On the way to Cincinnati to catch a ballgame a few weeks ago, I drove past a series of billboards from beatboehner.com. One of the boards made the claim that John Boehner, the Republican House Minority Leader who stands to be Speaker of the House if the GOP picks up enough seats in November, golfed too often.

Far be it from me to point out a small detail, but the party wishing to defeat Boehner is the Democrat Party, which is the party of President Barack Obama, the president who has hit the golf course more than any recent president. Only a blockhead would read that billboard and say, “This Boehner guy plays too much golf…I’ll vote for his opponent.”

Blockhead is probably too harsh a label, but too many people who vote will have that narrow a view of the various races around the country.

You have your vote-by-letter types who vote based solely on a capital letter next to the candidate’s name: D or R, typically. Then there are voters who will be swayed by brief ads with simple messages: John Kasich worked for a company you probably never heard of but they’re bad and so is he, John Boehner golfs too much, Obama is for change, Strickland isn’t a Republican, etc.

Needless to say, the vast majority of voters are extremely uninformed, particularly on state and local matters. National politics take the headlines, so there is some knowledge base for national elections. But even the politically-astute voter knows very little of state and local politics, unless he or she is directly involved.

The reasons are numerous but two stand out. First is our prosperity. Despite the gloomy economic conditions, Americans are prosperous enough that they are freed from having concern for political matters. So at times like this—with baseball pennant races and football season starting—many potential voters are glued to the TV watching sports or any of number of other shows. Thirst for the knowledge needed to make well-informed decisions is lacking.

Second is the media. I confess that I do not subscribe to my local papers, the Dayton Daily News and the Cincinnati Enquirer, but I do frequent their websites and there is a glaring absence of local political news. I am also an avid consumer of news and commentary, so I have a fair knowledge of national affairs; however, I sadly know too little about state and local affairs. But it’s not for want of effort.

Even if one read the Columbus Dispatch or Toledo Blade, one will find very little in the way of what Ohio’s politicos are up to (the Dispatch politics page is probably the best mainstream media source and it’s not that extensive). Try looking for news on what’s going on at City Hall in Dayton, or anywhere for that matter: good luck. Look in the papers, on the web, or on TV. Very little is there.

Now, if you’re into the latest traffic accident or house fire, stories are as plentiful as water.

Sure, there are sources to visit for more specific information (e.g. the Buckeye Institute), but the point here is to take the local media to task for their part in the creation of a politically ignorant public. The incuriosity of the people is the other half.

It’s that season again, and the folks will see brief ads proclaiming the deviousness of hopeful public servants. They’ll know who golfs too much and who didn’t keep unspecified promises and who worked for company that crashed and so on. But that’s about it.

Cincinnati Reds fans hate Chicago Cubs fans. Likewise, St. Louis Cardinals fans hate Cubs fans, too. And there are reasons, too. By and large—the recent chicanery notwithstanding—Reds fans and Cardinals fans do not hate one another. My experiences with Cards rooters have been almost entirely pleasant. Sure, you’ll always have your random nut job who rubs you the wrong way, but they are the exception and not the rule.

But for those wearing Cubbies gear, over exuberance seems to be the rule.

See, there is etiquette when going to the ballpark. If you are going into the other club’s park to watch your team, don’t act like a fool. Likewise, when at home, you tend to hope the visitor’s fans have a pleasant experience in all facets save the scoreboard.

For instance, I had great concern when visiting Yankee Stadium, so I wore an inconspicuous blue 1976 World Series (Reds 4, Yanks 0) t-shirt and plain Reds hat. And I didn’t openly cheer during the Reds 6-0 win. My fears seemed ungrounded, however, as Red faithful were probably as numerous as Cub fans at a Reds game that day, and I witnessed no incidents. In fact, in discussing a Reds prospect, two rabid Yankee fans—who frequently belittled their own players with unmatched zeal— turned and pleasantly entered the discussion.

Enter day 2 of the 2007 season: Reds-Cubs. In a tie game, I had to relieve myself. At Great American Ballpark, the club plays the radio play-by-play inside of the men’s bathrooms. While conducting my business, the Cubs took a 2-1 lead. One Cub fan screamed, “Go Cubbies! [blank] yeah, Cubbies!” as he slammed his beer on the ground, which splashed the wasted suds all over both Reds and Cubs fans waiting in line.

Having endured years of similar nonsense, I could hold it in no longer gave the young man a piece of my mind. He cursed at me and I congratulated him for his extensive vocabulary. Another Cub fan defended him, so I went on a rant how I would never dream of going into his ballpark and acting like that (and on such an occasion, I had not).

A few years later, the Chicago White Sox visited the Queen City for a weekend series. In the row behind me sat about six Sox fans. Again, I had some concern about their presence, having extrapolated Cub behavior and applied it to the entire city. But I was blessed on yet another occasion as one of them turned to his buddy and asked, “You know what’s great about this place? There isn’t one Cubs fan, here.”

