RDBowker

As my friend Kevin Cole likes to say, "Opinions are like noses--everybody has one."

Those who know me know that I have plenty (of opinions, that is), and this page is dedicated to them.

It will be updated as frequently as I feel like it; and I would encourage you to send me your views by e-mail.  If I think that they are valid, witty, or incredibly stupid I may post them here as well.  Happy reading!

11/4/10  I WAS WRONG.  If you look at my prediction of 7/27 with regards to the House of Representatives, I was wrong--arrogantly wrong to speak of the naivete of others who disagreed.  But let me spin my mistake for a moment:  I base my predictions upon the lessons of history and an understanding of human nature, both of which led me, and would lead me again, to the conclusion I wrote in July.  For an election outcome to be so far out of the norm will be called an aberration by those who dislike it, and little short of a miracle by those who are thrilled by it. 

 

9/9/10  Intolerance and Provocation:  Burning the Koran/Quran.  This Saturday, a church in Florida has planned to burn Korans as a sign that they consider its teachings to be contrary to Biblical Christianity (which they are).  The date has been chosen to publicize their opinion that radical Islamic terrorists claim the Koran as their justification for their actions (which they do).  Despite opposition from every side, the church claims that it has the Constitutional freedom to do what they plan (which it does).  They are doing it to make a point (which they have):  radical Islam is far more intolerant and provocative than the church in question or its leaders.

 

The church has said it will commit an offensive but legal book burning; radical Muslims have said they will murder innocent Americans as a result.  Who is being intolerant? 

 

Every time an American leader or world figure protests the church's plans, they are tacitly admitting:

there are radical Muslims in foreign countries who are angry, violent, and dangerous, and we should do everything possible to pacify and placate them.  Do our leaders really believe that we should bow to the bullies and appease the enemies of American liberty?  They (radical Muslims and their sympathizers) may not believe in the freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion--but we (constitutional Americans and biblical Christians) do!  Why should we, in essence, let them enforce their sharia law upon US soil by claiming that burning a Koran in Florida is a crime worthy of death around the world?

 

What would Jesus do?  I think He would focus on the positive teaching of truth in His Word, and ignore the false teachings of the world, unless they directly impacted the church; in which case He would identify the false teachers, and commit them to the Father for judgment.  Think of the false prophetess Jezebel in Rev. 2:18-29; Christ didn't call for the church of Thyatira to rise up and insult or assault her; He identified her; instructed the church to back away, repent, and cease from being deceived by her; and He pronounced God's judgment upon her and any of her followers.  Paul did not attack the Greek gods; he taught the truth of the Unknown God (Acts 17:22-34).  I don't think Jesus would do what the church in Florida is doing; but that's just my opinion, not a condemnation of them.

 

Would I burn a Koran?  Why not?  I threw mine in the garbage a year or so ago--what's the difference?  But I didn't proclaim it publically or do it to prove a point; I just found it had no value to me even as a reference book.  By the way:  Islam also bans the printing of the Koran in any language other than Arabic.  Muslims ought to take a little pleasure (admittedly, very little) in the fact that these "wicked" English copies are being taken out of circulation.

 

8/14/10  The Mosque in Lower Manhattan.  This proposed Muslim center is NOT on the Ground Zero memorial site--it is 2+ blocks away on private property.  If the government can keep out a mosque because they think its leaders are radical, what will prevent them from keeping out a synagogue, or a Baptist church?  This falls under the First Amendment, regardless of the founding Imam's ties to Hamas.  At the same time...

 

8/14/10  Muslim-American Contributions?  The President has once again been making noises about the positive impact that Islam has "always" had on the US.  (Read it here.)   His quote that "... American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country..."  should come with footnotes documenting the claim; and the National Organization of Women aught to have something to say about his claim about Islam's advancing "...the dignity of all human beings."  I do not believe that all muslims are radicals or terrorists, but neither do I believe that the cause of understanding one another is advanced by silly or exaggerated statements such as these.  (By the way, the President has also participated in at least one  Passover seder, so don't read too much into the fact that he hosted this traditional Ramadan dinner.)

 

8/2/10  Students + Internet = Plagiarism.  Here's an interesting article describing the decline of integrity among our youth.  Parents--what are you doing to counter this?

 

7/29/10  A Political Trend to Watch.  The National Popular Vote campaign is picking up steam.  In an attempt to eliminate the possibility of a presidential candidate winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College vote, at least 16 states have adopted or are working to adopt a change that would have their electors chosen by the nation's majority rather than by their own state's vote.  (14 of the current 16 are "blue" states, still protesting the Gore loss in 2000.)  The real issue is whether the Electoral College serves a purpose at all--this variation just modifies whose votes don't count:  the minorities of every state, or the entire populations of certain states.  I welcome your thoughts on the issue.  Contact me, and we'll start a discussion page!

 

7/27/10  Will the GOP Regain Congress in November?  There has been a lot of speculation lately about the possibility of the GOP regaining majorities in both houses of Congress in the upcoming election.  While there is no doubt that the repubs will pick up seats in both the Senate and the House, (perhaps enough for a slim majority in the Senate,) it is naive to think that they could retake the House of Representatives.  Incumbents running for reelection win more than 90% of the time; and voter dissatisfaction with Congress in general almost never translates to a local constituency "throwing out" their own "bum".  So why all the talk?  The Tea Party movement has been promoting the idea of a wholesale housecleaning--but they are also splintering the GOP vote in some districts.  There is fear among some democrats that the sweeping changes they adopted within the past year and a half could anger moderates and independents--but by the time sales figures go up in August; unemployment figures go down in September; new health care and stimulus benefits and another renewal of unemployment payments are announced in October, most of the internal concern and opposition will have passed.  And without a GOP sweep of both houses, Washington is mired in ultra-partisan gridlock for 2 years--raising President Obama to the status of a heroic martyr, powerless to accomplish any of his noble goals because of the Grotesque Opponents of Progress--and propelling him to a second term.  (There are admittedly a lot of "if's" here--the largest perhaps being whether the media back the president as impotent hero, or turn on him as ineffective goat.  But as long as Sarah Palin and Glen Beck remain the faces of the Right, I don't see the NYT, Wash. Post, CNN, or the major networks turning to the Republicans to save the nation.)

---

 7/23/10  Was Lincoln a Tyrant?  This morning I got an email from my friend Ed, asking my opinion of a recent discussion in which he was involved, concerning the tyrannical, murderous administration of Abraham Lincoln, in an attempt to force an industrialized/capitalist regime on the peaceful and free states of the American South.  (See my posting of 7/13 for an alternate view.)  Ed's take was probably the most common among Americans today--that the Civil War was about unbiblical slavery, not about tyranny and domination by one section over another.  Here is my view on the American War of 1861-65.

1.  The central government had grown in power throughout the 70 years prior to Lincoln's administration--especially from Jefferson on.  Most of the Framers would not have recognized the presidential powers of 1860 as what they had envisioned--and even less 2010.  But as long as we have free elections, representative government, and the rule of law under the Constitution of the United States, we cannot call the USA a tyranny.  

2.  The Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision made it plain that the entire nation must recognize slavery, or must abolish it--no longer was compromise possible.  This ruling made war inevitable.  The Framers had recognized slavery as an insurmountable difference of opinion, and had forbidden the Congress from even addressing the issue for 20 years.  Chief Justice Roger B. Taney and his majority of justices made a peaceful resolution of this issue impossible.
3.  Several southern states rebelled against the central government prior to Lincoln's inauguration, and he was constitutionally bound to defend the union to which their ancestors had voluntarily agreed to subjugate themselves.  They tried to destroy the union over slavery and other issues; Lincoln was bound by conviction, constitutional oath, and voter mandate to preserve the union.                              
4.  He pursued both war and peace according to constitutional dictate and executive tradition as it had evolved since 1789.  Even when he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, he did so by the Constitution's explicit permission.
5.  Different people pursued the war for different reasons.  Some fought over slavery; some over economics; some for preservation of the union.  Lincoln repeatedly said, and by his actions demonstrated, that he pursued the war to keep the union intact.
6.  When a people rebel against what they perceive as tyranny, they may win, establish a government more to their liking, and portray themselves as heroes and patriots; when they lose, they portray themselves as victims and the winners as aggressors and tyrants.  No amount of education or propaganda will change their perception.
7.  Slavery as practiced in America was unbiblical.  The abolitionists saw it as a sinful abomination; many southern farmers saw it as a financial necessity.  Slavery was to its day what the abortion issue is today.  The vast majority of people have strongly-held convictions, and no amount of diplomacy or argument will convert them to the other side.  The difference between Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade is that slavery was clearly a sectional issue, while abortion has its proponents and opponents scattered throughout all the states.

(The discussion Ed sent me was prefaced by a statement referring to Lincoln as a tyrant, along with Adolf Hitler and several US Presidents.  The following is my response to that comparison.)
8.  I strongly disagree with the characterizations of Karl Marx, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, GW Bush, and Barak Obama as tyrants.  Marx, though he approved of tyranny, never held any political position; and the others were all limited to some degree by constitutional restraint and the power of representative government and the ballot box.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein--they were tyrants; and anyone who compares Lincoln to them does not understand history or the rule of law under which the USA exists. 

7/13/10 Was Lincoln a Socialist?  Many web sites today include short quotes from Abraham Lincoln referring to capitalists fleecing the people, and labor being superior to capital.  It took a little doing, but I found the speeches from which these quotes are taken, and, boy are they ripped out of context!  Lincoln believed that hard work should produce capital, which could then be reinvested to make business grow, creating labor for more people.  He was a great believer in upward mobility, and the limited government necessary to allow it.  An extended version of one commonly excerpted quotation is here.

 

7/8/10  A Response to "Who Owns the Money?"  The same acquaintance whose comments prompted my rant on private property (see below) sent me a long email response.  In essence, it says that when we chose representative government, we put our lives and our property into the hands of our representatives to do as they see fit.  Therefore, we renounce our rights to calling it ours.  He concluded by saying that the only place where private property exists is an a place without government, where possession is 100% of the law, and capital is yours only as long as you can keep it from thieves.  I understand this man's reasoning; but I don't believe that Hobbes, Locke, or our founding fathers intended our social compact to be so encompassing of every aspect of our lives.  Our Savior clearly indicated that there is a realm that belongs to Caesar--but there is also a realm, an aspect of our lives, that we possess but that belongs to God.  Socialists by definition believe that everything belongs to society under the direction of its political leaders, and communists believe that everything belongs equally to the entire community.  A true Christian world-view demands a belief in private property.

 

6/30/10  Who owns the money?  An acquaintance of mine recently called tax cuts "...giving away our money to the elitists."  When I reminded him that a tax cut allowed people to hold on to more of THEIR OWN money, he insisted that, because the money was considered as part of the GDP, it therefore belonged to the nation and all the people thereof.  When I told him that the owners of the money had earned it so it belonged to them, his response was that they only made it by using the nation's natural resources and governmental infrastructure, so the money really belonged to "the people."  Here is my answer in part:

 

Who owns the money?  Here is a major philosophic difference between you and me.  You see oil within the territorial US, and you think it belongs to you and all Americans.  That may be true in its original location and form.  However, someone has to buy the rights to access the oil; purchase the equipment and pay the personnel to access the oil; pay to transport the oil; pay to build and man the refinery to make that oil into a usable form; and then carry the cost of delivering that gasoline to you so that you can drive your car.  The oil may have belonged to the nation; the gasoline belongs to the person or company that paid an enormous price to make it usable.  It is only right that they charge to recover their costs (with profit) for providing you with a product that you desire.  The only way that a person could validly claim that the gasoline belongs to all Americans is if the US government was the company who did the drilling, pumping, transporting, refining, etc. with American tax dollars.  And don't forget--a large portion of that gasoline was made from FOREIGN oil.  As for your argument that the oil company used our roads, our air, our water, etc., you seem to have forgotten that the oil companies have paid heavily for the privilege.  In 2008, Exxon Mobil's taxes paid were over $111 billion dollars--and that doesn't include the income taxes and capital gains taxes paid on its profits by its owners, the stockholders (US News and World Report, 2/11/2009). 

If you really think that the oil companies don't deserve to make profit (9% in 2007, according to biz.yahoo.com) for their investment and effort, then just don't buy their product.  Drill your own well, pump and refine your own oil, and use your own gasoline--but I'll bet you would want me to pay a little extra for your effort if I were to ask you for some on a weekly basis.

My economic philosophy is strongly influenced by the teachings of the Bible, which teaches the sanctity of private property and the wisdom of earning interest/profit from that property.  It also teaches fairness, love, and charity toward the poor, and it emphasizes the dangers of greed and covetousness by the rich.  The Old Testament allowed the poor jews to make a smaller sacrifice than those able to afford more, but the temple tax (tithe) was a flat 10%.  I know that our nation is not a theocracy, and I don't intend to try to make it one; but when we have the choice between a biblical approach and a nonbiblical one, I hope to come down on the Bible side.

---

 

6/24/10  Socialism in Practice.  There is an ongoing debate about whether the policies of our current federal administration are socialism, progressivism, liberalism, or merely practical fairness.  I have drawn my own conclusions (which I will not go into here); but I believe that we must use the standard, well-recognized definitions of such terms if we are going to be honest with ourselves and put the facts into historical perspective.  In light of that, I direct your attention to Venezuela, which clearly shows socialism (as traditionally defined) in practice.  You can decide for yourself whether this describes America and her policy trends.

 

6/22/10  Health Care Provisions Are Announced.  I thought this was all a matter of law.  Why do we need to wait for the administration to tell us what is going to happen and when?  Or did the law give the President the power to choose when and how to implement each provision?  Expect to see more benefits announced in Sept/Oct. as the elections near; expect the higher tax rates to be announced in Dec/Jan.  In the meantime, insurance premiums will continue to rise.  7/26/10 Update.  More confusion and tragic consequences are revealed almost daily as the executive branch slowly defines its policies.  Here's one example.

---

 

6/21/09  Symantics in NJ Reporting.  A review of this Reuters article reflects the difference that a worldview can make in reporting a story.  Let's look at a couple of selected paragraphs: 

 

6/21/10  Effect of the Stimulus on Teachers.  The President continues to say that we need the stimulus package to keep teachers from being laid off.  While that may be true in some parts of the country, the districts in NYS have already voted on their budgets for the upcoming year, and their financial plans for layoffs are already finalized.  A few months ago I read that over 14,000 educator jobs are expected to be lost in NYS this year, added to the 4,000+ from last year.  (Schools know that temporary federal aid will not last, and that they must finance their budgets from the devalued property tax income that makes up their regular income.  That's why they have been forced to cut back, and no one-year grant from the federal government will change that.)  8/14/10 Update to this story:  local TV news broadcasts have recently confirmed my point.  Money is being made available, but local superintendents are reluctant or unable to use it to hire teachers.  The budgets are passed, and the spending limits are set.  Chalk up another point for Mr. B!