The Conservative Edge

Today marks the anniversary of the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. I watched some of the programs on the History Channel that chronicled both the events leading up to the attack, and the subsequent rescue and cleanup efforts. As I viewed the devastation, I thought that similar feelings must have gripped our nation after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. We were justified in reacting with full force against imperialist Japan; it seems that America should also be justified in retaliation against the terrorist regime responsible for attacking the Trade Center on two occasions.

But there are some who insist that the party responsible for flying two planes into the Trade Center buildings was none other than the United States government. The conspiracy theorists claim that the Bush administration contrived an elaborate plan to destroy the financial heart of America. This was supposedly done to allow the administration to enact surveillance laws that would enable the government to exert control over the American people, and also give cause for the invasion of Iraq.

But that theory is hard to accept. There are lots of folks who try to present evidence of flight number discrepancies, or suggest that undercover personnel planted explosives in the Trade Center. But it remains clear that terrorists wanted to destroy the symbols of American capitalism. The first attempt was in 1993, when a massive bomb was detonated underneath the Trade Center. Fortunately, the tower survived the blast, and the damage was quickly repaired. There have been no conspiracy theories developed to explain the first attack; why should we think it strange or unlikely that the same terrorist group would make a second strike to complete their mission of destruction?

Remember also that there is quite a difference in the way that Democratic and Republican administrations use force. Republican presidents have, generally, used military force against foreign regimes and countries. Ronald Reagan, for instance, invaded the island of Grenada to rescue American students who had been taken hostage. Reagan was also intent on standing up to Soviet aggression. The first George Bush built a coalition to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The second George Bush invaded Iraq to depose Saddam once and for all.

But Democratic presidents have been more forceful here at home. Bill Clinton blew the chance to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, and admitted as much in a television interview. Democrats always take a weak position of appeasement with foreign thugs. But domestically, Democrats turn into tigers when they get a chance to show off government’s power. The standoff at Waco, Texas in the early years of the Clinton administration was the most egregious and unlawful use of force ever exhibited by any occupant of the White House. Conspiracy theorists fret about Bush’s use of wiretaps, but he never sent tanks into an American city to kill American citizens the way that Clinton did at Waco.

Clinton could have ordered the FBI to quietly nab David Koresh, the leader of the Branch Davidians, at some local coffee shop or gas station. But because the Branch Davidians had stockpiled some weapons in anticipation of the Apocalypse, Clinton decided that a show of force was necessary. Any individual or group of people that bear arms are seen by Democrats and liberals as a threat to government authority. Clinton was determined that he would show the Davidians who was boss. He sent tanks and other armed personnel to confront, and ultimately destroy, the Davidians and their compound. A situation that could have been defused peacefully turned into a tragedy. And without Waco, there might not have been a bombing in Oklahoma City.

If conspiracy theorists want to see a real abuse of power by the government, they should focus on the tragedy at Waco. Meanwhile, I will continue to mourn the loss of American lives on September 11, 2001, and remember that it was the obsessive hatred of a terrorist organization that destroyed those two gleaming towers.

One of the liberals’ favorite mantras during the Bush administration was “Bush lied, people died.” The Democrats in Congress and in the media were obsessed with the idea that the Iraq war was accompanied by a massive cover-up of information. We supposedly went to war knowing that there were no WMDs in Iraq. All of the pied pipers in the media said that we had been misled and lied to, and that the government had suppressed vital intelligence information.

The Obama administration was going to be different. “Transparency” was a key word used to describe the truthfulness of the new presidency. But we’ve all been lied to since last November. Obama campaigned on putting Americans to work. He said that the economy was going to get a “quick jolt.” But, as Ohio’s own John Boehner recently asked, “Where are the jobs?”

The Obama administration is giving us a green version of deception and cover-up, with help from the Environmental Protection Agency. Research conducted by the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics challenges the prevailing notion that global warming is an increasing danger to the environment. But it seems that the report was intentionally suppressed in order to allow the EPA to support the administration’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

The June 29 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily notes that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released the EPA study on its own website. Among the findings are interesting statements such as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998, there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” And this one: “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such process.”

Apparently, the person responsible for producing the report at the EPA has been removed from all climate-related work. He has even been advised to hire an attorney. He is in hot water for suggesting that science is being ignored in the evaluation of CO2 as a pollutant.

If his research had been released before the House vote on the cap-and-trade bill, the outcome might have been different. It’s no wonder the Obama administration is moving so quickly on climate change legislation. They are intentionally suppressing information that would blow holes in the global warming theory, and allow millions of reasonable Americans to see what a farce the theory really is. Remember Y2K? It never happened.

You can read more of the IBD editorial here. I would also recommend a visit to a highly regarded science blog, Watts Up With That? You’ll find that not only are global warming dissenters being intentionally silenced, but that climate data is manipulated to produce desired results that support climate legislation.

Jobs? We don’t need them. The liberals are convinced that America needs more legislation and regulation. They are taking care of both with unprecedented speed and ruthlessness.

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 read a column in my local newspaper today (Jan. 19) that left me a little upset, and scratching my head. Isn’t it amazing how prominent columnists and political observers now want everyone to be nice, quiet citizens, and speak no ill toward the new administration? I felt the need to respond to a column by Kathleen Parker, and the entire contents of my letter are below:

“Kathleen,

“I just read your column “The Importance of Not Being Earnest”, published in the January 19 edition of the Dayton Daily News. While some of the column attempted to be encouraging, I saw an undercurrent of sarcasm and high-mindedness.

“Let’s take your indictment of our (your readers) seemingly inherent “snarky” attitudes. Are you suggesting that we are the only cynics and skeptics? That “snarkiness” must come from our own cold hearts and judgmental minds? Perhaps you should consider that some of us might be products of what we see on TV, or read in magazines and op-ed pieces. If it is the intention of editorial writers and other commentators to change or influence the thinking of those who read their works, then perhaps you should be willing to accept your role in shaping the attitudes of those you criticized in your column.

“For example, I believe it was you who, in a recent commentary, did everything but kick George Bush in the ass as you shoved him out the back door of the White House. Was this done in civility and grace? Hardly—to quote Clint Eastwood in the movie Heartbreak Ridge, “…that’s not very dignified for a mature woman…” And this is the kind of work many of us have been reading for the past 7 or 8 years. How can you then think that Americans have been immune to this kind of critical opinion? Is it possible that editorial poisons have sickened the American people?

“Another example of editorial pollution has been spread by your fellow columnist and “economist” Paul Krugman. I can’t think of a more crass, belligerent and snarky writer than Mr. Krugman. I have cut several of his columns out of the newspaper, just to marvel at his toxic vendettas he hurled at George Bush and other conservatives over the past few years. He has lambasted the Republicans for running federal deficits, but has now turned on a dime, insisting that deficits are necessary to turn our economy around.

“It seems that you have also turned on the same thin dime. You have gone from accuser to some sort of Pied Piper, telling us how WE need to develop a love for service. I think all of you who have fanned the fires of disdain and derision need to atone for your past few years of unpatriotic “snarkiness”. You have built your Golden Idol, and you want all of us to join the orgy of celebration. I’m sorry, but before I get all aglow, I need to see some admission of your own harboring of the things you seek to exorcise from us. Go ahead—confession is good for the soul!”

That’s my response. I guess we’re not supposed to treat Mr. Obama the same way that all the writers like Mrs. Parker treated the Bush administrations the past few years. It’s the old “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude. It’s the Democratic/liberal way.