By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 06/24/07

After President Bush vetoed the latest installment of Congress’ embryonic stem cell research bills, Senator Hillary Clinton made a comment that requires closer scrutiny than that afforded by reporters covering her comments.

The Senator said, referring to the President’s veto, “This is just one example of how the President puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families.” The significance of such a perspective on Clinton’s part would imply that science should take supremacy over values and places scientific theory in a position to eclipse morality in policy decisions about using the power provided by science.

I’m not a scientist, so some of my observations regarding science may not be qualified as intelligently as a scientist would, but I find Clintons’ comments alarming. It seems to me that science is devoid of values and addresses the mechanics of life and the world around us, but does not afford moral guidance in the exercise of scientific discovery. Science, devoid of morality, led to the promotion of eugenics and horrible experimentation on Jews by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Devoid of morality (in the classic philosophical context), and in control of unwilling concentration camp subjects, the Nazis freely exercised their scientific experimentation without compunction. A truly frightening yet historical example of science bereft of morality.

In its purest form, science is amoral. It has no value system. Science poses hypotheticals, and provides the system and the mechanics to test, observe, and report. Because of its amoral nature, it doesn’t deal with the questions of “is it right to conduct such experiments,” or “is it right to clone a human,” or “is it right to deprive individual freedom because we think man is causing the earth to warm.” It simply doesn’t deal with questions of “should,” it deals instead with questions of what, how, and why. Science does not contemplate the philosophical purpose, the directive principle, or finality in nature or human creations. These are the province of religion, philosophy, and on a collective practical basis, politics. It harks back to the age old question of “just because I can do something, does that mean I should?”

Applying this principle to the stem-cell debate a very fundamental value system is extremely pertinent on two levels: first, is a fertilized human egg (embryo) just tissue or is it “life,” and secondarily, is it justifiable to destroy a human embryo for the purpose of alleviating human suffering? We all have our respective views on these questions, but the primary point is to illustrate how absurd it is to either separate science from ethics, or to place supremacy on amoral science, thinking that it somehow trumps values. If we were simply non-sentient beings or animals, the issue would be moot. However, since we aren’t, science and ethics cannot be bifurcated.

The second part of the Senator’s comment asserted that the President put “politics before the needs of our families.” Actually if that was the case the President would not have vetoed the bill. Public opinion is very supportive of stem-cell research. From a purely political perspective, it would have been a much more astute to sign the bill into law.

This is where the politics of the issue enter in, and they are crucial to understand. The bill the President vetoed does not ban embryonic stem-cell research, it just prevented the Federal government from funding it. There is plenty of private research into stem-cells, both embryonic and adult. But why anyone would want to invest in embryonic stem-cell research is a non sequitur. All the successful results are coming from adult stem-cells. The latest research even shows that stem-cells can be generated from skin, which makes the necessity of destroying human embryos totally unnecessary, especially since adult stem cells so generated provide the advantage of a perfect biological match. Which takes us back to the question, “just because I can, does that mean I should?” If there are more viable and efficacious means of generating stem cells for research and medical purposes with no ethical conundrums, why resort to an inferior method that has ethical quandaries?

There is also the hypocrisy element to the Senator’s comment. Although the “science” of man-made global warming is far from settled, the Senator has whole-heartedly embraced the draconian governmental controls and costs proposed by those engaged in “group think” on this topic. It fits her ideology, or value system: more government and more power in lieu of individual freedom and free market economy. It seems to me that she does exactly what she accuses the President of: placing politics and her personal ideology ahead of the needs of families. This speaks volumes regarding the Senator’s ideological priorities.

Illustrating how unsettled the claims of “consensus” are relating to man-made global warming, Reid Bryson, often referred to as the “father of scientific climatology,” recently called “anthropogenic global warming a bunch of hooey.” He says “the climate’s always been changing and [that] global temperatures are going up because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.” He reminds us that the Vikings farmed Greenland for hundreds of years during the Medieval Warm Period, when the planet was much warmer than it is now without any help from industrial activity. Today those Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.” In fact, Bryson argues that warming global temperatures are “just getting us back to normal.”

With such eminent dissent from “consensus” views, it is obvious the issue is more political and dogmatic than it is scientific. So Clinton is placing her values ahead of science; exactly the accusation she levels against the President.

What makes us human is our ability to cogitate and reason, and our sense of ethics, or the differentiation between what is right and wrong. Secularization places science in a preeminent position ahead of values, but it seems to me, that science only has practical value if used with propriety in light of our ethics.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 06/17/07

There is a negativism that seems to be growing like a cancer in America. Criticism of the government has digressed to the level of vitriol and acrimony. Not just of the government in general, but more specifically directed toward the President and those who work for him. But it has surpassed even that level of degradation, as the country itself is apparently caught in a negative vortex of public opinion where the country is “headed in the wrong direction,” and we are perceived to be hated throughout the world, and we can do nothing right.

Perhaps much of this perception is shaped by a public media that promulgates nothing but negativity. News broadcasts are replete with pejoratives, which seems to play well to the “glass half empty” philosophy, rather than the “glass half full” mentality. This is not necessarily a condemnation of mass media, for they have to market news that sells, and regrettably bad news and sensationalism sells much better than good news.

As the third most populous nation in the world with over 300 million people, it is inevitable that there will be something bad happening every day. But most of us here in “fly over country” enjoy a quality lifestyle with greater peace and prosperity than our fathers or grandfathers saw in their times. Our lives our filled with a relative sameness from day to day; not the degree of trudging through mortality like our forebears endured, but a routine filled with less time in the workplace than at any time in history, being paid more for that time than at any time in history, and able to return home spending more leisure time with family than at any other time in history.

What makes so much of this possible is the remarkable free-enterprise system that our economy is modeled after. There is great angst by some over how powerful China is becoming, and certainly they are an economic force to be wary of, considering their history of civil rights abuse, their communist roots, and their bellicose past. The U.S. economy has grown more over the past three years than the entire size of the Chinese economy. America’s share of global GDP in 1980 was 20%, and it now is over 29%.

Not so long ago, economic matters were of primary concern to Americans. If there were enough jobs to go around, and decent pay associated with those jobs, and we had relatively low inflation that wasn’t doubling prices every couple of years, and interest rates were not at usurious levels, and government wasn’t taking most of our income for taxes, that we were generally a pretty content people. Maybe the economy has been too good, since we find so many other things to be critical of.

Consider the incredible freedoms we have in this country: we can live where we want to, travel, work in a chosen field, purchase goods, enjoy varieties of plentiful food, and even say what we want to. In light of these things and all other bounties we enjoy in this great land, it’s hard for me to understand how it’s possible that over 60% of Americans feel we’re going in the wrong direction.

There are even many among us who not only seem to hate America and think we’re heading the wrong direction, but they seem to think that the rest of the world hates us as well. Those who think it’s never been worse obviously don’t remember the massive demonstrations all across Europe in the 80’s. They also fail to acknowledge that before Ronald Reagan was President, there were fewer than 40 democracies in the world, while now there are nearly 150. America has been the standard-bearer for democracy since our inception over 200 years ago, and America still leads the charge for increased freedom, individual liberty, and trumpeting of human rights. France and Germany recently elected leaders who are pro-American, and if the polls are to be trusted, Spain will elect new leadership that is more pro-American than many of our fellow Americans are. President Bush was greeted in some areas of his visit to Europe last week like a rock star, or perhaps more appropriately, the leader of the free world that he is.

Sure we have our issues to deal with. What nation doesn’t? Does that make us awful? No, for this is still the greatest land and bastion of liberty to the entire world. Does this make us imperfect? Absolutely, for as long as we have a nation established on principles that are eternal in nature, endowed by our creator, and idyllic in nature, we will come short of our ideals. Nations, like nature, are never in a condition of stasis; we are ever changing and evolving.

Even if you don’t like the President, and there are a lot who don’t with his approval rating now at 29%, you can still love America and all that she stands for. Even if you don’t like Congress, and there are a lot of us who don’t with their approval rating now at 22%, you can still love America and all that she stands for.

I read something recently that is ascribed to Jay Leno; I don’t know if that’s correct or not. His observation was that perhaps we’re just a nation of ingrates; the largest collection of spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves America and what we stand for, yet has such disdain for Americans. Maybe the world sees us for what we are; the most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don’t have and what we hate about the country, instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

And what about the President who took us into war and no plan to get us out? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The Commander in Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?

This is still the greatest nation on God’s green earth. Sometimes we just need a little perspective on the good that Americans have done for our nation, our posterity, and the nations of the earth in spite of our shortcomings.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 06/10/07

Osama bin Laden, the villain of 9/11, has said explicitly, “the most serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq.” Al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, said that “Iraq is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.”

Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq, confirmed in April, that “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq.”

It should be obvious to all that the principal front in the global effort against Islamo-fascist terrorism is in Iraq. Not only can we see from the statements of Al Qaeda’s leadership, but the fruits of their efforts are splashed across the headlines of newspapers on a nearly daily basis. Their words articulate their objectives, and their efforts validate those claims.

In light of these facts, it’s difficult to comprehend why so many Americans seem to think we should withdraw before the foe is vanquished. Not only in light of the fact that Iraq is the central battlefield for the war against terrorism, but whether we would be better off by leaving with so many of the enemy congregated there.

Those of you who have served in the military know this better than any of the rest of us: the battlefield is where the enemy is. It is not defined or limited by artificial geographic boundaries. In military operations, you go where the enemy is. Although there remain stubborn vestiges of Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, the primary concentration of Al Qaeda-led terrorists is now in Iraq.

Withdrawing from the fight in Iraq because that wasn’t where the original fight was would be like withdrawing from France during World War II for the same reason.

Regardless of the debate over whether we should have toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime or not, and regardless of how we may feel individually over the conflict there, that’s where the enemy is. It’s obvious from the bin Laden and Zawahiri comments that they see Iraq as their primary focus for victory over the infidel. If they succeed in forcing our removal from Iraq, it will be indeed a huge victory for them. How could we not think that they would be emboldened by forcing our retreat prematurely? How could we not think they would be stronger after we left without defeating them, and consequently, how could we not think they would strive to attack us here on our homeland again with them so emboldened and perhaps stronger than ever?

Some of the documents recovered in Iraq illustrate further how important Al Qaeda’s victory over us is. In a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq until his death a year ago, Zawahiri said that in order to achieve their goal of establishing a caliphate in the heart of Islam, that the first stage for success is: “Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit...” He went on in his letter to outline the strategy to force American withdrawal using propaganda and mass media to turn the American people against operations there. Not surprisingly, many political leaders have fallen into this trap as well.

Consider a milieu where a Taliban-like extremist group governs Iraq, sacrificed at the altar of public opinion by political opportunists in D.C., with control over the 2nd largest source of world oil, and then teaming up with Iran, the 4^th largest source of oil, to create an extremist theocratic Islamic caliphate, not only sympathetic with the intent of terrorists against the West, but in a position to fund, arm, and perpetuate global terrorism like never before. You think oil prices are high now, wait until that happens. They would have us literally “over a barrel.” This frightens me, as it should you.

Zawahiri continues, “The Americans will exit soon, God willing…Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy.” It would appear that terrorists are better students of U.S. history than many of us are.

And what do the Iraqis themselves say? Anbar is one of the two provinces (Iraq has 18, 16 of which are stable) where so much of the insurgency is occuring. Yet with General Petraeus’ new methods of securing the last two provinces, much progress has been made in part because of assistance from local tribal and ecclesiastical leaders in the region. A tribal leader, Sheikh Hussein echoes the desires of local leaders: “We would like America, a friend, to rebuild the country. This is what we want, what the tribes want.” He continues, “Please, tell the Democrats for now to stop pressuring Bush.”

The Zobai tribe in Anbar province, which has been tolerant of Al Qaeda’s insurgency and terrorism, is now turning against them. A Zobai leader estimates that “98% of the people are now against Al Qaeda.”

We have a vested interest and a national security stake in a stable, democratic Iraq. Not only for decent oil prices, which is the “engine” that drives global capitalistic markets, but for national security, to stem the tide against an enemy that has proven that he’s willing to die for his cause. President Bush has warned us repeatedly that this will be a long struggle against Islamic extremism. For now, the primary front is in Iraq. We need to remain there long enough for the Iraqi government to take care of itself.

Victory in Iraq is just as important, if not more so, than victory in Afghanistan. They are, after all, simply different battlefields in the same war. There may be arguably a moral distinction between the two in terms of how we became militarily engaged, but there is no distinction in why we are there now and how critical it is to be successful on both fronts.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 06/03/07

When losing an argument, simply make an accusation. This seems to be the modus operandi of many in today’s political environment. When presenting the concerns about the current immigration legislation before Congress, for example, all the arguer has to do is charge the opponent of the current open-borders policy with being a bigot, racist, or xenophobe. And regrettably, it frequently works. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have, after all, made careers of doing just that.

There was a time when liberals were recognized as being tolerant, open-minded, and logical. Indeed, most definitions of liberal include references to tolerance and broad-mindedness. That time apparently is long gone. The same advocates of political correctness in the name of tolerance are among those who have absolutely no tolerance for people of faith, especially Christians, or anyone of a different mind-set on political issues. Yet these are they who claim to be more enlightened and more tolerant than the rest of us. If they are so enlightened, why is it that they cannot engage in debate without calling names, casting aspersions, or labeling their conservative opponent in pejorative terms? Perhaps they’re not that enlightened after all.

I think most of us on the right don’t expect those of opposing views to agree with us, or necessarily even respect our positions. But in the realm of ideas, emotion is the least desirable element to be invoked into the public discourse. Debating someone over the technical merits of legislation while they’re invoking emotional arguments is like arguing over potatoes and bananas. They have little in common and no clarity is achieved through a debate over their respective attributes. What we on the right strive for more than consensus is clarity; however that is impossible when the emotion card is played.

You’d never guess this based on my columns, but I’m slightly opinionated. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my perspective, though I believe they’re in alignment with most Idahoans, but I would hope others would be open-minded to my rationale. Do I hate those who don’t concur with me? Absolutely not. Those who are intellectually honest deserve my respect, even absent my agreement. But to hear the acrimonious diatribes launched against conservatives by those on the left, I think it’s pretty safe to say that not only do they not tolerate us, but they hate us.

I’m convinced that many on the left are smitten with a mental defect, something like selective tolerance disorder. Terrorists, criminals, law breakers, conspiracy theorist nuts, and sexual deviants are deserving of tolerance, but heaven forbid that tolerance be extended to anyone with a conservative ideology who argue a position based on logic rather than emotion.

The vituperation, intolerance, and abject hatred are painfully obvious. Illustrative examples abound. Ward Churchill, the mendacious Colorado professor travels around the country spewing his anti-American venom on college campuses to standing ovations. Yet the Minutemen, a group of vigilante-like citizens dedicated to assist in the protection of our borders get physically assaulted on college campuses. Vice President Cheney can’t even deliver a commencement address at BYU without drawing protestors. Jean Kirkpatrick, the brilliant former U.N Ambassador quit visiting university campuses years before she passed away because she couldn’t even deliver a speech without being heckled and verbally assaulted.

Even here locally, conservative bloggers on the Idaho State Journal websites are called virtually every name in the book because of their opposing views. By advancing a logical and cogent position on the illegal migration problem, we earn the scorn of leftists who think the issue should be approached emotionally instead of logically. They implement an untenable process of extrapolating racism and bigotry from rational arguments opposing open borders and amnesty.

This lack of tolerance is most obvious in the language utilized to describe opponents. I could have created a very nice stock portfolio if I just had a dollar for every time I’ve heard President Bush or Vice President Cheney referred to as “Nazis” over the past six years, or a dollar for the virtual quiver full of demeaning and hateful adjectives used to describe the administration or conservatives in general. Yet they claim conservatives are the ones who use “hate speech.” You’d think they’d realize a little culpability on their part. I think they suffer from the “I see the mote in your eye but I can’t see the beam in mine” syndrome. If we advance a cogent position which they oppose, we are the ones using hate speech because there may be perceived victims of our proposals. Yet they liberally use literal hate speech, and they are not culpable. Explain that one for me. If you really want to see how far the hate speech and intolerance of the left goes, check out any of the liberal “blogs” after Rev. Jerry Falwell died. Absolutely disgusting!

Even Christopher Hitchens, the secularist and author of “God is not Great” said in a New York Post interview, “More and more I find that those people are the real enemy intellectually. There's no dishonesty like liberal dishonesty, just like there's no intolerance like liberal intolerance. There's nothing they won't excuse and no excuse they won't deploy. Their piety is a big aspect of that.”

It is obvious that the left has its own set of “values,” thought by them to be superior to any value system espoused by the right. And the highest value of all is emotion. Emotion trumps all others as the penultimate trait. One of the local bloggers is fond of quoting scripture for validation of his argument which is proper if we are genuinely seeking counsel on how to direct our personal lives. It is not, however, the canon for government operations. Christ taught us how to live our lives, and he showed us the way through his compassionate service. However, he did not use his doctrine of charity to take over the Sanhedrin and impose charity as the ruling doctrine for the small Roman vassal state. Largesse and magnanimity are admirable, even requisite, traits for individuals, but not for the government at the expense of taxpayers in a “rob Peter to pay Paul” redistribution scheme.

Despite all the platitudinous talk of being “tolerant” of peoples’ differences, “open-mindedness” has been rendered nothing more than empty rhetoric by liberals’ tendency to label all things conservative as “ignorant, racist, xenophobic, homophobic and extremist.” A little more actual tolerance and abandonment of the churlish politics of the left would go a long way in narrowing this ideological chasm the country is experiencing right now.