Freedom

Obama is Right

Obama is Right

This is probably the most concerning column I have written, not because I agree with the President but because the issue is sensitive, to both sides. Currently, whether to build Park51 (a.k.a. Ground Zero Mosque) is driving passionate public debates. Hesitantly, President Obama voiced his opinion two weeks ago when he said the right to build the project was constitutionally protected. The following day he made further comments stating while constitutionally protected, it may be in bad taste. I must agree with both of his comments. While it may be in bad taste, I do not believe it is a community center designed to protect, or possibly sympathize to Islamic terrorists as has been asserted by some in the media. Ultimately, the court of public opinion will either empower the developers and those funding the project, or send them packing.

I am disturbed by talk radio pundits flummoxing methods. Other than to inflame an ill-informed public there is no other purpose for the front-page debate. The fallacy of the current argument comes from the presumption if terrorists are Muslim then all Muslims are terrorists. I take issue because living in the south, as a white male; I am stereotyped as a racist redneck by the argument racist rednecks are southern white males. Similarly, a German born in the 1920’s is not automatically a Nazi. What has been lost in the argument propelled center stage is the right to build a place of worship, as protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The same people who herald the constitution in arguments against healthcare, bailouts, and social programs are quick to stomp the same document when it does not meet their needs.

There are many aspects of the Constitution which may not conveniently fit our desires and likes. However, if we remain consistent in our application, trusting the truths set forth by the founding fathers we will not go wrong. In the case of Park51, it is clear there is no constitutional violation to build. The decision to build is purely local and is governed by the zoning laws, planning commissions, and local electorate. Does it feel good to support building the project? No, but the more important issue at hand is support of the Constitution in the face of our enemies, asserting what separates our country from those who attack us in the name of God.

Liberty – Part I

Liberty – Part I

I am writing this week’s column on Independence Day, aka the 4th of July. I am in Washington, D.C. with my wife and children, having traveled here in our RV to show them our nation’s capital and watch the fireworks from the National Mall tonight. Our first stop yesterday, was the most important highlight of the trip to me, a visit to the National Archives Museum. I wanted to share with my children the three most important documents in the world, “The Freedom Charters”, or the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.

Like no other nation in history, our founding fathers saw a need to create a new form of government, one free from tyranny. Men like Thomas Paine, “Common Sense”, were opening the publics’ eyes by creating a tool for debate to separate from a Monarchy and move to Republicanism. On July 4th, 1776 fifty-six (56) men penned their signatures to this “experiment” and risked their lives to give to future generations the “Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.” These mean, were young, idealistic, and working the land to survive and provide for their families.

Many today claim the writings and thoughts of these men are outdated and need to change with time. However, I would make another assertion; the simplicity of the singe handwritten page of the Declaration of Independence, or the four handwritten pages of the Constitution framed a government that was meant to first trust its people. As I walk around Washington, DC I now see a government that disdains its people, trusts itself, and honors itself. Our country is no longer our country, but one that belongs to a small group of elitists. This is obvious by the monuments, the size of buildings, security barriers along streets, thousands of police officers, and helicopters overflying. Ronald Reagan said, “Man is not free unless government is limited…As government expands, liberty contracts.”

Since our last Independence Day our country has changed dramatically, a huge socialist move has taken place under the guise of “Change and Hope.” Throughout history leaders have offered to care for their citizens, provide for them, but ultimately those experiments of evolved to dictatorships with tyrannical consequences: Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, and Stalin for example. Walking through Washington, I am proud to be an American, but like the bumper sticker on my RV says, “I love my Country…but fear my Government.”

Politics and Science

Politics and Science

Published in the Observer 3/24/2010

Throughout history major corporations, governments, and philanthropists have played a role in funding scientific research. Funding is required to pay salaries, buy materials, and ultimately sustain research; therefore it is reasonable to expect the funding of research to be driven by self-interest. My favorite example would be the story of Archimedes discovering the concept of density to confirm King Hiero had been swindled in making his gold crown. The outcome of his research confirmed King Hiero’s concerns, and history benefitted from the discovery of the principle of density. We should be concerned when subjectivity in science overrules objectivity. The scientific method clearly outlines the objective process for creating a hypothesis, testing, analyzing data, and making valid conclusions.

I worked as an engineer, have a minor in mathematics, and am an expert in statistics, thus I believe I am well qualified to look at a set of data and make conclusions using experience and knowledge. However, I am not an expert in every field, nor is anyone. Therefore, I trust scientists to objectively examine data and come to valid conclusions. Under review, publishing, a peer process exists to monitor the scientific community. However, concern arises when this process is called into question and therefore raises doubts about conclusions and recommendations. If the conclusions are used to effect public policy the method and authorities providing the information must be trustworthy and verifiable. Continue reading…