The Freedom Minute

Is John McCain Your Friend?

Ok, I admit ahead of time that this post is a bit snarky, but I think I’m entitled to publicly express a completely personal reaction to one of the candidates. And considering the outright distortions and fear mongering coming from the McCain camp, this post will probably seem mild by comparison.

I’m completely turned off by John McCain’s overuse of the phrase “my friends”, as in: “My friends, what we have to do with Medicare is…” During the last presidential debate, he said “my friends” a total of 22 times out of about the 24 times he had the floor. In fact, he uses the phrase so much that internet posters, even those that support his bid for the White House, often refer to him as John “my friends” McCain.

I know why this bothers me. It reminds me of how slick used car salesmen will call you “my friend” even though they don’t even know you. When someone does that, their insincerity shines through and I’m constantly wondering what they’re hiding and how they’re about to cheat me. My gut instinct is that McCain’s use of “my friends” betrays that this is his true nature as well.

Unfortunately, this is how I now feel about John McCain, a man I once respected because I thought he was guided by principle. But McCain’s willingness to do or say anything to win the race for president has shown me otherwise. Sure, to some extent, all politicians engage in this type of conduct. But the level of mud-slinging and dishonesty practiced mostly by Republican candidates (and, to be fair, some Democrats) during the last few election cycles has brought these tactics to a new height, or should I say, a new low. I wouldn’t buy from anyone who I feel is just another snake oil salesman and I won’t vote for one either.

But perhaps if McCain does become president, there will be a silver lining for young people. I envision a variation on the “Hi Bob” drinking game played while watching reruns of the “Bob Newhart Show”. In this new version, every time President McCain makes a speech on TV and says “my friends” you have to take a shot of Jack Daniels. Hey, for all I know, students on college campuses all around the country are already playing.

Well that’s my opinion, my friends, and I’m sticking to it.

October 9th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election | 3 comments

Should Obama’s associations with William Ayers and Tony Rezko worry you?

Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been on the attack again, this time regarding Barack Obama’s supposed associations with “shady characters” in his past. Specifically, the Democratic presidential candidate has been criticized by Palin, as well as conservative talk show hosts and bloggers, for his ties to William Ayers, a former 60’s radical and Tony Rezko, a Chicago real estate developer recently convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery (unrelated to Barack Obama). Are these attacks fair, or are they simply a desperate attempt by McCain’s campaign to prevent Obama’s lead from increasing to the point where it becomes insurmountable? Let’s take a look at the facts and compare Barack Obama’s ethical behavior to John McCain’s ethics as it relates to his involvement with Charles Keating (the Keating Five Scandal) in the late 1980’s. Continue reading “Should Obama’s associations with William Ayers and Tony Rezko worry you?”

October 9th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election | 3 comments

What’s Ahead for the Freedom Minute

Just a quick note to let you all know what I have planned for this blog. On the technical side, I’m working on a custom design to use when I migrate over to my personal website. I’m learning how to do this from scratch, so bear with me. When it’s done, these pages will be a little simpler to navigate. Once we’re up on the new site, it will be easy for you to subscribe to the blog (don’t worry, I’ll post an explanation and clear instructions) and to sign up for my newsletter (see below). There will be other improvements as well.

On the content side, I’m going to attempt to post at least once per day when I have something relevant to communicate. I’ll be discussing current events as they relate to the topic of personal freedom on both a local and national level. And since Election Day is fast approaching, I expect I’ll spend a good deal of time discussing the presidential race as well as the often confusing ballot initiatives here in California. In regards to those initiatives, I’ll be explaining the arguments for and against and letting you know which side I come down on and why.

On slow news days, I’ll be blogging about general principles of a free society and will be taking on such hot button topics as gun control, abortion, and environmental protection. Two upcoming posts to look out for: 1. My choice for President and why. You can probably guess the who, but the why is at least as important. 2. An in-depth discussion of why I believe a free market economy is the best and only way to achieve prosperity for the most people. I’ll also take on the criticisms usually leveled at the free market and why many believe those objections are generally not valid.