Now, I’m a baseball fan and I love that there are other teams for the Reds to play. I also have no issue with people liking the Chicago Cubs. Moreover, they have every right to be Cubs fans, and through the free market they have every right to buy tickets to Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati. Lastly, they have the right to “act a fool” as guests in our house—and the right not to tip our ushers in the premium sections.

But the Bible tells us, “Everything is permissible, but not everything is wise.”

Thus, you can build a mosque named after a conquest in Spain near Ground Zero, but it’s not really a good idea. Likewise, you can hold a Quran burning, but it’s not a good idea, either. And you shouldn’t be surprised when you rub others the wrong way.

A few vignettes:

1) In 2000, the Cincinnati Reds acquired Ken Griffey, Jr., leading to high hopes of a decade full of championships and post-season runs. Even with each disappointment, hope reigned supreme—at least for awhile. Reality eventually caught up with the Reds and they started from scratch. This year’s current club is certainly headed in the right direction and may even sneak into the playoffs somewhat prematurely.

But Junior Griffey’s role in the decline cannot be ignored. His acquisition numbed the club, the media, and the fans for several years to the team’s glaring weaknesses: poor pitching, poor defense, and an empty cupboard of young talent.

2) A young granddaughter had made her share of mistakes, no doubt, but she was blessed to have such a generous family. Her grandparents, of course, were especially kind. On many occasions when she needed money, they were always there.

In time, however, the green gal came to expect miracles from her elders no matter the situation. Whether money to pay traffic tickets or help with bills and food for the kids after frivolous spending, the cash always found its way into her hands. She found no reason to reverse course, at least until the day her grandparents passed away. Without them, the young girl hit hard times.

3) Over the course of four years, I ran at least three times a week, almost always well over two miles. After those four years, however—that is, after I left the Army—I became a lethargic college student. For another three years-plus, I ran infrequently.

So when the day came that I was recalled to active duty, I knew I had to get into shape, and I had to do it fast. War was on the horizon, I suspected, and I recalled the old adage, “The more you sweat in peace time, the less you bleed in war.” When I began running again, my chest felt as it had split in two and it seemed that someone was sticking needles in my joints. Four years ago, I would have had a long period to gradually work myself to the desired physical condition, not just a few weeks. What a painful shock.

In Summation: I read somewhere a few months back an intriguing argument against government stimulus programs that are specifically designed to ease the pain of the economic downturn. By numbing the pain, the government was blinding actors within the market from altering behaviors that contributed to the fall. This in itself actually caused a bubble, for if economic players were allowed to respond to the appropriate signals, then the decline would have been more gradual and much less painful.

Each of these vignettes tells a similar tale: of some organization or person who endured major, unnecessary pain because a shield of some sort protected them from minor pains that would have served to correct bad behavior. The Reds, absent the false hope of one man, might have focused more on developing talent from within, especially pitching, much sooner and would perhaps this year be playing for another in a series of post-seasons bids. The young girl might have been more prudent with her money if made to experience some heartache and stress over a bill here and there. And I wouldn’t have felt so terrible running two miles in the August sun for a few weeks if my false sense of security hadn’t caused me to neglect my fitness.

Yet, this is our standing government policy. I do not mean to imply that the desire to help ease suffering and hardship is wrong. Instead, I simply mean that we as a society are crossing a Rubicon of sorts with our safety nets and at some point we will not have the will to turn back.

Now that the final US "combat" troops have departed Iraq, observers of the conflict will be curious what happens next. Perhaps my experience in Karbala Province in 2005 is instructive.

Prior to my arrival in 2005, Karbala Province was a rather violent, inhospitable place for Coalition troops. Late in 2003, insurgents began mounting attacks against Bulgar, Thai, and US troops in the city, including a battle near the provincial headquarters. In 2004, bombings killed more than 80 pilgrims during the Ashura festival. From then on, Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Militia frequently attacked Coalition forces.

At the height of the Karbala campaign, Coalition troops occupied numerous bases in and around the city, but after a Marine Expeditionary Force quelled the bulk the violence, the Coalition presence was reduced to a lone base, FOB Lima, just outside of the city and a small detachment at the provincial headquarters.

When my unit arrived in January 2005, there hadn't been an attack in the province in several months, a condition that held mostly true (save occasional inaccurate mortar fire) for the better part of four months. Then, in the middle of 2005, the province had progressed to the point that a fixed US presence was no longer necessary. It was at that time that I was tasked with writing an analysis of what might occur once we left.

It was my opinion that the following would occur: Once word got out that we were leaving, attacks would increase as various groups jockeyed for position and random citizens took parting shots. Then, upon our departure, violence would increase in the short term but the province would remain mostly stable.

