About Me

Name: Wil
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Tom Coburn and The Tale of Two Senate Seats

It is the best of times it is the worst of times.  When Dickens wrote "A Tale of Two Cities", he contrasted Paris and London in the midst of telling a personal story and the contrast was stark.  The contrast of American futures is equally stark.  We can return to statism, to nanny state control of every aspect of our lives, or we can chart the path envisioned but never realized by visionaries of a real free market.  The direction we choose will not be decided by the occupant of the White House.  We get to choose in this election between incremental nannyism and extreme nannyism in our choice between McCain and Obama, bleeding to death by thousands of mosquito bites or pin pricks, or by slitting our wrists and being done with it.  Its not that the presidential choice has no meaning, its that the legislative branch has so much more.  
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, to me, represents the best of principled conservative government.  Dr. Coburn pledged when he entered the House that he would serve three terms and he did so.  He pledged that among other things, he would fight earmarks and corruption and he has done so.  Upon winning his senate seat he pledged to serve two terms and he will do so.  And this one man is making a stand, doing what he can to fight government waste.  He is a lone figure in a club of get along cronyism that has bled our country dry, especially over the last forty years.  Senators do not know what to make of a man who does not seek self aggrandizement and the perks of office.  I do.  We need 51 Senator Coburns to stop the bleeding of out of control spending. (the following article explains how he is alone in obstructing a massive spending approval:  http://thehill.com/david-keene/coburns-cognition-2008-07-28.html )
 
Meanwhile, in the election, Republicans are in trouble.  Apathy among their ranks, enthusiasm for Democrats, a trending towards the Left seems to be inevitable.  But as always, I believe the pols are misreading the people.  I have not written much recently, there are a number of reasons for that.  One of the reasons is that I have not been home much.  We spent two weeks of the early summer in Montana camping.  We spent a week of July in Oregon visiting family.  I spent most of the rest of the summer preparing for school, setting things up so that I have as little homework as possible since I will be starting my Mississippi State online Biology Masters degree in the fall.  I will be taking Genetics and Microbiology this fall, and will have very little time or energy for school work at home (or probably for blogging)  On these two trips, I saw and read about two senate races that are very telling and very disturbing in their implications for the future of the Republican party. 
 
In Montana, six years ago, an 18 year incumbent Republican was replaced by a Democrat.  This was rather shocking in what I always thought was a very red state, but the cronyism and seeming corruption of Conrad Burns (implicated, but never convicted in the Abramoff scandal), and an extreme addiction to bringing home pork, as well as breaking a pledge to serve just 2 terms, sealed his doom.  In the other Montana seat, a Democrat named Max Baucus has been in the senate since 1978.   This Democrat usually votes with his leadership, except on gun control and environmental bills.  Senator Baucus is the one up for reelection this year.  Sensing perhaps that he was vulnerable or perhaps that it was time for something different, six Republicans competed in the primary to face off against Baucus.  Four of them were not well known, but unquestioned conservatives, people who stood for business as usual.  One was the leader of the Republicans in the State House, who according the to Missoulan is most known for conciliation with Democrats:  "Lange, gained fame - or at least infamy - in the end days of the 2007 Legislature. That's when he let loose a mouthful of obscenities broadcast on television around the state. Lange also participated in the conciliatory, bipartisan meeting with Democrats that brought an end to the stalemate over the state budget.  That little stunt got him removed from his leadership position." 
The man who won is not a Republican.  Here is what the article in the Missoulan quoted above says about Kelleher and his beliefs:  "For the last 44 years, Kelleher has run for office 16 times and lost 15. His only taste of victory came in 1971, when he was elected a delegate to Montana's Constitutional Convention. There, he helped replace the state's century-old territorial constitution with one of the most progressive governing documents in the nation. Kelleher's political passion then, as now, is unique - and largely unpopular: He wants to replace the U.S. Senate, House and presidency with a parliament.  Under a parliamentary system, citizens vote for parties, not individual candidates. The party with the most votes selects a prime minister, who serves as a kind of president, from the ranks of the legislative branch. Under a parliament, Kelleher said Wednesday, you can't have a president of one party playing the blame game with a Congress controlled by the opposing party while the nation's real problems and real people wait endlessly for real solutions.  “There's no more passing the buck,” he said. “The party in power is responsible for everything that goes wrong, as well as everything that goes right. Now, nobody is responsible, really."  Such broad representation would free America to deal with the problems that have literally been known to bring tears to Kelleher's eyes: He is passionate about eradicating poverty. He believes health care is a right of all citizens and the government should pay for it with tax dollars. He believes bad trade policies have shipped American jobs overseas, while bad tax policy has created a startling dichotomy between rich and poor that threatens democracy itself. He believes government exists to serve the common good, not necessarily private interests, and that taxation, if spent wisely, is a solution to America's problems, not the cause.  Kelleher said he intends to campaign on those very issues, along with his long-held pro-life stance, in the general election against Baucus.

So many Republicans who voted in the race either knew nothing about the candidates, or they knew only that they didn't want to vote for Lange."

So in Montana, based on the primary votes of just 26,000 people, the Republican party chose what amounts to a passionate 85 year old socialist to run against an entrenched Democratic senator.  Why?  Because of APATHY.  The Republican party had caved in to the Democrats in the state under Lange.  Conrad Burns had broken pledges and become a pork wielding pseudo liberal.  There were less than 1/2 as many voting Republican as Democrat in the June 3rd primary, and over 20% of those were voting for Libertarian Ron Paul for President.  So in this extreme case, can anyone who calls themselves Republican justify voting for a Republican who calls for nationalizing our oil assets, single payer health care, and a broad based government funded war on poverty?  Not to mention throwing away the carefully crafted Constitution and replacing our bicameral legislature with a Parliament.  What is a conservative in Montana to do?
 
