Election 2010: The Day After Yesterday, The Day Before Tomorrow
All right, the title of this one is pretty silly, but hey, it’s the kind of mood I’ve been in all day. There’s nothing better than watching your home state turn a bright, eye blinding red, and then watch as Republicans take over the House and improve greatly in the Senate. And the cherry on top?! Go to work at the mill and gloat about it. Yeah, I gloated. Sue me.
I think that Chuck Harris’ reaction explained it all. The new Porter County Coroner pumped his fists in the air and gave a mammoth yell when the results of his win were read last night. Hell, I felt like the Cheshire cat, grinning ear to ear, while I heard the laundry list of Republican candidates, especially Porter County ones, being read their numbers out loud. In a sense, they had all just been hired. In that moment, they could relax. All of the hard work that they put forward, all of the long hours that they put in, had paid off in the long run.
Republicans in Indiana can breathe a little easier and be assured that redistricting won’t gerrymander districts to favor Democrats (of course I’ll breathe even easier if the Republicans do away with gerrymandering all together, but I’ll write about that when the time is right), and Republicans across the country can rest assured that Democrats no longer have an iron clad fist clenched around the…well…you know…of this nation.
However, there were some casualties last night.
Dan Klein, for one, lost against VanDenburgh for the Indiana House race that he was in. This surprised me: a lot. I’m not sure what the reasoning was for this (although I’m sure many of you on this site will be happy to let me know) but I was disappointed to hear that Klein wouldn’t be joining the other R’s this cycle. I like Dan Klein. He’s a good guy, he seems very genuine, and I look forward to watching his political career in the future, because Dan isn’t going anywhere. There are still big things in store for Klein, you wait and see.
Olson’s loss to Tallian was another disappointment. I knew it was a long shot, as I’m sure Shawn did when he decided to take that plunge, but at least he put that effort forward in a strong way and give it a shot. For me, I knew it was a coin flip. The numbers weren’t quite 50/50 numbers, but they weren’t slaughterhouse numbers. Olson is a lot like Klein. This year, he’s gotten the experience and set up a repertoire with area Republicans, and I look forward to seeing and hearing more from Olson in the future.
Levi’s loss to David Lain was the third of my third most disappointing losses. Not only because I know and like the Levi’s, but because I really do think that he would have done a marvelous job as Sheriff of Porter County. I wish them all the best in the world, and give all three of these candidates a metaphorical pat on the back and a “You’ll get em next time”…because I think they will.
But here I am whining about the three scant losses! What kind of nihilist am I?!
I for one am proud to have so many great local servants. This is the first year that I have worked this closely on local elections, and I am glad that I got involved at this level because I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to get to know so many great people. Whether it was making elephant ears at the popcorn fest, or running the Republican booth at the Hebron block party, or helping to get ready for the Reagan Rally, or helping to manage a campaign in the primaries (albeit an unsuccessful one, an enlightening and friend making experience anyways) and still being able to shake hands with the winner of that primary, who won his general election race, as a fellow Republican with a genuine “No hard feelings” attitude…this election year has done more than make Porter County red, it has given me insight and helped me to make new friends. Because, like Jim’s signs said: it’s about people over politics.
Also, it should be duly noted the amount of time and effort that Joyce Webster, the Porter County Republican Chairwomen, put into helping make the Porter County wins possible. She essentially sacrificed her own position as Portage Township Trustee, in order to help make these valuable wins happen. Everybody should be thankful that she put forth such effort, and if you get the chance to shake her hand and tell her thank you, I hope you’ll take it.
Now, it’s time for them all to roll up their shirt sleeves and dive in. We’ve won…in the biggest amount since the 1920′s…with a larger House majority than the famous (infamous to some, I’m sure) ’94 Congress…and we could easily lose it. We have to progress as a party.
I know, I hate that word too (only because I think progressives are so intolerable). But progressing and growing as a party, working towards new, conservative based, good ideas, will not only take our party to a whole new level, but will show that we can adapt and remain constant and ever vigilant to the people. It doesn’t mean we have to be progressive in the liberal sense. But rather put forth ideas that are based squarely in a free market style solution, hold our values high while respecting those that dissent, and recognize that change can be more than a catchy slogan. It can be something that, when utilized in the proper way, can pull our country out of double digit unemployment, can enact real working reforms through deregulation on large nonsensical things combined with surgical accuracy like regulations (rather than blanket reforms that hurt more than help) on real problems, can respect peoples liberties and keep accountability up where it ought to be, and can make the Republican brand something that every person, regardless of age, creed, religion, or class, will be able to identify with and proudly shout approval from their rooftops.
Election 2010: Key Races In Northwest Indiana, And My Predictions
There are A LOT of close, key races in Northwest Indiana this year, and Republicans are poised to take over a lot of seats, whether it is nationally or locally. The first and most important aspect of these elections is the Congressional races. With Democrats having a majority in both the House and the Senate, this is do or die situation across the country, and that includes our own little corner of the world. The second, and this is probably as important to those of us in Indiana, is making sure that our state House and Senate seats are filled with Republicans this year. Not only is that to help ensure that bills get passed that Republicans want, but also because this is a redistricting year, which means we have to stop Democrats from gerrymandering the Districts.
