Third Policeman

If SOPA or PIPA Passes Congress, My Blog Could Look Like This

2012-01-17T20:30:00.004-07:00

*This post removed by order of the United States District Court under authority of U.S.C. § 32-232.

Marrying to Be Married

2012-01-13T12:08:00.005-07:00

I wonder if anyone else has ever felt this way: you're dating someone, things are going great, but you find yourself drifting. The chemistry starts to fizzle, and you each find your hearts going a different direction. One of you eventually brings it up, you acknowledge each other's feelings, you decide to part ways, the relationship ends amicably, and you may or may not remain friends. This is a healthy, normal way of dating. I'll return to this idea later.

In many cultures, especially Christian and other religious-centered ones, there is an emphasis placed on the importance of pairing off and getting married. It is our duty to God and to our future children, we say. I would largely agree with that sentiment. However, I fear that some people take this call to action as just that--a call to action--and not necessarily a call to fall in love with someone.

Getting married for the sake of being married is something I am not interested in, and I think it's why a significant number of young people in our generation (generation x? y? I have no idea what we're called) are waiting longer to be married. Divorce is a growing trend in the United States, and it has even claimed a large number of marriages in the Christian world, too. Our parents' culture placed a similar, more universal pressure on young people to marry young, and we are seeing one of the possible side effects of that pressure--divorce. Now, please do not misunderstand, I am not saying that marrying young leads to divorce. I am merely saying that marrying for the sake of being married leads to divorce.

I am sure that there are a number of marriages where people have settled with their partner, to one extent or another. They knew that it was important to be married, they looked past certain flaws (be they small or large), and decided that this was it. Obviously, for some marriages this works. Most marriages succeed and produce very happy families. But, for some, there was no sufficient foundation of love, trust, and emotional intimacy formed for a marriage to survive the inevitable rough patches.

It is because of this that, for me, marriage is not about being married. Being married is nothing in and of itself. Marriage is about the bonding of two people who can't stand to be apart from each other. Marriage is about giving yourself completely to someone who you know would do anything for you. Marriage is about knowing someone. It's about falling in love with who and what they are. It is not about being married. No one person is married. Two people are united, and they are married.

If you're not married, and you want to be, take heart. Being single and lonely is a far better place than being married and miserable. Once again, I am a big advocate of marriage--probably bigger than anyone you know. But if you are older than you'd like to be and still single, know that it's okay to be single. If you haven't loved someone yet, it's okay. Find the person you can't stand to live without, and then worry about being married. No matter whether you are young or old, when you find someone that you love (among a panoply of other things necessary for a marriage), that is when you should get married.

I return to my first hypothetical paragraph above. When we finish a relationship, we are often distraught that we are doomed to further singledom. But, this is not the case. If the relationship ended, then you weren't meant to be married, and you're overall happier than you would be otherwise. Take everything from your failed relationships, square your shoulders, thank God for your life and health, and then face your next relationship with optimism and hope. Not marrying someone doesn't matter. Just keep looking for that person you can't live without.

Author's Note: My ideas were originally inspired by this blog post.

Why We're Broke: an Example

2011-11-12T13:54:00.006-07:00

I strongly disapprove of President Obama's job performance. No, it's not just because he's a leftist on nearly every issue (except for eliminating foreign despots [nice job, Mr. President]). It's because of stories like this. Obama has awarded a $443 million smallpox vaccine contract to Siga Technologies, Inc. Why is this a big deal? Allow the story to speak for itself:

Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a "sole-source" procurement in which it was the onlycompany asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation's biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government's specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews.

Consider this: the U.S. government already owns $1 billion of the smallpox vaccine at the price of $3 per dose. And then there's the kicker: Siga is owned by Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world's richest men (a 1%'er) and a long time Democrat Party donor. Not only does this show obvious political cronyism, but in a time when Obama himself calls for an end to a lack of fiscal discipline, moves like this show us that Obama has no interest in really solving the debt crisis. George W. Bush, Obama, and spend-crazy Congress's have spent trillions of dollars we don't have, and are destroying the financial integrity of our country. In Novemeber, remember moves like this, and you'll be able to tell your friends why you couldn't stomach voting for Barack H. Obama.

still night

2011-11-11T16:05:00.004-07:00

In honor of Veteran's Day and all those who have served in battle, I've decided to finally share a poem I began in 2008 and have been working on since. It's still a work in progress, but I think most good things are.

I tried my best to capture what war must feel, smell, taste like. In a few stanzas, I tried to place myself in the hell that is war, and not censor it. If you are offended by coarse language, don't go to war. Please enjoy.

still night

by d.b. woolston

darkness captured us too quickly,

tied and gagged us. sleep

staggered outside the foxhole--

no man's land.

day! sweet god in heaven, day!

rounds exploding, throwing heat and light--

sonofabitch. still night.

down the line, i see the same, tired people.

blood and mud caked together baked in the sun,

sweat and urine making the same

sick smell. i hate this

godforsaken place. my back is to the

hell, leaning against the

ragged, wet,

wounded earth, roots and rocks

stabbing and soaking me. my hands are

rotting, resting in pools made from last hour's, day's, week's

war. my skin is white and flaking, dry and

wet. my feet are always wet and the smell. the

smell.

day!--no, i've got this now, cover your head--

grenade. pieces of metal fling nearby.

still night.

darkness wins today, i

sink deeper into the mud wall. give me just one

still night.

The Most Wonderful Time of the Year, or MLB Playoff Predictions

2011-09-29T23:55:00.004-07:00

October is the most wonderful time of the year. Besides it being my birthday, October means playoff baseball. If the last few games of the regular season are an indication of things to come, this will be the best. playoffs. ever.

Here are my 4th annual MLB Playoff Predictions:

ALDS:

Rays over Rangers in 5

Yankees over Tigers in 4

NLDS:

Phillies over Cardinals in 3

Diamondbacks over Brewers in 4

League Championships:

Yankees over Rays in 6

Diamondbacks over Phillies in 7

World Series

Yankees over Diamondbacks in 6

Whatever happens, go DBacks. Enjoy the most wonderful time of the year.

The University of Miami Blows Up

2011-08-17T21:58:00.003-07:00

Another week, another NCAA Football program hits the front pages of the internet, and it has nothing to do with the play on the field. Yahoo! Sports' Charles Robinson conducted a meticulous investigation of the University of Miami, one of college football's premiere programs over the last 20 years, and uncovered that at least 72 players had recieved impermissible benefits from at least one booster that were worth millions of dollars. We've heard of the scandals that rocked Ohio State and USC, but Miami puts them to shame. Among the "benefits" given to Miami football players:

At least 39 players were given visits by prostitutes, both at local hotels, or on Nevin Shapiro's (the main booster involved) million dollar yacht.
Countless direct cash payouts to players, also including clothing, jewelry, and rims.
Coordinated visits to night clubs and strip clubs.
Paid for an abortion when one player impregnated a stripper, provided by Shapiro.
Many other similar benefits.

Shapiro is already in jail for being involved in a billion dollar ponzi scheme. This is an enormous wake up call to the NCAA, who was probably looking the other way for years on many of these offenses. Not only is much of this illegal, it is an absolute disgrace to college football and an affront to every school who is trying to win the right way (how many of those institutions may be left). How many other schools have similar tales to tell? My guess: lots.

The NCAA needs to investigate and make a decision on how to punish Miami. In my opinion, the only course of action is the death penalty--blow up Miami Football. Finished. Kaput. The standard needs to be set now because it is only a matter of time until other boosters and coaches are going to feel the pressure and spill the goods on their own institutions. If drastic action isn't taken, it will be disaster for NCAA football, one of the most profitable and popular sports in America. If Washington needs reform, the NCAA needs even more.

Angry Hyperbole--Rick Perry and Washington

2011-08-16T20:52:00.006-07:00

As suddenly as Texas Governor Rick Perry entered the race, he's placed his foot in his mouth over comments made about Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. But, perhaps the worst part of it is that he probably doesn't think it was a gaffe at all.

When Perry's name floated to the top of the rumor barrel over a White House run, the media none too subtly pointed to the similarities between Perry and Former President George W. Bush. It was all there--the swagger, the accent, the boots, the often deriding tone toward all things Washington. I scoffed, figuring it was a typical lefty attack on a conservative, and an obvious attempt to make a connection to the unpopular former President. But, if this recent remark is a sign of things to come, Perry is everything that conservatism needs to drop, and fast.

Perry said that he would consider it "treasonous" if Bernanke "prints more money between now and the election" and puts politics ahead of what's right for the country. He continued: ""If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all will do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas." I don't think Perry was openly advocating violence--I'm not going to play those games. I simply think it was an ignorant thing to say.

Yes, many of us agree that another round of "quantitative easing" would be disastrous for the economy. Many of us think the Tea Party has fiscal policy backwards. Others think Obama is marching our country to financial enslavement. But, Bernanke is not a traitor (which is, in fact, punishable by death under Federal Law), the Tea Party is not composed of "terrorists," and Obama is not Hitler. When we resort to hyperbolic labels, we miss all substance and ignore that which we should be debating. I strongly encourage debate, conflict, argument, and even some anger over politics. That means democracy is alive and well. But, when we resort to bombastic catchphrases to pander to a crowd, the speaker loses and gullible listeners become that much harder to bring back to normality.

Perry, you may have already lost me. If you're going to play these games, Bush is going to be the last Texan President for a while. This kind of talk isn't Texan, it's just stupid. Pardner.

The Riots of Entitlement

2011-08-12T13:12:00.003-07:00

As London continues to burn, commentators are struggling to identify exactly why and how it all started. Some have pointed to the shooting death of a black man by London police, others to the proposed cuts in social programs in an attempt to balance the budget, or just general unrest between youth and police. The real reason is far easier to identify. The mental caliber of the rioters proves that they are largely unable to handle a concept as nuanced as those mentioned above.

The real reason is that the youthful rioters have no reason. A large portion of the rising generation of Londoners have been raised in a peaceful haven of social government coddling. A life of ease and relative peace has filled young Londoners with a sense of entitlement, but was subsequently mixed with a general disdain for all things that appear to be "establishment." It's the classic desire to "stick it to the man." When unrest initially broke out, the rioters might have had a reason, but that quickly disintegrated into an aimless desire to destroy and steal. Rather than petition the government for redress (if they know what that means), they simply want to have something to get angry about (or a reason to steal electronics). The victims have been thousands of small business owners and citizens who have had their homes and business destroyed and looted.

Governments can tax and recover. Small business owners who fought in vain to protect their stores now are struggling to pick up the pieces, most doomed to never reopen. Likely gaining some of their inspiration from the rampant protests dotting the Middle East and northern Africa, the London rioters thought they could also combine their social media-savvy with their anger and protest--but they really had nothing to protest. If they were truly that angry over necessary cuts in entitlement programs, they have the right to petition Parliament. But, that's never what it was about. Entitlement and a lack of a sense of morality and work ethic has pushed much of London to the brink of chaos. Here's to the British government putting every single rioter behind bars.

A Proposal for Eight New Words

2011-03-02T17:04:00.005-07:00

The English language is beautiful in all its nuanced goodness. The most beautiful part, in my opinion, is how the language evolves to the world around it. Usually these changes take place gradually, spreading throughout conversation and the written word. But they all have to start somewhere, right? What follows is my proposal for some very useful words that would save us syllables and sentence restructuring.

We are all familiar with the words "once," "twice," and the occasional "thrice" (although I sometimes get a raised eyebrow at that one). "Once" replaces "one time," and so on. So, why do we have just three, and only two that are generally accepted in modern speech? My proposal is for eight new "instance words," i.e., the number of times you have done something. The new words encompass zero, and four through ten. For example, picture this conversation:

Person 1: "Yeah, I've only been to Yankee Stadium once."

Person 2: "Hey, I've been there _____."

With what did you fill in that blank? Zero times? It's both a mouthful and wrong-sounding. You could reword it, but the point is to simplify, right? Bear with me, have an open mind, and behold the new list of instance words, zero through ten. Keep in mind that each word replaces the number followed by "times."

0: Zoce

1: Once

2: Twice

3: Thrice

4: Frice

5: Fice (I am open to considering changing this one to "vice" to avoid too much similarity to "frice")

6: Sice

7: Sevice (the first syllable is quick-- se-vice, almost like svice)

8: Eighce (pronounced "ice")

9: Nice

10: Tice

Sure, they sound ridiculous at first, but consider the utility of these words. Instead of "I've seen that movie zero times." or "I've never seen that movie." Listen to "I've seen that movie zoce." If you like my suggestions, consider using them in your conversations. If anyone says anything, tell them that Shakespeare invented 1,700 words. Why not try and change some English? I promise it will be fun.

(I've reread this frice and am having trouble publishing this considering all the red squiggles everywhere.)

The Daniel Woolston Miracle Diet (Lose Weight--GUARANTEED!)

2011-02-05T16:19:00.003-07:00

One of my more enjoyable hobbies over the years is to hear people talk about creative ways to lose weight: pills, all-carb diets, no-carb diets, grapefruit juice, infomercial exercise machines. They may work for a short period of time (if at all), but once you stop, the weight comes right back (and it probably doesn't make you any healthier.

I'm no dietitian and I'm no scientist, but I've gleaned a few basic principles from my schooling. If you spend more energy than you take in, your body has to take that energy from something other than the food you're eating. If you take in more energy than your body is spending, it gets stored.

So, here's my miracle diet. I copyrighted it a few years ago.

The Daniel Woolston Miracle Diet:

1. Don't eat as many calories.

2. Replace some unhealthy foods with healthy foods.

3. Exercise.

I could make millions on this, but rather than write a book, I thought I'd just blog about it. I know it's complicated, but it's 99.9% effective. I guarantee it.

The Most Wonderful Time of the Year

2010-10-05T22:17:00.003-07:00

I love baseball. At the end of tonight's "Baseball Tonight" on ESPN, they showed a five-minute retrospective of the season, and the sweet memories almost made me cry (seriously).

On that wonderful note, here are my predictions for this years baseball playoffs (In 2008, I correctly predicted the World Series teams and outcome):

National League Division Series:

Giants over Braves

Reds over Phillies

American League Division Series:

Rays over Rangers

Yankees over Twins

NLCS:

Giants over Reds

ALCS:

Rays over Yankees

World Series:

Rays over Giants in 6

Why I Watch Lost

2010-05-19T18:45:00.010-07:00

Lost is almost over. For those of you who don't watch, I honestly don't know how applicable this post will be for you, but I hope you capture the idea of what Lost is to me. You may think it ridiculous that a grown man feels so strongly about a television show, but I honestly don't mind. Lost is part science fiction, part serial drama, part classic literature, and part action-thriller. Since we're a mere four days from the series finale, I thought I try to encapsulate my thoughts and feelings and ideas about a show that is so much more than that--its a presentation of everything that is good about storytelling in 121.5 hours of cinematic perfection.

I first tried to watch Lost back in the summer of 2006. I was recently returned from my mission and had been away from television for two years. I don't remember what I had heard about Lost, but my younger brother worked at Hollywood video and could check out DVDs for free, so I figured I'd give this seemingly interesting show a shot. Anytime I find a television show worth watching, I feel like I've struck oil. A good movie is like finding a coin at the beach--you've stumbled upon something great, but you enjoy it once and its over. No more stories, no character development, nothing. Its still worth finding, but its nothing to blog about. But that great television show has the potential to deliver hour after hour of new twists and stories (case in point: Seinfeld, 24, X-Files, etc.).

So, Andrew brought home disc one of season one of Lost. I can't remember how much of it we watched together, but I was fairly interested. The pilot set up so much potential for really enthralling storytelling. It felt like a path in the forest that suddenly branches into 15 different paths, and each one would be a blast to traverse, but you can only do one at a time, so you patiently explore each option. The first few episodes of season one felt that way to me, but it just started to drag to me. I quickly fell into the cynical rut: "these guys are just making this up as they go along," I thought. I don't specifically remember at what point I stopped watching, but I only made it five or six episodes. Then I stopped.

Flash forward to late 2007. A movie trailer caught my eye one night on the TV, and I usually hate movie trailer--they show too much, they're all the same, etc. This one was different. This movie didn't even have a name; all it had was a date: 1-18-08. "That's pretty awesome," I thought. The trailer didn't give away the whole story. Instead, it left me confused, excited, and curious all at once. The movie was Cloverfield, directed by J.J. Abrams, creator of Lost. I went to the movie opening night in digital. There might even be a blog post about my experience somewhere deep within the archives of my blog. Cloverfield immediately became one of my favorite movies of all time--but not for the reason you might expect. It wasn't because of the action, or the surprises, or even the storyline. I loved it because it told the story in a completely new way. For the first 10 minutes, I thought I was in the wrong theater. A sudden burst of action made the first 10 minutes almost pointless. The entire movie was filmed with a handheld camera, sometimes falling on the ground for a minute at a time. Key characters died with no regard to normal movie conventions. There was no happy ending--in fact, the main characters both die. Everyone dies. The monster wins.

I loved Cloverfield because it felt like Mr. Abrams respected my intelligence. He didn't use a fill-in-the-blank stock movie script. He told the story he wanted to and made the viewers feel something completely different. J.J. Abrams was my new favorite person-I-don't-know in the world. So, I thought I'd give Lost another shot.

Thanks to abc.com, I started watching season one of Lost one more time in late January of 2008. I watched it with a new interest, knowing that I was going to love it. It was slowly growing on me until "Solitary," the ninth episode of season one. When Sayid--a character that left the rest of the group three or four episodes earlier--finds a wire running from the ocean into the jungle, I was hooked. I knew that this show was going to be something bigger than anything I had ever watched before. I watched nearly four seasons in about five months and have watched seasons five and six as the episodes came out each week.

The Characters

As I was watching a Lost-related YouTube video today, I realized why Lost is so special--the characters. The writers trust the audience to be patient and to allow the characters time to develop into deep, complicated people. Many Lost imitators (like V or FlashForward), or any other drama for that matter, struggle to create characters that the viewer cares about. So many shows blast through stacks of plot in just the first few episodes in a desperate attempt to capture viewers. But Lost took a different approach: it spent a week on each character, introducing you to a new character and why he or she was on Oceanic 815 when it went down. The result were characters that acted naturally in situations. They didn't rattle off trite action show lines, but spoke naturally--and it worked.

Thanks to Lost's artistry, we have characters like Jack, the divorced doctor with a penchant for fixing things while everything and everyone around him crumble; Sawyer, the con-man with a pure heart that slowly allows himself to be real; Charlie, the drug-addicted rock and roll wash-up that struggles between good and his addiction to fame; or Jin and Sun, the estranged Korean couple--Jin fearing the shame of his poor past and Sun struggling to emerge from the shadow of her tyrannical husband. Despite their faults--or perhaps because of them--the audience falls in love with the cast, all 14 of the original castaways and more.

Literary Technique

I never liked reading books that my teachers forced me to read. I usually just read the Spark's Notes to get me through the quizzes. But, as I grew older, I realized that most of the books they wanted us to read were selected for a reason--excellent writing. While Lost dons its sci-fi shroud well, it is really a fine piece of literature. Every episode is connected to every other episode through more than just its story. It is connected through literary devices that magnify the story and act as easter eggs to the fans dedicated enough to notice them. Certain seasons featured characters wearing a certain color more than others. When a character was wearing white, it was usually for a reason. Lines are repeated over and over to create a sense of continuity. No fan can ever hear a line like "Don't tell me what I can't do!" without thinking of Lost. Metaphor, irony, juxtaposition, are common place in Lost. And, it uses them without any feelings of pretension.

Themes

While Lost can be enjoyed on a basic level of character developments and week to week plot twists, it touches on loftier topics. Life and death are a common topic. Perhaps no episode did this better than "Do No Harm," in which Boone dies and Aaron is born, and you don't even realize the connection until both have occurred. A crowd gathers around Claire and Aaron in the morning at the beach to welcome the new baby as Shannon, Boone's sister walks around the corner to meet Jack, and she learns of Boone's death. Good versus evil, war, love, and many others fill Lost's seasons with more than just the island.

