Is John Edwards using his Wifes Cancer for Politics?

The answer in a word or two is who knows? That being said I don't think the question is one for anyone else to answer.

I think John Edwards is one of the sickest, smarmiest, ickiest politicians I have ever observed. That being said there is no indication that he does not love his wife and family. His decision is not the decision that I believe I would make, but then again I have never had any desire to be a politician. We also cannot know what we would decide unless we are in that position.

The onset of cancer is one of the most horrible pieces of news any family can get. Their reaction is their reaction. I speak of this from some experience. My brother in law died two years ago from cancer. He was a vital, active and lively young man. He was only thirty years old when he died. I saw my wife and her mother suffer the anguish. Even though I also grieved I could not feel their pain, because he was not my brother. I could not have micro-managed their decisions and never did and never would.

Likewise with the Edwards family. No one knows if Mrs. Edwards will survive this, but my prayers do go out for her. There is enough to talk about in a presidential campaign without nitpicking a candidate's decision regarding his family.

Let's focus on the other reasons to not trust John Edwards, they are numerous and leave his wife alone to get on with her treatment.

Why do Atheists tend to Despise People of Faith? Part II

This is an important topic and I have definite feelings about it. I stated earlier that I believe most of the hostility comes from the political atheists. These people are mostly on the left and despise the Christians especially on the right.

I think specifically many do not understand Christians and what Christians stand for.

1. Many times in radio debates or written pieces I hear and read that Christians force their views through government. They cite that President Bush is a devout Christian and cite further his faith based initiatives. This of course is ridiculous since the President cannot make law by fiat. He needs a willing congress. They pass bills and he signs or does not sign them. In the last few sessions of Congress there were willing participants but they were Republicans, elected by the people, not appointed by the President. They campaigned before the people and won. When they did not make the electorate happy they lost and a Democratic Congress was ushered in. No secrets here.

2. Christians force their views on others. It is part of their mandate of their religion. I have a couple of points here. First it is part of 'The Great Commission' to spread the good news of Jesus. Jesus never told us to wear out our welcome. Some do. It is part of being human. It can be a fine line. Spreading the good news in the wrong way can turn people off. Is this any more widespread though than other groups spreading unwanted messages? I certainly don't like to have environmental activists visiting my house telling me the earth is about to come to an end because of some local business. I also don't like walking down a downtown street and seeing PETA activists, or Sierra Club, or some other left wing activist group staging demonstrations. These offend me, but then again I understand the Constitution never granted me a freedom to not be offended.

3. Christians are crazy. They want the world to end so they can be with God. This one is used so often it is predictable. While it is true that the end reward for a life of faith is not here but in heaven, unlike the islamo-Nazi brand of Muslims, Christians trying to end their life to being on heaven is rare. For the most part Christians live in the world with families and friends and don't really want to see that time ended prematurely. Going back to the Great Commission, we can't spread the good news if we are dead! Logic must reign here.

4. Christians want all of us to live by their rules. This is not unique to Christians. Al Gore wants us to all live by his carbon standards. Animal rights groups want everyone to be vegan. Socialists want us to abolish capitalism. Interest groups by definition want to make their ideas law, or part of the societies mores. Here is the big difference between the faith based right and the secular often atheist left: The right seeks to do it through legislation. The left seeks to do it through judicial proclamation.

The great theme of all of my writings since day one is that politics or faith or whatever you are interested in can be fun to debateand discuss. Debate is not the same as shouting or twisting others positions. We could use a little more discussion.

Why do Atheists tend to Despise People of Faith?

I must admit I have always been confused by this. Certainly if you believe there is no God you might look at people of faith as mislead, or wrong. Why, though the outright dismissal and sometimes rage?

It boggles the mind. To get a hypothesis, I think we must analyze the segments of the population that show this reaction. It is my observation that atheists that are not political do not have the same reaction. They may show dismay, or confusion, but not the outright hatred. After all if there is no God what does it bother them if a bunch of people believe there is. What does it hurt if an adult believes in Santa, and to an atheist they are roughly equivalent.

Now on to the political. I think here it comes down to power. Since so many Americans profess belief in God, whether it be in the theology of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, this seriously cuts down on the shear numbers of people available to them as a voting bloc. A large percentage of people of faith simply will not vote for an atheist. This cuts down on the availability of power to the Godless.

Now the next question. Is it possible to be Godless? This question has been asked by many people. I personally don't believe it is. I believe humans are made to honor something or someone with Godlike reverence. Atheists also are religious. They may not even honor the same thing, but I do believe they worship. Some are attracted to power. Some are attracted to science (of their own definition, but that is another essay). Some are just attracted to success.