My prognosis proved mostly accurate: mortar fire increased and IEDs reappeared for the first time since the previous year, including one of the first EFP (explosively-formed projectile) attacks in the country. Just as we transferred authority to the province, the provincial headquarters suffered a number of assaults, including an RPG attack. Later, a US team was kidnapped and murdered. Since then, however, Karbala is rarely if ever mentioned in the news.

This microcosm is somewhat flawed in that Karbala was never as fierce a battleground as Anbar Province or Baghdad, but it should mostly hold true. Attacks have increased since we announced our departure and I expect more now that our "combat" troops are gone. Hopefully any such violence will subside over time and make our venture a general success. I suspect that we will hear reports of violence for years out of Iraq, but I have hope that such news will be the exception rather than the rule.

And it's in this light that Karbala 2005 may be instructive as to what might happen moving forward.

The White House assured the public that President Obama is, indeed, a Christian—and that it is obvious. Pollsters asked Americans (or some of them, anyway) what they thought only to find 25% believe the president is Muslim; among them, 10% of Democrats.

So the question has staying power and still stands: Is the president Christian or Muslim?

Much of the answer lies in what one means when using either label. Some 80% of Americans are Christian in that they believe in a God and have gone to church or were raised in households that described themselves as Christian. But ask any Evangelical Christian and he or she will say that most Americans are not Christian because they are not devout or serious enough in their faith—or lack thereof. These folks are “lost” and must be brought into the fold or else. Even those who attend church on a weekly basis are criticized for their half-hearted Christianity.

Thus, the Christian label is somewhat ambiguous, similar to labeling aficionados of a sports team the same way when they range from wives who happen to have a cute t-shirt to complete fanatics who arrange their lives around the team’s schedule.

Islam, I suppose, might be the same way. I cannot say from firsthand experience, however, not being a Muslim myself. During my time in the Middle East, religious habits did appear much more homogenous. My perception is that if you are Muslim, then you are Muslim all the way.

Based on widely available information, the public can see that President Obama attended a particular Christian church for a few decades. He has stated that he is Christian. We know his father was Muslim, but his mother was not a religious person.

There is the basic evidence, which is mostly inconclusive, in large part because only Barack Obama can know his heart. But I contend that the answer is neither Christian nor Muslim.

By all accounts, Barack Obama is a fairly doctrinaire left-wing elite. Today’s left tends to view any form of faith as irrational, anti-intellectual, anti-science, and anti-progress. This is the president’s crowd.

Regarding his professed Christianity: President Obama expresses his faith in public less than George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and on back. In fact, I am reminded of an old movie—perhaps “Spartacus”—in which a Roman senator said of his country’s gods, “Privately I believe in none of them. Publicly, I believe in all of them.” This sentiment is why I called the president a “nominal Christian.”

The bottom line is that I don’t believe the president is a very religious man, at all. Sure, he’s a nominal Christian, in my opinion, but it does not appear that faith plays that great of a role in his life and I believe his professed Christianity is politically expedient.

Having said that, his faith does not concern me so much: his governance does.

Suppose that, as president, George W. Bush’s administration and the GOP-controlled Congress took an ownership stake in, say, Shell Oil. That fact alone would have driven Bush’s political opponents batty, but imagine that GW and the Republican legislature took the following steps:

1) Via executive pressure, Shell Oil was forced to change its CEO.
2) Congress launched high-profile investigations, complete with public interrogations before Congressional committees, of major Shell competitors such as Sunoco and ExxonMobil.
3) The feds also took an ownership stake in a credit card company, perhaps Capital One, and offered discounted charge accounts for use at Shell gas stations.
4) Later, Congress authorized a subsidized discount off the price of a gallon of Shell gas.
5) Last, in the aftermath a Supreme Court decision authorizing corporate political donations—a move that caused near-universal outrage among Democrats—fed-controlled Shell began making donations to various Republican organizations.

Naturally, Democrats would be spun into a frenzy—heck, many Republicans might be taken aback, themselves—with its leaders holding frequent press conferences to denounce the ruling party’s conduct. Shell would become a four-letter word and a campaign issue.

However, this scenario (if you have yet to make the connection) has played out in reality, except involving General Motors. The partially-federally-owned automaker began making political donations again, this time with taxpayer dollars in the amount of $41,000. Most of the funds were given to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

They are not yet making donations to candidates, but GM’s move is another in a long and disturbing list: forcing out a CEO, taking an ownership stake, failing to make whole company bondholders, taking ownership of prime and sub-prime auto lenders and using them for discount financing of GM and Chrysler products, investigations into Honda and Toyota, and now the donations.

