The Florida Frontier is clearly doing something wrong. All the newspapers and cable news networks that I’ve seen in the past few days keep telling me that the United States is in a recession and this has caused a lot of people to get really pissed and/or worried. The evidence, however, shows that we aren’t in a recession. The Economist declared “The Great American Slowdown.” I think this might be more in line with reality than those in the media looking to get a profit on fear mongering. The Bureau of Economic Analysis released their findings here. Turns out our 4^th quarter 2007 growth was 0.6%. The same is expected for the first quarter (now) of 2008. This isn’t good by any stretch of the imagination but it’s nowhere near as catastrophic as I’ve seen it painted by some. It’s not too far off from what many European countries have come to expect in GDP growth.  Germany is looking at a 1.8% increase and France a 2.1% increase. Again, we should be growing at a much higher rate, above 3.5% or so, but there’s no need to make a run on the banks.

GDP is the output of a nation’s goods and services, so industry plays a large part in that. Take a look at this graph:

It shows that we are actually increasing our production. While these numbers aren’t fantastic, we haven’t hit a recession yet.

I wonder, do those who keep lamenting that our economy is in ruins not know any better? Or is it election year politicking? Any thoughts on that?

Lastly, I think there is real concern over the increasing cost of gas and food. Most have come to realize that the “green” fad and subsequent subsidies have lead to farmers not producing other food staples. As for gas, that takes someone far more intelligent that I to figure out. Maybe friend of the Frontier Ben Stein has some ideas.  

The difference between Micheal Moore and Ben Stein is plain and apparent: the purpose of Moore’s movies, every one of them, was to “close debate” as to what is truth: health care, gun laws, and that President Bush is evil. To do this, since all of these are clearly far from the truth, Moore had to riddle his movies with propaganda.

Stein, on the other hand, had the opposite purpose, to open debate. His movie was a push to get intellegent design back into the scientific realm and, and with reasons why to boot. His movie was just biting and ‘Hollywood’ enough to cut down the arrogant, egotistical atheist-evolutionist scientists who claim to know what cannot be known. This objective, in and of itself, makes the argument that Stein’s movie is ‘propaganda’ obsolete.
And why is it so hard to let both fields of study into the scientific realm? Evolutionary theory has NO - let me repeat - NO answers for how life came to be from simple chemicals. Intelligent Design has one, though. And Intelligent Design answers are supported by documents thousands and thousands of years old - some the earliest documents in existence. What is history but a collection of documents?
I don’t understand why it is so hard for atheists to accept that a higher power could have made the first complex chemicals, when they themselves admit they have no answers to the spark of life question. If evolution was such a ‘perfect’ and ‘complete’ theory, then why would this debate continue? Like the professor in the movie said, “those theories which never have perfect answers always see the most questions arise”. And, it’s true, evolutionary theory is full of holes. Perhaps, however, some cannot believe in an intangible answer to problems. Some cannot accept into reality what they cannot sense, and it will take that higher form of cognitive processing to open the debate back up to Intelligent Design.

In the March 2008 printed edition of this publication, the staff offered its endorsement in the Presidential race to Arizona Senator John S. McCain III. The Managing Editor notes that this endorsement was not unanimous, and while he does not disagree with the decision, he hereby exercises his right of reply with the following comments.

Unconvinced: A Commentary on John McCain.

One of the unfortunate consequences of being human is that despite all of our best efforts, and despite our attempts to construct institutions that attempt to produce the best possible solutions and policies to represent our interests, it is all too possible and all too common that we make mistakes. The sanctimonious defenders of democracy tell us that in party primaries, the “people make the right choices”, and that “the people must stand by the people their party nominates”. Perhaps I am too much of a capitalist, but the fallibility which makes us human combined with the need for a truly open marketplace of ideas in politics suggest that neither platitude has any basis in reality. Just as doctors with years of experience in medicine school can foul up basic medical procedures, so can members of political parties fail to nominate adequate candidates to represent them. When such mistakes occur, members of parties should not feel compelled to support these inadequate candidates out of a contrived sense of duty or loyalty. That duty and loyalty to party is far better invested in working internally of the party to make sure such mistakes are not repeated.