Nearly as confounding is the Senate race in Oregon.  Gordon Smith is a Senator from Pendleton, Oregon who has been serving since 1996.  After two terms, he has shown himself to be a political chameleon, willing to change his political colors in order to appeal to the apparently overwhelming majority of liberals in the college towns and big cities of western Oregon.  When I got to my Parents house, I saw an ad for him where he boasts of his green credentials, his call for higher gas mileage requirements, his determination to stop global warming, his ability to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats opposing Republicans.  He quotes the current Democratic governor and Barack Obama in the ad, both of whom praise his bipartisanship and willingness to go against Bush.  Of course his Democratic opponent Jeff Merkley, runs ads calling him a Bush Crony and showing him smiling and waving next to Bush.
 
What is ironic is that Smith has voted with Republican leadership 82% of the time on contentious bills according to congressional records.  He is far more conservative than his Republican predecessor, Mark Hatfield, who voted with Republican leadership 55% of the time.  He is consistently pro business, has an 86% pro life voting record, and only has a 14% rating by the League of Conservation Voters.  So this man is "conservative" on many issues, and has a decidedly conservative voting record.  Yet he has opposed every vote on the Iraq war since switching positions in 2006, and has been an outspoken critic of Bush on every foreign policy issue.  He voted for what amounts to government control of television content, for every bill to try and control global warming to come out in the last 3 years, he was one of just 3 Republicans to vote against Coburn and with Democrats on the most recent appropriations bill, his website is one green initiative after another.  It is like he has decided that winning is paramount, and to win, he must run as a liberal Republican without core principles.  He has been unopposed in the last two primaries, and to me, this is unconscionable.  Where are real Republicans in Oregon?  Do they think as Governor voters here in California did that 80% right is better than Democrat? 
 
THIS is the problem of the Republican party.  Gordon Smith wants to stay in office.  Republicans wants to win office.  When winning trumps principle, you get RINOs, you get a party that stands for nothing.  Tom Coburn is the model of what I look for in a Senator, in a house member, and in a leader.  Principled leadership.  There is a neccesity to compromise to legislate, but there must be a line you won't cross.  There must be principles that are untouchable.  There must be a real conservative party, and today there is not.    
 
 
  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Californiafication

In the last post, I discussed my trip to the states of Nevada, Idaho, and Montana.  I did so to share it with anyone interested, but also to provide a background to my next two posts.  My next post (tonight or later this week) will discuss the odd senate race in Montana that ended up with a former member of the Green Party winning the Republican nomination.  This post is going to discuss something I came to call Californiafication.
 
Throughout the western states, since the late 70's especially, it has been common for residents of Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, and probably other states that I have forgotten, to recieve an influx of the residents of California.  These Californians leave for a variety of reasons...Overcrowding, high prices, bad state government, dislike of the volume of immigration, pollution, and a myriad of other reasons convince Californians to leave their "Golden State", and seek their fortune elsewhere in the West.  Most of them are good people, but many of them stand out in their new surroundings and are shocked that they are greeted often with dislike, sometimes with rolling eyes and sarcasm, occasionally with outright hostility.  As a 25 year resident of Oregon and Idaho (20 years in Oregon, then 4 years in Idaho for college, then 1 year back in Oregon before joining the Navy), and more recently a 6 year resident of California since ending my time in the Navy, I have a perspective on this issue and an understanding of both sides.  My inlaws have been Californians most of their lives.  My Father in law moved here for his dads last duty station in the Air Force, and has lived here since he was 16....38 of his 54 years.  My Mother in law moved here from North Carolina at the age of 7, and has been here for 48 of her 55 years.  Both seemed genuinely confused about why Californians face crankiness if not hostility when they move elsewhere.  Since they intend to retire to Montana in 3-5 years, I decided to write this blog post about the issue.
 
Californians leave their state for a number of reasons.  Here, I will outline a few of the "typical" Californian Transfers:
 
1) Retirees:  Many people who work their whole lives in California move out of state to retire.  Why?  A variety of reasons.  First and foremost, the big cost of living in the state makes it hard to live well on a retirement income, even a generous state pension.  When a house in the Bay area still costs over 600,000 despite the housing downturn, selling it and buying a home outright for less than 200,000 elsewhere both provides money for retirement, and saves tax money and mortgage payments.  Also, as you get older, you want more time to enjoy things like free time.  Few people want to spend that free time in traffic or waiting in line.  The crowding of California cities is horrible, and after a lifetime of that, to many retirees, part of retiring includes going to a place with smaller crowds.   Also, as you get older, noise, extreme lifestyles, and other such things are more irritating.  Leaving them behind is a blessing.
 
2) College Kids:  18-25 year old kids looking for adventure away from home will often seek out colleges in other states when they can.  In Missoula, I saw many California plates on college kids cars.  Many of these kids, coming from different environments than local kids, bring more extreme views, more extreme activities, and lead to a more extreme atmosphere.
 
3) Young Families:  Many young families are leaving California, some to escape the violence and gang problems of their California towns, some to start their family in a less expensive place, some to raise their kids "closer to nature" while some leave for a combination of reasons.  Many talk of leaving but never do.  Many leave but soon return.  And many of those who do leave remain homesick and complain about their new location and how it is not like California.
 
4) Rural Idealists:  Many people love the idea of a farm, the idea of living along an isolated stream or near a scenic mountain or ocean scene.  Many want to be like "The Horse Whisperer" or "Laura Ingalls" and think isolation will be great, and by themselves or with a family decided to "pioneer" to a small town or outpost far from the bustle of the "rat race".  These idealists can be the most annoying of all.
 