I have written ad nauseam about the federal government’s partial ownership of various (formerly) private companies, including GM, Chrysler, GMAC, and AmeriCredit and there are numerous reasons for alarm. First, markets simply work better and having government-controlled competitors in any industry distorts the market and places private companies (and, thus, jobs) in danger, all because the government is not constrained by profits and losses. That is, there is little incentive to economize: e.g. US Post Office, Amtrak.

Perhaps most important is the added governmental power. The federal government has already grown well beyond its intended size and scope. It controls far too many aspects of our lives, but now they have extra power to shape the way Americans live on a day-to-day basis. Each day our ability to freely make life choices is diminished and some wise third party in Washington proceeds to make those choices for us according to their own vision of the ideal society.

The United States was founded as a federal republic with thirteen distinct entities that catered to various particular ways of life: Maryland was very Catholic, Pennsylvania very Quaker, Rhode Island very-none-of-the-above. The idea was to let Massachusetts be Massachusetts and New York to be New York all the while adhering to some minimal federal guidelines, which is to say, freedom. Congress and the Obama Administration are undermining that design. A car company may be a small matter, but using federal power to, say, put out certain types of automobiles is a clear step in a bad direction.

A few weeks ago I heard a radio ad for a Dodge automobile lease special. The rapidly-spoken fine print portion contained a phrase that caught my ear in full: “financing through GMAC only.”

I may not have the full picture, but if I recall correctly, GMAC was once the financing arm for General Motors. (The company also made home loans.) So why, I asked myself, would GMAC provide financing for Dodge vehicles?

Oh yes: because the federal government has a majority ownership stake in GMAC, now known as Ally Financial. The federal government also owns the largest stakes in General Motors and Chrysler, two of the “Big Three” American automakers.

So the feds own two car companies and a finance company that specializes in car loans. Well, make that two finance companies. Last week, General Motors—again, partially-owned by the United States government—purchased AmeriCredit, a company specializing in “sub-prime” auto loans.

Now the feds own two car companies with both “prime” and “sub-prime” financing arms, thus allowing them to lend to both good and poor credit risks.

Back-up for a second to earlier this month. A local news break reported that a government investigation into “sticking” Toyota accelerator pedals found that, upon impact, most of the vehicles did not have the brakes engaged. A study of the vehicles’ “black boxes” seemed to indicate that operator error, not Toyota error, was the culprit in a series of highly-publicized auto accidents involving the automaker’s vehicles.

For the past several months, most of us have seen Toyota television ads featuring long-time Toyota drivers giving testimony to the safety and longevity of their cars as well as company officials reassuring viewers that Toyota is taking safety very seriously.

All of this was the result of, again, a government investigation (Honda was investigated, too).

As for those of you who find no problem with this, let me spell it out for you: The United States government regulates—that is, sets the rules for—auto companies operating in the country. They also own, at least in part, two of those companies. In other words, they get to regulate their competitors!

And so they have, at great expense to Toyota—those ads are not cheap. The feds, again, also own lenders, so they can alter financing guidelines, too.

Our current condition is illustrative for those who adhere to the idea that the government can inject competition into, say, the health care industry by providing another option. Wrong. This is what I would describe as unfair—one of the players in the game also makes the rules while the other players do not have the same privilege.

Unlike private ventures, the feds do not operate under the constraints of profits and losses, and when they own part or all of a formerly-private company, that company no longer has to heed the bottom line so much. If you don’t believe me, here are your examples: Amtrak, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac—all broke, all poorly-run, each a waste of taxpayer dollars, despite the supposed importance of their roles.

In sum, this is what socialism brings, and in a mixed economy such as ours, it simply isn’t fair. Governments have attempted to regulate away “unfair” advantages in the economy for years, but now it seems they using their powers to create advantages for themselves.

Thomas Sowell has written that, in economic matters, there are no solutions but instead only tradeoffs. Thus is the guiding concept henceforth. Next subject…

Federal Judge Joseph Tauro started a firestorm when he ruled the Defense of Marriage Act—which outlaws gay marriage—unconstitutional. Alas, the United States entered the throes of yet another polarizing issue. Fortunately, it needn’t be this way. After all, a solution (or tradeoff) exists using the much-ballyhooed practice of compromise.

Often times voters desire or even demand that their political leaders make compromises on particular issues to the betterment of the country. Unfortunately, these compromises share an assumption that dooms all of them to failure: the assumption that the answer must come from the top.

Therefore, the time has come to reintroduce the United States of America to a concept known as federalism, which, in our case, is a system of power sharing between states and a federal government.

The deep flaw of the modern conception of compromise means that, in essence, on each issue everyone will be unhappy. In the case of gay marriage, there are those who want it and those who want none of it. Meanwhile, there is a third group that wants a compromise. When one group wins, the other two sides are unhappy and the battle continues.

