EdBlogStartPage

December 15, 2007

Voters in both parties judging candidates by personalities --- not issues

Listen to the expanded commentary on Edward Trimnell.com Radio (See the link above)

First of all, full disclosure: I will likely vote Republican in the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. Nevertheless, I want to see a viable candidate fielded by both of our two major parties. I accept the fact that---given the many mistakes of the Bush Administration---there may be a voter backlash against the GOP. Therefore, I want to see to see the Democrats run a strong candidate with sound qualifications.

Likewise, I want to see a strong candidate at the head of the Republican ticket. I want a candidate who will end the stranglehold that the religious right has on the GOP, and return American conservatism to secular values of law-and-order, limited involvement in overseas conflicts, and economic growth.

Instead I seem to be getting Mike Huckabee, an ex-preacher whose website text leads off with his religious beliefs. Mike Huckabee failed to protect Arkansas taxpayers from the costs of illegal immigration; and he was charged with funneling state cash to family members. This sounds a lot like Bill Clinton with a bit of evangelical fervor thrown in.

Why is Mike Huckabee gaining so fast in polls among likely Republican voters? My guess is that even after eight years of a president who claimed to speak for the Almighty, some elements of the Republican Party still haven’t learned the lesson: Religion has no place in politics, and Christianity is not a synonym for conservatism.

Not that I’m letting the Democrats off the hook, either. I have watched most of the Democratic debates, and I see at least a few candidates that I could live with as President. I particularly like Biden, for example. He has a solid understanding of foreign policy, and he was the only candidate during the November debate to give a straight answer to the question: would you give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Biden flatly said no: if you break into the United States---you are entitled to a ride to the border, not a driver’s license.

But potential Democratic voters seem to be ignoring Biden. He is so far down in the current rankings that he has no realistic chance of catching up---barring something truly cataclysmic. Instead Democratic voters are besotted with the emotional appeal of Barack Obama, who does, after all, have the very important endorsement of Oprah Winfrey. If Oprah likes him, then he must be the man for the job, or so the argument seems to go.

Barack Obama fails several of the fundamental tests by which a candidate from either party should be judged this time around. He has not put forth a credible plan for fighting terrorism. (Let us not forget that 9/11 was six years ago---not sixty years ago.) And Barack’s plan for stopping illegal immigration is simple: make America a low-wage paradise where anyone can enter more or less at will. (Obama calls this policy “bringing people out of the shadows.”) This will lead to higher taxes, higher crime rates, and lower wages---just ask the taxpayers in any of our border states.

Of course, Oprah Winfrey isn’t the only one who has endorsed Barack Obama. Microsoft’s Bill Gates has also joined the Obama bandwagon, and Gates’ reasons for backing Obama are no secret. Bill Gates recently petitioned Congress to allow technology firms to undercut American wages by removing restrictions on hiring tech workers from abroad. Obama wants to expand the H1-B visa program, which will give corporate employers free rein to recruit the cheapest technology workers from all corners of the globe. Do you want to work for the same wages they pay in India or Senegal? Then fine---vote for Obama. This would be a great deal for the corporate chieftains, but a bad one for the working men and women of America.

Both Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are likeable. No one can argue with that. At some point, however, American voters must look beyond the veneer of personality and judge each candidate on the issues. This will hopefully occur some time before November of ’08; but it doesn’t seem to be the case so far.

December 14, 2007

Two stories about the death penalty…

With all the recent controversies over the war in Iraq, gay marriage, and the Patriot Act, we haven’t heard much about the death penalty lately. But it made the news today, appearing in two major stories:

First of all, New Jersey lawmakers have voted to abolish the death penalty:

New Jersey lawmakers have voted to abolish the death penalty in the state, sending the governor a bill he has already said he will sign. The measure will make New Jersey the first state in more than 40 years to outlaw capital punishment.

The bill will make life in prison the most severe penalty for convicted murderers in the state, including the eight men currently on the state's death row. New Jersey has not put anyone to death since 1963, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Among those on death row in New Jersey is Jesse Timmendequas, whose murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994 led to reforms in tracking sex offenders. The state's Megan's Law requires local law enforcement agencies to give notification when convicted sex offenders live or work in neighborhoods. ---CNN

In Texas, meanwhile, there was a death penalty announcement of a different sort: Kimberly Dawn Trenor and Royce Clyde Zeigler II, the murderers of Riley Ann Sawyers (the girl known as “Baby Grace”) will capital murder charges. (Prosecutors have not yet decided whether or not they will actually seek the death penalty.)