But enough of the abstraction and on to the central thesis of these comments. I’ve called myself a Republican for longer than some would care to know. I still consider myself a loyal member of the GOP despite eight rather disappointing years under the leadership of a President who would fit in frighteningly well with the Christian Democrat parties of Latin America. But when it comes to the 2008 Republican Presidential race, there is no sense crying over spilled milk when it comes to who my party’s nominee will be [In the interest of full disclosure, I remain a Ron Paul supporter]. After years of enjoying a self-styled perception of the “Republican maverick in the Senate”, John Sidney McCain III is the Republican nominee for President this year. The stats do not lie when considering the question of who gave McCain the nomination. In a field crowded with candidates vying for the title of “the true conservative” (whatever that means in a post G.W. Bush era), McCain earned the grudging trust of self-declared conservative Republicans, in addition to more moderate voters who vote in open primary states. The nomination is his, and it is now time for Republicans to determine if he is deserving of the Oval Office.

The fact that his Democratic opponent in November will be far less palatable to rank-and-file Republicans than McCain should not hide the fact that we Republicans royally screwed up this primary. The fact that Hillary or Obama could be our only alternative to McCain in the general election should not blind Republicans to the reality that we simply picked the wrong nominee for our party. At one point in this race, eleven men were running for our nomination. Of those running, McCain might have been more qualified to be our nominee than four of them…at most [Brownback, Gilmore, Hunter, Tancredo]. McCain’s almost-nauseating resilience compounded by the media’s veritable love affair with him, allowed him to overcome staffing snafus, money woes and being demonstrably misinformed on a variety of critical issues to take our party’s nomination. Now that we are stuck with McCain for the forseeable future (and if his mother is any indication, possibly the next eight years), it is time to not only weigh our priorities in 2008, but also to do what is necessary to reform the Republican nominating schema to reduce our chances of screwing up in the future.

Make no mistake about this, folks. For all of McCain’s many faults, and for all of his irksome positions on the environment, taxes and internationalism, and despite his growing senility, is far more palatable a choice for conservatives than anybody the Democrats nominate this election. Furthermore, any Democratic nominee will present a serious contrast to McCain on major issues that will define the future or our country. The Constitution may nominate Alan Keyes, and the Libertarian Party may nominate former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, but other than fine oratory and a hypnotic porn star mustache respectively, neither offer much in the way of reasonable alternatives to a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton Administration other than a smug sense of ideological purity for those conservatives who might support them. While I certainly can empathize with the desire and to be forthright am considering supporting Barr in November still, all do so at their own peril, considering the risks of a Clinton or Obama Presidency becoming a reality.

However, on the matter of this publication’s endorsement of Senator McCain, I cannot join with my colleagues or my Editor in Chief. This should not be construed to imply that I would not or will not vote for Senator McCain come Election Day. But would I in fact cast my ballot for him, it would not be an endorsement of his candidacy, but rather a statement of opposition to that of the Democratic nominee. But on account of the failure of the nomination regime of my party to ensure the best candidate earned the nomination of actual party membership, combined with McCain’s casual understanding of party loyalty, I cannot and will not endorse him for President.

After 2008, the Republican National Committee must resolve several critical flaws in their rules for delegate nominations by the state Republican parties. First and foremost, they ought to amend their nomination rules to only accept delegates chosen from completely closed primaries. Caucuses have proven to be detrimental to ensuring party members their right to participate in their own party’s work, and open primaries have for far too long been notorious for independent voters pooling together to “game the system” and undermine political parties (see the 1950 Wisconsin Senate Republican Primary and the 1988 Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary as prime examples). Second, the GOP must impose strict proportional representation requirements for these primaries. In Florida, John McCain won all 57 of the states GOP convention delegates while winning just 36% of the vote. Putting an end to winner take all primaries will allow for a more deliberative nomination process without opening the door for the slugfest we see in the DNC over superdelegates and other such nonsense.

We must learn from our mistakes in the future, but until we can put those lessons to use, we have to live with our mistakes. John McCain is today’s mistake for the Republican Party and its members. The question now is whether the bigger mistake was for us to nominate Senator McCain or to allow a far less desirable person to become President out of bitterness. No party member should feel compelled to support Senator McCain, but every party member should be able to figure out which is the more grievous error.

