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.

Another Obamacon

Larry Hunter channels my exact thoughts on the candidates so far.

I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the
Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I
served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack
Kemp's Empower America. This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.
When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost
everything I believe in?
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and
unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and
economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we
extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into
a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with
real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.

Guns and Suicide

The sound you just heard was another anti-gun argument crumbling. Steven Chapman discusses the relationship between gun ownership and suicide.

As it turns out, the claims about guns and suicide don't stand up well to
scrutiny. A 2004 report by the National Academy of Sciences was doubtful, noting
that the alleged association is small and may be illusory.
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck says there are at least 13 published studies finding no meaningful connection between the rate of firearms and the rate of suicides. The consensus of experts, he says, is that an increase in gun
ownership doesn't raise the number of people who kill themselves—only the number
who do it with a gun.

"Creationist's Worst Nightmare."

Of course, the title is taken from Rev. Ray Comfort who says that "A banana is an atheist's worst nightmare" because it is so perfectly designed for human use, that only God could have created it. Unfortunately for Ray, it is common knowledge that the modern banana is a product of selective breeding that bears little resemblance to its much less palatable wild and natural ancestor.

Anyways, scientists have recently discovered one of those pesky intermediate life forms that evolution produces.

The 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of
the water-dweller, Ventastega curonica, were found in Latvia, researchers report
in a study published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature. Even though
Ventastega is likely an evolutionary dead-end, the finding sheds new details on
the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods. Tetrapods are animals with
four limbs and include such descendants as amphibians, birds and mammals.
While an earlier discovery found a slightly older animal that was more fish
than tetrapod, Ventastega is more tetrapod than fish. The fierce-looking
creature probably swam through shallow brackish waters, measured about three or
four feet long and ate other fish. It likely had stubby limbs with an unknown
number of digits, scientists said.

Irrational Drug Laws

Florida has recently published some research findings on what drugs cause the most deaths. In summary, legal drugs kill far more people than illegal drugs. Also, parents and ad councils on tv and billboards constantly try to scare people away from using the dangerous drug of marijuana. Well, the reefer maddness was responsible for zero (0) deaths in Florida. Why is it illegal again?

Once again, it is obvious the war on drugs has been a complete failure.

The Florida report analyzed 168,900 deaths statewide. Cocaine, heroin and
all methamphetamines caused 989 deaths, it found, while legal opioids — strong painkillers in brand-name drugs like Vicodin and OxyContin — caused 2,328.
Drugs with benzodiazepine, mainly depressants like Valium and Xanax, led to 743 deaths.
Alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug, appearing in the bodies of 4,179
of the dead and judged the cause of death of 466 — fewer than cocaine (843) but
more than methamphetamine (25) and marijuana (0).