Two friends share contrasting perspectives on today’s hot topics and timeless issues.

It inspires me that we can celebrate our differences of opinion in the most public of ways- through our parties conventions.  It seems that everytime I watch a convention, I get emotional about our amazing country that promotes free speech and has active discussions about our future.  In my opinion, after last night, with Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech for vice president, a shift in momentum was completed- a shift that began last Friday.  Please take the time to listen to this audio podcast on my thoughts of the conventions and the Republican rally.

–Joel
Conventions and the Shift of Momentum

Last Saturday, Rick Warren, pastor of the megachurch, Saddleback, held a conversational forum between the two presidential candidates, John McCain and Barrack Obama.  By now, this event is practically old news with the announcement of Joseph Biden as Obama’s running mate yesterday.  But, what a great event the Saddleback forum was in American politics!  I was partial to this forum because it’s intent was very similar to the intent of this website, that is to have civil discussions on the hot topics and great issues of the day.  It’s okay to disagree, but lets do it civilly, like adults, and resist the heavy temptation to get emotional.  I admire the courage of Barrack Obama to appear before a venue that was likely a little out of his comfort zone (I imagine John McCain agreeing to meet at an ACLU venue would be equally discomforting).  However, tactfully and confidently stating your positions, even if they disagree with the audience, is the mark of a good leader.  What this event exposed was not only the difference between the two candidates’ views on major issues, but also the degree of confidence with which they each held their convictions.  Senator Obama’s answers were more nuanced and less precise – and thus came across as less confident - than McCain’s succinct and clear responses.  In case you missed the event, check it out at cnn, or youtube.  

The specific responses I want to draw attention to come from three of Rick Warren’s questions:  

1.  “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”

2.  “Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?”

3.  “Define rich?” 

Obama answered the first question with the now infamous, “…above my paygrade” comment.  This answer is telling in that it indicates Obama’s willingness to recuse himself of making a moral/ethical decision by giving that responsibility to a higher power.  Thus, he comes across as not confident in his own moral/ethical judgment on the issue.  If this is true, why then does Obama support legislation that seeks to ‘play god’ with the unborn when the moral/ethical issue is admittedly not his to decide?  The audience heard this lack of conviction on the abortion issue loud and clear.  In contrast, John McCain answered with “at conception”.  Fortunately for McCain, he has a voting record to back up a strong pro-life position, which is sure to sit well with social conservatives who up to this point have not been sure on his stance.  I know that for me, McCain’s position made me more comfortable with him as a candidate; his views on the rights of the unborn are compatible with mine.  

Obama made another comment in his response that further exposes his positional dilemma.  He indicated that he would have voted for an Illinois-state ban on partial birth abortion if it contained similar language as a federal bill, presumably to protect the health of the mother.  John McCain went after this response in his most recent radio address:  ”At Saddleback, he [Obama] assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, “lying” about his record. When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn’t withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama’s campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false.”  In my view, this vote against a state ban on partial birth abortion is indicative of his moral position on the rights of the unborn, or in this case, the ‘partial’ born.  So he takes a moral and ethical position in his voting record but recuses himself of that responsibility when answering a direct question. 

Obama’s answer to the second question above, “Does evil exist…” is also telling.  In his answer, Obama stated that we should confront evil “…with humility”.  I understand where Obama was heading with his answer and though it didn’t indicate a lack of conviction, it indicated a degree of ignorance.  He was trying to promote the concept that evil often comes from us as much as from others and that we don’t have to look very far to find it.  The famous Bible verse from Luke 6:41 is representative of this thinking, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”  Interestingly, Bush has quoted this scripture several times throughout the years in interviews and press conferences.  In this sense, I understand where Obama was coming from and agree with him.  But, when contrasting this answer with McCain’s “Defeat it!” we see a difference in approach.  One of my biggest concerns is that Obama’s approach to evil will leave him paralyzed in dealing with large national security threats like radical extremism and Russian, North Korean, and Iranian aggression.  Humility can paralyze if allowed to be the dominant factor in international relations.  As an Iraq War veteran, I have seen evil first hand and completely agree with McCain’s succinct response.  Though we do see evil here at home, in our streets, we do not have much of a conception of the evil that exists elsewhere.  Radical extremism is evil and cannot be handled with humility no matter how good the intentions.  We must defeat it.  I would have preferred Obama to answer the same way as McCain.

Obama’s answer to the rich question also exposes the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans on taxes.  In his response, Obama stated that he wanted to make the income tax code “more fair” by adjusting the percentage of the various income brackets.  But confidence and conviction in an arbitrary system, like the progressive tax code, contains a fundamental credibility problem.  What is fair?  Why is one arbitrary number more fair than another?  Is it fair that the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of the income taxes?  Or that the top 5% pay 60%?  Or that the top 1% pay 40%?  These figures come from the recent press release from the US Department of Treasury along with this quote: “The individual income tax is highly progressive.”  I’ll admit that these statistics would be stronger if they included the demographic information on what percentage of workers make up the brackets of income earners (ie what percentage of workers make up the top 50%, etc).  But, why is it fair that the more money you make, the higher the percentage of your income goes to taxes?  This arbitrary progressive system makes it more difficult to defend with conviction.  To me, the only two ways to achieve an AGREED upon “fair” system is through a flat tax, as promoted by presidential candidate, Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, or the “Fair Tax” as advocated in the books of the same name (see our previous posts on the Fair Tax).  How is changing the arbitrary progressive tax any solution to perceived fairness?

For the above reasons, I am more comfortable in supporting John McCain for president.  Though I have been skeptical of his middle of the road centrism, I believe he is correct on the issues that matter most to me: abortion, national security, and taxes.  In the interest of full disclosure I’ve been impressed with Obama’s momentum and charisma to date.  He does have a unique gift to inspire those around him.  He’s even inspired me.  But talk is cheap.  And inspiration without conviction and substance is cheaper.  The Saddleback forum brought out a side of him that is not often seen, a side that is less confident and charismatic in his positions.  I’m very interested to see how the future debates play out when the candidates actually go head to head.  I can’t wait!!

–Joel

We are quickly moving toward another election in which both candidates strive to move center, and in some cases, cross the aisle in order to secure votes from the undecided.  This fact can be seen in the flip flops of both candidates in the last year.  This is an interesting phenomenon of American politics.  It’s tough to win a primary without appealing to the parties base which sometimes fall further out on the political spectrum - as was the case with Obama.  Interestingly, McCain won the primary without appealing to the base of the party.  Whereas, after the primaries, McCain found himself quickly having to appeal to the more conservative elements within his party, Obama decidedly shifted center.  These moves have created confusion amongst Democrats and Republicans.  Is McCain the maverick who tells it like it is regardless of how it comes across to his conservative friends, or is he the Bush Tax Cut championing, offshore oil drilling, 100 years in Iraq conservative?  In his case it seems to be politics as usual.

Is Obama the no-offshore drilling, no strategic reserve, talk to everybody populist, or is he the offshore drilling, strategic reserve sipping, temper talk with substance centrist ?

This move towards populism is seen in both candidates most recently in their energy policies.

Will the real candidates please stand up!

–Joel

If one of the things you’re looking for in a Commander-in-Cheif is someone who can think on their feet and for themselves, look no further than Barack Obama. He’s quickly demonstrating to the world that he’s got his S**T together on foreign policy. You may disagree with some of the things that he says, but you can’t dispute that he is much more well received by the world and has much better grasp of the problems and possible solutions than McCain or Bush ever did or will. Well I guess you *can* dispute that but it’s an argument I think you’ll lose, just read this article from the non-neutral viewpoint of the Jerusalem Post about Obama’s conciliatory rhetoric about Israeli/Palestinian relations… especially this part in the beginning :

President George W. Bush… was accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advisers and spokespeople during a 40-minute interview with this writer and three other Israeli journalists.

John McCain… looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction.

Barack Obama… spoke to The Jerusalem Post with only a single aide in his King David Hotel room, and that aide’s sole contribution to the conversation was to suggest that the candidate and I switch seats so that our photographer would get better lighting for his pictures.

oh, and I just had to throw a few quotes from the above linked article from the Chicago Tribune about Obama’s overseas trip:

The Berlin speech and the excitement over Obama in Europe serve as potent reminders that his biography and personal qualities also can be assets in international affairs, potentially enhancing America ability’s make its case to the world. And, as Obama often argues, the capacity to summon international support can both multiply U.S. power to confront challenges such as terrorism and reduce the burden that must be shouldered by American taxpayers.

and this…

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who probably owes more to President George W. Bush than any foreign leader, offered an endorsement of sorts. On the eve of Obama’s arrival, Maliki publicly backed a timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq with a time frame similar to Obama’s plan for a redeployment. Maliki’s action, responding to domestic political pressure from a public impatient with the U.S. occupation, undercut criticism of Obama’s plan from McCain and the Bush administration.

Perhaps the wisest thing my dad ever said to me was that “the best camera is the one you have with you”. Well, now that I’m a ripe old 30 I can finally say that he is right! That’s why everyone should have a certain phone camera doohicky.

Besides that, though. I think his second best advice was not truly recognized for its genius, especially at the time. He sent a mass email to all of his friends, which he never does, espousing the virtues of tap water and the evils of bottled water. Now there are many news stories and bloggers everywhere ranting about the waste and non-necessity of our obsession with water in a bottle. Some cities are even heavily discouraging bottles for use in the government buildings.

I found his email from back in 2004 and have pasted it below. Enjoy!
(btw, it took just two words: “fred” and “water” for the message to pop to the top of the list of old email. awesome)

Here it is, unedited:

Hi Everyone,

If you are like me, you have overdosed on politics, so here is a little tidbit that impacts your planet and your daily life that you may not have given much thought.

If you accept the “general wisdom”(whatever that is), you would expect that bottled water is more healthy than the free kind you can get from your tap. DON’T BELIEVE IT!!!!!

Here are five reasons you should eschew bottled water except in cases where portability is an issue:

1) It is incredibly expensive. More than gasoline. More than beer. More than cheap wine. What are you buying? As you can imagine, the water itself is virtually free, so you are essentially paying for marketing, packaging and transportation. It takes gasoline to haul around that water to the store you buy it from, and every additional gallon of gas we use just puts more money into the hands of our “friends” in the Middle East;u you know, the ones who want to destroy us.

2) You don’t know what is in it. Unlike municipal water systems, there are no standards for bottled water in the US. That’s amazing but true. The standards for tap water across the country are very strict and the water is tested daily. When is the last time you heard about a water borne outbreak of anything in this country? Don’t remember? That’s because they are very rare indeed.

3) Every plastic bottle you use is waste. True, some of it is recycled, but much is not and even the recycled variety is not an efficient use of our planets resources.

4) Most bottled water is not fluoridated. This is not much of an issue for older people, but children should have fluorine in their water to help prevent tooth decay. They don’t get it from bottled water, but they do from tap water.

5) Even if you think you are drinking only bottled water, you are not. Every time you get a drink with ice or coffee at a restaurant, you are drinking tap water. Don’t worry. It’s safer than the stuff you are paying for.

Still not convinced? In an article from the Nov 2 Wall Street Journal titled: Bottled Water isn’t Always Pure, a study of bottled water shows that many types have levels of bacteria and fungi much higher than those of municipal water supplies. Next time you are ready to pick up that box of bottled water, put it back and spend the money on something that has some real value, or give it to your favorite charity.

Regards,

Fred Bradshaw

This article is from the most recent issue of the Sierra Club newsletter…. so maybe my dad is an environmentalist after all!

Thanks, pop, for the good advice!

Critics like to judge an opposing party’s administration based on 20/20 hindsight and wishful thinking.  As the below article helps us remember, the invasion of Iraq was not only a necessity, it was inevitable.  The path toward invasion began in 1998 and gained a newfound immediacy after 9/11.  The author makes an intriguing case that had we not invaded in 2003, Bush would likely have been a one term president and a democratic administration would have completed the task under John Kerry or Al Gore- such was the bipartisan support for invasion before the war and the nature of american political opportunism.   And not surprisingly in this scenario, Republicans would likely have been the critics and naysayers of an “unjustified war.”  What an interesting “what if” historical scenario to ponder.  

 I’m interested to hear Obama back up his assertion of an “unjustified war” by offering what he thought may have been a better solution to the problem of Saddam Hussein.  Does he think that containment was still possible given the pattern of behavior in Saddam’s Iraq?  The containment of Iraq in the 1990’s was a complete failure.  The Oil For Food scandal guaranteed that the UN would never go beyond writing a nasty letter and issuing “paper tiger” sanctions.  The Oil For Food scandal also guaranteed that a large allied coalition was impossible with countries like France declaring “nothing justifies war”.  But instead of remembering how the state of affairs were from 1998 to 2003, we like to forget and cry foul after finding out once and for all what Saddam was and was not capable of (keep in mind this was only possible through invasion).  Had we not invaded, Saddam could still be in power, could be just as secretive and crazy as before, and the stakes would be that much higher after 5 years of continued containment and indecision while not verifying his capabilities.   

We can see today how well diplomacy is working with Iran who still refuses to give up any of it’s civilian or military uranium enrichment projects after our “historic meeting” in Geneva.   

 I welcome your witty and supported comments. 

–Joel

Why Iraq Was Inevitable

A great point was brought up in an article I found on RealClearPolitics.com.  It speaks of where we’d be today if Obama had his way with an earlier plan on troop withdrawal from Iraq.

  ”Obama first introduced legislation for a fixed withdrawal plan on January 30, 2007. According to that plan, all combat brigades would have been out of Iraq by March 31, 2008; that’s 14 months–more or less the same time frame he proposes now. He would have been wrong. Iraq would have seen chaos, not calm and not political reconciliation. That plan would have ensured a monumental historic defeat for the U.S. and a civilian slaughter of biblical proportions in Iraq.”  

–Joel

  Maliki Proves Timetable’s Distortions

Or is that Psychiatry? Either way, McCain, Graham and even Bush are trying to present the idea that the problems with the economy are psychological!

Even though there could be a component of negative thinking bringing down consumer spending, etc etc… for these guys to come out and try to use that as an argument that our economy isn’t doing so bad is the worst kind of delusion: the kind that will get us even deeper in trouble.

I heard a great quote today from Al Gore in his recent speech on energy independence:

“We are borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Middle East and burning that oil in ways that harm the Earth”.

Pretty true if you ask me. Here’s the video for your viewing pleasure of McCain’s delusion:

Iraq is doing well!  Let’s not squander our success by doing something rash and pulling out prematurely.  I know you’ve heard it all before but linked is a great WSJ Opinion piece http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121617045543756423.html that discusses the current situation in Iraq.  It directly contradicts many liberal talking points.  For example:

“All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all of the legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. More important, it is gaining wider legitimacy among the population. The attention of Iraqis across the country is focused on the upcoming provincial elections, which will be a pivotal moment in Iraq’s development.” 

As for the civil war… 

“…there have been virtually no sectarian killings recorded for the past 10 weeks. Violence is still perpetrated by organized groups, but AQI, the remnant Sunni insurgents and Shiite fighters are now focused on attacking their own members who have defected to our side. This is a measure of their weakness. The Iraqi population is increasingly mobilizing against the perpetrators of violence, flooding American and Iraqi forces with tips about the locations of weapons caches and key militant leaders – Sunnis turning in Sunnis and Shia turning in Shia.” 

This sounds to me like the general population taking our side against the insurgency, which I had already seen signs of back in 2006 when I was there. What better indicator of our inevitable victory in this counter-insurgency war?  So much for the mess in Iraq that many on the left will have you believe.  Do you hear any left-minded individual in the media acknowledge this progress?  Nope.  Recognizing this success would mean admitting that perhaps we can accomplish our original goal of having a working democracy in the middle east.  And that accomplishment would be disastrous for Bush-haters everywhere.  Thus, as Rush Limbaugh likes to mention,  many on the left are invested in failure and would rather see us leave Iraq with our tail between our legs than even acknowledge that progress has been made and that hope for a successful Iraqi democracy remains.  God forbid that in the next few years improvements in the quality of life of Iraqis transcends their quality of life under Saddam under a new democracy.  Why that would mean we accomplished what we set out to do in 2003.  Since the liberal talking point is that what we set out to do is not accomplishable, this result must be avoided and not acknowledged even in the face of reality.  Perception still defines their reality.  And so, now it’s a race.  Can the left agenda pull us out of Iraq before success becomes complete?  Only time will tell.

–Joel

Justin and I discuss past, present, and future threats to our security- mostly coming from radical extremism in the middle east.  As usual, we don’t always agree…Asymetric Threats and Iran from Justin Bradshaw & Joel Van Brunt on Vimeo.

Justin and Joel continue their discussion on energy and the environment.  Why can’t the academics have this civil debate?   Instead, it seems that there is a specific movement not to debate.  Energy and the Environment Part II from Justin Bradshaw & Joel Van Brunt on Vimeo.

Since you guys seemed to like the xtreme biking nature video, I thought I’d share this one of a glider/skier thing (which I’d never heard of until now) going down a mountain… It’s wild: