Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
One of the most successful strategies during the 2008 presidential campaign was Team Obama's efforts to peel off the Christian Left. In the Clinton and post-Clinton eras, Evangelical Christians were largely thought to belong to the Republican Party, and the Christian Right certainly has little-to-no incentive to cross the aisle.
But the Christian Left - progressive Christians who often believe they should force government to be an instrument of God's mercy - have always been up for grabs. George W. Bush won many of them over in 2000 and 2004 with his "compassionate conservative" rhetoric.
In 2008, however, Barack Obama was able to reaffirm old stereotypes: Republicans are mean, greedy white men who are willing to let people suffer for their profit. In the ambiguities of his stump speech, many in the Christian Left felt that Obama would use the power of the government to bring about "social justice."
This is where I believe a large number of left-of-center Christians, many (but not all) of whom are moved more by empathy than theology, were in effect suckered by Obama. President Obama has obfuscated his socialist intentions of "spreading the wealth around" with the Christian virtue of charity.
Christians are called to end material suffering, not end material inequality.
If a man down the street drives a beat-up, periwinkle peeling-paint 1996 Plymouth Neon and his neighbor has two 2010 "Bumblebee" yellow Government Motors Camaros, is Christian virtue to force her to give one to her neighbor? That is the equity, aka social justice, that Obama is pushing. He is selling Christian charity - but he is offering secular Marxism.
Taking care of the poor and providing care for the sick is certainly a Christian calling, if not a commandment. I'm no theological scholar, but anyone who can read the Bible can see that we are implored to give to the poor, visit those in prison, and care for the sick. But does taking by force of law $10,000 from someone who makes $1 million annually and giving it to someone who makes $100,000 or $50,000 annually make any of us better Christians? Does it make the world more godly?
In the long run, actually, it's the poor who suffer from social distribution which creates, by all historic accounts, more material suffering than it solves.
Occasionally, when debating with someone in the Christian Left, I will run into a sad scenario where the person seems to believe that voting for a politician who will play Robin Hood is a substitute for personal piety - and personal charity. Here I can only think of the famous words of Jesus, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but render unto God what is God's." Clearly, giving to Caesar is not giving to God. (Although this is a good verse to chastise those who don't want to pay taxes at all.)
Although I am a right-of-center Christian, I am sympathetic to the cause and endgame of my fellow believers on the left. We want to end poverty and material suffering. That is why I am an unashamed free-market capitalist.
History has showed that free-market capitalism, not socialism, is the best way to alleviate material suffering, not only in America but around the world. The poor in America are the richest poor in the world - i.e., they have little material suffering. Most of them have sufficient food, a place to live and access to essential medical care. The reason America's poor have it so (relatively) good is because capitalism drives economic growth, lifting all who live under the system.
Socialism, on the other had, has proven to be a failure because there is little or no incentive for people to drive economic growth - meaning there is less wealth to "spread around" and everyone gets poorer.
If, as a Christian, I want to end material suffering, then I must support government policies that empower capitalism, not socialism (like that which Obama is peddling). Capitalism is not a perfect system, insofar as it does create income gaps and even some über-wealthy individuals. But I have yet to see the Christian scholarship that makes an airtight case (or even reasonably compelling) as to why Christians should make sure all wealth on this side of eternity is spread equally. Conversely, many proverbs speak that the industrious will be rewarded.
Is the calling of a Christian making sure that someone doesn't have more than someone else? Not if both those people have plenty to begin with. Income gaps do not inherently cause pain; it only creates suffering for the envious.
This envy - slightly repackaged class warfare - is exactly how Obama won the support of the secular left. By doing a bait-and-switch in substituting material equality for material suffering, Obama has compelled the Christian Left to support his Marxist plans as well.
###30###
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Surviving 18 kids and 25 years
AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH JIM BOB DUGGAR
As most marriages on TV fail, the Duggars reveal how they work to keep their marriage strong
By Lucas Roebuck
Not being a fan of television in general, I am perplexed at how much my wife and her friends enjoy the super-sized family shows like “Jon and Kate Plus Eight” and “18 Kids and Counting.” She takes care of our two kids all day long, so why would she want to watch more on childcare? Shows what I know.
The big news in TV land is that after 10 years of marriage, Jon and Kate are calling it quits — and had a special show just to tell the world. More than 10 million people tuned in to see the announcement, the highest viewership for the show. Although they never used the D-word, soon the gossip Web sites were reporting divorce papers had been filed.
Jon explained he had to do what was “best for me” and the kids. Millions got the signal from the Gossilens that when the going gets tough in your marriage, its okay to break your vows to God and spouse. The message: Love is about what you get, not about giving everything up for something else.
Showing a positive message on marriage is one of the reasons Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, of Springdale, agreed to the show “18 Kids and Counting,” Jim Bob told me during a phone interview Wednesday. Jim Bob said he and Michelle were praying for the Gossilens.
Jim Bob and Michelle will celebrate 25 years of marriage this year — he was 19 and she was 17 when they hitched. In a nation where over half of marriages end up in divorce, being married for 25 years is almost as remarkable as having 18 kids.
Jim Bob is quick to point out that his family is not perfect, and that his quarter century love affair with Michelle is not always magic. Instead, the couple have sought out advice and learned from others on how to make their marriage last — and stay strong. Kids are just one of the many things that put strain on a marriage. But 18 kids? How do you survive that?
Jim Bob said early on he and Michelle took the advice of Dr. Ed Wheat, Jim Bob’s doctor — who has written some books on healthy marriage. During the first year of marriage, Jim Bob explained, Dr. Wheat said no TV.
Instead of focusing on these outside distractions, Jim Bob said, he and Michelle were able to learn about each other. After the first year of marriage, the Duggars did get a TV with cable. That only lasted three weeks.
“With both realized we were addicted to TV,” said Duggar. The cable got snipped and the rabbit ears put away. “A lot of people spend so much time watching TV, they don’t get to know each other.”
“We spend less time making television than most people spend watching it,” he said.
Besides cutting down on tube time, the Duggars work hard to settle disagreements quickly.
“There are going to be conflicts and disagreements, but when they come don’t let the sun go down on your wrath,” he said “Make sure that you resolve conflict as quick as possible.” Jim Bob said that unresolved conflict tends to build on other conflicts, compounding issues and making it harder to find peace in a marriage.
Another critical rule Jim Bob and Michelle live by is never to cut each other down verbally.
“We agreed never to put each other down,” Jim Bob said. He admits that sometimes they fail in that area, but when it happens, apologies are always forthcoming. “There have been times that I’ve had to ask for forgiveness,” Jim Bob said meekly.
