Piqued

Amid the woeful wailings of my conservative friends over Obama’s solid victory over McCain last night, I thought I’d share my take on how this election ended up.  As you can gather from my previous writings on the subject, I was no fan of McCain in the primaries and viewed him mainly as a lesser of two evils in this election.  I voted for Bob Barr on principle since I fully expected McCain to take Texas without my help.  So I’m not heartbroken that we won’t have McCain in office.  Yet as a libertarian-leaning conservative, I’m not excited about the prospect of four years of liberal power in Washington either.  Nevertheless, while I do wish Obama hadn’t won, there are a number of reasons why I’m not too upset either.  In fact, I think Obama’s victory can have some genuinely good effects, if he stays true to his rhetoric last night.

I’ll also point out that although I opposed Obama because of ideological disagreements, I didn’t buy into the fear-mongering that painted him as a Muslim foreigner who hung out with crazy domestic terrorists and hate-spewing preachers.  Yes, his black liberation pastor is rather extreme in his views and has said some pretty upsetting things, and yes Ayers took the whole anti-Vietnam war thing to some dangerous and irresponsible levels (long before he and Obama met).  But when you put these men’s actions and Obama’s relationships with them into context and try to put yourselves into the shoes of those involved, it becomes less severe than people make it out to be.  Troubling, yes.  Clear evidence that Obama will be a racist and terrorizing president, no. 

That said, here are some positives I see in an Obama presidency (I won’t get into the negatives since my goal here is to share an optimistic view.  Getting bogged down into the dangers of government-provided health care insurance isn’t my objective): 

International respect

Love him or hate him, Bush hasn’t helped America’s image abroad.  Sure, people will say “who cares what those yellow French socialists think, we ain’t nobody’s bitch” or something along those lines, but how our friends (and enemies) view us does matter.  Having a well-spoken and reasonable man instead of a proud maverick should help other nations view us positively again, and may even tone down the brashness of foes such as Iran’s Ahmadinejad.  It won’t win our wars, but it may help avert them and go a long way toward restoring the world’s respect for us.

Foreign entanglements

Although the Democrats don’t exactly have a clean record when it comes to avoiding foreign meddling, I do see Obama as less likely to keep us engaged in Iraq much longer and more likely to take a more limited and focused approach to anti-terrorism.  His own lack of experience in these matters isn’t exactly a good thing, but the “experience” of the neoconservative war hawks isn’t exactly what we should be looking for either.  We should walk softly and carry a big stick, and I think that Obama is more likely to take that approach than McCain would have.  And for all the domestic spending Obama wants, a reduction in foreign operations, particularly in Iraq, will save us a lot of money.

He has a civil rights background

While I find the actions of groups like the ACLU and NAACP to be generally exploitative and far more motivated by lust for power and privilege than genuine concern for equality and fairness, I do think Obama is likely to be a better choice than McCain when it comes to restoring our rights to privacy and fair trials. The sacrifices of privacy (Patriot Act) passed in the name of anti-terrorism have moved us in a very dangerous direction, and I’m hopeful that Obama will work to reverse those laws. And hopefully the supposed terrorist detainees in Guantanamo, etc. will finally get fair trials and just sentencing.

He’s black

While I would have preferred someone like Walter Williams to be our first black president, it’s certainly not a bad thing that America has elected an African-American president.  Not that we should vote for someone because of their race either way (and I don’t think that’s what gave Obama the victory), but it is a good sign of how far civil rights have come in this country. 

He (seems) willing to listen

Although time will tell how truthful Obama’s promises have been, he does strike me (and this was true before his victory speech) as someone willing to listen to reason.  He’s not a stubborn cowboy with a my-way-or-the-highway approach to leadership, but seems to be open to other viewpoints.  This isn’t necessarily a good thing since he still needs good judgement to recognize good advice when he hears it, and it’s up to him to ensure that he has intelligent experts giving him this advice, but it may be a refreshing change.  Again, this all depends on whether he sticks to his promise to “listen to you, especially when we disagree.”  A humble President willing to listen would be a great thing for this country.

A McCain victory would have implied that the Republican party is on the right track

Although I believe McCain would have moved us less in the wrong direction (domestically, anyway) than Obama, if McCain had won the Republicans wouldn’t need to question their direction.  A sound defeat in this election means that the Republican party needs to rethink their platform and hopefully provide a real alternative to the liberal ideology.  I’m not saying I think they’ll swing all the way to Ron Paul conservative idealism, but hopefully they’ll realize that constitutional conservatism still resonates with a growing portion of the country, and maybe they should provide a candidate who represents them. 

Final thoughts

Again, these are the positives I see to Obama’s victory.  He’s still a liberal who is likely to move us toward an ever more polarized tax distribution and an expansion of entitlement programs - a terrible idea considering we’re not close to affording the existing ones.  And he’ll almost certainly nominate liberal judges who would uphold Roe v. Wade (although it’s debatable whether that’s really the most effective approach to getting rid of abortion).  But as liberals go, I think we could have done worse and honestly I’m curious to see what the future holds.  I have no doubt that Obama’s actions on the domestic front will be bad for conservative ideals, but there are a few points on which I’m optimistic, particularly with regards to foreign affairs and civil rights.

In case you’re interested, I thought I’d share who I’m voting for this year and the reasons why.  For the lesser-known races, I mainly used the Dallas Morning News’ voter guide to decide, although I did look up the candidates’ website if I wanted more information.  Since I’m registered in the Brazos County, some of these picks are specific to that region.

President: Bob Barr (L).  If I wasn’t sure McCain was going to take Texas, I’d be voting for him instead since I do believe McCain to be a better choice than Obama (on purely ideological grounds).  However, since McCain is almost certainly going to win here (and if he doesn’t, he’d probably be so far behind nationally that Texas wouldn’t even matter), I’m voting for Barr because I tend to agree more with his positions than McCain’s and I want those ideas to get more recognition.  Barr is not likely to win anywhere, but if he gets more votes than is usual for a 3rd party and thus shows a growing movement among Americans toward traditional constitutional principles, then I’ll consider that a victory.

U.S. Senate: Yvonne Adams Schick (L).  As above, I’d be voting for Cornyn if the race was expected to be close.  I like Cornyn and think he’s one of the better Republicans in the Senate and a decent human being.  That said, Schick better represents the true conservative ideals that this country was founded upon and I’m voting for her for much the same reasons as Barr.

U.S. House, District 17: Rob Curnock (R).  With liberal Edwards as the incumbent, this race, unlike the ones above, isn’t an obvious Republican victory.  Thus, I’m voting for Curnock as I agree more with his positions than Edwards.  And frankly, the Libertarian candidate for this race didn’t impress me much anyway.

Texas Supreme Court, Chief Justice: Wallace B. Jefferson (R).  Although Jefferson shouldn’t have any trouble keeping his seat, he appears to have a correct view of his role as a Supreme Court Justice as well as a lot of experience, so I think he’s the best candidate of the options, Libertarian Oxford included.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 7: Dale Wainwright (R).  Wainwright appears to be a good justice and experienced.  Libertarian candidate Smith didn’t stand out enough to win my vote.

Texas Supreme Court, Place 8: Phil Johnson (R).  Same reason as Wainwright.

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3: Matthew E. Eilers (L).  Since Price will likely win, I give Eilers my vote. While both candidates seem well-qualified, I was more impressed with Eilers’ answers to the Dallas Morning News’ questions.

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4: Paul Womack (R).  Same reason as Wainwright.

Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9: Cathy Cochran (R).  I thought Cochran had much stronger answers than Strange.

Railroad Commissioner: Michael L. Williams (R).  This was a tough one since Williams is likely to win anyway.  But the lack of information on Floyd’s website and his failure to submit answers to the Dallas Morning News’ guide didn’t impress me.  And Williams seems to know what he’s doing.

State Board of Education, Dist. 11: Bruce Beckman (L).  This was an easy choice.  Beckman is a strong advocate of school choice and vouchers and his answers to most questions reflected that.  Definitely gets my vote.

State Board of Education, Dist. 13: Cindy Werner (R).  Pretty uneducated decision since Werner didn’t respond and doesn’t seem to have a campaign website, but Knight appears to be a typical Democrat who favors funding increases as the main solution to the BoE’s problems and who did not mention parental choice in her response regarding sex education.  So I’m basically assuming Werner will be better, which shouldn’t be hard.

State Board of Education, Dist. 14: Gail Lowe (R).  Not impressed with Libertarian Shuey’s responses, so Lowe gets my vote.

Hope that was in some way helpful if you’re preparing to vote in my district!

As someone who uses his bicycle almost every day to travel to/from campus, I’d like to offer the following observations and recommendations to those who, as a bicyclist, I interact with while making my daily commute, regardless of whether you are a pedestrian, another bicyclist or driving a motor vehicle.

Pedestrians:

Generally speaking, it’d be best if you ignore us bicyclists, or at least pretend to ignore us.  When riding a bike, we are generally anticipating where pedestrians will be if they continue on their present course, not assuming they will stop to let us by.  Thus, stopping suddenly or taking a step “out of the way” when you see us is generally more hazardous than helpful, no matter your intentions.  If you are heading across my path, I will plan to either head you off enough so that I won’t hit you even if you continue along your present path, or I will plan to bike behind you.  If necessary, I will slow to allow you to pass.  But if you start across my path, see me, and then stop, I have to suddenly change my plans to take into account that you’re no longer going to be where I expected.

If you really want to help us out, walk along the edges of sidewalks so we can bike down the middle rather than slowing to a crawl or weaving through the foot traffic.  But generally speaking, a pedestrian should take advantage of their right-of-way on sidewalks and act no differently than they otherwise would when we are present.

Bicyclists:

When you’re on the road, observe road rules (for the most part).  Use hand signals to communicate intentions, especially if there isn’t a bikes-only lane.  Stop at stop signs if vehicles are approaching from other directions and observe normal yield procedure.  Personally, I don’t find it that important for bicyclists to stop at stop signs if there are clearly no vehicles in danger of being in your path, although police would probably disagree.  My opinion is, bicyclists usually have good enough visibility that they can reliably determine if cars are coming, and since it takes us longer to get going from a stop, we spend a lot less time in the intersection if we maintain some momentum.  But that’s my opinion…don’t quote me if you get pulled over!

About bike-only lanes: a pet peeve of mine is bicyclists who drive the wrong direction on these.  When on a bike lane, drive in the same direction as the traffic next to you!  Biking the wrong direction on bike lanes makes for an uncertain situation whenever you approach a bicyclist going the correct direction as one of you must divert course.  I don’t care if there’s a big, bad median in between the lanes.  Get across at the earliest opportunity, or if you really don’t want to go that far out of your way, bike on the right side of the sidewalk next to the street and deal with the pedestrians.  If the road is one-way with a bike lane on only your left-hand side, don’t use the road if you’re going the opposite direction of traffic; otherwise, drive with traffic in the vehicle lane rather than the wrong way on the bike lane.

When biking on sidewalks, don’t rely upon pedestrians to make room for you.  As explained above, the sidewalk is their domain, so it’s your responsibility to avoid them.  I don’t really care how fast you ride as long as you know what you’re doing, but look to your side if you change directions for any reason, just in case another cyclist is trying to pass you.

Drivers (motorcycle or car):

If a bicyclist is on the road, treat them as you would another car.  At a stop sign, they should stop (if they see you, anyway) so while it’s a good idea to slow down just in case, don’t go out of your way to stop for them.  When a car stops for me when they shouldn’t, or waits to let me coast through a stop sign when they were stopped first, that just slows both of us down because I’m going to stop anyway, and will end up waiting longer for you to do your thing than if you had just treated me like any other car in the first place.

Also, if you’re turning right through a bike lane, look right to make sure any oncoming bicyclists see you.  That’s their lane and they have the right to be in it, so treat it as any other lane.

Finally, if you’re dropping someone off or picking them up at the side of a street with a bike lane, don’t pull into the lane unless you’re sure there aren’t any bicyclists coming.  I had a bus pull over into the bike lane recently and had to jump the curb to avoid hitting him.  Also, make sure the passenger getting in/out looks before opening their door into the bike lane.

On behalf of well-behaved bicyclists everywhere, we appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

I’m no financial guru and certainly don’t understand a lot of what could happen in Wall Street if the bailout does/doesn’t pass, but since I’ve been following this pretty closely of late, I figured I’d share what I’ve found and what I think of it all.

How We Got Here

Although it may not really affect what we and our lawmakers should be doing now, we absolutely need to consider how we got into this mess so we can avoid it in the future.  We also must be careful that, in our rush to do something, we don’t end up worsening or prolonging the underlying cause of the current credit crisis.  As usual, Ron Paul has some good comments regarding the causes, and makes a good argument for why no bailout is likely the best course of action in the long run.

At the heart of the current situation are the mortgage problems that have been surfacing for the past several months.  My dad sent me this cartoon, which effectively conveys the sequence of events which led to this.  Essentially, poor regulation from the government, corrupt and/or incompetent management of banks and lenders including Fannie May and Freddie Mac, and basic short-sightedness all around allowed lenders to approve loans for people who under “normal” circumstances would never have been able to get one.  The apparent lack of any significant consequences for this foolishness allowed it to continue and spread unabetted.

A few weeks ago these years of accumulating bad debt finally hit critical mass as the market and banks all over realized just how worthless the holdings of these banks had become.  Although the fundamental problems had existed long before September, 2008, the catalyst for the collapse was in many ways the bankrupcy of Lehman Brothers.  As investors recognized that Lehman’s heavy investment in subprime mortgages was at the heart of its decline, they evaluated other firms in light of this.  AIG was the next to fail as investors fled banks with large subprime holdings.  By the time analysts and government regulators truly clued into how low investors’ confidence had fallen, WaMu became the next victim in the sell-off.  Wachovia’s subsequent collapse was just icing on the cake as credit had frozen due to banks’ unwillingness to take on any more debt and it became virtually impossible for corporations and individuals alike to be approved for new lines of credit, and existing lines were tightened.

What The Credit Crisis Means Now

Although other markets may be fundamentally sound despite the failure of the banks, businesses in all markets rely upon credit from the financial sector for everything from new investment capital to meeting basic needs such as payrolls.  Although not all use managed debt for day-to-day expenses, enough do that a prolonged freeze on credit could have severe ramifications for main street as companies find themselves unable to pay their employees or continue to fund other operations.

Additionally, if investors continue to flee the financial sector out of fear of further collapse, remaining firms such as JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Citigroup may too find themselves on the brink of collapse despite relatively strong fundamentals.  Were this to happen, the country would face a situation similar to the Great Depression where banking is essentially shut down and credit unachievable.  Eventually, new firms would undoubtedly rise from the ashes to meet this demand for credit, but it would take time and the damage from such a complete collapse would have consequences for decades.

Whether this will happen without a bailout is unknown.  However, the possibility has struck fear in the hearts of financial analysts, investors and government regulators.  While there is no guarantee that a government purchase of these subprime mortgages will inject enough confidence into the market and banking firms, many believe it will forestall further exodus from the financial sectors and allow the remaining firms to start lending again, albeit not to the extent of recent years (a good thing).  Although few analysts believe the bailout will improve the current situation significantly, many find it to be our best way to prevent further sell-off and its consequences.

There is certainly an argument - and I agree with it - that it should not be taxpayers’ responsibility to bail out these banks who are responsible for the mess they’re in.  This is true, and in most cases the best solution would be to let the firms go bankrupt and wait for others to fill the gap.  The primary difference is how much other markets rely upon the financial sector and the domino-effect that rapidly-eroding investor confidence has had in the past weeks.  A complete collapse of this industry is something the market may not be able to recover from for many years.  The bailout is not guaranteed to work, and it’s certainly possible that enough banks would survive without the bailout that the doomsday scenario wouldn’t happen anyway.  But whether this is a risk we’re willing to take is something lawmakers and their constituents need to seriously consider.

I’m a big fan of Yahoo! Finance’s Tech Ticker video commentary and they’ve had some really good clips recently which discuss this issue from both sides.  I can’t speak to the likelihood of whether the bailout is necessary to forstall a nearly complete collapse in the financial sector, but there are definitely intelligent and experienced analysts and CEOs who take both positions.

Personally, I’m willing to stay on the fence and see what happens.  I won’t be writing my Congressmen in favor of either course of action.  If a deep recession is what this nation needs to realize the importance of spending within its means, then maybe that’s better than using taxpayer money to plug the holes in a still-deflating bubble whose collapse is the result of a long-needed market correction for the excesses of banks and individuals who let greed and ignorance fuel financially ruinous decisions.

Episode 5/8 in my defense of the Bible series is now online.

This one continues where the last left off, with a verse-by-verse breakdown of Genesis 1 and whether it is compatible with an old-earth understanding of creation.  I also discuss the flood and dinosaurs in light of this perspective.

As with the last episode, the conclusion that the Biblical creation and flood accounts were long and local, respectively, is not the traditional view that has long been held by Jews and Christians.  However, as I argue in this video, I do not believe that means the traditional view is necessarily accurate.  It’s not really wrong - after all, the critical points are unchanged (God created everything, and the flood restarted the human race).  But I think Christians do themselves a disservice (especially if they’re trying to minister to scientifically-minded non-Christians) by stubbornly holding to this tradition without considering whether the Bible is compatible with scientific discoveries.  This is my goal in this video: to explain an interpretation of Genesis that does not ignore the observable facts of science.  And remarkably, this interpretation of Genesis 1 in particular corroborates scientific theories quite well.

Click here to view Episode 5: Biblical Creation & The Flood