End Prohibition Part II

I'm a couple of days late (16 to be exact) but 75 years ago on Dec. 5 1933, prohibition of alcohol ended in the United States. Yet, without understanding history, we have repeated our same mistake and created prohibition part II aka the war on drugs. Here is an excellent article discussing the burdens, costs and failed promises of the war on drugs.

Preview:

When repeal came, it was not just with the support of those with a taste for alcohol, but also those who disliked and even hated it but could no longer ignore the dreadful consequences of a failed prohibition. They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish. Consider the consequences of drug prohibition today: 500,000 people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails for nonviolent drug-law violations; 1.8 million drug arrests last year; tens of billions of taxpayer dollars expended annually to fund a drug war that 76% of Americans say has failed; millions now marked for life as former drug felons; many thousands dying each year from drug overdoses that have more to do with prohibitionist policies than the drugs themselves, and tens of
thousands more needlessly infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C because those same
policies undermine and block responsible public-health policies.

This isn't about morals or simply wanting to get stoned (I don't even do drugs). It's about failed policy and its burdens on our economy and liberty.

The Bush Legacy

Torture and the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

The approved use of torture has never been a part of American history until Bush authorized its use against detainees in violation of U.S. and international law. If you want to know the last time a government of ours has used torture, you will have to go back over 500 years to the Star Chamber in Britain.

Here are some figures on Bush's spending:

The result of deficit spending is debt. When President Bush took office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Now it is $10.6 trillion -- and Congress voted in October to raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion, the seventh such hike since President Bush to office and the second since last July. If, as is quite likely, we reach the new ceiling by January 20, the outgoing President will have managed to amass more debt than all of his predecessors combined.

Is there any acceptable excuse for either? Total and complete government failure.

Pro-life Fundamentalism

I attended a private Christian school from pre-school all the way through my undergrad college. Even though Mount Union is pretty much Methodist in name only, my grade school and high school were very religious and leaned to the right. Apart from teaching me that dinosaur extinction was caused by relocation stress when they exited Noah's Ark, they made concerted efforts to denounce Planned Parenthood and portray the organization as a baby-killing factory. Even today, go into almost any church and tell a member or the pastor you work for Planned Parenthood and they won't be very friendly. If that isn't enough, pro-life supporters are now requesting that government funding be revoked from Planned Parenthood in order to fight against abortion.

Doesn't this seem like spending a dollar to make a nickel? Planned Parenthood doesn't just perform abortions. The majority of their work is aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies, and women's health issues (mammograms, pap smears etc...). Only 2-3% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions. Thus, in practice, Planned Parenthood has the very real effect of reducing abortions. Instead of being content with that, these irrational pro-life zealots (just to be clear, there are rational pro-lifers) completely ignore these facts and insist that we only focus on abstinence only based education, which in the aggregate produces more abortions!!

Today in Slate, Will Saletan gives the Pro-life case for Planned Parenthood. Preview:

I'll say that again: If you define pro-life as preventing abortions, Planned
Parenthood is the most effective pro-life organization in the history of the world. No, it doesn't give teenagers the idea of having sex. That idea comes to them quite naturally, thank you very much. What Planned Parenthood does, more comprehensively than anyone else, is to distribute the means and knowledge to control your risk of getting pregnant when you don't want to be pregnant. And those two things, combined with pressure to exercise that control assiduously, are the surest way to prevent abortions. If you wait till women are already unhappily pregnant, you're too late.

Last week I didn't understand the logic behind the outrage on the far-right when Planned Parenthood decided to accept gift cards. The method of payment wasn't likely to increase the number of abortions. In all likelihood, the gift cards would probably have the effect of preventing abortions by allowing the poor to have better access to contraceptives. However, now I get it. It seems that it was just another occasion for manufactured and uninformed outrage against Planned Parenthood.

Che

What's up with people's obsession and idolization of Che Guevara? Sure the picture looks cool, but does anyone know what he stood for? Reason interviews Paquito D'Rivera who fled Cuba to escape persecution:

"Che was an inspiration for me," D'Rivera tells reason.tv. "I thought I have to get out of this island as soon as I can, because I am in the wrong place at the wrong time!" D'Rivera did escape Cuba, and so far he's won nine Grammy awards playing the kind of music Che tried to silence. But D'Rivera says Che's crimes didn't end with censorship. "He ordered the execution of many people with no trial." Che served as Castro's chief executioner, presiding over the infamous La Cabana prison. D'Rivera says Che's policy of killing innocents earned him the nickname-the Butcher of La Cabana.

Here is Nick Gillespie adding his two cents:

We're rightly horrified by fascist murderers like Adolph Hitler. Why aren't we
also horrified by communist killers?

Doesn't anyone else find it amusing that merchandise with Che's grille on it is being spread by the forces of capitalism?

Mets Fan Pays for CC Sabathia

ESPN is reporting that an agreement has been reached between the Yankees and CC Sabathia for a record setting 7 yr deal worth over $160M. What ESPN fails to tell you is that in the meantime, the Yankees are building a new stadium that is financed by public bonds. Basically, the tax-payer is subsidizing the new Yankee Stadium, even though there was nothing wrong with the current stadium. Here is Ilya Somin discussing the situation:

In this 2006 post, I criticized these public subsidies for the new Yankee Stadium,
as well as sports stadium subsidies in general. Studies by economists almost uniformly show that stadium subsidies create no net economic benefit for cities, but are instead a pure transfer of wealth from taxpayers to owners and players. The latter, to put it mildly, are not exactly needy. Public subsidies for stadium construction might even leave cities worse off by diverting valuable land and public funds from more productive uses.

Money is a finite resource and must be budgeted accordingly (someone please tell the government). Thus, without the bonds to cover the construction of the stadium, the Yankees would have been forced to choose between a new pitcher or a new stadium. However, by allowing tax payers to fill the pockets of the private organization, they can have the best of both worlds, thus creating a situation where non-Yankee fans are paying for good 'ol CC. One more tidbit from Ilya:

As regular VC readers know, I'm a big baseball fan. However, I also believe that baseball teams (and other professional sports teams) should pay their own way with funds earned from willing fans. Taxpayers who aren't baseball fans shouldn't be forced to subsidize the entertainment of those of us who are.

It's no wonder I don't watch baseball.

In Defense of Bush

A reader (one of millions I'm sure) pointed me to this article about the great work President Bush has done in regards to fighting AIDS. I've been critical of Bush here and I'm still not a big fan of his, but since I have made posts about Matthew 25 and "helping the least of us" and "the sick" I should give credit where credit is due.

