The Assault on Reason - An open letter to Al Gore

I recently read Al Gore's, The Assault on Reason. If you have visited our blog before, you know me to be a conservative, so you may be asking why I would read Al's book. The answer is that I do take information from a wide range of sources in order to remain, well, the Lucid Guy.

Mr. Gore, I found your book to be surprisingly informative and revealing. To grossly over-simplify your premise, you make the point that the American people are no longer engaged with our government due to the lack of a two-way conversation, as was common place in our early history. You make the point that when the printed word was the main source of information and communication, that the American people had an opportunity to engage in a debate and to provide feedback through the written word. I agree that today the majority of Americans are not engaged and do not take the active role in our government the way our founding fathers intended. The checks and balances simply do not work if the American people are not heard - whether they choose to be silent or are forced into silence.

Leaping forward you make the point that the advent of radio and television destroyed the public's access to the debate and that they are only a one-way medium.

Our Founders could never have imagined that the marketplace of ideas would change so profoundly that the consent of the governed - the very source of legitimate political power in a democracy - could become a commodity.

You point out that individuals could receive information from radio and television but could not send. How is this different from the late 1700's when and the printed word when the reader was consuming the information days, weeks, and months after the printing and had no way to submit feedback? Is radio and television not the same interaction only with more immediate result? I am a bit confused about the "open exchange of ideas" theory with newspapers being distributed on horseback.

You go on to explain how the Bush administration has used television to mislead the American people on many issues and that television ads played a part in your lost election in 2000. The mainstream media has a well documented bias against the Bush administration, so I don't believe Bush had any sort of special access to the American people that was not constantly challenged and argued openly. I think I remember one or two ads from you during that time period as well. Why do you believe the Bush ads were more effective than yours? Television is not the problem. If anything it greatly accelerates the communication process.

You do make excellent observations concerning the lower literacy rates in America and how that is having a significant impact on how well the citizenry is connected - or not connected. One good example is on page 256 where you point out that 72.8 percent of college students in a 2005 study could not correctly identify the source of the idea of 'a wall of separation' between church and state. Of course you make this point right after a statement concerning the Declaration of Independence, which rather insinuates that the Declaration is the source of the separation statement. Actually the wall of separation idea can not be found in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. It comes from a political statement that Thomas Jefferson made to a Baptist organization, which has been misused as Constitutional law. You failed to educate your readers on the origins of the separation idea so I thought I would help out.

I agree with your assertion that the Internet represents an opportunity for the American people to once again become more engaged and better informed. Hopefully people will choose to use the power of the Internet to spread truth and enlightenment.

You should notice that I have mostly ignored your constant obsession with bashing the Bush administration. Is this an example of the free exchange of ideas available through the printed word? You can not seriously make these statements about the Bush administration and pretend you were never involved in the executive branch participating in decisions that have led our country to where we are today. Mr. Gore, "MoveOn".

I believe the American people need to become much more involved in and much better informed on our government. Only with a connected citizenry will we be able to survive as a nation - so we agree on that point. However, radio and television are not the destroyers of civilization that you describe. It is the self-serving attitude of the entitlement generation that is killing our country.

I borrowed The Assault on Reason from a friend, to whom I loaned Horner's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. I think she will enjoy extending her sources of information as I have with your book. Don't you?

##That's my opinion##

The Real ID Card

Have you heard of the Real ID card proposed in the Real ID Act? The act was actually passed in 2005 and is now receiving lots of attention. What I don't understand is why anyone would oppose a law that would require all Americans to have a national ID card. As the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff put it, the only people that will be disappointed by this new ID card will be terrorists, illegal immigrants, and con-men.

There are a few people not in agreement with this plan that I would like to point out. First is Barry Steinhardt, an ACLU attorney who said,

What the Department of Homeland Security has done is to kick the can down the road to the next administration, and probably not just to the next administration, but conceivably two to three administrations from now.

In my opinion it is Mr. Steinhardt that should be kicked - right out of the country, which he obviously hates. Why is it so difficult to understand that after 9/11 we live in a different world and it will never - never the the way it was before. Maybe we were living in a fantasy of false security before 9/11, but now we have been awakened and we may never sleep soundly again. Is the requirement of a national ID card such a burden to pay to be a little bit more secure? Who exactly is it that Mr. Steinhardt is fighting for in his opposition to the Real ID Act?

Next is Senator Patrick Leahy, an elected public servant. He believes the Real ID Act should be repealed in favor of a more flexible and mutually beneficial approach. Mutually beneficial to who? Illegal aliens? How can a US Senator not be in favor of a law that requires all US citizens to be able to identify themselves? Could it be because he wants illegal aliens to be able to vote and keep the social program and income redistribution masters (the Democrats) in power?

Another attorney for the ACLU, Tim Sparapani, said that since the states would be required to set up their own security policies, that everyone would be at risk. He says that one weak State would put everyone's private information in jeapordy of being stolen. Hey Timmy, the increased security of the Real ID would far out weigh your weak data privacy argument.

On the topic of cost, the estimates range from a high of $23 billion to a low of $3.9 billion. Really, $3.9 billion? Okay, there are roughly 300 million Americans, so a database that would create and maintain say double that number, 600 million, is just not that hard of a nut to crack. I realize that there would be several thousand users of this system and that each state would need access in all of the drivers license offices. Also, there would be several government agencies that would need access for analysis and spying. I think that I could ask the government for half of the $3.9 billion, start a company, supply the Real ID solution, and that a tinnie-weenie profit for myself.

The bottom line is that we keep finding all these lame reasons for not protecting our country. If we don't secure our nation, there will soon be nothing left to secure.

##That's my opinion##

Christianity and Evolution

A blog debate with my good friend Mr. Christian over at BMEWS.

My position is this;

It is reasonable and logical to be a Christian and to believe in Evolution as a method of creation.

Let me begin this debate by stating that, as a born again Christian, I firmly believe that God created the heavens and the earth as described in Genesis. However, I believe the Genesis story is told to us to relay a message; this is where my friend Mr. Christian and I respectfully disagree. I believe the Genesis message to be one of God’s divine powers, one of love, one of hope, and one of warning.

In my opinion, man will never completely understand the workings of the Universe or the infinite glory of our Lord God. I believe this is by His design and is the basis of faith. It is the very gaps in our understanding that cause us to have faith in a higher power and to believe that the Universe is unfolding as it should. I believe that there are sections of the bible to be taken literally and then I believe that there are sections constructed to relay a message in a form that can be easily understood and put to use in our daily lives. I will save specific examples for our continued debate.

Now to the “genesis” of our debate; how can a Christian believe in evolution? If you believe the Genesis story literally as it is written, then you obviously can’t believe in evolution. I think I can safely say that anyone who believes in evolution believes that it would have taken longer than 6 24-hour days. So then, why do I believe Genesis to be a story rather and a literal accounting of events? I believe there is opportunity to question the literal translation of the bible’s contents based upon the history of the bible itself.

Mr. Christian rightfully points out that the Hebrew word “Yom” may have more than one meaning based upon the context in which it was intended. Consider the United States Constitution or the Declaration of Independence – documents that you should all read, but that’s a different blog post. How many words in these two documents are unfamiliar to you? Have you ever had a conversation with anyone that spoke in this vernacular? I will guess probably not. My point is that the people who wrote these documents are our immediate ancestors, speaking the same language, and compiling these documents less than 250 years ago. The contents of the current bible, regardless of which version you choose, were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek over a span of several hundred years. These documents were then translated into Latin and kept from the general public by the church. It was not until Gutenberg invented the printing press in the mid 1400’s that the bible became available to the masses. The first mass printings of the bible were created from a Latin translation known as the “Vulgate”, which itself had been in Latin, translated into Greek, and then back into Latin.

In addition to the translation challenges, there have also been efforts throughout history to edit the bible’s contents and even to keep some of the gospels from being part of the modern bible. I currently use a New American Standard Bible (NASB) in an attempt to have a more literal translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek source documents. Admittedly, the NASB has made edits to the syntax in order to make it more legible according to modern English usage – yet another chance to incorporate opinion rather than fact.

I believe there is opportunity to discuss the literal translation of the book of Genesis. The bible is the Word of God, but it has been written and modified numerous times by man.

So, let’s get started.

##That’s my opinion##

Where Did Our Border Fence Go?

If you have the stomach for it, I invite you all to read (or at least take a look at) the

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008.

This legislation is over 3,000 pages in length, but fear not, I'm sure that all of our respective elected Senators and House members read it thoroughly before they voted on it. Oh, and if you're wondering who did vote for it, please check out the Roll Call Votes for H.R. 2764.

This piece of legislation does considerable damage to the Secure Fence Act of 2006 which was enacted into law to build a two tier border fence along our southern border. The model for this fence is in place in southern California and has reduced local crime rates by 50%.

The new law reduces funding to the border fence while giving money for lawyers to represent illegal aliens. What? Am I living in the twilight zone? So I guess the game in Washington is if a law is passed that you don't like, you simply stall long enough to pass counteractive legislation to get your way. I thought I read somewhere that we were a nation of laws - huh, guess that was some other country.

It's time we held our representatives and our government accountable. They have sworn an oath to protect the United States and it's citizens from invasion - read the Constitution, it's in there.

Our country is flooding. We need to shut off the water before we start to bail or try to repair the plumbing. Build the fence, close the border, and then we can deal with the illegals that are still here. Everyone knows that it's the correct course of action - so what are we waiting on?

##That's my opinion##

Evolutionary Candidate

"Governor Huckabee, what do you believe..." Be careful what you ask for if you are trying to trap a well educated man of strong moral convictions.

Watch and listen as Gov. Huckabee responds and doesn't exactly stick to the expected script.

I'm a Christian. I also believe in evolution as a process. I believe both can exist together.

##That's my opinion##

A Limo With A View

Maybe there is some hope left for Hollywood. Pat Sajak steps up and delivers a pithy dose of reality for anyone giving celebrities political relevance.

Does anyone decide which candidate to choose based on the recommendation of a TV talk show host or a singer/actress? If any group of citizens is uniquely unqualified to tell someone else how to vote, it’s those of us who live in the sheltered, privileged arena of celebrityhood.

Do your own research and form your own opinions - then get out there and vote. However, if you don't do your research and rely on others to manipulate your vote, then do all of us a favor and stay home on election day.

##That's my opinion##

President of the United States - More than a Politician

The President of the United States not only leads the Executive branch of our government, the President is the face of America to the rest of the world. This fact should influence who we choose as our elected leader.

Like it or not, being President is partially about stage presence. Ronald Regan's experience as an actor helped him quite a bit with delivering speeches in a forceful but constructive and influential manner. These same qualities would serve Fred Thompson well, but I personally don't believe he is the best choice.

Also, like it or not, most of the rest of the world is still an "old boys club". Considering the current geopolitical climate and the world leaders that will be major players, sending a woman, no matter how qualified, to the White House may not be our best play. I firmly believe that there are women qualified to serve as President - Hillary is not one of them. However, considering the global chess game that we will be playing, a woman will not be taken seriously by most of our adversaries. Is it fair that a women will not be taken seriously? No, but it's reality.

Whatever your party affiliation or political orientation, you should consider all of the roles the President will need to play when making your final decision next November.

Based upon the all the roles a President must play and the current slate of candidates, I would have to say the best Dem choice is John Edwards and the best Rep choice is Mitt Romney. However, injecting my personal bias for changes in Taxation, enforcement of Immigration Law, and upholding the Constitution my choice is Mike Huckabee.

##That's my opinion##