The Raging Moderate

Goo in a Petri dish

The stranglehold of the radical Christian right upon our President has never been clearer. 

Against the will of the vast majority of Americans, George W. Bush has vetoed a bill that would have provided critical federal funding for research with significant potential to cure the most debilitating diseases afflicting nearly every family in America.  Why?  Because the president and his right-wing zealots believe that goo in a Petri dish is equivalent to you and me.  He believes that a few cells within a test-tube are move valuable than our family members with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, spinal injuries and potentially countless other debilitating diseases.

This will only slow the inevitable development of these critical stem-cell therapies.  The unavoidable affect is that these therapies will be developed more often than not outside the US.  The economic consequence will be significant.

As with many 'moral' issues, the government would be more effective regulating these activities than they are outlawing them.

In the long run, this veto should be welcomed by those in the middle and those on the left because fewer moderates will support those that support this policy (a policy necessary to retain support of the radical Christian right).  I am confident this veto represents the zenith of the power of those on the radical right.  True moderates now see more clearly how damaging those on the far right are and will cease to support the Republican Party.

Asymetrical Warfare, Israeli Style

Israel’s disproportionate response to Hezbollah's incursions into Israeli territory is counterproductive.  Once again, Israel is giving its critics reason to hate the Jewish state.

In response to the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah operatives, Israel has killed, as of today’s massacre in Qana, hundreds of Lebanese civilians, including many women and children.  This leads one to ask the question:  How many Lebanese civilian lives is one Israeli soldier's life worth?  Israeli actions tell the tale.

Not to be left out, the US administration once again is alienating the entire world by explicitly failing to call for an Israeli cease-fire.  Its no wonder America is hated around the world more now than at any-time in memory.  After all, according to the administration, there is no benefit to be had by co-opting our enemies; instead we must bomb them and in the process create twice as many terrorist in their place as a result.

Limit demand of illegals

Any proposed solution to the problem of illegal aliens without treating the demand site is destined for failure.  No wall is high enough;  No river wide enough;  No border protection strong enough to eliminate the supply of illegals in this country.

To effectively deal with the growing number of undocumented workers in this country, we must start jailing those that employ them.  Once employers face a legitimate chance of jail time, demand for illegals will evaporate.  Once demand ebbs, supply will surely drop soon thereafter.

Of course, this would represent a significant departure from current lax law enforcement.  Enforcement must be applied equitiably.  No employer can be allowed to continue to benefit from below-market-rate  illegal labor.  Employers must also be given ample time to change their hiring practices.  A supply of legal labor must be available to replace the undocumented workers these employers have depended upon for so many years.  The President's guest worker plan, by and large, is the most workable plan proposed to date to supply this workforce.

We must bring undocumented workers out from the shadows of our society.  We must secure our southern border. 

Free and Fair Trade?

Is trade both Free and Fair when less developed countries are given unencumbered access to markets in developed countries?  Lets consider the inherent advantages of undeveloped countries:
- Lack of comparable environmental protections (or enforcement).  Consider the USA's EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for comparison
- Lack of comparable workplace safety protections (or enforcement).  Consider the USA's OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration for comparison
- Lack of mandated worker retirement program contributions.  Consider the USA's Social Security program for comparison
- Lack of mandated national medical program contributions.  Consider the USA's Medicare and Medicaid programs for comparison
- Lack of a mandated national minimum wage.  Consider the USA's $5.15 per hour minimum pay scale for comparison

With this in mind, it is obvious why companies from developed economies are rushing to offshore not just manufacturing functions but increasingly highly skilled professional work in almost every profession as well.  Under the current climate, an executive that does not seriously consider offshoring portions of their opertions is an executive that is putting her/his organization at a disadvantage.

Western countries have agreed that these protections (and numerous other regulations) are important to the success and wellbeing of their countries.  These protections were realized through hard fought battles over many years and should not be compromized in a misguided effort to level the playing field between developed and undeveloped countries. 

Is Free Trade, as practiced today, Fair Trade?  Are developed countries in danger of becoming lands of executives and service workers? 

Successful and peacful democricies depend upon a thriving middle class (the hallmark of America's economic miracle over the past two centuries).  Today this legacy is under jeopardy like never before.  The money flowing from developed countries to undeveloped countries is at the same time exporting the standard of living western economies relish.

The solution to this unfair trade is for less developed economies to eliminate these inherent and unfair advantages.  Along the way these countries will enjoy a cleaner environment, safer working conditions, more secure retirments and healthier lives.  If they cannot level the playing field on their own, what alternatives do developed economies have beside artifically leveling the playing field at the border?

An Executive Branch Run Amuck

With the latest revelations about the NSA spying on American citizens' international communications without judicial oversight there is no doubt that this administration is drunk with power.  They don't think the laws of this country apply to them.

The President and other senior administration officials refuse to answer three simple questions (all directed to the President or his chief deputies over the past two days):

Why is it necessary to bypass the confidential court set up as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which was put in place explicitly for just such situations?

The law allows for retroactive submission to the courts under situations where time is of the essence. Why does the President suggest that timing is (part of) the reason to bypass this court?

Under which specific law is the president using that gives him the right to perform this domestic survelence without judicial oversight?

A constitutional crisis my be upon us.  Or will the Legislative branch continue to defer to the Executive.

A pattern of abuse of power is becoming undeniable.  Consider the Administration's record:
- exaggeration of evidence connecting Iraq with WMD
- the fabrication of a connection between Saddam and 9/11
- the President's (and Vice President's in particular) advocacy for the use of torture
- the administration's belief that America need not follow the Geneva Conventions

When will the Congress fulfill its constitutionally role of oversight of the Executive?  The numbers are astonishing:  During five years of the Clinton administration Congress issued 1,052 subpoenas.  Under the (nearly) 5 years of the Bush Administration Congress has issued 3 subpoenas.  This is dereliction of duty.

Moderate and conscientious Republicans must join most Democrats to reign in this out-of-control administration.

No other argument is needed to justify the benefits of a divided government.

ANWR Anyone?

Liberals should get over their opposition to drilling in ANWR.

This issue has become one fought with religious ferver, the combatants steadfastly holding their position without regard to factual justification.  ANWR is not Yosemite.  ANWR is not the National Mall.  It is not the treasure it has been made out to be.

Why should other nations damage their respective environments in order to supply the US with its energy needs when we are unwilling to drill for oil on our own soil?  Isn't this one world?

Despite the naysayers, there is strong potential for a very significant amount of oil in ANWR.  Despite the naysayers, this needed energy can be safely extracted without significant disruption to the local ecosystem.   Only a small portion would be impacted by the drilling.

Congress, in allowing this drilling, should impose and enforce strict environmental protection and monitoring laws to ensure a minimum of impact to the wildlife refuge.

Liberals should moderate their position and support, with limitations, drilling in ANWR.  Energy independence is too vital to our country's future.

Thinking of Deficits as a Tax Increase

The party of fiscal responsibility, it turns out, isn't Republican after all.  The GOP has proven to be as fiscally irresponsible as the Dems.  Maybe more so.  Instead of 'Tax and Spend' liberals in power we have 'Grow the Debt as we Spend' conservatives.

The national debt will come due, and future generations of Americans will bear the burden.  Shouldn't we consider this a 'Tax' on our children and grandchildren?  The party that despises taxes for themselves, is all too willing to send the bill to Junior.  If they are to gain the upper hand on the GOP, the Dems should label the current national debt as a GOP orchestrated tax increase on future generations of Americans.

The president's tax cutting plan has a clear goal:  To restructure the tax code to ensure that the working people in the country pay nearly all taxes.  Under Bush's plan the independently wealthy, with their substantial capital gains and dividend income, will enjoy the benefits of life in America without work and without paying their fair share to the national treasury.

Estate taxes are another popular target of the radical right.  Their spinners have done a good job labeling the tax the 'death tax'.  But would one rather pay taxes while living or after death? America is great because it is a meritocracy.  In America, the spoils of success go to those most deserving based on merit, not on heredity.  By bestowing great wealth on the future generations of today's wealthy, America will become more like that which those that founded our nation were fleeing.

The moderate approach to taxes ensures that one's success is not limited to those that 'chose their parents wisely', but to those that work hardest and smartest.  All shall pay their fair share, whether they work for a living or not.  To ensure this, capital gains and dividends should continue to be taxed.  Estate taxes should not be eliminated, but the limit at which they engage should be raised to, say $5M, and should be indexed to inflation each year.

The Dems should change their platform to one which openly caters to the middle class, with policies that benefit that constituency.  The Dems largest problem over the past few election cycles is that they try to out republican the Republicans.  That’s a losing strategy.  Win over the middle class and elections victories will surely follow.

Believing in Intelligent Design

A moderate can believe in Intelligent Design, just not as it is defined by the far right.

One can believe in both God and in the theory of evolution.  The notions are not incompatible.

Case in point:  Moderates may believe that God created the laws that govern the sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc..) and then created the universe in which these laws are exercised.  Inevitibly, life would result after some time (millions of years) and eventually Humans would evolve.

Sure there are gaps in our scientific knowledge of how life began, especially complex life such as humans.  But the very nature of science is, and has always been, to identify where our knowledge of a natural phenomenon ends and then endevour to push the envelope of knowledge further.  By answering yesterday's questions today, we identify tomorrow's questions.  Along the way, we build our knowledge of the universe that can help us answer the big questions and to make our lives more livable.

Consider one of the most famous scientists ever:  Newton didn't stop when he was developing his theory of motion (F=ma) because he didn't understand it.  He didn't throw up his arms and say "God designed gravity and therefore we shouldn't try to understand it".  Instead, he applied the scientific method and changed the course of human history by developing theories that are used to this day to improve every fascet of life as we know it.

Today's life science researchers shouldn't let anyone tell them that the current barrier is the last barrier and that only devine intervention can explain complex life.  They should continue their work to understand more fully the physical laws that created life millions of years ago.

Extremists on the right are wrong to push their version of Intelligent Design in the science classroom.  Their version of ID is not science.

However, those on the left should allow and even encourage discussion of Intelligent Design in philosophy or comparitive religion classes.  These are pursuits designed to explain the unexplainable.

It's ok to believe in ID and still consider yourself a moderate.  But be aware that ID can mean different things to different people, depending on their politics.

"Happy Holidays"

Once again the radical right has gone off-the-hook:

Retailers, media outlets and corporations are being raked over the coles for wishing their customers, viewers and employees "Happy Holidays" because this wish, in the view of the radical right, diminishes their belief in and practice of Christianity.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The moderate majority must step up and put an end to this nonsense.

Why can't those on the far right acknowledge that this country isn't a 'Christian' country.  The founding fathers, in their infinate wisdom, gave this country the separation of church and state (although the current administration has worked hard to blur the line).  The 'Happy Holidays" wish is inclusive of all religions and traditions (including Christianity) and should be accepted by everyone in the spirit in which it is offered.

Christianity is not under assault in this country (as the paraniod right are fond of shouting).  In fact, they control all branches of our government and chip away at our rights every day.  I yearn for the day when the Christian right is less emboldened by the unjustified advances they've made under the current administration.  But,

The far left has gone too far as well:

They would re-name a 'Christmas Tree' a 'Holiday Tree' (or a Chrismahanukwanzakah tree), presumably to make it acceptable for those of all religions and traditions.  Good intentions asside, this is going too far.  A Christmas Tree is a symbol of Christianity and should stay that way.  There are pleanty of ways for non-Christians to celebrate the season without a 'Christmas Tree'.

Happy Holidays to everyone (Christians too)
-The Raging Moderate

The return of the moderates

There is room for moderates in our political system.  The voice of moderates our country is becoming stronger with each scandal on the left or on the right.  The fourteen moderate senators are leading the way to re-claim the center and reject extremes.