By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 01/27/08

While there are many criteria that can be employed in the process of selecting a candidate, there are some that are obviously superficial. They may include looks, bearing, the way they smile, or the way they talk. These are superficial because they have nothing to do with what the candidate has done, or what they believe and plans to do for or to our country.

Perhaps the most pernicious of all the superficial criteria is identity. Identity politics is officially defined as “political action to advance the interests of members of a group supposed to be oppressed by virtue of a shared and marginalized identity (such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.)

During election seasons, it manifests itself by voters associating with candidates based on identity. For example, women who feel compelled to vote for a female candidate, religious voters feeling the same compulsion to vote for someone of their faith, and blacks feeling the same motivation to vote for a candidate of like race. It’s a very natural thing to feel a sort of kinship with the candidate because of identity, but it also is very illogical.

What more shallow means of selecting a candidate can you think of than by their gender or race? Just because I’m a white male is no reason for me to vote for a candidate who is a while male. If a female or black candidate’s views and beliefs are closer to my own, it’s an affront to logic for me to vote for the white male whose views don’t match well with mine instead of the other candidate that more closely approximates my beliefs. Equally illogical is the prospect of a woman voting for a woman simply because they share a common gender. Even if it’s possible that by so doing history can be made.

The French had the opportunity to vote for a woman in last year’s election. Much to their credit, they instead voted for the man with a promise to repair their ailing socialized state. Even women voted more for the male candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy, than for the female candidate, Segolene Royal, opting for substance rather than the shallow criteria of gender identity politics. This was especially perplexing to American media which seem to be locked in a stereotypical superficiality where women vote for women and blacks vote for blacks.

Religion is a little more understandable in the context of identity politics because of the shared values between the voter and the candidate, but even common values is not a guarantee of similar political views in practicality. One needs only to look at Senators Orin Hatch (R-UT) and Harry Reid (D-NV), who are both LDS, or Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and John Kerry (D-MS) who are both Catholic, to realize that verity. They virtually cancel out each other’s vote on every issue brought before the U.S. Senate, their views are so disparate.

It seems appropriate that on the heels of our celebration of the life and contributions of Martin Luther King, Jr. to apply the principles embedded in his most famous of speeches. As he declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

If we vote for someone because of the color of their skin, not only is that an illogical reason to vote for them, but we make judgments contrary to the ideals that Reverend King elucidated so clearly, that it should be based on the “content of their character.” The same applies to a vote based on gender, and even religion. For at the conclusion of his now immortal speech,Reverend King declared, “And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!’”

Identity politics can obfuscate in the mind of the individual voter the actual positions of the candidate. The feeling of kinship because of identity association can easily eclipse the political differences if the voter allows it to. The summom bonnum (or highest good) is to vote on principle, policy, competence, and previous performance and experience, rather than on identity. This is true for religious identity, as well, since we are not casting a vote for pastor, but for someone to represent us and our interests based on what we believe to be best for our country.

There seems also to be a byproduct to identity politics that is extremely pejorative. To those who are driven by identity politics, or a sense of political correctness, those of us who vote based on principle and ideology are ascribed as sexist (if we don’t vote for the female candidate), racist (if we don’t vote for the minority candidate), or bigoted (if we don’t vote for a candidate of a different religion). But again, this is a tactic employed by those driven by the superficiality of identity politics and political correctness with whom it’s more important to “feel good” about one’s vote for emotive reasons, rather than making a deductively logical decision based on ideology and character.

A campaign run on identity politics by default is a campaign based more on emotion than on issues, which does not say much for us as voters if we buy into it.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 01/20/08

There are certain phrases and appellations that are wantonly thrown around in political discussions that become common and accepted. By frequent repetition, such phrases become accepted as truisms, whether they are true or not. I heard one such phrase, “Republicans and conservatives are all Nazi’s” in a discussion this last week and started pondering the verity of that statement. The implication, of course, is that conservatives seek to restrict our freedom and liberties.