Conversely, Jim Bob said what makes a relationship stronger is a concerted effort to compliment your spouse every day. “Not just something about their beauty,” he said, “but about their character.” This affirmation makes resolving future differences easier.
As committed Christians, like most things in life, “18 Kids and Counting” is an opportunity for the Duggars to share God’s love in their life. I remember when Jim Bob was running for U.S. Senate — an unlikely victory from the onset — he was always convinced that God would use his campaign, win or lose, for higher purposes.
An AP photographer took a photo of his family voting in that election, which started chain of events, eventually attracting the interest of TLC — and the rest is TV history.
Now the Duggars hope they can show how living in a family built on Biblical principles can help marriages survive.
Jim Bob believes in the triangle principle, which puts a husband and wife at the base points and God at the top. As the two spouses draw closer to God, they grow closer to each other as well. Duggar said he and Michelle are living proof of this.
“We’ve seen it in our marriage relationship,” he said.
The faith of the Duggars makes them prayerful and hopeful for God to work even in challenging situations.
“I know God could restore the Gossilens’ marriage and make it better than ever,” Jim Bob said.
“18 Kids and Counting” airs Tuesdays at 8 p.m. on TLC.
###30###
Note: All my columns also appear in print in the Northwest Arkansas Times.
As most marriages on TV fail, the Duggars reveal how they work to keep their marriage strong
By Lucas Roebuck
Not being a fan of television in general, I am perplexed at how much my wife and her friends enjoy the super-sized family shows like “Jon and Kate Plus Eight” and “18 Kids and Counting.” She takes care of our two kids all day long, so why would she want to watch more on childcare? Shows what I know.
The big news in TV land is that after 10 years of marriage, Jon and Kate are calling it quits — and had a special show just to tell the world. More than 10 million people tuned in to see the announcement, the highest viewership for the show. Although they never used the D-word, soon the gossip Web sites were reporting divorce papers had been filed.
Jon explained he had to do what was “best for me” and the kids. Millions got the signal from the Gossilens that when the going gets tough in your marriage, its okay to break your vows to God and spouse. The message: Love is about what you get, not about giving everything up for something else.
Showing a positive message on marriage is one of the reasons Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, of Springdale, agreed to the show “18 Kids and Counting,” Jim Bob told me during a phone interview Wednesday. Jim Bob said he and Michelle were praying for the Gossilens.
Jim Bob and Michelle will celebrate 25 years of marriage this year — he was 19 and she was 17 when they hitched. In a nation where over half of marriages end up in divorce, being married for 25 years is almost as remarkable as having 18 kids.
Jim Bob is quick to point out that his family is not perfect, and that his quarter century love affair with Michelle is not always magic. Instead, the couple have sought out advice and learned from others on how to make their marriage last — and stay strong. Kids are just one of the many things that put strain on a marriage. But 18 kids? How do you survive that?
Jim Bob said early on he and Michelle took the advice of Dr. Ed Wheat, Jim Bob’s doctor — who has written some books on healthy marriage. During the first year of marriage, Jim Bob explained, Dr. Wheat said no TV.
Instead of focusing on these outside distractions, Jim Bob said, he and Michelle were able to learn about each other. After the first year of marriage, the Duggars did get a TV with cable. That only lasted three weeks.
“With both realized we were addicted to TV,” said Duggar. The cable got snipped and the rabbit ears put away. “A lot of people spend so much time watching TV, they don’t get to know each other.”
“We spend less time making television than most people spend watching it,” he said.
Besides cutting down on tube time, the Duggars work hard to settle disagreements quickly.
“There are going to be conflicts and disagreements, but when they come don’t let the sun go down on your wrath,” he said “Make sure that you resolve conflict as quick as possible.” Jim Bob said that unresolved conflict tends to build on other conflicts, compounding issues and making it harder to find peace in a marriage.
Another critical rule Jim Bob and Michelle live by is never to cut each other down verbally.
“We agreed never to put each other down,” Jim Bob said. He admits that sometimes they fail in that area, but when it happens, apologies are always forthcoming. “There have been times that I’ve had to ask for forgiveness,” Jim Bob said meekly.
Conversely, Jim Bob said what makes a relationship stronger is a concerted effort to compliment your spouse every day. “Not just something about their beauty,” he said, “but about their character.” This affirmation makes resolving future differences easier.
As committed Christians, like most things in life, “18 Kids and Counting” is an opportunity for the Duggars to share God’s love in their life. I remember when Jim Bob was running for U.S. Senate — an unlikely victory from the onset — he was always convinced that God would use his campaign, win or lose, for higher purposes.
An AP photographer took a photo of his family voting in that election, which started chain of events, eventually attracting the interest of TLC — and the rest is TV history.
Now the Duggars hope they can show how living in a family built on Biblical principles can help marriages survive.
Jim Bob believes in the triangle principle, which puts a husband and wife at the base points and God at the top. As the two spouses draw closer to God, they grow closer to each other as well. Duggar said he and Michelle are living proof of this.
“We’ve seen it in our marriage relationship,” he said.
The faith of the Duggars makes them prayerful and hopeful for God to work even in challenging situations.
“I know God could restore the Gossilens’ marriage and make it better than ever,” Jim Bob said.
“18 Kids and Counting” airs Tuesdays at 8 p.m. on TLC.
###30###
Note: All my columns also appear in print in the Northwest Arkansas Times.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Is GM destined to crash?
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
One of the great ironies of the fall of General Motors and Chrysler was how red America's patriotic ethos to buy American was what kept those companies afloat - and Democrat-contributing uber-high wage union workers in their jobs - for years if not decades.
Drive on the freeways of the blue state coasts, and you'll find a disproportionate number of foreign-made cars. In the American heartland - Republican strongholds - Chryslers, Fords and GM automobiles have traditionally dominated the roadways.
I'd bet my old 1966 Plymouth Valiant (if I still had it) that if Gallup did a poll today, we'd find that Republicans are far more likely to drive American-made cars than Democrats. In fact, an article in the The New York Times in 2005 reported that, indeed, Republicans bought American, and Democrats bought foreign cars, according to Scarborough Research, a New York market-based firm.
Interestingly enough, according to the Times, staunch Democrats drove sports utility vehicles just like Republicans - but the Democrats preferred foreign-made SUVs.
I don't want to debate the general merits of the quality and value of American cars versus those coming from Europe or Asia. I myself found an uneasy compromise in the last car that I purchased - a used Mazda 5 minivan. Not an American car, to be sure, but the Ford Motor Co. has a majority stake in Mazda (perhaps one of the reasons Ford avoided the fate of the rest of the former Big Three). So I rationalize my purchase by saying I drive a Ford. Sort of. (Yes, I don't sleep well at night.)
However, I know many Americans (including myself ) that paid a little more for a little less car at some point in the last few decades to buy American out of a since of patriotic duty. Buying American made American companies stronger, helped keep jobs in America and made the country stronger. Wearing your patriotism on your sleeve when car shopping has always been a heartland Republican activity.
So by getting into bed with the Democrats who bought cars mostly from their international rivals, the American automaker unions were biting the hand that fed them. No matter. Obama was happy to use money borrowed from our grandchildren to pay off the unions for their loyalty and contributions over the years to his party.
Now the government and the unions own what's left of GM. The Obama administration should sell off its stake as soon as possible, but that would be inconsistent with Obama's socialist march to the left. So don't expect the government to get out of the car business anytime soon.
Here's the problem now. Who is going to buy GM cars? Certainly not the Republican patriots who have been propping up GM for so many years. Maybe some Democrats who follow the commands of our supreme leader will do so - but, for the most part, I don't see Democrats changing from their buy-American-last ways. Do you really think that the people who buy the cool Toyota Prius are going to line up in droves to buy the nerdy Chevy Volt?
Even the new GM seems doomed to fail, sort of. Obama's new, greener GM is making cars that people in a recession just don't want or can't afford. For example, consider the Prius. Under the Bush recession, Priuses sold pretty well. Now that we have moved into a Category 5 Obama recession, Prius sales have dropped 50 percent. Democrats, like most Americans, are more high-minded when they have lots of cash to burn.
Toyota loses thousands of dollars on each Prius sold. Likely government subsidies from Japan and American tax incentives for buying hybrid cars mask the price point problem of hybrid/green cars. It's unlikely that a GM run by Obama cronies who have little auto experience to begin with are going to find a way to make hybrids/greens profitable if Toyota - a very efficient car company - can't.
Of course, what this means is that Obama is going to have to stack the deck in GM's favor - likely at the expense of the last great American car company, Ford. Whether by targeted subsidies, or mandating that government agencies buy only GM cars for the federal fleet, I am not sure. But the government just doesn't have a financial stake in GM, but a political one. The success or failure of the new GM will be credited to Obama - so he has an incentive to do whatever it takes to make GM work, even if that means short-circuiting fair competition with Ford (or Toyota or Honda, etc.).
Because this government interference is absolutely bad for America, I hope patriotic car buyers will not buy GM cars, and instead look to Ford, or even American startups like Tesla Motors (makers of really cool electric-only cars) when buying a new set of wheels.
I am not advocating protectionism for American carmakers. I believe in free markets, so the government shouldn't tell you that you have to buy an American car. I believe in freedom of choice, so the government shouldn't tell you that you have to buy a green car.
But just like those who are concerned about the environment are to be commended when they voluntarily spend a little more to buy a green car, let's also praise the patriots who voluntarily spend a little more on American cars - at this point, Fords - to strengthen the American enterprise.
###30###
By Lucas Roebuck
One of the great ironies of the fall of General Motors and Chrysler was how red America's patriotic ethos to buy American was what kept those companies afloat - and Democrat-contributing uber-high wage union workers in their jobs - for years if not decades.
Drive on the freeways of the blue state coasts, and you'll find a disproportionate number of foreign-made cars. In the American heartland - Republican strongholds - Chryslers, Fords and GM automobiles have traditionally dominated the roadways.
I'd bet my old 1966 Plymouth Valiant (if I still had it) that if Gallup did a poll today, we'd find that Republicans are far more likely to drive American-made cars than Democrats. In fact, an article in the The New York Times in 2005 reported that, indeed, Republicans bought American, and Democrats bought foreign cars, according to Scarborough Research, a New York market-based firm.
Interestingly enough, according to the Times, staunch Democrats drove sports utility vehicles just like Republicans - but the Democrats preferred foreign-made SUVs.
I don't want to debate the general merits of the quality and value of American cars versus those coming from Europe or Asia. I myself found an uneasy compromise in the last car that I purchased - a used Mazda 5 minivan. Not an American car, to be sure, but the Ford Motor Co. has a majority stake in Mazda (perhaps one of the reasons Ford avoided the fate of the rest of the former Big Three). So I rationalize my purchase by saying I drive a Ford. Sort of. (Yes, I don't sleep well at night.)
However, I know many Americans (including myself ) that paid a little more for a little less car at some point in the last few decades to buy American out of a since of patriotic duty. Buying American made American companies stronger, helped keep jobs in America and made the country stronger. Wearing your patriotism on your sleeve when car shopping has always been a heartland Republican activity.
So by getting into bed with the Democrats who bought cars mostly from their international rivals, the American automaker unions were biting the hand that fed them. No matter. Obama was happy to use money borrowed from our grandchildren to pay off the unions for their loyalty and contributions over the years to his party.
Now the government and the unions own what's left of GM. The Obama administration should sell off its stake as soon as possible, but that would be inconsistent with Obama's socialist march to the left. So don't expect the government to get out of the car business anytime soon.
Here's the problem now. Who is going to buy GM cars? Certainly not the Republican patriots who have been propping up GM for so many years. Maybe some Democrats who follow the commands of our supreme leader will do so - but, for the most part, I don't see Democrats changing from their buy-American-last ways. Do you really think that the people who buy the cool Toyota Prius are going to line up in droves to buy the nerdy Chevy Volt?
Even the new GM seems doomed to fail, sort of. Obama's new, greener GM is making cars that people in a recession just don't want or can't afford. For example, consider the Prius. Under the Bush recession, Priuses sold pretty well. Now that we have moved into a Category 5 Obama recession, Prius sales have dropped 50 percent. Democrats, like most Americans, are more high-minded when they have lots of cash to burn.
Toyota loses thousands of dollars on each Prius sold. Likely government subsidies from Japan and American tax incentives for buying hybrid cars mask the price point problem of hybrid/green cars. It's unlikely that a GM run by Obama cronies who have little auto experience to begin with are going to find a way to make hybrids/greens profitable if Toyota - a very efficient car company - can't.
Of course, what this means is that Obama is going to have to stack the deck in GM's favor - likely at the expense of the last great American car company, Ford. Whether by targeted subsidies, or mandating that government agencies buy only GM cars for the federal fleet, I am not sure. But the government just doesn't have a financial stake in GM, but a political one. The success or failure of the new GM will be credited to Obama - so he has an incentive to do whatever it takes to make GM work, even if that means short-circuiting fair competition with Ford (or Toyota or Honda, etc.).
Because this government interference is absolutely bad for America, I hope patriotic car buyers will not buy GM cars, and instead look to Ford, or even American startups like Tesla Motors (makers of really cool electric-only cars) when buying a new set of wheels.
I am not advocating protectionism for American carmakers. I believe in free markets, so the government shouldn't tell you that you have to buy an American car. I believe in freedom of choice, so the government shouldn't tell you that you have to buy a green car.
But just like those who are concerned about the environment are to be commended when they voluntarily spend a little more to buy a green car, let's also praise the patriots who voluntarily spend a little more on American cars - at this point, Fords - to strengthen the American enterprise.
###30###
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
One cent for the future
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
The problem was already bad when President Barack Obama hit the scene. Now Obama's capriciousness, unchecked by a pliable Democrat-controlled Congress, has only served to exacerbate the problem of our national debt.
One of President Bush's greatest failures
was continuing the generational theft to prop up our outof-control borrowing and spending. Obama is taking Bush's spending to new heights of irresponsibility.
The national debt is currently $11.3 trillion - and rising at a historic rate thanks to our historic president. In 2008, we spent $412 billion dollars just on the interest. Paying on the interest dwarfed all other government spending except military ($650 billion) and Health and Human Services (welfare, Medicare, etc., $700 billion). As of May of this year, we have already spent $214 billion on interest. We're basically borrowing money to pay the interest on what we already owe!
This might not be so troubling if we had a plan to pay down the debt. But we don't. In fact, every year, the debt keeps growing and growing as we borrow more and more money to cover our out-of-control spending. Eventually, uncontrolled borrowing and spending will come crashing down on us, ruining our economy, our country and our way of life. Well before "global warming" puts Los Angeles and San Francisco underwater, the national debt will destroy America.
The people loaning the United States its money (mostly China) at some point will stop lending. If China ever wants to deal a crippling blow to the United States, it doesn't need to build up a massive military (which they are doing anyway). They just need to stop lending the federal government money.
Congress and the president need to address this problem now.
First, Congress must balance the budget. Congressmen and women who vote for budgets that are not balanced need to be thrown out. I would love to see the entire Arkansas delegation sign a pledge to vote for only balanced budgets. I favor a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but absent that Herculean task, a grassroots effort to put fire to the feet of congressmen who support deficit spending could get the same job done.
Second, we must have a real plan to pay down this debt. Even if we balance the budget, we're still paying $400 billion to $500 billion a year in interest payments - and nothing on the principal of our debt. I propose we create a 1-cent national sales tax, the proceeds from which can only be used to pay down the principal on the national debt. Congress would be restricted from using the revenue for anything else - even paying interest - and could enforce this by constitutional amendment.
Many conservatives rightfully are opposed to any raising of taxes, simply because of the fiscal irresponsibility of Republicans and the fiscal suicide of the Democrats. However, the damage has been done, and as Americans we have a responsibility to ease the burden of debt we are imposing on our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Also, raising a tax to pay down debt is the most fiscally responsible tax possible.
Flat taxers (whose ideas I am sympathetic to) think they could fund the federal government with a 23-cent sales tax. Abstracting from 2008's $2.9 trillion budget and assuming the flat taxers are somewhere in the ballpark of how much a national sales tax would raise, that would peg the revenue from a 1-cent sales tax in the vicinity of $100 billion annually.
Assuming that we would roll savings from eventually lower interest payments into paying down the principal and assuming some national economic growth, that would mean we could have the deficit paid off in 50 to 75 years - about how long it has taken us to dig the hole we are in.
Our budgetary policy is madness. We're broke. The eventual pain of our borrow-and-spend ways will only be greater the longer we ignore this problem.
In the future, I will never vote for a presidential or congressional candidate who won't pledge in writing to support a balanced budget and have an articulated plan to pay down the debt. If you care about what sort of country we are giving our children, I suggest you do the same.
###30###
By Lucas Roebuck
The problem was already bad when President Barack Obama hit the scene. Now Obama's capriciousness, unchecked by a pliable Democrat-controlled Congress, has only served to exacerbate the problem of our national debt.
One of President Bush's greatest failures
was continuing the generational theft to prop up our outof-control borrowing and spending. Obama is taking Bush's spending to new heights of irresponsibility.
The national debt is currently $11.3 trillion - and rising at a historic rate thanks to our historic president. In 2008, we spent $412 billion dollars just on the interest. Paying on the interest dwarfed all other government spending except military ($650 billion) and Health and Human Services (welfare, Medicare, etc., $700 billion). As of May of this year, we have already spent $214 billion on interest. We're basically borrowing money to pay the interest on what we already owe!
This might not be so troubling if we had a plan to pay down the debt. But we don't. In fact, every year, the debt keeps growing and growing as we borrow more and more money to cover our out-of-control spending. Eventually, uncontrolled borrowing and spending will come crashing down on us, ruining our economy, our country and our way of life. Well before "global warming" puts Los Angeles and San Francisco underwater, the national debt will destroy America.
The people loaning the United States its money (mostly China) at some point will stop lending. If China ever wants to deal a crippling blow to the United States, it doesn't need to build up a massive military (which they are doing anyway). They just need to stop lending the federal government money.
Congress and the president need to address this problem now.
First, Congress must balance the budget. Congressmen and women who vote for budgets that are not balanced need to be thrown out. I would love to see the entire Arkansas delegation sign a pledge to vote for only balanced budgets. I favor a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but absent that Herculean task, a grassroots effort to put fire to the feet of congressmen who support deficit spending could get the same job done.
Second, we must have a real plan to pay down this debt. Even if we balance the budget, we're still paying $400 billion to $500 billion a year in interest payments - and nothing on the principal of our debt. I propose we create a 1-cent national sales tax, the proceeds from which can only be used to pay down the principal on the national debt. Congress would be restricted from using the revenue for anything else - even paying interest - and could enforce this by constitutional amendment.
Many conservatives rightfully are opposed to any raising of taxes, simply because of the fiscal irresponsibility of Republicans and the fiscal suicide of the Democrats. However, the damage has been done, and as Americans we have a responsibility to ease the burden of debt we are imposing on our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Also, raising a tax to pay down debt is the most fiscally responsible tax possible.
Flat taxers (whose ideas I am sympathetic to) think they could fund the federal government with a 23-cent sales tax. Abstracting from 2008's $2.9 trillion budget and assuming the flat taxers are somewhere in the ballpark of how much a national sales tax would raise, that would peg the revenue from a 1-cent sales tax in the vicinity of $100 billion annually.
Assuming that we would roll savings from eventually lower interest payments into paying down the principal and assuming some national economic growth, that would mean we could have the deficit paid off in 50 to 75 years - about how long it has taken us to dig the hole we are in.
Our budgetary policy is madness. We're broke. The eventual pain of our borrow-and-spend ways will only be greater the longer we ignore this problem.
In the future, I will never vote for a presidential or congressional candidate who won't pledge in writing to support a balanced budget and have an articulated plan to pay down the debt. If you care about what sort of country we are giving our children, I suggest you do the same.
###30###
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tiller was a monster, but his murder was wrong
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
The murder of abortionist George Tiller was wrong. Period. His death cannot be justified.
I am as right-wing as they come on abortion. Life begins at conception, and once conceived, a child is entitled to naturally grow into a mature human. Tiller painfully denied thousands of innocent children that fundamental right. That he did it legally is a source of great grief - and he became a millionaire from his "practice." Some pro-life people labeled him a monster. The moniker is appropriate, but such labels are rarely helpful.
Most pro-life activists I know agree that shooting abortion doctors not only is morally reprehensible, but it also does not help efforts to stop abortion-murder. Case in point: Efforts by many in the media and left-wing blogs immediately after Tiller's death tried to paint the pro-life movement with the shooter's brush. Will that blatant opportunism by abortionrights advocates to overgeneralize and stereotype stick? That would be like saying all Muslims in America want to gun down Army recruiters just because one did.
It's sort of a logical fallacy - a combination of a hasty generalization and a false dichotomy - that is now populating the left-wing talking points of this issue. Abortion-rights people say, "See, you don't want to be like those crazy shooters? Either you join us or you are like them." The goal is, of course, to get moderates to see those evil, doctor-shooting so-called pro-lifers as the crazy ones. (When, in reality, people like Dr. Tiller are the ones who are crushing skulls and sucking the brains out of half-born babies who would otherwise be viable outside of the womb. Are Dr. Tiller's supporters extremists? You decide.)
Ironically, most hard-core pro-lifers don't support shooting doctors. Most left-wing pro-choice supporters do support lateterm abortions. The Senate voting record of President Barack Obama comes to mind.
Assuming that accused killer Scott Roeder did indeed gun down Tiller because of Roeder's anti-abortion views, Roeder did nothing to help the pro-life cause and most likely didn't even stop one abortion.
But it's a sick sort of math that calculates that one murder is justified if it saves the lives of many others. National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru, who also condemned the shooting, points out three reasons why the rational pro-lifers (even doing this moral justifying calculus) would have to conclude that killing abortion doctors is morally wrong.
Ponnuru argues that in order to justify the shooting, first Tiller would have had to have been in the act of performing an abortion. For example, if I saw that you were about to puncture my child's (or anyone's child's, really) skull, I would be morally justified in shooting you, even if you were by some bizarre twist legally allowed to kill my child.
Second, the shooter would have to know with moral certainty that someone else wouldn't have performed the abortion if Dr. Tiller wasn't around to do it. Third, in order to justify the use of violence, the shooter's intent would have been simply to disable the doctor - you know, shoot his hands off - instead of actually killing him. Finally, Ponnuru writes that "it would have to be possible for a pro-life regime to survive without the rule of law." In other words, if you are willing to blatantly disregard the law (abortion is legal, shooting an adult is not), then whatever your perfect world would look like would also have to function in a state of anarchy. But you couldn't enforce pro-choice or pro-life rules in anarchy.
Ponnuru concludes the conditions for justifying the murder of abortionists are "impossible."
Abortion is a crime against humanity of Holocaust proportions. The fact that abortion is legal in America is the only reason I am ashamed of my homeland. But that doesn't excuse another murder.
Unfortunately, whatever Roeder's intentions were, he only made things worse, and empowered those who cannot see abortion for the great tragedy it is.
###30###
By Lucas Roebuck
The murder of abortionist George Tiller was wrong. Period. His death cannot be justified.
I am as right-wing as they come on abortion. Life begins at conception, and once conceived, a child is entitled to naturally grow into a mature human. Tiller painfully denied thousands of innocent children that fundamental right. That he did it legally is a source of great grief - and he became a millionaire from his "practice." Some pro-life people labeled him a monster. The moniker is appropriate, but such labels are rarely helpful.
Most pro-life activists I know agree that shooting abortion doctors not only is morally reprehensible, but it also does not help efforts to stop abortion-murder. Case in point: Efforts by many in the media and left-wing blogs immediately after Tiller's death tried to paint the pro-life movement with the shooter's brush. Will that blatant opportunism by abortionrights advocates to overgeneralize and stereotype stick? That would be like saying all Muslims in America want to gun down Army recruiters just because one did.
It's sort of a logical fallacy - a combination of a hasty generalization and a false dichotomy - that is now populating the left-wing talking points of this issue. Abortion-rights people say, "See, you don't want to be like those crazy shooters? Either you join us or you are like them." The goal is, of course, to get moderates to see those evil, doctor-shooting so-called pro-lifers as the crazy ones. (When, in reality, people like Dr. Tiller are the ones who are crushing skulls and sucking the brains out of half-born babies who would otherwise be viable outside of the womb. Are Dr. Tiller's supporters extremists? You decide.)
Ironically, most hard-core pro-lifers don't support shooting doctors. Most left-wing pro-choice supporters do support lateterm abortions. The Senate voting record of President Barack Obama comes to mind.
Assuming that accused killer Scott Roeder did indeed gun down Tiller because of Roeder's anti-abortion views, Roeder did nothing to help the pro-life cause and most likely didn't even stop one abortion.
But it's a sick sort of math that calculates that one murder is justified if it saves the lives of many others. National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru, who also condemned the shooting, points out three reasons why the rational pro-lifers (even doing this moral justifying calculus) would have to conclude that killing abortion doctors is morally wrong.
Ponnuru argues that in order to justify the shooting, first Tiller would have had to have been in the act of performing an abortion. For example, if I saw that you were about to puncture my child's (or anyone's child's, really) skull, I would be morally justified in shooting you, even if you were by some bizarre twist legally allowed to kill my child.
Second, the shooter would have to know with moral certainty that someone else wouldn't have performed the abortion if Dr. Tiller wasn't around to do it. Third, in order to justify the use of violence, the shooter's intent would have been simply to disable the doctor - you know, shoot his hands off - instead of actually killing him. Finally, Ponnuru writes that "it would have to be possible for a pro-life regime to survive without the rule of law." In other words, if you are willing to blatantly disregard the law (abortion is legal, shooting an adult is not), then whatever your perfect world would look like would also have to function in a state of anarchy. But you couldn't enforce pro-choice or pro-life rules in anarchy.