Please, no comments on how it isn't really his money or that it could be considered a forced transfer of wealth. She specifically calls out those on the left - those who have no problem spending other people's money (see bailouts).

Mona Charen:

But for the most part, the beautiful people in America — the Hollywood and the university types, the book and magazine publishers, and of course, the major media — have shown complete indifference to George W. Bush’s dedication to a cause they purport to value. In fact, they’ve pointedly ignored it. It goes without saying that if Obama does even half of what Bush has done for AIDS sufferers in Africa, he will be — in the eyes of those same people — a candidate for canonization. Of course the Left can say whatever they like about George Bush and the war in Iraq and the war on terror. But when he does something completely in line with their own stated principles and values, it is simply mean-spirited of them to deny him his due.

Secret Santa

For those of you that have been or will be blessed with wealth, here is a story of who you should aspire to be like.

It's Gonna Get Worse

Peter Schiff, the man who called the current economic mess 2 years ago, says we're not near the end of our problems. Not good.






* Update - Here is footage from over two years ago. Also, does anyone take Arthur Laffer seriously anymore? If so, why? The guy obviously had no idea what he was talking about. I hope he paid off his bet with Schiff...

The Emerging Brand of "Christianity"

The Onion gets it. What type of Xian are you?

Preview:

Now, granted, there are some Christians on the lunatic fringe who take their beliefs a little too far. Take my coworker Karen, for example. She's way off the deep end when it comes to religion: going down to the homeless shelter to volunteer once a month, donating money to the poor, visiting elderly shut-ins with the Meals on Wheels program—you name it! But believe me, we're not all that way. The people in my church, for the most part, are perfectly ordinary Americans like you and me. They believe in the simple old-fashioned traditions—Christmas, Easter, the slow and deliberate takeover of more and more county school boards to get the political power necessary to ban evolution from textbooks statewide. That sort of thing.
We oppose gay marriage as an abomination against the laws of God and America, we're against gun control, and we fervently and unwaveringly believe that the Jews, Muslims, and all on earth who are not born-again Pentecostalists are possessed by Satan and should be treated as such.

Always Trust the Government

I'm sure many of you have seen the recent news that a Judge ruled that 5 detainees from Guantanamo must be released. The reason for his decision was simple, the Government's evidence was insufficient to justify ongoing imprisonment of a detainee as an "enemy combatant" and there was no credible evidence that the 5 detainees intended to take up arms against the U.S.

These men have been wrongly detained, without credible evidence for seven years. In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush was given incredible amounts of power in order to fight the "war on terror." In this process, he told a gullible Congress and the American people that he could be trusted with this power. Although it isn't the first time we have discovered that he misused this power, it is clear that we cannot trust the government to use its power without abuse. How do we plan on winning the "war against terror" when we arrest and detain innocent people without giving them due process? Why would any person or country look up to us as a beacon of liberty or a morally superior country? George Bush's approach to the war on terror has set us back years.

One of the men released was named Lakhdar Boumediene. The name may sound familiar if you followed the presidential campaign or recent Supreme Court decisions. Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court ruled that Habeas did apply to Guantanamo detainees and those rights could not be suspended by the Military Commissions Act. Thus, the court invalidated Sec. 7 of the Act and declared the only way to suspend Habeas Corpus is to follow the procedure proscribed in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the United States Constitution.

At that time, so-called conservatives and Republican's, even 4 of the Supreme Court justices stated that the detainees should not have Habeas rights and this ruling was dangerous for our country. John McCain said the ruling was "one of the worst in the history of this country" and Sarah Palin made yet another asinine statement during her VP acceptance speech stating that "[Barack] is worried that someone won't read them their rights." (Yet again, in proving she is an ass, the case had nothing to do with Miranda rights or notifying them of their protections.) But if these people would have gotten their way, these men would still be locked up in a cage for having done nothing wrong. How can anyone support the stance that these detainees should not have a right to a trial to even determine if they should be there? How can you still trust Bush when he says all the detainees in Guantanamo are terrorists? There are innocent people there, but if John McCain and countless others would have had their way those innocent people would still be rotting away in prisons as we speak. Unbelievable.

No Bailout. Bankruptcy Please.

One of the most visible arguments for a government bailout of the big 3 is that it will help save jobs. However, Jim Lindgren from Volokh says that giving the big 3 a government bailout will end up costing us more jobs in the future:

If an industry is contracting and there is an oversupply of productive capacity, then the worst thing we could do is prop up that industry by taking jobs away from the healthier portions of the economy (including better run automakers). If government planners really were a lot smarter and better planners than business people (they aren’t), then the government’s strategy should be to try to drive bad businesses out of business quicker, not try to destroy the healthy companies by propping up the dying companies.

He then continues to pile on by beating down the people that are abolishing their own jobs - the unions.

Heavily unionized businesses usually have trouble competing with non-unionized
businesses. Unions are successful in getting above-market wages and benefits, which makes it difficult for the businesses to compete. In the auto industry, there are many more dealerships than necessary. And, according to Larry Kudlow, the average compensation and benefit rate for auto workers in Detroit is $72 an hour, compared to $44 an hour for foreign car workers at US plants. Even if two of the three Detroit automakers were to go out of business, most of their workers and the workers for their suppliers would be able to get some sort of job. That the jobs they would get would pay a lot less suggests just how much they are overpaid now. If General Motors has become a health and pension plan that makes cars on the side – in other words, unions pressured bad management to make promises they couldn’t keep – then inducing GM to go out of business should be on balance good for the economy. Any government bailout should go to the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, to provide money to cover partial pensions for the employees of companies in the bankruptcies certain to come.

Unions usually include provisions in their labor agreements where there is a mandatory pay or benefits increase each year, regardless of how large or small the overall profits are. Does anyone else find it ridiculous that a company losing billions of dollars a month gives pay increases to its employees? If your blood isn't already curdling, does it incense you that many of these employees view this pay raise as an entitlement?

In regards to above, lets note the reference to the pension plan and how much the employees are paid. GM provides retirement benefits to its former employees. Part of these benefits are health care benefits. Why the hell did GM agree to such a thing?! Well, I'm guessing the dumb-ass unions demanded it, but why is this such an important issue when health care benefits are not hard to come upon when one is retired? Social Security provides Medicare to all persons over the age of 65 who qualify (GM workers would qualify). This money is automatically taken out of their SS benefits and even the most complete supplement plans are not that expensive. Why pass this cost off to GM? Did the Unions not think that paying these entitlement costs out the ass would end up taking their toll one day? Every time I read or hear someone on the news say we need a bailout or else retired GM employees are going to lose their health care I want to shoot someone. That is utter bullshit. Stop the propaganda. And why is the MSM lending a microphone to these people saying that?