The Mythology

Speaking of the island, perhaps no aspect of Lost has been more rewarding to its fans than the history of the island. When Sayid found the wire in season one, I knew that the island was so much bigger than anyone had imagined. When Locke and Boone found the hatch during the first season, I was so incredibly invested in the mythology of the island, I knew I'd be watching even if the show ever jumped the shark. When Locke pounded on the hatch screaming at the island for leaving him alone, we saw one of the most amazing moments in the entire show, and all it took was a light turning on inside. The swan, the instructional videos, the others, Charles Widmore and Benjamin Linus, Jacob, the Man in Black. Lost did mythology better than any show has ever done.

The Cliffhanger

Granted, the cliffhanger is nothing new. Shows have done it for years, but few have done it as consistently as Lost (maybe 24). While every seasons surely ended with a cliffhanger (What's in the hatch? Who are the Others? Who's on the freighter? Wait, the island moved? Did the nuke work?), nearly every episode ended that way, and sometimes even each commercial break. I don't recommend anyone watch Lost without a DVR. It's too hard.

Science vs. Faith

Early in Lost's run, we saw two character emerge as dramatic foils: Jack Shepard, the rational thinking, masses-inspiring, scientific leader; and John Locke, the free-thinking, destiny-believing, spiritual leader. Viewers quickly took sides. Was the island just an island, and did the survivors just need to escape as quickly as possible? Or was everyone there for a reason? Viewers discovered the deeper secrets of the island with Locke, only to watch his faith waver as the island tested him--or so he thought. Ironically, after being manipulated by his father before he arrived on the island to steal his kidney, he was manipulated by an anicent inhabitant of the island that needed both John's body and time-travel to secure his plans. Locke was a necessary pawn in the process. Most redeeming, however, is Jack's subsequent conversion to Locke's philosophy--he is on the island for a reason.

Books

On a level often unrelated to the story, Lost places books throughout all the seasons. Talking about this, the writers said there was no specific reason for it. They just love books and thought drawing attention to great books that may or may not be related to the story would be fun. Since starting Lost, I've read or am reading many of the books I've seen on screen--Watership Down, Catch-22, The Third Policeman (written by Flann O'Brien, my now-favorite author), and A Wrinkle in Time, to name a few. That's just awesome.

Fandom

Losties are a special group of people. While there are degrees of fandom, most losties are hooked. When I meet a fellow lostie, discussions soon turn to smoke monsters, time travel, split timelines, or Benjamin Linus. Hopefully this post will connect a few more Losties. Every Tuesday night, I meet with a great group of people that unite to watch Lost, and then analyze for 30 minutes (seriously). We embrace our geekiness with pride.

The End

If you've seen Lost, you understand my love for this amazing show. I can be a very passionate person, and I'm passionate about good literature. For me, Lost rises to this level. In all seriousness, the last 2 1/2 years have been an interesting journey for my life, and Lost has been a beautiful distraction. The way in which someone may confide in you how one of Dickens' characters truly spoke to him in Great Expectations, or how she identified with one of Austen's characters in Pride and Prejudice, I feel that way about many of the characters on Lost.

Art is when someone imagines something worth communicating and then communicates that message in a way that is both beautiful and entertaining. I will miss Lost, but we can all appreciate it for what it is--a really awesome television show.

My Problem with Global Warming

2010-02-15T21:34:00.003-07:00

You can usually tell the confidence someone has in their beliefs by how they respond to unbelievers. For the past five years, we've been hearing that the debate over climate change (or global warming) is over, the scientists have spoken. Global warming skeptics were scorned. Where Christians or creationists were once the goat of progressive finger-pointing, the climate change doubters took their place. Perhaps the Tea Partiers will have to take their place, because the tide is turning (no pun intended). All those crazy global warming doubters are beginning to see some vindication.

First there was Climategate, where thousands of emails were hacked, detailing (alleged) fraud among scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Emails indicate that scientists were hiding numbers showing a decline in temperatures. Global warming was not debunked, but it put a floodlight on some of the inner-workings of climatologists at work.

In the past few weeks, a veritable flood of stories has arisen (both puns intended). First, the scientist that produced the famous "hockey stick graph" (that showed the rise in global temperatures over the past few decades) lost all the original data used to produce such findings. He has nothing to prove his work. Whoops. Additionally, a few major scientists are admitting that global temperatures over the past 15 years have actually been declining. Lastly, another scientist has admitted that certain stations reporting temperature increases have been slowly surrounded by urbanization and other heat-producing buildings (one extreme case showed a thermometer station immediately next to a air-conditioning unit).

Sure, global warming has not been debunked. But for the love of science, the debate is not over. No reports have been conclusive, and conflicting data continue to emerge. The recent snowmageddon that pounded the northeast brought global warming back into the news, and it served to highlight a major problem that I have with current global warming theorists:

As young students, we all learned the scientific method and how to develop theories. A fundamental requirement of a theory is falsifiability. Falsifiability means just what it sounds like: the theory has to be able to be proved wrong. Such seems to be the case with global warming--when it's really warm and ice is melting, proponents argue, "See? It's really hot. Global warming is real." When a snow storm hits or a deep freeze arrives in March, proponents argue, "See? It's really cold. Global warming is real." Under this guise, the only way they can be proven wrong is if the weather is always perfectly average, which is statistically implausible. There is a natural variation to the weather that produces average weather most of the time, and extreme weather occasionally (think bell curve). This is why global warming theories drive me crazy.

Global warming may be real, but it may not. If it's real, it might not even be man-made. The politicization of global warming is what irritates me the most. When those who stand to make billions from new green energy movements step away from the program, it will gain much more credibility with me. And when NBC TV celebrities tell me to change my light bulbs or turn down my air conditioner, I'd like to ask them what their thermostat in their mansion is set at. Or why they own 6 cars.

The debate is not over, and the field is leveling. Maybe its from all the arctic ice melt.

Thoughts on Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"

2010-02-12T23:42:00.004-07:00

Late this evening, I completed Ayn Rand's massive masterpiece, "Atlas Shrugged." For many years, I was too intimidated to attempt climbing this literary mountain, its tiny-texted paperback version clocking in around 1,060 pages. But, late last year I started the journey and closed the back cover tonight.

"Atlas Shrugged" is often dismissed as a bloated monument to conservatism, but I found it to be much more art than politics. The story follows the moral struggles of Dagny Taggart, the Vice President of Taggart Transcontinental, the largest railroad company in the 1960's United States. She is faced with growing government regulations, industry revenue-sharing, and state expansion into commercial affairs. Soon, many of the biggest business moguls begin disappearing, and she is faced with a tough choice--escape from the evils of government, or stay and fight.

Rand is an objectivist, a philosophy that emphasizes "rational self-interest," meaning that by seeking one's goals, others will inevitably benefit. While I don't fully subscribe to her philosophy, her undying love of individual excellence and the virtues of industry are so sorely needed in today's increasingly progressive environment. We speak so easily of universal health care, medicare, social security, and so on, without considering whether such programs are even sustainable. When you punish success through wealth redistribution, you damn economic progress. I concede that some level of social welfare is necessary and even good, the extent to which it is taken today is simply unsustainable and wrong.

People are not helped by being handed money that they did not earn, or forcing the wealthy to pay half of their income to those that do not work. There is a better way, and it is the way the United States ascended to greatness: Capitalism. I wholeheartedly believe that business is good and society benefits when people must work for their bread. Rather than handing someone a check, consider the microcredit programs working all over the world. Consider low-income trade schools that would count as tax credits to businessmen. Teach people to care for their families, and we save people who otherwise couldn't help themselves.

I highly recommend "Atlas Shrugged" to everyone. Most avoid it due to its length, but consider this: have you ever read a book series? "Atlas Shrugged" is a three-part book, each one around 350 pages. Read one part, then read a different book. Ayn Rand will change the way you look at your own work ethic and will alert you to the dangers of a socialized government.

On "Obstructionism": An American Value

2010-02-10T16:49:00.002-07:00

Here is the article I published in the Daily Universe, the newspaper for BYU campus. Enjoy:

On Jan. 19, Scott Brown, a Republican, won a special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy, known as the “liberal lion” to his colleagues. As has been noted frequently, this happened in the most liberal state of them all, Massachusetts. Voters cited dissatisfaction with the economy, the high spending by the federal government and the legislative behemoth known as “the health care bill.” Now, contrast that with Feb. 3, when President Barack Obama accused the Republicans in Congress of being “obstructionists,” standing in the way of progress and refusing to work with the Democrats to pass legislation. An attack like this has traditionally worked to sway public opinion (How dare the Republicans sit in Congress and refuse to pass anything. Congressmen pass bills, don’t they? That’s their job, right?). Well, not quite.

First, Republicans have hardly been “obstructionists,” as Obama has tried to paint them. Used this way, “obstructionism” is a code word for “they won’t let us pass what we want.” The two-party system was never meant to create a happy band of politicians working to pass as much legislation as possible. The system was meant to create competing ideas, conflict and debate. The Republicans have proposed numerous health care bills for compromise purposes, but the Democrats refuse to consider them. In other words, obstructionism doesn’t mean what Obama thinks it means. Obstructionism is at the very core of American politics — checks and balances, competing voices, gridlock and slowdown.

America emerged from a British monarchy that instituted legislation quickly and without much debate. The founders wanted a system that instituted checks on the government, making it difficult to pass bills quickly. This prevented tyrannical impulses from becoming law. The more hoops the bill had to jump through, the less likely it would have unjust provisions. It was this philosophy from which the filibuster evolved. Neither government tyranny nor tyranny of the majority is permitted in this system. Obstructionists maintain a check on Congress.

The majority in Congress will often point its finger at opponents, accusing them of stooping to new lows, or blaming the inaction of Congress on some new wave of partisan politics that is destroying civility in Congress. But, cantankerous congressmen are nothing new. Since the founding of the republic, politicians waged war on opponents, and things frequently became personal. Aaron Burr, a former vice president, and Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury, resolved their political dispute by a duel, where Hamilton was killed. Partisanship is nothing new. In fact, the American brand of partisanship has allowed our government to ascend to the world’s foremost power. When people know that no hasty bill will be passed and no overbearing restrictions will be passed unilaterally, business is allowed to proceed without risk of an overreaching government (so far). Individuals are secure in their property and homes without risk of challenge.

A Senate and House forced to contend with each other, combined with two parties vying for power within each chamber, creates a system where the best result, more often than not, rises to the top. Obstructionism is the final and necessary check on the majority. Passing a law is not necessarily progress. The party in power, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, uses pejorative terms like “obstructionism” to turn opinion against their opponents. A powerful minority standing up and refusing to move can be as noble as legislative activism.

As all presidents do, Obama frames his opinions as if they are the only option for saving the country. But, all opinion is relative. Today’s obstructionists were yesterday’s majority. Government action is neither good nor bad. Government is simply a necessary component of a representative democracy. As the Democratic Party maintained its push for universal health care, the public grew increasingly opposed to it. Dramatic shifts in power and quick pushes necessitate obstructionism as a speed bump for the government, allowing time for reasonable debate and actual compromise. One of President Obama’s favorite phrases is, “The time for debate is over. We need to act.” Based on the election of Sen. Brown, even Massachusetts voters have a little obstructionism in them. How perfectly American — even Ted Kennedy would be proud.

NFL Playoffs Week 2 Predictions

2010-01-11T10:49:00.002-07:00

So I was 2-2 for last weekend's playoff picks. This weekend, I'm feeling a 4-0.

Saturday games:

Cardinals over Saints

Colts over Ravens

Sunday games:

Cowboys over Vikings

Jets over Chargers

Enjoy a great week.

NFL Playoffs Week 1 Predictions

2010-01-09T14:07:00.003-07:00

To all my readers, welcome to 2010, and my upcoming posts.

My predictions for week 1 of the NFL playoffs:

Saturday games:

Bengals over Jets

Eagles over Cowboys

Sunday games:

Ravens over Patriots

Cardinals over Packers

I would make further predictions, but in the NFL this year, next week's match-ups are partly determined by the winners of week 1. Too complicated.

Science in the White House

2009-11-05T22:33:00.006-07:00

When Barack Obama was christened into office, of the many splendorous things the media called him, the greatest was "the science president." Obama was to hack through the government-instituted yellow tape that kept scientific influence from the White House in crafting effective, fact-based policy. True, Bush probably should have spent more money on the National Science Foundation and less on bailouts. But, thankfully, Obama was here to modernize the White House. Science was to finally have its place--that is, unless you disagree with him. Here's Obama on scientists who disagree that global warming is gospel:

“those who . . . make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary...We'll just have to deal with those people."

Now there's progress--change we can believe in. It is this hypocrisy from Obama and from Bush that drives moderates crazy. Obama believes that science needs to be back in the White House, unless your science doesn't support his policies. There are icebergs of evidence against global warming (or even the non-falsifiable "climate change" if you prefer) that points to natural climate cycles. To silence debate is, in the truest sense of the word, un-American. Whether you believe in global-climate-warming-change or not, we must agree that the debate is not over. When disagreement is discouraged, outcomes are naturally worse. We need scientists in the White House, not yes-men.

Liberalism is So Fifty Years Ago

2009-11-04T22:30:00.003-07:00

At the core of politics, social life, and economics, what really makes a conservative and a liberal? I'd say its trust in the average American. On the surface, such a statement can sound a bit outrageous, largely because strong-willed liberalism is so prevalent in Hollywood, the media, Washington, and a college campus near you.

When I challenged a staunch College Democrat from the University of Utah last October to an hour-long radio debate on KRCL in Salt Lake City, one short exchange stands out more than any other. I remember saying something like, "The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans trust you with your money. We know that you can do more good with your money than the government can. Free-market solutions almost always work better than government solutions. That's it--we trust people." To which he quickly responded, "I don't trust people, I trust government."

In today's Wall Street Journal Opinion section, John Steele Gordon wrote a fantastic analysis of why liberalism in today's social structure just doesn't work anymore. He recounted the hilarious interview with Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama. When asked why the Obama administration was so preoccupied with their metaphorical war on Fox News, she replied that it was because she was "speaking truth to power." Wait, you work for the White House, Ms. Jarrett? Fox News is "power?" You work for the most powerful man in the world! Mr. Gordon explains Jarrett's viewpoint best. Simply, "she's a liberal." Allow him to explain:

As a liberal she carries around in her head the liberal paradigm of how the world works and what needs to be done to make it work better. There's nothing wrong with that. We all use paradigms to make sense of what we see around us and couldn't get along without them. Unfortunately, the basic liberal paradigm hasn't shifted in a hundred years, while the world we live in has changed utterly since the late 19th century, when modern liberalism was born.

He explains that liberals view the population as divided into three distinct groups, characterized by the wolves, the sheep, and the shepherds. The wolves are the elite, the wall street executives, the rich. They make their money from plundering from and destroying the sheep, or the masses--the lowly, proletariat. The shepherds are the liberals, "those happy few, that band of brothers, the educated and enlightened liberals," Gordon says. They believe that their job is to educate the sheep to protect them from the greedy capitalists, those white-collar bandits. Back in the 1930's, the 40's, and even all the way to the 60's, it worked. There was a small, elite group of educated Americans. But today's society doesn't need, and doesn't really want such shepherding. Jarrett exposed that simple flaw in liberalism's ideology. There's no "man" to fight against anymore. Our President is black. The chairman of the RNC is black. The majority of Americans are white collar, high-school and college graduates. While some inequality still exists, the equality of opportunity is unprecedented. When the "power" against which liberals rally the sheep against is "Fox News," the ideology is going bankrupt, and there's no bailout big enough to save it.

According to Gallup, 40% of Americans define themselves as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. Obama's, Pelosi's, and Reid's brand of liberalism is not what America wants, nor is it what it needs. As liberals grasp for a new enemy (whether it be Christians, Oil Companies, or Fox News), conservatism is about to see its biggest resurgence in 30 years.

The Best Books of 2009

2009-11-03T23:53:00.001-07:00

For something a little bit different, here's Amazon's Omnivoracious blog on the 100 Best Books of 2009. I love books.

Ayn Rand--More Relevant Today Than Ever

2009-11-02T23:19:00.006-07:00

A quick and interesting look at a very popular, and very old, political author. Her defense of capitalism and freedom of thought is still affecting popular culture. Her estate can probably thank Barack Obama:

Health Care Scare Tactics

2009-10-30T12:41:00.003-07:00

In the Halloween spirit, here's some horrifying quotes from politicians and pundits about the evil health insurance companies that rape and pillage for profits:

"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad

Are you scared yet? Well, in reality, you shouldn't be. According to the AP, Health Insurance profits are usually right around 6%, and lately they've been around 2%. Railroads are taking in a 12.6% profit margin. Communications companies? Around 20%. In fact, many other companies, from candy to entertainment companies make more money than health insurance. So, where are these talking heads getting their facts?

Recent health care debates show how easy it is to demonize an entire industry without fact. Eventually, people begin to believe it, and policies begin to pass. The simple fact is that the health care industry is just that--an industry. In order to exist, they have to turn a profit, albeit very thin profits. To put government in direct competition with already financially challenged companies is inherently unfair to the consumer and to the company. Without having to turn a profit, goverment will undercut the companies with their tax revenues from the wealthy. Competition decreases, and soon enough, hospitals and HMOs will start to look more like public schools and the DMV.

If you believe government should be involved in health care--fine. Just base your arguments on fact, not fiction.

Breast Cancer Awareness and Prostate Cancer Awareness

2009-10-29T12:21:00.003-07:00

Most people have probably noticed that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. No, I'm not going to write with pink letters or wear pink or probably even a ribbon. The NFL has even turned many of their uniform accessories pink in honor of the cause. It's a truly noble thing, I agree. However, I fear that it's following the path of some of the "go green" fads of recent years--it has become more about show than substance. By no means do I demean any effort to help raise research funds for breast cancer. Like I said, a truly noble cause.

But why the huge focus in the media and in the public discourse on breast cancer, specifically? What about, for example, prostate cancer? Both can have considerable impact on lives and lifestyles, and it can be particularly hard for a woman to have breast augmentation, but let's really analyze the numbers:

1 in 8 women in the U.S. will contract breast cancer during their lifetime. 1 in 33 will die from breast cancer.
1 in 6 men in the U.S. will get prostate cancer. 1 in 35 will die from prostate cancer.

In other words, more men get prostate cancer, but breast cancer has a higher mortality rate. Why the huge effort, then, by the NFL and other organizations to promote breast cancer awareness, but not prostate cancer awareness? Men need some love, too.

By the way, Prostate Cancer Awareness Month was September. It's color is light blue.

(Statistics from the American Cancer Society here and here.)

The Quiet War Against Christianity

2009-10-28T16:54:00.006-07:00

Why is it okay to make fun of Christianity, but never any other religion? In a recent episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," a show by Larry David, a writer from "Seinfeld," David's own character is shown urinating on a picture of Jesus. Some aspect of the plot involved the urine being interpreted by a religious character to be tears, causing them to fall and marvel at the miracle.

First of all, this is a perfect example of complete intellectually lazy comedy. As one internet commenter put it, "it's a fart joke for the pseudo-intelligentsia." When comedy lacks creativity, skill, or artistry, it turns to the lowest common denominator--the trite, low-brow humor that is guaranteed to get a cheap laugh, usually because you're making fun at someone's expense. I guess what Larry David once had in his Seinfeld years is waning.

Second, this is yet another example of the disgustingly obvious double standard among the politically correct. What would the media, Hollywood, and those benevolent gate-keepers of culture say if David were to urinate on a picture of Barack Obama? Mohammed? Martin Luther King, Jr.? The outrage would be swift, boycotts would begin, and Larry David would lose his job. This is a common theme of my political posts--absolute double standards and hypocrisy.

