Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The Real Lesson of the NY-23 Race

The conservative blogosphere has been abuzz about the New York 23rd district special election, and conservatives have been lining up to pick sides. This reliably Republican rural district in way upstate New York, vacated when President Obama appointed John Hugh to Secretary of the Army. Instead of holding primary, the party county chairmen picked the candidates. On the left is down-the-line Democrat Bill Owens, in the center is socially liberal and economically moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava, and on the right is Doug Hoffman of the Conservative Party. Often, the Conservative Party endorses the Republican candidate, and Doug Hoffman initially sought the Republican nomination, and was nominated as a Conservative when the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Scozzafava (who voiced support for the bank bailout) was nominated. Recent polls show Doug Hoffman leading, which would certainly empower the Tea Party movement, and the New York Times has declared the race a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. But the truth is that grassroots Republicans have already been indicted in this race. If they really wanted a down-the-line conservative, they should have been involved before now. If Conservatives get upset at the Republican Party, take their ball and leave, the moderates, neoconservatives, and liberals will take control of the Party. And when they do, don't expect them to pick anything other than moderates, neoconservatives, or liberals. If conservatives are upset with the Republican Party, that is all the more reason to get involved and try to change it. The process might not be democratic, but the Republican Party county chairmen unanimously chose Dede Scozzafava as their candidate. I'd like to think that involved conservatives would have changed that, and we wouldn't have to be dividing the center-right voters.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

The Incompatibility of UN Goals

Tonight was the premier of Not Evil Just Wrong, Irish director Phelim McAleer's new documentary that challenges the Climate Change religious beliefs and specifically, the claims of An Inconvenient Truth. I watched it streamed online courtesy of Andrew Breitbart. Overall, the film was somewhat disappointing to me, long on emotion and mood, and short on details, but central point is one that needs to be said more often. Environmental controls, especially those that restrict carbon dioxide emissions, create poverty. Since the UN has been so bad at achieving it's original goal, world peace, it's primary activities in recent years have been centered around trying to alleviate poverty and fighting CO2 emissions. I question the ability of the UN to do either, but the combination is impossible. Three things are necessary to get third world countries into the first world: a stable political climate, economic freedom, and cheap energy. Restricting CO2 emissions eliminates two of those necessary legs of development. Giving in to the extreme environmentalists will not only hurt the ability to alleviate poverty for workers or the developing world, it will likely create more poverty.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Tricky Chick

Greatest photo of a politician this year.

Friday, October 9, 2009

What President Obama Should Do With the Nobel Prize Money

As many could probably predict, I disagree with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. Obama has slightly reduced military action in Iraq, and has started the process to close the prisons in Guantanamo Bay, but he has dramatically escalated the Afghanistan War, spread it into Pakistan, expanded the ability of the NSA to spy on American citizens, started major saber rattling with Iran, and supported a deposed would-be dictator in Honduras. I joked on Facebook that maybe it should be renamed the Nobel War Prize. Despite my unheard objections, the Nobel committee has given the Peace Prize to our warmongering President. That's water under the bridge. But since President Obama has promised to give the $1.4 million prize to charity, he could do something really meaningful with it. May I suggest he give it to one of the nominees that really deserved it. (A few here and here.) I would give it to either Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition, Denis Mukwege, or Sima Samar. By empowering one of these worthy causes, Obama would have done more for peace and human rights than anything he's done so far.

To be fair to President Obama, though, I don't think many politicians deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Nelson Mandela deserved it for his efforts to end apartheid, but few others. For the most part, politicians create war and oppress individuals, and free people acting out of love improve the human condition. That should be acknowledged.

Saving Grace: Benkiser’s role in Perry Campaign an appeal to Evangelicals


Cross-posted from halc.us, written by Junta member Benito.

On September 26, 2009, Tina Benkiser, now former Chair of the TX GOP, announced her resignation to join the re-election campaign of Texas Governor Rick Perry as senior advisor. According to the announcement made on Rick Perry’s website, her new role in the campaign was chosen because “she will be an important voice in promoting our message of fiscal responsibility and limited government.”

Perhaps, but it is more likely that Benkiser was tapped because of her significant, yet waning, influence with TXGOP leadership and strong Evangelical support. Since 2003, Benkiser enjoyed success in flooding the TX GOP with Social Conservatives. Now, Benkiser’s new role in the Perry campaign indicates a direct appeal to Evangelical Christians. Benkiser, an evangelical herself, has energized the social conservative base during her tenure with the Texas GOP, but her success in this arena alarmed many party faithful since evangelicals have been portrayed as being myopically concerned with social issues while tolerating fiscal and civic mismanagement.

Additionally, during the 2008 primaries, Benkiser, along with many GOP leaders, alienated the party’s liberty movement. She was accused of repeatedly breaking TX GOP rules to block their attempts at party reform through a genuine return to principles outlined in the platform. This even elicited a “fair convention” mini-movement, complete with shirts that bore the expression, “The GOP Rules! Let’s follow them”.

A Fresh Start for the RPT

Enrique Rangler, A-J Austin bureau chief, believes Benkiser’s move out is just what the GOP needs to begin rebuilding. He may be right.

“If Benkiser had run for another term next year, Tom Mechler of Amarillo, Mark McCaig of Katy and others unhappy with her leadership would have challenged her.

Mechler, who remains a candidate for party chairman, and McCaig, who is no longer running because Benkiser is bowing out, wanted to oust her because under her watch Texas Democrats have made significant gains, especially in the House.

Yet, the prospect of a nasty power struggle was one some GOP loyalists – already worried about the damage the Perry-Hutchison fight may do the party – feared.

“The resignation of Tina Benkiser from the Republican Party of Texas provides a great opportunity for Texas Republicans to begin to right the ship,” said Debra Medina, who is also seeking the party’s nomination for governor. “The Republican Party of Texas is in serious trouble and more of the same will not save us.”

Culture War against Hispanics

Benkiser’s social conservatism included a culture war against Mexican immigrants. Immediately before the 2008 convention, she commented on immigration restrictions saying, “We believe that we are in a war for our culture, and our activists understand that the principles that we believe in are the principles that will make Texas a better place and make the lives of Texans better every single day.” Declaring war against the state’s fastest growing minority, however, runs counter to attempts by the party to reach out to Hispanics.

In what appears to be an attempt to reach out to hispanic voters, Perry’s campaign has hired Austin-based advertising agency, LatinWorks. The Austin company will be “helping on a number of message delivery issues, including Hispanic outreach,” said Mark Miner, spokesperson for Perry’s re-election Campaign.

Fiscal Woes

While some would hope that new RPT leadership would be more inclusive, perhaps the most room for improvement would be in how the business of the party is run. When Benkiser took over the reins of the state party, the party had $194,500 cash on hand and $70,000 in debt. She leaves the party with $52,000 cash on hand and $258,200 in debt. Running a party can get expensive, but to be fair to Benkiser, no one has ever accused her of being a fiscal conservative.


Thursday, October 8, 2009

Financial Writer Blames Conservatives for Destroying the Dollar

That's right. Instead of blaming the Fed and it's doubling of the money supply since last year, or blaming the government for their ridiculous spending that necessitated all that money printing, Reggie Abaca, blames conservatives. You see, by telling people that the Fed is printing an incredible amount of money, and explaining how that's bad for the value of the dollar, Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck are destroying the dollar, and that's the reason gold went up this week. It's not the act of printing money that causes inflation, it's telling people about it. I think Mr. Abaca could use a little refresher course on how inflation works, courtesy of Scrooge McDuck and Huey, Dewey, and Louie.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Glenn Beck is the new Oprah

I have been a Glenn Beck fan for a while, mostly because I tended to listen to anyone from the right willing to criticize Bush, but recently, his show is getting wierder, and I like it less. I still enjoy his radio show, and I loved his CNN show when he still had it. Beck's Fox News TV show is becoming more popular, and I couldn't put my finger on what I liked less about it. Then yesterday, he had his patriot moms show, where he had a bunch of conservative moms, most of whom homeschooled their children, on for a conversation with them. They complained about issues that they faced with society and government, and he listened to them. You could feel his empathy, and the moms were obviously glad to have a voice and feel a part of something. Several of them had very real problems of harassment by bureaucrats at various levels of government. Then it hit me. Glenn Beck is using the Oprah Winfrey model to go after Oprah's viewers. He gives a voice to the voiceless, talks about problems that average, everyday women face, and gets viewers that care about those problems. Just like Oprah, he gets viewers that are involved in the show beyond just viewing. When he recommends a book, it flies to the top of best-seller lists. He challenges viewers to do something to make a difference in their world. And hundreds of thousands of them show up to Washington at his suggestion. Beck's new job as housewife hero is powerful one for entertainer/newsman, but that with that power comes great responsibility. I pray that Beck will keep his legions of followers pointed in the right direction.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Department of Energy Subsidizes Sports Cars for Millionaires

A few months after the Department of Energy gave a $465 million sweetheart subsidized loan to Tesla Motors, to build two $100,000+ all-electric sports cars in the UK, now they've given a $529 million sweetheart subsidized loan to Fisker Automotive, an Al Gore-backed company that will build an $89,000 hybrid sports car. It is stupid that the Federal Government is taking money from Americans and subsidizing Finnish and British jobs when there is increasing unemployment in the United States (or anytime for that matter). It is criminal that the Federal Government is taking money from poor and middle-class taxpayers and subsidizing toys that only the very wealthy can afford. It goes to prove that big Government programs serve the most wealthy on the backs of workers and entrepreneurs.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Vote Yes on Prop 11 This November

The Texas Constitutional Amendment election is Tuesday, November 3. In the upcoming weeks, I'll examine all of the proposed Texas Constitutional Amendments, but I want to give special attention to Prop 11, because it is worth campaigning for. Here's the text:

“The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.”

This is a rather narrowly-written amendment, but it represents a significant increase in property rights protection. The amendment was written in direct response to the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case. This case ruled that an increased property value, and subsequent increased property tax take, was a public use, and therefore private property could be transferred from one owner to another if the new owner would pay more property taxes than the current owner. In the Kelo case, the City of New London, Connecticut, took Suzette Kelo's (and many of her neighbor's) home and gave it to Pfizer because the complex that Pfizer would build would be be valued higher and worth more in property taxes than the homeowners in the neighborhood. Proposition 11 would effectively prohibit governments in Texas from using eminent domain to take land for anything other than explicit public purpose. Eminent domain is one of the most anti-liberty powers that governments have, so it should be strictly limited. Prop 11 would apply some necessary common sense restrictions to that power.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Global Warming Hysteria Distracting From Real Environmental Problems

I have a confession to make: I'm an environmentalist. I'm not the kind of environmentalist that pushes for international bans on DDT production based on weak science, allowing millions of African people to die of malaria, but I am an environmentalist. I think governments have a fundamental responsibility to promote responsible use resources and protect habitat and shared resources from contamination. I'm glad that I live in the most environmentally responsible major industrial power in the world. Now I haven't bought into the global warming hysteria, so I've been accused of being anti-environmentalist. But now, more and more environmentalists are realizing that the Global Warming religion has distracted environmentalists from major environmental problems in our world. From the BBC (Read the whole article, it's interesting):

As the UN climate summit in Copenhagen approaches, exhortations that "we must get a deal" and warnings that climate change is "the greatest challenge we face as a species" are to be heard in virtually every political forum.

But if you look back to the latest definitive check on the planet's environmental health - the Global Environment Outlook (Geo-4), published by the UN two years ago - what emerges is a picture of decline that goes way, way beyond climate change.

Species are going extinct at perhaps 1,000 times the normal rate, as key habitats such as forests, wetlands and coral reefs are plundered for human infrastructure.

Aquifers are being drained and fisheries exploited at unsustainable speed. Soils are becoming saline, air quality is a huge cause of illness and premature death; the human population is bigger than our one Earth can currently sustain.

Now some of that is overstated hysteria, especially the last clause, but a lot of that is true. Deforestation and habitat loss, especially in Central America, is causing more environmental damage right now than all the carbon dioxide that humans have ever produced. Fresh water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource, and the air quality in China and India (among others) is becoming dangerously bad.

With all of these very real problems, why do environmentalists, especially government environmental regulators, seem so focused on whether the world is 1 degree warmer or 0.8 degrees warmer in 100 years? None of the real issues offer them governments the kind of opportunities for control that Carbon Dioxide emissions control does. Free enterprise, with developments in desalination technologies, can make a major dent in the fresh water shortage. Governments can preserve habitats, but landowners often do a better job, and land preservation doesn't offer government much behavior control. Western governments can't do much about China's and India's air quality. But humans emit carbon dioxide everywhere they go and with every thing they do, so carbon dioxide regulations offers governments control over everything in everyone's life.