I know it is a touchy subject for many people. I live in Ohio and I have family members who rely on the continuance of the big 3, but the government should not reward failed businesses, greedy unions and mismanaged corporations. I don't see why I should have to subsidize the wages of overpaid union employees. I am within the top 4% of educated people in the world (it may be different now that I am in law school) and I have yet to make over $15 an hour. Also, I eat the same meal almost every day in the week to save money. Well, who am I kidding, I don't have any money, yet you don't see me expecting other tax payers to subsidize my rent or food budget.

We have heard the ridiculous PR stunts of the big 3 execs this week, such as arriving to Capitol Hill in a Ford hybrid, even though the execs took their own private jets from Detroit in order to ask for federal bailout money but this has gone far enough. If Ford, GM or Chrysler buy an ad during the Superbowl, I'm going to get a pitchfork and drive my foreign car to Detroit looking for someone. My money will not be used for a friggin Superbowl ad.

Let's let Lindgren get in one more word.

The only job-saving justification I can think of for a Detroit bailout is if the problem were only temporary; then destroying jobs might be imprudent. If Detroit’s business model were strong, if there were little or no overcapacity, and if Detroit’s problems were only temporary, then one could reasonably think that a bailout might be efficient. But there is no temporary market failure here to redress. Detroit’s problems have been here since the late 1970s. Anyone who thinks that giving money to a company losing 2-3 billion dollars a month — with overpaid workers and overpaid executives – would usually save jobs in the long run, rather than lose them, doesn’t understand economics.

The Problem with Single Issue Voters.

In discussing the now Republican base, Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Larrison and now Daniel Keennelly talk about the waining influence of white, married, evangelical voters.

Keennelly:

Larison is right that they’re reliable and not influential. That’s what happens to political groups who join coalitions for negative reasons rather than any positive support for their platform or ideology. They don’t vote for Republicans; they vote against Democrats. Republicans only attract the religious conservative vote to the extent that Democrats are portrayed as—and, more important, to the extent that they actually willingly play the part of—the Boogeyman on the Left in the culture wars (e.g. the “Party of Death” who will sacrifice your First Amendment religious liberties on the altar of enforced acceptance of gay marriage). There’s a reason that white, married, Christian support for the Republicans began to surge in the late ’60s and ’70s, after all. That era saw the heating up, especially with Roe v. Wade, of the culture wars. (H/T Andrew for the study that shows this).

The far-right's Newest Argument - howobamagotelected.com

I can understand people who voted for John McCain being upset with the outcome of the election, but using unscientific and biased "push polls" funded by undisclosed 3rd party interests to demonstrate that Obama voters are misinformed or the media was noticeably unfair is just ridiculous. Both sides have voters who are misinformed.

Furthermore, why would anyone use the research and documentary produced by a non-objective source as credible or compelling evidence? If this was Michael Moore using the same deceptive techniques, the right would be up in arms. Instead, in this situation, the right is complicit and there are no signs of outrage.If you want more background on the poll and the source of the documentary and website, check out the interview with the author/creator. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/interview-with-john-ziegler-on-zogby.html

Does critical judgment and vetting mean anything to these people?

Dumbest Person in the World

Oregon woman losses $400,000 to Nigerian email scam.

Transforming the Republican Party

One of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama is because the current GOP does not reflect the principles of limited government, rational policy-making, fiscal responsibility and conservative foreign policy. They needed to get a thrashing in the hopes that they would see their mistakes and fix them. Well, it seems the process is starting to take place and Jon Henke is giving some advice:

- Some of you will say "we have learned our lesson", and then try to pass off cosmetic changes as Reform. You are the problem.
- Some of you will say "Republicans need to fight/hold Democrats accountable", as if it is sufficient to be against Democrats. The pendulum may eventually swing back
to you, but you won't know what to do with it.
- Some of you will say "Republicans need to carry our message to the American people", as if the problem is that Republicans haven't been saying "tax cuts and limited government" loudly enough. The problem is not the inability to
communicate; the problem is that you have no idea how to actually deliver on those ideas.
- Others will say "Republicans need to be more principled", as if the problem is a mere lack of personal courage and principle by Republicans. Even the best people can't limit government if there is not an effective strategy for implementation - for getting "from here to there". You don't need better people. You need a better strategy.

There is nothing wrong with real conservatism, but no party in Washington offers that anymore. We have a strong interest in seeing the GOP rebound because like I said before, having the Democrats in power with no strong opposition party will not lead to good things. Moderation and the checks of power are essential to our government functioning properly.

Attention All Palin 2012 Supporters

Former aid of Jerry Falwell and leading Christian public relations executive, Mark DeMoss discusses the issue of values and competence. He also urges those supporting Sarah Palin to wake up:

Too many evangelicals and religious conservatives are too preoccupied with values and faith and pay no attention to competence. We don't apply this approach to anything else in life, including choosing a pastor." Imagine, he said, if a church was searching for a pastor and the leadership was brought a candidate with great values but little experience. "They've been a pastor for two years at a church with 150 people but he shares our values, so we hired him to be pastor of our 5,000 person church? It wouldn't happen! We don't say, 'He shares our values, so let's hire him.' That's absurd. Yet we apply that to choosing presidents. It blows my mind.

“Family Values” Voters Divorce Thousands of California Couples

No, this headline isn’t from the Onion, it is the unfortunate result of Proposition 8 in California. This past spring, the California Supreme Court ruled that the ban against same-sex marriage rights was unconstitutional. If you are going to argue that this was an unfortunate occurrence of judicial activism, hold your breath. Prior to the court’s ruling, the people of California lobbied their state legislatures, and twice the legislature approved the measures granting same-sex couples equal rights before Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill declaring it was the job of the Supreme Court to decide the issue. In response, the Christianists petitioned to get a ballot initiative to amend the constitution of California to strip gay couples of their legal marriage rights. Last night, by a narrow margin, Proposition 8 passed.