Third, this speaks to the trendiness of mocking Christianity in general, and Christians themselves, specifically. Sitcoms, dramas, and especially movies portray Christians as zealots, as intolerant, as mortified of sex, reality, or anyone different than themselves. It's a cheap, trendy way to broadly paint the billions of practicing Christians in the world as people unworthy of respect or deference.

Such mocking is, I believe, a sign of things to come. As the younger culture is growing in atheism, and the culture at large embraces anti-Christian sentiments, Christians will see more persecution, and a general apathy for their religious freedoms. As religious freedom begins to deteriorate in Western culture, the next step is an attack on our rights.

Tryanny Spreading in the Americas

2009-10-27T16:32:00.004-07:00

Another Central American country is about to fall completely into tyrannical rule, and the U.S. is completely silent. To provide the background to this recent development by Nicaraguan president Danny Ortega, allow me to provide a quick summary of the developments in Honduras that preceded Ortega's move.

In June of this year, following questionable efforts by President Manuel Zelaya to remove presidential term limits like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Honduran president was removed by the military as per Honduran Supreme Court mandate and constitutional provision. Sadly, most of the world was strongly opposed to this move, condemning it as a military coup d'etat (which it was, but it was legal). An interim president is still in office in Honduras. The rest of the government flatly rejected Zelaya's effort to become a Chavezian quasi-dictator.

Now, let us consider Danny Ortega, president of Nicaragua. Allow the Wall Street Journal to report what happened:

Nicaragua has a one-term limit for presidents, and Mr. Ortega's term expires in 2011. However, the Nicaraguan doesn't want to leave, and so he asked the Sandinista-controlled Supreme Court to overturn the constitutional ban on his re-election.

Last week the court's constitutional panel obliged him. The Nicaraguan press reported that the vote was held before three opposition judges could reach the chamber in time for the session. Three alternative judges, all Sandinistas, took their place and the court gave Mr. Ortega the green light. Mr. Ortega has decreed that the ruling cannot be appealed.

There is a palpable air of dictatorship and tyrannical usurpation of democratic rule slithering its way through South and Central America. The Obama administration has been completely quiet on such actions, and in fact believes that Zelaya should be reinstated as president of Honduras.

While some may consider such accusations hyperbolic, Obama's actions have confirmed to the world his values and his world view. When a task is afoot, whatever means necessary should be employed to reach a desired end. Government takeover of auto companies, bailouts of banks and subsequent government-ordered salary cuts, and an expansion of government involvement into health care are just a few highlights of Obama's beliefs. Obama is not anti-democratic, he just believes that the ends justify the means. As much as Bush believed privacy rights could be curtailed to achieve national security, Obama believes traditional American notions of government's proper role in business (to stay out) and public policy (to promote free enterprise for solutions) are worth discarding for certain ends. Tyranny is spreading, and Obama's beliefs and actions show he won't be quick to act.

Obama's Enemy List and Its Consequences

2009-10-26T13:42:00.006-07:00

Obama's White House is a very different one from past administrations, even if only considering the tone it has taken toward opposition. Obama came under heavy criticism early in his presidency when starting his push for health care reform. Perhaps surprised by the staunch opposition a public option quickly found, Whitehouse.gov started a watchdog-like email address that the public could use to report "misinformation" about a government-run health care plan. Of course, it was soon removed.

Several other stories emerged which showed the same theme: Obama didn't just let criticism fly--he attacked it and actively opposed it. Never before had a President entered the public arena of debate. Then came his War on Fox News, a war even less purposeful than the Iraq War. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' constant foray into criticism of a news outlet is absolutely flabbergasting. But, catch this gem from NPR, a non-partisan, public-funded news outlet. To set the stage, some have been calling Obama's public attacks of critics somewhat of an "enemies list," hearkening back to Nixon's paranoid habits of deciding who was undermining his authority as President. From Politico:

On National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation" Wednesday, NPR political editor Ken Rudin said the White House campaign against Fox News is a bad idea. "It's not only aggressive, it's almost Nixonesque," Rudin said. "I mean, you think of what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list and their attacks on the media; certainly Vice President Agnew's constant denunciation of the media. Of course, then it was a conservative president denouncing a liberal media, and of course, a lot of good liberals said, 'Oh, that's ridiculous. That's an infringement on the freedom of press.' And now you see a lot of liberals almost kind of applauding what the White House is doing to Fox News, which I think is distressing."
It's not the usual thing you hear from NPR analysts. Reaction from the NPR audience was negative, and within 24 hours, Rudin was in backtrack mode. "I made a boneheaded mistake yesterday," Rudin wrote on his NPR blog. "Comparing the tactics of the Nixon administration -- which bugged and intimidated and harrassed journalists -- to that of the Obama administration was foolish, facile, ridiculous and, ultimately, embarrassing to me. I should have known better and, in fact, I do know better. I was around during the Nixon years. I am fully cognizant of what they did and attempted to do."
"I apologize for a dumb comparison."
Rudin's full-180 earned warm praise from NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard. "While it was a dumb thing to say, I applaud Rudin for quickly apologizing," Shepard wrote. "Journalists are going to make mistakes -- not intentionally but they will happen. Acknowledging them goes a long way to maintaining credibility."

So much of the media is so incredibly afraid of criticizing Obama, when a critique slips, apologies must be issued. This was an NPR analyst who was analyzing. Sadly, the only place the public can really go to get any type of genuine analysis of Obama (without protracted criticisms) is Fox News. Not only has Obama's War on Fox News boosted their ratings, but it's the only game in town, so to speak. Our media are in such a sad state, its no wonder the only growing entities are Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

Go Yankees? Well, Maybe

2009-10-23T21:02:00.005-07:00

As the ACLS is wrapping up, we are once again faced with the late 90's scenario--the Yankees in the World Series again!? But, the 2000's have been a much different era for baseball. Since the Yankees last won the Series in 2000, Almost a quarter of all MLB teams have won a World Series (Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, Cardinals, White Sox, and Phillies). Could we reverting to another Yankees dynasty? First of all, I sure hope not. But, despite my fears and strong dislike for all things New York Yankees, I almost hope they beat the Angels.

Yeah, its true. Why would I want the Yankees to win? First of all, I think the Phillies would absolutely destroy the Angels, and we'd have yet another Series end in a lopsided count (not a single series this year has gone the full 5 or 7 games). The Angels are the comeback kids in these last two games against the Empire, but they couldn't outlast the Phillies who will be incredibly well-rested. Angels hitters would be silenced by Cliff Lee in games 1 and 4 (and even a 7 if it happened to go that far). The Phillies lineup is miles ahead of the Angels. Sure, anything can happen in 7 games, but the Yankees would be a much more formidable opponent.

The Yankees have starting pitching to answer the Phillies, a stronger bullpen, and a lineup of comparable strength (including the finally-hot-in-October A-Rod, even if it is the tic-tacs). It would be wonderful to finally see another National League powerhouse. Not since the Big Red Machine of the 70's has a National League team repeated as World Series Champs. In fact, only 3 NL teams have ever done it. Because, right up there with being a baseball fan, I'm a National League fan--a baseball purist.

So, in a way, go Yankees? I really want a World Series worth watching this year.

Why "Community" is the Best New Show on TV

2009-10-22T22:34:00.004-07:00

Those of my readers who know me well, know that my favorite TV show is "Lost." So, you'd think my favorite new show this season would be "FlashForward," the new sci-fi serial with obvious overtones of Lost-esque mythology and temporal interplay. While I really enjoy FlashForward, a different new show has won my heart. NBC's "Community."

Community is "The Office" meets "Arrested Development." Take the ridiculously believable characters of The Office in their completely average lives, and mix in the fast pace and tight writing of Arrested Development. What bores me about most of today's sitcoms are the formulas--the jokes are all the same, the sets are all the same, and the only thing that changes is what hijinx the dad got into this week that are going to make his wife go through the roof. Ha ha ha. There was a day for comedies like that, but its over.

Joel McHale of Talk Soup fame is the star of the show, but there truly are very few week characters. Chevy Chase's Pierce Hawthorne and Danny Pudi's Abed are absolutely hilarious. The jokes come so quickly and in such an unexpected way, you sometimes finally get jokes ten seconds after they're told. Few shows reward their viewers for being intelligent. Community is one of them.

I watch very few TV shows and recommend even less. Watch Community--the best new show on TV (and maybe the best comedy, period.) Oh, and Senor Chang, the Spanish teacher that shows up on a few episodes, is quite possibly the funniest character I have ever seen on a sitcom.

Defending Dallin H. Oaks

2009-10-21T20:39:00.003-07:00

Dallin H. Oaks, an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has a long history of saying things that have to be said, and aren't very popular with the rest of the world. In the past, however, he could count on members of the Church to support him. Proposition 8 has done more than practically any other event to induce certain members into renouncing some degree of their support for the Church in general, its political involvement, or the general authorities of the Church specifically. The most recent backlash comes from Elder Oaks' statements concerning physical and economic attacks against Proposition 8 supporters and many Mormons. Here's some of the AP report:

"Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights," Oaks said. "The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage ..."
Oaks said that while "aggressive intimidation" connected to Proposition 8 was primarily directed at religious people and symbols, "it was not anti-religious as such." He called the incidents "expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest."
"As such, these incidents of 'violence and intimidation' are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic," he said. "In their effect they are like well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation."

How dare he compare Mormon boycotts and vandalism to lynchings and beatings, right? But his analogy stands quite firm when you look at it logically. After blacks were various civil rights in the 60's--an unpopular move--rather than accepting the democratic decision, or moving for a democratic response to the issue, a small group of people engaged in physical and verbal attacks to show their disdain for a completely legal decision. So has it been with Proposition 8 supporters. After their successful attempt to democratically limit marriage to one man and one woman, Hollywood and much of the left was enraged. A small group organized boycotts, and some resorted to physical attacks on churches and property, generally attempting to intimidate Mormons and Proposition 8 supporters.

It's an easy temptation to take offense, because it was such an offensive part of history. Was the comparison perfectly analgous? Of course not--no comparison ever is. That's why it's a comparison. Were some people offended? Of course. From Elder Oaks:

"It may be offensive to some — maybe because it hadn't occurred to them that they were putting themselves in the same category as people we deplore from that bygone era," said Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court justice who clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many Latter-day Saints today care far more about offending the world than following the Church on an unpopular opinion. In fact, Elder Oaks himself notes that this is an increasingly unpopular position. But, it is the policy of the Church. Some truths are offensive. Elder Oaks' analogy cut to the core of the issue. People were upset with a democratic decision and have resorted to name-calling, hate-mongering, and occasional physical intimidation. Take a deep breath, and think about it. But, feel free to be offended--you'll have company.

Note: Many people have jumped to conclusion before reading the story in question. Here's the AP article that created the controversy, and here's the complete speech that Elder Oaks gave at BYU-Idaho about the deterioration of religious freedom in the United States.

My 2009 MLB Postseason Predictions

2009-10-06T19:55:00.002-07:00

To those who didn't see my picks last season, I correctly predicted the World Series matchup and outcome at the outset of the postseason (I picked Phillies over Rays in 6--just one game off). So, if you're into gambling, I may just be your man. Here we go:

NLDS:

Rockies over Phillies

Cardinals over Dodgers

NLCS:

Cardinals over Rockies

ALDS:

Angels over Red Sox

Yankees over Twins

ALCS:

Angels over Yankees

World Series:

Angels over Cardinals in 7

What I'm hoping for in the World Series:

Rockies over Twins in 7

G20 Protests vs. Tea Party Protests

2009-09-29T11:28:00.003-07:00

Now that the tea party protests have subsided, the media must really have to scrape to find angry protests to cover. Political talking heads must be itching for the next protest full of angry people ready to start political violence. Wait...you say there's a violent protest that's caused $50,000 of damage? It must be those angry, gun-clinging conservatives! Oh...its a bunch of liberals protesting the G20 summit? No reason to cover it then.

This has to be one of the most shocking media double standards in quite a while. Well, I guess it's not shocking, just extreme. During the tea party protests against government spending and expansion, the media was quick to criticize, to warn us of the dangerous language being used, of the swastikas being carried, and the "unamerican" behavior of those involved (Nancy Pelosi's words). Based on the media coverage of the G20 protests, you'd think these were reverent, peaceful protests. From the AP:

In all, 190 people, including at least two reporters, were arrested during the summit Thursday and Friday.
Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said the police response would be evaluated and urged people who felt wronged to make formal complaints, but he praised law enforcement.He said there were no major injuries and less than $50,000 in property damage was done.

So, when no arrests occur, no property was damaged, and entire families organize to petition the government, the media and the left warn everyone of impending political violence (while, ironically, the most prominent violence in the news right now is in Chicago (Chicago 2016!)). But, when violence is actually occurring at a protest, the media and the left question police response. The media treatment of conservatism is constantly reaffirming the beliefs of "unamerican[s]" everywhere: the media is still firmly in the left's back pocket.

The Verdict Is In: In-N-Out Burger

2009-09-28T17:31:00.003-07:00

I decided that this post was absolutely necessary after all the grief I gave In-N-Out Burger obsessors. Yes, I finally ate at In-N-Out Burger. My thesis is this: it was really good food at a great price, but come on. It was a burger and fries.

Upon entering the local In-N-Out Burger location in Tempe, I was surprised by the simplicity of the menu. There were like 4 things on it. Simple is good, but what if you don't want a cheeseburger? Bacon? BBQ Sauce? I guess this is part of the mystique that is INOB. I ordered a "double-double" (2 patties and 2 chesses) and some fries (which seem to only come in one size). The total was around $4.50, tax included--an excellent price for what I got. I asked for a cup for water, and instead the cashier prepared a cup with ice and water and a straw for free. Impressive.

The burger was delicious. I didn't get the "shh, don't tell anyone, its off the menu" animal-style burger (which is just grilled onions), as I prefer fresh onions on my burgers. More amusing was the fact that the cashier asked me if I wanted the onions grilled (and I wasn't even in on the secret!!). The fries were very different from other fast food locales. The fries were crispy on the inside and quite soft on the inside. At first, I wasn't sure if I liked them as much, but I do--they're just very different. The hamburger bun was very fresh and tasty.

The speed of service was a little disappointing, seeing that they gave much more attention to the drive-thru window (not surprising anymore). The staff was friendly and helpful.

Overall, it was a good experience. I will definitely go back, but not because of the off-the-menu-mystique or even the shirts. The price was right there with Carl's Jr. on the value per dollar spent. But, I'm not quite up to wearing a shirt yet.

Majority Against Democrat Healthcare Reform

2009-09-28T12:10:00.003-07:00

If you just listened to Bill Maher, or David Letterman, or basically any other liberal talking head, you'd think that the majority of Americans support Obama's proposal to reform health care. If you're willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, this statement is completely misleading. Otherwise, its a complete lie meant to deceive.

According to Rasmussen, 41% support "the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats." On the other hand, 56% oppose it. More from Rasmussen:

The overall picture remains one of stability. Today’s record low support for the plan of 41% is just a point lower than the results found twice before. With the exception of a slight bounce earlier this month following the president’s nationally televised speech to Congress to promote the plan, support for it has remained in the low-to-mid 40s since early July. During that same time period, opposition has generally stayed in the low-to-mid 50s.

I find it very likely that a majority of Americans support some type of health care reform. Who wouldn't? Whether you're a fiscal conservative or a progressive liberal, there's definite changes that need to happen to make health care more affordable without making government bigger or destroying what's already working. But its plain and simple: voter's don't want Obamacare, they don't want the Democrats' proposals for changing healthcare, and they don't want government pushing the insurance companies out of business.

Even Now, Terrorists Still Hate Us

2009-09-24T17:24:00.006-07:00

With Democrats firmly in control of Congress and the Presidency, anti-terrorism efforts have been pushed to the background for much more important issues like removing missile shields and reducing greenhouse emissions. But, President Obama's efforts to apologize to each party that we've wronged in the past have surely helped protect us, the faithful liberal may say. Whether or not those efforts are helping, check out these headlines (how much play is this getting in the mainstream media?):

UPDATE 1-Illinois man charged in plot to bomb federal offices

U.S. terror suspects accused of targeting Marine base

Man arrested in alleged attempt to bomb Dallas skyscraper

Men sought after taking photos along SEPTA's Broad Street line

(Feel free to click any of the links above for the full stories.) The simple truth is that radical Islam still hates us and wants to kill Americans and blow up things. The idea that shutting down Guantanamo Bay and prosecuting CIA officials for waterboarding would make us safer is completely erroneous. Radical Islam hates us because they hate America. They hate the West. They believe that it is their destiny to take over and convert the world to Islam, and to restore Islamic rule worldwide--the Caliphate. I don't know what the solution is, but Congress seems to be ignoring it. No matter how hard any of us ignore it, its not going away.

Obama's America: Regulating the Internet

2009-09-23T18:00:00.006-07:00

My generation grew up with the internet. I still remember getting the AOL floppy disk in the mail for a free 10-hour trial of internet use. Now, almost 15 years later, the internet stands as our portal to real freedom--freedom from regulation, oversight, and a place where ideas can be spread without restriction. I don't mean to be doom and gloom about every Obama appointee, but his new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski is starting to scare the people at Reason magazine, a libertarian bastion online.

But, really, what could he do to affect the internet? Read this:

"...for Genachowski, an "open Internet" seems to mean a "government-monitored Internet." Innovators and entrepreneurs may have been responsible for making the Web great, but care, oversight, and access are now up to the government. "Congress and the President have charged the FCC with developing a National Broadband Plan to ensure that every American has access to open and robust broadband," he said."

In other words, expect a push for government-run internet. And since when did people have a right to internet use? I guess its kind of like that right to free health care. But wait, there's more:

"Genachowski seems oblivious to the fact that that the regulatory regime he is promoting would implicitly require innovators to get permission for their innovations from his agency. In his words, "the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.""

How would the internet not be free? The only thing that the government could possibly do is make things worse. From health care to bailouts to the internet, Obama and his appointees are consistently pushing for bigger regulations and bigger bureaucracies, which can only lead to higher taxes. Before we know it, the top 25% of wage earners are going to be paying for almost everything for everyone else. What in the world happened to hard work? Assisting someone down on their luck is one thing, but Obama's America is a scary place--that is, if you make money.

Obama's Losing It

2009-09-22T23:07:00.003-07:00

The media obsession with President Obama has manifested itself differently over the past year or so. It began as absolute adoration. Then, after the first few months, it faded to hopeful optimism (while Chris Matthews of MSNBC still assuring himself that he's doing all he can to make it work). Now, however, the media, and even fellow Democrats, are silent. But, leave it to Jimmy Carter to fill in that silence with noise: he claims that Obamacare is getting such a hard reception because of racism. That's such an uneducated analysis of public opinion, I'm not going to touch that one.

However, some Democrats, like the paltry-polling Gov. Patterson, are starting to turn on the President. Now, before everyone gets ready for some really party in-fighting, remember this is Barack Obama. If Democrats are even saying anything negative, its big news. From Gov. Patterson's own lips, on the Obama administration's efforts to stop him from running in 2010 as to not drag down the rest of the party:

“I understand the president’s concern and I understand concern of staff members at the White House. If you look at it from their perspective, they haven’t exactly been able to govern in the first year of their administration in the way that other administrations have, where you would have, theoretically, a period in which the new administration is allowed to pass the needed pieces of legislation.”

Even after Obama's media blitz last weekend, he's still struggling in the polls. Politicos are doubting the likelihood of a bill in its current form passing. The Democrat party has to be starting to sweat. If a bill doesn't pass this year, party loyalists will lose faith in the party and won't show up to vote in 2010. If a bill does pass, Independents and Republicans will turn out in droves, eliminating the super-majority in the Senate and even risking majorities in either house of Congress. Obama is in a really tough position right now, and he's set himself up for disaster. Get ready for more Democrats to start voicing their frustration with a President that ran like a lion but is leading like a sheep.