So college kids, retirees, young families,and idealists leave the Golden State, setting out for exotic locations like Portland or Pocatello or Sedona or Sun Valley, hoping to fulfill whatever lack they seem to feel in their California lives.  And more power to them.  There is much to dislike about California, much reason to leave.  But sadly, for many of them, they are not welcomed into their new homes,  and most of them have no idea why:  THEY BRING CALIFORNIA WITH THEM!!!
 
1) With the Californians, if there are enough of them come the crowds, the lines, the traffic, and the noise they thought they left behind.  I saw it especially in Twin Falls, Idaho and Missoula, Montana, but it was evident too in Helena, Idaho Falls, Elko, Winnemucca, and Pocatello.  All these places had evidence that they had grown a lot, and the two towns in particular had major traffic and crowding.    
 
2) With the Californians come higher prices and higher stress.  I saw it as a kid, and heard it again and again on this trip. Californians come up with their fat pensions, their severance packages, the proceeds from selling their overpriced real estate, and they drive up prices, driving locals out of the market when they look to buy a house, or even smaller items.  They buy acreage and build "mansions" no one local can afford, their kids come into the schools and teach the local kids the "worldly" ways of California, and sometimes even introduce gangs or new drugs.  Along with the issues above, they change the appearance and the feel of a community.
 
3) With the Californians often comes arrogance.  The idealists come in and want everything left pristine.  They change laws once they have built their own homes adding strict new building codes.  They try to change the farms, mines, fisheries, or timber operations that have been in place for generations to make them more "green".  They change everything from mascot names to street names to imply diversity and worldliness.  The families come in and want California.  They complain about the weather, the lack of Old Navy stores, the missing In-N-Out Burger franchises, and they fight to bring these in.  They fuss about the backward health care and schools and try to force political and social change. 
 
4) With the Californians inevitably comes a change of pace.  California is all about now.  Its about immediate service, immediate access, immediate convenience.  In other parts of the West, the pace is slower.  Some Californians embrace this, many want to change it.  They complain, they pressure, they push, and they eventually speed things up.  Many of the locals do not like this.  They like the slowness and smallness of their communities.
 
The most important change Californians bring is Liberalism.  A woman from Missoula who worked in our campground explained it best.  My mother in law asked in a semi hurt voice after a few instances of disdain, "Do you really hate Californians up here?"  The woman paused, looked a bit uncomfortable, and said:  "Well, you seem nice, but most of the Californians coming here want to make us change."  Later I asked her what changes she had noticed.  The first thing she had said were liberal politics.  She said that she had lived in Missoula for 50 years and she hated hearing from people it was the liberal part of the state.  She went on to complain about the noise, crowding, traffic, and higher prices, but first and foremost to her and I suspect to many others, the worst aspect of Californiafication is the liberalism of a community.  It has happened to the once conservative states of Oregon and Washington, It is happening to the barely conservative states of New Mexico, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona.   And given time, it can even happen in the conservative stalwarts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.  So as a Californian who plans to move on sometime soon, I promise to whatever state I enter not to califoriaficate your state.       
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A visit to Gods Country

I am recently back from 9 days of camping with my inlaws, my wifes sister and her family, and my own family.  The 11 of us (including 5 kids 8 or under) spent 9 nights travelling from Northern California, across Northern Nevada, through Eastern Idaho, and spending the bulk of the trip in Western Montana.  It was quite an adventure, often stressful, and pretty sleep deprived, but also very educational and interesting.  If I knew how to get pictures onto my blog without a scanner, I would give you some pictures to go along with the story, but you'll just have to do without.  
Nevada:  Nevada is a dry and somewhat desolate place.  Travelling on Interstate 80 from the California border to Elko, there are almost no trees, and in some places, not even sagebrush.  It is interesting to see though that there are different types of desert...the salt flats where nothing at all lives, the gravelly sage where no grass lives, but among the brush is life abundant...badgers, mice, coyotes, lizards, snakes, and hawks were all seen, and the "high" desert that included both sagebrush and bunch grass and even more diversity of life.  Another interesting aspect to Nevada is that every town, even every gas station, resteraunt or fruit stand, seems to have slot machines.  Part of a gambling based economy, is that it must exist in every facet of life.  My favorite town along the I-80 corridor was Wells, a small town in the shadow of the Ruby Mountains, fairly green for Nevada, and though it wasn't much more than a truck stop, there was a certain feel to it that appealed to me.
 
Idaho:  Crossing into Idaho, we crossed into the mountain time zone and into a much different atmosphere than Nevada.  For one, water was much more abundant, and much of the area between Twin Falls and Idaho Falls was irrigated rangeland, alfalfa fields, and small towns.  Each town had a prominent Mormon Tabernacle, and each had a sense of community that I felt was lacking in Nevada.  Idaho fights with Utah as the most Conservative state in the Union, and here in the Southern and Eastern corners of the state, you could feel it.  Signs honoring our troops and seeming to support their mission were everywhere, even in the college town of Pocatello.  (Idaho State University).  Gas here was much cheaper than Northern California (3.90 vs. 4.45 when we left Yuba City), and we noticed food was much cheaper as well.  Twin Falls had grown a lot since the last time I was there (the only place I had seen before this trip other than Reno, we passed through on the way to Denver when I was 13), and was pretty, but somewhat crowded and flat.  I loved the Snake River Canyon though, including the insane people who jumped into it off of bridges and parachuted tot he bottom.  My favorite parts of Idaho were Idaho Falls, a beautiful town of about 50,000 with a great museum and a nice downtown, and the border area with Montana, where the Interstate climbed to 6,000 feet and Big Sky Country really had meaning.
 
