By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 2/25/07

Fireworks were everywhere in Hollywood earlier this week, and it wasn’t because of the Oscars scheduled for Sunday night. Other than Washington, D.C., probably no other city in the country has the ability to fire up the headlines like Hollywood, CA.

It all started with a quote from a former Hillary Clinton supporter, David Geffen, who said, "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling." Then the proverbial excrement really hit the fan as charges and counter charges between the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns kicked into over-drive. Definitely one of the better shows to come out of Hollywood for some time.

Geffen, who is a record executive, film producer, and one of the three founders of Dreamworks Studio in Hollywood, has indisputable power in the fund-raising arena for Democrat candidates. He has reportedly raised about $18 million for the Clintons, and been rewarded with sleep-overs in the Lincoln Bedroom for his efforts.

Other than the fund-raising abilities of celebrities, from Hollywood or elsewhere, is there any redeeming value in such close association with the celebrity-types by politicians of any persuasion? We would think not. They’re hardly the esoteric and erudite of our political culture whose opinions we treasure. Unlike the famed intelligentsia of Eastern Europe, they are not great thinkers, nor are they great founts of wisdom and political insight. Rather, almost by definition, they are much more inclined toward form and appearance than substance. "Tinseltown," after all, is more about beauty, glamour, and show than it is about serious issues, political intellectualism, and deep thought.

The insidious side of the show business, however, is very evident. All one has to do is review a list of some of the Hollywood productions up for Oscar nomination to see that they do, in fact, foster an agenda in their glitzy make-believe world.

Al Gore’s misleading documentary, or more accurately, "crock-umentary," is nominated for both the Best Documentary Oscar and the Best Original Song Oscar. The inaccuracies and factual misrepresentations are too numerous to address here, but since man-made global warming is the new religion of the left, Gore’s a sure winner at the Oscars. To ensure his win, his film doesn’t blame the Chinese, who pump more fluorocarbons and C02 gasses into the atmosphere than America does, but he blames America. The hate-America and blame-America crowd loves it, and makes Gore a shoe-in.

Also up for an Oscar is "Jesus Camp." Nominated in the Best Documentary category. It doesn’t stand a chance against Gore’s "masterpiece" but it will undoubtedly run a close second. How could the Oscar balloters not give due consideration to a film that ridicules conservative evangelical Christians? After all, in some celebrity circles, evangelical Christians are as fearsome as Islamo-fascists. Just ask Rosie O’Donnell. For some of the Oscar voters, that could be a really difficult decision!

Then we have "Children of Men," nominated for three Oscars, that is about a heroic illegal alien who tries to save the human race while the conservative, racist government is trying to deport her. That will play well on the heartstrings of the open-border crowd.

And of course there is "Babel," nominated for six Oscars, that depicts Americans travelling overseas as arrogant, racist, and abusive to foreigners. I guess that makes it pretty clear how they view Americans, doesn’t it?

With such anti-Americanism, anti-Christian, and anti-truth productions coming out of Hollywood, it’s hard to understand why the celebrity crowd has any impact on the real world of politics. With this kind of refuse coming from the studios, one would think politicians would race for the exits to distance themselves as much as possible from the source of such nefarious "entertainment." Maybe that’s why there are so many similarities between the "oldest profession" and politics: the selling of oneself for campaign dollars. Of course, for these candidates it’s not a matter of political prostitution, for these Hollywood productions play so well to their political base, that it’s obvious they’ve already sold out.

Hollywood is hardly the place to look for the kinds of values and principles of governance that can continue to propel America forward economically, culturally, or in any other meaningful way. We hear virtually daily rants of celebrities who seem so consumed with compunction over their lavish compensation for little meaningful service, combined with their opulent consumption that they denounce the very country and people who have made them the financial successes they are. They should have no bearing on what thinking people in this country perceive to be the right candidates and the right issues. They can voice their opinions just like anyone else in this great country, but they have no more credibility than anyone else. If anything, when they speak up, look the opposite direction, for that’s more likely where you’ll find legitimate answers and the truth.

Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 2/18/07

It should come as no surprise that the new Congress is expending so much energy on superfluous debate of resolution after resolution, non-binding mind you, regarding the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Not surprising that they think they need to show the voters from the mid-term elections that they have to express their disapprobation over that front on the war on terror and usurp the President’s role as Commander In Chief.

After all, from their perspective they were granted a virtual mandate to "bring our troops home now." So why don’t they? They control the purse strings for the Federal Government. They proved that when Congress ignominiously failed to appropriate funds for the support of South Vietnam even after President Nixon ended the conflict there.

It would appear they’re between the proverbial rock and a hard place. They could simply follow the perceived intent of voters and deploy the troops out of Iraq to some other hotbed of terrorist activity like Okinawa (good suggestion, Congressman Murtha!) by turning off the funding spigot to operations in Iraq. Or they could pass binding resolutions to truly hamper the efforts by the President. Instead, they posture for the media and the public, hoping to score political points with an attitude of one-upmanship. A week ago a column appeared on these pages praising Abraham Lincoln for his leadership. Truly he was a model of leadership, especially ex post facto with the benefit of hindsight. Even Lincoln had to deal with a Congress comprised of critics as Bush does now.

The "Peace Democrats," as they were known, believed that Lincoln and the Republicans of his time had somehow caused the war, forcing the South to secede. They thought Lincoln was a tyrant who was "destroying America" with his tyrannical governance and accused Lincoln of running up a massive national debt for the war. They supported the war effort when things were going well, but they became increasingly vocal and non-supportive when they weren’t.

Clement Valladigham of Ohio was their leader, similar to John Murtha of today’s Congress. When the influence of the Peace Democrats reached its high point by convention time of 1864, Valladigham convinced the party to adopt an official platform that claimed the war was a failure. Just a year later it ended in victory.

In spite of those who ascribed blame to the President, endeavored to ensure his failure as Commander in Chief, and undermined the war effort, President Lincoln stood firm in his conviction and resolution to win the war and reunite the states. We can only imagine the social, ethnic, cultural, and political ramifications had the Peace Democrats succeeded in undermining the President, and prevented victory.

All of this should sound very familiar, as our President likewise manifests a conviction and resolution to see this effort in Iraq brought to successful termination. He likewise has his share of "Peace Democrats" and spineless Republicans who seek to undermine his efforts and prevent the execution of the President’s plan for victory.