After Four Months

2009-08-28T19:40:00.002-07:00

I seem to be slipping into some kind of funny pattern with my blogging. For those of you who keep a journal, you know the routine--get inspired, write a bunch, then life gets busy and it slips to the bottom of your to-do list. Well, recent developments in the United States, politics, baseball, and pop culture have awakened me from my blogging slumber. Look forward to my daily blogging--even if just a quick comment.

Here's a sample of upcoming topics: the death of Ted Kennedy and the media coverage; President Obama, polls, and his many failed ideas; the end of the baseball season; conservatism and liberalism in the United States.

I've missed you, and now I'm back.

2009 NBA Playoff Predictions

2009-04-17T17:34:00.002-07:00

West Conference
Lakers over Jazz in 5
Hornets over Nuggets in 7
Spurs over Mavericks in 7
Rockets over Blazers in 6

East Conference
Cavs over Pistons in 4
Celtics over Bulls in 7
Magic over 76ers in 6
Hawks over Heat in 6

West Semis
Lakers over Rockets in 6
Spurs over Hornets in 6

East Semis
Cavs over Hawks in 5
Magic over Celtics in 7

Conference Finals
Spurs over Lakers in 7
Cavs over Magic in 7

Finals
Cavs over Spurs in 6

Provo Tea Party Pictures

2009-04-15T18:31:00.004-07:00

The Tea Party Manifesto

2009-04-15T10:32:00.002-07:00

As "tax day" has befallen us once again, this year brings a different sentiment around the country. Where April 15th was once for long lines at the post office and pausing to wonder what the federal government does with so much money, April 15th now represents something different--a return to our original principles of good governance: small government, limited intrusion into our lives and pocketbooks, and a deference of the government to the people.

Today, Paul Begala said that paying your taxes was patriotic--in fact, he called April 15th, "Patriot's Day." I won't provide the link since I'd prefer to not patronize his articles, I'll provide you a few gems of liberalism unrestrained:

"But for the rest of us, the civilian majority, our government asks very little. Except for April 15. On this day, our government asks that we pay our fair share of taxes to keep our beloved country strong and safe...

So why are a bunch of Fox News clowns and right-wing cranks hosting "tea parties" all over the country? The Boston Tea Party, in case the clods at Fox didn't know it, protested "taxation without representation." Note the second word: without. The goofballs tossing tea bags today have representation. They voted in the election; they lost...
If the whiners at Fox News want to advertise their selfishness, they are free to do so. But please don't dress it up as patriotism. Patriotism is putting your country ahead of yourself -- which is the precise opposite of what the tea party plutocrats are doing."

Begala's words would send a thrill up almost any liberal's leg. The double standard that Democrats are using is absolutely absurd. When liberals protest Bush, it's patriotism (even though he won twice). But, when conservatives protest stimulus bills that are passed without voting, we're just whiners. I apologize for the harsh language, but Mr. Begala, please shove it. While you may wet yourself with joy over paying taxes, we agree that taxes are a vital part of our country. We just believe that we are spending ourselves into the deepest financial hole this country has ever been in.

When I hear people argue that it doesn't matter that we're in debt to other countries, I wonder from where their logic comes. Does it mattter if you are in debt? If you are struggling financially, why not take out a million dollars in loans? Spending will stimulate your job prospects, right?

I could continue attacking Mr. Begala's argument, but that's not the point. The point is something more. There is a growing libertarian movement in this country, starting with the youth. When our government is in so much debt that not even our great-grandchildren could pay it, we will realize...

...that you can't spend more money than you make.

...that redistributing wealth weakens our country and deincentivizes work.

...that socialism will always fail.

...that government does not have a right to my money, or my children's money.

...that the federal government gets their power from the states.

...that Atlas is shrugging, maybe for the last time.

This tax day, it is just as patriotic to protest government spending as it was to protest the Iraq War. Show your government and your neighbors that you won't just bend over with a smile on your face.

Today marks the first day of a revolution.

D.B.'s MLB 2009 Predictions

2009-04-05T19:37:00.004-07:00

In honor of MLB Opening Day, 2009, here are my picks for the 2009 season (at the beginning of last season's playoffs, I correctly picked Phillies over Rays, so watch out):

AL East: Boston Red Sox
AL Central: Kansas City Royals
AL West: Oakland Athletics
AL Wild Card: Tampa Bay Rays

NL East: Atlanta Braves
NL Central: Chicago Cubs
NL West: Arizona Diamondbacks
NL Wild Card: San Fransisco Giants

AL Champ: Tampa Bay Rays
NL Champ: Atlanta Braves
World Series Champ: Tampa Bay Rays

Congress and the BCS

2009-03-26T17:04:00.003-07:00

I'm usually the one that argues that Congress should stay out of most of the things it's involved in, but for once, I find myself on the other side. When most people are telling to Congress to stay out, I'm cheering them on. More bailout analysis? Nope--the College Football BCS.

Those arguing against Washington's involvement in this issue rely on the same arguments I've always used: "What does this have to do with the federal government?" or "My tax dollars are going toward this?" However, this matter is more substantial than such thin arguments indicate. Simply stated, the BCS is violating antitrust laws. They are systematically putting teams from non-BCS conferences at a disadvantage to compete for a national championship and millions of dollars in funding.

From the AP:

The current system "leaves nearly half of all the teams in college football at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for the millions of dollars paid out every year," the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights said in a statement Wednesday announcing the hearings.
Under the BCS, some conferences get automatic bids to participate in series, while others do not.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season.
The title game pitted No. 1 Florida (12-1) against No. 2 Oklahoma (12-1); Florida won 24-14 and claimed the title.

For once, I'd say that I approve of Congress just for being willing to discuss this matter. While many people would say that it's just a waste of time and money, I'd say this is more important than most of the nonsense happening in Washington. Fix the BCS once and for all and let us lowly Mountain West teams have a shot at a championship. Utah could have taken either Florida or Oklahoma. Once again, we have to wait until next year. Sometimes being undefeated just isn't enough.

Our Economic "Disaster"

2009-03-25T11:28:00.004-07:00

While the volatility of the markets in recent months has been dramatic and worrying, its definitely not unprecedented. Investors are still trying to digest the changes taking place and waiting for the market to correct itself. In my opinion, the recession is quite simple to explain: too much value was being placed in things not very valuable.

True, I'm not an economist, but I am a amateur political scientist (if that counts for anything). It just makes sense--in an economy based so heavily on the stock market and investing, when an overvalued market pops, it takes a while for everything else to adjust. The economy was overproducing, over-investing, and over-hedging itself into an inevitable bust. But, I don't things are as bad as we think.

The Dow has been up over the last few days, clinging onto signs that spending is showing signs of hope:

Economists' expectations have been so grim lately that surprising reports on retail sales, housing starts and inflation have helped propel a two-week rally in stocks after the numbers weren't as bad as feared. The numbers Wednesday extended that run.
"In every other environment this would be OK news but given the enormous level of pessimism, the hurdle is as low as a limbo stick," said Jack A. Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank in Chicago. "Relative to expectations, this is fantastic news."

This is why I think Obama's new budget is an absolute disaster, and a disservice to the taxpayers. Check out this chart, with the Congressional Budget Office's projection for the national debt the past 8 years and the next 8 years:

What is needed is patience and incentives to invest, not redistribution of wealth. But, I guess wealth redistribution isn't even an accurate term anymore--it's more like stealing money from our grandchildren, who will have to borrow from China, who, by then, may not even deal in the U.S. dollar.

It is easy to get riled up by the grim reports of economic disaster. I get tired of hearing of how we all need to "tighten our belts," or be extra careful because "now, every dollar counts." If we had been living that way this whole time, none of this would have happened. It's not Bush's fault, it's not Obama's fault. It's our fault. Creating money to pay our way out of it is not the solution.

Posts to Continue

2009-03-25T00:45:00.004-07:00

For all those who used to read my blog regularly, I apologize again for my absence. I was inspired by a friend who enjoyed my articles to begin again. School has been absolutely crazy, and I'm finally seeing things slow down. I graduate in less than a month, so I am very excited to say farewell to Provo. I have only heard back from one law school, so I am still waiting anxiously.

My posts will begin again shortly.

The Bill No One Read

2009-02-13T15:46:00.007-07:00

Sadly, the House of Representatives passed the Obama "stimulus" plan with zero Republican support and an additional seven Democrats voting against it. It is an absolute joke that this monstrous, 1,100 page document is being slammed through Congress and absolutely no one has read it. How can you vote for something you haven't read?! House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) sums up exactly how I feel:

I feel sad for the wasteful treatment of taxpayer money when we could give the money directly to individuals and businesses. Why can't the Democrats just be honest that they're using the bill to push their pet projects forward? This bill is so full of pork it's oinking. For example, the bill contains $300 million for 'preparing the country for nationalized health care'. Obama, you have officially warn out your welcome. For the sake of our country I hope this sad piece of legislation fails so that Americans know that socialism is not the way to peace and prosperity.

Republicans Acting Like Republicans

2009-02-12T15:11:00.005-07:00

I used to think that one day in the future I would sit down with my kids, a toasty fire crackling in the background, and tell them, "One day a long, long time ago, Republicans used to be conservative." Then little D.B., Jr. asks, "Daddy, what is comservatif?" I've always thought my usual party of choice was gone with George W. Bush and John McCain, but if they were to ever gain back my trust, they needed to think like real, pragmatic conservatives. Where was their leadership? Well, I'm starting to see signs of hope, and they're not coming from President Obama.

Today, Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman spoke out against Obama's behemoth of a spending bill. His words reek of conservatism--I know, it's crazy! Read:

What was supposed to be an immediate boost to our economy has morphed into yet another overreaching spending boondoggle. There's no place for things like $45 million for ATV trails and government office renovations. Yet, that's precisely the sort of unnecessary spending that Reid and Pelosi are pushing.
Perhaps that's why polls show most Americans want major changes to the stimulus bill moving through Congress. The Republican Party is listening, and ready to work with President Obama to craft legislation that would immediately create jobs.

Steele continues to offer another plan that actually does what the stimulus bill is supposed to do: create jobs. Billions of dollars of tax payer money is going towards projects that will create very few jobs at an incredibly high cost. On immediate relief, all Obama can offer is an extra $13 a week to lower income tax payers. Oh, thank you, your hopeness.

If the Republicans are going to leave the Bush era of out-of-control spending and useless government expenditures, now is the time. Michael Steele must emerge as the new face of the Republican party, and he has to speak to American families about really creating jobs and righting the economy. Out-of-control spending by individuals and out-of-control lending by banks and government created this mess. To fix it, we can't just make government bigger. Then, not only will we have a recession, but we'll have a government with a mortgage that not even our grandchildren will be able to afford.

I, for One, Welcome our New Radio Overlords

2009-02-11T14:39:00.005-07:00

There is an increasingly warped sense in the United States that "fairness" is the ultimate aim of our economic systems, our constitution, etc. While fairness in and of itself (as a means) is perfectly American, fairness as an outcome is not. When fairness is pursued as an outcome, people are discriminated against and freedom is violated. Case in point: The Fairness Doctrine.

I have railed against this violation of free speech and free enterprise before, but with Democrat domination of Congress and the Presidency, such a notion is no longer a right-wing-nut conspiracy theory. Read this exchange by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and the always fair Bill Press, when the issue of talk radio arose:

BILL PRESS: ...You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that's all. You know, we're not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Exactly, and that's why we need the fair -- that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

If I could sit down with Mr. Press, I would ask him one simple question: why is it that radio stations are "shutting down progressive talk from one city after another"? The answer is so glaringly simple--no one is listening. Whether you are conservative or liberal, you cannot ignore the fact that conservative talk radio consistently outperforms liberal talk radio. Why would stations put liberals on the air when they could make more money with a conservative? Radio stations don't care what ideology a host adheres to, they want advertising revenue.

It sounds like Tom Harkin is jealous of conservative radio success. It is absolutely wrong to mandate what radio stations have to put on the air. When government controls our banks, our economy, and our radio stations, maybe then people will realize that liberals are taking us down an oddly familiar path--wait, gotta go, big brother is watching. Hooray for Oceania!

"Change"

2009-02-10T15:13:00.003-07:00

In a move sure to disappoint the President's avid "change gang," Obama lawyers are advocating Bush's increased efforts to maintaining state secrets. Say what?!? Isn't this the very thing that Obama campaigned against? From the NYTimes:

During the campaign, Mr. Obama harshly criticized the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees, and he has broken with that administration on questions like whether to keep open the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But a government lawyer, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument on Monday, startling several judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

To his credit, he has made some moves to change Bush policy, but for how much he campaigned on Change, this seems eerily similar:

“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.
“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied.
Judge Schroeder asked, “The change in administration has no bearing?”
Once more, he said, “No, Your Honor.” The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration,” and “these are the authorized positions,” he said.

This is a wake-up call to Obama supporters across the country. While I take no issue at all with his supporters in general, I do take issue with those who blindly supported him because of a few fancy catchphrases and a hip campaign poster. He ran a great campaign, but millions of people actually believed that he would follow through on all that he ran for. In fact, in this instance, he's doing the exact opposite. Obama's hope-mantle is starting to crack just a little.

The fact is, Obama is just another politician. Yes, that's right. He talks out both sides of his mouth just like everybody else.

The Dark Days of Baseball

2009-02-09T21:36:00.003-07:00

In another crushing blow to my childhood memories, it was leaked to Sports Illustrated last weekend that Alex Rodriguez, third baseman for the New York Yankees, used steroids in 2003 while in his American League MVP season. While to some this may not seem to be a big deal, it deeply impacted me. When I was about five years old, I developed a sincere affinity for the Oakland Athletics. My absolute baseball hero was Mark McGwire, the scrappy, home-run hitting first baseman, who along with Jose Canseco, formed the Bash Brothers. I can still remember watching a playoff game where McGwire, Canseco, and Terry Steinbach hit back to back to back homeruns on my birthday.

Now, McGwire may never make it into the Hall of Fame because of his suspected use of steroids and perjury--the very player who broke Roger Maris's single season record of 61 homeruns. Neither will his competition from that year--Sammy Sosa. I still remember following the chase with my dad, so excited for the beauty that is baseball and its sacred records. 66 homeruns.

Then came Barry Bonds, who, following McGwire's lead, turned from a base-stealing speed demon with the homerun swing to a steroid-injecting behemoth that couldn't run the bases. The single season homerun record fell: 70 homeruns. Hank Aaron's career homerun total fell: 762 homeruns.

Many saw A-Rod as baseball's savior. He was the only one who could legitmately reclaim the homerun record for baseball. Today he admitted to using steroids from 2001-2003 while with the Rangers. While this is absolutely a step in the right direction (take note McGwire, Clemens, and Sosa), baseball may never be the same.

In the next few days and weeks, more names will inevitably be released. These will be some incredibly dark days for baseball, and I am scared to hear which of my childhood heroes will be the next to fall.

Obama Ignores the Blacklist

2008-12-18T18:04:00.003-07:00

Much of the left is fuming again at Obama, and this time its even sillier--Obama has selected Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren to speak and give the invocation at his inauguration in January. Surprisingly, I agree completely with Obama's justification for his selection:

"During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America is about. That's part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated," he said.

Many on the left are being as close-minded and hypocritical as they were against the LDS church for support of Proposition 8. As Obama said, Americans have varying opinions and debate and discourse is a necessary part of democracy. Proposition 8 and conservative Christians in general have angered the radical left so much that blacklisting is the only way they see to combat it.

Both conservatives and liberals have accused the other side of being intolerant and bigoted, but the cries have consistently been given by the left. Imagine if conservatives rallied to boycott homosexual store owners who fought Proposition 8. Bigots, right? Now, simply flip the roles--imagine liberals boycotting Christians who supported Propostion 8. Bigots, right? If each side, especially the left, could practice a bit more tolerance and civility in discourse, we could separate politics from personal lives. In fact, the left could take a page from Warren's book on how to treat those with whom he disagrees--Obama's visit to Warren's church was one of the highlights of the campaign trail.

He Walks on Water but Won't Answer Questions

2008-12-17T14:02:00.003-07:00

At a recent press conference, Obama was asked by John McCormick, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, why he had said he would take a "hands-off" approach to filling his old Senate seat even though Rahm Emanuel has figured so prominent in the discussions with Governor Blagojovich. Well, he tried to ask the question. Watch:

First of all, it's quite presumptive of Obama to suggest to a reporter that he not "waste his question." This was a blatant dodge of a very important question, and its disappointing that he refused to address the issue. Obama promised change, but a number of his staff and cabinet picks have either been close friends, or other Chicago politicians. You'd think he'd avoid further association with Illinios--until he picked the superintendent of Chicago public schools for Education Secretary.

If these kind of shady associations and dodged questions keep up, Obama might have everyone but MSNBC and TIME magazine on his case.

Why Don't You Just Tax the Yankees?

2008-12-16T21:25:00.005-07:00

It seems like everyone is having a budget shortfall these days--especially New York State. Rather than cutting spending or eliminating programs, Governor Patterson is proposing new taxes--lots of new taxes:

The proposal, which needs legislative approval, did not include broad-based income tax increases, but relied on smaller ones to raise $4.1 billion from cash-strapped New Yorkers.

Movie tickets, taxi rides, soda, beer, wine, cigars and massages would be taxed under Paterson's proposal. It also extends sales taxes to cable and satellite TV services and removes the tax exemption for clothes costing less than $110.

I'm no economist, but it seems like in tough economic times, you should be worried about making sure your families have enough money, not the government. Today's progressive ideals have pushed our local, state, and national governments so far into debt, making sure the government has money seems to be an end in itself. Isn't the purpose ultimately to ensure the safety and well-being of the people?

Some other taxes the state is considering mentioned in the article:

A tax on "digitally delivered entertainment services," or mp3 downloads
Sports tickets
Increased college tuitions (what a great way to prepare for your state's future--tax students)
Numerous registration fee increases (cars, auto insurance, parks, etc.)

If a private business simply raised prices 15% any time they were in financial trouble, they'd be bankrupt in months. Then again, if they were big enough they'd get a bailout anyway.

Who Throws a Shoe?

2008-12-15T21:24:00.002-07:00

Over the weekend, a truly bizarre thing happened while President Bush was making his last trip to Iraq--an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at Bush while screaming names at him. Perhaps more amazing was Bush's lightning-fast reflexes. Watch:

While I understand that this is an isolated incident, as Bush is apt to point out, the media is arguing that perhaps this isn't too far from how most people feel about President Bush. Supposedly, much of the Arab world is agreeing with the actions of the journalist and hailing him as a hero (even though he'll likely face up to seven years in prison).

While I understand the general anger against the United States, perhaps the journalist in question would like a little thought experiment. Let's all imagine what would have happened had our brave hero tried a similar stunt under Sadaam Hussein. President Bush dismissed him as an outlier, but Sadaam would have thrown him to the lions, maybe cut out his tounge, or perhaps gas his home village.

My only point here is this: Iraq, are you better off now than you were six years ago?

Our New Culture War

2008-12-13T23:59:00.003-07:00

On Friday night, a fire ripped through the church of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin causing an estimated $1 million in damages. Palin traveled to the church and apologized to the leadership if her recent campaign as Vice Presidential candidate had anything to do with the fire.

I've been amazed by the vitriol that many of those opposed to Palin during and after the campaign have spewed in the media. The amount of hatred and ridicule she recieved is perhaps only rivaled by George W. Bush. Even Colin Powell, the "born-again" liberal has called her "polarizing." My observation, however, is that the more she's accused of being a polemic, the more she is viewed as such, regardless of her own actions. If a Democrat were to accuse the Republicans of various misdeeds as she did during the campaign (I can't imagine it), no one would bat an eyelash.

If this is proven to be arson, it doesn't seem to dissimilar to the emotions and actions against many members of the Latter-day Saint church. Churches have been vandalized, flooded, scriptures burned, anthrax hoaxes committed, and blacklists proposed. Many of those who insist on tolerance are engaging in horribly biggoted actions. I hope that this is not a sign of things to come, but I beleive that we are on the cusp of a cultural war unparalleled in American history.

On Guantanamo Bay and Torture

2008-11-18T16:06:00.002-07:00

This article was originally intended for publication in the Daily Universe.

Hearing the words “Guantanamo Bay,” “waterboarding,” or “enemy combatants” is likely to illicit complaints against the Bush administration. It has become increasingly popular to dismiss President Bush as a crook and to label any presidential action of the last eight years a failure. Such is the case with GITMO, a detention camp located in Cuba reserved for some prisoners of war, but mainly for enemy combatants—prisoners apprehended during war that were not in uniform. The hasty, emotional argument would support President-elect Obama’s position to close down GITMO and try those prisoners awaiting cases trials in the United States. However, closing down GITMO, releasing prisoners back to their country, and giving prisoners American trials is dangerous and irresponsible.

First, the majority of the detainees at GITMO are enemy combatants, and are not guaranteed the protections promised in the Geneva Convention. Enemy combatants generally hide among the general population during wars, attacking soldiers from schools, churches, or homes. To argue that they deserve habeas corpus or other Constitutional rights feels good, but is completely unsupportable. Many of the detainees present an immediate threat to the United States and we would likely soon feel the effects of releasing the prisoners back to their homelands. Since Obama has already stated his intentions to these ends, all I can do is sounds a voice of warning to him and to Democrats alike: such actions weaken the Constitution and are a disservice to our men of service who captured the combatants in the first place. If GITMO is closed, warn our soldiers to be extra careful around churches and schools.

Second, prisoners at GITMO (and other similar military locations around the world) have revealed vital information to protect American lives at home and abroad. To say that “America doesn’t torture” is another optimistic statement, but it ignores the harsh realities of the times in which we live. My position is far from advocating torture or condoning it—to use extreme interrogation techniques without proper motive is immoral. Additionally, while the Jack Bauer “ticking time-bomb” scenario is largely a fantasy, we must allow room for discretion. When intelligence has absolutely confirmed that a particular detainee has information on an impending attack or other knowledge that will lead to the apprehension of more terrorists and the subject refuses to comply, torture can be the greater good. I’m reminded of the difference between murder and capital punishment. While we would label murder as immoral, capital punishment is viewed by a majority in the United States to be both just and effective. To put it bluntly, capital punishment is murder with a purpose. A careful application of interrogation techniques is torture with a purpose. But, to repeat, there should be extensive oversight.

Last, while closing down GITMO and handing out rights to former prisoners is a great PR move for the Obama administration, it weakens our ability to protect the country. It’s fun to believe that the reason radical Islam hates the West is because we’re big and mean and enjoy violating others’ rights. The tension between radical Islam and the West is deeper, and is far more fundamental to their beliefs than can be changed by a token sign of conciliation. Radical Islam is intent on reestablishing the caliphate and spreading its influence globally. Europe has already felt its effects, and through politically correct concessions, it is beginning to rot from the inside. The Bush administration admittedly has made numerous mistakes that have weakened our image and damaged friendships. Closing GITMO or extending a “ban” on torture is not the right way to repair it.

In fear that the harshness of my words have distanced some from my message, allow me to extend a congratulations to President-elect Obama in an historic win. America was clearly ready for a change of leadership. However, disagreement is just as patriotic as when President Bush made his policy decisions. As a single conservative voice, I wish President Obama the best, but will be one of his strongest critics. Closing Guantanamo Bay would be the first mistake of his historic presidency.

Bailout vs. Bankruptcy

2008-11-13T18:03:00.002-07:00

Another bailout? It looks like not only do banks want government bailouts, auto manufacturers, and even states (yes, as in the United States) want government handouts to save them from the horrors of bankruptcy. How in the world did we get to this point?

An excellent piece on bankruptcy and the auto industry appeared in the New York Times today, on the front page no less, contesting the idea that bankruptcy is the worst possible thing for the auto industry. A selection from the article (of which I recommend the whole piece):

But not everyone agrees that a Chapter 11 filing by G.M. would be the disaster that many fear. Some experts note that while bankruptcy would be painful, it may be preferable to a government bailout that may only delay, at considerable cost, the wrenching but necessary steps G.M. needs to take to become a stronger, leaner company.
Although G.M.’s labor contracts would be at risk of termination in a bankruptcy, setting up a potential confrontation with its unions, the company says its pension obligations are largely financed for its 479,000 retirees and their spouses...

...And as companies in industries like airlines, steel and retailing have shown, bankruptcy can offer a fresh start with a more competitive cost structure to preserve a future for the workers who remain.

“Just let market forces play out,” said Matthew J. Slaughter, associate dean at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. “And if G.M. or one of the other companies files for bankruptcy, support the workers and the communities that would affected by a bankruptcy filing.”

Do people not recognize what brought the United States economy to where it is today? Government intervention in business was something normally expected with countries like the U.S.S.R., China, or Venezuela. Now, a normal, U.S. company that makes cars wants help. The reason that capitalism makes so much sense is that is true "survival of the fittest," Darwinism at its finest (shouldn't Democrats be all about it?). The market dictates which companies should survive, which ones should file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (which allows companies protection from their creditors to restructure), or ultimately Chapter 7 bankruptcy (the real deal). When a company with a failing business plan gets a handout from the government, we are just sinking money into a dead investment. There will be no profit until the fundamentals of the company are changed.

Talking with an anonymous source in a financially-oriented career, he suggested that it is the unions that are sinking GM. As the NYTimes article notes, employee pensions are almost completely financed (in other words, they don't have the cash to pay them). Because the unions are so large, they stranglehold their employers into giving them benefits they can't afford. Why do you think the Japanese automakers are succeeding? No unions!

What is more important to the American people? Allowing GM to go into bankruptcy, restructure their company, and compete with the Japanese, or should we bailout GM now so their assembly line employees can retire at 55 with a $50,000/year salary? You make the call--you're the one paying for it.

The 111th Congress and DOMA

2008-11-11T13:26:00.003-07:00

When the 111th U.S. Congress meets in 2009 (with or without Al Fraknen, depending on how many more mystery votes emerge), Democrats will have a supposed mandate to retract the policies of the Bush White House and the Republican Congress of yesteryear. Liberal activist groups are giddy with the prospects of dream legislation being passed. However, before Congress acts too fast, let's remember the lessons of Bill Clinton and the 103rd Congress.

When Clinton took office in 1993, Clinton was estatic to have Democratic control of both Congress and the White House. So, Bill and Hillary jumped into what they perceived as the most important issues of the day: gays in the military, and health care. The result? Congress turned against the President, and approval ratings plummeted. Thanks to some wiser policy decision later (which was largely sitting on their hands and allowing the economy to soar), Clinton remained in office, but such was not the fate for Congress; the GOP took over in 1995 with Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America."

With the passage of Propostion 8 and other ammendments in states, the pro-gay marriage lobby is furious. Protests have taken place and boycotts are proposed. Where does their anger turn next? Congress. By repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, the spread of gay marriage and civil unions would be expedited. The Democrats have a mandate, right? While much of the country is upset with the GOP and government in general, the United States is still largely a socially conservative country. Combining all proposed "protecting marriage" initiatives, 66% of voters have supported traditional marriage. In California, 70% of blacks voted Yes on proposition 8. What would happen if Congress enters session and immediately legislates on social issues? Let's just say, 2010 might be a good year for the GOP.

Democrats might learn something by looking to the "first" black President, Bill Clinton. By focusing any of their efforts on social issues when the economy is suffering and Iraq is quagmiring, they are effectively showing themselves the door in 2010.

President-elect Obama

2008-11-10T16:35:00.003-07:00

To begin, congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama. It is definitely a sign of progress that a black man can ascend to the Presidency. I wish him all the best and hope that he can govern with justice and humility. I will undoubtedly be a harsh critic of policies I disagree with, but he is unquestionably my president.

In an act that is hopefully not a sign of things to come, Obama pulled an intricate agenda of his policy efforts for the next four years. Says the Washington Times:

Instead, the official agenda on Change.gov has been boiled down to one vague paragraph proclaiming a plan “to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.”

“We are currently retooling the Web site,” said Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro.

To his credit, the list is still available on his campaign website, but how long is that likely to stay completely active? I have high hopes for the Obama presidency, realizing that it is a time for the GOP to fix their party and understand how to attract the moderate voter. Much of Obama's policies scare me, but I hope he can truly be a uniting president.

Law, Government, and Gay Marriage

2008-10-29T16:57:00.003-07:00

The following is a summary of Robert George's speech mixed with personal commentary and analysis.

Robert George, a professor of politics and law at Princeton University, spoke at the Brigham Young University forum on Tuesday on the role of government and law with respect to abortion and gay marriage. It was a refreshing to hear someone of prominence to argue that logic and reason are not tools that can only be used by moral relativists, as they often argue. George, a natural law adherent, noted that pro-choice activists often attempt to disarm their opponents by suggesting that pro-life advocates do not have a reasonable position (meaning 'reason' in its purest sense). By tying law to morality, their argument is indefensible. However, their claim that all morality is relative falls into the same category: a sweeping attempt to encompass all legislative possibilities in one theory.

George's defense of traditional marriage was especially unique. Rather than using a purely moral approach, George recalled the historical and legal reasons for marriage between one man and one woman. Returning to the time of the Greeks, marriage was regarded as the ultimate physical union of a man and woman. For millenia, marriage remained as it has been. Could they have been wrong for so many years? Many of those who argue for gay marriage say that such a union should be based on love. The same progressive thinkers also declare that such traditional labels, like gender, or sexuality, have been forced on innocent thinkers. Thus, gender should have nothing to do with marriage, right?

Marriage is legally and historically based on sex--the actual physical union of male and female. It is this emotionally and physically symbiotic relationship that has been the foundation of society for thousands of years and has allowed values and morality to be taught by families. The government then depends on the good people that families are able to produce--but that the government cannot.

One of the strongest arguments against gay marriage is that any argument for allowing homosexuals to marry necessarily argues that marriage can be between any number of people of any gender. If love is all that matters, why can't two men and one woman wed? Three men and four women? Interestingly, some of the strongest proponents of gay marriage are often those who decry polygamy the loudest. It's about love, right?

Recently, a church on the east coast lost its tax exempt status after refusing to let a homosexual couple have a marriage performed on their seaside property. A 100-year old Catholic adoption agency lost their license to place children in families after they refused to place children with a homosexual couple. In a harbinger of things to come, children are taught in progressive school districts that marriage is just an agreement between two people that love each other. If I am called a bigot by my peers, so be it. I believe that maintaining marriage between one man and one woman is central to the stability and moral integrity of our country, and the acceptance of it will lead to a philosophical split in this country that may never be repaired.

Colin Powell Sees the Light

2008-10-22T15:01:00.003-07:00

Colin Powell, the man who once swore before Congress and the United Nations Security Council that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ready to be used, endorsed Barack Obama on Sunday. Powell claimed that the historical nature of Obama's presidency and mistakes by his own party was leading him to make his decision. Wrote Rush Limbaugh about the endorsement:

Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race. OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with.

Whether or not race had anything to do with it is up for debate, and a compelling argument could be made for either side. More than race, I find it interesting how the Democrats are so eager to embrace Powell. The man who was behind the war that has angered liberals more than almost anything else within the last 20 years suddenly supports their candidate, the first black candidate for President. Surely the media lauds him now as a patriot and strong American, but had a Democrat openly endorse McCain, he would surely be dissowned. Wait...that would be Joe Liebermann.

Republicans are largely silent about the Powell endorsement, as I am. I really don't care too much. I just wish the media and the Democrats would realize how baised their take on political switches really are. Just months ago, Romney was criticized as a flip-flopper and conservative panderer for turing to the right. Turn to the left, however, and you are an intellectual and have awoken from a deep slumber of ignorance.

Progressives--Moving our World "Forward"

2008-10-21T15:50:00.003-07:00

Modern progressivism, or as it is commonly called today, liberalism, is becoming less and less appealing to me. I try to keep an open mind to ideas from the other side, but lately I haven't heard any I like. Listen to these two examples. You might call them extreme, but I think they are a sample of where modern governments are moving, and is only a continuation of a constant ideological and political shift for years now.

1. San Fransisco, the happiest place on earth, is considering decriminalizing prostitution. Based on the AP article, I think a better phrase would be legalizing prostitution. The local government will save $11 million a year on enforcement, too (since when have liberals cared about saving money...or congressional conservatives for that matter?). Proposition K will be voted on in November is looks to gain more support than a similar proposition in Berkley that failed with only 33% of the vote. I'm amazed it got that much support.

2. A 36 year-old man in the UK was recently convicted of murdering, and then ripping flesh from his victim, cooking, and eating it. Lock him up for life right? Death penalty maybe? Anthony Morley was given a "life sentence" of a minimum 30-year sentence. That's right, he could be out in 30 years--and we all know that "minimum doesn't really mean minimum at all. That's just the starting bid for future appeals to lower the sentence for good behavior (which in this case might just mean not eating people).

These two stories haven't been sitting in a folder until there were two to write an article on--I found one today and one yesterday. These kind of progressive actions are happening in the world all around us. Even better, if you disagree with progressives, you are bigoted, backwards, and a religious fanatic. If that's the case, I'll gladly take all three titles.

Baseball and Economics

2008-10-20T14:52:00.002-07:00

First note of the day: I am extremely excited about the Rays-Phillies matchup for the World Series, and this is the first time that I have predicted the World Series exactly right. I was wrong on who the Rays and Phils would beat to get to the series (I called Angels and Cubs), but I got the big one right. This is going to be a wonderful matchup that any baseball fan should love. Although I like both teams, I will definitely be cheering for the Tampa Bay Rays--they have the potential to be the first team ever to go from worst in the majors to World Champs in one season. I talked to a Red Sox "fan" today who claimed that this would be a lame World Series and that "it would have the lowest ratings in history." That may be, but all of the fairweather BoSox fans will miss out on a great matchup. Go Rays!

Second note of the day: I was quoted in an article in today's Daily Universe about McCain and Obama's economic policies. Scroll to the last two paragraphs to catch my input. The link is above, but I will post the article below as well. Enjoy!

Candidates offer economic plans, both with pros and cons
By Todd Holbrook - 20 Oct 2008

While some people are eagerly watching stock market prices bounce up and down, a group of economists have gathered information together to predict what may be best for the economy's future: McCain.
In a press release issued by Arizona Governor John McCain in July, more than 300 economists signed a statement saying Senator Barack Obama's economic plan may lead the economy into a recession. However, both sides speculate what the best plan of action may be.
Economists who made the statement evaluated candidates' proposals and their future impact. In the statement, those who signed say Obama's proposals "are wrong for the American economy," but Dr. David Spencer, professor in BYU's Economics Department, said that ultimately it is a matter of perspective.
Spencer said that although he signed the statement that is mainly against Obama's proposals, he does not necessarily endorse McCain's economic policies either.
"I have a problem with Obama's plan and I have a problem with McCain's plan," Spencer said. "McCain's may be more pro-growth while Obama's plan is pro-income distribution, which is slow-growth."
Steve Pierce, a political science major and solid democrat, also said it is easy to find people that agree with your opinion and there is a solution within Obama's policies.
"Just because John McCain's campaign can put out a nice press release with a bunch of names, it doesn't necessarily mean that most of economists agree with his backwards approach to the current situation, or that even those whose names do appear on the list are buying McCain's nonsense," Pierce said.
Pierce also mentioned some benefits to Obama's economic strategy.
"Barack Obama will bring back the necessary regulatory oversight and responsibility that is absolutely vital in keeping our economy stable," Pierce said. "He will restore common sense economic policies that work for the American people, not for Big Business and the multi-millionaires on Wall Street."
Republicans on campus voice their opinions too, saying Obama's tax plan may do more damage than good.
"The key flaw in Barack Obama's proposed economic policies are the tax policies," said Daniel Woolston, public relations director for BYU College Republicans. "Obama's proposals are tantamount to wealth redistribution. Obama himself recently said that we need to "spread the wealth around." That doesn't sound to me like the United States."
The statement can be found on www.JohnMcCain.com.

2008 MLB Playoffs Predictions

2008-09-30T20:58:00.004-07:00

My playoff predictions for the 2008 MLB Playoffs:

Division Series:
Phillies over Brewers in 5
Cubs over Dodgers in 4

Angels over Red Sox in 4
Rays over White Sox in 5

League Championship Series:
Phillies over Cubs in 7
Rays over Angels in 7

World Series:
Phillies over Rays in 6

A Faithful Reader Repsonds on Immigration

2008-09-25T11:41:00.003-07:00

Yesterday, after my illegal immigration op-ed was published, I received an email from an adult who is either a student or teacher at BYU (probably a student) who is married to an illegal immigrant and was upset by my opinions on the issue. Following is his email (let's call him Bob), and then my response to his email. Enjoy:

Dear Daniel,

I'm a life-long republican. Problem is, the Republican party is on the wrong side of this issue for several reasons.

I read both viewpoints today. The Democrats have it right at this point.

I'm married to an illegal immigrant. We have four children, two now married to Americans. We also have a 4-year old daughter, ours. Sealed in the Temple. Hmmm, ever wonder why the LORD allows us to be sealed, even though according to you, my wife has "broken the law" to come illegally? The prophet allow our sealing. She and I are both "worthy" despite her coming illegally.

1. Our government issues Tax ID numbers Daniel. This issuance, is a legal acceptance of our government of her presence.

2. Our government has encouraged illegals to come, by giving tax id numbers, and other benefits. The government needs to stand up and accept the responsibility for their being here in the first place.

3. You and others suggest we fine and penalize businesses for hiring the very people the government has hung the proverbial carrot in front of, for taking the carrot! Businesses? Since when did the mistakes of the government become the responsibility of the businesses to fix? Common Daniel.

4. Businesses need workers. They hire who they can. Okay, lets fine Mom and Pop businesses and corporations until they go out of business. A. Because they couldn't find workers, or B. Because we fined them out of existance!

5. I see the writing on the wall Daniel, huge financial organizations screw up, who pays? The Tax payer. Lets bail them out! Let's bail out our government for getting us in this immigration mess by taxing (fining) the businesses!

6. Trust our Government, that they will FIX legal Immigration? Daniel, what was the last thing our Government actually fixed? Daniel?

Social Security? Immigration? Terrorism? Health and medical issues? The government fixes absolutely nothing. So you want to send all the illegals home, and you think they will be able to come back legally? When? 20 years?

My wife is married to an American Citizen. We have a family. We had NO idea the mess we were getting into. I would still do it, because I know we were brought together by the Lord. She was lead by the spirit to come to the US. She didn't want to come. She followed her promptings and came.

Prophets and Apostles stand and say we should be merciful and understanding. But Daniel and his friends, want to go ahead and be unmerciful and not understanding.

Read 2Nephi. You will read that that Lord says He will bring whom he will bring into this free land. It will be a land of liberty unto them. And if they are righteous, they will be able to live in this free land. D.B., who is more righteous? "MOST" immigrants are more righteous than our own nation's people. It may well turn out, Daniel, that our Constitution hangs by a thread, and most of our nation will be Lamanite at some point in the future. You might want to learn Spanish.

Following is my response to Bob's email:

You make many assumptions without knowledge. To begin, I do speak Spanish, and spent two years in Northern Virginia teaching hispanics (the vast majority of which were illegal) the gospel. I love the people of Mexico, of El Salvador, of Peru, of Bolivia. They touched my heart because of their sincerity and their hard work. However, it does not change the fact that they entered the country illegally. You claim that "according to me" your wife entered the country illegally--that's not according to me, that's according to the law which you pledge to uphold, both as a member of this country and a member of the church. I'm not saying that you can't marry who you want nor should the church overly restrict who can and who cannot be baptized. One of the reasons the church now allows illegal immigrants to be baptized is becuase many years ago, (at least as far back as 1974) the church did not allow them to be baptized. So, they would return to their country, be baptized, and then re-illegally cross the border back into the United States. The church felt like they were putting people in danger and encouraging illegal behavior, so they stopped the rule. While one may be worthy to be baptized, they may still be engaging in illegal behavior, as you have demonstrated. The laws of the Church, under no earthly circumstance, supercede the laws of the land.

To respond directly to many of your points:

1. The government may issue an illegal immigrant tax ID numbers, but by no means does that legalize his or her presence. The government would rather collect your taxes than not.

2. Your argument that "they were here first" is far too theological, antiquated, and moot to garner a response. The world recognizes this land as the United States of America.

3. You claim that we force illegal immigrants into our country--in fact this is a combination of our excellent economic situation, and the corruption and poverty in the countries from which the illegal immigrants arrive. By no means should we take the blame because we are successful. That's like blaming the burglary of the Rolex store on the management for putting so many pretty watches on display.

4. Sure, U.S. businesses need workers. If economic forces are so powerful, as you claimed in point 3, the market will correct itself and hire the currently unemployed U.S. citizens and legal hispanic immigrants.

5. Once again, you treat hiring illegal immigrants as an accepted practice, and that fining them is the equivalent of bailing out investment banks. Hiring illegal immigrants is illegal.

6. This argument is pure hyperbole and emotion, and I won't respond to it.

By bringing your family into the argument, you are attempting to both exemplify the wrongness of the laws and to create an emotional appeal. I saw many families that were benefited by illegal immigration--but that is the point, of course. They would arrive illegally otherwise. To say that your wife was "prompted" to immigrate is fine, but she also could have do so legally.

I am compassionate to the existence of many who live in poverty and unemployment, but they absolutely must obey our laws, period. Mercy cannot rob justice.

Also, you claim that, referring to 2 Nephi, God will bring his selected to this land. However, I think you are selling the many hispanics who have immigrated, including your wife, short. Who said that God was referring to the United States of America. I always thought he meant the Americas, North, Central, and South. You should blame the corrupt politicians and drug lords that have raped, pillaged, and destroyed the promised land south of our border. As to the "righteousness" of illegal immigrants, I will save that judgment for God.

Thanks for reading my opinion peace in the paper, and I am glad that it got you thinking. Feel free to respond if you so choose.

Sincerely,

D.B. Woolston

New Daily Universe op-ed: Illegal Immigration

2008-09-24T15:43:00.003-07:00

I apologize for the lack of frequent posts, but I am taking the LSAT on October 4th, and free time is at a premium for me. Once October 5th hits, I am yours. In the meantime, here is another op-ed that was published in the Wednesday, September 24th edition of the Daily Universe, the BYU campus newspaper, on Illegal Immigration. Enjoy:

Enforcing Illegal Immigration, Encouraging Legal Immigration by D.B. Woolston

Most people in the United States consider illegal immigration a serious issue, but that shipping twelve million people home is too large a task. Among the usual arguments for some type of amnesty or another include the following: How will the government locate all illegal immigrants and send them all home? Or, won’t sending home so many millions of hard workers destroy our already weak economy? Or lastly, won’t the images that would be produced for the world of the country sending home so many millions of immigrants destroy our already tarnished reputation around the world? Many of these concerns are unfounded because they simply rely on faulty assumptions. The problem of illegal immigration can be solved with compassion, but also with legality.

It is surprising that people assume that the government would have locate, apprehend, and transport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country. Why make the government do it when the market, combined with enforced legislation could do it for us? For example, the federal government can further enforce laws that already exist by creating a great disincentive for employers to hire illegal immigrants. If a $10,000 per day per illegal immigrant hired fine were enacted and enforced firmly by government authorities, it would be extremely risky for an employer to continue using illegal labor--in fact, they might just be willing to instead pay more per hour to a legal citizen (probably a legal immigrant). Illegal immigrants would soon realize that to obtain work, they should go home and apply to immigrate legally. The government could even provide a voucher to any illegal immigrant desiring a bus ride home. However, the key to the whole idea is enforcement. If the fine is strictly enforced to the point where employers fear being caught more than paying a higher wage, it will work.

This one fact, perhaps more than any other, draws attention to a weakness in government that is adversely affecting so many issues and is further weakening the public’s trust in government. There is a constant push for new, tougher laws to fight crime, terrorism, drugs, and in this case, illegal immigration. However, there are often tough, specific laws already on record aimed at eliminating any such behavior. The problem is enforcement. With a government budget already stretched thin and already too large, it becomes increasing difficult to effectively enforce the law. There needs to be no debate on the issue—thus the very name of the issue—illegal immigration. If legal immigration increases and illegal immigration decreases, the American government could allow more legal immigration through temporary work visas, paths to citizenship, etc. When illegally crossing the border is the only realistic way to work in the United States, the market encourages that very path.

I don't want to sound anti-immigrant by any means. Legal immigration to the United States is a wonderful thing and will only improve the United States. Legal immigrants contribute academically, in technological innovations, and culturally. I understand the terrible situation that many are in their respective home countries. Many countries throughout Central and South America, Africa, and Asia are filled with corruption and dictatorships. For two years I lived among many legal and illegal immigrants in the northeastern United States. They come here because they want a better life for their families. Since it takes so long to immigrate legally and the border is porous and just a few thousand dollars and a border coyote away, they cross illegally. If we enforce our laws, allow the market to send illegal immigrants home, and create easier ways to immigrate, our country will be a safer and more economically prosperous place to live. Why not just let all those who have crossed illegally stay? Because they have broken the law. To continue to have a country to which people want to belong, we must not only be a country of financial prosperity, but a country of laws that are efficiently enacted, observed and enforced. Beyond national security, I want to end illegal immigration because I want to continue legal immigration.

On the Air

2008-09-17T17:03:00.008-07:00

Yesterday, September 16th, I had the privilege of appearing on KRCL 90.9 FM in Salt Lake City, Utah. I represented the BYU College Republicans and debated the former Vice-Chair of the University of Utah College Democrats. I had an absolute blast. The first twenty minutes or so were entirely nerve-wracking, and I was fighting dry-mouth with all my energy, but once I got into the flow of the program and really started discussing and forgetting about the microphone in front of me, I had the time of my life.

Despite a caller asking if we were causing global warming by sucking the life force (oil) out of the earth, we were able to discuss some important issues. The biggest difference I noticed between the Democrat and me was our positions of policies versus people. I said that as a Republican, I trusted that people are inherently good and chartiable, and that you know how to spend your money better than anyone else. The Democrat, in rebuttal, said "I don't trust people, I trust policies." I'm not sure if he really meant to sat that, but he didn't retract it. I pounced on the opportunity to express my faith in the American people and the right you have to spend your own money, not getting 35% of it taken by the IRS.

I invite any of you who can to check out even a part of the broadcast. This is hopefully my first of many radio appearances. You can stream or download the show here. Those of you who listened, or who will listen, thanks for your support, and I would love your comments.

Don't Mess With Texas

2008-09-12T15:33:00.003-07:00

While my attention has been absorbed in national politics and standardized test studying, my hometown is in the pathway of Hurricane Ike. Having lived in Houston for roughly 20 years, I never experienced a hurricane like Ike. With winds around 110 mph and a 900 mile diameter, this storm will wreak horrendous damage to my beloved Houston and its surrounding areas.

I have to admit--I am quite worried about the people, and especially my parents, riding out the storm in Sugar Land, located southwest of Houston. I don't have much to say but to invite those who read this to pray for the safety of all those in the path of this deadly storm. Mom and Dad, my prayers are with you. Be safe and show Ike that you Don't Mess With Texas.

Health Care: My Daily Universe Op-ed

2008-09-11T14:20:00.003-07:00

This is the op-ed I wrote for the BYU newspaper, the Daily Universe, about Heath Care. It will appear tomorrow, September 12th and is the first in a series of contrasting views between Democrats and Republicans:

Health Care—it’s not as exciting as the other topics in this election year, but is perhaps the one that will affect you the most. There are currently about 45 million people in the United States that are uninsured, a disappointing statistic. What do we do to insure those who are currently uninsured? There are certain steps we can’t take—letting the government take over and provide “free” universal health care.

To begin, governments have proven themselves incapable of providing efficient and successful health care. In Canada, the Democrats’ shining example of government health care, over half of those requesting to see a specialist waited four weeks or more, and almost a quarter waited over four hours in an emergency room. Often, wealthier Canadians will travel to the United States for surgeries or specialist visits. Once government gets involved, the system inevitably slows down. Imagine your last DMV visit, but this time you need surgery, not a license renewal.

Second, the idea that the government could provide “free” universal health care is a misnomer and a fraud. Any universal health care plan would cost billions of dollars, causing the government to increase taxes once again. A middle-class, generally healthy family would have the privilege of paying for the doctor’s visits of both people who are unavoidably sick (cancer, seasonal sicknesses), and those who brought it upon themselves (obesity, lung cancer). If I’m going to pay for everyone’s hospital visits, it would make sense to make smoking, alcohol, and overeating illegal, as well as making seatbelts, hands-free cell phones, and bike helmets mandatory (see the pattern?). If you want to smoke your lungs to ash, feel free, but don’t make me pay for the respirator.

Third, the new tax revenue would likely never make it to the health care industry. Just as you will never see your social security or Medicare payments—since the government has already spent it—don’t be surprised to see “free universal health care” bankrupt in due time. The government simply does not know how to manage money. With government spending too much money already, real fiscal responsibility is needed. Mandating that all businesses, especially small businesses, provide complete health insurance to all its employees forces companies to cut costs, fire employees, or even go out of business, in an attempt to provide coverage.

The McCain-Palin campaign has fresh, innovative, and fiscally-wise ideas for health care. The key difference is that families are in charge of their own health care decisions. Health care should be affordable for everyone, but it must be managed in a way that people make money—those are the only systems that work. Health Care Credits can be given to each family currently uninsured privately, with a selection of private health care providers from which to choose. Allowing as much of the industry to remain private as possible allows competition to remain, leading to innovation, better patient care, and a concern for customer satisfaction. The introduction of four to five dollar generic prescription drugs, available without health insurance, is an example of how competition invites innovation. Stores from Walmart to CVS pharmacies now offer a month’s supply of many life-saving drugs for a price that any family in America can afford.

The McCain-Palin campaign has placed a large emphasis on reducing the cost of health insurance to make it affordable to all. In addition to encouraged competition, legislation should be introduced to stop frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, costing the health care industry millions of dollars each year, enriching lawyers and putting good doctors out of business.

Providing health care to all requires innovation and invention. The solution is simple, and government should stay out of it as much as possible. “Free” healthcare places the burden unnecessarily on a few, while a combination of government support and private cooperation can allow millions access to safe, quality health care. Government mandated programs can’t work, cost too much, and ultimately fail those who need it most.

Now Sarah Palin's a Racist Too

2008-09-10T13:00:00.004-07:00

I apologize for spending so much time on "he said, she said" bickering, but the fact that it has become such a front-page story of the last few days is quite interesting. The latest to jump into the donnybrook is New York Governor David Patterson. Disappointed to not hear any racist comments from McCain, Gov. Patterson decided to make one up. Says Gov. Patterson:

"I think the Republican Party is too smart to call Barack Obama 'black' in a sense that it would be a negative. But you can take something about his life, which I noticed they did at the Republican Convention – a 'community organizer.' They kept saying it, they kept laughing,"

Writes WCBS in New York City:

Paterson sees the repeated use of the words "community organizer" as Republican code for "black".

Wait, what? Really? First Obama says that the McCain campaign will, sometime in the future point out that Obama doesn't look like our other presidents, and now Patterson says "community organizer" is code word for "black"? If McCain were to say anything racist, or the Republican party were to support any type of racist advertisement, I would be the first to attack it, but this is a huge stretch, even for Democrats. I wrote it yesterday, but I'll write it again: The left just can't get over Sarah Palin.

Obama and Biden Can't Leave Palin Alone

2008-09-09T21:25:00.004-07:00

Normally, at this point in the Presidential campaign, the novelty of the Vice Presidential picks has worn off and the candidates are back to bashing each other. But Obama and Biden just can't seem to leave Sarah Palin alone.

To begin, Joe Biden had some unfortunate things to say about Palin that are so utterly inappropriate and hateful, it has turned me from ignoring Biden to actively disliking him. Here's what Biden said when asked if Palin's nomination was a step forward for women:

"well look, I think the issue is what does Sarah Palin think? What does she believe? I assume she thinks and agrees with the same policies that George Bush and John McCain think. And that's obviously a backward step for women."

I'm sure it sounded good in his head, but not when he realized he said it into a microphone. Then again, this is the guy who said, about Barack Obama in 2007: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man." Oh yeah, and the gem about Indians: "I've had a great relationship. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." To his credit, maybe he just can't help it.

But what about the "bright and clean" Obama? Referring to McCain and Palin's attempt to steal the "change" theme from the Obama campaign, Obama said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig," in reference to Palin's joke during her acceptance speech that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull was lipstick. Once again, it might have sounded funny in your head, Mr. Obama, but it just didn't work.

Voters are already feeling sympathetic toward Palin and her favorability ratings are above even Obama's. The Democrats are scared to death and are attacking from every angle. The left-wing bloggers continue to churn out falsehoods (like the book ban list, which included Harry Potter books that hadn't even been published in the year the Democrats claimed the list was from), and now both Obama and Biden are on the offensive. A warning to Democrats: it's not going to work. All you are doing is appearing offensive and harsh. If Palin scares you, ignore her and talk about McCain. The GOP has to be feeling good. Polls have McCain on top, and the Democrats are busy attacking the 44 year-old Vice Presidential candidate. Point, GOP.

Obama's Faith

2008-09-07T21:30:00.003-07:00

I normally don't post on Sunday, but this video was just too interesting to hold on to until Monday.

Barack Obama was interviewed today by George Stephanopolous on ABC about attacks on his supposed Christian faith. I found three things interesting about this short, two-minute excerpt from the interview.

First, I love how Obama thinks that the McCain campaign must be behind the accusations that he is a muslim, but there is no way that Obama condones the left-wing bloggers' ridiculous claims that the down syndrome baby is actually her daugther's baby, and so on. Second, whenever Obama talks about faith, he seems very uncomfortable and never answers a question directly. If you're not religious, just say it. It won't affect my vote if you're agnostic, but don't pretend. Third, at about 1:20 in the video, Obama says something about McCain attacking "my Muslim faith." Stephanopolous tries to correct him, Obama corrects himself, but then recorrects his correction. Awkward. Interesting. Watch:

How CNN Works

2008-09-06T12:23:00.002-07:00

CNN has an interesting way of handling their coverage of the Democratic and Republican National Convention these past two weeks. I wanted to see all the coverage before I commented on it, but the patterns were quite obvious.

During the Democratic National Convention, the articles consistently noted the historic nature of the nomination of Barack Obama, the first (half) black candidate of a major political party. Their reporters gushed at the outpouring of emotions, the swelling feelings of pride and country for their candidate--I mean, the Democrat candidate. The stories on CNN.com were straightforward and eitheir impartial, or positive.

CNN's coverage of the Republican National Convention was quite unique. Frequently brushing over the historic nature of the first woman vice presidential nominee of the Republicans, the coverage was usually neutral, but was sure to point out protests, controversies, and potential scandals, especially dealing with Sarah Palin. Most notably was the coverage on CNN.com. Rather than a glowing article about the speeches (like Obama's speech, becuase how could anyone disagree with that?), they would publish their "iReporters" takes on Palin's and McCain's speeches. Well, that's fair right? Instead of generally good coverage, CNN's use of iReports allows them to publish whatever insubstantial or biased opinions against the Republicans, but point the blame at the people, not the network.

I would be fine if this were done more consistently, but it's obvious why CNN uses it only for the Republicans. A very smart tactic, I'm sure the average, moderate reader isn't noticing.

How Delightfully Progressive

2008-08-29T12:04:00.004-07:00

I was surprised and excited by John McCain's pick for Vice President this morning--Alaska governor Sarah Palin. In a move that further cements McCain's reputation as an independent thinker, he both thought outside the political box and left the Democrats scrambling for material to attack the choice. Democrats quickly dismissed Palin as inexperienced (sounds familiar) even though Palin has more executive experience than McCain, Obama, or Biden. I also find the "lack of foreign policy experience" even more exasperating--fine, our VP candidate has little to no foreign policy experience; your presidential candidate has little to no foreign policy experience. The Democrats somehow think that since McCain is 72, he is bound to die at any moment.

However, the reaction by the Democrats and much of the media to McCain choosing a woman is much more confusing. When Obama and Hillary were running against each other near the end of the primaries, the Democrats were hailed as a progressive party where anyone can succeed. The possibility of a woman president, and then for a fleeting moment, vice president, was inspiring and emotional. But. Obama snubbed Hillary by not even considering her for the vice presidential nomination, so McCain picked a woman instead. Rather than praising the choice as progressive or monumental, the Democrats quickly accused the GOP of "opportunism." How dare McCain pick a woman in an attempt to steal disgruntled Hillary voters (all 18,000,000 of them). How typical of a Republican. Are you seeing the double standard?

Democrats pat themselves on the back for their progressivism, while condemning the Republicans for using gender to their advantage. If McCain can both increase his votes by picking a woman (and after all, isn't that the point?), and help progress the cause of women, I'd say he's a lot more "progressive" than Obama.

The War and November

2008-08-28T10:46:00.005-07:00

If the nation's opinion on the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are any sign of things to come, then John McCain should be very pleased. A new Rasmussen report shows that "Voter confidence in the War on Terror is at the highest level ever recorded since Rasmussen Reports began regular tracking in January 2004." Specifically, 54% of likely voters think that the United States and its allies are winning the war, while only 19% think that the terrorists are winning. Whether or not this is true, or what "winning" really means doesn't really matter--the public is finally pleased with the way the United States is handling itself. Additionally, the public is now evenly split on whether the Iraq war will ultimately be a success. (38%-41% that it will be a success).

Why the sudden upturn in public optimism? I'm not sure, but the breakdown is rather interesting:

While 46% of women say the U.S. is winning the war, 62% of men agree. Nearly a quarter of women (24%) think the terrorists are winning, while just 14% of men agree.

On a partisan basis, 82% of Republican voters say America is winning the War on Terror, just 34% of Democrats agree.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of unaffiliated voters say the U.S. and its allies are winning.

While this is definitely not the only factor affecting voters' decision in November, it must be good news to the GOP and McCain. While Bush is not getting the credit for the war (still only has a 30% approval of his performance in the Iraq war), McCain is not Bush. The Democrats seem to be driving home that message incessantly, but many voters see enough of a difference to ignore such a claim.

Look for Obama and Biden to either ignore the GOP's success with the wars, or to highlight Obama's solutions to the Iraq war. Things are looking up for McCain.

Just Another Politician

2008-08-27T13:06:00.004-07:00

When Obama burst onto the political scene in 2004, he was seen as the potential new face of the Democrat party. Black, successful, and eloquent, he soon promised change and hope for the country as President. Obama originally claimed that his campaign would be free from negativity, use only public funding, and would not allow special interests to run his campaign. He was a new type of politician.

However, once again we have more proof that Obama is another politician listening to those with money like any other politician. Today, an ABC reporter was arrested in downtown Denver for taking pictures of Democrat congressmen and "VIP donors" (as in, those with lots of money) from a public sidewalk. Denver police refused to divulge why he was being arrested.

The only difference between McCain and Obama is that while both are in the pockets of large donors, only Obama lies about it--clinging to his mantra of change.

On the Word "Maverick"

2008-08-26T22:05:00.002-07:00

I recently read an article by a Democrat pundit that offered faux-advice to John McCain on who to pick as his VP (and thank goodness we have Democrats to help Republicans with that). Rather than picking a safe, reliable choice that will assuage any concerns conservatives may have with McCain, the author suggested that McCain confirm his maverickness by bucking the trends and picking Joe Liebermann. When McCain instead picks a solid conservative, liberals will inevitably accuse McCain of being controlled by Rush Limbaugh. However, in my opinion, if the GOP took more electoral advice from Rush, they may win a few more elections.

First, McCain selecting the pro-choice, barely-Independent Liebermann will anger many, many conservatives, not just the Limbaughs of the world. As a mainstream conservative, McCain needs to further conservatize the ticket, not liberalize it. Sure, McCain would win over a handful of independents, many Republicans would stay home (the same goes for selecting Tom Ridge, although not to such a great extent).

Second, "maverick" does not mean reckless or without aim. I tend to cringe a little at such a puffed-up word, but McCain uses "maverick" to mean one who follows what he believes to be the best action regardless of party lines or politics. Being suddenly inconsistent is not desirable for a presidential candidate. As I said in my last post, while I disagree with many of McCain's past actions, he seems to be the safest candidate of the two.

Why I Support McCain

2008-08-25T17:03:00.002-07:00

I am just settling into my new apartment in Provo, southeast of campus, nestled against the foothills, with the giant Y right outside my room. To those of you who read (thats the past and the present verb) my blog, I apologize once again for my lack of posts. Those of you who know me more intimately know why. However, I am into my new place, and my political fingers have been itching to translate my feelings to you about much of what has happened the past few weeks.

Once the parties had chosen their candidates for the presidential election, the political world went to sleep for about a month and a half, so I turned my attention almost completely to the sports world instead. Baseball and the olympics occupied my attention until the political world woke back up.

The lack of political stimulus allowed me to reflect more intently on the future of the country and what each candidate presents as their platform. Those of you who know me know that I was intensly anti-McCain before and especially after the GOP selected him as their candidate. I blamed the process, the primaries, and especially the media. As the summer progressed, the more I grew to like McCain. I strongly disagree with McCain-Feingold, with McCain-Kennedy, and his opposition to the "Bush" tax cuts. But as I hear why he voted the way he did, or why he thinks the way he does, I am beginning to trust him as an honest person. He acknowleges that his biggest failing in life was the failure of his first marriage, that he has made political mistakes, and that he his rich and wants everyone else to be rich. He strongly supports financial accountability in Congress and is a vehement "pork-buster." He agrees with Obama that the war needs to end, but knows that the way to win it fast is more troops, not withdrawal. As one of the few politicians who supported the surge from the beginning, he knows how to win wars, originally just or not.

The opposite candidate is simply too risky. He is untested and unexperienced. We have yet to hear him articulate a clear energy, economic, or foreign policy. Where McCain answers questions with policy, Obama answers with vagueness. McCain is simply the stronger, polished, and ready-to-lead man.

The Anti-Obama Campaign

2008-05-31T22:17:00.002-07:00

As June begins, the Presidential race is nearing its final two: Obama and McCain. As I have previously stated in posts, I'm not really a fan of McCain--his doublespeak and liberal leanings are quite distasteful. However, Obama's recent run of over-the-top liberal demagoguery has cemented my resolve against him. I really don't want McCain as president, but Obama would be an absolute disaster. Obama is a Marxist, plain and simple.

When I return to BYU this fall, I plan on joining the BYU Republican Club, hopefully become an officer, and launch an enormous anti-Obama campaign on campus, helping wandering students that have flocked to Obama in such a confusing Presidential election. Many students are confused and need to be led by the hand. Obama will raise our taxes, sleep with the enemy, and give our sovereignty as a sign of affection to any country willing to take it.

The main attack plan is to fill BYU with shirts educating students, causing them to think about who Obama really is. If you have any ideas for t-shirts especially, please leave me a comment with your ideas. Also, if you attend BYU and are willing to help me, please do so. Thanks, and my blogging will increase as the summer continues.

A Flight with Five People? How Terrible!

2008-03-06T07:30:00.003-07:00

The latest slap-your-head moment for environmentalists. Actually, I'll call them eco-nuts, because I still consider myself an environmentalist and don't want to tarnish the name.

Eco-nuts are in an "uproar" over an American Airlines flight from Chicago to London that carried five passengers and used 22,000 gallons of fuel. From the article:

Richard Dyer, Friends of the Earth's transport campaigner said: "Flying virtually empty planes is an obscene waste of fuel. Through no fault of their own , each passenger's carbon footprint for this flight is about 45 times what it would have been if the plane had been full."

Terrible, huh? What a waste of fuel. American is destroying the environment for profit. However, what the eco-nuts forgot to consider was this:

"With such a small passenger load we did consider whether we could cancel the flight and re-accommodate the five remaining passengers on other flights.
"However, this would have left a plane load of west-bound passengers stranded in London Heathrow who were due to fly back to the US on the same aircraft.
"We sought alternative flights for the west-bound passengers but heavy loads out of London that day meant that this was not possible."

Had the flight not departed, potentially thousands of passengers later that day would have been stranded. It is typical of a single-issue lobby to be so obsessed with their cause that common sense is put on hold. And before the green-lobby goes crazy over this, consider their liberal idols in Hollywood--they constantly fly across the country in private jets that surely aren't hybrids. Do you think Martin Sheen and Sean Penn plane-pool with a few hundred people each day? Sean Penn's carbon footprint is likely 10,000 times the size of mine. Why don't they stage an"uproar" over their luxurious daily activities?

Hypocricy and a lack of common sense at its finest.

Ron Paul for President...er, Congress

2008-02-19T20:18:00.004-07:00

Is Ron Paul done running for President yet? Well, he might want to start considering calling it quits now before he loses two races. Recent polling in the 14th Congressional district of Texas show him trailing little-known challenger Chris Peden 43% to 32%. How in the world could this have happened?

First and foremost, the 14th congressional district was redistricted and now includes some of Galveston and east Houston (including neighborhoods close to NASA). Since Paul has been on the campaign trail, his tone against mainstream Republicans has become more shrill, declaring everything from the Iraq War to the IRS to NASA unconstitutional. I didn't know much about Paul before the '08 Presidential Campaign, so I figure that most of those in his own district didn't either. He was just the Republican on the ticket that got the straight-ticket vote. People are starting to think twice.

The die-hard Paulite website "The Daily Paul" pleads to the public:

If you listen carefully to Dr. Paul, one thing that you will notice is that he always refers to his seat in Congress as "our" seat. Not "mine" but "ours."

...We have a tough fight in the Republican primary on March 4th in Texas. Please donate what you can to Ron Paul's congressional reelection bid, and help protect our seat in congress. FYI, I sent $250 yesterday.

Does anyone really believe that there is a single politician free from special interests? Right. I think Paul's biggest supporters are the companies that print those little pocket Constitutions. Seriously though, it is interesting how a candidate for President is coming so close to losing the March 4th primary for his own congressional seat. It looks like the Chris Peden revolution has begun.

Theory and Fact

2008-02-16T23:27:00.004-07:00

I seem to be on a liberal-bashing trip lately, but I don't to make it seem like I'm closed minded or anything. I just like to point out irrational thinking when I see it--I guess you could call it unpragmatic thinking.

A proposed law in the California legislature is gaining support to make it part of California state school curriculum that "climate change" be taught to all students. Says the sponsor of the bill:

"You can't have a science curriculum that is relevant and current if it doesn't deal with the science behind climate change," Simitian said. "This is a phenomenon of global importance and our kids ought to understand the science behind that phenomenon."

Here's the problem, Mr. Simitian: what is the science behind this phenomenon? If you completely understand it, you should be on national television explaining it the the rest of us, because the rest of us don't. Those who believe that climate change is a man-made problem and that the earth will heat by 5 degrees in 100 years (or whatever it is), seem to think that those who disagree to the slightest degree are scientific heritics and should be ignored. I remember last year when a number of scientists declared that global warming was a fact, and anyone who disagreed did not understand reality.

On Friday, an ad in the New York Times promoted a conference featuring a number of prominent scientists that disagreed that climate change is occuring as it is being reported. In fact, they touted a petition signed by another 1,500 scientists that felt the same way. These naysayers are being ignored by the media and dismissed as irrelevent.

Once again, a liberal theory has been labeled 'fact,' and thus should be taught to one and all. Those of us who graduated from high school recently know of the liberal bias in many textbooks, from history to psychology. My senior year psychology teacher told me that mothers are no better than fathers in raising and nurturing children. I got an A in the class, because I simply thought what the politically correct answer on the test would be, and wrote it down.

Stop, and think about what we want to teach our children. Treat theory as such and fact as fact. If we are not careful, we will all begin to treat theory as fact.

Barack Obama Doesn't Trust You

2008-02-15T19:55:00.003-07:00

Another illustration of how dangerous the ignorant support of Barack Obama has become--the "Global Poverty Act." Sounds nice, doesn't it? Obama is the prime sponsor of the act, which should scare us to death. According to an article in the National Ledger:

The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

How long will it take Americans to realize the intentions of extreme liberalism? This same philosophy is employed in nationalized health care, taxes, and social security, to name just a few tools. What many call "progressive society" is another effort to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, from the middle class to the poor, or from the healthy to the unhealthy. This new poverty act will extend our wealth distribution to national wealth redistribution. Not only is it liberals' responsibility to Robin Hood the poor, but the world too. Democrats often criticize President Bush has trying to police the world, but they seem to think its okay to be the Santa Claus of the world.

When the government takes our money from us, we no longer have the chance to be charitable. Liberals especially have no faith in the American public--except that Americans give more charitable donations per capita than any other nation. Now just imagine that we had more of our own money in the first place.

Keep investigating Barack Obama. I'm not trying to do a hitjob on him, but he needs to be exposed for who he really is--a liberal Democrat that doesn't trust the American public.

Cigarettes and National Health Care

2008-02-14T12:57:00.004-07:00

A condominium building in Minneapolis recently decided to tell smokers where to go--somewhere else. They decided that smoking in any area of their condominium, whether it be in private residences, balconies, or commons areas, is against the rules. Current smokers will be allowed to continue smoking in their condos, but all future tenants will have to abide. So, is this fair--or even legal?

Proponents of smoking bans argue that they have a right to clean air when they go out in public. I agree with them--to an extent. When you go to a restaurant, you can choose to go to a restaurant where smoking is not allowed (almost all of them now). Smokers can choose to go to a restaurant where smoking is allowed. Let the market decide whether smoking is good or bad for business.

I believe that smoking should either be completely legal, or completely illegal. Citizens often vote to up cigarette taxes because its something that they don't do and don't approve of. However, this smacks of unfairness. Through sin taxes, the "unrighteous" are punished for their deviant, but legal behavior. I agree that some laws should be initiated to regulate smoking in certain public areas or to protect children, but if you think that cigarette smoking has an overall negative effect on society, go for the gold and make it illegal.

The only way I would support a ban on all smoking is the same reason I would support laws on seatbelts--if health care is nationalized. If my tax dollars are going toward your hospital bills, I'm not going to let you destroy your lungs just to ask for tens of thousands of my tax dollars for cancer treatment. Same goes for seat belts. And alcohol. And obesity. Do you see why national health care makes no sense? It's another form of wealth redistribution. It's not "free" health care--the healthy people pay for it.

As smoking bans continue to be pushed, many support them and a few fight them. Keep pushing national health care on me, and I'll join the fight.

I Felt This Thrill Going up My Leg

2008-02-13T08:33:00.005-07:00

In the latest display of media swooning, Chris Matthews describes how he felt as he heard Barack Obama speak. If you have a weak stomach, you may not want to continue:

I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.

First of all, gross. But in all seriousness, isn't this getting out of hand? I've heard a number of Obama speeches on TV, and they don't really impress me that much. My conservative biases may insulate me from Obama's aura, but his speeches leave me empty. I am reminded of a speech given by the Latter-day Saint apostle Jeffrey R. Holland about this kind of empty rhetoric:

Or are we giving them a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories? President John Taylor once called such teaching “fried froth,” the kind of thing you could eat all day and yet finish feeling totally unsatisfied.

Fried froth sure does taste good, but it leaves some unnourished, thinking they are full, and leaves others sick to their stomach.

I recognize that effective speaking, charisma, and so on are important to being a leader, but that is definitely not where it ends. I could take a number of speech classes, read a few leadership books, and be ready to give a rousing speech in a few weeks. Many people recognize that, but they seem to not investigate. There's a deeper reason why.

Americans want someone to latch on to. Obama's transcendent, heavenly speech ability, plus the media worship surrounding him has created a messiah-like quality to Obama--he has come to save our women and children. All hail liberator Obama. What about the substance? Do you understand his health policies? Have you heard about his college credit ideas? Where is this money coming from? Cutting spending? Where? Will he really pull out of Iraq even though countless military experts (and really anyone with common sense) realize that you can't just "pull out"?

If you really understand Obama's policies and support them, I have no problem. But beware of the fervor of an eloquent speaker. Before you believe the hype, consider the ramifications of an Obama presidency.

American Idols

2008-02-12T16:48:00.000-07:00

The media seem pretty excited about the "Potomac Primaries" tonight, and I admit I feel a little bit of excitement since Northern Virginia was my home for a few years. However, I've just about hit my limit of evening primary results-counting-coverage for the season. Instead, tonight I will be watching American Idol, a much more interesting two hours that features more talented contestants. Then it hit me--the presidential nomination process is simply American Idol times fifty. Here's why:

American Idol starts with the try-out rounds where viewers are treated to great vocalists (Mitt Romney, Barack Obama), but everyone is really watching to see the horrendous singers that somehow think they have a chance (Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul). They're my favorite

Next comes the round where the finalists come to Hollywood to compete for the judges. The field is narrowed from over 100 to about 12 (the endless circuit of debates and stump speeches).

Third comes the performances. People call in to vote for their favorite singer (primaries), usually based on which one the kids like the most, regardless of talent or experience (Obama).

Last comes the final, overblown showdown between the two finalists (election day). The winner is announced, and they aren't heard from for months until a CD is released (The awkward period between November and the inauguration).

Who knew that American Idol could be so educational. Then again, I would tune in if the candidates competed in a karaoke competition. That might provide some excitement.

Obama Worship

2008-02-11T09:32:00.000-07:00

As the GOP nomination is all but secure, the media's attention has turned to the battle for the Democratic nomination. In a race with two candidates so close on policy, barbs and attacks continue to fly between Hillary and Obama. McCain now has plenty of time to give make-up back rubs to the conservative right and coalesce the party around him. Most recently, former ambassador to the UN John Bolton announced his endorsement of McCain:

"John McCain was very active and supportive during my confirmation hearings to be the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. His belief in me at that time was a testament to his courage to fight the liberals in the Senate and vigorously advance American interests at the UN.

"I whole-heartedly endorse John McCain for President because when he takes office in January 2009 he will be prepared immediately to lead us. John will not need on the job training.

"American conservatives will have a President they can be proud of in John McCain."

This nomination could be key in helping conservatives see their voting priorities (national defense, terrorism, etc.) I'm still coming around to McCain, and I'm still waiting to see who he picks as his Vice President to see how committed he is to fiscal and social conservatism.

The Democrat race is much different. Hillary and Obama are basically tied in delegate counts and the media doesn't know who to pander to. Obama supporters are proclaiming him as the last ray of hope, obsessing over his personality and charisma. The Australian notes:

But the danger remains for Obama in managing the cult-like fervour. Obviously, he's no messiah and lofty expectations of his supporters is something that Obama is also acutely aware of. In stockmarket parlance, Obama's share price is soaring on expected future earnings. Clinton, 20 years in the public eye, is like the industrial conglomerate: steady share price and reliable dividends. Think of Obama as Google and Clinton as General Electric.

It continues:

Well known political journalist Joe Klein of Time magazine, who was travelling on the campaign plane this week with Obama, too, wrote of a nagging concern about this kind of rhetoric of inspiration over substance, noting "there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messiahnism".

The cult following of Obama is similar in some respects to the so-called Ron Paul Revolution, except the Paulites really had nothing to cheer about with respects to their candidate himself. They instead hawk his positions--substance. Obama supporters that I know have little to say of his positions, but that he is inspiring. Many leaders have proven inspiring, but are still bad governors, managers, or CEOs. If Obama continues his recent tear, we need to beware of personality worship, image worship, or anything similar. As Paul Krugman notes in today's New York Times, "remember Bush in the flight suit?"

But, when it comes down to it, I just wish we had a better Republican nominee.

Cheney--the Greatest Vice President Ever

2008-02-08T09:20:00.000-07:00

President Bush spoke this morning at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, the same place where both Romney and McCain spoke yesterday. W. may have just ticked off liberals (and many conservatives) for the last time when he told the conference that "Dick Cheney is the greatest vice president ever."

What?! Can he be serious? Dick Cheney's war-mongering and pig-headedness helped push into war and has alienated our allies! He couldn't possible be the greatest vice president ever, could he? Well, that depends on how you define greatest.

A few key meanings from Merriam-Webster:

1. Markedly superior in character or quality (well, probably not that one).
2. Remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness (absolutely).
3. Chief or preeminent over others (yes again).
4. Remarkably skilled (yep).

In other words, I would contend that without a doubt, Dick Cheney is the greatest vice president we have ever had. He has taken the office of Vice President and made it bigger than ever. He has a more involved role in policy and execution than any vice president I can think of in history. Agree with his policies or not, Cheney has succeeded in pursuing his policies, angering the opposition, and bombing the crap out of countries he doesn't like.

So, when you hear the left blowing up over Bush's claim, you can smile to yourself and think, "yep, he's the greatest.

Choosing the Right VP -- Soon

2008-02-07T12:34:00.000-07:00

Late this morning, Mitt Romney announced that he will be "suspending" his campaign for President. All things considered, Romney faced huge obstacles against his religion and past political stances, but he performed quite well. Romney gave convincing arguments for his drop from the nomination:

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

Romney appeared to be a noble and faithful Republican, bowing out to allow McCain to spend his resources on campaigning against the Democrats this November. Huckabee, however, refuses to drop out:

"We're still in the race and we're still competing for delegates, and today demonstrates how long and windy to the White House this is," said Chip Saltsman, Huckabee's campaign manager.

...whatever that means.

With McCain as the Republican nominee for President and Romney's concession, I feel that I can allow some of my past grievances with McCain to be forgiven--if he makes the right decisions now to secure the win in November. If nothing else, conservatives need to get their choices into the Supreme Court in the next four years. No other issue is more important to me than that.

McCain needs to convince conservatives that he is on their side, but he needs to act, not just with words. In 1980, after securing the early Republican nomination, Ronald Reagan prepared a list and announced who his cabinet and other important officials would be. The American people saw a prepared and determined candidate that was ready to hit the ground running as he entered the White House. Pending Huckabee's eventual withdrawal from the race, McCain needs to announce his officials, and who they are could make all the difference.

Most important of all is Vice President. The most compelling and convincing choice would be Condoleezza Rice. Why?

Condoleezza Rice is a woman. Condoleezza Rice is black. These two features (as shallow as it may seem to highlight them) will take much of the first woman/black in the White House issue off the table.
Absolutely no one can compete with Rice's knowledge of foreign policy, terrorism, the military, and general Washington know-how.
A McCain/Rice ticket will reek with experience and tried leadership.
McCain will attract the moderates, while Rice will attract the base.
A two old white guy ticket will look stale and old fashioned.

A McCain/Rice ticket would actually excite me a little. If McCain picks a Lindsay Graham, or an old, white senator that no one knows, they can expect a Democrat victory in 2008. For the sake of conservatism, I hope that for once, McCain and I are on the same page.

John McCain, Earn My Vote

2008-02-06T08:43:00.000-07:00

After Super Tuesday, it seems that the public (or at least 22 states or so of them) has spoken and unless every potential voter has a dream telling them to vote for Romney, McCain will win the nomination. He has already started to rebuild bridges that he burned years previous to the conservative base. In his victory speech, he touted his core Republican beliefs and called to conservatives for support.

Here's my question: come October and November, who is going to campaign for him? In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush used the conservative faithful to campaign all over the United States. Eighty or more students were recruited here at Brigham Young University to travel to battleground states and go door to door. Could McCain get eighty students from BYU to do that in 2008? He simply doesn't have the record or conservative rapport to motivate the base.

Maybe he could select a Vice President that would help assuage conservative discomfort with a McCain presidency. Huckabee's name has been discussed at length; but, motivate the evangelicals and you risk further angering your non-evangelical base. The best thing he could do is nominate an extremely solid, hard-line conservative that the public knows and trusts.

I'm already tempted to sit this November out. However, Hillarycare frightens me, tax-hikes make me angry, and pulling out of Iraq would be devastating. Candidate McCain, you've got nine months to convince millions of conservatives like me that you deserve my vote.

Our Broken Primary System

2008-02-05T08:37:00.000-07:00

While many in the media complain about the undemocratic of GOP winner-take-all primaries (and rightly so), most are overlooking an even less democratic feature of the Democrat primaries that will likely hold much sway this year--super delegates. Under Democrat rules, if the delegate split between Hillary and Obama is less than 796, and neither candidate has dropped out before the convention, 796 super delegates will be able to choose who the Democratic candidate is. Who are these "super delegates?" A list can be found here.

This strange process allows various DNC members, congressmen, and other party hacks the chance to greatly influence the nomination process. As Open Left notes:

My instincts tell me this is a complete disaster, since it will shine light on complicated bylaws and the questionable democratic nature of the delegate selection process instead of on voters. As fascinating as it might be for political junkies, it is not the kind of image Democrats need. We need to figure a way out of this situation in a hurry.

In other words, the nomination process in both parties is an absolute disservice to the public. Winner-take-all states, Iowa and New Hampshire's early primaries, the ever elusive "momentum," are all examples of how warped our nomination process is.

Solutions:

Proportional representation of delegates from each state.
One primary election day, taking the power out of the media's hands by not allowing them to bestow "momentum" on their more-often-then-not candidate of choice.

I hope that the Democrat nomination is decided by the super delegates to throw a wrench in their choice. I still hear Democrats complain about the 2000 election, so seeing them bicker about a "selected," not "elected" candidate would keep me going for the next eight years.

Presidential Power is the Power to Persuade

2008-02-04T08:33:00.000-07:00

What makes a great president? The widely studied presidential scholar Richard Neustadt said, "Presidential power is the power to persuade, and the power to persuade is the power to bargain." In other words, a truly great president works convinces others that his opinions are in their best interest. The perennial example of this is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Whether you agree with his policies or not, he took the very non-American concept of Social Security and wove it into the American concept. A brilliant and persuasive man knew how to make deals, how to convince, and how to persuade the public and the government.

Many GOP senators are worried about a John McCain presidency. Says Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum:

"John was very rough in the sandbox. Everybody has a McCain story. If you work in the Senate for a while, you have a McCain story. . . . He hasn't built up a lot of goodwill."

Another example from Thad Cochran, a Republican and senior member of the Appropriations committee:

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

To be fair, there are others who are looking past earlier grievances to support the GOP candidate, but this sample of many senators in his own party shows the potential for poor relations between a President McCain and Congress. Jimmy Carter showed us early in his presidency how to sever all goodwill between himself and Congress. A number of Democratic congressman had a water utility bill in consideration in congress for a number of districts. There was no clear "right" or "wrong" to the issue, but Carter considered it pork, so he stopped the legislation to the ire of many congressman and a segment of the public. In an effort to stand against pork, he immediately severed potential relationships, and Carter was never able to work with the Democratic legislature.

As I have seemingly exhausted current arguments for or against a McCain presidency, seeing how past congresses have dealt with uncooperative presidents should give us an additional moment of pause before declaring McCain the inevitable GOP candidate. An ability to work in the legislature without declaring opponents as racist (summer 2007, immigration bill), or lobbing obscenities at congressmen in the same party, may be vital to a truly "bipartisan" presidency. Bipartisan does not mean moderate, it means cooperation, persuasion, and real leadership.

Conservative Pragmatism

2008-02-02T15:23:00.000-07:00

Since I am being misunderstood and misconstrued in my latest arguments concerning John McCain and the future of the GOP, I decided to rehash my arguments in a more coherent manner.

To begin, I am no partisan. Since I first became interested in politics in 2000, I knew that Republicans most closely reflected my views about the role of government. However, as I grew older, I realized that much of what the Republicans were trying to do I did not support. Around 2003 I no longer identified myself with the Republican party, but with conservatism. Failed policies in Iraq, illegal immigration legislation, and general scandals in general distanced me from the party. I knew change was needed in both parties.

At times I found myself identifying with liberals in their efforts to promote more environmental conservatism, but they seemed to place it too high in their priorities. I understand the liberal views on helping the poor and hungry, but I think individual citizens could do so more efficiently without government wealth redistribution. In other words, I'm a pragmatic conservative.

John McCain campaigned against George W. Bush in 2000, but I supported W. because his policies, foreign policy (which used to be more humble), and economic policies were more in line with what I believed a true conservative to follow. I have since been disappointed with much of Bush's presidency and the way in which he has betrayed true conservatism. I understand that circumstances give new challenges and any leader that holds the same policies forever probably is too rigid to be a dynamic leader, but W. left me questioning current Republicans.

Now in 2008, the Republican party is attempting to move even more moderate. McCain, the politician that gave new meaning to the term RINO, is poised to capture the GOP nomination. Some may contend that McCain is simply being acommodating and inclusive of Democrats. He is just crossing party lines to enact good legislation. That legislation moves directly in opposite to what conservatism stands for:

McCain-Feingold: limiting attacks on incumbents before elections directly contradicts what both conservatives, and seemingly even more with what liberals believe in--free speech. It is a complex issue too large to address here.
McCain-Kennedy: Agreeing to reward illegal immigrants with an easier path to citizenship is like giving citizens with a criminal record half-price tuition to college. So I can be rewarded by breaking the law? Sweet...

These were two quick examples of why I believe John McCain to not be a true conservative. Now why wouldn't I, as a pragmatic conservative, support McCain over either of two people considerably more liberal (Obama/Hillary)? Isn't the lesser of two evils the better pick? I answer a resounding "no." Supporting McCain would validate McCain's version of Republicanism and conservatism, perpetuating the success of future politicians with the same politics. I think that conservatives should send a message to the Republican establishment that we are not happy with these kind of politicians. But isn't winning the nomination a validation of McCain's selection? Not with our quirky and disproportionate nomination of candidates. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire get to set the political tone for the campaigns. Today's media immediately gives the winners the ever-ephemeral "momentum."

By not supporting McCain, we give the White House to a Democrat for four years. Without the reliable conservative base voting for McCain, he can't win. Today's races show that motivating your base, and not a move to the center, wins races. The Republican party will have two years in time-out to think about where they are going as a party. Let the Democrats pull out of Iraq and have the Iraqis' blood on their own hands. Let taxes go up. Let businesses be squeezed. Only then will conservatives realize what their party used to be and how powerful a force they can be for effective, small government.

Some have commented that my argument is flawed--it is if you think small. In the long term, McCain losing the White House in 2008 could be the best thing to happen to the party. In 2012, a new, conservative, charismatic leader will emerge to answer conservatives' call for a new leader. Only then can the Reagan coalition of fiscal, social, and foreign-policy conservatives be reunited to govern again. That's what I call pragmatic.

Obama/Clinton in '08!

2008-02-01T08:19:00.000-07:00

Last night, I watched about twenty minutes of the Democrat debate on CNN and was surprised by what I saw. Despite CNN turning the debate into "how many celebrities can we show in the audience," the debate had a very kind, productive tone. Why are they so happy when the GOP debates are so divided? The Democrats are united while the Republicans are divided.

As I have spoken to many conservatives about the GOP nomination, I hear either indifference or anger. The moderates don't really care about who gets nominated and would be happy to vote for McCain. The conservatives are angry that their party of choice is being watered down and turned into the moderate-conservative-psuedo-democrat party. During last night's debate, Obama and Hillary were united on nearly all the issues. The only difference is that Obama has been against the Iraq war from the beginning, and Hillary says she is more experienced (heck, I'm more experienced than Obama). Conservatives are scrambling.

If conservatives want to save the party in 2008, here's what needs to happen:

The conservative wing of the party must leave Huckabee and unite behind Romney, the only person with a chance over McCain. If McCain sweeps super Tuesday, we can blame most of it on Huckabee's hatred of Mormons and refusal to let Romney compete. The fact is, Huckabee's a moderate conservative too, so he doesn't really care. If you are doubting my labeling of McCain, check out this story about his discussions with the Dems in 2001.
If McCain wins the nomination, conservatives either need to stay home in November or vote for the Democrat. I listened incredulously to the Democrats' arguing for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Let's vote them in and let the blood of the Iraqis be on their hands. The changes that would happen in even the first two years would give Congress back to a re-energized GOP. Two years would let the GOP think about who they are and what they truly want to represent.

Ann Coulter herself has said she would vote for Hillary over McCain. In some sick, twisted way, I think I agree with her.

GOP Debate in an Airplane Hangar

2008-01-31T11:00:00.001-07:00

Rather than a traditional, flowing, eloquent piece of analysis, I simply want to discuss the four (read: two) remaining GOP candidates and how they performed in the CNN Airplane Hangar Debate.

Huckabee: As much as Huckabee wants to pretend that he's still a factor in the race, he's not. I think there's a reason that they put Huckabee all the way at the end of the table. The only thing's I can remember about his performance is that he put the DMV online, and some lame attempts at humor to try and get questions (something about turning off a spigot). Oh, and he said that he endorses Reagan. Wonderful.

Paul: He's still here. As much as I think he valiantly stands up for what he believes, every question contains one of three key words: gold standard, constitution, and empire. I know he has a unique platform and could probably add much to the debate, all of his answers are the same. Here is a hypothetical example:

Q: How do we solve the housing crisis?
A: Well, if we could go back to the gold standard and stop borrowing money from China to build our empire overseas and follow the constitution, we would know that the President really shouldn't do anything, because the constitution (ooh, that's two times) doesn't say anything about it.

McCain: If I have to hear him say "my friend" one more time, I think I'll vote for Ron Paul and end it all. He made some good points, but his haggling over Romney using the "buzzword" of "timetable" made me almost sick. Almost all the comentators agree, from Anderson Cooper to Bill Bennet, that McCain is intentionally misconstruing what Romney meant. He thought that Bush and Malaki should have timetables and goals for progress in Iraq, but not an announced withdrawal date so that the Iraqis weren't waiting in the weeds for us to leave.

He made some interesting points about being a military veteran and not needing to be trained (really?) to be commander-in-chief. He didn't make too many mistakes, except for bickering with Romney.

Romney: He made a decent showing and received the most positive reaction from the crowd on a number of occasions. The fighting with McCain could go either way: it could make Romney seem petty and cantankerous, or he could appear right in his arguments, with McCain being painted as angry. Then again, anyone who screams "F--- you!" at John Cornyn for not supporting a bill is probably already viewed as angry.

Romney didn't make any mistakes, but didn't really stand out too strongly. I'm entirely convinced that politics takes being bold and innovative, and Romney didn't really do either of those last night.

On the venue: I just thought talking in front of Air Force One was strange. It's like they were in a hangar with 200 yards of space behind them. They should have done the debate inside Air Force One.

Quote of the night: Romney responding to McCain. McCain said, quoting Romney emphatically, "You said 'they will be waiting in the weeds.' You said it.'" Romney responds: "What does that even mean?"

UPDATE (3:33pm MT) - I just found an interesting article about the need of conservative Republicans to vocally unite behind Mitt Romney. Read it HERE. I may discuss this more in-depth throughout the week.

Taking Sides in a Two-Man Race

2008-01-30T09:18:00.000-07:00

After last night's Florida GOP primary and Giuliani's now evident colapse and eminent withdrawl, a number of things are quite clear. McCain is gaining support from types of people that I, nor many others, expected. Of those in Florida who suggested that the economy was their top voting issue, McCain won. Who could have guessed that? It seems that Florida either has a lot of moderate Republicans, or McCain has somehow connected with the more conservative GOP base--to an extent. Romney still had 31% of the vote and won resoundingly against "conservative Republican" voters.

After a third place finish, Giuliani seems to be stepping down and will eventually endorse McCain--a move that both puts his support behind the candidate he thinks is the best for the party and scores him points for an eventual Vice President selection. Even though Huckabee placed fourth (again?), he vows to continue to run at least through Super Tuesday. Either Huckabee is seriously delusional and thinks he still has a chance (he has scored in the teens or lower in five of the seven states so far), or he wants to be a spoiler for Romney, who he hates with his fiery Baptist passion. I initially thought that he was positioning himself as a VP for McCain to secure more of the southern-populist vote, but with Giuliani as the first to bow before McCain, that idea seems more of a long shot now.

What does the future now hold for Romney? With Giuliani behind McCain and for all intents and purposes Huckabee behind him too, Romney seems to be standing alone. In my last post, I argued that the public has yet to see Romney for who he really is, and now he has a week to do just that. The current polling in super Tuesday states clearly favors McCain, but I still sense a chance for a more conservative mini-rebellion in favor of Romney. Many of the conservative talking heads are going to be upset with where McCain could take the party (I'll have to talk about that later), and could more vocally support Romney, the only candidate with a shot of taking down McCain. For now, Romney has to absolutely smoke the competition tonight in the California debate and say or do something that will get him noticed. If the same trends continue, McCain's nomination is all but inevitable.

Romney's Undiscovered Charm

2008-01-29T16:01:00.001-07:00

I hope this is not my last chance to mention the Republican Race for the presidency and Mitt Romney in the same sentence. The polls are preparing to close in Florida and the counting (and recounting) will soon begin. Hopefully Mitt Romney gets the chance to continue on to Super Tuesday with momentum to challenge John McCain and let the country as a whole pick the candidates.

Cynicaly Conservative is drawing interesting allusions to the Bill Clinton candidacy with Mitt Romney. While McCain has been fawned over by the media and moderate Democrats alike, Romney really hasn't gotten much of a chance to show the GOP base who he is. If Romney wins tonight in Florida, the media will have to start paying attention to him. When Romney is on television (like on Leno, Anderson Cooper, etc.) he connects extremely well with the viewer. While McCain seems "staged" and "stiff," Romney appears polished and smooth. However, with the little media coverage Romney has received, many still think of him as artificial and plastic.

One can see how this conclusion might be easily reached. When you meet a person for the first time that seems overly outgoing, jovial, or acts "too much" like he's already your friend, the reaction is usually repulsion. However, when you get to know him, he may be quite genuine in his demeanor and be considered very "real" by his friends. Many have not given Romney the chance to be known by the public, especially the media.

I do not contend that Romney is a saint, nor has he been consistently conservative. However, I fear that the public is "misunderestimating," as W. might say, Romney's ability to both connect with the GOP base and with the American public in general. He may be a truly great President.

Close, but no Butterfly Ballot

2008-01-28T21:07:00.000-07:00

Changes are happening in the GOP race, especially nationally. In the latest Rasmussen poll, Romney now leads McCain 28% to 26%. Wait, nationally? Yes folks, the candidate constantly snubbed by the media and consistently ignored as a viable candidate has now taken the lead nationally. Following Florida Governor Christ's endorsement of McCain, the two are now tied again in the state. Much is riding on tomorrow's vote. By the way, Giuliani now has 16% of the vote.

How can we best predict what will happen tomorrow in Florida? On the likelihood of voters changing their minds:

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of McCain’s voters have already voted or are certain they will vote for him. That number is identical for Romney voters. Just 5% of McCain voters and 7% of Romney voters say there’s a good chance they could change their mind.

On a note not so good for Romney, more voters say national security is more important than the economy when considering a candidate, however there is this puzzling statistic:

Voters have this preference for national security credentials despite the fact that 43% name the economy as the top voting issue. Just 28% name either the War in Iraq or national security as the top issue.

Already over one million people have casted their ballots through early or absentee ballots, many of those votes likely going to Giuliani, since some were cast before his numbers began slipping so terribly.

So what can we make of all these crazy statistics? The Rasmussen markets puts McCain with a 53% chance and Romney with a 49% chance of winning (wait, that's 102%....well, it is Florida). It's really difficult to say what's going to happen. The longer term momentum has to go to Romney, but the day-to-day momentum going to McCain. I'd say Romney is the slight underdog, but I feel like this could be his big break.

The Few, The Proud

2008-01-26T13:57:00.000-07:00

On a slow political news day today (I'm not too anxious to discuss the minutia of the Democrat primary in South Carolina), I thought I'd just post a rather inspiring television ad from the U.S. Marines. I've never much had a desire to enter the military, but ever since I was a teenager, the Marines have fascinated me. In my old room in my parents' house, I still have a full-sized traditional Marines flag, and two smaller Marines posters. We should be eternally grateful for such a smart, brave, and cohesive U.S. military, exemplified in the Marines. Enjoy, and have a great weekend:

The EU Ambassador and Global Warming

2008-01-24T21:21:00.000-07:00

This afternoon, I attended a short lecture and Q&A session with the European Union Ambassador to the United States (I didn't know that existed until today), John Bruton. He spoke generally about the EU and the role it plays in the world community. At the end of his lecture, he spoke about the dangers of global warming and about how much carbon is deposited into the air for each person in the United States and each person in the EU.

As he was noting that our pollution sins would result in the flooding of third world countries, I was looking out the window at the snow that was beginning to fall on the five inches of snow already on the ground. Ironic, I thought. As I trudged back home, the snow fell harder and thicker, I continued to ruminate on how ironic his comments were.

In Provo, we have about six inches of snow on the ground, and we are forecasted for four more days of snow in the next seven days. For more similar irony, check out this headline from Breitbart.com, and the title of the article in the running header above:

Unusually heavy snow in Japan? Hmm. I'm no global warming naysayer, I just think that it is impossible to predict now what will happen in the distant future, and the money it would take to "stop" global warming is so astronomically high compared to the benefits that we reap from it. Why not take those hundreds of trillions of dollars and give drinkable water to every person on the earth? How about focusing our efforts on education? Health care, maybe? The current trend of fretting over global warming highlights the obsessive and silly nature of irrational and emotional human beings.

Florida -- No Longer Rudy Country

2008-01-23T20:59:00.000-07:00

The Florida primary is shaping up to be anybody's game--well, except Fred Thompson's. Recent polls are showing very different result from a few weeks ago, let alone a few months ago. As little as a month and a half ago, polls were showing Giuliani with anywhere from a 10 to 20-point lead over his then closest rival, Mike Huckabee. Here's how the most recent Real Clear Politics average (the last 5 polls, averaged) looks, and a graph of how they've changed over time:

So, based on the five most recent polls in Florida, McCain and Romney are statistically tied. Giuliani's RCP average is over three points lower than either of the new front runners. Additionally, Huckabee seems to be almost completely done. After some impressive numbers following his win Iowa (which is looking more and more like an anamoly), he has run out of support and money. If he can't win in South Carolina, where can he?

So what does this mean for:

McCain?: A number one finish in Florida will clearly put him in the lead nationally, and will make his delegate numbers slightly higher than Romney's since Florida is a winner-take-all delegate state. If he takes second, he will be suffering badly in the delegates, but will still continue on to Super Tuesday, but questioning his campaign strategies

Romney?: A number one finish will put him miles ahead with delegates and will signal a large momentum shift to a candidate that has never been given a fair shot by the media, and will position him to perform very well on Super Tuesday. A second place finish will keep him hanging on and will make Super Tuesday very, very important for the future of his campaign.

Giuliani?: A number one finish, which is looking less likely, would validate his strategy and set him up for Super Tuesday in a new three-way race, especially if Romney takes second. Anything less than first could be disaster, especially if he takes third. His strategy could be perceived as lazy and exclusive.

Huckabee?: Anything but first and he's done.

It may seem overly analytical to discuss delegates, but this year may just highlight the importance of delegates and the convention. Florida will answer many questions for the future of the GOP.