Montana:  Montana, just across the border along Interstate 15, is stunning.  Beautiful tall mountains surrounding lush green valleys bisected with cold rushing water, one followed another as we entered Montana.  I love Oregon, and it has its share of stunning scenery, but nothing can compare to this high elevation summer in Southern Montana.  Butte was the first city of any size we saw, and Butte was not terribly impressive.  It sits in a geological bowl and the whole city has a bit of a reddish hue, especially after all the beautiful green to its south.  Its main industry has been mining, and for all I know, it still is.  We climbed out of the valley that housed Butte and entered another lovely sequence of pine forests and green meadows before we descended into Helena.  Of all of Montana, in fact, of all of this trip, Helena is where I would choose to live.  We spent three of our nine days there, exploring the city and its surroundings.  Again, the green shocked me.  I am used to leaving Oregon and missing green, but in Montana, May and June are the wet season because of thunderstorms and snow runoff, and it showed.     Of all of Montana that I saw, Helena is the most feasible place I could see living.  It had beauty, a nice size, and a welcoming atmosphere that some other places we visited lacked.  Next was Missoula, also a beautiful town, but browner, larger, and much different in atmosphere.  Here is where I saw "Californiafication" in full force, as I will describe in my next post.  Missoula was about double the size of Helena and the traffic and crowds were a bit to get used to again.  We spent two nights here before moving on.  Heading back to Idaho falls, we traversed the beautiful Bitterroot Valley (which you see in "The Horse Whisperer", "Legends of the Fall", and "A River Runs Through It").  It was very beautiful, but not my favorite. 
 
We returned home through Idaho and Nevada, all growing tired and cranky at the end of our trip, returning to find the Central Valley of California a smoke filled mess.  Every place has its faults and its beauties, and If you have never been to this part of the country, I hope you enjoyed seeing it through my eyes.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Extreme Nanny State

In this article from the New York Times, Japans new policy of requiring local governments and companies to enfore wastline standards is discussed:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?no_interstitial
 
Basically, the gist is if a mans waistline is over 33 inches or a womans over 34.5 inches, they are put on a strict diet and exercise regimen.  If they do not lose the inches, the locality or company is punished for not enforcing the standard.  All of this comes about because nearly 80% of Japans population is on its state run medical system.  As this group ages, and as Japan has fewer and fewer young people to "share the burden". the health costs for the government are becoming unsustainable.
 
Think about this a bit.  can you imagine anything more personal and invasive than a government agency monitoring your eating and exercise habits?  Can you think of anything a government willing to do this would not control.....I can imagine these headlines coming from Japan:
 
"Government closes underground McDonalds operation"
 
"Government states that TV is unhealthy and installs devices allowing only 2 hours of TV per day"
 
"Government installs treadmills on bullet train so commuters can "train on the train"
 
"Japan implements mandated PT, imports retired Marines to run new program"
 
I myself need to shed some weight and have been working to do so, but I can imagine nothing that would make memore angry than some annoying guy at the DMV saying "Sorry, you don't get your drivers license, you are too fat"  or some county planning official saying, "sorry, you can't build that addition on your home, you don't meet the government waistline standard."  Think it can't happen here?     
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Steyn on the Stand

 
In October of 2006, MacLeans magazine printed a 5,000 word excerpt of this book.  Now, he and the magazine are being hauled before the Canadian Human Rights Commission as discussed in the following article:  http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertKnight/2008/06/11/media_ignore_that_gagging_sound_from_canada?page=full&comments=true
 
Canada to me has always been our mellow neighbor to the north where the woods are thicker, the cities cleaner, and the people laid back with a cool accent.  But apparently, Canada is becoming a land where political correctness is taking on European proportions.  Apparently, pointing out that Muslims in Europe have 3.5 kids per couple while Christian or Athiest couples have 1.4 kids per couple, and that as a consequence, Islam is gaining demographical and political might, is offensive and considered hate speech.  There isn't really much to add to this.  Canada is far gone down a path we are considering, and I hope we think before we leap.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCains best Veep Choice

 
I have said it before and will say it now.  Senator Hutchinson gets it on energy policy.  The article above outlines very clearly what we should be doing to become energy independent, and refutes the arguements against it.  Based on what I have read, she also gets it on foreign policy, economics, and most social issues.  I think she would be a very good choice for McCain as a Vice President.  There are two real negatives for her in this position, one she, like McCain is a Southwestern Senator, giving the ticket no executive experience or geographical diversity, and two she is 64, giving the ticket no youth.  Still, I think McCain should give her serious consideration as a running mate.  Whether he does or not, all conservatives and all liberals who care about energy independence should support the bill she outlines in this article.  This needs to be done before the election, not haggled over by a new congress.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another voice...2 visions for the Republican Party

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal wrote an article about the race that was the source of my last post.  He basically and succinctly says there are two directions the Republicans can go...they can be economic RINOs or true small government Republicans.  It is clear what the voters of Californias 4th district wanted, now the rest of the country must decide.  Every seat in the House is up for grabs every 2 years.  We need more races like this one and the Alaska one mentioned earlier.  It is up to us, the grassroots, to demand it.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

One district at a Time

   Change in DC is going to be a slow and painful process.  In the last article I wrote, I discussed an Alaska race to remove an incumbent Republican by a more conservative opponent.  Here I will discuss another.  I live in Californias 2nd District.  Meanwhile, in the 4th congressional district of California which comprises the northeastern portion of California, a bitter race has been brewing.  (see map)
 
 
John Doolittle represented the district from 1990 to 2008, and because of scandals and lack of support, announced early this year that he would not seek another term.  In 2006, he narrowly defeated Democrat Charlie Brown (A retired Air Force Colonel) by just 3 % in a heavily Republican district.  Part of his problem was that he was tied to the Abramoff scandal, but much bigger in my book, he has repeatedly sought out earmarks for transportation, defense, and other contracts for his district and his supporters.  "But this is how it is done", some would cry.  "If we don't have earmarks, then our district won't get the federal money they deserve."  That is the problem.  Everyone will fight the other guys earmarks as long as we get our money.  Until we get people in congress who govern constitutionally, recognizing that it isn't about how many goodies you bring home, but about the government doing its job AND NO MORE, we will never accomplish anything.  So Doolittle is done because of corruption, some of which may be legit, some which is probably Democrat invented, but now is the time for new leadership for the 4th District of California.
 
