Brain Lemon

I never dreamt...

After a well-run campaign and fawning press coverage, Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States.  Now that he has been in office for six months, I can honestly say that even with all I knew and feared from him, he has thoroughly impressed me.  I never imagined he would be so radical, so brazen, so crafty in his ways.  In short, I never dreamt, even in my wildest dreams, that we would be where we are now.  I've compiled a list of things I simply cannot believe have come to pass.

• I never dreamt that we would have a President who so deeply dislikes American history and tradition, who so completely rejects the Constitution.
• I never dreamt that we would have a President who would forcefully take over major companies, openly break contracts, and attempt to run the auto industry.
• I never dreamt that we would have a President so completely in bed with giant corporations and unions, so hostile towards entrepreneurship and small business.
• I never dreamt we would have a Congress and President who would have such great disrepect for us as to not even read bills before passing and signing them.
• I never dreamt we could have federal spending levels that blow away anything previous and create massive deficits, all while we are mocked with meaningless token cuts.
• I never dreamt we would be on the verge of literally taking over the entire health care system, without so much as a debate, based on a wide array of lies and deceptions.
• I never dreamt we would have a government so intolerant of free speech as to label political opponents and veterans merely expressing opinions as dangerous extremists.
• I never dreamt that during terrible economic times, our leaders would actually consider willingly hamstringing the economy with taxes on just about everything.
• I never dreamt we would have leaders who feel the need to constantly apologize for America everywhere they go, blaming us for everything from the economy to global warming.
• I never dreamt that my future would be in jeopardy due to power-hungry, corrupt politicians.
• I never dreamt that I might actually live to see the great decline of America, and possibly its dissolution, or at very least a radical transformation.
• I never dreamt that I would seriously consider living somewhere other than the US if a freer place emerged.

And most importantly...

• I never dreamt that I, a 26-year-old single male, would have to fight so hard just to maintain a decent country for my future family.

But yet these are the times in which we live - the times of Barack Obama.  Be aware, my friends - these are the years that will define America's future identity.  I may have never dreamt we'd be in such a state, but I'm damn well not going to sit idly by and let these nightmares come to fruition.

My thoughts on Palin

When Sarah Palin first entered the national scene last fall, people like me (often referred to as the "Republican base," though I dislike that term) were very excited.  Here we had a nice surprise for a change - a genuine conservative, a true reformer who was willing to take on her own party.  And more importantly, the closest thing we had in the world of politics to a regular person.  Her story was inspiring, her authenticity refreshing, her family and appearance fresh and attractive.  In short, someone who could energize a base very disappointed in the selection of McCain, and feeling as if we had no one running for us in the race.

As time went on and the media attacks intensified, it only hardened our resolve and strengthened our love for Sarah.  That's right, "Sarah" - she became someone we felt comfortable referring to by just her first name, and not in a mocking way.  But did we ever look beyond the superficial?  Did we actually look into her views on, say, Iran or North Korea?  We knew she was pro-life in the most literal and true way possible, having kept her son even with a birth defect.  We knew she had a deep love for the military, as shown by her intense pride for her son choosing to serve.  And we knew she could give a good speech, raise a good crowd, and piss off all the right people.  But did we actually know what her positions would be on health care, taxes, or most importantly, the economy?  I don't think so.

In the end, as the election ended and the dust cleared, we were left with an unrestrained, unfettered Sarah Palin, no longer tied to the "progressive light" McCain ticket.  This was exciting in a way - now she could speak her mind and serve as a popular and effective governor.  The future seemed promising for her, if she could brush up on her policy knowledge, learn to express her views clearly, and continue to reform Alaska.  The media would continue to demolish her, and her fans would  continue to love her.  All she had to do was do her job well, prove herself as a serious leader, and earn her way to mainstream respect.

Now she's thrown much of that away, and we're left to figure out why she did it, and what it means for her future.  The simple fact is, that at this point, Sarah Palin is not a serious figure.  She has shown no ability to lead, to serve, or to present herself as a legitimate political player.  While some of these things may endear her to fans, they mark her as unfit for higher duty.  If she resigned because of attacks, she can't take the fire.  If she did it for some perceived personal benefit, she is just as self-centered and ambitious as any politician.  If she did it for her family, that is all well and good, but if that is the case, can she please just settle down and stop exposing them to attack?

In my opinion, then, I think that any chance Palin had of being a legitimate leader is, at best, on hold.  She has the talent and the fan base to continue as an influential figure.  But in truth I think her views make her little more than a socially conservative populist.  Her demeanor is erratic and unpredictable.  As governor she has proven to now be unreliable.  As a political fighter she is fierce on the attack, but unable to defend her positions with any great clarity.  She is now basically a joke in most people's eyes, and this is largely her fault.  One cannot imagine her taking on a politician of Obama's caliber.  But who knows in politics, right?

The true traitors

Despite all evidence to the contrary, I for some reason still expect people with the supposed respectability of Paul Krugman to at least offer intelligent commentary.  Even with numerous incidents that discredit it, the Nobel Prize still means something, right?  Or at least one other than the Peace prize?  Yet the latest column by Krugman is just plain batty.  According to this lovely little rant, those who question climate change hysteria are not merely wrong, but are in fact committing "treason against the planet." We supposedly hate the Earth, despite the fact that all of us have to actually live here.  All of this because we didn't support the "cap and trade" bill recently passed by the House.

What Krugman and others don't realize (in my mind due to willful ignorance) is how unintentionally hilarious and ridiculous they sound.  Reading this piece I felt like I was reading a religious text, inveighing against sinners and heathens, rather than a measured opinion.  In the minds of Paul and many others like him, this whole issue truly is a religious one, and overblown rhetoric has become sadly typical.  In this very article the term "climate deniers" is used routinely, clearly an attempt at comparing skeptics to Holocaust deniers.  That this practice has become commonplace in a place such as the New York Times shows just how intellectually empty the environmentalist movement is.

The truth is that the people who are really betraying the country are those who voted for this monstrosity on Friday night.  They supported a piece of sprawling, oppressive legislation without even reading it.  They supported what amounts to a massive energy tax that will affect every level of our economy.  They voted to massively increase the size of government and the cost of living in order to support an unworkable, disastrous regime that even if successful would make a difference in climate too small to be meaningful.  They continue to support unsustainable policies and spending that will crush future generations in debt.  For all they speak of protecting our children from global warming, they look the other way when they pile on unimaginable financial burdens.

The true traitors, then, are those who vote for legislation without reading it; who continue the wasteful and frivolous spending; who continue to disenfranchise millions of decent, hardworking Americans; who continue to bail out giant corporations; who ignore our complaints and spurn us at every turn; who mock us and set us on the path to economic ruin.  They are the ones who are destroying our future, and Mr. Krugman and others would do well to turn their ire on them, instead of on those who simply desire a reasonable debate about potentially life-changing "solutions" to a problem that may or may not exist, may or may not be human-caused, and may or may not mean catastrophe.

A few decent leaders

The other day I was talking to someone about the current state of politics, and how cynically most people view it.  I think this fact was obvious in the appeal of Barack Obama.  He presented himself as a break from the "old politics" and an agent of change.  Of course, those of us who were paying attention saw right through it and found out his true nature.  But the point remains - people were desperate for a leader who promised transparency, honesty, and bipartisanship.

I think, perhaps, that conservatives need to carefully examine this phenomenon, and what it says about our society.  As a country we have become completely accustomed to the image of politicians as slimy, lying, self-centered jerks.  This image is cemented again and again with leaders on both sides.  We so expect it that we just assume this is the way it always has been, and always will be.  We accept it as an unavoidable reality.  For many of us, it discourages us from pursuing a career in politics, as we try to be honest, decent people and fear that the political world will destroy that.

Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I don't see this as inevitable.  In truth, I think the reason that it has become so way is that we as a people have allowed corruption to become acceptable.  We have let politicians become so powerful and isolated, that they assume, sadly with great accuracy, that we won't care about a few indiscretions, or even out-and-out lying.  We barely bat an eye when we are mocked, while our money is spent recklessly, while disasterous legislation is passed in the dead of night without even reading it.  In short, to be blunt, the current situation is our fault.  We have fallen asleep at the wheel and let special interests take over the country.

The solution to this is not simple, nor is it easy.  The answer lies in aggressively promoting honest, decent people and truly holding their feet to the fire.  In fact, it may also lie in BEING those people.  The whole of it is this - we can rebuild this system.  And we can get a huge part of the American people behind us.  I think the coming Obama buyer's remorse provides a capital opportunity for this.  It may seem like he is very popular now, but things are beginning to crack and soon, millions of Americans will feel dejected and betrayed by the man they put so much hope in.  They will be anxious to find people who are just normal, direct folks.  Not rock stars, but people they actually know in real life.

There is much more of this to say.  My real point comes to this - we don't need to accept that we live in a world destined to be ruled by some of the most dishonest, despicable people among us.  Very few of us actually know people like the ones who rule us, or like the charicatures we are presented.  Are the liberals I know anything like the ruthless, ultrapartisan Nancy Pelosi?  Are the conservatives you know actually racist, homophobic, and greedy?  I think not.  It is time to restore America to a nation ruled by responsible, honorable people like the ones who founded it.  The real revolution starts NOW.

I'm sick of racism

Okay, America.  We've elected our first black President.  We've had countless minority cabinet secretaries, military leaders, judges, etc.  This is not to say we've solved every problem, but by and large most Americans have moved past race.  We all work with people of different races, we interact with each other on a daily basis, and we generally vote for the better candidate regardless of race.  Especially the younger generations, mine for example, have grown up with "multiculturalism" and generally been taught to have great disdain for even the slightest hint of racism.  So why have our politics stayed the same?

The latest example of our insane obsession with racial identity comes with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, a committed judicial activist, socialist, and, if some quotes are to be believed, somewhat of a minor racist.  Sotomayor famously expressed how Latina women are inherently better judges than white males.  Of course, if this were another combination of races (say, someone stating whites are inherently better at something) it would be clear racism.  But that double standard is fodder for another article.  The real issue here is, that we're supposed to ignore her comments, ignore her actions, and just focus on her race and gender.  We're supposed to be terrified to criticize her because it will supposedly offend all Hispanics.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that all Hispanics (or all blacks, or all any other group) are so stupid and ethnocentric as to blindly support anybody of the same skin tone, and be offended when anyone of the same race is attacked.  I refuse to cater to people who view any criticism of someone of the same race as an attack on the entire group.  That's just stupid, no matter who does it.  Was anyone scared to attack George W. Bush for fear of offending all whites, Texans, or Methodists?  Why should we be frightened of the PC police who will call us racist for just about any reason?  For God's sake, we're supposedly racist just for wanting border security, homophobic for opposing the redefinition of marriage, and misogynistic for being pro-life.  Why are we so scared of hateful bigots who see fit to slander us for expressing certain opinions?

Republicans should stand up to this and oppose Sonia Sotomayor's nomination.  We likely won't win, but we need to make a show of how out-of-step, discriminatory, and radical she is, and what that says about the man who nominated her.  Will we be called racists?  Probably.  But all we need to do to deflect that is to point out how Democrats fiercely opposed minority candidates who happened to be conservative, most especially Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, and Janice Rogers Brown.  They did this in fact largely BECAUSE they were minorities who did not toe the appropriate line.  In truth any minority who does not consider themselves a proud liberal Democrat is attacked without restraint.  Republicans need to man up, ignore the attacks, and question Sotomayor about all the things she has said, from her above mentioned racist comments, to her statement about the courts role to make policy, her 2nd Amendment problems, and others.  Only by braving this fire and showing how nasty and anti-minority the liberals are will be put this viscious identity poltics to bed.  It is poison to our nation, it divides us constantly for political gain, and it must be stopped.  It's truly one of my passions and will surely be the subject of many blog entries to come.

Can we end this debate now?

I was happy to hear about the California court decision on Prop 8 today for two reasons.  Firstly, overturning the constitutional amendment would be a great blow against the rule of law and a significant overreach from the court's duty.  Second, the court provided an avenue to the only real, fair solution to the gay marriage debate - civil unions.

To start, I would generally be of the opinion that the constitution, be it of the United States or of a state, should be the highest law in the land.  In fact, it by definition is higher than all other laws AND higher than the courts.  The courts themselves exist only due to, and in the manner described by, the constitution.  Thus, when the constitution is amended, thus legitimately altering the law, the court has no business going against it.  To use another example, we generally expect the courts, even the Supreme Court, to defend free speech rights and gun rights because both are enshrined in the constitution.  We would not want courts to be able to override, ignore, or block those rights from taking force.  Of course in reality they do sometimes, but the point remains - a constitutional amendment when properly ratified should be left to stand in all but the most extreme cases.

In addition, the court also provided a route to what I feel is the only real solution to this debate over "gay rights," or however you want to frame it.  The only answer that both satisfies one side's desire to protect marriage, and the other side's desire to gain equal rights, lies in civil unions, and the removal of government as much as possible from the institution of marriage.  In truth, amendments such as Prop 8 are an improper solution, and only are needed in order to keep the activist courts at bay and provide the necessary breathing room to come up with a real solution.  By removing the government from the definition of marriage, we grant access for all combinations of consenting adults to enter into legally binding, committed contracts, and thus access to the legal and financial benefits they seek as part of marriage rights.  And at the same time, we protect religious freedom by allowing every faith and church to define marriage as it will.  By doing so we prevent gay rights activists from forcing churches to recognize gay marriage, lest they be targeted for hate and persecution.

Both extremes in this debate are guilty of hyperbole, and of demonizing and hating the other side unnecessarily.  This is largely because the debate has taken hold as part of the much larger culture war between traditionalists and secular humanists.  But once you take that away what you are really talking about is this - if two consenting adults, who happen to be homosexual, want to enter into a contract, why shouldn't they be able to?  From a libertarian point of view we should allow people to enter almost any contract as long as there is no coercion involved.  We also need to protect religious liberty at all costs.  It is the absolute and legitimate right of any church or religious group to believe homosexuality is wrong, and thus not recognize gay marriage, just as it is the right of any group to sanction it.  This is what is called religious freedom.  You may dislike, even hate the laws of a given faith, but unless they are hurting people they should be allowed to practice freely.

The tragedy is this whole thing has a fair resolution, but instead of finding this, we are going to end up infringing on religious liberty to serve the interests of the gay agenda.  It is sad to see things decided not by reasoned debate but by competing forces that are motivated not by a genuine desire to find a solution, but rather a desire to score victories in the larger culture war.  And in this war, sadly the nasty, anti-religious forces of the secular humanists seem to be winning.  Let's hope we can preserve at least something against this ferocious onslaught.

Obama's policies will have real effects

It has been said, nearly to the point of nausea, that conservatism is having a bit of trouble lately.  A lot of this is owed to our longtime home, the Republican Party.  The GOP over the past decade or so completely lost touch with what are supposed to be its core values of limited government and fiscal restraint.  Thanks in large part to President Bush, Republican rule has been basically equated to the same type of government growth as Democrats offer, but with a few wars thrown in for good measure.  It is not hard to understand, then, that when offered all the goodies that big government allegedly provides while at the same time having the world theoretically like us more, voters chose the real thing.  It's hard to fault people too much when they are told that they can have the world, and the only people that will suffer are those damn rich people (who, of course, they do not think themselves to ever be).

The truth is, though, that the greatest benefit to conservatism may be to simply wait things out.  Right now liberal policies, as socialist and freedom-decreasing as they may be, seem like a good idea to a lot of people.  Obama is still very popular and a lot of folks have great faith in him.  We can sit and ponder this situation, we can shout from the rooftops how his spending will bankrupt us, we can constantly argue how bad universal health care will be.  All of these things are important and must be done.  But the reality of it is that our best friend may be Obama's policies themselves.

We know from experience they don't work.  We have faith in our ideas and our solutions.  After all, I'm not just a conservative because I'm heartless, evil, or whatever other reason liberals come up with.  I'm a conservative because I know that my ideas are good for people, and Obama's are bad for people.  I have faith that once these efforts are borne out, they will affect people's lives in a very negative way.  And when this happens, we need to be there not only to say "I told you so" but to offer real, dramatic differences in policy that will restore America's freedom and prosperity.

The most salient and important example of this truth, I think, is in health care.  Right now a lot of people have bought into the lie that Canada is essentially just as free as us, but they have free, quality health care on top of it.  Neither of those are true, but I will focus on the latter one.  Their health care is not free - it requires high taxes and the proximity of the US to not only protect them militarily, but provide easily accessed private health care as a sort of "release valve" for their system.  Hospitals near the border are inundated with Canadians who cannot get treated up north.  And they suffer from huge waiting lists, a lack of availability of things we take for granted like MRI machines, and difficulty even finding a primary care doctor or a dentist.  Similarly, Britain's national health care system has many of the same problems, including the inevitable cost-cutting measure of rationing that will surely take hold in our system as well.

In short, national health care, if it happens (it it likely will in some form) will hurt people in a real, tangible way.  People's doctors will move or not be able to see them.  They will have to wait for basic treatments.  They will be forced to deal with bureaucrats making their health decisions.  They will see the thriving research we are able to perform here screech to a halt.  In short, they will feel the effects on their daily lives and realize that the private solution might actually be not so bad.  The sad truth is that people will suffer real consequences here - some will endure sickness for a long time, others will be denied treatment, and some will even die.  But in the end, most will realize that the promise of free, quality health care provides neither of those adjectives.

Much like health care, the out of control spending will cause inflation.  Obama's moves will thoroughly destroy the domestic auto industry, forcing us to drive unsafe, pathetic little bubble cars.  Cap and trade will massively raise energy costs.  Union gifts like card check will increase unemployment and kill business.  We know these things will happen.  And they will have no other valid author than Obama himself.  There's no way any of them can be pinned on the Bush administration or the GOP.

When these policies fail, conservatives need to be standing there, having spent the last years proclaiming that they would.  We need to offer real solutions to get us out of Obama's mess.  The future can be bright for freedom-loving Americans.  It will just take some time.

Bucknell's at it again

Less than a month later, I'm already regretting giving in to the constant phone calls and donating a small amount of money to Bucknell University, my alma mater.  For years I have refused to give on the basis that the university does not respect free speech.  During my time there I felt the deep and constant chilling effect, the fear for expressing ideas divergent from college PC, such as opposition to gay marriage or racial quotas.  Looks like, instead of improving, Bucknell is at it again.

Affirmative action bake sales have gone on for years, at both high school and college levels.  The idea is far from original but the purpose is clear - to show the inherent unfairness of treating people differently just because of their color.  Just like at the bake sale, our universities and colleges are giving certain groups extra points, often based on nothing more than their skin color.  These programs have done much damage to the basic fairness and meritocracy our country is founded on.

The real issue here, though, is of course the university's refusal to tolerate any speech that is overly "troublesome" or against PC norms.  Of course, this usually only swings one way, as liberal speech is given far much more lenience, and even the most moderate and decent conservative or traditional speech attacked constantly.

The part of this article that chilled me the most was this one:

"Many students felt this was an inappropriate use of free speech."

Excuse me?  An "inappropriate" use of free speech?  The very purpose of free speech is to permit and protect things that may be very "inappropriate."  If you restrict speech to being appropriate, it is entirely up to whoever is in control to determine that standard.  Anyone can make the determination that speech they don't like is inappropriate.  The only standard free speech should have is whether it directly endangers people, or incites violence, or some such thing (the classic "not yelling fire in a crowded theater" rule).  Any other standard means it is no longer FREE.

I worry that far too many of today's students think this way about free speech.  It certainly is the message sent by universities that claim to support diversity and tolerance, then go ahead and bully conservatives for trying to make an entirely valid point in a harmless fashion.

Torture Insanity

It looks like we're at it again - caterwauling about so-called torture, this time brought on by the Obama administration's unnecessary and politically-motivated release of top secret CIA memos.  Once again this president has made a national security decision based getting good PR, and has opened the door for what will surely be an ugly series of hearings, inquisitions, and if certain people get their way, criminal proceedings.  As we've seen every time this subject comes up, sanctimonious senators race to the microphone to declare how horrified they are by our sins, how we should be above such things, and how these acts make us no different from the terrorists we are fighting.

First of all, based on the information we have seen revealed, we need to take a serious look at the techniques described and ask ourselves the honest question - is this really what we would describe as torture?  To me it sounds more like "unpleasant treatment" - surely no worse than we voluntarily subjugate ourselves to on shows such as Fear Factor simply for the pursuit of fame and money.  For God's sake, I've seen people on such shows covered in scorpions, and the worst of the so-called torture methods is putting someone in a box with a caterpillar?  Not only does this mock real torture (which, honestly, waterboarding MAY be argued to be, though I wouldn't), but it makes us looks like wimps.  Surely al Queda and most of the world looks at our methods and laughs, as we are kinder to terrorist murderers than they would be to a petty thief.

Which brings up the other insanity of this whole thing - I find it profoundly offensive that we seem so ready to compare ourselves to terrorist killers, as if our methods come anywhere near hacking off people's limbs and heads.  Also insulting is the idea that terrorists will treat us any differently if we are more gentle when we capture them.  No terrorist who believes it is Allah's will to blow himself up in a school is going to reconsider after some politicians get up and smugly state how morally superior we are for not playing loud music or keeping you awake.  I can't imagine any Taliban pamphlets are encouraging acts of terror against those infidels who dare to turn the thermostat down too low.

The whole thing just makes me mad, because I think at root the torture issue in general was mainly designed to embarass America and the Bush administration.  But now that Bush is gone, what remains of that motive?  Do we really want, in the middle of economic turmoil and war, to enter into nasty, partisan show trials against lawyers who were merely offering their legal opinion?  Do we want to condemn those in the military and intelligence services who were just trying to keep us safe?  And in the end, do we value European fondness and self-righteous satisfaction above fighting terror with every tool we have?  All of these questions seem ignored as partisans prepare for the ugliness ahead.  So much for hope and change, yet again.

His true nature

During his appearance with Jay Leno last week, President Obama made an off-hand remark about his bowling skills being commensurate with those of a Special Olympian.  Many have, quite understandably, reacted in offense to this statement.  Of course the culture of political correctness is largely responsible for this offense, and if a friend or colleague had made this remark around me I would have hardly noticed.  Not that I am insensitive, but I am just not easily offended.

However, I have found much of the reaction to this comment quite interesting.  Most people have expressed anger, but the true Obama apologists have gone to great lengths to explain away, or at least minimize the damage.  In doing so, a lot of assumptions about Obama's basic character have been revealed.  I find these assumptions fascinating, especially in comparison to the way Bush and conservatives are treated in the media and culture.

Instead of being treated as insensitive and callous, Obama's gaffe is treated as a harmless, accidental slip of the tongue made by someone who is, at his core, a decent and compassionate man.  This assumption is made, I think, much more due to his appearance and his politics than due to any actual qualities.  I have never seen any evidence of this supposed kindness.  On the rare occasions where we have seen Obama's natural behavior, he has exhibited nothing but arrogance and elitism.  For example, see the way he talks about the supremacy of science not bound by ethics, the ignorance of those who support free markets, and the disdain for those who "cling to God and guns."

Other perceptions about Obama might also be wrong, but we wouldn't know as he has been examined by the media so little.  We assume he is smart and knowledgeable about policy, yet has he ever been asked any really hard questions?  When he has tried to, he has often appeared clueless, as in his recent comments about the stock market and "profit to earning ratios."  We assume he is a great speaker, and he may well be, but he requires a Teleprompter for almost all his speeches, even things as simple as introducing a nominee.  Speaking of which, his nominations and other actions have severely hurt Obama's image as being bipartisan, ethical, and responsible.

In comparison, even though in person President Bush is widely known to be a congenial, friendly, and decent person, the public perception of him was that of an ignorant, warmongering fool who either lied to the public, or at the very least was an ignorant boob who led us into Iraq.  Despite his well thought out, balanced position on stem-cell research, he was portrayed as "anti-science."  Despite his humility about his faith, he was called a religious zealot.  The other examples of this are manifold, but in general his positions were assumed to be, at the very least, ignorant, partisan, and in some cases downright evil.  He was never given the benefit of the doubt.  If he had made anything like the comments Obama made, he would have people calling for his head.

The truth is that media portrayals of, and thus public perceptions of, public figures has far more to do with political positions than actual character.  Liberals are almost always assumed to be compassionate and caring; conservatives are assumed to be heartless ideologues.  Obama is assumed to be a good and decent person not because he actually is (he in fact may not be at all) but because he has good public relations skills, a favorable media, and liberal politics.  What his true nature is, we can only guess at, but I highly suspect it is quite different from the common perception.  We should endeavor to make ourselves more serious and perspicacious examiners of character, instead of celebrity-obsessed maniacs who just want to follow the "cool" people.  In history's final judgment, we shall see how our descendants view our leaders, removed from the media culture.