In a federal system, such as what the Founders of this country intended to establish, the states play a greater role than the federal government. Using federalism as our guiding assumption, compromise takes on an entirely new dynamic. For the polar sides, the answer to a particular policy dispute can usually be an astounding “yes.”

But this, too, requires compromise.

The national solution requires tolerance of parts of policies one may dislike. Likewise, the federalist solution also requires a form of tolerance that is somewhat different: that is, the tolerance of neighbors who uphold policies one may mostly or completely dislike.

It works like thus: Ohioans voted that they did not want gay marriage. Vermonters, through their legislature, voted that they did want gay marriage. Compromise here requires Ohioans to accept what the Vermonters have done within their boundaries and the Vermonters to accept what the Ohioans have done within theirs. Vermonters may desire gay marriage rights for the entire country, but they compromise by letting the other forty-nine states decide their own policies, which may ban entirely or allow complete gay marriage or offer something in between.

A federalist solution—or, actually, tradeoff—might bring to an end the divisiveness of many of our greatest policy disputes. In fact, it is the conservative position on what is perhaps the most polarizing issue, abortion, to overturn the national dictate (Roe v. Wade) and to return the matter to the fifty states. Then, if a person is North Carolina wants abortion rights, she is welcome to run up to Maryland where they would likely have them. Meanwhile, the people of North Carolina can feel morally assured that they have done the right thing in banning the practice.

In essence, everyone can be happy. At least to a degree. I do not mean to sound utopian in claiming that “everyone can be happy,” because, of course, federalism is not perfect, either. Each issue carries certain complexities that may demand a national response (with gay marriage, for instance, there are complications involving state-by-state recognition). There will certainly be minorities within each state who disagree with a particular policy—in this case, gay marriage. But if the issue is important enough, members of that minority can migrate to a different state.

We do it now, in fact. Some Americans relocate to Florida because it has no income tax. Ohioans spend leisure dollars in Indiana because they can gamble at casinos there. Other Ohioans go to Pennsylvania so they can buy Yuengling beer.

There are extremely compelling reasons to oppose gay marriage at the national level; however, federalism truly is the best fix for some of the nation’s most hotly contested policy disputes, perhaps including gay marriage. That was truly the beauty of the American design—fifty little experiments. It was the Founders’ intent that the federal government be limited in scope to a small set of enumerated powers while most of the political battles took place at the state level and below. The attitude, transformed to this era, might sound something like this: If you want to screw up your state with x policy, go ahead, but we’re not doing it here.

To be sure there will be factions that want nothing of federalism precisely because they want to dictate from on high their way of life to all the masses in all the states. But that’s another issue for another time.

The rigors of life have prevented me from reading what I am about to write, as someone has assuredly already made the following point. Still…

I heard a sound clip of former President Bill Clinton’s remarks at the Senator Robert Byrd memorial service in which he nearly rationalized the late senator’s history with the Ku Klux Klan. Senator Byrd, the president opined, “was trying to get elected, and maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done.”

Maybe?

Nonetheless, Byrd’s actions are dismissible because “he spent the rest of his life making it up—and that’s what a good person does.” In other words, the guy is dead, so don’t you dare relive his mistakes because, after all, he was just a good ole boy trying to get elected.

Actually, in other words, the guy was a Democrat, so don’t you dare relive his mistakes because, after all, he was a Democrat.

Immediately former Senator Trent Lott came to mind. I recall that Lott, in giving a toast at the 100-year old Senator Strom Thurmond’s birthday party, said that the nation would be a lot better off now if we had elected good ole Strom as president way “back in the day.” It just so happens that “back in the day,” Thurmond was a deep South segregationist running on a party ticket that was, well, all about segregation.

In reality, Lott was just trying to say something nice about an old man at a 100th birthday gig. That was the defense and it was sensible, even though the comment was dumb. I also recall that he was forced out of his leadership position, went on a national apology tour, and eventually did not seek reelection. So Lott lost his job.

Thurmond’s past was just as shameful as Byrd’s, even though he was never in the Klan. Both men eventually renounced their evil ways and spent the rest of their lives trying to make up for their pasts.

Byrd succeeded. Thurmond did not, and one word explains the difference in outcomes: Democrat.

Byrd largely got a pass for his not-so-“fleeting association” with the Klan. After all, he was the Democrats’ leader in the US Senate, and Bill Clinton said so.

On the contrary, the Lott-Thurmond incident was national news for a long time. What Lott was said was so bad that, again, he went on a national apology tour to no avail. Implied in the ordeal was the wretchedness of Strom Thurmond and how all of these southern Republicans were once racist, segregationist Democrats who switched parties because the GOP became the home of Jim Crow.

Was the breathless hyperbole matched with Clinton’s Byrd remark? Not at all. In fact, nary a peep from the media.

After all, Byrd was a Democrat.

Last year we explored the Declaration of Independence as it regarded the happenings of the current federal government. But on this 4th day of July, 2010, one should pay special attention to one particular grievance against King George III: “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.”

Here the relevance to our era rests in the plural: “our Charters” and “the Forms of our Governments.” What was declared independent that day was a collection of thirteen distinct entities—colonies, soon to become states, all part of a union.

In the earliest days of the Republic, the central government was small and relatively weak, serving few, defined purposes. The design allowed one colony to govern as it wished within its own jurisdiction while enjoying the mutual benefits of the union. Years later this arrangement was thought of as, in our case today, fifty little experiments.

Simple enough. State A would like to govern in a particular fashion, adopting certain policies it deems preferable. State B would like to do the same; however, neither would want another state to determine how they govern. Thus, the experiments would work like this: If State A desires a certain policy, it can do so while the other states continue the status quo. Later, some states, after observing the results in State A, may adopt a version of that policy. On the contrary, some other states may deem the “experiment” a disaster and would be spared from the perceived detrimental effects.

That is, each state has its own “Charter” and fundamental “Form” of government.

Sadly our federal republic is becoming less so, and rapidly. Certainly instances exist where federalism creates problems that uniform federal policy might remedy—the fifty health insurance markets, for instance. Mostly, however, states do well enough individually, but the overwhelming trend has been for the federal government to dictate to the fifty states certain policies.

Herein lies a seminal fissure between Left and Right in the United States. The Right generally wants states to govern themselves as the Declaration we celebrate on this day demanded. For example, in the case of abortion, it is the general conservative position that Roe v. Wade be overturned so that the states could determine their own policies. That is, there is no widespread desire on the Right to overturn the landmark decision and force all fifty states to ban abortion.

On the Left, they want a Massachusetts-style health care system for every state; the same minimum wage for every state; the same marriage laws for every state; and so on.

One could describe these inclinations generally to be: the Right desires a freer, more democratic society, or societies, rather; the Left desires a mandated, uniform nation. We have the freedom movement and the power movement.

It is said that the Right must approve of, or at least tolerate, inequality. This is true, at least in the spirit of the latter description. The Right values freedom above uniformity for many reasons, one of which is the spirit of this day and the document that created it. Jefferson, et al separated themselves from England so that their “Charters” and fundamental “Forms of…Governments” would be free to remain.

And in this era, it is the modern American Left that is anathema to the entire purpose of the Declaration of Independence.

Sadly, Ohio residents will no longer be able to stop along Interstate 75 near State Route 63 between Cincinnati and Dayton in order to take O-H-I-O (the state’s chant for the Ohio State University football team) photographs with “Touchdown Jesus.”

“Touchdown Jesus” is—or was—a large statue of Jesus Christ with his hands raised to the sky at the head of a pond outside of Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio. The 6-story statue had become a target of ridicule for its gaudiness, even among Christians.

This week, a series of thunderstorms hit southwest Ohio, causing damage from Dayton to Cincinnati. Monday evening, lightning struck the statue and set it ablaze. Some joked that God razed his own statue. But it should come as no surprise that a steel statue, the highest point in the area, sitting in a big puddle of water was struck by lightning.

Ironically, the Solid Rock Church has vowed to rebuild the monument. Media reports indicate that TD Jesus cost $250,000 to build originally and that storm damage—to the statue and an adjoining amphitheater—is around $750,000. One can only wonder what a Christian church could have done with that much money to help the people of the surrounding Montgomery, Butler, Warren, and Hamilton counties.

Many of my acquaintances have remarked that the statue is a graven image and that many Christian denominations have strayed from the gospel with elaborate churches and similar statues. Another friend of mine pointed out another irony: Touchdown Jesus was struck and burned while the Hustler Hollywood sign across the street was untouched. He wondered what sort of point God was making with that choice.

I’m not sure there was a providential choice in the matter. Like I said, it was a 6-story steel statue sitting in water. Like a scantily clad girl in a sailor’s bar, it was a prime attraction. As the great Jimmy Buffett once sang, “You got fins to the left / Fins to the right / And you’re the only bait in town.”

If God did have something to say in the matter, perhaps it was about the church itself. I have no firsthand knowledge of any of the church’s happenings, but the lesson I take is somewhat different.

We live in an era when governments—state, federal, and otherwise—believe now more than ever that they know best how to spend our money and best how to arrange our lives. But it is really any of their business? Sometimes it is, but most of the time it is not.

I may believe—and I do believe—that building a statue that draws more scorn for Christ than it does glory is a poor way to spend three quarters of a million bucks; however, it is not my place to confiscate that money nor to dictate to Solid Rock Church what they do with it.

Health care legislation. Financial reform. Cap-and-trade. Cash for clunkers. Etc. Sadly, it seems the federal government does not agree.

