Reacting to Obama’s “regret” for letting his daughters participate in a Hollywood TV interview, Luke Boggs raised the issue of Senator Barack Obama’s “Regretful Syndrome” in this Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial:

So what jumped out at me was how quickly Obama regretted his decision [especially when there was nothing to regret]. And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often. (Googling “Obama” and “regrets” yields more than a million hits.)

The Senator’s regrets include business deals with now-convicted felon Chicago real estate baron Tony Rezko, calling American lives lost in Iraq “wasted,” and  various other verbal and policy missteps. As Boggs ask, how many “regrets” can a President have before he dooms an entire nation? The office of the President requires firm decisions that cannot be reversed—essential to the security and safety of the nation. Actions with regrets in the Oval Office will not be mere violation of faux-pas or political correctness, but issues of life and death in many cases. Strong character in judgement and the ability to fairly judge the character of those around you are both necessary and vital qualities that the next President of the United States must process. And Senator Obama appears to offer very little of either form.

Washed in the blood of the brave and the blooming, 

Snatched from the altars of insolent foes, 

Burning with star-fires, but never consuming, 

Flash its broad ribbons of lily and rose.

Vainly the prophets of Baal would rend it, 

Vainly his worshippers pray for its fall; 

Thousands have died for it, millions defend it, 

Emblem of justice and mercy to all;

Justice that reddens the sky with her terrors, 

Mercy that comes with her white-handed train, 

Soothing all passions, redeeming all errors, 

Sheathing the sabre and breaking the chain.

Borne on the deluge of all usurpations, 

Drifted our Ark o’er the desolate seas, 

Bearing the rainbow of hope to the nations, 

Torn from the storm-cloud and flung to the breeze!

God bless the Flag and its loyal defenders, 

While its broad folds o’er the battle-field wave, 

Till the dim star-wreath rekindle its splendors, 

Washed from its stains in the blood of the brave!

Flash its broad ribbons of lily and rose.



—Oliver Wendell Holmes

I heard an interesting theory on the talk radio circuit today (unfortunately, I cannot remember the show) that gave me pause. The host was discussing illegal immigration with a caller, specifically, the difference in levels of assimilation between current and earlier generations of immigrations. He mentioned that immigration quotas served as a sort of auto-regulator on the flow of immigrants, allowing each wave or generation time to properly assimilate into American society before another wave of “their people” could arrive and disrupt the process. The quotas also limited the number of immigrants from any specific country who could enter the United States and form their own independent communities, which discourage assimilation into the broader American culture. To be sure, places and Chinatown in San Francisco or Chicago’s “Polish Patches” seem to break the rule, but the principle seems to make sense. Should we bring back a quota system instead of the “points” and “as fast or slow as we get your paperwork done” system we have instead? It is certainly an idea worth considering.

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Heller v. District of Columbia was not only an important decision for the 2nd Amendment and gun owners, but also shows very clearly the precarious balance of the court. The Heller decision has something in common with the week’s earlier decision regarding the death penalty for child rapist (Kennedy v. Louisiana). Both cases were decided by a 5 to 4 majority: with Justice Kennedy being the fifth vote in each decision. His vote in the Louisiana case was a disappointment to those who favor the death penalty and oppose convoluted readings of the Constitution. His vote in the Heller case is a surprise and a thrill, as it allowed the court to make the proper, Constitutional decision; protecting the value of the 2nd Amendment and ensuring gun owners the right to keep their firearms.

Justice Kennedy’s pattern of being the pivoting “swing” vote in countless decisions is disturbing for many reasons. But it is illustrative of the import of a judge’s character. Judges without solid, grounded principles of justice and fairness deliver popular opinions designed to maintain popularity and image, subverting justice and placing the focus on themselves and not the law they are suppose to protect. Presidents and governors must be accurate judges of character if the legal system is to stop its decay into arbitrary legalism. Judges do matter, and a candidates ability to select qualified and principles judges is as much of a reflection on him as it is our justice system.

A brief observation with a humorous intent before the weekend, when I hope to actually finish a post about the “national energy crisis.” In the meantime however…

My brother (himself a basketball player) was watching the NBA finals this week, and I joined him briefly for part of the  second-to-last game. He made the observation that he had only seen “one white guy”  on the Boston Celtics team, “and he is Asian.” No, I don’t know if this is true or not, but I found it amusing that the Boston Celtics, named after the very white country of Ireland, have a team composed primarily of black players. In our modern higher education, this would be cause for affirmative action to even the playing field, to allow white students an opportunity to play. No such interest in feel-good lower doubler-standards exists in the sports world, where story after story will tell you that talent is the only currency required to succeed. If only we could be so consistent in all areas of our lives.

After my previous post commenting on rising oil prices and the logical result (decreasing oil usage), I am heartened to see that at least someone in this presidential election understands simple economics. At least, as they apply to oil usage.

Barack Obama said on Saturday Americans would start changing the kinds of cars they drive if gasoline prices continue to climb and said he owned a hybrid vehicle, though he doesn’t drive it much.

Without specifically telling Americans to stop buying gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, the Illinois senator said higher fuel prices would lead to a shift (Reuters).

I’m not quite sure why we need to mention his personal hybrid vehicle, but it is good to hear that the Senator at least understands basic market forces as they apply to the consumer. Now if only he had a better grasp of macro economics…

The poor Washington Post can’t seem to make up its mind about market economics. Conservative think tanks have said for years that Americans would seek fuel-efficient cars when the cost of trucks and SUVs became too excessive for their taste, not when government told them to. The moment seems to have come, however, where market forces encourage consumers to buy smaller cars with better mileage. But the realization that this moment has finally come is a difficult pill to swallow for the poor Post editorial board it seems:

The dismal April car sales data out of Detroit illustrated an important lesson about what it will take to reduce U.S. consumption of foreign oil and to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

An important lesson that only some of us needed to learn. People tend to vote with their wallets, and no amount of fuel-efficiency standards or public service ads has had the same effect as higher gas prices. The Post desperately attempts t retain some moral high ground however, insisting that more government intervention could have brought this “moment of truth” sooner.

Had Congress the courage to impose a price on carbon, these positive changes could have been achieved years ago — and without the side effect of pouring fresh money into the government coffers of Iran, Venezuela and Russia. Instead, the financial squeeze at the pump finally brought about the change in behavior in the driving public that could not be achieved by appealing to citizens’ better natures.

Citizen’s better natures seem to be most easily reached through their pocket books. A sign of moral decline, perhaps, or rather the sad and traditional state of mankind. Money has always spoken in fresh ways to the human spirit. And although I wish more people would act out of the kindness and concern of their hearts, history suggests a different pattern of behaviour.

The next attitude adjustment should come in Detroit, where the free fall of bottom lines ought to prompt a shift away from the production of SUVs and other gas guzzlers.

Happily for the Post, automobile manufactures operate on the same cost paradigm as consumers, and will adapt as necessary to continue their sales. But once again the Post insists on looking a gift horse in the mouth, and tries to continue the work of the free market through government policy:

With a carbon tax, the price of gas might be even higher than it is now. But as we have seen, high prices encourage less driving and a demand for more efficient vehicles and energy alternatives, which result in reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

Apparently anything but the free market will suffice to help reach the ends of lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Barbies are America’s next big weapon against Iran it seems. “A top Iranian judiciary official warned Monday against the “destructive” cultural and social consequences of importing Barbie dolls and other Western toys” today. While part of me wants to laugh, I can’t really blame him for being concerned. The sexualization of American culture has impacted even the sacred icon of American childhood, the doll, and Barbie.com does not exactly present an innocent image of virtue and purity. Alas, where have all the children gone?

The “Super Tuesday” primaries were supposed to help bring clarity to the presidential race. And in the Republican race, it did a pretty good job: placing Senator John McCain far ahead of Governor Mitt Romney and leaving the realistic options for the candidates fairly limited. Governor Mike Huckabee, after a decent showing in the South has vowed to continue in his bid to represent a Christian America in the White House, while Romney—ever the businessman—read the forecast and “suspended” his campaign yesterday. McCain is the last man left standing, a conservative who many people thought was thrown out of the party years ago, a conservative who is desperately trying to make peace with certain branches of his more-conservative party. Beside McCain, the hopes for Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul look grim indeed, as McCain will likely be able to gain enough grudging trust from most Republicans to win their votes.

 It isn’t like they have a choice, however. The presidential race has effectively been reduced to a three circus, with McCain emerging the ringmaster of a massive Republican brawl, bruised but standing tall. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to compete however, with no clear leader after the virtually fifty-fifty percent split of the vote on Tuesday. One of them will ultimately emerge victorious to face McCain, but not without great anger and animosity for both sides. Huckabee and Paul will continue to appear as side shows, drawing some attention and applause, but ultimately unable to take the main spotlight from the showdown of the big three: McCain, Obama and Hillary.

John McCain can only hope that Obama and Clinton fight on as long as necessary. Each is deeply committed, and their candidacies have divided the Democratic Party into two very opinionated camps. Obama brings change, Clinton experience; and never shall the two met it seems. If you thought being a conservative this election is hard, just remember the Democrats who have it worse. McCain can only benefit from a long, protracted Democratic fight, allowing him to focus on wooing the many skeptical (and sometimes even hateful—Ann Coulter, anyone?) conservatives who he will need to win the election.

 I’m fairly confidant McCain will be able to bring people to his side, if only through the sheer fear of Clinton or Obama in the White House. And despite his many positions that conservatives bewail as liberal and socialist (campaign finance reform, immigration), many of his positions are actually inline with mainstream conservatism (Iraq especially). This is of course the rub: how mainstream is conservatism, and what is mainstream conservatism? Personally, there are many things I disagree with my party on, whether in scale or scope. And yet I still support the party because I know that my views are limited in their popularity. Many of my friends with similar views are currently Ron Paul supporters, a candidate who I agree with on many things but have remained very skeptical of through the campaign. My objections to a vote for Ron Paul have been erased by McCain’s new position as the presumable nominee, however—a vote for Ron Paul (in the primary, at least) is no longer a vote of indifference to the party, but now an actual statement of discontent with current Republican policies. This I cannot object to, although I still would have reservations about an actual Paul presidency.

The circus has passed the first act, the crazy carnival of pre-primary noise where dozens of candidates try to outshine each other, and has suddenly neared the end of the primary season, the second act of seat-gripping suspense where the many are reduced to the few. Soon, the final act will be upon us, with McCain facing the Democratic nominee and the true battle beginning. And that will be the biggest act of all.

A lot has happened politically in the last month that I have not been able to comment on here. The election landscape has changed quite dramatically, with McCain coming from behind; Giuliani, Thompson and Edwards dropping out, Huckabee showing poor performances in relationship to his Iowa win and Romney sitting about where he has been sitting the whole time—with something good but not much of it. For all practical purposes, the race on both sides has been reduced to duels: Romney verse McCain and Hilary Clinton verses Obama (excluding a possible Huckabee win in the South). On the Republican side of the ticket, 3 days out from “Super Tuesday,” I find myself very confused and unsure of whom to support, and wavering between positions faster then Bill Clinton himself.

Admittedly, I have not been one to get excited in this election. None of the candidates thrill me, and the only one I was reasonably happy with (although not very optimistic about) was Fred Thompson, who has since quit the campaign (too soon in my view, but probably the right move). Unless I jump on the Ron Paul wagon (which I really don’t want to do) I have three options: Romney, McCain or Huckabee; none of whom I fully trust or support. My support is purely symbolic however, as I cannot vote in my state’s upcoming caucus while attending school in another distant state. This fact alone has at times made me apathetic to whoever wins, since I am a party man and will support whomever the GOP selects.

But assuming I had some say in the matter, I wouldn’t know quite where to begin. McCain, I’ve always had problems with, and still do. He is a man who has his ideas and sticks with them, but I usually don’t agree with them and frequently don’t find them conservative. His years in the Senate have given him many years demonstrate some of his awful ideas, including the infamous McCain-Feingold election campaign laws and a failed immigration plan. He is a strong leader however, someone who isn’t afraid to go out on his own (only if its beneficial of course) and who people like to follow. I think on the Iraqi war his position is about as good as we can hope for, and I won’t have trouble sleeping at night with him in the Oval Office like I would with Barack or Huckabee. I can vote for him if I have to, I still have much more in common with him then I do any of the Democratic candidates, but he is definitely not my first choice.

Romney is someone whom I have always been okay supporting, a fallback candidate who can get the job done. But I’m not exciting about him or his campaign. It seems like he is trying to win the election by appealing to a Reagan coalition that doesn’t exist anymore. He is pro-business and pro-life, but shall the two groups meet? Christians are suspicious of his flip-flops over social issues, businessmen think he wasn’t pro-business enough while he was Governor of Massachusetts. In short, he comes up mediocre in all areas but still manages to remain acceptable, offer little but a lack of offense. I can’t get excited for him, nor can anyone else based off his only fair performance so far. People seem to be looking for someone else, some going to John McCain (seniors) and others to Huckabee (Christians) leaving Romney with some fiscal conservatives and Mormons. What’s more, I don’t know if he can win in a national election against Hilary or Obama—his campaign has run very conservative in some areas (especially immigration) and will have a hard time reaching out to the coveted moderate vote.

Huckabee is someone that I haven’t been able to get my head around. On the one hand, he is a nice, likeable guy with excellent communication skills and a knack to getting straight to what people are concerned about. On the other hand, his campaign is disorganized, his foreign policy is lacking, and many of his domestic ideas seem only half-baked (the Fair Tax for instance) and definitely not conservative. Now, in many ways he could be my perfect candidate: a Christian who takes a softer view of things, who isn’t afraid to think outside the box when necessary. But when he does go off the beaten path, he takes directions that I find difficult to accept, from health care to a seemingly contradictory foreign policy platform. He seems so right, but yet so wrong. What’s more, I am fairly convinced that (a) Mike Huckabee cannot win a national campaign, and (b) his candidacy would destroy what remains of the Republican Party. George W. Bush won with Evangelical support, but lost support from more traditional elements of the party in doing so, and another candidate in the same vein may well be the final straw that breaks the elephants back.

What to do? Wait for the primaries to be over and support the last man standing, or select the least offensive candidate and try to get him elected so I may have a small margin of discomfort? Neither seems very appealing at the moment, and I will likely have fewer options after this Tuesday. I vainly hope they are good ones.