NARAL Ads

The recent fuss over the NARAL ads condemning John Roberts is reprehensible at best. Factcheck puts forth a good analysis on this issue. Normally, I'm a pro-choice republican--and I even, on a certain level, support NARAL's causes. However, this false misrepresentation of Judge Roberts is hideous and malicious. NARAL appears to have no shame in shooting down any pro-life judge--claiming that this is the mainstream of American thought. Frankly, it isn't, but that's a different issue altogether which I won't address here.

To imply Roberts is supporting murderers and bombers is a GROSS misrepresentation of the case. He merely argued, for his employer (the US Government), that the case is not covered under the 19th century civil rights legislation. That makes him a murderer? NARAL has every right to put forth advertisements that condemn his pro-life stance, the possibility that may overturn Roe, but this ad campaign is singularly the most heinous case of malicious mudslinging in recent memory. Frankly, I'm ashamed to even support any of NARAL's causes.

End of the Filibuster??

First off, I apologize for not blogging for a while--my graduate thesis has kept me far too busy.

The recent "compromise" offered by Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) to ensure all judicial nominees getting an "up-or-down" vote is hardly a compromise. There are a couple of issues at stake here that are key:

1) Every judge deserves an up-or-down vote:

Yes, this is indeed true. Every nominee deserves a vote--the fundamental problem with that is that the Republicans have enough of a majority in the Senate to confirm every Bush judicial nominee. The issue at stake here is, that the Senate democrats have no way of stoperping a nominee they do not approve of. While much of the public agrees that every nominee should have a confirmation vote, I feel as if much of the public does not understand that every Bush nominee who gets a vote will probably be confirmed due to the Republican/Conservative majority of the Senate.

2) The filibuster is being misused:

Is this really true? The filibuster, ideally, is a mechanism used to protect the minority party from the potentially dangerous (in some cases) majority party agenda. Without the filibuster, why even have a minority party? It is critical to ensure, at the very least, a two-party democracy (which leads to a larger problem, which I will not address here). If the filibuster were to be disallowed, what would prevent the majority party to ramrod across an agenda that is not in the best interest of the people, but rather for the best interests of its party. I am NOT implying that the Republicans do not have the people in mind, but simply stating that, without a filibuster, a future majority party could become a tyrannical party. Simply the fear of the filibuster ensures compromise between the parties, and [hopefully] national progress.

3) Should nominees be stopped for being "too conservative?"

This is inherently an extremely complex question. I feel that the most pertinent question should not be whether a nominee is too conservative or too liberal, but whether the discussion of the purpose of the confirmation process. The confirmation process should not be one of ideological agendas--but rather one of the examination of the nominee's ethics, honesty, character, and ability. By ethics, I simply mean, does the nominee uphold the constitution, or does he/she disregard it in his/her prior judicial decisions. The other three are fairly self-explanatory. I have no doubt that at times my definition of "ethics" and ideology may come into clash (such as a Roe v. Wade debate), but generally speaking conservative vs. liberal is not a constitutional debate. Most of us agree that neither the conservative or liberal agenda is unconstitutional--we disagree on which is better. Judges who uphold the consitution, who are honest, able, and have strong character, should be confirmed no matter how liberal or conservative. All the judicial nominees presented to the Senate have excellent records, no matter how conservative, thus should be confirmed. The president has the constitutional right to appoint judges, it is the Senate's responsibility not to scrutinize the political orientation of candidates, but to candidly examine a nominee's character, and ought to disregard, as best they can, ideology. If the Democrats want liberal judges, then they should nominate a better presidential candidate and win the White House.

Finally, is Senator Frist's "compromise" plan a real compromise? Simply stated, no. It is not. 100 hours of discussion merely postpones the inevitability of confirmation, while the purpose of the filibuster is to STOP the confirmation process.

Thus, there are two main points--judges who are nominated who prove to be ethical and able should be confirmed. However, the filibuster must remain legal, albeit as a final and last resort, to protect our democracy. In short, a "good" compromise solution would be, instead of having a requirement that judges are confirmed with only a 51-49 majority, perhaps they should require a 60-40 or a 66-34 majority. This would ensure that the nominees are more carefully presented to the Senate, and would allow each nominee to receive an "up-or-down" vote.

To Starve or not to Starve?

The whole fuss over the Terri Schiavo case seem quite confounding for me. However, one thing for certain, to be Judge Whittemore right now is not a place I want to be in. Judge Whittemore must be the one to decide whether:

1) Terri Schiavo really stated that she would want to die in such a state,
2) She really is in a permanently, irreversible vegetative state, and
3) Removing the feeding tube is not akin to murder.

Ultimately, the judge will be the one responsible for the fate of Terri Schiavo--whether it's "murder" or a "mercy killing."

Thus, is removing Terri Schiavo's tube akin to murder? Murder is defined as:

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.

There appears to be no real leeway in this definition, however, the question is "malice" in play here. I don't feel that Mr. Schiavo wants to remove the tube out of malice, rather out of mercy. However, Mr. Schiavo's current behavior and constant persistency appears to be out of pride, not out of mercy.

The murder question set aside, is Terri Schiavo really beyond help? First, if so, she should have been placed in therapy. Her therapy ended in the early 90s, and she has spent the last ten years with simply a feeding tube. Doctors disagree as to whether Ms. Schiavo is really indeed permanently and irreversibly in a vegetative state. The videos shown appears that Terri is responding, but is it merely random? Is she really smiling and gesturing, or are these random blips in an otherwise dormant mind.

Judge Whittemore thus has an incredibly difficult decision--and in these cases the ruling should err on the side of life. If Ms. Schiavo is indeed ultimately irreversibly vegetative, then so be it--but what if she can be helped with intense therapy? What if, 10, 20, maybe even 30 years down the road, science produces a way for a mind to be revived from such states? Science has found ways to transplant hearts, livers, lungs, kidneys. Science has sent us to space, given us the power of destruction and creation, science has created life--why can science not one day revive dead brain cells? Moreover, beyond science, miracles from God have and still continue to happen each day.

Judge Whittemore will one day face the question from the almighty--and he is the one who will have to answer for his prospective ruling. Is it mercy or is it murder? Congress finally gets something right--let's err on the side of life, and let life run its course.

Georgia Man Saved

With the recent event of the Georgia courthouse shooting taking a woman hostage, there has been an interesting turn of events--at least in a spiritual sense. While the man will still be charged with four counts of murder and probably spend the rest of his natural life in a prison cell, his eternal salvation is secure. Ashley Smith, the woman hostage who was released a few days ago, tells the story of how she read The Purpose Driven Life. Her reading of Rick Warren's book apparently led the gunman to turn his life over to Christ and also release the woman.

What annoys me is some of the cynicism exhibited by the authorities (I quote from the USA Today article):

Her actions with Nichols brought praise from Randy Spivey, director of the National Hostage Survival Training Center in Spokane, Wash., a company that trains personnel for the National Guard, State Department and Department of Homeland Security.

"She did all the right things," he said.

Smith defused the stress inside her apartment by telling Nichols there was "no reason you should die," Spivey said. She humanized herself by reading to him and making him breakfast, and she kept looking for a way out. "She hit all three keys to successful hostage survival," he said.

First of all, she may have indeed done all the right things--but she had the "ultimate" right thing--Jesus Christ. Randy Spivey appears to assume that Nichols was always planning on killing Ms. Smith, even after she was released. Moreover, it appears that somehow Ms. Smith "talked" her way out of the situation. Why does Mr. Spivey simply just admit that, perhaps there was a supernatural force at work? Why does Mr. Spivey not simply admit that, perhaps God can change hearts in an instant? Did Ms. Smith hit all three keys to a successful hostage survival? Perhaps, at least in the earthly sense. I find that she hit the most important, singular key to surviving this hostage situation (and any other situation in life, frankly), is that she allowed Jesus to enter the situation and change hearts.

Granted, not in every hostage situation will Jesus bring people out and alive, unharmed like Ms. Smith. Why did the gunman accept Jesus? Ms. Smith did one thing right in this situation--she did her duty as a follower of Christ--to share the good news. God only knows why He granted mercy to Ms. Smith--perhaps He had bigger plans for Ms. Smith before He brought her home. I suspect, perhaps, that this testimony will be told in many papers (and it already has), and perhaps people will hear the good news and the power that God has to change hearts. Jesus can, and does change lives--if we let Him. This gunman, wrought with sin (like all of us), allowed God to change His heart, and the testimony of Jesus will go further today than compared to yesterday.

God bless all of you.

China Threatens Taiwan, Again?

A recent article in the Washington Post reports the story of more recent sabre-rattling by the Chinese government. According to the story:

China enacted a law Monday authorizing the use of force against Taiwan if it moves toward formal independence, codifying its long-standing threat to attack the island. The move could provoke a popular backlash in Taiwan and quickly unravel recent progress in cross-strait relations.

The National People's Congress, the ruling Communist Party's rubber-stamp parliament, approved the anti-secession law by a vote of 2,896 to 0, with two abstentions, on the last day of its annual session. The action defied U.S. appeals for restraint and strong protests by Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian as well as some of his political rivals.

I agree with Joe Gandelman in his statement that it will most likely simply heighten tensions without really instilling a fear in President Chen's government, nor will it instill a fear in Taiwan's people. Tough Taiwanese politicians who "dare" to stand up to Chinese saber rattling also do well in politics--Lee Teng Hui received an 80% support rating for his theory on the two states, and Chen Shui Bian received similar support for his one country on each side of the straight theory. While the Taiwanese seem to not have a high thirst for independence, seeing Taiwanese culture as something while slightly different than Chinese culture, not distinct enough to warrant independence, continuous sabre-rattling will result in the consolidation of independence movements in Taiwan.

Peaceful reunification, at this point does not seem possible, unless China becomes a thoroughly democratic society. Taiwan is one of the bustling liberal democracies in Asia, along with South Korea and Japan. Taiwan has a growing middle class, growing incomes, and a incredibly high standard of living--especially when compared to China. Taiwan has one of the largest foreign currency reserves in the world, thus buffering it from massive hits from worldwide economic downturns. Thus, the reasons for a reunification, at least from the Taiwanese perspective seem small. The other extreme would be a forced reunification via a military invasion of Taiwan. It appears to me that a military invasion of Taiwan would be difficult. First, there's the small problem of the Taiwan straits that must be crossed for a direct invasion of Taiwan. The transport ships would be sitting ducks for Taiwanese aircraft and defense missiles. Secondly, the Taiwanese military, what it makes up for in numbers is in its arsenal. Flying US and French fighter jets, and heavily armed with modern weapons from US and other European missiles and ordinances, the People's Liberation Army could find it difficult, if not impossible to invade Taiwan. Third, and most importantly, it would appear that an invasion of Taiwan would be counter-productive to China's goals of reunification. An invasion could destroy the infrastructure already in place, and could destroy the thriving Taiwanese economy, thus providing a burden upon the already strapped Chinese economy. An invasion of Taiwan would also provoke world furor against China, and would provoke a Sino-American conflict that would result in few victors and many deaths.

What should happen is the status quo. Leave well enough alone. Taiwan is doing fine right now, as is China. Reunify only when the conditions are prime--i.e. when China becomes a liberal democracy. Then, and only then, would a reunification be fair and just for the Taiwanese. Saber-rattling will not frighten the Taiwanese to reunification--rather it will drive the Taiwanese to the pro-independence camps.

The Tax Problem

A Centrist blog yesterday addressed the recent discussion about the possible switch from a national income tax to a national sales tax. This is quite interesting for a couple of reasons. Gilbert E. Metcalf of CATO provides a detailed and seemingly accurate breakdown of how the tax burdens would change for Americans if we went to a national sales tax.

All in all, a national sales tax is an unwise and dangerous idea. There are a myriad of reasons why it's simply unfair. Most importantly, it benefits the wealthiest in several ways--besides the inherent regressive nature of sales taxes. Even despite the contention that a "rebate-system" would remove the inherent regressive nature of the sales tax, the CATO study/report refutes such claims. A household in the lowest 10% of American incomes would see their tax burdens INCREASE--by over 60% of what they are paying now. The richest 10% would see their tax burdens decrease by 7% (which works out to be approximately an average a $15,000/year). Even including the rebate system, the problem does not go away. The rebate system may mitigate some of the natural regressive characteristics of the national sales tax, it still taxes the poor at a higher rate than the wealthiest. For the poor, that makes a large difference.

Besides the inherent regressivity of the sales tax, there are even more benefits for the wealty. They have the resources to purchase goods and services from across borders, in Mexico, Europe, or Canada. A promoter of the sales tax disagrees with that statement, but I'm unsure as to how goods and services would not be less expensive in foreign countries. Moreover, the idea that a national sales tax would make American good more productive by lowering corporate taxes is also misleading. That assumes many US corporations PAY a high level taxes-- as Ralph Nader would say, corporations already get a series of tax breaks. Furthermore, corporate taxes are not even that significant, making up around 2% of our national GDP. Many of these same companies in which we are buying goods from are also not producing goods in the US, nor based in the US (i.e. such as many of the electronics companies), thus losing the no corporate-tax benefit for Americans.

Another dangerous byproduct of a national sales tax is the idea of charitable giving--especially by companies and other corporations. Many companies give to great causes because it provides a great tax write-off. Many of the smaller companies who donate to corporations do not get the same publicity that a larger corporation may get for a large donation, thus one of the tangible benefits to a corporate donation to a charity is the tax break. Without this tax break, it becomes somewhat unwise to donate, and donations simply become an extra source of expenditures without any new benefit. Granted, that seems like a dark way to view things, and there are probably a few companies who would donate regardless, but I suspect that a majority of companies would simply stop the giving.

In other words, a national sales tax, while simplifying the US tax code significantly, would spell disaster for the working classes of America. The solution is not a simple national sales tax or a simply flat tax (which really is not a flat tax at all--rather it's flat tax for the wealthiest). Charities could lose a large source of their revenues, thus hurting the poor even more. All in all, this is simply a bad idea. The solution is to SIMPLIFY the current US tax code. Make a simple progressive chart, with basic deductions and writeoffs (such as for education, children, and charity), and rid ourselves of tax shelters and loopholes. However, with the constant partisan bickering we have in Congress, that seems but merely a pipe dream.

What Happened to the Left?

GW Bush has recently embarked upon a save social security tour. This has led to a fair number of political debates with some friends about this new "conservatism." Frankly, this new conservatism, or "compassionate conservatism" as George W. Bush likes to put it is simply conservatism moving to the center. With the Bush Tax Cut a notable exception, many of Bush's economic policies appear to be the furthering of the Clinton presidency. In other words--the right is moving to the center. What this has done is push the Democratic party further and further to the extreme left. What is interesting is that when Clinton moved to the center, the Republicans also moved to the center. What this did was focus future elections on social issues and, to a large extent, personalities of those running. The republicans retook control of the house and senate not be moving to the right--but rather also moving to the center, leaving no real left-right choice for voters, rather a cult of personalities or stances on social issues swaying the electorate.

The Democratic party has reacted to the Bush moving to the center with massive shift to the left--seemingly just to "oppose" the republicans rather than an attempt to appeal to the American electorate. The recent election of Howard Dean as the DNC Chair is another move to that direction. Dean made his national name as the extreme left of the Democrats (however, interestingly enough, his record as the Vermont governor has been incredibly centrist). This has broken the Democratic party, as most of America is simply not that far left, at least economically. The Republican party today is calling the shots--whenever they take a stance, the Democrats seem to take a fundamentally opposing stance--often without providing an alternative solution (as in the case of the reformation of Social Security.)

What the Howard Dean, the DNC, and the Democrats need to do is appeal to the common person. Do not paint left and right anymore--because the Democrats will now be painted as the extreme liberal left. Democratic ideals of improving education, improving the life of the blue-collar worker, looking out for the poor, etc. is not fundamentally opposed to "middle-America." Frankly, I think middle-America would be enthralled with those ideals. What has happened is that the Democrats have lost touch with states such as Kansas, Nebraska, Mississippi, etc. Appeal to the common person, and not get caught up in left-right wars. That is a war that the left cannot win at this moment--rather, caught up in a war of issues.

The main problem with the Democratic party's trouble with middle-America, however, is a social issue. The south and the Great Plains states--i.e. the Red belt--is overwhelmingly Christian, and as such have a Christian moralist world view. They are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and pro-guns. The Democrats need to open their doors to pro-life and pro-gun Democrats (like myself), and those who are pro-choice who run need to reframe the abortion debate. Currently the pro-choicers are painted as baby-killers in the Red Belt, and democrats need to paint themselves not as pro-abortion, but pro-choice. That is indeed an uphill battle, but not impossible. As recently as two governors ago, Texas had a Democratic governor, and the last two truly southern presidents have been democrat (Clinton and Carter). So, it's not undoable--the Democratic party simply needs to return to the south and not continue their move to the extreme left and leave people behind.

The War Against America

A recent article was published in the print media about the reaction towards the US accidental shooting of the Italian agents who rescued the journalist. I won't restate her words, but in short, she wasn't buying the American story of the shooting being accidental.

First, and most importantly, her statement that "war is war" and that human life is not worth anything to American soldiers is absolutely ludicrous. Our war history could be argued as the most humane of any nation in the world. In World War II, German soldiers surrendered to US soldiers because our POW's were treated better than they were in their own camps. We are a nation that doesn't leave fallen soldiers behind. We are a nation in which our soldiers adopt children orphaned due to the war. Not valuing human life? Again, we are a nation that brought about a fairly peaceful end to the Cold War. We were a nation that developed smart bombs so that we would minimize damage to innocent civilians.

Second, recent polls show that many Europeans do not support the US "exporting" of democracy. I suspect that most of these Europeans surveyed that oppose US efforts are of the younger generation, i.e. the generation that does not remember World War 2, the subsequent rebuilding of Europe, and the Cold War. It is a generation that forgot about Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. It is a generation that has forgotten that US "exporting" of democracy has allowed them the be democratic. With the exception of Great Britain, the US may have played the pivotal role in their nations being democratic and free societies. Imagine, ahd the United States not become involved in World War II, Germany may still be living under Nazism (granted, that is highly unlikely, but it may only have come out Nazism in the last twenty years or so, and be similar to Russia with a shattered infrastructure and economy), France may be only recovering from a despotic state. Or worse yet, they may be in the same economic plight that have haunted the former Eastern Soviet bloc, as without US involvement in World War II, who is to say the Soviets would not have taken over all of Europe. History shows that they had great momentum heading into Germany, and without a Western Front confronting Russia, they may have been the lone Allied power to liberate France and Italy.

Finally, much of Europe seems to think America is an inhumane place. Really, who are they kidding? Imagine Germany without a Marshall Plan? Imagine if we had not airlifted supplies to Berlin. Imagine France, Germany, and Italy without American dollars pouring into those nations to help in the rebuilding process.

Frankly, it is not a surprise that many of our strongest European allies are many of the Eastern European nations. They are the nations that have the most recent exposure to the United States exporting democracy. They may not have the most soldiers or the most well-equipped military, but they are some of our strongest public supporters. It disappoints me that most of Western Europe is so anti-American. Next time, maybe we should just let them burn each other down.