The contexts within which that reference is typically used are threefold: 1) The Patriot Act (with its flaws) which is designed to protect us from terrorists; 2) The defense of constitutionally unprotected life in the womb; and 3) enforcement of law. These policies have little impact on individual freedom for most of us.

However, for comparative purposes, let’s examine what freedoms and liberties the other side of the political spectrum seeks to curtail, that does affect all of us in one way or another.

Perhaps at the top of the list is economic freedom. Their perspective is that government has more right to our earnings than we do, and we’re just greedy to want to hold onto it for the economic well-being of our families. As the great Nobel Laureate and economist Milton Friedman said, “political freedom is inextricably linked with economic freedom. The more the government takes from me financially, the less freedom I have.”

They do everything they can to restrict 2^nd Amendment rights. It appears to me that they would prefer that no citizens could own fire arms of any kind.

They seek to restrict our religious freedom by limiting public religious expression.

In an interesting dichotomy, they are pro-choice on infanticide up until the time the infant is partially delivered, but they are adamantly anti-choice when it comes to vouchers for education. They don’t want us to have freedom of choice for our children’s education.

They refuse some children the freedom of choice to serve their country in the military by preventing military recruiters from visiting school and university campuses. Ostensibly it’s because of some arcane notion of political correctness about homosexuals serving in the military (which “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was introduced by one of their own, Bill Clinton) but their disdain of the military predates that policy implementation.

They even disallow our children from playing some games at school, like dodge ball, because it may hurt some children’s feelings because they are “eliminated” from the game.

They think it’s the government’s role to tell us what we can and can’t eat. Just last year, New York City, following Europe’s lead, outlawed the use of trans fats in any restaurants in the city. They now have the Trans Fats Secret Police raiding poor unsuspecting restaurants to see if they’re using the contraband in their cooking practices. Herein lies another interesting dichotomy, for isn’t the argument “it’s my body and I can do what I want with it” part of their standard abortion argument?

They also restrict our collective freedom from dependency on foreign oil by preventing us from harnessing our own natural resources. It’s okay that China can drill for oil less than 30 miles from our Southern Coast, but we can’t. And somehow the sacrosanct wilderness of Anwar is more important to preserve than producing as much oil domestically as we buy from Saudi Arabia. I guess they think it’s better to be beholden to the price machinations and political control of those radical Middle Eastern and South American countries.

And speaking of energy, they even restrict our freedom of what light bulbs we can use. By 2012, the 100 watt incandescent light bulb will join trans fats as contraband. In it’s place, we are to use the mercury laden fluorescent bulb, which, if you break one in your home, will require a HAZMAT team to clean up (at your expense) because of all that mercury in it.

They also seek to restrict what kind of vehicles we drive. With Congress’ efforts to push CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) standards higher and higher, we’ll all be driving shoe boxes with Briggs & Stratton engines before long. But to be politically correct, we all should drive a Prius.

They think we have too much freedom with the temperature levels in our homes, so California is leading the way by incorporating into all new homes the ability of the government to control home thermostats.

They also seek to restrict our freedom of speech. If they have a pet subject which by universal acceptance would acquiesce much of our income and freedom to the government, they just declare that “the debate is over.” Once they say that, we’re to all surrender to the global warming alarmists that would have us believe that by continuing to use those outlawed 100 watt bulbs and by turning up our thermostats by two degrees that we may cause calamitous global warming eighty years from now.

They also seek to restrict freedom of speech by re-imposing the “Fairness Doctrine,” that would literally put a muzzle on talk radio. That’s very important to them because that’s the only media form they don’t dominate.

They also don’t think it’s enough to punish criminals, they think criminals must be punished even more if they had hate in their hearts or prejudice against their victims. Beware the thought police!

In their misguided efforts for government to create a completely sterile cultural climate, they outlaw the use of certain words on university campuses. So they have the “word police” watching for illegal use of potentially offensive utterances.

The only thing that is consistent in all this is the “nanny state” notion that the government knows better than we do about how to conduct our lives, and we’re all ignorant fools who can’t think for ourselves and make choices for ourselves. To them the government has all the solutions and should be given control over every aspect of our lives.

Perhaps their intentions are good, but their actions are more important than their intentions. And their actions are whittling away more and more at our individual freedoms.

Now, you be the judge. Which group is more “Nazi-like?” Which wants to deprive us of more individual liberty? And if you still say the conservatives you’re not paying attention.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 01/13/08

Oftentimes, especially in American political discourse, lofty sounding rhetoric is found appealing, even hopeful. Some of the greatest speeches of the 20^th century were delivered by people serving in the political arena. Franklin Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural address, Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream,” and Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speeches come readily to mind. They inspired, they motivated, and they highlighted the leadership qualities of those who delivered them.

But inspiring speeches, in order to have credence with a sentient audience, must make a connection between the ideal and reality. It must be not only filled with hope and optimism, but it requires grounding in reality that recognizes where we are as a nation, and where we need to be headed for the future. In order to do that, there must be a substance accompanying the declared ideals.

The cries for unity by the Presidential candidates have an appeal to all Americans, until those lofty sounding phrases are translated to reality. They then must be seen for what they are: empty, meaningless platitudes appealing to emotion, while leaving logic and reason wanting for substance. Plato made the distinction between form versus substance, and most of what we are hearing from the stump speeches is form with very little substance.

For example, all of the candidates for President speak eloquently about the need to achieve “unity,” “working together,” “reaching out,” and “ending the divisional strife” that exists in America now. It makes for good stump speeches and often creates a revival-like atmosphere that some reporters even claim makes it difficult for them to remain objective while covering the candidates. Especially during the primaries, such speech makes sense since they need to unify their respective party’s support behind them to be successful next November.

I genuinely enjoy hearing political leaders speak so grandiloquently and ideally. It is inspiring, and it does imbue emotions of solidarity and hope. But these cries for unity are eerily similar in theme to what Presidential Candidate George W. Bush was saying throughout the 2000 campaign. The former Governor had built a solid reputation by working with both political parties in Texas to solve the problems of the state, and from accounts on both sides of the political aisle, that reputation was well deserved.

For all the calls of “unity” and “working together” and “reaching out” by President Bush, Washington, D.C. proved to be more of a challenge than Austin, TX. Numerous efforts to include Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, and the Democratic leadership in White House functions and initiatives were met with vicious and vitriolic backlashes from those being “reached out” to. Ted Kennedy even was invited to the White House for movies, and wrote the No Child Left Behind Act for the President. But that did nothing to assuage the negativity spewed out against the White House by Congressmen and Senators intent on scoring political points with potshots at the President, rather than attempting to solve the problems of the nation.

Speeches by political leaders can depict their vision for the future of our country, and their stalwart leadership coincident with that vision can provide the necessary direction. But as the saying goes, “The devil is in the details.” What are the specific initiatives and policies that underscore that vision? What specific legislation or budgeting priorities correspond with that vision? If candidate’s speeches are only platitudes that sound good, we are left wanting for substance about what they have to offer to truly unify the country.

In other words, when a candidate calls for unity without the unifying substance, in reality he is simply proclaiming that he wants everyone to unite behind his values. That everyone who believes differently than he does on specific issues needs to change their minds and agree with him so that we can be united. He declares that our values aren’t as viable or important as his so we need to change our values so we can be united. He proclaims that those of us who disagree with him must sacrifice our values for the sake of unity.

Take any important issue that divides Americans and explain exactly how unity can be achieved without one of the two sides giving up its values and embracing the other position. Whether its tax cuts, free market principles, border security, the future of Social Security, or the War against Terror of which the War in Iraq and Afghanistan are the primary fronts. With each of these issues, a call for “unity” is an affront to logic which maintains different perspectives and positions.

Some of the candidates, for example, are ardent about rolling back the Bush tax cuts which have spawned respectable growth of the economy and literally flooded the treasury with tax receipts. How can we be unified with such an economically ludicrous position of rolling back those tax cuts, and taking that money out of the hands of the consumers who make this economy work, especially since we may be on the verge of a recession? It makes no logical economic sense.

How can we be unified with the commitment of some of the candidates to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately, when it is obvious that we are winning against the Jihadists and the country is becoming increasingly stable? The fundamental question of whether we are safer by engaging and eradicating them or allowing them to freely expand their operations in the Middle East and globally begs an answer. If we’re safer by withdrawing and allowing them their terroristic plots, why do we still seek to reduce crime and apprehend criminals? If we’re safer by withdrawal from terror, the logic holds that we’re safer by withdrawing from the apprehension of criminals.

This same process can be engaged for all of the major issues facing the country. It seems in this post-Enlightenment era of mass communication, and having a veritable cornucopia of primary informational sources literally at our fingertips, we should not sacrifice the tools of evidence and reasoning at the altar of impressive rhetoric. Just because a candidate eloquently pleads for unity, doesn’t mean his positions are any less divisive. In some candidates’ lexicons, “unity” and “bi-partisanship” both mean “do it my way.” Before we buy into the grandiloquence, we’d better know what that way truly is. The devil truly is in the details.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 01/06/08

I find it immensely interesting that so many of those who are ardent proponents of man-made global warming are also the ones who scoff at the faith of those of us who are religiously oriented. After all, it takes faith to believe in a deity, and the tenets of our respective theologies, yet those who swallow the global warming alarmist message are exercising faith in the proposition that man is slowly destroying the planet by pumping CO2 emissions into the environment, because there is no more science behind that proposition than there is behind a theological claim for the origin of the universe. They’re both based on faith.

Somehow a notion of “consensus” has dominated the discussion about scientists involved in global warming studies. This notion maintains that all scientists concur with the proposition that by emitting carbon dioxide (which we humans emit every time we exhale), we are pushing the world toward an environmental Armageddon of extreme weather vacillations, over-heated atmosphere, global melt-down of all the glaciers, and dramatic rising of oceanic water levels that will eradicate massive populations in coastal areas.

Release of a detailed report by 400 scientists around the world who take exception with the global warming alarmist claims proves that there is no consensus and that the debate is not over. It seems that claims of consensus are designed to stifle debate, minimize the “deniers,” and solidify support for massive political power grabs.

The current level of hysteria surrounding the claims of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is, according to one of those scientists, “…a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction,” according to Geochemist Dr. Tom Segalstad from Norway, who was an expert reviewer with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, France says in the report, “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen is bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance.”

Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University, states “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) and have occurred previously in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Brazil is quoted saying, “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming.”

Madhav Khandekar, a PhD meteorologist and scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project with over 45 years of experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography expressed dismay over how the IPCC report authors ignored most of the scientific evidence presented to the committee proving natural elements cause the majority of the current slight warming cycle. As he said, “This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray from New Zealand summarizes the IPCC reporting process well. “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this isn’t so.”

Dr. Kelvin Kemm, a South African scientist aptly describes the main-stream media hyping of the issue. “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming,” he said.

Regarding the science, or lack thereof, behind the IPCC report, Dr. Richard Courtney, another UN IPCC expert reviewer said, “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

Regarding the CO2 arguments for global warming, Belgian climate scientist Luc Debontridder authored a peer reviewed study in August in which he claims “CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

You can review the lengthy report in it’s entirety on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee website.

If you are weary and wary of the hyped and catastrophic doom saying of the climate change alarmists, don’t feel alone. As indicated above, not only are you in good company with some of the most acclaimed scientists around the world, but there is no consensus on the issue, the science is not settled, and it should not be closed to debate.

As BBC Science Correspondent David Whitehouse said in a recent column, “Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly. The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.”