Science in the White House

When Barack Obama was christened into office, of the many splendorous things the media called him, the greatest was "the science president." Obama was to hack through the government-instituted yellow tape that kept scientific influence from the White House in crafting effective, fact-based policy. True, Bush probably should have spent more money on the National Science Foundation and less on bailouts. But, thankfully, Obama was here to modernize the White House. Science was to finally have its place--that is, unless you disagree with him. Here's Obama on scientists who disagree that global warming is gospel:

“those who . . . make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary...We'll just have to deal with those people."

Now there's progress--change we can believe in. It is this hypocrisy from Obama and from Bush that drives moderates crazy. Obama believes that science needs to be back in the White House, unless your science doesn't support his policies. There are icebergs of evidence against global warming (or even the non-falsifiable "climate change" if you prefer) that points to natural climate cycles. To silence debate is, in the truest sense of the word, un-American. Whether you believe in global-climate-warming-change or not, we must agree that the debate is not over. When disagreement is discouraged, outcomes are naturally worse. We need scientists in the White House, not yes-men.

Liberalism is So Fifty Years Ago

At the core of politics, social life, and economics, what really makes a conservative and a liberal? I'd say its trust in the average American. On the surface, such a statement can sound a bit outrageous, largely because strong-willed liberalism is so prevalent in Hollywood, the media, Washington, and a college campus near you.

When I challenged a staunch College Democrat from the University of Utah last October to an hour-long radio debate on KRCL in Salt Lake City, one short exchange stands out more than any other. I remember saying something like, "The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans trust you with your money. We know that you can do more good with your money than the government can. Free-market solutions almost always work better than government solutions. That's it--we trust people." To which he quickly responded, "I don't trust people, I trust government."

In today's Wall Street Journal Opinion section, John Steele Gordon wrote a fantastic analysis of why liberalism in today's social structure just doesn't work anymore. He recounted the hilarious interview with Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama. When asked why the Obama administration was so preoccupied with their metaphorical war on Fox News, she replied that it was because she was "speaking truth to power." Wait, you work for the White House, Ms. Jarrett? Fox News is "power?" You work for the most powerful man in the world! Mr. Gordon explains Jarrett's viewpoint best. Simply, "she's a liberal." Allow him to explain:

As a liberal she carries around in her head the liberal paradigm of how the world works and what needs to be done to make it work better. There's nothing wrong with that. We all use paradigms to make sense of what we see around us and couldn't get along without them. Unfortunately, the basic liberal paradigm hasn't shifted in a hundred years, while the world we live in has changed utterly since the late 19th century, when modern liberalism was born.

He explains that liberals view the population as divided into three distinct groups, characterized by the wolves, the sheep, and the shepherds. The wolves are the elite, the wall street executives, the rich. They make their money from plundering from and destroying the sheep, or the masses--the lowly, proletariat. The shepherds are the liberals, "those happy few, that band of brothers, the educated and enlightened liberals," Gordon says. They believe that their job is to educate the sheep to protect them from the greedy capitalists, those white-collar bandits. Back in the 1930's, the 40's, and even all the way to the 60's, it worked. There was a small, elite group of educated Americans. But today's society doesn't need, and doesn't really want such shepherding. Jarrett exposed that simple flaw in liberalism's ideology. There's no "man" to fight against anymore. Our President is black. The chairman of the RNC is black. The majority of Americans are white collar, high-school and college graduates. While some inequality still exists, the equality of opportunity is unprecedented. When the "power" against which liberals rally the sheep against is "Fox News," the ideology is going bankrupt, and there's no bailout big enough to save it.

According to Gallup, 40% of Americans define themselves as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. Obama's, Pelosi's, and Reid's brand of liberalism is not what America wants, nor is it what it needs. As liberals grasp for a new enemy (whether it be Christians, Oil Companies, or Fox News), conservatism is about to see its biggest resurgence in 30 years.

The Best Books of 2009

For something a little bit different, here's Amazon's Omnivoracious blog on the 100 Best Books of 2009. I love books.

Ayn Rand--More Relevant Today Than Ever

A quick and interesting look at a very popular, and very old, political author. Her defense of capitalism and freedom of thought is still affecting popular culture. Her estate can probably thank Barack Obama:

Health Care Scare Tactics

In the Halloween spirit, here's some horrifying quotes from politicians and pundits about the evil health insurance companies that rape and pillage for profits:

"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad

Are you scared yet? Well, in reality, you shouldn't be. According to the AP, Health Insurance profits are usually right around 6%, and lately they've been around 2%. Railroads are taking in a 12.6% profit margin. Communications companies? Around 20%. In fact, many other companies, from candy to entertainment companies make more money than health insurance. So, where are these talking heads getting their facts?

Recent health care debates show how easy it is to demonize an entire industry without fact. Eventually, people begin to believe it, and policies begin to pass. The simple fact is that the health care industry is just that--an industry. In order to exist, they have to turn a profit, albeit very thin profits. To put government in direct competition with already financially challenged companies is inherently unfair to the consumer and to the company. Without having to turn a profit, goverment will undercut the companies with their tax revenues from the wealthy. Competition decreases, and soon enough, hospitals and HMOs will start to look more like public schools and the DMV.

If you believe government should be involved in health care--fine. Just base your arguments on fact, not fiction.

Breast Cancer Awareness and Prostate Cancer Awareness

Most people have probably noticed that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. No, I'm not going to write with pink letters or wear pink or probably even a ribbon. The NFL has even turned many of their uniform accessories pink in honor of the cause. It's a truly noble thing, I agree. However, I fear that it's following the path of some of the "go green" fads of recent years--it has become more about show than substance. By no means do I demean any effort to help raise research funds for breast cancer. Like I said, a truly noble cause.

But why the huge focus in the media and in the public discourse on breast cancer, specifically? What about, for example, prostate cancer? Both can have considerable impact on lives and lifestyles, and it can be particularly hard for a woman to have breast augmentation, but let's really analyze the numbers:

• 1 in 8 women in the U.S. will contract breast cancer during their lifetime. 1 in 33 will die from breast cancer.
• 1 in 6 men in the U.S. will get prostate cancer. 1 in 35 will die from prostate cancer.

In other words, more men get prostate cancer, but breast cancer has a higher mortality rate. Why the huge effort, then, by the NFL and other organizations to promote breast cancer awareness, but not prostate cancer awareness? Men need some love, too.

By the way, Prostate Cancer Awareness Month was September. It's color is light blue.

(Statistics from the American Cancer Society here and here.)

The Quiet War Against Christianity

Why is it okay to make fun of Christianity, but never any other religion? In a recent episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," a show by Larry David, a writer from "Seinfeld," David's own character is shown urinating on a picture of Jesus. Some aspect of the plot involved the urine being interpreted by a religious character to be tears, causing them to fall and marvel at the miracle.

First of all, this is a perfect example of complete intellectually lazy comedy. As one internet commenter put it, "it's a fart joke for the pseudo-intelligentsia." When comedy lacks creativity, skill, or artistry, it turns to the lowest common denominator--the trite, low-brow humor that is guaranteed to get a cheap laugh, usually because you're making fun at someone's expense. I guess what Larry David once had in his Seinfeld years is waning.

Second, this is yet another example of the disgustingly obvious double standard among the politically correct. What would the media, Hollywood, and those benevolent gate-keepers of culture say if David were to urinate on a picture of Barack Obama? Mohammed? Martin Luther King, Jr.? The outrage would be swift, boycotts would begin, and Larry David would lose his job. This is a common theme of my political posts--absolute double standards and hypocrisy.

Third, this speaks to the trendiness of mocking Christianity in general, and Christians themselves, specifically. Sitcoms, dramas, and especially movies portray Christians as zealots, as intolerant, as mortified of sex, reality, or anyone different than themselves. It's a cheap, trendy way to broadly paint the billions of practicing Christians in the world as people unworthy of respect or deference.

Such mocking is, I believe, a sign of things to come. As the younger culture is growing in atheism, and the culture at large embraces anti-Christian sentiments, Christians will see more persecution, and a general apathy for their religious freedoms. As religious freedom begins to deteriorate in Western culture, the next step is an attack on our rights.

Tryanny Spreading in the Americas

Another Central American country is about to fall completely into tyrannical rule, and the U.S. is completely silent. To provide the background to this recent development by Nicaraguan president Danny Ortega, allow me to provide a quick summary of the developments in Honduras that preceded Ortega's move.

In June of this year, following questionable efforts by President Manuel Zelaya to remove presidential term limits like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Honduran president was removed by the military as per Honduran Supreme Court mandate and constitutional provision. Sadly, most of the world was strongly opposed to this move, condemning it as a military coup d'etat (which it was, but it was legal). An interim president is still in office in Honduras. The rest of the government flatly rejected Zelaya's effort to become a Chavezian quasi-dictator.

Now, let us consider Danny Ortega, president of Nicaragua. Allow the Wall Street Journal to report what happened:

Nicaragua has a one-term limit for presidents, and Mr. Ortega's term expires in 2011. However, the Nicaraguan doesn't want to leave, and so he asked the Sandinista-controlled Supreme Court to overturn the constitutional ban on his re-election.

Last week the court's constitutional panel obliged him. The Nicaraguan press reported that the vote was held before three opposition judges could reach the chamber in time for the session. Three alternative judges, all Sandinistas, took their place and the court gave Mr. Ortega the green light. Mr. Ortega has decreed that the ruling cannot be appealed.

There is a palpable air of dictatorship and tyrannical usurpation of democratic rule slithering its way through South and Central America. The Obama administration has been completely quiet on such actions, and in fact believes that Zelaya should be reinstated as president of Honduras.

While some may consider such accusations hyperbolic, Obama's actions have confirmed to the world his values and his world view. When a task is afoot, whatever means necessary should be employed to reach a desired end. Government takeover of auto companies, bailouts of banks and subsequent government-ordered salary cuts, and an expansion of government involvement into health care are just a few highlights of Obama's beliefs. Obama is not anti-democratic, he just believes that the ends justify the means. As much as Bush believed privacy rights could be curtailed to achieve national security, Obama believes traditional American notions of government's proper role in business (to stay out) and public policy (to promote free enterprise for solutions) are worth discarding for certain ends. Tyranny is spreading, and Obama's beliefs and actions show he won't be quick to act.

Obama's Enemy List and Its Consequences

Obama's White House is a very different one from past administrations, even if only considering the tone it has taken toward opposition. Obama came under heavy criticism early in his presidency when starting his push for health care reform. Perhaps surprised by the staunch opposition a public option quickly found, Whitehouse.gov started a watchdog-like email address that the public could use to report "misinformation" about a government-run health care plan. Of course, it was soon removed.

Several other stories emerged which showed the same theme: Obama didn't just let criticism fly--he attacked it and actively opposed it. Never before had a President entered the public arena of debate. Then came his War on Fox News, a war even less purposeful than the Iraq War. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' constant foray into criticism of a news outlet is absolutely flabbergasting. But, catch this gem from NPR, a non-partisan, public-funded news outlet. To set the stage, some have been calling Obama's public attacks of critics somewhat of an "enemies list," hearkening back to Nixon's paranoid habits of deciding who was undermining his authority as President. From Politico:

On National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation" Wednesday, NPR political editor Ken Rudin said the White House campaign against Fox News is a bad idea. "It's not only aggressive, it's almost Nixonesque," Rudin said. "I mean, you think of what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list and their attacks on the media; certainly Vice President Agnew's constant denunciation of the media. Of course, then it was a conservative president denouncing a liberal media, and of course, a lot of good liberals said, 'Oh, that's ridiculous. That's an infringement on the freedom of press.' And now you see a lot of liberals almost kind of applauding what the White House is doing to Fox News, which I think is distressing."

It's not the usual thing you hear from NPR analysts. Reaction from the NPR audience was negative, and within 24 hours, Rudin was in backtrack mode. "I made a boneheaded mistake yesterday," Rudin wrote on his NPR blog. "Comparing the tactics of the Nixon administration -- which bugged and intimidated and harrassed journalists -- to that of the Obama administration was foolish, facile, ridiculous and, ultimately, embarrassing to me. I should have known better and, in fact, I do know better. I was around during the Nixon years. I am fully cognizant of what they did and attempted to do."

"I apologize for a dumb comparison."

Rudin's full-180 earned warm praise from NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard. "While it was a dumb thing to say, I applaud Rudin for quickly apologizing," Shepard wrote. "Journalists are going to make mistakes -- not intentionally but they will happen. Acknowledging them goes a long way to maintaining credibility."

So much of the media is so incredibly afraid of criticizing Obama, when a critique slips, apologies must be issued. This was an NPR analyst who was analyzing. Sadly, the only place the public can really go to get any type of genuine analysis of Obama (without protracted criticisms) is Fox News. Not only has Obama's War on Fox News boosted their ratings, but it's the only game in town, so to speak. Our media are in such a sad state, its no wonder the only growing entities are Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

Go Yankees? Well, Maybe

As the ACLS is wrapping up, we are once again faced with the late 90's scenario--the Yankees in the World Series again!? But, the 2000's have been a much different era for baseball. Since the Yankees last won the Series in 2000, Almost a quarter of all MLB teams have won a World Series (Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, Cardinals, White Sox, and Phillies). Could we reverting to another Yankees dynasty? First of all, I sure hope not. But, despite my fears and strong dislike for all things New York Yankees, I almost hope they beat the Angels.

Yeah, its true. Why would I want the Yankees to win? First of all, I think the Phillies would absolutely destroy the Angels, and we'd have yet another Series end in a lopsided count (not a single series this year has gone the full 5 or 7 games). The Angels are the comeback kids in these last two games against the Empire, but they couldn't outlast the Phillies who will be incredibly well-rested. Angels hitters would be silenced by Cliff Lee in games 1 and 4 (and even a 7 if it happened to go that far). The Phillies lineup is miles ahead of the Angels. Sure, anything can happen in 7 games, but the Yankees would be a much more formidable opponent.

The Yankees have starting pitching to answer the Phillies, a stronger bullpen, and a lineup of comparable strength (including the finally-hot-in-October A-Rod, even if it is the tic-tacs). It would be wonderful to finally see another National League powerhouse. Not since the Big Red Machine of the 70's has a National League team repeated as World Series Champs. In fact, only 3 NL teams have ever done it. Because, right up there with being a baseball fan, I'm a National League fan--a baseball purist.

So, in a way, go Yankees? I really want a World Series worth watching this year.

Why "Community" is the Best New Show on TV

Those of my readers who know me well, know that my favorite TV show is "Lost." So, you'd think my favorite new show this season would be "FlashForward," the new sci-fi serial with obvious overtones of Lost-esque mythology and temporal interplay. While I really enjoy FlashForward, a different new show has won my heart. NBC's "Community."

Community is "The Office" meets "Arrested Development." Take the ridiculously believable characters of The Office in their completely average lives, and mix in the fast pace and tight writing of Arrested Development. What bores me about most of today's sitcoms are the formulas--the jokes are all the same, the sets are all the same, and the only thing that changes is what hijinx the dad got into this week that are going to make his wife go through the roof. Ha ha ha. There was a day for comedies like that, but its over.

Joel McHale of Talk Soup fame is the star of the show, but there truly are very few week characters. Chevy Chase's Pierce Hawthorne and Danny Pudi's Abed are absolutely hilarious. The jokes come so quickly and in such an unexpected way, you sometimes finally get jokes ten seconds after they're told. Few shows reward their viewers for being intelligent. Community is one of them.

I watch very few TV shows and recommend even less. Watch Community--the best new show on TV (and maybe the best comedy, period.) Oh, and Senor Chang, the Spanish teacher that shows up on a few episodes, is quite possibly the funniest character I have ever seen on a sitcom.

Defending Dallin H. Oaks

Dallin H. Oaks, an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has a long history of saying things that have to be said, and aren't very popular with the rest of the world. In the past, however, he could count on members of the Church to support him. Proposition 8 has done more than practically any other event to induce certain members into renouncing some degree of their support for the Church in general, its political involvement, or the general authorities of the Church specifically. The most recent backlash comes from Elder Oaks' statements concerning physical and economic attacks against Proposition 8 supporters and many Mormons. Here's some of the AP report:

"Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights," Oaks said. "The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage ..."

Oaks said that while "aggressive intimidation" connected to Proposition 8 was primarily directed at religious people and symbols, "it was not anti-religious as such." He called the incidents "expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest."

"As such, these incidents of 'violence and intimidation' are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic," he said. "In their effect they are like well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation."

How dare he compare Mormon boycotts and vandalism to lynchings and beatings, right? But his analogy stands quite firm when you look at it logically. After blacks were various civil rights in the 60's--an unpopular move--rather than accepting the democratic decision, or moving for a democratic response to the issue, a small group of people engaged in physical and verbal attacks to show their disdain for a completely legal decision. So has it been with Proposition 8 supporters. After their successful attempt to democratically limit marriage to one man and one woman, Hollywood and much of the left was enraged. A small group organized boycotts, and some resorted to physical attacks on churches and property, generally attempting to intimidate Mormons and Proposition 8 supporters.

It's an easy temptation to take offense, because it was such an offensive part of history. Was the comparison perfectly analgous? Of course not--no comparison ever is. That's why it's a comparison. Were some people offended? Of course. From Elder Oaks:

"It may be offensive to some — maybe because it hadn't occurred to them that they were putting themselves in the same category as people we deplore from that bygone era," said Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court justice who clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many Latter-day Saints today care far more about offending the world than following the Church on an unpopular opinion. In fact, Elder Oaks himself notes that this is an increasingly unpopular position. But, it is the policy of the Church. Some truths are offensive. Elder Oaks' analogy cut to the core of the issue. People were upset with a democratic decision and have resorted to name-calling, hate-mongering, and occasional physical intimidation. Take a deep breath, and think about it. But, feel free to be offended--you'll have company.

Note: Many people have jumped to conclusion before reading the story in question. Here's the AP article that created the controversy, and here's the complete speech that Elder Oaks gave at BYU-Idaho about the deterioration of religious freedom in the United States.

My 2009 MLB Postseason Predictions

To those who didn't see my picks last season, I correctly predicted the World Series matchup and outcome at the outset of the postseason (I picked Phillies over Rays in 6--just one game off). So, if you're into gambling, I may just be your man. Here we go:

NLDS:

Rockies over Phillies

Cardinals over Dodgers

NLCS:

Cardinals over Rockies

ALDS:

Angels over Red Sox

Yankees over Twins

ALCS:

Angels over Yankees

World Series:

Angels over Cardinals in 7

What I'm hoping for in the World Series:

Rockies over Twins in 7

G20 Protests vs. Tea Party Protests

Now that the tea party protests have subsided, the media must really have to scrape to find angry protests to cover. Political talking heads must be itching for the next protest full of angry people ready to start political violence. Wait...you say there's a violent protest that's caused $50,000 of damage? It must be those angry, gun-clinging conservatives! Oh...its a bunch of liberals protesting the G20 summit? No reason to cover it then.

This has to be one of the most shocking media double standards in quite a while. Well, I guess it's not shocking, just extreme. During the tea party protests against government spending and expansion, the media was quick to criticize, to warn us of the dangerous language being used, of the swastikas being carried, and the "unamerican" behavior of those involved (Nancy Pelosi's words). Based on the media coverage of the G20 protests, you'd think these were reverent, peaceful protests. From the AP:

In all, 190 people, including at least two reporters, were arrested during the summit Thursday and Friday.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said the police response would be evaluated and urged people who felt wronged to make formal complaints, but he praised law enforcement.He said there were no major injuries and less than $50,000 in property damage was done.

So, when no arrests occur, no property was damaged, and entire families organize to petition the government, the media and the left warn everyone of impending political violence (while, ironically, the most prominent violence in the news right now is in Chicago (Chicago 2016!)). But, when violence is actually occurring at a protest, the media and the left question police response. The media treatment of conservatism is constantly reaffirming the beliefs of "unamerican[s]" everywhere: the media is still firmly in the left's back pocket.

The Verdict Is In: In-N-Out Burger

I decided that this post was absolutely necessary after all the grief I gave In-N-Out Burger obsessors. Yes, I finally ate at In-N-Out Burger. My thesis is this: it was really good food at a great price, but come on. It was a burger and fries.

Upon entering the local In-N-Out Burger location in Tempe, I was surprised by the simplicity of the menu. There were like 4 things on it. Simple is good, but what if you don't want a cheeseburger? Bacon? BBQ Sauce? I guess this is part of the mystique that is INOB. I ordered a "double-double" (2 patties and 2 chesses) and some fries (which seem to only come in one size). The total was around $4.50, tax included--an excellent price for what I got. I asked for a cup for water, and instead the cashier prepared a cup with ice and water and a straw for free. Impressive.

The burger was delicious. I didn't get the "shh, don't tell anyone, its off the menu" animal-style burger (which is just grilled onions), as I prefer fresh onions on my burgers. More amusing was the fact that the cashier asked me if I wanted the onions grilled (and I wasn't even in on the secret!!). The fries were very different from other fast food locales. The fries were crispy on the inside and quite soft on the inside. At first, I wasn't sure if I liked them as much, but I do--they're just very different. The hamburger bun was very fresh and tasty.

The speed of service was a little disappointing, seeing that they gave much more attention to the drive-thru window (not surprising anymore). The staff was friendly and helpful.

Overall, it was a good experience. I will definitely go back, but not because of the off-the-menu-mystique or even the shirts. The price was right there with Carl's Jr. on the value per dollar spent. But, I'm not quite up to wearing a shirt yet.