In the future, I’ll also be keeping an eye out for any attempt by those in power to erode our civil rights or personal freedoms and informing you what you can do about it. This leads me to the newsletter I have planned. You’ll have an opportunity to sign up and when there’s something I think you need to know about and possibly act on, you’ll receive an email with the details. If possible, I’ll also include an easy way for you to find and contact those to whom you can make your opinion known. Together, we will make a difference.

Also on my to-do list is a recommended reading list and links to other blogs or web sites you might be interested in.

Well that’s what I have in store for you if you want to go along for the ride. I hope you’ll join me.

October 9th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election | 3 comments

Do the Facts Matter?

Beth Fouhy of the Associated Press is also making the erroneous claim that Palin and Biden “Both said they supported partnership rights for gays and lesbians”. This is an especially egregious error since AP articles are quoted in many other news stories. In fact, earlier in the exchange on that subject, Palin said she didn’t even support the same kind of rights afforded to gay couples by her home state of Alaska. Palin: “not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead”. That’s significantly different than Joe Biden’s answer to the question. Biden: “Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.” and “We…support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do”. Again, that response is a far cry from Palin’s (non) answer.

Fouhy’s AP article also gets it wrong in stating, “Biden reaffirmed his position that it was “patriotic” for people who earn more than $250,000 to pay additional taxes”. What Biden actually said in the debate was that he felt it was unpatriotic for “people to take their post office box off-shore (to) avoid taxes”. It may be too subtle a difference for a reporter of a major news organization to get, but it is an important distinction and not the same as saying it is patriotic for people to pay more taxes.

If our professional journalists can’t get it right, how can we expect the general public to decipher fact from fiction? I guess what I’m asking is, who fact checks the fact checkers?

October 9th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election | 3 comments

Low Expectations

The fact that Sarah Palin didn’t crash and burn during the Vice Presidential debate is being hailed as a great victory by some in her party who were seriously worried that she might embarrass the Republican ticket to such an extent that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would easily sail to victory next month. In fact, shortly after the debate, arch conservative Pat Buchanan reported that Palin’s performance brought great joy to the conservatives he had just spoken to.

It’s a sad commentary on our political process when the standard for a potential Vice President’s performance in a national debate is so low that her surrogates can claim a huge victory because she didn’t end up looking like a total idiot. This is someone who aspires to be the Vice President of the United States, a heartbeat away from the presidency. Shouldn’t we set the bar a little higher than “not looking like a complete buffoon”? After seven years of mistakes and poor judgment from George W. Bush and his advisors, I would think the American people would want the next administration to consist of the most intelligent leaders we can find. Aren’t we tired of having our nation run by a bunch of buffoons?

Think about it. Here’s a Vice Presidential candidate who spent the entire debate avoiding the questions put to her, not because she was being bold or clever, but because she clearly didn’t know how to answer them. In some cases, such as when she was asked about when it might be appropriate for the US to use nuclear weapons, it was clear that she didn’t even understand the question. She devolved into a rambling statement that went nowhere until she was able to get herself back around to one of the only things she knows how to say on the subject “must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons”. Unfortunately, that statement was a non sequitur having nothing to do with anything else she was talking about at the time, and wasn’t even tied to an explanation of who wouldn’t be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Presumably, Palin had been prepared with that phrase for when she was asked about Iran or North Korea and just pulled it out of her hat while she was rambling on about First Use. This was probably the most glaring example of the strategy she employed throughout the night. It quickly became evident that Palin had memorized rote answers on subjects she was likely to be quizzed on and just kept using those lines over and over, regardless of what question she was asked. In this way she was able to avoid the “deer in the headlights” look that characterized her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. Almost anyone with any public speaking experience could have done at least as good a job. Especially since the structure of the debate left little room for follow up questions or pinning a candidate down on the specifics of the subject at hand. Let’s also not forget that for a time, Palin was a sports reporter on Anchorage’s local NBC TV station. Apparently she picked up the ability to look into the camera and connect with her audience because that’s about the only thing she did well last night. That and not completely embarrassing herself. I guess she is qualified to be Vice President after all.