In the House District 19 race, Democrat Shelli VanDenburgh, the incumbent, is in for a tough battle against Republican Dan Klein. VanDenburgh’s campaign website takes an interesting approach on her opening page. Rather than having her immediate emphasis be on what she has done since becoming elected in 2007, or appealing to the reasons that Democrats would be better than Republicans, she has taken an approach of “balance of power”. Her rational is that “It is necessary to have checks and balances and by keeping democrats in control of the house, Indiana will continue to have that” (quoted from her website).
This is interesting. While one can browse through the rest of the site and definitely find her Democratic rhetoric, the fact that the first page, the opening page, is focused primarily on this aspect is in line with what many other Democrats across the country have done: try and separate themselves from the Obama administration and appeal to the Independents and less-liberal Democrats. It’s an intriguing tactic, however I don’t think that it is going to work. Klein has great name recognition, and although the Post-Tribune seems to dislike him (it seems almost on a weekly basis Rich James has something to say about either him or other Republican candidates) most people I have talked to have a favorable opinion of him. As far as the yard sign war, it is definitely a close call, but I’d say just from the areas that I have driven in Klein signs vs. VanDenburgh signs eclipse hers by about ten to fifteen percent. Not to mention that VanDenburgh, for the voters that don’t know anything about the race and are just showing up to do their civic duty, is a longer name and less recognizable than Klein. I predict a Klein win by about the same as the yard sign percentages, about ten percent.
Indiana’s Congressional District 1 is a familiar race between Pete Visclosky, the incumbent Democrat and Mark Leyva, the Republican nominee. There isn’t much to write about, really. While I’ve met Leyva several times and have no personal qualms with him,in this race his lack of exposure has been worse than the past times that he has ran against Pete. I’m not sure why, I don’t know if work is busy or if he couldn’t generate the funds, or whatever, but with all of Pete’s legal troubles and ethics battles, not to mention the hardcore “anti-incumbent” attitude that is floating all of these races, and in an off year election cycle where Republicans traditionally do better, Leyva seems to be noticeably absent, particularly in my neck of the woods (the Hebron, Demotte area). Although yard signs don’t vote, if they did, the ones that I saw would account for a half dozen total votes for Leyva and at least two hundred for Visclosky. My prediction: Pete will run away with at least 20% of the vote.
Shawn Olson, the Republican running against Karen Tallian, the Democratic incumbent who holds down the seat in the 4th District State Senate, is the wild card, so to speak. That district, if one is to look at the map, has been so gerrymandered to favor D’s it’s ridiculous. I was going to manage a campaign early on, before Shawn put his name in the ring, but after the candidate and I looked at the thin strip that reaches out and grabs a chunk of Lake County, we decided against it.
That is what is interesting about this race, and why I included it in my key races piece. I think he actually might have a chance. He’s broken from what has been a problem with other RLC members in the past, which has been not always willing to cooperate with area Republicans, and has been embraced by many area office holders, including Charlie White and Jon Costas, who both spoke at his fundraiser not so long ago. I’ve known Shawn for some time, and I think that this particular seat would benefit greatly from a more libertarian minded individual and budget hawk. Additionally, his brother Eric Olson’s run for the House 1 seat may have helped his name recognition enough to push him over the bubble. Even if voters that don’t follow politics as closely as readers on this site do don’t recognize the difference between Shawn and Eric Olson, that last name is still in people’s minds. My prediction: flip a coin.
Dan Coats, running for the Senate seat that is being vacated by Bayh, is running against Congressional incumbent Brad Ellsworth. I’ve written a little about this race in the past already, and not every conservative minded individual like myself agrees with why I support him. I’ve had some pretty good discussions with buddies at work about why they won’t vote for Coats, and primarily it is focused around the NRA’s endorsement of Ellsworth. That was troubling for me, believe me. One of the primary reasons I’m a Republican is because of my gun rights, and Coats’ bad calls on gun legislation in the past is not something that I’m crazy about. However, if one looks at the grades each received: Ellsworth an A and Coats a C+, and factors in Ellsworth’s votes on health care and other liberal bills (he has voted with the Obama administration almost 90 percent of the time), one can get a feel for why I’m still pulling that hypothetical lever this November. Additionally, in a sea of freshmen Representatives and Senators, we’re going to need some people with experience in the ranks. That’s not to say I want Republicans to fall into some old bad habits: I don’t. But, older, experienced people like Coats can help to teach a lot to what will likely be a group of “newbies”. He can help with PR, he can help reach across the aisle and drag moderate D’s over, sort of like what McCain has done in the past…there are many benefits to putting Coats in that Senate seat. And, like I’ve said in past pieces: Ellsworth may sell himself as a conservative, but he’s still going to be caucusing with Reid (if he wins again). My prediction: the polls will prevail. Coats is up handily in the polls and those will reflect a W in his column.
There will be more on other races, but I thought this might at least kick things off. Any thoughts? Disagreements?
GOP Makes Wise Move With “Repeal and Replace”
Republicans running for Congress have found their perfect groove, at least concerning Obamacare.
Repealing the bill is, in my opinion and many many others, of the utmost importance before it becomes so ingrained into our health care system that repealing the bill becomes almost impossible. As many others, including myself, have written, there are a lot of key components of this health care bill that could have a negative, if not disastrous effect, on both our economy and our lives. Health care reform was necessary, yes. There weren’t too many Republican Congressmen and women that were debating that point. However, what was passed was a dismal bill that didn’t help all that many people, was wayyyy too expensive, and almost assured that it would result in raised premiums for more than half the country.
Democrats gained an A for effort, but a F on substance.
Fortunately, Republicans have realized that these grades could easily apply to them six months after election day. Thus, the slogan “Repeal the Bill” has mutated into “Repeal and Replace”. Republicans seem to be committed to not only repealing this horrid piece of legislation, but applying those free market principles and common sense solutions that they espoused during the health care debates into a new bill. Essentially: putting their money where their mouths are.
This is good! Wonderful! Republicans are realizing that it’s not enough to just say “no”. Republicans should not be the party of “no”. Rather, they should be the party of “smarter alternatives”. Instead of including everyone up to the age of 26 the be on their parents dole, and forcing the insurance companies to honor such insanity, stipulations limiting it to college students would limit the damage this would do. So would allowing health insurance companies to operate like auto insurance companies, by allowing them to cross state lines to sell insurance. Instead of robbing from one social program that is going bankrupt in order to pay for another social program, which I still don’t understand to this day, allow the health insurance companies to sell what would amount in automobile terms as “liability” insurance on ones body, and find a way to do it without punishing people that have those supposed “Cadillac” plans.
There were at least two dozen other great ideas that I have heard throughout the course of the health care debates. Utilize what works, get rid of what doesn’t. Start with a bottom of the barrel, as little as possible approach, and work towards a good bill that does good things. The GOP seems to have realized this, and hopefully this is a good sign for things to come. Maybe we can start this decade out with a majority that will continue into the next.
What Do David Lain and Brad Ellsworth Have In Common?
Quite a bit, actually.
Both of these men either are or have been Sheriffs in their respective counties, both are Democrats that claim to have more conservative platforms, and both are going to be relying on conservatives to help propel them into their respective positions of power.
First, the conservative Democrat angle.
This actually has a lot to do with my last piece on gun control and Second Amendment rights, and the same goes with other areas. I haven’t a doubt in my mind that either one of these two gentlemen are conservative, or the very least have some conservative leaning views. I’m sure they are very pro-family people who have a lot of right views on social stances, and I have no reason to attack them on their personal feelings and/or faith. BUT, and this is a big but, especially in the case of Ellsworth who is running for the Senate seat here being vacated by Evan Bayh, the fact remains that at the end of the day they still are caucusing with Democrats. And again, in the case of Ellsworth, we have his vote on the health care reform bill and other Obama initiatives to peer over and wonder how much we can trust his “I’m tired of the old political games in Washington” message. On an even more local level, one looks at the issues regarding the IRS audit of the Porter County Sheriffs office and wonders how much Lain’s “Trusted and Tested” message holds up. Is that to say that every year we can expect that the Porter County police will be audited because of financial mistakes?
I know what you are all thinking: what does a position like Sheriff or even something like Coroner have to do with politics? What does it matter what party is in those positions?
Just look at Ellsworth as the perfect example. He ran as a conservative Democrat for Sheriff, he ran on that same platform to make it to the House, and now he’s hoping to ride those coat tails all the way to the Senate; even though his voting record doesn’t match his rhetoric. A job like Sheriff or Coroner or even Auditor matter because they are stepping stones for those who want to enhance and move up on that political ladder. Who’s to say that Lain couldn’t become another Ellsworth? I don’t know his political ambitions personally, and perhaps he has the best intentions in the world, maybe he really wants to get up their and change things that he doesn’t like about his party. That may be. However, the theme of this post remains: he would still have to caucus and cut deals with people that are much more liberal than I think even Democrats in Northwest Indiana are.
Now let’s make this clear as well, I don’t claim to be taking a neutral position here for either one of these races, and I’m not trying to persuade Democrats not to vote for either Lain or Ellsworth. It wouldn’t make too much of a difference if I was trying to do that or not; as a Democrat you’ll probably vote for a Democrat because you believe in that party. That’s fine, free country, vote away. I also don’t claim to not have a horse in this race, so to speak. I’m a Republican, a precinct committeeman now, and know Ralph Levi and have met Dan Coats and think they are both stand up people with a lot to offer. I don’t know if one could call this a campaign piece for them, I don’t know what one would call this (although I’m sure there are plenty of distasteful things that people will, be it on the comment section or under their breath, and that’s fine too). I prefer to think of this as a piece primarily targeted at those conservative Republicans who believe that Ellsworth or Lain are clear alternatives or even better picks than what their party has to offer. This is most definitely not the case.
