most connected woman in politics, for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Not only is Obama within 6 points of Clinton among likely voters nationally according to a 31 January Gallup pole, but people like him more on a visceral level. In a January 24 , 2008 Washington Journal/NBC poll only 14% of people had a very negative feeling toward Barack Obama, as opposed to 30% towards Clinton. Furthermore 49% of registered voters polled had either a "somewhat" or "very" positive feeling toward Obama to Clinton's 47%. These positive feelings toward Obama, in my estimation, are a product of his ability to project himself as a national uniter and a "change" candidate. This image, when projected against the backdrop of the Clintons, the most established family in Democratic politics, has been highly successful for Obama. (NBC/Washington Journal 2007)

In fact bringing unity to the nation is, according to himself, the reason why he is running. In an interview given to the Washington Post on August 14, 2007, Obama said that he believed that he could "bring the country together in a way [Hillary Clinton] cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running." (Washington Post, 2007)

A recent development could change this dynamic though. Barack Obama has just been rated the most liberal member of the Senate by a National Journal study. (NJ, 2008)

Mainstream politicians, even Democrats, try to avoid the "liberal" moniker. Being a liberal is often seen as the antithesis of being a change candidate that will bring unity because of the partisanship associated with the term (Real Clear Politics, 2007). It has been used rarely, if at all, by both Obama and Clinton when referring to themselves. This is unlike the "conservative" label, a sort of mantle, in conjunction with the Reagan legacy, which the Republican presidential candidates have been trying to take on. The word "conservative" was used seventeen times in the most recent CNN Republican debate (CNN, 2008). In a debate last June 5 it was used 55 times (N.Y. Times, 2007). In the most recent Democratic debate, "liberal" was used twice. One of those uses was a negative term in a question by Doyle Mcmanus of the L.A. Times (CNN, 2008).

Some disagree that Obama being characterized as a liberal will affect his candidacy, however. In response to the study of voting records that labeled Barack Obama the most "liberal" member of the Senate, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said that, like in his own 2004 presidential campaign, this label would have no impact on Obama's bid. "People are tired of the stupidity of these labels. They're tired of that game" said Kerry, who ran against incumbent president George W. Bush. (NJ, 2008)

Kerry is right that Americans want less partisanship. In a Harris Poll conducted in May 2005 79% of Americans, when given the choice between favoring or opposing, favored moderate candidates . While only 48% favored conservative and 41% favored liberal candidates. Furthermore 67% favored an independent candidate as opposed to 46% and 56% for conservative and liberal candidates respectively. Should the American people get their way, partisanship will subside. (Harris, 2005)

But there is a key difference that John Kerry is missing between himself and Senator Obama: incumbent President George W. Bush, the reason why many people now want less partisanship in politics.

Bush's tenure as president has been marked by tremendous partisanship. One of Bush's senior political advisers said during his first term that Bush's presidency "is designed to be [one] that moves as much as possible of what we believe into law while holding 50 plus one of the country and the Congress." It seems evident from the Harris poll that the American people are tired of this political philosophy. (NYtimes, 2007)

It is because of this climate of distaste for partisanship that Barack Obama could be hurt by the National Journal study. The very reason why the liberal moniker did not affect Kerry is because of the high level of partisanship in the 2004 election. It was not an election in which Kerry or Bush were trying to rise above politics as usual and bring an end to partisanship. It was an "us v. them" election.

Bush's advisers said it best in their campaign strategy: Choice, not Referendum. In other words their whole strategy was to focus people on the choice between Bush and Kerry; the Republicans and the Democrats; the conservatives and the liberals. In a November 1, 2004 speech to a Pittsburgh audience Bush said, "Ultimately the election comes down to, who do you trust?" (Draper, 264). Then there was Kerry's famous response to the GOP calling him a "liberal" in January 2004. Said Kerry, "I look forward to talking to real Americans about the real issues, and I'll tell you, we're ready. Bring it on" (emphasis added). In 2004 we saw partisan warfare. (CNN, 2004)

In 2008 the buzz words are "change" and "unity," and this is what Barack Obama seeks to represent as can be seen from countless speeches and advertisements throughout the campaign. Republican candidate Mike Huckabee demonstrated the political tone of this election best on Jay Leno's show on 2 January: "Everything in this country is not left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. I think the country is looking for somebody who is vertical, who is thinking, 'Let’s take America up and not down.'" (The Tonight Show, 2008)

Barack Obama has tried to represent this very type of politician who rises above the fray, the candidate that will unite us all. One of his Campaign mottoes has been "Change We can Believe In." As the details about Obama's resume come out, and with it his extremely liberal record, it will become increasingly difficult for him to be seen as the candidate that will end partisanship and bring change and unity. Unlike John Kerry in 2004, the liberal label could be very damaging Obama's campaign.

1. Survey September 7-10, 2007. NBC/Washington Journal. NBC/Washington Journal, 2007. 4 Feb. 2008 .

2. Balz, Dan. "Obama Says He Can Unite U.S. 'More Effectively' Than Clinton." Washington Post 15 Aug. 2007. 4 Feb. 2008 .

3. Friel, Brian, Richard E. Cohen, and Kirck Victor. "Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007."
National Journal (2008). 4 Feb. 2008 .