Charlie Brown is running again this year on the Democrat side, with two main Republican challengers, Doug Ose and Tom McClintock.  Strangely, both live outside of the district, McClintock in Ventura County in Southern California, and Ose in the 3rd district just south of District 4.    Both are "carpetbaggers", though Ose campaigns on it because he lives so much closer.  In California, you don't have to live in a district, just in the state to run. 
 
The difference between the two is stark.  According to the Auburn Journal which endorsed Ose,
 
"Doug Ose is the choice for Republicans voting in the June 3 primary election. Ose is well versed on local issues and pledges to work hard to help local government secure federal funding for needed projects. Small communities like Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln and others would greatly benefit from a regional wastewater-treatment plant. The federal government keeps demanding more from wastewater-treatment plants, and should return more of our own money to pay for the upgrades it demands.  Ose pledges to fight for us.  Interstate 80 is a vital transportation corridor that links the eastern and western United States. Federal funding must be secured to ease traffic at the Interstate 80 bottleneck in Roseville.  Ose plans to fight for that funding.  Construction of a Highway 65 bypass also deserves federal funding, as does the development and preservation of freshwater drinking supplies for the growing 4th District.   It will take a respected consensus builder like Ose who is committed to working with local elected officials to turn these plans into construction projects."
 
In other words, because Ose is a player, and will bring home pork, we should vote for him.  But that is missing the point.  The point is, that if we need a regional waste water plant, the State or Counties should fund it.  If we need local water supplies or local highway repair, that is not the Federal Governments job.  As for I-80, if we got rid of the earmark system, and doled out funding for Interstate projects on a basis of importance, need, and time, we would have already upgraded the only east west interstate to the Bay area.  I have driven on it, it does need major upgrades between Sacramento and Reno.  But again, there must be a change of culture.  Deal making and back patting cannot be the modus operendi for funding Infrastructure programs.  This must change, and one official at a time, we need to elect people who will change it.
 
Tom McClintock is a hated man.  He opposed Pete Wilson and Schwartzenegger on state spending bills and budgets when they were irresponsible.  The "Republican Establishment" hates him deeply.  Former Governor Wilson says on news10.net: 

""Unlike Tom McClintock, Doug Ose gets things done," Wilson wrote. "Doug Ose is the real deal. Instead of rhetoric, he delivers for taxpayers."  Wilson and McClintock clashed repeatedly during Wilson's eight years in office. A staunch conservative, McClintock refused to go along with Wilson's tax hike proposal as a way to balance the state's budget deficit.  Wilson says he could never count on Tom McClintock.  "He was always the first to criticize, but the last to help the team," Wilson said.
In other words, he stood on principle and didn't play ball when Republicans wanted to compromise.  I saw the same thing on this years state budget.  Republicans were sick of him because he would not back down.  They just wanted to pass a budget and get a few crumbs to brag about.  He wanted it to be retooled and was "obstructionist"  as long as it took for change to occur.  Sounds to me like the kind of person we need to elect.   Here is more from the Club for Growth: 

"Take the issue of pork. As a member of Congress from the Third District, Ose consistently voted for outrageous pork projects and against stripping those projects from appropriations bills. He voted, for example, to spend California’s tax dollars on wood research; peanut competitiveness; asparagus research; and mohair subsidies. Sure, Ose brought home some pork to California but in order to get his few crumbs, Doug Ose had to vote to waste California’s tax dollars on billions of dollars in outrageous pork projects for all 49 other states. If taxpayers in the Fourth District are looking for a leader who will take on the culture of corrupt, wasteful spending in Washington, they should look no further than Tom McClintock. Doug Ose has already shown himself to be nothing more than a follower.

The Auburn Journal is also correct when they say that Ose is a “consensus builder” in the sense that he’d rather go along with the rest of his colleagues than fight for taxpayers. Let us consider what years of Ose’s “consensus building” have wrought: A bloated Farm Bill that doled out subsidies to millionaire farmers, including Doug Ose himself; a brand new government entitlement program in the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill; the McCain-Feingold legislation, trampling on political free speech; and bloated government budgets.

“If voters in the Fourth Congressional District want to know how Doug Ose would vote in Congress, they need not look further than Ose’s six years in Congress representing the Third District,” said Club for Growth Executive Director David Keating. “From 1999 to 2005, Ose was one of the most liberal Republicans in the House, voting for greater government spending, wasteful pork projects, special-interest subsidies; a brand new entitlement program, and even against removing a tax on the Internet. That kind of record may be good enough for the editorial board at the Auburn Journal, but that doesn’t mean voters in the Fourth District have to settle for a big-government Republican.”"
 
Maybe conservatives are getting it.  McClintock won Tuesday 54% to 39%, despite being outspent 2.3 million to 300,000.  While Brown leads polls by 4-6% in the district, there is a Republican registration advantage of about 60/40, and so the race is by no means hopeless.  The sad thing to me, is that the "mainstream Republicans are largely refusing to endorse McClintock so far, bitter about the toes he has stepped on and the anthill he has stirred up.  This is 2.  One by one, we can take back our congress, no matter who the president is.
 