The majority of voters who voted to strip their rights were 1) evangelicals and 2) blacks. (Exit polls) While Obama can be credited with increasing black-voter turnout, this was a cost of that benefit. I’m stunned that out of all minority groups, blacks would be the ones to refuse marriage rights to a minority group. Prior to the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967, only 40 years ago, blacks were prohibited from choosing who they could marry if their partner was white. Now, they have declared that a person – white, black, Hispanic or Asian - cannot marry who they want if their partner is of the same sex. How soon they kick the ladder from underneath them.

As I mentioned above, the other group that voted to strip gay couples of their legal rights were evangelical Christians. I’m not going to determine who is and who isn’t a Christian, but being a Christian myself and looking at the readings and teachings of Jesus, I cannot find any support for stripping legal rights from same-sex couples. These Christianists give tradition arguments that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, and has been throughout history. They also give policy arguments that if gays are given the right to marry, it will destroy the family. We need to protect the sanctity of marriage - we do not need to redefine marriage they argue. Just the other day, I visited the website of The Call, since my sister and some friends of mine had attended their gathering in Washington D.C. earlier this year. Their website talked about the upcoming gathering in San Diego for a day of “fasting and prayer in the fellowship of other believers.” Also, there was a video promotion talking about the gathering. The entire focus of the advertisement was the upcoming vote on Proposition 8. The narrorator declared “a confrontation between light and darkness” . . . “A battle to save the very sanctity of marriage, to the victor goes the soul of the nation.” “Cry out to God for the deliverance of the homosexual, and for the salvation of their lives, and for the love of God to be poured out over their hearts. Where there is no hope, there is no human remedy, God still has a Holy Prescription. We are calling the whole nation to 40 days of prayer and fasting for California, in a day of humility, and cleansing.” “Pray for a wave of freedom and deliverance the state has never seen.”

First, I’m confused on how restricting the choice of who gays are allowed to married is in any way related to “a wave of freedom and deliverance the state has never seen.” Restricting is the opposite of freedom, and that is exactly what the Proposition is doing. Second, nothing says I love you and care for you more than actively pursuing the remedy of taking away people’s legal rights and divorcing their marriage. I’m sure that is the most effective way to win over gay people to “the will of God.” Really though, what planet do you have to be on to think that gays will see your efforts of taking away their legal rights as an act of love and compassion?! Incredible. Third, I’m not quite sure how acts of love, commitment and compassion for someone else is “evil.” Yes, I’m aware that Christianists find the sexual acts between the partners as evil, but in heterosexual marriage, are the sex-acts between the husband and wife really the defining feature of their relationship? Is that all that marriage is? Any rational thinker will tell you no. It is the public announcement and recognition of their love, commitment and compassion for each other that defines a marriage for heterosexual couples and in this regard, there is no difference between those who are gay and those who are straight. Finally, why state that your efforts are out of “humility?” Earlier this year Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic, had a debate with atheist Sam Harris and in a response described humility. He stated, “You ask legitimately: how can I, convinced of this truth, resist imposing it on others? The answer is: humility and doubt. I may believe these things, but I am aware that others may not; and I respect their own existential decision to believe something else. I respect their decision because I respect my own, and realize it is indescribable to those who have not directly experienced it . . . The attempt to force or even rig laws to encourage others to share my faith defeats the point of my faith - which is that it is both freely chosen and definitionally dealing with matters that cannot be subject to common consensus.” Please don’t call Proposition 8 an attempt at humility. That is insulting.

Let’s go back to their arguments on why same-sex legal recognition should not be allowed. First, they argue that traditionally, marriage has been defined between a man and a woman. Clearly this is their strongest argument. Yes, traditionally it has been, but I would argue there are competing interests or emerging traditions. Utilizing tradition doesn’t always lead to the right outcome, however. For example, look at slavery or preventing marriage between blacks and whites. Christianists in each instance argued that scripture supported those views and they should be upheld by it. Due to that, I’m hesitant to strip people of their rights simply because it does not gel with tradition. We need to be asking, what is the cost of keeping that specific tradition and what will happen if we discard that tradition? This leads to the next argument that the sanctity of marriage needs to be protected. While that sounds great, I don’t think it really has much substance behind it. What needs to be protected? Who needs to be protected? Who is going to be harmed? I cannot be certain, but I don’t really see anyone being harmed by extending legal marriage rights to same-sex couples. I am getting married (to a woman) next July. If gays are given equal rights and allowed to marry 2 months after I am already married, how will my relationship be harmed? What is going to happen to me? The answer is clear. There is no way I am going to be harmed. My marriage and my legal rights under the law and between Beth and I are in no way going to be affected. My rights are guaranteed regardless of whether or not same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Will extending those rights to same-sex couples cheapen my marriage? Please. If there is no valid reason to “protect” anything or anyone, then what reason is there to prevent gays from being viewed equally under the law? It seems clear the answer is not to “protect” marriage; instead it is to simply stigmatize a certain group of people and make them second-class citizens under the law. The sad part is, people on the other side of the debate are unwilling to acknowledge it. Did Jesus demand that the adulterer’s legal rights be stripped when she was confronted by the angry mob?

Our country was founded on the principals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, stating that these rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. Our Declaration hints at these rights and our Constitution guarantee’s them - especially the rights to marry, due process and equal protection under the laws. I’m not going to discuss the cases (Meyer, Loving, Moore, Zablocki, Skinner…etc), but part of liberty is allowing people to do whatever they want, even if you don’t agree with it, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. That is what our country stands for, and that is what our Constitution protects. I can’t find any real evidence that gay marriage harms anyone and I have yet to hear a compelling argument. Therefore, stripping same-sex couples of their legal rights merely because you find it unchristian isn’t a compelling reason. One day we will promote the ideals taught by Jesus of inclusion, tolerance, love and commitment instead of marginalization and second-class citizenship. The Gospel is supposed to be the “Good News,” yet Christianists only seem to use it as a weapon to attack, hurt and belittle others.

All civil rights movements have their ups and their downs, but one day these couples will no longer be stigmatized and declared second-class citizens under the law. However, in the end there is not much I can really say to those who supported Proposition 8 other than what Jesus taught me to say . . . I forgive you.

Why I'm Voting for Obama

I'm not voting for Obama because I'm a Democrat or a liberal. I'm a registered Republican (soon to be independent) and a conservative. I wish I could create a longer and more substantive post on why I'm voting for Sen. Obama and why I'm voting against Sen. McCain. However, life/school is busy, and until I get paid for what I write, this is going to take the back-seat.

