This sums up modern Liberalism by her royal highness Nancy Pelosi:

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” [Nancy Pelosi] says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by [the Republicans] excuse for their failed policy.”

Translation: The average American is too much of an idiot to keep this planet going, therefore I must step in and make the decisions for them.

She continues:

“I respect the office that I hold,” she says. “And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”

Sounds like she is more in it for the power than the planet.

I don’t mind hearing what the left has to say, and even agreeing if they have an idea that is better than the right. That doesn’t happen very often. Two left leaning essayists each published thoughtful articles recently that I share here.

The first article is a David Mamet essay published in the liberal rag Village Voice. My cousin Dave introduced me to David Mamet’s work in college. One of Mamet’s movies is called the Spanish Game Prisoner (thanks David) and is worth Netflixing.

Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’ (By the way, has some objectionable language)

The second article is by Orson Scott Card detailing why Mitt Romney should not be selected as Vice President. I supported Mitt Romney, and I admit that part of my intrigue had to do with his identity. He is a Mormon, I am a Mormon. More importantly, he echoed my fiscal and defense conservatism, while having the same somewhat ambivalent attitude about social conservatism. I don’t know that he was my favorite candidate ever, but I would have voted for him.

Some Romney supporters, however, seem to think he would be the best choice for VP, ignoring the baggage McCain already has with certain groups of conservative voters and Romney’s own political achilles heel — Mormonism.

McCain’s Vice

On the identity politics note, what Huckabee did to Romney so dishonestly is despicable. If you are going to submarine a guy for his religion, at least be honest that you are doing it for that reason.

There is this game called Dino Run that mirrors what you played if you grew up in the 70’s and 80’s like me. The graphics are lame, but the game play is phenomenal. The goal is to save super eggs, which are cleverly hidden all over the game. As you accumulate DNA, you improve your skills. Eating runners, birds, eggs, etc. earn you points and DNA, and the above contribute to the earning of trophies.

Yes, it’s true. I am still a guy who likes to earn a trophy ever since the day that my brother’s soccer team was always better than mine. He always got a trophy and I didn’t. (Nowadays, everybody gets a trophy. I don’t see the point in working harder as a team when everybody gets one).

Oh, and did I mention that if you don’t act fast you will get consumed by the impending wall of doom?

Dino Run Run for your life and escape the oncoming wall of doom!

That didn’t take long.

My more liberal-minded friends have argued that having a pro-life, pro-capital punishment position is inconsistent. (Of course, they don’t have a problem with their own "inconsistent" pro-choice, anti-capital punishment position.)

The difference between a pro-life position and a pro-capital punishment position stems from the underlying theory of capital punishment. Avoiding the legal theories justifying or condemning capital punishment from a retributive or deterrence positions, capital punishment is pronounced in cases where the individual has such a negative impact on society as to, for that person, have no social value. In other words, the person has a net negative impact on society. Capital punishment (and life in prison for that matter) is society’s way of saying that society is better off without that person.

Using the social value theory, therefore, an anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment positions are consistent. In the former case, society protects lives that have potential value to society and that haven’t been given an opportunity to choose to add societal value, and in the latter case extinguish a life of somebody who has been given the opportunity to add value, but chose to contribute a net negative effect on society.

Will some babies eventually turn into the psychopaths we condemn to capital punishment? Sure. But the net positive effect of protecting the babies and allowing them to be net positive contributors to society in aggregate outweighs the negative of the small percentage who will be a drain on society. Conversely, with capital punishment the net positive effect is observed by eradicating individuals who are a drain to the greater social good. Can some of these individuals be redeemed and add to the social good? Sure, but the system for assigning capital punishment attempts to weed out those persons with lesser sentences and reserves death for for unrepentant individuals or those of particularly heinous crimes.

Compare this to the position of my more liberal minded friends. They argue to protect individuals who have chosen to be a net drain on society, but kill the individuals whose potential would serve society with a net gain. And they think my position is inconsistent?

As I was blazing down a hill on my bike tonight, barely in control thanks to the grade and the ruts, I happened across a California king snake slithering across the trail. I mean almost literally.

My driver’s teacher said, "when a dog runs across the road and you can’t safely stop in time, you just hit it." (To put that in perspective, I wouldn’t be surprised if he now lives and then lived in one of those trucks with a camper on it as his primary residence or if he had been committed many years ago… he wasn’t exactly playing with a full deck.).

When the moment came and the snake was looming as I blazed down the hill at 38 MPH (I have no idea how fast I was really going because my bike computer always registers 38 as my max speed), who thinks about drivers ed?

As soon as I saw it I immediately bunny hopped (you know, use you legs to pop both wheels off the ground at once). Because the snake loomed so fast thanks to my going fast, I gave even chances that my front tire hadn’t got off the ground in time to not splatter the king snake’s head. My momentum carried me halfway up the next hill, I turned around, and went to see if there was a carcass or a very lucky king snake. Thankfully, it was the latter.

As I approached, however, it wasn’t it any hurry to get off the trail. Perhaps I just nicked his head with my tire, which brain damage turned off his fight or flight mechanism, I don’t know. In any event, I reached down, flicked his tail, and he hurried up into the bushes where he turned and stared at me with his eerie king snake eyes.

On further reflection, what ever happened to the boy, who if he saw a king snake on the trail, would have been off his bike trying to catch it and stuff it in his camelback as a pet? And why hadn’t I taken the time mount my helmet cam this weekend?