As a young intel analyst in the Army, I worked at the 101st Airborne Division Artillery headquarters from 1998-2001. In the front of the headquarters was a small room used for ceremonies—promotions, awards, reenlistments—and in that room was an old canon. On the wall opposite the golden gun was a collection of photographs showing all of the 101st DIVARTY commanders throughout history in chronological order.

One day I found myself browsing this wall of unknown men who were each era’s equivalents to my commander at the time, then-Colonel Byron S. Bagby (now Major General Bagby). When I reached the late 1960s, I found a run of commanders who were killed in a very short period of time, although I can’t remember if it was two or three or the time frame. I was but a sergeant at the time, so the photos made quite an impression on me.

In fact, when I was deployed, I occasionally thought about the wall: it was a testament to the fragility of life and vulnerability of all soldiers in combat. It kept me focused, because, after all, if a pair of brigade commanders can die in a short period of time, fate would think nothing of a young NCO.

But I left the Army for the first time in 2001, for the second time in 2006. I returned to Ohio to boring civilian life as a rabid Cincinnati Reds fan. For a few years up to 2009, the Reds had a pitching coach named Richard Pole (this site will not allow the publishing of the shortened name because it is "inappropriate"). The name made any immature male chuckle. Pole was fired last year.

Fast-forward to today. One of my uncles sent me a database of Vietnam War casualties listed by state. I browsed through Ohio and when I came to my hometown of Dayton I decided to stop and read one soldier’s profile. Two-thirds of the way down, I saw a name that both made me chuckle and aroused curiosity: COL Richard Pohl.

Remembering my ball club’s old pitching coach, I clicked on COL Pohl’s link only to find the screaming eagle shield of the 101st Airborne Division and the cross cannon insignia of the artillery. COL Pohl was really COL Richard Sharon Pohl, Commander, 101st Airborne Division Artillery. Killed 24 June 1968 in a helicopter crash on Fire Support Base Bastogne in A Shau Valley of Vietnam. The Colonel’s—and the DIVARTY’s—Command Sergeant Major was also killed in the crash.

Today—Memorial Day—we honor the fallen. Sure, the general public thanks “those who have served,” but that’s not the real purpose of this day. It is a memorial day: that is, in memoriam of men and women who paid the highest price in combat.

Each year I set up a small memorial of flags for the five troops my unit lost in Iraq: a larger flag overlooking five smaller flags, one each for the men we could not bring home to their families. This year I will also remember COL Pohl in large part due to the surreal coincidences linking us in history. These six men paid a price so others would not have to do the same. And, once again, in our festive atmosphere, all of us should take a few moments to reflect on them and to say a small prayer for their families, who will surely be reminded again of what they have lost.

The voters have spoken.

Or have they?

Voters from all over Ohio passed new government debt and higher property taxes for themselves. Supporters of the varying measures would say, “Well, the people have spoken.” But this isn’t actually true.

One of the sly tactics supporters of ballot initiatives use is the exploitation of apathy. In elections like today’s—a non-general election primary—voter turnout is very low. That is, most people don’t care. Most estimates I heard over the course of the day had about 25% or so of the electorate bothering to go to the polls.

The tactic works this way: Primaries tend to involve lower profile issues and candidates. That means fewer TV ads, few or no broadcasted debates, and little media hype. All of these factors mean that the average voter who may vote when, say, a governorship or the presidency are at stake is not likely to be drawn to the primary.

So, there are fewer people to convince. Secondly, such issues tend to have significant constituencies who stand to gain financially from passage; thus, they are motivated supporters who will definitely go to the polls in favor of their pet projects.

When low turnout and beneficiary constituencies coincide, opposition movements rarely germinate. The overall lack of interest means that cause supporters will usually not endure any scrutiny or criticism, giving them the freedom to frame their pet issues in any way they choose.
For instance, if you were to ask voters this November if they would like their state to add hundreds of millions of dollars in debt that they would have to pay back, with interest, in taxes, they would probably answer in the negative. Likewise, if you were to ask the same voters if they wanted their mortgage payments to increase by $30-$50 per month, the answer would likely be the same.

However, if there is no organized group communicating these realities, an initiative’s supporters are free to say things like, “create jobs” and “save our schools.” Sure, when presented with all the facts, a majority of voters may still choose to pass these issues, but the reality of primary elections all but removes that option.

In essence, placing measures like the renewal of Ohio’s Third Frontier and a myriad of levies and tax hikes on the ballot during a primary is a sneaky way for small minorities to push through policy changes on an unwitting public.

Yes, it’s shady, but the disinterested voter is to blame, too.