Instead of discussing Obama's judgment, intellect and temperament, which I think qualify him to be a great President or John McCain's lack of judgment (picking Palin), lack of character and willingness to appeal to our most basic emotions (fear), I'm simply going to repost the Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote for Obama.

Via Sullivan:

10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black
America.
9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.
8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his
brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between
George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s.
7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.
6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.
5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith,
is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.
4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.
3. Two words: President Palin.
2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.
1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites,
and the collapse of America's reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.
Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama.

*Update* Here is Sullivan's official endorsement of Obama

The Beginning of the End for Authorized Torture

While Christianists are too busy crying about their outrage in regards to abortion and denying equal marriage rights to homosexuals, they are ignoring the Judiciary's fight against the immoral and reprehensible actions of the Bush administration's authorization of torture. How sad is it that these Christianists don't even confront the issue that is almost universally condemned as immoral and especially when salience of the issue is incredibly high.

These Christianists always declare that one is judged not only by what one does, but also by what one does not do. Well, their omission and silence in regards to this issue is deafening.

Here is a post discussing the issue of torture and its authorization by a distinguished and well-respected Constitutional law professor, Professor Wilson Huhn. (Disclaimer: Prof. Huhn is my current Con Law professor)

The Miami Herald reports that Col. Stephen Henley, a military judge at Guantanamo, has thrown out a confession that Afghan authorities obtained from Mohammed Jawad. Jawad is charged with the commission of a war crime for allegedly having thrown a grenade and wounding American soldiers in an Afghan bazaar in 2002. There was evidence that Afghan authorities drugged Jawad, a teenager, chained him to a wall, and threatened to kill him and his family unless he confessed to throwing
the grenade. There was also evidence that two other persons also confessed to throwing the same grenade, and that Jawad was subjected to sleep deprivation and other severe interrogation techniques in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo.
Section 948r of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 permits the introduction of statements obtained by cruel and inhuman treatment prior to 2005 so long as the statement is reliable and probative, but the law does not permit the introduction of evidence obtained by use of "torture." The United States government reportedly
argued that the interrogation of Jawad involved coercion but that it did not rise to the level of torture. However, Colonel Henley ruled that the death threats against Jawad and his family constituted torture and that the confession was therefore inadmissible. The constitutional issue that is presented by this case is whether "coerced confessions" are admissible in military trials under any circumstances. If the government appeals Colonel Henley's ruling it is possible that the Supreme Court may eventually resolve whether it is constitutional for the Military Commissions Act to allow any coerced confessions into evidence.
In my opinion, we should recall the principle that Justice Robert Jackson articulated in his opening statement at Nuremberg where he served as the lead prosecutor for the allies against the Nazi war criminals. He said:

"We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants
today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these
defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but the Nazi's used "enhanced interrogation techniques" and were convicted of war crimes. The only difference is that they called them "Verschärfte Vernehmung." And some people still wonder why we no longer have moral standing in this world...

The Downside of Balanced Media Coverage

While I think we all agree that being fair is of paramount importance in reporting the news, the idea of being balanced has created quite a paradox for the media.

People closely following the coverage of the election probably wonder why it seems Obama is getting more favorable coverage than McCain. The recent study released by the Pew Research firm only added fuel to this perception. However, that isn't the whole story and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. The role of the media is to call things as they see them. The race for the Presidency is a contest. There are clear winners and losers. In a sporting event, a journalist is free to declare that a team is playing sub-par and that God-forbid, there is actually a loser. No one expects the journalist to ignore the reality and only point out the positive developments by each team in order to be "balanced" - that would be ignoring reality. The same is true for the coverage of the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign. Obama's campaign has been one of the most successful and impressive in modern political history. On the other hand, McCain's campaign has been erratic, impulsive and is now in the middle of a meltdown with the starting of the blame game. The media are calling it as they see it. Placing "balanced" coverage on a pedestal ruins the truth of the matter.

Here is John Harris and Jim Vandehei from Politico expanding on why the media coverage of Obama and McCain isn't "balanced."

Teaser:

There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe. As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own. (Italics mine)

Channeling My Thoughts

These are the reasons why I'll be voting for Obama.

Radley Balko writes:

While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons.First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They've failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and free markets. They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task—sending the nation to war. I could go on.As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we've seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I
guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn't hyperbole. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.That's the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.

And Another Conservative for Obama

And it isn't just any conservative - its the Goldwaters. Yes, as in Goldwater conservative.

For a while, there were several candidates who aligned themselves with the Goldwater version of Conservative thought. My grandfather had undying respect
for the U.S. Constitution, and an understanding of its true meanings. There always have been a glimmer of hope that someday, someone would "race through the gate" full steam in Goldwater style. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, and the Republican brand has been tarnished in a shameless effort to gain votes and appeal to the lowest emotion, fear. Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician. The McCain/Palin plan is to appear diverse and inclusive, using women and minorities to push an agenda that makes us all financially vulnerable, fearful, and less safe.
When you see the candidate's in political ads, you can't help but be reminded of the 1964 presidential campaign of Johnson/Goldwater, the 'origin of spin', that twists the truth and obscures what really matters. Nothing about the Republican ticket offers the hope America needs to regain it's standing in the world, that's why we're going to support Barack Obama. I think that Obama has shown his ability and integrity.

GOP - Abandon Ship!

I've frequently pointed out the many conservatives and Republican Party members who have endorsed Obama and become fed-up with the GOP and its so called "conservative" movement.

Today a poll came out showing that Obama has the vote of 22% of conservatives. Is it the appeal of Obama? Perhaps. Is it that conservatives don't have a party to belong to anymore? Perhaps. I'm guessing it is a little of both.

If the GOP doesn't restructure and redefine its principles, the party will be relegated to the history books, yet it appears that the far-right is digging in even deeper.

Here is Larry Gellman talking about the plight of the GOP and its ideologues.

In their passionate determination to vilify Obama and the Left, they have ignored the fact that the most devastating critiques of McCain and Palin have come from their own ranks. Conservatives and Republicans such as Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, George Will, and Christopher Buckley have all expressed their disgust with McCain's selection of Palin, his gutter campaign tactics, and his lack of the temperament, judgment, and ability to be president.