Ponnuru concludes the conditions for justifying the murder of abortionists are "impossible."
Abortion is a crime against humanity of Holocaust proportions. The fact that abortion is legal in America is the only reason I am ashamed of my homeland. But that doesn't excuse another murder.
Unfortunately, whatever Roeder's intentions were, he only made things worse, and empowered those who cannot see abortion for the great tragedy it is.
###30###
Thursday, June 04, 2009
The Political Circle
The crazies from the left and the right meet in the middle
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
We often like to think of modern American politics as a line, sort of a spectrum from the extreme left to the extreme right. This simple model helps us understand and relate to each other politically but perhaps is lacking in the complexity needed to explain some political realities.
A circle has often been proposed as a better figure to model American politics. In a political circle, where you fall in the circle on the x axis can be described in the familiar liberal/conservative dichotomy. Where you fall on the y axis, however, describes where you fall on the governance level spectrum. The lower (or more negative) your y value, the more you believe that government should be involved in individual life. The higher or more positive your y value is, the more you believe that individual freedom supersedes the benefits of governance.
So the extreme libertarians are anarchists, and their polar opposites would be totalitarians. In essence, as you approach the apex of the circle from the right, you have your anti-all tax, government conspiracy nuts; and as you approach the top of the circle from the left, you have your screw-the-man, government-industrial complex antiestablishment free-love free-drugs anarchist-hippies. This circle model explains why in the 2008 presidential primaries, many Democrats really liked the sound of Republicanlibertarian Ron Paul.
On the bottom of the circle, you have theocrats and security hawks as you approach the base from the right; and you'll find social engineers and communist academics (who know so much more than you do) as you bottom out from the left. In a way, both ends of the circle are unhealthy and usually result in abuse. Anarchy is the result of the abuse of freedom; totalitarian oppression is the result of the abuse of governance.
Certainly, in freedom-loving America, the circle is topheavy. That's not to say we don't have our fair share of security hawks and government nannies weighting the circle down. The interesting phenomenon that helps balance out America's strong libertarian streak is that once in power, politicians are more likely to move down the circle than up it no matter what hemisphere they reside on.
Consider President Barack Obama. His recent breaks from his campaign rhetoric to basically adopt the Bush policy of military tribunals for war on terror detainees in the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base have infuriated civil libertarians. Many of them voted for Obama because they thought he would reverse the Bush policies, unlike Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain, who during the election wanted to close Guantanamo, but use military tribunals to deal with the detainees, not treat them like common criminals.
I'm curious how the Obama-supporting libertarians occupying the upper-left portion of the quadrant feel about his new Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who agreed that the government can seize land from one private owner via the power of eminent domain and give it to another private owner simply because the new owner will pay more taxes. I know many of them are already getting queasy over Obama's government takeovers of many private businesses in the automotive and banking sectors.
Political pandering to the top of the political circle is known as populism, which Obama and his team did a superb job of during the campaign. If popular votes are any indication, Obama drew a huge number of upper-right quadrant dwellers into the upper-left quadrant. It's very possible that Obama's margin of victory is summed up in this leftward shift.
But we are only half a year into the Obama administration, and Obama has already taken not just a sharp jump to the left, but also a sharp dive down toward the base of the political circle.
The further he moves toward totalitarian government control, the more Obama's charisma and gravitas lose a grip on those in the northern hemisphere of the political circle.
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
We often like to think of modern American politics as a line, sort of a spectrum from the extreme left to the extreme right. This simple model helps us understand and relate to each other politically but perhaps is lacking in the complexity needed to explain some political realities.
A circle has often been proposed as a better figure to model American politics. In a political circle, where you fall in the circle on the x axis can be described in the familiar liberal/conservative dichotomy. Where you fall on the y axis, however, describes where you fall on the governance level spectrum. The lower (or more negative) your y value, the more you believe that government should be involved in individual life. The higher or more positive your y value is, the more you believe that individual freedom supersedes the benefits of governance.
So the extreme libertarians are anarchists, and their polar opposites would be totalitarians. In essence, as you approach the apex of the circle from the right, you have your anti-all tax, government conspiracy nuts; and as you approach the top of the circle from the left, you have your screw-the-man, government-industrial complex antiestablishment free-love free-drugs anarchist-hippies. This circle model explains why in the 2008 presidential primaries, many Democrats really liked the sound of Republicanlibertarian Ron Paul.
On the bottom of the circle, you have theocrats and security hawks as you approach the base from the right; and you'll find social engineers and communist academics (who know so much more than you do) as you bottom out from the left. In a way, both ends of the circle are unhealthy and usually result in abuse. Anarchy is the result of the abuse of freedom; totalitarian oppression is the result of the abuse of governance.
Certainly, in freedom-loving America, the circle is topheavy. That's not to say we don't have our fair share of security hawks and government nannies weighting the circle down. The interesting phenomenon that helps balance out America's strong libertarian streak is that once in power, politicians are more likely to move down the circle than up it no matter what hemisphere they reside on.
Consider President Barack Obama. His recent breaks from his campaign rhetoric to basically adopt the Bush policy of military tribunals for war on terror detainees in the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base have infuriated civil libertarians. Many of them voted for Obama because they thought he would reverse the Bush policies, unlike Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain, who during the election wanted to close Guantanamo, but use military tribunals to deal with the detainees, not treat them like common criminals.
I'm curious how the Obama-supporting libertarians occupying the upper-left portion of the quadrant feel about his new Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who agreed that the government can seize land from one private owner via the power of eminent domain and give it to another private owner simply because the new owner will pay more taxes. I know many of them are already getting queasy over Obama's government takeovers of many private businesses in the automotive and banking sectors.
Political pandering to the top of the political circle is known as populism, which Obama and his team did a superb job of during the campaign. If popular votes are any indication, Obama drew a huge number of upper-right quadrant dwellers into the upper-left quadrant. It's very possible that Obama's margin of victory is summed up in this leftward shift.
But we are only half a year into the Obama administration, and Obama has already taken not just a sharp jump to the left, but also a sharp dive down toward the base of the political circle.
The further he moves toward totalitarian government control, the more Obama's charisma and gravitas lose a grip on those in the northern hemisphere of the political circle.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
What we can learn from the president’s smiles to tyrants
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
In one sense, the Obama doctrine — which says we can do more for our foreign policy with an open hand than a clinched fist — is embedded in an element of truth. If you subscribe to the realpolitik philosophy popularized by Theodore Roosevelt's speaking softly and carrying a big stick, you believe a good president has both of these critical diplomatic skills. President Barack Obama certainly has mastered the speak softly side of the equation; whereas President George W. Bush proved adept with the stick.
Obama certainly hopes to prove something by extending the hand of friendship to people like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama's cozying to these individuals has drawn criticism from his political enemies, but little objection has emanated from the international human rights groups that purport to fight for the politically oppressed. Too star-struck with Obama, I suppose.
Freedom of expression should be a fundamental human right, no matter what country you live in, right? America should use its influence to help those who are oppressed to gain the right to free political speech, right? I wonder if Obama thinks so.
Ahmadinejad jails journalists. Chavez has moved to silence opposition press in favor of the more Hugo-friendly state-run media. Castro has imprisoned his political opponents for decades. Russia's Vladimir Putin has done all three, not to mention tucking away his political opponents in unknown political prisons - or sending them a gift of radioactive poison.
Obama's lack of condemnation of these men is like one who will sit by and let people be denied certain rights because of their race.
Does Obama think that by being friends with these men, his messianic charisma will convince them to free political prisoners and allow a legitimate free press to operate within their borders? In other words, the Obama doctrine says, "Obama is so cool, all the other world leaders will want to be like him."
Frankly, I am worried about the opposite happening. I'm worried about these leaders rubbing off on Obama. What do Putin, Castro and Chavez have in common with Obama? They all represent some version of leftist ideology. It's no crime to be a leftist, and certainly the political left has made significant positive contributions to various political systems.
But leftist leaders, once empowered, often believe that imposing the state-engineered utopia is a goal that is worth almost any price. What happens when Obama decides that his goals of universal health care, lowering carbon emissions or even wealth redistribution (a.k.a. social justice) are worth the silencing of his political enemies or any ideological dissent?
American presidents come and go because our culture of free expression practically demands it. Castro, Chavez and Putin, in denying political speech, have been able to hold onto power. I don't know about Putin, but I am sure that for Castro and Chavez, holding onto power was a necessary evil for the sake of the leftist revolution.
The pieces are falling into place for Obama to assure that only he and his ideological decedents have a voice in America. The Department of Homeland Security's memo declaring pro-lifers and veterans (probably the two strongest anti-Obama voting blocs) to be potential terrorists is a scary shadow of how the executive branch could abuse its authority to marginalize dissent. Mix that with the psychological research from America's left-leaning group-think universities attempting to understand the "mental disorder" that is conservatism, and the government could have multiple reasons for locking hacks like me away.
The Supreme Court provides the only balance to Obama's power. However, with his new super-majority in the Senate, Obama could now get away with court-packing. In 2007, writing for The New York Times, author Jean Edward Smith opined, "If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant." Do you really think that Rahm Emanuel hasn't already given this idea serious thought?
Obama is a few steps away from controlling the major banks. What sort of ideological litmus test will you have to pass to get a loan? He has used the economic crisis to take over the auto industry and hand it to his political supporters in the unions. In 2012, Obama will redraw congressional districts to his advantage, now that the census is directly under White House control.
One hundred days into his presidency, Obama already has more political power at his disposal than any president since World War II - perhaps in history.
I am not saying that Obama is or will ever be a tyrant. But I wonder what means he will use to get to his ends - and when that happens, will we recognize the America that Obama's change has brought?
By Lucas Roebuck
In one sense, the Obama doctrine — which says we can do more for our foreign policy with an open hand than a clinched fist — is embedded in an element of truth. If you subscribe to the realpolitik philosophy popularized by Theodore Roosevelt's speaking softly and carrying a big stick, you believe a good president has both of these critical diplomatic skills. President Barack Obama certainly has mastered the speak softly side of the equation; whereas President George W. Bush proved adept with the stick.
Obama certainly hopes to prove something by extending the hand of friendship to people like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama's cozying to these individuals has drawn criticism from his political enemies, but little objection has emanated from the international human rights groups that purport to fight for the politically oppressed. Too star-struck with Obama, I suppose.
Freedom of expression should be a fundamental human right, no matter what country you live in, right? America should use its influence to help those who are oppressed to gain the right to free political speech, right? I wonder if Obama thinks so.
Ahmadinejad jails journalists. Chavez has moved to silence opposition press in favor of the more Hugo-friendly state-run media. Castro has imprisoned his political opponents for decades. Russia's Vladimir Putin has done all three, not to mention tucking away his political opponents in unknown political prisons - or sending them a gift of radioactive poison.
Obama's lack of condemnation of these men is like one who will sit by and let people be denied certain rights because of their race.
Does Obama think that by being friends with these men, his messianic charisma will convince them to free political prisoners and allow a legitimate free press to operate within their borders? In other words, the Obama doctrine says, "Obama is so cool, all the other world leaders will want to be like him."
Frankly, I am worried about the opposite happening. I'm worried about these leaders rubbing off on Obama. What do Putin, Castro and Chavez have in common with Obama? They all represent some version of leftist ideology. It's no crime to be a leftist, and certainly the political left has made significant positive contributions to various political systems.
But leftist leaders, once empowered, often believe that imposing the state-engineered utopia is a goal that is worth almost any price. What happens when Obama decides that his goals of universal health care, lowering carbon emissions or even wealth redistribution (a.k.a. social justice) are worth the silencing of his political enemies or any ideological dissent?
American presidents come and go because our culture of free expression practically demands it. Castro, Chavez and Putin, in denying political speech, have been able to hold onto power. I don't know about Putin, but I am sure that for Castro and Chavez, holding onto power was a necessary evil for the sake of the leftist revolution.
The pieces are falling into place for Obama to assure that only he and his ideological decedents have a voice in America. The Department of Homeland Security's memo declaring pro-lifers and veterans (probably the two strongest anti-Obama voting blocs) to be potential terrorists is a scary shadow of how the executive branch could abuse its authority to marginalize dissent. Mix that with the psychological research from America's left-leaning group-think universities attempting to understand the "mental disorder" that is conservatism, and the government could have multiple reasons for locking hacks like me away.
The Supreme Court provides the only balance to Obama's power. However, with his new super-majority in the Senate, Obama could now get away with court-packing. In 2007, writing for The New York Times, author Jean Edward Smith opined, "If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant." Do you really think that Rahm Emanuel hasn't already given this idea serious thought?
Obama is a few steps away from controlling the major banks. What sort of ideological litmus test will you have to pass to get a loan? He has used the economic crisis to take over the auto industry and hand it to his political supporters in the unions. In 2012, Obama will redraw congressional districts to his advantage, now that the census is directly under White House control.
One hundred days into his presidency, Obama already has more political power at his disposal than any president since World War II - perhaps in history.
I am not saying that Obama is or will ever be a tyrant. But I wonder what means he will use to get to his ends - and when that happens, will we recognize the America that Obama's change has brought?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Democrats are SHOCKED, SHOCKED to find ....
Click through to this must read blog post from David Freddoso over at the National Review...
Here's a sample.
Here is the link.
Here's a sample.
Yet it was Obama who signed the very bill that made the rules for bonuses under TARP, and that bill clearly allowed these bonuses. Obama stumped for it all over the country — but did he actually read it? And are politicians such as Obama, Dodd, and all the others who supported the stimulus package entitled to feign outrage when their own legislation produces easily foreseeable and undesirable results?
Here is the link.
Remembering Harvey
Here is my column I wrote on the passing of Paul Harvey for the Northwest Arkansas Times:
I was surprised how little the online media covered the death of radio news legend Paul Harvey. Even on the conservativeleaning Drudge Report the mention of his passing was so short-lived that I couldn't find it in their archives. National Review had a few short notes on its blog. I only found a frontpage Web link on ABC News' Web site, which I assume was because Harvey brought in hundreds of millions of dollars of ad revenue for ABC/Disney over the years. Ironically, I found out about Harvey's passing only after my wife saw it on a posting by one of her Facebook friends.
Even if the new media didn't understand him, Harvey (even through his 80s) had no problem understanding the tools of the digital age. The old school radio newsman could speak via iPod and the World Wide Web with the best of them, and he certainly covered the rise of new media on his "News and Comment" radio program.
His ability to remain germane was what kept him successful for generations. His radio format was old-fashioned, and his style was quaint, but his commentary was always relevant.
In many ways, Harvey has been a role model or hero of mine. He was someone who was wildly successful but never forgot the core values that made him who he was. Harvey was certainly conservative, but he was not partisan. He certainly was no shill for any party. Through his radio broadcasts, however, his belief in a world with real good and evil, his classic American work ethic, and his faith in the common decency of the common man provided a stable voice for our country through both good and bad times.
I also liked Harvey because his radio broadcasts were poetic in nature, both in terms of the words he used and how he delivered them. As a writer, it was obvious to me how much he handcrafted each sentence.
I wish I would have had a chance to meet Harvey in person; in 1996, he even paid a compliment to one of my columns on his radio show. Being mentioned on the show certainly was a personal and professional highlight for someone just graduating from college, and something I still am somewhat proud of.
Harvey had an Arkansas connection through John Brown University. Both John Brown (the university's founder) and Harvey were radio pioneers and shared similar values, so Harvey crossed paths with John Brown Sr. and John Brown Jr. (JBU's second president). And Harvey's wife and producer, Lynne "Angel," sat on the JBU board of trustees. At that time, the student newspaper was sent to the board, and apparently Angel marked up copies and passed them on to her husband. Both Paul Harvey Sr. and his son, Paul Harvey Jr., have lectured at JBU and attended various groundbreakings over the years. It's likely that growing up as a boy in Tulsa, Okla., he was aware of KUOA, a radio station owned by JBU for most of the last century.
For my generation, Paul Harvey is a voice we grew up hearing on the radio. But for older Americans, he was a pioneer in television news as well. Harvey Jr. put it best: "My father and mother created from thin air what one day became radio and television news. So, in the past year, an industry has lost its godparents and today millions have lost a friend."
I wonder if Paul Harvey is in heaven now, sitting with Jesus, getting the ultimate scoop on the rest of the story.
###30###
I was surprised how little the online media covered the death of radio news legend Paul Harvey. Even on the conservativeleaning Drudge Report the mention of his passing was so short-lived that I couldn't find it in their archives. National Review had a few short notes on its blog. I only found a frontpage Web link on ABC News' Web site, which I assume was because Harvey brought in hundreds of millions of dollars of ad revenue for ABC/Disney over the years. Ironically, I found out about Harvey's passing only after my wife saw it on a posting by one of her Facebook friends.
Even if the new media didn't understand him, Harvey (even through his 80s) had no problem understanding the tools of the digital age. The old school radio newsman could speak via iPod and the World Wide Web with the best of them, and he certainly covered the rise of new media on his "News and Comment" radio program.
His ability to remain germane was what kept him successful for generations. His radio format was old-fashioned, and his style was quaint, but his commentary was always relevant.
In many ways, Harvey has been a role model or hero of mine. He was someone who was wildly successful but never forgot the core values that made him who he was. Harvey was certainly conservative, but he was not partisan. He certainly was no shill for any party. Through his radio broadcasts, however, his belief in a world with real good and evil, his classic American work ethic, and his faith in the common decency of the common man provided a stable voice for our country through both good and bad times.
I also liked Harvey because his radio broadcasts were poetic in nature, both in terms of the words he used and how he delivered them. As a writer, it was obvious to me how much he handcrafted each sentence.
I wish I would have had a chance to meet Harvey in person; in 1996, he even paid a compliment to one of my columns on his radio show. Being mentioned on the show certainly was a personal and professional highlight for someone just graduating from college, and something I still am somewhat proud of.
Harvey had an Arkansas connection through John Brown University. Both John Brown (the university's founder) and Harvey were radio pioneers and shared similar values, so Harvey crossed paths with John Brown Sr. and John Brown Jr. (JBU's second president). And Harvey's wife and producer, Lynne "Angel," sat on the JBU board of trustees. At that time, the student newspaper was sent to the board, and apparently Angel marked up copies and passed them on to her husband. Both Paul Harvey Sr. and his son, Paul Harvey Jr., have lectured at JBU and attended various groundbreakings over the years. It's likely that growing up as a boy in Tulsa, Okla., he was aware of KUOA, a radio station owned by JBU for most of the last century.
For my generation, Paul Harvey is a voice we grew up hearing on the radio. But for older Americans, he was a pioneer in television news as well. Harvey Jr. put it best: "My father and mother created from thin air what one day became radio and television news. So, in the past year, an industry has lost its godparents and today millions have lost a friend."
I wonder if Paul Harvey is in heaven now, sitting with Jesus, getting the ultimate scoop on the rest of the story.
###30###
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Paul Harvey, RIP
I thought if anyone was going to live forever, it would be Paul Harvey. When I was a junior in college, Harvey mentioned a column I wrote on air. To get kudos from Harvey on-air was one of the highlights of my life. Godspeed, Paul Harvey. He's sitting with Jesus now, learning the rest of story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