Issue 1: Renewal of the Third Frontier bond. Vote: No. As previously addressed on this site, Third Frontier may have brought some commerce to the state, but it wasn't enough to offset all of the jobs that have vanished over the past eight years. Again, Third Frontier is government debt that must be repaid, with interest, from taxes--so the ads claiming that this is no tax increase are misleading at best. Also, Third Frontier essentially pays businesses to do things they would otherwise not be inclined to do in Ohio's miserable business climate.

Issue 2: Moving the location of the Columbus casino. Abstain. I am not really sure why this has to waste space on the ballot.

Issues 4, 28, and 29: Miamisburg/Miami Township tax levies--all increases. Vote: No. I have also written at length about the Issue 4 school levy. Issue 28 is for the purpose of maintaining cemeteries--a true blue municipal responsibility?--and Issue 29 is both a replacement and increase for police. Frankly, Miami Township, while home to Dayton Mall, is no ghetto. Supporters would have been better served putting two issues on the ballot: a renewal and a separate increase initiative. Now, voters have only the choices to vote for all or nothing. In this climate of guaranteed tax increases, voters can save themselves a few hundred dollars a month and vote these three issues down.

State Auditor GOP Primary: Seth Morgan v. Dave Yost. Disclaimer: I know Seth Morgan personally. Both Seth Morgan and Dave Yost are qualified to be state auditor. Frankly, either candidate will likely defeat his Democrat challenger. Yost has county auditor experience. Morgan, an up-and-coming star, has been a city councilman, a vice mayor, and a state rep, all by age 31. He also has his own accounting firm. I believe Yost will win based in large part on his experience; however, I will vote for Seth Morgan not just because I know him, but because I believe we need fresh faces in this state in order to truly change direction.

3rd District GOP Primary, Mike Turner v. Rene Oberer. Vote: Turner. Rene Oberer takes all the right positions (save some small objections to her advocacy of the Fair Tax), but I don't see the strategic logic of her challenge to Mike Turner. The 3rd District was a Democrat assumption for years with Tony Hall holding the seat. That changed when Mike Turner beat Rick Carne in 2002. Turner, popular in the district even among many Democrats, keeps this seat for the GOP easily.

Montgomery County Auditor: There is no primary for either party here, but Harry Bossey will get the GOP nod to challenge Democrat incumbent Karl Keith. The latter is no longer fit to hold the office. Like many county auditors, his office arbitrarily increased property tax valuations in order to raise more revenue as housing values dropped through the floor. Returning Keith to office will be an affront to the rule of law and to taxpayers.

Today I heard a radio ad for Ohio Issue 1. Without trying to transcribe the spot, I’ll paraphrase it for you: Government didn’t win the Revolutionary War: the people did. Government didn’t win the Industrial Revolution: the people did. And now, Ohio needs jobs, and government can’t do it: the people will, with entrepreneurs, etc. We can do all of this without new taxes, too!

Courtesy of United for Jobs and Ohio’s Future, this represents one of the most disingenuous ads in recent memory.

Issue 1 is the renewal of former Ohio Governor Bob Taft’s Third Frontier project, which was a bond measure designed to woo technology development to Ohio. In turn, the economy was supposed to expand. Originally a $1.6 billion measure, Third Frontier has paid grants to businesses and allegedly brought more than $6 billion in economic activity to the state.

Perhaps, but since 2002—Third Frontier’s birth year—Ohio’s economy has been in steady decline. Unemployment has increased. GDP growth, state population, and the workforce have all shrunk. Meanwhile, Ohio remains one of the most-taxed, least business-friendly states in the union. Major companies like DHL, GM, and NCR have all but left Buckeye Land.

The bottom line is this: Ohio’s government has done absolutely nothing to foster a pro-growth economic environment. Sure, lots of companies will gladly take our bond money and move some operations here—even giant Procter and Gamble supports the issue. Why not? They get paid, after all. But when the money runs out, these companies will surely leave, cut jobs, or take other measures to save money.

So instead of creating an environment that attracts businesses, Ohio wants to pay companies to come here who would not otherwise. It’s a patch on the bottom of the waterbed mattress.

Now back to the main point: that the ad is highly disingenuous.

Bonds are debt. If I want to raise money for my business, I can sell a bond—that is, people give me their money and I promise to pay them back with interest. Thus, when the government sells bonds, they are borrowing money—debt—and promising to pay back the debt with interest. Such bonds, by the way, are backed by the full taxing power of the government. While not a direct tax, Third Frontier will be repaid with tax dollars, and the state’s inability to balance a budget begs for future tax hikes to cover this “non tax.”

Likewise, this is government debt. Read it again: government debt. Third Frontier is not, as the United ad states, “the people” or “entrepreneurs” creating jobs. Again, it’s the government paying people to do things they would not otherwise be inclined to do in the existing environment.

That is, Ohio should change that environment.

http://www.ohio.com/business/22247929.html