CommenTerry

Where Have All the Independent Thinkers Gone?

Today, far too many people seem to be liberal or conservative sycophants who religiously repeat their side's mantra. After talking to them for just a few minutes, you can usually predict (with 95 percent accuracy) where they will come down on each and every issue. This is no coincidence. Once people decide that they are either liberal or conservative, most of them will stop thinking for themselves and starting taking their cue from leading voices on one side or the other. What a shame that anyone would let someone else tell them what they are supposed to think!

An Ideal Presidential Candidate

The next presidential election is still three years away, but I'm already thinking about the kind of candidate I'd like to support. My concept of an ideal presidential candidate would have the following stands on the key issues of the day. He or she should be:

(1) In favor of stem-cell research, as long as babies aren't aborted or people aren't cloned specifically for that purpose.

(2) Against the war in Iraq. I'm looking for someone who was against it from the get-go and favors getting out as soon as reasonably possible.

(3) Anti-abortion, with the exceptions being only when the life or health of the mother is endangered, rape, and non-consensual incest.

(4) In favor of strong border security and a serious crackdown on illegal immigration.

(5) Against gay marriage and in favor of marriage-like rights only for legally married heterosexual couples.

(6) A strong proponent of the First Amendment, who loathes censorship with the exception of real child pornography (material showing actual children being sexually abused) or cases in which not censoring would directly endanger someone's life or health. 

(7) A strong proponent of the Second Amendment, who will only agree to the most basic of limits on guns like instant registration and banning convicted felons from owning them.

(8) Someone who defines religious freedom as simply meaning that the government cannot establish a state church or religion and must allow everyone to freely practice their own chosen religion, if any.

(9) In favor of replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax.

(10) In favor of free and fair trade with other countries.

(11) Against a nationalized healthcare system.

(12) Against government redistribution of wealth. 

Obviously, it's going to be difficult to find a candidate with these exact views, as some of these views are considered conservative, while others are considered liberal. However, I'll keep looking.

The First Amendment Versus the Second

Why is it so hard to find a politician who is a strong proponent of both the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution? These amendments are in no way mutually exclusive, as they address entirely different subjects. However, most politicians who make a point of letting you know how strongly they support the First Amendment rarely mention the Second Amendment, and vice versa. When they emphasize and strongly defend one, they seem to be apathetic toward to the other -- or even favor infringements on it.

Many politicians on the left are among the first to jump up and protest, along with the ACLU, when someone’s First Amendment rights have allegedly been violated. However, these same people will stand by while the Second Amendment is being eroded by laws that attempt to tell people what kinds of guns they can and can’t have, and how they are allowed to acquire and use them. Oftentimes, they will even sponsor and/or support such laws.

On the other hand, many politicians on the right will boast about their record of always defending the Second Amendment from even the slightest breach and will fight tooth and nail against any attempts to limit the people’s right to bear arms. However, these people will often cater to social moralizers by supporting laws that censor what adults can see, hear, and/or read. They also seem to have no problem with government snooping in the name of protecting us from terrorism.

We need more leaders who loathe censorship except in cases when not censoring would directly endanger someone's life or health, and, at the same time, are only willing to agree to the most basic of limits on guns, like instant registration and banning convicted felons from owning them. Unfortunately, I don't know where such people are going to be found.

Reaction to Thesis is Quite Telling

Recently-published portions of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell’s 1989 graduate thesis have created a major uproar in the mainstream media. They are particularly outraged at McDonnell’s assertion that government should favor married couples over “cohabitators, homosexuals, or fornicators.” For the life of me, I cannot fathom why this would this would be such a horrible thing. Yet we are told by the pundits that these views are “not mainstream.” One popular news magazine even referred to them as “bizarre.”

In addition, many individuals have responded in typical knee-jerk fashion, stating that they prefer to "keep the government out of my bedroom," an obvious inference that McDonnell favors forced limitations on their privacy rights. But that's nothing but a red herring. Rights are not the issue here. McDonnell wasn't talking about taking away the rights of adults to have consensual sex with whomever they choose. And he wasn't endorsing any kind of employment opportunity discrimination against gays and those who are living in sin.

All he was saying is that the government shouldn't condone the lifestyles of homosexual couples or those heterosexual couples who are "shacking up" by bestowing upon them the same privileges that were once reserved for married couples. Remember, privileges are different from rights, which are inalienable and cannot be arbitrarily given or taken away by the government. Certainly one's private life, no matter how distasteful or ungodly, does not justify government denial of his or her rights. However, the government is well within its authority to distribute privileges as determined by the people's elected representatives.

Also, keep in mind that just because people have the right to do certain things, doesn't mean they should expect to be free from condemnation for such. No one protests when we malign acts such as murder, theft, rape, child molestation, and fraud. However, criticism of personal sexual immorality is often met with a tumultuous and hysterical response. That's a sure indicator of a depraved society. And this is not just a criticism of liberals. Many so-called conservatives – who have an undying love affair with Rush Limbaugh and swear by Fox News – are as likely to consider premarital/extramarital sex “normal” as their liberal neighbor down the street.

There’s more to conservatism than attending “tea parties,” shouting down others at townhall meetings, and taking a stand for a strong national defense, smaller government, and lower taxes. When conservatives blend with the culture, they are no more moral than leftwing nut jobs like Keith Olbermann. While those of Olbermann’s ilk have sharply criticized the thesis, members of McDonnell’s own Republican Party have made little or no effort to defend the merits of the arguments he laid out 20 years ago. Instead, they have been busy trying to change the subject while pointing out the weaknesses of the Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds.

I was indifferent toward McDonnell until I heard about this. His strong moral stance gave me cause to consider enthusiastically supporting him – for a while, anyway. Predictably and unfortunately, though, McDonnell is now kowtowing to political correctness and backing down from those "controversial" remarks he penned in his thesis. In fact, he’s backpedaling faster than a circus clown. Instead of standing firm for what is right, he is apparently willing to sell his soul to get elected, thereby falling in line behind nearly every other modern politician. Too bad.

How to Predict if a President Will Be Re-Elected

When trying to guess whether a given U.S. President will be re-elected, check to see if he has previously served as vice president. If he has, the odds are against him. If he has not, then he's got a decent chance.

Presidents who have previously served as vice president don't have a very good track record of staying in office very long. In fact, Thomas Jefferson is the only U.S. President to serve two full terms after having served as vice president. Richard Nixon is the only other man to be elected to a second term after having previously served as vice president. Of course, the Watergate scandal forced him to resign before his second term was half over.

Why Don’t I Like Sarah Palin?

By all rights, I should be a big fan of former Alaska Governor (and former GOP vice presidential nominee) Sarah Palin. I agree with her conservative views on abortion, gay marriage, fiscal restraints, small government, and other important issues. However, the woman simply gives me the creeps. I’m not really sure why I don’t like her, but I do have a theory.

While part of it has to do with the fact that she has yet to demonstrate any real intellectual heft, I believe it’s mostly because she seems to lack maturity. When I look at Sarah Palin, I do not see a mature adult. I see a person who wants to blame everyone but herself for her problems. Mature adults, on the other hand, will sometimes take the blame even for things they know are not their fault. They do it because, well, it’s just the adult thing to do.

In addition, Palin appears to be a bit too comfortable in assuming the mantle of victimhood. The role of victim seems to be a part tailor-made for her to play. I thought conservatives deplored that kind of attitude. Perhaps Sarah Palin and her minions haven’t gotten the message yet.

Now that she’s resigned the governorship of Alaska, there’s little doubt among the major pundits that she’s planning to make a run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. When (not if) her campaign crashes and burns, the American public will have to endure the largest quantity of whining this side of Nancy Kerrigan.

Her loss will be blamed on everyone from back-stabbing campaign staffers to the big bad media to those mean old bloggers. And her most rabid supporters will indulge her during her pity party. However, everyone else who has not – up to that point – seen her for what she truly is finally will.

The Living Former Presidents and their Veeps

There are now four living former U.S. presidents: Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. There are also four living former U.S. vice presidents (who never became president): Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney. Oddly enough, each of the living former vice presidents severed under one of the respective living former presidents: Mondale under Carter, Quayle under the elder Bush, Gore under Clinton, and Cheney under the younger Bush. In other words, there are four complete sets of surviving former presidents/vice presidents. All other former presidents and vice presidents are dead.

Is it Time to Excommunicate Northern Virginia?

Has the time come for the rest of the Commonwealth to excommunicate Northern Virginia? Would it be a good idea for lawmakers in Richmond to just lop off everything north of Fredericksburg? Actually, divorce would probably be a better term than excommunicate, as I was intentionally taking liberties with that word in order to have a catchy title.

Anyway, such a move could have benefits for both sides. They couldn't be more different politically. Northern Virginia voters tend to be more libertarian on social issues and more liberal/progressive on economic issues, while favoring Democrats. Downstate voters, on the other hand, tend to be more conservative on social issues and more libertarian on economic issues, while favoring Republicans. They could part company amicably with each region removing itself from being a roadblock to the other's political agenda. I haven't studied the economics of such a breakup, but I'm sure there would be negative economic ramifications for one side or the other, or perhaps both, but they could likely be worked out with adjustments made over time.

A split wouldn't be without precedent. West Virginia broke away in 1860's due to irreconcilable differences over how to align during the Civil War, which led to West Virginia staying in the Union, while the remainder of Virginia joined the Confederacy. Since the end of that war, the states have lived side-by-side in peace, with the breakup having ultimately been beneficial to the citizens of both states.

A New Voting Criterion

I’ve recently decided to use a new criterion to help determine my vote in any given election. I’m getting so tired of politicians spending most (if not all) of their campaign ad time talking about what they plan to do for schools, children, education, and colleges. During a recent gubernatorial primary campaign in Virginia, that was all one of the candidates could talk about. In fact, I was originally planning to vote for him, but he talked me out of it with his TV spots. Unfortunately, he still won.

Anyway, I resent their wasting of my valuable time on issues like that, which are of little or no interest to me. Besides, elected officials are supposed to represent all of their constituents, not just children and their parents. Therefore, I plan to begin using this as one of the major criteria to determine for whom I will vote. The candidate who spends the least amount of time on these issues will have an inside track to getting my vote.

Neo-Con Terrorism Logic

When it comes to terrorism, President Barack Obama is in a no-win situation. Rest assured that the neo-cons are going to make sure of this. That’s part of their overall strategy for the next four to eight years.

Here’s the way it’s going to work: If at the end of Obama’s term(s) in office, the U.S. has been hit by one or more additional acts of terrorism, neo-cons are prepared to lay all of the blame at his feet. If, on the other hand, the U.S. has remained free of terrorism during Obama’s watch, those same neo-cons will credit none other than George W. Bush. He won’t just get some of the credit – he’ll get all of it.

How do I know this? Well, one need not be a mind reader to figure this one out. For one thing, people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have already signaled that this is part of their game plan. However, the easiest way to predict what they will do is to look at what they’ve done in the past.

They blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11 even though the terrorist attacks of that infamous day happened nearly eight months into Bush’s presidency. Had there been another one during Bush’s terms, guess who would have been have been the fall guy for it. Pat yourself on the back if you said it would have again been one William Jefferson Clinton. And it wouldn’t have mattered how deep it was into the Bush presidency.

As it was, of course, there were no subsequent terrorism attacks on U.S. soil. As a result, neo-cons and their ilk are falling all over themselves in praise of the former president. I have no problem with their giving credit where credit is due, and I think Bush is deserving of much of it. However, I do have a problem with fanatical partisanship and that results in absurd hypocrisy.