When the party culture became infected with the Bush/Rove/Cheney virus, it began to morph into a divisive force that possessed none of those qualities. Now the mass exodus is underway. Anyone who is fiscally conservative can't call himself a Republican anymore. Anyone who is a religious Christian can't honestly be part of this since Jesus preached about caring for the sick and the poor--not about eliminating reproductive choice or issues related to same-sex marriage. There's nothing Christian about the agenda of the Religious Right--it's a totally political movement focused on issues that Jesus never mentioned and they ignore the issues about which Jesus preached constantly. Anyone who believes in honesty or competence in government wouldn't call themselves a Republican after Bush. And now, no one who is not a committed soldier in the Holy War against the Left is welcome either.

Good riddance, but I pray that another party or a new Republican party emerges in these coming years. Even though the last few years of GOP trainwreck has been close to intolerable, that will be nothing in comparison to a Democratic party in power without the threat of a viable alternative.

Another Obamacon - Colin Powell

Like me, he is troubled by the evolution of the GOP and what it now represents. They do not offer any innovative policies, they just appeal to the most basic of human emotions - fear. John McCain and the GOP are demagogues, and our founders are rolling in their graves.

Here is the transcript of Gen. Colin Powell endorsing Sen. Obama this morning on Meet the Press.

I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart,
Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

GOP Loses all Dignity

We are at a time when actual Republican party leaders call for Barack Obama to be waterboarded. One seriously must wonder how much further the Republican Party can fall. Somehow it's okay to torture politicians you don't agree with, but it is an unspeakable crime to support abortion rights. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy? After the election I'm going to have to change my party affiliation to Independent...

Here is Christopher Buckley (conservative) detailing why he endorsed Barack Obama and subsequently, why he resigned from the National Review. It is a fitting comment on how pathetic the GOP and neoconservatism have become:

Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands. So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal.

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.
While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case. So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

Beware of the Left!!

It is common to hear GOP ideologues trying to spread fear and panic stating that "if Obama gets elected, we will have the furthest left-leaning government ever." Meanwhile, these same people in the GOP have never made a fuss over the policies of George W. Bush and the current GOP enablers.

Once again, Andrew Sullivan keeps them in check:

Have you seen the deficit? Have you seen the nationalization of the financial sector? The occupation of foreign lands in order to democratize them? The Medicare prescription drug entitlement? Have you checked government spending? Have you seen the growth of earmarks? Yes: Obama is prepared to tolerate legal abortion and doesn't want to strip gay couples of all rights - as in every other developed country in the West. But under Bush, the abortion regime remained in place and gay couples got legally married in Massachusetts and California - and in several countries around the world. What is Lowry's point? And when will he get a clue?

Could the GOP stoop any lower?

How far has the GOP and its supporters fallen (yes, I'm aware that not all members of the GOP share these sentiments) when they are publicly calling Sen. Obama a "traitor" and yell chants to have him put to death? Also, what does it say about Sen. McCain's character for not condemning such disgusting actions?

John McCain has shown a stunning failure of leadership. His campaign, in a time of economic crisis and foreign policy drift, has degenerated into a negative and nasty campaign of smears. The reports are piling up of ugliness at the campaign rallies of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Audience members hurl insults and racial epithets, call out "Kill Him!" and "Off With His Head," and yell “treason” when Senator Obama’s name is mentioned.

Actually Living Matthew 25:34-36

As mainstream Christianity in America continues to move further and further away from the teachings of Jesus and the Gospels, along comes this story involving one of the candidates for the President of the United States.

Update:

Here is Andrew Sullivan's comment on the above story:

Christianity, unlike Christianism, doesn't mean controlling others, policing their lives and removing their rights. It can also mean just helping someone you don't know when you can.

Not Putting Country First

Fareed Zakaria, as usual, giving an excellent take on the current Palin fiasco. However, in seeing the obvious - that Sarah Palin is unqualified to be near the White House, we must not forget it was a result of John McCain's disastrous judgment and incompetence choosing her:

Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. The next administration is going to face a set of challenges unlike any in recent memory.

Obviously these are very serious challenges and constraints. In these times, for John McCain to have chosen this person to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, it is simply not true.

Are the Wheels Coming Off?

They (initial Palin enthusiasts) are finally coming around to deal with the reality that Palin is the biggest farce in the history of American politics. Here is Kathleen Parker from the National Review:

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both
sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

He Will Be Missed

Michael Medders
Nov 4th, 1982 - Sept 24, 2008

Updated Article

Funeral Coverage

Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness

Once Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate, partisans and right-wing Christians became elated and completely energized. Enthusiastic supporters did not hesitate to point out Palin's Pentecostal religious background and more broadly speaking, that the GOP is supposedly the party for conservative Xians.

We have seen over the past decade these so-called Xians becoming obsessed with judging others in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially in regards to sexual sins (lets not mention David Vitter, Larry Craig, the fact that evangelicals are divorcing at the same or higher rates than non-evangelicals). However, they pay no attention to the blatant and continuous lies of the McCain Campaign and more specifically the documented and compulsive lies of Sarah Palin.

Do only certain commandments apply to the Republican Party? Do Xian standards and morals loosen when a candidate has an "R" next to their name? I would argue absolutely not, but it appears that the now-defunct GOP and conservative Xians supporting the GOP will answer that question in the affirmative. Whenever I hear anyone say the Democrats (and I'm not really a fan of them either) don't possess Xian morals but the Republicans do, I want to puke.

Here, Andrew Sullivan documents the lies Sarah Palin has been campaigning on. Not only is she telling the lies, but even when her lies have been proven wrong, she continues to tell them and refuses to correct her statements. Thank God Andrew Sullivan has maintained his steadfast conservative views throughout this election season and during the time the GOP has abandoned its conservative principals. If you don't have time to read his whole post, I'll lay them out quickly:

So for the record, let it be known that the candidate for vice-president for the GOP is a compulsive, repetitive, demonstrable liar. If you follow the links, here is the proof. I repeat: proof:
- She has lied about the Bridge To Nowhere. She ran for office favoring it, wore a sweatshirt defending it, and only gave it up when the federal congress, Senator McCain in particular, went ballistic. She kept the money anyway and favors funding Don Young's Way, at twice the cost of the original bridge.
- She has lied about her firing of the town librarian and police chief of Wasilla, Alaska.
- She has lied about pressure on Alaska's public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law.
- She has lied about her previous statements on climatechange.
- She has lied about Alaska's contribution to America's oil and gas production.
- She has lied about when she asked her daughters for their permission for her to run for vice-president.
- She has lied about the actual progress in constructing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska.
- She has lied about Obama's position on habeas corpus.
- She has lied about her alleged tolerance of homosexuality.
- She has lied about the use or non-use of a TelePrompter at the St Paul convention.
- She has lied about her alleged pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla.
- She has lied about what Alaska's state scientists concluded about the health of the polar bear population in Alaska.

