Author: Scott

It’s easy enough to say it now, but I didn’t see Kerry winning this election against George W. Bush. Kerry held too many positions on a number of issues that made it too easy for his opponents to characterize him as indecisive. Even though I feel the course is wrong, Bush has been steadfast in pursuing it. I felt enough people were sufficiently scared of the prospect of another terrorist attack that Bush would win for that reason.

In reading the press from 11/3 onward, it appears that most people who voted were motivated not by fear of terrorists, but by “values”. Amendments against “gay marriage” drew many people to the polls. As a Christian, a Seventh-day Adventist, someone reading this might think I would be happy about that. Instead, I am sad. If there is anything this election confirmed for me, it is that a politician can win votes by merely paying lip service to being a Christian, particularly if they are born-again. It seems to me that there was scant evidence of this Christian faith exercised on the trail. For months and months we were subjected to all kinds of attacks and distortions of the opponents’ records, if not by the principals, then those who work for them. I’m still looking for the passage of scripture where it says it’s acceptable to have someone speak on your behalf to lie about your opponent in a race for elected office. Our politicians rail against “gay marriage” and talk about protecting the sanctity of it. Those of us who believe in God are sadly mistaken if we believe that any government can make anything sacred. What sense does it make to entrust governments who invented “common law” marriage and “no fault” divorce to defend marriage? How unfortunate that a few invocations of God’s name or a familiar hymn should be a substitute for competence.

This election is another step in the sad trend toward the mixing of government and religion. The purpose of churches is not to act as agencies of government. Rather than spend time and money pursuing federal funds or acting as part of any “faith-based initiative” from the White House, those of us who believe ought to be doing what we can to share our faith. We should have a positive impact on the communities we’re a part of. Government funds nearly always come with strings attached. They can force church ministries to “secularize” their messages. It’s far better to forgo those funds and share faith openly. Government funding of church ministries is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

We should see by now that politicians can’t be depended on as any sort of guide for moral leadership. I think things would be a lot better if we tried to be better examples to others in our own lives.

Excellent analysis of the actions of our government in both countries.

Dr. Cole seems to believe so. Read the whole post. It’s worthwhile if only to get the historical background of the different branches of Islam involved (and whether or not the alliances being alleged are credible).

Now here’s something you don’t read every day–a conservative columnist arguing in favor of a gasoline tax.

“[Oil] is now $41 a barrel. We had a golden moment, and we let it pass. The way to lock in our gains then would have been to artificially raise the price of gasoline with a tax that would depress consumption, maintain consumer demand for fuel efficiency and, most important, direct much of the pump price into the U.S. economy (via the U.S. Treasury) rather than having it shipped to Saudi Arabia, Russia and other sundry, less than friendly places.”

He details his idea further:

“The idea is for the government — through a tax — to establish a new floor for gasoline, say $3 a gallon. If the world price were to rise above $3, the tax would be zero. What we need is anything that will act as a brake on consumption. Since America consumes 45 percent of the world’s gasoline, a significant reduction here would bring down the world price.”

“But the key is to then keep the tax. Indeed, let it increase to capture all of a price reduction. Consumers still pay $3, but the Saudis keep getting lower and lower world prices. The U.S. economy keeps the rest in the form of taxes — which should immediately be cycled back to consumers by a corresponding cut in, say, payroll or income taxes. “

If people understood how much of their income was being devoured by payroll taxes, they might not mind gas prices being fixed at $3/gallon if payroll taxes dropped enough. I know I wouldn’t. But the real puzzle is how you’d keep the Social Security and Medicare programs solvent if you cut payroll. I suppose that would start arguments about raising the retirement age, means testing, etc.

Read the whole column here.

Very well-written column by George Will that touches on the actions at Abu Ghraib, the lead-up to the war, and Donald Rumsfeld’s role as secretary of defense. This paragraph in particular describes the entire problem of the war on terror:

The first axiom is: When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate. Leave aside the question of who or what failed before Sept. 11, 2001. But who lost his or her job because the president’s 2003 State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud — the story of Iraq’s attempting to buy uranium in Niger? Or because the primary and only sufficient reason for waging preemptive war — weapons of mass destruction — was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning, from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today’s insufficient force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable.

The logical conclusion of Will’s argument is that President Bush should hold Rumsfeld accountable. Thus far, he has failed to do so.

From the article: America needs people who have “the moral clarity and courage to do what’s right, regardless of consequence, fashion or fad,” Karl Rove said.

What he said is quite true. It would have been more honest for him to say that the U.S. government needs people with moral clarity and courage. The irony of Karl Rove being the one to say this is readily apparent to anyone who follows the news. In his capacity as Bush’s chief political strategist, he has advocated incredibly dishonest treatment of his boss’ opponents, Republican or Democrat. The way Bush campaigned against John McCain was any thing but morally clear and courageous. His current campaign for re-election is no different. Distortions and outright lies about the stands of his opponent and an inability to admit mistakes are anything but morally clear and courageous.

America certainly does need people with moral clarity and courage to do what’s right. But finding such people in our government seems like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack. The best we can hope to do as individuals is to develop these traits ourselves.