About Me

Name: Aaron Miller
Location: Spring, TX
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

California hasn't changed

Posted by Aaron Miller on Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:00:00 PM
Much is being made by some commentators of the recent referendums in California. Even though little more than 20% of eligible voters participated, according to Glenn Beck, voters overwhelmingly voted against raising taxes or giving the state government more money.

This does not mean that Californians are fed up with spending gone wild. That's a possibility, but I doubt it. The more likely scenario is that Californians are not willing to pay for the programs and services they demand.

Let's face it -- affordability is rarely mentioned by politicians when they ask us what we want.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

torture and word games

Posted by Aaron Miller on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:00:00 PM
According to Brit Hume today, stuff like waterboarding and banging heads against a wall... "Some people, including Senator John McCain, consider this stuff torture."

Well... duh?

It's bad enough that liberals and media constantly play word games, undercutting rational debate. Must conservatives do it, too?

Torture is the deliberate causing of pain or discomfort. Whether it's as severe as cutting someone with knives or as mild as blaring annoying music, whether the intent is masochism or extracting life-or-death information, whether it takes months or mere moments, whether it's done by a psychotic maniac or by a considerate, upright military interrogator... it's still torture. The word is attached to all sorts of terrible images of evil in popular perception, but we accomplish nothing by calling the morally justified military and espionage uses by any name other than simple "torture".

Say it with me: torture can be alright. It's not "torture" only when the use is evil or unnecessary.


And while we're on the subject, I might as well call attention to another aspect of the torture debate: hedonism.

Yes, hedonism. Too many laws and practices in our "post-modern" society are founded in a hedonistic worldview... an obsession with the body and all that is physical. Many modern Americans and Europeans believe that physical harm is categorically worse and more reprehensible than psychological harm. If you're like most people, you've probably never given it much thought. Well, now's your chance.

It is because of this obsessive protection of the body, without balance alongside the mind and soul, that so many believe torture (the deliberate causing of pain/discomfort) can never be acceptable -- that an absence of pain is more valuable than life itself. It is because of this obsession that people believe a weeks-long injury resulting in a scar is less humane than locking someone up in jail for half their life. It's because of this obsession that mild spankings are now labeled child abuse by many.

The body is good. Pain is bad. But life, my friends, is a bit more complicated that that. The end doesn't justify the means. But let us also consider that a people can recover from pain, and regularly do.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ignore AIG

Posted by Aaron Miller on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:00:00 PM
Folks, all this yelling about AIG bonuses is a ruse. It's an intentional distraction.

By now, you've probably already heard or read that the same politicians who are screaming bloody murder knew about the bonuses and even protected them with legislation months ago. This is being made into a public controversy only to distract us from bigger issues, like the avalanche of government spending and Obama's foreign relations fiascoes.

Forget about AIG for now. Concentrate on the bigger fish.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

the immortal New York Times

Posted by Aaron Miller on Monday, March 09, 2009 11:00:00 PM
So the New York Times is in financial trouble. But is it really possible for the paper to shut down entirely?

I mean, as vital as the paper is to news media and liberals everywhere, isn't it likely to get bailed out before it collapses?  Maybe Soros would do it. Maybe Obama or Congress. But my guess is that the ever-popular, ever-wrong New York Times probably doesn't worry about disappearing, with or without readers.
Tags: Media  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

marriage isn't a state issue

Posted by Aaron Miller on Friday, March 06, 2009 1:00:00 PM
The Constitution clearly designates marriage contracts as a power of the states. However, that does not mean, as is often stated, that the push for gay marriages will be kept out of federal courts, legislation, and initiatives.

Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." When the Founders wrote this, they probably anticipated differences between states in how marriages are sealed and enacted, but I doubt they anticipated a movement to fundamentally redefine marriage in general. States which don't offer gay marriage licenses are already being forced to acknowledge the legitimacy of such licenses from others states. In other words, just because your state denies gays a right to marry or enter a civil union does not mean your state is not going along with the farce in one way or another.

America's Founders also did not anticipate that a federal income tax would become the federal government's primary source of income (the federal income tax and the IRS did not exist in this nation's first century of life). Therefore, the Founders did not foresee federal benefits being doled out on the basis of a marriage license. Yes, this issue has already taken form as well.

The suggestion that the definition of marriage, as being between a man and a woman, is a state issue is simple misdirection. Sometimes it's told as a lie and other times as willful ignorance, but it's always wrong. This is inescapably a federal issue.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

masterful stroke, Rush!

Posted by Aaron Miller on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:00:00 PM
Today, Rush invited Obama to engage in debate with him on his show. If Obama or even just a significant percentage of his allies truly believe that Limbaugh is the de facto head of the Republican Party or Republican constituency, then it goes without saying that the President must converse and/or negotiate with Rush to maintain even a semblance of bipartisanship.