You cannot trust a word she says. On anything.

End the Fed!

Critics dismissed Ron Paul as a "fringe" candidate or lunatic when he claimed the Fed creates the bubbles that destroy the value of the dollar. They also laughed when he said the US financial system is heading for a collapse.

Well, seems he wasn't too far off. From Ron Chernow, a leading financial historian:

I fear the government has passed the point of no return. We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams. It’s pure crisis management. It’s the Treasury and the Federal Reserve lurching from crisis to crisis without a clear statement on how financial failures will be handled in the future. They’re afraid to articulate such a policy. The safety net they are spreading seems to widen every day with no end in sight

Quote of the Week

Wick Allison, a former publisher of The National Review no less, endorses Obama...another conservative disgusted with the current GOP:

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history.

That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask. Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth. This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

End Drinking Age Restrictions

Will Wilkinson of Forbes writes a convincing, coherent and rational argument in favor of repealing all age limitations on drinking. He argues our current restrictions increase the abuse of alcohol and abandon the principals of individual responsibility and freedom.

UCLA professor of public policy Mark Kleiman, an ex-advocate of age restrictions, told PBS that he came around to the no-limits position when he saw a billboard that said, "If you're not 21, it's not Miller Time--yet." Age limits make drinking a badge of adulthood and build in the minds of teens a romantic sense of the transgressive danger of alcohol. That's what so often leads to the abuse of alcohol as a ritual of release from the authority of parents. And that's what has the college presidents worried. They see it.

It's too bad the debate is constantly framed around irrational, emotionally led arguments predicting doom and gloom. It's tempting to label the leaders of those arguments as demagogues.

Then there are the car crashes. It is an article of faith among much of the U.S. government that raising the drinking age to 21 averted thousands of grisly traffic deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, with deceptive five-figure precision, puts the number at 21,887 through 2002. But even this statistical factoid, the neoprohibitionist trump card, deserves scrutiny. A recent research paper by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron and his former student Elina Tetelbaum shows that states that raised the drinking age to 21 since 1984, in response to Congress' road-funding threats, enjoyed no statistically significant decrease in traffic fatalities for 18- to 20-year-olds. They point to the decades-long, steady decline in the rate of
traffic fatalities (deaths per billion passenger miles), a decline due in large part to safer cars, improved driver education and better medical technology. Raising the drinking age did little or nothing.

Conservatism w/out GOP Spin

And from Powerline, of all sources. Paul Mirengoff writes:

But some argue instead (or alternatively) that Sarah Palin's credentials are adequate. These arguments are mostly laughable. We are told that she was a courageous whistle-blower. But whistling-blowing isn’t evidence of leadership skill, administrative ability, or familiarity with vital policy issues. We are told that Palin challenged an incumbent governor and called him out for his corruption. But mounting an insurgent’s campaign for governor isn’t evidence of fitness for the presidency either. We are told that she is responsible for her state’s national guard and visited its troops in Iraq. How this amounts to foreign policy or national security experience, or otherwise qualifies Palin for national office, is unclear.
What’s clear is that if Democrats made these sorts of arguments on behalf of a candidate for national office, conservative commentators would excoriate them for it...That's why those who defend Palin's qualifications typically end up moving to more defensible terrain -- the argument that her credentials compare favorably to Obama's. This may constitute an additional reason to vote for McCain, but it's not a defense of McCain's selection of Palin.

Quote of the Week

The problem is the inherent oddity of the incumbent party running on change. Here were Republicans -- the party that controlled the White House for eight years and both houses of Congress for five -- wildly cheering the promise to take on Washington. I don't mean to be impolite, but who's controlled Washington this decade?
- Charles Krauthammer

"Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to Me.” (Matthew 25:40)

I'm going to pass on Andrew Sullivan's spat with K-Lo from the National Review. He presents a pretty compelling argument against social conservatives who want to ban same-sex marriage.

The Federal Marriage Amendment for which K-Lo campaigned would render my civil marriage null and void. It would also explicitly remove any legal protections even under the rubric of "civil unions" that would provide me and my husband security. It would give people other than my spouse legal claims on my property were I to die or be rendered in some way incompetent. It would effectively divorce us. This is not factually in dispute. And if K-Lo supports equal treatment for gay couples under the rubric of civil unions, I'd be happy to discover that. But that is the only way she can argue that she is not, in fact, insisting that gay couples be stripped of defensible rights and stigmatized under the law. K-Lo even supported Virginia's Marriage Amendment which claims to bar even private legal arrangement between gay spouses. The removal of all these rights and responsibilities, by the way, in no way "protects" marriage for straight people: their rights are guaranteed regardless,
and I am an enthusiast for those rights and for those families. I came from one, after all.

We're not in danger of losing it [the ability to create children] in any way - and never will. Such heterosexual unions will remain and should remain at the heart of civilization, and heterosexual desire is hardly likey to evaporate because society is inclusive of all people, and not just the overwhelming majority. Moreover civil marriage already allows people to commit to one another without reproducing and no one seems to believe that marriage needs to be protected from this. So why the double standard for infertile or non-reproducing straights and gays - unless the point is purely to stigmatize homosexuality?

We are not redefining it [marriage]. We are making it available for the tiny minority of human beings and citizens who otherwise have no secure legal or social protection for their relationships. I'm sure K-Lo doesn't mean to hurt gays and in her own mind doesn't believe that stripping me of basic rights in my relationship renders me second class. But it does, and her feelings about this are irrelevant compared with the facts. Under her vision of society, my husband and I are denied the basic rights granted to every heterosexual. Under my vision, we all have the same rights; and gay people can and should celebrate the families of straight people, do all they can to support parenting, while straight people can do the same for their gay siblings, offspring and friends. Her vision necessitates marginalization and second class citizenship. And
she and others on her side of the debate need to acknowledge it as such and own it.

No Need for Universal Healthcare

One of the more prevalent arguments in the debate about universal health insurance is that we need to make sure everyone is insured because insured folks are paying for the uninsured. The theory goes that an uninsured person visits the ER for a serious injury. Without insurance and being unable to pay his bills, the hospital gets stuck with the liability of the man's costs. From here, the hospital passes the cost over to insured patients and also by receiving tax funding from you and I. Therefore, as the argument goes, you and I are paying for the uninsured while they get a free ride.

As some of you may know, I have been persuaded by this argument in the past considering my stance on social issues is that people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it does not harm others. I can admit that even though I'm not directly or physically harmed by someone else's choice to forgo health insurance, there is potential that I can be harmed financially by paying for the costs incurred by those who do not have health insurance.

However, thanks to recent research by CATO, it appears that we don't end up paying for the uninsured after all. Surprisingly, it seems that the uninsured themselves end up paying for the costs of themselves:

Many uninsured people show up at the hospital, get treated, and then don’t pay
their bills. Doctors and hospitals scream an awful lot about having to
deliver “uncompensated” care. But two recent studies — one on doctors services by Jonathan Gruber and David Rodriguez, the other on hospital services in California
by Glenn Melnick and Katya Fonkych – show that the uninsured who do pay
their bills more than make up for the uninsured who don’t. Why? The
uninsured pay the highest prices. Gruber and Rodriguez write, “Our best
estimate is that physicians provide negative uncompensated care to the
uninsured, earning more on uninsured patients than on insured patients with
comparable treatments.”

One more reason to oppose government imposed universal health care.

Most Xians Prefer...

Barack Obama.

In the past few decades, it was a given that the majority of born-again Christians were voting for the Republican Party. I've even heard some people say, "I would never vote for a Democrat because they don't have any morals." Even though that statement can be dismissed as ridiculous, most Xians in the past viewed the question of "which candidate is more Xian" through an extremely small lens - namely only looking at the issues of abortion and homosexuality.

Thankfully, in a new poll/study released by the Barna Group, it appears that the majority of those who consider themselves Christians support Sen. Obama. I am hopeful that Xians are tired of being taken advantage of by the Republican Party and also beginning to see that there are more relevant issues that should be of concern to Xian voters.

For the most part, the various faith communities of the U.S. currently
support Sen. Obama
for the presidency. Among the 19 faith segments that The Barna Group tracks,
evangelicals were the only segment to throw its support to Sen. McCain. Among
the larger faith niches to support Sen. Obama are non-evangelical born again Christians (43%
to 31%); notional Christians (44% to 28%); people aligned with faiths other than
Christianity (56% to 24%); atheists and agnostics (55% to 17%); Catholics (39%
vs. 29%); and Protestants (43% to 34%). In fact, if the current preferences
stand pat, this would mark the first time in more than two decades that the born
again vote has swung toward the Democratic candidate.

I'm reminded of a quote from the book Rapture Ready by Daniel Radosh - "The Bible has more than 2,000 verses about poverty and maybe five or ten that you can interpret as being about abortion, but we are all about abortion. What about those two thousand verses about Christian responsibility to widows and orphans and aliens and strangers and the poor? We manage to be blind to all of that, but we can find those five verses about abortion."

Hopefully this is a sign of more Christians becoming more Christ-like...

Anthrax Cover-up

By now, I'm sure many of you are aware that the person the Justice Dept. believes is responsible for the anthrax attacks that occurred in the wake of Sept. 11th has committed suicide. The deceased suspect - Bruce Ivins, was a scientist who worked for the U.S. government at Fort Detrick in Maryland. First of all, this leads to some credibility for those who believed the government was behind the anthrax attacks. Whether the government actually had knowledge of Ivins' criminal acts, we shall find out, but for now, we can just say that he was acting in an individual capacity. However, it is clear that Ivins (and perhaps the US govt) wanted to create a link between Islamist terror and the anthrax. On cue, the incompetent media ran with the story and pushed that narrative into the minds of US citizens.

Glenn Greenwald provides an astounding revelation on MSM giant ABC news' role in completely fabricating where the anthrax was from and who developed it. As we all remember, the anthrax scare occurred in the weeks after the Sept. 11th attacks, creating a distinct feeling of vulnerability felt by almost everyone in the country. At that time, ABC ran a story stating that they received information from 4 "highly credible sources" that the ingredients in the anthrax pointed to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. At the time, ABC did not mention the names of the sources. The sources claimed they found the chemical bentonite, which as ABC claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons." Incredibly, we now know that none of the tests performed on the anthrax came back positive for bentonite! None, it was completely fabricated and several tests were completed (ironically at Fort Detrick, the source of the anthrax).

With that being said, the 4 "highly credible sources" who leaked the bentonite info and link to Iraq were purposefully deceiving the country to believe there was a direct link between the anthrax terror attacks and the Iraqi regime.

Now, it becomes clear that ABC was being used (as usual) to peddle false information to the general public by certain agents. ABC is aware of this, but the most incomprehensible part of the story is that ABC will not release the names or agencies of the source they based their stories on. They know they were deceived into creating a link between the anthrax and Iraq by certain officials, but they will not report on who the perpetrators are! Instead of being an independent media outlet and uncovering the truth to another dead-end that led us to the war in Iraq, they are sitting on the information and deliberately covering up for those who told the lies and created the hysteria in the first place! The mind reels!

I'm hoping other media outlets and people make this a big story (look at the potential) but I'm not holding my breath. Instead of bringing people to justice and admitting mistakes, the media will be complacent in reporting on the perceived hubris of the presidential candidates or high gas prices. What more can I say?

Just Say No

Although society appears to envy or covet the skills of multi-taskers, recent studies have conclusively shown that the act of multi-tasking reduces productivity. Bryan Appleyard comments:

Chronic distraction, from which we all now suffer, kills you more slowly. Meyer
says there is evidence that people in chronically distracted jobs are, in early
middle age, appearing with the same symptoms of burn-out as air traffic
controllers. They might have stress-related diseases, even irreversible brain
damage. But the damage is not caused by overwork, it’s caused by multiple
distracted work. One American study found that interruptions take up 2.1 hours
of the average knowledge worker’s day. This, it was estimated, cost the US
economy $588 billion a year. Yet the rabidly multitasking distractee is seen as
some kind of social and economic ideal.

The next time a potential employer asks if you can multi-task -- just say no. If he/she understands what makes a good employee, they will see it as a plus.

Principled Christian Leadership

James Dobson, a so called "leading voice" in Christianity has shown his true colors. In January, Dobson said "speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances." (Italics mine)

This is from yesterday:
"I thought I would never hear myself saying this. While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might."

Yes, I may be jumping the gun since technically he hasn't broken his word, but it is clear he is hedging on his earlier statement. Unfortunately, this isn't too surprising since Jesus constantly chided religous leaders for being hypocritical. It's too bad Dobson is so eager to group himself into that category.