Do the Left and Right have shared American Values

For the purposes of this essay I do not mean Republicans and Democrats, I mean left and right. There are moderates and mixed ideologies in both parties, and for this subject I really mean the dedicated on both sides.

In the past we truly had people who differed greatly on policy, but could come together on matters of defense, etc. Today the left and right are truly so far apart I wonder if we can say we share any values. On the macro level I believe we do. I think left and right alike believe their vision of the world and America are the best for both. I don't believe either group wants to see harm come to America. Also for the purposes of this subject, I make no charges or accusations, you can read my writings to see where I stand. You may think I am off base, and that is fine.

When you apply specifics though I think we could not be further apart. To many on the left no war is just. Some will defend the war in Afghanistan, many others do not even defend that. In economics large groups of left will tolerate nothing short of government control of any number of issues such as health care, retirement, executive salaries, minimum wage and a host of others. Those of us on the right see this as a disaster waiting to happen. There seems to be no middle ground. The hard left sees no legitimate need for guns in the citizen ranks. Some on the right would like no restrictions, although I think more often the desire is for less regulation.

The vitriol that this causes is becoming poisonous. Those in the middle think both groups are nuts!!! More and more elections are decided by which group of activists gets the best turnout. I don't consider myself a person in the middle. I do consider myself a person of the right. That being said, in many cases the activists of both groups in many cases are nuts. We have single issue people fighting viciously for their point of view. I am very pro life, but some extreme single issue pro life people push the issue backwards. My views on pro choice activists you can gain from my previous writings, but I believe they are as wrong on policy as they can be, but they are also wrong because they contribute to the cheapening of the language. Avoiding the procedure and talking only about choice, and now referring to it as health care is disingenuous.

Anti war activists are some of the most vitriolic. Anything less than total pacifism will result in you being called evil, murderer, or other such hateful terms. We can disagree about whether we should be in Iraq or not, but we cannot tear our society apart over it. We almost did that over Viet Nam. If this continues we can never go to war again. Our politicians simply will not attempt it even for the most just cause.

I believe the segment of the society that lives on the extremes of both groups is very small, but they seem to get a disproportionate share of attention. They are like spoiled children having a tantrum. (With two children I know from tantrums). I think blogs and talk radio have contributed to this tone. These are two media that I happen to love, but we need to self police ourselves. Getting a vehicle to express your opinions comes with some responsibility. You don't get to spew things you know to be wrong just to make a point. I again am referring morally, not legally. I don't want Internet police telling me what I can't write.

What are the answers? I am not sure there are any in our current climate. We need to talk, and we need to have debates. These are healthy. While doing this we need to listen. We need to acknowledge when the other person has a good point. Most of all we need to admit that a person can be correct, or wrong in your view without being evil. You can also support someone without supporting every thing they do. Today we have to admit Ronald Reagan was wrong to withdraw from Lebanon. This encouraged the Islamofacists (which is not the same as Islam. It distinguishes between the radical killers and the normal practitioners of Islam). That does not take away from the many great things this president did. My view of Bill Clinton has not changed that he was not a great president and even less so as a man. That does not remove that he signed welfare reform, and some other things that were good for the country. We need to have some shared American values, even in the micro. Disagreement does not need to be the end of the story. Hamilton and Jefferson had vehement disagreements. All the while they knew the republic was more important than any one man or faction. Washington cautioned against factions. That is not the same as parties. I believe what we have today is just what Washington cautioned against.

After We Leave Iraq What happens?

The democrats have passed a bill which mandates a date to start withdrawing troops. This of course will be vetoed and by the margin it was passed by leaves virtually no chance of being enacted into law. Meanwhile the military units are scrambling to rearrange funds to keep our troops going. The same troops that the liberals say they support.

Lets say it could be enacted. It is the day they have stated to withdraw troops. The day after all our troops have left, what happens? Does peace break out all over the middle east? Do the terrorists A.K.A insurgents stop blowing up their citizens? If we look at what who they are killing today I would have to say no. We know that today they are killing a much higher percentage of Iraqi citizens that they are American troops. To believe that will change is less than believable. OK you say that you don't really care what happens over there as long as Americans stop dying. What do all of the Baathists, Al Queda, Iranians etc that are fighting us do? Will they get jobs in the local market? One thinks not. I have to believe they will take up arms wherever they see the battle to be. Some will go to Afghanistan, some of course will stay there and keep fighting to see the jihadists come to power. I would have to guess that a good bunch of them will come here and organize some bright shiny new sleeper cells. Since the Democrats also wish to cut off parts of the Patriot Act, the electronic surveillance and shutdown Gitmo they should have smooth sailing.

