Campaign Slogans

Giuliani is on Fox right now. The background behind him bears the slogan “Tested. Ready. Now.”

The Long-Suffering Girlfriend points out that this sounds more like a slogan for a prescription drug than a candidate.

CNN’s Iowa Coverage

On the tv, CNN is using pie charts to show each candidate’s vote share within their party. On the GOP chart, we see slices for Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain… and a large blank spot where Ron Paul’s 10% should be. Also missing is Giuliani’s 4%. Over on the Dem side, Bill Richardson’s 2% slice is clearly visible.

Fox has a pro-big-government conservative slant, so their recent slight of Ron Paul wasn’t too unexpected.

CNN has a center-left bias, so one wonders if Paul and Giuliani’s slices are left blank so their names get less screen time.

UPDATE: Never mind that conspiracy theory rubbish. More likely, the graphic was programmed to only display the top four candidates, regardless of vote totals.

Obama, Richardson in Cahoots?

I’ve thought for a while that the Democratic ticket would be Obama-Richardson.

Obama and Richardson might think that, too. The Politico is reporting that their campaigns have some sort of vote-trading arrangement, which of course they vigorously deny.

Interesting.

Update: CNN has more.

Iowa

Who knows who’s going to win tonight in Iowa? Just for fun, here are my predictions.

Dems – Obama wins, with Clinton in 2nd and Edwards in 3rd.

GOP – Romney wins, with Huckabee in 2nd and Fred Thompson in 3rd.

I’ll be rooting for Bill Richardson and Ron Paul to do well, since they seem to me the least bad candidates from each party.

Once the primary dust settles, I expect an Obama/Richardson ticket going against Romney/Huckabee, and a Democratic victory.

The fun starts in about an hour.

Partisanship and Mankind’s Doom

Dave Lindorff has a piece in the Baltimore Examiner about a “silver lining” to catastrophic global warming: his preferred political party would benefit.

Funny how partisanship can make normal people say absolutely vicious things.

Lindorff is a global warming alarmist who sees massive flooding and epic catastrophe coming soon – “not in a century but in the lifetime of my two cats.”

Not bloody likely. But let’s accept his premises for the sake of argument and see where he runs with them.

The decimation of red state regions rings with “poetic justice,” because many people there disagree with Dave Lindorff on climate change policy. They are “troglodytes.” More revealingly, wants them “gerrymandered into political impotence” after the apocalypse hits.

What a vicious, petty world view. Lindorff sincerely believes in a coming Book-of-Revelations-style apocalypse. He should be concerned with how to help people survive it. Instead, he first thinks of how he can hurt his political opponents.

Grow up, child.

Somebody Has Thin Skin

The Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza reports that Barack Obama believes that people who criticize him and praise his opponents “raise real questions about those candidates’ commitment to serious reform of the political process.”

Now, I like Obama – at least as much as I can like any political creature. He seems to be the least bad top-tier Democratic candidate. He also seems more benign than Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani.

But this is pathetic. If he doesn’t like speech that criticizes him, then he should counter it with more speech. Instead, he’s telling his critics to shut up.

No criticizing me!

This is a free country. We, the people, shall say what we please about any candidate.

It’s right there in the First Amendment: “Congress shall pass no law… abridging the freedom of speech.”

Sadly, I fear that Obama might actually have a valid legal case under current law, should it come to that. This reflects broken, unconsitutional laws, not Obama’s righteousness. This is to our shame as a nation, and as a democracy.

Congress shall pass no law.

Couldn’t be simpler.

Faith and Virtue

A letter I sent while away over Christmas.

Editor, Washington Post:

Michael Gerson’s attempt to reconcile evolution and belief in God is laudable (“Divine Evolution,” Dec. 21, A35). But his implication that theism is a requirement for virtue is unnecessary.

Gerson writes of religious skepticism’s “disturbing moral and political implications,” and asserts that “those who believe that men are meat are more likely to treat men as meat.”

In other words, only religiosity ensures human decency. Not so.

Those who do not believe in the hereafter have all the more incentive to ensure that this life is one well lived. After all, it is the only one we get. Virtue is crucial for making this life the best we can.

It means less weight on one’s conscience. It means earning the love of family and friends, and returning it in kind. In our careers, honesty, integrity, and reputation are good for business.

Faith can help some people be more virtuous; it is good that they have that recourse. But to say that virtue crumbles without faith is wrong. There are good, honest people throughout the world who live without Gerson’s faith. I try every day to be one of them.

Ryan Young
Arlington, VA

Modern Art

Thirty stolen bronze sculptures are valued at $1 million — [but] not by the scrap yards where most of them ended up.”

Religion and Decency

Some people believe faith is necessary for decency. Some think it hinders it. The truth is far more nuanced, but here’s a pithy example of one skeptic’s point of view:

“If a man needs a religion to conduct himself properly in this world, it is a sign that he has either a limited mind or a corrupt heart.”

Ninon de Lenclos

English Only! Part II

Just sent the following letter to the Save the Old Dominion group. If they respond, I’ll post it here.

December 19, 2007

Save the Old Dominion
c/o Help Save Manassas
PO BOX 4191
Manassas , VA 20108

info@savetheolddominion.org

Sir or Madam:

I read with great interest an article on your coalition’s support of House Bill 55, which would require Virginia ‘s state government to provide services in English only. It would also establish English as the official language of Virginia . This is an important part of your coalition’s larger mission to reduce our state’s illegal immigrant population.

Clearly, it is to one’s economic and social advantage to speak English in America. And I agree with you that current immigration law has significant problems. Immigrants should be here lawfully.

But it is not our place to tell other people what language they shall speak. Likewise, it is a shame that current immigration law makes some people criminals for the heinous crime of choosing to live in America . More restrictive policies would only make matters worse.

People should be free to live where they please, and to speak as they please. I resent to my marrow that you would presume to make those decisions for other people.

Sincerely,

Ryan Young
Arlington , VA