4. Brown, Peter. "Obama: Uniter or Just a Liberal?" Real Clear Politics (2007). 4 Feb. 2008 .
2. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=572

5. GOP Debate. 30 Jan. 2008, CNN. 4 Feb. 2008 . 6. GOP Debate. 5 June 2007, CNN / YouTube. 4 Feb. 2008 .

7. Democratic Debate. 31 Jan. 2008, CNN / YouTube. 4 Feb. 2008 .

8. Partisanship is Not What Most of the American Public Desires. Harris Interactive. 2005. 4 Feb. 2008 .

9. Kakutani, Michiko. "Division of the U.S. Didn’T Occur Overnight." New York Times 13 Nov. 2007. 4 Feb. 2007 .

10. Draper, Robert. Dead Certain. Free P, 2007. 264.

11. "Kerry to GOP: 'Bring It on'" CNN Online (2004). 4 Feb. 2008 .

12. Huckabee, Mike. Interview with Jay Leno. The Tonight Show. 2 Jan. 2008. NBC. Los Angeles, CA. 2 Jan. 2008.

MLK Day

2008-01-21T10:56:00.000-08:00

On MLK day, we often examine whether or not we have become as egalitarian in the United States as King desired. Today I want to look at race-blindness, or lack thereof, in politics.

As hard as it is to see sometimes, most people in America have a lot of things in common politically. One of these commonalities is the belief in the equality of all races. As Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, we believe that "all men are created equal" and that we all want "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We believe in the rights of all to vote as laid out in the Constitution. But there have been inconsistencies between these written ideals and our actions as a nation.

Although "all men are created equal" we allowed slavery for almost an hundred years. Then the Jim Crow era of segregation in the southern United States segregated African Americans to a lower standard of living in almost every area of life.

We have been greatly imperfect but have improved greatly. With the abolition of slavery and Jim Crow we saw great strides toward equality. Now 43 of the 435 members of the U.S. House of representatives are black: a figure that very close to the 13% of the population that African Americans occupy. We now see more African Americans successful in all areas of life. American Express executive Kenneth Chenault and Xerox executive A. Barry Rand, Musicians Kanye West and Alicia Keys, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and presidential candidate Barack Obama are all examples of increasing equality for African Americans in all areas of life.

But we still see signs of a divide between races in America.

The divide is not as often between whether a candidate is black or white as whether the voter is black or white. The Republican party did not receive more than 15% of the African American vote between 1984 and 2004 and in 2006 the Republicans got just 10% of the African American vote.

Given all the other signs of equality, does it not seem that the African American vote would line up more evenly with the rest of the popular vote, especially because so many African American are socially conservative? Is the only conclusion we can reach that the Republican party represents racist and bigoted ideas?

No.

In American voting, for all intents and purposes, we have two alternatives: the Democrats and the Republicans. In his book The Semisovereign People, famed political scientist E.E. Schattschneider said that in politics "the definition of alternatives is the supreme instrument of power." (Schattschneider, 1975)

If some political entity can effectively provide misinformation to the African American community about the Republican party, they can effectively re-define the alternatives. Should the alternatives be the racist and bigoted Republicans against the neutral Democrats. It is obvious who they would chose.

But it is hard to call a party racist that, In recent years, has given us Colin Powell, the first African American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, the first African American Woman to serve as Secretary of State, and Clarence Thomas, the second African American to serve on the Supreme Court. And the list could go on.

Granted there have been those who have racist tendencies in the Republican party in the past: Trent Lott comes to mind. But at some point a party must be allowed to redeem itself. After all, the Democrats were the party of slavery. And the first African American congress-people in the postbellum South such as Hiram Rhodes Revels and Joseph Rainey were Republicans. In fact the Democratic Party still has the only sitting member of Congress that is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, namely Robert C. Byrd.

It is in countless sound-bites and editorials that the racist myths about the Republican party have been perpetuated in the eyes of African Americans and others. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D; Nevada) called an English language requirement amendment to the Constitution racist, it was just the kind of false definition of alternatives that we should all fear. He was implying those who support the amendment, namely Republicans, were racist and the Democrats were not simply based on support or opposition for a single bill. Or When Time Magazine columnist Jack White talked about the Republican party's "four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting" with reference to only two instances of potentially racist intentions it is misinformation that can lead to just the type of unfounded disparity in African American voting that was demonstrated above. (White, 2002)

Granted there are bigoted and even racist ideas on the far right. Look at Ron Paul's history and you will find them. But when one closely examines the core ideas and standard-bearers of the Republican party, they would truly be hard pressed to find racist policies or politicians.

1. Schattschneider, E. E. The Semisovereign People. Harcourt Brace College, 1975.

2. White, Jack. "Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism." Time 14 Dec. 2002. 23 Jan. 2008

Opening Blog

2008-01-16T16:23:00.000-08:00

Welcome to my blog. I will be posting weekly throughout this year.

My ambitions for this blog are to sharpens my writing skills while, hopefully, contributing to the social and political dialogue that the Blogosphere contains. In lieu of my hopes of improving writing and argumentation skills, comments, critiques, and debate are more than welcome.

All in all, I greatly look forward to debate and dialogue with you all on Blogger.com

Kind Regards,

Josiah