Key points:

Opponents of the death penalty frequently rely on two principle arguments: 1.) the risk that an innocent person could be executed, and 2.) the notion that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

Both of these arguments are partially valid. In cases where there is any reasonable doubt of a murderer’s identity, most people (including myself) would be inclined to agree that the death penalty is inappropriate.

But these cases are exceptions; and certainly there are many heinous violent crimes in which there is absolutely no doubt about who the guilty party is. The suggestion here seems to be that society should determine its general rule about the death penalty based not on the standard case----but on the exceptional case. Therefore, even if the identity of a murderer is well established beyond a reasonable doubt (as in the Baby Grace case) we should refuse to apply the death penalty because there are, in fact, other exceptional cases. This doesn’t seem to make sense.

Secondly, there is the issue of the deterrent. I would agree that for many violent criminals, the death penalty is no deterrent. But there is more at stake here than the question of deterrence. There is also the issue of justice. When someone commits murder, he takes away everything that his victim ever had----or ever will have. Justice demands that that the murderer be forced to make the same sacrifice. The victim’s surviving loved ones are also entitled to this measure of justice.

I can’t help but think about the death penalty in the context of the murder of Riley Ann Sawyers. The circumstances of her death have been well documented in the media, and I will not recount them here. They are difficult to read or talk about. Suffice it to say that this one of the few news stories that “got” me. I was fundamentally disturbed after hearing that anyone could treat a child this way---especially their own child. I was reminded of a line from James Clavell’s 1962 novel King Rat: “Scripture says that all men are children of God. But are they really: all of them?”

Were Kimberly Dawn Trenor and Royce Clyde Zeigler deterred by the death penalty in Texas? Apparently not. But justice will not be served by keeping these two barbarians incarcerated for the next 60 years at taxpayer expense. Trenor and Zeigler chose to end a child’s life in the most brutal manner imaginable. They chose to place themselves outside every norm of civilized behavior.

Riley Ann Sawyers has no future. She is never going to learn how to ride a bike. She is never going to go to prom, graduate from college, get married, or have children or her own. And I submit that for this crime, her murderers should pay with their lives----political correctness be damned.

December 11, 2007

Economics and Facebook's ad debacle

How quickly an internet darling can fall from grace. Facebook was launched in 2004 by former Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg. The site began as a networking site for Ivy League college students; but quickly expanded to become a universal networking site for high school and college students throughout the English-speaking world. At last count, Facebook had over 57 million members.

Anyone can use Facebook for free. There are no membership charges. The site has long earned revenue from banner ads, and various forms of sponsorship and pay-per-click advertising. In early 2006, Facebook was bringing in about $1.5 million per week.

Then the corporate heavyweights got involved. After a bidding skirmish with Google, Microsoft acquired a 1.6 percent ownership stake in Facebook in October 2007. The deal also gave Microsoft the right to display ads throughout the site. The price tag for Redmond: $240 million.

Facebook was now a real business with real money behind it, and that meant the need to expand revenues. In November, Facebook announced a new ad strategy called Beacon. Beacon turned out to be a disaster because of privacy concerns. The system alerted users when online friends made a particular purchase. Understandably, users became upset. I don’t buy very many items online that I’m ashamed of; but I wouldn’t want a piece of software emailing my friends every time I bought a book or DVD. One journalist found a case in which the Beacon system emailed a man’s wife when he purchased a ring online. The ring was supposed to be a surprise Christmas present.

So Beacon was a big-time blunder, and there is evidence that Facebook’s 23-year-old CEO may have been a bit too big for his proverbial britches. When he initially announced the new ad strategy to advertising executives in New York, he waxed bombastic, stating: "Once every 100 years, the way that media works fundamentally changes." Do tell.

Nevertheless, Facebook faces a dilemma faced by many free internet sites with large user bases: how to raise revenues? Millions in the online community are reflexively opposed to online ads, and stalwart in their belief that, “if it’s on the internet, then it must be free.” These sentiments must be balanced against the costs of bandwidth, staffing, and the need to earn at least a minimal profit from any business enterprise.