Just like an observant Christian or Jew they will do whatever they need to to honor the or Deity. They may not even call it their God because the 'G' word is just abhorant to them. Many well know leaders of the far left fit here. Many of them are college professors. This of course is scary. Too often their 'theology' slips into their teaching. Young impressionable men and women are lead toward this belief. Only if they have a solid foundation in values of right and wrong (I did not say faith or religion, I said right and wrong) can they withstand this onslaught. The sacraments of this type of faith can be diversity, individual rights (as in the right to choose), and 'science' again as they define it.

These very same people will call for the ouster of a religious man or woman if they let theology slip into education. They argue that religion has no place in education. They argue that separation of church and state forbids it. I think we must consider atheism to be a religion, not as a legal definition, that would just get too complicated in the judicial, but as a practical common sense way of looking at things.

What does an uninterested electorate get us?

Trivia, that is the answer. Our national media excites itself with trivia. They make issues of things that are not major issues.

Cases in point: The firing of the eight US Attorneys. This has been an ongoing story now for a week. Feeding the media interest is the Congress issuing subpoena's to White House advisers. Why is this trivia? Simple, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. This means if he wants to fire them once a month he can. He does not need a reason. The subpoena's are also interesting since the separation of powers prohibits one branch from issuing a subpoena to another. The net effect, Who cares? I'll tell you who cares. The congress and Senate know that most of the electorate knows nothing of the constitution and it is a way to lead them to believe there is something dirty at work.

Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby: The well know 'covert' agent Valerie Plame. While the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald knew early on who the leaker was, and even that there was no underlying crime, he must have felt a need to indict someone before closing up shop. What we have is a conviction for Scooter Libby. He now faces jail time not for a leak, but misreporting his recollections. Most observers noted that the said reporters also misreported their recollections under oath, but were not indicted. So Mr. Libby was convicted of lying under oath. Remember that in the last administration we were told that was not a big deal. In Mr. Libby's case there is some question as to whether his statements were lies, or forotten. That was not the case with the former President. Guess it depends on what party is doing the lying.

Sub prime loans. Alan Reynolds give a great explanation of the current trend of reporting on this. (Here). The wild hysteria is that it is leading to another Great Depression.

Instead of getting the opinion of an economist, it makes a good story so the media goes with it.

John Stosell gives a piece that talks about how the media like scaring us. (Here).

With 24 hours of day to fill with news, things that used to have a single report life, now get talked to death. Complex issues such as economics, usually get reported as conventional wisdom. An example is tax cuts. Since the mantra in Washington is 'Tax cuts for the Rich', our media see no reason to go beyond that. Since many young people do not know the history of the huge benefits of lowering incremental tax rates, they never hear it unless they read conservative authors, or listen to talk radio. Too many people aren't interested enough to do that. An uninterested and under educated electorate.

What is the reason? I don't think it is conspiratorial. I truly believe the media operates under a template for ratings and subscriptions. They know what they believe their customers want to see and hear. Other topics will not be approached. They fear boredom so they don't go after issues that require a lot of explanation and technical jargon. They are also run by people who vacation in the Hampton's. Topics that offend them, also will not be taken on. This isn't bias it is just what they see as correct.

In the end we all suffer. We don't get good political candidates, because they simply will not put their lives on hold and possibly be destroyed for trivia. So our media will tell you everything about Brittany Spears, but will not tell you about the Social Security 'trust fund' and when it will expire. They also won't tell you that 60% of Iraqis want us there. They also won't tell you that many scientists believe Global Warming is not man made. Those would be good things to have covered in the mainstream media. Don't hold your breath!

Reality and Judgement

Two things interested me today. The first is the much discussed collapse in sub-prime loans. There has been a surge of defaults in sub prime loans. This is making Wall Street traders very nervous and getting the political and media classes exercised into mass amounts of 'do something-ism'. This of course is the paranoia that gave us an early daylight savings time which of course wasted any energy savings(if there were any which I doubt) in IT spending because it caused a mini-Y2K initiative.

The main street media will use the G word at length (GREED!!!!). Some politicians will call for additional regulation of these loans. I have heard some of my friends saying they should be illegal. I say not so fast. People have made lots of money using sub prime loans. This is very similar to the eighty's increase in junk bonds, and general stock market bubble in the last decade. Many people saw the amount of money being made in the housing market. Every Tom Dick and Harry thought he/she could get rich. Another word for that is CAPITALISM!!!!!!!! Money follows profits. Many of these people found they could not in fact make a fortune flipping houses. Many times I have remarked that I wish I had the talent to do this. Me being of sound judgement, I know my limitations. Banks, and lending institutions learned they jumped too far into a risky segment. Once again markets correct themselves. Life will go on. We live in reality, just because a market goes down, does not mean the market must be eliminated.