All of this by our contemporary "Peace Democrats" is nothing more than political posturing. Like those of Lincoln’s time, they’re supportive when the war is going well, and then morph into peaceniks and call for immediate withdrawal when the going gets tough.

They bemoan the challenge of their patriotism. Yet how can their patriotism not be challenged when they succumb so easily to media and the warped public opinion shaped by that media? When they are so willing to sacrifice our security and liberties that most assuredly would be threatened following a collapse of a nascent Iraqi democracy and the incubator of terrorism that would follow?

Loud and boisterous are the cries for leadership in our age. Yet in light of examples from the past, what we are witnessing in our current President is ultimate leadership. In spite of dwindling public confidence numbers and the efforts of the "Peace Democrats" to micromanage his role as Commander in Chief, that he could maintain his determination is a testimonial to his leadership.

Leaders do not crumble under the microscope of a quasi-enlightened public. Nor do they succumb under criticism. Lincoln at times during his presidency was hated and maligned nearly as much by his own party as he was by the opposition, very much like we’re seeing today.

What we need is more genuine leaders in Congress who are steadfast and resolute; who realize that peace always follows victory; who can see themselves as standard bearers of a legitimate cause of national and international security, instead of willows in the wind of public opinion.

If we value sufficiently the stability and peace that success in Iraq can breed in the Middle East, we must be as resolute as Lincoln, as well as pray for the Lincoln of our day to remain steadfast.

After Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, the Peace Democrats were totally discredited. They slithered away into historical oblivion, only to be resurrected again and again, each time America has found itself embroiled in a battle for freedom and security. Whether our own or for others around the world.

Hopefully we will similarly witness the "Peace Democrats" and their spineless colleagues across the aisle slinking away into historical obscurity, remembered only for their lack of leadership, values, and courage.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 2/11/07

Great have been the cries of intrusion into our individual and collective "privacy" over some of the provisions of the Patriot Act and other government efforts to curtail terrorist activity over the past few years. But the assaults on our freedoms from the new congress dwarf those efforts expended for our protection since 9/11.

Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat from Ohio, thinks it's time for the Fairness Doctrine to govern the content of the broadcast airwaves again. At the National Conference for Media Reform in January, he presented the argument that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should monitor and enforce content for media outlets, including radio and television broadcasters.

Some applaud this resurrection of a defunct Federal policy, contending that it will force broadcasters to "balance" their presentation of controversial topics of public interest. In effect, the policy places the FCC in a role as referee to restrict the free expression of ideas except as presented in a manner in conformity with the policy.

The bureaucracy of the Federal Government is hardly in a position to serve as an unbiased intermediary in this process. They have an inherent conflict of interest in many of the issues discussed over the airwaves as they seek their expanded role in governing our daily lives to ensure their power and perpetuity.

The efforts of Congressman Kucinich are no more than a thinly-veiled attack against the success of talk radio which is dominated by conservative commentators. The invocation of the Fairness Doctrine would totally restructure the landscape of talk radio, which, along with the internet, are the primary sources of news and information that run contrary to main-stream media which is dominated by liberal group-think.

Perhaps the greatest motivation to Kucinich is provided by the recent declaration of bankruptcy by Air America. This is the liberal talk show program launched in 2004 by a group intent on making inroads into the media dominated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, and Bill O’Reilly. Even with the significant seed money infused by groups like Moveon.org and individuals like George Soros, Air America could not compete successfully in the free market. Hence, Kucinich’s desire to force the liberal perspective into a realm where they cannot compete without government intervention.

Milton Friedman, the Nobel laureate for economics, postulated that there can be no economic freedom without political freedom. Kucinich’s efforts indicate a dysfunctional understanding of the free exchange of ideas with the necessary correlation of free enterprise.

The government should be no more in the business of controlling "free" speech (except that which is deemed vulgar, seditious, or otherwise illegal) any more than they should be controlling our health care system.

For another example of the new congress’s efforts to curtail free speech, the U.S. Senate is considering legislation that will dramatically affect our ability to engage in grassroots lobbying to our elected officials. Senate Bill 1, which is packed with a host of issues, includes a provision to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Under the new bill, any organization that has a paid employee and has an organization of more than 500 members, must comply with all lobbyist registration requirements that the big oil or big pharmaceutical companies must comply with. In other words, your church or club, if they promote a letter-writing campaign to your congressmen, must be registered as a lobbyist, and file the requisite quarterly report filings under threat of a $100,000 fine.

This is a thinly masked effort to stifle efforts by churches and other non-profit organizations to influence the legislative process by Congress, proven such by the fact that labor unions, corporations, and even foreign companies that engage in lobbying are excluded from the legislation. The result could be reduced efficacy by such groups in efforts to express concern over legislation pending before Congress, and an effectual stifling of free speech by constituents to affect our Federal lawmakers.

This effort toward government regulation of speech and managing grassroots efforts to communicate with our elected officials doesn’t directly prohibit free speech but it creates a climate of intimidation and onerous regulation that could effectively silence church and civic groups interested in Federal legislation.

If these early efforts by the 110^th Congress are any indication of where they’re headed for the next couple of years, we may see an assault on our freedoms and liberties unlike any since the suspension of habeas corpus by Abraham Lincoln. These efforts underscore the precept uttered by Ronald Reagan in his first Inaugural Address when he said "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 2/02/07

The American electioneering system leaves a great deal to be desired. On the heels of the mid-term elections in November, one can’t even turn on a television or read a newspaper without being bombarded with stories regarding the 2008 Presidential campaign. Frankly, I much prefer the British system: the Prime Minister declares an election, and within a couple of months, it happens. Now that’s the way to run an election season!

It makes absolutely no logical sense to engage in the hypothetical debates of who’s going to win in ’08. At this point, we don’t even know for sure who’s running, other than half of the U.S. Senators, with a governor or two thrown in for good measure.

What we do know, however, is that New York Senator Hillary Clinton is running. In some political circles, the Senator’s announcement last week was heralded as nothing short of the second coming of Christ, while others seem to react as if the number "666" was emblazoned somewhere in her scalp. Somewhere in between the extremes, as usual, we can find the true assessment of her as a potential Commander In Chief.

She communicates well, is articulate, but would have to be appraised as being considerably short of the "smartest woman in the world" assessment. But more than that, it is helpful to look at what someone has accomplished in their life to indicate that one has the competency to serve in that most important position. With Mrs. Clinton, we find a veritable dearth of accomplishments. In six years as a Senator and eight years as First Lady, she hasn’t accomplished anything substantive.

Organization is certainly not one of her strengths, as those Rose Law Firm records were so elusive for so long before they just happened to show up on a table in the White House. Heaven forbid National Intelligence Estimates would be treated so cavalierly by her if elected.

She apparently is good as a commodities trader, for anyone who can turn $10,000 into $100,000 in a few weeks is pretty darn good. Perhaps she would be more competent as a trader for the New York Mercantile Exchange.

What we do know of her management style, leadership, and insights into the operation of government is not very encouraging. Bradford DeLong, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley and a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, provides us a glimpse. Dr. DeLong served on the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993 that Senator Clinton led.

A few years ago, Dr. DeLong said, "My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly."

That’s hardly a ringing endorsement from someone who has worked closely with her, and one that should bear great weight in determining her ability to lead the country.

While working on my Master’s program, I remember learning about the Peter Principle which, in it’s abbreviated version, states that everyone in a hierarchy rises to the level of their incompetence. The principle has applicability here in that it would appear that the Senator has already risen to the level of her incompetence, and hence should not be elevated any further.

Another reason to not elect her as president is that she engages in revisionist history, not a good trait for the leader of the free world. Last week in Iowa, the Senator proclaimed, "I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So he (Bush) took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority."

This is in direct contradiction with what she said in 2003 when explaining her vote on the Iraq invasion. She said, "I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation."

Those who can’t stand by their decisions over time without attempting to rewrite history simply don’t manifest the character requisite for the Presidency. The Senator should, as Dr. DeLong declared, be kept as far from the White House as possible.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 1/26/07

Our President in his State of the Union address recounted some of the greatness that is America. From a stellar economy, to individual acts of magnanimity and of heroism. Monetary and fiscal policy by this administration have facilitated an economic environment where America has benefited phenomenally. But where the acts of courage, heroism, and sacrifice presented by the President have in previous generations been characteristic of the greatness of America, they somehow seem less so now.

The President told of Wesley Autrey, and his courageous rescue of a fellow subway rider in New York City, and of Tommy Rieman, a heroic Army Sargent who used his body to shield wounded comrades in Iraq. These examples of courage seem to stand out more these days than they ever have. It seems that the heart, courage, and conviction that have been the very soul of America are fading away.

There was a time, not so long ago, when men and women united all over the country in a common fight; an effort to do all that was humanly possible to defeat enemies who sought our destruction, and the extirpation of our freedom and liberty. A time when collections were made of used rubber tires for the war effort. People bought war bonds to help fund the arduous work of fighting tyranny and the manacles of oppression.

Such sacrifices are not required of us these days. We fight oppressors and purveyors of destruction with high tech weaponry and a volunteer military force. Rather than going to the local theater to see the news reels for war updates, we click on the TV or surf the internet only to be bombarded with images and propagandistic analysis ad nauseam about our purported impotent efforts against an enemy sworn to our destruction or conversion.

To many, Iraq is George W. Bush’s war. He started it, so if our efforts there fail, it’s his failure. Then the anti-American nay-sayers can do their high-fives because Bush failed and we don’t have to hear about it in the news any more.

Over 3,000 brave, committed, and courageous volunteers in our military have died in Iraq. For who? George Bush? No. For us! If that nascent democracy collapses because we failed to provide the support necessary to stabilize the country, it is all of us who are more at risk. Is the world safer with a stable Iraq, or a collapsed state with warring factions creating an environment ripe for nurturing more terrorists? Are we as Americans, safer if we allow the collapse of Iraq only to become a breeding ground for terrorists much like Afghanistan before the attacks of 9/11?

The questions are of course rhetorical, but they should be answered by each of us for the conclusions seem self-evident. President Bush did not start this war on terror. The terrorists started it. But we can finish it, one stage at a time, if we continue with the heart of previous generations that have sacrificed much more than we to preserve our union and our freedom. But if we cower, as too many Americans are doing these days, we prove that the likes of Wesley Autrey and Tommy Rieman are anachronistic in today’s America. And instead of a nation of potential heroes, we confirm that we are spineless, convictionless, solipsists who wallow in naivete and ignorance about the struggle that we are now engaged in.

If we fail in Iraq, it should not be because our Commander in Chief presides over a nation of people who failed to provide him the populist support requisite for surmounting our challenges. By the way, the President is the Commander in Chief, not the micro-management-prone Congress that seems to think they can usurp that constitutional authority. The President said Tuesday, "The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others." If we don’t realize that, we are naïve or stupendously detached from reality. Too many of us seem to suffer from amnesia, naivete, and lack of conviction in core principles or a combination of all the above, and are unwilling to stand a little sacrifice now for a greater assurance of safety and security for future generations.

"Talking heads," analysts and columnists, criticize us for being obsessed with winning. When it comes to preservation of America, we should be obsessed with winning. Even if you belong to the "hate America" crowd and feel guilty over the liberty and quality of life we enjoy in this great land, you should be obsessed with winning. When it comes to our legacy to our children and grand children, winning the fight against those who have sworn in their wrath to destroy us, of which Iraq is the most prominent front, should be our primary obsession.

As we focus on the mistakes of the past, we paralyze ourselves with indecision and uncertainty for the future. We simply cannot afford to be anything but realistic in assessing the risks associated with failure.

So which is it? Are we Americans willing to fight for freedom and security, or are we a nation of narcissists, impervious to the amplified battle we leave for our posterity?

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 01/19/07

Last week the U.S. Congress passed HR 3 authorizing Federal Funding for embryonic stem cell research and the Senate will take up the issue shortly. The question begging a logical answer is, Why?

Stem cells are primal, unspecialized cells that can renew themselves through cell division. Research into the functionality of stem cells in repairing damaged body parts or curing disease and illness has been conducted since the 1960s but with accelerating success since 1998.

Two major forms of stem cell research have taken center stage, not only scientifically but politically. Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research draws stem cells from a fertilized human egg within the first few weeks of life. To harvest the ESCs the embryos have to be destroyed. Adult stem cells (ASC) come either from adult bone marrow or from an umbilical cord after childbirth, or even recently, amniotic fluid prior to childbirth.

There are no known cures provided by embryonic stem cell research. Currently there are about 94 companies internationally involved in stem cell research. The U.S. companies weren’t federally funded. But they have apparently had no problem raising the venture capital to fund their projects, either from venture capital investors or pharmaceutical companies hoping to someday capitalize on their progress. Currently, using adult stem cells, these companies are working on treatments for 72 diseases and illnesses. Included in that list are brain cancer, ovarian cancer, skin cancer, testicular cancer, leukemia, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, stroke damage, and the list goes on.

Again, these are treatments currently under development using adult stem cell research. How many treatments are being developed using embryonic stem cell research? Zero! The only thing they’ve been able to do consistently with ESC is grow tumors in mice.

If ESC research offers so much potential, why isn’t the venture capital flowing to it? Federal funding is apparently the only way to fund ESC research because it doesn’t hold the same promise for curing diseases and providing treatments that ASC research provides.

Just last week, Dr. Anthony Atala of the Institute of Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine issued a statement that stem cells from the amniotic fluid surrounding infants while still in the womb apparently provided the same apparent benefits from a research standpoint that ESCs provided. These stem cells can be extracted without harming the fetus or the mother. If that is the case, there is no need to destroy fertilized embryos through embryonic stem cell research.

Senator Tom Harkin nearly blew a gasket over the release of this information just prior to the House vote on HR 3, apparently fearful that the importance of their debate sans facts might be eclipsed by countering relevant scientific developments. In other words, don’t confuse the debate with the facts, they might get in the way of our agenda.

So what is the agenda? The question again becomes one of "Why ESCs?" I think the old truism of follow the money may provide the answer. It obviously is not a medical or scientific answer. The answer is political in its most insidious form. The groups pushing for ESC research include NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and a virtual who’s who list of pro-abortion groups.

In light of the successes in ASC research; the dearth of successes in ESC research; and the money flow from an investment standpoint into ASC and the political money flow into ESC, it’s obvious that these groups see ESC research as an extension of abortion rights. It’s not about medical research. It’s not about the cures for Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease, contrary to what he would have us believe from his political ads from last fall. It’s all about extending abortion rights, and having them federally funded.

I’m not an expert in medical research, but even I can tell when nascent research has potential based in large part on how the venture investment money flows to it. And by tracking the political support and opposition to pending legislation, it becomes very clear what the key issues are.

Don’t fall for the superficial slick advertising campaigns or politicians pleas for research "for the children." This is not about treating diseases, because if it was they would be promoting federal funding of ASC research, not ESC. After all, it’s closest to having some actual cures and treatments.

But it’s a political agenda they’re pursuing. Not only should taxpayer money not be going to embryonic stem cell research from a pragmatic perspective, but ethically we should not be funding it, either.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 01/05/07

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom." Another insightful aphorism uttered by Albert Einstein.

Most frequently, we associate freedom with the liberties propounded by our Constitution, enumerated in the first 10 Amendments, and founded in divine principles embedded in our Declaration of Independence. But the freedoms of speech, assembly, and the bearing of arms are superficial freedoms if we don’t have the economic freedom to strive for our potential and pursue our pecuniary dreams. In other words, those freedoms we assume to be ours by legal recognition of a divine right are inextricably linked with the economic ability to exercise those rights. Freedom is to be practically pursued in all areas of life, including economic freedom, which is fundamental to the Lockean Creed upon which our Declaration of Independence is based; "life, liberty, and property."

This is just a portion of the legacy left behind by Milton Friedman who passed away in November at the age of 93. Friedman was the Pied Piper of free-market principles of economics for the last quarter of the 20^th Century, and his legacy will undoubtedly continue for centuries, because his economic principles were based on fundamental truths, the most preeminent being freedom itself.

The "grandmaster of free-market economic theory," as The New York Times dubbed Friedman, was a man of towering eminence. He had a positive impact on the world surpassed by only a handful of individuals in the 20^th century. He revered the individual and he saw the inherent flaws of centralized power of any kind. He advanced theoretically the concept that political freedom could only be accomplished with economic freedom and substantiated the theory with empirical data.

On the most compelling economics question of all, free markets or a command economy Friedman was of course resoundingly correct. Not only did the U.S. economy continue to grow prior to implementation of his free-market principles, but it burgeoned beyond expectation after the Reagan years when Friedman’s principles found footing in fiscal and monetary policy. While Friedman was promoting free-market economics, contemporary economists like Paul Samuelson repeatedly predicted that the Soviet Union would outgrow the United States!

Dr. Daniel J. Mitchell said of him, "Milton Friedman entered economics at a time when the profession, and the broader public policy community, favored more government control. In both his empirical work and his theoretical musings, Friedman displayed uncommon rigor and tremendous courage. His reward was to live long enough to see his ideas triumph. Friedman’s influence was profound. The tremendous economic achievements of Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher were due – in no small part – to Milton Friedman. And now Friedman’s influence can be seen in the free market reforms sweeping Eastern Europe."

With the plethora of failed centrally-controlled economies around the world and the absence of personal and political freedom that has attended those doomed countries, it’s easy to see how Friedman’s necessary connection of economic and political freedom is so crucial. What is surprising, however, is how much of academia and our educational system seems to hold fast to failed economic theories and why socialistic principles predominate in the classroom. Even more perplexing considering the mass murders, genocide, oppression, and discrimination heaped upon those country’s citizens by the tyrants who were the perpetrators of those doomed economic models.

Perhaps I’m naïve, but I have supposed that the purpose of education, in large part, was to prepare young people to be the leaders of tomorrow; to be able to shoulder the civic, social, governmental, and economic responsibilities of our growing country. To learn from previous mistakes of societies of the past, and to provide a brighter future by inculcating our youth with the historical knowledge of centuries gone by. Yet even now, many educators, especially at the higher education level, seem stuck in the failed, oppressive, dictatorial, inhumane systems of Lenin, Castro, and Chavez. They are not just embraced ideologically, they are idealized. They would have us believe they’re enlightened, but based on their stubborn adherence to fallacious principles it’s extremely difficult to agree with their self-perception.

As illogical as it seems, perhaps the educational community is the last bastion of non-free-market principles and as such, is in need of a cultural revolution of sorts to embrace the freedom and liberty that only a free-market can provide. Friedman spent most of the last decade promoting the principles of the free-market system within education. He was a visionary in economic theory, and it appears he was a visionary for education as well.

As long as much of the American educational community remains entrenched in the failed tyrannies of oppression and the false economic principles upon which their markets were based, our children will continue to fall farther behind the rest of the world in academic performance and preparedness for the future. After all, how can our children learn about a brighter future from teachers who are stuck in failed theories of the past?

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 12/29/06

Last week Tony Blair, Britain’s Prime Minister, declared an end to multiculturalism in the United Kingdom. Said Blair, "When it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British. At that point no distinctive culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom."

Blair made the surprising declaration after witnessing the continued erosion of the British culture by immigrant groups who supposed that their religious legal system superceded the British system. Combined with the progressive splintering of British society into groups that failed to assimilate into the British mainstream, Blair obviously believes enough is enough.

Blair continued, "The whole point is that multicultural Britain was never supposed to be a celebration of division; but of diversity. The purpose was to allow people to live harmoniously together, despite their difference; not to make their difference an encouragement to discord. The values that nurtured it were those of solidarity, of coming together, of peaceful co-existence. The right to be in a multicultural society was always, always implicitly balanced by a duty to integrate, to be part of Britain, to be British and Asian, British and black, British and white. Those whites who support the BNP's policy of separate races and those Muslims who shun integration into British society both contradict the fundamental values that define Britain today: tolerance, solidarity across the racial and religious divide, equality for all and between all."

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, multiculturalism in the UK was enthusiastically promoted to enable minority communities to retain their own culture and traditions while taking part in the life of mainstream society.

However, the British government has recently backed off from its position, observing that multiculturalism was leading to segregation of some of Britain’s ethnic minority communities, rather than integrating into the mainstream while bringing their distinctive cultures with them in the process. When portions of Oldham, near Manchester can’t even fly the Union Jack because it has a cross on it, multiculturalism has obviously gone too far.

Echoing Blair’s sentiment is the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) an organization which has historically been staunchly supportive of multiculturalism. Trevor Phillips, chairman of the CRE said that multiculturalism was no longer useful as it suggested "separateness."

In rather erudite tones, Rob Berkeley of the race think tank, The Runnymede Trust, also historically supportive of multiculturalism, cautioned, "The key things are that we do pursue a shared national identity and some shared common values based on our shared humanity. And we need also to ensure people are treated fairly and their identities are not denigrated or subsumed into some sort of non-identity because that gets rid of all the benefits of diversity."

All this should sound familiar as we have witnessed an increasing degree of self-imposed segregation by ethnic groups immigrating to America. As mentioned here previously, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center indicates that only 55% of Hispanics living either legally or illegally in this country consider themselves Americans. And another poll of Muslims in Los Angeles County indicated that only 10% of them consider themselves to be Americans. It seems the hyphenation of Americans is another social and cultural divider, rather than a unifier.

Last week Susanne Forrest authored an outstanding editorial that outlined how multiculturalism has worked, and is working, at Idaho State University. To me that piece delineated for all of us how the system should work, featuring inclusion in the mainstream of University life while bringing the best of the foreign students respective cultures with them. I can see why Susanne would consider her life a rich tapestry because of her involvement with those students. Mine is richer too because of such exposure.

However, good things taken to extreme rarely are desirable, whether it’s chocolate, juicy medium-rare steaks, or multiculturalism. Considering Prime Minister Blair belongs to the Labor Party, roughly equivalent to our Democrat party, the declaration is a frank admission of a policy that’s gone too far. Somehow I can’t quite visualize Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi declaring multiculturalism dead in America.

Blair was courageous and far-sighted in reversing a policy that has been splintering British society. Let’s hope that we can prevent such cultural segregation through an inclusive spirit and concomitant actions rather than divisive and exclusive behavior.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 12/22/06

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkuh, Kwanzaa, Zagmuk, Saturnalia, Mithras’ birthday, or just the winter solstice, the spirit of Christmas is universal for it can permeate the very soul of every man, woman, and child.

For those of us who are Christian, the concept of a loving father granting mortality to His only begotten son in order to bring salvation to mankind is an appealing and powerful concept. But the underlying principle behind not only Jesus’ birth, but His life and His death, is love.

Certainly there is an increase in sensitivity to others this time of year in spite of the often hectic schedules we maintain as we shop for just the right gift for each of our loved ones. But the foundational motivation for finding that gift is love, and a desire to please. That principle of love can and should be shared by all people, not just this time of year, but throughout the year. If there were a way of packaging this spirit of love and sharing that as our gift to everyone, think how much better the world would be. We could conduct mass shipments of it to the Middle East and to America-haters and "infidel-haters" all over the world, and even in our own midst, and most of the problems of the world would be solved.

Perhaps I’m idyllic, but I think there is nothing that we do on a day to day basis that matters in the long-term more than how we treat one another and how we love one another. The spirit of Christmas is truly one of benevolence, charity, and kindness.

Many have a problem with the level of commercialization of Christmas. As a true disciple of the free enterprise economic system, I have little problem with the commercial activity surrounding this time of year. For many retailers, the time they move into the "black" on their bottom line is not until the Christmas shoppers start hitting the malls and shops on the Friday after Thanksgiving, hence the term "Black Friday." Obviously a boon to retailing, Christmas brings a pecuniary blessing to them.

The commercialization of Christmas is only a problem to those who allow it to become the focus of the season. Of greater concern should be the materialism that can be fostered by such commercialization, for materialism is an internalized characteristic whereas the commercialism of the season is extrinsic. We should be no more bothered by the Christmas shopping ads than we are by a "White Sale" on President’s Day.

In 1843, Charles Dickens penned the now immortal "A Christmas Carol," that played a significant role in making of our Christmas observance the overt celebration that it is today. But it was also instrumental in transforming a holiday from one disavowed by many Christian sects because of it’s communal hedonistic excess to one of personal goodwill and compassion. If one man can, through his creativity and power of communication, do so much to transform Western holiday observance, how can we deny the potential of each of us, within our spheres of influence, to create such a transformation of our Christmas observance? As Dickens said of his masterpiece, "May it haunt [your] houses pleasantly…" Perhaps we all need to be haunted so, until we make of Christmas all that the spirit thereof demands.

Surely we can each be "Dickens" in our homes, neighborhoods, and communities, by redoubling our focus on the love which is at the heart of our observance. Surely we can, through our individual acts of kindness, and increase in sensitivity, mollify the malcontents, touch the lives of those who may think they are forgotten or unappreciated in our society, and somehow ameliorate the temporal standards of those who may have less then we.

Said Dickens of Ebenezer Scrooge, "…he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us." A fitting end for his book, and a noble goal for each of us.

Regardless of your theological beliefs, may you find joy in giving, peace in service, and heart-felt comfort in reaching out to the lonely and the needy. Even the secularists amongst us would be hard pressed to criticize our observance of Christmas if it transcended theology and translated to such humanistic altruism, which is what He whose birthday we celebrate would desire of us. To each of you, Merry Christmas, in the full, inclusive context of the love upon which it is based.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 12/15/06

America has a rich history as a melting pot of cultures, ethnicity, and religion. Those who have come here over the past couple hundred years have sought a better life through the freedoms and liberties espoused by our Constitution and the free enterprise system that allows one to aspire to greatness in whatever pursuit they may desire. They brought their culture, customs, and language with them, like my mother-in-law, but they became Americans: learned English, learned our customs and conventions, and became encultured into the American way. America is great in part because of the diversity of our people, and the richness of our cultural elements brought here. But there are elements within our culture that threaten our "melting pot" and our very way of life.

Multiculturalism in tandem with political correctness, it’s social enforcer, are perhaps the greatest culprits leading to a degeneration of our culture and weakening our ability to defend ourselves. Initially intended to make us more sensitive to other cultures and ethnicity which in and of itself is not only desirable but necessary in a society such as ours, multiculturalism has advanced to an illogical extreme that in academic and educational circles, mitigates the strengths and advances of Western civilization and promotes other cultures to near sainthood status regardless of their shortcomings.

If the goal of multiculturalism was intended to facilitate the understanding of other cultures, it would contribute, even add "seasoning" to our melting pot by encouraging our young people to compare and contrast, and then eclectically assimilate the best of all cultures. Instead, it is used to discount Western values and advance ideologies distinctly anti-American.

Roger Kimball of the New Criterion has written, "Wherever the imperatives of multiculturalism have touched the curriculum, they have left broad swaths of anti-Western attitudinizing competing for attention with quite astonishing historical blindness." Multiculturalism has led to the historical revisionism that paints Christopher Columbus as a nefarious European who initiated the transformation of a supposed paradisiacal Western hemisphere into the evil, corrupt America of today.

It is multiculturalism that precludes Shakespeare from being studied by many university literature and English majors, because he was a sexist and racist white man. It is also the underlying principle engaged in revising history, including the historical roots of our contemporary observance of Thanksgiving and acknowledgement of the Christian principles fundamental to the establishment of our country.

And in light of recent discussions, I’m convinced that multiculturalism, in it’s extreme, is at the root of the removal of any references to Christ at the time we celebrate His birthday.

Multiculturalism and political correctness risk our safety in our communities and our nation because of their doctrine against profiling. As developed by the FBI Academy, profiling is a proven valuable tool in identifying criminals and terrorists. Yet the politically correct crowd would disallow law enforcement or Homeland Security from utilizing the system if it incorporates any ethnicity factor in the equation.

In a twisted sort of way, Al Gore was right when in the 2000 Presidential campaign he defined E Pluribus Unum as out of one, many, instead of the other way around. Multiculturalism in its extreme form seeks to divide rather than unify as Jefferson and Franklin intended when they wanted to unify the country based on fundamental principles.

A recent poll by the Pew Research Center indicates that only 55% of Hispanics living either legally or illegally in this country consider themselves Americans. A recent poll of Muslims in Los Angeles County indicated that only 10% of them consider themselves to be Americans. It seems the hyphenation of Americans is another social and cultural divider, rather than a unifier. A hyphenated American is just another symptom of political correctness.

Multiculturalism in its extreme weakens community bonds and reduces the motivation for new immigrants to participate in the common culture, the shared history and a common language. Regardless of efforts to elevate other cultures, the American concepts of freedom of expression, religion, human rights, liberty and democracy are distinctively Western values. As historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has said, "These are European ideas, not Asian, nor African, nor Middle-Eastern ideas, except by adoption. There is surely no reason for Western civilization to have guilt trips laid on it by champions of cultures based on despotism, superstition, tribalism, and fanaticism."

These elements have already advanced alarmingly to a Balkanization of America, where differences are the focus instead of common values and ideals. Where culture and ethnicity divide us, rather than adding seasoning to our melting pot to enrich the entire culture.

As long as multiculturalism and political correctness are ends in and of themselves, or worse, as a means to continue to divide and weaken our country, we will continue to decline as a culture and an American society. And if they are used as a means to diminish our value system, erode our cultural strengths, reduce our safety, and rewrite history, they are deleterious to our collective culture and our country. Whatever faults America may have, no other country has worked harder to change it’s societal and cultural inequities and imperfections.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 12/08/06

Christmas is a joyous time of year, not just for Christians, but for all who heartily engage in the festivities of the season. People are a little more friendly, hearts a little softer, and acts of kindness and generosity increase through this time of year. Appropriate for the celebration of the birthday of the Prince of Peace.

But it’s become increasingly difficult to celebrate publicly the birthday of Him whose birth we acknowledge. Public parades, like the one in Chicago, disallow an openly Christ oriented float; companies issue policies against personnel saying "Merry Christmas," in favor of the secular greeting, "Happy Holidays;" and watchdog groups raise their antennae a little higher just itching for a fight over anything that might have too much of "Christ" in it.

All very surprising developments in a country that declares in its very constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Too many in our society focus strictly on the establishment clause ostensibly forgetting altogether the free exercise clause. Or perhaps they’re aware of it, but they think that it only applies to minority religious groups. Certainly, from their perspective, Christians are not to be allowed free exercise. Someone might be offended if we show our Christianity as a nation.

Interestingly, nearly 9 out of every 10 Americans claims to be a Christian. About the same ratio as Muslims in Egypt or Kuwait, and about 10% higher than the percentage of Jews in Israel. Would it be logical for Egypt or any of the Middle Eastern countries to not publicly acknowledge Mohammed? Should Christians in Israel be offended at the display of a Menorah?

So why is it that in a nation of 90% Christians, and where 97% of the populace celebrates Christmas, we are to cower to a small minority and hide our religion in the closet? Why is it that businesses are more interested in not offending 10% of the population that they are willing to risk offending the other 90%?

It seems that the 90% has become used to having their freedom of expression rights trampled by the 10%. The 90% apparently doesn’t take offense as easily as the 10% does. When you think about it, you can’t offend me unless I let you. You can say anything to me, assault my sense of propriety in any way, yet unless I give you power over my attitude, you can in no way offend me. Yet it would seem that the 10% gives that power readily, anxious to have someone do or say something that they can take offense at, whether intended or not.

Tolerance, for some reason, seems to be expected from Christians, but not others. We must be willing to tolerate secularism hijacking our holy days, aberrant sexual parades in our streets, and extend the freedom of religious expression that Christians are disallowed by the 10%. Tolerance, in other words, is not a universal quality to be expected from all since the small minority has absolutely none for Christians. Like George Orwell’s Animal Farm, all beliefs are equal, but some beliefs are more equal than others. The result is extreme intolerance towards Christians from people who talk so much about tolerating all views and religions.

Ignorance of the law (the Constitution), overly zealous courts, and the ACLU has somehow been able to intimidate the majority of us into submission as we continue to see the real reason for the celebration of Christmas gradually, yet forcefully removed from our culture. Those who "choke at a gnat," the open celebration of the Christian faith, are typically the same who "swallow a camel," demanding tolerance of everyone but themselves. From their perspective, transvestite parades are constitutionally protected, but nativity scenes are not.

Many in the academic world somehow think it to be chic to denounce, disparage, and criticize Christians. If anyone in our midst should be most tolerant, it should be our educators. They are the sieves of our culture, sifting the academic and cultural chaff from the kernels of truth and knowledge. Of them, more tolerance of all faiths should be expected.

Thank you to the businesses that have the courage to actually use the Christmas appellation rather than "Holiday Tree," etc., and to KLCE, that all month long plays Christmas music, including traditional carols that actually say "Christ" in them! And thank you to you teachers who have the courage to sing Christmas Carols with your students. We can’t conscionably take Christ out of Christmas any more than we can take Martin Luther King out of the observance of his birthday.

May this Christmas season find us all more tolerant, from all perspectives. May we be less willing be offended, and eclectically gather the positive elements of all religion’s holy days. And may we be filled with a spirit of love and giving that spills into the rest of the year, not just manifested during the Christmas season, whether we’re Christians or not.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 12/1/2006

Throughout the history of our young republic, millions of men and women have been willing to sacrifice all for the preservation of liberties, freedom, and safety of all Americans.

Veterans Day represents the official acknowledgement of a grateful country for those who are willing to sacrifice their personal interests in favor of the collective benefit derived by the rest of us. And this Veterans Day a couple of weeks ago was especially poignant for me after receiving a letter from my nephew Jim who just completed his second tour of duty in Iraq with the Marines. He expressed his sentiment for the day of observance, writing "I am saddened that this holiday gets overlooked more often than not. Today of all days we should take a moment to reflect upon the sacrifices others have made that we can live in the world we now have. The veterans of this great nation that have fought and bled on foreign soil deserve our respect, support, and devotion."

Jim’s expressions put in perspective the sacrifices of those in uniform for our liberties and safety, and by so doing, demands more than one day a year for recognition of their service, dedication, and sacrifice.

Contextually, the belittling comments of Senator John Kerry directed toward our current military personnel, are inscrutable. He said recently, "Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." While initially explained away as a botched joke, then lashing out at those critical of his remarks claimed it was an attack on President Bush for sending troops to Iraq, it seems to me a Freudian slip showing the disdain and contempt many in this country have for our men and women in uniform.

It was Kerry and his comrades who were so critical of the detainee treatment at Abu Ghraib and used the events there to further denounce our military, and broadly condemn the whole for the actions of a few. Even more perplexing because leading a naked man around with a collar and a leash would probably be considered a date in Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco!

Providing even greater insights to the incredible accomplishments of our military in Iraq, my nephews letter continues, "As a two-time veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I want everyone to know how I feel. The mission in Iraq may be unclear to some, but not to those of us that (sic) have been there. When a woman comes out of her home and bows at your feet and weeps, wiping her tears on your blood-stained boots, suddenly everything becomes very clear. There is an overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens that are grateful for our accomplishments over there and the way their country is being reborn. You can’t change an entire culture and way of life of brutality and religious fanaticism in 3 years. It will take time. The ONLY people fighting against these changes are the ones that have lost their power after the fall of Saddam. There are millions of law-abiding Muslims in Iraq that want us there to continue to fight against these wicket people (which are a miniscule minority)."

Our efforts in Iraq are not just about eliminating threats to our security, they are about human dignity, self-determination, and the security of 25 million Iraqis. What a shame if we were to lose our resolve to stabilize the area, and manifest our lack of respect of Iraqi human life by exiting prior to stabilization. Perhaps the most apropos comparison to Vietnam is the vacuum that would be created by our premature departure, with the concomitant loss of millions of Iraqi lives resulting therefrom.

Jim concludes his letter with wise counsel. "Smell the clean air, take a drink of tap water, watch your garbage men take your trash away, watch road crews repair your daily commute, watch your children play in a park without fear, watch people take a Sunday drive just for fun without fear, watch the hundreds of different religions do their various things on the weekend, watch an ambulance take someone to a fully functioning hospital, watch an honest police man cruise through your neighborhood…remember all the things we take for granted every single day. Think of what a difference we are making for the less fortunate."

As touching as these insights are from one of our brave marines, nothing brought me to tears quite like the close to his letter. It was signed simply, Semper Fidelis, the Marines motto, meaning ever faithful. Perhaps we as a society need the same core conviction.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 11/24/2006

This page is usually replete with grandiloquence designed to stimulate thought and dialogue. However, there are times when the usual ideological themes employed here are best set aside in order to simply reflect.

Thanksgiving is a natural time to reflect on the blessings we enjoy as a people, as a nation, and as a community. The challenges and vicissitudes of life are such that we seldom take the time necessary to contemplate the incredible fortunes that have fallen to us.

Our great country was conceived by the Declaration of Independence which proclaims that life and liberty are the inalienable gifts of God - natural rights - which no person or government can rightfully take away, and affirms that these are indeed God-given rights, not bestowed by man or governments. It affirms that the purpose of government is to secure our God-given inalienable individual rights, and that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Our Declaration reduced government from master to servant for the first time in history.

Our United States of America is not perfect. No temporal entity operated by man can be, yet the principles upon which this country is founded are divine in nature, and the resulting government by and for the people, the best on earth.

The American people are the most giving people in history. When there are calamities, conflicts, and just causes, Americans are there either as volunteers or part of a government assistance program. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "America is great because America is good."

We must always be grateful to our men and women in uniform who vigilantly ensure our liberties, freedom, and security on a daily basis. I am reminded of a list of truisms that declare: it is the veteran, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion. It is the veteran, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the veteran, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble. It is the veteran, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the veteran, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote. Without their service, what we know as America would not be, and we would conceivably all be speaking German.

Politics aside, we should be grateful for a President who has taken the primary threat of the 21^st century seriously, and has done all within his power to protect and preserve our country. Islamo-fascism and terrorism are serious threats that can’t be simply negotiated away, and the President has utilized all the tools at his disposal to protect America from them. Who would have thought that after 9/11 we would go five years without an attack on our homeland? I certainly didn’t.

Idaho is a magnificent place to live and to raise a family. Tucked away in the midst of the Rocky Mountains, Idaho affords an environment that is relatively unaffected by many of the evils and social scourges that modern society contends with. We can walk to the park, walk downtown, perambulate around our neighborhoods mostly without the fears and apprehensions associated with urban milieus. And here in Pocatello we’re literally within minutes of magnificent forests with clean, flowing streams, lush vegetation, and indigenous wildlife.

With the prevailing value system, Pocatello is a perfect place to raise a family. My late friend, John Savage, when he retired, could have chosen anyplace in the world to retire, but through a process of elimination, chose Pocatello in part because of the aforementioned reasons, and loved it here. And for those without family, Pocatello is small enough we can claim one another as brothers and sisters.

When viewed philosophically, gratitude and thankful hearts require a degree of humility. The world doesn’t owe us anything, but in humility, we are thankful for what we do have and what freedoms and privileges are ours. We’re not entitled to have a good job, or a car or the host of temporal blessings that are ours, but we’re grateful for them and we express our gratitude to those who make it possible. We’re not entitled to have someone hold the door for us at a store, but we’re thankful for those who do, and we express it to them.

And ultimately, since all blessings are bestowed by God, we express our deepest gratitude to him for our country, our state, our families, and the temporal blessings that are ours to enjoy.

It is proper for us, indeed, requisite of us, to look to the past to gain appreciation for the present and perspective for the future. It is good to look upon the virtues of those who have gone before, to gain strength for whatever lies ahead. It is good to reflect upon the work of those who labored so hard and gained so little in this world, but out of whose dreams and early plans, so well nurtured, has come a great harvest of which we are the beneficiaries. Their tremendous example can become a compelling motivation for us all.

Of all people in the history of mankind, we have most to be grateful for. We should manifest that gratitude in our treatment of one another, with courtesy, kindness, and respect.

By Richard Larsen
Published, Idaho State Journal Website, 11/16/06

There are always some unsavory elements to the election season that remind us of our duties as an informed and vigilant electorate. Sometimes these elements are not promulgated by candidates but by political action groups. I’ll give you a couple of examples from the recent election.

The first was a mailer that was sent out by the Boise based group, Conservation Voters for Idaho Action Fund. Many of you may recall it, especially if it caught your attention the way it did mine. It was the mailing that on one side had a very complementary picture of a local candidate and on the flip side had a picture of a crying baby, with the caption at the top, naming a local incumbent, "… Has Let Us Down." It then lists three issues deemed important in voting against the incumbent. It alleged that the legislator has "Endangered the health of our families by voting in favor of allowing more arsenic in our drinking water; Threatened the safety of our communities by trying to make it easier to build coal-fired power plants in Idaho, and Risked the quality of our air and water by refusing to provide more funding for responsible monitoring."

To the credit of the political action committee that distributed this piece, they did cite the legislative bills related to each of these issues. Reason demands a more thorough examination of their theses, however. When we remove the illogical extrapolations from the phrases, I can’t honestly think of any sane or cognitive person, politician or otherwise, who would purposefully "endanger the health of our families," "threaten the safety of our communities," or "risk the quality of our air and water." The reasoning is specious, at best! The latter is perhaps more subject to scrutiny as there are always trade-offs in cost effectiveness and variant means to a desirable end, and those lines of demarcation are always more subjective, hence, subject to debate. But for the others, there is no immediate necessary connection, philosophically, between their fallaciously extrapolated conclusions and the underlying reasons for their allegations.

Sometimes politics makes for strange bedfellows, and sometimes the extra help afforded a candidate through the advertising from a Political Action Committee (PAC) standpoint is desirous, but at what cost? Oftentimes, a candidate is only aware of the PAC’s endorsement while not aware of the specifics of what the organization is going to be sending out or promulgating over the airwaves. But ex post facto, everyone is aware of what is sent out, and it’s under these circumstances one would expect a scrupulous candidate to disavow the contents thereof. Culpability can be somewhat absolved when a PAC conducts the mailing, but absent a denunciation by the candidate, the tactics and message are by implication approved.

Which brings me to the second example. In Missouri, the "Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative" that narrowly passed, says nothing about allowing embryonic stem cell research, which was what Michael J. Fox’s controversial ad was promoting in behalf of Claire McCaskill. Believe it or not, it does make sense, because there is absolutely nothing that embryonic stem cell research can purportedly cure, which is why federal funding is being sought to support it. Almost all of the success from stem cell research has resulted from adult stem cells, not embryonic. That’s why all the venture capital in this area of research is flowing to adult cell research. The only way embryonic stem cell research can be funded is if the government is providing it. Even the Michael J. Fox Foundation has granted $1.7 million to adult stem cell research. Where does this indicate the cures are going to be found?

It makes you wonder why political advertising is not subject to the same regulations that commercial advertising is. The Federal Trade Commission regulates "Truth in Advertising" requirements of businesses soliciting sales. Why shouldn’t political advertising be held to the same level of scrutiny? And not just truth in advertising, how about "bate and switch." When a company advertises a product, and we go to purchase it, they don’t have that one in stock, so they try to sell you something with greater profit margins built into the pricing, that’s bate and switch. Why shouldn’t we be able to hold politicians to the same standard? They "sell" themselves as conservatives, they end up being something else, and we’ve fallen for the old bate and switch scam. Well, come to think about it, I guess that’s what last week’s election may have been about.

I would submit that just because political advertising is not held to Federal Trade Commission standards doesn’t mean that we who comprise the electorate can’t hold it to the same level of scrutiny. Political advertising may all look nice and glossy, but our challenge is to get past the form, and focus on the substance.