I know that there have been a lot of “amongst political allies” talk regarding both Ralph Levi and Dan Coats, and I know that in some of the cases different people of different political persuasions are friends and so help each other out. That’s fine and dandy, I get that. However, being supportive and voting for a friend doesn’t mean that one should throw his party under the bus by trying to garner support from other political allies. At the end of the day we are all Republicans trying to help out one another. I’m sure we won’t all check all R’s; I will, but I’m sure not everyone will. And that’s fine too. But if you’re a candidate, it’s a bit tacky and distasteful to speak poorly of fellow candidates. And for the non candidates that consider themselves to be conservatives, just remember that the road from county Sheriff to Senate is not one that is all that long…and when your conservative Sheriff gets in Harry Reid’s office, will he still hold YOUR values dear or will he fall in line?
Crazy Idiot Still On the Run: Exercise Your Gun Rights and Protect Yourself
THIS is why I’m a gun carrying Republican.
This man, as of yet unidentified, has been driving around randomly killing people. He shows up at a construction yard, asks the people about honey bee’s, and then shoots two people, killing one. He drives down to a farm in Lowell, right here in my backyard, asks the farmer about honey bees, and then shoots him.
God help him if he stops by my house.
I’m not saying that the death or the shootings would 100% have been avoided if there was a gun on the victim side of the equation. Nor am I saying that there WASN’T a gun on the victim side of these things, I don’t know either way. But what I do know is I felt a whole lot better about going to work last night knowing my wife and child had several weapons at their disposal.
I don’t want to politicize a horrible event, and I hope that even if one reads this piece and disagrees with my assessment of gun ownership that they at least click on the link and if they see somebody who matches this murderers description, calls the authority’s. However, I can’t help but wonder how much more often things like this would happen if our Second Amendment rights weren’t upheld by the narrow margins of the Supreme Court, both recent landmark cases barely squeaking by with a 5-4 vote.
Guns, and the rightful ownership of them, is perhaps the biggest reason I vote Republican, and bust my Democratically voting hunter and gun enthusiast buddies gonads every chance I get for voting for the people that consistently vote against our Second Amendment rights. I’m not saying that all Republicans are flawless with this, or that the NRA doesn’t sometimes support Democrats that are or vote pro-gun. However, for me, the bigger picture is always: who will you caucus with? The Democrats voted in Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House, who has been consistently anti-gun. That means that “conservative Democrat” caucuses and cuts deals with her in exchange for their votes. I’m absolutely sure that those pro-gun Democrats have the best of intentions, and that they like to hunt, and like to be able to protect themselves. But, at the end of the day, when the bullet hits the bone, so to speak, will they stand tall on those pro-gun pledges? So few do.
I hope that everybody stays aware while police are looking for the nut job that is still running around.
My own little hope? I hope he made it down a little further south and some hillbilly with a shack in the woods is slowly torturing him and making him pay for his deeds without the option of appeals and lawyers…but hey, that’s just me.
As The Election Day Comes…
As the election day comes around, Democrats are scraping to find a way to discredit the Republican candidates, even as every expert, liberal or conservative, predicts an R victory this November.
The right you will see a graph of the taxes payed out by “the rich” in the year 2004. I’ll explain the graph a little later, as it pertains quite extensively to the subject matter at hand.
A plant sent me an email that is being circulated by those inside the liberal Democrat community telling organizers exactly what to focus on.
I won’t release the email directly, since that may, in some small way, reveal the source, however I will deal with the main focal points one by one.
1) The first claim is that Republicans have released a tax plan that would borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — and would increase our deficit by $4 trillion. Needless to say, it makes their claims of financial responsibility even less
believable than they were in the first place. (the words of the email, not mine)
My rebuttal? I thought you’d never ask.
Democrats routinely fail to recognize that cutting taxes has, over the decades, actually INCREASED revenue to our national government. However, the reason that the deficit has continued to go up and up and up, is because spending has never been cut. Statistically speaking, and if one cares to he or she may reference the graph, the rich actually pay MORE taxes than if the tax rate is higher. The reason for this? The “rich” are the ones that supply jobs. They own businesses, they manage major accounts…and at the end of the day, if they see they aren’t going to be taxed up the wazoo, they either a) hire more people or b) invest more money in different ventures. This creates jobs. Which creates taxpayers. This also creates more revenue for the “rich” man, who makes more money, and pays more taxes than when his tax rate is through the roof. Therefore, the government actually makes MORE money by having lower tax rates over all. The important thing for the government to recognize is that spending, being at the all time high that it is, needs to be cut in order to make those surpluses actually matter.
2) President Obama’s plan includes policies that reduce taxes on the
middle class and small businesses, and would extend the Bush tax cuts
only to those making under $250,000 — not to the wealthiest few.
My rebuttal: this is absolutely true. However, if the wealthiest few are getting the hard end of the bargain on this one, wheres the incentive for them to continue to hire more of those “middle class” people? In all different aspects of economics, there are a couple of things that economists universally agree on. One of the biggest aspects is incentives. Incentives are everything. The economy is not doing that great. There isn’t much incentive to hire people. In order to at least try and get the unemployment rate down, the wealthiest HAVE to be included in this. No matter what your ideology, no matter what your thoughts or feelings regarding the rich, they have to be given a reason to hire people. Period.
3) Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s tax plan would
nearly double our country’s projected deficit by adding $4 trillion in
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans over the next ten years.
Republicans are pretending they would pay for those tax cuts by
freezing spending — but they haven’t said what they would freeze or
cut, and their freeze generally would save only $300 billion over the
next decade.
My rebuttal.
Hell, see the top couple of paragraphs. This is ludicrous!
Re-pass the Bush tax cuts all the way, from the lowest income to the highest. It worked to get us out of the recession of the early 2,000′s, and it is needed to keep us from the edge of a depression as we near 2011.
And yes, some spending should be frozen or at least cut. It’s what a responsible country does when they are in over their heads in debt. What, exactly? I don’t know, exactly. What would I do? Form a bi-partisan committee (TRULY bipartisan, with an even number of R’s and D’s) and go through the books one by one. Look for mess ups. Look for wasted funds. If at the end of the day it isn’t that much of a success, at least it can be said that it was attempted.
4) Despite Republicans’ rhetoric about deficits and spending,
Senator McConnell’s tax plan would grow America’s deficit without
growing our economy, creating jobs, or boosting America’s middle
class. Instead, the Republican plan would return us to the same failed
economic policies that led to the economic crisis: cutting taxes for
the wealthy few, cutting regulations on special interests and big
business, and cutting middle class families loose to fend for
themselves.
Don’t cut regulations at all. I agree. The rules are there for a reason. However, I have to be the voice of dissent on most everything else. Special interests are pretty level across the liberal/conservative board, and middle class families are only middle class because they can hold onto a job that is (SURPRISE!) provided by the so called “rich”.
I don’t hate the rich. I recognize that they are the ones that actually supply jobs in this country, and that they have to be given some kind of reason to keep supplying jobs, even in this catastrophic economical climate. However, the Democrats are doing their damnedest to keep up the typical “rich vs. poor” schematic that has won them so many elections in the past.
Don’t fall for it this time, please.
Don’t let “hope and change”, which is about as useful as a pocket full of rainbows and unicorns, be your calling card. How about we use “hard work and perseverance”, and work towards rebuilding this country as best we can and making the unemployment rate go back down?
But you’re not going to make that happen by screwing the rich.
Global Warming: Three Seperate Thoughts On The Matter
Carbon Dioxide. We breath it out when we exhale. We create a lot of it when we burn our fossil fuels. We limit the parts per-million in the air that we breathe when working in a confined space. And it’s apparently causing a global warming catastrophe that could conceivably result in mass human extinction. When researching global warming, there are several different levels at which once can read about the possible severity of such a happening, and there are several different theories and scientists with different variations and varying fields of expertise that have thrown their two cents in on this matter. What’s the “inconvenient truth” regarding this matter? One wonders. However there are a number of different thoughts and theories that are extremely interesting, and each offers it’s own unique perspective on the matter.
The first and perhaps most publicized theory on the matter, made immortal by Al Gore and his “An Inconvenient Truth” documentary, is that global warming will result in mass extinction and drastic changes in our planets structure, and the only way to halt or even slow down such a happening would be to pass strict reforms on carbon emissions from businesses, to buy electric cars, and to generally cease emitting carbons into the atmosphere. Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Prize for this documentary, and throughout the film he shows numerous graphs and statistics from scientists and meteorologists to prove his theory (not to mention the fact that he whines consistently about losing the 2000 elections). According to this theory, carbon gets trapped in our atmosphere and stays there. Now, carbon is a good thing, because it traps in heat and allows our planet to sustain life. However, according to this theory, we are putting so much up in the atmosphere that it will melt our polar ice caps, submerge much of our coasts in water, and generally kill over half of our population on the planet. Subsequently, in the past few years, NASA has put out press releases saying that the data that Gore uses is old data and they have since found that the levels used are much less.(Singer and Avery, 2007) Also, in Great Britain, children are required to have a parents signature in order to watch the film, because so many other problems have been found with the documentary that it is no longer able to be said to be scientifically sound and is not allowed to be used for educational purposes(also, it violated the law in that there are so many politically charged statements throughout the video, and one is not allowed to push politics, one side or the other, in a public education school system).(Sheppard, 2007) What does this mean? Maybe everything, maybe nothing. That’s up to each individual to mull over and decide for his/herself.
On a more moderate note regarding the global warming controversy, we have Nathan Myhrvold. He and his team of inventors and scientists work in California in Silicon Valley. Some of his scientists research was actually used in the film “An Inconvenient Truth”.(Levitt and Dubner, 2009) Nathan and his team have worked on issues of global warming for years, and they themselves live as green as it is possible for them to. They chronicle many different ways that global warming is misrepresented, and speak frankly about Gore’s documentary and how it was meant to “scare the Hell out of people” (their words). They agree that it is a problem, even if they don’t agree with the doomsday scenario, however they offer up an interesting way to cheaply fix the problem without having to affect anybody’s lives or pocket books. They call it: the garden hose to the sky. The hose would be structured to reach eighteen miles into the sky, and would pump liquified sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. A sprinkler system would pump the sulfur dioxide around the globe about ten times a day, creating what the scientists affectionately call “Budyko’s Blanket”. The blanket would, according to the scientists, halt and possibly reverse global warming. Could this happen because of the politically charged atmosphere (so to speak)? Would politicians allow such a cheap and relatively simple plan come to fruition? That’s hard to say. However, this writer thinks it wouldn’t hurt to try such a scheme before resulting to mass business and manufacturing shut downs.
The third level of dissent would be the authors of “Unstoppable Global Warming”, referenced earlier in this paper. Singer and Avery are geologists who have dedicated their lives to mapping out past climate models, and have extensively researched Gore’s film and disagree very much that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide at all. They believe in global warming. Temperature changes and thermometers don’t lie. However, they attribute it to a natural progression of the Earth’s cooling and warming cycle. In fact, as predicted in their book originally published in 2007, temperatures have begun to see a cooling a trend, resulting in, perhaps, global cooling. Singer and Avery aren’t just “right wing hacks” or ideological deniers. They have won several awards in their field including an honorary doctorate from the University of Ohio in 1970; Special Commendation from President Eisenhower for the early design of satellites in 1954;and the Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Federal Service.
Does any of this prove anything in particular? Maybe. Maybe not. However, in order for people to form an educated opinion on any one thing, some type of actual self educating is necessary. If one is to only believe the politically charged rantings of one politician versus another, then we would be a country of radicals on either side, and this writer for one does not care for such an idea. This debate is certainly not over, and will probably continue for some time, between the many different sects and degrees of extremity within the scientific community. And that’s a good thing! We should have open, intelligent debate across the whole never ending scope of ideas. Because that’s how good legislation is formed.
Game Over?
*Sigh*
Okay. There are so many elements to this it’s unbelievable. I don’t particularly agree with the Pastor Terry Jones. What does burning a crap load of Koran’s really do? Sure, I like to burn things too. I’ve always been a bit of a pyro. But this isn’t going to help anything.
Symbolically, Jones wants to burn the Korans as a symbol against radical Islam (note that he said radical, which is rather important) on the anniversary of 9/11. He has since suspended his endeavor because of pressure from the White House and from his own home town threatening to fine his arse off if he went through with it. While I’m glad he isn’t doing it, the fact that the federal government is involved with this at all is what bothers me the most.
Look, when people get mad, they burn stuff. And it’s all usually stupid.
When John Lennon made his statement that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus, Christians across the country burned Beatles records. In protest to the war in Vietnam, liberals burned American flags. When protesting for woman’s rights, women burned their bras (actually, on reflection, I guess I’m ok with that one…). To this day, and I’m sure all the ladies can agree with this one, the first thing girls do when a boyfriend breaks up with them is to burn all his crap, usually with a “traveling pants” type circle of friends talking about how he was a jerk anyways there for moral support.
So lets not all be so appalled that somebody is pissed off and wants to burn something, all right? Let’s not be a bunch of pansies about this. “My God, somebody might get offended!” is not an excuse to stop something from happening. If he wants to do it, let him do it. How can you turn the other cheek at the burning of an American flag, and then be so outraged at something like this? If he wants to do it, just ignore him. Now it’s national news.
The other thing that bothers me about this is that the excuse the military is using to be against it is that it might put the troops in danger. This is probably true (of course, it would have to be talked about on the cable news in the first place for them to get the reception from the caves, in which case, see the above paragraph and tell the news not to cover it. It’s not unprecedented.) but still: if we choose to change our own countries behaviours in order to not piss off some Muslims overseas, what does that mean? That’s right. It means they’ve won.
Terrorism isn’t just about killing people. Sure, that’s often an element. But the basic goal of terrorism is to get people to do what you want. Terrorism is used to achieve this goal when you don’t have, say, an Army like America has. Through this manner, they want us to conform to their views, and so they will take their extremist groups and kill. It probably doesn’t even matter to them that he isn’t burning the Korans now. The next big Muslim firework show will be pinned on him even THINKING about burning the Koran.
What exactly CAN we do, then? Is the White House saying that it’s okay for me to burn Bibles but not the Koran? If this isn’t a war against radical Islam anyways, why should it matter to burn the Koran? Is this an admission that the enemy is, in many ways, an ideological one? Kind of like a cold war, except we’re actually putting lead out there?
WHY is President Obama letting himself get dragged into these kind of things? This along with the New York mosque debate are two great examples of Obama’s inadequacy as President. The President should be above these piddly little arguments. Leave these arguments to bloggers and grass roots people, there, Barry. This makes it seem like you’re admitting to an ideological loss to the terrorists. And if that happens…well, I don’t care much for pork anyways.
Republican Leadership?
Originally written for and posted at: www.thesub-urban.com
2010 is going to be a big year for Republicans.
I’m talking huge.
Colossal.
Oprah’s waist size big.
Obama’s ego big.
Ted Kennedy’s liver size big (too soon?).
Very few people are debating this point at the moment. There are different reasoning’s and explanations that have been thrown out there, along with a general inquisition as to who is going to lead the party in 2012, but very few aren’t in agreement when the question is asked: Who is going to win big in these in 2010, Republicans or Democrats? Now, there are many different reasons why R’s are going to dominate, and I’ll avoid the usual snark responses like, “We’re smarter,”, or, “We’re better at just about everything,” in order to come up with a real coherent understanding of the political realities that we are tied to this coming election. To start with, it’s the midterm elections, and those classically sway to the right anyways. Statistically speaking, a good chunk of the Democratic voters just don’t come out on midterm elections. Sure, they’re bussed in in droves during the presidential election (a little joke there, I’m here all night) but for whatever reason they don’t show up the following year (possibly because the homeless don’t stay in one area for longer than a couple years? All right, all right, I’m done…) . That block is typically younger voters and African American voters. Sure, there has been a very positive looking uptick in both youngsters and blacks showing up at the polls at all, but unless that uptick really rises, there will still be a dismal showing.
The House and Senate both have Democratic majorities, with a Democrat in the White House, and historically when that sort of situation is presented, the American independent voters level the playing field a bit. This pretty well goes for either party, and has been a more recent trend (relatively speaking, because it’s more of a trend that has developed more since the past couple of decades) where independent voters may vote in a D or an R President and then during midterms replace a D or an R in the House or Senate seats. It happened in the 90′s by putting Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in control of the House while Bill Clinton and the Democrats had the Presidency. It happened again in the 2,000′s when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats dethroned the decade of Republican House rule while George Bush was President, and it will probably happen again this year with the major Democratic dominance in government.
Also, there is the stagnant economy, an overall disenchantment with government, and a whole lot of grass roots activism on the right that has never been so vocal or active. Right now Republican’s are battening down the hatches, working together, and, for the most part, placing good candidates in important races. Yes, 2010, even admitted by most political scientists of a more liberal persuasion, is going to be an unstoppable Republican year (unless some cover up to massacre children is found, which is very very unlikely). A lot of this has been happening at the more local levels, since although members of Congress are often looked at nationally, at the end of the day they aren’t voted on by everybody in America but rather those that live in their individual districts. This is the reason that Nancy Pelosi can continue to be reelected, even though her national approval rating hovers around 15%. Just from my own experiences here in my little corner of Northwest, Indiana, the party has been pristine with their organization and the candidates have been hitting the road hard, knocking on doors rain or shine, handing out pamphlets, and involving the grass roots with their campaigns, showing their recognition of the hard work these groups put in and showing that the groups are energized and happy with the over all lurch of the party back to the right (otherwise, these same very helpful grass roots organizations would turn on the party, and would be pulling for a third party candidate or fielding their own primary opponents. While we’ve seen a little of that with the libertarian sects, it hasn’t been an unusual amount because the libertarians, no matter how far to the right the Republican party goes, will always peg the party as not sufficient for their libertarian means. Ron and Rand Paul are more the exceptions that prove the rule than anything else, and even though they have R’s after their names, a lot of Republicans won’t claim them, including this one. And in any effect, if Ron Paul hauled any more pork back to his district while constantly preaching economical efficiency, he’d have change his profession from doctor and Congressman to butcher and hypocrite.)
However, on a national level right now, there is much to worry about. During this period of Republican re-invigoration, there’s an onward battle between many different faces, sects, and aspects of the party to be the leader and, subsequently, the 2012 Republican nominee for president. This next year and half, depending on presentation and determination, will decide if it will be Sarah Palin with her espousing of traditional conservatism, Mike Huckabee with his Christian right and evangelicals, Ron Paul and his libertarianism, or John McCain again with his moderate views. Granted, there may be an “out of the blue” candidate that could jump into the race (perhaps a John Thune or a Mitch Daniels) but as of right now, that seems to be the most likely handful. The only reason I didn’t include a Romney or a Giuliani in this mix is that neither one has been as vocal, and neither one have done a very good job of putting themselves out there for conservatism, especially when conservatism is the key word this year with Republicans. Of course I’m sure their names will end up the ballot, but I don’t think they will get far in the primary and so, for the sake of keeping this mostly about the possible nominations, I’m not going to dwell on them nearly as much.
On a public level, you don’t hear a lot of in-fighting and baring of claws as of yet (which is good, I think it would make the party look disorganized and petty if that were to happen so far away from 2012) but when you look at the grass roots level, whether it be through blog sites, Facebook and MySpace rantings, or even rhetoric at different events, an internal warring of ideologies is eminent and real. For example, while I do believe that there are indeed RINO’s in the party (Republican’s In Name Only), not EVERY moderate Republican is a RINO. I don’t believe John McCain to be a RINO. I don’t think that every member of Congress should be thrown out and publicly exonerated. Yes, there are members of Congress that are inadequate for the job, at least in my eyes, however that is ultimately up to the voters in those districts to take care of that situation. Regionalism in politics is a very real thing, and the voters in Tennessee don’t influence, say, the voters in Arizona.
Another prime example is the constant usage of the term “neoconservative” to describe any Republican that doesn’t tow a certain libertarian line. Every Republican that is in support of the Iraq war, or that agrees we need a more hawkish foreign policy, is not automatically a “neoconservative”. There has been this odd fascination with libertarian leaning R’s to weed out the hawks under the guise of eradicating the “neocon’s”, and though it isn’t going to happen any time soon, there is a small danger of losing the elderly vote that has a much more hawkish foreign policy (but I could rattle on about that all day, I’ll save it for another piece). There are hundreds of others that I could speak of, different ways of looking at things, different ideologies, however I think you all get the point. There is some fighting with in the family for the head of the dinner table, and only one man/woman can carve the bird.
This isn’t too uncommon, though. The Republican party has always been the “Big Tent” party because it incorporates so many (needed) elements. The different ideologies are there to counter balance each other and to (usually) come up with the best possible legislation for the most people as possible. We need the libertarians to keep us fiscally sound, but we have to be weary of their protectionism and often nutty foreign policy platforms. We need the traditional conservatives, not just because it’s such an enormous block of votes, but so that we don’t become knee jerk reactionaries and take things slow and steady, like most conservatives universally agree is the best, most effective method of passing good legislation. And we need some moderate voices in the party as well, because not everyone is politically tied down to one ideology or the other, and in fact more and more people consider themselves independent voters.
Also, this isn’t uncommon for a party that is in the throes of reconstruction, either. During the long stretch of Democratic President’s (FDR, Truman, an eight year break of the trend with Eisenhower, who was a rather moderate conservative, following by Kennedy and LBJ) there was worse infighting than now. Rockefeller represented the liberal wing of the Republican party, Nixon the moderates, and Goldwater the conservative wing, and many more dirty tricks and underhanded things were done back then compared to now because we didn’t have 24 hour news channels, cell phones with camera and video recording capabilities, or shock news hounds that wanted to dismantle politicians with a rather unhealthy passion (this changed with the Watergate scandal, of course). Hell, wire tapping itself was commonly ordered from the White House, and the Kennedy and Johnson administration had ordered at least double the wire tappings that Nixon had, not to mention the dirty Chicago politics that probably got Kennedy elected, or the dirty deals that Johnson was known to cut in order to get what he wanted. Politics was different then, less transparent and less accountable to the American people. There was a lot less “sun light” on the politicians, and so not only were they less accountable when in office, but the in fighting was less publicly known during that time or even in election cycles.
Right now the Republican party is like a giant game of king of the hill. Every ideology has their hat thrown in the ring, and they are all scraping to end up at the top and be able to mold the party as they each individually see as the best fit. It’s one of the reasons that I love politics. The different people with different ideas battle it out and the person who has conveyed his/her thoughts on the issue, and has done a good job hitting the streets, and has…well, just been lucky, runs and becomes de facto leader of the party for that period of time. Hopefully at the end of the day they can all do what past politicians have been able to do: shake hands and smile. Because while they may all be vying for power, they have to realize that the over all goal is better, if not good, government that does well for our nation and is supported by the people. If any one of them begin to lose sight of that over all goal, and I’m not convinced that any of them have, then all is lost.
When will Americans be considered adults?
This piece originally written for the NWI Times and published August 30th, 2010
Here I sit, a 24-year-old husband and father of a 15-month-old son (with another on the way as well, thank you very much). I have a mortgage, a car loan, and probably too many credit cards. I work 40-plus hours a week, plus attend school full time, plus my plethora of hobbies and commitments with politics. I can be drafted, I can be called on for jury duty, and I’m expected to pay my taxes.
Yet I’m deemed so stupid and apparently childish that I can’t make my own decision as to whether or not I wear a seat belt. I can only buy so many cans of beer at a time, and certainly not on a Sunday. In some cities, I’m not even allowed to salt my food! And God forbid a want a few tasty trans fats on my burger.
What’s happened?
I remember thinking when I was in high school about all the freedom I’d have when I became an adult, how I wouldn’t feel like I was being treated like a child anymore. I don’t want to go as far as calling this a “big brother” society just yet; there are quite a few other liberties that would need to be eroded before I’ll be willing start espousing such quips. However, with the direction that we’ve been moving as a country, I wouldn’t be surprised if such a horror could become a reality.
“Adult kids” are becoming more of a norm than the exceptions to the rule. It’s one thing to live with mommy and daddy while attending school, or saving up some money, or because an individual is just dealt a few bad hands in life and needs some recoup time. It’s another when no too little effort is put forth to become a productive member of society.
While this is ultimately a job of the parents to give the “adult kid” a good swift kick in the behind for some motivation, and granted not enough parents are willing to do this and so the fault falls on them in a major way, the laws that we’ve been passing are not helping out at all.
Take this latest health care reform bill, for instance. All other parts aside, agreements and disagreements and politically charged debate aside, the worst thing we could do is to extend the age to 26 for “adult kids” to stay on the insurance of their parents.
Now, a college student? I could understand that. But there are no such stipulations. Should I, as a husband and father and adult, be able to piggy back on “daddy’s” insurance? Absolutely not! At age 26, one is supposed to have some kind of direction, some goals of one sort or the other. They aren’t supposed to be given even more incentive to leech off of their parents.
But these are only a few of the instances where we, as society, are treated like children, and they are only the symptoms of the greater problem — that so many in government truly believe we should all be taken care of, with no regard to the examples being set and incentives that make people in society shrug their shoulders and let their proverbial diapers be changed.
I can clean up after and take care of myself quite well, thank you very much, Mr. and or Mrs. Politician. I already have somebody to tell me what to do: she’s called my wife.