 (Quotes from auburnjournal.com, news10.net, and clubforgrowth.com.)
(Other info from congressional and campaign websites for people named, and sacbee.com)   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Taking Back the Party

I have hope, for the first time in a long time that at some level, some small number of people understand what must be done to save the Republican party from itself.  In Alaska, Rep Don Young, a Republican, has a horrific record of spending and earmarks.  And the people of his district are doing something about it.  In this article from the Wall Street Journal, the primary fight between Young and a challenger with a proven record of conservative political actions is discussed, and to me, it is the neccesary fight we must undertake these next few elections.  If you are represented by a Republican or even a Democrat, and they spend money like this guy, mount a challenge.  Find a city counselor or state rep or war veteran who is a real conservative and mount a real challenge in the primary of 2010 if it is too late for this cycle.  We must take our party back and at the national level, it starts with the house.  I for one am encouraged, though we might be in for some pain in the short term, some out there know what needs done.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Republican Brand is Broken

My Mom is the only person in my life who I was able to discuss politics with before coming to Townhall.  She and I have a lot of agreement on issues.  My mom and dad live with my 83 year old lifelong Democrat grandma.  One of the shows she watches religiously for political knowledge is "Meet The Press".  I rarely see it, and while Russert slants very left and is off the deep end on the war, it can be illuminating to hear analysis from that side.  My mom wrote me this e-mail this morning, summing up that while the political class in the Republican party recognize that the party is in decline, they completely misunderstand why.  I have nothing to add to this, she sums up how I feel about this party perfectly. 
 
Hi Wil,
 
 .....The last 3/4 of the program was a panel with Bob
Scum (like that spelling?), the republican
counterpart whose name escapes me and Ford from
Tennessee and last but not least Mike Huckabee.  I
have to say I liked listening to Ford.  Not because
I agreed with what he said but because he listens
and does a good job of really debating.  He did say
that if Obama moves to the middle and adopts less
severely liberal policies he WILL win the election. 
I believe that is true.  Mostly because of what
Huckabee and the other republican said.  
 
Both said the republican brand is broken.  I've read
all those articles too but what has broken the brand
isn't what they both believe.  I listened to both of
them tout the wonderous praises of John McCain
They believe he is the one and only person who can
repair the "brand" because he isn't one of old guard
republicans.  They think he is the only one who can
win the election because he is a straight talker and
isn't a Bush clone.  This went on and on and on and
on.  
 
As a former democrat I beg to differ with this
simplistic analysis.  I believed it when John
Kennedy said, "Think not what your country can do
for you, but what you can do for your country!"  Now
today that would mean get a government job so you
can get extra perks, gain power, and never get
fired, but that isn't what I believed then.  
 
Ronald Reagan is the first republican I voted for
and it was because I truly believed government was
the problem and not the solution.  As a young
Christian I saw God as my savior and ultimate
protector and not Washington.  I believed if
government got out of the way our economy would
flourish because I had seen the opposite in the
Carter years.  I believed if a farmer was growing
the wrong crop he should suffer the loss and learn
from the experience, not be paid to artificially
tamper with the price.  That's how it worked for us.
And the farmer anology is a perfect one for most
government programs.  The ultimate result is far
different from what is intended.  It almost always
leads to dependence, corruption, and misplaced
power.  

I lost faith with George Bush because he
substantially increased the size of government.  Not
because of the Iraq war.  I also disagreed with his
reluctance to halt illegal immigration and his
abysmal lack of communication.  If anything, my
rejection of Bush's policies is a reflection of his
lack of conservative economic policies.  The
republican brand isn't broken in my opinion it has
just been forgotten and trampled by power-hungry
politicians who put their election above everything
else including consistent values and our freedom
from government interference in our lives.  As I
listened to Mike Huckabee and the other republican
on Meet the Press today, I despaired of them ever
really "getting" the problem.  A dream is dying and
no one even understands or cares.....
 
So my question is, is there a leadership in the party that will listen to the base and mend the party, or is it time to leave this broken brand and start new?  You all are the base as well, what do you think?   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Love Polar Bears (but this is ridiculous)

From a number of sources, including Hughs show today and this article by Amanda Carpenter, (http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/05/14/bush_caves_to_polar_bear_ploy) comes news of the new listing of the Polar Bear as a threatened species.  This is not based on hard evidence of decline, in fact, from an article on townhall by Amanda Carpenter, "Their complaints come as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services reports the polar bear population is on the rise. FWS estimates there are currently 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears, up from a record-low population of 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950’s and 1960’s".  So Polar Bear populations are2-5 times as big as they were 50 years ago, but human caused Global Warming will cause their demise.  What a crock.  And here again, we have a Republican President who appointed a Republican former Governor of Idaho Dirk Kempthorne to head the Department of the Interior, who has made this ruling, caving in to "pseudo science" that isn't even backing up their assertions. 

“Computer models predict sea ice is likely to recede in the future,” said Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne. “They [polar bears] are in my judgment likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, in this case 45 years.”   So 45 years in the future, Polar Bears may have to deal with a reduced ice pack if it is in fact reducing, and if in fact, this is bad for the bears.  Even that is debatable as the assertions of these people seem a bit hysterical.  "The environmental lobby argues global warming has melted sea ice that polar bears walk on when hunting seals. Less ice, their logic follows, exposes the bears to drowning, cannibalism and starvation."   How do they know this?  They don't.  Once upon a time, Northern Spotted Owls had to have old growth forest, not second or newer growth, and the whole Northwest paid the price.  When those preserved forests were destroyed by the more natural causes of fire and imported beetles, the owls adapted to newer forests.  Who is to say Polar Bears can't adapt to a changed environment?
 