Well played, Rush. Well played.

Of course, ultimately, this doesn't really matter. Obama and his liberal allies, including the media, will scoff at Limbaugh's proposal. And Obama's supporters won't be swayed at all by the President's blatant dishonesty. Afterall, it's not as if they don't already know Obama's a liar and manipulator, though they'd deny it. They likely think the end justifies the means.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

freedom in advertising

Posted by Aaron Miller on Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00:00 PM
During the half-time of the latest Super Bowl, my family and I wondered at a cryptic advertisement that seemed to involve adultery. When we typed in the web address listed at the end of the ad, we were shocked to discover that the site is blatantly devoted to facilitating marital affairs! How could such an ad get airtime during the Super Bowl?

The day after the game, I hopped onto a variety of national news sites. I was shocked again to see that nobody was talking about this! Then I turned to Google and found many articles, published before the Super Bowl, saying the adultery site's ad had been rejected by NBC. Now, I was really confused. What do you mean it was rejected? I just saw it!

Finally, an explanation arrives, courtesy of Brent Bozell III. NBC did reject the ad, but Houston NBC-affiliate station KPRC accepted it. My family and millions of others did see the ad during the Super Bowl, but it was not aired nationally.

That said, I'm still amazed this story was not covered more (if it was at all) in national news. I contacted conservative media figures like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh at the time; but, to my knowledge, they never reported on the issue.

So what's wrong here? It's been said that even despicable businesses should be able to exist and advertise. I agree.  The AshleyMadison "service" is plainly destructive and irresponsible, but such a business does have a right to exist in our free market. However, nothing requires KPRC Houston or any other media company to accept ads from such businesses. KPRC has clearly demonstrated that it values profit over persons.

I thank NBC for choosing not to air the adultery ad during the Super Bowl (imagine how that would have endeared us to the rest of the world), assuming the company's motivation was social concern and not PR fallout. Unfortunately, NBC also rejected, along with CNN, a tasteful and subtle pro-life ad. It is their right to do so, but this also reflects company priorities.

You can run a shameful business in a free society, but no one has to host your ads. Your company can host what ads it pleases, but customers don't have to support those ads through purchases.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

call my Congressman? why?

Posted by Aaron Miller on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:00:00 PM
People are often advised to contact their Congressmen as a way to affect government. Contacting politicians certainly doesn't hurt, but I'm unconvinced that it typically has much of an effect.

Odds are, Congress already knows many voters are for and many voters are against whatever it happens to be doing at the time. A thousand letters and phone calls might or might not be representative of a Congressman's constituents, so getting a flood of feedback doesn't mean much. Hell, these days, petitions and marches are a dime a dozen.

If your political reps are somehow impressed by your feedback, what then? They're under pressure from their fellow Republicans or Democrats to vote the party line. And they're always comprising. "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" is D.C.'s motto, right? Are your Congressional representatives even in a position to affect what's happening? We just witnessed almost a trillion dollars of spending via a bill that nobody has read. That might be exceptional, but every piece of legislation is a similar amalgam of disparate issues. Whatever it is you and your Congressman don't want passed is probably mixed in with something you do want passed. Such is the deception of legislative debate.

And, odds are, Congress has already heard your argument, whatever it is. If they haven't, they're not reading the news.  Fresh arguments happen everyday, but let's face it... most political commentary you hear is old news or is being parroted by a million of your closest friends.

Again, I'm not saying you should not contact your political representatives about government issues. And I don't doubt that my view is colored by a general pessimism when considering the topic of federal government. I am merely furthering my argument that Americans too often focus on politicians when we should be focusing on individual voters and citizens. Culture, not government, is the key to a healthy nation.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

turning points

Posted by Aaron Miller on Monday, February 23, 2009 11:00:00 PM
Most historical turning points can't be pinned down to a particular day. Oh, we try, but most of the moments we recognize as... well, momentous... are really just symbols of larger movements and events.

In 1775, Patrick Henry of Virginia gave a moving speech which includes the famous line "give me liberty or give me death!".  Though Henry is credited with inspiring the men of Virginia to join the Revolution against Britain, the Revolution had already begun. In his own words, "Our brethren are already in the field!". Doubtlessly, many men made an important decision to join the war that day. But we remember that speech to this day because it symbolizes the American spirit and why our forefathers fought that war, rather than because it was a vital moment in history.

I was reminded of Patrick Henry's legendary speech as I was reading this article about Rick Santelli's popular CNBC rant the other day and the White House response. Will Santelli's speech and this video of frustrated Chicago traders be the catalyst for a profound change in our nation's history? Probably not. But it strikes me as a moment which might well symbolize the tragic story of this current societal shift.

Anger and mistrust are on the rise in America, as conservatives are being steadily disenfrachised from our government and culture. I don't know where the country is headed, but whatever is ahead ain't pretty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »