The Conservative Edge

There I was a couple of days ago, sitting in front of the computer, reading some columns featured on the Dayton Daily News website. I try to respond to one or two columns a week, just so I can feel good about contributing to a liberal newspaper from a conservative perspective. I noticed an article written by Thomas Friedman, a well-known columnist who writes for the New York Times. He states that America is losing ground in technological development and innovation. Part of this decline is due to the high cost of doing business in the U.S. Businesses here face extremely high corporate tax rates, and the federal government is reluctant to use subsidies or other financial incentives to keep corporations planted in American soil.

So, I felt the need to respond to Friedman’s column. I wrote that Friedman is actually correct in theory. There is no good reason that American companies should not prosper by operating here in the States. Furthermore, as companies grow, they usually provide cheaper goods and services, and employ larger numbers of people. This employment includes not just production workers, but research and development teams as well.

However, the Obama administration, and all Democratic leadership, consider corporate profits to be evil. Carter wanted to tax the oil companies, Clinton harassed Bill Gates and Microsoft, and now Obama has taken swings at the car companies, Wall Street, and the big banks. It seems impossible that Obama and his cohorts in the House and Senate could even think of reducing unemployment without stimulating business growth. They think they can increase taxes, pile on stricter financial and environmental regulations, and yet somehow realize positive growth of America’s GDP. I closed my remarks on the Dayton Daily News website with the statement “capitalism needs capital.”

Honestly, at the time I posted my comments, I had no idea that Jack Kemp had made that exact statement years ago. I didn’t read of his observation until today (March 6). He was right. Capitalism is the only economic engine that has allowed the rise of America’s middle class, and given so many individuals the chance to obtain real wealth. Capitalism also fueled the fantastic technological advances of the late 1800s and early 1900s. The capitalist system allowed the development of steam engines and railroads, and later the telegraph, electricity, motion pictures, radio and television, not to mention the automobile and the production line. None of these things would have progressed the same way under another economic system.

But we have a President, and a liberal Congress, that views capitalism as an evil institution. No wonder we are losing technological ground to China and Korea. No wonder that real unemployment hovers at 16 percent. No wonder that this country isn’t producing enough scientists and engineers. The only people prospering now are government administrators. Jack Kemp was right. Capitalism needs capital; and America needs capitalism.

Jonah Goldberg wrote a column that was recently featured in my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News. Goldberg wrote about the statement made by Obama that he is not an “ideologue.” Goldberg countered that Obama is indeed an adherent to an ideology. Most politicians are, I suppose, but the liberals seem to be more radically aligned with an idea or set of ideals.

One of the editors from the Dayton Daily News claimed that Obama wasn’t an ideologue, but more of a pragmatist. That doesn’t explain why Obama took an entire year to realize he’d better do something about the economy. Anyway, I decided to respond to the editor on the newspaper’s website. I thought the response might make a good blog post, as follows:

“The liberals’ actions clearly reveal a consistent adherence to an ideology. Generally speaking, the principle components of liberal ideology are that corporate profits and individual wealth are both evil; wealth, in fact, must be redistributed; growth of government is necessary and good; and the rights of the individual are subordinate to the greater society. These ideas have caused every president since Jimmy Carter to punish the very businesses that provide goods and services. Carter had his obsession with “windfall profit taxes” against oil companies; and one of the first acts of the Obama administration was to levy outrageous taxes on tobacco, another industry hated by liberals.

“The liberals seek to create a dependency on government. That is why they want to reduce our wealth by way of taxes and redistribution; eliminate our right to self-defense; and restrict our right to pursue happiness, especially if that happiness comes from enjoying a cigar (just ask Michael Jordan), driving a fast car, or building a profitable business. Jimmy Carter tried to accuse the American people of harboring a “malaise.” He never stopped to think, as liberals seldom do, that the liberal ideology created,and still creates, a despair among free Americans.”

You can view the editorial opinion page of the Dayton Daily News here. Feel free to tell the editors what you think about the liberal ideology.

Sometimes you have to give credit when credit is due. I must commend Jonah Goldberg, a syndicated columnist, for his recent commentary published in the September 6 edition of the Dayton Daily News. His column focused on the media’s tendency to “give Obama as many do-overs as he needs.” Goldberg’s remark was made in light of the fact that Obama’s upcoming speech will be his third prime-time address in three months, and the fifth of his 7-month presidency.

Obama keeps making speeches, but he doesn’t put any meat with the potatoes, so to speak. He obviously enjoys getting TV exposure, and he makes sure the teleprompters are in place for every televised event, so his words will sound sophisticated and smooth. But when it comes to specific reforms, especially about health care, he doesn’t give many details. And when it seems that Congress isn’t acting fast enough on certain issues, the White House claims that Obama will assert himself to speed up the legislative process, and come up with solutions to America’s problems.

The trouble is, the only speedy actions taken by the dominant liberals in Congress have been to either raise taxes or expand government control of certain hated industries. As I’ve said before, the liberals have always despised cars, banks, and tobacco; as a result, the only decisive actions made by the liberals in Congress and the White House have been to raise tobacco taxes, seize banks and insurance companies, and cripple America’s car industry.

Meanwhile, unemployment keeps rising, beyond levels projected by Obama and his advisors. We keep hearing from the Obama administration that they didn’t realize the severity of the recession. But, Obama and other Democrats campaigned on their thorough knowledge of the economy, and what should be done to promote recovery. They can’t lean on the “we didn’t know” crutch forever, especially as millions of Americans are still waiting for the promise of job creation to be fulfilled. Indeed, the Associated Press reported on Joe Biden’s recent efforts to claim victory for the stimulus package: “Biden, Obama’s chief stimulus cheerleader, proudly pointed to more than 2,200 highway projects Thursday funded by the program, but didn’t mention the growing frustration among contractors that infrastructure money is only trickling out and thus far hasn’t delivered the needed boost in jobs.”

Americans may be growing impatient with all the talk, and Obama’s appetite for airtime. Goldberg observed in his excellent column, “Funny how the people who run the most sophisticated communication operation in the history of the presidency keep concluding that their difficulties stem from their inability to get their message out and never from what their message actually is.” I wonder if Americans might be more receptive to health care reform if they first believed that the Obama administration was serious about creating jobs. That was the message of the 2008 campaign, but it’s now a message that can’t be heard above Obama’s prime time noise.

Some time ago, I made some observations about the weather here in Ohio. We have had a very mild, temperate summer, with sufficient rain to keep the crops growing and the lawns green. I’ve been especially amazed at the corn crops in the southwestern part of the state. All of the farms I’ve seen looked very healthy, with lots of soybeans, and corn that reached 6 and 7 feet in height. I can’t remember when crops have looked this good.

Then, in the September 3 edition of the Dayton Daily News, I read a report from the Ohio State University Extension officials. The report stated that Ohio’s corn yield is projected to be 165 bushels per acre, which would break the record of 159 bushels per acre in 2006. The corn has benefited from unusually cool summer nights, in addition to milder daytime temperatures and ample rainfall. Furthermore, Ohio’s soybean and winter wheat crops are expected to tie previous yield records. So it looks like this state will again be able to compensate for lower yields that may occur in other parts of the country.

Don’t underestimate your powers of observation. With all of the impending doom predicted by the false prophets of global warming, one might think that we’re headed for imminent starvation and catastrophe. But a drive in the country might prove them wrong, at least for now.

It does sound like a good deal. The “Cash for Clunkers” program will help put you behind the wheel of that new car the government wants you to own. Old vehicles get taken off the roads, and are replaced by new fuel-efficient cars, and the consumer gets a good deal to boot. So what could be wrong with the program?

There are actually a few negative side effects. Firstly, there are restrictions on the purchase of the new vehicle; namely, the new vehicle cannot be resold for the first two years of ownership. This makes sense, in a way, but it does prevent the buyer of a new car from potentially making a profit by selling the vehicle. For instance, say a person takes advantage of the CARS trade-in program in addition to factory rebates and dealer incentives. But, six months into ownership, say the buyer either doesn’t like the car after all, or needs to sell it due to financial considerations. He or she could get his or her money back, and then some. That transaction, however, would be disallowed by the CARS program restrictions.

Secondly, the used car and used parts industries are being dramatically affected. This is because any vehicle (the “clunker”) traded in must be scrapped, and cannot be re-sold. Salvage yards are not even allowed to sell the engines and drivetrains; they must be destroyed. According to the Dayton Daily News, one local salvage yard refused to take part in the CARS program because of all the rules and restrictions. Another local salvage yard is approved to accept the clunkers, but has declined. Apparently, a government safety bulletin has been issued, stating that disabling the motors yields a toxic substance when the components are melted together, possibly causing skin irritations and other hazards to workers in unventilated areas. These are serious safety concerns for salvage yard owners.

Thirdly, there are higher costs projected for used auto and truck parts. One local proprietor predicts that consumers will see an increase in the prices of used parts for SUVs and trucks, simply because there will be fewer parts available. Another salvage yard owner stated that in the future, if someone needs a transmission, they will be paying quite a bit more for it. This will affect the people who cannot afford a new vehicle, even if they could be eligible for the clunkers deal. With so many Americans still out of work, the last thing they need is higher vehicle repair costs.

Finally, many of the cars being traded in are still driveable. A local car dealer observed that, out of 25 “clunkers” taken in, 15 or 16 of them could have been retailed, or given to someone in need of a nice car. Furthermore, some dealers aren’t getting paid for the “clunkers.” One dealer has 96 cars ready to be taken off his lot, but hasn’t been paid by the government. He has close to half a million dollars’ worth of vehicles ready to send to the scrap yards.

Even though the “Cash for Clunkers” program seems to be a great deal for the consumer, there is still an underlying goal for the liberals in the federal government. Their goal is to dramatically reduce the numbers of cars on the road, and in the process, reduce our dependence on automobiles as personal transportational devices. This CARS program is only the first step. Don’t be surprised if, under the authority of the EPA, the government mandates emission tests for all used vehicles; if the vehicle can’t pass the new emission tests, it will be taken out of service. That won’t be a good deal for anyone.

A few days ago, a column written by Nicholas Kristof appeared in my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News. Mr. Kristof’s piece stated that Americans are unable to process the oncoming threat of global warming. He asserts that we have a cavalier attitude that prevents us from perceiving future dangers, even though we are alerted at more immediate ones.

I felt compelled to write a letter to the paper, pointing out that global warming is not presented in a factual, common-sense manner. Most global warming supporters use emotionally-based arguments and presentations to make their points.

If you’d like to see the letter, and accompanying responses, follow this link to the Dayton Daily News website. Feel free to post a response either here at this blog, or at the paper’s opinion page. You might be surprised at how many people are refusing to accept the dubious global warming theory.

I’ve been giving some attention to the reaction of the local media to last week’s Tea Party here in Dayton, Ohio. Our newspaper, the Dayton Daily News, generally downplayed the event. There seemed to be too many ordinary people who were present, too many blue-collar conservative types. Oh, and let’s not forget–they were mostly white folks.

As I read various articles and blogs, I noticed that of the people who carried signs at the event, there seemed to be no predominant message, other than venting at big government in general. There were lots of people who gathered because of one big issue that troubled each of them. Some people, for instance, were irate about high taxes. Others were concerned about government spending. Still others questioned the bank bailouts. You get the idea.

But I wonder how many people can put all of those little pieces together in order to craft the big picture of what this present administration is really trying to do? And how many folks can look back just a few years ago, to see when and how all of these power grabs got started? The speed of legislative action and the enactment of liberal ideology since January of 2009 has been breathtaking. The dominos are falling rapidly. The closure of Guantanamo Bay; the blitz of tobacco taxes; the reshaping of the auto industry; and now the judgement of the EPA concerning greenhouse gases, are all indications that there is serious social re-engineering going on.

I wish that conservatives could put everything together. The religious right, for example, should get off the abortion soapbox. They think that if a potential congressional or presidential candidate doesn’t say exactly what they want to hear on the abortion issue, they can’t support him. When they withdraw their votes, the liberal fanatics get to fill the vacuum. If the abortion foes would just see the bigger picture, they could help expose the liberal hypocrisy. Namely, the liberals want to give women the right to do as they please with their own bodies (by having abortions), but those same liberals want to take away everyone else’s right to do as they please with their bodies by enjoying tobacco. And these liberals have tried to validate their seizure of the right to use tobacco by citing suspicious and questionable “research” done on the dangers of tobacco use, going all the way back to the 1970s.

They have also been hammering on the oil companies since the late ’70s. Remember Jimmy Carter’s efforts to hammer oil companies with a “windfall profit” tax? And didn’t the liberals raise the same idea last year? Instead of allowing more responsible use of American resources, they restricted further the exploration and production of American oil and gas. What would happen if the oil companies stopped pumping because of the crushing profit taxes? Fuel costs would likely spike even higher.

We all need to see that the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time. They now have the opportunity to implement the many items on their agenda. We need to understand the many issues that are jeopardizing our freedoms. To the world, our President is appearing to be thoughtful, cooperative, and non-threatening. At home, he and his Democratic cohorts are squeezing the last bits of freedom from American society. Can you see the big picture?

Some of you may recall my post about a particular column written by Kathleen Parker. I was moved to write her in response to her piece, as she insinuated that we, as readers, should suddenly be as nice to Barack Obama as we were hateful to George Bush. I merely wanted to remind her that many people learn to be hateful or judgemental from the ideas presented by columnists and writers such as herself.

It appears that another column written by Kathleen Parker is due a response as well. The April 10 edition of the Dayton Daily News featured her commentary, in which she asserts that Obama’s method of world leadership utilizes his ability to listen to others, and shows his humility. There is nothing wrong with being able to listen or being humble. The trouble is, Parker thinks that testosterone is what makes a man arrogant and aggressive, and the lack of testosterone is what makes a man a good listener. This is a great misrepresentation, and a hasty generalization.

Parker completely overlooks the principle of personality types. She is blindly accepting the recent notion that testosterone-powered male leadership is the cause of America’s problems. As I noted before, columnist William Kristof maintains that since Wall Street is dominated by male traders, it was testosterone that drove men to make poor trades, resulting in the market’s nose dive. Parker is making a similar point. She says that, “If George W. Bush was a cowboy, Obama is a group hug.” She also claims, “Unfortunately, most of world history seems to have pivoted on the balance or imbalance of hormones, with testosterone presenting the greatest challenge.”

Nonsense. If that were true, Parker would effectively be ruling out the opportunity for female leadership, since women suffer more hormonal and mood swings than men ever do. It is a gross oversimplification to think that a man’s social skills and decision-making process is controlled solely by his testosterone levels.

What makes an individual a listener or a talker? Why do some people recharge their batteries in solitude, while others get energized in social gatherings? It’s simple. The personality type—or psychological profile, if you will—determines most of a person’s typical behavior. It has been discovered that there are several personality types. We have, for example, the thinking introvert who uses his senses to make logical and reasonable decisions. There are also extroverted people who have keen intuitions, and enjoy the whole conversational and social processes. Furthermore, we all have minor, opposite sides that complement our preferred behaviors. The introvert actually has a warm, social part of his personality that must be exercised from time to time. Conversely, the extrovert must recognize that he must pay attention to his quiet self, and nourish the inner man away from the noisy crowds.

I would encourage anyone to find out more about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. You will be able to find out your personality type by taking a simple test. The test is simply a set of questions that ask you about your preferred way to handle certain situations, and how you choose to make judgements and decisions. For example, I found that my Type Indicator is expressed as “ISTJ.” This means that I am an introverted person (the “I”) who uses fact and more linear thought (the “S and “T”) to arrive at a clear judgement (the “J”). I’m proud to say that I have the same profile as Abraham Lincoln and Albert Einstein. No kidding.

So, I think Kathleen Parker has it all wrong. If Obama is a good listener, maybe he has introversion as his dominant process. If he is instead an extrovert, then maybe he chose to exercise his complementary side while he was in Europe, using his minor ability to be humble and listen to others. I just hope he can keep his humility with those he actually governs here at home.

I just read the results of a study about the behavior of automobile drivers and how they are affected by distractions. It might not be a surprise to find that the number-one distraction for drivers these days is the use of the cell phone. The study also found that the number of crashes and near-crashes resulting from dialing a phone was nearly equal with mishaps associated with talking or listening on the phone.

Some local reactions to the study’s results revealed some bizarre experiences. One fellow told the Dayton Daily News that he saw a woman slam on her brakes and come to a complete stop on Interstate 75, in the middle lane. The man swerved left to avoid the car. As he went by, he could see the young woman screaming into her phone. She had stopped in the middle of the highway just to argue with someone over the phone! Another man recalled seeing a woman on Interstate 675 who was smoking a cigarette, talking on her cell phone, and taking her hand off the wheel to get a drink of Coke.

I remember when I used to get in my car and take a relaxing drive to get AWAY from phones and other annoyances. But today, people seem to drive just to have their chat time on the cell phone. Moreover, it seems that the phone is controlling the person, rather than the person controlling the phone. I am amazed at how many times I see some poor soul being seated at a restaurant, holding his phone tightly to his ear, oblivious to his host. I’ve also seen some young person enter a coffee shop while talking on the phone, order her drink, and then leave the store, all without breaking her phone conversation. I used to watch certain workers at the factory, holding their phones in front of them, intently checking photos and messages while they weaved around equipment and machinery on their way to the break room or bathroom.

I admit I’m somewhat perplexed at the TV commercial that shows a family on vacation, and visiting a museum. They are all busy snapping photos with their phones. The narrator says something to the effect that they can immediately upload their pictures and videos to YouTube (or some other host) and be able to view them when they get home. The commercial seems to imply that looking at those shots after you get home is a better experience than seeing the exhibits in person. Is that what we’ve come to? We become so preoccupied with operating the device that we fail to take in the sights and sounds of the museum? No wonder we’re developing such short attention spans.

I know we’ll never abandon our cell phones, unfortunately. If the theory of evolution is real, then I imagine humans growing a small third arm from their chests, just to hold a phone. Or maybe thumbs will become the only working digits on our hands. But there are some proposals I’d like to make. First, we should have a national “No Cell Phone Day.” This day could be used to encourage people to have real-time conversations with friends and family. Second, I propose that we establish “cell phone” and “non-cell phone” areas in restaurants. That way, those of us who hate those stupid ringtones and loud talkers can eat in some semblance of peace. That’s not too much to ask, is it?

In early 1993, I wrote a letter to my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News, about Bill Clinton’s first 100 days in office. If you remember, Clinton had campaigned mostly on economic issues. The Democratic mantra of the time was “It’s the economy, stupid.” America was experiencing a mild recession at the time, but was coming out of it in the last half of 1992. The Democrats, predictably, still insisted that the economy was in shambles, and the only way to turn things around was to elect Clinton for president.

However, as I reminded the newspaper, Clinton changed his tune after he took office. In his first 100 days, his two top priorities were to legalize and fund abortions, and to change the military’s policy on homosexuals who served or would serve in the armed forces. Additionally, Hillary Clinton would embark on a reformation of America’s health care system. The economy suddenly became less important.

So now, in 2009, we again have a Democratic president who campaigned on giving the economy a “quick jolt” to help start a recovery from a serious recession. But what has happened since Barack Obama took office? First, there was a change in urgency. The message went from giving the economy a “quick jolt” to “it’s going to take a long time” to fix things. This attitude is in contrast to a recent poll conducted by Pew Research, which revealed that 82% of Americans feel that jobs/job creation is the most serious issue we will face in 2009.

But again, job creation has been put on the back burner. What has been the Democrats’ priorities since Obama took office? The new administration reversed the Bush stance toward abortion, and has provided new funding for the abortion industry. Guantanamo Bay has been closed, with some of the detainees already getting back to their terrorist activities. New taxes have been levied on all tobacco products. And now we have a “stimulus” plan that is devoid of any kind of jolt the economy sorely needs.

For example, there is $800 million going to AMTRAK. $345 million for new Agriculture Department computers. $650 million for TV converter boxes. $1 billion to deal with Census problems. $88 million to move the Public Health Service into a new building. The Senate wants $2.1 billion to pay off a shortfall in public housing accounts, $870 million to combat the flu and $400 million to slow the spread of HIV and other diseases. One of the more ominous provisions: $1 billion for “community organizing”.

No wonder the Democrats are telling us it’s going to be a long time until the economy recovers. The only thing being stimulated under this new administration is the size of the government. As Cal Thomas stated in one of his recent columns, “Democrats see government as a first resource and people as an expanding pool of victims who are incapable of independently bettering their lives.” As I try to tell people, the Democrats can only gain power as the people lose their power and independence.

Be extremely wary of all that “community organizing”. In Germany of the 1920s and 1930s, there had been a sort of national organization called the “Citizens Defense”, which was ready to stand against foreign involvement regarding certain German territories. When this defense group was officially outlawed, one of Adolf Hitler’s henchmen rebuilt the group into the SA, which enforced the will of the Nazi party on a “community” level. Given that Obama has already supported the likes of ACORN, what would his “community organizations” be equipped to do? Think about it!