But there is a bigger issue here than Owls, Polar Bears, Environmental Nuts, or even oil exploration.  The Republican Party is crumbing before our eyes.  They see three house losses of formerly safe seats and think "Uh oh, better move to the center."  Reality is the Republican party is on the verge of a historical crack up because it has ceased to stand for anything.  "Lets bring in moderates by moderating our stand on moral issues" thinks the establishment.  MORONS, when you do not differentiate yourselves from the opposition, when the choice is between socialism and socialism, it weakens you, not the more passionate socialists.  "Lets talk the talk of the environmental movement, and appeal to the masses who love polar bears"  IDIOTS, the masses want government out of their hair, not more government.  Threatened Polar Bears who aren't really threatened are a ploy to get judicial action to stop any and all activity that may accelerate global warming.  Repressive Carbon Credits, anyone?  Further lack of oil reserves?  This ruling will hamstring any future real conservative administration from acting to open ANWR, or do anything else to improve our energy scenario because it might, just might, hurt the cuddly polar bear.     
 
I am a Polar Bear fan.  I think they are one of the coolest animals in the world.  But lets pull our heads out of our collective backsides, and take this country back.  I have had it.
 
As temperatures warm, the normally mellow polar bears are forced to tango to impress a mate
 
north pole polar bears
Upset by the threat of global warming, this bear contemplates suicide.  Don't jump, man, it isn't that bad!
 
A polar bear rests with her cubs on the pack ice in Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Polar bears, cold-dependent animals, are dropping in numbers and weight in the Arctic.
Come on President Bush, save us.  Do it for the Polar Bear Children! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (18) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

At 60, Israel faces a life or death threat

   This article by Ralph Peters of the New York Post gets it exactly right.  I wonder, if Israel decided to wage the war described here (unlikely under current leadership, but neccesary), what Bush and/or the three who want the Presidency would do.  Peters states it plainly, you cannot change the hearts and mids of those bent on your destruction.  And we have allowed here what we refused to allow in 1990, the invasion of a nation and destruction of its government by an extremist regime.  Hezballah has been evil since its inception and should have been destroyed in 1983 when they killed our Marine peacekeepers.  If Israel chooses to do so, they have every right to destroy an organization who exists to erase them, and we should support them in every way possible.  Read this article and see what you think.
 
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/enabling_hezbollah_110815.htm?page=0
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The untold cost of Ethanol

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=294015465776712
 
I must admit, I have quite a bias on environmental issues.  My dad worked in a lumber mill, and after 22 years, he was thrown out of a good paying relatively secure job, and the biggest culprit was the ridiculous spike in timber costs due to environmental regulations placing large swathes of "old growth" forest land off limits to loggers to protect among other things the Northern Spotted Owl. (Ironically, since then this owl has been found to adapt quite nicely to younger forests and even barns, while the protected forests have been major victims of beetle infestations and forest fires)  I love to see a clean river or lake, beautiful non smoggy skies, pristine mountains, and such, but I saw as a child and still see that the extremists of the environmental movement don't want good stewardship, they want to see reduced human population.  The biggest and most horrific example of this is allowing Malaria to run rampant because of an unwillingness to kill mosquitos with DDT in Africa, but there are far too many to list here. 
 
So here we have Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (VP candidate Mr. McCain?) writing an editorial where she explains the need to modify the Bush passed energy bill that called for increases in Ethanol production over the next 20 years because of growing food shortages and spikes in food prices.  I personally think ethanol is pointless, (it takes more energy to make it than it actually provides), but I do think research in renewable fuels is a worthwhile endeavor (though I would not use government funds for it).  As you can read in this article, she calls for fuel efficiency standards and for ethanol production to continue but not grow because of the food prices going up.  She also calls for new research into Tidal power, (which my dads cousin is involved in researching at Stanford), more nuclear power, and offshore and ANWR drilling to provide not just energy but more energy independence, better security, and a stop to the spike in food and oil prices.   She makes a lot of sense, far more than Newt and his "Green Conservatism" that he leaves vague and allows the Dems to exploit for whatever they want it to mean.  Her bill seems to me to be balanced coherent, and a good mix of policies and proposals.  I would add to it McCains call to suspend the federal gas tax for a year, to provide short term relief on gas prices.  After reading this article and doing a little research on this woman, I think she would make a very good candidate for McCain to consider as Veep.  I would ask you what you think of this article she wrote (linked above) and what you think of this Senator.
 
So read her article and see what you think.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Expelled: The movie review

   So as I mentioned in the last post, I went to see Expelled last Saturday. According to much of my field of study, I am a deluded simpleton to even consider seeing this movie, but I went all the same.  The movie was not really even about ID, they don't go into great detail about what it is:  (The idea that some aspects of living things are irreducibly complex, that is, unable to have developed or evolved one step at a time, because  they are made up of multiple parts, all necessary for function.  The next portion states that complexity points to design and design to some sort of designer.)   The movie is about this in passing, but it is much more about academic freedom.  What appears to disturb Ben Stein more than anything else is the fact that it appears that those who do not toe the line on evolutionary theory are systematically shut out of meaningful and prestigious places in science.  Is this true?  Stein makes a very compelling case for it in the early stages of the movie.
 