On a side note, special criticism goes to the moderator of the debate, Gwen Ifill, for failing to require that Palin speak to the questions that were put to her or answer even one question with specificity. In addition, Ifill committed a huge disservice to the American public during a question about the candidates’ positions on the rights of gay couples. After Biden clearly indicated that neither he nor Obama supported gay marriage, Biden went on at some length to explain that they did support gay partners having the exact same rights as married heterosexuals, they just wouldn’t call it marriage. When Palin was specifically asked if she supported gay couples having those same rights, she obviously didn’t want to answer directly (once again), so she skirted the question by providing a terse response that she also didn’t support gay marriage. Ifill immediately jumped in and declared that both candidates were in agreement and that she was moving on to another question. Clearly Palin does not support the same rights for gay couples as her democratic opponents, and Ifill’s declaration of agreement certainly left the viewers with the wrong impression of Palin’s position on an important issue of personal rights. And while there are numerous other examples of her poor performance I could detail here, I’ll simply say that overall, Ifill was one of the worst moderators I have seen in a national debate. While I’d give Palin a “C-” for her performance, Ifill gets a straight “F”.

October 9th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election | 3 comments

The Crisis of Confidence No One is Talking About

It’s fairly well known that much of the problem we are experiencing in the financial markets is due to a crisis of confidence. Bankers have lost confidence that their loans will be repaid, home buyers have lost confidence in real estate values, investors have lost confidence in the stock market, and consumers have lost confidence in their continued ability to afford the goods and services they wish to purchase. When confidence is lost, we get cautious. This leads to less demand, which leads to lower prices. Credit tightens, stocks lose value, the economy slows. Eventually, confidence begins to build and the process is reversed. There’s nothing new here, especially if you have even a rudimentary understanding of market forces.

Now Congress and the White House have put forward a plan to boost confidence in the financial markets. But their proposed $700 billion bailout bill has hit a snag. Not enough members of the House are willing to vote for the bill because they know their constituents do not support it. Although the President, Treasury Secretary Paulson and congressional leaders have tried to assure the public that the bill is absolutely necessary, that we’re in dire danger without it, and that it will help all Americans, the people just aren’t buying it. But why?

The answer, of course, is the other crisis of confidence brewing in America – the American public’s loss of confidence in their elected and appointed officials. For too many years we have seen our politicians enrich themselves and their friends at taxpayer expense. We have seen our tax dollars squandered on pork-barrel projects, giveaways to those with access and influence, and a war we should never have started. We have seen our hard earned wages confiscated by our government to create government program after government program and we have little to show for it. Waste and mismanagement are the norm.

And we have been directly lied to. We have previously been warned about other crises and that we must give up our civil liberties in order for our government to keep us safe. We have been promised that our government will do the right thing, play fair, and watch out for our best interests. But time after time we have been disappointed. We have seen the hypocrisy, double dealing, and politics as usual practiced by our elected officials.

So now, once again, they say “trust us”, “we need this bailout”, “we will look out for the average Joe”, “this time we will do it right”. But the American people have had enough. They no longer feel they can trust Washington. Whatever little good will was left evaporated along will billions of dollars in investments, much of which found its way into the pockets of the very people who our politicians say we now need to bail out.

Is it any surprise that our members of congress can’t seem to get the support of the people? Is it any surprise that they can’t seem to get their constituents on board with this bailout? Not when you realize that the crisis of confidence that Americans have in their elected officials has been brewing for some time, far longer than the current financial crisis. We simply don’t believe them, and it is their own fault. Our politicians in Washington must take a long hard look at themselves and their actions over the last few decades and realize that they are to blame for this particular crisis. And it is only when Washington cleans up its act that our confidence can be restored. Until then, this crisis of confidence will continue and they will find it difficult, if not impossible, to engender the support of those they are supposed to put first – the American people.

October 9th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election | 3 comments