I dissent.

Due to the limitations of the print form of the Frontier Jeff and I were forced to cut the list of possible candidates down significantly. While many people are being thrown around as possibilities, including Tommy Franks among others.

Our short list included the 5 men and women discussed in the article, Jindal, Pawlenty, Sanford, Pence, and Hutchison. Also the following were, in our eyes, possible choices:Mitt Romney (R), Charlie Crist (R-FL), Rob Portman (R-OH), Haley Barbour (R-MS), Condoleezza Rice (R), Joe Lieberman (I-CN), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Fred Thompson (R), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Recently a list of 5 front runners was named by the campaign. Lieberman, Crist, Blackburn, Barbor and Pawlenty are there. Our list seems to be dead on here, we not only have all 5 the campaign has listed but we included the hot names like Condi that seem to pop up weekly reguardless of how much she denies.

Of course no one will admit they want it. Some dance gracefully around the question, like either Ms. Rice or Mrs. Hutchison, saying they do not want the position when asked. Others laugh off the question, as Mr. Jindal did, saying “He’s not going to ask me.” while modest it isn’t a no.

It will continue to all be speculation and guessing until the man himself decides.

Some of the Frontier staff, along with some College Republicans, went to see Ben Stein’s new big screen documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”.  In case you haven’t heard, the film is about intelligent design and whether or not it is a valid scientific theory.  Honestly, I went into the theater hoping for myths about evolution to be debunked, for scientific hypotheses generated by intelligent design, for significant holes in the evolutionary theory.  I was sorely disappointed (but rather entertained, I should add) by a parade of fluffy interviews, Ben Stein wandering around various cities, and scathingly atheistic evolution advocates, all juxtaposed with footage from Nazi and communist Germany.

To be fair, Ben Stein had a point.  His claim that anybody who even mentions intelligent design in the scientific community is instantly ridiculed and ostracized is probably true.  Science should be about challenging authority, breaking theories down to make them better.  Most of the people he interviewed said that intelligent designers had some very valid issues with evolutionary theory.

Unfortunately, I never saw nor heard from these “valid issues”, only some very weak, non-arguments that have already been raised, debated on, and settled. Anybody who has read a little bit of literature on evolution will find the arguments presented to be ridiculous.  Ben Stein’s incredulity at “DNA riding on the backs of crystals” was laughable, the intelligent design scientists’ claim that evolution could not construct new species was simply ignorant.

The rest of the movie was riddled with propaganda.  A large chunk of time was devoted to Ben Stein visiting a holocaust memorial.  Wait, what?  What does that have to do with evolution?  His point was that Hitler was a firm believer in Darwinism, and therefore Darwinists are Nazis.  Clips of interviews with evolutionary scientists were interspliced with clips of Nazis murdering Jews.  Planned Parenthood was portrayed as a neo-Nazi eugenics movement.  Does all this remind you of something?  Or perhaps, someone?

Yes, Michael Moore, the liberals’ own “documentary” maker, notorious for his non-arguments and skewing of facts.  Moore has been criticized for bad facts, poor taste, and downright misconstruing of quotations.  Stein is now just as guilty.  In “Expelled”, he quotes from Darwin’s “Descent of Man”, using the quotation to imply that Darwin was suggesting Hitler-like breeding of the human race.  Stein stops right there, but Darwin goes on to say that mankind’s sympathy is “the noblest part of our nature”, and if we were ever to participate in the kind of breeding he just described, it would be an act of “overwhelming … evil”.

“Expelled” is an entertaining watch, I’ll admit that.  I had a good time chuckling at the absurdities of the movie, and at the very least it made me think about the issues again.  My opinion of Mr. Stein has been lowered some, but hey, the Republican’s can have their own Moore if they want.

Staff meeting tonight, Sunday April 6th, at 9:30pm.   We’ll be meeting in room 229 at Library West, it’s on the second floor.  We’ll be doing pre-publishing administrative things, looking over the layout and such.  Anyone is welcome to come, if you’re interested in the Frontier.

I just finished uploading the Nov. ‘07 issue of the frontier, it’s accessible from the menu bar, in Archives.  Check it out!