There is no doubt that Facebook stepped over the line with Beacon; but the company has since made changes that make it easier for users to turn off the intrusive software. This hasn’t stopped the criticisms from many in the online community. (Did you expect that it would?) But on balance, Facebook users are getting a pretty good deal. They need to remember the old economic maxim: There is no such thing as a free lunch. This is ultimately as true in the online world as it is in the real one.

December 10, 2007

Huckabee proves that "TC" is every bit as distracting as "PC"

Listen to the expanded commentary..

Please, Republicans: just say no to the religious right (if we may paraphrase Nancy Reagan for a moment) and nominate a secular Republican…If you can’t stomach libertarian candidate Ron Paul, then please just go with Rudi.

As I learn more about the religious right’s candidate, Mike Huckabee, I am compelled to recall Oliver Cromwell, the theocrat who briefly took control of Great Britain during the seventeenth century. Cromwell was a disaster as the Lord Protector of England; and Huckabee would be the wrong direction for the GOP.

What most frustrates me about Huckabee is that he thumps the Bible and spouts his theological views at every opportunity; but he doesn’t deliver on substantive law and order issues.

According to CNN, Huckabee supports the sequestering of AIDS patients, and complains about “political correctness” in the public handling of the disease.

If you read through my online commentaries, you’ll see that I have plenty of negative remarks about the groupthink lemming mentality of political correctness, or PC. But I am equally opposed to the religious right equivalent: theological correctness---or TC.

Huckabee often regales us on the sanctity of marriage. Per CNN:

The former Baptist minister said the "proper relationship" is one between a married man and woman having children.

Nice. But these distinctions are best left to individuals---not the government. The government exists to protect our rights, and it seems that Huckabee, while Governor of Arkansas, was asleep at the helm at least once in that capacity. Quoting CNN again:

Huckabee….has come under scrutiny for his role in the parole of a convicted rapist who later went on to rape and kill another woman.

As Arkansas governor, Huckabee supported the parole of Wayne DuMond, who was convicted and sentenced to a life term for raping a 17-year-old girl. After DuMond's parole in 1999, he killed a woman in Kansas City, Missouri, in 2003. DuMond died in prison two years later.

Huckabee wrote a 1996 letter to DuMond supporting his release from prison

Last week, the mother of the woman DuMond killed in 2003 said she would actively campaign against Huckabee.

I submit that if protecting society were really his aim, Huckabee would have served his constituents better if he had stifled his sermons---and kept Wayne DuMond behind bars.

December 9, 2007

The Winfrey-Obama tour: what to make of it

Listen to the expanded commentary:

Oprah Winfrey is a true believer in the Barack Obama cause, according to CNN:

Saying she felt compelled to support "the man I believe has a new vision for America," Oprah Winfrey spoke passionately about Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama at two rallies in Iowa Saturday.

"I've never taken this kind of risk before nor felt compelled to stand up and speak out before because there wasn't anyone to to stand up and speak up for," Winfrey told thousands of people in Cedar Rapids Saturday evening.

"We need a president who can bring us all together," she said. "I know [Barack Obama] is the one."

Earlier in Des Moines, she focused on world affairs.

"These are dangerous times, you can feel it. We need a leader who shows us how to hope again in America as a force for peace," Winfrey told the enthusiastic crowd.

"I believe Barack Obama will bring statesmanship to the White House," she said. "He's a man who knows who we are and knows who we can be."

Key points:

When I think of experts on the subject of statesmanship, Oprah Winfrey doesn’t necessarily come to mind. In fact, I would be a whole lot more inclined to take seriously a remark from Hillary Clinton on the subject of statesmanship. At least Hillary can lay claim to some statesmanship-related experience that the average American doesn’t have. Hillary has been there, done that after all. She has lived in the White House. She has been a Senator.

Oprah Winfrey, meanwhile, is a talk show host. She has as much right to voice her opinions in the public forum as any one of us does. The problem occurs when we take political statements from celebrities seriously just because they are celebrities.

This is a subject that I have harped on before; but I am going to get on my soapbox again. We Americans pay far too much attention to the private lives and beliefs of actors, musicians and athletes. We are like the eternal pimply high school freshmen; and they are like the popular senior football players and cheerleaders who inhabit a larger-than-life universe inside our imaginations. People who spend their time reading about celebrities and monitoring their public statements need to get a life---and possibly some psychotherapy.

The fact that Oprah Winfrey supports Barack Obama is not particularly noteworthy for me. Nor would it be noteworthy if she supported Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani, for that matter. I don’t rely on celebrities when forming my political opinions, and neither should you.

December 6, 2007

Panama moves to make Mandarin compulsory in all schools

Listen to the expanded commentary

We used to able to take for granted that everyone outside the non-English-speaking world placed the highest priority on learning English. The notion that “everyone in the world is learning English” has been an excuse for linguistic laziness in American business circles for decades.

Welcome to the 21st century. As the BBC reports:

The Panamanian National Assembly has given conditional approval to the bill (to make Chinese compulsory in schools) in the first of three debates.

The bill's supporters say boosting the number of Chinese speakers will help increase Panama's competitiveness.

China is the biggest single user of the Panama Canal that connects the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

The bill's supporters recognize that English is the international language of business but say that with China's increasing economic influence, Mandarin is set to be an indispensable language.

The proposed legislation sets out a timeframe of 10 years for Mandarin to be taught in all schools.

Key points:

English will remain a major international language well into the foreseeable future. In future decades, however, it will not necessarily be the only international language. Other major languages (such as Mandarin) could conceivably become dominant as global languages in specific countries and regions.

This means that traditionally monolingual Americans will be left out if we don’t get over our “everyone is learning English” complacency. That attitude is so twentieth century. In the future, we will need to master the tongues of other countries and peoples in order to compete in the global marketplace. And I’m not just talking about a few liberal arts majors and translators. Large numbers of American salespersons, engineers, and corporate managers will have to learn other languages---just as their Japanese and German counterparts do today.

For a more in-depth exploration of this issue, consider checking out my book Why You Need a Foreign Language & How to Learn One.

December 4, 2007

What we can learn from the Sudanese teddy bear case

Listen to the expanded commentary.....

Powered by Podbean.com

There has finally been a resolution in the case of the British schoolteacher who was jailed by Sudanese authorities in the infamous “teddy bear” case. Quoting here from the Associated Press:

Gillian Gibbons, the British teacher jailed in Sudan for allowing a class teddy bear to be named "Mohammed" has spoken for the first time about her ordeal after arriving back home in England.

Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail last Thursday after a member of school staff complained to the authorities after she allowed her students at a private school to name a Teddy bear after the Muslim prophet.

Asked if she had been shocked by the punishment handed out to her, she said: "I am just an ordinary middle-aged primary school teacher. I went there to have a bit of adventure and got a bit more than I bargained for."

Her conviction for blasphemy could have seen her sentenced to 40 lashes. Without a pardon, she would have remained in jail another six days.

Key points:

Gillian Gibbons was not a CIA operative. She was not a member of the military of any Western nation. Nor was Ms. Gibbons engaging in any form of political activism or proselytizing in Sudan. She was by all appearances a rather mild-mannered, 50-something schoolteacher. She simply made an innocent mistake which offended the country’s extreme religious doctrines. The Sudanese public did not come to Ms. Gibbons’ defense. On the contrary, crowds of ordinary citizens demonstrated in Khartoum in support of giving her the harshest punishment possible under Islamic law. So much for the benevolence of the “Arab street”.

In recent decades, it has become fashionable in North America and Europe to highlight the sins of Western civilization. Political correctness has pervaded many college-level Western Civilization courses, so that professors overemphasize the oppression and human rights abuses that have indeed been a part of Western European and American history at various times---mostly in the distant past.

But let us now look to the present. The Sudanese case gives us an opportunity to see the present state of Western civilization in a comparative light. Compared to what exists in most of the non-Western world, the democratic ideals of the West look fundamentally solid, providing the most freedom and prosperity for the largest numbers of people.

I should also note that Ms. Gibbons’ case is by no means exceptional in the Muslim Middle East. Just a few years ago, Abdel Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity, was sentenced to death by a sharia court. Only a prolonged outcry from the West saved him. Afghan authorities reluctantly let him accept political asylum in Italy. But Rahman lives in hiding even there: he has received death threats from numerous Muslim radicals who live in Europe.