Now the essential product of the middle East, oil. What happens when the Iraqi wells are under the control of the jihadists? I have to believe the price of oil will not fall. That will of course affect the world economy, but what matter is that? What of the people that have supported us and freedom since the fall of Saddam? By looking at the history of totalitarian movements in the past, and the history of the jihadists, I would have to guess they will all at some point be beheaded. No skin off our noses I guess, but not too pleasant for those people that have trusted the Americans.

What of our reputation with our allies? Remember those that allies that the liberals tell us are so important when they are using them to bash President Bush. What about Afghanistan? Should they believe we will support them? Remember the majority of our recent military endeavors have resulted in our leaving when things got hot. For examples think Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia and now Iraq if the liberals have their way. I would have to believe no country will ever trust us again. We haven't earned it. No matter what each of us thought of going into Iraq, we are there and what we do now matters.

All of that be damned, as long as the MoveOn.org crowd feels good. Heaven help us if that happens. Please spare me you accusations of questioning the Democrats patriotism, I do not do that. Bad judgement kills just as dead as lack of patriotism.

All of Nothing Thinking is Killing Us

Of course any Star Wars fan remembers the quote from Obi-Wan to Annakin "Only a Sith deals in absolutes". Many believe that line was written as a knock on George Bush. Personally I have no idea of George Lucas's politics and frankly would rather not know. I have heard enough celebrities prattle on about their world view. Conservatives have long been accused of seeing the world in only black or white and no shades of gray. The retort is that the left sees only shades of gray. Both are sometimes true and sometimes not. Total absolutes in our society in the wrong places is detrimental.

Some absolutes are important. Some aspects of morality are absolute. Murder is wrong. Adultery is wrong. I think most people can agree with that. Laws should be followed, but not be absolute. If Congress passes a law that I cannot practice my religion, that would be a law I would not follow. That of course is an extreme example that hopefully will never be enacted, but there are times for civil disobedience. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement proved that. What qualifies for righteous civil disobedience. This is where it gets dicey. Activists tend to think any law that rubs their cause the wrong way should be defied. This leads to protesters shutting down major roadways, streets etc. I leave their camp somewhat there. Anyone who believes in a cause is free to champion that cause. You are not entitled to disrupt the majority of your fellow citizens. I believe this from a moral stance, not a legal one, which means I don't endorse restricting the First Amendment, only self policing.

We hear continually of right wing absolutes, abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, etc. I don't intend to talk much about them, as I believe the majority of conservatives are not absolute on these, and you can tune into any left wing site and see these talked about ad nauseum. The left is almost never accused of seeing the world in black and white. War is a black and white subject to many of the left. While many will say there are justified uses of force, a good bit of the left can never seem to give you an example.


Health care is another area where left ideas are absolute. If someone like me argues for a more private health care system, it is automatically assumed I support every bad outcome in the present system, whether by corruption, or oversight. Of course there are problems in the present system. Most debates about capitalism in the last few years have come down to the assumption that free market types defend the scandals of Enron and other corporate scandals. Once again, that is ridiculous. Under any system law breakers need to be punished. Additionally most free market types would agree that too often powerful criminals get better treatment. That is not capitalism to blame, but human nature. I would argue a large dose of faith would help there much more than socialism.

Why do I say absolutes are killing us? Political discourse has degenerated to opposing camps shouting and calling each other names. Political debate has always been tumultuous, but in recent times, TV debates degenerate, I believe because the producers believe that produces better ratings. They may be correct, but I don't see it that way. I myself, being a political junkie refuse to watch most debate shows because they are ridiculous. The nastiness also prevents us from talking about important issues on the national stage. Any discussion of race must be taken on by politically correct rules. The same in true with gender, sexual preference, and many other subjects. This does not further our society. I love to debate, but usually like to cut it off when the passions get too roused on one side or another. We cannot fix our world, if we can't find areas of agreement. Surely even the most ardent opponents in politics can find things to agree on, can't they? National politics seems to have become a scorched earth field. This is unfortunate.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld

Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld a finding that the law Congress passed and signed into law by President Bush is legal. I keep hearing that the right wingers on the court are against partial birth abortion. They may or not be but has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

The Democratic candidates for President universally condemned the decision. I am baffled why this is a problem. Last time I checked, the Democrats had the majority. They even have a handful of Senators that are pro-life. What is so hard to understand here? The previous Congress passed this law, so go to the well of the House and Senate and rescind it. Easy correct? Oh I see the rub is they need to get the President to sign this new legislation. They also have to get by a certain filibuster. Yes the same filibuster rule they loved the last twelve years. They therefore have to win elections to get their agenda through to the people. Furthermore if they actually tell the people what their agenda is the people may not vote them back in. When the courts run interference for them it is much easier to get their agenda through.

This is a lesson in civics. The founders never meant for the courts to make law. There is a reason. The people get to speak through their representatives. Too many people choose not to speak, but that is not the fault of the founders. Studies have shown that up to 90% of people polled, (the ratios vary by study, but always a vast majority) disagree with partial birth abortion. This does not overturn Roe v. Wade it upholds the law concerning partial birth abortion. An overturn is possible in the future, but again, passing a law in each state is all you will have to do. If the people are so much in support, that should not be a problem. I believe a law in Congress should be overturned as in most cases there is not Interstate Commerce.

Here is my suggestion, Ms. Clinton, Mr Obama, and the rest. Pass your legislation. Win the Presidential election, and sign the legislation. While campaigning let the people know this is your intention. This of course may preclude you getting elected if the people know that you are on the record supporting the procedure known as partial birth abortion. You see contrary to the truth about the justices, when you vote for this grisly procedure, you are advocating it, not just affirming that you have the right. For that reason this is not so much a victory for right wingers like me, it is a victory for the Constitution. We can thank James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the other founders, not Antonin Scalia.

Virginia Tech and a Personal Plea

I am just one lowly blogger. I don't have a great gift for expressing what others are thinking. I have great respect for those that do. I enjoy this medium as it gives me a chance to write what I am thinking.

The horrific murders this week has brought a range of emotions. Like most people I felt shock, outrage and compassion for the victims and their families and Friends. I have been paying attention to the media as I would like to know more about what motivated the person who perpetrated this evil action.

We are now nearing the end of what I believe will be the first phase of this from a media perspective. That phase is what our media is supposed to do, who what where when and how. As we get through that the next phase will start. I believe that will be a sad state and more trivia. This is where the different media outlets will give voice to anyone that has an agenda and is willing to exploit others' suffering.

Here is where my personal plea is. The families and friends and to a much lesser extent will be in pain for a while and need to grieve. The need to feel some anger, they need to deal with the emotions. For this reason, I ask the members of the media, don't let this event become an event to begin a new discussion on the role of guns. Don't let this be an event to discuss mental illness, and how if we only cared more, the young man would not have done this. Please oh please do not let this be a discussion of who knew what and when did they know it?

There will be important serious work to be done. Through the investigation the police, the administrators, and all involved will learn more about what they can do in the future to try to react better to this horrible act. Let them do their work. To date I have not seen any evidence that any of the powers involved in this reacted negligently. That is not to say they reacted perfectly. Again let them do their work. Let them learn what can be learned. Most of all don't make them the villain. A troubled young man chose an evil act. We will find out more about why, but the fact that he chose evil rather than other means can not and should not be ignored nor excused.

For my part I will pray for those involved. I ask that others of faith do the same. I don't expect this will happen, but I hope activists with agenda will not use this as yet another excuse to further their agenda.

Innocent is Still Innocent

I came across a piece today on ABC News by Terry Moran. As I often am I was appalled by the mainstream media. I encourage you to read this. It illustrates everything that is wrong with the MSM today.

He makes the point that the Duke Lacrosse players recently exonerated were no angels and come from privilege and affluence. I will assume everything he wrote is factual. I have no reason to doubt the facts he put forth. What I will dispute is the very premise that because they were not perfect they were less deserving of sympathy or compassion. These young men were innocent, and whatever else they did that is the main, and only salient point. In our system we are innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor is being investigated for prosecutorial abuse. This needs to play out.

This column leads me to the story I recently read in a book (true story) by John Grisham. The book is The Innocent Man. Please either follow the link, or get it from your library. This story must be read. In this story a man who admittedly is also no angel is wrongly accused of rape and murder. He is convicted by a prosecutor that also went too far in a case without any physical evidence. Ron Williamson is a man who had mental problems and many difficulties in his life. He was twice previously charged with rape (neither time convicted). Because he was no angel and seemed guilty the prosecutor was able to get the conviction. He was five days from the death from legal injection when his request for Habeus Corpus was accepted. He was eventually freed using DNA evidence. This is a chilling story of what can happen when the legal system does not do its job. I am a law and order guy, but this story frightened me. The Duke story obviously is not of the same magnitude, but the attitudes are the same.

The ABC piece also is reprehensible for its use of class warfare to make its point. The young men, while again no angels were charged with a crime falsely and the writer is treating them with disdain for being 'privileged'. Make no mistake I do not condone their behavior on that night, but again they were falsely accused of a crime. People of privilege sometimes do stupid things. That does not mitigate being falsely accused of rape.

Lets hope the young men from Duke will learn a hard learned lesson. They have the opportunity now with their freedom. Many innocent people in jail don't have that opportunity.

Journalists like to consider them to champion of the oppressed. Sorry in this case the oppressed is of the very group Mr. Moran seems to hate. Mr. Moran needs to find an oppressed person this time. Class warfare for the sake of class warfare does not sell here in this case. By the way I am still waiting to hear the apology of Mr Sharpton and Mr. Jackson to the Duke men. I'm not holding my breath.

The Power of Music

OK my last few posts have been a little intense. Sometimes we get intense on issues we are passionate about. Last night I was able to kick back a little. I got to see Billy Joel in concert. I have seen Billy a number of times back to the days when he was actively recording.

As always he put on a good show. I ran into an old friend I have not seen in about ten years. The last time I saw him was at another Billy Joel show. Billy made the best when a speaker seemed to go out in the middle of a song. He through out the first pitch at the Indians game just before the concert. That was good because when he put on a baseball cap at least it wasn't from the Yankee scum!!

I was struck how may people his music has touched. I was sitting next to a guy that couldn't have been more than 22. He knew the songs as well as I did. There is just certain music in every ones lives that can take them back to a certain point in their life. Billy it is for me. As much as I love Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin their music doesn't transport me that way.

As he played Vienna, I was back in high school with my first Independence. On the songs from Glass Houses I was living through my first heartache after the breakup of my first love. We didn't start the fire took me back to when my wife and I listened to that CD as we dated and got to know each other.

Everyone seems to have some kind of music that can do that for them. I love many kinds of music, from some classics, to Benny Goodman to hard rock. Last night took me back to some of my favorite. Thanks Billy!

Imus the conclusion

Imus has been fired by CBS Radio. As I have written twice, I will be shedding no tears for him. He lived on the radio by sewage and died (metaphorically) by sewage. The young basketball players will feel avenged. Good for them. They did not deserve the abuse.

Going forward this means very little. The airwaves will be a little cleaner and clearer, but make no mistake the next Imus will step forward. They will be a little smarter. The lesson they will have learned is you can be crass to some groups but not to others.

If this makes shock jocks think twice about their 'jokes' it may be a good thing. I suspect it will not. It will simply push them in another direction. There are lots of other subjects they can safely skewer. Tasteless jokes about rednecks, Christians, Republicans etc. are still considered safe. They will keep themselves to them. That doesn't elevate the discourse though does it?

The advertisers and the producers will fell superior. They righted a wrong after all. The problems with that thinking is they righted a wrong they created. These same holier than thou executives had no problem with Imus as long as no one was protesting and calling them racist. As long as he wasn't calling attention to them, he was fine.

Lastly we have given another victory to the professional victims. Al Sharpton and company now feel like they are even more empowered to think for the rest of us. As long as he brings his carnival side show to town and gets cameras to come out, trivia over substance wins. In the wake of Mr Sharpton, we see lives in ruins. The Duke LaCross players. Where do they go to get their reputations back? Where does the man Tawanna Brawley accused go to get his life back? Why does Jesse Jackson get a pass when he made idiotic comments, but other idiots don't (for the record in my perfect world none of them would get a pass. The Imus's of the world would be fired, but along with that the Jesse Jacksons of the world would be made to finally go away when they do the exact same thing).

Racism is an ugly thing. It is no less ugly when it is practiced by a professional victim.

Do we Hear Enough Voices?

Hot on the heels of the Don Imus debacle we hear different opinions. None are more important than another. That is important! I may think many are wrong, or you may do the same, but one is not more important than another.

I don't plan to rehash this point again, but there seem to be different rules in our media about what speech is beyond acceptable and what isn't. Some does fall into political terms but other times it doesn't. Imus certainly is not a conservative pundit, but he is the latest to be thrust on the sword. An overwhelming theme of what I write is that markets should determine outcomes. That being said, if the market is too heavily balanced on a particular area of the market that skews the results. Here is an example. Media markets are too heavily leaning to the main stream media. The outlets look to people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton for their analysis and quotes. These types of people are therefore allowed to make up the rules as they go. Sharpton finds an insult of black female basketball players to be too offensive and the talker must pay. (I also find this to be overly offensive as I have said before). That being said Sharpton does not find falsely accused LaCrosse players from Duke to be beyond acceptable. He was all over this situation before the facts were known. Now that the truth is known he seems not so interested. This is Mr. Sharpton's pattern. He is a publicity pimp. I usually try to avoid insults like this in my writing but people who shamelessly use others suffering for their own desires infuriate me. Sharpton is one of those. Part of the problems is that Sharpton is the messenger. He is not fit to bring the message of Imus and offense.

What will fix it? I think more voices. People, I hope will get tired of the potty humor when Imus gets back (and I believe he will be back). Talk radio whether political, sports or a cooking show is important because it gives voice to more people. Some are good voices, some are bad (depending on your way of thinking). Some people think Rosie O'donnel is terrific, I think she is shrill and detestable. That doesn't mean she should be fired. Same with Keith Olbermann. I think he is simplistic and annoying. His problem is that no one watches him. He happens to have a loyal following on Youtube. (Yet another important avenue of free speech). Good for him. He has tapped into a medium. It is a market. If MSNBC is willing to give him a microphone while no one is watching, their decision.

To fire Imus because of pressure will only chill speech not make it enhance it. What will happen next is that the loudest pundits will be able to shut up their opponents but largely ignore the loudmouths on their own side. This is a problem, because it isn't the people but merely the power brokers making the decisions. I suspect if polled the listeners of Imus would be glad to see him return, but it will be the powerful who will make the decisions. They created Imus and can destroy him whenever they like. That is why more voices are needed not less. At that point the people have the power, not the suits.

Don Imus and The Posse

Looks like the usual suspects are out to destroy Don Imus. I personally am not a fan of Don Imus and think of his humor much like Howard Stern, adolescent. I refer to another post I wrote a short time ago.(here). Important issues are off limits. Discussions of inner city problems are forbidden (unless the solution is more government control). Trivia however is serious business.

The Don Imus is another example of pure trivia. I despise defending speech with someone I don't like such as Imus. His comments were offensive. His suspension is warranted. The point I don't understand is why should he be fired? Principles are important. if Imus can be destroyed, political figures, or talk radio will be next. The hip hop culture is celebrated or at least protected by much worse lyrics than Imus uttered. Rev. Sharpton is offensive daily. You want to hurt Don Imus? Don't listen and make sure your friends don't either. I can't proactive that because I already don't listen.

Imus has been doing the same shtick to over twenty years. He has insulted everyone. Now he insults some women's basketball players and his career should be over? The punishment does not fit the crime. The players did not deserve the comments maybe, but neither do a lot of other people Imus has offended over the years. Racial issues are never going to get better as long as every off the wall offensive remark is going to be treated as deserving of witch trials.

There are serious problems in racial issues in our country. Far too many people of color struggle. Far too many are uneducated. Far too many are under employed or unemployed. This will not be solved by the actions of Sharpton and company. Real discussions of how to improve their lot in life will. This needs to happen on an individual basis. Black people are not a group, they are person, individual, and special, just like any other race. Rev. Sharpton does them all a disservice when he appoints himself the overseer of them.

Once again trivia over substance. It's time for some substance, and while we are at it, push away the poverty pimps!! They can also be beaten by the free market. When TV shows stop getting an audience from the Sharptons of the world, they will stop booking him. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Where is the Global Warming When we Need it?

Ok I'm not trying to have a serious discussion of global warming. I'm frustrated!!

Baseball season is a week old and we lost an entire series in Cleveland due to snow.

I want some baseball and I want it now. Not only do I miss watching the Indians, it is hurting my fantasy team.

OK I know snow in April is not new or unexpected, but it is still frustrating.

Go Tribe!!!

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

I have mentioned in previous writings that I have observed that the most virulent hatred for religious people comes from politically motivated atheists. I believe that to be true, and also crucial to understanding the hatred for the religious.

The average atheist, may find us to be silly, simple minded and maybe even a little crazy. That is not hatred. After all what skin is it off his (her) nose if I believe in Jesus (or Mohamed or Jehovah).

The political atheist though is another story. Any person trying to achieve power whether it be in political office, or leadership in academia, or any other powerful area needs to to convert people to their beliefs. At any one time depending on the survey 85% of people may claim to be Christian. Inside that number of course there are many levels of observance. There may be weekly observers, there may also be people that only attend on Christmas and Easter. I would guess though that given that number, 50% may never follow a person who is atheist. Whatever that percentage is it severely inhibits the ability of the political atheist from achieving their goals. This has to be a source of frustration. If only they could do away with these 'bible thumpers' the country could improve.

This of course fits in with the view of the left leaning politico's (which in many but not all cases are the same people). My observation of the left is that they regard religious and right leaning views to be not only wrong but a threat to the society. Disagreement seems to not be enough.

Atheists can be fine people and they can be lousy people. The same is true of the religious. Getting to the bottom of their agenda seems to be the answer for understanding most peoples ambitions and actions.