The other thing that struck me today was the Ohio State of the State speech by Ted Strickland.
There were no surprises to me. Governor Strickland is a liberal and sold a bill of goods to the public that he is a moderate. The state citizens were so busy being Sheep-le that they bought it. Gov. Strickland decided we can do without competition in education. He is cancelling voucher programs and putting a hold on charter schools. He of course needs to do this. As a Democrat he is owned by the Education Unions. He does the normal plan of increasing job training programs, blah blah blah. I wish once they would surprise me. When talking about education just once I would like to hear a politician of any party talk about parental responsibility, about personal responsibility, and excellence. They all live under the common illusion that more money equals better education. So now he has removed competition from the education establishment, promises more money and will wonder why no innovative solutions will appear out of nowhere. Give incentives for school districts to find solutions! Give dis-incentives to districts that refuse to find solutions! Stop doing what we have always done!! It isn't working!!!

Gov. Strickland will make available money for health insurance to poorer children. Nice thought, good intentions. That money comes from somewhere. He does not raise taxes this year, but somewhere along the line they will raise taxes to pay for all the goodies he has promised. Ohio became an economic toilet because the State believes it can fix everything. Here is an idea: Cut regulation, cut taxes, and entice private industry to re-enter Ohio. That way they can provide health insurance. The overwhelming amount of promises is for handouts and goodies. Not one word that I can find about changes that will make our State more attractive for businesses. Now that would be innovative.

The Fox News flap illustrates the difference in the Parties

We conservatives have complained about bias for decades. It also was true. In some circles it still is. Media has evened out a lot through Fox News and talk radio as a whole.

The reason that this has occurred is because conservatives have long gone to what can only be described as hostile media and made their case. At times their appearances could only be called an ambush. I remember in the eigthty's Ronald Reagan Jr. had a late night talk show. Rush Limbaugh went on with seven fire breathing liberals. That was an ambush. On that show he made good points.

Before cable news debate TV was usually stacked in liberals favor. If Republicans and especially conservatives refused to appear on liberal slanted networks, they would have never been anywhere. CNN, ABC, CBS. Not a right leaning network in the bunch, but I never remember any conservative boycotting them. ABC has George Stephanopolis (Clinton's chief liar er. I mean Communication Director) as a commentator for goodness sakes.

Conservatism is and was (see my last post as my concern over present day activities) an ideology of ideas. For Liberals to refuse to appear on Fox which they see as slanted, is a bad move on their part. I say let them continue to act this way, it will hurt them in the end. It is a mistake because they need to reach the whole country. A large part of that population watches Fox. For them to say we don't need that group is short sighted and foolish.

If only the Republican Party had a clue the Democrats could be buried to the ash heap of history. Time will tell if that will happen.

Split media is not a new phenomena. Before TV, every major city had new newspapers at least. One right leaning and one left. Through the years when TV became a dominant source for news, second papers went away. Only the largest cities now have more than one paper. That is to a large degree why media bias became a problem before talk radio. TV News took a left leaning approach. Most of the newspapers that survived had a left leaning approach. There were very few outlets for right leaning perspective. The market prevailed. Talk radio and Fox News filled a needed niche in the marketplace.

Libs can either adapt to the marketplace, or take their ball and go home. I hope they adapt. Lack of competition is bad for any market, ideas, computers or soy beans.

The Fox News flap illustrates the difference in the Parties

We conservatives have complained about bias for decades. It also was true. In some circles it still is. Media has evened out a lot through Fox News and talk radio as a whole.

The reason that this has occurred is because conservatives have long gone to what can only be described as hostile media and made their case. At times their appearances could only be called an ambush. I remember in the eigthty's Ronald Reagan Jr. had a late night talk show. Rush Limbaugh went on with seven fire breathing liberals. That was an ambush. On that show he made good points.

Before cable news debate TV was usually stacked in liberals favor. If Republicans and especially conservatives refused to appear on liberal slanted networks, they would have never been anywhere. CNN, ABC, CBS. Not a right leaning network in the bunch, but I never remember any conservative boycotting them. ABC has George Stephanopolis (Clinton's chief liar er. I mean Communication Director) as a commentator for goodness sakes.

Conservatism is and was (see my last post as my concern over present day activities) an ideology of ideas. For Liberals to refuse to appear on Fox which they see as slanted, is a bad move on their part. I say let them continue to act this way, it will hurt them in the end. It is a mistake because they need to reach the whole country. A large part of that population watches Fox. For them to say we don't need that group is short sighted and foolish.

If only the Republican Party had a clue the Democrats could be buried to the ash heap of history. Time will tell if that will happen.

Split media is not a new phenomena. Before TV, every major city had new newspapers at least. One right leaning and one left. Through the years when TV became a dominant source for news, second papers went away. Only the largest cities now have more than one paper. That is to a large degree why media bias became a problem before talk radio. TV News took a left leaning approach. Most of the newspapers that survived had a left leaning approach. There were very few outlets for right leaning perspective. The market prevailed. Talk radio and Fox News filled a needed niche in the marketplace.

Libs can either adapt to the marketplace, or take their ball and go home. I hope they adapt. Lack of competition is bad for any market, ideas, computers or soy beans.

When did Conservatives become the Whiners?

I am a proud conservative. Count me in the supply side, pro life, strong defense conservatives. I became one by reading and following Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich. The height of the conservative revolution of the nineties was a great time to be a conservative.

What made these times special is that ideas were the reason. Lately I have seen a disturbing trend. I see good conservative people who helped build this movement, becoming girly men (and women) to paraphrase the Govenator. It pains me to criticize the people I do in this piece because they have taught me some much through their work.

Re-visiting the Ann Coulter comments of last week. John Edwards gives us so many reasons to dislike him. He practices hypocrisy, he talks down to ordinary people and he lies about conservatives on a daily basis. Why then would Ann choose the attack of a twelve year old? It is a mystery to me. She is so talented, why use it in this way?

Rush Limbaugh, a former hero of mine. I don't dislike him, but don't listen on a regular basis anymore. When he re-invented talk radio ideas were the mainstay of his show. I don't listen on a regular basis anymore so I cannot speak to every hour of the show, but Monday I turned it on for a few minutes. What I heard was speculation of democrat motives behind the Fox news pullout by the Dems. This sounds more like MoveOn.org conspiracy talk in reverse than what I looked forward to every day from Rush in the nineties. I remember when he would spend an entire show explaining base line budgeting. He spent another show talking to downsized people in a recession and hearing their stories of how their ingenuity created new business opportunities. These days when I do listen, I don't hear that kind of optimism.

On a daily basis someone somewhere is whining about immigration, or Iraq, or some other issue. These are all important issues, but must be discussed in an attempt to educate people. This must be done cheerfully and optimistically. To do it in a crass overtly political way is simply not productive.

This is not critical of partisanship. Partisanship is good, if done right. I would recommend the model of talk show host Michael Medved. He is as bright and articulate as anyone, takes debate daily, and does it in an informed, and patient way. Hugh Hewitt is another example. Never backs away from a debate, but does it in a way that teaches. Let's not live in never never land, we are never going to convert the Air America crowd, but given the right tone, we can create a new generation of conservatives. Before I read An American Renaissance for the 80's by Jack Kemp I was not at all political. There are thousands of young people just like me today. I would rather they be taught by the Medveds of the world, than be turned off by Ann Coulter.

What Ann Coulters comments show about John Edwards

Ann Coulter made some caustic and offensive comments about John Edwards. See the story here. I have said and written many times that even though I enjoy the writings of Ann Coulter her words are not usually words I would have chosen. The fact that Ann is sometimes caustic, always bold and on the edge is nothing new. I personally believe that often her words get in the way of the fact that she is smart, witty and insightful. My opinion and I am happy to offer it.

What I find fascinating is the reaction. John Edwards seems to see this as a fund raising opportunity. For a man who has just come off from his own scandal involving intolerant speech, the reaction is curious. You may remember there was much criticism of his choice to hire a couple of anti-Christian bigots to be his official bloggers. He since has let them go. John Edwards seems to see any current event as something to exploited. As VP candidate he made the bold statement that when John Kerry is elected President people like Christopher Reeve will walk again. As a trial lawyer he exploited to full extent grieving parents loss to push the case for natural births in troubled pregnancies being correlated to Cerebral Palsy. Scientific research has since proved no correlation at all. As the number of cesarean births has increased the incidence of Cerebral Palsy has stayed consistent. None of this had any affect on his fortune he earned by creating that link.

I also think the media reaction is predictable and sad. Every time a public figure makes a questionable statement, in this case truly offensive, our mainstream media goes into feeding frenzy mode. Plug in the name and the stories are the same. Try Mel Gibson, Ann Coulter, Joe Biden, all the same result. Canned stories of the subjects: How will this affect his/her career? How will this affect their political party? Not much interesting but it fills the 24 hour news cycle for a couple of days. Truly none of this will change any one's mind about Ann Coulter. Those who like her will continue to, with statements such as mine that they don't agree with her words. Those who hate her with a white hot hate will continue. She has come to grips with their hatred. Nothing here will change.

One thing that I think this incident does is draws political discourse in the general direction of abysmal. Too many people already do that. There are no shortage of people on the left that daily call George Bush and Dick Cheney Nazi's, refer to all Republicans as fascists and so on. Just today there is a story of Bill Maher making a case that Cheney's death would have saved lives. What comments like this do is push the uninterested even more to the uninterested. This is not helpful. When elections are held, we are better when we have a large numbers of interested, informed people. We simply don't have that now.