He then takes his movie in a new direction.  He wonders and explores why it is that there is such a hedge of protection around this one theory.  The answer he comes up with is that it isn't about science at all, its about faith and ideology.  Seems that in the community of scientists, most of the prominent ones are not just Athiest, but rabidly so.  They view religion as "The opiate of the masses" or perhaps as a "mental disorder", something one should quietly push to the unswept dank corners of the minds' attic and never explore except on rainy days and after a number of alcoholic drinks.  They cannot possibly fear that the religious will burn them at the stake or cast them into dungeons for heresy.  Yet they seem to.  He finds that evolutionists are not as objective as they may sometimes seem, they are ideologically driven, and their ideology is to marginalize active religious faith.   He explores where this Godless world view can lead, and here the critics of the movie go apoplectic.  Darwinism CAN and DID lead to Eugenics....the founders of Eugenics used "Survival of the Fittest" to excuse horrifying actions, and Hitler bought into the idea of Eugenics.  Combining this with a virulent racism, fascist government and bitterness over the results of WWI, and Darwinism was one small ingredient in the most horrific regime in our time.  Unfair they say, foul they cry....they do this to Christianity all the time.  They equate a pastor preaching homosexuality as sin with a puritan burning witches at the stake.  They blame priest abuse scandals on the faith repressing sexuality, quite conveniently forgetting that as many or more secular school teachers are convicted of molesting students, and both are horrific and stem from depravity, not religion.  They applauded or smiled approvingly when people accuse 9/11 of being an inside job or Al Gore makes up stuff for his Inconvenient Documentary.  But this they cannot stand.
 
Finally, Stein explores the evolutionists themselves, the contempt in which they hold those who do not accept them.  This was by far my favorite part.  My favorite Ben Stein acting bit was not as the teacher in Ferris Buellers Day Off.  It was in The Mask as the expert on pop psychology who studies masks.  When Jim Carrey is trying to show him the mask working, he has this look of bored incredulity on his face as he says:  "You don't scare me Mr. Ipkiss." The look on his face for Jim Carrey precisely mirrored the look on his face for both PZ Meyers (as he explains that life may have originated on the backs of crystals) and Richard Dawkins (as he states that life could have been brought here by extra terrestrials, but God is an impossibility).  The statements that these scientists made when they apparently thought they were talking to an intellectual agnostic were incredibly revealing of both the amount of uncertainty surrounding parts of Darwinian theory and the absolute contempt in which they hold the rest of the world who is not as "smart" as them.
 
This movie does not intend to teach about ID as much as expose Darwinists for the idealogues that they are.  This is an important thing in itself and the compelling look Mr. Stein provides us of the inside of the Ivory Towers is well worth the admission price.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (114) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Expelled: Reviewing the scientific method

I went to see Ben Steins movie on Saturday night.  I will get on to reviewing it in the next post, first let me review something we all learned in science classes, the scientific method:
 
 
Step one of the scientific method is to choose your topic.  Lets say the origin of life.
 
Step two is to Identify a problem....Lets say How did life begin?
 
Step three is to Research the problem.....well, all life is made up of cells.  Cells are microscopic arrangements of macromolecules such as Protein, Carbohydrates, Lipids, and Nucleic Acids arranged in such a way that they can Grow, Develop (Evolve), Reproduce, Metabolize Energy, and Respond to Stimuli.  Though there is some debate about whether a Virus is living (it does not reproduce develop or grow on its own, only through use of a host system), most scientist seem to agree that Cells are the simplest form of LIFE.  Since the simplest cells possible must contain around 200 genes, and the proteins produced by these genes to function, there are no currently known "simple cells".  So the challenge is to determine if A. Cells can or cannot be simplified beyond a certain point without losing their status as "Living" or B. Cells can be produced artificially by component chemicals.
 
Step four is to Develop a hypothesis......If cells arose from nonliving material, there must be a way to artificially create cells from chemical components or to simplify cells beyond the level currently known.
 
Step 5 is to design experiments to create or simplify existing cells into simpler protocells.
 
Step 6 is to try out the experiments
 
Step 7 is to analyze results.
 
Step 8 is to form conclusions and if necessary, modify the hypothesis or the experiments.
 
Above is the scientific method.  It is a very loose use of the scientific method for a number of reasons.  First, components found in prebiotic earth are theoretical.  Until life is found elsewhere in a more primitive state, we are truly guessing at the components and details of early earth.  If you have too many variables, you cannot design an effective experiment.  So many researchers will say you "must have had" this or that on prebiotic earth when life originated, though other than imposed mandates of the researcher, there is no way to know whether this needed ingredient was actually on earth or not.  Experiments since the 20's when Oparin proposed "Primordial soup" have mostly had this flaw, and even giving a lot of ingredients access to the soup there is no way to know they had, no sort of life has yet been created.  Many scientists who see this as unassailable use of the scientific method state that ID (Intelligent Design) is untestable.  Lets explore ID from the scientific method format:
 
Steps 1 and 2 are identical, the problem is still the origin of life. 
 
Step three takes the statement above a step further.  It states that since the simplest cell known is about 200 genes and contains at least that many proteins specialized in replication of genetic material, converting genetic plans into proteins, capturing and converting energy, detoxifying and removing waste, repairing gene damage, protein damage, and component parts, responding to heat, acidity, and other environmental changes, as well as a lipid layer to separate the cell from its environment, cells are irreducibly complex, unable to exist beyind a certain simplicity, and the only explanation for their existence is that they were designed. 
 
Many scientists would say this is an untestable hypothesis, a philosophical statement of origin and therefore outside of the realm of science.  But in fact, it is not.  The experiments are exactly the same.  If instead of breaking cells into protocells, we see an increase in complexity each step we take downward that renders us unable to go beyond a certain point, we see evidence that points to a design.  In ID cosmology, you also want to continue to study the cell because it teaches us about the tools we are created with.  We in the ID community do not say "God did it" and stop exploring, just as God fearing scientists before Darwin did not stop experimenting or hypothesizing for fear of undermining God.  If God is all powerful, honest inquiry will point towards Him, not away.   The point is, studying origins or evolution, change over time, is an important part in studying science.  This does not cease to be if the scientist mentioned is convinced that inquiry points to a Creator.  Framing the debate as Science vs. Faith is ridiculous.  Until God is revealed or until the evolution of life from non life occurs artificially, both ID and Evolutionary origin of life theorists are doing the same thing.  Looking for evidence to see which way the science leads.       
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive